EO or RC. How can a Protestant decide?

[GaryTaylor]

So then I am Catholic now?

Depends on how you think the unity of the Church is going.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I have learned more about the Lutheran faith from you than from any other source, really. That is why I qualified my statement as follows:

If I believe that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth and that the Church has the authority to define that truth in its dogmas and doctrines, it is not unreasonable then to surmise that when a Lutheran belief conflicts with a doctrine of the Catholic Church (a definitive statement of belief, such as Transubstantiation) then that belief is heretical to one degree or another.

At the same time, I certainly recognize that the Lutherans desired to hold on to many of the truths and practices of the Catholic faith and did so. But there is a difference between the split between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church and the split between the Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church.

Sorry if I have offended you. That certainly was not my intention.

God bless.

Steve

I wasn’t offended, Steve. Perhaps I read too much into what you wrote, and was a bit disappointed.

Thanks for the clarification.

Jon

 

[josie_L]

“Does not signify”? What do you mean? If you mean it doesn’t matter, you’re wrong. Not only does it matter because I do not see their decisions as actually representing the catholic Christianity they claim to be representing, I also do not agree that they were “labeling” their church in the way that you apparently think they are, or at least not any more or less than any other council that had issued similar decrees that this was the faith that they were proclaiming.

I’ve already explained what I meant by “does not signify” so I’m not sure why you’re asking. Moreover, the preponderance of evidence would suggest that you are wrong, i.e., the amount of bishops and Church fathers who’ve identified the Church as Catholic are doing so because that is her proper name, i.e., it is not just being utilized as an adjective but as a means to identify the true Church of Christ

Again, this is not a point. Are you reading from the original Greek or Latin? Ttranslations have their own biases, and that these biases are most likely to be present in those matters which the translators have internalized (i.e., even the very idea that capitalization means what you think it means; that’s a presupposition that I don’t share, even though we’re communicating in the same language right now, and I know its punctuation conventions).

So all English translation of the original Greek and/or Latin are biased/wrong, and that presupposes, of course, that all the translators were biased towards the Catholic Church. That is quite the conspiracy theory you’ve got going.

He’s writing about who would call their church “the Catholic Church” and who wouldn’t. In that, I don’t disagree with him.

If you call something by a specific name which is what St. Augustine did, then you are not utilizing the word “catholic” as just an adjective anymore, but rather as the proper name of the Church of Christ. The word “catholic” is now being used in the capacity of a noun.

You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that this proves that “The Catholic Church” was understood as some kind of nomen concretum in the mind of the early church, whereby the RCC can be said to be continuing the or an apostolic understanding. I disagree, but I would like to make it clear that, as the RCC idea is a sort of narrowing of the original (adjectival) use of the term, the original way of understanding is big enough to subsume the more narrow ecclesiology within it.

The CC is not narrowing the original use of the term, but broadening it, i.e., we are well aware that the word “catholic” was utilized as an adjective (still is according to our creeds), however, somewhere along the way this adjective became synonymous with the Church of Christ, in that it became the proper name to identify the true Church. In other words, it was also utilized as a noun. Even emperor Theodosius in 380 was utilizing the word “Catholic” as a noun when he issued a law which stipulated that all Christians henceforth be called “Catholic Christians” or for short “Catholic”.

Where we do disagree, however, is with the RC stance that (from an Orthodox point of view) equates “Catholic” with “in union with the Roman Pope” and/or “holding to the faith that the Roman Pope and those in communion with him hold”. That’s not Catholic, even if every early church father without exception were to use the phrase “the Catholic Church” in English, with that very capitalization.

Although, I hold to this view, I have not attempted to use this argument in our debate, i.e., I’m simply trying to make you understand that the word “Catholic” was being used in more ways than one, it was not simply just an adjective.

A point which is directly related to our differing ecclesiologies, right?

No, not really.

I think it is or else I wouldn’t have bothered writing any of this

Because you jumped to conclusions.

and presumably RC apologists and believers would not bother seeking out and collecting masses of quotes from early Christian writers using the phrase “the Catholic Church” as though it supports their particular ecclesiology.

No, I wasn’t using the word “Catholic” to support my particular ecclesiology, although I hope you’ve come to realize that the word “Catholic” means both “throughout the whole” and “universal” because they mean the same thing.

Why, after there began to be claimants, of course. As far as the exact date, take your pick: After Ephesus I, after Chalcedon, after 1054…the date itself does not matter. What it represents does, and exactly what that is will vary depending on your church’s understanding of proper ecclesiology and the history surrounding it.

Well, since you’ve provided me with that article from Kenneth Whitehead, I’ve got my answer, so thanks.

