Is the "emerging church" a threat to both Catholicism and Protestants?

[grannymh]

This link is a lead to one Catholic’s participation in the “emerging church” concept. It seems to me that some Catholics, though I cannot trace their thinking directly to this link, want the Catholic Church to subscribe to the Big Tent concept. They want to break bread in communion with each other independently of doctrines. I heard an idea, something like the Eucharist is communion between people.

ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/unformed-future

 

[Abu]

Mystophilus #21
basing our theology upon something beyond Catholic Tradition: it is less about what we believe than it is about how we decide what to believe.
the difference in theological method has led to a huge proliferation of diversity within Protestantism

There can be NOTHING beyond (as a substitute for) Catholic Tradition of which the organ is the teaching authority – the Magisterium, instituted by Christ Himself. Thus the Sacred Scriptures also are a part of Tradition as a living reality.

The how to decide what to believe has been mandated by Christ and can only be expressed fully and authoritatively by Him, as He instituted His Catholic Church in, with and through St Peter as His Supreme Vicar, devolving to the bishops as successors of the Apostles when united among themselves under the Pope – the successor of St Peter.

 

[benotagoat]

When I said “ordinary folks”, I was talking about people like me who are not rich and famous (celebrities).

In other words, I was referring to their financial and social status, not their spiritual status. Ordinary folks like me have no financial or social status worth writing about in magazines or seeing on TV or movies.

Sorry about that ;so then you are correct .Yes there is a price to be paid for being ‘famous’,and sometimes a very high one .

At least one can make ones mistakes without the the whole world digging up what you did when you were a teenager and so on …

I think that in the near future, those who vaunt their ‘total liberty’ to be disgusting in public ,
will have reason to regret ,poor souls .

Glad I was always discreet in the French fashoin .

 

[benotagoat]

Yeah, but the irony of this question is…the Catholic church itself was once an “emerging” church, too, as per the above definition.
It emerged out of and from the “preexisting ideologies” of Judaism.
And then, it took generations to develop and shape alongside the other early Christian groups and then “emerge” (hat tip to Constantine) as a majority in the Christian groups.

In other words, an “emerging church” isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

.

I don’t think that you understand that although in my opinion the RCC should call itself not Roman Catholic but the original Church of Christ ,as the city of Rome and it’s history should not contaminate what is the Church created by God Himself .
As a humanist and I presume a non believer you will not realise that in order to be a christian and be saved there is a core of knowledge and practice which must be followed ,or it has no effect on saving souls .The RCC has added far too many
’ extras’ while missing out on this core, but the core is there ,while in these churches
like that of Olsteen the 'extras are there? without the ‘core’ .

It is this knowledge imparted through the Heart ,and then developed in the mind which gives the 'truth ’ . Without love from the heart ,and some self sacrifice,nothing will
save us .

No amount of knowledge intellectual,or singing in large spaces will change that ;so whatever you call them they are just Entertainment ,not soul saving…

 

[Abu]

benotagoat #27
….in order to be a christian and be saved there is a core of knowledge and practice which must be followed ,or it has no effect on saving souls .The RCC has added far too many ’ extras’ while missing out on this core,

Who are you to challenge the Christ – the Son of the living God, when He established His Church?

The first error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as the first Pope:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The second error is in disregarding history. Fr Stanley Jaki shows that the reality of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was expressed even by Protestant theologian Adolph von Harnack, with reference to the first century! Those who know nothing of history can now learn from history. The infallibility and primacy of The Vicar of Christ was not disputed in Christ’s Church, at the beginning.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

 

[ServusHumilis]

I would say yes they are because often times there is little intellectual basis behind some of what they teach. Then the secular world looks at them and likely considers the Catholic Church and them as equals which even Joel Osteen must realize isn’t the case.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Is it a threat? The irony is that though the Catholic Church was incarnate of earth they have existed since Jesus Christ and as a direct result. Regardless of threat its still here. The question really is that under persecution can this new emerging model exist and together with everyone else worldwide. So when we talk moral equivalence we should consider “how” we intend to exist under extreme conditions outside of perhaps the Christian US models which enjoy little persecution. Modern or new, really becomes hard to conceptualize in the history of the Church.

