Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[PhilVaz]

Darn, this is getting long. See the Jerome and OT canon thread here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=763

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Justin:

Explain that the Church is now, and always has been, far more than “Roman”. And go on to explain just how universal the Church is by using the following link.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/rites.htm

Justin,

Just don’t rely on that link to inform your antagonist as to the Churches sui iuris that, together with the Latin Church, constitute the Catholic Church. The Eastern Churches have never been EWTN’s forte and the presentation by Colin Donovan on that page is no exception. Besides his poor differentiation between the concepts of Church sui iuris (I’m not sure the full term is ever utilized) and Rite, he offers no distinction, definition, or discussion of Traditions, Rescensions, or Usages and, at a quick glance, he:

affords sui iuris ecclesial status to at least one jurisdiction (Czech) which is, in reality, only a suffragn of the Ruthenian Eparchial Church sui iuris;

misnames a Church sui iuris, styling it by the name of its eparchial jurisdiction, Krizevci, rather than as the Byzantine Croatian Church;

falls victim to the common misconception that “Greek” is always merely an alternative to “Byzantine” (as is the case in most Churches sui iuris that employ the Byzantine Rite) and, consequently, ignores that, in the instance of the Italo-Graeco-Albanian Church, it is, rather, an integral descriptor of the Church’s ethnic make-up; and,

ignores the existence of the Byzantine Georgian Catholic Church sui iuris.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Carl:

The Church was called Catholic, not Roman Catholic, from the earliest days. The designation “Roman” Catholic, as I understand it, originated at the time of the Reformation (seems to me I read this in an earlier version of the Catholic Encyclopedia on the internet.) Many Protestant leaders viewed themselves as part of the Catholic or “universal” Church and were loathe to give up the title “Catholic,” (it’s in their Creed too) but had to break from the Church at Rome, and so began to call us the Roman Catholic Church. A 150 years ago a radical element in the German Catholic Church broke away and called themselves Old Catholics (there are some in the U.S. and Canada). Then, of course, there’s Father Feeney’s remnants in New England … reactionary to the hilt, who call themselves Catholic.l

Carl’s post is the most accurate response to the query that originated this thread. The term “Roman” was initially applied by English dissidents to what had, until then, been ‘the Catholic Church’ to differentiate between it and themselves (who they termed “Anglo-Catholics”) and “Greek-Catholics” (Orthodox), since they were unwilling to concede the appellation “Catholic” solely to the use of those in communion with Rome.

A good outline of the history of its usage is in the 1917 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

Later Protestant use of “Roman” as a derogatory term has really given way to it as the common everyday descriptor for the Church in communion with Rome. In one sense, it’s an unfortunate usage since it ignores or belittles the fact that “The” Catholic Church is comprised of 23 Particular Churches sui iuris and implies that the best-known of those, the Latin Church, is the entirety of the communion.

It does, however, serve a useful function in distinguishing the Catholic communion from the many episcopi vagante and “independent” Churches, with varying rights of claim to valid apostolic succession, that style themselves ‘Catholic’. Those are, in fact, an even more diverse group than is suggested by Carl’s references to the “Old Catholics” and “Feeneyites”.

It includes: such obvious entities as the SSPX, the SSPV, and the Polish (and lesser-known Lithuanian) National Catholics; the mainstream Anglo-Catholics of the Anglican/Episcopal communion and their counterparts in other “High Church” denominations (e.g., the Evangelical Catholic Church of the Lutheran communion); the myriad “National Catholic” Churches headquartered in The Phillippines, Mexico, Brazil, Italy, and elsewhere; those Orthodox Churches, both canonical and non-canonical, that include “Catholic” in their ecclesial names (e.g., many parishes of the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese style themselves as “Carpatho-Russian Greek-Catholic”, reflective of their early 20th century roots in the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church); self-constituted entities like the various “Celtic Catholic” churches; and, such fringe entities as the Liberal, Gnostic, Christian, and Christ Catholic Churches.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Edwin1961:

I just call myself ‘Catholic’, yet it’s the different Rites that makes the Catholic Church a distinct flavor of ethnic/human cultures.

