Catholic, but not Roman

[wmscott]

No - you are a Catholic. You are a member of the Body of Christ.

When you were baptized - it was according to the Trinitarian formula. As Paul states in Eph. 4:5, it is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Not only is re-baptism unnecessary - it profanes the meaning of what occurred at your first baptism and is heresy. In fact, it was an early heresy that was defeated in the 4th century called Donatism.

Those who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but are NOT Catholic and subject to the Vicar of Christ are separated brothers and sisters, for they are separated from the Body of Christ - His Church.

Unfortunately, the Donatist heresy is alive and well today in many Protestant churches.

OK thanks, I think I am following your line of reasoning now; I may have just had a brain fizzle at first and did not understand your statement.

 

[StevieD]

Article 3: Christ went down to Hell A note on this, I believe that when Christ broke the gates of hell, he broke them forever, and all souls are free to enter into Heaven when they so choose. Hell is eternal only for those who make it so by willing it eternally. The moment one comes to know and love God, one enters into heaven. As such, I believe it a possibility and a just hope that all, even the fallen angels, will enter into the eternal reward.

Contrary 1: Unwilling Eternal Torment After looking upon the face of my son, and knowing that God loves him more than I do, I cannot reasonably believe that such a loving God would ever cast him or any of us unwillingly into the torment even of separation from him forever.

Postulate 1: Purgatory I choose to use this term for that moment for those who are not yet pure after death, in which they are made pure. Its existence, unwritten in the Scriptures and, as evidenced by the Greek Church, unestablished in the Apostolic Tradition, is a matter of speculation, and not of necessary Christian faith.

Hi Paul, those who are not to be eternally punished are in Purgatory. Hell is permanent, no doubt about it. Although Fatima is ‘private revelation’ (albeit publicly confirmed by means of a miracle) you may like to consider that, according to the visionaries, Our Lady did confirm that many souls go to hell (sins of the flesh being a major cause) and are lost, she also confirmed the existence of Purgatory and indicated that some remain there until the end of time. The ‘Real Presence’ and the need to adore Christ in the Sacrament was also confirmed to the visionaries. If you believe that She came to the children and that their reports are true then many of the controverted matters are made clear, whether we like them or not.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Verse 26 makes it clear: there is a great chaos (often translated as chasm), and one cannot pass from one side to the other. If you break with God and do not reconcile by death (confession…), then you immediately descend into hell for all eternity. It only takes 1 mortal sin, and it’s not as difficult as some would make it to be.

I think that I cannot pass from one side to the other. I think that, as Christ broke the gates of hell, He can take me from one to the other if He wills. And as a loving father, he would not allow anyone to remain in hell forever who did not wish eternally to be apart from him.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Thank you for your kind wishes, for this presentation of your convictions, for your invitation, and for your prayers. Someone as charitable and irenic as you are is bound at least in some way to exceed my own sinful state, and “the prayers of the righteous availeth much”. Please pray to God the Father, to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to Mary our Mediatrix, to all the Saints, that I come to the Truth, if you do not believe me already to be there.

I believe myself to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, else I would convert. If, however, your arguments touch my mind and heart differently (I do not have faith, cannot have faith at this time, in the doctrine of transubstantiation, for one), I will run back to Rome.

Again, thank you for your prayers and your kind but strong and earnest words.

Thanks Paul,
However I am trying to convince you, not to defend my position. Our Catholic doctrines are not there to bang people over the head with but to gently draw in people into the Catholic fold so that we may all be one body. Therefore our desire is not to accentuate our three branches but to bring all Christians into the unity of the Body of Christ.

A lot of organisations who are not in full communion with the Sovereign Pontiff are suspicious and mistrusting of him. They are concerned that he will take away their mass, or take away their tradition, or make everybody Roman. Surely now in this 20th century this is obviously untrue even if were ever true in any way. As I described in a post in another thread, have a look at the Nigerian church. They are Roman Catholics as well, but their Roman-ness (for want of a better word) does not extend much past the fact that they are in communion with the Sovereign Roman Pontiff. In fact in all other respects they are VERY Nigerian.

