Ask A Catholic III

[Scott1]

Patriarch Bechara Boultros al-Rahi ?

I believe that the definition of papal infallibility has been detrimental to the Church . It focuses attention on one man and takes our attention off the rest of the bishops .
It also leads to an unhealthy centralisation , and the Curia in Rome ends up as a bureaucracy interfering in every nook and cranny of the Church.

We are in total agreement.

The Roman See obviously has its place within the Church , but its intervention should be left for matters of grave concern .

Just a few thoughts which I hope will enable you to see where I am coming from . There is much that I have omitted , but the above words are offered as just a taster .

Again... we are in agreement... I just carry it one step further and am of the opinion that Vatican II is one of those times where Roman intervention was NOT NEEDED.

In my opinion, an Ecumenical Council -- in the true sense of the word -- can not be held without the East.  But even if one does not agree with this, I am of the opinion that an Ecumenical Council is convened to DEFINE dogma.... otherwise it is simply a pastoral council that "tweeks" some things --- many of which were unique to the Latin Rite.  And to me, that is what took place at Vatican II.

The Maronite Rite has been using the vernacular in the Divine Liturgy for hundreds of years.
We have married priests.

etc. etc.

When one looks at Vatican II from "our side", it is quite clear that it was simply a pastoral council of the Latin Rite.... so now I hope you understand why I don't find anything taken from Vatican II to be "binding" or "instructive" to me in any way.

This matter goes to the core of why I made the "switch" away from the Latin Rite -- the Western idea of defining EVERY aspect of the moral life is so contrary to the Eastern way of focusing on an individuals interior life of faith.

... and now that I find we think alike on the matter of the Curia and clericalism, I am really not sure why you were defending the dogmatic nature of Vatican II.   

Looking forward to hearing more about your faith.

St. Maron pray for us,
Scott

[Paulus]

Patriarch Bechara Boultros al-Rahi ?

I believe that the definition of papal infallibility has been detrimental to the Church . It focuses attention on one man and takes our attention off the rest of the bishops .
It also leads to an unhealthy centralisation , and the Curia in Rome ends up as a bureaucracy interfering in every nook and cranny of the Church.

We are in total agreement.

The Roman See obviously has its place within the Church , but its intervention should be left for matters of grave concern .

Just a few thoughts which I hope will enable you to see where I am coming from . There is much that I have omitted , but the above words are offered as just a taster .

Again... we are in agreement... I just carry it one step further and am of the opinion that Vatican II is one of those times where Roman intervention was NOT NEEDED.

In my opinion, an Ecumenical Council -- in the true sense of the word -- can not be held without the East.  But even if one does not agree with this, I am of the opinion that an Ecumenical Council is convened to DEFINE dogma.... otherwise it is simply a pastoral council that "tweeks" some things --- many of which were unique to the Latin Rite.  And to me, that is what took place at Vatican II.

The Maronite Rite has been using the vernacular in the Divine Liturgy for hundreds of years.
We have married priests.

etc. etc.

When one looks at Vatican II from "our side", it is quite clear that it was simply a pastoral council of the Latin Rite.... so now I hope you understand why I don't find anything taken from Vatican II to be "binding" or "instructive" to me in any way.

This matter goes to the core of why I made the "switch" away from the Latin Rite -- the Western idea of defining EVERY aspect of the moral life is so contrary to the Eastern way of focusing on an individuals interior life of faith.

... and now that I find we think alike on the matter of the Curia and clericalism, I am really not sure why you were defending the dogmatic nature of Vatican II.  

Looking forward to hearing more about your faith.

St. Maron pray for us,
Scott

Thanks for interceding with St Maron , the 4th century Syriac monk , from which the name of your Church comes .  

What does your Patriarch teach about Ecumenical Councils and the Primacy of the Pope ? I understand your thinking about Ecumenical Councils . However I can't foresee full union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches . My prayer is for it , but there are so many obstacles . I do not see the Orthodox accepting the Primacy of the Roman See over the universal Church and Papal infallibility .

Regarding the Second Vatican Council , I lived through it and cannot but thank God for the benefits the Church received through it . I don't recall my defending the dogmatic nature of the Council . It was from the start a much needed pastoral Council and the Council Fathers made it clear that they were not defining any new dogmas .

During the Council the Roman Curia was put in its place . The Roman Curia had prepared documents for the Council Fathers and it expected the Council simply to rubber-stamp them . In an intervention one bishop made it clear that it was for the Roman Curia to be submissive to the Council , not vice versa . Pope Paul VI sent him a note of support the following day . The prepared documents were returned , and the Council Fathers set up commissions to prepare new documents for debate .

There was much emphasis on the College of Bishops and their role in shepherding the Church . Unfortunately there has been some backpedalling in recent decades . The Roman Curia is back in full control . The bishops throughout the Church appear to me at least to be in the grip of the bureaucrats in Rome . I don't think that was what the Council Fathers had intended .

You and I may have our opinions , but I don't think anyone in authority is going to listen to them .

Ultramontanism rules .  

