Protestants, just what did the early Church look like?

[T.More]

“Not the tone I gathered T.”

Just for the record, I am encouraged by VII and hope to see the unity it seeks (organizational and otherwise). The Hahn discussion was on his radio program. You like Staples also right? Go to the link I submitted. This book’s primary audience is conservative Catholics. Rose himself is a Catholic who is dissatisfied with the state of the Church (indeed, he wants it to be more conservative). I think several people on the board have read it.

 

[Exporter]

“Yes, but what does the Official Teaching proclaim? A few random liberal theologians are not the Magistarium.”

This is neither few nor random. Rather, it characterizes much of American Catholic theology. Besides, who is better to explain to us what the official church teaching is than the duly ordained bishops and officers (many of whom deny the views you hold)? My local parish priest is in fact one such person. The parish also has a gay and lesbian group. If I want to know official church teaching, shouldn’t I ask the living officers of the church, like this priest?

---

Why would you ask a rebellious priest to know what the Catholic Church teaches? If they have a Gay group that should tell you that that group is not practicing from the Magesterium - they are heretics.

From the way you write it seems that you are a Protestant who is trying to infuse heresy into Catholics. Sorry pal, but you don’t fool me. (sic)

 

[Mickey]

*****************************************************************************
Why would you ask a rebellious priest to know what the Catholic Church teaches? If they have a Gay group that should tell you that that group is not practicing from the Magesterium - they are heretics.

From the way you write it seems that you are a Protestant who is trying to infuse heresy into Catholics. Sorry pal, but you don’t fool me. (sic)

I agree exporter! :yup:

 

[T.More]

Exporter: Of course I am Protestant. I don’t know who you think I am trying to fool. In any event, your private judgment about whether the priest is rebellious is really out of order, isn’t it? Nobody appointed you to be the priest’s judge. It is the job of the heirarchy, not you, to determine whether priests are heretical or not. The heriarchy approves of these priests and officially charges them with teaching Catholic doctrine to the parish. So why should I not listen to them if they have heirarchical approval and have not been removed?

These are not hidden issues. They advertise their gay group on their web site.

 

[Mickey]

T. More:

Just for the record, I am encouraged by VII and hope to see the unity it seeks (organizational and otherwise). The Hahn discussion was on his radio program. You like Staples also right? Go to the link I submitted. This book’s primary audience is conservative Catholics. Rose himself is a Catholic who is dissatisfied with the state of the Church (indeed, he wants it to be more conservative). I think several people on the board have read it.

Not very familiar with Mr. Staples. Personally, I won’t read the book. Sounds like poison. Hope you’re serious about unity T. We need it!

 

[T.More]

“Sorry pal, but you don’t fool me.”

Ok, Exporter, I am taking you off my buddy list.

 

[tkdnick]

T. More:

In any event, your private judgment about whether the priest is rebellious is really out of order, isn’t it? Nobody appointed you to be the priest’s judge. It is the job of the heirarchy, not you, to determine whether priests are heretical or not.

Actually, the laity have a responsibility to ensure that the deacons, priests, and bishops preach the truth. If they don’t, the laity is obligated to address those concerns in a charitable and loving manner.

 

[T.More]

It is fine for the laity to express their opinions or concerns to the proper authorities on whether the officers are teaching truth. But the heriarchy has the authority to make actual judgments about whether a priest or another is heretical. That is not the job of the individual. If the heriarchy does not agree with the private complainant, the private complainant should accept the will of the Church.

 

[dennisknapp]

Ok, this thread has gotten off course.

We need to get back on track.

What did the early Church look like in belief and practice?

Peace

 

[jimmy]

T. More:

Exporter: Of course I am Protestant. I don’t know who you think I am trying to fool. In any event, your private judgment about whether the priest is rebellious is really out of order, isn’t it? Nobody appointed you to be the priest’s judge. It is the job of the heirarchy, not you, to determine whether priests are heretical or not. The heriarchy approves of these priests and officially charges them with teaching Catholic doctrine to the parish. So why should I not listen to them if they have heirarchical approval and have not been removed?

These are not hidden issues. They advertise their gay group on their web site.

A bishop is not going to get rid of a preist if he does not know of the priests heresy. The bishop does not know each preist personally.

It is also our job to keep the taechings of the Church. If a preist is teaching heresy, it is our job not to follow it.

 

[dennisknapp]

T. More:

It is fine for the laity to express their opinions or concerns to the proper authorities on whether the officers are teaching truth. But the heriarchy has the authority to make actual judgments about whether a priest or another is heretical. That is not the job of the individual. If the heriarchy does not agree with the private complainant, the private complainant should accept the will of the Church.

We need to get back on track. This argument if mute. It has nothing to do with the early Church.

If you want to deal with this issue start another thread.

