Question for non-Catholics

[guanophore]

I note that the Eastern Churches are conspicuously absent from this list…

Why would they be? All the Eastern Churches are older than the Church in Rome, if only by a few years.

The line of Bishops descending from Peter in Syria spread from Antioch, many years before Peter ever got to Rome.

The flyer points out those congregations that have been separated from the succession of Bishops. The Eastern Churches have never had such a separation.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It is one area where I can see a valid grievance on the part of our Eastern brethren.

The Eastern Catholics omit the filioque from their recitation of the Creed as well, do they not? I wonder how they have been able to reconcile the difference with Rome and the Orthodox have not?

 

[Mystophilus]

There are Orthodox who would disagree and say that the filioque dramatically alters one’s model of the Triune God. We all agree that the Father is the ungenerated origin (ἀγεννητος ἀρχη) of the Godhead, and that the Son breathes the Spirit onto the Church within the created order; there exists the fact that the filioque implies the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, to which the Orthodox are wont to object. They fear (perhaps rightly) that the filioque implies a second origin (ἀρχη) within the Trinity.

I know what you mean, but the earliest that I have seen such concerns is in St. Peter of Damaskos (c.1100), whereas the ecclesiological issue predates the Photian Schism by centuries: given the latter belief already being in place, and being very central to the problem, it makes a more compelling argument than the former, I believe.

 

[schaeffer]

I think that list is disingenous

If you are Christian, your church was founded by Christ.

Along the way all sorts of different variations and changes have taken place, things added, dogma formulated etc.

Not saying all the changes were good or in keeping with original teachings of Christ but all made changes, yes RC too, many many changes and additions.

RC thinks it has permission to do so, others feel they do as well. Most believe they are being true to Christ.

Henry just wanted his own way, but truly, that is not the case with most Christian churches. Most did not go their way so they could put a rubber stamp approval on sin. Many of those churches do not have an easier way as they are often accused of.

Different interpretations doesn’t mean they were founded by others. In RC dogma too, things evolved over time. It becomes a game of connect the dots and people choose how to connect them to makes the picture how they want it to be.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

But what if God tells us that we should listen to our leaders?
Wouldn’t refusal to listen to those leaders be a rejection of God, a denial of faith in Him?

Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

1Th 5:12 But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are **over you in the Lord **and admonish you,

Lu 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

So, you’ve accumulated for yourselves teachers to suit your own likings?

 

[guanophore]

The Eastern Catholics omit the filioque from their recitation of the Creed as well, do they not? I wonder how they have been able to reconcile the difference with Rome and the Orthodox have not?

This is a complex conflagration of issues. Some of the Eastern Catholics were separated from Rome due to wars and political events that prevented communication. They continued to hold fast to what was passed down to them, and when they reconnected with the Latin Church they re-affrimed unification with Rome, but were not required to accept certain doctrinal developments that were never part of the Eastern concepts of the faith, such as the filoque, limbo, purgatory, and some of the Marian doctrines. They agreed not to fight about it (treat them like the Lutherans treat them as “adiaphora”) so that unity could be kept.

There were some Eastern Churches that suffered horribly from Rome, being coerced to have their traditional liturgies Latinized to be approved. Fortunately that pendulum is swinging back the other way. Some of the Eastern Catholics were coerced to comply with Latinizations in order to benefit from military protection from the West.

It would be ideal if this kind of agreement could be reached with the Orthodox (agreeing not to argue over doctrinal developments) but it seems very unlikely. Changes to the Creed and the addition of Marian dogmas, from the Orthodox view, violate one of the most basic principles that both Catholics and Orthodox claim to espouse, which is that we are not at liberty to change the Once For All Divine Deposit of Faith.

 

[guanophore]

I think that list is disingenous

If you are Christian, your church was founded by Christ.

This is certainly what denominations wish to believe. But what evidence do you have that the church to which you belong was the same one mentioned in the Bible?

 Along the way all sorts of different variations and changes have taken place, things added, dogma formulated etc.

And this is precisely the problem. The departure from the Apostolic Faith is so far as to be unrecognizable

Not saying all the changes were good or in keeping with original teachings of Christ but all made changes, yes RC too, many many changes and additions.

