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

[Gabriel_of_12]

.

What is common to all the separations is the question of who (or what) has the ultimate authority within the Church Militant. While I have read much about the claims of the Catholic Church to that authority, I have yet to be convinced that it has what it says it has. It might be more accurate, perhaps, to say that I have not been convinced that the Catholic Church is the sole possessor of that authority. And there, I suspect, is the crux of the problem for many non-Catholics.

I’ve probably rambled on long enough for now. God’s blessings to you.

So “Authority” is what appears to keep you seperated from the first 1500 years of Chiristianity? Jesus gave authority to Peter and the apostles. For the first 1500 years there was unbroken Christian succession until your founder Martin Luther discovered Lutheranism. Broke away from the succession of the apostles. How do you see Lutheranism having authority if not from the apostolic succession?

I dont think Orthodoxy is an Issue here with Lutheranism, although authority appears to be the same reason they are in schism with the Apostolic Catholic church, other than that they remain Catholic.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Again… it’s not MY Christianity. Why do you insist on this phrase? Christianity is Christ’s!

Is Christianity today, the same as it was for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It’s not ingenious, just fair. You are asking me to explain the many ways in which Anglicanism differs from previous expressions of Christianity. I’m putting this into perspective in opposed to your very one-sided set of assumptions.

Ok, so lets assume that you do not have unbroken succession to the first 1500 years of Christianity? Do you recognize the first 1500 years of christitianity as valid succession to the apostles?

Lets assume that you do have succession to the first 1500 years of Christianity? How can you prove you do without writing a book?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It seems the biblical establishment of the Church is one of the bases most non-Catholics take issue with. The RCC believes Christ appointed Peter to be the shepherd over the flock, including delegating teaching authority, and the gates of hell would never prevail against it. In a nutshell, that’s the origin of the church. Non-Catholics take issue with that (not sure how) or don’t understand that Christ didn’t leave us with a list of do’s and don’ts. He left a human institution which would be lead by the Holy Spirit to teach, interpret, etc. over time. The core has never changed; nuanced “new” interpretations are made and taught, but we believe the church was vested with authority for that. Yes, humans in the church have erred and sinned but the core teachings of church itself have not been wrong. If a non-Catholic can see the truth in the establishment of the chruch I think they’ll eventually come into the RCC.

Anglicans were once all Catholic. High Anglicans I understand are very close to Catholicism. Other non-Catholic churches are so far from the original church that their own clergy do not know the Early Church and the purported justifications for the break away Reformation. It seems only a non-Catholic with years of study and thought can make their way back to the RCC. I don’t think God looks upon them adversely as they simply don’t know the full truthl yet we have an obligation to try to bring them into the full truth.

The really really big mind boggling thing to me about non-Catholics disregarding the fist 1500 years of church history is that they deny the Eucharist. It couldn’t be more plain in the bible. I suspect a historical denial was pushed in an effort to be as non-Catholic as possible. Human beings got mad at the church but the Reformation wasn’t a bucking of the political power of the church it was a denial of doctrine that didn’t make sense. 500 years later, the practioners have no understanding of why they are in a separate church. They simply accept that’s the way it is.

You explained that very well, thank you; That is what this post is about, Do non catholics and or Protestants know how their history, or the first 1500 years of Christian history? This is a forum where they can explain their true roots, and see how far we have grown from the first 1500 years of Christianity. Do our practices follow the first Christians or not?

 

[cath2lic4ever]

It seems the biblical establishment of the Church is one of the bases most non-Catholics take issue with. The RCC believes Christ appointed Peter to be the shepherd over the flock, including delegating teaching authority, and the gates of hell would never prevail against it. In a nutshell, that’s the origin of the church. Non-Catholics take issue with that (not sure how) or don’t understand that Christ didn’t leave us with a list of do’s and don’ts. He left a human institution which would be lead by the Holy Spirit to teach, interpret, etc. over time. The core has never changed; nuanced “new” interpretations are made and taught, but we believe the church was vested with authority for that. Yes, humans in the church have erred and sinned but the core teachings of church itself have not been wrong. If a non-Catholic can see the truth in the establishment of the chruch I think they’ll eventually come into the RCC.

Anglicans were once all Catholic. High Anglicans I understand are very close to Catholicism. Other non-Catholic churches are so far from the original church that their own clergy do not know the Early Church and the purported justifications for the break away Reformation. It seems only a non-Catholic with years of study and thought can make their way back to the RCC. I don’t think God looks upon them adversely as they simply don’t know the full truthl yet we have an obligation to try to bring them into the full truth.

