Does your non Catholic or Protestant belief, discounts the first 1500 years of Christians before your Christian faith began?

[PerryJ]

Ah, Yes I do believe in a deposit of faith…it is found in Christ and Him alone. “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” is the fullest “deposit of faith”…all else is fluff.

Are there multiple truths to Christ?

If there not multiple truths why would there be multiple rules of faith?

If there is only one rule of faith why are there so many variations of Christianity?

God having the rule of faith alone is illogical. God doesn’t need the rule of faith as he and it are one in the same. The rule of faith has to be transmitted to man for it to be of use.

If it has been transmitted to man why do we have so many variations?

We don’t. We have one with the Church. We have false interpetations when man leaves his humilty and believes he has the ability to overide original sin and understand the Lords teachings on his own. The proof of this logic is the variations in belief. Yet we only have one rule of faith from God.

Man can not understand the Bible on his own because his intellect is impacted by original sin and his corrupted senses.

Yet one may state that the Holy Spirit protects the teaching for the individual man. That again is proven false as we have so many variant teachings. God has one truth. If he was depositing the Rule of Faith in each man we would have one Church. We do not. Why because God gives us freewill in all decisions. This includes following or not the Church and the teachings he left behind for us.

 

[Publisher]

I am guilty of…“indifferentism” I believe is the Catholic word, as well as 'a lack of humility" it would seem .

I understand your position…I really do…I diagree with it. If what you believe brings you joy and peace to your life…I’m ok with it…I have no desire whatsoever to challenge your beliefs nor to change your mind.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s easy for us Catholics to look at Protestants and see a lack of humility, and vice versa.

It’s not always so easy for either side to see their own lack of humility.

Hi PerryJ,

I don’t wish to get to a discussion about your claim that Vatican I dogmatically defined Papal Infallibility out of humility, so this post will be pretty short. I just want to say thank you for the reply to my question. Blessings,

 

[PerryJ]

Hi PerryJ,

I don’t wish to get to a discussion about your claim that Vatican I dogmatically defined Papal Infallibility out of humility, so this post will be pretty short. I just want to say thank you for the reply to my question. Blessings,

I may have misstated myself. I have not read about Vatican I doing it and I do not know their intent. From a overall Catholic perspective I believe it is our sinful ways as humans that makes Papal Infalliblity required.

For all I know Vatican I may have had a bad Pope using the wrong reasons. I do believe Christ protects our teachings and I humble myself before this teaching.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Could you list the things St. Augustine of Canterbury believed which you think we do not believe? Please provide adequate historical documentation for these claims.

Of course the understanding and practice of the faith change and develop somewhat as time goes on. This again is where you have a double standard. You are willing to use any variation on our part as evidence that we aren’t authentic, while you cry foul if I point out the variations in your own tradition over time.

**Sorry Contarini, I was thinking of St. Augustine of Hippo when I asked you the question about succesion? **

More importantly: why do you assume that I think the kind of reform that happened was in order? Why do you assume that membership in a particular church implies that I think everything in the heritage of that church is good? The break with Rome was unjustified, and I long for reunion. Reunion, not simply individuals “jumping the fence” and so making the divide even deeper. But, however much you may ask me not to mention it, the fact is that there were faults on both sides, and it’s unfair to blame only one side. There were many things that did need to be reformed–communion in one kind, the celebration of the liturgy in a language not understood by the people, generally an inadequate understanding of the priesthood of all the baptized, a sacrificial theology of the Mass that did not adequately explain the relationship between the Eucharistic sacrifice and the one sacrifice on the Cross and gave the Eucharistic sacrifice itself a propitiatory character (or at least could be interpreted in that direction), and so on, and so forth. Schism was not justified by these things. Nor was the idolatrous submission of the Church of England to the monarch, which is our most grievous sin as a tradition. But the changes that took place were not all bad, and part of reunion involves negotiation to keep the changes that were valuable while repenting of those that were erroneous (much of which we have already done under the influence of the “Anglo-Catholic” movement).