[Texas Lady]

I grew up Methodist.  I became Catholic after I married one.  I was never told that we couldn't have sex after we had our family.  I would think that would be bad for a marriage and the church is all for strengthening marriage and the family unit.  I only had 2 children.  If we had stopped having sex after we had the number of children we wanted, we would not have had sex since 1978.  I don't think there's very many Catholics who do that.

[forklift]

I thought this thread was "Ask a Catholic" not "attack a Catholic." Does this site not have moderators?

[LightHammer]

I thought this thread was "Ask a Catholic" not "attack a Catholic." Does this site not have moderators?

I apologize that I have disappointed you as moderator. In time I am confident that you will see that among this particular community asking a Catholic is or ultimately leads to attacking us. If I were to remove all who insult and disrespect us there would literally be only one nonCatholic left to post in this subforum.

It's not too bad though. Most are simply ignorant of Catholic beliefs and happily so. So just treat them with child gloves.

[forklift]

I thought this thread was "Ask a Catholic" not "attack a Catholic." Does this site not have moderators?

I apologize that I have disappointed you as moderator. In time I am confident that you will see that among this particular community asking a Catholic is or ultimately leads to attacking us. If I were to remove all who insult and disrespect us there would literally be only one nonCatholic left to post in this subforum.

It's not too bad though. Most are simply ignorant of Catholic beliefs and happily so. So just treat them with child gloves.

I know there seems to be plenty of misinformation and downright closemindedness coming from many of the non Catholics on this site. However, there is oneparticular poster here that doesn't even want to debate. He wants to attack.

On a regular thread, he would be barely tolerable, on his one though, he's not asking a catholic, he's attacking and berating us with ignorance. I thought this thread was for those that wanted to ask serious questions to, ironically enough, broaden their knowledge.

[forklift]

Nevermind, and I apologize for sounding as if you were not doing your job. Sometimes those that don't do a job think we know things that we don't. I have read more posts from this particular person and it obvious that no one in their right mind would take them seriously. Carry on.

[epiphanius]

I grew up Methodist.  I became Catholic after I married one.  I was never told that we couldn't have sex after we had our family.  I would think that would be bad for a marriage and the church is all for strengthening marriage and the family unit.  I only had 2 children.  If we had stopped having sex after we had the number of children we wanted, we would not have had sex since 1978.  I don't think there's very many Catholics who do that.

TX Lady,

Thank you for sharing this.  I'm not sure where you heard that married Catholics are supposed to stop having sex once they're finished having children, but I do know that this *was* an opinion of St. Augustine (354-430), and was echoed in the writings of many Catholic authors, even into the 20th Century.

I personally think this notion was based on the assumption that sexual relations were fundamentally selfish, and therefore did not contribute to the couple's growth in grace.  In contrast to this, Pope John Paul II called it a "fundamentally self-giving" act.

[epiphanius]

I believe that the definition of papal infallibility has been detrimental to the Church . It focuses attention on one man and takes our attention off the rest of the bishops .
It also leads to an unhealthy centralisation , and the Curia in Rome ends up as a bureaucracy interfering in every nook and cranny of the Church.

We are in total agreement.

The definition of papal infallibility was based on the premise that the Church is infallible, and that therefore the one man who speaks for the entire Church by virtue of his office must by that fact be able to speak infallibly.

This works according to the Western ecclesiological model, which starts from the Universal Church and sees the particular Churches more-or-less as mere subordinates, but fails in light of the Eastern ecclesiological model, which always starts from the particular Churches, and sees the universality of the Church expressed in each particular Church.

I also like your phrase "unhealthy centralization."  It reminds me of the anecdote in which someone once asked Pope John XXIII how many people worked for him in the Vatican; his reply was, "about half of them."  The fact is, there are problems inherent in bureaucracies, and this is one of the things that impede reunification.

The Roman See obviously has its place within the Church , but its intervention should be left for matters of grave concern .

Again... we are in agreement... I just carry it one step further and am of the opinion that Vatican II is one of those times where Roman intervention was NOT NEEDED.

Scott, I'm not sure what you mean here that "Roman intervention was not needed."  Orientalium Ecclesiarum was the first document ever to state: "it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire."  This formally put an end to attempts to "latinize" the Eastern Catholic Churches.  It was also the first document ever to state: "These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West ... are ... of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite, and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations."

Thus, the concessions that had been made earlier by Rome to various Latin bishops who had sought to restrict the Eastern Catholic Churches in their countries were now devoid of any claim to legitimacy, even if they were not formally revoked.

In my opinion, an Ecumenical Council -- in the true sense of the word -- can not be held without the East.  But even if one does not agree with this, I am of the opinion that an Ecumenical Council is convened to DEFINE dogma.... otherwise it is simply a pastoral council that "tweeks" some things --- many of which were unique to the Latin Rite.  And to me, that is what took place at Vatican II.

When one looks at Vatican II from "our side", it is quite clear that it was simply a pastoral council of the Latin Rite.... so now I hope you understand why I don't find anything taken from Vatican II to be "binding" or "instructive" to me in any way.