Yes, now it is, at least for you and those in communion with you (and I suppose likewise for us, as you have absconded with this term and made it into something it wasn’t when we were still in communion, but of course we still also maintain our own understanding of what it refers to). I maintain that it was not always so.

We have done no such thing, i.e., anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can surmise that the proper name for the Church even back then was the Catholic Church.

 

[josie_L]

So then I am Catholic now?

He used a a lowercase “c”, i.e., “catholic”.

 

[SteveVH]

The bolded statement is a gross exaggeration. Here’s a list of traditional beliefs that most Protestants retained (it is not exhaustive). It took me just a few minutes to come up with the list, and entirely from memory. All of these are things I believed as a Protestant.

1. God as Trinity
2. Creation from nothing
3. The fall of man
4. The divinity and humanity of Christ
5. The virgin birth of Christ
6. Christ is the Savior of mankind
7. Christ instituted the Eucharist
8. Christ was crucified and died for our salvation
9. The resurrection of Christ
10. Christ established a church
11. Christ instituted the sacrament of baptism
12. Christ ascended to the Father
13. Christ gave the Church and believers the gift of the Holy Spirit
14. God’s revelation to mankind in the inspired Holy Scriptures

As I told Jon, that is why I said that protestant communities are heretical to varying degrees. It is difficult to speak of “Protestantism”. The list you have provided is believed by some, maybe even many, but not all by any stretch of the imagination.

For example, even with something as basic as baptism, the word “sacrament” is replaced with the word “ordinance”. For many, it is not regenerative, and not even necessary, but rather a public proclamation of their decision to follow Christ. They have rejected the Church’s teaching in favor of their own.

Let’s take a look at the Eucharist. Very few denominations even recognize the true presence of Christ and most would not know what “Eucharist” even means. Again, they rejected the Church’s teaching. It is not enough to recognize that Christ instituted the Eucharist. One must have the correct teaching on what it means.

Lets consider some other, very basic things, rejected by most of the Protestant world:

• Church founded on Peter
• Apostolic succession
• The priesthood
• The sacraments of Reconciliation, Holy Orders, Last rites, Matrimony, Confirmation and, yes, the Eucharist.
• The communion of saints
• The teaching authority of the magisterium
• The authority of the Church to bind and loose
• The authority of the Church to forgive sin.
• The Mass
• The primacy of the Pope
• Sacred Tradition

And then we have the unique Protestant innovations that arose from these rejections, such as:

• Sola Scriptura (or at least the Bible as the final authority rather than the Church)
• Private interpretation superior to the Church’s judgment
• Once saved always saved
• Each individual equally led by the Holy Spirit
• Sinner’s prayer as a saving act

These are all off the top of my head. I know there are many more, and so do you.

So while not all of these issues are applicable to each and every denomination, they are very common differences all stemming from rejection of the Catholic Church.

 

[dzheremi]

Josie L:

Rather than get into any further arguments resting upon polysemy (I am on vacation, after all), I will respond to your latest post by reminding you that what I am arguing against is what your understanding of these issues lead you and those of your communion to claim about the ecclesiology of the early Church. None of these semantic or grammatical linguistic issues matter outside of that context, as it is in that context that all RCs invoke St. Augustine, St. Iraneus, et al. as supporting their presuppositions regarding what the early church must’ve believed and how it must’ve been organized. A careful reading of my previous posts will show that I did not actually object to the historical use of the noun phrase “the Catholic Church”, only your and all RCs reading back into history things that I maintain were never really there based on the fact that you’ve found this or that early saint that used that phrase in an epistle or whatever. The point in objecting that they would not have understood the term as you do is really to say that your ecclesiology is not supportable from the early church fathers but by inference, parentheses, and ellipses, but of course without having to put it in such blunt terms. Yet I suppose here we are, so I really have nothing more to say on this matter.

 

[dronald]

He used a a lowercase “c”, i.e., “catholic”.

Is only Rome worthy of the upper-case “C” or are Orthodox and Lutherans as well? Not me though I’m guessing?

 

[icamhif]

Hi Everyone!

dronald, I’m going through a similar situation, and I hope that what I’m about to say is not too off-topic from this thread. I just fear that if I make this post the start of a new thread, that people will accuse me of starting the same discussion as this and being redundant. At the same time, I hope that I get enough feedback on my post from others, despite the fact it’s so deep in this thread (Page 10 or 11).

