In need of a POPE?

[ComradeAndrei]

No, it is deeply and troublingly relevant. That doesnt mean that we should ignore the teaching of the See of Rome. (By “we” I mean all Christians, not just those of you in full communion.) That is part of the Church as we actually experience it too. I am not the one saying “who cares what a man in a white dress says . . . .” On the contrary, I’m the one saying that we should care about all of it–the dogmas and the popes and the hymns and the rituals and the little old ladies on their back porches in Alabama reading the Bible.

The point about my apostate friend’s comment was to say that you are basically saying that since the teaching of the Church and what is actually practiced doesn’t always jive, then what is practiced is what matters. I’m saying that is foolish, we don’t go on sinning bravely. If it wasn’t for our sins and failures, everyone would be in perfect union with Christ’s Holy Church. The fact that this isn’t going to happen until the end of days does not change the fact that this is what we must strive for and assent to and that this is what matters, to follow Christ’s teaching and thus follow the Church that He set up.

As to your other statements, OK, so are you trying to say that all Christians are right? The little old lady reading the Bible has as much authority in doctrine as the Vicar of Christ? That is impossible, all the denominations disagree over at least something substantial (or else they’d be one) and thus they cannot all be right. The Seventh Day Adventist who says that the Pope is the antichrist cannot be right if the Catholic Church is right, nor can the evangelical Christian be right about Sola Scriptura if the Catholic Church is right about the Authority of Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium. There is only One True Church-and heresies are not part of it. An individual might be, but the heresies themselves are not. Christ did not set up a “Christian Church” as a loose amalgamation of myriad squabling sects that disagree with each other. Christ is not a deceiver, the Spirt leads to all Truth-not error.

The Pope is not just some moral leader, like a Gandi (sp?). Nor is he merely the Primus Inter Pares. If he is, then Catholicism is false. However, if he is the supreme infallible teacher of faith and morals, then all the peculiar beliefs of Christian sects contrary to the Catholic Church are false. There is no gray area.

But you’re telling me that the reality of what I find inside that church is irrelevant.

That is because I’m not talking about the people, I’m talking about the mere fact of a building with statues of Mary and the Saints and most importantly, a Tabernacle with our Eucharistic Lord present in it. The outward signs of the True Faith, and most importantly, the Lord Himself. That is the Truth of the Church. If the whole parish was a drug cartel, that is what is irrelevant.

That’s a reasonable and consistent position. There’s no way I could possibly ever accept it. It would be like accepting that all the air I had been breathing up to now and all the food I had eaten and all the water I had drunk were poisonous. Since I am not dead, this is not a tenable conclusion

That isn’t a good analogy. I’ll put it this way, I live my Catholic life as good as I can always looking to do better in my poor way. I like this life, it has been good to me. Not only that, I know it is the True Way. I have classmates that love getting stoned and fornicating all the time, they like their life, its been good to them in the way they care about. As far as they are concerned, they live in the True Way, after all people are only evolved monkeys and it is natural to seek pleasure over pain. However, that doesn’t mean it is right, and when we die we will pay for our actions, or inactions.

What I’m saying is that just because your not in the spritual dumps doesn’t mean you’re in the right place.

All Christians are in some sense part of the Catholic Church. That is affirmed by Vatican II, and I accept it. We are part of the same Church you are. We disagree on just how and to what degree, but that much we can agree on (unless you reject Vatican II). So how can I not care what the Roman Communion teaches? Especially since (like Dr. Long) I believe that the Papacy is an indispensable office within the Universal Church.

The whole point I’m arguing is that “jumping ship” is an inappropriate metaphor.

If you think that the Papacy is an indispensable office, then you must submit to the Roman Pontiff. You can’t just sit on the fence and say, “I’ll follow you when I like what you say, but if you say something I don’t like then I’ll just go back to my protestant views and ignore you.”

What the Council is saying is that our “seperated bretheren” may be saved, and if they are they will be saved through the Catholic Church. They will not be saved by their peculiar errors.

 

[gryskull]

ahimsaman72:

No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that most do not feel the need to change at all. They believe their doctrines are correct and see no need for a pope or for changing doctrines. They’re convinced their understanding is correct.

Eventhough they believe or convience that their doctrine is true it doesn’t mean that it is. Just because I believe that contraception is right doesn’t meant that it is(not that I believe it, I don’t). The truth that we should measure up to is the truth of Christ. I am not saying that you are wrong and I am right or vice-versa. I’m just pointing out the some logic to what you said.

Yes, I believe Christ called us to be one. However, that “oneness” shouldn’t just be seen as a visible manifestation. Couldn’t it be an invisible and visible manifestation?

