M
mercygate
Guest
What do you mean by “the entire canon of the Roman Catholic Church?”
The “canon” I refer to is the table of contents of the Bible.
- Status
The “canon” I refer to is the table of contents of the Bible.
K
Kurt_G
Guest
Berean -
Not to get in the way of the ongoing discussion, but I must apologize for missing your post #108. My post #103 to Mercygate did involve you, but I truly intended no sarcasm. I guess my point was that you introduced a veritable “waterfall” of accusions against the Church, all in one post. Each one of those accusations would make a good thread topic, many already have. And, many people here seem willing and able to explain and defend the Catholic position, without sarcasm (usually). But I probably read your message wrongly. I read the ol’ “Let me give you a list of where the Church is wrong, and buddy it’s a long list, and there’s no way the Church could possibly defend all these points” position into your post. That’s just how it came across to me, and now I don’t think you intended it that way. But try a few key issues, one or two at a time. I bet you get some interest!
God Bless Us All!
Not to get in the way of the ongoing discussion, but I must apologize for missing your post #108. My post #103 to Mercygate did involve you, but I truly intended no sarcasm. I guess my point was that you introduced a veritable “waterfall” of accusions against the Church, all in one post. Each one of those accusations would make a good thread topic, many already have. And, many people here seem willing and able to explain and defend the Catholic position, without sarcasm (usually). But I probably read your message wrongly. I read the ol’ “Let me give you a list of where the Church is wrong, and buddy it’s a long list, and there’s no way the Church could possibly defend all these points” position into your post. That’s just how it came across to me, and now I don’t think you intended it that way. But try a few key issues, one or two at a time. I bet you get some interest!
God Bless Us All!
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I am interested, purely on a personal level and without any apologetic intent, to learn if your studies have shown that the “Celtic Church” is of an older foundation than Rome? I put Celtic in inverted commas because what we are really talking about is the Roman-occupied area of Britain and parts of Wales.
Ah, the Encyclopaedia strikes again!
It has masses of disinformation and needs to be thoroughly overhauled.There are two issues here -
- The “Celtic” Easter dating -which is what the Enc. has in mind. In point of fact two thirds of Ireland had ALREADY changed to the Nicene calculation of Easter before Whitby waas called. Whitby was called as a local Northumbrian Synod. To be accurate it was not a Synod of the Church, but a Witan summoned by the King, a gathering of all classes and ranks of society both ecclesiastical and lay.
- The Celtic customs as a whole continued — the Celtic form of monasticism continued well into the 10th century and was suppressed by the Synod of Cashel in 1072, called by the Anglo-Norman invaders. The Celtic form of the Liturgy also continued for another 400 years, until it was dealt the death blow at the Synod of Cashel also, and the Sarum Rite from England was imposed on all of Ireland.
By and large, the scholarship of the previous century, on which the Enc. depends, believed that Whitby was of major importance in the life of the Celtic Church but it was not. Anti-Catholics point to Whitby as the time when the Romans imposed their iron-fisted control on Britain, but we know that that is not exactly true either although the matter starts to be complicated.
J
JGC
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
It has its uses but has be treated with caution. It’s of its time. A diocesan website rcag.org.uk/Links/index.htm here has it on its link pages and states ‘this is an OLD edition, some articles are still useful’
Having perused a few articles it is written in the old’ fortress’ mentality, and a very Latin mentality at that. The ‘Latin trads’ here have almost accorded it near Biblical status. Eastern Catholic posters in other threads have highlighted inaccuracies and prejudicies. And it was written by laypeople to boot. Don’t use it as a primary source! Generally the CCC should be your first port of call.
From Ask an Apologist
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…524&postcount=2
Dear Melvyn,
The Catholic Encyclopedia available on the internet is out of print, though it is superior in many areas. As good as it is, it is outdated in some areas. The New Catholic Encyclopedia is in print and is good, but the New Advent one is good to have as a supplement. The new one isn’t cheap. For more information, see: cuapress.cua.edu/NCE/NCEDescription.htm
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Yes the ‘almost biblical’ status accorded to that Encyclopedia still annoys me!
