Catholic or non-catholic that IS thee Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
" ll Christians hold to Only One True God

We Catholics hovever go beyond this truth by adding:

“One God logically can have only One set of Faith beliefs”

Your first comment seems straightforward and obviously correct - I agree

the second comment to me is not necessarily “logical” - are you confusing religious Rites or various dogmas that have been released thru the Magisterium or the Pope alone ( for example the Assumption) (which by the way I believe in)?

“one set of beliefs” do you mean the catholic Catechism - if one feels that the Pope has erred as we do then why would one feel that the RC beliefs are correct?

Is not the NIcene Creed a good summary of Christian Belief?

Perhaps that was what you were saying:cool:
 
concretecamper said:
Haha…you seems to assume a lot based on a comment. That’s OK.

Christ said to say yes when you mean yes and no when you mean no, anything else is from the evil one. So…pardon me if I seem to say “yes” or “no” or as you put it too black and white.

One is one. Accepting divisions as compatible with One seems illogical to me.
Click to expand...
Holy is holy. Accepting sin as compatible with holy seems illogical to a lot of folks.

Look, I’m being devil’s advocate here to help you communicate better with Protestants. I agree that Protestants are far too complacent about division, and as I said I agree that the Catholic Church subsists in those churches which are in communion with Rome and that other churches’ relationships to the One Church are subject to varying degrees of qualification–minimal in the case of the Orthodox; much more significant in the case of Protestants.

“Let your yes be yes and your no be no” means simply to speak the truth without hedging.

Oversimplifying the truth is a form of hedging it–objectively, a form of dishonesty.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Holy is holy. Accepting sin as compatible with holy seems illogical to a lot of folks.

Look, I’m being devil’s advocate here to help you communicate better with Protestants. I agree that Protestants are far too complacent about division, and as I said I agree that the Catholic Church subsists in those churches which are in communion with Rome and that other churches’ relationships to the One Church are subject to varying degrees of qualification–minimal in the case of the Orthodox; much more significant in the case of Protestants.

“Let your yes be yes and your no be no” means simply to speak the truth without hedging.

Oversimplifying the truth is a form of hedging it–objectively, a form of dishonesty.

Edwin
Click to expand...
God is simple, I is us who complicates the matter.
 
Contarini said:
Holy is holy. Accepting sin as compatible with holy seems illogical to a lot of folks.

Look, I’m being devil’s advocate here to help you communicate better with Protestants. I agree that Protestants are far too complacent about division, and as I said I agree that the Catholic Church subsists in those churches which are in communion with Rome and that other churches’ relationships to the One Church are subject to varying degrees of qualification–minimal in the case of the Orthodox; much more significant in the case of Protestants.

“Let your yes be yes and your no be no” means simply to speak the truth without hedging.

Oversimplifying the truth is a form of hedging it–objectively, a form of dishonesty.

Edwin
Click to expand...
God is simple, we complicate the matter. So over simplification may be the best form of honesty.
 
Peter_J said:
concretecamper, here’s the same question I tried to ask PJM: Suppose that, in a conversation with an Eastern Orthodox person, I said “We Catholics may not agree with you on everything; but we *are *Christians and we agree with you on quite a lot of doctrine”, and then he/she looked at me and responded “Orthodox or non-Orthodox is **the **question.” What impression would that give you of his/her attitude?
Click to expand...
As a catholic, I would question the belief more than the attitude. My attitude would be that he/she is expressing his/her belief. Would I be put off or would it affect my relationship with him/her…no. I am not that thin skinned and I am comfortable enough with my faith.
 
concretecamper said:
As a catholic, I would question the belief more than the attitude. My attitude would be that he/she is expressing his/her belief. Would I be put off or would it affect my relationship with him/her…no. I am not that thin skinned and I am comfortable enough with my faith.
Click to expand...
Good answer. 🙂 So, if you would question the belief that “Orthodox or non-Orthodox is the question” would you likewise question the belief that “Catholic or non-Catholic is the question”? In other words, would you (like me) say to an Orthodox Christian “We Catholics may not agree with you on everything; but we *are *Christians and we agree with you on quite a lot of doctrine”?
 
