'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[lanman87]

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

My understanding is that I’m not being disobedient.

 

[fhansen]

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

The EO, who claim councils as their authority, also acknowledge the critical and necessary place of Tradition as inspired revelation. Whether popes, magisteriums, or councils, some human person or persons is said to be led to maintain the faith correctly by interpreting or understanding Scripture and Tradition with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Writ is supremely normative.

Writ “norms” according to the person interpreting it.

Any definition of church is exclusive

Of course, that doesn’t mean the definition is necessarily correct however.

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

With some very significant, unnecessary, and often divisive, differences.

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.

Exclusivity must be a bad thing? You accept that Christianity excludes others by its nature, so what makes your line more accurately drawn than someone else’s? For that matter, what makes the JWs line worse than yours?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

lanman87:

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? . . .

My understanding is that I’m not being disobedient.

At what point is willful misunderstanding, disobedience?
Why didn’t you address the rest of my questions?

 

[lanman87]

At what point is willful misunderstanding, disobedience?

How can misunderstanding be willful? You think I disagree with your position because I don’t understand it when actually I think your understanding is wrong and mine is right.

Why didn’t you address the rest of my questions?

Because I’ve had those conversations many times already.

 

[De_Maria]

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?

1. God alone judges that question.
2. If what you say is judged by God to be true, then the answer is, “yes”.
3. This is already Catholic Doctrine, since Catechumens who die without baptism are considered saved since they desired to be Baptize and become members of the Body of Christ.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

At what point is willful misunderstanding, disobedience?

How can misunderstanding be willful?

When the plain words of Scripture are presented to you and you reject them off hand.

You think I disagree with your position because I don’t understand it

“Willful” misunderstanding is a willful, intentional, denial of the truth. In other words, you understand it but refuse to believe it because you prefer your traditions of men.

when actually I think your understanding is wrong and mine is right.

Thanks for your honesty.

 

[mcq72]

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.

I was going to interject " on faith and morals" but hoped you would not need that, that the conversation was of such, but I was wrong, and you have adressed perceived straw man.

So my post stands:“somebody has to be pefect, because others certainly arent…might as well be us says the CC”.

It’s not our love as particular individuals; bad apples exist anywhere

Yes, but doctrine, teaching, way of thinking, governance attitude has some measure of such fruitfulness or lack of it.It has some affect on creating or not creating bad apples.

For example, the teaching of some papal authority has certainly led to the corruption of some popes.

The teaching of keys and binding etc. certainly helped some using civil authority to enforce church authority.

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."

I would like to see better Catholics also cite the bad doctrine they also had, that Jesus calls leaven.

 

[fhansen]

I was going to interject " on faith and morals" but hoped you would not need that, that the conversation was of such, but I was wrong, and you have adressed perceived straw man.

So my post stands:“somebody has to be pefect, because others certainly arent…might as well be us says the CC”.

We definitely want our knowledge to be perfect, yes, wherever it resides. From there it’s an honest realization that this knowledge will necessarily be comprehended and transmitted via humans, so, yes!- imperfect humans must hold and convey knowledge perfectly. God, obviously, can pull that off. The gift of infallibility equates to that perfection. JW’s, as an example, don’t possess it.

Yes, but doctrine, teaching, way of thinking, governance attitude has some measure of such fruitfulness or lack of it.It has some affect on creating or not creating bad apples.

Not necessarily at all. Humans do a very good job of creating bad apples- of sinning-in spite of good doctrine. Fruit? Due to the ideal and grace and light God gave us, the Church with her members throughout history have donated inestimable quantities of time and money feeding the hungry and clothing the naked and giving hope to a lost and dying and dark world, claiming that love and goodness and order and meaning are foundational to this universe and that life doesn’t end with physical death. The Church preserved academic knowledge through the Dark ages and then began the school/educational system in the west as well as developing the university system. She fostered the pursuit of excellence in arts and science and life in general. Orphanages, hospitals, loving ones enemy rather than vanquishing him. Those good fruits far outweigh the bad-even if the bad are always regrettable. But its the height of naivete-and the failure to acknowledge our own failings- to presume that any human institution won’t fail themselves in some ways at some times, its members failing to heed their own gospel in one way or another as I found out dramatically in the AOG Church I used to attend. But does that inevitability mean that God cannot preserve His gospel intact?