Well, I see the purpose of councils being not so much to "define dogma," as to settle doctrinal disputes that are causing problems within the Church, and in this regard Vatican II was no exception.  For example, prior to Vatican II there were many who considered ecumenism to be heretical, and insisted that all those outside the Catholic Church were condemned.  A similar issue was religious freedom, as was the relationship between the office of the Pope and that of the bishops.  Furthermore, Eastern Catholic bishops participated in these discussions and voted on the final wording of the documents, while Orthodox bishops (as well as Protestant theologians) provided input.

This matter goes to the core of why I made the "switch" away from the Latin Rite -- the Western idea of defining EVERY aspect of the moral life is so contrary to the Eastern way of focusing on an individuals interior life of faith.

While I agree here in principle, I don't see where Vatican II defines every aspect of the moral life. 

... I can't foresee full union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches . My prayer is for it , but there are so many obstacles . I do not see the Orthodox accepting the Primacy of the Roman See over the universal Church and Papal infallibility .

Primacy is not such a big problem, so long as primacy is rightly understood as "having first place," rather than as being superior to all.

There was much emphasis on the College of Bishops and their role in shepherding the Church . Unfortunately there has been some backpedalling in recent decades . The Roman Curia is back in full control . The bishops throughout the Church appear to me at least to be in the grip of the bureaucrats in Rome . I don't think that was what the Council Fathers had intended .

Paulus, can you give an example of this?

You and I may have our opinions , but I don't think anyone in authority is going to listen to them .

Is there any authority greater than God?  He is listening.

[Bitter Sweet]

Is stigmata a Catholic belief? Where did it come from, who was the first to report it?

My husband keeps having a wound appear and disappear within 2 hours on the back of his leg. I'll post a picture as soon as he sends it to me from his phone. It happened for the 3rd time last night, the first time I told him he must have brushed up against something and is just now feeling it. Second time he told me, it happened a couple weeks later I sort of ignored it. Last night after seeing the exact same wound in the exact same place and then seeing it just disappear got us both really wondering about it. It has happened in the course of 2 months. It's a recent thing.

It's like a slash or whip welt on the back of leg starting from his ankle. He can feel the onset of it, it starts to burn then the wound appears. It burns and then goes away after a couple hours, I saw it disappear last night.

Please only people with knowledge about this respond. I'll ask him to video record the onset of it next time he feels it, I'm not sure if he feels it before it appears or if he feels it once it appears.

[Bitter Sweet]

Is stigmata a Catholic belief? Where did it come from, who was the first to report it?

My husband keeps having a wound appear and disappear within 2 hours on the back of his leg. I'll post a picture as soon as he sends it to me from his phone. It happened for the 3rd time last night, the first time I told him he must have brushed up against something and is just now feeling it. Second time he told me, it happened a couple weeks later I sort of ignored it. Last night after seeing the exact same wound in the exact same place and then seeing it just disappear got us both really wondering about it. It has happened in the course of 2 months. It's a recent thing.

It's like a slash or whip welt on the back of leg starting from his ankle. He can feel the onset of it, it starts to burn then the wound appears. It burns and then goes away after a couple hours, I saw it disappear last night.

Please only people with knowledge about this respond. I'll ask him to video record the onset of it next time he feels it, I'm not sure if he feels it before it appears or if he feels it once it appears.

This is the wound, it's always the exact same spot, same everything. It's completely gone now and I could feel and indent when I touched it. He said as soon as he feels the burning he see's it so I don't think he can capture a recording of it happening because it's there already.

[Bitter Sweet]

It just happened again tonight and we took another picture but I am sending them to my friend, her brother is a doctor so he can take a look at them.

My husband would much rather have a medical explanation. But that didn't stop him from telling me all day to not ask him any questions, he's the chosenone. Then he was clipping his toenails in the toilet and I asked if I could grab the trash and he said no, I will get it when he's done so I just reached under his leg and he said, No, I'm the prophet, you can't make what I said wrong and he squeezed my arm with his leg. I waited, he was right I didn't get the trash till he was done. 

[Catholica]

Hi Bitter Sweet, sorry that no one responded to you.

A stigmata is not like a wound just anywhere on the body, but rather a set of wounds that are in the same locations where Christ's wounds were.  If your husband had a stigmata, it would likely be in his hands, feet, and side, not the back of his leg.

Some people believe that St. Paul may have had the first stigmata.  He wrote "I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." Galatians 6:17.  Stigmatas have been rare through the centuries, but the following people were known to have them:

    Angela of Foligno
    Anna Maria Taïgi
    Anna Rosa Gattorno
    Camilla Battista Varani
    Catherine Emmerich
    Catherine del Ricci
    Catherine of Genoa
    Catherine of Racconigi (1486-1547), Dominican
    Catherine of Siena
    Charles of Sezze
    Christina Ciccarelli
    Clara Isabella Fornari
    Clare of Montefalco
    Colette
    Elizabeth Achler
    Faustina Kowalska
    Flora of Beaulieu
    Frances of Rome
    Francis of Assisi
    Gemma Galgani
    Gertrude
    Gertrude van Oosten
    Helen of Hungary
    John of God
    Lydwina of Schiedam
    Lucy of Narni
    Lutgarde
    Margaret Mary Alacoque
    Margaret of Cortona
    Margaret of the Blessed Sacrament
    Maria Lopez of Jesus
    Marie of the Incarnation
    Mary Anne of Jesus (1557-1620), Franciscan tertiary
    Mary Frances of the Five Wounds
    Mary Magdalene de' Pazzi
    Mary of Jesus Crucified
    Matthew Carreri
    Osanna of Mantua
    Padre Pio
    Rita of Cassia
    Rita of Lima
    Stephana de Quinzanis
    Veronica Giuliani

I hope that helps.