Can you mention some?

RC thinks it has permission to do so, others feel they do as well. Most believe they are being true to Christ.

Yes, I think this is very true. Most people are wanting to follow what Chirst founded.

Henry just wanted his own way, but truly, that is not the case with most Christian churches.

He did, but the CC also contributed to that because they offered anullments when it was expedient for them, and this time, they refused as much for political reasons as religious ones.

Most did not go their way so they could put a rubber stamp approval on sin. Many of those churches do not have an easier way as they are often accused of.

I think this is true, ,but they still either purposefully or inadvertantly got separated from the Apostolic faith.

Different interpretations doesn't mean they were founded by others.

Not necessarily, because some congregations founded by men after Christ did retain significant elments of the Apostolic faith. However, different interpretations do really separate a congregation from the Apostolic faith.

In RC dogma too, things evolved over time. It becomes a game of connect the dots and people choose how to connect them to makes the picture how they want it to be.

Well, we consider it a command to unity to connect the dots, and yes, there are things that “evolve” over time, but we are not at liberty to change the Teachings given by Christ to the Church.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Different interpretations doesn’t mean they were founded by others.

But there’s the rub.
The ol’ question of authority.

Who has the authority to decide which interpretation is the correct one?

Jesus left us a church with a teaching office precisely to answer that question.
Otherwise, we’re each left to determine for ourselves what is true.

 

[Per_Crucem]

This is a complex conflagration of issues. Some of the Eastern Catholics were separated from Rome due to wars and political events that prevented communication. They continued to hold fast to what was passed down to them, and when they reconnected with the Latin Church they re-affrimed unification with Rome, but were not required to accept certain doctrinal developments that were never part of the Eastern concepts of the faith, such as the filoque, limbo, purgatory, and some of the Marian doctrines. They agreed not to fight about it (treat them like the Lutherans treat them as “adiaphora”) so that unity could be kept.

Which makes one wonder why such concessions and compromises cannot be reached with, say, Lutherans? I understand the institutional difference (apostolic succession vs. non), but rather on an individual level.

There were some Eastern Churches that suffered horribly from Rome, being coerced to have their traditional liturgies Latinized to be approved. Fortunately that pendulum is swinging back the other way. Some of the Eastern Catholics were coerced to comply with Latinizations in order to benefit from military protection from the West.

Ea Semper comes to mind. Also, the fact that the Orthodox Church in America exists is due to certain bishops attempting to Latinize Byzantine Catholics (aka Alexis Toth v John Ireland), which results in tens of thousands converting to Orthodoxy.

It would be ideal if this kind of agreement could be reached with the Orthodox (agreeing not to argue over doctrinal developments) but it seems very unlikely. Changes to the Creed and the addition of Marian dogmas, from the Orthodox view, violate one of the most basic principles that both Catholics and Orthodox claim to espouse, which is that we are not at liberty to change the Once For All Divine Deposit of Faith.

I would assume that Catholics would say that these were not changes. Hence the constant back and forth.

 

[schaeffer]

This is certainly what denominations wish to believe. But what evidence do you have that the church to which you belong was the same one mentioned in the Bible?

Yes, that is true. If one wants to belong to the church Christ founded, then they must follow the teachings of Christ.

And also at what point traditions and additions become pointless, burdensome or so distracting as to detract from or bury the teachings of Christ.

Sometimes people shed those things so that they may focus on the teachings rather than on the trappings of religion that sometimes appeal to intellect and sensuality but do little to further understanding.

I am not pointing a finger at any one group, but there are many things that are real head scratchers as to what do they have to do with the teachings of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

 Which makes one wonder why such concessions and compromises cannot be reached with, say, Lutherans? I understand the institutional difference (apostolic succession vs. non), but rather on an individual level.

The individual is already provided for in the catechism, so that is not an issue. I am not saying that compromises cannot be made on a larger scale, certainly the Anglican Ordinariate is a good example. The issue is that the Reformers changed some doctrines, and we don’t have issues with the East on those doctrines.

Ea Semper comes to mind. Also, the fact that the Orthodox Church in America exists is due to certain bishops attempting to Latinize Byzantine Catholics (aka Alexis Toth v John Ireland), which results in tens of thousands converting to Orthodoxy.