The really really big mind boggling thing to me about non-Catholics disregarding the fist 1500 years of church history is that they deny the Eucharist. It couldn’t be more plain in the bible. I suspect a historical denial was pushed in an effort to be as non-Catholic as possible. Human beings got mad at the church but the Reformation wasn’t a bucking of the political power of the church it was a denial of doctrine that didn’t make sense. 500 years later, the practioners have no understanding of why they are in a separate church. They simply accept that’s the way it is.

agreed. GOD bless & prayers to all!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I asked a similar question:

;** Christ said “upon this rock I will build my churchand the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”** Matthew 16:18 (yes, I am aware that the Vatican disputes what this means, but we are agreed it means that the Church is infallible), and ordered them at His fairwell (Matthew 28:20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and," promised, them, “lo, I am with you alway (lit. in Greek, “all of the days”) even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

So well within a liftetime (c. 30-104) of Him saying these words, they were proved a lie. Well within a lifetime (or less, if we count from the repose of the last Apostle St. John and SS Clement and Ignatius, who, remember, knew the Apostles, as did some of those whom they wrote, and were appointed by the Apostles to “teach them to observe all things whatsoever He commanded them”) **the gates of Hell prevailed and those who knew the Apostles apostacized, and Christ did not keep His promise to be with them unto the end of the world. **

The True Church lasted only around 74 years, actually less, as we, for instance, have no reason to think that what St. Ignatius was teaching in 67 differed from what he was teaching in 104. Even less, nonexistent even, if we consider that St. John may have reposed after St. Clement, and St. Ignatius shortly thereafter, if not at the same time.

Gabriel of 12
Are you serious? did you say what Jesus said was a “lie”? and that Jesus did not keep his promise? and the gates of Hell prevailed against the church? And the True Church lasted only 74 years? or less? Maybe I am not reading your post, or able to accept your interpretation of first century. How do you account the counciled and saints that followed, the Martyrs who died for the Traditional Catholic faith?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

When you make a claim, you need to back it up with hard, solid evidence. Where’s your evidence for your claims?

How does one make a claim when asking a question?

I have been accused of assuming not making a claim?

Heres the assumption? Do you assume to practice your Christian faith today as did the first 1500 years of Christians? How?

Do you assume not to practice the same Christianity as did the first Christians from the first 1500 years?

If you do not practice christianity as did the first 1500 years of Chirstianity did. How do you practice your christian faith differently today? Why?

Can you back up your answers with documented history?

 

[Contarini]

Ok, so lets assume that you do not have unbroken succession to the first 1500 years of Christianity?

But why would I assume this? I decline your not-so-gracious invitation. You have to prove something like this before you can expect me to assume it with you.

Do you recognize the first 1500 years of christitianity as valid succession to the apostles?

Of course.

Lets assume that you do have succession to the first 1500 years of Christianity? How can you prove you do without writing a book?

If I have to prove it, obviously it isn’t being assumed.

I can’t prove that I do, because you no doubt have criteria for succession that are carefully selected to favor your own particular Communion. No problem with that. That’s your prerogative. But Anglicans aren’t necessarily going to have the same criteria.

Here are some ways in which we Anglicans have continuity:

1. We confess the Nicene Creed, and hold to the universal New Testament Canon and the canonicity of the Old Testament books that have not historically been questioned within the Christian tradition. We also receive the disputed books of the OT canon as valid for liturgical use, but do not rely on them to prove doctrine.
2. We accept as true and valid the conclusions of the first four councils, and many of us accept all seven (some Anglicans would question aspects of the last three, particularly the seventh–this is not a matter on which we have official teaching).
3. We celebrate the two sacraments of the Gospel in the form celebrated continuously by the Church (though we reject the medieval innovation of communion in one kind, except in special cases). We also celebrate the five lesser “sacraments.”
4. Our bishops are in succession to the bishops of the pre-Reformation Church. We can trace an uninterrupted succession from St. Augustine of Canterbury in the sixth century to Rowan Williams in the 21st.
5. Our liturgy is a modification of the medieval liturgy, and in many of our churches it has in turn been reformed under the influence of the liturgical movement (just as yours was reformed post-Vatican II) to reflect better the liturgical practices of the early Church. Certainly we do not worship precisely as the early or medieval Church did, but we use many of the same prayers, hymns, and canticles, and our sacramental and non-sacramental (i.e., Liturgy of the Hours) liturgies have the basic structure of pre-Reformation liturgy.

These are all ways in which we have continuity with the pre-Reformation Church.

