The “Necessity” of Being Catholic (Ecumenical Caucus)

One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most controversial part of the bull is the following infallible pronouncement: "Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it Is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."

This doctrine is extraordinarily controversial. Some Catholic extremists claim (contrary to further Church teaching, including a further infallible definition) that this means everyone who is not a full fledged, professing Catholic is damned. Non Catholics find the claim offensive, sectarian, and anti Christian in sentiment.

Most Catholics who are aware of the definition find it embarrassing, especially in today's ecumenical age, and many try to ignore or dismiss it, though even liberal Catholic theologians admit it is a genuine doctrinal definition and must in some sense be true.

Its truth was reinforced by Vatican II, which stated: "This holy Council ... [b]asing itself on Scripture and Tradition ... teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.... [Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16, John 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium 14).

Many modems explain this doctrine in a way that robs it of its content. In the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, who admitted the possibility of salvation for non Catholics, lamented that some Catholic theologians were "reducs an exclusivist view of salvation, this teaching does not mean that anyone who is not a full fledged Catholic is damned. As further Church teaching has made clear, including a further doctrinal definition, it is entirely possible for a person to be saved without being a professing Catholic. Formally belonging to the Church and formally being subject to the Roman Pontiff are normative rather than absolute necessities,

An absolute necessity is a necessity which holds in all cases with no exceptions. A normative necessity is usually required, though there are exceptions. An example of normative necessity in everyday American life is the practice of driving on the right hand side of the road. This is normally required, but there are exceptions, such as emergency situations. For example, if a small child darts out from behind parked cars, it may be necessary (and legally permitted) to swerve into the left hand lane to avoid hitting him. Thus the necessity of driving on the right hand side of the road is a normative rather than an absolute necessity.

Whether it is a normative or an absolute necessity to be united to the Catholic Church depends on what kind of unity with the Church one has in mind, because there are different ways of being associated with the Catholic Church.

A person who has been baptized or received into the Church is fully and formally a Catholic. Vatican II states: "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops" (Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 837).

But it is also possible to be “associated" with or "partially incorporated" into the Catholic Church without being a fully and formally incorporated into it. Vatican II states: "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium 15). Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3; CCC 838).

Those who have not been baptized are also put in an imperfect communion with the Church, even if they do not realize it, if they possess the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Pope Plus XII explains that the "juridical bonds [of the Church] in themselves far surpass those of any other human society, however exalted; and yet another principle of union must be added to them in those three virtues, Christian faith, hope, and charity, which link us so closely to each other and to God.... [I]f the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in his Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no less so.... Charity ... more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ" (Mystici Corporis 70, 73).

Understanding this distinction between perfect and imperfect communion with the Church is essential to understanding the necessity of being a Catholic. It is an absolute necessity no exceptions at all to be joined to the Church in some manner, at least through the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. However, it is only normatively necessary to be fully incorporated into or in perfect communion with the Catholic Church. There are exceptions to that requirement, as the Council of Trent taught (see below), though it is still a normative necessary.

In our discussion below, the word "necessary" will mean "normatively necessary," not "absolutely necessary."

When it comes to the question of being a Catholic, that is both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means. It is a necessity of precept because God commands it, for "the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ," Lumen Gentium 14 (CCC 846). It is a necessity of means because the Catholic Church is the sacrament of salvation for mankind, containing all the means of grace. "As sacrament, the Church is Christ's instrument. 'She is taken up by him also as the instrument for the salvation of all, ''the universal sacrament of salvation, 'by which Christ is' at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God's love for men... (CCC 776, citing Vatican II's Lumen Gentium 9:2, 48:2, and Gaudiam et Spes 45: 1).

To many this teaching sounds extremely offensive, sectarian, and anti Christian. But is it really? While non-Catholic Christians balk at the claim one must be a Catholic to be saved, many do not balk when it is said that one be a Christian to be saved. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are well known for claiming precisely this. Many say it is an absolute necessity no exceptions allowed and are critical of Catholics for saying some non-Christians may make it into heaven. They claim that in allowing this possibility the Church has compromised the gospel.

(For a scriptural rebuttal to this, see Acts 10:34 35, in which Peter declares that anyone who fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to the Lord. See also Acts 17:23, in which Paul says some Greeks worshipped the true God in ignorance. And see Rom. 2:13 16, in which Paul states that some gentiles who do not have the law of Moses meaning non Christian gentiles, since they do have the law of Moses may be excused by their consciences and declared righteous on the day of judgment.)

