A Historical Dare to Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsper7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
After serious and heated debates amoung the council fathers, the words, “Subsists In” were deliberately chosen over the word “IS”, that is the council fathers freely and willingly chose to say that the fullness of the church is found in the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church IS NOT the Church of Christ.

It seems the greater dare is for we Catholics to know and understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
What is the difference? I actually looked up the word subsists in the dictionnary and do not get how this word applies to the church.

I still have my basic problem in the end. (1) Why should I believe that the fullness of the church subsists in any denomination in my phone book (2) If I were to come to the belief that the fullness of the church must subsist in one denomination or the other, how would I identiry this one denomination.
 
I think it is clear that the early Christians at Antioch believed that the Church was centralized.

Why do you suppose they sent representatives to Jerusalem and Peter when they had a doctrinal dispute over circumcision?

Why not just decide on their own?
Good point.

I sometimes wonder how anything like adjucating the canon of Scripture or deciding that Arianism is a heresy could have been done today with so many denominations in my phone book. It would have required a level of cooperation and committment to one another that I have never seen in my lifetime.

It does appear from reading the New Testament that the ministry of the Apostles is what held the whole thing together.

Now Protestants typically believe that the office of the apostle died with the 12.

However when I read Scripture, the support for this is rather weak. The claim is that an apostle must have been a witness to the resurrection of Christ. However, there is no verse in the Bible that flat comes out and says this. There are a couple of verses that may or may not infer this. However, it seems to me to be a quite dangerous practice to create a dogmatic theological statement based solely on inferrences of Scripture that may or may not be real. Otherwise I might believe that Mary was born without original sin and never committed one itsy-bitsy sin in her entire lifetime (like never went through the terrible twos).

That is not to say I know of any apostles today (much less that your pope is a present day apostle). When I read the book of Acts and see all that the apostles did, I don’t know of anybody today who qualifies as an apostle. In fact, I don’t see how you can even have an apostle when the yellow pages of my phone book lists multiple Christian denominations.
 
But my faith was not obtained solely from reading a book. Time does not allow me to mention all of the people who God used to bring me to Christ.

.
Well this is good… I wasn’t necessarily saying you did, but I’m sure you realize there are many who do… but even if others have influenced us it is very important to determine where they formed their opinions also. If you’re talking just about coming to believe Christ well then that is not what I’m referring to, I’m talking more about the understanding of his teachings… I would not argue that almost any Christian could help you believe in Christ, but when it comes to explaining all that he revealed it gets quite complicated. (I’m not saying I understand it all either, but I submit to the teachings of those who know best).
You know, how the Bible came to be seems to be brought up a lot here. And I just don’t get the significance of why this is so darned important.
It is enough for me to know that God involved humans in the process of (1) writing Scripture (2) compiling Scripture together. And it is enough for me to trust God to believe that because this was His work, that He made sure that the humans involved in both parts of this process got the matter correct.
On your second point (the early church fathers), I don’t have any issues with reading them as long as their writing are not put quite to the authority level of Scripture. I do agree with the principle that I would like my Christian beliefs to be well grounded in history as opposed to a nice, creative idea from the Bible that somebody gets 2000 years after the fact.
It seems you have a better understanding of Scripture formation than many… but for the ones that don’t understand this it can be a huge step in understanding and trusting a particular Church… If I believed everything in the watchtower pamphlets I would probably be a Jahova’s Witness… if I believed everything in the book of Mormon I would probably be in the church of LDS, but since I only believe the OT and the 27 books of the NT were inspired, I then trust in the Church that put these together… Since I believe and trust in these books I choose not to be a Jew or Muslim… Why stray from the teachings of the Church that put the book together that I trust so much… since they only included the books that fit with the teachings they already knew… I guess to me that 's why it’s so “darned important”🙂

SD
 
It is enough for me to know that God involved humans in the process of (1) writing Scripture (2) compiling Scripture together. And it is enough for me to trust God to believe that because this was His work, that He made sure that the humans involved in both parts of this process got the matter correct.
Sorry to butt in here. With this reasoning, you fail to consider:
  1. Had it not been for the Catholic Church, all the humans involved will leave you reading also all the Gnostic, Nestorian, Arian, Albigensian, etc heresies, and you won’t be able to understand which is which, that you might just as well walked into a ransacked Borders store.
  2. Consequently, correct will be the most difficult word to use here.
On your second point (the early church fathers), I don’t have any issues with reading them as long as their writing are not put quite to the authority level of Scripture.
First of all, you seem to have missed Luther’s observation that without the RCC, there will be no Bible to study God’s written Word. This reasoning regards the chicken to be less important than the egg it layed.
 
