(SPLIT & MERGED) Do Protestants hold to a different definition of "church"?

[JonNC]

Surely you see the inconsistency, friend.

“Folks who claim that Mary is part of the Godhead ought not call themselves Lutheran!”

But! “I get to call myself Catholic even though I don’t give my religious assent to the pope!”

Folks who claim Mary is part of the Godhead should not call themselves Christians!
The point is that not all Catholics believe the pope has supremacy.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Wouldn’t something like “high-church Lutheran” be a more accurate description?

If I were going around identifying as Lutheran, with my Catholic beliefs telling people I belief Mary was without sin, ever virgin and assumed into Heaven…and praying for the departed in purgatory…that would be a misrepresentation of Lutheranism and be a bit disingenuous on my behalf.

If you look at the Lutheran reformers, they did not, would not cede the title Catholic. The Augsburg Confession describes our churches in that way.

There’s nothing wrong with the title High Church, though it is typically an Anglican usage. Confession Lutheran works too.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

I suspect you think I would disagree with this. I don’t. Christ promised His Church would lead us into all truth. And so it is. Lutherans also believe, teach and confess that this “One Holy Church will continue forever.” And no matter how humans, be they corrupt popes, bombastic reformers, ar any other humans mess things up, His Church will guide us.

From your link, and I quote: " And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6."

This is where the wolf dons sheep’s clothing.

Yes, everything ***appears ***to be Catholic. But the penetrating mind will acknowledge with that innocent sounding (i.e. specious) phrase, whole Sacraments and doctrines (viz. -the whole Catholic Church) is swept away in typical Protestant fashion (i.e. dissimulating)

I know you are unable to see, like St. Paul while on the road to Damascus, until you receive the laying on of hands from a Catholic Bishop. Until then, you will lean on the specious phrases and dissimulating doctrines of pseudo-catholicism. However, it IS possible to allow the Holy Spirit to lead you to the fullness of Truth, even before the Sacramental gift of the Holy Spirit, as we see with Cornelius. But you will have to take the hand of the Holy Spirit, and let go of the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

If you look at the Lutheran reformers, they did not, would not cede the title Catholic. The Augsburg Confession describes our churches in that way.

That is why Lutherans are no different from all of the heretics of antiquity. None of them would cede the title of Catholic either. It is a MARK of heretics to insist on the title of Catholic while steadfastly refusing communion (unity) with Catholicism.

St. Augustine puts it simply: “Securus judicat orbis terrarum”

All the word judges surely.

It doesn’t matter what the sect calls itself. It’s what the world calls it that plainly shows the truth.

 

[PJM]

JonNC is using a different definition of Catholic than Catholics are,

The normal practice is small- c catholic is the adjective meaning universal;
Large C Catholic is the proper name used by those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

It seems JonNC is using Large C Catholic but meaning universal.

If we agree on how to use the word :discussions would move along better

My friend, I and the bible strongly disagree with your use of the term catholic/Catholic

Matthew 28:18-20
[18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19][YOU!] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

So my friend,

was Jesus wrong

or perhaps the bile is in error here?

Or might your understanding be correct?

Easter Blessings,

HERE IS THE CORRECT FDEFINATION OF “CATHOLIC”

CATHOLIC. Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2), it is now mainly used in five recognized senses: 1. the Catholic Church as distinct from Christian ecclesiastical bodies that do not recognize the papal primacy; 2. the Catholic faith as the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed “everywhere, always, and by all” (Vincentian Canon); 3. orthodoxy as distinguished from what is heretical or schismatical; 4. the undivided Church before the Eastern Schism of 1054; thereafter the Eastern Church has called itself orthodox, in contrast with those Christian bodies which did not accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon on the divinity of Christ.

In general, today the term “Catholic” refers to those Christians who profess a continued tradition of faith and worship and who hold to the Apostolic succession of bishops and priests since the time of Christ. (Etym. Latin catholicus, universal; Greek katholikos, universal.) End Quote
Father Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary

Patrick

 

[PRmerger]

Folks who claim Mary is part of the Godhead should not call themselves Christians!

sigh.