Our definition of “church” would be different. I believe it is both one and all who profess the Christian faith. You would narrow it a bit and say one “visible” entity. I would consider it more of an invisible entity manifesting all over the world in many different assemblies of gathered Christians.

It is. It is both visible and invisible. The church triumphant(those who are in heaven) and suffering(those in purgatory, but you can skip this part for this is where our road forks) are the invisible part. The church militant is the visible part. But one thing you cannot do is separate one from the other because of the head who is Jesus Christ.

I’m staying where I am for doctrinal reasons. The hymns and other items are accessories to the package. I believe the doctrines are accurate. If I didn’t I wouldn’t stay. I’ve studying many different denominations and religions to find the truth. And, I’ve ended up back where I started 33 years ago.

If you have studied for that long I would assume that you have studied the ECF. If look at their belief and if you look for what was really common to them you would end up with the Eucharist. You can forget about the nature of Christ because there was a division there but you cannot ignore the unity in their belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that you can only find in the RCC.

I’m reading “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” presently which I borrowed from the Library. I also got, “The Case for Christ” and “Mere Christianity”. All of them are good reads. I value His Holiness John Paul II’s viewpoints. I always felt close to him personally while not accepting his position. He was a rare jewel that shone in the world.
Thanks for your prayers and right back at ya!

My heart does go out to you and I am pleased that you do read authentic catholic books. Lots of thanks. God Bless.
Peace…

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

No, I meant “live.” My point was that you identify Protestants as having a basic principle called “private judgment,” which you condemn. But then you ask us to convert as individuals, which implies not only that we are living by this alleged principle of private judgment but that you approve of our doing so.

Not all. And I have purposely pointed out that private judgment is not a bad thing to a certain extent. We all have to exercise private judgement but in matters that have been settled by the Church, nothing is up for discussion. And I would think you would agree with that but not in all cases(look at your own words below).

While of course Protestants would differ on the specific issues that have been so decided, the idea that something can be irreversibly decided is not alien to historic Protestantism. Mainstream Protestantism, for instance, is not open to re-examining the truth of the Nicene Creed.

But that is just one of the things but everything else is up for grabs. Let’s say Baptism. Not everyone(except catholics) believe that baptism saves. The Eucharist. Not all protestants(except orthodox) believe in the real presence. These are just some fo the examples where protestants still defer to private judgment.

You’ve answered your own question. We need visible structures of unity because without them we do indeed have fragmentation. And the Papacy, some of us (such as Dr. Long and myself) believe, is the historic (and I would say divinely instituted, at least in some sense) instrument of unity. That being said, I don’t think the papacy is infallible, and I think that its errors are in large part responsible for the disunion of Christians (starting with the East/West schism, for which I think papal arrogance is largely to blame). I’m not interested in figuring out who is most to blame–certainly Protestants and Orthodox have plenty of blame to shoulder as well.

Thanks for such insite. But if you think that the RCC was divinely instituted then it can only be from God for only God is divine. If this is God’s church then the RCC is THE CHURCH for Jesus only built one Church. If it is THE CHURCH then her teaching cannot err. If her teachings cannot err under the guidance of the visible leader who is the pope(since the teachings do come from him and the magesterium) then the pope is infallible. But since you don’t believe that I would ask you: “What has the pope taught and held the faithful bound to believe that is/was wrong?” And please keep it within the context of faith and morals since that is what papal infallibility is all about.

“Private judgment” is not and never was the principle on which Protestantism was founded. It’s the result of the schism rather than its cause. Luther did not appeal to private judgment at Worms in 1521. He said that his conscience was captive to the Word of God, which is something quite different (and is in principle affirmed by Catholicism today). I don’t blame Catholics for thinking that this was an exercise of private judgment, because that’s how later liberal Protestants spun it.

Who said it was. I think Luther had every right to reform the church because of the abuse that was going on. But reformation doesn’t consitute building a new one.

 

[gryskull]

contarini:

Ask gryskull–those were his words not mine. But Anglicanism as a matter of fact has not splintered the way other Protestant groups have. That is to say (lest we get in a big argument about this), Anglicanism has not fractured into several groups of significant size all of which can claim to be Anglican. At least, not till recentlyhttp://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/redface.gif I suspect that gryskull was simply avoiding a possible response from me to the effect that “Anglicans haven’t splintered, and aren’t really Protestants anyway.” He was trying not to get into an irrelevant side argument, and I appreciated that.

LOL, you took the very words out of my mouth.

But I wonder if the ordination of such bishops(and you know what I mean) would cause such division…hmmmm. Only time will tell.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

I did not say that, although I understand how you could interpret my words that way.