Edwin

Thank you Edwin; you have been very informative in your commentary. Although I must disagree with your claims that I make assumptions to your faith? I do admit the question I asked is a hard one for many, but few like you are brave enough to answer it. I am more interested in the many different protestant traditions today, If they still believe and practice Christianity as the early Christians, that lived these first 1500 years and how they compare to them? I was not meaning to come across as assuming your Christian traditions.

Has anything changed in your tradition, since the break up from the Pope from the first 1500 years of Christianity? For example; Does this same community exist that seperated from the Pope, or have they splintered into other groups? Is the Sacrament of Confession to a Priest still practiced in your tradition?

Validity of the Sacraments and Holy Orders is a difficult topic that may require a canon Lawyer. I understand that the Monarchy changed the apostolic Tradition of ordination due to changes in the wording of a valid ordination by the Monarchy, thus making them invalid?

 

[Contarini]

Thank you Edwin; you have been very informative in your commentary. Although I must disagree with your claims that I make assumptions to your faith?

Of course you do. Nothing odd about that. Why on earth would you deny it? You can’t get anywhere without assumptions. The problem arises if you refuse to question them when they are challenged by reality.

Has anything changed in your tradition, since the break up from the Pope from the first 1500 years of Christianity?

Lots of things. And lots of things had changed over the 1500 years before that. Change happens all the time. To list all the changes that take place in any century of the Church’s history would be very exhausting.

For example; Does this same community exist that seperated from the Pope, or have they splintered into other groups?

Again, this is a loaded question. Catholicism has “splintered” too. That’s what the Reformation was. Similarly, various groups have split away from Anglicanism. Some small groups (the Reformed Episcopalians in the 19th century, and a number of groups in the 20th) have continued to identify themselves as Anglicans.

There is certainly still today a mainstream Anglican Communion with a reasonable claim to be the same as the Anglicanism of the sixteenth century–just as reasonable as the Catholic Church’s claim to be the same as the Catholic Church of the fifteenth century (and arguably considerably more reasonable than the Catholic Church’s claim to be the same as the Catholic Church of the second century). So I think the best answer to your question is “no.” But again, the question conceals lots of assumptions that you don’t seem to recognize.

With the controversy over homosexuality, the splits within American Anglicanism (the Episcopal Church) have become more severe, and a bigger split is threatened worldwide. But so far it has not been finalized. We can pray that it will not be.

Is the Sacrament of Confession to a Priest still practiced in your tradition?

Until the 19th century private confession was practiced almost solely in cases of severe illness. It became a regular pastoral practice in the 19th century among those Anglicans who wanted to reject the Reformation and reaffirm our continuity with pre-Reformation Christianity more strongly. Today it is widely offered, but is not mandatory. We often say: “All may, none must, some should.” Public confession (in very general terms, such as you also use in the Mass) is part of nearly every Anglican liturgy, and when a priest is present the priest offers a general absolution.

I understand that the Monarchy changed the apostolic Tradition of ordination due to changes in the wording of a valid ordination by the Monarchy, thus making them invalid?

The “monarchy” didn’t write liturgical texts directly, but certainly approved them. Of course, the wording is no less Catholic than the wording of many early Christian ordination rites. But the Catholic Church argues that to change back to an earlier and vaguer wording implies a rejection of Catholic teaching, which the early Christian rites in question did not. This is an example of how tricky the question of continuity with the early Church can be, and hence how problematic your original question is.

Edwin

 

[Thing]

(in very general terms, such as you also use in the Mass) is part of nearly every Anglican liturgy, and when a priest is present the priest offers a general absolution.

There is no general absolution in a Catholic Mass, unless an atomic bomb is falling on the church, a once in a lifetime occurance.

Contarini:

question to Contarini:

I understand that the Monarchy changed the apostolic Tradition of ordination due to changes in the wording of a valid ordination by the Monarchy, thus making them invalid?

The “monarchy” didn’t write liturgical texts directly, but certainly approved them. Of course, the wording is no less Catholic than the wording of many early Christian ordination rites. But the Catholic Church argues that to change back to an earlier and vaguer wording implies a rejection of Catholic teaching, which the early Christian rites in question did not. This is an example of how tricky the question of continuity with the early Church can be, and hence how problematic your original question is.

Edwin

---

Affiliation: Episcopalian

If the anglican church believed their new wording was valid and was the same as the old - why did they change it back again 100 years later?

