Not all non-Catholics are full blown Protestants

[SPH1]

I was a cradle Catholic up until three years ago in which I and my wife and son converted to the Episcopal church. I would have to say that to call us Protestants and lump us together with the likes of Baptists, Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses would be illogical andmean spirited. We too consider ourselves catholic because we maintain the creeds, the eucharist and ancient tradition along with all 7 (not just 2) sacrements. We too have sacremental confession, make the sign of the cross, baptize infants and proclaim the eucharist to be the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ. I don’t believe that you would find those CATHOLIC qualities and quantities in a Pentecostal church.

Traveller 1534ad

Anglicanism (which includes Episcopalians) is all over the board with respect to Christianity. You appear to be more of a “Catholic” Episcopalian, so we would not lump you with Baptists and Pentecostals…and JW’s aren’t even considered Christian insofar as I can determine. Nor would we lump you with other Anglicans/Episcopalians who may be lesser “Catholic” in flavor.

But we would not call you fully Catholic either, but Protestant, no matter how “Catholic” you appear to be. Just as the Eastern Orthodox are not fully Catholic.

IMO, the more “Catholic” Anglicans/Episcopalians are a tragedy, having no real purpose. They should join the Catholic Church outright. I feel the same way toward Lutherans, who really have little or nothing in common with, say, Baptists.

What, really, is the point of Anglicanism or even Lutheranism? To some extent, they oppose each other, yet can either really believe that they are the truest expression of Christianity?

With regard to Anglicanism especially, my major beef and deal killer to Catholic acceptance is that they let too many other Protestants…dissidents…in the back door. And do not stand strongly enough with the Catholic Church against the more “non-Catholic” Protestants.

Is there a formal split between the real “Catholic” Anglicans/Episcopalians and the more Protestantized versions? Or are they all considered one, (somewhat) happy Church?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Indeed. Honestly, it is far too difficult to keep up with all of Protestantism and where they stand on the Church. Honestly, it is difficult enough for me to try and grasp Anglo-Catholics and Lutherans, who on their own seem to range from very Protestant near Calvinists to so near Catholic that ecumenism seems a very real possibility to me.

I think I agree with that last sentence. Are you trying to compete with me for “king of the run on setnence”??

Given that so very many folks in “high church” movements in Lutheranism, Anglicanism, “Continuing Anglicanism” and the like, are
frequently and invariably bound to widder ecclesial realities, well it is hard to imagine or construct a situation where ecumenical dialouge will lend itself to any of these communities achieving communion or reconciliation to Rome.

What do I mean by this? Well very simply, however Catholic-minded some High church folks in ECUSA or the ELCA may be… well, they are still in communion to folks who are decidedly - at the very least - very low church.

I hope this is not seen as “guilt by association” but however high church some ango-Catholics may be, the fact that they are in full communion with some exteremely low church, Protestant elements in their own community is telling. How Catholic is it to be in communion with those that would deny so many essentially Catholic elements of the faith even though they (Anglo Catholics) themselves might beleive those things?

 

[GKC]

I think I agree with that last sentence. Are you trying to compete with me for “king of the run on setnence”??

Given that so very many folks in “high church” movements in Lutheranism, Anglicanism, “Continuing Anglicanism” and the like, are
frequently and invariably bound to widder ecclesial realities, well it is hard to imagine or construct a situation where ecumenical dialouge will lend itself to any of these communities achieving communion or reconciliation to Rome.

What do I mean by this? Well very simply, however Catholic-minded some High church folks in ECUSA or the ELCA may be… well, they are still in communion to folks who are decidedly - at the very least - very low church.

I hope this is not seen as “guilt by association” but however high church some ango-Catholics may be, the fact that they are in full communion with some exteremely low church, Protestant elements in their own community is telling. How Catholic is it to be in communion with those that would deny so many essentially Catholic elements of the faith even though they (Anglo Catholics) themselves might beleive those things?

One of the reasons why the Anglican Continuum (those who have left the Anglican Communion) is so splintered, is precisely because many jurisdictions decline to repeat the Elizabethan Compromise, and keeping splitting, to get it right this time.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

 

[Iowa_Mike]

It is so very sad, but also necessary for Roman Catholics to feel that they are the only real church of Chrsit. After all, this is the only way that Catholicism can work. I know, I have been on both sides of the issue. It does however take it down to another level to begin to question the Christianity of other denominations. If refusing to accept the pope as infallible and the supreme authority of the church makes one Protestant, then everyone should be Protestant because the whole premise of it is totally assinine and anti-biblical.

