Are you really Catholic? Let's do the Creeds

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ByzCath said:
Yes, simply you are determining the Christianity of a person when you ask if they are baptized, you are not really determining Catholicity.

Everyone is a member of the Church though baptism, but not everyone is a practicing member of the Catholic Church and it is not within the authority of the lay person to determine this.
Click to expand...
“Do you go to mass every Sunday?” “No.” “Got a good reason for it?” “No, I don’t care.”

“Guess what? You’re not a practicing Catholic.”

Simple.

I’d be careful about dividing Catholicity and Christianity btw.
 
\
“It is absurd and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed, which we have received from the fathers of old.” - St. Thomas Aquinas\

Therefore, according to Aquinas, it was absurd and a destable shame for Rome, after years of fighting the insertion of Filioque, to have added it.
 
I love the Nicene Creed(Roman Catholic version) the most!!!😃
 
bpbasilphx said:
\
“It is absurd and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed, which we have received from the fathers of old.” - St. Thomas Aquinas\

Therefore, according to Aquinas, it was absurd and a destable shame for Rome, after years of fighting the insertion of Filioque, to have added it.
Click to expand...
Since the filoque is in scripture, I would not be too concerned since we have that oldest tradition. 🙂
 
The Union of Brest (1595-96) allowed the Ukrainian Catholic Church to recite the Nicene Creed without the addition of the Filioque. The Union of Ungvár (Union of Uzhhorod) in 1646 granted the same privilege to the Ruthenian Catholic Church, just to name a few. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The addition of the Filioque is not required (emphasis mine) even in Italy, for at Rome the Creed is still said in Greek without it; but there it is simply an ancient custom and no indication of any difference in doctrine.” In addition, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed **without **the *Filioque *(see links to [#17]](http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2004/documents/ns_lit_doc_20040629_rite_en.html) and Video).

That being said, the interpretation of the Catholic Church about the Filioque IS that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father through (emphasis mine) the Son” (CCC 248 and AG 2) and NOT that there is a dual procession from the Father and the Son as most translations of the Nicene Creed (including the English one) would lead to believe. Many Eastern Orthodox Christians also accept this interpretation, although they continue to insist that the Filioque should not have been unilaterally added to the Creed by the ‘Western Church’ as this was forbidden by Canon VII of the First Council of Ephesus (431).
 
The Tridentine Creed, from Pius IV’s bull Injunction Nobis, predates the First Vatican Council by about 300 years.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.iv.html
Mattapoisett64 said:
The “Tridentine Creed” clearly is a post-Vatican I loyalty oath, both in terms of its content (“by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching”), and its structure (“And I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same faith shall be held, taught, and professed by all those over whom I have charge. I N. do so pledge, promise, and swear, so help me God and these Holy Gospels of God.”)
Click to expand...
 
Shin said:
“Do you go to mass every Sunday?” “No.” “Got a good reason for it?” “No, I don’t care.”

“Guess what? You’re not a practicing Catholic.”

Simple.

I’d be careful about dividing Catholicity and Christianity btw.
Click to expand...
There you go, “not a practicing Catholic”. It is the Church who determines its membership and you really have no right to ask those questions let alone any answers to them.

I divide Catholicity and Christianity because, as it stands today, not every Christian is Catholic.
 
Ultima_Ratio said:
Do they accept the dogma of Papal Infallibility? If not that makes them heretics, at least objectively speaking.
Click to expand...
I do not think that we can charge heresy on those who are outside of the Church.

By your definition then everyone not Catholic is a heretic.

This is not how it has been used. Heresy is a charged by the authority of the Church (again, not the laity) on those within the Church.
 
This argument reads like something from an Orson Scott Card novel. The usernames, even, are almost too apt — like they were chosen so very specifically for this argument. ByzCath and Dogmatist?

If it means anything, I’d like to remind the players to cool their jets, and more than a little. This typical Internet forum bitterness — or is it academic? From all the cattiness, it’s hard to tell — is hardly in the spirit of how Ven. John Paul II asked believers to frame such matters, or even Benedict XVI. Discourse, but pleasantly, please.

Also, the Nicene Creed blows the Apostle’s Creed out of the water. Ah, the memories of the Latin mass, sung in chant. I prefer the filioque, if only because the chant sounds better with it in.
 
Shin said:
I don’t think it takes a doctrinal denial for a layperson to be more Catholic than the Pope. A Pope can be quite as sinful as a layman, care nothing for tradition, and steer the Church towards shipwreck because of any reason he decides upon, he has all these capacities. In such a case, your average devout Catholic would in fact be ‘more Catholic than the Pope’. 😃

The last shall be first, the first last.

