Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[JasonTE]

BobCatholic:

Remember, 1) through 5) are all not the same thing! Your comment does, however, lead me to believe that you think all of them are rites of the Catholic Church (which is not true)

I wasn’t responding to your list, which is irrelevant. My series is about one denomination and its historical claims. Criticizing me for not also addressing other denominations doesn’t justify your claim that I was singling out one rite within the denomination I did address. The fact that my series isn’t about Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t prove that my series is only about one rite within Roman Catholicism.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[BobCatholic]

JasonTE:

Criticizing me for not also addressing other denominations doesn’t justify your claim that I was singling out one rite within the denomination I did address. The fact that my series isn’t about Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t prove that my series is only about one rite within Roman Catholicism.

No, the fact that you don’t have a series about Eastern Orthodoxy or Anglicanism or another “denomination” shows that you ARE singling out one Church in particular: The Catholic Church and since I don’t see any links about Eastern Catholic Churches, the case can be made that you’re singling one rite.

It is interesting the explanations how attacking one is not “singling out”…

I’m still waiting to see your “Catholic but not…” series about another church. Oh wait, you’re not “singling” out anyone, according to how you define the word

 

[JasonTE]

BobCatholic:

I’m still waiting to see your “Catholic but not…” series about another church. Oh wait, you’re not “singling” out anyone, according to how you define the word

I didn’t say that I’m not singling out any entity of any type. What I denied is that I was singling out one rite within your denomination, which was what you accused me of earlier. You’re changing your argument, since you apparently don’t want to acknowledge that you were wrong.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[BobCatholic]

JasonTE:

I didn’t say that I’m not singling out any entity of any type.

Really? So you do admit you’re singling out the Catholic Church

What I denied is that I was singling out one rite within your denomination, which was what you accused me of earlier.

Wonderful. So Please post links about “Catholic but not [Eastern Catholic rite]” then It should be easy to do since you’re not singling any one rite, correct?

You’re changing your argument, since you apparently don’t want to acknowledge that you were wrong.

No, you’re changing your argument since you won’t admit you’re concentrating on one particular church

And you STILL haven’t discussed the catholophobia aspect.

 

[JasonTE]

BobCatholic:

So Please post links about “Catholic but not [Eastern Catholic rite]” then It should be easy to do since you’re not singling any one rite, correct?

Every rite within the Roman Catholic denomination is supposed to accept doctrines that are accepted by other rites within the denomination (the papacy, the Immaculate Conception, etc.). Each segment of my series that addresses such a doctrine, and there are many such segments, is relevant to every one of those rites.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[PhilVaz]

Okay the Fathers were “Catholic” and called themselves “Catholic” (but not “Roman Catholic”) – now what does that mean? I don’t believe your series ever addressed that. It does address specific doctrines, specific Fathers, and some history, but not the definition of “Catholic” (correct me if I’m wrong, your series is rather long )

Here is what the Catechism says “Catholic” means

I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church

I don’t know what church you go to (I assume some independent, baptist type evangelical church), but do you ever recite this line from the Creed: “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” ?

The article by Kenneth Whitehead above is quite good also.

Phil P

 

[JasonTE]

PhilVaz,

As I explain in the introduction to my series, the term “catholic” has multiple definitions. Some people use it with a capital “C” to refer to your denomination. Other people use it in a more general sense, with a capital “C” or small “c”, as a synonym for “universal”. Different people include different groups within the term. As I document in my series, the church fathers defined the church in a variety of ways. Though the fathers often referred to church unity, “the catholic church”, “the catholic faith”, etc., they often held contradictory doctrines and belonged to governmentally independent churches. The same occurs today. Individuals and groups often have unity in one sense without having unity in other senses. People can use terms like “the catholic church”, “the catholic faith”, or “unity” without believing in a worldwide denomination led by a Pope. What the title of my series (“Catholic, But Not Roman Catholic”) is conveying is the fact that there can be a catholic church or catholic faith in the patristic era, and there can be references to such an entity in the writings of the fathers, without those fathers having been Roman Catholic.

PhilVaz:

I don’t know what church you go to (I assume some independent, baptist type evangelical church), but do you ever recite this line from the Creed: “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” ?