Traveller 1534ad

Oh Traveller,

In the play on the words of the famous boxer Joe Lewis, "You can run but you can’t hide’. Once again I posed several questions and once again you answered with rhetoric…substance Traveller…substance. Where is it?

Iowa Mike

 

[Contarini]

But so far, has never been known to do so, though. Even Cardinal Mahoney was not “sacked,” but just moved.

Are you saying that no Pope has ever sacked a bishop? You clearly think that this is possible, so the point is moot. I am arguing that this would have made absolutely no sense in the first-century context.

Popes take on a much different and much more pastoral tone than Church lawyers do - even when they’re the same man.

That’s a very good point, although I still think that your reading of 1 Clement is hopelessly anachronistic.

Clement doesn’t have to mention the fact that he could depose the Bishop and close down the Diocese, because that’s the part that’s already abundantly obvious to them.

Or because in the first century that was just not how they thought about the Church. I think the evidence for my interpretation is much stronger than for yours, and that yours is completely anachronistic. But I don’t think either of us can prove it, so it’s probably a pointless argument.

Edwin

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I was a cradle Catholic up until three years ago in which I and my wife and son converted to the Episcopal church. I would have to say that to call us Protestants and lump us together with the likes of Baptists, Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses would be illogical andmean spirited. We too consider ourselves catholic because we maintain the creeds, the eucharist and ancient tradition along with all 7 (not just 2) sacrements. We too have sacremental confession, make the sign of the cross, baptize infants and proclaim the eucharist to be the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ. I don’t believe that you would find those CATHOLIC qualities and quantities in a Pentecostal church.

Traveller 1534ad

As I and others have pointed out before, the folks in the Anglcian communion who are “seven sacramenters” are a minority party and a latter innovation.

Interstingly, Pentecostals ARE possesed of a minority of High Church parties themselves. Litrugy and episcopacy have found a home in several movements therein.

IMO, the more “Catholic” Anglicans/Episcopalians are a tragedy, having no real purpose. They should join the Catholic Church outright. I feel the same way toward Lutherans, who really have little or nothing in common with, say, Baptists.

What, really, is the point of Anglicanism or even Lutheranism? To some extent, they oppose each other, yet can either really believe that they are the truest expression of Christianity?

With regard to Anglicanism especially, my major beef and deal killer to Catholic acceptance is that they let too many other Protestants…dissidents…in the back door. And do not stand strongly enough with the Catholic Church against the more “non-Catholic” Protestants.

Interstingly enough, Anglican and Lutheran ecclesial communities have actually grown in acceptance - or at least stopped objecting so keenly - to each other’s theologies and plans have proceeded to create inter-communion between Anglicans and Lutherans. As a result of two different agreements - the ELCA/ECUAS concordot, and the Porvoo agreement, Anglican and Lutheran communities in these agreements will affirm each other’s ministries, and from here on out, Anglican and Lutheran bishops will be jointly involved in all episcopal consecrations. From what I understand, Old Catholic bishops can and will participate as well.

But this leaves us to wonder - were great breakthroughs truly made in mutual understanding, or have both parties possibly diverged from more classic understandings of “Anglican/Lutheran orthodoxy”?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

They knew the same person, agreed.
Then your “gardener Jesus” argument fails, because Jesus the gardener is a completely different person. And my point stands–JWs and even to some extent Mormons do mean the same person by “Jesus” that we do, and therefore are *in some sense *Christian.

Quite true, with regards to Jesus Gardener (Jardinero, actually).

If you don’t hold that to be a Christian, Jesus must be acknowledged as fully God and fully Man, then an atheist who admits that that guy named Jesus, that those deluded apostles hung around with, was real and “special” somehow, could be called a Christian.

That doesn’t work for me. If it works for you, that’s cool,… though why you’d want to define things that way I’d be curious about.

Quote:

If they thenceforth were taught, by the Church, who Jesus actually was and THEN denied that He was God, and something “inferior” or “created by” God, then they couldn’t possibly be called Christians.
I think this is a problematic and unhelpful use of language. If two people have exactly the same ideas in their head but one is a Chrsitian and the other isn’t, then “Christian” becomes a highly relative term.

