'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[lanman87]

That is what I’m asking. Do others, beside the Catholic church, hold the proper position and align with it?

 

[fhansen]

I don’t know the official teaching on it of the various denominations, but I would suppose many would agree with my statement.

 

[Wannano]

I don’t know the official teaching on it of the various denominations, but I would suppose many would agree with my statement.

If you’re not a politician you should consider it.

 

[fhansen]

If you’re not a politician you should consider it.

Maybe LOL. But I doubt anyone would necessarily conclude that based on my other posts here.

Anyway, if someone tells me that a person must first come to know Christ, and then enter a Church, I would reply that we come to know Christ through the Church. And I would assume that many would agree regardless of denomination while others apparently do not. This does speak to the fact that some individual Churches or denominations preach Christ more accurately than others. And if that means exclusivity, so be it. There can only be one Christian Church of course. And to the extent that we’re aligned with the teachings of that Church, we’re aligned with the truths God wants us to know.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

If you’re not a politician you should consider it.

Maybe LOL. But I doubt anyone would necessarily conclude that based on my other posts here.

Anyway, if someone tells me that a person must first come to know Christ, and then enter a Church, I would reply that we come to know Christ through the Church. And I would assume that many would agree regardless of denomination while others apparently do not. This does speak to the fact that some individual Churches or denominations preach Christ more accurately than others. And if that means exclusivity, so be it. There can only be one Christian Church of course. And to the extent that we’re aligned with the teachings of that Church, we’re aligned with the truths God wants us to know.

It’s kind of like looking at a can of pork and beans and calling it just beans or just pork.

 

[mcq72]

Anyway, if someone tells me that a person must first come to know Christ, and then enter a Church

No one is saying that but for sure you are not part of the church until you are born again, as you would say baptized… To me it is simultaneous, new birth and being made part of the ecclessia. Otherwise, you are saying a catechumen is a member of the body of Christ, the church, and I dont think you are.

I would reply that we come to know Christ through the Church

Yes, of course…for God so chose that by the foolishness of preaching that man be saved.

The proper understanding is that we need the Church

Yes, cradle to grave…no salvation outside the Catholic Church…according to Christ, according to her.

 

[mcq72]

This does speak to the fact that some individual Churches or denominations preach Christ more accurately than others

There can only be one Christian Church of course.

A conundrum with previous statement.

Of course there is one elect, one Bride, one body, one ecclesia.

And to the extent that we’re aligned with the teachings of that Church, we’re aligned with the truths God wants us to know.

Interesting it is conditional , this truth alignment, for all but CC.

Forms foundation for decreeing salvation is of the CC, shows unity to her. That is, any truth held by others is a Catholic truth, even Roman Catholic.

 

[fhansen]

A conundrum with previous statement.

Not really. There are “particular” local Churches that are part of the one universal Church. Protestant denominations are commonly called Churches as I used the term above but technically they’re denominations, not Church technically speaking, but rather related to the one Church by an imperfect union.

Of course there is one elect, one Bride, one body, one ecclesia.

And one faith, possible to know the tenets of. Does God’s Church really believe that Baptism regenerates but that it also does not regenerate? Or that infant Baptism is valid but that only adult believer’s Baptism is valid? That Christ is really present in the Eucharist but also that He’s not at all present in the Eucharist-that He was speaking symbolically in John chap 6 and Communion is just a memorial service? Does the Church believe that man is not passive when he’s justified as he can resist and say “no” to grace and that man’s will plays no role whatsoever in his justification and salvation. Or that God predestines no one to hell and that God predestines the reprobate to hell? Does the same Church teach that man is saved by faith alone and that at the evening of life we shall be judged on our love?

 

[fhansen]

Interesting it is conditional , this truth alignment, for all but CC.

Like I said the buck has to stop somewhere. And you certainly haven’t offered any reasonable alternative. Is there anything inherently wrong with being right? Or what makes your position exclusively right? Why should anyone believe your particular take on things, especially over a Church that can at least trace its lineage to the beginnings and simply and unashamedly acknowledges the need for a visible church that has continuously preserved and proclaimed the faith in spite of the weak and sometimes sinful or bumbling vessels that make up her members?