With that said, here is my story:

I’ve been researching the apologetic debates between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, and weighing the claims with Scripture hermeneutics and Church history. And I must confess that the Catholic Church raises at least a couple good points that I cannot get a satisfactory answer. Although I’m not yet fully convinced that the Catholic Church is infallible in all of its Ecumenical Council Canons and Ex-Cathedra statements, I’ve been given good reasons to believe that the Catholic Church is (at the very least) quite credible in its claim to have the true, apostolic faith. (If anyone here knows me from a previous thread and wonders why I’ve changed so much, it’s because I was in the process of weighing the evidence at the time I last posted).

In addition, I think that the way Catholics interpret Scripture as a whole requires less assumptions and exegetical streches than the way Protestants interpret the Scripture as a whole. Take, for example, the debate about Sola Fide. I think that this debate all comes down to this question: What verses in Scripture require more context and Biblical exegesis to understand, and what verses deserve their “face value” interpretation even with context and exegesis? For example: How do you compare Ephesians 2:8-10 with James 2:14-26, and how well does that comparison fit with all the other verses of Scripture (face value interpretations and otherwise)? I think that by Occam’s Razor, the comparison that requires the overall simplest interpretation of all Bible verses is more likely to be correct. And by “simple”, I mean more “face value” interpretations and less “complex exegesis” and “assumption of meanings.” I believe this because I think this makes the Bible verses more in harmony with each other, for we know that God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). To make a long story short, I am almost convinced that the Catholic interpretation of Scripture wins, by that standard.

However, like I implied before, I am not (at least, not yet) 100% certain that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. Why? Because I hear some arguments from Eastern Orthodox and even Protestants that seem equally convincing to me, and that there are still some perceived problems with Catholic claims and doctrines that I wish to clear up and understand. Because of this, I perceive that I am still in “invincible ignorance,” and thereby not condemned according to Lumen Gentium 14.

I will close by saying that I have been praying very much about this, and that I trust that God will lead me to the truth through His Holy Spirit.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

 

[Peter_J]

Is only Rome worthy of the upper-case “C” or are Orthodox and Lutherans as well? Not me though I’m guessing?

Well, keep in mind that these kind of grammatical conventions are seldom absolute. But yes, the convention is to use “Catholics” – without a qualifier and with a capital-C (as opposed to, say, “Anglo-Catholics” or simply “catholics”) to mean exclusively members of the Roman Communion.

 

[josie_L]

Is only Rome worthy of the upper-case “C” or are Orthodox and Lutherans as well? Not me though I’m guessing?

dronald, maybe you should read Lumen Gentium in order to get a better idea of where Orthodox and Protestants stand in relation to the Catholic Church. All I wish to say right now is that you are still my brother in Christ even if we are not in visible communion with each other.

God bless you and your family!

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by SteveVH View Post
The Orthodox are in schism with the Catholic Church. The faith traditions which originated with the “reformation” are heretical, to varying degrees. Big difference. The Eastern Orthodox share the same faith as the Catholic Church, with very few differences. The daughters and sons of the “reformation” have, for the most part, rejected nearly everything the Catholic Church had taught for 1500 years, retaining only the Church’s holy book, the Bible. The authority of the Church Christ founded has been exchanged for the authority of the individual. The result? Chaos, with little to no uniformity of belief among non-Catholic Christians.

Can’t really speak to what SteveVh meant, as I don’t know him well; but in a way I think it’s the internet that does a poor job. (Or maybe I should say that we tend to have unreasonably expectations for the internet, leading to eventual disappointments.)

I wonder what kind of descriptions of Catholics are common on protestant forums? (On second thought, I don’t want to know.)

 

[RyanBlack]

As I told Jon, that is why I said that protestant communities are heretical to varying degrees. It is difficult to speak of “Protestantism”. The list you have provided is believed by some, maybe even many, but not all by any stretch of the imagination.

For example, even with something as basic as baptism, the word “sacrament” is replaced with the word “ordinance”. For many, it is not regenerative, and not even necessary, but rather a public proclamation of their decision to follow Christ. They have rejected the Church’s teaching in favor of their own.

Let’s take a look at the Eucharist. Very few denominations even recognize the true presence of Christ and most would not know what “Eucharist” even means. Again, they rejected the Church’s teaching. It is not enough to recognize that Christ instituted the Eucharist. One must have the correct teaching on what it means.

Lets consider some other, very basic things, rejected by most of the Protestant world:

• Church founded on Peter
• Apostolic succession
• The priesthood
• The sacraments of Reconciliation, Holy Orders, Last rites, Matrimony, Confirmation and, yes, the Eucharist.
• The communion of saints
• The teaching authority of the magisterium
• The authority of the Church to bind and loose
• The authority of the Church to forgive sin.
• The Mass
• The primacy of the Pope
• Sacred Tradition

And then we have the unique Protestant innovations that arose from these rejections, such as:

• Sola Scriptura (or at least the Bible as the final authority rather than the Church)
• Private interpretation superior to the Church’s judgment
• Once saved always saved
• Each individual equally led by the Holy Spirit
• Sinner’s prayer as a saving act

These are all off the top of my head. I know there are many more, and so do you.

