The "catholic but not Roman Catholic" argument

[JonathanKinsman]

You and others have insisted that I call the Church of Rome the Catholic Church. This, however, is considered hidebound and insulting to many Catholics who are not loyal to Rome, including Anglo Catholics who in many respects are Rome’s least “separated brothers”.

So, rather than insult them, I ask that you accept RC instead of just “Catholic”. Most RCs do not object.

No, J4M, it is not “considered hidebound,” it is considered courteous, historically accurate and charitable to address people in the manner to which they should.

My family in Houston, Texas are parishoners of Mary of Walsingham, an Anglican Use church of the Diocese of Galveston. They prefer to be called “Catholic” and are proud of being back with Rome. My sisters never call us in California, ‘Roman Catholics,’ either.

I also have cousins (in Northhamptonshire) in Britain who call themselves Catholic even though they attend Latin rite Masses as we do in the States.

You are being disingenous here. Be honest and be forthright.

Your continued use of ‘RC’ betrays a bias against your ancestral faith and, for whatever cause and reason, a seething hatred of things ‘Roman’ in matters of Christianity.

Luther and Henry were and are considered “Reformers” by Protestant and Catholic historians alike.

Denying this only shows to what revisionist lengths you will go to attest “your form” of Christianity as being in line with what you call “the 1st century church.”

We assume you joined this thread to discuss, not preach, and to contribute to a frank and inquiring conversation. Quit the histrionics, the Spirit is not moving you.

Pax Christi

 

[Nicene]

He is also much more “Evanglical” than “Catholic” in his writings. You will find that today, Evanglicals claim him as one of their own, for his orthodoxy and emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

In fact just the opposite. It doesn’t matter at all how evangelicals adopt him, it is what he adopted that matters.

By you assertion catholics don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus (a false inference). However evangelicals don’t have a corperate (body of Christ) relationship with the devine. For catholics it isn’t a metaphor that it is in evangelicalism. The stress is on the individual, one better than another (as your very statement emphasises), but Paul says:

14: For the body does not consist of one member but of many.
15: If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.
16: And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.
17: If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?
18: But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose.
19: If all were a single organ, where would the body be?

Where is the family relationship in evangelicalism? It isn’t just me and Jesus that is the opposite of Agape love. Jesus brought us into a heavenly “family” where we can now call God “Abba”, filial adoption. Jesus family is now our family, that includes his mother:

48: But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
49: And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
50: For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

At it’s core, evangelicalism is focused on self. This is the opposite of agape A real personal relatioship with Jesus recognizes his body (a reality, not the evangelical metaphor) And why Jesus can say “What you did to the least of my brothers you did it to me”

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Redbandito]

Real presence in the Catholic does not necessarily mean physical presence as you use the term. We consume the Body & Blood of the Lord and Savior under the species of bread and wine because the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice because we do not resacrifice the Lord every Sunday at Mass – we partake of the one sacrifice at Calvary for the forgiveness of sins. What we are eating when we consume the Host and the Cup is the transformed (transubstantiated, or consecrated) bread & wine which really is the body & blood of Jesus under these two different “species” (meaning they maintain the attributes of bread and wine in that they still feel, taste and have the same texture of ordinary bread & wine).

As I used it? What on Earth are you talking about? Where in all of my post did I give you the idea that I believed the Eucharist to be a “bloody sacrifice?” And Jesus is truly and “physically” present in the Eucharist. What do you think it is that differentiates us from those who believe Christ’s presence is merely spiritual or even merely symbolic? We believe the substance is changed into Jesus, “Body, blood, soul and divinity,” not with His Earthly body, but His glorified body. Yet, this means that Christ is physically present in our midst. If you have questions about this, please read more on the topic. As Fr. John Hardon stated, "What was bread and wine after the words of consecration is no longer bread and wine but a living, physical, bodily - in a word, the real - Jesus Christ."

therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/realpres.htm

“Finally, in 196:S, Pope Paul VI taught most clearly that, after the consecration at Mass, “nothing remains of the bread and wine except for the (smell, taste, etc.)” and that Christ is (bodily) present whole and entire in his physical 'reality,’ corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.”[11] So, the “physical” thing that remains after the consecration is Jesus Christ and not bread and wine."

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=243

So, in reply to your post, it is incorrect to say that Christ is not “physically present” in the Eucharist. He most certainly is.