I said it - because it is possible to do what is good, for bad reasons.​

As the Gospels show, on several occasions. Conversely, one can do what is bad, with good intentions.

The act of changing Churches and going to the CC may or may not be good in a given instance - this is not a condemnation of the CC, but a comment on the complexity of human motives & moral choice. One can’t consider only the qualities of the CC - the person being advised to make the change has also to be considered; and more important than both is what God Wills. It may in the abstract be desirable for all to become Catholic - but not desirable in actual reality for X or Y or Z to do so. While it may be good for X to become Catholic, it may be a bad idea for Y or Z to do so. If the Church’s teaching, that grace is not found in the CC alone, is true, it is not easy to see how one can avoid saying this.

I was being deliberately provocative. I do not judge those who convert from Protestantism to Catholicism–in many ways I envy them, and I’m certainly much more worried about those who go the other way. Perhaps the best way of putting it is that when I have considered becoming Catholic, I have always concluded that in some sense I would be rejecting the means God has chosen to bring grace to me.

And I’m sorry, but the claim that Catholics have perfect unity with each other is absurd from my point of view. I don’t deny that you have a very real unity that the Church as I define it does not have (I say this rather than comparing you to “Protestants”–since I don’t think “Protestants” per se make up the Church, but are simply one part of the Church). But you can only claim that this unity is *perfect *if you are willing

1. To redefine “Catholics” to mean those who accept Catholic doctrines fully and are in a state of grace, in which case your view of the Church is far more “invisible” than mine; and
2. To separate perfect unity from perfect holiness and perfect agreement even in matters not defined by the magisterium. In that case, “perfect” doesn’t really mean “perfect.” (Granted, the Wesleyan concept of “Christian perfection” is subject to the same criticism!)

No, you are wrong. St. Cyprian was dealing with the Novatianists, who were essentially orthodox except that they took a more rigorous position than the Catholic Church did. While St. Augustine did write against the Manichees, his ecclesiology was deeply influenced by his controversies with the Donatists, who like the Novatianists were rigorists; they agreed with the Catholic Church on most points of doctrine but thought the Church was too lax.

Augustine was writing against the Donatists nearly a hundred years after the beginning of the schism. He was dealing with people who had grown up as Donatists–that’s precisely why he had to use such strong language to make his point. I’m afraid your argument just doesn’t hold up.

As many Protestants do, though the two denominations with which I have some association (Episcopalians and United Methodists) do not.

But Vatican II recognizes that we have some sacraments (baptism at least). And for myself, I cannot accept that we do not have a valid Eucharist (“we” meaning Protestants as a whole–I’m not just speaking as an Anglican here). I can’t deny the grace I have experienced, nor can I accept the rather patronizing explanations conservative Catholics give for this grace.

I know that, and I did not claim otherwise.

But if we receive grace through baptism, then we are in fact in some sense members of the visible Church. That is my point. If we receive grace in our separated communities then it is hardly “inexcusable” to be loyal to those communities. God has chosen them to transmit His grace to us. You cannot compare this situation with that of non-Christians. As long as Catholics do this, dialogue with other Christians is going to be very difficult.

Catholicism can only claim to have the fullness of Truth by a dessicated and intellectualized understanding of Truth. I don’t think it’s possible to have the fullness of Truth in this life. But that’s because I don’t see truth as simply consisting in a set of dogmas that are free from error and with which all truth is theoretically compatible. If every possible aspect of truth is not positively, explicitly embraced and actively lived out within your community, then you do not have the fullness of Truth.

You make “perfection” something less than perfection, and you make “fullness” something less than fullness. Then you boast that you have perfect unity and the fullness of Truth. That is not very convincing to someone not determined to be convinced. It’s a kind of theological grade inflation–like defining any passing grade as an A and then boasting that you have straight A’s.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

P.S.

ComradeAndrei,

Sorry I didn’t read carefully–I thought your remark about converting to Catholicism being a “mortal sin” was a response to me, when it was a response to Gottle of Geer. I’ll let him defend himself, which he is well able to do

Besides, he’s a convert to Catholicism himself and thus has more credibility to speak on this subject than an RCIA dropout like me

Edwin

My apologies to you and Comrade Andrei for your getting caught in the cross-fire. ​

See post 64 for my response to the response to my post ##

 

[ahimsaman72]

gryskull:

Eventhough they believe or convience that their doctrine is true it doesn’t mean that it is. Just because I believe that contraception is right doesn’t meant that it is(not that I believe it, I don’t). The truth that we should measure up to is the truth of Christ. I am not saying that you are wrong and I am right or vice-versa. I’m just pointing out the some logic to what you said.

