The Catholic Church

[sambos671]

What’s explanationism?

I said you had some validity I didn’t say you made an entirely valid point. The Church feeling the need to try to explain a mystery is due to those challenging already established teachings.

 

[ralphinal]

“It’s a mystery.” Why couldn’t we just leave it at that? As I’ve said elsewhere, the Catholic church has a disease. I’ll call it, “explanationism.”

So you won’t touch any of the questions?

Are we monotheistic?

Is Jesus God?

 

[phil8888]

So you won’t touch any of the questions?

Are we monotheistic?

Is Jesus God?

Jesus is God, and we are monotheistic

 

[ckempston]

I said you had some validity I didn’t say you made an entirely valid point. The Church feeling the need to try to explain a mystery is due to those challenging already established teachings.

First, “explaining” a mystery is a misnomer. Secondly, “explaining” isn’t the only valid response. Invariably, explaining leads to inconsistencies requiring further explanation; hence, explanationism.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I could use what you said and make a nice baloney sandwich! Roman Catholics are a subset of Catholics in general. It has to do with our particular way of worship as opposed to Byzantines, etc. The Pope is the head and supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church. Either you are a member of the Catholic Church or you are not. It has a visible structure. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church and he built it upon Peter.

THE NAME RCC DID NOT GET THAT NAME UNTIL AFTER THE SPLIT OF 1511 AND THE NAME WAS GIVIN AS A INSULT TO THE CC

 

[Peter_J]

“It’s a mystery.” Why couldn’t we just leave it at that? As I’ve said elsewhere, the Catholic church has a disease. I’ll call it, “explanationism.”

I notice you mention the Catholic Church but conveniently left out the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. Wouldn’t it make sense to mention them as well, given the time period we’re discussing?

 

[ralphinal]

Jesus is God, and we are monotheistic

You know that and I know that. I want someone who says that the trinity is not essential to answer/

 

[ckempston]

So you won’t touch any of the questions?

Are we monotheistic?

Is Jesus God?

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Eph 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Affirming the plain statements of Scripture, e.g. those above, is enough. Period. No need to take it any further.

 

[sambos671]

First, “explaining” a mystery is a misnomer. Secondly, “explaining” isn’t the only valid response. Invariably, explaining leads to inconsistencies requiring further explanation; hence, explanationism.

I agree its a misnomer so the explinations of the challenges to already established teachings are primarily what something is not rather than what specifically is. Ie you cannot define the eucharist as anything apart from the body and blood of Jesus. You can’t say its just a symbol or you can’t say it only represents Jesus’ presence in a general way such as he’s everywhere and in everything.

 

[ckempston]

I notice you mention the Catholic Church but conveniently left out the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. Wouldn’t it make sense to mention them as well, given the time period we’re discussing?

Not really, since they hardly explain as many things as the Catholic church. The RCC is in a league of its own.

 

[ckempston]

I agree its a misnomer so the explinations of the challenges to already established teachings are primarily what something is not rather than what specifically is. Ie you cannot define the eucharist as anything apart from the body and blood of Jesus. You can’t say its just a symbol or you can’t say it only represents Jesus’ presence in a general way such as he’s everywhere and in everything.

I disagree. Explanations are invariably about what something is. That’s why they had to invent new words, or adapt new words, in order to explain what is going on, e.g. homoousious, transubstantiation, etc.

 

[sambos671]

I disagree. Explanations are invariably about what something is. That’s why they had to invent new words, or adapt new words, in order to explain what is going on, e.g. homoousious, transubstantiation, etc.

I think a little study of church history will show you that they spent their times defining things by what an accepted belief wasn’t. