Non-Catholic Christianity and the understanding of Church

[elvisman]

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.

It’s “proclamations”? Like not allowing a divorced person to remarry thereby causing a schism?

**If you think that “most” Protestants don’t have a problem with the True Presence you’re mistaken. This is a ****HUGE ****deal-breaker from mainline Protestantism. **Many have huge differences such as baptismal regeneration, eschatology, justification, communion of saints and so on.

---

The fact remains that Jesus established** ONE Church, not ****thousands of quarreling factions. **

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

You are then arguing for truth by personal preference–relativism. Which you should know, de facto, cannot be the religion of God, for He cannot contradict.

 

[Radical]

Bwsherman,

However, anathemas described in the council of Trent do not hold for Protestants today. That is described in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Are you sure? The following is from this Catholic site:

The question many people ask today is were these anathemas from the Council of Trent ever revoked? The answer is No. An anathema on an infallible statement can never be changed, and is always binding; otherwise the statement is not infallible. Many people have been falsely lead to believe that Vatican II and the Code of Canon Law of 1983 did away with Trent’s anathemas.

Please, could I have an infallible ruling on this?

 

[elvisman]

Bwsherman,

Are you sure? The following is from this Catholic site:

The question many people ask today is were these anathemas from the Council of Trent ever revoked? The answer is No. An anathema on an infallible statement can never be changed, and is always binding; otherwise the statement is not infallible. Many people have been falsely lead to believe that Vatican II and the Code of Canon Law of 1983 did away with Trent’s anathemas.

Please, could I have an infallible ruling on this?

Radical -
**Just because you read something on a “Catholic site” doesn’t mean that it’s infallible. That shows a great deal of ignorance on your part. **

There are many sites - hosted by Catholics, Protestants or others that don’t truly represent the beliefs and doctrines of their respective faiths.
Here is a reference for the Anathemas of Trent:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp

If you want the full documents, I suggest you go to the Vatican website.

 

[Contarini]

Where in Aquinas is this? I’m curious how he framed that.

Most clearly in the Summa contra Gentiles, bk. 1, chap. 9 (but see the preceding seven chapters for context):

Now, to make the first kind of divine truth known, we must proceed through demonstrative arguments, by which our adversary may become convinced. However, since such arguments are not available for the second kind of divine truth, our intention should not be to convince our adversary by arguments: it should be to answer his arguments against the truth; for, as we have shown, the natural reason cannot be contrary to the truth of faith. The sole way to overcome an adversary of divine truth is from the authority of Scripture—an authority divinely confirmed by miracles. For that which is above the human reason we believe only because God has revealed it. Nevertheless, there are certain likely arguments that should be brought forth in order to make divine truth known. This should be done for the training and consolation of the faithful, and not with any idea of refuting those who are adversaries. For the very inadequacy of the arguments would rather strengthen them in their error, since they would imagine that our acceptance of the truth of faith was based on such weak arguments.

He makes similar points in ST 1, Question 1, articles 1 and 8.

Edwin

 

[Radical]

elvisman, are you having a bad day?

Just because you read something on a “Catholic site” doesn’t mean that it’s infallible.

never said it did. In fact, I don’t recognize anything from a RC source as being infallible

That shows a great deal of ignorance on your part.

huh?

**There are many **sites - hosted by Catholics, Protestants or others that don’t truly represent the beliefs and doctrines of their respective faiths.

True enough, so which fallible site got it right? The one I linked, or the one you linked? It would be nice to have been unanathematized for the last half of my existence, so I am quite happy if your site has got it right.

 

[Bwsherman]

elvisman, are you having a bad day?never said it did. In fact, I don’t recognize anything from a RC source as being infallible

huh?

True enough, so which fallible site got it right? The one I linked, or the one you linked? It would be nice to have been unanathematized for the last half of my existence, so I am quite happy if your site has got it right.