 

[lanman87]

And one faith, possible to know the tenets of. Does God’s Church really believe that Baptism regenerates but that it also does not regenerate? Or that infant Baptism is valid but that only adult believer’s Baptism is valid? That Christ is really present in the Eucharist but also that He’s not at all present in the Eucharist-that He was speaking symbolically in John chap 6 and Communion is just a memorial service? Does the Church believe that man is not passive when he’s justified as he can resist and say “no” to grace and that man’s will plays no role whatsoever in his justification and salvation. Or that God predestines no one to hell and that God predestines the reprobate to hell? Does the same Church teach that man is saved by faith alone and that at the evening of life we shall be judged on our love?

Yes, if you define church as the ecclessia as those called by God, born again and indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and in a relationship with Christ that is seeking after His Kingdom and His righteousness. To me, that is the definition of a Christian and being a Christian makes one part of the ecclessia/the Church.

All those things we have different understanding about that you mentioned are human understandings of Spiritual realities. The reason we have different understandings is that we are human and filter everything through human reasoning, culture, relationships, history, and experiences. Being a member of the church is analogous to being a person. We are all members of the human race but we all share different life experiences, cultures, upbringings, and relationships. So it is with the body of Christ. We are all Christian but have different experiences, cultures, upbringing and relationships. That is why some are drawn to Catholicism and its grand theology and ritual, some are drawn to Pentecostalism with its emotional fervor and displays of the power of God, and some are drawn to community churches with great fellowship and strong love for each other. Most of us just stay where we were started. As long as we are all “in Christ” and seeking Him and His Kingdom then I don’t have any issue with our differences.

I guess we all have different dividing lines as to what constitutes a member of the ecclessia. Mine is that they hold the Christology share by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox and they bring people to a genuine faith in Christ and nurture that faith so it grows and produces fruit.

I hold the differences as differences in understandings, not in difference of faith in Christ. All who call on Jesus (the Jesus we both hold dear) hold to the one faith. I had rather have great faith and horrible doctrine than have perfect doctrine and horrible faith. Most of us are somewhere in between.

 

[fhansen]

All those things we have different understanding about that you mentioned are human understandings of Spiritual realities. The reason we have different understandings is that we are human and filter everything through human reasoning, culture, relationships, history, and experiences.

So…it doesn’t really matter then what we believe. God couldn’t deposit His gospel here on earth and hope to ensure its integrity. Ok

The truth is that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, more than any other factor, opened the door to the many different understandings. But when the authority is vested in the Church, in a centralized location, no such ambiguity can occur, or last for long if controversies arise.

I hold the differences as differences in understandings, not in difference of faith in Christ. All who call on Jesus (the Jesus we both hold dear) hold to the one faith. I had rather have great faith and horrible doctrine than have perfect doctrine and horrible faith. Most of us are somewhere in between.

Doctrine is nothing more than the teachings that we believe in about Christ. Wrong beliefs about Christ equate to a wrong Christ. Now I agree that anyone believing that Jesus Christ is God the Son, and through Him has come to know something of who God is, that God is forgiveness and life and love, to speak generally, and proceeds to then change their lives accordingly and follow Him in that way of love is believing rightly, in the basics. And God is pleased with that even if He’d want us to stretch and seek further yet and know the truth more fully. Not all denominations might agree with even those basics, however, and in any case we wouldn’t have a Christian faith today if not for the Church that received and preserved that faith down through the centuries.

 

[lanman87]

o…it doesn’t really matter then what we believe.

I shared what my demarcation line is…“Mine is that they hold the Christology share by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox and they bring people to a genuine faith in Christ and nurture that faith so it grows and produces fruit.”

Doctrine is nothing more than the teachings that we believe in about Christ. Wrong beliefs about Christ equate to a wrong Christ.

Not necessarily. How does different understandings about Baptism, or the Lord’s Supper, or Faith/Works equate to a wrong Christ? We can be wrong about a lot of things and still be new creations in Christ and have a strong faith/trust in Christ that is manifest in our works. That is why I can disagree with someone about Baptism or the Lord’s Supper or any number of things and still believe they are “in Christ” and part of the Body of Christ, the church.

The fact that God works in sinful man, who have different intellectual understandings, is a great comfort to me. It shows that God is not limited by our human weakness and that His kingdom will expand despite our weaknesses. It also shows His grace is bigger than our understandings or misunderstandings.