Andre

[Jane_doe]

So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Hi LightHammer,

I would genuinely like to know if you agree, as a Catholic, with this explicit declaration of Pope Eugene IV? Why or why not?

Sincerely,
Jane

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

[LightHammer]

So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Hi LightHammer,

I would genuinely like to know if you agree, as a Catholic, with this explicit declaration of Pope Eugene IV? Why or why not?

Sincerely,
Jane

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

I do and I would like to take a moment and qualify my belief if you do not mind. When you read my blunt "I do" I imagine you will find that a bit how do you say archaic. The issue here is that you have infact cited a papal bull addressing an archaic audience in an archaic point in time.

In the 15th century the Church in Europe had just crushed one of the most dangerous heresies (Catharism) it had experienced since Arianism. In this same century it was also dealing with the effects of East and West Schism. To paint a picture and thus keep the history lesson short you should envision the state of European spirituality as the white city of Minas Tirith being bombared by an army of orcs.




I don't feel as though I need to explain why Jews who have not even accepted Jesus Christ have no guarantee of salvation. However for the other Christians listed (schisomatics and heretics) the bull makes an accurate delcaration. You see in this time period those who lived as heretics and schisomatics were apostates. They were raisied in the true faith and her fullness but abandoned it when their own reasoning (heretics) or social political advantage (Orthodox and schisomatics) warranted it. These are the ones who, in full clarity of truth, whom are condmened because they knew truth and chose something less than Him.

I imagine you think that this bull applies to modern day followings of the same. Jews for the most part yes. If you haven't accepted Christ then there's really nothing to talk about. However for heretics (that derrogatory term doesn't really apply to modern Protestants but the groups are synonymous) and schisomatics (all ancient churches that are not in communion with St. Peter's chair) the context of time has a different dispensation.

Unlike their ancestors who were the original detractors most Protestants and schismoatics are not conciously rejecting the fullness of the faith. In fact having grown up in their communities they love Jesus wholeheartedly, strive to worship Him fully, and believe that they are doing their best. They have no knowledge about the complex theological diffrences between them and the fullness of the faith. Those who do come to study differences between Catholics and themselves more than likely sincerely do not connect with them or do not feel that the issues are salvation related.

How do you begin to fathom that the delcaration of nearly a thousand years ago addressing often militant detractors from the true faith applies in the same way to innocent generations who have come to know Christ within the limits of the sects they were born into?

[FireSword]

Love it lighthammer and the orcs 

I was going to write a similar piece you said, yesterday but declined. So maybe I'll say and add

that those outside the church were those who rejected the teachings of Christ, so it was easier to simply say that those outside the church were not saved. Maybe they did not understand that there were people who loved christ outside the church.

[FireSword]

Trouble is that its the  orcs that enjoy using the sword


The Albigensian Crusade

[change]Methods
The Pope ordered a crusade against the Cathars in southern France. He said any crusader who answered the call would be given the same rewards as a crusader who went to the Holy Land. This was an absolution of all sin.
In the Launguedoc, on the 22nd of July 1209, a force of about 30,000 Crusaders arrived at the walls of Beziers bearing the cross pattee to mislead and create ease among the Cathars, thinking they were friend, not foe, and demanded that about 200 Cathars be surrendered. The people of the town who were mostly Catholic, said that rather than turn over their friends and family, "we would rather be flayed alive."
A mistake by the defenders of Beziers let thousands of attackers in. Arnauld Amaury made the famous quote "Kill them all, god knows his own" on being asked how to tell who were Cathars during the assault. Everyone in the town was killed, some while taking refuge in the church. It is guessed that 20,000 were killed, many of whom were Catholics and not Cathars at all. The crusade became known as the Albigensian crusade after the town of Albi. It was to wipe out the Cathars almost entirely over forty or so years. The Crusaders wanted to go home, but were ordered by the Pope to continue until the whole South of France was controlled and all Cathars were dead. In 1210, they attacked the fortress at Minerv and built "the first great bonfire of heretics" - beginning the practice of burning at the stake that would continue in the Inquisition of the Counter-Reformation. It is interesting to note that at the siege of Montsegur when the fires were lit the Cathars ran down the hill and threw themselves on, as their beliefs were very strong.