It is difficult to understand Canon Law for practicing Catholics and so I totally understand why it would be difficult for non-Catholics. What the 1983 edition of Canon law states is that the juridical punishments attached to the anathemas put forth by the Council of Trent no longer applied to current Protestants, however, that the teachings themselves were still infalliable in their moral and ethical stances. For Catholics that leave the faith after being fully formed in the faith, the anathemas can still carry the weight prescribed by the council. There are numerous exceptions to this stance though. I am not educated enough in Canon law to know what those exceptions would be. I imagine that it would not take much searching on anyones part to figure it out. Nevertheless, no Protestant born into their faith today would be held to the anathemas prescribed by Council in the juridical sense or threat of temporal punishment for going against Church teaching. Sorry for the wordy explanation, but I was trying to be as thorough as I could. If anyone is more informed on Canon law, I would be grateful for any further light that could be shed on the issue.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman, are you having a bad day?

Nope. Every day is a great day – when you’re Catholic!

never said it did. In fact, I don’t recognize anything from a RC source as being infallible

Oh - must have been your poor attempt at humor.

huh?

Ig-no-rance: The state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

True enough, so which fallible site got it right? The one I linked, or the one you linked? It would be nice to have been unanathematized for the last half of my existence, so I am quite happy if your site has got it right.

**That’s why I told you to go to the Vatican website for the full documentation. **
Look - if you’re going to try your hand at anti-Catholicism, at least attempt to sound intelligent.
**Maybe I’ll add “lazy” to “ignorance”. . . **

 

[Steadfast]

You are then arguing for truth by personal preference–relativism. Which you should know, de facto, cannot be the religion of God, for He cannot contradict.

When the apparatus used in the determination of verity is fallible, one is left with a certain degree of ultimate uncertainty.

This uncertainty can be obviated by direct action on the part of God the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the believer, but the best this can provide is a subjective certainty, available only to that individual.

The apparatus is the human mind and heart, in the biblical conception inseparable, and in both cases fallen and fallible.

The data this broken tool is supposed to process is external to the apprehending agent. It is and remains true, absolute, simple and One. There is no relativism, the truth the fallible agent is apprehending is not relative, it is absolute, but the apprehending agent is fallible and therefore capable of divergent and erroneous apprehension.

This is true of both Catholics and non-Catholics and categorically so because both Catholics and non-Catholics are human beings.

 

[Bwsherman]

When the apparatus used in the determination of verity is fallible, one is left with a certain degree of ultimate uncertainty.

This uncertainty can be obviated by direct action on the part of God the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the believer, but the best this can provide is a subjective certainty, available only to that individual.

The apparatus is the human mind and heart, in the biblical conception inseparable, and in both cases fallen and fallible.

The data this broken tool is supposed to process is external to the apprehending agent. It is and remains true, absolute, simple and One. There is no relativism, the truth the fallible agent is apprehending is not relative, it is absolute, but the apprehending agent is fallible and therefore capable of divergent and erroneous apprehension.

This is true of both Catholics and non-Catholics and categorically so because both Catholics and non-Catholics are human beings.

You are correct in your description of the fallible human beings in the Church, however, this is another point where Catholics and non-Catholics diverge. The Church for Catholics is both human and divine as is Christ. The mystery, or sacramentality, is what seperates her from the rest of the denonmination’s practices which can draw their roots back to a man or maybe two or three. The Church herself being founded by Christ and in existence before the collection of the canon of Scripture has been preaching and teaching the truth from the moment of Pentecost on and continues to do so even with the fallible humans that guide her day to day actions. She is, as I quoted from scripture earlier, “the pillar and foundation of truth.” As such, she cannot preach anything but truth and has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit to be with her and not let “the gates of hell prevail against” her. This definition of ‘church’ is not found in other denominations because they do not want the responsibilty of claiming to teach the complete unmitigated truth. If they did, it would be that groups responsibility to make sure that everyone knew that they held the truth and would make it available to all who wished to hear it. Sound like any ‘church’ you know? I can only think of one…

 

[Steadfast]

It is true that Protestants have not, historically, fleshed out what the Church being the Body of Christ means especially as it touches upon the subject at hand.

Theoretically, there is no problem with the idea that the church is in some sense divine but there is not the same kind of communication of attributes here that there is in the Incarnation when God became man.

Suffice to say that Protestants do not agree that those promises to the church mean what Catholics say they do.

