Not all non-Catholics are full blown Protestants

[Contarini]

Vaclav,

The Catholic/Protestant division is very unlike the black/white division, because it did not involve one majority group ruthlessly enslaving and oppressing a minority group in a one-sided manner for centuries. Sure, American or British Catholics have a history of oppression by Protestants–but French or Spanish or Italian Protestants have a history of oppression by Catholics. Each side uses the stories of oppression to justify its own oppression.

Your analogy works just as well against the many Catholics on this board who expect to be patted on the back because they recognize our baptism, admit that we might possibly make it to heaven, and don’t want to burn us at the stake.

Edwin

 

[Vaclav]

Vaclav,

The Catholic/Protestant division is very unlike the black/white division, because it did not involve one majority group ruthlessly enslaving and oppressing a minority group in a one-sided manner for centuries. Sure, American or British Catholics have a history of oppression by Protestants–but French or Spanish or Italian Protestants have a history of oppression by Catholics. Each side uses the stories of oppression to justify its own oppression.

Your analogy works just as well against the many Catholics on this board who expect to be patted on the back because they recognize our baptism, admit that we might possibly make it to heaven, and don’t want to burn us at the stake.

Edwin

Oh, I agree, which is why I don’t really expect any gratitude. I would genuinely like to see both sides (though there really aren’t “two” sides are there?) come together and discuss things in a much more congenial manner. I don’t particularly appreciate the nastiness expressed by either side here or elsewhere.

My analogy was mostly to illustrate the vast difference in perceptions, not to point out any oppressions.

 

[rr1213]

I didn’t say that you would. My point is that in order to reach unity, someone has to give, and when it comes to dogmas it pretty much has to be us.

I’d be interested as to what matters–short of infallably defined doctrine–for which the Catholic Church could “give” in order to achieve unity with the Protestant Churches.

 

[Contarini]

I’d be interested as to what matters–short of infallably defined doctrine–for which the Catholic Church could “give” in order to achieve unity with the Protestant Churches.

Lots of stuff: married priests (as long as they were married before ordination and had only been married once); liturgical diversity (particularly relevant in the case of Anglicanism, and we’ve already seen the beginning of it in the 'Anglican Use"; but I’m also thinking of things like the incorporation of Protestant hymnody into Catholic liturgy, which has also been done to some extent but could be done much better); theological explanations WRT issues like salvation and the authority of Scripture that alleviate Protestant concerns without contradicting defined dogma; decentralization of Catholic polity allowing for things like lay election of bishops and otherwise a more congregational approach (this is unlikely in the near future because it’s come to be identified with liberal dissenters, but I see no intrinsic reason why it couldn’t happen); and so on.

WRT doctrine in particular, here are some of the things I have in mind. They fall into two main classes.

1. Clarifications of the extent to which certain Protestant teachings are compatible with Catholicism. For instance, the Council of Trent teaches that faith is not lost with every mortal sin, contradicting the Protestant belief (at least the belief of many Protestants) that deliberate persistence in serious sin is incompatible with the faith that is a gift of God. I think this could possibly be clarified to allow for the view that saving faith is an irreducibly complex compound of faith and love and that this faith is what St. Paul is talking about when he speaks of faith as salvific. This would allow Protestants to continue to urge orthodox Christians who do not show the fruit of the Spirit to repent and believe in Christ, rather than being forced to admit that they already have faith in the fullest sense spoken of in the NT and simply need to add something else to it.

Again, I would like a fuller clarification of just what kind of sufficiency and primacy one may ascribe to Scripture. I believe that Scripture is the supreme and final authority in matters of faith because it is the surest and most important repository of divine Revelation. Some on this board have challenged my belief that this position is compatible with Catholic orthodoxy.

Finally, it would be nice to see a reformulation of the doctrine of the Eucharist without the language of substance and accidents which Protestants find confusing at best. This would build on the statements of Catholic theologians such as Aquinas and Bellarmine that Christ’s body is in heaven in its natural dimensions (and not locally present on the altar), and that Christ is received in a mystical and spiritual way. Far too often Catholic apologists insist that the Catholic position is a fully literal one. 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.

