Not all non-Catholics are full blown Protestants

[Efrain]

One properly speaks of supremacy “over” rather than “against.” Scripture is supreme over all other expressions of the Deposit of Faith.

Scripture is the revelation of God if interpreted corectly by the Magesterium along with Sacred Tradition. Scripture by itself cannot be held as supreme over the three fold revelation because anyone can make out anything from Scripture for their own benefit.
Divine Revelation is threefold and integral and niether can subsist as full Word of God without each other. Therefore one form of revelation cannot be more important than the other but are equal and actually form the Word of God as one and complete.

Hardly. It takes a lot more work than that. First of all, you do not define Tradition–nor does the Council of Trent do so in a satisfactory manner. Vatican II defines Tradition as the process of transmission of the Deposit of Faith. I have no problem with the statement that this process of transmission is also an aspect of the Word of God, and I don’t think we can really speak of Scripture or Tradition (in this sense) as being superior to each other. Nor can we say that they are equal, because they are fundamentally different. It’s not even like comparing apples and oranges–it’s like asking if yellow is louder than a triangle. I would agree that they are both aspects of the Word and that we need both.

Sacred Tradition in short is the oral preaching, example, and observances handed down by Jesus to the Apostles and to their succesors thereof. This is the preaching of the living Gospel. Although different in form than Scripture, it is still true Gospel and not at all fundametally different. Their ends is the same which is the spreading of the Good News.

The Magisterium is a different matter. Granting that Scripture and Tradition (in the sense defined by Dei Verbum) are both aspects of the Word, Dei Verbum clearly states that they are both superior to the Magisterium (because it says that the Magisterium is the servant of the Word). So your three-legged stool, just like the Anglican three-legged stool, turns out to be very rickety at best. Your formulation directly contradicts an Ecumenical Council of your own Church.

Magisterium is not a different matter but an equal necessity. Without the teaching authority how will we be able to verify the true and full teachings of Christ? Without authority how could the early Church seperate Herself with the agnostics who claimed a superior truth? “My” formulation is not my own but of the Church which is clearly stated in Dei Verbum.

 

[Efrain]

continued,

“Oh the horror” is not an argument.

Nonsense. St. Ignatius says nothing about substance or accidents, nothing about metaphysical transformation, and nothing about the bread and wine ceasing to be bread and wine…

You claimed in post #104 that you would like to see the RC’s doctrine of the Eucharist “reformulated” into a more “mystical and spiritual” way. The doctrine is what keeps us together and changing it would be disastrous. The Eucharist is true blood and true body of our Lord Jesus which many Protestants. Even with Evangelicals many bishops disagree and this doctrine and claim it to be a mere spiritual presence of Christ.

Ignatius of Antioch:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

That is broader than transubstantiation. If this is your definition of transubstantiation, then relax–I am in no way challenging this!..

This is the Church’s definition of transubstantiation and if you are not challenging the doctrine then don’t state that you would like to “reformulate” it.

I am happy to be corrected from the easily accessible texts of St. Thomas on this subject, which I have examined carefully on several occasions. Of course I think St. Thomas believed the Catholic doctrine. Where do you find me stating otherwise?!

Right below. Same post #104

As maintained by the theologians I have mentioned, it certainly isn’t, and I’d like to see how far the Catholic Church was willing to push this somewhat more mystical and spiritualizing language.

How is that what I was doing? I said that the Body and Blood are (according to St. Thomas) not locally present under their natural dimensions. This is what St. Thomas says. You can read it here. Don’t blame me.

If you think this is “excluding the flesh and blood” then you prove my point that you do not mean the same thing by “flesh and blood” that St. Thomas did.

Your expressions of horror get you nowhere. You need to deal with the texts written by the greatest Doctor of your Church…

I am not arguing the substance of the Eucharist but the fact that it seems like you would like to emphasis a spiritual presence as opposed to the corporal presence of our Lord. St. Thomas in his Summa question 76 article 5, is refuting the belief that Christ’s body can only be at one place at anytime not that He is present in Spirit only.