There are many issues with regard to the Orthodox Church in America that are unrelated to Latinization of Byzantine Catholics, but definitely this has been an issue for centuries. Fortunately people have learned to be more tolerant of linguistic and cultural differences so that we can maintain unity.

I would assume that Catholics would say that these were not changes. Hence the constant back and forth.

The Orthodox do not subscribe to what is called in the West “development of doctrine”. From their point of view, we have done the very thing we accuse the protestants of doing. It is no surprise to them that a spawn of denominations have resulted in the West, since we “departed” from the Apostolic faith.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, that is true. If one wants to belong to the church Christ founded, then they must follow the teachings of Christ.

Compare the beliefs of the particular church to the teachings of Christ.

This is the point, though. DUring the Reformation, the Sacred Tradition was lost, so the comparison is not based on what was handed down through the paradosis,but on each person’s perceptions of what the Scriptures teach.

   The only church mentioned in the Bible, to my knowledge was the church Christ established, of all those who believe him and follow him. And no matter which sub church any particular person considers themselves part of "on paper" makes no difference.

It makes a great deal of difference to most of the persons in those churches. For example, I do not wish to belong to a denomination created by people 1500 years after the Apsotles.

 If they believe in Christ and follow him, they are part of that ONE church that he established. If they don't, then no amount of sitting in a pew makes them part of that church.

Though I disagree with you about what makes a person a member, I do agree that sitting in a pew does not make one a member.

Quote:
And this is precisely the problem. The departure from the Apostolic Faith is so far as to be unrecognizable
It certainly is.

Quote:
Can you mention some?
Sell what you have, give to the poor and follow me.

The opulence of some denominations and congregations are hard to reconcile with that.

Leave the dead to bury the dead. The RC cuts up the dead bodies of saints and then builds altars over them. Hard to reconcile that to the Apostolic church.

Holy days of obligation. Indulgences. If we nit pick and squint yes, there are many libraries full of books written by scholars about how everything can be justified by the Bible. But many of the teachings, traditions and practices of the RC are not recognizable as the Apostolic Church. If it takes that much scholarly study and arguments to prove it so…I don’t recall Jesus making it that complicated.

But then again, there are libraries full of Catholic scholarly teaching to explain why it’s not. So round and round we go. I suppose the Apostles predicted that as well, that all the Jesus said and did could not fit into a library of books. So maybe that proves the RC is right on course.

The RC is certainly not the only subdivision of Christ’s church that has elements so far flung as for those elements to be unrecognizable from the Apostolic Church . I’m not pointing out that one sub division has it all right or all wrong. But my understanding was that you were asking me to point out a few from the RC.

And the RC certainly has much in it that is of the Apostolic Church as well.

Quote:
He did, but the CC also contributed to that because they offered anullments when it was expedient for them, and this time, they refused as much for political reasons as religious ones.
The entire issue of annulments then and now is rather mind boggling, and I think still rather political, though on a more personal basis.

Quote:
Not necessarily, because some congregations founded by men after Christ did retain significant elments of the Apostolic faith. However, different interpretations do really separate a congregation from the Apostolic faith.
Yes, I agree. Some changes don’t make much difference, they may be merely cultural, some help people along in their faith, and others take people off course. As I said earlier not all changes were for the better.

But then some interpretations lead people back to the ways of the Apostolic Church that had been strayed from. Some saw that things had gone far astray, and chose to realign with the Apostolic Church rather than continue off course.

Quote:
Well, we consider it a command to unity to connect the dots, and yes, there are things that “evolve” over time, but we are not at liberty to change the Teachings given by Christ to the Church

And also at what point traditions and additions become pointless, burdensome or so distracting as to detract from or bury the teachings of Christ.

Sometimes people shed those things so that they may focus on the teachings rather than on the trappings of religion that sometimes appeal to intellect and sensuality but do little to further understanding.

I am not pointing a finger at any one group, but there are many things that are real head scratchers as to what do they have to do with the teachings of Christ.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The individual is already provided for in the catechism, so that is not an issue. I am not saying that compromises cannot be made on a larger scale, certainly the Anglican Ordinariate is a good example. The issue is that the Reformers changed some doctrines, and we don’t have issues with the East on those doctrines.

