Theology Club: THREE IRREFUTABLE PROOFS WHERE THE BODY OF CHRIST BEGAN !!

[Nihilo]

Indeed,

The earth will be full of God's people.
The holy city will be full of God's people.
The heavens will be full of God's people.

But, the doctrine for each of these churches differs. Their purpose differs. God has made them distinct for a reason.

Is it possible that these are three sub-populations of the one universal church, composed of all saints past, present & future? What do you think?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Is it possible that these are three sub-populations of the one universal church, composed of all saints past, present & future? What do you think?

One kingdom of God, three churches, three purposes.
That's what I see. Similar to the trinity, each has it's own function.

 

[musterion]

In the very end, the whole world, all of Creation, heaven and earth, will be full of Christians.

You're a reasonable person (I would say "man" but have made that mistake on this board already). You DO acknowledge that we can't both be there, what with out contradictory gospels, yes?

Just curious...I can count on 1 hand the number of Catholics who've been direct enough to acknowledge this. The vast majority won't, and I can't quite figure out why.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You're a reasonable person (I would say "man" but have made that mistake on this board already). You DO acknowledge that we can't both be there, what with out contradictory gospels, yes?

Just curious...I can count on 1 hand the number of Catholics who've been direct enough to acknowledge this. The vast majority won't, and I can't quite figure out why.

I agree, perhaps the most reasonable Catholic I've encountered!

 

[Dialogos]

#1 , Who was Matthew written to ??

Christians, the Body of Christ.

#2 , If you say that it is to the Body of Christ , you are wrong and need to look at the context again !

Nope.

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10:16)​

Didn't Matthew, Peter, James and John celebrate the Lord's supper?

 

[Nihilo]

You're a reasonable person (I would say "man" but have made that mistake on this board already). You DO acknowledge that we can't both be there, what with out contradictory gospels, yes?

Just curious...I can count on 1 hand the number of Catholics who've been direct enough to acknowledge this. The vast majority won't, and I can't quite figure out why.

That's not how I understand it:

One cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to Catholic unity.

CCC818-819

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

CCC838​

 

[Nihilo]

One kingdom of God, three churches, three purposes.
That's what I see. Similar to the trinity, each has it's own function.

It's an interesting analogy to the Trinity. And like the Trinity, the church (perhaps what you call the kingdom of God, which is fine with me) is one, even if she is in some ways, apparently not one.

I think there is a great mystery in the Christian faith that surrounds this idea of unity. We have the Father & Son being one, the Father, Son & Holy Spirit being one, the Lord & the church being one generally, the head of Christ & the body of the church being one particularly, the head of the church (the bishops) & the church (the faithful) being one, the husband & wife being one, the Gentiles & the Jews being one...it's everywhere.

Are those three churches like the distinction between the head and the body, or like how we are each individual members of Christ's one body, do you think? The purpose of the pastors is different from the purpose of the faithful, though we are all one church.

 

[musterion]

That's not how I understand it:

One cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. All who have been justified by faith in Baptism​

I have not the baptism the CCC refers to, nor any like it.

are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.

I have none of these, either.

Christ's Spirit uses these [separated] Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the [Roman] Catholic Church.

How that could possibly work is very, very dubious but I'll let it go.

All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to Catholic unity.

I hear no such call nor would heed it if I did.

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety

Or at all?

or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.

That'd be a given, I'd think.

Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

I have no such baptism.
​

So...there it is. You gave it your best shot but one of us is still wrong.

 

[Nihilo]

I have not the baptism the CCC refers to, nor any like it.

I have none of these, either.

How that could possibly work is very, very dubious but I'll let it go.

I hear no such call nor would heed it if I did.

Or at all?

That'd be a given, I'd think.

I have no such baptism.
​

So...there it is. You gave it your best shot but one of us is still wrong.

That was my first shot.

There is some interesting language in the Catechism of the Catholic Church concerning baptism:

The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are reborn of water and the Spirit. God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

CCC1257​

Emphasis the Pope's.

This underlined statement provides the footing for what follows.

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

CCC1259​

Here it is shown that salvation comes to those who wish to be baptized (according to "the Trinitarian baptismal formula" Matthew 28:19, CCC1256), even before their baptism. This desire, along with repentance for sins and charity, evidences the genuine Christian faith, is how I read it.

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

CCC1260​

Emphasis the Pope's.

I think here it is proper to infer that "the Gospel of Christ" is how the Pope himself teaches it. In the same way, I think it right to infer that the knowledge of "his Church" is Catholic ecclesiology. Virtually no non-Catholics are aware of either, so this paragraph can be said of any non-Catholic almost without exception. There is also a sense in which one could not correctly understand the Pope's "Gospel of Christ" and ecclesiology, and not be Catholic, since understanding in the way in which the Pope means would be to also agree with him. It is in this sense that a human could "know its necessity."

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

CCC1261​

Emphasis the Pope's.

While you are not a child, the principle that, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments," shines forth here as well.

How's that?

 

[musterion]

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Just a second. I know where that's headed but do you see how self-refuting and - forgive me - weasely that attempt (not yours) to talk out of both sides of the mouth is? (again, not yours, even if you agree with it)

This underlined statement provides the footing for what follows.

