Does anyone have bad stories from their Protestant days?

[kalt]

I very much agree. This claiming of only my church is the true church is so divisive. Certainly I’ve never heard a single RC in real life say such a thing to anyone’s face. What is found here a lot is the extreme position. I was prompted by another once Catholic now Episcopalian at my church to investigate the accords reached by the World Council of Churches.

On the issue of the Eucharist, the USCCB had this to say:

“Although we find such clarifications and further considerations necessary, we nevertheless are in agreement that the section on eucharist represents to a considerable degree the faith of the Church.”

This was back in 1984. I haven’t had time to dig further. But it appears we are in a great deal more agreement that some here would have us be.

If one begins to surmise how God might feel about all this pettiness when we all agree on basics, then I think it becomes quite telling. Either God is deliberately withholding some part of the Eucharistic gift because the “correct” forumulae is not being used, or churches are interferring with God’s desire that all believers in Jesus’ presence under the bread and wine be fed is not being met. I’m thinking it’s not God who is legalistic.

I think you assume that the things we agree on are all that there is to “the basics”.

Your last argument is a common one–assuming God’s willingness to look the other way, and implying that those of the Catholic faith are being unChristian when not compromising their faith to achieve some sort of reconciliation of all Christians. God created a Church, the Catholic Church. I have no doubt that he expects his followers to accept the athority of His church.

FWIW, if true reconciliation amongst Christians could be attained by being less “legalistic” (read changing the faith of the church Jesus formed, leaving Peter as its first pope), the multitude of non-Catholic churches would be in full accord.

It’s obvious that all of the non-Catholic Christian churches only agree to disagree, to live and let live. There is no true agreement on the Christian faith. Heck, there isn’t true agreement on the faith in the many churches that call themselves Baptist, for example.

You point to what you see as “legalism” in the CC and blame that for the state of the Christian world. But it is the break-away churches that have caused this separation. It is up to them to reconcile or not. And, btw, in case you think it matters to me, be sure that it doesn’t. Everyone is free to worship and believe as he chooses. If you don’t agree with the Catholic Church, good. Don’t join it. What differnce does it make to you, really, what Catholics believe? It’s not like you’re compelled to be Cathoic. You are not oppressed by the Church. So why do you care?

I couldn’t care less what other Christians believe. If they believe that Mary had a brood of kids. Good for them. If they believe that you can’t ask the Saints for intercession, it’s their loss and makes no difference to me. If they believe that you don’t need to go to Confession. OK. Again their loss.

If you’re secure in your own beliefs, why would you care one iota about how “legalistic” you think the CC is? Why would it be an issue in the first place?

Islam is extremely legalistic. Orthodox Judaism is too, I believe. So who cares? So long as they don’t make me follow their rules, I couldn’t care less what they believe.

I get a kick out of those who claim that America is what it is because of Christianity. What? And Europe wasn’t? They claim that without Christianity (non-Catholic, of course) we wouldn’t have freedom of religion.

It’s so much fun to remind them that the first Christians came here to gain the religious freedom that was unattainable in other non-Catholic Christian countries.

It seems to be one of non-Catholic Christian’s favorite pasttimes to blame all the bad things on the Catholic Church and give credit for all good things to non-Catholic Christianity.

I live in a state that barred Jews and Catholics. They eventually let Jews in. Catholics (papists) had to wait a little longer.

You see. It’s not only the ancient Catholic Church that had problems. The much younger Protestant and Separatist churches were quite nasty themselves.

Would you like to know what those who feld here for religious freedom did to people who dared to have different ideas on religion, to those who were one of their own but who dared to think differently?

