Anglican Catholic Church?

[eightydeuce82]

P.S hope that didn’t sound too rough if so I apologize.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Thanks, but it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

If you have anything from St. Gregory’s pen (or quill, as the case may be) that states that he rejects the papacy, that would be helpful.

Its actually very relevant since that’s not the area of the council that the Armenians rejected!

 

[PRmerger]

Its actually very relevant since that’s not the area of the council that the Armenians rejected!

Ah, excellent, then.

QED, Novocastrian.

 

[PRmerger]

why does the Roman Catholic Church call themseves the catholic Church in the English version of the Roman Canon,

Source, please?

 

[eightydeuce82]

Ah, excellent, then.

QED, Novocastrian.

It just shows our friend up north here that the path he is going down with the Doctor of the church stuff is a dead end. Its our church who sets the rules for being a Doctor anyway. If tomorrow they wanted to change the requirements they could. The canonization process has changed at least 3 times in its history. Guess what we have the authority to do so as the bride of Christ.

 

[Novocastrian]

You just hit the nail on the head! Is youre “church” universal? I don’t think so. Same goes for any of the other non Catholic people in here. If we are going to get into semantics over the word catholic little c then lets take it for what it is. I don’t believe any protestant “church” can claim universal belief and practice.** I only know of one church who can do that with complete certainty.** So lets cut through the bull here everyone.

Would you say the same thing in the eighth century when the vast majority of Christians in the world were Nestorian? Or in the eleventh, when the bulk of the Chalcedonian church anathematised the isolated little Western patriarchate clinging to the edges of Europe? Because until the sixteenth century the Roman Church didn’t have the claim to “universal belief and practice” that you trumpet now.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Would you say the same thing in the eighth century when the vast majority of Christians in the world were Nestorian? Or in the eleventh, when the bulk of the Chalcedonian church anathematised the isolated little Western patriarchate clinging to the edges of Europe? Because until the sixteenth century the Roman Church didn’t have the claim to “universal belief and practice” that you trumpet now.

It seems I’ve found a* great deal *of consistency in the teachings and public proclamation of the Gospel as contained in the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod. The same message is preached in Virginia as it is in Florida as it is in Pennsylvania. I’ve also seen what I consider some variance in the emphasis between a Catholic parish in the Diocese of Arlington and one in the Diocese of Richmond. One is quite laudably conservative and one is mind- bogglingly liberal. The LCMS has been Scriptural and Confessional all the way.

 

[Novocastrian]

Ah, excellent, then.

QED, Novocastrian.

Chalcedon wasn’t about the divine nature; it dealt primarily with the hypostatic union and the theological legacy of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

As for QED, what you’ve actually just argued is that St. Gregory differed from the Roman Church on doctrine even more fundamental than ecclesiology and the nature of the Roman Primacy. He belonged to a Church which rejected the basic standard of orthodox christology since late antiquity. If anything, you’re presenting an even more un-Roman version of my argument, namely, that someone one can be a Catholic Doctor of the Church even if one rejects orthodox Christology as formulated by an ecumenical council.

Of course, for those who know both their theology and their history, it’s a bit more complicated than that. And more interesting. But your relentless pursuit of ‘gotcha’ moments keeps pushing you into arguments that you actually don’t want to make. I barely have to say or do anything.

And, exhaustingly, my original point still stands. Here we have a man outside the communion of the Holy See who the Roman Pontiffs of today recognise as a Catholic Doctor of the Church, and a saint to boot.

Again, just to be clear: if Gregory had accepted Roman authority, he would have accepted Chalcedon, and we’d know about him either professing communion with a Roman bishop, or causing a fuss in Armenia by saying that he should. Yet it remains the case that we have absolutely no rational grounds for holding those beliefs.

 

[Novocastrian]

This is called “begging the question”, Novo.

You can’t offer as proof an example of something you’re trying to prove.

#circular

No, because I’m not making an a priori claim. You are. You’re claiming that it’s a priori impossible for a Doctor of the Church to be outside the communion of the Roman Pontiff. And you reject everything else on these grounds. It is your argument that is circular.

Here’s why mine isn’t circular: if there is any evidence for St. Gregory being in communion with Rome other than your a priori reasoning, then my argument falls.

 

[Novocastrian]

It seems I’ve found a* great deal *of consistency in the teachings and public proclamation of the Gospel as contained in the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod. The same message is preached in Virginia as it is in Florida as it is in Pennsylvania. I’ve also seen what I consider some variance in the emphasis between a Catholic parish in the Diocese of Arlington and one in the Diocese of Richmond. One is quite laudably conservative and one is mind- bogglingly liberal. The LCMS has been Scriptural and Confessional all the way.

I may be mistaken, but I thought the argument being offered was that the Roman Church is largest, worldwide, etc.

 

[Novocastrian]

It just shows our friend up north here that the path he is going down with the Doctor of the church stuff is a dead end. Its our church who sets the rules for being a Doctor anyway. If tomorrow they wanted to change the requirements they could. The canonization process has changed at least 3 times in its history. Guess what we have the authority to do so as the bride of Christ.