But of course, in general people just say that to anyone who critiques anything any Pope does, assuming a position of moral superiority because they in this instance do not wish to criticize the Pope on whatever the issue is (but may often feel free elsewhere to do so).

I think the accusation and phrase needs to die the death frankly.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It’s a completely illogical phrase used only by those who grossly misunderstand Papal Infallibility and think a Pope can never be disagreed with nor criticised.

I await Juliamajor’s answer.
 
ByzCath said:
For me this statement means that a person has raised themselves above the “pope”, above the authority of the Church.

It is the Church that determines the Catholicity of people, not a lay person with an agenda.

While a person a technically be more Catholic than a pope, especially than one as described by Jinn, that person will never hold any authority over the Church or the pope.
Click to expand...
Hmm. The Church holds a sacred doctrine for centuries.
A pope (while not involking the Magisterium) denies this doctrine.
Faithfull Catholics continue to hold the Catholic doctrine.
Now they are somehow setting themselves above the Pope and giving themselves authority??

These are the people that “Neoconservatives” (or whatever you want to call them) call “protestants”, “more Catholic than the Pope” and “disobedient”.
 
AlanF said:
Hmm. The Church holds a sacred doctrine for centuries.
A pope (while not involking the Magisterium) denies this doctrine.
Faithfull Catholics continue to hold the Catholic doctrine.
Now they are somehow setting themselves above the Pope and giving themselves authority??

These are the people that “Neoconservatives” (or whatever you want to call them) call “protestants”, “more Catholic than the Pope” and “disobedient”.
Click to expand...
I know of no “sacred doctrine” that the Church has changed.
 
AlanF said:
It is impossible for the Church to change a doctrine.
My question was about a hypothetical pope denying a doctrine.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this would be a possibility, theologically speaking. If it happened, it would imply the whole system was set up on premises that were wrong. (Which wouldn’t bother me, but I am pretty sure it wouldn’t work for Catholics.)
 
AlanF said:
It is impossible for the Church to change a doctrine.
My question was about a hypothetical pope denying a doctrine.
Click to expand...
I do not see how this hypothetical question has any bearing on this thread.

You have answered it so I do no know why you need me to answer it for you.

As I stated, I know of no doctrine that has been changed by the Church.
 
ByzCath said:
I do not see how this hypothetical question has any bearing on this thread.

You have answered it so I do no know why you need me to answer it for you.

As I stated, I know of no doctrine that has been changed by the Church.
Click to expand...
The question was in response to Juliamajor’s use of the unfortunate phrase “more Catholic than the Pope.” It was asked in the hope that she would answer it and see the silliness of that phrase.

As I said, it is impossible for the Church to change a doctrine, the question was about the personal opinions of a hypothetical pope.
 
Bluegoat said:
I don’t think this would be a possibility, theologically speaking. If it happened, it would imply the whole system was set up on premises that were wrong. (Which wouldn’t bother me, but I am pretty sure it wouldn’t work for Catholics.)
Click to expand...
What are you saying? Do you mean it wouldn’t be a possibility for a pope to deny a doctrine?
 
AlanF said:
The question was in response to Juliamajor’s use of the unfortunate phrase “more Catholic than the Pope.” It was asked in the hope that she would answer it and see the silliness of that phrase.

As I said, it is impossible for the Church to change a doctrine, the question was about the personal opinions of a hypothetical pope.
Click to expand...
Yet today there are people who act “more Catholic than the Pope” because the Church has changed disciplines.

I think my explanation of what that phrase is better than your attempt.

Also, if your attempt was to engage Juliamajor in the discussion then it might have worked better if you quoted her in your post rather than quote a reply of mine. Especially a reply of mine that had nothing to do with that phrase. Hence my confusion in your post.
 
AlanF said:
What are you saying? Do you mean it wouldn’t be a possibility for a pope to deny a doctrine?
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think that is true, personally. But yes, I think that a pope denying doctrine (while he is pope) would be a bit of a theological problem, even if it was not done in an “official” capacity.

That being said, I am fuzzy on the background of this and would need someone to point me in the direction of the right documents to back it up.

OK - this is the answer I found in the apologists section, I have no reason to doubt it, though it isn’t detailed, there are a few links on the page.

The question posed is “Can the Pope be a heretic?”
The Holy Spirit protects the Church from a pope definitively promulgating for the universal Church an error in a matter of doctrine or morals; he doesn’t necessarily inspire a pope to hold to right doctrine. For more information, please see the links below.
Click to expand...
Here is from one of the links:
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top