How is one person “having in their head” the belief that Jesus is God, and another person “having in their head” the belief that Jesus is a Creation of God, “TWO PEOPLE HAVING THE SAME EXACT IDEA” in their heads?

Your description makes the term “Christian” meaningless, or at least not meaning a belief that Jesus is God.

Quote:

They simultaneously professed ONE GOD, and God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That they professed one God is not under debate, which is why I did not mention it! However, some early Christians did argue that Jesus was a “second God” and thus was only God in a derivative sense. I am not going to say that they were not Christians. Pope Benedict certainly doesn’t say this, since he recently held up Origen as a model (in certain respects) for Christian interpreters of the Bible, and Origen held this view.

Was the belief of Origen an official heresy when he held it?

If it wasn’t, then he could be called a Christian because the Magisterium hadn’t ruled on that question yet.

If it was, then he was a “heretical Christian”, which amounts to his being a non-Christian whom we could have hope would re-enter Christianity.

Please enlighten me as to what Origen’s status was at the time he held those views. Thanks!

Quote:

If that’s not a strict definition of God as One (being) and Three (persons), I don’t think there is such a thing as a strict definition of anything, and we’re doomed to decend into the mire of relativism.
Oh please! If there is relativism here, it’s in your view that the meaning of the word “Christian” changes over time.

Is a man always a child because he was once a child?

Wouldn’t you call him the same “person” at age 30 and at age 2?

A Christian on the Wednesday before Jesus (not the gardener) was crucified was a Christian under a different definition of “Christian” than a Christian of last Friday afternoon.

…continued —>

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

You can interpret “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in a number of ways. You can say, as I pointed out earlier, that the Son and Spirit are God in a derivative sense. You can say that the Son existed from all eternity as the “unexpressed Word” within the Father, and “came forth” in time as a being distinct from the Father. You can say that Father, Son, and Spirit are three names for one Person (though this was one of the earliest Trinitarian errors to be condemned). All of these views were held by early Christians. It took time to determine that they were all false, and that “three Persons, one God” was the correct formula.

You can SAY whatever you like.

What does the Magisterium say? That’s all that counts.

That is why you are a protestant, and I’m not.

Quote:

They “may” (I’m not so sure) [believe] that Jesus died and rose from the dead
If you don’t know what they believe, how can you pronounce about them so definitely? Both JWs and Mormons do most emphatically believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I am sure about this, because I have some elementary knowledge about their beliefs, which you apparently haven’t. Have you ever bothered to talk to them? Or are you just relying on prejudice?

Hey,… I’m no expert. I simply pointed you toward some experts that I knew about.

They proclaim JW’s and Mormons as non-Christian.

Take up your arguments with them,… or present what it is about their arguments that you disagree and refute them.

JW’s:
“It will come as no surprise to learn that the Witnesses do not believe Jesus Christ is divine. He isn’t God in their view. To support this theory, they appeal to their own rendering of John 1:1: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” They use the lower-case “g” to show that Christ is merely a creature, even if the most exalted creature.”

Mormons:
“Moreover, Mormons teach that Christ is a secondary, inferior god. He does not exist from all eternity. (Nor, for that matter, does his Father.) He was first made by a union of his heavenly parents. After having been reared and taught in the heavens, he achieved a certain divine stature. Through carnal relations with her Heavenly Father, the Virgin became pregnant with this lesser god.”

…{snip}…

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Contarini]

If you don’t hold that to be a Christian, Jesus must be acknowledged as fully God and fully Man, then an atheist who admits that that guy named Jesus, that those deluded apostles hung around with, was real and “special” somehow, could be called a Christian.

If the atheist builds his whole way of life on Jesus and claims to stand in the historic tradition of Christianity, then sure, there is a sense in which he is a Christian. The Anglican priest Don Cupitt would be an example of a “Christian atheist”–arguably Bishop Spong would as well. These people are not Christians in the same sense that you and I are Christians, and it’s a scandal that they have been allowed to function as Anglican clergy; but there is certainly a meaningful sense in which they are Christians.

This is far truer of JWs and even Mormons, both of whom believe that Jesus was a supernatural (in the Mormon case divine) being who was born of a virgin and rose from the dead.

