Catholicism vs Protestantism

none of these churches have ever fully broken with the roman catholic church RCC. all of them have come back or are mving back to the roman catholic church RCC. the orthodox and anglican churches both have an imperfect communion with the RCC. the others are moving back toward dialogue and toward ecumenical unity with RCC.

And what is These verse mean?

sounds similar to the way the ancient Greek manuscripts are written,
all caps, no spaces between words, no punctuation.

so it sounds like punctuation would be translator's choice in this case.
they may have felt that a comma was required by context or something.

I came across something irenaeus said on another thread
https://christianchat.com/threads/the-absurdity-and-heresy-of-preterism.192468/post-4274060

he talks about the church being "founded and organized at Rome."

if an organization is headquartered in Britain, we might say it is British... in Canada, Canadian.
I don't really follow why saying the Catholic church is Roman Catholic would be an insult, even if it was intended as an insult.

I grew up Pentecostal,
sometimes people called us "holy rollers".
sometimes we called ourselves that.
it may have been intended as an insult, but we pursued holiness, and sometimes people rolled on the floor.

Do you understand all what is declared from the Holy Sees? No you do not!

if you do not then don't cite the Nicene Creed. Because you are pledging allegience to the hierarchy of the Holy Sees .

Nicene Creed is man written. It does not say "one church", it says "one, holy catholic and apostolic church."

The word apostolic refers to apostolic succession. It is a confession that the one true church is the church with apostolic succession.

Roman Pontiff is the succession from Apostle Peter.
The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the succession from Apostle Andrew.

The Pentarchy established by the Roman Emperors are the five heads of the church.

Each I believe claiming their origin from one of the 12 apostles.

Here is the Pentarchy (the five sees):
1) Rome
2) Constantinople (orthodox)
3) Alexandria (orthodox)
4) Antioch (orthodox)
5) Jerusalem (orthodox)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Patriarchate_of_Constantinople
The 2) Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the "first among equals" among the world's Eastern Orthodox prelates and is regarded as the representative and spiritual leader of Orthodox Christians.

So 2) is the spiritual leader of 2), 3), 4), and 5)

However, 1) is spiritual leader over 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5)

Then why not call it the Italian Catholic Church, or European Catholic Church?

However it's useful for protestants that are that way inclined to call it Roman to link it in with Rev 17.

Why not be respectful and call it what it calls itself?

one more thing about names

I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
everyone with a trinitarian baptism is a member of the Catholic Church, from the Catholic point of view.

that of course includes Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants.

so, imo, it would be nice to have an easy, shorthand way to refer to those Christians who are in full communion with the Pope as opposed to those Christians who are not.

those would all be valid possibilities, as long as those involved in the conversation knew what was being referred to.

I mentioned irenaeus saying that the church is "founded and organized at Rome".

he could have said founded and organized at Italy, but he picked Rome.
it sounds like an ancient association to me.


I'm fine saying "Catholic Church".
but as I mentioned above, that could include the Orthodox Church in America and the United Methodist Church, for example.
so it would be handy to have an easy way to talk about those in full communion with the Pope.

speaking of which, I would happily take communion with the Pope.
but I think he won't take communion with me.
so it's his decision that we are not in full communion, not mine.

I suppose some people like to say "Roman Catholic" to make the connection with Revelation 17.
I never made the association myself.

I like this explanation:
the organization headed by the pope is by far the biggest Christian group.
when you're "King of the Hill", everyone else is going to try to pull you down.
so I'm sure some people will say that the pope is the Antichrist or whatever.

the Pope says that Jesus is Lord.
I don't see any indication that he's just pretending.
so, that's a very strange thing for an antichrist to proclaim.

on a happy note, I remember playing King of the Hill as a child.
it's one of the funnest games ever, so we were always on the lookout for a mound of soft dirt!

there's a lot of things in the passage, of course.

but one thing in there is that the Jews that Jesus is talking to were worshipping God.

I missed this earlier.
It would not be true to say that everyone with a trinitarian baptism is a member of the Catholic Church, from the Catholic point of view.