For the record, I am in the Byzantine RITE, not a different church or demonination. It is just that the largest RITE is the Roman Rite. Yet, all of the other RITES of the Catholic Church tend to be left out of the equasion, or not widely known.

Edwin,

With all due respect, you are “in” (i.e., “a member of”) a Particular Church sui iuris (I’m guessing the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church), not “in” the Byzantine Rite. The Particular Churches of the Catholic communion each use one of the 6 (not 7 as someone else posted) Rites (i.e., the Antiochian, Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Latin, or Maronite). It has not been acceptable to describe the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches as “Rites” since Vatican II, when their status as Churches sui iuris was finally acknowledged.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Edwin1961:

Yes, we are ALL Catholic first and formost, but let us not be argumentive or divided by culture or tradition.

Being Catholic first and foremost neither requires or demands that we of the East forego our religious heritage, nor does it necessitate that the cultures or traditions inherent in our Churches be divisive.

Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory, then-Exarch and later first Eparch of the Diocese of Newton for the Melkite Greek-Catholics in the United States, expressed it in his 1970 Christmas Pastoral Message, “The Courage To Be Ourselves”:

… Why must we exert so much energy to preserve the heritage of days long since past, we who are such a minority in American Catholicism? …

We can do no better than recall the teaching of Vatican II which declared: ‘‘History, tradition, and numerous ecclesiastical institutions manifest luminously how much the universal Church is indebted to the Eastern Churches. Therefore, …all Eastern rite members should know that they can and should always preserve their lawful liturgical rites and their established way of life … and should honor all these things with greatest fidelity.’’

… Events of the succeeding centuries … served to heighten the feeling among Latin Catholics that to be Catholic one had to be Roman.

Vatican II put an end to this provincialist view of the Church once and for all. The Church cannot be identified, it stressed, with any one culture, nation, or form of civilization without contradicting that universality which is of the essence of the Gospel.

…

By our fidelity to maintaining our patrimony, by our refusal to be assimilated, the Eastern Churches render a most precious service to Rome in still another area of Church life. Latinizing this small number of Easterners would not be a gain for Rome; rather it would block - perhaps forever - a union of the separated Churches of the East and West. It would be easy then for Orthodoxy to see that union with Rome leads surely to ecclesiastical assimilation.

Thus it is for the sake of ecumenism - to create a climate favorable to the union of the Churches - that the Eastern Catholic must remain faithful to his tradition. This providential vocation which is ours opens to the Church an unlimited perspective for preaching the Gospel to all peoples who, while they accept faith in Christ, must still remain themselves in this vast assembly of believers.

… In the now famous words of the late Patriarch Maximos IV,

‘‘We have, therefore, a two-fold mission to accomplish within the Catholic Church. We must fight to insure that latinism and Catholicism are not synonymous, that Catholicism remains open to every culture, every spirit, and every form of organization compatible with the unity of faith and love. At the same time, by our example, we must enable the Orthodox Church to recognize that a union with the great Church of the West, with the See of Peter, can be achieved without being compelled to give up Orthodoxy or any of the spiritual treasures of the apostolic and patristic East, which is opened toward the future no less to the past.’’

…

**One day all our ethnic traits - language, folklore, customs - will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, primarily for the service of the immigrant or the ethnically oriented, unless we wish to assure the death of our community. Our Churches are not only for our own people but are also for any of our fellow Americans who are attracted to our traditions which show forth the beauty of the universal Church and the variety of its riches. **

… We must be fully American in all things and at the same time we must preserve this authentic form of Christianity which is ours and which is not the Latin form. We must know that we have something to give, otherwise we have no reason to be. …

It is often easier to get lost in the crowd than to affirm one’s own personality. It takes more courage, character, and inner strength to lead our traditions to bear fruit than it takes to simply give them up. The obsession to be like everyone else pursues us to the innermost depths of our hearts. We recognize that our greatest temptation is always to slip into anonymity rather than to assume our responsibility within the Church. And so, **while we opt for ethnic assimilation, we can never agree to spiritual assimilation. **

…, to do this would be to betray our ecumenical mission and, in a real sense, to betray the Catholic Church.

