Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[Grailhunter]

Take it up with Cardinal Newman.

Maybe the Catholic Church should allow libations of animal blood as one Catholic Archbishop suggested in 2000? Think of all the pagans who might convert.

Let Africans Honor Ancestors with Blood Libations in Mass Says Bishop

A Roman Catholic archbishop in South Africa has suggested that a libation of blood—a ritual pouring as a symbolic sacrifice honoring the ancestors of black Africans—should be incorporated into local Catholic liturgies such as the Mass. Archbishop Buti Tlhagale, of Bloemfontein, recently raised the issue in an article in South Africa's Catholic weekly publication, The Southern Cross."Sacrifice to the ancestors continues to be a very common practice among Africans," Archbishop Tlhagale said. "The slaughtering of an animal—cow or sheep—takes place wherever there is a funeral or a marriage feast, or in times of illness, unemployment, family feuds or the birth of a child."The practice should be considered within the context of inculturation, according to which local, indigenous culture and values are a means of presenting, reformulating and living the Christian faith, he suggested. In an interview with Ecumenical News International (ENI), Archbishop Tlhagale said that white Christians who balked at the idea of blood libations "are not talking from the same experiences" as black Africans. "There is a clashing of cultures. All I'm trying to argue is that even sophisticated black Christians slaughter animals as part of their tradition of communing with their ancestors at important occasions in their lives."Is there a way to integrate this custom with their Christian belief as a step towards meaningful inculturation?" he asked.The archbishop told The Southern Cross that he was not suggesting reverting to Old Testament times (when the Jewish people sometimes performed animal sacrifices), but the custom of spilling blood "is alive [in Africa], and cannot be ignored in the context of inculturation."

Constantine didn't run the Church - and all of that stuff is based largely on legend. From BOL!!!

Sorry Giuliano, just saw this, this is funny! I keep saying you have to know the culture and environment to understand the early church because.....its history, and it does not occur in a bubble. The Catholic Church would not have been there without Constantine and by no stretch of reality did the Church operate as an independent organization. The Roman Empire controlled all that it had power to control, definitely a hands on situation. The Church was continually under the protection of the Roman Empire and as the Empires continued they continued to attach themselves to the ruling party. "Constantine didn't run the Church!: He set the Church up in the Roman Empire, protected the Church, and funded the Church.....and influenced the Church. If it wasn't for the Greeks and Romans, I could say that the Church invented politics. "didn't run the Church!" Before Constantine the Church was not organized. Where do you think you got your Bibles from? Before Constantine they were loose manuscripts. The Catholic Church made it through the Dark Ages, but it did not do that without protection.

 

[epostle]

Pope Responds to Questions About ‘Schism’
and Criticism in US Church & Beyond
​

Holy Father Also Says Trips in Europe Will Focus on Smaller Countries, But Will Visit Spain ‘If I Live’
September 11, 2019 11:07

Question of English-speaking journalists, asked by Jason Horowitz of the New York Times:

On the flight to Maputo, you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? Are you afraid of a schism in the American Church? And if so, is there something that you could do – a dialogue – to keep it from happening?​

Pope Francis’ full response (from Vatican News’ unofficial translation)

“First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry…. But there are advantages.

Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say (criticize) have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair, it is not human.

Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive at the right conclusion. This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism.

Instead, fair criticism – I think thus and so – is open to a response. This is constructive. Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair.

To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me.

Secondly, the problem of the schism: within the Church, there have been many schisms. After the First Vatican Council, for example, the last vote, the one on infallibility, a well-sized group left and founded the Old Catholic Church so as to remain “true” to the tradition of the Church. Then they developed differently and now they ordain women. But at that moment they were rigid, they rallied behind orthodoxy and thought that the council had erred. Another group left very, very quietly, but they did not want to vote. Vatican II had these things among its consequences.

Perhaps the most well-known post-conciliar split is that of Lefebvre. In the Church, there is always the option for schism, always. But it is an option that the Lord leaves to human freedom. I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health.

Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian. Let’s think about the beginnings of the Church, how it began with many schisms, one after the other: Arians, Gnostics, Monophysites… An anecdote is coming to mind that I would like to recount: it was the people of God who saved [the Church] from the schisms.

