Ask A Catholic II

[Jehoshua]

I am aware of the meaning of Catholic and the Church is called the Catholic Church because it is the universal Church founded by Christ for all people at all times with the fullness of the Truth. As to Plotinus he is entitled to his opinion, there are plenty of other people who hold contrary ones including many reputable theologians.

-

As to your opinion that the Church mentioned by Christ refers to all christians generally, I implore you then explain why Christ prayed that we all be one. He warned us against other gospels and false shepherds (heresy and heretics).

Not to mention the logic that there is one God and there must be one truth, thus there must be one Church with the fullness of the truth considering the promises of Christ to be with us always and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church thus meaning he would not permit that Church to fall into heresy. To claim some sort of spiritual kumbaya between wildly varying sects when God is one thus requiring one Truth is basically to call God a liar. (which is impossible as God is all-good and does not lie)

 

[civ_king]

@Jehoshua- First of all, what Ignatius says is NOT infallible. Second of all, at the time, the Catholic Church was true. It later fell away from Biblical Teachings.

FYI Saint Ignatius of Antioch was taught by John the Apostle

I don't claim that the Protestant Church has been around as long as the Catholic Church. That would be incorrect and missing the point.

I do believe that Catholicism was the first Christian Church, but I don't think that it was ever intended when Jesus used the word "The Church." I think the Church in the NT refers to all believers, Catholic or not.

I also doubt that Ignatius' referring to the Catholic Church was the same Catholic Church, though that's probably a question for Plotinus. Remember, Catholic originally meant "Universal."

Matthew 18:15-17 seems to suggest a visible Church

15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

catholic still means universal

 

[Leoreth]

What's the RCC's position on members of the clergy who also hold mundane power? I'm not talking about the Pope, but for example the Prince Bishops we know from the HRE.

Is it still considered acceptable in principle, even if it's not practiced anymore? In any case, what is/was the justification for it (depending on if its still endorsed, if not, I'd like to hear the contemporary justification if possible)? Or is there no justification necessary in the church's eyes?

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Jehoshua- We do not believe in a "Spiritual Kumbaya" but if you want more detail on this, go to the Ask a Protestant thread.

Back on topic: What is repentence with perfect contrition?

And, if a non-Catholic commits a sin, and repents of it, but doesn't go to a Priest because he does not know he needs a priest, will he be forgiven or not?

 

[civ_king]

What's the RCC's position on members of the clergy who also hold mundane power? I'm not talking about the Pope, but for example the Prince Bishops we know from the HRE.

Is it still considered acceptable in principle, even if it's not practiced anymore? In any case, what is/was the justification for it (depending on if its still endorsed, if not, I'd like to hear the contemporary justification if possible)? Or is there no justification necessary in the church's eyes?

Well, early on with the Roman Empire shifting east we sometimes saw bishops taking up protection of cities, later on the prince-bishops were actually rulers of cities who later became ordained so actually a prince bishop had a dual roll, one in secular life the other in ecclesiastical life.

Domination, I've probably told you a half dozen times now about act of perfect contrition

 

[GhostWriter16]

Domination, I've probably told you a half dozen times now about act of perfect contrition

I don't recall actually.

 

[GhostWriter16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_contrition

I just looked it up.

So, how is a person supposed to change his own motive? Or will God help him with this if he wants to change his own motive?

 

[Leoreth]

Well, early on with the Roman Empire shifting east we sometimes saw bishops taking up protection of cities, later on the prince-bishops were actually rulers of cities who later became ordained so actually a prince bishop had a dual roll, one in secular life the other in ecclesiastical life.

Well, that's the historical angle which I'm very aware of.

My question is this: didn't this cause some criticism at its time? I mean, on another subject, the celibate, the RCC makes the point that a priest shouldn't marry to not get distracted from serving the church and, in effect, God. Can't similar criticism be leveled at this dual role and the complications between clerical and governmental obligations?

 

[civ_king]

Well, that's the historical angle which I'm very aware of.

My question is this: didn't this cause some criticism at its time? I mean, on another subject, the celibate, the RCC makes the point that a priest shouldn't marry to not get distracted from serving the church and, in effect, God. Can't similar criticism be leveled at this dual role and the complications between clerical and governmental obligations?

mea culpa, actually with the HRE they made (Arch)bishoprics become dukedoms too. So not only were they the spiritual rulers of the land they become the physical rulers too

 

[kochman]

The Papal States were also a temporal power...

 

[civ_king]

The Papal States were also a temporal power...

And not in the HRE thus out of the purview of the conversation.

Do you have a question?

 

[kochman]

And not in the HRE thus out of the purview of the conversation.

Do you have a question?

Actually, Loereth said, HRE "for example".
I was providing another example... and the fact that the Pope himself was the temporal power... not something to brush aside, though I understand why you would want to.

 

[civ_king]

Actually, Loereth said, HRE "for example".
I was providing another example... and the fact that the Pope himself was the temporal power... not something to brush aside, though I understand why you would want to.

"I'm not talking about the Pope"

Now, do you have a question or are you just being argumentative?

 

[kochman]

I am.

 

[civ_king]

I am.

Then what's the question?

 

[kochman]

It was a statement without a question. It is relevant to the initial question. That's the context. Jeez.

 

[civ_king]

It was a statement without a question. It is relevant to the initial question. That's the context. Jeez.

He specifically said he wasn't talking about the Pope.

 

[kochman]

He specifically said he wasn't talking about the Pope.

Are you a broken record or something?
I was. It's not complicated. Sorry if you don't approve, but you need to lighten up.

 

[NBAfan]

Actually, Loereth said, HRE "for example".
I was providing another example... and the fact that the Pope himself was the temporal power... not something to brush aside, though I understand why you would want to.

The Pope did have some temporal power. What are you trying to ask?

 

[kochman]

Some? He commanded a country!

Hahahahahahaa...
What am I trying to ask?
Hahahahahahahaaa...

The Pope had temporal power.