To be open to others, to be able to take our rightful place on the American Church scene, we must start by being fully ourselves. It is only in our distinctiveness that we can make any kind of contribution to the larger society. It is only by being what we are that we retain a reason for existence at all.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Debbie]

<<“Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one’s Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church.” Melkite Archbishop Joseph Tawil, of blessed memory >>

Dear Irish Malkite,

Showing my ignorance here… What does your signature mean?

Thanks!

Debbie

 

[Katholikos]

Shibboleth:

The Roman Catholic Church is the one Church determined by Jesus because the Bible says so, we know this because the Roman Catholic Church has interpreted it as such and the Church is infallible.

It’s quite the other way around.

I know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God only because the CHURCH founded by Christ says it is. The Bible came out of the Church. She is the mother, not the daughter, of the Scriptures. No other “church” can claim that. All Protestant “churches” are Bible-based, the result of yet another interpretation of the 66-book cut version of Martin Luther’s Bible.

The Church gave birth to the New Testament. She selected its table of contents, canonized both the OT and the NT, and formed the Bible when she was nearly 400 years old.

The name by which she usually refers to herself is “Church.”

Roman Catholic is a rite, a style of worship – one of six – used in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

**

 

[Shibboleth]

Katholikos:

It’s quite the other way around.

I know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God only because the CHURCH founded by Christ says it is. The Bible came out of the Church. She is the mother, not the daughter, of the Scriptures. No other “church” can claim that. All Protestant “churches” are Bible-based, the result of yet another interpretation of the 66-book cut version of Martin Luther’s Bible.

The Church gave birth to the New Testament. She selected its table of contents, canonized both the OT and the NT, and formed the Bible when she was nearly 400 years old.

The name by which she usually refers to herself is “Church.”

Roman Catholic is a rite, a style of worship – one of 22 – used by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church gave birth to the words of Jesus?

 

[Katholikos]

Shibboleth:

The Roman Catholic Church gave birth to the words of Jesus?

No, but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church did.

In a manner of speaking, you could say that . The Church wrote the New Testament which recorded the words of Jesus as the sacred writers remembered them, long after they were spoken.

The NT was written to the Church, by the Church – written to believers, by believers. It’s an insiders book. It is not an instruction book in Christianity, as Protestants have tried to make it. Most of it – the letters (20 out of 27 ‘books’) – were written to address problems that had arisen in the local churches that had been founded by one or more of the Apostles. The new converts were instructed ORALLY in the Faith. The letters were corrective and supplementary reminders to what the early Christians had already been taught. The Gospels were eventually written to record the memories of the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. They were written by two eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) and by someone who recorded an eyewitness’s recollectons (Mark, Luke). Acts is a “history” of the newborn Catholic Church. Revelation is an apocolyptic treatise – a vision – written to sustain a suffering Church.

 

[Katholikos]

Crusader:

I think a better question to ask is why non-Catholics refer to the Catholic Church as the “Roman Catholic Church.” Are they not aware that the entire Catholic Church is comprised of 23 churches and 7 rites?
.

I have read that there are 22 churches, 6 rites:

members.tripod.com/~Berchmans/church22.html

and 22 churches, 8 rites:

east2west.org/discus/messages/22/11.html?996951542

You know of 23 churches and 7 rites?

 

[PhilVaz]

Good post, this last one on the Church and canon. I sense Karl is about to close this thread also. Too many topics and too darn confusing

Phil P

 

[AugustineH354]

OrthodoxBerean:

How would you all respond to this common claim that the early Church was Catholic but not Roman Catholic?

I usually hear this Protestant mantra as a response to the historical fact that the early Catholic Church was anything but Protestant. (John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”) Now, that the early Church was not the “Roman” Catholic Church, this is a truism that I can agree with to a certain point. First, the split between Western and Eastern Christianity had not occured yet. Second, the Catholic Church develops; as such, there is a sense in which we can say the pre-Nicene Catholic Church is not the post-Nicene Catholic Church; the pre-Chalcedonian Catholic Church is not the post-Chalcedonian Catholic Church; and so on, up to the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church is not post-Vatican II Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a living, growing, ever developing Church.