The schismatics always have one thing in common: they separate themselves from the people, from the faith of the people of God. And when there was a discussion in the council of Ephesus regarding Mary’s divine maternity, the people – this is history – were at the entrance of the cathedral while the bishops entered to take part in the council. They were there with clubs. They made the bishops see them as they shouted, “Mother of God! Mother of God!”, as if to say: if you do not do this, this is what you can expect…

The people of God always correct and helpful. A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine. It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it… And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them.

This is one of the results of Vatican II, not because of this or that Pope. For example, the social things that I say are the same things that John Paul II said, the same things! I copy him. But they say: the Pope is a communist… Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism.

There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin because this is evangelical morality. Instead, a morality based on such a pelagian ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly.

When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently.”

Pope Responds to Questions About 'Schism' and Criticism in US Church & Beyond, Returning from 4th Apostolic Visit to Africa - ZENIT - English

 

[Giuliano]

Constantine didn't run the Church - and all of that stuff is based largely on legend. From BOL!!!

Sorry Giuliano, just saw this, this is funny! I keep saying you have to know the culture and environment to understand the early church because.....its history, and it does not occur in a bubble. The Catholic Church would not have been there without Constantine and by no stretch of reality did the Church operate as an independent organization. The Roman Empire controlled all that it had power to control, definitely a hands on situation. The Church was continually under the protection of the Roman Empire and as the Empires continued they continued to attach themselves to the ruling party. "Constantine didn't run the Church!: He set the Church up in the Roman Empire, protected the Church, and funded the Church.....and influenced the Church. If it wasn't for the Greeks and Romans, I could say that the Church invented politics. "didn't run the Church!" Before Constantine the Church was not organized. Where do you think you got your Bibles from? Before Constantine they were loose manuscripts. The Catholic Church made it through the Dark Ages, but it did not do that without protection.

I am having second thoughts about earthly buildings known as churches. Maybe the Amish who hold services in their homes have it right. I'm not going to start my own church; but I have often thought if I did, any church building had to serve other purposes as well, like being a school or a place to feed and house the needy. It seems Origen didn't approve of them.

Origen: Contra Celsum"origen"+temples&source=bl&ots=qZy2buIrtc&sig=ACfU3U3m7BODiLVWPz3ULbZFwllodj6oxA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV3tvPi8_kAhWlHTQIHWBXAkEQ6AEwEXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q="origen"%20temples&f=false

We know that prior to Constantine, there were no churches as big expensive buildings. I read where a pagan thought Christians were peculiar for not having their own temples.

Anyone who wants to see how Constantine used the Church back then need only look at how cleverly Putin has used the Russian Orthodox Church today. Putin is clever. He could see how Reagan got helped get elected by appealing to religion and how classically atheistic Communism had failed. Why oppose religion then if you can use it for political ends?

Constantine also undermined the authority of the Pope because he called the Council of Nicea, not the Pope. I also have to ask if the Pope's word was universally accepted then by all Christians when he spoke authoritatively, why hold a council to reach a decision on the Arian controversy? Why not ask the Pope to render a decision?

 

[epostle]

Constantine didn't run the Church - and all of that stuff is based largely on legend. From BOL!!!

Sorry Giuliano, just saw this, this is funny! I keep saying you have to know the culture and environment to understand the early church because.....its history, and it does not occur in a bubble. The Catholic Church would not have been there without Constantine and by no stretch of reality did the Church operate as an independent organization. The Roman Empire controlled all that it had power to control, definitely a hands on situation. The Church was continually under the protection of the Roman Empire and as the Empires continued they continued to attach themselves to the ruling party. "Constantine didn't run the Church!: He set the Church up in the Roman Empire, protected the Church, and funded the Church.....and influenced the Church. If it wasn't for the Greeks and Romans, I could say that the Church invented politics. "didn't run the Church!" Before Constantine the Church was not organized. Where do you think you got your Bibles from? Before Constantine they were loose manuscripts. The Catholic Church made it through the Dark Ages, but it did not do that without protection.