Inside the cover of one of my older Bibles that I had when I was younger, I have a copy of the Apostles’ Creed that we were given in a Sunday school class I attended in an Evangelical Free church. If you do a web search, you can find all sorts of citations of the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc. at Protestant web sites, in Protestant books, in Protestant church services, etc. To cite one example that comes to mind, I have a book by Hank Hanegraaff on a book shelf next to me as I write this post, and that book contains an appendix on “The Three Universal Creeds”. If you listen to his radio program (or other Protestant radio programs, authors, musicians, theologians, etc.), you’ll frequently hear references to “the historic Christian faith”, “the church”, “the body of Christ”, etc. Such terminology is common among many groups. Roman Catholics often assume their own definition of those terms when they see them in the church fathers, but that assumption can be, and often is, erroneous.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[BobCatholic]

JasonTE:

Every rite within the Roman Catholic denomination

It is not a denomination. Those started in the 16th century.

is supposed to accept doctrines that are accepted by other rites

Dogmas, yes. Practices and disciplines, no. The Eastern rites have differing liturgies, practices and disciplines. Your series does not address this.

 

[srkbdk]

BobCatholic:

Then why is your series not titled “Catholic but not Byzantine Catholic” or “Catholic but not Melkite Catholic” or “Catholic but not Maronite Catholic” or …

Obviously, you’re fixated on the Roman rite.

It is not a denomination.

That’s the Roman rite of the Catholic Church.

That’s not why I said you’re a “scumbag” It is your catholophobic attitude that makes you that.

Bob ther is no reason to call names it is degrading unchristian of you. Please find a way to address the problem without attacking the person.

 

[srkbdk]

Jason;

A few questions for you.

You believe the Christian Church was intended by God to be Catholic?

How do you view Peter’s role in the Church and why?

If you believe the Christian Church was intended by God to be Catholic, how does that happen without and authority?

There has always been disagreemet in the Catholic Church, but once it got to Peter’s Chair the matter is settled.

God Bless and Have a Great day

 

[JasonTE]

BobCatholic:

Dogmas, yes. Practices and disciplines, no. The Eastern rites have differing liturgies, practices and disciplines. Your series does not address this.

You still haven’t justified your earlier claim that my series only addresses one rite. I don’t have to address every aspect of every rite in order for my series to be relevant to multiple rites.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

srkbdk:

You believe the Christian Church was intended by God to be Catholic?

The term “church” has been defined in many different ways over the years. But, yes, the term sometimes refers to a universal (catholic) entity, such as the spiritual church of Ephesians 4:16 or its physical manifestation in the form of all local assemblies as a collective entity.

srkbdk:

How do you view Peter’s role in the Church and why?

He wasn’t a Pope, and the other apostles didn’t view him as a Pope. But he did have some leadership roles. He was often, though not always, a leader or spokesman among the disciples during Jesus’ earthly ministry. He was an apostle (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1), an eyewitness of Jesus’ earthly life (1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16), an elder (1 Peter 5:1), and an evangelist who served a unique historical purpose (Acts 15:7). He was a rock upon whom the church was built. He was among the greatest of the apostles. I would place him second, after Paul, who I consider to be “the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ” (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:63).

srkbdk:

If you believe the Christian Church was intended by God to be Catholic, how does that happen without and authority?

I don’t deny that there are authorities in the world. Scripture has authority. Church leaders have authority. Parents have authority. Government officials have authority. But the latter three are fallible subordinate authorities, whereas scripture isn’t. I agree with The Didache, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyprian, and other patristic sources when they say that church leaders are to be followed only as far as they’re faithful to the original revelation given by God through the apostles. Past generations weren’t necessarily correct in everything they believed, and even the highest of religious leaders can sometimes err. We have to keep going back to the original revelation given by God, much as we see in 2 Kings 22:8-13 and Nehemiah 8:13-17.

srkbdk:

There has always been disagreemet in the Catholic Church, but once it got to Peter’s Chair the matter is settled.

The concept of Peter’s chair has been defined in different ways over the centuries. Some church fathers refer to all bishops as successors of Peter or refer to a chair of Peter being in Antioch or some other place in addition to Rome. And the New Testament and the earliest church fathers say nothing of a chair of Peter at all. The church of Rome and the bishop of Rome were often prominent, sometimes even the most prominent church and bishop in the world, but not always and not necessarily in a papal sense. There’s a consensus among modern scholars, including Roman Catholic scholars, that the earliest Christians did not believe in the universal jurisdiction of Peter or the bishops of Rome. The church of Rome was prominent, but the bishop of Rome wasn’t a Pope. The earliest sources to comment on the significance of the Roman church give non-papal reasons for the church’s significance. If there had been a papacy at the time, they surely would not only have mentioned it as a reason for the Roman church’s significance, but even as the primary reason. But they don’t mention it at all.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[BobCatholic]

JasonTE:

You still haven’t justified your earlier claim that my series only addresses one rite. I don’t have to address every aspect of every rite in order for my series to be relevant to multiple rites.