 

[Roy5]

KALT - RE OPENNESS - RE HISTORY

 Actually, Kalt, I'm very open to other faiths and have attended over 175 different churches and temples of all sorts in recent years. I am quite well-acquainted with Catholicism as my father's family has been Catholic, my late and beloved wife had been Catholic, and a few relatives and a host of friends still are Catholic. I have read most of the Church Fathers, wrote an undergraduate thesis on "Elements of Democracy in the Political Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas" (was a political science major), have heard four Popes personally (three when they in the USA, including Benedict XVI this last spring at Yankee Stadium, one - Pius XII - at the Vatican), read the state Catholic newspaper every month, follow Commonweal, America, US Catholic, etc. - and much more. So I have studied Catholicism enough so that I suspect that I know much more about it than most Catholics.

  As for history, it's true that both Catholics and Protestants have been intolerant in the past. My maternal ancestors became Huguenot in Belgium and fled to France and joined the Puritans who came to early New England. My paternal ancestors were French Catholics in New France (Quebec), with an ancestral uncle an archbishop of Quebec. Protestants were not permitted to live in Quebec until the English won the battle on the Plains of Abraham. One reason why my family came to the USA was prejudice they faced once they had become Protestant in Quebec. Now, of course, the churches in Canada, Catholic and Protestant, are largely peripheral to that society.  The hold Catholicism once had on Quebec has disappeared completely, and most young Quebecois regard the church as an oppressor in the past.

   Back to my main point. We ought to work to bring religions together and not keep insisting that ours is the only true faith. I watch EWTN quite regularly, including such programs as Journey Home, and they appear to foster one-upsmanship, anti-Protestant feeling. I don't detect that in Protestant churches, even though they seem full of ex-Catholics, whether they are evangelical or more liberal congregations.

   Oh, and remember that the USA and its Constitution were products of Protestants. I believe one signer of the Declaration was Catholic, a Carroll from Maryland. That isn't an issue today, but for years Protestants were afraid of Catholic intentions re America. Pius IX in his "Syllabus of Errors" openly denounced freedom of religion, separation of church and state, democracy generally. Fortunately, Vatican II rectified most of this, though I suspect that some posters here would agree with Pius IX. Nearly all Catholics in America today are proud of our democracy, as am I, even though our history is full of scars.

   God bless the whole world - no exceptions.

 

[Peter_J]

I just finished reading the document that SpiritMeadow linked to, i.e. usccb.org/seia/lima.shtml . I recommend reading it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think you assume that the things we agree on are all that there is to “the basics”.

Your church said we are in agreement to a substantial degree. Not my words. Further, they listed I believe three things that needed further discussion. One of which I believe would be readily fixed, the other two seemed fairly minor.

Your last argument is a common one–assuming God’s willingness to look the other way, and implying that those of the Catholic faith are being unChristian when not compromising their faith to achieve some sort of reconciliation of all Christians. God created a Church, the Catholic Church. I have no doubt that he expects his followers to accept the athority of His church.

It may be common because it may be correct. You say God created a church, I don’t. Most scholars would agree with me. Jesus was thoroughly Jewish. You can believe what you wish of course that your church’s explanation that they have authority to define all these minor rules and formula for liturgy, consecration and ordination and so on and that God cares one whit about these legalistic trivia.

I don’t claim that RC’s are unChristian in their unwillingness to put substance before form. I find it unhelpful.

FWIW, if true reconciliation amongst Christians could be attained by being less “legalistic” (read changing the faith of the church Jesus formed, leaving Peter as its first pope), the multitude of non-Catholic churches would be in full accord.

I have no idea whether that is true, and again you forget to attach, that you believe Jesus formed some church, and you claim it as yours. Opinions are not facts.

You point to what you see as “legalism” in the CC and blame that for the state of the Christian world. But it is the break-away churches that have caused this separation. It is up to them to reconcile or not. And, btw, in case you think it matters to me, be sure that it doesn’t. Everyone is free to worship and believe as he chooses. If you don’t agree with the Catholic Church, good. Don’t join it. What differnce does it make to you, really, what Catholics believe? It’s not like you’re compelled to be Cathoic. You are not oppressed by the Church. So why do you care?

I don’t claim legalism is the cause of the persent state of the Christian world. It is a problem, one shared as you note further on by many other faiths. To say that the breach is “caused” by the leaving party, is to suggest that the person in a relationship who leaves is always the cause. Faulty reasoning solves nothing.