I would like to see better Catholics also cite the bad doctrine they also had, that Jesus calls leaven.

Well, maybe you’re called to do that here. So far I’ve seen much Reformed-made leaven, potentially harmful fare.

 

[lanman87]

When the plain words of Scripture are presented to you and you reject them off hand.

Willful” misunderstanding is a willful, intentional, denial of the truth. In other words, you understand it but refuse to believe it because you prefer your traditions of men.

And this is exactly what Anti-Catholics say the Catholic church has done. And it is what you as an Anti-Protestant say that non-Catholics who profess Christ have done.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

When the plain words of Scripture are presented to you and you reject them off hand.

Willful” misunderstanding is a willful, intentional, denial of the truth. In other words, you understand it but refuse to believe it because you prefer your traditions of men.

And this is exactly what Anti-Catholics say the Catholic church has done. And it is what you as an Anti-Protestant say that non-Catholics who profess Christ have done.

Lol! That leads back to the reason why Jesus Christ appointed the Catholic Church with the authority to decide such questions. Jesus Christ did not leave us without a solution.

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

 

[De_Maria]

So my post stands:"somebody has to be pefect, because others certainly arent…

Someone certainly has to Teach the Word of God infallibly.

might as well be us says the CC".

Jesus Christ is the one who appointed the Catholic Church for the job.

Yes, but doctrine, teaching, way of thinking, governance attitude has some measure of such fruitfulness or lack of it.It has some affect on creating or not creating bad apples.

Says you. We all have free will. There are instances of men who are raised in the worst circumstances, but, by the grace of God, resist those and still do the right thing.

For example, the teaching of some papal authority has certainly led to the corruption of some popes.

Again, says you. There is no proof of any such thing, you just made it up.

The teaching of keys and binding etc. certainly helped some using civil authority to enforce church authority.

As it should be. Even our civil laws reflect God’s laws. That is why murder is against the law in this country.

I would like to see better Catholics also cite the bad doctrine they also had, that Jesus calls leaven.

The Catholic Church has no bad Doctrine. Any disciplines which have outlived their usefulness, have been supplanted.

 

[lanman87]

Lol! That leads back to the reason why Jesus Christ appointed the Catholic Church with the authority to decide such questions

Except that non-Catholic Christians don’t recognize the authority of the Catholic church and the Catholic church no longer has the ability to enforce Catholicism on non-Catholic Christians. Claims of authority that isn’t recognized and isn’t enforceable isn’t really authority.

 

[fhansen]

Except that non-Catholic Christians don’t recognize the authority of the Catholic church and the Catholic church no longer has the ability to enforce Catholicism on non-Catholic Christians. Claims of authority that isn’t recognized and isn’t enforceable isn’t really authority.

Yet it could still well be authority given by God that people don’t listen to nonetheless. Nothing new there.

Either way, the church actually teaches that the human conscience is sovereign, so to speak, and that we’re never to go against even if, at the end of the day we were to find out that it wasn’t properly formed. And by the same token, anyone can split away from an authority they believe to be wrong, whether they’re wrong in fact or not, a practice many Protestant groups have repeated since the original split at the Reformation.

 

[mcq72]

Why? Because you say so?

No…just raising up an old Catholic “discussion”. ( balance of papal and council power).

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 Gost.

So true, in old times. Please tell me of a God breathed, post apostolic prophecy.

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

Like you, interpretation.

Because Catholics who are in mortal sin, remain in the Church, just not in conformity with it

Perhaps right and perhaps fits with institutional salvation.

What is that universal understanding, as you see it?

Well, we were speaking of Revelation, and the saints whose robes were washed by the blood of the Lamb.

