Non-Catholic Christianity and the understanding of Church

[Radical]

Bwsherman,

My purpse for bringing up this question was to try and understand the rationale behind questioning one rule of faith (Roman Catholic Church) and seemingly ignoring the differences in all the others. Or if not ignoring them at least being willing to tolerate them and not accuse them of distorting this point or that.

A big difference exists in what the various denominations claim for themselves. The RCC claims that it is the one true church and that there is no salvation outside of it. I have not attended a Protestant church that makes that claim and so the Baptist church down the block will agree that the Reformed church, further down the block, is part of the body of Christ (and vice versa). If we Christians are to acheive unity, then from the RC perspective, we would all have to become RC. Other denominations do not make that same demand and so (for those of us who seek unity, but cannot accept RCC teachings) that RCC claim must be challenged.

 

[notsmart]

“Again, I do not see the reasoning behind questioning the Catholic faith and ignoring all other differences in Protestant denominations”

The reasoning for questioning any faith that has set doctrine and dogma is that it is clear what they believe, and if a person thinks a particular teaching is incorrect, or they don’t understand it they either are trying to help someone they believe is being taught incorrectly, or they are investigating the belief, or they never were taught it correctly.

Knowing the differences of all kinds of groups won’t help if your intent is one of the above.

 

[notsmart]

Bwsherman,

A big difference exists in what the various denominations claim for themselves. The RCC claims that it is the one true church and that there is no salvation outside of it. I have not attended a Protestant church that makes that claim and so the Baptist church down the block will agree that the Reformed church, further down the block, is part of the body of Christ (and vice versa). If we Christians are to acheive unity, then **from the RC perspective, we would all have to become RC. ** Other denominations do not make that same demand and so (for those of us who seek unity, but cannot accept RCC teachings) that RCC claim must be challenged.

I could be wrong, but I think the CC’s position IS that all christians will end up going through the CC to get to heaven.
So, everyone is going to be a Catholic, at some point.

If all other denominations don’t make claims of authority, how do they reflect Jesus in the way he spoke with total authority?

 

[Bwsherman]

Bwsherman,

A big difference exists in what the various denominations claim for themselves. The RCC claims that it is the one true church and that there is no salvation outside of it. I have not attended a Protestant church that makes that claim and so the Baptist church down the block will agree that the Reformed church, further down the block, is part of the body of Christ (and vice versa). If we Christians are to acheive unity, then from the RC perspective, we would all have to become RC. Other denominations do not make that same demand and so (for those of us who seek unity, but cannot accept RCC teachings) that RCC claim must be challenged.

It must be understood what it means to say “there is no salvation outside of the Church”. When this phrase is stated, it encompasses all baptized Christians whether they are practicing Roman Catholics or not. Even though you might not accept the position that you are a part of the RCC, it does accept you as a member. It is just an incomplete membership in the Church. Nevertheless, you too would be encompassed in the phrase, “no salvation outside of the Church.”

Basically what I have gathered so far is that membership in the RCC is too difficult, but when was being a Christian supposed to be easy? If your faith is not being challenged to grow, then what good does that service you attend do?

Why will no one answer my question about denominations taking positions on the Church and not on each other?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I would argue that the difference between rogue ‘Catholics’ and the ‘Lutherans’ you are referring to is that when I walk into a Mass and see a woman up their instead of a man I would automatically know something is wrong. In the case of the Lutheran synod in Utah, my father in-law’s parish had been in that synod since the beginning of the parish. Thirty years or so, if I am not mistaken. At what point is the average parishoner supposed to know if the parish is still Lutheran? And isn’t there a problem in any parish having to question it in the first place?

I understood your question as asking why we question the beliefs of Catholics vs. other denominations. Granted, this is the non-Catholic section, but what am I to do? Ask a question of the all 2 Baptists that I’ve seen here? LOL

If someone knows what the Lutheran confessions teach, they would know there is a problem seeing a woman at the altar, or ordaining or blessing a same-sex union.