1. Going further, there are certain things that Protestants might hope the Catholic Church would define dogmatically. Here would be a couple:

a. a condemnation of the view I have heard expressed by some Catholics (and certainly found in medieval Catholic theology) that the Blessed Virgin, being purely human and in no sense our judge, is in a sense more like us than Christ is and that this is part of what makes her a fitting intercessor for us. I would like to see the Catholic Church declare dogmatically that Christ is infinitely more merciful and more capable of understanding our weakness than any of the saints. Ideally, I’d like to see a forthright condemnation of the infamous statement of St. Alphonsus Liguori that Christ “has kept the kingdom of justice for himself and entrusted the kingdom of mercy to Mary.”

b. Most boldly, I think it’s possible that the Catholic Church might some day define a one-source rather than two-source view of Tradition, interpreting the Council of Trent’s statement to mean that the same deposit of Revelation is transmitted through both Scripture and unwritten Tradition (though my preferred wording would be that Scripture is itself the supreme repository of Tradition), and is to be equally venerated wherever it is found, but that Scripture has primacy over all other expressions of Sacred Tradition. I would like to see a condemnation of the view that the Church is greater than Scripture or that Scripture derives its authority from the Church. I think Vatican II has essentially done this by saying that the Magisterium is the servant of the Word, but obviously it isn’t clear enough for some Catholics!

I may be wrong on all of these things, but these are points in which it seems to me that the Catholic Church might be able to “give.”

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Most boldly, I think it’s possible that the Catholic Church might some day define a one-source rather than two-source view of Tradition, interpreting the Council of Trent’s statement to mean that the same deposit of Revelation is transmitted through both Scripture and unwritten Tradition (though my preferred wording would be that Scripture is itself the supreme repository of Tradition), and is to be equally venerated wherever it is found, but that Scripture has primacy over all other expressions of Sacred Tradition.

This isn’t even possible, since the source of the Scriptures is the Oral Tradition. Nothing can ever be greater than its source.

But it is true that the Oral Tradition and the Scriptures are essentially two legs of the same table, which is Divine Revelation.

 

[Contarini]

This isn’t even possible, since the source of the Scriptures is the Oral Tradition. Nothing can ever be greater than its source…

“Source” can mean a lot of things. For instance, Jude cites from two undoubtedly non-canonical works; Paul cites from pagan poets. These are sources but certainly not greater than Scripture.

Insofar as you are correct, the source of much of the New Testament is indeed apostolic preaching and traditions about Jesus. We do not have direct access to that preaching and those traditions. None of our other sources for apostolic preaching are more direct or authoritative than Scripture–in fact they are considerably less so.

Insofar as we still have oral tradition–i.e., the sermons your priest preaches or even the views and traditions expressed to you orally by other lay Catholics–that tradition is

1. Largely based on Scripture and other written sources; and
2. Far, far removed from its original source in the preaching of the Apostles.

So it is false to say that the oral tradition available to you today is the source of Scripture. Quite the contrary. Scripture is the source of most of the tradition you encounter.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

So it is false to say that the oral tradition available to you today is the source of Scripture. Quite the contrary. Scripture is the source of most of the tradition you encounter.

This doesn’t mean that we throw out what we have, though, since what we have is just as authentic as Scripture, even though we’re hearing it from secondary sources (we also get Scripture from secondary sources - the original manuscripts no longer exist).

What I mean by that is that the source of the oral tradition that we have today and the source of the Scriptures that we have today are the same thing - the teachings, writings, and practices of the Apostles.

 

[Keikiolu]

I think that defining Jesus first and foremost as a member of the Trinity is a mistake. In the order of being, that is true. But in the order of knowing, it is not–Jesus’ disciples knew Him as a human being. Did they not know the real Jesus because they didn’t know He was a member of the Trinity? Surely you will not claim this!

No one followed Jesus as God until He “convinced” them that He was God. They weren’t Christians until they DID believe that. They were simply followers of perceived wisdom/power.

Knowing Jesus as “a great teacher” or “a worker of signs” is not sufficient to call oneself a Christian.

To persist in holding the belief that Jesus is NOT God is to actually deny BEING a Christian, as a Christian is defined thus.

