P
Paul_Rimmer
Guest
An excellent description, and defense of the Roman position.
- Status
P
Paul_Rimmer
Guest
This is true, in a sense, and not in another. From my vantage, the church that is open to the communion of all Catholics should be the norm. Those churches that restrict communion further are not removing others from communion, but themselves from communion with others.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
Well said! I am thirty years a (Roman) Catholic now, but I still have great affection for the traditional elements within the Anglican communion - particularly their liturgy and sacred music. (with a caveat on the “more Roman”… but, going along for argument’s sake…).
Please, to those who have taken up the sword in defence of the word “Catholic”, please show a little more patience and understanding. It may be self evident to you that Catholics are under the Vicar of Christ (as it is to me also), but it is not self-evident to this person. We should be seeking what unites more than what divides.
E
elvisman
Guest
Then you’re not a Catholic.
1 Tim. 3:15 calls the CHURCH the “pillar and foundation of Truth” - PERIOD. **
** Ummm, that’s the Holy Spirit talking . . .
**Unfortunately - we are NOT united in essential beliefs. No Protestant denomination believes in the Transubstantiation and Real Presence (Body, blood, soul & divinityof the Holy Eucharist as the Catholic Church does. **
We believe this to be "the source and summit of Christianity".
And you’d be wrong.
When Jesus spoke to the crowds - he spoke to all of us. When he spoke to his Apostles - he spoke to the heads of the Church.
There is no such Church as the Roman Church.
If you’re referring to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, headquartered in Rome - then you are in error. “Roman Church” is not even one of it’s official titles.
The Greek Orthodox Church?
E
elvisman
Guest
When the Catholic Church forbids communion to somebody it is for a reason.
**COMMUNION means to have the same beliefs. **
If you were to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church - you are saying that you accept all of the teachings of the Church. If you do not - you should refrain from receiving and go to another church, whose teachings you DO accept.
Finally - Because we believe the Eucharist to be the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ - to receive without accepting the teachings of his Church is to receive unworthily and to profane **the Body and Blood of our Lord, which St. Paul strictly WARNED **us against in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.
E
elvisman
Guest
With your opening phrase above (in red), you said a mouthful.**
From MY vantage.
It’s not about you, Paul - it’s about Christ. Are we obedient to him by following his Church - his Body, or do we make up our own rules?
Seems like you have chosen the latter.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Some one’s singing Lord . . . Kumbaya . . . 
P
promethius
Guest
Here here!
Paul, I get your intention, but the truth of the matter is this: I can’t look at the postulations you make, and they’re all postulations insofar as you have no magisterial authority, and agree that they’re universal christian beliefs. Many of them are in fact heresies.
Second, there is no such thing as the ROMAN church. I’m a catholic. Flat out, that’s it. Catholic is the name of my church and I’m a member of the Catholic church. I happen to belong to the Latin Rite of the Church, but that is not somehow magically a separate church. I’m sorry, Paul, but the title catholic is already taken.
Is ecumenism a good idea? Sure. But NEVER EVER EVER at the cost of sacrificing truth or believing that a man named Paul Rimmer can set up anything better than the church that Christ Himself instituted.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
Someone’s singing Lord, kumbaya!Some one’s singing Lord . . . Kumbaya . . .
Someone’s singing Lord, kumbaya… oh, Lord, kumbaya!
E
excubitor
Guest
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”.
P
Pat57
Guest
Paul,
I am a lurker, (I read a lot of the post but, don’t participate in the discussions,)
So you got my attention.
What I hear you saying is…( reading between the lines)
"I have a personal relationship with my lord and savior Jesus, why would Jesus give any mere man or human institution authority over Me? After all He gave me the Bible, and I am being guided by the Holy Spirit."
And so is born another denomination.
Now you see why I don’t post much. (I tend to rant.)
You seem to have given this proposition a lot of thought and are searching for the truth,
I pray that you will find it.
As for me my bet is on the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church”
Peace.
I am a lurker, (I read a lot of the post but, don’t participate in the discussions,)
So you got my attention.
What I hear you saying is…( reading between the lines)
"I have a personal relationship with my lord and savior Jesus, why would Jesus give any mere man or human institution authority over Me? After all He gave me the Bible, and I am being guided by the Holy Spirit."
And so is born another denomination.
Now you see why I don’t post much. (I tend to rant.)
You seem to have given this proposition a lot of thought and are searching for the truth,
I pray that you will find it.
As for me my bet is on the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church”
Peace.