There are a number of ideas ranging from the view that Jesus was speaking specifically to the apostles and not making any enduring or successive promises for the church after their passing to the view that these promises are ultimately and almost exclusively eschatological.

 

[Radical]

Bwsherman, thanks for your answer.

What the 1983 edition of Canon law states is that the juridical punishments attached to the anathemas put forth by the Council of Trent no longer applied to current Protestants, however, that the teachings themselves were still infalliable in their moral and ethical stances.

So is it that a fellow (by being of protestant belief) is still committing the “crime”, still “judged” and “convicted”, but no longer “punished”? Or is it that such a fellow is no longer even judged? And what about protestants such as myself who were adults in 1983, was I pardoned in 1983?

For Catholics that leave the faith after being fully formed in the faith, the anathemas can still carry the weight prescribed by the council.

Thanks to elvisman’s kind recommendation, I “word searched” the 1983 Canon on the Vatican site, found 1 reference to Trent, none for anathema and 4 for abrogate/d/s. Where does this continuing anathema that you mention in this sentence come from? Are there court decisions that expand on what the Canon states?

. I imagine that it would not take much searching on anyones part to figure it out.

I am not sure about that.

Sorry for the wordy explanation, but I was trying to be as thorough as I could. If anyone is more informed on Canon law, I would be grateful for any further light that could be shed on the issue.

Thanks for your effort, hopefully my level of ignorance has been lessened thanks to your efforts. I too would appreciate it if any further light could be shed on my questions.
That said, I originally mentioned the anathemas as an explanation as to why Protestants would question one rule of faith (Roman Catholic Church) and seemingly ignoring the differences in all the others. The point remains, in answer to your question, that the RCC has claimed more for itself than have other denominations (ie the one true church) and has (until recently) anathematized others to a greater extent than have other denominations and, as such, there is a greater tendency for Protestants to view the RCC in a more adversarial light (after all we are all grouped together as Protestants, protesting against the RCC).

 

[Bwsherman]

It is true that Protestants have not, historically, fleshed out what the Church being the Body of Christ means especially as it touches upon the subject at hand.

Theoretically, there is no problem with the idea that the church is in some sense divine but there is not the same kind of communication of attributes here that there is in the Incarnation when God became man.

Suffice to say that Protestants do not agree that those promises to the church mean what Catholics say they do.

There are a number of ideas ranging from the view that Jesus was speaking specifically to the apostles and not making any enduring or successive promises for the church after their passing to the view that these promises are ultimately and almost exclusively eschatological.

I agree that this issue has not been dealt with at any length and this is one of the reasons I brought the question up in the first place. I would again ask our Protestant brethren to use the same biblical analysis on the term ‘church’ as is done with matters of doctrine and dogma. I am not sure that it will be done because one of the last groups to make such an attempt to verify they were in fact the historical church found in scripture was headed up by a man we know as Cardinal “venerable” Henry Newman. One of his more famous quotes being, “to be steeped in history, is to cease to be protestant.”

I mean no disrespect to those that are Protestant and have a real, firm belief in our Lord. I just want to point out what I believe to be at worst intellectual dishonesty or at best intellectual ignorance. In either case, I pray for all of them and all of our eventual unity as Church, singular, so that we may be one as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one.

 

[MarcoPolo]

When the apparatus used in the determination of verity is fallible, one is left with a certain degree of ultimate uncertainty.

This uncertainty can be obviated by direct action on the part of God the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the believer, but the best this can provide is a subjective certainty, available only to that individual.

The apparatus is the human mind and heart, in the biblical conception inseparable, and in both cases fallen and fallible.

The data this broken tool is supposed to process is external to the apprehending agent. It is and remains true, absolute, simple and One. There is no relativism, the truth the fallible agent is apprehending is not relative, it is absolute, but the apprehending agent is fallible and therefore capable of divergent and erroneous apprehension.

This is true of both Catholics and non-Catholics and categorically so because both Catholics and non-Catholics are human beings.

Does the impossibility to determine truth due to the fallibility of human beings include or exclude your post here?

 

[Radical]

Ig-no-rance: The state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

thanks for the definition, but from this:

**Nope. **Every day is a great day – when you’re Catholic!

I had already figured out that ignorance was bliss.