Edwin

 

[gcnuss]

So “Authority” is what appears to keep you seperated from the first 1500 years of Chiristianity? Jesus gave authority to Peter and the apostles. For the first 1500 years there was unbroken Christian succession until your founder Martin Luther discovered Lutheranism. Broke away from the succession of the apostles. How do you see Lutheranism having authority if not from the apostolic succession?

I dont think Orthodoxy is an Issue here with Lutheranism, although authority appears to be the same reason they are in schism with the Apostolic Catholic church, other than that they remain Catholic.

Gabriel,

First, we do not see authority as separating us from the first 1500 years of Christianity. We believe that we are a part of the Church that has existed for nearly 2000 years. In Lutheran understanding, the fact that we are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome does not alter that.

We see authority as coming from the work of the Holy Spirit within the church. That authority is evidenced by the unswerving confession by Lutherans of the Christian faith as expressed in the ecumenical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian). It is not dependent on apostolic succession defined as a physical “laying on of hands” documented as unbroken from the time of the apostles (if that is possible), although the laying on of hands is a valuable sign of continuity with the teachings of the apostles and, indeed, we consider ordination with the laying on of hands to be an essential part of the call to ministry. There is, however, a gulf between Lutherans on whether or not ordination need be done by a bishop.

Finally, I take issue with your statement that “Martin Luther discovered Lutheranism.” He did no such thing. He sought to continue in a Christian faith that revolved around the grace given to the baptized through Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection – as opposed to a faith centered on seeking one’s salvation through one’s own efforts (even though that was not the true teaching of the Catholic Church).

I suspect, though we can never know, that Luther might have been agreeable to the outcome of the Council of Trent, correcting as it did some of the abuses that he fought against, particularly its declaration that . Whether that might have led to his reconciliation with the Catholic Church can only be a matter of speculation. The following, on its own, addressed one of Luther’s major concerns:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

And, indeed, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification helped to clarify our mutual understandings in this area.

Once again, I have begun rambling, I’ll close for now and look forward to continuing discussion.

 

[Peter_J]

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

It seems to me that there’s a pretty big difference between that Canon and the JDDJ. The Canon only says that we can not justify ourselves by our works without grace, whereas as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification says that we are justified by grace alone:

Together we confess : By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.

 

[gcnuss]

It seems to me that there’s a pretty big difference between that Canon and the JDDJ. The Canon only says that we can not justify ourselves by our works without grace, whereas as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification says that we are justified by grace alone:

Together we confess : By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.

Peter,

I think there is a certain element of the “which comes first, the chicken or the egg” dilemma hear. Are we saved, in part, because of the works we do or do we do the works we do because we are saved?" We often hear about Luther’s famous (or infamous, take your pick) argument against the Epistle of James because of its statement “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” Luther had problems with that because popular piety turned it into "if I do enough good works I will be saved. (Note, I don’t say that was the Church’s teaching, although I think we can agree that some clergy probably encouraged that belief.) Luther, himself, wrote in his Smalcald Articles that “faith, if works do not follow, is false and not true.”

The question becomes, “are works a part of the process of justification or are they a result of it?” Regardless of how one answers that question, works are part of the equation.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

These are all ways in which we have continuity with the pre-Reformation Church.

Edwin

Sacraments, Bishops, Nicene Creed, Succession from St. Augustine?

St. Augustine followed Peter in his successors of the unbroken line of successors, why dont your religious from St. Augustine to the 21st century?

Can you explain to me why you have valid sacraments from Jesus?

The Nicence Creed explains the Catholic belief, do you believe the same today as the first Christians did when it was written?

I dont understand today, If you has succession from St. Augustine and his Christian belief’s, why do believe reform was in order? Please dont use Roman Catholic church as your execuse, for one, you claim succession from a Saint, but have reformed from his belief’s.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

First, we do not see authority as separating us from the first 1500 years of Christianity. We believe that we are a part of the Church that has existed for nearly 2000 years. In Lutheran understanding, the fact that we are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome does not alter that.

We see authority as coming from the work of the Holy Spirit within the church. That authority is evidenced by the unswerving confession by Lutherans of the Christian faith as expressed in the ecumenical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian). It is not dependent on apostolic succession defined as a physical “laying on of hands” documented as unbroken from the time of the apostles (if that is possible), although the laying on of hands is a valuable sign of continuity with the teachings of the apostles and, indeed, we consider ordination with the laying on of hands to be an essential part of the call to ministry. There is, however, a gulf between Lutherans on whether or not ordination need be done by a bishop.