E
excubitor
Guest
I just want to add to what others have said about the “Postulations”. I have spoken to High Anglicans and they will say "Yes I believe the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, but I can’t agree with the Assumption of Mary, or “I have problems with the infallibility of the Pope” etc., and they will all have their varying combinations of things they agree with or don’t agree with. As others have said, this is not unity. There is only set of true teachings. Its not mix and match. Therefore all Christians must unite under the one set of true teachings. On what other precept may unity be claimed. The protestant system is certainly no model for unity. Neither is the Anglican system.
However every Catholic must submit to the Roman Catechism. If they do not then they are regarded as disobedient (and there has never been any shortage of disobedience in the history of the world) Therefore obedience requires us to submit our personal issues about doctrine to the higher authority. This is our work of belief.
This is described in the scripture
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
So not I but the Spirit in me works to receive the word of God received from his appointed ministers, the apostles and handed down to us throughout the vast ages. That is what apostolic succession is all about. We recognise that the magisterium of the church is teaching us the word of God and we receive it as such, not as the mere ideas of men, but as revelations from God himself. Does the Spirit of God work to give us a whole range of mix and match sets of “truth”. Of course not. God is not the author of confusion.
Therefore if we are not working to align our beliefs with the word of God received from the successors to the apostles then we are not being led by the Holy Spirit.
However every Catholic must submit to the Roman Catechism. If they do not then they are regarded as disobedient (and there has never been any shortage of disobedience in the history of the world) Therefore obedience requires us to submit our personal issues about doctrine to the higher authority. This is our work of belief.
This is described in the scripture
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
So not I but the Spirit in me works to receive the word of God received from his appointed ministers, the apostles and handed down to us throughout the vast ages. That is what apostolic succession is all about. We recognise that the magisterium of the church is teaching us the word of God and we receive it as such, not as the mere ideas of men, but as revelations from God himself. Does the Spirit of God work to give us a whole range of mix and match sets of “truth”. Of course not. God is not the author of confusion.
Therefore if we are not working to align our beliefs with the word of God received from the successors to the apostles then we are not being led by the Holy Spirit.
A
Apollos
Guest
You’re already off on the wrong foot. What you are attempting here has been tried and has *always *failed because the Catholic Church *is *the Church. Selective denial of revealed truth is not a way to be Christian.
Look, you’re better off just copying the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Don’t reinvent the wheel.
- You are wrong about the various canons of scripture. The canon of Trent was *infallibly *defined. We know with absolute certainty that what the Protestants are rejecting is in fact inspired scripture.
- You are wrong about the Bible and science. You need to prove those stories about Babel and creation and the other stuff about women and slaves and so on are false before you say they’re false. Remember there was a time when people thought Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible because writing supposedly had not yet been invented - and then they found writing that was older than Moses. They also thought John was written in the 200s - until they found a manuscript from the 100s.
- You are wrong about justification. Trent’s explanation is sufficient and infallible.
- You are wrong about Mary’s sinlessness. It is an essential dogma if for no other reason than that it has been infallibly defined. It is not optional. And on a technical point, she was not made sinless at an unknown point between conception and birth; the point is known, and the point was the instant of her conception, not after it.
- You are wrong about Mary’s perpetual virginity. It too is defined and therefore mandatory. You may be unsure, but it’s still a medical fact.
- You are wrong about predestination. If God had predestined the fallen angels to heaven, they would have ended up in heaven. You’re confused about the definition of the word.
- You are wrong about the infallibility of the Church. Just … wrong.
- You are wrong about the source of pastoral and hierarchical authority, validity, and mandate. The source is not the congregation, but those who possess orders inherited from the apostles. Come on, Paul, why don’t you *know *this stuff?
- You are (implicitly) wrong about the significance of custom in the Church. Custom alone can be a sufficient proof that a doctrine or practice is true or mandatory.
- You are wrong about the nature of the Eucharistic species. There is no bread or wine in them at all.
- Finally, I disagree on worship of the Eucharistic species. Openly giving latria to the species prudently sends a message about its nature particularly when errors concerning it abound.
C
curlycool89
Guest
You know, we seem to see a lot of people who want this. It’s quite funny, because besides being totally untrue, it’s also unscriptural. Observe, Luke 16:19-31:
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 16:19-31[/BIBLEDRB]
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.
N
nhylan
Guest
Man, did you even read the rest of his post or just splurge out your guts on a page?
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
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.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
W
wmscott
Guest
So as a Southern Baptist is was baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I was not baptized into the Catholic Church and subject to the Vicar of Christ, I later converted to Catholicism, since there is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, am I still separated from the Church, the mystical Body of Christ?
E
elvisman
Guest
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.
- Status