 

[Contarini]

I would again ask our Protestant brethren to use the same biblical analysis on the term ‘church’ as is done with matters of doctrine and dogma. I am not sure that it will be done because one of the last groups to make such an attempt to verify they were in fact the historical church found in scripture was headed up by a man we know as Cardinal “venerable” Henry Newman.

First of all, Protestant churches don’t generally claim to be *the *historical church, just part of it. The Oxford Movement claimed that Anglicanism was part of the Catholic Church and not really Protestant. There were indeed all sorts of problems with this claim, and it’s no wonder that Newman abandoned it. However, you are simply ignorant of recent Protestant history, particularly the ecumenical movement, when you say that this was “one of the last” such attempts. There has been a lot of discussion of these questions by scholars and theologians on both sides since Newman. Yves Congar would be one of the most important examples on the Catholic side (the present Pope would be another), and Lesslie Newbigin would be one of the most important on the Protestant side.

One of his more famous quotes being, “to be steeped in history, is to cease to be protestant.”

And Catholics routinely quote this as if it proves something. I would respond that to be steeped in history is to cease to be a naive and triumphalistic Protestant *or *Catholic. I do not see a lot of signs of being steeped in history among the Catholics on this forum. Just a lot of slinging around of tired cliches.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

For the ELCA, which is functionally non-Lutheran.

So say you. Of course, the ELCA is the largest Lutheran body in this country. So the fact that you, a member of a smaller group, call it “non-Lutheran” may not be very convincing to anyone outside your immediate confessional context. (I’m not claiming that size is everything. I certainly wouldn’t listen if the ELCA were to call you a non-Lutheran either. But it is something.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I was not trying to say that you believe these things to be silly matters. I apologize if that was my tone, but I was stating that I believe them to be essential matters of faith.

I understand what you were trying to say, and I’m sorry if I overreacted. But this makes my point. You (and the official stance of the Catholic Church backs you) consider all sorts of things to be essential that most Protestants don’t. Catholicism demands a lot firmer assent to a lot more doctrines than most Protestant churches do. So I repeat: where is the inconsistency in people leaving the Catholic Church for a less demanding one? You simply haven’t made a case here.

Your wording on the absolute certainty portion is bit precarious and I am not sure how to respond.

What is “precarious” about my wording?

Edwin

 

[Bwsherman]

I understand what you were trying to say, and I’m sorry if I overreacted. But this makes my point. You (and the official stance of the Catholic Church backs you) consider all sorts of things to be essential that most Protestants don’t. Catholicism demands a lot firmer assent to a lot more doctrines than most Protestant churches do. So I repeat: where is the inconsistency in people leaving the Catholic Church for a less demanding one? You simply haven’t made a case here.

What is “precarious” about my wording?

Edwin

Your calling me ignornat in current ecumenical movements is incorrect. I was not talking about ecumenical movements though. I was speaking of a Protestant denomination trying to prove its own veracity by utilizing the context of Church history and that Newman led such an attempt and was only one of the people that ended up converting because of said attempt. I am not sure what you point about people leaving the Catholic Church has anything to do with this particular thread. I do not need to make a case for something that was never an issue in the first place. I cannot speak for those that leave the Church. I can only pray that they might someday return. They are still my brothers and sisters as are you. For every person that leaves the Church there are others that are coming into the Church all of the time. I am happy to say I have brought two into the Church in the last two years…my girls : )

People leaving or coming into the Church does in no way affect the truth that is proclaimed. And your and TriuneUnity’s disagreement about who is Lutheran and who is not only further proves my point.

 

[elvisman]

thanks for the definition, but from this:

I had already figured out that ignorance was bliss.

**Gee – that would be almost funny, was it not for your tragically ignorant grasp of Church history. Besides that, your comment is akin to calling Jesus himself ignorant since he built the Church I belong to (Matt. 16:17-19). **
In fact he loves it so much, he equates persecution of it to persecution of him (Acts 9:4-5, Luke 10:16)

Maybe** if you studied your Church history really hard and cracked open a Bible once in a while you wouldn’t be so quick to condemn the Church and defend the divorced and incomplete faction of it that you belong to . . . **