Sorry Grailhunter, but that is funnier.

The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even an counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.

That Constantine assembled together all of the bishops of the Roman Empire proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior the First Council of Nicaea who were in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church.

If Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church, then there should be no way to trace the continuity of every Bishop of Rome, from Peter to Francis today. To the contrary...

The Romans were aficionados when it came to documenting the legal affairs and history of the Empire. If it had been the case that Constantine established his own state religion or established a new state Church, we would have been able to find it documented somewhere in history that such an event happened, but when we examine the history and legal documents from ancient Rome, we find no traces that the myth that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is true. Moreover, if Constantine did found the Catholic Church at the First Council of Nicaea then we should be able to find at least one reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

To the contrary, what all the canons are dealing with is membership of those who had rejected the faith during the persecution, fallen lapse, or who had been excommunicated, primacy of Churches, and the administration of the Sacraments. Altogether the canons are concerned with establishing a solidarity and uniformity of administration and liturgy in the Catholic Church. There is no concern whatsoever in these canons for the Roman Empire or the Roman Emperor in the Canons of the Council of Nicaea.

In regards to the Nicene Creed, it was dealing with more fully proclaiming the Apostle’s Creed, which the Church already affirmed in manner that resolved the Arian heresy. We find nothing in the Creed of this Council that supports the Myth of Constantine starting a state church.

The endless myths about Constantine are not historical facts, more like Baptist ideology IMO.

 

[Giuliano]

Pope Responds to Questions About ‘Schism’
and Criticism in US Church & Beyond
​

Holy Father Also Says Trips in Europe Will Focus on Smaller Countries, But Will Visit Spain ‘If I Live’
September 11, 2019 11:07

Question of English-speaking journalists, asked by Jason Horowitz of the New York Times:

On the flight to Maputo, you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? Are you afraid of a schism in the American Church? And if so, is there something that you could do – a dialogue – to keep it from happening?​

Pope Francis’ full response (from Vatican News’ unofficial translation)

“First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry…. But there are advantages.

Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say (criticize) have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair, it is not human.

Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive at the right conclusion. This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism.

Instead, fair criticism – I think thus and so – is open to a response. This is constructive. Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair.

To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me.

Secondly, the problem of the schism: within the Church, there have been many schisms. After the First Vatican Council, for example, the last vote, the one on infallibility, a well-sized group left and founded the Old Catholic Church so as to remain “true” to the tradition of the Church. Then they developed differently and now they ordain women. But at that moment they were rigid, they rallied behind orthodoxy and thought that the council had erred. Another group left very, very quietly, but they did not want to vote. Vatican II had these things among its consequences.

Perhaps the most well-known post-conciliar split is that of Lefebvre. In the Church, there is always the option for schism, always. But it is an option that the Lord leaves to human freedom. I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health.

Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian. Let’s think about the beginnings of the Church, how it began with many schisms, one after the other: Arians, Gnostics, Monophysites… An anecdote is coming to mind that I would like to recount: it was the people of God who saved [the Church] from the schisms.

The schismatics always have one thing in common: they separate themselves from the people, from the faith of the people of God. And when there was a discussion in the council of Ephesus regarding Mary’s divine maternity, the people – this is history – were at the entrance of the cathedral while the bishops entered to take part in the council. They were there with clubs. They made the bishops see them as they shouted, “Mother of God! Mother of God!”, as if to say: if you do not do this, this is what you can expect…

The people of God always correct and helpful. A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine. It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it… And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them.

This is one of the results of Vatican II, not because of this or that Pope. For example, the social things that I say are the same things that John Paul II said, the same things! I copy him. But they say: the Pope is a communist… Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism.

There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin because this is evangelical morality. Instead, a morality based on such a pelagian ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly.

When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently.”

Pope Responds to Questions About 'Schism' and Criticism in US Church & Beyond, Returning from 4th Apostolic Visit to Africa - ZENIT - English

I wonder what it means.

 

[Giuliano]

The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even an counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.

Why couldn't the Pope have settled it?

 

[epostle]

Constantine also undermined the authority of the Pope because he called the Council of Nicea, not the Pope.