Can I just point out one of the show stoppers for me when I was tossing up between anglo and Roman catholic when I was coming to the faith. It was the dogma of Transubstantiation. I truly believed that the bread and wine truly was the actual literal body and blood of Jesus. However did it become so because of my own personal belief of faith? No, for it truly to be the body and blood of Christ at the time of consecration then it had to be his body and blood regardless of whether I believed it or not. It had to be objectively true that it was the body and blood of Christ. So when did it become so. When did it actually change and become the body and blood of Christ. It must be when it is consecrated by the priest. But does this mean that anybody who calls himself a priest can say the words of consecration and then the bread and wine will be changed? No of course not? So the priest had to be properly and validly ordained with Holy Orders in order to have this power to consecrate. Therefore I regretfully and sadly had to conclude that the body and blood of Christ was not present at the Anglican service, so I had to go to the Roman Catholic church to obtain that certain body and blood of Christ.

Now my concern is how come the Anglicans cannot think this through and come to the same conclusions. It seems apparent to me that they do not truly believe in Transubstantiation. They pay a kind of lip service to it but in the end their Anglican traditions and fellowships are of greater value to them than is the body and blood of Christ.

Therefore, much as I love the Anglican tradition and people, I cannot in all conscience say that I am in communion with them. I pray for the day when this changes and the High Anglican’s en-masse convert to the Roman Catholic Church but to be honest I think that day is a long, long way off. People tend to get stuck in their ways. They do this week what they did last week. “Reunion with Rome is always something we can do in six months time or a year or a decade. Its what’s in our heart that counts”

Personally I believe that “That which counts in our heart moves us to reunite as one body of Christ under the uniting influence of the Roman Pontiff who is the representative of Jesus Christ upon the earth, through whom Jesus Christ himself rules the church during his absence from this world”.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

If you want to see a good line of reasoning, re: the validity of Anglican orders (Apostolicae Curae is a long -standing hobby of mine), try Fr. J. J. Hughes’ two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD.Fr. Hughes is RC, was an Anglican priest, and was the first (known) one in modern times to be ordained sub conditione. OTOH, if you want a good exposition on the invalidity of Anglican orders, Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is a good place to look. Or, as a RC, you can merely affirm what was stated in AC. Anglicans need not do that.

Thanks GKC, though I’m not sure if the message was intended for me. I’ve already ordered through my library the Book “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void”.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

A few of you assert that the unity I speak of is not real unity, because there is no identical belief.

My perspective flows from the fact that there is no such thing as unity of all belief.

No one on earth believes the same as Pope Benedict, except Pope Benedict. No matter how hard you try, you will never know all his theological views and perfectly assent to them. Catholics UAR (Under the Authority of Rome) and Catholics NUAR (Not Under the Authority of Rome) would agree with this.

The issue is essential beliefs. And here’s my perspective, what I referred to above as my vantage.

The group with the broadest coherant set of essential beliefs, where some boundaries can be drawn, however broad, is in communion with all who share those essential beliefs, unless another group exists with a narrower set of essential beliefs. That narrower group, by its beliefs, removes itself from communion with the broader group.

There are broader groups than mine, such as, for example, the Episcopal Church or even the Anglican Communion. I have removed myself, and Catholics in general have removed themselves, from communion with these groups, by virtue of our narrower essential beliefs. Other groups, the Orthodox, Oneness Pentecostals, Catholics UAR, either by having contradictory essential beliefs, or by having even narrower essential beliefs, have removed themselves, or have been removed from communion.

I agree that the Catholic Church UAR is not in perfect communion with the wider Catholic Church, just like the Orthodox Church is not in perfect communion with the wider Catholic Church. This is the choice of the Catholic Church UAR, and it is possible that this is the right choice.

After all, broader is not necessarily better, and my essential beliefs are, compared to many, exceedingly narrow. But isn’t the path to salvation, the path I hope all will eventually take one way or another, narrow?