 

[grannymh]

May I gently point out that in the reality of 2015, CAF, the “emerging church” concept can be described as a possibility of harmonizing religious teachings where we “break bread” with eveyone. This is definitly a threat to Catholicism because “breaking bread” as a “communion” term" means that certain annoying doctrines (like the freely chosen State of Mortal Sin) are dismissed.

What I am learning is that the “emerging church” concept is often applied to the mega churches which is a term in my old neighborhood. In that geographical neighborhood, a prominent Catholic wanted his parish to adapt some of the selling points of a popular mega church complex. He was not asking his parish to refrain from teaching some of the difficult Catholic doctrines.

In other words, it is neighbood semantics which makes it difficult to recognize that the Catholic “emerging church concept” is simply wolves in sheep’s clothing.

What is difficult to recognize is that these emerging “wolves” are nibbling away at the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. One of the ways is the appealing proposal that all views of a Catholic doctrine are legitimate. Those of us who are old enough to have learned the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth know that ***before *a major ecumenical Church Council, all views of Divine Revelation are *temporarily ***considered “legimate”. It is ***during ***the Church Council that the Holy Spirit guides the formal wording of a doctrine. At that point, only one view is considered legitimate. Please note that the discarded views could have had some truth within them. Those truths are found in other properly defined Catholic doctrines.

 

[ahsokanerd]

It wouldn’t be fair or correct to say the others are not as “serious about their faith”…that they are there only to be entertained or pumped up.

A Catholic mass-- with all it’s rituals, colors, gold, wine, bread, “costumes”, readings in unison, singing, and incense – can be considered just as “theatrical” and “entertaining” an event for an audience in the pews as those other churches, merely a slightly different style.

.

To be fair, the question was about the so-called “emerging church” being a threat to both Protestants and Catholics. Otherwise you would be correct.

 

[seanman611]

I think others have already said it, but the “emerging church” is nothing more that a window dressing of liberal mainline protestantism, while trying to distance or reinvent itself as to not be associated so much with that movement and its baggage. At least this is true of the liberal emerging church.

From what I understand most people see through it and the “emergent church” is having a lot of trouble “emerging.”

EDIT: Is the emerging church a threat? I don’t think so. It seems to have lost or never picked up much steam in the first place. When it was new, it was all the rage in some Episcopal circles. However, I hardly hear anything about it these days. The “emergent church” just can’t really move past the same struggles that the liberal mainline ran into and that is why even bother with church in the first place? It just has nothing of substance to offer.

 

[ahsokanerd]

I think others have already said it, but the “emerging church” is nothing more that a window dressing of liberal mainline protestantism, while trying to distance or reinvent itself as to not be associated so much with that movement and its baggage. At least this is true of the liberal emerging church.

From what I understand most people see through it and the “emergent church” is having a lot of trouble “emerging.”

Agreed.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

From what is this “church” emerging?

From the internet:

e-merging.

Get it!

 

[grannymh]

To me, the “emerging Catholicism” does not depend on any formal structure. I have seen its precepts presented by people for years. When I first landed on CAF, I thought it was a form of secular theology. LOL

 

[JRKH]

I don’t think that you understand that although in my opinion the RCC should call itself not Roman Catholic but the original Church of Christ ,as the city of Rome and it’s history should not contaminate what is the Church created by God Himself.

Actually the City of Rome and it’s history has not contaminated the “original Church of Christ”.
Technically the Church is NOT named the Roman Catholic Church…but is just The Catholic (Universal) Church. The Western Church, or the Latin Rite was given the name “Roman” by Protestants during the Reformation. Over time, the term has simply become associated with the Latin Rite Church - or with the Papal office.