To make a non-Roman Catholic Doctor of the Church? Yeah, that’s my exact point.

 

[Novocastrian]

So lets take this a step further does keeping in communion with the Holy father keep the faith universal, i.e. a universal faith and belief held by all of its members the same all over the world? Yes it certainly does in faith, practice, belief, and morals. Not a bunch of different synods, denominations all teaching a different thing all being swayed by the personal persuasion of each individual pastor and his spin on things. Teaching different perspectives on salvation and the bible in general. I certainly don’t think that even remotely fits into the realm of “universal” at all. So in reality can you really claim catholic? Please spare us the umbrella argument that "well we all believe in Christ universal stuff. there is only one truth not thousands.

Peace.

Straw man. Nobody here is defending doctrinal relativism or the personal interpretation of Scripture by individual pastors.

 

[LutheranScholar]

I may be mistaken, but I thought the argument being offered was that the Roman Church is largest, worldwide, etc.

Meh, the " my house is bigger than your house" argument? Size isn’t everything… what did Jesus say about only a few people being able to enter the narrow door and him ordering his disciples not to hinder somebody doing good just because he wasn’t in their group? Casting out demons, he was doing. St. Paul also said something about not engaging in fruitless arguments over spiritual pedigrees. I think being faithful to the Gospel Message is more important than somebody saying " there are more of us, so we must be true." The Athanasian Creed spells out quite nicely what the catholic faith is. Everything else is just window dressing.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Again, just to be clear: if Gregory had accepted Roman authority, he would have accepted Chalcedon, and we’d know about him either professing communion with a Roman bishop, or causing a fuss in Armenia by saying that he should. Yet it remains the case that we have absolutely no rational grounds for holding those beliefs.

You may have mentioned it earlier, but it also goes to say, at least as regards the hagiography of the Latin Church, that the Latin Church considers St. Seraphim of Sarov and St. Maria Skobtskova (St. Maria of Paris) to be canonized saints (although, not doctors of the church, obviously). These two, even more clearly rejected claims to the primacy and supremacy of the Latin Pope, being they were Russian Orthodox Christians who lived within the last 200 years (1945 for St. Maria).

So, I wonder, then, if the Latin Church considers these two to be Catholic?

 

[eightydeuce82]

Would you say the same thing in the eighth century when the vast majority of Christians in the world were Nestorian? Or in the eleventh, when the bulk of the Chalcedonian church anathematised the isolated little Western patriarchate clinging to the edges of Europe? Because until the sixteenth century the Roman Church didn’t have the claim to “universal belief and practice” that you trumpet now.

Actually your falling for the fallacy that it didn’t when in fact it did. The church never had to defend it. That’s why councils are called. This is demonstrated with the Orthodox who only accept 7 councils which just so happened to require a pope to approve of yet after that they reject the concept. So If I were living anywhere from 33AD-the 6th centuries I would have never given it a thought since it was always known.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Straw man. Nobody here is defending doctrinal relativism or the personal interpretation of Scripture by individual pastors.

Straw man! HA that’s funny!

I love how that comes up when people are done debating and can go no further.

Fact universal or (catholic) means universal and when applied to faith that would mean a body of people who all believe EXACTLY the same this across the whole world. You may think it means something else but certainly that’s not how the word was used in practice for 16 centuries! It doesn’t take away the fact that literally nothing you do as far as practice or belief is anywhere remotely close to universal. So straw man all you want.

 

[eightydeuce82]

You may have mentioned it earlier, but it also goes to say, at least as regards the hagiography of the Latin Church, that the Latin Church considers St. Seraphim of Sarov and St. Maria Skobtskova (St. Maria of Paris) to be canonized saints (although, not doctors of the church, obviously). These two, even more clearly rejected claims to the primacy and supremacy of the Latin Pope, being they were Russian Orthodox Christians who lived within the last 200 years (1945 for St. Maria).

So, I wonder, then, if the Latin Church considers these two to be Catholic?

Probably not but since when does the church put forward someone has to be catholic to be canonized?

 

[PRmerger]

Would you say the same thing in the eighth century when the vast majority of Christians in the world were Nestorian?

This proves our point, Novo. Were it not for my Church, the Catholic Church, defining the nature of Christ, you would be Nestorian in your theology.

Or in the eleventh, when the bulk of the Chalcedonian church anathematised the isolated little Western patriarchate clinging to the edges of Europe? Because until the sixteenth century the Roman Church didn’t have the claim to “universal belief and practice” that you trumpet now.

Of course she did. The Church was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

 

[codefro]

This proves our point, Novo. Were it not for my Church, the Catholic Church, defining the nature of Christ, you would be Nestorian in your theology.

Of course she did. The Church was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

 

[Novocastrian]

This proves our point, Novo. Were it not for my Church, the Catholic Church, defining the nature of Christ, you would be Nestorian in your theology.

Our Church, the Catholic Church

But seriously, if you mean Rome alone, then I’m just going to point at Alexandria and Antioch.

Of course she did. The Church was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Sure, I agree. But the argument seemed to be that since your church in communion with Rome was the most ‘universal’ now, it must always have been. But maybe I have misunderstood your argument here.