 

[elvisman]

A few of you assert that the unity I speak of is not real unity, because there is no identical belief.

My perspective flows from the fact that there is no such thing as unity of all belief.

No one on earth believes the same as Pope Benedict, except Pope Benedict. No matter how hard you try, you will never know all his theological views and perfectly assent to them. Catholics UAR (Under the Authority of Rome) and Catholics NUAR (Not Under the Authority of Rome) would agree with this.

The issue is essential beliefs. And here’s my perspective, what I referred to above as my vantage.

The group with the broadest coherant set of essential beliefs, where some boundaries can be drawn, however broad, is in communion with all who share those essential beliefs, unless another group exists with a narrower set of essential beliefs. That narrower group, by its beliefs, removes itself from communion with the broader group.

There are broader groups than mine, such as, for example, the Episcopal Church or even the Anglican Communion. I have removed myself, and Catholics in general have removed themselves, from communion with these groups, by virtue of our narrower essential beliefs. Other groups, the Orthodox, Oneness Pentecostals, Catholics UAR, either by having contradictory essential beliefs, or by having even narrower essential beliefs, have removed themselves, or have been removed from communion.

I agree that the Catholic Church UAR is not in perfect communion with the wider Catholic Church, just like the Orthodox Church is not in perfect communion with the wider Catholic Church. This is the choice of the Catholic Church UAR, and it is possible that this is the right choice.

After all, broader is not necessarily better, and my essential beliefs are, compared to many, exceedingly narrow. But isn’t the path to salvation, the path I hope all will eventually take one way or another, narrow?

**So - what, in your estimation, are the essential beliefs? I hear this phrase tossed around by Protestants all the time, yet they only give a partial list. **
For instance, they reject the Authority of the Church, the Real Presence and Transustantiation. These are ESSENTIAL doctrines. You claim to have trouble with at least one of those. **

**Just as anybody who supports abortion cannot be considered a Catholic - neither can somebody be who rejects other essential doctrines. That is the definition of a Protestant.

For the record, because you keep spewing out the term, “(c)Catholic” - there is only ONE Catholic Church. That is the Church that is obedient to the Vicar of Christ.

ALL others have merely hijacked the name. As Dominus Iesus asserts - Protestant denominations are not Churches in the true sense of the word, but "ecclesial communities". There is only ONE Church.

**In the end - it’s not “Catholic, but not Roman”. **
It’s Catholic or Protestant.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There are Anglo-Catholic Anglicans who believe in Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as deeply as Catholics. All Anglicans believe in the Real Presence. Even the 39 Articles, that were more evangelical in nature, affirm it. I know Lutherans who believein Transubstantiation. Heck, JonNC in here regularly says he thinks it’s the best theory of how Christ makes Himself present in the Sacrament.

Orthodox and Anglicans, Old Catholics, etc. believe one can be catholic without being subjugated to the Bishop of Rome. They don’t accept the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 that you do. But some of them love Elvis and even visit Graceland regularly! “thank you, thank you very much” (in my best Elvis voice quivvver)

So - what, in your estimation, are the essential beliefs? I hear this phrase tossed around by Protestants all the time, yet they only give a partial list.
For instance, they reject the Authority of the Church, the Real Presence and Transustantiation. These are ESSENTIAL doctrines. You claim to have trouble with at* least* one of those.

**Just as anybody who supports abortion *cannot ***be considered a Catholic - neither can somebody be who rejects other essential doctrines. That is the definition of a Protestant.

For the record, because you keep spewing out the term, "(c)Catholic" - there is only ONE Catholic Church. That is the Church that is obedient to the Vicar of Christ.

ALL others have merely hijacked the name. As Dominus Iesus asserts - Protestant denominations are not Churches in the true sense of the word, but "ecclesial communities". There is only ONE Church.

 

[Apollos]

Man, did you even read the rest of his post or just splurge out your guts on a page?

I read every word. Both halves.