The Jesus believed in by JWs is clearly the Jesus of the NT. This is more dubiously true of Mormons–I would say it’s at least partially true of them as well but I won’t fight you on that one. But the JWs certainly believe in the Jesus witnessed to in the Gospels–they simply interpret the Gospels differently.

Edwin

They call the Jesus which Catholics call Jesus by the name “JESUS”, but they don’t believe that Jesus is the Jesus that is God, which is what we mean when we say we believe in the Christ Jesus who is the Son of God.

As a protestant, you are free to hold your errant belief.

As a Catholic, I’m not.

Do you actually believe that denying that Jesus is God is acceptable for a Christian?

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

 

[Contarini]

This doesn’t mean that we throw out what we have, though, since what we have is just as authentic as Scripture, even though we’re hearing it from secondary sources (we also get Scripture from secondary sources - the original manuscripts no longer exist).

What I mean by that is that the source of the oral tradition that we have today and the source of the Scriptures that we have today are the same thing - the teachings, writings, and practices of the Apostles.

Absolutely. But I disagree that what we have outside Scripture is as directly connected to the original source as Scripture is. That, as I understand it, is what the process of canonization entails: the Church’s recognition that with the death of the apostles and their immediate followers their writings are the most authoritative witness we now have. There is abundant evidence that this is how the Fathers thought about it. That does not imply the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura insofar as Sola Scriptura is a critical principle over against the Church, because the Fathers also thought that the Church could be trusted and that some things (particularly liturgical practices) had been handed down outside Scripture.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No one followed Jesus as God until He “convinced” them that He was God. They weren’t Christians until they DID believe that. They were simply followers of perceived wisdom/power.

You’re moving back and forth between two different things: which is the “real Jesus” and which are the real Christians. I agree that before the Resurrection we would not speak of the disciples as Christians, but they did know the same Jesus we do, which was my point.

Even after Pentecost, I question whether the early believers would have explicitly said that Jesus was God. As far as we know they did not say this until close to the end of the first century in the Gospel of John. Certainly the idea was implicitly there–they said things that could not be adequately accounted for except on the supposition that He was God.

Furthermore, there is a difference between saying that Jesus is God and saying that Jesus is a member of the Trinity, three Persons with one essence, etc. The first-century Church certainly didn’t say that–they confessed Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but had not yet worked out the relationships among them.

They call the Jesus which Catholics call Jesus by the name “JESUS”, but they don’t believe that Jesus is the Jesus that is God

But they believe that Jesus is the Jesus who was crucified and rose from the dead.

As a protestant, you are free to hold your errant belief.

As a Catholic, I’m not.

Can you point me to an official Catholic teaching supporting what you are saying?

Do you actually believe that denying that Jesus is God is acceptable for a Christian?

What part of “heretical” did you not understand?

Edwin

 

[thumpergirl]

from the way I was told. Yes Catholic originally was meant as universal. But over the years and so many new religions and churches. It is now used to define what religion we are. Roman Catholic.

 

[Contarini]

from the way I was told. Yes Catholic originally was meant as universal. But over the years and so many new religions and churches. It is now used to define what religion we are. Roman Catholic.

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

 

[EHRAM]

Not much to differ with here, but, as your last paragraph suggests, how many sacraments you get, or whether the Pope is equal, or primus inter pares, depends on which Anglican you ask.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus, capital “C”

One of many reasons that I was drawn to the Roman Catholic Church was the diversity of opinions, not only among Protestant denominations, but within Protestant denominations. In the liberal Protestant denominations, everyone seems to be free to follow his or her own conscience in all matters of faith and morals.

 

[GKC]

One of many reasons that I was drawn to the Roman Catholic Church was the diversity of opinions, not only among Protestant denominations, but within Protestant denominations. In the liberal Protestant denominations, everyone seems to be free to follow his or her own conscience in all matters of faith and morals.

I’m not within a country mile of a liberal, or a protestant denomination. But I know what you mean.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[JohnOneOne]

They do not believe in the Trinity therefore JW’s are non-Christians.

"The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.…it is not directly and immediately the word of God.

From: The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an Editorial Staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV [14], p. 299 (italics theirs). BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

The import of this statement becomes all the more significant when we appreciate the fact that “the Apostolic Fathers” are those who were said to have lived during or close to the same time period as the Apostles themselves; perhaps, even some of them having been taught by them as well.