[LightHammer]

Trouble is that its the  orcs that enjoy using the sword


The Albigensian Crusade

[change]Methods
The Pope ordered a crusade against the Cathars in southern France. He said any crusader who answered the call would be given the same rewards as a crusader who went to the Holy Land. This was an absolution of all sin.
In the Launguedoc, on the 22nd of July 1209, a force of about 30,000 Crusaders arrived at the walls of Beziers bearing the cross pattee to mislead and create ease among the Cathars, thinking they were friend, not foe, and demanded that about 200 Cathars be surrendered. The people of the town who were mostly Catholic, said that rather than turn over their friends and family, "we would rather be flayed alive."
A mistake by the defenders of Beziers let thousands of attackers in. Arnauld Amaury made the famous quote "Kill them all, god knows his own" on being asked how to tell who were Cathars during the assault. Everyone in the town was killed, some while taking refuge in the church. It is guessed that 20,000 were killed, many of whom were Catholics and not Cathars at all. The crusade became known as the Albigensian crusade after the town of Albi. It was to wipe out the Cathars almost entirely over forty or so years. The Crusaders wanted to go home, but were ordered by the Pope to continue until the whole South of France was controlled and all Cathars were dead. In 1210, they attacked the fortress at Minerv and built "the first great bonfire of heretics" - beginning the practice of burning at the stake that would continue in the Inquisition of the Counter-Reformation. It is interesting to note that at the siege of Montsegur when the fires were lit the Cathars ran down the hill and threw themselves on, as their beliefs were very strong.

I know this may be hard to digest as you have not done extensive study of the world as a whole during this Middle Ages but in all honesty a city or group of 20,000 is favourable to what the lords would have done if the Church did not act first.
If you simply take a few weeks or days to review the context of the time you will see why the Church decided to call a crusade on its on European lands rather than let the feudel authorities handle the growing  threat the gnostic Cathars presented to their cultural stability.
NO I am not saying that the Cathar situation was handled correctly or even as well as it could have but I will say it could have been a lot worse.

[Jane_doe]

The issue here is that you have infact cited a papal bull addressing an archaic audience in an archaic point in time.

Oh, there are numerous infallible papal statements I can site regarding the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. No, the issue here is whether Catholics must believe a dogma as it was once declared. Does a dogma of the Church become obsolete? When does a Catholic dogma no longer become binding upon the faithful? These questions are absolutely relevant in understanding what a Catholic must accept or reject in order to remain inside the Church. How do you address these questions – can you provide a definite and Catholic answer?

There is only one way to believe dogma:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."

This definition of the First Vatican Council must be pointed out for sake of dogmatic clarity. Dogmas don't change; they don't progress or become obsolete.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
"The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself."- Condemned

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
"The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel."- Condemned

Before I get into the other things you mention such as the false idea of "invincible ignorance" or the error of referring to the word "heretic" as being derogatory word, I would prefer if you would first address these points made regarding dogma.

Thanks.
Jane

[LightHammer]

The issue here is that you have infact cited a papal bull addressing an archaic audience in an archaic point in time.

Oh, there are numerous infallible papal statements I can site regarding the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. No, the issue here is whether Catholics must believe a dogma as it was once declared. Does a dogma of the Church become obsolete? When does a Catholic dogma no longer become binding upon the faithful? These questions are absolutely relevant in understanding what a Catholic must accept or reject in order to remain inside the Church. How do you address these questions – can you provide a definite and Catholic answer?

There is only one way to believe dogma:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."

This definition of the First Vatican Council must be pointed out for sake of dogmatic clarity. Dogmas don't change; they don't progress or become obsolete.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
"The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself."- Condemned

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
"The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel."- Condemned

Before I get into the other things you mention such as the false idea of "invincible ignorance" or the error of referring to the word "heretic" as being derogatory word, I would prefer if you would first address these points made regarding dogma.

Thanks.
Jane

Sorry about the late response. I am fairly busy this semester. I wonder if you're a Sedevacantist. Putting that aside, from your latest response it seems as though your question has taken a twist. Originally you asked if I believed in Cantatae Domino, which seemed to imply if I believed that only Catholics are saved. I affirmed my subscription to Cantatae Domino while rejecting any notion of claiming whether or not nonCatholics are saved or not.
As you seem to be passionate about this topic I am sure you are aware that Cantatae Domino was a statement issued ferendae sententiae, that is to be directed at those who have actively apostacized. So while you may not wish to deal with the issue at hand the point of Invicably Ignorant does play an essential role in dealing with nonCatholics.
No salvation outside of the Church does not extend to those who are baptized properly but who are never fully initiated. It never has.
This belief has endured within the history of the Church with every major heresy that has ever come. I recommend strongly that you review the work of St. Jerome from the 4th century entitled The Dialogue Against the Luciferans. It goes straight to the heart of this issue. 

[Stucky]

While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.

Ok so here we go.

I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.

Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.

Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.


So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?

[LightHammer]

While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.

Ok so here we go.

I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.

Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.

Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.


So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?

I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.

No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.

I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.

You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.

You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.

If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.

[Stucky]

While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.

Ok so here we go.

I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.

Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.

Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.


So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?

I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.

No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.

I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.

You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.

You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.

If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.

Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION.  My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers.  I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls.  I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.

[Ladonia]

While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.

Ok so here we go.

I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.

Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.

Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.


So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?

I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.

No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.

I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.

You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.

You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.

If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.

Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION.  My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers.  I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls.  I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.

And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass.  The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.

[Stucky]

While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.

Ok so here we go.

I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.

Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.

Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.


So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?

I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.

No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.

I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.

You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.

You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.

If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.

Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION.  My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers.  I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls.  I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.

And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass.  The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.

No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended.  That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches.  I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care.  I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.

[LightHammer]

While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.

Ok so here we go.

I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.

Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.

Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.


So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?

I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.

No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.

I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.

You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.

You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.

If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.

Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION.  My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers.  I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls.  I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.

And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass.  The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.

No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended.  That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches.  I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care.  I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.

I'm not going to accuse you of being a liar but I will say that I don't entirely believe you. Either way this thread is not meant for investigting your personal life.

What has been referenced in my posts are accounts derived exclusively from scripture. This may seem repetitive but thats kind of what happens when you have to continuously present a truth over 2000 years old. Christ only founded one community. That community was then and is now a body of believers. Notice what you unites them is what they believe. Your community and my community are not united by what we believe.

You will also notice in scripture that Christ established a leadership that was preserved after He ascended to Heaven. That one leadership governed His flock, instituted obligatory rules for living the Christian life and they alone were given the duty to rightly interpret the teachings of Christ.

Your community and my community are not united under a single leadership. If your community has a leadership I am positive that such leadership did not come into being until the later part of the middle ages in western Europe. Whereas mine goes back to Christ.

You can try to trivialize the meaning of "body of believers" into some liberal definition that seeks to include every single person that believes something as basic as Jesus Christ was a really existed (and exists). However what you have is no longer Christianity but a bunch of people who agree on a certain topic.

[Stucky]

While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.

Ok so here we go.

I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.

Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.

Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.


So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?

I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.

No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.

I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.

You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.

You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.

If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.

Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION.  My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers.  I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls.  I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.

And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass.  The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.

No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended.  That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches.  I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care.  I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.

I'm not going to accuse you of being a liar but I will say that I don't entirely believe you. Either way this thread is not meant for investigting your personal life.

What has been referenced in my posts are accounts derived exclusively from scripture. This may seem repetitive but thats kind of what happens when you have to continuously present a truth over 2000 years old. Christ only founded one community. That community was then and is now a body of believers. Notice what you unites them is what they believe. Your community and my community are not united by what we believe.

You will also notice in scripture that Christ established a leadership that was preserved after He ascended to Heaven. That one leadership governed His flock, instituted obligatory rules for living the Christian life and they alone were given the duty to rightly interpret the teachings of Christ.

Your community and my community are not united under a single leadership. If your community has a leadership I am positive that such leadership did not come into being until the later part of the middle ages in western Europe. Whereas mine goes back to Christ.

You can try to trivialize the meaning of "body of believers" into some liberal definition that seeks to include every single person that believes something as basic as Jesus Christ was a really existed (and exists). However what you have is no longer Christianity but a bunch of people who agree on a certain topic.

Dear lady, I couldnt care LESS if you believe me or not but you'd better not DARE to call me a liar.  No, those are your OPINIONS of accounts derived exclusively from scripture.  Jesus DID found a community of the body of believers and it is called the Church and not the Roman Catholic Church.  The Church is united under the leadership of Jesus.  No one is trivializing the Church unless it is you.  Christianity IS a bunch of people agreeing that Jesus Christ is Lord.  That does not, necessarily, include the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

[LightHammer]

While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.

Ok so here we go.

I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.

Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.

Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.


So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?

I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.

No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.

I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.

You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.

You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.

If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.

Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION.  My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers.  I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls.  I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.

And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass.  The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.

No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended.  That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches.  I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care.  I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.

I'm not going to accuse you of being a liar but I will say that I don't entirely believe you. Either way this thread is not meant for investigting your personal life.

What has been referenced in my posts are accounts derived exclusively from scripture. This may seem repetitive but thats kind of what happens when you have to continuously present a truth over 2000 years old. Christ only founded one community. That community was then and is now a body of believers. Notice what you unites them is what they believe. Your community and my community are not united by what we believe.

You will also notice in scripture that Christ established a leadership that was preserved after He ascended to Heaven. That one leadership governed His flock, instituted obligatory rules for living the Christian life and they alone were given the duty to rightly interpret the teachings of Christ.

Your community and my community are not united under a single leadership. If your community has a leadership I am positive that such leadership did not come into being until the later part of the middle ages in western Europe. Whereas mine goes back to Christ.

You can try to trivialize the meaning of "body of believers" into some liberal definition that seeks to include every single person that believes something as basic as Jesus Christ was a really existed (and exists). However what you have is no longer Christianity but a bunch of people who agree on a certain topic.

Dear lady, I couldnt care LESS if you believe me or not but you'd better not DARE to call me a liar.  No, those are your OPINIONS of accounts derived exclusively from scripture.  Jesus DID found a community of the body of believers and it is called the Church and not the Roman Catholic Church.  The Church is united under the leadership of Jesus.  No one is trivializing the Church unless it is you.  Christianity IS a bunch of people agreeing that Jesus Christ is Lord.  That does not, necessarily, include the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable.  Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.

Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.

Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?

Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.

[Stucky]

While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.

Ok so here we go.

I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.

Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.

Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.


So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?

I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.

No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.

I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.

You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.

You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.

If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.

Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION.  My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers.  I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls.  I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.

