Comments on: Episode #3 Did Paul believe in the Catholic Church?

By: Robert Sessford

Robert Sessford — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:21:12 +0000

I have a question…
I hear you say that “Lutheran… Wesleyan….Calvinist… and such tags etc. would be contrary to St. Paul’s intent and teaching.

“This denominational arrangement is completely foreign to the teachings of Paul. For this reason, the Catholic Church never accepted a “denominational” understanding of Church.”

What then would he say about the different scapulars ? Orders? Brotherhoods?

Is someone who calls himself a “Franciscan friar” naming himself? (ie: de nomine)

Would you explain that by saying it is an “order only, and not a “church”"? Well, actually, there are a great many people who call upon the name of Jesus, and believe that he is the Son of the Living God, and trust him for their salvation, AND identify themselves as accepting some of the teachings of these various church fathers (Calvin, Wesley, etc.)YET, consider themselves part of a Church that transcends all human institutions and is JOINED together by the Holy Spirit that is, … the Body of Christ.

Even Pope Benedict recently expressed his desire to recognize Christians of other “denominations”. (sorry, I don’t have a quote ref.)

By: Richard Cassidy

Richard Cassidy — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:41:38 +0000

Very nice website and very clear teaching. Thank you very much.

By: Emil Anton

Emil Anton — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:28:24 +0000

pretty much the same stuff as the introduction to “Paul and the Church” in my book, surprise surprise again:)

To take it to a higher level again:
When Paul describes the Church theologically as holy, and when on the other hand empirically there are unholy members in the Church, is it right to simply assume that we can speak about “The Church” in both cases? The Protestant would say the true Church is the invisible Church… It does seem hard to claim that the sanctified Church in Eph 5 equals all the formal members of Catholic parishes in the world. What about the rest of the baptized, and what about unbelieving Catholics..

By: Taylor Marshall

Taylor Marshall — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:57:57 +0000

Michael,

Are you referring to “Roman Catholic” as regards a geographical location? The term “Roman Catholic” is a slur made by Protestants – it’s not something that we typically call ourselves. We are “Catholic Christians” (i.e. universal Christians), not “Roman Christians”.

I agree with you that God is sovereign. I’m not sure that is an objection. Scripture teaches that God is sovereign all over the place.

It is true that God saves according to His will, but He does usually include our understanding. As Saint Paul wrote: “that their hearts may be encouraged as they are knit together in love, to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ” (Col 2:2).

By: Michael McGovern

Michael McGovern — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:13:11 +0000

Oh yes, it’s clear now. Calling one’s self a Christian, after a geographical region, is somehow acceptable. Paul would be elated about that,I’m sure. With all due respect,according to the text in Romans, and throughout Scripture, God is sovereign. He reserves the right to save and the right to harden. Scripture is clear, God saves according to His will, not our understanding.

By: Taylor Marshall

Taylor Marshall — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:06:39 +0000

Technically, it’s the “Anglican Communion”.

By: Robin Brookes

Robin Brookes — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:32:53 +0000

Which is precisely why the Anglican Church refers to itself as part of the one true, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

By: Taylor Marshall

Taylor Marshall — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:28:57 +0000

Nick,

Sorry about that. I’ve corrected it so that it’s now properly Episode #3.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:17:34 +0000

I think you mixed up shows, this show #3 is the same show as #2.