Peace

 

[T.More]

“Belief” - now you have really broadened things! Here is an excerpt from the the Catholic Encyclopedia:

With regard to the first question it must be said that an Apostolic Liturgy in the sense of an arrangement of prayers and ceremonies, like our present ritual of the Mass, did not exist. For some time the Eucharistic Service was in many details fluid and variable. It was not all written down and read from fixed forms, but in part composed by the officiating bishop. As for ceremonies, at first they were not elaborated as now. All ceremonial evolves gradually out of certain obvious actions done at first with no idea of ritual, but simply because they had to he done for convenience. The bread and wine were brought to the altar when they were wanted, the lessons were read from a place where they could best be heard, hands were washed because they were soiled. Out of these obvious actions ceremony developed, just as our vestments developed out of the dress of the first Christians. It follows then of course that, when there was no fixed Liturgy at all, there could be no question of absolute uniformity among the different Churches.

The article goes on to describe developments that are consistent with the way traditional Protestant churches often structure things.

For example: “There was certainly no set form of prayers and ceremonies such as we see in our present Missals and Euchologia; still less was anything written down and read from a book. The celebrating bishop spoke freely, his prayers being to some extent improvised. And yet this improvising was bound by certain rules.”

Now, many Protestants use set prayers, so this is not necessarily an RC/ Prot distinction. But it does emphasize the variety.

In any event, I think that the current form of the Catholic liturgy is different than the original. That is not bad. Perhaps think of it as the relation of a seed to a full-grown plant. But in terms of what things look like, they looked different.

In any event, I think traditional Protestant services capture the elements described.

 

[jimmy]

There are catechisms and there have been councils that declare what the Church teaches. The councils supercede a bishop in authority. No one, not even a preist can deny that the Church teaches the True Presence when the read the Council of Trent

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each [Page 83] species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one denieth, that all and each of Christ’s faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have attained to years of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of holy Mother Church; let him be anathema.

[Page 84] CANON X.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the celebrating priest to communicate himself; let him be anathema. CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.

 

[dennisknapp]

“Belief” - now you have really broadened things! Here is an excerpt from the the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The article goes on to describe developments that are consistent with the way traditional Protestant churches often structure things.

For example: “There was certainly no set form of prayers and ceremonies such as we see in our present Missals and Euchologia; still less was anything written down and read from a book. The celebrating bishop spoke freely, his prayers being to some extent improvised. And yet this improvising was bound by certain rules.”

Now, many Protestants use set prayers, so this is not necessarily an RC/ Prot distinction. But it does emphasize the variety.

In any event, I think that the current form of the Catholic liturgy is different than the original. That is not bad. Perhaps think of it as the relation of a seed to a full-grown plant. But in terms of what things look like, they looked different.

In any event, I think traditional Protestant services capture the elements described.

I would agree that some tradition Protestant Churches capture the elements of the look of early worship. But this only makes them outwardly sound, not inwardly sound.

Peace

 

[T.More]

“There are catechisms and there have been councils that declare what the Church teaches. The councils supercede a bishop in authority. No one, not even a preist can deny that the Church teaches the True Presence when the read the Council of Trent.”

Well, that depends on your private interpretation of canon law. You are not a canon lawyer, right?

Further, the priests’ interpretations of the councils are presumably sounder than yours, right? After all the Church has examined them and determined that they are fit for teaching and so awarded them the sacrament of orders. You don;'t have this authority or approval. Perhaps it is your private interpretation that is off.

I thought we were supposed to be getting back on track!

 

[T.More]

“But this only makes them outwardly sound, not inwardly sound.”

I do not mean to be rude, but I think you can count many, many Catholic parishes as unsound.

 

[dennisknapp]

“There are catechisms and there have been councils that declare what the Church teaches. The councils supercede a bishop in authority. No one, not even a preist can deny that the Church teaches the True Presence when the read the Council of Trent.”

Well, that depends on your private interpretation of canon law. You are not a canon lawyer, right?

Further, the priests’ interpretations of the councils are presumably sounder than yours, right? After all the Church has examined them and determined that they are fit for teaching and so awarded them the sacrament of orders. You don;'t have this authority or approval. Perhaps it is your private interpretation that is off.

I thought we were supposed to be getting back on track!

This seems to be a personal attack and a red-herring. Do you honestly believe that a Catholic priest who teaches against the official position is unable to err? Just because he receives the sacrament of holy order does not make him unable to err theologically.

If he says the Eucharist is soley symbolic and devoid of the Real Presence, and the official Church teaching regarding this issue is that it is indeed the Real Presence of Christ–body, soul, mind, and divinity, then we should believe the erring priest and not the official Church teaching?

How does this make any sense?

The Pope is only one with the gift of infalliblity in regards to faith and morals.

Ok, back on track.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

“But this only makes them outwardly sound, not inwardly sound.”

I do not mean to be rude, but I think you can count many, many Catholic parishes as unsound.

But the Universal Church and its teachings are not.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

“But this only makes them outwardly sound, not inwardly sound.”

I do not mean to be rude, but I think you can count many, many Catholic parishes as unsound.

Yes, but the Universal Church and its teachings are not.

Peace

 

[mark_a]

T. More:

Why should I believe that my private interpretations of the CCC are better than the interpretations of someone officially ordained by the Catholic Church, charged specifically with teaching the church, and in good standing?

Hello T. More,

I agree with the other Catholics about the Magisterium, etc, but your arguments are a very interesting way to turn the tables on us. We are usually the ones arguing from the “teaching authority” side of the fence.

Once again, I agree with the other Catholics about the magisterium, etc.