May peace be with you,
Efrain

 

[Keikiolu]

Keikiolu,

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

It is what it is, which you can look up to find it’s meaning.

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.

Is someone who claims that Jesus was a lesser god, the creation of some other god, was resurrected by either a power granted to him by his creator, or was simply resurrected by that greater god, then that would be a case where Jesus is both resurrected AND not actually a Person of God.

It’s not believing in the resurrection of Jesus that makes one a Christian,… it’s believing that Jesus is God.

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

As I’ve stated, heretics AREN’T Christians, if their particular heresy involves the denial that Jesus is God.

You accept that a “Christian” can actually believe that Jesus is not God. I can’t.

That’s ONE reason you’re not a Catholic, apparently.

Now are we clear?

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

 

[Keikiolu]

Like it or not, a Christian is anybody whose beliefs derive in some way from Christian tradition.

You’re welcome to your opinion.

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.

This statement (above) derives from your previous statement.

I would say they are believers in a non-Christian religion, not that they suddenly become “buddhists”…!

Once again, you are entitled to your opinions.

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.

This: “…nothing in the book that teaches contrary to the Catholic faith”, is all that I’m interested in…!

If it’s not AGAINST the faith, then it’s “allowed”, which gives us the right to hold that belief.

You are not obliged to agree with me, but you are not allowed to disagree that it’s not allowed by the Church.

Any other questions?

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

 

[jmcrae]

You’re welcome to your opinion.

This statement (above) derives from your previous statement.

I would say they are believers in a non-Christian religion, not that they suddenly become “buddhists”…!

Everybody in the world fits into some tradition. If it is not Christian tradition, then it has to be one of the others. There is no “none of the above” category.

This: “…nothing in the book that teaches contrary to the Catholic faith”, is all that I’m interested in…!

It in no way guarantees that it is an accurate representation of any other religion, or even that it is true at all.

If it’s not AGAINST the faith, then it’s “allowed”, which gives us the right to hold that belief.

Not precisely. Danny and the Dinosaur could get an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat - it doesn’t mean that there was ever a boy named Danny who tamed a dinosaur, or that it would be okay for Catholics to believe that it really happened.

 

[rr1213]

Not precisely. Danny and the Dinosaur could get an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat - it doesn’t mean that there was ever a boy named Danny who tamed a dinosaur, or that it would be okay for Catholics to believe that it really happened.

So what does an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat guarantee? And how good is that guarantee? Could a Bishop render one of these and then be found by the Pope or the Magisterium to have done so in error?

 

[jmcrae]

So what does an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat guarantee?

Jus that there are no blatant heresies in the book. (And that if these are refused, that the book in question does contain blatant heresies - which is probably more useful than the marks themselves.)

And how good is that guarantee?

As good as the Bishop who gives it.

Could a Bishop render one of these and then be found by the Pope or the Magisterium to have done so in error?

Yep. This sort of thing happens rarely, but it can, and has, from time to time.

 

[Contarini]

Scripture is the revelation of God if interpreted corectly by the Magesterium along with Sacred Tradition.

That’s too subjective. Revelation is what it is no matter how it is interpreted. I agree that Scripture cannot function as revelation if it is radically misinterpreted; but that doesn’t change its intrinsic quality.

Scripture by itself cannot be held as supreme over the three fold revelation because anyone can make out anything from Scripture for their own benefit.

This is a non sequitur. I have not disputed the need for good interpretation, or the indispensable role of the Church in Biblical interpretation.

Divine Revelation is threefold and integral and niether can subsist as full Word of God without each other.

That is not what Dei Verbum says. This is a modern innovation–I’m not sure where it comes from but it seems to be becoming common on this forum, and I see little to commend it. It is certainly not the teaching of the Catholic Church as far as I can see.