Contarini said:
Note: I believe that the Catholic Church subsists (in the strong sense of that word as interpreted, say, by Ratzinger/Benedict XVI) in the Roman Communion, and that objectively speaking all people are obligated by the Truth to place their faith in Jesus, and **all believers in Jesus are obligated to enter communion with Rome **
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

“We are not fishing in the Anglican pond”
  • Walter Cardinal Kasper
“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”
  • the Balamand Statement
 
Peter_J said:
(emphasis added)

“We are not fishing in the Anglican pond”
  • Walter Cardinal Kasper
“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”
  • the Balamand Statement
Click to expand...
  1. Kasper doesn’t necessarily speak for the Magisterium.
  2. I believe that the status of Balamand has been questioned as well, and more to the point, the Orthodox are in a different category.
  3. Entering communion with Rome can be collective as well as individual. In the case of the Orthodox, it definitely should be collective. In the case of Anglicanism, it’s more complicated. But either way, “fishing” is certainly inappropriate.
But the goal is communion with Rome. That is obligatory on all Christians.

Edwin
 
concretecamper said:
God is simple, we complicate the matter. So over simplification may be the best form of honesty.
Click to expand...
No. Exactly the opposite. That’s the relevance of my point no. 1 in my initial post on this thread.

Because God is simple and we are not, our language about God has to be very complex.

It’s like squaring the circle. A circle has only one side. But if you try to draw a one-sided figure using straight lines, you won’t get in anything but a tiny sliver of the circle. The only way you can approximate a circle using straight lines is to create a polygon with very many sides.

God’s simplicity is not at all like what we normally call “simple,” just as a circle is very different from a straight line. It’s on the other side, as it were, of what we call complexity.

It’s all in Aquinas:p

Oversimplifying, deliberately, when engaging in discursive speech about God, is lying about God. Objectively, it’s blasphemy.

Art and mystical experience are, of course, a different matter. There are non-rational ways of encountering the mystery of God, and these are in my opinion more powerful and truer than any set of words. Great artists and mystics get to the simplicity on the other side of complexity. But over-simplification in the form of dogmatic verbal statements remains very far on this side.

And, of course, the fullest manifestation of God is not a human word at all, but the divine Word made flesh.

You surely can’t claim, by the way, that the Trinity is simple? I am happy that you aren’t a Unitarian or a Muslim, but your premises don’t seem to me to fit Trinitarian Christianity at all.

Edwin
 
40.png
Contarini:
Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

God is simple, we complicate the matter. So over simplification may be the best form of honesty.

No. Exactly the opposite. That’s the relevance of my point no. 1 in my initial post on this thread.

Because God is simple and we are not, our language about God has to be very complex.

It’s like squaring the circle. A circle has only one side. But if you try to draw a one-sided figure using straight lines, you won’t get in anything but a tiny sliver of the circle. The only way you can approximate a circle using straight lines is to create a polygon with very many sides.

God’s simplicity is not at all like what we normally call “simple,” just as a circle is very different from a straight line. It’s on the other side, as it were, of what we call complexity.

It’s all in Aquinas

Oversimplifying, deliberately, when engaging in discursive speech about God, is lying about God. Objectively, it’s blasphemy.

Art and mystical experience are, of course, a different matter. There are non-rational ways of encountering the mystery of God, and these are in my opinion more powerful and truer than any set of words. Great artists and mystics get to the simplicity on the other side of complexity. But over-simplification in the form of dogmatic verbal statements remains very far on this side.

And, of course, the fullest manifestation of God is not a human word at all, but the divine Word made flesh.

You surely can’t claim, by the way, that the Trinity is simple? I am happy that you aren’t a Unitarian or a Muslim, but your premises don’t seem to me to fit Trinitarian Christianity at all.

Edwin
Click to expand...
while Aquinas is certainly fascinating, I have found those who quote him often overcomplicate God. It can also lead to confusion because of the inability of most to fully grasp the concepts…which leads one astray. It certainly does not need to be complex, quite the opposite is true. Complexity satisfies only our own ego.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
Peter J:
Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

As a catholic, I would question the belief more than the attitude. My attitude would be that he/she is expressing his/her belief. Would I be put off or would it affect my relationship with him/her…no. I am not that thin skinned and I am comfortable enough with my faith.

Good answer. So, if you would question the belief that “Orthodox or non-Orthodox is the question” would you likewise question the belief that “Catholic or non-Catholic is the question”? In other words, would you (like me) say to an Orthodox Christian “We Catholics may not agree with you on everything; but we are Christians and we agree with you on quite a lot of doctrine”?
Click to expand...
I would certainly say that as a matter of fact, not as a means on consolation.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
concretecamper said:
while Aquinas is certainly fascinating, I have found those who quote him often overcomplicate God. It can also lead to confusion because of the inability of most to fully grasp the concepts…which leads one astray. It certainly does not need to be complex, quite the opposite is true. Complexity satisfies only our own ego.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
Oversimplification leads people astray.