And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass.  The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.

No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended.  That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches.  I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care.  I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.

I'm not going to accuse you of being a liar but I will say that I don't entirely believe you. Either way this thread is not meant for investigting your personal life.

What has been referenced in my posts are accounts derived exclusively from scripture. This may seem repetitive but thats kind of what happens when you have to continuously present a truth over 2000 years old. Christ only founded one community. That community was then and is now a body of believers. Notice what you unites them is what they believe. Your community and my community are not united by what we believe.

You will also notice in scripture that Christ established a leadership that was preserved after He ascended to Heaven. That one leadership governed His flock, instituted obligatory rules for living the Christian life and they alone were given the duty to rightly interpret the teachings of Christ.

Your community and my community are not united under a single leadership. If your community has a leadership I am positive that such leadership did not come into being until the later part of the middle ages in western Europe. Whereas mine goes back to Christ.

You can try to trivialize the meaning of "body of believers" into some liberal definition that seeks to include every single person that believes something as basic as Jesus Christ was a really existed (and exists). However what you have is no longer Christianity but a bunch of people who agree on a certain topic.

Dear lady, I couldnt care LESS if you believe me or not but you'd better not DARE to call me a liar.  No, those are your OPINIONS of accounts derived exclusively from scripture.  Jesus DID found a community of the body of believers and it is called the Church and not the Roman Catholic Church.  The Church is united under the leadership of Jesus.  No one is trivializing the Church unless it is you.  Christianity IS a bunch of people agreeing that Jesus Christ is Lord.  That does not, necessarily, include the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable.  Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.

Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.

Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?

Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.

So, who's excited?  You just did it again tho, my story sounds bogus?  Well, arent you the insulting little girl now.  Where did you see a threat?  I think you have a comprehension problem.  As I said, I dont care whether or not you believe my story.  Your opinion is irrelevant.  I told the truth and your calling me a liar is a bunch of *rap.  More of your failure to comprehend the written word.  I never said Christianity is "a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord."  Quit putting your lies in my mouth.  I said that the Church is ALL true believers in Jesus Christ and His atoning blood.  BTW, It's YOUR RCC that says Muslims can go to Heaven and that all paths lead to God.
Your words are hollow and definately said just to disparage anyone that isnt a Roman Catholic.

[Ladonia]

While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.

Ok so here we go.

I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.

Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.

Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.


So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?

I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.

No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.

I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.

You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.

You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.

If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.

Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION.  My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers.  I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls.  I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.

And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass.  The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.

No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended.  That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches.  I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care.  I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.

Rome already knows what I told you, as it is them who has passed this teaching down to the faithful through the local parishes. I have been a Catholic all my life, gone to the parochial school system and I have friends who are members of religious orders and have never heard anyone in all that time claim what you are claiming. The Mass is  the defacto acknowledement of salvation through Christ and the Cross and EVERY adherent of the Latin Rite of Christianity knows this.

Here is the teaching of the Catholic Church about Christ and salvation as written in the catechism :

430   Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves." At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission.18 Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, "will save his people from their sins."19 In Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men. (210, 402

And also this:

619      "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3).

620      Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

621      Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: "This is my body which is given for you" (Lk 22:19).

622      The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers"(1 Pet 1:18).


Is that clear enough for you?

[winsome]

Similar words are used in the Mass. I don't have the new translation but these are from the one we used pre-2011:

"Father, calling to mind the death your son endured for our salvation...." (Eucharistic prayer III)

And one of the "aclamations" we make is:
"Lord, by your cross and resurrection you have set us free. You are the Saviour of the world"

And "By suffering on the cross he freed us from unending death, and by rising from the dead he gave us eternal life" (Preface of Sundays on Ordinary Time II)


I think part of the problem with these disputes over what some people said is that we don't actually know what was said, or what was said that they responded to - exactly. There is no verbatim record.

We only have interpretations filtered through someone's theological perspective.

To keep it simple:

If someone asked me did Jesus die on the cross for our salvation I would say yes.

If someone asked me did Jesus dies on the cross in punishment for my sins I would say no. But a Protestant might hear that as me denying that Jesus died for my sins.

We have different beliefs regarding how the atonement works. A statement might be correct under one theology but incorrect under another. The problem is then transferred to whose theology is correct.

Also the person asked a question might understand it differently from their theological perspective than the questioner meant from their theological perspective.

If we stuck to what the Catholic Church officially teaches we are on better grounds that what we think some Catholic said on some matter.

[LightHammer]

While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.

Ok so here we go.

I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.

Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.

Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.


So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.

Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?

I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.

No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.

I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.

You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.

You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.

If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.

Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION.  My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers.  I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls.  I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.

And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass.  The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.

No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended.  That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches.  I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care.  I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.

I'm not going to accuse you of being a liar but I will say that I don't entirely believe you. Either way this thread is not meant for investigting your personal life.

What has been referenced in my posts are accounts derived exclusively from scripture. This may seem repetitive but thats kind of what happens when you have to continuously present a truth over 2000 years old. Christ only founded one community. That community was then and is now a body of believers. Notice what you unites them is what they believe. Your community and my community are not united by what we believe.