 

[Redbandito]

A brief disclaimer — I in no way intend my posts as ANY sort of attack on either any poster on this forum or that venerable and most praisewothy body known as the Roman Catholic Church. +N (If I just NEED to attack someone I’ll go to CARM)
What I mean is that RC theologians and doctors have been forced to defend the position that there is only one supreme jurisdiction, thus creating the corner into which the RC has painted herself by claiming universal authority over that jurisdiction and has since been forced to either present new and inventive interpretations of Scripture and ECF to support her claim or abandon that position (as she should but probably will not.)

It is not here disputed that the See of Peter holds *“a certain primacy” *it is the nature of that primacy which is at question. Even now I would etimate that 99.9% of all Catholic and Orthodox communions would readily acknowledge the debt of gratitude, if nothing else, owed to Rome by all of Christendom. Gratitude, honor, respect and yes even a great love do not, however, confer or even, necessarily, imply ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Peace,
+Nathan

Well this whole post certainly begs the question.

 

[frnate]

Your Eminence,

Your profile mentions that your religion is “Catholic Charismatic” and that you are a Bi-Vocational Bishop. Are you in communion with the Holy See, and if so how is most of your theology eastern while considering yourself to be a “Catholic Charismatic”? Also, what jurisdiction do you head?

God bless!

I am bishop of Chattanooga, TN and roughly the northwestern corner of GA.

Unfortunately, at this time, our communion does not enjoy inter-communion with the Holy See. We have had sporadic talks with Rome for some time concerning this issue. Rome acknowledges our Orders to be valid, but to date has not recognized us canonically.

My theology agrees much with the East because I have tried to avoid the scientific rationalistic mindset that affects much of Western Christianity. After all, Christianity is the ONLY true eastern religion! To illustrate: I do not believe that the Real Presence can be scientifically defined as the doctrine of trans-substatiation attempts to do. It is not necessary to define it so exactly and it may even be detrimental to try to do so. It just is, and it is enough to realize it’s sacramental (i.e. mysterious) nature. There are others but perhaps they belong to a new thread?

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[frnate]

Well this whole post certainly begs the question.

If you are referring to the OP I suppose it might. I was not responding to the OP in this post. If you are referring to some other question you’ll need to elaborate.

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[JesusforMadrid]

My theology agrees much with the East because I have tried to avoid the scientific rationalistic mindset that affects much of Western Christianity. After all, Christianity is the ONLY true eastern religion! To illustrate: I do not believe that the Real Presence can be scientifically defined as the doctrine of trans-substatiation attempts to do. It is not necessary to define it so exactly and it may even be detrimental to try to do so. It just is, and it is enough to realize it’s sacramental (i.e. mysterious) nature. There are others but perhaps they belong to a new thread?

Peace,
+Nathan

Nathan, this is very interesting. Have you read much of the ECFs concerning the Eucharist? Your perspective is much more in line with theirs than the modern RC church.

Are you familiar with the Charismatic Episcopal church?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Your continued use of ‘RC’ betrays a bias against your ancestral faith and, for whatever cause and reason, a seething hatred of things ‘Roman’ in matters of Christianity.

This is unsubstantiated and offensive. I have explained my reasons. I don’t want to offend anybody. Please don’t offend me.

Blessings to you.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

This is unsubstantiated and offensive. I have explained my reasons. I don’t want to offend anybody. Please don’t offend me.

Blessings to you.

You claim that to use “Catholic” would offend those who consider themselves “catholic” (a distinction without sense).

Well, J4M, you offend me by calling me RC and Roman Catholic. Hpw difficult is that for you to understand??

I have said it many times and you finally address it?

What about those ‘Trent’ assertions? What Council? What quote are you refering to in giving two contradictory measures of what is Catholic doctrine and dogma?

Quit avoiding the questions. That is dishonest.

 

[Redbandito]

What I mean is that RC theologians and doctors have been forced to defend the position that there is only one supreme jurisdiction, thus creating the corner into which the RC has painted herself by claiming universal authority over that jurisdiction and has since been forced to either present new and inventive interpretations of Scripture and ECF to support her claim or abandon that position (as she should but probably will not.)

You start out here with the assumption that the Church is wrong, and has been called on it. And thus, the Church has been backed into an indefensible corner. That is assuming your premise, or “begging the question.” I, of course, disagree with both your premise, and your conclusion.

Secondly, the burden of proof was never on the Church to defend her claims. The burden of proof has always been with those who bring the new claim. Thus, the Church has always approached the definition of doctrine from a negative perspective. Or in other words, the Church clarifies her teachings when they are challenged. Therefore, to say these are “new and inventive” interpretations is not only historically innaccurate, but also begs the question. For you assume that if the Church did not have a specific definition of a doctrine then it is “new and inventive interpretation.” That also happens to be false.