That is another anti-Catholic myth. It is IMPOSSIBLE to convene ANY Council without the Pope. At the time, the Pope was too sick to make the journey from Rome to Nicae (south of Constantinople), so he sent 2 legates with his full authority. Constantine knew no council could be called without the Pope's collaboration. Claiming Constantine called a council independently from the Pope is false history. And plain stupid.

I also have to ask if the Pope's word was universally accepted then by all Christians when he spoke authoritatively, why hold a council to reach a decision on the Arian controversy? Why not ask the Pope to render a decision?

I also have to ask if Peter's word was universally accepted then by all Christians when he spoke authoritatively, why hold the Council of Jerusalem to reach a decision by the Apostles and elders on the circumcision controversy? Why not ask Peter to render a decision?

Ecumenical Councils are structured/modeled after the Council of Jerusalem, not AT&T or Ford Motor Co. That's why radical Protestants are forced to change the ecclesiology in Acts 15, to disprove Councils.

 

[Grailhunter]

I am having second thoughts about earthly buildings known as churches. Maybe the Amish who hold services in their homes have it right. I'm not going to start my own church; but I have often thought if I did, any church building had to serve other purposes as well, like being a school or a place to feed and house the needy. It seems Origen didn't approve of them.

Origen: Contra Celsum"origen"+temples&source=bl&ots=qZy2buIrtc&sig=ACfU3U3m7BODiLVWPz3ULbZFwllodj6oxA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV3tvPi8_kAhWlHTQIHWBXAkEQ6AEwEXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q="origen"%20temples&f=false

We know that prior to Constantine, there were no churches as big expensive buildings. I read where a pagan thought Christians were peculiar for not having their own temples.

Anyone who wants to see how Constantine used the Church back then need only look at how cleverly Putin has used the Russian Orthodox Church today. Putin is clever. He could see how Reagan got helped get elected by appealing to religion and how classically atheistic Communism had failed. Why oppose religion then if you can use it for political ends?

Constantine also undermined the authority of the Pope because he called the Council of Nicea, not the Pope. I also have to ask if the Pope's word was universally accepted then by all Christians when he spoke authoritatively, why hold a council to reach a decision on the Arian controversy? Why not ask the Pope to render a decision?

I am having second thoughts about earthly buildings known as churches.
I am on the fence with that one. I would like to know more about the early "house churches" of early Christianity. On this rock I will build my church....was He talking about buildings or faith. Today there is a whole lot of business going on in churches. Still the need? Probably. But I use to fellowship with a non-denominational church called "Rock Church" out in Virginia Beach. A church of a different sort. Ran a 24 hour a day prayer room, its own food pantry, and a ministry to the elderly that were convalescent or home bound. They would split up in groups to do house dinners (with bread and grape juice) and bible study. It was fun.

I also have to ask if the Pope's word was universally accepted then by all Christians when he spoke authoritatively....Well they did not have radio....the common Christians believed what they wanted. No one would know unless you were someone of importance that did not agree with Rome. The Roman Catholic Church had to deal with its own choir lol. When it came to heretics, that was the judgment of the Church.....but and I do say but, because Church and State were one, a heretic was an enemy to the Roman Empire and any physical action that were judged by the Church was carried out by its muscle. So again the Catholic Church was not an independent organization. That was the whole point of separation of church and state in America.

 

[epostle]

I wonder what it means.

To me, it's related to Pope Leo XIII's vision. I suggest you read what Catholics have to say about that. Not the pseudo-schismatic ones.
Leo XIII and vision

 

[Grailhunter]

Sorry Grailhunter, but that is funnier.

The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even an counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.

That Constantine assembled together all of the bishops of the Roman Empire proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior the First Council of Nicaea who were in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church.

If Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church, then there should be no way to trace the continuity of every Bishop of Rome, from Peter to Francis today. To the contrary...

The Romans were aficionados when it came to documenting the legal affairs and history of the Empire. If it had been the case that Constantine established his own state religion or established a new state Church, we would have been able to find it documented somewhere in history that such an event happened, but when we examine the history and legal documents from ancient Rome, we find no traces that the myth that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is true. Moreover, if Constantine did found the Catholic Church at the First Council of Nicaea then we should be able to find at least one reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

To the contrary, what all the canons are dealing with is membership of those who had rejected the faith during the persecution, fallen lapse, or who had been excommunicated, primacy of Churches, and the administration of the Sacraments. Altogether the canons are concerned with establishing a solidarity and uniformity of administration and liturgy in the Catholic Church. There is no concern whatsoever in these canons for the Roman Empire or the Roman Emperor in the Canons of the Council of Nicaea.

In regards to the Nicene Creed, it was dealing with more fully proclaiming the Apostle’s Creed, which the Church already affirmed in manner that resolved the Arian heresy. We find nothing in the Creed of this Council that supports the Myth of Constantine starting a state church.

The endless myths about Constantine are not historical facts, more like Baptist ideology IMO.

You are so funny! Know history. History is your friend. The "Legends of Constantine " came from the Catholic Church. lol The Protestants were not around to promulgate such legends, so we cannot blame it on them, history does not agree with the Legends of Constantine, and fundamentalists cannot have a belief or legitimate comment because it is not scriptural. All they can say is, they deny early religious history because it is not in the Bible. I find the whole thing funny that it goes against all we know of the Romans to allow an independent "anything" in their empire. The Catholic Church could not make any judgment that was physically enforceable without the Roman Empire. And yes they were evolved with the councils, do we need to go over the history of Emperor Justinian and Empress Theodora and his involvement to promote her beliefs. You have to study history to get an accurate understanding of what was going on.

 

[Giuliano]

That is another anti-Catholic myth. It is IMPOSSIBLE to convene ANY Council without the Pope. At the time, the Pope was too sick to make the journey from Rome to Nicae (south of Constantinople), so he sent 2 legates with his full authority. Constantine knew no council could be called without the Pope's collaboration. Claiming Constantine called a council independently from the Pope is false history. And plain stupid.

Just stop it.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea

The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I). In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members.

I also have to ask if Peter's word was universally accepted then by all Christians when he spoke authoritatively, why hold the Council of Jerusalem to reach a decision by the Apostles and elders on the circumcision controversy? Why not ask Peter to render a decision?

Why then make exaggerated claims for the Pope if Peter was "hemmed in" like that?

Ecumenical Councils are structured/modeled after the Council of Jerusalem, not AT&T or Ford Motor Co. That's why radical Protestants are forced to change the ecclesiology in Acts 15, to disprove Councils.

I have no idea what you're talking about with "radical Protestants."

They aren't structured after the Council of Jerusalem, since the Council of Jerusalem decided matters of practices the way the Sanhedrin did. They did not vote on doctrines. Neither did the Sanhedrin. The Jews were content to let people hold different opinions and trusted God to guide people and to sort things out over time. The early Church, under the prompting of Constantine who wanted them all to think alike for his own political purposes, decided to vote on doctrines. They did not trust God to guide the bishops over time into all truth. They got alarmed by what they perceived as a threat. Then they came to rely on the Emperors to enforce their rulings on doctrines. This was another display of the lack of trust in God. And there is more too. Any council modeled after Jerusalem would have 12 members in it with a member for each Apostle, not hundreds or thousands. What happened to the other Apostles? Why weren't they all represented at Nicea?

 

[Philip James]

Even if the Pope just made one a Cardinal?

DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

Code of Canon Law - Title IX - Ecclesiastical Offices (Cann. 145-196).

 

[GodsGrace]

The news about the "synod" left me confused. I didn't know what he was talking about. He was also talking a possible schism. Again I was confused. I haven't been following current affairs in the Vatican too closely; but then is that really possible when what we often get are rumors? I knew some bishops who call themselves "conservative" have made remarks about him. There was even a story about something Benedict said; and I didn't know if it was true, or how closely I should pay attention to it.

As to the synod, I'm not really sure I understand it....
The regular synods that are called to clarify spiritual matters of faith, morals, doctrine, etc. are called by and guided by the Holy Spirit. What the pope wants to do is being called a "human" or man-made synod. IOW, it's HIM that wants this...it's not really necessary since the normal synods are avx for important matters.