 

[lanman87]

Now I agree that anyone believing that Jesus Christ is God the Son, and through Him has come to know something of who God is, that God is forgiveness and life and love, to speak generally, and proceeds to then change their lives accordingly and follow Him in that way of love is believing rightly, in the basics. And God is pleased with that even if He’d want us to stretch and seek further yet and know the truth more fully.

So back to my question, does this happen in Non-Catholic churches and if so, are those that believe that Jesus Christ in the Son of God part of the universal church, the body of Christ?

 

[mcq72]

Like I said the buck has to stop somewhere.

Lol…what, somebody has to be pefect, because others certainly arent…might as well be us says the CC?.

that at the evening of life we shall be judged on our love?

Indeed, as you see our historical division as a sign we must be " wrong", so do others judge your love down thru parts of history and say they must be wrong.

PS …When reading up on St. John of the Cross I was disappointed to see Carmelite order fighting amongst themselves over how to be a member, even to the point of imprisonment, and then arguing over his dead body, settling the matter by cutting it up so to send to different city parishes.

To be sure we are no better to claim any buck stopping with us on this love matter.

 

[mcq72]

And you certainly haven’t offered any reasonable alternative

I have. Councils should be more aithoritative than office of pope. Tradition is not capital (God breathed).Writ is supremely normative.

Or what makes your position exclusively right?

Any definition of church is exclusive
One is either a Christian or not. We exclude unsaved people and other religions.

As to what is a Christian there is a universal understanding amongst us O’s and P’s and C’s.

Beyond that the CC is the most exclusive amongst the Body of Christ.

The Protestant definition of what constitites the “church” is more universal, less exclusive, than the CC definition.

 

[fhansen]

I shared what my demarcation line is…“Mine is that they hold the Christology share by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox and they bring people to a genuine faith in Christ and nurture that faith so it grows and produces fruit.”

Fair enough, except that I’m not sure who can or should actually draw that line. With the Church we simply have a set of teachings and beliefs that have accompanied her on her voyage thru the ages from the beginning. Why change it up, why stray from the Church Christ built; do we really need to draw any further lines?

Not necessarily. How does different understandings about Baptism, or the Lord’s Supper, or Faith/Works equate to a wrong Christ? We can be wrong about a lot of things and still be new creations in Christ and have a strong faith/trust in Christ that is manifest in our works.

It’s possible, as I’m sure you’d agree, to preach a different Christ with a different gospel (2 Cor 11:4). And the faith alone teaching is very different from His depending to some extent on its variant. Either way, would the same Christ preach Baptism and not Baptism for salvation, faith alone vs the need to fulfill the commandments, the need to partake of the Lord’s Supper in order to have life and then no need really; He was just kidding? If we draw the line far enough back in the sand we can be very magnanimous with our inclusiveness but revelation is not ours to determine; it’s God’s.

The fact that God works in sinful man, who have different intellectual understandings, is a great comfort to me. It shows that God is not limited by our human weakness and that His kingdom will expand despite our weaknesses. It also shows His grace is bigger than our understandings or misunderstandings.

And that’s no reason or excuse to remain blind. He wants us to know; that’s why Jesus came. And of course He judges us based on our capabilities, for one thing. But Protestantism has made Christianity a virtual intellectual pursuit by making individual biblical exegesis the key-and arguably the majority of believers in history have been illiterate or poorly educated while highly credentialed biblical exegetes don’t even necessarily agree on significant basics.

 

[fhansen]

So back to my question, does this happen in Non-Catholic churches and if so, are those that believe that Jesus Christ in the Son of God part of the universal church, the body of Christ?

I’m sure it happens all the time-I know many such people; I was such a person. We’re judged based on what we do with what we’re given, in terms of knowledge/revelation, grace, time, background, intelligence, etc, with more expected from those given more. And the Church teaches that as Protestantism has a strong historical and generational and cultural foothold now, members aren’t culpable for the theological errors of the Reformation. She would say that most are part of the universal Church but imperfectly united to it.

 

[De_Maria]

I shared what my demarcation line is…“Mine is that they hold the Christology share by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox and they bring people to a genuine faith in Christ and nurture that faith so it grows and produces fruit.”