The Catechism puts it this way.
"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." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC 838).
Note the part I emboldened. They are in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

All jews,

did Jesus say jews that don't believe in Him/Jesus worship true God

John 5
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Do Jesus ever Lie?

well, we may be talking about two sides of the same coin.

a person in imperfect communion with the Catholic church is still in communion with the Catholic Church.

I asked a question on this subject on a Catholic forum years ago.
some of the people were quoting something from the canon law, but I don't remember what it was.

Romans 6:3 Or don't you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism to death, that just like Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection.

this passage talks about being baptized into Christ, and associates it with being united with Christ.

I think we all agree that there was only one baptism, not a Protestant baptism and a Catholic baptism.
maybe valid baptisms and invalid baptisms?

so I think someone who has had a valid baptism and is therefore united with Christ would be a member of his body, the church.
then from the Catholic perspective, that could only be the Catholic Church.

or no? a wrong turn somewhere?

not every single Jew, no.
but Jews as a group, yes.


yes, in the passage I posted earlier.


no, Jesus never lied.

but when we look at the passage from John 5, we see that it is about believing, it doesn't talk about worshipping.

Nebuchadnezzer wrote, " if you do not then don't cite the Nicene Creed. Because you are pledging allegience to the hierarchy of the Holy Sees."

I'm not following the evidence or logic of why you say that.

I think we all agree that the one church is built on the foundation of the apostles and Prophets.
I think "apostolic" can simply mean that.

in addition, there is this verse
Titus 1:5 I left you in Crete for this reason, that you would set in order the things that were lacking, and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you.

so it looks like Paul appoints Titus, who was then told to appoint others.

We need to be little bit careful about the word communion.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary has this as its third definition of communion with two parts:
a) "a relationship of recognition and acceptance between Christian Churches or denominations."
b) a group of Christian Churches or communities which recognize one another's ministries or that of a central authority: the Anglican communion."

The communion with the Catholic Church is imperfect in that part a) is true but part b) is not true.
There is a certain communion in that their baptism is recognised as valid and we are all children of God and part of the body of Christ. But Orthodox, Anglicans etc. do not accept the Pope as a central authority. Nor do they accept some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church

Then there is another definition in the COED:
"(also Holy Communion) the service of Christian worship at which bread and wine are consecrated and shared; the Eucharist".
The Catholic Church recognises the validity of the Orthodox communion service and would allow them to receive communion in a Catholic service. But it does not recognise the validity of (for example) an Anglican communion service and would not allow them to receive communion in a Catholic service.

This is why the quote I gave you from the Catechism says:
"With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

...part of the body of Christ.

The Catholic Church recognises the validity of the Orthodox communion service and would allow them to receive communion in a Catholic service. But it does not recognise the validity of (for example) an Anglican communion service and would not allow them to receive communion in a Catholic service.

So you believe there is a person that don't believe true God but worship true God?

Can you worship true God when you even don't believe true God?

True God is trinity

Is jews that don't believe Jesus worship,true God? (Trinity)

I know your loyal try to catholic, my brother, but I hope thats not make you afraid to use logic

1) The Roman emperor Justinian formulated the Holy Sees (Pentarchy) in his laws.

2) The Roman emperors (Contantine and Theodosius I) called for the two ecumenical councils that established the Nicene and Nice Constantinople Creed.

Both the Holy Sees and the Nicene Creed were created under the authority of the pagan, non-believing Roman emperors. Full End Stop.

If you do not recognize the Holy Sees as valid, then you should not recognize the Nicene Creed as valid either.

Do you follow this line of logic?

Titus 1:5 does not refer to apostolic appointment or succession.

1. Paul is encouraging that fellow believers appoint themselves elders or leaders, which makes sense.

I'm not sure about that.
I read something recently that said that in the Catholic Church, they no longer have apostles.
possibly what they have is overseers (Bishops) who carry apostolic authority in the sense that they can do things like write letters organizing churches, and when they meet together in council their decisions are guided by the holy Spirit.

I think that's the Catholic position, but I'm not sure.

where was this church from, say, 300 to 1300?

where was this church from, say, 300 to 1300 ?