That’s like saying multiple rites of the Catholic Church are identical, which they’re not. Your series does not make any distinction. Unless you’ve made some changes to it and address Eastern rites, if so, please post the links here and I’ll retract my claim you confuse all the rites of the Catholic Church as being Roman only.

You still haven’t justified why your series is only focused on the Catholic Church. Nothing about the Eastern Orthdox, nothing about Anglicans, nothing about any protestant denominations.

Your guns are focused only in one direction: Rome.

You also didn’t address lepanto’s post.

 

[Kristofer]

I just read the whole thread and must say that I found it quite provocative. However, I also find it slightly disturbing. Here is the reason: this thread has turned into a public debate. That in itself is not bad. The problem arises when two (or more) people involved stop **listening ** and talking to each other as Christians and instead battle for the last word. I have been guilty of it, I know. This comes from pride and ego; no one wants to be (nor believes that he is) wrong. Just remember, we are ALL called to glorify God. Remember that each person on this forum is hopefully trying to do just that.

I have enjoyed this thread and hope that it can shed some light on certain issues for all who read it and post to it. We must bear in mind that we all feel that we are doing God’s work, whether Catholic or not, so let’s continue to serve Him and see Him in each other.

 

[BobCatholic]

JasonTE:

The term “church” has been defined in many different ways over the years. But, yes, the term sometimes refers to a universal (catholic) entity, such as the spiritual church of Ephesians 4:16 or its physical manifestation in the form of all local assemblies as a collective entity.

Who makes the judgment that the term “church” is being used in one way or another? Why should we listen to this opinion?

He wasn’t a Pope, and the other apostles didn’t view him as a Pope.

So you’re claiming to read the minds of the other Apostles? My, you have some gift!

Scripture has authority. Church leaders have authority. Parents have authority. Government officials have authority. But the latter three are fallible subordinate authorities, whereas scripture isn’t. I agree with The Didache, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyprian, and other patristic sources when they say that church leaders are to be followed only as far as they’re faithful to the original revelation given by God through the apostles.

Who makes this judgment that church leaders are being faithful to the original revelation given by God through the Apostles? Who makes the judgment what is the original revelation given by God through the Apostles?

And the New Testamen and the earliest church fathers say nothing of a chair of Peter at all.

The New Testament doesn’t mention the words “Trinity” or “Bible” but that doesn’t mean the idea of the Trinity or the Bible being in there.

There’s a consensus among modern scholars, including Roman Catholic scholars, that the earliest Christians did not believe in the universal jurisdiction of Peter or the bishops of Rome.

Infallibility of modern scholars. Where is that in the Bible?

The church of Rome was prominent, but the bishop of Rome wasn’t a Pope.

Hmmm…so what you’re saying is somehow a church is prominent, but the bishop that leads that church is not prominent. Allrightey

 

[JasonTE]

BobCatholic:

That’s like saying multiple rites of the Catholic Church are identical, which they’re not. Your series does not make any distinction. Unless you’ve made some changes to it and address Eastern rites, if so, please post the links here and I’ll retract my claim you confuse all the rites of the Catholic Church as being Roman only.

Why would I have to discuss the differences between rites in order to be addressing all rites? Do I have to discuss the differences between Republicans and Democrats in order to be addressing both groups when I refer to Americans in general?

BobCatholic:

You still haven’t justified why your series is only focused on the Catholic Church. Nothing about the Eastern Orthdox, nothing about Anglicans, nothing about any protestant denominations.

Why haven’t your posts in this forum discussed the price of gasoline or the war in Iraq? Probably because this forum is about a specific subject, and that subject isn’t gas prices or the war in Iraq. When people write something, such as a magazine article, a book, or an online post (like my series on the church fathers), they have a subject in mind that they want to write about. When Karl Keating writes a book in response to fundamentalism, do you criticize him for not including some chapters on Buddhism, atheism, and Islam? Must every book that’s written cover every conceivable topic? Since the RCC is a large denomination that makes significant historical claims, I don’t think it’s difficult to understand why somebody would want to write something in response to those claims. Complaining that I don’t also address Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, etc. in my series is about as reasonable as complaining that Karl Keating didn’t include a chapter on Satanists in his book against fundamentalism.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

BobCatholic:

Hmmm…so what you’re saying is somehow a church is prominent, but the bishop that leads that church is not prominent. Allrightey

No, I said that the Roman church can be prominent without the Roman bishop being a Pope. There’s a difference between prominence and papal authority. You can be prominent without having an office of universal jurisdiction believed to have been passed down from the apostles.