Doctrine is nothing more than the teachings that we believe in about Christ. Wrong beliefs about Christ equate to a wrong Christ.

Not necessarily. How does different understandings about Baptism,

We believe that Christ said we are saved in Baptism. Don’t you deny that?

or the Lord’s Supper,

We believe that Christ said that the Bread is His Body and the Wine is His Blood. Don’t you deny that?

or Faith/Works equate to a wrong Christ?

We believe that Christ said that if we want to enter the Kingdom, we must keep the Commandments. Don’t you deny that?

We can be wrong about a lot of things and still be new creations in Christ and have a strong faith/trust in Christ that is manifest in our works.

True. But you must repent of your errors. . . . And it leads to division.

That is why I can disagree with someone about Baptism or the Lord’s Supper or any number of things and still believe they are “in Christ” and part of the Body of Christ, the church.

Is that what Scripture says?

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

The fact that God works in sinful man, who have different intellectual understandings, is a great comfort to me. It shows that God is not limited by our human weakness and that His kingdom will expand despite our weaknesses. It also shows His grace is bigger than our understandings or misunderstandings.

God may tolerate your misunderstanding. But will He tolerate your disobedience? . . .

 

[fhansen]

Lol…what, somebody has to be pefect, because others certainly arent…might as well be us says the CC?.

We weren’t discussing individual perfection-the Church teaches that impeccability isn’t normally to be found in any person including popes. We were talking about the quality of knowledge received, and whether not God wants the knowledge, where He’s located it for our benefit to obtain it, to be true -or not.

Indeed, as you see our historical division as a sign we must be " wrong", so do others judge your love down thru parts of history and say they must be wrong.

It’s not our love as particular individuals; bad apples exist anywhere and the Church has expressed massive amounts of love, for “the least of these”, down through the centuries for anyone who wants to get serious about looking at history. She virtually put altruism on the map. But as I’ve been saying all along, the message is the treasure, not the messenger even though we need him. This principle in Matt 23:2-3 can apply in any Christian setting as the case may demand:
"The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

PS …When reading up on St. John of the Cross I was disappointed to see Carmelite order fighting amongst themselves over how to be a member, even to the point of imprisonment, and then arguing over his dead body, settling the matter by cutting it up so to send to different city parishes.

People have a hard time growing up. What else is new; the doctrine of Original Sin and the concupiscence and ignorance and darkness that that state fosters in us reveals that such will often continue to be the case with humans; even where the light exists.

To be sure we are no better to claim any buck stopping with us on this love matter.

We can always find reason to remain in our preferred ignorance. Again, this a matter of knowledge, that which Jesus came to reveal. Either way that teaching sums up the Christian faith from where it all really started in Eden through Christ’s ultimate revelation. Christianity is about God getting man, His beloved, to love as He does, not about randomly saving a few worthless worms. In John’s statement we find the justice, righteousness, perfection that God desires for us to achieve, that faith is meant to lead to, as well as the necessity of our participating in this achievement, beautifully resolving several theological questions in the process incidentally.

 

[De_Maria]

fhansen:

And you certainly haven’t offered any reasonable alternative

I have. Councils should be more aithoritative than office of pope.

Why? Because you say so?

Tradition is not capital (God breathed).Writ is supremely normative.

That is not what Scripture says:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Any definition of church is exclusive

That wasn’t the question. What makes your definition exclusively right?

One is either a Christian or not. We exclude unsaved people and other religions.

What is your definition of “unsaved” people? Because Catholics who are in mortal sin, remain in the Church, just not in conformity with it. And children of baptized people, who are not themselves baptized, are part of the Church. So, what do you call “unsaved” people?

As to what is a Christian there is a universal understanding amongst us O’s and P’s and C’s.

What is that universal understanding, as you see it?

Beyond that the CC is the most exclusive amongst the Body of Christ.

Why? Because we believe you must do good works to show your faith? And yet, we believe that non-Christians may be saved. And you don’t.

The Protestant definition of what constitites the “church” is more universal, less exclusive, than the CC definition.

I don’t believe that. But, even if it were true, it would still be wrong. It is the Catholic Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Any definition that contradicts Catholic Teaching is wrong, because in so doing, it contradicts the Word of God.