I have Aquinas, you have what?

Your own prejudices in favor of sloppy thinking?

Sorry, but you don’t have the theological or spiritual high ground here.

Speak the language of devotion and mysticism and be as simple as you like.

But when you speak the language of polemic and dogma, oversimplification is a lie against the truth of God.

See, I’m not particularly interested in being nice. You had me all wrong, didn’t you:p

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Oversimplification leads people astray.

I have Aquinas, you have what?

Your own prejudices in favor of sloppy thinking?

Sorry, but you don’t have the theological or spiritual high ground here.

Speak the language of devotion and mysticism and be as simple as you like.

But when you speak the language of polemic and dogma, oversimplification is a lie against the truth of God.

See, I’m not particularly interested in being nice. You had me all wrong, didn’t you:p

Edwin
Click to expand...
I am not concerned about having the spiritual high ground.

For you and I, dogma should be simple…it is a yes to the magisterium.

Being nice…never expected it :rolleyes:
 
Contarini said:
No. Exactly the opposite. That’s the relevance of my point no. 1 in my initial post on this thread.

Because God is simple and we are not, our language about God has to be very complex.

It’s like squaring the circle. A circle has only one side. But if you try to draw a one-sided figure using straight lines, you won’t get in anything but a tiny sliver of the circle. The only way you can approximate a circle using straight lines is to create a polygon with very many sides.

God’s simplicity is not at all like what we normally call “simple,” just as a circle is very different from a straight line. It’s on the other side, as it were, of what we call complexity.

It’s all in Aquinas:p
Click to expand...
That’s good, in so far as it goes; but I think some people are a little to gung-ho about Aquinas.
 
=Contarini;11357576]1. The human mind cannot grasp the divine simplicity except through multiple names (a principle found in Aquinas, although of course he doesn’t apply it to multiple churches or religions)
Click to expand...
  1. Given that the Church as a visible, human institution has various flaws while still being holy, it is not self-evident that it can’t also have internal divisions while still being one.
Click to expand...
Those are the two most obvious objections, I think.
Click to expand...
And many Catholics see their force. The simplistic argument you present is not, in fact, upheld by all your fellow Catholics.
Click to expand...
Edwin
Click to expand...
Hi Edwin!🙂

Keep in mind that for MORE than One Thousand Years todays Catholic Church was the ONLY CHURCH anywhere in the World.

That means that the bible is a catholic Book

That every reference in it to “church” is speaking of todays CC

Note that the Powers of the KEY’s to heaven, REST by God’s choice, with this same CC

& that the Mandate to TEACH Christ One and Only Faith is given directly and exclusively to the Apostles Mk. 16:14-15; Mt. 28:16-20

Further it is Christ Himself that MANDATES succession: In the two above passages Jesus CHANGES His MANDATE form only “the Jews” [Mt. 10:1-8]; to the “ENTIRE WORLD” making Succession a necessity; not an option.

Because God; Good and Perfect COMMITTED to guide, guard and Protect ONLY this same CC [John 17:14-19, Mt. 28:18-19] by proclaiming that QUOTE: THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NEVER PREVAIL AGAINST HER" end quote of Jesus Christ. Mt. 16:18-19

So my dear friend; please share with us What is not fact in the above claims. Truth like God is Singular.

We all believe true God is ONE

One God can possibly [and logically] hold ONLY One set of faith beliefs on long defined issues

And further God has with total consistantcy always hd Only One Chosen people [OT-The hewbrew nation] & NT todays CC. WHY? Because with just One; there is no romm for debate. That’s god’s logic my friend.👍

God Bless YOU! and thanks for your post.
Patrick
Mk 16:14-15 & mt. 28;16-20
 
Edwin, you said:
  1. Given that the Church as a visible, human institution has various flaws while still being holy, it is not self-evident that it can’t also have internal divisions while still being one.
There is a distinction between the humans that comprise the Church and the Church as an institution. The Church as an institution is free from error with regards to faith and morals, therefore, the Church is indeed holy (Praise Jesus) while most member (even leaders) may not be holy.

I cannot see how anyone can read John 17 and accept division in the Church as likely or possible. There are schisms, but the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church remains One although that One Church may have less members.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top