Oh dear. That Encyclopedia again…Ah, the Encyclopaedia strikes again!
It has its uses but has be treated with caution. It’s of its time. A diocesan website rcag.org.uk/Links/index.htm here has it on its link pages and states ‘this is an OLD edition, some articles are still useful’
Having perused a few articles it is written in the old’ fortress’ mentality, and a very Latin mentality at that. The ‘Latin trads’ here have almost accorded it near Biblical status. Eastern Catholic posters in other threads have highlighted inaccuracies and prejudicies. And it was written by laypeople to boot. Don’t use it as a primary source! Generally the CCC should be your first port of call.
From Ask an Apologist
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…524&postcount=2
Dear Melvyn,
The Catholic Encyclopedia available on the internet is out of print, though it is superior in many areas. As good as it is, it is outdated in some areas. The New Catholic Encyclopedia is in print and is good, but the New Advent one is good to have as a supplement. The new one isn’t cheap. For more information, see: cuapress.cua.edu/NCE/NCEDescription.htm
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Yes the ‘almost biblical’ status accorded to that Encyclopedia still annoys me!
B
Berean
Guest
Mercygate The Roman Catholic canon law is much more than you are able to find in your bible. Don’t quote me on this date but I beilieve that in 1965 the canon of the immaculate conception of Mary was a decree from the Council of Trent. I will not argue the Churches authority to canonize subjects like this as it is not my goal to upset anyone. Please I don’t want to provoke any one to sin because that would not please our Lord. Love in Christ.
B
Berean
Guest
Kurt G.:
Thank you Kurt God bless you brother
M
mayra_hart
Guest
some protestantsclaim acts 15 shows that james, not peter, was the head of the church. since james the less gives the concluding remarks at the council of jerusalem and also recommends some marriage and dietary regulations for the gentiles, they concluded that james must be the head of the church. we must remind protestants to read the gospels, where st. peter is unmistakably presented as a leader among the apostles, whereas st james the less is not.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
mayra hart:
I can assure you that Saint John is certainly not a Protestant. He is one the greatest of the Church Fathers ever to have lived. His brilliance and eloquence and his insight into Scripture have never been matched by any other Saints.
Here is his life and works in the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm
Are you referring to the commentary from Saint John Chrysostom which I gave earlier?some protestants claim acts 15 shows that james, not peter, was the head of the church. since james the less gives the concluding remarks at the council of jerusalem and also recommends some marriage and dietary regulations for the gentiles, they concluded that james must be the head of the church. we must remind protestants to read the gospels, where st. peter is unmistakably presented as a leader among the apostles, whereas st james the less is not.
I can assure you that Saint John is certainly not a Protestant. He is one the greatest of the Church Fathers ever to have lived. His brilliance and eloquence and his insight into Scripture have never been matched by any other Saints.
Here is his life and works in the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
Father Ambrose:
There’s a lot scholars are still tying to learn about the “Celtic” Church, but I’ve seen nothing that suggests to me that they werre not orthodox Catholic (or, if you would, “orthodox Orthodox”!).
I don’t know if there churches founded in England before Peter went to Rome. I suspect not. Frankly, I don’t see how this is relevant for anything.
Mayra Hart was not referring to Saint John’s claim that James presided over the Jerusalem Church and/or Counci, but to the modern Protestant claim that James ruled over the Church universal.
I walready quoted and documented Saint John’s saying that Saint James’ rule over the Jeruslame Church does not contradict Peter’s universal rulership.
There’s a lot scholars are still tying to learn about the “Celtic” Church, but I’ve seen nothing that suggests to me that they werre not orthodox Catholic (or, if you would, “orthodox Orthodox”!).
I don’t know if there churches founded in England before Peter went to Rome. I suspect not. Frankly, I don’t see how this is relevant for anything.