Why stray from the teachings of the Church that put the book together that I trust so much… since they only included the books that fit with the teachings they already knew… I guess to me that 's why it’s so “darned important”🙂

SD
Good question.

For now I won’t quibble about the phrase “Church that put the book together” although I have one fundamental quibble here concerning what I call laws of inheritance.

But anyway, the answer is because I get a disconnect when I read the Book and when I read the teachings of the “Church that put the book together”.
 
However when I read Scripture, the support for this is rather weak. The claim is that an apostle must have been a witness to the resurrection of Christ. However, there is no verse in the Bible that flat comes out and says this. There are a couple of verses that may or may not infer this. However, it seems to me to be a quite dangerous practice to create a dogmatic theological statement based solely on inferrences of Scripture that may or may not be real. Otherwise I might believe that Mary was born without original sin and never committed one itsy-bitsy sin in her entire lifetime (like never went through the terrible twos).

That is not to say I know of any apostles today (much less that your pope is a present day apostle). When I read the book of Acts and see all that the apostles did, I don’t know of anybody today who qualifies as an apostle. In fact, I don’t see how you can even have an apostle when the yellow pages of my phone book lists multiple Christian denominations.
Here’s your dilemma, and something I had to deal with as a non-Catholic.

We have clear writings from the early Church that illustrate the authority the apostle’s successors. We also have clear writings illustrating the unique authority of Peter’s successor.

The definining terminology of this hierarchy wasn’t in place immediately, but it was full formed by 300 AD.

So…

Once this authority was clearly defined, if it were considered unbiblical or contrary to the apostolic teaching, don’t you think there would have been major protests and uprisings?

Why do you suppose that there was no question among early Christians as to the authority of the Bishops and the Papacy in the early Church?
 
I will answer what eklessia is however you have shown yourself disingenous by not be upfront and truthfull.
It is obvious that your understanding (or lack thereof) of just exactly what the Church is and DK Lutheran’s understanding of what Church unity is are both faulty.

It’s obvious neither of you heard of the principle of solidarity.
 
2,1,2:
2,2 - Papal supremacy
The primacy of the bishop of Rome is a late “invention” in the history of the Early Church, and was not universally accepted throughout the West until after the fall of the Western part of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, it is interesting that the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, and its church, never accepted it, and doesn’t to this day, as well as it is quite interesting to note that Rome didn’t even have a bishop until about 130 AD.
Looking forward to your reply 🙂
That’s just not true.

The early eastern partiarchs acknowledged the primacy of Peter and the pope.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450):

A native of Antioch, Theodoret ruled under the Antiochean Patriarch.

The great foundation of the Church was shaken, and confirmed by the Divine grace. And the Lord commanded him to apply that same care to the brethren. ‘And thou,’ He says, ‘converted, confirm thy brethren.’ (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Haeret. Fab. lib. v.c. 28)

‘For as I,’ He says, ‘did not despise thee when tossed, so be thou a support to thy brethren in trouble, and the help by which thou was saved do thou thyself impart to others, and exhort them not while they are tottering, but raise them up in their peril. For this reason I suffer thee also to slip, but do not permit thee to fall, thus through thee gaining steadfastness for those who are tossed.’ So this great pillar supported the tossing and sinking world, and permitted it not to fall entirely and gave it back stability, having been ordered to feed God’s sheep. (Theodoret, Oratio de Caritate in J. P. Minge, ed., Partrologiae Curses Completus: Series Graeca).

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope, …

Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638):

Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation …the new heresy. (Sophronius,[quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council]
, Mansi, x., 893)
 
With Questions,
Unfortunately we are running into the problem of how the full meaning of a word or words is lost when translated from one language to another. I looked in several dictionaries for the definition of “subsist” and none proved to be totally satifactory for me. Again I think this is a case of the full meaning of the word being lost in translation. Although I am not fond of using analogies (primarily because I am poor at it) I think an analogy of the relationship of a baby in his mother’s womb somewhat explains the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ. But I don’t want to get caught up on analyzing analogies at the expense of becoming side tracked from the main discussion.