Therefore one form of revelation cannot be more important than the other but are equal

Again, a non sequitur. It does not follow from the mutual interdependence of three things that they are equal. Certainly Scripture needs to be rightly interpreted, and only the Church can rightly interpret Scripture. But that does not make the Church equal to Scripture. You have Dei Verbum explicitly stating the contrary, but you choose to ignore it!

Sacred Tradition in short is the oral preaching, example, and observances handed down by Jesus to the Apostles and to their succesors thereof. This is the preaching of the living Gospel.

If you define this as something separate from Scripture, it becomes meaningless. From at least the third century on (arguably the second) all the preaching we can find was largely based on Scripture. The things that are arguably pure oral tradition are relatively few and mostly concern liturgical practices–and obviously we know about them because they were written down at some point. There is simply no evidence for some distinct content of oral tradition that has never been written down. Given the vast amount of Catholic writing by now, it would have to be a closely kept secret to avoid being written–and secret tradition is no part of Catholicism.

Oral tradition meant something in the second century. It’s meaningless today. There is no reasonable way that any oral tradition can still exist whose content has not been written down, either in Scripture or somewhere else. And what I am claiming is that among these various repositories of the content of Tradition Scripture is supreme.

Although different in form than Scripture

But is it different in content? Is there any content that was not written down in Scripture? If there is, how do you know about it?

The only way you could argue for a real oral tradition distinct from Scripture would be if your priest said: “I have heard this from my bishop, who heard it from bishop Z, who heard it from bishop Y, who heard it from bishop X. . . . . who heard it from the Apostle Peter.”

There is no such preaching in the Catholic Church. It doesn’t exist.

That the content of divine revelation has been handed down in oral as well as written form I do not dispute, and that is what I understand Dei Verbum to be asserting. I’m furthermore willing to admit that some things not explicitly mentioned in Scripture (such as infant baptism) may be apostolic Tradition. But infant baptism is not pure oral tradition *today, *even if it was in A.D. 100.

Magisterium is not a different matter but an equal necessity. Without the teaching authority how will we be able to verify the true and full teachings of Christ? Without authority how could the early Church seperate Herself with the agnostics who claimed a superior truth? “My” formulation is not my own but of the Church which is clearly stated in Dei Verbum.

Yet you do not cite Dei Verbum. I have pointed you to the passage that explicitly states that the Magisterium is the servant of the Word. Why do you ignore it? You are repeating your heretical formulation (that the Magisterium is equal to Scripture and Tradition) out of sheer stubbornness, as far as I can see, because you cannot defend your view from the text of Dei Verbum, which flatly contradicts you.

I disagree that the Magisterium is “equally” necessary–the fact that Protestants have some truth and means of grace proves the contrary. (I.e., we have Scripture and to some degree Tradition but lack the Magisterium, and we are clearly in better shape according to the Catholic Church than those who lack Scripture.)

But the point at issue here is the statement of your own Church that the Magisterium is the servant of the Word, defined as Scripture and Tradition. What do you make of it?

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You claimed in post #104 that you would like to see the RC’s doctrine of the Eucharist “reformulated” into a more “mystical and spiritual” way. The doctrine is what keeps us together and changing it would be disastrous.

Who says reformulation is change?

The Eucharist is true blood and true body of our Lord Jesus which many Protestants. Even with Evangelicals many bishops disagree and this doctrine and claim it to be a mere spiritual presence of Christ.

“Spiritual presence” can mean a lot of things. I believe firmly that the true Body and Blood are present (and yes, the Soul and Divinity are present as well–that isn’t the controversial point). But as Aquinas said, they are not present as in a place, nor is their “dimensive quantity” present, nor are their accidents present.

These things are what modern people mean when they say that something is physical. Substance is not physical by the definition that most modern people mean. A presence of the substance is not a “literal” presence, in the sense that it’s identical what I mean when I say that my body is present in front of my computer right now.

Therefore, I would like to see the Catholic Church find a terminology other than “substance and accidents” to express the doctrine.