Help me understand this; You dont follow the successor of Peter the present day Pope from his divine given authority from Jesus himself. But you follow Martin Luther as one having authority to dictate to you how to live and believe as a Christian? What constitutes a valid ordination of a Bishop or Priest as a Lutheran?

Finally, I take issue with your statement that “Martin Luther discovered Lutheranism.” He did no such thing. He sought to continue in a Christian faith that revolved around the grace given to the baptized through Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection – as opposed to a faith centered on seeking one’s salvation through one’s own efforts (even though that was not the true teaching of the Catholic Church).

So Martin Luther’s teachings can be found in the first 1500 years of Christianity? Were these first Christians Lutherans and did they believe in Sola Scriptura, Sola Fe theology as Lutherans do today? Do you believe these two theologies are improved Christianity or a seperation from the first Christians?

I suspect, though we can never know, that Luther might have been agreeable to the outcome of the Council of Trent, correcting as it did some of the abuses that he fought against, particularly its declaration that . Whether that might have led to his reconciliation with the Catholic Church can only be a matter of speculation. The following, on its own, addressed one of Luther’s major concerns:

IF you see positive outcome from Trent, and you believe possibly Martin Luther may have reconciled back to the Catholic church. You as a disciple of Martin Luther’s theology, would you today consider reconciliation with the Catholic church?

Peace

 

[Peter_J]

Peter,

I think there is a certain element of the “which comes first, the chicken or the egg” dilemma hear. Are we saved, in part, because of the works we do or do we do the works we do because we are saved?" We often hear about Luther’s famous (or infamous, take your pick) argument against the Epistle of James because of its statement “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” Luther had problems with that because popular piety turned it into "if I do enough good works I will be saved. (Note, I don’t say that was the Church’s teaching, although I think we can agree that some clergy probably encouraged that belief.) Luther, himself, wrote in his Smalcald Articles that “faith, if works do not follow, is false and not true.”

The question becomes, “are works a part of the process of justification or are they a result of it?” Regardless of how one answers that question, works are part of the equation.

Well said. (See also.)

 

[gcnuss]

Oh, am I embarrassed.

think there is a certain element of the “which comes first, the chicken or the egg” dilemma hear

which should be “here.”

 

[gcnuss]

Help me understand this; You dont follow the successor of Peter the present day Pope from his divine given authority from Jesus himself.

We do not accept that the Pope is the sole possessor of the authority given to the Church.

But you follow Martin Luther as one having authority to dictate to you how to live and believe as a Christian?

We do not treat Luther’s teachings as dictatorial fiats. However, we do accept many of his teachings as true expositions of the Christian faith.

What constitutes a valid ordination of a Bishop or Priest as a Lutheran?

In the Augsburg Confession it is stated, “Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.” We interpret that to mean that ordination is limited to those called to the ministry in accordance with the requirements of the Church. In the ELCA we have definite requirements (educational, theological, and moral) that are used to determine the fitness of a person to be ordained.

So Martin Luther’s teachings can be found in the first 1500 years of Christianity? Were these first Christians Lutherans and did they believe in Sola Scriptura, Sola Fe theology as Lutherans do today? Do you believe these two theologies are improved Christianity or a seperation from the first Christians?

I don’t believe that Lutheran theology is in opposition to the basic truths of the faith.

If you see positive outcome from Trent, and you believe possibly Martin Luther may have reconciled back to the Catholic church. You as a disciple of Martin Luther’s theology, would you today consider reconciliation with the Catholic church?

I pray for reconciliation between our traditions and believe that it is God’s will that we become reconciled. I don’t see either Lutherans or Catholics as being without fault in our continuing separation. There are many responsible theologians from both traditions working diligently to discuss our differences and to seek ways of promoting unity. If, for some reason, I were not (or could not be) a Lutheran, the only place I can imagine myself is as a Catholic.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

We do not accept that the Pope is the sole possessor of the authority given to the Church.

**Then we agree that Jesus gave his divine authority to Peter first and the apostles, which is the Pope including the Magisterium of the Catholic church today. If not? then you do believe has the authority on earth in the Church of Jesus Christ today? **

We do not treat Luther’s teachings as dictatorial fiats. However, we do accept many of his teachings as true expositions of the Christian faith.

**Are Luther’s teachings in total agreement or conflict with the first 1500 year’s of Christian belief? **

In the Augsburg Confession it is stated, “Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.” We interpret that to mean that ordination is limited to those called to the ministry in accordance with the requirements of the Church. In the ELCA we have definite requirements (educational, theological, and moral) that are used to determine the fitness of a person to be ordained.

**Do you believe those who are called, are ordained by a successor of the apostles? **

I don’t believe that Lutheran theology is in opposition to the basic truths of the faith.

**IF Sola Scriptura/ Sola Fe is a true christian beleif and does not oppose the first 1500 years of Christianity? then why do you need a priest or bishop? **

I pray for reconciliation between our traditions and believe that it is God’s will that we become reconciled. I don’t see either Lutherans or Catholics as being without fault in our continuing separation. There are many responsible theologians from both traditions working diligently to discuss our differences and to seek ways of promoting unity. If, for some reason, I were not (or could not be) a Lutheran, the only place I can imagine myself is as a Catholic.

I also pray for reconciliation, and hope one day God will reveal a way for this to happen in my life time. What I am trying to understand is why? Lutherans seperated from the apostolic Catholic church, and instead of holding to the first 1500 years of Christianity, a change in theology occurred seperating Lutheranism from the first Christian Apostolic Catholic church?

 

[PerryJ]

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.

For example, was it humility that led the bishops at Vatican I to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility?

Yes, it is humility that leads to Papal Infallibility. Papal Infallibility is required due to the sin of man. The intellect being misguided by senses and original sin. Papal Infallibility is not the infallibility of man. It is the infallibility of Christ. Christ protecting the teachings of his Church. That is what Protestants do not understand. It has nothing to do with man being infallible. It has nothing to do with the Pope being infallible. It is the reverse. Pope’s are men and fail as all men fail. It is Christ being infallible and protecting his Churchs’ teachings.

For a just and merciful God to exist it is a requirement to provide us the teachings in; which, we can follow him. To exist in the way he designed us to live. To many Christian’s have fallen into the concept of the merciful God and have left out the just God. God is both and it is one and the same. To be just he has to provide us the teachings untainted. As man has fallen into the stain of sin and his intellect is impaired one can not be guided by ones intepretation of Scripture. One can not intellectually define Scripture without it passing through the lense of sin; therefore, one will not get the complete message of Christ and his redemption. One must have a teaching authortiy to guide us. Humility of man causes Papal Infalliblity. Our knowing that Pope’s are failures and are not strong enough, wise enough to overcome original sin is the reason for Papal Infallibility. Humility is the reason we have Papal Infallibility.

 

[Contarini]

St. Augustine followed Peter in his successors of the unbroken line of successors, why dont your religious from St. Augustine to the 21st century?

I’m sorry, but this sentence is hard to understand.

Can you explain to me why you have valid sacraments from Jesus?

In Catholic terms, because our bishops have unbroken apostolic succession, as I mentioned. Pope Leo XIII decided that our sacraments were invalid because the form of ordination used in the sixteenth century did not explicitly talk about a fully Catholic understanding of the priesthood (for more details, talk to GKC, another Anglican poster on this forum). Naturally we disagree. I would argue that intention to consecrate a Christian presbyter is sufficient intention. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the validity of sacraments is linked to clerical succession. Certainly only a priest ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession *ought *to preside at the Eucharist (or, to put it the other way round, all who preside at the Eucharist ought to have had hands laid on them by a bishop in apostolic succession). But I’m not sure that *validity *depends on this.

The Nicence Creed explains the Catholic belief, do you believe the same today as the first Christians did when it was written?

If you’re talking about the Nicene Creed itself, then yes: with the possible exception of the phrase “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” which no one today (except ultra-traditionalists) understands in quite the sense in which the early Christians probably understood it. In other words, most of us–certainly including the Catholic Church–recognize that one can have a somewhat dysfunctional relationship with the Church without being wholly outside it. That does not mean that we believe in several churches, or in a wholly invisible Church. In fact, the official Catholic understanding of the Church is more “invisible” than the one I hold. There is one Church, and it is visible. But because of sin and error (on all sides) the particular churches making up that Church do not have a perfect relationship with one another.

I dont understand today, If you has succession from St. Augustine and his Christian belief’s, why do believe reform was in order? Please dont use Roman Catholic church as your execuse, for one, you claim succession from a Saint, but have reformed from his belief’s.

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.

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

 

[Publisher]

No, that’s not what I’m asking. When I speak of a Deposit of Faith, I mean that I believe that the entire Christian Faith was revealed to the first Christians, and that no new doctrines can ever to added to it.

So for example, when we Catholics claim that the “Immaculate Conception” is a dogma, we are implicitly claiming that it was always a doctrine of the Church, even before it was a dogma.

(You might say that this is one reason that many Roman Catholics, including myself, think it would be unwise to dogmatically define a new Marian dogma like “Co-redemptrix” – it’s just not very apparent that this teaching was always believed.)

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.