Yet with that said, is it not interesting that the numerous sects which have broken away from the Catholic Church are usally called after the name of their founders, or from their doctrine. And yet many want to embrace the name “Catholic”; but it never sticks.

St. Irenaeus expounded one the earliest tests for catholicity: for a church to be a Catholic church it has to be able to trace an unbroken succession of their bishops back to the apostles themselves; and further, has to be in agreement with “the very great, the very ancient, and universally know Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” (Against Heresies III.3.1, 2.)

With these two simple tests, the list of churches that can legitimately claim to be Catholic is indeed a very small one.

Aug

 

[JasonTE]

AugustineH354:

John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

To be deep in history is to not have to rely on Cardinal Newman’s arguments for doctrinal development. Roman Catholicism’s lack of historical roots is largely what’s made Cardinal Newman so influential.

AugustineH354:

The Catholic Church is a living, growing, ever developing Church.

But contradictions aren’t developments. And you can’t derive an oak tree from an apple seed. If the earlier fathers were premillennial, whereas later fathers opposed premillennialism, that’s a contradiction, not a development. If earlier fathers were opposed to the veneration of images, whereas later fathers supported it, that’s not a development. It’s a contradiction. If one generation refers to Mary as a sinner, and another generation claims that she was sinless from conception onward, that’s a contradiction, not a development. If five different fathers advocate five different and contradictory views of salvation, and Roman Catholicism later teaches a view that contradicts much of what those five fathers advocated, that’s not development. If contradictions are to be considered developments, then anybody could claim to have developed from the church fathers. We can speak of a continual existence and growth in terms of basic doctrines like monotheism, the virgin birth, and Jesus’ Messiahship, but the continuity is far too vague to be defined specifically as Roman Catholicism.

The RCC claims that it’s always maintained every part of the apostolic faith in unbroken succession throughout church history. It makes claims about the papacy and the Immaculate Conception, for example, having always been understood and taught by the Christian church. How much development do such claims allow? Much of what the RCC teaches was widely absent or contradicted among the fathers and cannot be said to have grown from the fathers in the same manner in which an oak tree grows from an acorn.

AugustineH354:

many want to embrace the name “Catholic”; but it never sticks

Many Roman Catholics have called themselves “evangelical”, yet people continue to associate the term “evangelical” with conservative Protestants. Should we conclude that such a fact is significant evidence that Roman Catholicism isn’t truly evangelical? Some Presbyterians and others have used the word “orthodox” in their names, yet Eastern Orthodoxy continues to be most associated with the term. Should we conclude that such a fact is significant evidence that Eastern Orthodoxy is the most truly orthodox group in existence? Are the Orthodox more orthodox than the Catholics? No, I think the usage of these names (“catholic”, “evangelical”, “orthodox”, etc.) has more to do with who most often uses the terms, historical events that impress the terms upon people’s memories, etc.

AugustineH354:

St. Irenaeus expounded one the earliest tests for catholicity

Irenaeus also said that a church’s orthodoxy is to be evaluated according to its agreement with the churches of Smyrna and Ephesus. He mentions those two churches just after mentioning Rome. And he gives a variety of reasons for naming the Roman church, but the doctrine of the papacy isn’t one of those reasons. Irenaeus shows no knowledge of the doctrine in his writings. In addition to citing successions of bishops in Rome, Smyrna, Ephesus, etc., Irenaeus also commented that bishops must meet moral and doctrinal requirements if they’re to be followed (Against Heresies, 4:26:2-5). That would disqualify a large number of Roman bishops who lived after the time of Irenaeus.

So, how often do you go to the churches of Smyrna and Ephesus to evaluate your orthodoxy? Do you follow Irenaeus’ standards about bishops having to meet moral and doctrinal requirements before we follow them? And would you explain to us how you know that a Roman church’s spiritual health in the second century proves that Roman churches throughout church history would be the standard for Christian orthodoxy? If churches in Laodicea, Smyrna, Ephesus, Constantinople, etc. aren’t assured of permanent spiritual health just because they were healthy at one time, would you explain why we’re to read Irenaeus’ comments as justification for believing that Rome is spiritually healthy today? Also, would you explain why you choose to follow Irenaeus’ standards (partially) instead of the differing standards offered by other church fathers?