Vatican II stated: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life . . . . But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasoning, having exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (c.f Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord’s commands, ‘preach the Gospel to every creature’ (Mark 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions” Lumen Gentium 16).

We would cite the works of any number of popes prior to Vatican II to show this (for example, Pius IX’s allocution, Singulari Quadem, given the day after he defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854, or his 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, or Plus XII's 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis), but to make short work of the matter, let us look at an infallible definition from the Council of Trent, whose teachings were formulated in one of the most bitterly polemical and least ecumenical periods in history, and which to radical traditionalists is an absolutely unimpeachable source.

Canon four of Trent's "Canons on the Sacraments in General" states, "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them ... men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema [excommunicated]." This is an infallible statement because anathemas pronounced by ecumenical councils are recognized as infallibly defining the doctrine under discussion.

Trent teaches that although not all the sacraments are necessary for salvation, the sacraments in general are necessary. Without them or the desire of them men cannot obtain the grace of justification, but with them or the desire of them men can be justified. The sacrament through which we initially receive justification is baptism. But since the canon teaches that we can be justified with the desire of the sacraments rather than the sacraments themselves, we can be justified with the desire for baptism rather than baptism itself.

This is confirmed in chapter four of Trent's Decree on Justification. This chapter defines justification as "a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the sons' of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior." Justification thus includes the state of grace (salvation). The chapter then states that "this translation, after the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' [John 3:5]. " Justification, and thus the state of grace, can be effected through the desire for baptism (for scriptural examples of baptism of desire, see Acts 10:44 48, also Luke 23:42 43).

Only actual baptism makes one a formal member of the Church; baptism of desire does not do so. Since justification can be received by desire for baptism, as Trent states, justification and thus received without formal membership in the Church. The desire for baptism is sufficient.

Later Catholic teaching has clarified the nature of this desire and shown it can be either explicit or implicit. One has explicit desire for baptism if he consciously desires and resolves to be baptized (as with catechumens and others). One has an implicit desire if he would resolve to be baptized if he knew the truth about it.

How does implicit desire work? Consider the following analogy: Suppose there is a person who is sick and needs a shot of penicillin to make him better. He tells his physician, "Doc, you've got to give me something to help me get well!" The doctor looks at his chart and says, "Oh, what you want is penicillin. That's the right drug for you." In this case the man had an explicit desire for a drug to make him better whatever that drug might be and the appropriate one was penicillin. He thus had an implicit desire for penicillin even if he had not heard of it before. Thus the doctor said: "What you want is penicillin." This shows that it is possible to want something without knowing what it Is.

A person who has a desire to be saved and come to the truth, regardless of what that truth turns out to be, has an implicit desire for Catholicism and for the Catholic Church, because that is where truth and salvation are obtained. By resolving to pursue salvation and truth, he resolves to pursue the Catholic Church, even though he does not know that is what he is seeking. He thus implicitly longs to be a Catholic by explicitly longing and resolving to seek salvation and truth.

Papal and conciliar writings in the last hundred years have clarified that those who are consciously non Catholic in their theology may still have an overriding implicit desire for the truth and hence for Catholicism. Pope Plus XII stated that concerning some of "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church ... by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis 103).

How does this work? Consider our example of the sick man who needs penicillin. Suppose that he thinks that a sulfa drug will cure him and he explicitly desires it. So he tells the doctor, "Doc, I'm real sick, and you've got to give me that sulfa drug to make me better." But the doctor notices on his chart that he has an allergy to sulfa drugs, and says, "No, you don't want that; what you really want is penicillin." In this case the person's primary desire is to get well; he has simply mistaken what will bring that about. Since his primary desire to be well, he implicitly desires whatever will cause that to happen. He thus implicitly desires the correct drug and will explicitly desire that drug as soon as he realizes the sulfa would not work.

As papal and conciliar writings have indicated, the same thing is possible in religion. If a person's primary desire is for salvation and truth then he implicitly desires Catholicism even if he is consciously mistaken about what will bring him salvation and truth. He might be a member of some other church, yet desire salvation and truth so much that he would instantly become a Catholic if he knew the truth concerning it. In this case, his primary desire would be for salvation and truth wherever that might be found rather than his primary desire being membership in a non Catholic church.