Mayra Hart was not referring to Saint John’s claim that James presided over the Jerusalem Church and/or Counci, but to the modern Protestant claim that James ruled over the Church universal.
I walready quoted and documented Saint John’s saying that Saint James’ rule over the Jeruslame Church does not contradict Peter’s universal rulership.
M
mercygate
Guest
Berean, my Buddy, we’re talking about two entirely different things here.
The word “canon” simply means ‘measure’ or ‘rule.’
The “**canon **of Scripture” is the Bible: the table of contents.
The Code of Canon Law is a set of ‘rules’ 9"canons" by which the Church operates. Details change as circumstances change. The most recent was compiled in 1983. The one before that was 1917.
Immaculate Conception: declared dogma in 1854, but the belief had been held for many centuries beforehand. (But that’s a subject for the course, “Advanced Concepts of Catholicism” – we’re still in “Catholic 101” at this point.
M
mercygate
Guest
Berean, my Buddy, we’re talking about two entirely different things here.
The word “canon” simply means ‘measure’ or ‘rule.’
The “**canon **of Scripture” is the Bible: the table of contents.
The Code of Canon Law is a set of ‘rules’ (canons) by which the Church operates. Details change as circumstances change. The most recent was compiled in 1983. The one before that was 1917.
Immaculate Conception: declared dogma in 1854, but the belief had been held for many centuries beforehand. (But that’s a subject for the course, “Advanced Concepts of Catholicism” – we’re still in “Catholic 101” at this point.)
B
Berean
Guest
Mercygate:
Thanks I do know a little something about the Church, I was raised Catholic and in Church every Sunday, Saturday night for Confession, Catholic School, CCD and all of the Sacraments up to and including Confirmation. So I have quite a solid Catholic background. At one time I could quote the entire Baltimore Catechism, It was a school contest and I was tops in my class, enough about me. What we have to remember is that according to Papal infallibility the authority has been given to the Pope with or without the Magisterium to formulate moral teaching and interpretation for the bible. The sacred body of faith is a combination of God’ Word and Church traditions handed down through Apostolic succession. The Council of Trent stated that “the bible is not sufficient for faith and morals thereby making tradition a necessity”. You are not suggesting that the Catholic Canon be excluded from the sacred body of faith are you? If you are this is something that I may need to brush up on. Hmmm! Thank you for the good dialogue Love in Jesus.
M
mercygate
Guest
Yeah. Ya gotta brush up.
The Code of Canon Law is just a collection of Standard Operating Procedures. You don’t get any discussion of, say, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. So it isn’t a place to go for “the sacred body of faith.” It’s a guide to making the faith workable in practical terms.
When you say you have read it, I believe you might be thinking of something else – like the formidable Baltimore Catechism, perhaps? (What level were you? The high school edition was outstanding.)
The Code of Canon Law assumes “the sacred body of faith;” it doesn’t discuss it. You get directives about juridical persons; canonical persons; administration of Sacraments; standards for marriage (who can marry; how a marriage must be conducted and registered); who may become a priest, and what formation must be completed; definitions and governance of institutes of consecrated life; how to elect a pope . . .
Only a weirdo like me would have a copy of the *Code of Canon Law *on his bookshelf next to the Catechism.
B
Berean
Guest
Mercygate check out this website It may explain my position. gnfc.org/ant_v1n2_canon.htmlYeah. Ya gotta brush up.
The Code of Canon Law is just a collection of Standard Operating Procedures. You don’t get any discussion of, say, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. So it isn’t a place to go for “the sacred body of faith.” It’s a guide to making the faith workable in practical terms.
When you say you have read it, I believe you might be thinking of something else – like the formidable Baltimore Catechism, perhaps? (What level were you? The high school edition was outstanding.)
The Code of Canon Law assumes “the sacred body of faith;” it doesn’t discuss it. You get directives about juridical persons; canonical persons; administration of Sacraments; standards for marriage (who can marry; how a marriage must be conducted and registered); who may become a priest, and what formation must be completed; definitions and governance of institutes of consecrated life; how to elect a pope . . .
