Not all non-Catholics are full blown Protestants

[ehscott]

The church that Christ founded is not the Roman Catholic church of today, not by a long shot. If the popes are all successors of Peter, then why are they literally surrounded and covered by wealth and jewels and yet Peter was a poor fisherman that wasn’t even very smart and not the least bit interested in being an authoritarian?

Without taking on the incorrect statement about being “covered by wealth”, you continue to discount the validity of the Catholic Church based on externals. Considering all the “Protestant” preachers flying around in private jets with all the opulence, I would assume you will hold them to the same standards as you appear to hold the Church. As fro your statement about Peter, you are oh so wrong. Recall his authoritative insistence that Gentiles (including adults) be circumcised. Sounds not only authoritative but downright painful.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Originally Posted by Traveller1534
The church that Christ founded is not the Roman Catholic church of today, not by a long shot. If the popes are all successors of Peter, then why are they literally surrounded and covered by wealth and jewels and yet Peter was a poor fisherman that wasn’t even very smart and not the least bit interested in being an authoritarian?

Without taking on the incorrect statement about being “covered by wealth”, you continue to discount the validity of the Catholic Church based on externals. Considering all the “Protestant” preachers flying around in private jets with all the opulence, I would assume you will hold them to the same standards as you appear to hold the Church. As fro your statement about Peter, you are oh so wrong. Recall his authoritative insistence that Gentiles (including adults) be circumcised. Sounds not only authoritative but downright painful.

Dear Traveller,

Thanks for your uninformed opinion. The RCC is exactly the Church founded by Christ based upon tradition, doctrine, etc. However ignorant you thought Peter was, he and eleven colleagues were smart enough to grow the Church from nothing to what it is today. This brings to mind something the Angel Gabriel said to Mary, “Nothing is impossible for God”.

As for the Church’s wealth, look around the world and name a single other entity that does more good than the RCC.

Iowa Mike

 

[Efrain]

By backing yourselves into a corner via the doctrine of infallibility, you’ve backed us all in that same corner with you. Christ commands unity and unity will have to involve the See of Peter. I can’t imagine you guys ever finding a way to back out of the doctrine of infallibility, so hopefully we can find a way to accept your official dogmas as correct, otherwise we’ll never have unity.

In Christ,

Edwin

If we do not have the same pastor how then will we ever have unity? RC’s are in full communion with each other because we recognize the Holy See as our chief shepherd on earth. When our Lord prayed that we all may be as one, why would’nt He place one chief shepherd for us with the gift of infallibility to guide us to the Light?

 

[Efrain]

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.

Scripture supremecy on matters of faith? Against which interpretation? Sola Scriptura or any other forms of it will never prevail in the Church. The Word of God is threefold Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and Magesterium. The Word of God connot contradict Himself and we need all three aspects for the fullness of Revelation. Therefore your theory is debunked.

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.

Edwin

It would be nice? Oh the horror of error of reformulation of transubstantiation! Prior to St. Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine back to the days of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the doctrine of transubstantiation was considered true. It was then understood in the Church that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist as body and blood. It was later named as transubstantiation in the 11th or 12th century.

Edwin please get your facts straight, St. Thomas Aquinas certainly believed in the Catholic doctrine as we did then and do now. The Eucharist is not a mere Real Presence but the actual corporal being of our Lord. Therefore your excluding the flesh and blood out of Mass will never fly.

 

[Efrain]

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.

Yes indeed One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church

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

You have your definition of Catholic misconstrued. See above.

 

[Efrain]

"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

The Word of God has been revealed to us the Jesus is God and is seated at the right hand of the Father in unity of the Holy Spirit. I pray to the Lord Jesus Christ that this may be revealed to you as well.

May God bless you and your quest for the Truth,

Efrain

 

[Efrain]

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

It is beyond our finite human comprehension as well. We accept it as true faith in the undisturbed Word of God. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Creator became flesh and dwelt among us. John 1:14

 

[ASimpleSinner]

And you are wrong. The Reformation began because the Catholic church was abusing people and justifying it because they maintained that they were solely the Church of Christ. King Henry’s divorce form the King of Spain’s daughter was a product of it. Thomas Cranmer was actually the first Archbishop of Canterbury after the split from Rome. The Archbishop is still the head of the Anglican communion today. The Anglican church is protestant in the fact that it split from Rome but also Catholic in how it has maintained the Liturgy and style of worship along with the 7 sacrements.

Pure fantasy.

The head of the CofE is the monarch of Great Britain.

That there was a historical continuity in the practice of 7 sacraments is also lacking ahistorical. The current trend of some in TAC to hold to the “ritualist party” dates back less than two centuries.

cf. catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109fea5.asp

That similar forms of expression have been adapted cannot be denied. That historical continuity with the Church of the Fathers - the ancient faith exists, can be. In fact I do just that.

How do you feel so comfortable in determinging that the party to which you now claim to belong is “just Catholic enough” and the claims your community makes are “just right”? That is to say, how are you confident that the baby wasn’t thrown out with the bathwater when the state took over the church and made reforms? How can you have certitude that as arbiters of what is to be considered “essential” they were correct themselves and did not stray?

 

[Contarini]

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.

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.

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.

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.

They “may” (I’m not so sure) 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?

Apparently you have not, as I have, attempted to argue with JWs based on second-century (orthodox) Logos Christology, and found them nodding enthusiastically as you described Irenaeus’s view of the Trinity.

…which [the Nicene Creed] you either believe, or can’t call yourself a Christian.

If you say that the Arians were not Christians, you land yourself in lots of linguistic and historical confusion. I have no problem claiming that they were Christians in only an equivocal sense. But the term does appropriately apply to them.

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

I can’t give a “yes” or “no” without knowing what you mean by “actual Christian.” If forced to choose without further explanation, I’d say “no,” because I would guess that by “actual Christian” you mean “Christian in a sense univocal with the sense in which Trinitarians are Christians.” And I do not believe that non-Trinitarians are Christians in that sense.

Ahimsa has suggested the word “Christic” for such profoundly heretical versions of Christianity. I can accept that. My only concern is that we distinguish between groups that reject the basic doctrines held by orthodox Christians but are still founded on belief in Jesus, and groups (whatever their origins and however highly they may regard Jesus) that do not regard Jesus as the basis of their faith (Muslims, for instance).

In other words, you are right to be concerned about the idea that a JW is a Christian in the same way we are. But I’m at least as concerned about the idea that JWs are non-Christians in the same way Muslims are, because this is obviously false and unjust. JWs base their entire faith on Jesus as the Son of God who rose from the dead–Muslims do not.

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

Agreed, or no?

No. There is an objective sense in which JWs are Christians. It is not univocal with the sense in which Trinitarian Christians are Christians, so it would be helpful to have two different words to represent these two different realities.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If we do not have the same pastor how then will we ever have unity? RC’s are in full communion with each other because we recognize the Holy See as our chief shepherd on earth. When our Lord prayed that we all may be as one, why would’nt He place one chief shepherd for us with the gift of infallibility to guide us to the Light?

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

 

[jmcrae]

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.

Nevertheless, Pope Clement did feel himself to have pastoral duties towards Christians outside of Rome at a time when their local leadership was unable to cope. (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians)

It seems as though he was not out of his jurisdiction, or going above the authority given to him, to tell them how to behave themselves, even though they were nowhere near the Diocese of Rome.

 

[Contarini]

Scripture supremecy on matters of faith? Against which interpretation?

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

Sola Scriptura or any other forms of it will never prevail in the Church. The Word of God is threefold Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and Magesterium. The Word of God connot contradict Himself and we need all three aspects for the fullness of Revelation. Therefore your theory is debunked.

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.

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.

It would be nice? Oh the horror of error of reformulation of transubstantiation!

“Oh the horror” is not an argument.

Prior to St. Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine back to the days of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the doctrine of transubstantiation was considered true.

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.

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

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

Edwin please get your facts straight, St. Thomas Aquinas certainly believed in the Catholic doctrine as we did then and do now.

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?

The Eucharist is not a mere Real Presence but the actual corporal being of our Lord. Therefore your excluding the flesh and blood out of Mass will never fly.