You asked some questions about how we know what to believe on disputed subjects (how to define the church, what authority Peter had, etc.). We decide what to believe in the same manner we make other decisions: we follow the evidence to its conclusion. We do that every day in many areas of life. That’s how we make judgments about friendships, marriage, employment, how to spend our money, etc. We look at the evidence. We make a decision. When you as a Roman Catholic make a judgment about whether the RCC’s authority claims are correct, you make that judgment based on your own fallible examination of evidence. We all do the same thing. You may think the RCC is infallible, but your judgment that it’s infallible is just that: your judgment. The way in which we distinguish between differing judgments is by evaluating the evidence. If I think the evidence leads to conclusion A, and you think the evidence leads to conclusion B, the fact that you disagree with me doesn’t change the fact that I’m confident about conclusion A. My confidence doesn’t depend on you agreeing with me.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[BobCatholic]

JasonTE:

Why would I have to discuss the differences between rites in order to be addressing all rites?

So that’s your way of saying “I didn’t do that” so your guns are on the Roman rite then only.

When people write something, such as a magazine article, a book, or an online post (like my series on the church fathers), they have a subject in mind that they want to write about.

Wonderful. However, when the series is only about attacking one institution, and not talking about others, that’s called

singling out

something you denied doing but yet that’s what you’re doing

Since the RCC is a large denomination that makes significant historical claims, I don’t think it’s difficult to understand why somebody would want to write something in response to those claims. Complaining that I don’t also address Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, etc. in my series is about as

Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism comprise half of Christendom and yet you only attack one church. This means you must accept the claims of those two groups They make significant historical claims and are large, but nothing is written by you

Your guns are on Rome for another reason, and it is not what you’re saying

 

[JasonTE]

BobCatholic,

Let me ask you again, if I refer to all Americans, without distinguishing between Republicans and Democrats, does that prove that I’m singling out Republicans?

You said that I “only attack one church”. First, I would ask you whether you consider your criticisms of groups you disagree with to be “attacks”. If the Roman Catholic hierarchy criticizes Judaism’s rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, for example, do you conclude that the RCC is “attacking Judaism”? I would also ask you, again, whether you apply your reasoning to other people’s writings. If Karl Keating writes a book against fundamentalism, but doesn’t write a book against Buddhism or Satanism, do you criticize him for only “attacking” one group? Is it your belief that people should not write more about subjects they’re more familiar with, but instead should write equally about all subjects? Must every book published on Catholicism be accompanied by books on Mormonism, gardening, football, the history of China, etc.?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[BobCatholic]

JasonTE:

No, I said that the Roman church can be prominent without the Roman bishop being a Pope.
There’s a difference between prominence and papal authority. You can be prominent without having an office of universal jurisdiction believed to have been passed down from the apostles.

So who is the bishop of your church? Which apostle did this bishop succeed from? Where can I find the succession from the Early Church?

We decide what to believe in the same manner we make other decisions: we follow the evidence to its conclusion.

So what you’re saying is that you are your final authority. There goes Sola Scriptura down the drain

We do that every day in many areas of life. That’s how we make judgments about friendships, marriage, employment, how to spend our money, etc. We look at the evidence. We make a decision.

The things you mentioned in daily life, are nice, and only affect life here on earth. However, when it comes down to what Christ and the Apostles taught, we better know what they taught or else there is the risk of being declared an unfaithful servant. That is a decision that can affect eternal life. That’s NOT something one wants to be done. If you want to depend on your fallible human knowledge, that’s your decision. I’d rather listen to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and not take the risk. My soul is far too important to roll the dice on man-made denominations that were created only a few hundred years ago.

When you as a Roman Catholic make a judgment about whether the RCC’s authority claims are correct, you make that judgment based on your own fallible examination of evidence. We all do the same thing. You may think the RCC is infallible, but your judgment that it’s infallible is just that: your judgment.

So basically, what you’re saying is that there is no standard of truth, only what we as “fallible human beings” believe. Basically truth is “my opinion verses yours”
No wonder there’s such doctrinal relativism within sola scriptura land There’s no way to determine which one of the thousands of interpretations is correct. That’s why schisms continue to happen over and over.