May a Lutheran join the Catholic Church and still disagree with certain aspects of purgatory, the Marian doctrines, etc., and still be a faithful Catholic?

There are many issues with regard to the Orthodox Church in America that are unrelated to Latinization of Byzantine Catholics, but definitely this has been an issue for centuries. Fortunately people have learned to be more tolerant of linguistic and cultural differences so that we can maintain unity.

It was Archbishop John Ireland of Minneapolis who took a “Latinization” attitude toward Fr. Alexis Toth, whereby he left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy and began missionary work converting Eastern Catholics to Orthodoxy which led to the OCA being founded. Unfortunately, some of that attitude still remains (re: married priests, especially).

The Orthodox do not subscribe to what is called in the West “development of doctrine”. From their point of view, we have done the very thing we accuse the protestants of doing. It is no surprise to them that a spawn of denominations have resulted in the West, since we “departed” from the Apostolic faith.

They might be right, with both the Western Catholic Church and Protestantism. I am still too much of a neophyte to those issues to really have a firm opinion.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They might be right, with both the Western Catholic Church and Protestantism. I am still too much of a neophyte to those issues to really have a firm opinion.

Not as much as we Westerners have, lol.

Even in the NT we see development of doctrine: Acts 15, The designation of Deacons, Priests, Bishops.

Paul’s letters are a clear example of developed doctrine. And Peter attests to this fact.

The Ecumenical Councils of the Church are developed doctrines.

It’s an illusion to claim in the 21st century that no doctrine has developed. All heresies, inevitably, trigger a development of doctrine. Things need to defined properly, they need to be outlined and classified, doctrinal statements and anathemas enter into place.

It’s a matter of how much.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So, you’ve accumulated for yourselves teachers to suit your own likings?

Not at all, I have accumulated teachers that I think are teaching the truth.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Thought I’d take another stab at it - Question for non-Catholics (specifically Protestants as opposed to Eastern Orthodox):

Do you believe that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, and that the apostles and their successors, belonged to the Catholic Church? If not then which church in the world today did the apostles belong to, and what is the name of the person that founded the Catholic Church, and when? Please be specific! For example if you asked me who founded the Lutheran church, and when, I would say: Martin Luther, in the 16th century i.e. ML was responsible for the movement that led to the Lutheran churches in the world today.

Good Evening Joe 371: Answer from a Catholic to a question for Non-Catholics:

The Catholic Church has developed a thoroughly inclusive understanding of soteriology in relation to other faiths, that has an explicitly theological foundation. St. Pope John Paul II explained that this approach to other religions is based upon sacred tradition, the church fathers and the very origins of the Christian revelation:

Quote:

"…You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions. The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church.

From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Council document speaks of this unity and links it with the current trend to bring humanity closer together through the resources available to our civilization. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties: “There is only one community and it consists of all peoples. They have only one origin, since God inhabited the entire earth with the whole human race. And they have one ultimate destiny, God, whose providence, goodness, and plan for salvation extend to all. . . . Men turn to various religions to solve mysteries of the human condition, which today, as in earlier times, burden people’s hearts: the nature of man; the meaning and purpose of life; good and evil; the origin and purpose of suffering; the way to true happiness; death…and finally, the ultimate ineffable mystery which is the origin and destiny of our existence. From ancient times up to today all the various peoples have shared and continue to share an awareness of that enigmatic power that is present throughout the course of things and throughout the events of human life, and, in which, at times, even the Supreme Divinity or the Father is recognizable. This awareness and recognition imbue life with an intimate religious sense. Religions that are tied up with cultural progress strive to solve these issues with more refined concepts and a more precise language” (Nostra Aetate 1-2).

The words of the Council recall the conviction, long rooted in the Tradition, of the existence of the so-called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word), present in all religions. In the light of this conviction, the Church seeks to identify the semina Verbi present in the great traditions of the Far East, in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the needs of the contemporary world. We can affirm that here the position of the Council is inspired by a truly universal concern…

In another passage the Council says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 13), making use of these very semina Verbi, that constitute a kind of common soteriological root present in all religions. I have been convinced of this on numerous occasions, both while visiting the countries of the Far East and while meeting representatives of those religions, especially during the historic meeting at Assisi, where we found ourselves gathered together praying for peace.