 

[SteveVH]

Paul,

The group you are proposing already exists. They’re called “Cafeteria Catholics”. They pick and choose what they wish to believe while maintaining that they are still “Catholic”.

This is Christ’s own Church. How can anyone believe they have a right to change anything that Christ’s own Church proposes for our salvation?

 

[Nicea325]

Paul,

The group you are proposing already exists. They’re called “Cafeteria Catholics”. They pick and choose what they wish to believe while maintaining that they are still “Catholic”.

This is Christ’s own Church. How can anyone believe they have a right to change anything that Christ’s own Church proposes for our salvation?

Exactly! What so many people forget that it is Christ Church,not ours. Christ did not found a church where the people would dictate to it what it should do or not do. Hence,one of the many reasons why so many,many,many churches exist.

 

[Eutychus123]

.

Please clarify Article 18. Are you saying that Christ instituted matrimony?

 

[GKC]

There are Anglo-Catholic Anglicans who believe in Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as deeply as Catholics. All Anglicans believe in the Real Presence. Even the 39 Articles, that were more evangelical in nature, affirm it. I know Lutherans who believein Transubstantiation. Heck, JonNC in here regularly says he thinks it’s the best theory of how Christ makes Himself present in the Sacrament.

Orthodox and Anglicans, Old Catholics, etc. believe one can be catholic without being subjugated to the Bishop of Rome. They don’t accept the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 that you do. But some of them love Elvis and even visit Graceland regularly! “thank you, thank you very much” (in my best Elvis voice quivvver)

I think Transubstantiation is the best shot at an explanation, too. As to the Real Presence, I’m a Trent, Session XIII kind of guy.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Eutychus123]

The anglo-Catholics more or less believe the same teachings as the Roman Catholics but they believe they are a separate branch of catholicism. However the Holy See has judged that their Holy Orders are completely null and void. John Henry Newman was an expert at advancing this theory until the Anglicans set up a church in league with the Lutherans in Judea. As a result of this and other failings in his own arguments which he just could not work through, he converted and became a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic church.

The invalidity of the Holy Orders of the Anglican Church is further evidenced by the appointment of female priests and bishops. Also priests of high Anglican churches that convert under the terms of ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS must be reordained by the Roman Catholic church. Today most Anglicans no longer even bother to argue for apostolic successions. I have nothing but love and admiration for anglo-catholics and their brave defence of tradition. I welcome them to the Catholic faith and urge them to make haste to organise a unification with the Roman Catholic church under the terms of ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS. Personally I come from the Anglican tradition and love it but for the sake of my eternal soul I could not wait and hope for the church of my heritage to reunite with the Roman church, so I had to personally convert as a matter of urgency.

Besides the anglo-Catholics should not be afraid of their Roman heritage. I know the book of Common Prayer quite well and it truly is more Roman than what we call Roman Catholic in our local parishes. The Roman heritage is something which binds us in the West, not something which should divide us into different branches.

Please comment on the impact of the Dutch touch and Polish pat on the validity of Anglican orders.

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC, though I’m not sure if the message was intended for me. I’ve already ordered through my library the Book “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void”.

The recommendation was a toss-up, for all and sundry.

ABSOLUTELY NULL is concerned mainly with history, from around 1559, and Archbishop Parker’s consecration, then jumping to 1890, when Lord Halifax and the Abbe Portal first met, and covering the issues (political, personal and theological) leading to Apostolicae Curae, and after. STEWARDS, which is much harder to find, addresses the theological issues more directly, engaging Clark’s arguments. Good luck.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[GKC]

Thanks Paul,
However I am trying to convince you, not to defend my position. Our Catholic doctrines are not there to bang people over the head with but to gently draw in people into the Catholic fold so that we may all be one body. Therefore our desire is not to accentuate our three branches but to bring all Christians into the unity of the Body of Christ.