I have no especial purpose to correct what I see as error in the RCC. But of course much of the rather nasty stuff coming from Catholics toward Protestants comes under the guise of “correcting the sinner.” Why do you care?

Islam is extremely legalistic. Orthodox Judaism is too, I believe. So who cares? So long as they don’t make me follow their rules, I couldn’t care less what they believe.

We all need to care, since it is these rigid legalistic segments of many religions that devolve into violence to secure their ends, which is to force others to live by their dictates. I would think that is obvious.

I get a kick out of those who claim that America is what it is because of Christianity. What? And Europe wasn’t? They claim that without Christianity (non-Catholic, of course) we wouldn’t have freedom of religion.

To a degree that is true. Seeing states favor one religion to the exclusion of others was in large part what drove Madison and others to fight so hard for a establishment clause. Europe still had mostly state religion.

It’s so much fun to remind them that the first Christians came here to gain the religious freedom that was unattainable in other non-Catholic Christian countries.

You take glee in odd things. But regardless, religious freedom is not what Christians came here for in reality. They came to secure religious freedom for themselves no doubt, but they surely had no intent to give it to others, most especially Catholics, Jews, Quakers and later Baptists. Our separation of church and state worked to secure the rights of those minority faiths from states wherein they could not own property, run for office, and were sometimes driven from the state or worse.

It seems to be one of non-Catholic Christian’s favorite pasttimes to blame all the bad things on the Catholic Church and give credit for all good things to non-Catholic Christianity.

The paranoia of the Catholic extreme right seems to think this, but I never felt the least hated or blamed for anything all the years I was Catholic, nor do I ever remember a single person bemoaning this. Extreme orthodoxy seems always to feel that they are being persecuted, mostly it seems because they try so hard to force others to live by their rules. As an Epicopalian, I have contact with tons of ex Catholics, and I’ve yet to see one who was angry, and certainly none who had any ill will toward the RCC. We disagree on doctrine period.

I live in a state that barred Jews and Catholics. They eventually let Jews in. Catholics (papists) had to wait a little longer.

Most all of the original colonies did that, except Maryland I believe. Baptists were barred too as well as Quakers.

Would you like to know what those who feld here for religious freedom did to people who dared to have different ideas on religion, to those who were one of their own but who dared to think differently?

I know it quite well. There are a number of books on the subject. I reviewed one on my blog. Check under “Book reviews” on the sidebar.

 

[kalt]

KALT - RE OPENNESS - RE HISTORY

 Actually, Kalt, I'm very open to other faiths and have attended over 175 different churches and temples of all sorts in recent years. I am quite well-acquainted with Catholicism as my father's family has been Catholic, my late and beloved wife had been Catholic, and a few relatives and a host of friends still are Catholic. I have read most of the Church Fathers, wrote an undergraduate thesis on "Elements of Democracy in the Political Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas" (was a political science major), have heard four Popes personally (three when they in the USA, including Benedict XVI this last spring at Yankee Stadium, one - Pius XII - at the Vatican), read the state Catholic newspaper every month, follow Commonweal, America, US Catholic, etc. - and much more. So I have studied Catholicism enough so that I suspect that I know much more about it than most Catholics.

  As for history, it's true that both Catholics and Protestants have been intolerant in the past. My maternal ancestors became Huguenot in Belgium and fled to France and joined the Puritans who came to early New England. My paternal ancestors were French Catholics in New France (Quebec), with an ancestral uncle an archbishop of Quebec. Protestants were not permitted to live in Quebec until the English won the battle on the Plains of Abraham. One reason why my family came to the USA was prejudice they faced once they had become Protestant in Quebec. Now, of course, the churches in Canada, Catholic and Protestant, are largely peripheral to that society.  The hold Catholicism once had on Quebec has disappeared completely, and most young Quebecois regard the church as an oppressor in the past.