Thus, instead of marveling at the fact that Providence allows such a great variety of religions, we should be amazed at the number of common elements found within them.…”

• Pope Saint John Paul II (1994), Crossing the Threshold of Hope

He is expressing a theological statement. Lumen Gentium is a dogmatic constitution and it explains that the Holy Spirit operates outside the church among non-believers. This is the document which states that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics. A dogmatic constitution of the Magisterium and not some paper produced by the Vatican City State. Note this section:

Quote:

The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church. From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions - Blessed Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (1963)

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Per_Crucem]

Not as much as we Westerners have, lol.

Even in the NT we see development of doctrine: Acts 15, The designation of Deacons, Priests, Bishops.

Paul’s letters are a clear example of developed doctrine. And Peter attests to this fact.

The Ecumenical Councils of the Church are developed doctrines.

It’s an illusion to claim in the 21st century that no doctrine has developed. All heresies, inevitably, trigger a development of doctrine. Things need to defined properly, they need to be outlined and classified, doctrinal statements and anathemas enter into place.

It’s a matter of how much.

Is that a development of doctrine or a different practice in which the doctrine manifests itself? I am not sure if the Orthodox are opposed to development so much as they believe that Rome has introduced whole new doctrines which have no basis in apostolic faith at all.

 

[guanophore]

May a Lutheran join the Catholic Church and still disagree with certain aspects of purgatory, the Marian doctrines, etc., and still be a faithful Catholic?

I would have to say “yes” and “no”. Above all, the individual must be true to conscience. We all have an obligation to properly form the conscience around the Teachings of Christ. Where a dispartiy exists between conscience and the Teaching of the Church, one must have an attitude of humility (that one might be in error and in need of more formation). Personally I think Luther’s attitude at the Diet of Worms is a good example of this. He expressed that he was willing to be pursuaded so that he could believe differently, but until that happened, he had to stand where his conscience dicatated.

One would join with a willingness to be pursuaded on all those issues that one is not, and in the meantime, accept with faith that the CC teaches what are believed to be the Truths revealed to her by God. One would take the position of “Oh Lord, help my unbelief”.

This means that before you determine to disagree with the Church it is necessary that you first learn what the Church teaches and why. That is to form your mind to the mind of the Church. The Catechism discusses the role of conscience.

It must be considered that, in choosing to reject a clear teaching of the Church on faith and morals, one is placing their own judgement - their own “infallibility” above that of the Church in her magisterium.

Humble acceptance of a docrtine does not require that one agree with it, but just to accept that perhaps one has yet to be converted to it. In matters I have not studied and/or don’t fully understand, the burden of proof lies with on the side of “disbelief”…In other words, if a doctrine cannot be clearly proven wrong then I assume it to be right. This is what is meant by accepting “all” of Catholic teaching in faith. Why should I remain Catholic, if I feel that the Church has to prove to ME before I believe…
And who am I to require this of my God and His Church…

We are all in a process of a development with our faith.

It was Archbishop John Ireland of Minneapolis who took a “Latinization” attitude toward Fr. Alexis Toth, whereby he left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy and began missionary work converting Eastern Catholics to Orthodoxy which led to the OCA being founded. Unfortunately, some of that attitude still remains (re: married priests, especially).

They might be right, with both the Western Catholic Church and Protestantism. I am still too much of a neophyte to those issues to really have a firm opinion.

 

[Mystophilus]

But what if God tells us that we should listen to our leaders?
Wouldn’t refusal to listen to those leaders be a rejection of God, a denial of faith in Him?

Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

1Th 5:12 But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are **over you in the Lord **and admonish you,

Lu 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

It depends upon the context, and the instruction: a church leader who instructs followers to commit murder or suicide ought to be disobeyed; a church leader who instructs followers to support X sports team instead of Y sports team may be ignored; a church leader who instructs followers to all sit down after the hymn may be obeyed.