Ignatius of Antioch:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

What does this have to do with the question of substance and accidents? Or even with the question of whether the bread and wine remain real bread and wine even as they are transformed into Christ’s Body and Blood?

It was then understood in the Church that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist as body and blood.

This is the Church’s definition of transubstantiation and if you are not challenging the doctrine then don’t state that you would like to “reformulate” it.

“Reformulate” means to formulate the same idea in different terms. I agree with you entirely that what you expressed is the basic teaching of the Church on Real Presence, and I thoroughly agree with it. Transubstantiation, however, is more than that–it is the doctrine that the substances of bread and wine are transformed into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood, even while the accidents/species remain the same.

By defining transubstantiation simply as the full presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, you have reformulated it yourself. In fact your reformulation is far broader than anything I expect the Catholic Church to sanction. It is far vaguer and more mystical than what I had in mind. So you have no grounds of complaint! I don’t expect the Catholic Church to stop talking about transformation (as you do) and simply speak of presence (much as your definition would make the Lutherans happy). I would like to see a language of transformation that did not result in a weird pseudo-Aristotelian notion of accidents existing miraculously without substance, especially since this language is incomprehensible to most people anyway.

Right below. Same post #104

You misunderstood in two ways. First of all, I said that a reformulation would “build on” Aquinas and Bellarmine’s sophisticated understanding of Christ’s presence. I was not saying that Aquinas or Bellarmine taught something identical to this reformulation–if they had no reformulation would be necessary.

And in the second place, I don’t think that this reformulation would contradict the current teaching–that’s why I used the word “reformulation.”

 

[Contarini]

I am not arguing the substance of the Eucharist but the fact that it seems like you would like to emphasis a spiritual presence as opposed to the corporal presence of our Lord.

We won’t get anywhere if you base your arguments on what it seems like to you, instead of what I say. I am trying to use language more precise than “spiritual” or “corporeal” because both of these terms can mean all sorts of things. And it’s not about emphasis, it’s about definition.

I do not believe that Christ is present corporeally in the normal sense, because the normal sense involves matter in dimensions and what the medieval tradition called “accidents” or “species.” In other words, when I say that a thing is corporeal I mean that I can touch it, taste it, smell it, analyze it scientifically, etc. Christ’s Body and Blood are not present in that way, and the Catholic Church does not say that they are. What we experience in all these ways in the Eucharist is bread and wine.

However, the substance–the underlying reality–is Christ’s Body and Blood.

To me, the key difference between Aquinas’s view and the view of someone like Calvin is that Calvin thought it was idolatrous to worship Christ as present in the Sacrament, while Aquinas thought it was only proper. I am with Aquinas against Calvin on that one!

St. Thomas in his Summa question 76 article 5, is refuting the belief that Christ’s body can only be at one place at anytime not that He is present in Spirit only.

You need to deal with what he actually says, such as this:

Reply to Objection 2. The place in which Christ’s body is, is not empty; nor yet is it properly filled with the substance of Christ’s body, which is not there locally, as stated above; but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to fill the place either because of the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously after the fashion of substance.

Yes, he’s dealing with how Christ’s Body can be present in more than one place. But His answer is precisely that Christ is not locally present anywhere except in heaven. The space on the altar is filled with the sacramental species–the “appearances” of bread and wine. In other words, they are not just illusions but really take up space–they are physical in the normal sense that we use today.

What Aquinas defines as “substance” seems “spiritual” rather than “physical” to me, in the normal sense that I and most people use these words. But I agree that “spiritual” is an inadequate term for the Mystery. We have to get beyond this language and find a better way of putting it. In the meantime, I can accept substance and accidents, but it takes a lot of explaining.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

Jus that there are no blatant heresies in the book. (And that if these are refused, that the book in question does contain blatant heresies - which is probably more useful than the marks themselves.)

As good as the Bishop who gives it.

Yep. This sort of thing happens rarely, but it can, and has, from time to time.