So while not all of these issues are applicable to each and every denomination, they are very common differences all stemming from rejection of the Catholic Church.

IClearly, there are a number of differences, some of which are rather significant. However, there is nothing you have offered to demonstrate that your previous statement “The daughters and sons of the “reformation” have, for the most part,** rejected nearly everything the Catholic Church had taught for 1500 years**, retaining only the Church’s holy book, the Bible” is anything other than a gross exaggeration. Clearly, there is quite a lot of Catholic teaching that most Protestants retained.

 

[josie_L]

Can’t really speak to what SteveVh meant, as I don’t know him well; but in a way I think it’s the internet that does a poor job. (Or maybe I should say that we tend to have unreasonably expectations for the internet, leading to eventual disappointments.)

**I wonder what kind of descriptions of Catholics are common on protestant forums? **(On second thought, I don’t want to know.)

:bigyikes:

 

[Peter_J]

Exactly.

 

[SteveVH]

Is only Rome worthy of the upper-case “C” or are Orthodox and Lutherans as well? Not me though I’m guessing?

There is only one Catholic Church and its dogmas and doctrines and liturgical practices have been presented to the world since its inception and have never been hidden. If one wishes to be called Catholic then they must live in obedience to Catholic teaching. The degree to which one rejects Catholic teaching is the degree to which they are separated from the Catholic Church. This includes even those who call themselves “Catholic” and attend Mass every Sunday and then make a donation to Planned Parenthood or wait for the day when the Church will finally attain their level of enlightenment and ordain women, or do not believe confession is necessary or that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. It is a matter of authenticity, both individually and corporately.

If one wishes to call themselves Catholic then they cannot very well choose to be a part of a faith community that rejects Catholic teaching. Personally, I have been a little surprised at the number of posters who wish to identify themselves with the name “Catholic” while remaining outside of the very Church that has borne the name, unchanged, since the first century.

If one chooses to be Lutheran then call yourself Lutheran. If one chooses to be Anglican then call yourself Anglican. There is a reason they did not claim the name “Catholic” when they originated. I don’t see anything that would lead me to believe that it is different today.

 

[Peter_J]

Hello dronald,

As someone who spent years wrestling between the two traditions, I thought I would share why I ultimately chose the Eastern Orthodox faith.

After leaving the Mormon faith about 5 years ago I began exploring other faith traditions and eventually ended up in RCIA. My experience with the LDS faith made me extremely cautious and skeptical, so I did not complete RCIA in one or even two years. Eventually, though I believed enough to commit to baptism. As luck would have it I took a religious studies course where we watched a documentary about religion in Russia. Several scenes depicted the Orthodox liturgy and I was captivated.

I began asking my Roman Catholic friends about Orthodoxy. They voiced various opinions. Some said Orthodox Christians were basically Catholic; some had a less favorable view and offered me various resources as to why Eastern Orthodoxy’s claims to being one, holy, catholic and apostolic are less legitimate than Roman Catholicism’s.

Because of my curiosity and skepticism I heavily scrutinized arguments made by both sides. I became so interested in questions of apostolic succession and the development of the office of bishop that I began working towards a masters degree in early Christian history. Additionally, I put off baptism as I attempted to figure things out. Ultimately, I found Roman Catholic apologetics to often be wanting, narrow, and anachronistic.

Through many encounters at both the intellectual and mystical level I chose Orthodoxy. Figuring things out can be a long, taxing, and complicated process. Giving a complete answer as to why I chose Orthodoxy would take weeks, but the condensed version is that I chose Orthodoxy because it makes the most sense of the many facets of life. It is practical, it is versatile, and it is true.

Going forward in your search I will highlight a few things that helped me to discern things:

1. Watch out for narrow definitions. For example, a Roman Catholic might claim that Eastern Orthodoxy isn’t as “catholic” as Roman Catholicism, but this is only true if you accept the Roman Catholic definition of “catholic.” Once you acknowledge that “catholic,” or any other word that might be inserted here, may be defined otherwise such claims fall apart.
2. Look for valid, sound arguments. For instance, you will often see this argument:

-St. Peter had primacy among the apostles
-The Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter
-Therefore the Bishop of Rome has primacy

There are several issues with this argument.