   Back to my main point. We ought to work to bring religions together and not keep insisting that ours is the only true faith. I watch EWTN quite regularly, including such programs as Journey Home, and they appear to foster one-upsmanship, anti-Protestant feeling. I don't detect that in Protestant churches, even though they seem full of ex-Catholics, whether they are evangelical or more liberal congregations.

   Oh, and remember that the USA and its Constitution were products of Protestants. I believe one signer of the Declaration was Catholic, a Carroll from Maryland. That isn't an issue today, but for years Protestants were afraid of Catholic intentions re America. Pius IX in his "Syllabus of Errors" openly denounced freedom of religion, separation of church and state, democracy generally. Fortunately, Vatican II rectified most of this, though I suspect that some posters here would agree with Pius IX. Nearly all Catholics in America today are proud of our democracy, as am I, even though our history is full of scars.

   God bless the whole world - no exceptions.

Just a note about Internet communication. When you use all caps, you’re yelling. When you use all caps in bold, you’re vein-popping yelling.

Catholics aren’t likely to agree to say that the church that Jesus founded is not the one, true, catholic and apostolic church. That it doesn’t have the fullness of faith.

We agree that all other legitimate religions do have truth in them, but only the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth.

Again, you are adamant that we agree to stop thinking this, but this is our faith, and we won’t give it up to please people who don’t think it’s very nice or that it’s divisive.

It is the truth. Why would we deny the truth?

 

[occupant]

i was beaten up by a youth pastor when i was 13.

 

[Roy5]

USING CAPS

I use caps not to shout but to indicate whom I am responding to, etc. You will not find that I use caps in the text. But I wanted to get Kalt's attention. Obviously, I did that.

I'm well aware that most Catholic posters believe that they belong to the one and only true church. My constant plea is for an end to religious arrogance and prejudice, from whatever source. My paternal line was quite anti-Catholic Church (never anti-Catholic in terms of people, by the way) because they were French-Canadians who came out of that church. Converts often are especially zealous, whichever way they convert. In contrast, my constant refrain is that Christians and others should not be poisoned by the past and work together in mutual respect and try to tear down the barriers and biases that still exist. My sense is that most Catholics and Protestants are happy to do just that, but 'purists' on both sides stand in the way. We have a growing anti-religious world out there - Hawkins, Hitchens and such - and we should stand together rather than dire our fire at one another.

   Protestants of many different denominations and even theologies work together in ecumenical ventures all the time. In Canada, the Methodists, Congregationalists, and most Presbyterians even united into the United Church of Canadam despite a major theological difference between free-will Arminians and predestinarian Calvinists (well, gew of them believe that any more).  Why not encourage Catholics and Protestants to work together instead of viewing ecumenism mainly as a 'return to Rome' - an evangelistic device? That's the tenor of EWTN. Happily, EWTN doesn't represent most modern American Catholics.

 

[kalt]

Your church said we are in agreement to a substantial degree. Not my words. Further, they listed I believe three things that needed further discussion. One of which I believe would be readily fixed, the other two seemed fairly minor.

It may be common because it may be correct. You say God created a church, I don’t. Most scholars would agree with me. Jesus was thoroughly Jewish. You can believe what you wish of course that your church’s explanation that they have authority to define all these minor rules and formula for liturgy, consecration and ordination and so on and that God cares one whit about these legalistic trivia.

I don’t claim that RC’s are unChristian in their unwillingness to put substance before form. I find it unhelpful.

I have no idea whether that is true, and again you forget to attach, that you believe Jesus formed some church, and you claim it as yours. Opinions are not facts.

I don’t claim legalism is the cause of the persent state of the Christian world. It is a problem, one shared as you note further on by many other faiths. To say that the breach is “caused” by the leaving party, is to suggest that the person in a relationship who leaves is always the cause. Faulty reasoning solves nothing.

I have no especial purpose to correct what I see as error in the RCC. But of course much of the rather nasty stuff coming from Catholics toward Protestants comes under the guise of “correcting the sinner.” Why do you care?