So I would like to focus on how the The Church “Subsists in” the Catholic Church. Here I would have to turn to the Nicean Creed and how the Church proclaim the four elements which identifies The Church. Here I realize that some protestant denominations reject the use of creeds and this my be your belief. But as the Catholic Church (East and West) the two oldest Traditions of the Church as its creed, I will proceed with the four characteristics of The Church. That is the Church is; “One”,“Holy”, “Catholic”, and “Apostolic” and it is only in the Catholic Church, united with the pope, has all four characteristics in their fullness.

I guess this is my response to your question of how you could identify the one denomination in which the Church fully subsists (in).

Here, I would like to ask you in particular but extend my request to all involved in this discussion to take a little time and read “Lumen Gentium” because this really is the Dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church which identifies who she is - atleast from the Catholic Church’s perspective, I think it is essential for an intelligent discussion on how the Catholic Church understands herself. So I would hope you, atleast, will give it a few minutes of your time because it seems my Catholic brothers and sisters will not thus we still read such inaccurate statements that the Catholic Church is The Church.
 
Good question.

For now I won’t quibble about the phrase “Church that put the book together” although I have one fundamental quibble here concerning what I call laws of inheritance.

But anyway, the answer is because I get a disconnect when I read the Book and when I read the teachings of the “Church that put the book together”.
OK… so as not to make it so hard on you… let’s just say “the men” who put that Book together;) … do you still get that disconnect when you read the Book and when you read the teachings of “the men” who put that Book together?

SD
 
To all those who deny that the “Roman Catholic Church” (and/or Eastern Orthodox) is the Church founded by Christ, then I have a little dare for you. Prove from Scripture and history that your denomination is the one founded by Christ.
why, proof that my denomination [gwingy gwingy-ism] was founded doens’t disprove yours. In addition I think most chrisitians are in the catholic (universal) Church anyway…
 
OK… so as not to make it so hard on you… let’s just say “the men” who put that Book together;) … do you still get that disconnect when you read the Book and when you read the teachings of “the men” who put that Book together?

SD
I probably have not read the teachings of the men who put the Book together to be honest.

To the extent that I have read the writings of the ECF, I have focused on the earlier ones.
 
I probably have not read the teachings of the men who put the Book together to be honest.

To the extent that I have read the writings of the ECF, I have focused on the earlier ones.
I think even the earlier ECFs (well atleast 200-300 yrs before the Bible) had a big hand in eliminating heretical writings or preserving sacred ones… If nothing else they were certainly the men who passed on their teachings to the men of the councils that would finally decide the canon.

SD
 
why, proof that my denomination [gwingy gwingy-ism] was founded doens’t disprove yours. In addition I think most chrisitians are in the catholic (universal) Church anyway…
All Christians are in the body of Christ and are part of Gods Assembly, His Congregation, Christs Church.
 
why, proof that my denomination [gwingy gwingy-ism] was founded doens’t disprove yours. In addition I think most chrisitians are in the catholic (universal) Church anyway…
Well said. That is the Church we are all baptized into. Even the Catechism says that.
 
I have been looking over the differences in beliefs of many Christian denominations. I have found that many believe the same thing and only misunderstand the semantics of it all.

I am not a member of the "C"atholic church. However I am a member of The "c"atholic church. This isn’t all about me and I keep using the word “I” but honestly Christ knows His own and I count on Him to decide. I count myself Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, you name it …if it is based on Christ being the Savior then we are of ONE family.

Humans make too many mistakes…leave it to Jesus to be your judge.
 
The Meaning of Ekklesia
First, we’ll look at the meaning of what Christ’s ekklesia is, we’ll look at the real thing first, then we’ll compare the legal fiction that’s being created as the substitute for Christ’s ekklesia. The word ekklesia is the original Greek Word, it was used in the Septuagint. So, the seventy-two translators that translated the Septuagint around 280 B.C. were very much aware of that word ekklesia. They used it in the Septuagint as a replacement of the Hebrew for the “congregation of Israel.”