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.​

Then I'm still excluded.

​

Here it is shown that salvation comes to those who wish to be baptized (according to "the Trinitarian baptismal formula" Matthew 28:19, CCC1256), even before their baptism.

Still nothing.

This desire, along with repentance for sins and charity, evidences the genuine Christian faith, is how I read it.

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.​

Then I'm STILL out - I neither acknowledge nor desire your church's or any church's baptism ritual.

​

I think here it is proper to infer that "the Gospel of Christ" is how the Pope himself teaches it. In the same way, I think it right to infer that the knowledge of "his Church" is Catholic ecclesiology. Virtually no non-Catholics are aware of either, so this paragraph can be said of any non-Catholic almost without exception. There is also a sense in which one could not correctly understand the Pope's "Gospel of Christ" and ecclesiology, and not be Catholic, since understanding in the way in which the Pope means would be to also agree with him. It is in this sense that a human could "know its necessity."

First, merely "not correctly understanding" your church's gospel is one thing, but that's NOT the issue here. Understanding it and deliberately, knowingly rejecting it as not simply unnecessary but false is the issue.

Second...you realize what's really going on here, don't you? What you're citing is your church's sincere (if modernistic) attempt to save "separated brethren" like me, as well as others, simply by virtue of the Catholic church's existence. Problem is, none of what you've posted applies to me because I'm pretty well familiar with the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine re: salvation and justification BUT I reject it ALL: wholly, unreservedly and permanently. So even if it's possible (in the Catholic mind) for a hypothetical God-seeking unbeliever to be saved by virtue of Rome's very existence upon the earth, such as I cannot be so saved because we DO know of it but reject it. My faith in Christ aside, by your church's measures I am on par with the rankest infidel. That is a gap that cannot be bridged by anything pronounced by any pope or by the magisterium.

I applaud your efforts, though.

While you are not a child, the principle that, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments," shines forth here as well.

How's that?

Wholly inadequate, sorry, but a great try, Rocky. You went the full 15.

None of it can possibly apply to someone who REFUSES - not "is ignorant" but REFUSES - to expend faith in what Rome says MUST be believed to be saved. Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God, and no man, no church, NOT EVEN CHRIST HIMSELF can make up for faith lacking in those who will not express it where Rome says it must be placed. But I do appreciate your effort.

Anything else before I ask my question again? Or do you just want to go ahead and answer it now?

 

[Nihilo]

Just a second. I know where that's headed but do you see how self-refuting and - forgive me - weasely that attempt (not yours) to talk out of both sides of the mouth is? (again, not yours, even if you agree with it)

I really don't think this is weasely. It follows from all manner of episodes in the Scriptures where God's express commands are disobeyed or neglected, and yet he and his grace prevail in the end.

First, merely "not correctly understanding" your church's gospel is one thing, but that's NOT the issue here. Understanding it and deliberately, knowingly rejecting it as not simply unnecessary but false is the issue.

Perhaps I'm the one being weasely. When I said, "Understanding in the way in which the Pope means would be to also agree with him," I was being a bit circular. I defined what I think "understanding" means here, and it means, includes, and denotes "agreement." See also my comment below on CCC846.

Second...you realize what's really going on here, don't you? What you're citing is your church's sincere (if modernistic) attempt to save "separated brethren" like me, as well as others, simply by virtue of the Catholic church's existence.

She is exercising her power to do so, using her keys to the kingdom, casting a wide net as her first pastor St. Peter the fisherman would have done, certainly.

Problem is, none of what you've posted applies to me because I'm pretty well familiar with the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine re: salvation and justification BUT I reject it ALL: wholly, unreservedly and permanently. So even if it's possible (in the Catholic mind) for a hypothetical God-seeking unbeliever to be saved by virtue of Rome's very existence upon the earth, such as I cannot be so saved because we DO know of it but reject it. My faith in Christ aside, by your church's measures I am on par with the rankest infidel. That is a gap that cannot be bridged by anything pronounced by any pope or by the magisterium.

That's a rather large aside, and I'm not sure that such faith doesn't already include you in "imperfect" communion with the Church.

There's a sense in which, as a non-Catholic, you're not in a position to determine whether or not you are in communion (though imperfect) with the Church. Only the Church herself could make such a judgment. And I doubt though I cannot prove, that being a Bible-believer, having faith in Christ, and "seeking the truth and doing the will of God in accordance with your understanding of it," could possibly exclude you from imperfect communion with her.

I applaud your efforts, though.

I appreciate it.

Wholly inadequate, sorry, but a great try, Rocky. You went the full 15.

None of it can possibly apply to someone who REFUSES - not "is ignorant" but REFUSES - to expend faith in what Rome says MUST be believed to be saved. Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God, and no man, no church, NOT EVEN CHRIST HIMSELF can make up for faith lacking in those who will not express it where Rome says it must be placed. But I do appreciate your effort.

Anything else before I ask my question again? Or do you just want to go ahead and answer it now?

Only that this brings to mind this passage:

The Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

CCC846​

Emphasis mine.

Do you "know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ?" I don't think that you do. It's not as if you know this, and reject her anyway.

My third shot. Unprecendented 16th round.