You are doing exactly what you oppose in others.

That’s the definition of only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Church Catholic is not made up only and exclusive of them.

Jon

You are defining what it is to be a Lutheran, while objecting to Catholics defining what it is to be Catholic.

Members of the “Lutheran Church of God and Mary of the Quadrinity” would say that your definition of what it means to be a Lutheran is simply your definition, aimed at excluding them. They say that they are Lutherans and you just are a different kind of Lutheran.

You are ok with this church calling itself a member of the Lutheran community?

Clearly, you are not.

So please be consistent, friend.

The point is that not all Catholics believe the pope has supremacy.

Yes, Jon. That is as part of being a Catholic as the Trinity is part of being Lutheran.

You can no more be a Catholic and deny the supremacy of the pope than you can be a Lutheran and deny the Trinity.

 

[commenter]

Folks who claim Mary is part of the Godhead should not call themselves Christians!

The point is that not all Catholics believe the pope has supremacy.

Jon

Regarding your second sentence, I would add…“unless believing in papal supremacy is part of being Catholic”.

Your first sentence illustrates the problem here. You, and I, agree with that limitation. But Gnancy Gnostic over there claims she believes Mary is part of the Godhead, and also claims she is a Christian. If you hold to the second sentence in your post (everything is by self-definition) you would pretty much would have to go along and call Gnancy a Christian.

But I think you (and I) would say there are limits to self definitions, to avoid an Alice-in-Wonderland language for theology. One limit I would insist on is commitment to the doctrine of the Trinity, for being a Christian. So Nancy would not be included as a Christian. Another limit is belief the pope has supremacy, in order to be a Catholic.

If you eliminate that requirement, then any Christian can be defined as a Catholic. I know you are going to bring up broader frontiers (sacraments, Tradition, etc) that would include other Christians besides those under the pope but exclude, oh, Baptists maybe. But those frontiers are all kinda subjective, subject to interpretation, and others might say those are not even the right frontiers to define who is Catholic, and who is Christian but non Catholic. A Baptist who wanted to be called Catholic (very few, I suppose) might argue that being prolife is more important to Catholicism than, for instance, who ordained this or that bishop.

 

[jmcrae]

Regarding your second sentence, I would add…“unless believing in papal supremacy is part of being Catholic”.

It is. The Papacy is both Scriptural and historical. The role of the Pope in the sphere of politics has ebbed and flowed over time, but his role as Head of the Church has always been constant.

I remember watching a movie in which Pope Pius IX is depicted, in response to some question about tradition, “I am the Tradition.” After the requisite horrified emotional response demanded by the background music in that moment, I thought of Matthew 16:18-19, and I realized, “He’s right. He is.”

I doubt he ever actually said that, and that’s not how things work in the real world - but it wouldn’t go against the plain sense of the Scriptures, if they did.

 

[JonNC]

It is. The Papacy is both Scriptural and historical. The role of the Pope in the sphere of politics has ebbed and flowed over time, but his role as Head of the Church has always been constant.

I remember watching a movie in which Pope Pius IX is depicted, in response to some question about tradition, “I am the Tradition.” After the requisite horrified emotional response demanded by the background music in that moment, I thought of Matthew 16:18-19, and I realized, “He’s right. He is.”

I doubt he ever actually said that, and that’s not how things work in the real world - but it wouldn’t go against the plain sense of the Scriptures, if they did.

The papacy is clearly part of the Tradition of the historic Church Catholic. That he has universal jurisdiction is not clearly part of the historic Tradition of the Church Catholic, else there would be no Great Schism.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Regarding your second sentence, I would add…“unless believing in papal supremacy is part of being Catholic”.

Your first sentence illustrates the problem here. You, and I, agree with that limitation. But Gnancy Gnostic over there claims she believes Mary is part of the Godhead, and also claims she is a Christian. If you hold to the second sentence in your post (everything is by self-definition) you would pretty much would have to go along and call Gnancy a Christian.

But I think you (and I) would say there are limits to self definitions, to avoid an Alice-in-Wonderland language for theology. One limit I would insist on is commitment to the doctrine of the Trinity, for being a Christian. So Nancy would not be included as a Christian. Another limit is belief the pope has supremacy, in order to be a Catholic.

If you eliminate that requirement, then any Christian can be defined as a Catholic. I know you are going to bring up broader frontiers (sacraments, Tradition, etc) that would include other Christians besides those under the pope but exclude, oh, Baptists maybe. But those frontiers are all kinda subjective, subject to interpretation, and others might say those are not even the right frontiers to define who is Catholic, and who is Christian but non Catholic. A Baptist who wanted to be called Catholic (very few, I suppose) might argue that being prolife is more important to Catholicism than, for instance, who ordained this or that bishop.

Narrowing the term Catholic to simply a belief that the pope has universal jurisdiction over the Church could also include any non-Christian who say, “well yeah, that’s what Catholic believe, therefore it is true… for them.”

There is far more to the definition of Catholic than what becomes a rather self-selecting definition.

Jon

 

[Abu]

JonNC #90
Narrowing the term Catholic to simply a belief that the pope has universal jurisdiction over the Church could also include any non-Christian who say, “well yeah, that’s what Catholic believe, therefore it is true… for them.”

The term “Catholic” has been used from very early for those who are faithful to the doctrinal teaching of the Pope placed by Christ over His Church, and is hardly simply a sectarian belief, as though man-made. To fantasise otherwise is to ignore the reality of history. The institution by Christ of His Church with St Peter as Supreme Vicar is undeniable from the Gospels.

 

[commenter]

Narrowing the term Catholic to simply a belief that the pope has universal jurisdiction over the Church could also include any non-Christian who say, “well yeah, that’s what Catholic believe, therefore it is true… for them.”

There is far more to the definition of Catholic than what becomes a rather self-selecting definition.

Jon

You might not agree that the pope has universal jurisdiction over “the Church”, but you might consider agreeing that the pope has universal jurisdiction over Catholics, with the understanding that “the Church” may include many other good Christians. (I still think they are unconsciously following the pope to the extent they are orthodox, but I won’t bring that up here).

I had Sister Josefa in 5th grade, not yourself, so I am not sure what you mean by a “self-selecting definition”, or why you think that’s weak.

• You have a visible, identifiable church leader who, with his predecessors, has claimed certain jurisdiction for centuries. This is almost unique.
• Many, not all, people known to be intelligent and faithful Christians, accept this critierion; not limited to one century or one culture.
• This can be measured. Some Christians accept that identity, and others do not. Some obey. Some don’t. There is much consistency across the centuries, and across cultures, in use of this criterion to measure whether they are Catholic, or not. There is some theory to support this. Sounds like a strong definition!
• Other definitions are squishy. There is little agreement on how important are, sacraments for instance, whether this or that sacrament is “valid”, however that is defined.
  Here’s another squishy: “I think my X denomination or congregation or family is Catholic, because it is* traditional*”. Well, how traditional is it? [Here insert contested criteria, unmeasureable variables, permeable categories, and ye ole dimmer switch, as opposed to the on-off switch in my strong definition].

 

[PRmerger]

That is why Lutherans are no different from all of the heretics of antiquity. None of them would cede the title of Catholic either. It is a MARK of heretics to insist on the title of Catholic while steadfastly refusing communion (unity) with Catholicism.

Wow. A trenchant, but chilling, point indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

Narrowing the term Catholic to simply a belief that the pope has universal jurisdiction over the Church could also include any non-Christian who say, “well yeah, that’s what Catholic believe, therefore it is true… for them.”

There is far more to the definition of Catholic than what becomes a rather self-selecting definition.