First, just because Peter had primacy among the apostles doesn’t mean that a single successor inherited this primacy. Further, the primacy Peter practiced among the apostles may have been completely different than the primacy now exercised by the Bishop of Rome. To see Peter’s primacy and Pope Francis’ primacy as synonymous is anachronistic.

Second, even if one was to concede that Peter passed on his primacy to a successor, why should we assume that primacy was given to Rome? After all, Peter established other churches.

To really understand St. Peter’s primacy and the Primacy of Rome, it is essential to research early Christian history to understand how the earliest Christians understood Peter’s primacy, how Peter practiced his primacy, and later why the Church in Rome was seen as the head. As one does this they need to make sure that they don’t apply 21st century definitions to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century terms. Early Christians may have understood St. Peter’s role and the word “primacy” in a way completely different than our own understanding.

I recommend The Primacy of Peter(ed. John Meyendorff), which is a collection of essays from Eastern Orthodox scholars addressing St. Peter’s role in the early Church. The book is fine scholarship and has received praise from Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians alike.

Thanks for posting that truthseeker32. I something ask myself: which would I join (the Roman Communion or the Orthodox Communion) if I had been born into neither.

 

[josie_L]

Josie L:

Rather than get into any further arguments resting upon polysemy (I am on vacation, after all), I will respond to your latest post by reminding you that what I am arguing against is what your understanding of these issues lead you and those of your communion to claim about the ecclesiology of the early Church. None of these semantic or grammatical linguistic issues matter outside of that context, as it is in that context that all RCs invoke St. Augustine, St. Iraneus, et al. as supporting their presuppositions regarding what the early church must’ve believed and how it must’ve been organized. A careful reading of my previous posts will show that I did not actually object to the historical use of the noun phrase “the Catholic Church”, only your and all RCs reading back into history things that I maintain were never really there based on the fact that you’ve found this or that early saint that used that phrase in an epistle or whatever. The point in objecting that they would not have understood the term as you do is really to say that your ecclesiology is not supportable from the early church fathers but by inference, parentheses, and ellipses, but of course without having to put it in such blunt terms. Yet I suppose here we are, so I really have nothing more to say on this matter.

No, that is a unfair because I wrote none of these things, if you recall I started this discussion by simply stating that the universal Church throughout the whole world had to have had a proper name and in that time, you never once stipulated that that name was the “Catholic Church”. In other words, I gave you ample opportunities to admit that it indeed was the proper name for the Church of Christ given all the quotes I injected. You were qualifying the word “catholic” as some sort of adjective every time I attempted to state that it was being used as a noun, i.e., the “Catholic Church”. You went so far as stating the English translations were biased when they capitalized the word “Catholic” or that I was reading into it more than I was supposed to.

 

[dronald]

There is only one Catholic Church and its dogmas and doctrines and liturgical practices have been presented to the world since its inception and have never been hidden. If one wishes to be called Catholic then they must live in obedience to Catholic teaching. The degree to which one rejects Catholic teaching is the degree to which they are separated from the Catholic Church. This includes even those who call themselves “Catholic” and attend Mass every Sunday and then make a donation to Planned Parenthood or wait for the day when the Church will finally attain their level of enlightenment and ordain women, or do not believe confession is necessary or that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. It is a matter of authenticity, both individually and corporately.

If one wishes to call themselves Catholic then they cannot very well choose to be a part of a faith community that rejects Catholic teaching. Personally, I have been a little surprised at the number of posters who wish to identify themselves with the name “Catholic” while remaining outside of the very Church that has borne the name, unchanged, since the first century.

If one chooses to be Lutheran then call yourself Lutheran. If one chooses to be Anglican then call yourself Anglican. There is a reason they did not claim the name “Catholic” when they originated. I don’t see anything that would lead me to believe that it is different today.

But I think it would be reasonable for those of the Eastern Orthodox faith to say the same thing about other members, including Roman Catholics. Correct?

 

[JonNC]

So all English translation of the original Greek and/or Latin are biased/wrong, and that presupposes, of course, that all the translators were biased towards the Catholic Church. That is quite the conspiracy theory you’ve got going.

Kind of like the conspiracy ascribed to Luther regarding his translation into German.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Can’t really speak to what SteveVh meant, as I don’t know him well; but in a way I think it’s the internet that does a poor job. (Or maybe I should say that we tend to have unreasonably expectations for the internet, leading to eventual disappointments.)

I wonder what kind of descriptions of Catholics are common on protestant forums? (On second thought, I don’t want to know.)

Actually, I think Lutheranism gets better treatment here than on some Protestant forums.

Jon