Third, you assume that the Church claims authority simply to fend off their new challengers. Again, this is historically indefensible. How is it that the Church found a way to answer the Arians, the Nestorians, the Manichaeans, etc, without this authority?

And finally, you wrongly state that the Church probably “should abandon her position,” which I take as the most unproven of your assumptions. Why exactly? Because you disagree with Her? I, for one, praise God that the Church, preserved through the promises of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will not abandon Her position.

It is not here disputed that the See of Peter holds *“a certain primacy” *it is the nature of that primacy which is at question. Even now I would etimate that 99.9% of all Catholic and Orthodox communions would readily acknowledge the debt of gratitude, if nothing else, owed to Rome by all of Christendom. Gratitude, honor, respect and yes even a great love do not, however, confer or even, necessarily, imply ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Peace,
+Nathan

For starters, I question your percentage. Secondly, who defines the “nature of that primacy?”

 

[frnate]

Nathan, this is very interesting. Have you read much of the ECFs concerning the Eucharist? Your perspective is much more in line with theirs than the modern RC church.

Are you familiar with the Charismatic Episcopal church?

I have not specifically concentrated on the Eucharist when reading the ECF but yes my perspective regarding all of the sacraments is flavored by the mystical philosophy of the Eastern Church. Chrysostom, John Damascene, Gregory the Great and especially the fathers of the first three centuries are my favorites. I am presently re-reading Eusebius. I admire Clement of Rome so much that I named my diocese for him.

I was confirmed in the CEC and “cut” my liturgical/sacramental “teeth” there. I am saddened to hear of the troublesome times she is enduring.

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[Redbandito]

Nathan, this is very interesting. Have you read much of the ECFs concerning the Eucharist? Your perspective is much more in line with theirs than the modern RC church.

Prove it! It is comments like this that make me wonder if you have even read the ECF’s. If so, what have you read? Any complete works? What translations? Who are the authors?

Furthermore, even if the ECF’s did not speak of transubstantiation in specific terms, this proves nothing. By this very logic, you must deny the doctrine of the Trinity. Are you ready to do so?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I was confirmed in the CEC and “cut” my liturgical/sacramental “teeth” there. I am saddened to hear of the troublesome times she is enduring.

Peace,
+Nathan

I haven’t heard of trouble there. I hope not like with the Episcopal Church.

I think the “three streams” approach is enormously attractive

 

[JesusforMadrid]

You claim that to use “Catholic” would offend those who consider themselves “catholic” (a distinction without sense).

Well, J4M, you offend me by calling me RC and Roman Catholic. Hpw difficult is that for you to understand??

I have said it many times and you finally address it?

What about those ‘Trent’ assertions? What Council? What quote are you refering to in giving two contradictory measures of what is Catholic doctrine and dogma?

Quit avoiding the questions. That is dishonest.

Regarding those “Trent assertions”, my Catholic-who-is-in-communion-with-Rome friend: From the 4th session

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

The standard post Trent is “unanimous consent”.

Blessings to you.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

quote=JesusforMadrid;1805244]

And if the only support comes, tepidly in the ante-Nicene period in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, why should we accept this as being reasonable and sufficient? I can cite many ante-Nicene authors who specifically refute current Marian doctrines. **So your citations are not conclusive, certainly not the sort of unanimous consent that Trent would require of Tradition to be considered true. **

Why not trust those who were alive at the time? Isn’t their silence rather important? Sorry, I just don’t understant the RC position on this issue.

I know that the issue of Mary is very dear to the hearts of many faithful Roman Catholics and I pray my conversation has not offended anybody. Thanks and God Bless

J4M: I read the Fourth Session (thanks again for directing me to your quotation). Here is the problem with your reasoning.

There were two decrees which arose from the Fourth Session.

One of them (which you quote from) is about how the Bible should be interpreted. Not whether the devotion to Mary (which really flowered in the early Middle Ages) is justified by the “unanimous testimony” of the Fathers.

The decree from which you refer determined that the Bible should be interpreted according to the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and never misused for supernatural (fortunetelling, for example) purposes. That is what is meant by Tradition (the* Magisterium*, the Teaching Authority of the Church).

That’s it. Mary was not on the agenda. Mary was not in issue.

Catholics have no problem with that. Marian devotion came from many sources and has been abused by many well-meaning, practising Catholics.

There are many Catholic writers (including clergy) who have decried those who seem to substitute Mary for Jesus or God.

However, you will not find any decree, encyclical or pastoral letter from the Church equating Mary with the Trinity. That is heretical, non-Biblical and not in Tradition.

She was the first Disciple, after all. There are early books not accepted into the canon (at 382 AD) which tell of Mary’s family and her life. Even the Eastern Church (not eastern Catholic, but Orthodox) regards Mary in the same respectful manner based upon Tradition and these other early writings.

And if you are interested, I researched what criteria is used to determine whether a writer is a “Father” or not for purposes of this Fourth Session decree.

Again, a yoking together of Marian devotion to a non-existent Trent required approval is a non-argument. Her devotional importance and customs are not based in Scripture, but are implied from what early and later (middle ages) Christians did and wrote about.

The Bible doesn’t talk about baseball or oranges. But I still follow the Angels rabidly and love my groves of navel oranges.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I assume you mean Justin Martyr. Let’s start with the oldest history, because Evangelicals generally believe that current RC Marian beliefs were not generally present in the Early Church and have slowly evolved in the RC Church–ie the RC church at Trent was more Marian than the Ante-Nicene Church, and the modern RC church is more Marian than the RC Church at Trent.

If you take the writings of the apostles, the Didache, I Clement and other 1st century writers, there is no specific support for current Marian doctrines because there is no mention of Mary. What does St. Paul say about these modern RC Marian doctrines? Nothing, because he doesn’t even speak about Mary. And 1st Century Church documents? The same.

Unlike the concept of the Trinity, which I am frankly not even sure today that I understand and believe it is a mystery, we are not talking about complex theological arguments when discussing RC Marian doctrine. We are talking about clear historical events about the most blessed woman in history.

Did Mary sin or was she sinless?
Did Mary have relations with Joseph or did she remain a virgin?
Did Mary die or was she assumed?

If sinlessness, perpetual virginity or the assumption occurred as a historical fact to most blessed woman in history, Mary, I should think that these early Christians, who no doubt would have had an interest in that fact, would mention it. That the apostles and the 1st century Christian writers would not comment something of this importance that happened *in their lifetime *suggests, at least to me, one of two possible conclusions:

1. It didn’t happen; or
2. It did happen but it wasn’t important, in their view. And if the apostles, writing Scripture, the inspired Word of God, didn’t think it important, why should we?

And if the only support comes, tepidly in the ante-Nicene period in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, why should we accept this as being reasonable and sufficient? I can cite many ante-Nicene authors who specifically refute current Marian doctrines. So your citations are not conclusive, certainly not the sort of unanimous consent that Trent would require of Tradition to be considered true.

Why not trust those who were alive at the time? Isn’t their silence rather important? Sorry, I just don’t understant the RC position on this issue.

I know that the issue of Mary is very dear to the hearts of many faithful Roman Catholics and I pray my conversation has not offended anybody. Thanks and God Bless

 

[Nicene]

Regarding those “Trent assertions”, my Catholic-who-is-in-communion-with-Rome friend: From the 4th session

The standard post Trent is “unanimous consent”.

Blessings to you.

This answers my previous post regarding integrity.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[frnate]

You start out here with the assumption that the Church is wrong, and has been called on it.

If I assumed otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

And thus, the Church has been backed into an indefensible corner. That is assuming your premise, or “begging the question.” I, of course, disagree with both your premise, and your conclusion.

Actually I am simply assuming the position of four-fifths of the early Church when I say that Rome erred in claiming universal jurisdiction. From the very moment it was realized by the other four ancient patriarchates that Rome intended to try to wrest this level of authority for herself they began attempting to correct her. But she was having none of it. An unbiased look at history bears this out. I will reiterate:
Of the five ancient patriarchates only one has ever believed, taught or claimed universal jurisdiction. This is completely contrary to the collegiality demonstrated in the early centuries of the Church, both in her writings and her actions.

Secondly, the burden of proof was never on the Church to defend her claims. The burden of proof has always been with those who bring the new claim.

Ah, but it is in fact the “new claim” of universal jurisdiction that must be defended. Rome’s claims did not begin until about the eighth or ninth century.

the Church has always approached the definition of doctrine from a negative perspective. Or in other words, the Church clarifies her teachings when they are challenged. Therefore, to say these are “new and inventive” interpretations is not only historically innaccurate, but also begs the question. For you assume that if the Church did not have a specific definition of a doctrine then it is “new and inventive interpretation.” That also happens to be false.