Jon

**No one **has narrowed the term Catholic to simply a belief that the pope has universal jurisdiction, Jon.

But it is *part *of what it means to be a Catholic.

Just not the only thing.

 

[guanophore]

JonNC is using a different definition of Catholic than Catholics are,

The normal practice is small- c catholic is the adjective meaning universal;
Large C Catholic is the proper name used by those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

It seems JonNC is using Large C Catholic but meaning universal.

If we agree on how to use the word :discussions would move along better

JonNC considers the Christians adhering to the Augsburg Confession to be a continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

JonNC considers the Christians adhering to the Augsburg Confession to be a continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Augsberg Confession establishes a separate organization that does not answer to the successors of the Apostles. It created something new that had no history at all at that particular moment in time, never mind historical ties to the Church.

 

[JonNC]

The Augsberg Confession establishes a separate organization that does not answer to the successors of the Apostles. It created something new that had no history at all at that particular moment in time, never mind historical ties to the Church.

That’s a complete misunderstanding of the Confession.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

The papacy is clearly part of the Tradition of the historic Church Catholic. That he has universal jurisdiction is not clearly part of the historic Tradition of the Church Catholic, else there would be no Great Schism.

Jon

That statement is not logical.

If it were, then any schism or heresy from Apostolic times until now would prove that the Catholic Church never had a historical tradition of that doctrine, or else there would have been no schism or heresy on that point.

Every conceivable doctrine of the Catholic Church would be nullified if there was ever any heresy or schism based on an opposing doctrine of the schismatic or heretic. Why, because as you have stated, the very fact of that schism or heresy proves is was never in the historic tradition of the Church.

Your concept’s logic is flawed and unreal. There will always be schisms and heresies. It is prophesied in the Bible itself. The existence of those heresies and schisms does NOT disprove the validity of Church doctrine whatsoever.

 

[guanophore]

The Augsberg Confession establishes a separate organization that does not answer to the successors of the Apostles. It created something new that had no history at all at that particular moment in time, never mind historical ties to the Church.

I did not get the sense that the AC established any organization at all. It does refer to “they” frequently, but I think these are already established ecclesial communities, and it describes what “they” believe. It is directed to Emperor Charles V, presumably in response to his inquiry of what they believe. In fact, there seems to be very little at all about any organization. The preface seems to strongly urge that the Emperor use his influence with the Pontiff to call a general council so that the reforms referred to in the AC could be adopted for the whole Church.

All of “they” referred to in the AC were Catholics who became evangelicals, so I think they had the same history as the Anglicans, many of whom did not even know there had been a break with Rome for months. It seems to me that it contains many ideas that are consistent with Catholic faith.

ISTM that Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power, which seems to have the most to say about “organization” is really more a polemic against the abuses of the bishops of the time. The CC agreed that on the position " Therefore the power of the Church and the civil power must not be confounded. as is now evident that priests may not hold any public office.

Maybe I am missing something important in this document?

 

[JonNC]

I did not get the sense that the AC established any organization at all. It does refer to “they” frequently, but I think these are already established ecclesial communities, and it describes what “they” believe. It is directed to Emperor Charles V, presumably in response to his inquiry of what they believe. In fact, there seems to be very little at all about any organization. The preface seems to strongly urge that the Emperor use his influence with the Pontiff to call a general council so that the reforms referred to in the AC could be adopted for the whole Church.

All of “they” referred to in the AC were Catholics who became evangelicals, so I think they had the same history as the Anglicans, many of whom did not even know there had been a break with Rome for months. It seems to me that it contains many ideas that are consistent with Catholic faith.

ISTM that Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power, which seems to have the most to say about “organization” is really more a polemic against the abuses of the bishops of the time. The CC agreed that on the position " Therefore the power of the Church and the civil power must not be confounded. as is now evident that priests may not hold any public office.

Maybe I am missing something important in this document?

Nope.

. 5] This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. 6] There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; 7] although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. 8] For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. 9] But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.

bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article21

Jon