 

[notsmart]

I understood your question as asking why we question the beliefs of Catholics vs. other denominations. Granted, this is the non-Catholic section, but what am I to do? Ask a question of the all 2 Baptists that I’ve seen here? LOL

If someone knows what the Lutheran confessions teach, they would know there is a problem seeing a woman at the altar, or ordaining or blessing a same-sex union.

Thats not accurate really. Lutheran charities has right on their home page (I will get the link, they call it something close to that) a woman with short hair in vestments. I’ll get the link.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thats not accurate really. Lutheran charities has right on their home page (I will get the link, they call it something close to that) a woman with short hair in vestments. I’ll get the link.

For the ELCA, which is functionally non-Lutheran.

 

[notsmart]

For the ELCA, which is functionally non-Lutheran.

I see. I will not put the link in then. We both will get ill looking at it.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I see. I will not put the link in then. We both will get ill looking at it.

LOL. Yes, indeed. Kinda like Jefferts-Schori… Blah.

 

[Radical]

Bwsherman

Why will no one answer my question about denominations taking positions on the Church and not on each other?

I believe that you haven’t understood what I tried to say, so I’ll say it another way. A baptist may be more inclined to challenge RC doctrine than Reformed doctrine because the RCC has anathemized the baptist for his beliefs where as the Reformed church has not.

 

[notsmart]

Bwsherman
I believe that you haven’t understood what I tried to say, so I’ll say it another way. A baptist may be more inclined to challenge RC doctrine than Reformed doctrine because the RCC has anathemized the baptist for his beliefs where as the Reformed church has not.

Is it more accurate to say the CC anathamatized schimatic founders/ or upstarts with no connection that created ideas contrary to the ecumenical councils and does not hold accountable those who never knew the faith? Is this what is meant by material heretic and formal heretic?

I think anathama usually applies to heterodox doctrine, not always the particular follower of the heterodox doctrine?

In their case, would it not be a problem they re-baptise (lets say they do)

 

[Radical]

I could be wrong, but I think the CC’s position IS that all christians will end up going through the CC to get to heaven.
So, everyone is going to be a Catholic, at some point.

I think that should be that all elect will end up “going thorugh” the RCC

If all other denominations don’t make claims of authority, how do they reflect Jesus in the way he spoke with total authority?

infallibility is seen as a characteristic belonging to God alone. As such, other denominations would reflect Jesus by quoting scripture and not claiming infallible authority for themselves, but only claiming infallibilty for the scripture they quote. Unfortunately, some don’t recognize that in practice they have put forward their interpretation of scripture as an infallible thing.

 

[notsmart]

I think that should be that all elect will end up “going thorugh” the RCC

 

[Radical]

I think anathama usually applies to heterodox doctrine, not always the particular follower of the heterodox doctrine?

well if we look at one of the anathemas from Trent we find:

If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.”—Thirteenth Session CANON I

Wouldn’t you say that applies to the particular holder of a particular doctrine?

In their case, would it not be a problem they re-baptise (lets say they do)

Sorry, I don’t understand this.

 

[notsmart]

well if we look at one of the anathemas from Trent we find:

 

[Bwsherman]

Radical;4160504:

When that was written, it was different- in the sense that only some reformers went so far to deny this… Some had no choice but to slightly alter the understanding due to lack of a bishop.

But, at that time, only a few ever disagreed with this, if I am correct. Zwingli, and some others. But, Luther it seems did not want to, but knew he no longer had valid orders? I am not considering the arius situation in this, and discounting him automatically.

.

I was trying to say that if baptists did practice something that had already been labled an anathama, like re-baptism, baptists are not anathamatized, but the ideas they cling to would be.
Am I correct in this?

You are correct for the most part. However, anathemas described in the council of Trent do not hold for Protestants today. That is described in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. I could not find a link to it so I did not put it up there. So, you can take my word or do some more research in regards to it.

However, let us take a moment and examine why the anathemas were in place at all. One has to put his or her self in the place of the council of Trent particpants and what the Church believes herself to be and that is first and foremost a Mother to her chidlren. So, if you were a Mother and knew that there was something being taught that you knew would harm your children up to the point of putting their souls in jeopardy, wouldn’t you do anything you could to keep your children safe?That is what the anathemas were used for. The protection of those who would be influenced by false doctrine or dogma.