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

 

[Irish_Melkite]

<<“Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one’s Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church.” Melkite Archbishop Joseph Tawil, of blessed memory >>

Dear Irish Malkite,

Showing my ignorance here… What does your signature mean?

Debbie,

The quote is from the 1970 Pastoral Message of Archbishop Joseph Tawil, of blessed memory, then Exarch and later first Eparch of the Melkite Greek-Catholics in the US. He was speaking of the two dangers that he saw to the future of Catholics of the Eastern Churches sui iuris in the diaspora, assimilation and the ghetto mentality and of the mission of the Eastern Churches to the Church as a whole.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Katholikos:

You know of 23 churches and 7 rites?

Katholikos,

Various experts cite numbers from 4 to 8. It depends on where each draws the line between “Rite” and “Tradition”.

At basic, there are 4 Rites - Latin, Alexandrean, Antiochene, and Byzantine; thinking reflecting that Rites arose from customs/ style of worship in the 4 most important Christian centers.

In time, the 4 were modified or developed further in new regions. Some variations were deemed Rites in themselves. Thus, Maronite is a Rite or a Tradition of the Antiochene Rite, where it originated. The Armenian Rite was Byzantine in origin, but also developed in isolation; accordingly, it is listed as “Rite” or “Tradition”, depending on one’s perspective…

Alexandrean Rite: Coptic Tradition

***** 1. Coptic Catholic**

**Alexandrean Rite:**Ge’ez Tradition

***** 2. Ethiopian Catholic**

Antiochene Rite: East Syrian Tradition

***** 3. Chaldean Catholic**

        ********  a.  Arabic Usage**

***** 4. Syro-Malabarese Catholic**

       ********  a. Knanaya Usage**

Antiochene Rite: West Syrian Tradition

   *****  5.  Syriac Catholic**
   *****  6.  Syro-Malankarese Catholic**

Armenian Rite

   *****  7.  Armenian Catholic**

Byzantine Rite: Byzantine-Greek Tradition

  *****  8.  Albanian Catholic**
  *****  9.  Georgian Catholic**
  *****10. Greek Catholic**
  *****11. Italo-Greek-Albanian Catholic**

  ******** a. Italo-Greek**
  *********** Exarchic Abbey & Territorial Monastery of Santa Maria di Grottaferrata degli Italo-Grieco**

  ******** b. Italo-Albanian**
  *********** Eparchy of Lungro degli Italo-Albanesi in Calabria**
  *********** Eparchy of Piana [Sicily] degli Albenisi**

N.B. Technically, the 3 Italian jurisdictions are each a Church sui iuris, since there’s no formal canonical relationship among them and none of the 3 hierarchs is singularly designated as principal hierarch of the Church

  *****12. Melkite Catholic**

Byzantine Rite: Byzantine-Slav Tradition

 *****13. Belarusan Catholic**
 *****14. Bulgarian Catholic**
 *****15. Croatian Catholic**
 *****16. Hungarian Catholic**
 *****17. Romanian Catholic**
 *****18. Russian Catholic**

 ********  a. Exarchate of Moscow**
 ********  b. Exarchate of Harbin**

N.B. Technically, the 2 Russian jurisdictions were each a Church sui iuris, since neither hierarch was singularly designated as principal hierarch of the Church

 *****19. Ruthenian Catholic**

 ********  a. Ruthenian Metropolitan Catholic Church - Metropolitinate of Pittsburgh**
 ********  b. Ruthenian Eparchial Catholic Church - Eparchy of Mukachevo**

N.B. Technically, the 2 Ruthenian jurisdictions are each a Church sui iuris, since there is no formal canonical relationship between the 2 and neither hierarch is singularly designated as principal hierarch of the Church

 *****20. Slovakian Catholic**
 *****21. Ukrainian Catholic**

Maronite Rite

 *****22. Maronite Catholic**

Latin Rite

 *****23. Roman Catholic**

 ********  a.  Ambrosian Usage**
 ********  b.  Anglican Usage**
 ********  c.  Bragan Usage**
 ********  d.  Mozarabic Usage**
 ********  e.  Usages of Religious Orders**

N.B. Although a,c, d, and e are usually termed “Rites”, each is, in reality, a “Usage” as we now think of such - a styling that wasn’t employed when they came into being.