I also don't follow all the news that comes out of the Vatican....I could spend all day just on that and I really don't care that much, but I do know what's going on by those who know...No mystery involved--just persons that speak to me that know more than I do and that would know.

Conservatives are very much against what he's trying to do...
liberalize the church.

The question I have now is if he knows creating this new synod could create a schism and is going to go ahead with it anyway.

Of course the pope knows this new synod will not be welcomed except for his friends who will be composing this man-made and permanent synod.

But does he care?
NO.
This pope has already caused a schism in the CC.
This happened back in 2016 when he wrote Amores Laetitea, and in particular chapter 8's footnote.

The church has always stated that remarrieds cannot receive communion. Now, I'd say that not being able to receive communion is ex-communication...think of it. If you can't receive communion it means you're in mortal sin and headed to hell. So what's the use of allowing one to go to Mass (which was NOT allowed before 1917 BTW) BUT NOT RECEIVING COMMUNION? The Mass IS COMMUNION!

This pope has changed doctrine and is allowing remarried couples to receive communion.
Remembering that there is no such thing as divorce in the CC (except for some very few reasons, which I do know but won't get into) so if a person gets remarried at city hall, they are living in mortal sin and cannot receive communion.

This is a huge change and caused much upheavel a few years ago.

Salvini pushed his luck too hard. It looks as if Boris Johnson is pushing his too hard too.
For some time now, I've wondered how things could continue in Rome with so much centralized power. Every little thing seems to go through Rome now; and then if something goes wrong, Rome gets the blame. It's an unworkable system if you ask me. My guess is things might get made more local. We've already seen evidence of that in how divorced and remarried people are treated and how reluctant Rome is to put out rules and regulations for worldwide use.

They're putting out rules!
It's just kept quiet...priests know what's going on.

As to Salvini....He either made a huge tactical error and I think he's too smart for that...
OR, as I THINK I said, the EU pushed him out to make room for the govt of the left of Conte and DiMaio, working in cahoots with each other. And the president of Italy, Mattarella, is in on it too. What a bunch.

I wonder how you know so much about everything!

 

[GodsGrace]

. . . Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own.

It's historical knowledge that once the church was declared acceptable through Constantine's Edit of Milan,,,AND THEN the acceptance of the church into the government later on (can't remember the details) THE CHURCH CHANGED.

This is why I insist that the ECFs should only be accepted to 325 AD...which many theologians agree with.

 

[Giuliano]

It's historical knowledge that once the church was declared acceptable through Constantine's Edit of Milan,,,AND THEN the acceptance of the church into the government later on (can't remember the details) THE CHURCH CHANGED.

This is why I insist that the ECFs should only be accepted to 325 AD...which many theologians agree with.

You're more generous than I. I think the early Church began falling into spiritual darkness almost at once.

John 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

The church at Corinth was in a mess when Paul was alive writing to people there. That may seem surprising at first; but read the book of Judges and see how quickly things deteriorated after Moses and Joshua died. The early church also became antisemitic quickly. It was as if they threw the baby out with the bath water. They adopted books from the Jews, and some were books that the Jews themselves knew had errors in them. Ask a rabbi, and he'll tell you Jews think only the Torah has no errors.

Most religions alter quickly after being started. Islam certainly did. Various Protestants churches also changed radically.

It doesn't distress me that much since as long as the essentials are preserved, the extra "burdens" that get added are unnecessary, but people can still make that connection with Heaven if they are genuinely seeking God with pure hearts.

Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

 

[Giuliano]

DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

Code of Canon Law - Title IX - Ecclesiastical Offices (Cann. 145-196).

How does that work? It looks to me as if it probably doesn't. The Orthodox Church doesn't have this sort of thing, so I'm assuming it was a Catholic idea. People can be told their actions are excommunicating them; but do they care? Do they really? It seems not, not if they can do these things and nothing else happens to them. They can keep their jobs as bishops, even get promoted to be Cardinals maybe -- all while being excommunicated in theory?