However, the situation could be reversed. It is possible for a person to have a stronger desire not to be a Catholic than to come to the truth. This would be the case when people resist evidence for the truth of Catholicism out of a desire to remain non Catholic. In this case their primary desire would not be for the truth but for remaining a non-Catholic. Thus their ignorance of the truth would not be innocent (because they desired something else more than the truth), and it would constitute mortal sin.

Even though some radical traditionalists are disobedient to the papal and conciliar documents which teach the possibility of implicit desire sufficing for salvation, the Church has still taught for centuries that formal membership in the Church is not an absolute necessity for salvation. This was the point made by Trent when it spoke of desire for baptism bringing justification. The issue of whether desire for baptism saves and the issue of whether that desire can be explicit or implicit are two separate subjects which radical traditionalists often confuse. If we keep them separate, it is extremely clear from the Church's historic documents that formal membership in the Church is not necessary for salvation.

To avoid this, some radical traditionalists have tried to drive a wedge between justification and salvation, arguing that while desire for baptism might justify one, it would not save one if one died without baptism. But this is shown to be false by numerous passages in Trent.

In the same chapter that it states that desire for baptism Justifies, Trent defines Justification as "a translation ... to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God" (Decree on Justification 4). Since whoever is in a state of grace and adopted by God is In a state of salvation, desire for baptism saves. If one dies in the state of grace, one goes to heaven and receives eternal life.

As Trent also states: "Justification ... is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unrighteous man becomes a righteous man, and from being an enemy [of God] becomes a friend, that he may be 'an heir according to the hope of life everlasting' [Titus 3:7]" (Decree on Justification 7). Thus desire for baptism brings justification and justification makes one an heir of life everlasting. If one dies in a state of justification, one will inherit eternal life. Period. This question of whether formal membership is necessary for salvation is thus definitively settled by Trent. It is not. Informal membership, the kind had by one with desire for baptism, suffices.

This was also the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. He stated that those who have no desire for baptism "cannot obtain salvation, since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained. Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate; but he did not lose the grace he prayed for... (Summa Theologiae 111:68:2, citing Ambrose, Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

The question of whether desire for baptism needs to be explicit or implicit is a separate issue which was not raised by Trent, but which has been dealt with repeatedly by popes and councils since that time. Still, Trent alone shows that the statement in Unam Sanctam teaches a normative necessity for formal membership, not an absolute one. Those who desire but do not have baptism are not formally members of the Church, yet they are linked to the Church by their desire and can be saved.

What is absolutely necessary for salvation is a salvific link to the body of Christ, not full incorporation into it. To use the terms Catholic theology has classically used, one can be a member of the Church by desire (in voto) rather than in actuality (in actu).

In A.D. 400, Augustine said, "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body ... All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39).

And in the thirteenth century, Aquinas stated a person can obtain salvation if they are "sacramentally [or] mentally. . . incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained," and that "a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly" (ST 111:68:2).

What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium.

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger "Bible," but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself

Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,

The same is true of those who misuse papal and conciliar statements on the other side, privately interpreting them in a way contrary to what they explicitly state that all religions are equal, that every religion leads one to God, and that there is no need for evangelism. The Church teaches the exact opposite!

While elements of truth may be found in other religions (for example, the truth that there is a supernatural world), elements of truth do not make equality in truth.

In fact, it can be the presence of elements of truth which make a counterfeit believable and lead one away from God. A lie is not credible if it bears no resemblance to reality, as illustrated by the serpent's lie to Eve, which most definitely contained elements of truth Adam and Eve did become "as God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5, 22) but it was the believability of the serpent's lie that led Adam and Eve away from God.

So though it is possible for a person to be led toward God by elements of truth that are found in a false religion, this does nothing to diminish the need for evangelism.

Vatican II may teach that it is possible for "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church" to receive salvation, but it immediately follows it up by stating that, despite that fact, "very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord’s command, 'preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mark 16:15) takes zealous care to foster the missions" (Lumen Gentium 16).

And Pope Pius XII stated concerning "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church ... we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love" (Mystici Corporis 103).

These quotes show the Church's insistence on people's need to receive evangelization to hear the good news but most fundamentally evangelism is necessary because Christ calls us to dispel all ignorance concerning him and the means of salvation he has established (including the Church), for Christ commands, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19 20). We are to dispel all ignorance, including innocent ignorance, for we are to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15).

Those who represent, even through silence, the Magisterium as not requiring and stressing the urgent need for world wide evangelism are distorting the teaching of the magisterium as much as those who represent it as saying absolutely no one who is not formally a Catholic can be saved.