I agree here.

It is. It is both visible and invisible. The church triumphant(those who are in heaven) and suffering(those in purgatory, but you can skip this part for this is where our road forks) are the invisible part. The church militant is the visible part. But one thing you cannot do is separate one from the other because of the head who is Jesus Christ.

Okay.

If you have studied for that long I would assume that you have studied the ECF. If look at their belief and if you look for what was really common to them you would end up with the Eucharist. You can forget about the nature of Christ because there was a division there but you cannot ignore the unity in their belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that you can only find in the RCC.

Actually, I haven’t. I have spent all my years as a Christian studying the Scriptures. I have read all the articles at Catholic Answers which reference the ECF.

My heart does go out to you and I am pleased that you do read authentic catholic books. Lots of thanks. God Bless.
Peace…

Oh, I’m very open to different ideas and beliefs - something that’s gotten me into all kinds of trouble

Peace and God bless…

 

[RCCDefender]

ComradeAndrei,



Your gift for words greatly outweighs mine!!!

 

[ComradeAndrei]

RCCDefender,

Thank you kindly, I just thank God that I’ve got the time between classes to respond to folks here.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

The act of changing Churches and going to the CC may or may not be good in a given instance - this is not a condemnation of the CC, but a comment on the complexity of human motives & moral choice. One can’t consider only the qualities of the CC - the person being advised to make the change has also to be considered; and more important than both is what God Wills. It may in the abstract be desirable for all to become Catholic - but not desirable in actual reality for X or Y or Z to do so. While it may be good for X to become Catholic, it may be a bad idea for Y or Z to do so. If the Church’s teaching, that grace is not found in the CC alone, is true, it is not easy to see how one can avoid saying this.

The only way I could possibly see that joining the Catholic Church would be disadvantageous would be in a situation like a man getting married to a Catholic woman and joining the Church just because but not bothering to actually live the Faith.

Other than that, God wills that we all practice the True Faith, found in the Catholic Church alone. There is no reason why anyone shouldn’t join the Catholic Church, save only for improper motives such as to gain any advantages with family or such. While there may be grace found in other communities, what grace the have comes through the Catholic Church.

 

[Ahimsa]

gryskull:

The article of D. Stephen Long linked on the St. Paul Centre website was a little bit fascinating for me. I enjoyed reading it and I’d like to know what our protestant brothers and sisters think about it. He lays down his reasons why the Protestant church needs a Pope.

ENJOY!!!

(Moderator note: Changed thread title to reflect the name of the article being cited as per forum rules.)

Many Protestants also think a Pope is needed, which is partly why many have become Mormons.

 

[gryskull]

Ahimsa:

Many Protestants also think a Pope is needed, which is partly why many have become Mormons.

Ok. That’s surprising and a little bit hard to digest since they would have some doctrinal issues.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Ahimsa:

Many Protestants also think a Pope is needed, which is partly why many have become Mormons.

Did anyone see the article about Mormonism in Newsweek? The liberal media has certain given it it’s stamp of approval.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

RCCDefender:

What is so sad is that he sees the reason, need, and authenticity of the papacy, but he is unwilling to come home to the Church.

The reasons he give for staying in his church, “The hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy of that tradition gave me faith and taught me to love God.” are unexcusable.

Those are his stated reason. Plain old fear of change is a big reason for everybody.

 

[Contarini]

Catholic4aReasn:

You don’t believe that the holy Spirit guides you to all truth?

Not me, us. The Church as a whole. We will not reach the fullness of the truth in this life. It’s a journey that does not end until we reach the Kingdom. But we (as a whole) are preserved from fatal error.

Clearly the Catholic Church doesn’t radically disagree with what I just said, or you would not speak of doctrinal development!

If not, who is He guiding who then teaches the rest of us? For us it’s the pope. Who is that person for you if not you?

There is no one person, but the papacy (as Dr. Long argued) is a vitally important office within the Universal Church.

Edwin

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Contarini:

Not me, us. The Church as a whole. We will not reach the fullness of the truth in this life. It’s a journey that does not end until we reach the Kingdom. But we (as a whole) are preserved from fatal error.

What do you mean by “fatal error”? If different Christians in this “Church-of-all-believers-regardless-of-what-they-believe” hold beliefs which completely contradict one another help me understand how you believe this Church has been protected from error? Clearly two opposing ideas can’t both be right…one is error, therefore it has not been protected from error. Can you elaborate on your idea here?

Clearly the Catholic Church doesn’t radically disagree with what I just said, or you would not speak of doctrinal development!