Why? Because we believe you must do good works to show your faith?

No, this does not make the most exclusive. Your definition of church is the most exclusive.

And yet, we believe that non-Christians may be saved. And you don’t.

How nice of you…but wrong of you to exclude other churches being catholic on that.

I don’t believe that ( protestant definition of church).

I would think so…cant have two definitions.

It is the Catholic Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, per said church…unconditional…ORAR…but no such grace for other churches nor individials.

 

[mcq72]

The EO, who claim councils as their authority, also acknowledge the critical and necessary place of Tradition as inspired revelation.

Well one of two aint bad.

Whether popes, magisteriums, or councils, some human person or persons is said to be led to maintain the faith correctly by interpreting or understanding Scripture and Tradition with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, even if by a remnant.

Writ “norms” according to the person interpreting it.

Yes, and hopefully per Spirit’s intent.

With some very significant, unnecessary, and often divisive, differences.

A rose by any other name…is still a rose.

 

[mcq72]

Exclusivity must be a bad thing?

“For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”

There is a fine line between proper exclusivity and pure carnal sectarianism, and maybe even a mix.

For sure being judged by our love can cover a multitude of sins but not carnal love… and unlove can certainly hide behind proclaiming God’s approval for ones view/ sect

 

[fhansen]

Well one of two aint bad.

Protestantism can’t get either one.

Yes, even if by a remnant.

Oh, yes, THE REMNANT, like the Mormons.

Yes, and hopefully per Spirit’s intent.

Yes, hopefully LOL. That’s exactly where the problem lies. The Reformation opened the door to a billion little popes in varying states of disagreement with all the other little popes. Heck, everyone’s infallible now! No wonder there’s no unity of faith.

A rose by any other name…is still a rose.

But you’re comparing roses with daisies, apples with oranges. Obstinately it seems to me considering the divisiveness.

 

[fhansen]

“For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”

There is a fine line between proper exclusivity and pure carnal sectarianism, and maybe even a mix.

For sure being judged by our love can cover a multitude of sins but not carnal love… and unlove can certainly hide behind proclaiming God’s approval for ones view/ sect

Whatever. “At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love”= Christianity. God knows whether or not our love qualifies. No Christian should be excluded by that statement. And as we come to understand it, we’re moving further into the light.

 

[mcq72]

God, obviously, can pull that off. The gift of infallibility equates to that perfection

Yes, but the presumption comes in claiming it for yourself only and that unconditionally, and ORAR.

Those good fruits far outweigh the bad-even if the bad are always regrettable

Still, tremble for despite great works depart from me workers of inequity, I never knew you.

Is that like not worrying about all the pizza you ate cause you had diet drink?

No one is denying your (CC.) good works.I was careful to say “some”, or sometimes being bad, due to some teaching or attitudinal approach.

Also agree that good doctrine is no guarantee of right behavior, but certainly it would seem to be appropriate to round up the usual suspects when bad behavior arises, one of them being bad doctrine.

Well, maybe you’re called to do that here. So far I’ve seen much Reformed-made leaven, potentially harmful far

Well, you brought up the verse of the Pharisees, as if to obey them even if they were hypocrites yet failing to see it as conditional, to beware of their doctrine.

 

[mcq72]

Protestantism can’t get either one.

Lol…now you know that is not true…we consider councils to be normative, even part of tradition, just that both have writ as their norm.

Oh, yes, THE REMNANT , like the Mormons.

Well, the CC seems to do some things quite a la OT, not sure why remnant be not one of them, as if church denies any reformation of itself from time to time.

The Reformation opened the door to a billion little popes in varying states of disagreement with all the other little popes. Heck, everyone’s infallible now

Yes, deserving rhetoric for that time…although not sure infallibility was bantered about.

But you’re comparing roses with daisies, apples with oranges. Obstinately it seems to me considering the divisiveness.

No such thing as a half Christian or quarter Christian…but for sure some are daisies, some roses, apples etc. You are either washed by the blood or not, born again or not, God knowing for sure.