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.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Nevertheless, Pope Clement did feel himself to have pastoral duties towards Christians outside of Rome at a time when their local leadership was unable to cope. (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians)

It seems as though he was not out of his jurisdiction, or going above the authority given to him, to tell them how to behave themselves, even though they were nowhere near the Diocese of Rome.

This was an emergency intervention, and it is couched in the language of fraternal admonition.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You have your definition of Catholic misconstrued. See above.

Nothing above explains how I have “misconstrued” my definition. I’m rather surprised by your reaction, because I thought I was making a point favorable to Catholicism–that “Catholic” never meant (as many Protestants claim) “universal” in the sense of embracing everyone who claimed to be Christian.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

This was an emergency intervention, and it is couched in the language of fraternal admonition.

Edwin

If Pope Benedict XVI were to find himself in the position of having to correct a Diocese because the local Bishop had lost control of the people, do you believe that his letter would sound any different than Pope Clement’s letter to the Corinthians?

 

[jmcrae]

Nothing above explains how I have “misconstrued” my definition. I’m rather surprised by your reaction, because I thought I was making a point favorable to Catholicism–that “Catholic” never meant (as many Protestants claim) “universal” in the sense of embracing everyone who claimed to be Christian.

Edwin

For what it’s worth, I thought so, too. (I also happen to agree with you that a heretical Christian is still a Christian.)

 

[Contarini]

If Pope Benedict XVI were to find himself in the position of having to correct a Diocese because the local Bishop had lost control of the people, do you believe that his letter would sound any different than Pope Clement’s letter to the Corinthians?

Sure. He could just sack the bishop and put a new one in. (There’s no indication in 1 Clement that the Corinthians had a single bishop, or even that Clement was the bishop of Rome–but that’s another issue!)

Compare Clement’s tone with this letter from Cardinal Medina (not the Pope himself, though if scholars are right that there was no monarchical episcopate at Rome in the time of Clement the comparison may not be that far off!) to Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee. Note the legal language–the Catholic Church today has rules and laws determined by the Vatican which govern even fine points of church architecture. This is a million miles from 1 Clement. It may be legitimate development, but you can’t claim that it’s identical!

Edwin

 

[Steadfast]

(There’s no indication in 1 Clement that the Corinthians had a single bishop, or even that Clement was the bishop of Rome–but that’s another issue!)

Not to sidetrack but I’d heard that too, also that Ignatius of Antioch, in some letters references the Bishop of the church he is addressing and though he does not always, the absence of any such reference in his letter to the Roman church seems significant in light of the claims of some to have had an episcopacy in Rome from the very beginning.

 

[Contarini]

Not to sidetrack but I’d heard that too, also that Ignatius of Antioch, in some letters references the Bishop of the church he is addressing and though he does not always, the absence of any such reference in his letter to the Roman church seems significant in light of the claims of some to have had an episcopacy in Rome from the very beginning.

Right. On the other hand, given the importance of the episcopacy for Ignatius, it’s reasonable to suppose that Rome had something that counted as an episcopacy in his view. A reasonable supposition is that the Roman church was so large and multi-ethnic that each community had its own leader. If Hermas is to be trusted–which is controversial–someone called Clement (presumably the author of 1 Clement and the person identified by Irenaeus and others as a bishop) was in charge of writing letters to other churches. It’s reasonable to suppose that there was some kind of recognized primacy among the various house churches, but that this did not take the same form as in the smaller and more homogeneous communities of Syria and Asia Minor.

This is very speculative, though.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Sure. He could just sack the bishop and put a new one in.

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

Compare Clement’s tone with this letter from Cardinal Medina (not the Pope himself, though if scholars are right that there was no monarchical episcopate at Rome in the time of Clement the comparison may not be that far off!) to Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee. Note the legal language–the Catholic Church today has rules and laws determined by the Vatican which govern even fine points of church architecture. This is a million miles from 1 Clement. It may be legitimate development, but you can’t claim that it’s identical!

Edwin

Well, and also compare the tone of Cardinal Ratzinger to that of Pope Benedict XVI.

Popes take on a much different and much more pastoral tone than Church lawyers do - even when they’re the same man. The fact that Pope Clement’s letter is very pastoral speaks volumes that his position, in and of itself, is more than enough “clout” to emphasize his point.

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.