Now, if we go to the modern word studies on ekklesia, they’ll always point to the secular meaning of the Greek, that it was a group of citizens called together. They rarely go to the original meaning. The first time it’s spoken in the New Testament, by Christ, is at Matthew 16:18, “…And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my ekklesia…”

When you go to Tyndale’s bible, which was the first English Bible, he translated ekklesia as “assembly.” In the George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek/English New Testament (it’s a literal translation of the Greek into English), which was written in the late 1800’s, he translated ekklesia as “assembly,” and you won’t find the word “church” anywhere in there. Christ only used the word ekklesia three times. It’s not recorded in the book of Mark, John, or Luke. Matthew is the only one who recorded it.

In Strong’s Greek Concordance, the word ekklesia (word #1577) is defined as “an assembly,” and it’s from the word “ek,” (word #1537) which means “out of”; and the word “klesis” (word #2821) which means “a calling.” So ekklesia means to be called out, and obviously Christ is the one that’s calling us out. But is that the first time we were ever called out?

The apostle Paul wrote, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Corinthians 6:17). Now he’s quoting the Old Testament from Isaiah 52:11, so we were called out in the Old Testament. In the Septuagint, Isaiah 52:11 reads, “Depart ye, depart, go out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing; go ye out from the midst of her; separate yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord.”

So, when you go to the original Greek in the Septuagint and find out what those verses mean, you find out what you’re being called out of. And that’s what His ekklesia is, it is those who are called out.

When Isaiah says, “go ye out from the midst of her,” what does that mean? Well, when you go to the original Greek, “out from the midst” means “out from the center.” And the word “her” is from the Greek autos which means “self.” So basically, what this verse is saying is to depart and separate yourself from your self will (those wants of the world) and touch not the impure. So what we’re called out of is our self! We’re called out of the self-will and all of those things that have to do with the flesh. And that is His ekklesia.

This goes along with: Matthew 10:38-39, “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” The apostle Paul said, “I die daily” (1 Corinthians 15:31). What this means is to do His Will, and crucify the deeds of the flesh, kill our old man.

So, there’s only one definition for ekklesia, and that’s “assembly” (or “congregation”). Now, how is it possible to take the word “church” (which means a physical structure) and insert it in there? Because the word “Church” does not mean “assembly” at all! It doesn’t even closely correlate.

ecclesia.org/truth/ekklesia.html
To understand the conception of the principle of solidarity, I turn to consider its application in the religious sphere. There, as we might expect, we find it more perfectly exemplified than in the merely natural and human sphere. Our salvation, that is our attainment of that supernatural union with God which constitutes eternal life, is found to be effected through solidarity. We are not to be united with God as independent and unrelated units. Indeed, such a conception is untimately self-contradictory since we could not be united with God without being by the very fact of that union united with all those other souls in union with Him. Our salvation is from beginning to end a progressive incorporation into a supernatural society of human souls. That society is the Church. This fundamental doctrine of Christianity may be said hardly to have developed in its exposition since the first preaching of the Apostles: it is in fact the fundamental doctrine of St. Paul as it is preserved to us in his Epistles. So fundamental is it, it is in a special sense his “gospel” to which he so frequently alludes, and he has explained it, particularly in the two captivity Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, with a clearness and precision that has left little to be added by future theological speculation.

To understand the Pauline doctrine of the Church, is to have apprehended the essence of Catholicism. Sacraments, hierarchy, veneration of saints, the function of Our Lady in the Christian economy, escatology, bodily resurrection, ethics - all these, even to the doctrine of indulgences, flow naturally from the solidarity of the Church, as St. Paul taught it to his converts. Without this basic doctrine they are disconnected and meaningless, like parts of a building whose plan is untraced, or the organs of a plant whose functions in the life of that plant are not understood. In light of this doctrine they are seen as the necessary parts of one harmonius edifice, as the mutually adapted organs of one life. For St. Paul the Church is one body. By this he means that it is a society of individual souls diverse in function, but moved and vivified by one common life principle or soul, the Holy Spirit.

continued
 
It is apparent and absolutely true that Christ won for Himself our lost privileges, restored life to the world, became both by natural right and by merit the heir to His Father’s kingdom, and made essential reparation for the crime of the first man. But how does this profit me? How do I share - or do I share? - in what Christ gained for Himself and offered to God, His Father?