Therefore, if among the writings of “the Apostolic Fathers” “there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective,” and, especially, for this teaching to not have ever been a part of the Christian “profession of faith,” that is, as expressed within any Christian ‘declaration of belief’ until the end of the 4th century, then, surely, this would unequivocally substantiate the fact that neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians had ever believed and/or introduced any such concept about God as the Trinity.

The materials contained within the following link is, in my view, quite telling as well:

geocities.com/goodcompanionbooks/Some_Powerful_Reasonings.html

Among those comments you will see that these scholars had taken consideration of the subject one step further, that is, directly to the Scriptures themselves. Yes, they had noticed that, among the Holy Writings, there could never be found any direct evidence of the inspired men of God to have either taught, explained and/or defended any such new view of God as a Trinity. The only reasonable explanation for such absence would be because, no such radically new concept of God (or, for that matter, of Jesus) had ever been introduced into the minds of those who were being directed by God to record the events, teachings and doctrines of those earliest of formations of the new Christian Congregation of God, ‘the body of Christ.’

Although some may yet hold to a different view, I am still of the opinion that contained therein are ‘Some Very Powerful Reasonings About the Trinity, Not So Easily Dismissed.’

Agape.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books

 

[jmcrae]

John;

The earliest formulation of the Apostles’ Creed comes from well within Early Church times, and indicates that the three Persons of the Trinity were well-known even at that time.

It goes, “I believe in the Father almighty, and in Jesus Christ our saviour; and in the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, in the holy Church, and in the remission of sins.” Source: Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, page 3]

 

[JohnOneOne]

John;

The earliest formulation of the Apostles’ Creed comes from well within Early Church times, and indicates that the three Persons of the Trinity were well-known even at that time.

It goes, “I believe in the Father almighty, and in Jesus Christ our saviour; and in the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, in the holy Church, and in the remission of sins.” Source: Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, page 3]

With due respect, how you see a Trinity in this is beyond my comprehension; after all, the very first clause makes the statement, “I believe in the Father almighty.”

This would, in itself, preclude anything other than what it plainly states, that “the Father” is, indeed, the “Almighty” God, and, therefore, certainly no part of any Trinity.

Agape.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *No one followed Jesus as God until He “convinced” them that He was God. They weren’t Christians until they DID believe that. They were simply followers of perceived wisdom/power.*You’re moving back and forth between two different things: which is the “real Jesus” and which are the real Christians. I agree that before the Resurrection we would not speak of the disciples as Christians, but they did know the same Jesus we do, which was my point.

They knew the same person, agreed.

But, my contention is, and will remain, that no one is a Christian unless and until they accept that Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Trinity being God, one God in Three Persons.

Even after Pentecost, I question whether the early believers would have explicitly said that Jesus was God. As far as we know they did not say this until close to the end of the first century in the Gospel of John. Certainly the idea was implicitly there–they said things that could not be adequately accounted for except on the supposition that He was God.

The fact that there were (perhaps) people who called themselves Christians who didn’t, or in fact couldn’t, believe explicitly in the Holy Trinity, where Jesus was the Son of God, and God as one, means that they were “Proto-Christians” (due to a “catechetical inadequacy” not of their own “fault”), which is a state that ALL “proto-Christians” go through.

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.

Furthermore, there is a difference between saying that Jesus is God and saying that Jesus is a member of the Trinity, three Persons with one essence, etc. The first-century Church certainly didn’t say that–they confessed Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but had not yet worked out the relationships among them.

Rubish.

They simultaneously professed ONE GOD, and God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

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.

Quote:
They call the Jesus which Catholics call Jesus by the name “JESUS”, but they don’t believe that Jesus is the Jesus that is God
But they believe that Jesus is the Jesus who was crucified and rose from the dead.

They “may” (I’m not so sure) that Jesus died and rose from the dead, but that if He wasn’t God who rose, but instead a “creation of God” whom God had raised from the dead, then they aren’t Christians.

Either God Himself rose from the dead, as the man-God Jesus, or He didn’t,… and to claim that the man-God Jesus wasn’t risen, but only some “creation”, then what they proclaim is not Christianity.

Quote:
As a protestant, you are free to hold your errant belief.

As a Catholic, I’m not.
Can you point me to an official Catholic teaching supporting what you are saying?

Do I REALLY need to point out a reference that Jesus is God, and that to be a Christian one needs to believe that?

Firstly: CCC

Secondly:
“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.”

…which you either believe, or can’t call yourself a Christian.

Quote:

Do you actually believe that denying that Jesus is God is acceptable for a Christian?
What part of “heretical” did you not understand?

Edwin

“Heresy”

Do you believe that it’s possible to deny that Jesus is God and remain an actual Christian?

A “yes” or “no” answer would be appreciated.

The phrase “Heretical Christian” is the same as “Non-Christian who calls themself a Christian”.

Agreed, or no?

Thanks for your answers, Chief…!

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

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcrae forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*John;

The earliest formulation of the Apostles’ Creed comes from well* within Early Church times, and indicates that the three Persons of the Trinity were well-known even at that time.

It goes, “I believe in the Father almighty, and in Jesus Christ our saviour; and in the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, in the holy Church, and in the remission of sins.” Source: Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, page 3]

With due respect, how you see a Trinity in this is beyond my comprehension; after all, the very first clause makes the statement, “I believe in the Father almighty.”

Of course it’s beyond your comprehension! Yet,… it’s true.

God the Father IS almighty, as are ALL the persons of the Holy Trinity, because they are all GOD,… and the ONLY way to reconcile the amazing reality that God the Father CAN be almighty without taking away any “almightiness” from the other persons of the Holy Trinity is if, indeed, God is composed of three persons in one “being”.

This would, in itself, preclude anything other than what it plainly states, that “the Father” is, indeed, the “Almighty” God, and, therefore, certainly no part of any Trinity.

See explanation above.

If you can’t figure out how to reconcile that with your personal definitions, then you’re not a Christian. Period.

If you want to be a Christian,… seek out someone other than me, because you probably don’t like me now for being so “crass”, who does understand the concept, and have them explain it to you.

Now,… would you like some fries with that…?

…and have a nice day… NEXT…!

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

 

[Keikiolu]

"The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.…it is not directly and immediately the word of God.

From: The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an Editorial Staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV [14], p. 299 (italics theirs). BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

The import of this statement becomes all the more significant when we appreciate the fact that “the Apostolic Fathers” are those who were said to have lived during or close to the same time period as the Apostles themselves; perhaps, even some of them having been taught by them as well.

Therefore, if among the writings of “the Apostolic Fathers” “there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective,” and, especially, for this teaching to not have ever been a part of the Christian “profession of faith,” that is, as expressed within any Christian ‘declaration of belief’ until the end of the 4th century, then, surely, this would unequivocally substantiate the fact that neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians had ever believed and/or introduced any such concept about God as the Trinity.

The materials contained within the following link is, in my view, quite telling as well:

geocities.com/goodcompanionbooks/Some_Powerful_Reasonings.html

Among those comments you will see that these scholars had taken consideration of the subject one step further, that is, directly to the Scriptures themselves. Yes, they had noticed that, among the Holy Writings, there could never be found any direct evidence of the inspired men of God to have either taught, explained and/or defended any such new view of God as a Trinity. The only reasonable explanation for such absence would be because, no such radically new concept of God (or, for that matter, of Jesus) had ever been introduced into the minds of those who were being directed by God to record the events, teachings and doctrines of those earliest of formations of the new Christian Congregation of God, ‘the body of Christ.’

Although some may yet hold to a different view, I am still of the opinion that contained therein are ‘Some Very Powerful Reasonings About the Trinity, Not So Easily Dismissed.’

Agape.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books

Then,… if the Holy Trinity doesn’t exist,…

…then:

…is Jesus God, or not?
…is The Father God, or not?
…is The Holy Spirit God, of not?

These are very simple questions.

Your answers define you as a Christian, or not.

Whatcha say, dude? Yea or neah?

(( On a “slightly” different subject, but not really, the early Fathers and Doctors, and other Christians, may or may not have been “complete” Christians as we would describe a Christian these days, but we have been exposed to several centuries of Catholic development, while they had what they had at their times to work with. ))

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