Thanks

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It is what it is, which you can look up to find it’s meaning.

I am hesitant to put a dog in this fight, because, as I read it, it seems to be getting a tad heated.

I do have to disagree however with the assesment of what a Nihil Obstat implies. Very technically, it means that a document to which it is given is NOT containing error.

It is not, however, an endorsement of the author or authors as being experts. It more or less works in the negative, they many not be right, but the NO only asserts they are not wrong.

I could approach a diocese for an NO to a book or pamphlet I could write on the Trinity. IF I were to recieve it, it would not be an edoresement of me as an expert (I certainly am not!) but only let the readers know that my writing is not in error.

When it comes to who can be called Christians, I think perhaps we would do well to add a bit of nomenclature. In V2 documents the rest of the Christian world was broken down into “Churches” (i.e. Orthodoxy which is possed of 7 the Valid Sacraments) and “Ecclesial communities” (i.e. Protestants such as Lutherans or Methodists, which have lost the priesthood, but are still possesed of 2 valid sacraments).

Perhaps we could break it down further to include, trinitarian, non-trinitarian, etc…

 

[dessert]

I too have been reading this thread with great interest because our families are made up of all denominations. Nor do I want to debate all of this but reading this makes it seem like the river is getting wider between us as the other denominations have gone very losely and some seem to be pulling towards the Catholic because they also see their own groups pulling towards the liberal side.
My family has pulled away somewhat or maybe I stepped away from them towards the right path and is more structural. There will have to be a large bridge built if the river gets too wide. One of my standard questions now I ask in the beginning is if the person believes that Jesus is God and then we go from there. They will have to decide on their own and I mostly put my heart into talking with former Catholics, but not as a debate. Dessert

Help me to repent of my past sins and to resist temptation in the future, help to rise above my human weaknesses and to grow stronger as a Christian. Pope St. Clement XI

 

[Efrain]

That is not what Dei Verbum says. This is a modern innovation–I’m not sure where it comes from but it seems to be becoming common on this forum, and I see little to commend it. It is certainly not the teaching of the Catholic Church as far as I can see.

“It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” Dei Verbum 10 3

Contrary to what you believe, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Again, a non sequitur. It does not follow from the mutual interdependence of three things that they are equal. Certainly Scripture needs to be rightly interpreted, and only the Church can rightly interpret Scripture. But that does not make the Church equal to Scripture. You have Dei Verbum explicitly stating the contrary, but you choose to ignore it!

How can it not follow the mutual interdependance if one cannot stand with the others? I believe that your belief in the superiority of Scripture over any other means of Divine Revelation is typical of Protestantism. No where in Dei Verbum does it state that Magisterium is of lesser importance to Divine Revelation.

If you define this as something separate from Scripture, it becomes meaningless. From at least the third century on (arguably the second) all the preaching we can find was largely based on Scripture. The things that are arguably pure oral tradition are relatively few and mostly concern liturgical practices–and obviously we know about them because they were written down at some point. There is simply no evidence for some distinct content of oral tradition that has never been written down. Given the vast amount of Catholic writing by now, it would have to be a closely kept secret to avoid being written–and secret tradition is no part of Catholicism.

Oral tradition meant something in the second century. It’s meaningless today. There is no reasonable way that any oral tradition can still exist whose content has not been written down, either in Scripture or somewhere else. And what I am claiming is that among these various repositories of the content of Tradition Scripture is supreme.

You do not realize that Sacred Tradition, although also Divine Revelation, is seperate from Scripture in form and is used in conjunction together with the Holy Spirit to contribute to the salvation of souls. It is not meaningless to us Catholics since it leads us to Divine Truth. I don’t see how the oral teachings of Jesus to the Apostles carry any less weight than those in the written form. Both are coming from the same Divine source and are of equal importance to our faith.