 

[Contarini]

There is no general absolution in a Catholic Mass, unless an atomic bomb is falling on the church, a once in a lifetime occurance.

You do have a prayer for forgiveness, but you’re right–it is not an absolution per se. Anglicanism has given this more significance because of Protestant theology (according to which you need to confess the fact that you are a sinner, but cannot possibly hope to list all your sins) and because of the lack of mandatory private confession.

If the anglican church believed their new wording was valid and was the same as the old - why did they change it back again 100 years later?

It’s not a question of validity. It’s a question of emphasis.

Edwin

 

[Thing]

You do have a prayer for forgiveness, but you’re right–it is not an absolution per se. Anglicanism has given this more significance because of Protestant theology (according to which you need to confess the fact that you are a sinner, but cannot possibly hope to list all your sins) and because of the lack of mandatory private confession.

It’s not a question of validity. It’s a question of emphasis.

Edwin

Protestant theology (according to which you need to confess the fact that you are a sinner, but cannot possibly hope to list all your sins

Did not know you had to list ALL sins and so making it apparently impossible to confess. Tricky way of getting out of confession. Catholics must confess their mortal sins in confession, This must be done at least once a year unless you have no mortal sin to confess.

It’s a question of emphasis.

Is that why they changed it in the first place. For no reason?

 

[Peter_J]

I may have misstated myself. I have not read about Vatican I doing it and I do not know their intent. From a overall Catholic perspective I believe it is our sinful ways as humans that makes Papal Infalliblity required.

For all I know Vatican I may have had a bad Pope using the wrong reasons. I do believe Christ protects our teachings and I humble myself before this teaching.

Ah. Clarification duly noted.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Of course you do. Nothing odd about that. Why on earth would you deny it? You can’t get anywhere without assumptions. The problem arises if you refuse to question them when they are challenged by reality.

I thought I was questioning the reality of your broken apostolic succession, and change from the reality of your tradition authority from the first 1500 years of Christianity? What you claim to be my assumptions, deals with the fact of your seperation. My question is; do you still keep to the apostolic belief’s from the first 1500 years? Thus far I can only gather that you do not, and you have attempted to justify it by assuming that every one else has changed also?

Lots of things. And lots of things had changed over the 1500 years before that. Change happens all the time. To list all the changes that take place in any century of the Church’s history would be very exhausting.

Specifically doctrine, and authority to begin with. It is a fact that you do not follow the Pope, yet the first 1500 years of Christianity did. How do you reconcile this?

Again, this is a loaded question. Catholicism has “splintered” too. That’s what the Reformation was. Similarly, various groups have split away from Anglicanism. Some small groups (the Reformed Episcopalians in the 19th century, and a number of groups in the 20th) have continued to identify themselves as Anglicans.

Catholicism has not “splintered”. The reformation did not splinter Catholicism, the reformers protested the Catholic church authority and doctrine, and made changes from the first 1500 years of Christianity. Reformation has splintered continuously since the first protestant revolt. This free will outside of Catholicism has become a run away train.When will it stop?

There is certainly still today a mainstream Anglican Communion with a reasonable claim to be the same as the Anglicanism of the sixteenth century–just as reasonable as the Catholic Church’s claim to be the same as the Catholic Church of the fifteenth century (and arguably considerably more reasonable than the Catholic Church’s claim to be the same as the Catholic Church of the second century). So I think the best answer to your question is “no.” But again, the question conceals lots of assumptions that you don’t seem to recognize.

**Is it an assumption to assume that the Anglican community has splintered, making it more difficult for the Anglican communion to be reconciled to the mainstream Anglican church? **

Until the 19th century private confession was practiced almost solely in cases of severe illness. It became a regular pastoral practice in the 19th century among those Anglicans who wanted to reject the Reformation and reaffirm our continuity with pre-Reformation Christianity more strongly. Today it is widely offered, but is not mandatory. We often say: “All may, none must, some should.” Public confession (in very general terms, such as you also use in the Mass) is part of nearly every Anglican liturgy, and when a priest is present the priest offers a general absolution.

A general absolution is not confession. The Mass contains a penitential rite, but it is for venial sins not mortal sins.

Peace