Question for non-Catholics

[joe371]

I think this way of wording it fosters confusion. There is only One Church. Various ecclesial communities do not “comprise” it. Those who are in Christ comprise it, and they may be found in a variety of ecclesial communities.

Members of His One Body are found invisble and visible, some of them we may never know in this life are part of His Body.

:yup:

 

[guanophore]

Universal, immediate papal jurisdiction over all other bishops, purgatory,  indulgences, etc.

Thank you.

It means “to give a name to”. Your church has a name as much as anyone’s.p/quote]

Yes, but the name on it comes from Scripture and the early Fathers.
House Harkonnen;12205168:

No Protestant denomination I know of is named by which parts of the Roman Catholic faith they reject.

Well, Protestant at the core does so name, but also within the name is the identity, and also much theology. Why do you think there are so “non-denominationals” today? It is because they are not aware of protesting anything Catholic, and do not wish to be named after anyone’s particular theology (sucn as Luther or Calvin).

All Christians are part of the catholic church. Some Christians are members of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think this is a much clearer way to state it.

I would add that there are some members of the Body that are not recognized as members of any Church.

I am. My particular parish is even named after old Peter.

This is one of the reasons that we look to the successor of Peter as the visible sign of unity in the Church. We still think that we need to be in on the prayer for Peter through his successor.

 

[joe371]

Actually that creed is not “Roman”, but more ecumenical than most that came after that time. Nicea was graced with bishops from a truly catholic (universal) origin, and occurred before the East West Schism.

I suppose the point I was trying to make to House Harkonnen: That particular creed is a catholic creed, drawn up by the Catholic Church. :thumbsup:He probably will not agree with that fact…

 

[Mystophilus]

I understand. One question: if I started a church tomorrow, established a following, and claimed to impart doctrinal truth and administered the sacraments (the number of sacraments would be up to me) would my church be considered, in your opinion, a derivative of that singular, sacred, universal church descending from the Twelve Apostles, established by Jesus?

That would depend upon the nature of its theology. If it were a Christian church (identifiable by its ideological inheritance), then yes. If it were a para-Christian one, such as the LDS or the JWs, then it would be a sort of derivative, but no longer a strictly Christian one (falling outside of such crucial elements of the ideological inheritance as the divinity of Jesus). If it were the Church of the Great God Joe (with the doctrinal truth that baseball is the Only True Sport, and the sacrament of Eating Pizza on Thursdays), then no.

 

[joe371]

Sort of. There were already evident east/west divisions in 381. And especially after the barbarian invasions of Rome. Solidified when Byzantium conquered Rome, forced the pope to abdicate, and then appointed popes for the next 250 or so years. During that time, Rome bowed to imperial authority in Constantinople. Not the modicum of unity at all, but disunity, chaos and factionalism and rivalry. Not like the Christian church today.

I don’t understand the question.

Yeah that was a crazy way of wording it (tired) considering the fact that none of the Protestant churches, stemming from the 16th century reformation, in the world today, existed when the creed was drafted by the Catholic Church. It was a creed written by Christian leaders belonging to the Catholic Church, for Christians belonging the Catholic church.

 

[guanophore]

I suppose the point I was trying to make to House Harkonnen: That particular creed is a catholic creed, drawn up by the Catholic Church. :thumbsup:He probably will not agree with that fact…

I don’t see how that can be denied. History is too great of a witness.

 

[joe371]

Mystophilus;12205656]That would depend upon the nature of its theology.

Regarding this statement - “That would depend upon the nature of its theology” - who would possess the authority to make that theological judgement? What if the so-called para-Christian church insists that your take on the matter is wrong, as per their understanding of scripture?

 

[joe371]

I don’t see how that can be denied. History is too great of a witness.

I know…

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I suppose the point I was trying to make to House Harkonnen: That particular creed is a catholic creed, drawn up by the Catholic Church. :thumbsup:He probably will not agree with that fact…

You’re right. I think it would be much more accurate to declare the Orthodox Church composed it. After all it was finalized in Constantinople under the auspices of the Patriarch and Byzantine Emperor.

 

[Mystophilus]

Regarding this statement - “That would depend upon the nature of its theology” - who would possess the authority to make that theological judgement? What if the so-called para-Christian church insists that your take on the matter is wrong, as per their understanding of scripture?

That was what the “ideological inheritance” referred to. The question is not the theology’s “correctness” or the believers’ understanding of Scripture, but the theology’s characteristics and their relationship to the characteristics of the system whence it came, and thus the progress of history. Think of it in terms of DNA: the “idea-DNA” of early Christianity is evident in modern Progressive Christianity, in the Roman Catholic Church, and in Russian Orthodoxy, but also (to a lesser extent) in Western Secular Humanism, which developed out of a Christianised culture.

 

[joe371]

That was what the “ideological inheritance” referred to. The question is not the theology’s “correctness” or the believers’ understanding of Scripture, but the theology’s characteristics and their relationship to the characteristics of the system whence it came, and thus the progress of history. Think of it in terms of DNA: the “idea-DNA” of early Christianity is evident in modern Progressive Christianity, in the Roman Catholic Church, and in Russian Orthodoxy, but also (to a lesser extent) in Western Secular Humanism, which developed out of a Christianised culture.