Yet you do not cite Dei Verbum. I have pointed you to the passage that explicitly states that the Magisterium is the servant of the Word. Why do you ignore it? You are repeating your heretical formulation (that the Magisterium is equal to Scripture and Tradition) out of sheer stubbornness, as far as I can see, because you cannot defend your view from the text of Dei Verbum, which flatly contradicts you.

I disagree that the Magisterium is “equally” necessary–the fact that Protestants have some truth and means of grace proves the contrary. (I.e., we have Scripture and to some degree Tradition but lack the Magisterium, and we are clearly in better shape according to the Catholic Church than those who lack Scripture.)

But the point at issue here is the statement of your own Church that the Magisterium is the servant of the Word, defined as Scripture and Tradition. What do you make of it?.

Your passage used in Dei Verbum stating that Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God I do not dispute. I do not dispute that Protestants have some truth and means of grace either. What I am emphasizing is the infallibility of the Magesterium to preach the Gospel without error and not just settle for “some truth”. With Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium we are able to recieve the full truth as humanly possible on earth, rather than settle for less in Protestant churches. The Church has always seen the Magisterium as infallible when preaching the Gospel and without it we would err. What you call my heretical view is not my own formula but the actual teaching of the Church and not something I made up on my own out of stuborness.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You’re welcome to your opinion.

This statement (above) derives from your previous statement.

I would say they are believers in a non-Christian religion, not that they suddenly become “buddhists”…!
Everybody in the world fits into some tradition. If it is not Christian tradition, then it has to be one of the others. There is no “none of the above” category.

Uh,… I would agree with you!

And one of those categories is “Non-Christian but used to be somewhat Christianoid”, which I would term simply “non-Christian”.

If you want to call non-Christians Christians, even though they aren’t actually Christians, but you would rather not call them non-Christians because that makes them sound like Buddhists, or elsewhat, and/or it just seems “rude” or “un-PC” to call a “used to be sorta kinda Christian” a non-Christian,… go for it!

That’s what free will’s all about!

Quote:
This: “…nothing in the book that teaches contrary to the Catholic faith”, is all that I’m interested in…!
It in no way guarantees that it is an accurate representation of any other religion, or even that it is true at all.

That would be true,… but it does guarantee what it does guarantee, until someone withdraws it.

All it says is that the opinion expressed, if held as a belief, doesn’t contradict Church teaching. That’s all I’m after.

Any further questions?

Quote:
If it’s not AGAINST the faith, then it’s “allowed”, which gives us the right to hold that belief.
Not precisely. Danny and the Dinosaur could get an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat - it doesn’t mean that there was ever a boy named Danny who tamed a dinosaur, or that it would be okay for Catholics to believe that it really happened.

Actually it does specifically say that it would be OK for a Catholic to believe that the opinions expressed in that book didn’t contradict Catholic teaching if it didn’t.

If it did, then it wouldn’t have gotten the “N.O.”, right?

The question isn’t whether “Danny and the Dino” is TRUE, but whether it contradicts Church teaching.

Can you grasp the difference?

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

 

[thumpergirl]

That’s not really true. “Catholic” always defined one kind of Christian over against others. It does mean universal, but not as in “everyone who claims to be Christian.” Rather, the idea is “Christianity whole and entire, as believed throughout history and throughout the known world” over against some particular twist on the faith as upheld by a heretical group.

All forms of Christianity today derive from (even when they reject) this early Catholicism. But there were competitors: Marcionites, Valentinians, Montanists, Novatianists, etc.

Edwin

 

[thumpergirl]

Edwin my information is not incorrect. This goes back to time before your church existed. My information is taught by religious Historians at the Uof A. I also read it in a question answer book at the christian store. Catholic meant Universal everyone is welcome.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
It is what it is, which you can look up to find it’s meaning.

I am hesitant to put a dog in this fight, because, as I read it, it seems to be getting a tad heated.

Nahhhhhhhhhh,… we’re not being heated. Right?

I do have to disagree however with the assesment of what a Nihil Obstat implies. Very technically, it means that a document to which it is given is NOT containing error.