How is one person “having in their head” the belief that Jesus is God, and another person “having in their head” the belief that Jesus is a Creation of God, “TWO PEOPLE HAVING THE SAME EXACT IDEA” in their heads?

That’s not what I said. I was responding to your statement that a person who didn’t believe in the Trinity could be a Christian at one point of the Church’s development but not at another. You repeat this below WRT Origen. That makes language so fluid as to be practically meaningless.

If someone holding beliefs XYZ is a Christian (in any sense) at point A, a person holding exactly those beliefs at point B is also a Christian. They may no longer be an orthodox Christian, because (as we both would agree) the definition of orthodoxy is sharpened over time.

Your description makes the term “Christian” meaningless, or at least not meaning a belief that Jesus is God.

And the only real issue between us is that you think those two statements are the same thing, while I think they are very different. I.e., I think there is a meaningful and valid definition of “Christian” that would include people who don’t think Jesus is God. I do not think that this is the same sense in which you and I are Christians.

Also, note that some Christians (in my sense) believe Jesus is God without believing in the Trinity (modalists). Where do they fall in your view?

Was the belief of Origen an official heresy when he held it?

No. That’s my point. You are now defining a Christian as someone who accepts whatever the Church happens to have defined at this point. You think the meaning of “Christian” changes endlessly.

A Christian on the Wednesday before Jesus (not the gardener) was crucified was a Christian under a different definition of “Christian” than a Christian of last Friday afternoon.

Well, it’s good to know who the relativist is. . . .

If someone believes how what a Christian could have believed in A.D.100, then they are logically still a Christian. They may be a heretical Christian, but you can’t say that there is no meaningful sense in which they are a Christian, just because time has passed.

That obnoxious pseudo-detective novel about Richard III to the contrary, truth is *not *the daughter of Time. . .

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

In what are the authors of these tracts experts? Not the study of quasi-Christian religious movements, I suspect.

They proclaim JW’s and Mormons as non-Christian.

Take up your arguments with them,… or present what it is about their arguments that you disagree and refute them.

First of all, I don’t consider apologists experts (not just by virtue of being apologists, that is), but that’s irrelevant here. Nothing you quoted is relevant to our points of disagreement. You gave no evidence that JWs or Mormons don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead. You can’t, because there is no such evidence. I did not dispute that JWs deny His divinity and that Mormons define divinity itself in a radically heretical way. That’s not the issue.

I have said this many times already, but just in case you missed it the first dozen times or so:

I do *not *believe that JWs or Mormons are members of the same religion that Trinitarian Christians are. But viewed historically, they are religious movements deriving from the Christian tradition and centered on Jesus Christ (JWs more clearly so than Mormons). Unless we are to follow Ahimsa and coin some other word like “Christic,” we have to call them Christians in some sense.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

“That obnoxious pseudo-detective novel about Richard III to the contrary, truth is not the daughter of Time. . .”

Wonder if there are any Tey fans in the audience.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

“That obnoxious pseudo-detective novel about Richard III to the contrary, truth is not the daughter of Time. . .”

Wonder if there are any Tey fans in the audience.

GKC

Actually I rather enjoyed the book. But I do find it annoying. My wife loves it, BTW.

I haven’t read any of Tey’s other books.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Actually I rather enjoyed the book. But I do find it annoying. My wife loves it, BTW.

I haven’t read any of Tey’s other books.

Edwin

I did too. DAUGHTER is considered her best work, and is relatively highly regarded, in the classic mystery world. Try BRAT FARRAR, THE SINGING SANDS, or THE FRANCHISE AFFAIR.

But better than that, read Sayers.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I did too. DAUGHTER is considered her best work, and is relatively highly regarded, in the classic mystery world. Try BRAT FARRAR, THE SINGING SANDS, or THE FRANCHISE AFFAIR.

But better than that, read Sayers.

GKC

Oh, I have. Many times, most of them.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Oh, I have. Many times, most of them.

Edwin

Figured as much.

I guest lectured on Sayers and Lord Peter, once.

GKC

 

[Keikiolu]

In what are the authors of these tracts experts? Not the study of quasi-Christian religious movements, I suspect.

The God of the Jehovah’s Witnesses
…notice the “Nihil Obstat” at the bottom:

[sign]NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
*presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. *

Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004[/sign]

The Gods of the Mormon Church
…that one doesn’t have the “Nihil Obstat”.