We all need to care, since it is these rigid legalistic segments of many religions that devolve into violence to secure their ends, which is to force others to live by their dictates. I would think that is obvious.

To a degree that is true. Seeing states favor one religion to the exclusion of others was in large part what drove Madison and others to fight so hard for a establishment clause. Europe still had mostly state religion.

You take glee in odd things. But regardless, religious freedom is not what Christians came here for in reality. They came to secure religious freedom for themselves no doubt, but they surely had no intent to give it to others, most especially Catholics, Jews, Quakers and later Baptists. Our separation of church and state worked to secure the rights of those minority faiths from states wherein they could not own property, run for office, and were sometimes driven from the state or worse.

The paranoia of the Catholic extreme right seems to think this, but I never felt the least hated or blamed for anything all the years I was Catholic, nor do I ever remember a single person bemoaning this. Extreme orthodoxy seems always to feel that they are being persecuted, mostly it seems because they try so hard to force others to live by their rules. As an Epicopalian, I have contact with tons of ex Catholics, and I’ve yet to see one who was angry, and certainly none who had any ill will toward the RCC. We disagree on doctrine period.

Most all of the original colonies did that, except Maryland I believe. Baptists were barred too as well as Quakers.

I know it quite well. There are a number of books on the subject. I reviewed one on my blog. Check under “Book reviews” on the sidebar.

To a substantial degree does not mean that all that is different is unimportant. If it were unimportant, the churches wouldn’t ever have separated.

Those who left the CC to form these churches (and those who later left those to form even newer churches) also thought that differences were make or break differences.

These “rules” as you call them (again proving that you don’t know the Catholic faith) are not minor points. A “rule” about ordination a minor “rule”? What a preposterous comment!

Catholic Ordination is legalistic trivia?

You’ve claimed to know the Catholic faith, and yet you want attachments to back up the Catholic claim that Jesus formed His Church. If you did know the religion, you would know where to find that information in the bible, early Christian documents and what tradition back it up.

Do you think I’m correcting the sinner? No. I’m correcting misconceptions about the CC.

Are you saying that I’m a dangerous person because I stand up for my faith?

You apparently believe that I am “extremely orthodox”. If by that you mean that I know my faith, believe in it, and defend it. Then yes, by your definition I am proudly “extremely orthodox.”

You seem to believe that Catholics can pick and choose what parts of the Catholic faith they choose to accept.

Did you know that Catholics do not believe that people ordained outside of the apostolic succession are not validly ordained according to the Catholic faith?

And yet you think that we are wrong (or dangerously orthodox) to believe this.

You can think what you will, but you will have no success convincing Catholics that they should abandon their faith to be PC or to created a watered-down faith that will make non-Catholic Christians more comfortable or achieved reconciliation.

If anyone wants to be reconciled to the CC, they know where to find her.

 

[kalt]

USING CAPS

I use caps not to shout but to indicate whom I am responding to, etc. You will not find that I use caps in the text. But I wanted to get Kalt's attention. Obviously, I did that.

I'm well aware that most Catholic posters believe that they belong to the one and only true church. My constant plea is for an end to religious arrogance and prejudice, from whatever source. My paternal line was quite anti-Catholic Church (never anti-Catholic in terms of people, by the way) because they were French-Canadians who came out of that church. Converts often are especially zealous, whichever way they convert. In contrast, my constant refrain is that Christians and others should not be poisoned by the past and work together in mutual respect and try to tear down the barriers and biases that still exist. My sense is that most Catholics and Protestants are happy to do just that, but 'purists' on both sides stand in the way. We have a growing anti-religious world out there - Hawkins, Hitchens and such - and we should stand together rather than dire our fire at one another.

   Protestants of many different denominations and even theologies work together in ecumenical ventures all the time. In Canada, the Methodists, Congregationalists, and most Presbyterians even united into the United Church of Canadam despite a major theological difference between free-will Arminians and predestinarian Calvinists (well, gew of them believe that any more).  Why not encourage Catholics and Protestants to work together instead of viewing ecumenism mainly as a 'return to Rome' - an evangelistic device? That's the tenor of EWTN. Happily, EWTN doesn't represent most modern American Catholics.