Many years,

Neil

 

[AugustineH354]

JasonTE:

To be deep in history is to not have to rely on Cardinal Newman’s arguments for doctrinal development. Roman Catholicism’s lack

of historical roots is largely what’s made Cardinal Newman so influential.

Aug: “Lack of historical roots”? I personally know of no Catholic dogma that does not have “roots” in the early Church. But, of course, you will read the evidence different than I, just as you read the Bible differently than most Catholics, Protestants, and EO’s. I suppose that is to be expected.

JasonTE:

But contradictions aren’t developments. And you can’t derive an oak tree from an apple seed. If the earlier fathers were premillennial, whereas later fathers opposed premillennialism, that’s a contradiction, not a development.

Aug: That the literal reading of Rev. 20:4 by some early CF’s was later rejected by virtually all the later Church Fathers (and interestingly enough, by all the magisterial Reformers, and the famous Protestant systematic theologians of history down to this day), hardly speaks against legitimate development; and I would argue just the opposite, namely that an initial theological error was corrected via development.

JasonTE:

If earlier fathers were opposed to the veneration of images, whereas later fathers supported it, that’s not a development. It’s a contradiction. If one generation refers to Mary as a sinner, and another generation claims that she was sinless from conception onward, that’s a contradiction, not a development. If five different fathers advocate five different and contradictory views of salvation, and Roman Catholicism later teaches a view that contradicts much of what those five fathers advocated, that’s not development. If contradictions are to be considered developments, then anybody

could claim to have developed from the church fathers.

Me: To be brutally honest, it sure seems that you do not understand the doctrine of development. One of the primary impetuses that drives development is the correction of error. Newman stated that, “No doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the attacks of heresy.” And again, “No doctrine is defined till it is violated.”

JasonTE:

We can speak of a continual existence and growth in terms of basic doctrines like monotheism, the virgin birth, and Jesus’ Messiahship, but the continuity is far too vague to be defined specifically as Roman Catholicism.

Aug: Certainly not “far to vague” to Newman. And what about baptism, the eucharist, the three-fold ministry, apostolic succession, and deification? All of these Catholic doctrines clearly had roots in the early Church.

I see inherent problems with your “contradiction” argument. For instance, if an Arian consistently applied your methodology, he could argue that post-Nicene Catholicism contradicted pre-Nicene Catholicism, and that the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not Catholic at all, because it contradicts earlier Church Fathers. (BTW, I personally know many modern Arians, Semi-Arians, and Socinians who use this very argument!)

Further, Martin Luther’s teaching that justification was via imputation and not infusion was a novel doctrine that no prior Church Father, and/or theologian taught. Talk about contradiction…

Anyway, I would truly be interested in discussing Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine with you. For instance, do you know of anything in the book that is explicitly false?

Aug

 

[JasonTE]

“Lack of historical roots”? I personally know of no Catholic dogma that does not have “roots” in the early Church.

How are you defining “the early Church”? Is it a period of several hundred years? If the veneration of images or the sinlessness of Mary is opposed for hundreds of years, but becomes popular later, does the fact that its popularity began during those several hundred years of “the early Church” prove that it has the historical depth Cardinal Newman referred to? Some of what the RCC teaches was absent or contradicted for hundreds of years and cannot logically be traced back to the apostles (“logically” in the sense of being a probable or certain conclusion to apostolic teaching, not just a possible conclusion). If you’re going to claim that a passage like Psalm 132:8 or Revelation 11:19 is a root of the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, for example, then just about anybody could claim that just about any doctrine has roots in the early church.

AugustineH354:

That the literal reading of Rev. 20:4 by some early CF’s was later rejected by virtually all the later Church Fathers (and interestingly enough, by all the magisterial Reformers, and the famous Protestant systematic theologians of history down to this day), hardly speaks against legitimate development; and I would argue just the opposite, namely that an initial theological error was corrected via development.