Though, this one does:
Distinctive Beliefs of the Mormon Church

*[sign]NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials**presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. *

Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.

+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004 [/sign]

First of all, I don’t consider apologists experts (not just by virtue of being apologists, that is), but that’s irrelevant here. Nothing you quoted is relevant to our points of disagreement. You gave no evidence that JWs or Mormons don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead. You can’t, because there is no such evidence. I did not dispute that JWs deny His divinity and that Mormons define divinity itself in a radically heretical way. That’s not the issue.

I have said this many times already, but just in case you missed it the first dozen times or so:

I do not believe that JWs or Mormons are members of the same religion that Trinitarian Christians are. But viewed historically, they are religious movements deriving from the Christian tradition and centered on Jesus Christ (JWs more clearly so than Mormons). Unless we are to follow Ahimsa and coin some other word like “Christic,” we have to call them Christians in some sense.

Edwin

You have a very loose definition of “Christian”.

I don’t have as loose a definition as you do.

I call them non-Christian because they don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus as a person of the being of God in the monotheistic meaning of God.

You may call them what you wish.

You could, and probably would, say that the gang down the street who really latched onto the “love thy neighbor” theme of the New Testament, thinking it was an easy way to get into the sack with their good looking “neighbors”, were “Christians” as well.

No,… I think some rather stringent rules are called for to define one as Christian (both during one’s lifetime and afterword) are in order.

But then,… as a protestant, you can say any darned thing you want, can’tcha…?

Have fun with that.

Mahalo ke Akua…!

E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Efrain]

Any argument beginning “why wouldn’t Christ do X” is a bad argument. The ways of Divine Providence are generally inscrutable.

I agree that union with Rome is necessary for unity–that was in fact the point I made. However, as far as I can tell early Christians outside the local church of Rome clearly did not regard the Bishop of Rome as their pastor in any direct sense.

In Christ,

Edwin

Fair enough. Although there has been plenty of writings of the early Church Fathers in regards to the primacy of Rome. These men who were bishops in their own locations, clearly regarded the See of Rome as pastor of the entire Church. These men include Ignatius of Antioch, Hermas, Dionysius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Opatus, Augustine, to name a few.

 

[The_Truthinator]

I would have to say that to call us Protestants and lump us together with the likes of Baptists, Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses…

Baptists and Pentecostals maintain the core doctrines of the Christian faith (eternity, divinity, and perfection of Christ and his sacrifice; the ordinances of Baptism and Communion; salvation by God’s grace; nature of the human spirit; judgment of the dead, etc.); they are, therefore, Christian, though Protestant.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not uphold the core doctrines, however (eternity and divinity of Yeshua, nature of the soul, judmentality of God, etc.). They, then, are a cult, and the title they profess (“Christian”) is a misnomer.

Your church, my friend, is perhaps a close relative of the Catholic faith. Yet it is Protestant in origins. You, then, are a Protestant. If this concerns you, you may move to the Catholic Church. I do not recommend it, but since you seem to have a clear interest in their faith and their doctrines, I see thus far no reason not to …

 

[Contarini]

Keikiolu,

You surely aren’t claiming that a “Nihil Obstat” is a guarantee that the author of the work is an expert?

I will let your fellow Catholics correct you on that one.

More to the point, you have not provided any evidence that either Mormons or JWs deny the resurrection of Jesus. I don’t know why you persist in trying to defend this completely indefensible view.

Finally, I still don’t think you are paying attention to what I’m saying–you are too fixated on what you find the shocking idea that heretics are Christians. I have said over and over that this is only true in an equivocal sense, but I have never gotten any acknowledgment from you that you recognize that distinction.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

You have a very loose definition of “Christian”.

Like it or not, a Christian is anybody whose beliefs derive in some way from Christian tradition. There are plenty of Christian heretics. One does not become a non-Christian (an atheist, or a member of a different religion such as Buddhism, Judaism, etc.) when he embraces a heresy, no matter how bad that heresy may be. There are literally hundreds of different religions that derive from Christian tradition.

Edwin is also correct that an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat are not guarantees of either expertise or objective accuracy. All they mean is that there is nothing in the book that teaches contrary to the Catholic faith, in the view of the particular Bishop who granted them.