Using caps is yelling. If you’re saying that you’re yelling to get attention, I say knock it off. That’s immature and insecure. If you post, we’ll see it and respond if we choose.

Saying that the CC is the Church founded by God isn’t arrogant. It’s the truth. If you see it as arrogant, you are taking offense at the truth.

Catholics and Protestants here do come together. The difference is that the Protestants here, irl, don’t ask Catholics to change their faith to do it!

They’re apparently more ecumenical than you are.

 

[Roy5]

KALT

The tenor of your remarks suggests that you can’t dialogue well. Sorry I tried.

But God loves you anyway. I may have more difficulty doing that, but I’ll try.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi SpiritMeadow. In the course of “eavesdropping”, I noticed that you said:

You say God created a church, I don’t.

So I guess the question is, do you ever say the Nicene Creed? And, if so, do you just skip the part that says “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church” (or, in the case of the Apostles’ Creed “… the holy catholic church”)?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

To a substantial degree does not mean that all that is different is unimportant. If it were unimportant, the churches wouldn’t ever have separated.

Oh I never said they were unimportant, but your church claims were are in substantial agreement. I take that to mean that there is great hope that we can achieve full agreement.

These “rules” as you call them (again proving that you don’t know the Catholic faith) are not minor points. A “rule” about ordination a minor “rule”? What a preposterous comment!

Catholic Ordination is legalistic trivia?

I can call them rules if I choose and that has not a whit to do with my understanding of the RCC. I didn’t say they call them that. Read more carefully. Again, I can call it a rule. Other’s would call it a formula. We have apostolic succession in my church but you refuse to acknowledge it as such because the wording was changed in the action. I call that legalistic and having little to do with the issue. You can call it important enough to war over if you choose. It changes nothing.

You’ve claimed to know the Catholic faith, and yet you want attachments to back up the Catholic claim that Jesus formed His Church. If you did know the religion, you would know where to find that information in the bible, early Christian documents and what tradition back it up.

I have no idea what this is about. I asked for no proof. I know exactly upon which scripture you rely upon for the conclusion given to you by your church. I don’t agree with it, nor do most modern scholars.

Do you think I’m correcting the sinner? No. I’m correcting misconceptions about the CC.

I have no misconceptions about the RCC.

Are you saying that I’m a dangerous person because I stand up for my faith?

I have no idea frankly. I am saying that extremism occurs in most faith traditions. It’s been well known in Christianity. It can and does devolve into violence when it’s aims are not met all too often. Witness the KKK and various white supremacist groups. In fact the Vatican has been expressing serious concern about the extremism exhibited by some in it’s American flock over the election of Obama. It is unhealthy, paranoic and dangerous, and they seem well aware of this problem.

You apparently believe that I am “extremely orthodox”. If by that you mean that I know my faith, believe in it, and defend it. Then yes, by your definition I am proudly “extremely orthodox.”

I should think that if you look up the word and compare it to other extreme orthodox faiths, you will get the idea. It has little to do with knowing one’s faith rules and procedures. It has as it’s claim that no other faith but the holder’s own is real or good, and that others must and should conform to theirs. If you aren’t in that boat, I commend you.

You seem to believe that Catholics can pick and choose what parts of the Catholic faith they choose to accept.

I have no clue where you come by that.

Did you know that Catholics do not believe that people ordained outside of the apostolic succession are not validly ordained according to the Catholic faith?

That is the teaching of the church. There are many RC who don’t pay any attention to that, nor believe in it personally. So no, Catholics don’t necessarily believe that.
And yet you think that we are wrong (or dangerously orthodox) to believe this.

You can think what you will, but you will have no success convincing Catholics that they should abandon their faith to be PC or to created a watered-down faith that will make non-Catholic Christians more comfortable or achieved reconciliation.