Only a weirdo like me would have a copy of the *Code of Canon Law *on his bookshelf next to the Catechism.
P
prodromos
Guest
Dear Berean,
you made the above statement a few days ago and in response I asked if you could post any evidence of Christians holding the same beliefs and worshipping in the same manner as your church in the first nineteen centuries after Christ established His church.
If your church is the true church then we should be able to trace its existence from Pentecost until today, since Christ called the church the “pillar and ground of truth” and promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against her.
Being a model of the first century church is not the same as being the first century church.
John
M
mercygate
Guest
I have an early meeting today and a gazillion e-mails to answer first. I looked at roughly the 1st half of this and found it to be pretty much on the money. Canon Law is a way to govern life in Christ; it maps out the structures and processes by which we live the Gospel life in real life.
TTYL.
M
mercygate
Guest
Had a chance to speed-read the article. Aside from the predictable Protestant indignation over the fact that the Church is still Catholic and thinks she has the right to govern herself, the author pretty much nails it.
Yes. The Church does make pronouncements over things like the validity of non-Catholic marriages. The Church is STILL not Protestant. We still have a Pope. The Church believes she has the obligation to comment on Divine Law.
Berean, the Code of Canon Law is still not the place to look for explanations of doctrine. It’s the operating manual.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a better place to look for fundamentals of doctrine. If you were taught from the Baltimore Catechism, you should find the new Catechism an interesting contrast. It is very beautiful. One of the high points is that it is absolutely littered with quotations from the Fathers, from the saints and mystics . . . Since 90% of what all Christians believe overlaps, I frequently recommend the Catechism to non-Catholics because it so beautifully outlines the common elements of the faith. It’s a hot fudge sundae of Christian truth, with whipped cream and a cherry on top!
B
Berean
Guest
the place to look for explanations of doctrine. It’s the operating manual.
Mercygate : these cut and pastes are labeled except for the top one which comes from the Catholic advent page. I maintain that the Catholic Canon law is considered equal to the Word of God because of Papal succession and authority.
Canon law is sometimes styled pontifical law (jus pontificium), often also it is termed sacred law (jus sacrum), and sometimes even Divine law (jus divinum: c. 2, De privil.), as it concerns holy things, and has for its object the wellbeing of souls in the society divinely established **by **Jesus Christ.
Canon law may be divided into various branches, according to the points of view from which it is considered:
If we consider its sources, it comprises Divine law, including natural law, based on the nature of things and on the constitution given by Jesus Christ to His Church
The ultimate source of canon law is God, Whose will is manifested either by the very nature of things (natural Divine law), or by Revelation (positive Divine law). Both are contained in the Scriptures and in Tradition. Positive Divine law cannot contradict natural law; it rather confirms it and renders it more definite.
As defined The First Vatican Council:
The Infallibility of the Pope The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra-that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority. He defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Chuich, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves and not in virtue of consent of the Church."
The Second Vatican Council put it this way:
The Roman Pontiff enjoy-, this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful … he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that reason his definitions are said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself: and as a consequence they are in no *way *in need of the approval of other, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does lie expound and defend die teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church’s charism of infallibility is present in a singular way.
Just because we have these differences dose not mean that we are not brothers in Christ because we both observe and profess the following.
1John 4:13-15 13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
We both confess Jesus is God. Love and peace to you.
M
mercygate
Guest
R
RBushlow
Guest
Descipleof1,
In addition to the below, I also recommend Eusibius’ “The History of the Church”. Eusibius was borne around 260 AD and wrote a comprehensive history of the Church.
RBushlow:
In addition to the below, I also recommend Eusibius’ “The History of the Church”. Eusibius was borne around 260 AD and wrote a comprehensive history of the Church.
May God bless and be a light unto your path in your search for the truth.
- Status