As a humanist and I presume a non believer you will not realise that in order to be a christian and be saved there is a core of knowledge and practice which must be followed ,or it has no effect on saving souls .**The RCC has added far too many
’ extras’ while missing out on this core, **but the core is there ,while in these churches
like that of Olsteen the 'extras are there? without the ‘core’ .

As regards the Bolded…You know you are going to be taken to task on this…:slapfight:
What Core has the Catholic church “miss(ed) out on”…

It is this knowledge imparted through the Heart ,and then developed in the mind which gives the 'truth ’ . Without love from the heart ,and some self sacrifice,nothing will
save us .

Amen

Peace
James

 

[benotagoat]

Who are you to challenge the Christ – the Son of the living God, when He established His Church?

The first error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as the first Pope:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The second error is in disregarding history. Fr Stanley Jaki shows that the reality of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was expressed even by Protestant theologian Adolph von Harnack, with reference to the first century! Those who know nothing of history can now learn from history. The infallibility and primacy of The Vicar of Christ was not disputed in Christ’s Church, at the beginning.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

That was a mistake as my computer sometimes switches lines , bit of a nuisance.
While I have many criticisms of the RCC (my family was for a thousand years ,can you say that ?) I think the opposite .
But anyway if they would allow me to edit ,I meant to write that the Church has the core of Truth ,while adding extras,which is the opposite of these churches which have lots of extras ,but no core .

 

[Lion_IRC]

all of the above are Protestant movements. I am not sure why you are thinking these different movements are a threat to both Catholic and Protestantism. I would say mega churches are not a threat to Catholic but more of a threat to smaller Protestant Churches of which members are drawn away from. Mega Church is more of a description of very large Churches that have a number of characteristics and usually build up around the head pastor and his personality. They are found in a number of Protestant groups.

I agree robwar.
They make a…oh, wait. I see you’re banned.

lionirc at gee mail dot com

 

[JRKH]

That was a mistake as my computer sometimes switches lines , bit of a nuisance.
While I have many criticisms of the RCC (my family was for a thousand years ,can you say that ?) I think the opposite .
But anyway if they would allow me to edit ,I meant to write that the Church has the core of Truth ,while adding extras,which is the opposite of these churches which have lots of extras ,but no core .

I thought that might be what you meant…

Peace
James

 

[Abu]

benotagoat #38
,I meant to write that the Church has the core of Truth ,while adding extras,which is the opposite of these churches which have lots of extras ,but no core .

benotagoat,
Thank you for your clarification.

I suuggest that ALL of Her dogma and doctrine is essential, and that only in, with, and through Her can we have the certainty of being able to identify, clarify and know what to believe and how to act within the morass of what has evolved as the modern society and body politic which continually regress on faith and morals.

 

[PJM]

=total Catholic;12788146]You know, the Joel Osteen, Newspring, “come as you are”, rock anthem, coffee shop megachurches where Jesus is our buddy? People are flocking to them. Ya know, the preacher wears a muscle shirt and jeans? What think ye?

No doubt that “feel good” SELLS!

Unfortunately is a poor substitute for what Christ Himself commands.

The Gates of HELL SHALL NEVER succeed againt “my Church” SINGULAR
Mt. 16:18-19

 

[Mystophilus]

There can be NOTHING beyond (as a substitute for) Catholic Tradition

From an official Catholic position, this is true. From the position of all of the Christian groups outside of the Catholic Church, it is not, which is particularly relevant since Protestantism was the subject of that comment.

Could you please do something for me, Abu? If you would be so kind, switch your setting for “Display” to either “hybrid” or “threaded” mode, so that your comments are actually connected to the parts upon which you are commenting. Especially in long threads, and when you quote only one small slice of the comment to which you are responding, the connections between your comments and those to which you are responding can be lost.