I’ve never said anything on this forum ever that suggested that I wanted anyone to leave the RCC. I believe everyone should attend to the faith tradition that they think is correct for them, based on whatever standards they set. You may consider any other faith watered down, but that is but your opinion. You seem to assume amazing things from what I have said. I’d be interested as to how you come to these conclusions–the train of thought that gets you to some of these rather fantastical conclusions.

Quite frankly, I’m not expecially fond of the reconciliation. I think Christendom is stronger in its collective parts that as some homogeneous and quite correctly “watered” down agreed upon version.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi SpiritMeadow. In the course of “eavesdropping”, I noticed that you said:

So I guess the question is, do you ever say the Nicene Creed? And, if so, do you just skip the part that says “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church” (or, in the case of the Apostles’ Creed “… the holy catholic church”)?

We say the nicene creed every sunday and I say the Apostles creed twice a day. We do use both HCAC and HCC in them. I guess somehow you see that as inconsistent, but you will have to explain further since I do not.

 

[Peter_J]

We say the nicene creed every sunday and I say the Apostles creed twice a day. We do use both HCAC and HCC in them. I guess somehow you see that as inconsistent, but you will have to explain further since I do not.

OK. So you believe in one holy catholic apostolic church, but you don’t believe that Christ founded it?

 

[Peter_J]

Why not encourage Catholics and Protestants to work together instead of viewing ecumenism mainly as a ‘return to Rome’ - an evangelistic device? That’s the tenor of EWTN.

I hope I won’t sound presumptuous by saying this, Roy5, but I get the impression that you watched “The Journey Home” or some such show, and just assumed that it represented the thinking of everyone at EWTN.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

OK. So you believe in one holy catholic apostolic church, but you don’t believe that Christ founded it?

I believe in a univeral catholic church certainly. But I don’t believe that Jesus was intent upon setting up a church. He remained thoroughly Jewish up to the moment of his death on the cross. I believe he was intent on reforming Judaism. The first apostles remained in the temple until forcibly removed sometime around 70 CE when the temple was destroyed. Until that time they taught Jesus in both temple and synagogue. Paul also was thoroughly Jewish throughout all his life.

The early followers were either called “Jesus followers” or followers of “The Way.” Obviously if there was an immediate determination by Peter and James and Paul that a new church was invisioned there would have been no issue about following Jewish laws at all as we find in Acts.

The various house churches continued for many decades, wherein each city or town had it’s leadership. Over time, more authority was lodged in Rome and efforts were made to develop a canon so that everyone could be teaching the same thing. Constantine of course pushed this, since there was at that time no uniformity of what was considered scripture. That obviously developed into one church as various smaller groups were stamped out as heretical. Then of course, things started to fall apart and we have had a continuous breakdown and splintering. Together it is the Universal Church.

This of course is my belief. But as to the stuff about Jesus and his intentions, I feel that I am with the majority of scholars as they see it. That doesn’t make it correct of course, but it seems to me most logical in terms of scripture. Like all biblical scholarship, we are always learning, and some or all may one day be revised in favor of a better explanation. If that were not the case the Vatican and much of Protestantism would have a lot of biblical scholars and theologians out of work!

 

[racing59]

I believe in a univeral catholic church certainly. But I don’t believe that Jesus was intent upon setting up a church. He remained thoroughly Jewish up to the moment of his death on the cross. I believe he was intent on reforming Judaism. The first apostles remained in the temple until forcibly removed sometime around 70 CE when the temple was destroyed. Until that time they taught Jesus in both temple and synagogue. Paul also was thoroughly Jewish throughout all his life.

The early followers were either called “Jesus followers” or followers of “The Way.” Obviously if there was an immediate determination by Peter and James and Paul that a new church was invisioned there would have been no issue about following Jewish laws at all as we find in Acts.

The various house churches continued for many decades, wherein each city or town had it’s leadership. Over time, more authority was lodged in Rome and efforts were made to develop a canon so that everyone could be teaching the same thing. Constantine of course pushed this, since there was at that time no uniformity of what was considered scripture. That obviously developed into one church as various smaller groups were stamped out as heretical. Then of course, things started to fall apart and we have had a continuous breakdown and splintering. Together it is the Universal Church.