OK. As a former non-Catholic one of the things that became clear was the fact that no one within the Protestant sphere, has any authority to tell someone else that they are wrong doctrinally speaking, due to the fact the Bible alone is a person’s only authority.

 

[joe371]

You’re right. I think it would be much more accurate to declare the Orthodox Church composed it. After all it was finalized in Constantinople under the auspices of the Patriarch and Byzantine Emperor.

The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church that we see today, were not separate churches when it was drafted. There was just the Catholic Church. In the 5th century we see the non-Chalcedonian breakaway in the Catholic Church, and in the 11th century, well, you know the rest…

 

[joe371]

You’re right. I think it would be much more accurate to declare the Orthodox Church composed it. After all it was finalized in Constantinople under the auspices of the Patriarch and Byzantine Emperor.

You tell me that I was right, but then disagree, by saying: the Orthodox Church composed it.

I said: I suppose the point I was trying to make to House Harkonnen: That particular creed is a catholic creed, drawn up by the Catholic Church, which could be found in the north, south, west and east, within the boundaries of the Roman Empire, and beyond.

Orthodoxy, which essentially means that the church conforms to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Catholic Church, which is why we see the word catholic in the creed and not Orthodox: "I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[Mystophilus]

OK. As a former non-Catholic one of the things that became clear was the fact that no one within the Protestant sphere, has any authority to tell someone else that they are wrong doctrinally speaking, due to the fact the Bible alone is a person’s only authority.

That is not entirely true: in various Protestant circles, faith is placed in denominational tradition, historical Christian teaching, or even modern preachers, theologians, seminaries, or the latest Great Christian Author™. That, like Catholics placing their faith in the Magisterium, gives people an authority (or authorities) to whom they can look for guidance.

It works differently for different people. Some of us, of course, do not place any such faith in anyone other than God, and prefer not to.

 

[Jdawg43rd]

Im not an expert but so many questions in my confusion of which denomination is correct in there teaching. The fact that in the 1500’s after the catholic church was disagreed with by Martin Luther different versions and rituals have emerged based on the life of Christ and his offering of eternal life. How can “prodastants” ignore the history kept by the catholic church for 1500 years. Especially in the case of Mary Being ever virgin?
I’ve recently asked myself this question and I’d ask any Minister Pastor Priest or otherwise to ask themselves. If the Angel of the lord instructed you to do the deed of god the fathers will would you after the birth of Jesus feel right about having more children with Mary? And Mary you? In the divine presents of the Lord Jesus

 

[Jdawg43rd]

I can’t see why after all the arguements for and against. One for plain txt read and the other from acknowlegement of early text and keeping the word sacred. Is it possible to accuse a forum of dedicated servants of the lord of not delivering the truth! What is the motive for the catholic church to deliver a lie? Even the early prodastants acknowledged Mary’s virginity to death. I believe that if one answered yes to the situation posed in my last post then do they respect the lord enough? And if no and any of you still believe Mary did have other children to Joseph then are you more Holy than them?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You tell me that I was right, but then disagree, by saying: the Orthodox Church composed it.

I said: I suppose the point I was trying to make to House Harkonnen: That particular creed is a catholic creed, drawn up by the Catholic Church, which could be found in the north, south, west and east, within the boundaries of the Roman Empire, and beyond.

Orthodoxy, which essentially means that the church conforms to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Catholic Church, which is why we see the word catholic in the creed and not Orthodox: "I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

We went ahead and changed the creed to say “one holy Christian and apostolic church” in our church. Now we are all a lot happier.

 

[guanophore]

You’re right. I think it would be much more accurate to declare the Orthodox Church composed it. After all it was finalized in Constantinople under the auspices of the Patriarch and Byzantine Emperor.

At the time, there was no division, separation, or schism. There was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church when that creed was created.

We went ahead and changed the creed to say “one holy Christian and apostolic church” in our church. Now we are all a lot happier.

I am not against happiness, but is not Truth more important? If the early church wrote it that way, is there not an important reason for it?

What right do we have to change the ancient creeds that were handed down?

That was what the “ideological inheritance” referred to. The question is not the theology’s “correctness” or the believers’ understanding of Scripture, but the theology’s characteristics and their relationship to the characteristics of the system whence it came, and thus the progress of history. Think of it in terms of DNA: the “idea-DNA” of early Christianity is evident in modern Progressive Christianity, in the Roman Catholic Church, and in Russian Orthodoxy, but also (to a lesser extent) in Western Secular Humanism, which developed out of a Christianised culture.

An interesting analogy. Certainly the modern humanistic culture in the West is showing significant mutation from the original.

 

[guanophore]

OK. As a former non-Catholic one of the things that became clear was the fact that no one within the Protestant sphere, has any authority to tell someone else that they are wrong doctrinally speaking, due to the fact the Bible alone is a person’s only authority.

This would be true if everyone held the same understanding of Sola Scriptura, but they don’t. The vast majority of Protestants who hold to it also hold to Sacred Tradition, Councils, and Creeds. Because they have retained other authorative elements of the faith (in addition to Scripture) they are in a position to know when someone using their own interpretation is departing from the Aposotlic faith.

 

[joe371]

We went ahead and changed the creed to say “one holy Christian and apostolic church” in our church. Now we are all a lot happier.

Why are you happier? Why not stick with the word catholic?