What about the Cardinals leaking details of the conclave to the press? In theory, that was also would have incurred latae sententiae excommunication; but nothing happened. The rules say a Pope can permit them to divulge details; but if Pope Francis okayed it, why didn't he say so so people wouldn't think Cardinals were excommunicated?

This rule creates unnecessary skepticism about the validity of priests, bishops and even Cardinals. It also puts the Pope in a very awkward position. Does he know someone was under latae sententiae excommunication when he promotes someone; or was he ill informed? I don't like the rule.

Is is one thing to indulge in gay sex because you can do penance for that and not be excommunicated -- but worse to advocate making gay relationships valid in the eyes of the Church? That would be strange if that's the case.

This is not the first time something like this happened. What should we make of Pope Francis celebrating Mass with a gay activist priest back in 2014?

Pope kisses the hand of, concelebrates mass with pro-homosexual activist priest

Pope Francis raised eyebrows earlier this month by concelebrating Mass with and kissing the hand of a leading homosexual activist priest campaigning for changes in the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. On May 6, Francis received the 93 year-old priest who has cofounded the homosexualist activist organization, Agedo Foggia, that is opposed to Catholic Church teaching.

Fr. (Don) Michele de Paolis concelebrated Mass with Pope Francis at the Domus Santa Martha and then presented the pontiff with gifts of a wooden chalice and paten and a copy of his most recent book, “Dear Don Michele - questions to an inconvenient priest”.

In a previous book, Don Michele wrote, “homosexual love is a gift from (God) no less than heterosexual.” He also disparaged the idea of homosexual couples not having sex.

Francis closed the meeting by kissing the priest’s hand, a gesture that the far-left newspaper L'immediato called one “revealing the humility of a great man to another of the same stature.” De Paolis described the unusual papal gesture himself in a post to his Facebook page, saying that he asked Francis for an audience with the priest’s other organization, the Community of Emmaus: “Is that possible?”
He said that the pope replied, “Anything is possible. Talk to Cardinal Maradiaga and he shall prepare everything.”

“And then (unbelievably) he kissed my hand! I hugged him and wept,” de Paolis concluded.

Should we believe Francis knew nothing? What about the priest's bishop? He also knew nothing? Then the strange case of Bishop Gaillot who was in favor of both gay marriage and euthansia.

Jacques Gaillot - Wikipedia

Gantin summoned Gaillot to a meeting at the Vatican on 13 January 1995 and offered the choice of resigning his see and becoming bishop emeritus of Évreux or being removed from his office. Gaillot returned to France and issued a statement that said: "I was asked to hand in my resignation, which I thought I had good reasons to refuse." As all bishops need to be assigned to a see (diocese), whether one that they administer or one to which they have only the relationship established by their title to it–a titular see–he was assigned the titular see of Parthenia, in accordance with standard practice for a bishop without real administrative responsibilities, used routinely for auxiliary bishops, officials of the Roman Curia, and senior diplomats of the Holy See.

He wasn't treated as if excommunicated. Most people, including the French clergy supported him. Skip forward now:

In 2000, Louis-Marie Billé, Archbishop of Lyon and president of the French Bishops Conference, invited Gaillot to attend a national ecumenical service in Lyon on 14 May alongside other senior members of the French hierarchy. Billé said the invitation came from the bishops as a group: "It is important that Catholics, and public opinion in general, are aware that the communion that links us as brothers is real, even when it is lived out in a special fashion. What happened five years ago remains a wound even for those who don't necessarily share Mgr Gaillot's opinions." There was no indication that the Pope or anyone in the Roman Curia was involved. Gaillot accepted, writing that he was "happy to demonstrate my communion with the Church".

On 1 September 2015, shortly before his 80th birthday, Gaillot, accompanied by Daniel Duigou, a priest and former journalist, met privately with Pope Francis in his Vatican City residence for 45 minutes. Gaillot said the pontiff encouraged him to continue his activism on behalf of migrants and refugees. After the meeting, Gaillot said he was “in love” with Francis.

Is there something I'm not understanding?

 

[GodsGrace]

You're more generous than I. I think the early Church began falling into spiritual darkness almost at once.