This of course is my belief. But as to the stuff about Jesus and his intentions, I feel that I am with the majority of scholars as they see it. That doesn’t make it correct of course, but it seems to me most logical in terms of scripture. Like all biblical scholarship, we are always learning, and some or all may one day be revised in favor of a better explanation. If that were not the case the Vatican and much of Protestantism would have a lot of biblical scholars and theologians out of work!

I agree with spirit meadow. There are other Churches that were their in the begining of Christianity. James, Phillip,Andrew, ect… started them. The Eastern Church did not fall under the authority of Rome, yet they are still Catholic, just not Roman Catholic, there is a difference. Greek Orthodox,Russian Orthodox,Ethiopian Orthodox do not fall under the Pope, yet they have been around for 2,000 years.One Church is the Universal (Catholic) belief is Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savoir. All Christian Churches are One, Holy,and Catholic in the Belief of Jesus Christ is our Savior and the Son of God. As far as Apostolic there were 10 other Apostles that started churches all over the known world at that time.

 

[Peter_J]

I believe in a univeral catholic church certainly. But I don’t believe that Jesus was intent upon setting up a church.

SpiritMeadow,

Would you agree with me that what you are saying here goes beyond Branch Theory? After all, “Branch Theory” teaches that the one holy catholic and apostolic Church is really a collection of independent but “invisibly united” bodies/denominations; whereas you are going further and saying that even this was not established by Christ but rather by human design and historical circumstance. Right?

 

[cthulhubryan]

The epiclesis, from the Great Thanksgiving, Word and Table I, II, and III:

Pour out your Holy Spirit upon us, and on these gifts of bread and wine.
Make them be for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ,
that we may be for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood.

Those are the words I have said for 20 years celebrating the Eucharist at the table. No one has stoned me yet.

O+

I have always enjoyed the Great Thanksgiving, but I was always unsure what was meant by the words “for us” if there is no transubstantiation. Also, I was unaware of the order of St. Luke. I am glad to hear of it. I always felt that there wastoo much of the EUB’s influence on the liturgy.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow,

Would you agree with me that what you are saying here goes beyond Branch Theory? After all, “Branch Theory” teaches that the one holy catholic and apostolic Church is really a collection of independent but “invisibly united” bodies/denominations; whereas you are going further and saying that even this was not established by Christ but rather by human design and historical circumstance. Right?

That would be essentially correct. The universal church formed as a result of either having no Jewish presence, or where it was available, when they were told they were no longer welcome in synagogue or temple. There is growing evidence that during this time, there were gentiles who, because they admired the Jewish way of life and faith, practiced Judaism to some extent, though not apparently going for circumcision. They attended synagogue for instance and studied Torah. There is a growing belief that Paul actually sought these folks out as his “gentiles” whom he converted to Jesus followers. All of them remained in Judaism until around 70 CE as I understand it.

By necessity then, they formed what ultimately became Christian churches throughout the realm.

As I said, I am persuaded by the scholarship to this effect. No doubt others would not be, most especially Roman Catholics I would think. But then, I cannot be sure. Time and again, I find the views expressed here by some are not really reflective of what is thought in the Vatican.

For instance, I’ve seen two reports now of Vatican concern over the radical reaction on the part of the right wing American Catholic church toward Obama and especially the Notre Dame appearance. The Vatican considers him a moderate, thinks there are some actually moderate points in his stem cell position, and is basically alarmed at the stridency of the right wing here, whom they claim are acting more like fundamentalists than Catholic. I subscribe to the feed of a moderate Catholic blog, Vox Nova, and a few others that are ecumenical in outlook and report on many denominations. Various Episcopal blogs also report on Vatican news as well.

I have no idea how true this stuff is, but I did see it in mutiple sources. It makes me a bit leery now of making statements about what the Vatican says or teaches based on what many say here now.