It is not, however, an endorsement of the author or authors as being experts. It more or less works in the negative, they many not be right, but the NO only asserts they are not wrong.

Hear hear. That’s my contention as well. If all that I’m concerned about is whether a writing is “wrong” or not, in that I have no option to hold the beliefs expressed, however much I like them, if they are “wrong” according to the Church, then the “NO” is of value to me in that way.

I could approach a diocese for an NO to a book or pamphlet I could write on the Trinity. IF I were to recieve it, it would not be an edoresement of me as an expert (I certainly am not!) but only let the readers know that my writing is not in error.

Since the “expertness” of any author (Catholic or otherwise) is, ultimately, a decision of the reader in as much as they care to research the background of the author in question, ALL authors are only experts if I say they are.

Therefore, the value of an author as to “expertness” is my job, and your job.

What I’m interested in is how the Church feels about this author’s particular work as it pertains to “orthodoxy”.

If you know that YOU need to be the one to judge an author’s “expertness”, and you know what an “NO” indicates, then you wouldn’t take an “NO” to mean anything as to the work’s “expertness” as that not what it does…!

When it comes to who can be called Christians, I think perhaps we would do well to add a bit of nomenclature. In V2 documents the rest of the Christian world was broken down into “Churches” (i.e. Orthodoxy which is possed of 7 the Valid Sacraments) and “Ecclesial communities” (i.e. Protestants such as Lutherans or Methodists, which have lost the priesthood, but are still possesed of 2 valid sacraments).

Perhaps we could break it down further to include, trinitarian, non-trinitarian, etc…

All I was “keying” off of was the question of whether a non-Trinitarian God Fearer could be called a Christian.

Since, to JW’s and Mormons, Jesus is a creation of God (at best), that blows the definition of “Trinitarian”, to me, and puts them in the non-Christian category.

I could be wrong. Show me where.

Anyway,… thanks for the interesting conversation…!

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

 

[jmcrae]

All I was “keying” off of was the question of whether a non-Trinitarian God Fearer could be called a Christian.

Since, to JW’s and Mormons, Jesus is a creation of God (at best), that blows the definition of “Trinitarian”, to me, and puts them in the non-Christian category.

It puts them into the “Christian heresy” category, together with Arianism and Nestorianism, which denied Christ’s divinity (in the first case) and His humanity (in the second case).

If you understand that a Nihil Obstat doesn’t guarantee expertise, then why does it matter if a tract against the JWs has one, or not? Since all it means is that the tract contains no incorrect information about the Catholic faith. It could be nothing but lies and innuendo about the JW faith, though.

 

[Keikiolu]

It puts them into the “Christian heresy” category, together with Arianism and Nestorianism, which denied Christ’s divinity (in the first case) and His humanity (in the second case).

Right. And as I’ve said, a “Christian heretic who’s heresy is a denial of Jesus being a member of the Holy Trinity” equates to being a non-Christian, in my opinion.

If you hold another opinion, that’s just dandy.

If you understand that a Nihil Obstat doesn’t guarantee expertise, then why does it matter if a tract against the JWs has one, or not? Since all it means is that the tract contains no incorrect information about the Catholic faith. It could be nothing but lies and innuendo about the JW faith, though.

An “NO” gives me information that I can use,… specifically that a work doesn’t contradict my faith.

Show me an “Expert Guaranteed” certification which tells me that the author is objectively an expert and that everything said in the work is “utterly true and perfect”…?

It’s our job as readers to deal with the “expertness” of an author, and the veracity of his work.

If you have no respect for the function of the “NO”, that’s fine, but your having none tells me only that you aren’t Catholic (enough!?) to understand the value of the Magisterium.

Which basically means you’re a protestant.

Which tells me you’re going to believe whatever you want ANYWAY, so I’ll leave you to that, and simply state my opinions with little to no regard as to whether you “approve” or not.

Have a really nifty day, buckeroo…!!

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