You will also notice in scripture that Christ established a leadership that was preserved after He ascended to Heaven. That one leadership governed His flock, instituted obligatory rules for living the Christian life and they alone were given the duty to rightly interpret the teachings of Christ.

Your community and my community are not united under a single leadership. If your community has a leadership I am positive that such leadership did not come into being until the later part of the middle ages in western Europe. Whereas mine goes back to Christ.

You can try to trivialize the meaning of "body of believers" into some liberal definition that seeks to include every single person that believes something as basic as Jesus Christ was a really existed (and exists). However what you have is no longer Christianity but a bunch of people who agree on a certain topic.

Dear lady, I couldnt care LESS if you believe me or not but you'd better not DARE to call me a liar.  No, those are your OPINIONS of accounts derived exclusively from scripture.  Jesus DID found a community of the body of believers and it is called the Church and not the Roman Catholic Church.  The Church is united under the leadership of Jesus.  No one is trivializing the Church unless it is you.  Christianity IS a bunch of people agreeing that Jesus Christ is Lord.  That does not, necessarily, include the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable.  Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.

Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.

Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?

Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.

So, who's excited?  You just did it again tho, my story sounds bogus?  Well, arent you the insulting little girl now.  Where did you see a threat?  I think you have a comprehension problem.  As I said, I dont care whether or not you believe my story.  Your opinion is irrelevant.  I told the truth and your calling me a liar is a bunch of *rap.  More of your failure to comprehend the written word.  I never said Christianity is "a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord."  Quit putting your lies in my mouth.  I said that the Church is ALL true believers in Jesus Christ and His atoning blood.  BTW, It's YOUR RCC that says Muslims can go to Heaven and that all paths lead to God.
Your words are hollow and definately said just to disparage anyone that isnt a Roman Catholic.

1. I think you may be forgetting what you're posting. You did not say that "Christianity is ALL true believers in Jesus Christ and His atoning blood". What you said was and I quote " Christianity IS a bunch of people agreeing that Jesus Christ is Lord." unquote. The statements are obviously different.

2. Furthermore even your second statement which apparently is meant to be more concise is faulty. There are several people who call Christ Lord and believe He died for our sins but do not believe He was God or that He was simply a manifestation of God. Obviously people who disagree on a belief as basic as Jesus Christ's identity can not be one and the same Church (remember body of "believers") that He instituted.

3. If you're getting frustrated that's ok. If you think I'm being picky it's true. This is not a game my friend. Christianity is not some social club where people with a few things in common gather together for flimsy motivational speeches and singing. Christianity is a lifestyle. It is more solemn than national identity or blood ties in a family.

You can't just make up some half cocked definition that can include every random person who thinks Jesus Christ is cool or should be revered. That type of liberal spirituality is not what led the Church through multiple Great Persecutions, brought Europe out of the Dark Ages, cultivated men and women of honor and it most certainly is not reflective of the type of conviction that led Jesus Christ to walk tormented steps to die a cursed man's death on a tree.

So maybe you should reevaluate what Christianity, what a Christian is before you try to start arguments about what the Church is or is not.

[FireSword]

Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable.  Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.

Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.

Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?

Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.

Lighthammer, the scripture says those who are baptized in christ are part of his body. Muslims do not baptize in the name of Jesus, Muslims do not believe that Father sent the Son to be the sacrifice of their sins. They do not believe he died on a cross. They preach another gospel, which Paul warned against. They deny Jesus as Gods Son.
A lot of people believe Jesus was a historical figure and the bible is a book of morals, that today is seen as outdated by many liberals, while others appreciate the values, but they do not have faith in God, or in Jesus, they do not trust him for eternal life, they live for today and believe life exists for average of 80 years.

[Stucky]

Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable.  Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.

Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.

Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?

Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.

Lighthammer, the scripture says those who are baptized in christ are part of his body. Muslims do not baptize in the name of Jesus, Muslims do not believe that Father sent the Son to be the sacrifice of their sins. They do not believe he died on a cross. They preach another gospel, which Paul warned against. They deny Jesus as Gods Son.
A lot of people believe Jesus was a historical figure and the bible is a book of morals, that today is seen as outdated by many liberals, while others appreciate the values, but they do not have faith in God, or in Jesus, they do not trust him for eternal life, they live for today and believe life exists for average of 80 years.

  Excellent FireSword.   

[LightHammer]

Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable.  Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.

Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.

Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?

Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.

Lighthammer, the scripture says those who are baptized in christ are part of his body. Muslims do not baptize in the name of Jesus, Muslims do not believe that Father sent the Son to be the sacrifice of their sins. They do not believe he died on a cross. They preach another gospel, which Paul warned against. They deny Jesus as Gods Son.
A lot of people believe Jesus was a historical figure and the bible is a book of morals, that today is seen as outdated by many liberals, while others appreciate the values, but they do not have faith in God, or in Jesus, they do not trust him for eternal life, they live for today and believe life exists for average of 80 years.

How does that help this discussion?

I know what Islam lacks. My understanding of Islam is not what you quoted. What you quoted was how Stucky's shoot from the hip definition of Christianity includes those who are obstinately nonChristian and even antiChristian.