John 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

The church at Corinth was in a mess when Paul was alive writing to people there. That may seem surprising at first; but read the book of Judges and see how quickly things deteriorated after Moses and Joshua died. The early church also became antisemitic quickly. It was as if they threw the baby out with the bath water. They adopted books from the Jews, and some were books that the Jews themselves knew had errors in them. Ask a rabbi, and he'll tell you Jews think only the Torah has no errors.

Most religions alter quickly after being started. Islam certainly did. Various Protestants churches also changed radically.

It doesn't distress me that much since as long as the essentials are preserved, the extra "burdens" that get added are unnecessary, but people can still make that connection with Heaven if they are genuinely seeking God with pure hearts.

Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Oh, I agree with you.
Gnosticism entered into the church even before the Apostles had passed away.
John was writing about THEM when he said that they left because they were not OF US...he was not speaking about unbelievers, but those who believed wrongly.

We must admit, however, that it was the early church that kept the doctrines in tact and preserved the teachings of Christ...little by little burdens were added, as you stated.
But I believe that at the beginning, prior to the councils,, the early theologians, or fathers, were more concerned with explaining Christianity and creating some doctrine that one could actually hold on to, instead of creating new burdens, as you put it.
And, indeed, they were burdens.

Christ made everything simple...
man made everything complicated.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Take it up with Cardinal Newman.

Maybe the Catholic Church should allow libations of animal blood as one Catholic Archbishop suggested in 2000? Think of all the pagans who might convert.

Let Africans Honor Ancestors with Blood Libations in Mass Says Bishop

A Roman Catholic archbishop in South Africa has suggested that a libation of blood—a ritual pouring as a symbolic sacrifice honoring the ancestors of black Africans—should be incorporated into local Catholic liturgies such as the Mass. Archbishop Buti Tlhagale, of Bloemfontein, recently raised the issue in an article in South Africa's Catholic weekly publication, The Southern Cross."Sacrifice to the ancestors continues to be a very common practice among Africans," Archbishop Tlhagale said. "The slaughtering of an animal—cow or sheep—takes place wherever there is a funeral or a marriage feast, or in times of illness, unemployment, family feuds or the birth of a child."The practice should be considered within the context of inculturation, according to which local, indigenous culture and values are a means of presenting, reformulating and living the Christian faith, he suggested. In an interview with Ecumenical News International (ENI), Archbishop Tlhagale said that white Christians who balked at the idea of blood libations "are not talking from the same experiences" as black Africans. "There is a clashing of cultures. All I'm trying to argue is that even sophisticated black Christians slaughter animals as part of their tradition of communing with their ancestors at important occasions in their lives."Is there a way to integrate this custom with their Christian belief as a step towards meaningful inculturation?" he asked.The archbishop told The Southern Cross that he was not suggesting reverting to Old Testament times (when the Jewish people sometimes performed animal sacrifices), but the custom of spilling blood "is alive [in Africa], and cannot be ignored in the context of inculturation."

It doesn't matter if TEN bishops suggest this. They don't make up the Magesterium and they certainly aren't infallible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It goes back to a claim Bread of Life made a few pages ago.

Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

Then I posted the quote from Cardinal Newman.

That is how that came up. That is all. I've no interest in talking about wedding rings; but when someone makes a false claim, then maybe wedding rings and other things need to be mentioned.

And I already addressed all of this back in post #1189.
However - in your infinite dishonesty - you ignored it.

Here it is again for your edification . . .

Constantine didn't run the Church - and all of that stuff is based largely on legend.
BUT - let's allow it for the sake of argument. Even IF Constantine suggested these traditions (small "t") - these can HARDLY conflated with "changing" the Church.

Did the Church hijack some pagan practices and "Christianize" them? History seems to support this. HOWEVER - the reasons were twofold:
a) To usurp their original meanings and intent
b) to converting pagans.

When was the last time you heard of ANYBODY crediting a particular pagan god with wedding rings??
Or the Kyrie Elaison?
Or a candle??
Or Holy Water??

Get my drift?

 

[Philip James]

Is there something I'm not understanding?

I am not familiar with the situation yoy described.
Did anyone bring a charge of heresy against him to a competant eccliastical court?