Of course Christianity is based on the belief that I do thus share. Christ’s life is my life.his reparation made to God the Father is accepted as if it had personally been offered by me. This all Christians have believed.

But Christianity divided sharply on just how this was brought about. There is an explanation of orthodox Protestantism and that of Catholicism. Modernistic Protestantism is a trifle too engrossed in the futile attempt at making a heaven of earth to worry about man’s supernatural life and his ability to come into possession of the infinite beauty and truth that is God.

So, orthodox Protestantism says: The life and merits of Jesus Christ come to the believer through an act of faith. I look upon Christ as I see Him in the pages of His gospel. I conceive a great hope in Him, trusting that He is my redeemer. And along the thread of that hope by which I cling to Christ, His merits, His life, His reparation pass to me. Almost as the cloak of a disguise is flung over the shoulders of a masker are the merits of Jesus Christ flunf about me, the sinner. A sinner I remain; but the cloak of Jesus Christ disguises me sufficiently to make my Father see in me a resemblance to His Son, and because of that He gives me back my sonship and my eternity of happiness. I am still a sinner, but the merits of the life and death of Jesus Christ are imputed to me because of my faith. They are external to me, outside of me, as a cloak or mask might be.

But all this is external and outside of the actual individual. It lacks all the warmth and reality which is the Catholic truth that follows the words and figures of speech of Christ and St. Paul.

It is true that Christ throughout His life and in His death stood as our substitute. The God-Man made us His brothers and associates. He carried our sins, washed away our guilt, died in our place.

But that was far from being all.

continued
 
He clearly assimilated human beings to Himself. He made us one with Himself. When Christ reconciled us again with God, He satisfied for us, and this precious phrase, “for us,” has a twofold meaning: for our benefit, and in our place. He joined Himself to us in a moral solidarity. He identified us with Himself in a moral identity, acting as our reprensentative in what He was to do. He laid the basis of a physical identity when in the Incarnation He assumed our human nature.

But then He went further. From Him, the Head, life was to pass directly to us, the members. He poured His merits through our souls as blood is passed from the heart through the nearest and the most distant parts of the body.

He used a metaphor that indicated Himself as the Head and source of our life. St. Paul amplified the idea and adopted another metaphor to show how the divine life poured from Christ thropugh us. But in both metaphors we see ourselves, not as outside of Jesus Christ and clinging to Him by faith and hope, but as one with Him in close association and union.

All mankind either is in reality or should be by the desire of Jesus Christ part of the Mystical Body of the Son of God. From Him, the Head, the divine life that we call sanctifying grace flows to us the members.

We are one with the Savior of the world, morally one through this solidarity which He established when He took our place and represented us as the victim of our sins; physically one in the common basis of a common human nature; still more closely united in a physical union through the fact that from Him, our Head, flows divine life and vigor through us, His members
 
Tomster,

Much of what you write is common in non-Roman understandings of the Church of Christ. Your shortcoming in describing either modern or orthodox Protestant theory, is likely due to the variety of Protestest expression which resists a common definition.

For example, an orthodox Lutheran understanding of the Church would be very similar to what you describe as the Roman position; i.e., that no one regenerated by grace through lively faith can help but do the good works which are fruit of the Spirit given to the Christian. Indeed it is an alien righteousness that justifies us before God, for all I have are filthy rags to offer from myself, but Christ’s merits are sufficient for me. Thus the good I do, united to Christ through His Holy Church, is still flawed and imperfect, but because it is done in faith, it is received as the fruit of faith. That which I do which is carnal and not based on faith impairs my relationship with Christ and His mystical body, and demands my repentance… that I may receive grace again by faith and be forgiven, restored.

Or, as Melancthon and other Lutheran Reformers wrote, saving faith cannot coexist with mortal sin-- they are contradictory principles. Faith must be active in love, and when we do otherwise, we demonstrate a lack, impairment, or perhaps even a dead faith… which cannot receive grace and cannot save. Thus faith becomes the principle through which we understand the Church to be united in Christ, working out in love toward God and neighbor, in a constant tension between faith and repentance. The Church then becomes the ecclesia of repentant sinners, called by their common Lord and Savior, to a common faith and common life together, receiving together the blessings of His grace and merit-- the end of which being our salvation.

Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top