You may not agree with what was said in the council, but it was all done out of love for the children of the Church.

So, as far as any Protestant being anathamized by the Church today it just does not hold up to further examination. Knowing that…it still does not dismiss the varying views on the truth of gospel put forth by X number of denominations. Ultimately, with this sort of belief system there is no real truth to be discovered because one denomination can say that the other is wrong and both go scripture to back up said claim and…WHAM…hit a brick wall. Which, in my humble opinion, is why the Roman Catholic Church is set up how she is because God knows us better than we know ourselves and knew that a Vicar would be needed to work out such differences. Yet, most Protestants seem to let these, at times, very obvious differences in doctrine slide and feel no problem with attacking the Mother that nursed their faith in the first place.

 

[SIA]

I have always wondered how non-Catholic Christianity understands the term Church? Scripture defines the Church as the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’. (I Tim 3:15) What is more confusing is that each denomination claims to have the truth of the gospel as that particular denomination deems correct based on their interpretation of scripture. So, if a non-Christian were looking for a Church that preaches the truth and absolute truth of the gospel, who should they turn to in the Protestant world? The Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Seventh-day Adventists…I could go on, but I think my point is clear. Most non-Catholics on this forum can come together and agree on what is wrong with the Catholic Church but seem to ignore that ‘plank’ in their own eye which is the numerous sects all claiming truth and yet not agreeing on what that truth should be. It all just seems a bit unbiblical to me.

I don’t think that most Protestants ignore the fact that there are many denominations, but the numerous denominations do not exist primarily because everybody has a different interpretation of the Bible. Many of them branch off from another church for customary and disciplinary reasons not related to Scripture. To suggest that one Protestant church may believe that the are “THE” Church would not be a correct assesment of Protestants in general. Most Protestants believe that the one Church is the body of the faithful in Christ. I am Anglican because I believe that we are a faithful people in the study of the word and we also practice the traditions of the Early church and we believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. On paper so to speak, we are not very different from Roman Catholics except for the papacy and its proclamations.

 

[Steadfast]

And this is where the argument for infallibility largely breaks down in apologetic discussions. The criticism of the Protestant position on our infallible rule of faith (the Scriptures) is that one must use one’s own fallible human reasoning, understanding, and interpretation in order to believe what the Scriptures teach. Yet, the unspoken fallacy is that Catholics do not have to use their fallible human reasoning, understanding, and interpretation of the Bible, in order to conclude that Rome is really the infallible church founded by Christ.

Ultimately, we’re both in the same position, Catholics just move it back one step.

I just want to say,

EXACTLY!

 

[notsmart]

I don’t think that most Protestants ignore the fact that there are many denominations, but the numerous denominations do not exist primarily because everybody has a different interpretation of the Bible. Many of them branch off from another church for customary and disciplinary reasons not related to Scripture. To suggest that one Protestant church may believe that the are “THE” Church would not be a correct assesment of Protestants in general. Most Protestants believe that the one Church is the body of the faithful in Christ. I am Anglican because I believe that we are a faithful people in the study of the word and we also practice the traditions of the Early church and we believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. On paper so to speak, we are not very different from Roman Catholics except for the papacy and its proclamations.

How does an anglican then, feel about the EO church without a papacy and everything you listed, but with valid ordinations?

 

[Steadfast]

There is very little difference between how Catholics and Protestants deal with heterodoxy:

In both cases the offending group or individual is either made to leave or leaves of his own accord and either joins a group more congenial to his/their views or forms an entirely new group.

And as TU has pointed out, the way the varying churches decide what is and what is not orthodox depends in the final analysis upon the application of exactly the same epistemological tests to different determinants.

Basically what you are telling us, Bwsherman is that you prefer the conclusions of the Catholic Church over those of non-Catholics.

To which I can only say, more power to you but your preference is not a universal failsafe.