(For a look at what the early Church Fathers believed, and how they supported both the necessity of being Catholic and the possibility of salvation for non Catholics in some circumstances, see "The Fathers Know Best: Who Can Be Saved? ", This Rock, Nov. 94.)

“Priestly office *may* have been the proximal object, but to make that the point of both the narrative and the Jude reference is Sharptonesque.”

Paying attention to facts is not anything the Rev Sharpton does. The text specifies what he was trying to do: not content with Levitical service, he wanted to be a priest like Aaron.

“For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion.”

They tried to justify themselves before God in their own way. They sought financial gain, and sought a role God had not given them. That sounds like a description of the Pope, not a defense of one!

LOL! Kolo is using solipsism? Is that what you learned in your Greek course at some university? Are you sure you are not confusing it with sophism...? :)

Nope, that's the word I intended. Strictly speaking "solipsism" has a slightly different meaning, but in the past several years colloquial usage has given the term a further sense of "if I don't know something, no one else can know it either" when used descriptively.

You are telling a lawyer of 30 years of practice to look up what caveat means? LOL!

That do [sic] explain alot [sic]...

They tried to justify themselves before God in their own way. They sought financial gain, and sought a role God had not given them.

[3] And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?

[28] And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind. [29] If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the LORD hath not sent me.

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him *think*

Really? You’ve shown me how Jude is about the Pope, because the sin of Korah was rebellion against Moses? And Korah expected to take over Moses’ role as prophet...how?

What did Korah want? To be a priest like Aaron’s sons.

Ultimately, their specific complaint - a desire to be priests - was also a complaint against Moses and God. “But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD.”

So Jude has these evil men following 3 sins: “For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion.”

They walked in the way of Cain, who was upset with God because his sacrifice didn’t please God - ie, they want to be accepted by God on their own terms. They abandoned themselves for the sake of gain - they forsook true prophecy to make money from false. And they “perished in Korah’s rebellion.” As far as Jude is concerned, they have already been judged by God for acting like Korah, who rebelled against God by trying to take an office he wasn’t given by God, and rejecting the revelation by God of the proper office.

Again, this describes the Pope better than it defends him.

Like Cain, the Pope and the church that follows him has rebelled against God’s plan of salvation. Rather than the one time sacrifice of Jesus Christ making us perfect forever (Heb 10), it requires multiple participations in the sacrifice of Jesus to cleanse from sin. Instead of “made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus”, it imposes a requirement for multiple good works, has no assurance of salvation, and creates a place unknown to the Apostles where Christians are punished after death until they become good enough - again, denying that Christ made us perfect forever!

It has created a system to draw in money, for a time selling forgiveness of sin for cash. It has tickled men’s ears with what they want to hear - that they are sick in their sins, but can participate in their own salvation and make themselves ready for grace.

And it has created a priesthood without revelation, offering sacrifices contrary to the one time sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Pope has claimed to be CINC of Bishops, and Vicar of Christ in the place of the Holy Spirit. Not content with rebelling against the offices God ordained in scripture via the Apostles, he has taken on the role of God himself. And his judgment by God is just as certain as Korah’s.

multiple participations in the sacrifice of Jesus to cleanse from sin

Thank you. This is very carefully formulated and I have no quarrel with this way of describing the liturgy.

But then you say

[the Catholic Church is] offering sacrifices contrary to the one time sacrifice of Jesus Christ

If the Catholic Chruch were offering such sacrifices, that would have been indeed preposterous. But does it? Your careful formulation of the nature of the Mass does not support the cheap and untrue propagandistic caricature of what the Mass is.

Like Bishop Sheen, and may others said, your fight is against the caricature of the Church, in which all Catholics would join you if it were grounded in fact.

As Catholics, we are in a religion that is grounded in historical facts. This makes us also grounded in things Orthodox and in things Greek. I agree that (1) the translation of St. Jerome is sufficient if received in the light of the Church, and that (2) most of the meaining of the Holy Writ is adequately explained in the vernacular teaching of the Church in any language. However, if you wish to contrast translations or argue which is better, or argue from scripture rather than from the Magisterial teaching, then you have to start with the beginning, which just happens to be in Greek.

Peter never used a flush toilet, either. What other irrelevancies would you like to discuss?

You.