A lot of organisations who are not in full communion with the Sovereign Pontiff are suspicious and mistrusting of him. They are concerned that he will take away their mass, or take away their tradition, or make everybody Roman. Surely now in this 20th century this is obviously untrue even if were ever true in any way. As I described in a post in another thread, have a look at the Nigerian church. They are Roman Catholics as well, but their Roman-ness (for want of a better word) does not extend much past the fact that they are in communion with the Sovereign Roman Pontiff. In fact in all other respects they are VERY Nigerian.

Can I just point out one of the show stoppers for me when I was tossing up between anglo and Roman catholic when I was coming to the faith. It was the dogma of Transubstantiation. I truly believed that the bread and wine truly was the actual literal body and blood of Jesus. However did it become so because of my own personal belief of faith? No, for it truly to be the body and blood of Christ at the time of consecration then it had to be his body and blood regardless of whether I believed it or not. It had to be objectively true that it was the body and blood of Christ. So when did it become so. When did it actually change and become the body and blood of Christ. It must be when it is consecrated by the priest. But does this mean that anybody who calls himself a priest can say the words of consecration and then the bread and wine will be changed? No of course not? So the priest had to be properly and validly ordained with Holy Orders in order to have this power to consecrate. Therefore I regretfully and sadly had to conclude that the body and blood of Christ was not present at the Anglican service, so I had to go to the Roman Catholic church to obtain that certain body and blood of Christ.

Now my concern is how come the Anglicans cannot think this through and come to the same conclusions. It seems apparent to me that they do not truly believe in Transubstantiation. They pay a kind of lip service to it but in the end their Anglican traditions and fellowships are of greater value to them than is the body and blood of Christ.

Therefore, much as I love the Anglican tradition and people, I cannot in all conscience say that I am in communion with them. I pray for the day when this changes and the High Anglican’s en-masse convert to the Roman Catholic Church but to be honest I think that day is a long, long way off. People tend to get stuck in their ways. They do this week what they did last week. “Reunion with Rome is always something we can do in six months time or a year or a decade. Its what’s in our heart that counts”

Personally I believe that “That which counts in our heart moves us to reunite as one body of Christ under the uniting influence of the Roman Pontiff who is the representative of Jesus Christ upon the earth, through whom Jesus Christ himself rules the church during his absence from this world”.

Transubstantiation is a how, Real Presence is a what. One could believe in the RP, per Trent, Session XIII, canon 1, without any concept whatsoever as to how that came about.
And, one can accept Transubstantiation as as noble an attempt to explain to humans, on our level, of how the wheels go around.

Many Anglicans accept both the Real Presence, with all that implies, and Transubstantiation, as how. Some prefer to leave the “how” as a mystery.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Please comment on the impact of the Dutch touch and Polish pat on the validity of Anglican orders.

I could. But remember, the RCC has not officially commented on that. Logic suggests something, but there is no formal word.

GKC

 

[elvisman]

There are Anglo-Catholic Anglicans who believe in Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as deeply as Catholics. All Anglicans believe in the Real Presence. Even the 39 Articles, that were more evangelical in nature, affirm it. I know Lutherans who believein Transubstantiation. Heck, JonNC in here regularly says he thinks it’s the best theory of how Christ makes Himself present in the Sacrament.

Orthodox and Anglicans, Old Catholics, etc. believe one can be catholic without being subjugated to the Bishop of Rome. They don’t accept the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 that you do. But some of them love Elvis and even visit Graceland regularly! “thank you, thank you very much” (in my best Elvis voice quivvver)

I never said that ALL Protestants rejected those doctrines. I said that the ones I’ve spoken to who say there is a list of essentials, then fail to produce the list.

Elvis has left the building . . .http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Please clarify Article 18. Are you saying that Christ instituted matrimony?

I think a case can be made for it.

If we accept that Through Christ all things were made (John 1:3;Nicene Creed) then the command of the Lord at Creation:

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:”

Is the natural institution of matrimony. It became a sacrament at the Eighth Day, when Christ rose again.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I never said that ALL Protestants rejected those doctrines. I said that the ones I’ve spoken to who say there is a list of essentials, then fail to produce the list.

Elvis has left the building . . .http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

There is a list of essentials, and I can happily produce the list.