There is no error involved in doctrinal development. Development does not equal change. The Church has never taught “A” at one time and then changed her teaching to “not A”.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Contarini]

RCCDefender:

Paul also addressed his letters to certain churches. Does that mean what he says in them doesn’t apply to the whole Church? No.

I didn’t say that Ignatius’s remarks only apply to the church he was writing to. I said that when he speaks of the bishop, presbyters, deacons etc., these are clearly officers within the local church. I don’t think any scholar would disagree with me on that point.

Heirarchy beyond the local church? Clement was the pope! The Church of Rome held primacy over the other churches. You can also see that just by the way Ignatius addresses the Church of Rome in his letter.

Even Catholic scholars are highly dubious that there was a monarchical episcopate at Rome in Clement’s day. One common theory is that Clement was the corresponding secretary of the Roman church. You may think that this is a heretical theory and that the Catholics who accept it are apostates or whatever, but it’s widely held among scholars and you can’t expect a non-Catholic to be convinced by your dogmatic assertions to the contrary. I have no problem saying that St. Clement was the Pope, as long as it’s clear that that meant something quite different in the second century than it does today. There is *no *historical evidence that Clement even had the kind of authority *at Rome *that Ignatius had at Antioch, and certainly no evidence that he had direct authority over other churches. Unquestionably, as the representative of the Roman church, he could and did expect to be listened to. But that’s as much as you can prove from the evidence. Anything beyond that you believe on faith–which is fine by me

As for Ignatius–he says that the church of Rome “presides in love.” He doesn’t explain what this means, and you can’t build much on it. I certainly have no problem granting that degree of authority to Rome–in fact I’d be willing to go considerably beyond that!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

RCCDefender:

As an example of the primacy of the Church of Rome also read St. Polycrates’ Letter to Victor of Rome [ca. A.D. 190].

The letter of Polycrates of Ephesus to Victor of Rome is one of the prime sources for the history of the Quartodeciman controversy. Polycrates was the leader of those bishops of Aisia Minor who opposed Victor’s order in regard to arranging the date of Easter so that it would fall always on a Sunday. Polycrates held a synod with his fellow-bishops, and informed Victor by letter of the reasons for which they had determined to continue following the only custom they knew, that of observing the 14th Nisan, no matter what day of the week. Only a sizable fragment of the letter is extant, preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 5, 24, 2-8). In Eusebius’ account, Victor thereupon excommunicated the dioceses of Asia and all of the Quartodecimans, as those who observed the 14th Nisan were called.

Actually, Eusebius’s words are: “Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.”

Notice the word “attempted.” This implies that more was needed for them to be excommunicated than the Pope’s say-so. If you read further you will find that a number of bishops protested this arbitrary act, including St. Irenaeus, and Victor was persuaded to change his mind. Eventually the Asian churches adopted the common practice anyway. But it was not made a condition of communion, in spite of Victor’s attempt. I don’t really think this incident helps your argument much.

Edwin

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Even Catholic scholars are highly dubious that there was a monarchical episcopate at Rome in Clement’s day.

Scholars say the moon is made of Neuchatel cheese. Scholars say that we are all morons for believing that there is a God. “Scholars” say lots of things, care to cite your sources?

You may think that this is a heretical theory and that the Catholics who accept it are apostates or whatever, but it’s widely held among scholars and you can’t expect a non-Catholic to be convinced by your dogmatic assertions to the contrary.

I just sat through a psych class in which we discussed a theory that asserted that humans have religion, form loyalties to ideology, countries etc. merely because they are afraid of death. I also sat through a speech about a month ago in which some women professor of religion at Princeton extolled the virtues of the “Gospel” of St. Thomas and whined that the big bad Church got rid of it to stifle “pluralism” within what they think of as the “early church”. Take what academics say with a grain of salt.

To paraphrase a prayer written by Pope Paul VI, we do not trust our own feelings for Truth, but rather in docility to Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of Holy Church.

I would recommend reading “Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy.” by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess. Also, “Upon This Rock” by Stephen K. Ray. “Scholars” may “pontificate” on what the papacy means but the Fathers didn’t mince words-the Bishop of Rome is supreme, not as a “first among equals”, not as just some adviser-he is supreme. Long ago, Council Fathers said, “Peter has spoken through Leo!” Today, Peter speaks through Benedict, and he isn’t just giving self-help advice.

 

[gryskull]

RCCDefender

You might want to check out a thread that Edwin has posted. We have discussed papal authority on that thread and you sure are most welcomed to interject your ideas over there since papal authority has been the issue between you(I included) and Edwin and I think he would be most happy to respond and discuss the issues over there.

Right Edwin?