Peter did however settle the famous dispute in Jerusalem which saw turmoil in the Church until he stood and spoke giving the "doctrinal" understanding of gentiles, for which James gave "local" rules

Well, that's assuming that really happened. Besides, there was no doctrinal understanding of gentiles in what Jesus taught. We're told very clearly that it was an afterthought (Acts 13:46). That's about all the "doctrine" there was. Besides, the Church in Israel was dying...

What "extention" is that? I know of no "extention" for you to toss around like corner church theologian

I guess one has to be one to know one.

Postulating is not "teaching" but I wouldn't expect you to recognize the difference between rolling grain in ones hand, and "harvesting."

Mind over matter, pal, I don't mind and you don't matter to me. My pay is the same. But you are straying into ad hominem waters, pal. Being so angry isn't good for you.

So your argument is still from silence, and your definition of "heresy" is protestant except your totem is patristic instead of scriptural

Yes, silence because it did not exist. What are you going to say about that which doe snot exist? And heresy is by definition that which the Church does not teach.

It seemed a reasonable conjecture at the time

Why not just do something reasonable like ask? On the other hand, maybe that's too much to ask...

Clearly, you and your faction expect deferrence, but have consistently avoided answering my questions in the context they were asked. I have to speculate SOME reason for such duplicitous conceit.

Oh, now we are going to play the 'victim' card. You never asked me if I was Greek or whether I studied Greek or not. You are just making excuses. Maybe you should stick with facts rather than conjecturing.

Bwahahaha!

So why do you write "greek" instead of "Greek?" You seem to know how to capitalize proper nouns, so it must be deliberate. Do you have any issues with Greeks? All Greeks? Or is it just silly adolescent rebelliousness?

You seem to miss the fact my opposition claimed the term known far and wide

It is, it's just not transliterated always the same way.

Nobody said anything about "directly." And anyone familiar with languages knows "this can't be translated" is the same as "you can't get there from here." i.e. nonsense.

And just how many languages do you know, and which ones, to speak with such authority?

Paul was at that council in Jerusalem, and Peter would not have been able to get the full scoop on what was happening with the Gentiles without the Apostle Paul.

After Acts 15, count how many times Peter's ministry is again emphasized. The count is ‘0’. Peter, being a minister to the circumcision (Galatians 2), fades in emphasis, while the emphasis on the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, expands.

That is because Israel was diminishing after their fall (Romans ch. 11), and the office of Paul was being magnified (same chapter). Peter, having a primary position with the Jews of Jerusalem, along with the other eleven “Apostles of the Lamb” (a reference to those who were called during our Lord's earthly ministry), would not be the one to expand the churches to the European sphere. That would be the work of Paul.

When Peter gets into a Gentile situation, he messes up, and has to be rebuked by the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Peter didn't settle anything in Jerusalem in Acts 15; he gave his testimony, which clearly stated that before the events of Acts 10, he was ignorant of the transitions taking place. This is not a negative statement, particularly, as Peter had been in obedience according to the revelation that he had from the Day of Pentecost, but he was without the advanced revelation being given by God to the Apostle Paul.

None of them knew that there would be a “Church Age,” much less one that would last for 2,000 years, and all of them were really expecting the return of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:19-21) in their life time as a consequence of Israel's repentance of the sin of having murdered their Messiah/King. Even Paul preached and was bound for “the hope of Israel,” not the Body of Christ, all the way to the end of the Acts history (Read Acts 28).

It was after the close of the Acts history, when the leaders representative of the dispersed Jews rejected Christ in finality, that it was clear to them that a definite change in order was taking (or had taken)place.

Ephesians ch. 3 — Now Paul is a prisoner for Gentiles, instead of being bound for the hope of Israel.

The mistake made is reading into the Acts history what we see today, and thinking it is the same thing. It is not.

The rules do not make sense on a forum dedicated to freedom. Why should freedom of speech as long as it is respectful and Conservative not be tolerated on any thread on FR.

If Catholics or any other religion want to "caucus" why do that on FREE Republic? Why not do that on a forum that is dedicated to their belief system? It means that the forum that we love is allowed to be used to propagate a belief that we do not agree with without recourse, knowing that many people who are not of that religion will lurk and receive the indoctrination without the ability to counter it.

When there is a plethora of religious threads on FR that are closed to argument FR seems to become an agent of that religious sect.

I myself welcome anyone who has disagreement over my religious belief to have respectful descent. I should be able to support what I believe to others. If I cannot then I better go back and think about just what it is that I believe.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.