Premillennialism was widely held among the ante-Nicene fathers (Papias, The Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Lactantius, etc.). If you’re going to speak of having deep historical roots, how does the post-Nicene era become deeper than the ante-Nicene era? And would you explain how all of these ante-Nicene fathers could have been wrong when the RCC allegedly was passing on all of the apostolic faith in unbroken succession throughout church history? How do church fathers spanning many locations and multiple generations accidentally form a premillennial eschatology while the church they allegedly belonged to was handing down the correct eschatology in unbroken succession?

AugustineH354:

One of the primary impetuses that drives development is the correction of error. Newman stated that, “No doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the attacks of heresy.” And again, “No doctrine is defined till it is violated.”

But you don’t consider these people who contradicted Roman Catholic teaching to be heretics. And they contradicted those teachings for generation after generation. If “no doctrine is defined till it is violated”, then why weren’t doctrines like the sinlessness of Mary and the veneration of images defined until many centuries after they were repeatedly and widely violated? How do you know that the beliefs of the RCC have been passed down in unbroken succession if some of them are unmentioned or contradicted for hundreds of years? If nobody refers to Mary being sinless from conception onward in the earliest centuries, but church fathers and Roman bishops refer to Mary as a sinner for hundreds of years, why would anybody conclude that Mary’s sinlessness from conception is an apostolic tradition always held by the church?

AugustineH354:

For instance, if an Arian consistently applied your methodology, he could argue that post-Nicene Catholicism contradicted pre-Nicene Catholicism, and that the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not Catholic at all, because it contradicts earlier Church Fathers.

I don’t deny that the fathers contradicted each other. I don’t claim that there was a worldwide denomination led by a Pope that was infallible and passing on all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history. I don’t refer to doctrines like the papacy and the Immaculate Conception being always understood and taught by the church. Your denomination makes those claims. Mine doesn’t. My view is that we can keep following the original revelation given by God, even if some generations depart from it (2 Kings 22:8-13, Nehemiah 8:13-17).

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

 

[JasonTE]

AugustineH354,

I think that the Immaculate Conception would be an effective illustration of what I explained in my last post. Pope Pius IX wrote the following about how the doctrine allegedly is recorded in scripture and has always been understood and taught by the church:

“The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin – a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God – and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts…And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner–this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine…this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as the Fathers discerned, was recorded in the Divine Scriptures” (Ineffabilis Deus)

You claim that “attacks of heresy” would result in a doctrine being “defined”. As you may know, Augustine not only denied that Mary was immaculately conceived, but also said that his belief that Jesus was the only immaculately conceived human was consistent with the faith of the church (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48). Is it your view that Augustine was making an “attack of heresy” upon a doctrine that was always understood and taught by the church? If so, why does Augustine say that what he’s writing is consistent with the faith of the church? And why was it not until more than 1400 years later that Augustine’s “attack of heresy” was corrected by a “definition” of the doctrine that allegedly was always understood and taught by the church? Also, in light of the Pope’s claim that the Immaculate Conception is recorded in scripture, would you tell us where the doctrine is recorded in the Bible?

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

 

[Richard_Froggat]

Jason,

With all due respect I must disagree with your conclusions, especially your last post.

You start with the papal encyclical “Ineffabilis Deus”. Now my criticism is in the way you quoted it, which I believe to be insincerely done. It seems that you quoted different parts of the encyclical and have grouped them together to read like one paragraph. Going to read it in it’s context it doesn’t seem to be saying what you want it to say.

Words can take on many meanings, as evidenced by the many interpretations of scripture. Or, to take an example from everyday life, two people can say the same thing and mean it two different ways. It’s the tone of how what is said comes across. You, I believe, have changed the tone of the words you’ve quoted.

In quoting Augustine, you have done almost the same thing. You have taken him out of context to have him say something that he does not seem to be saying.

Augustine, in the referenced work, does not say one word about Mary, except in terms of her unviolated womb. He does say…
St. Augustine:

Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.Augustine: On the grace of Christ and Original Sin 2:47

Is this not what the Church teaches?

In JMJ, Richard

 

[PhilVaz]

JasonTE << If the veneration of images or the sinlessness of Mary is opposed for hundreds of years >>

Demolished here

Annihilated here

Okay, please continue…I see the thread is not closed yet

Phil P