I fully understand and believe in the development of doctrine. It is curious that the claims of universal jurisdiction also happens to remove the hinderance of ecumenical agreement. Thus, Rome can claim universal jurisdiction and by extension need not seek approval from her peers, for she no longer has any.

Third, you assume that the Church claims authority simply to fend off their new challengers. Again, this is historically indefensible.

Not so, I agree with the early church and all since, who tried to explain to Rome that she erred.

How is it that the Church found a way to answer the Arians, the Nestorians, the Manichaeans, etc, without this authority?

Anyone who thinks this needs to go back and re-study the history, context, circumstances, locations and participants of the ecumenical councils. An un-biased look at these things will readily demonstrate that Rome was only cursorily involved with defeating the heretics you mention. She certainly did not lead the charge and no Popes even attended those councils.

And finally, you wrongly state that the Church probably “should abandon her position,” which I take as the most unproven of your assumptions. Why exactly? Because you disagree with Her?

In the true spirit of the Body of Christ, my personal position is only as important as in how it affects the Body as a whole. While I am stating these things as my opinion, it is only in agreement with the opinion that the majority of the Body has held.

I, for one, praise God that the Church, preserved through the promises of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will not abandon Her position.

There is no lasting shame in abandoning an errant position. Just ask Peter about the time Paul confronted him to his face about the Judiazers.

For starters, I question your percentage.

I wasn’t completely sure about that percentage either, you pick one and we’ll compromise.

Secondly, who defines the “nature of that primacy?”

I thought that’s what we were doing now

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[Nicene]

Prove it! It is comments like this that make me wonder if you have even read the ECF’s. If so, what have you read? Any complete works? What translations? Who are the authors?

Apparently he hasn’t.

Furthermore, even if the ECF’s did not speak of transubstantiation in specific terms, this proves nothing. By this very logic, you must deny the doctrine of the Trinity. Are you ready to do so?

Even his assertions of the Lutheran and Anglican are off concerning the eucharist. The anglican is pneumatic and spiritual, not flesh, the lutheran is in under and around. His contention is that the Early catholic fathers are the same (particularly his reference to Ignatius)

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to the will of God.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans
*I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. *

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans,
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

This hardly can be understood as “in, under, and around”, nor as pneumatic and spiritual and non carnational.

Leaving the mystery as to how it occurs in the EO is in no way representative of the eucharist not being the flesh and blood of Christ. They certainly do.

It is protestants who do not. Also note what Ignatius says to do (if he had actually read the letters) if someone does not confess this.

Luckily in protestantism it isn’t the real presence of Christ (I believe Christ does this as a mercy to protestants so as not to partake unworthily and condemn themselves; Corinthians)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Magicsilence]

This is no doubt true. We have lost many of the original documents and sermons. Yet, so what? Are you saying that there are doctrines of the RC church today that are supported principally from tradition, such as the Assumption or the immaculate conception, but that this tradition has been lost?

Not as such, though who is to say? Various traditions have evolved around Christianity, some from the apostles, and others legends or stories that became incorporated into the faith in certain areas. The Church has always articulated (as guided by the Holy Spirit) which are true and which are not.

This raises a further difficulty for those who claim that the modern RC church is the same in doctrine and practice as the 1st century church.

Perhaps, it is always going to be difficult to prove something upon which one’s soul depends, since the penalty is steep, shall we say. Yet, it does not mean an impossibility therefore ensues. When one is challenging parts of the faith that cannot be explicitly found in the bible, who does one turn to? Imagine, if you will, some lost document that records the assumption of the Blessed Virgin from 100AD which is found in 2010 AD. The faith could be exponentially altered on such a basis, when history throws up new documents. Furthermore, with such an array of gnostic gospels, who is to judge they were wrong? Is one’s faith based on what can be proved from history?, and if so, who is to judge where heresy lies?

1. The RC church cannot justify its doctrine based on tradition

Not alone, of course not. The Catholic Church justifies its doctrine on the authority given it by God.

If this is true, than how could Pius IX declare in the 19th century infallible the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary or Pius XII in the 20th century declare infallible the Assumption of Mary?

Are you aware of the Eastern Orthodox? If only Catholics and Orthodox had remained in this world (who both hold steadfast to the tradition of the assumption) no declaration would have been necessary. Tradition is knowledge of a truth, declaring the doctrine is confirming the Truth when it is challenged or when others are distorting it (e.g the dual nature of Christ)

Going back to one of your other posts, devotion to Mary does certainly go back to the apostles, St James in particular, in an apparition in spain. A Church was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin in A.D 40.

christusrex.org/www1/apparitions/pr00001.htm

God Bless,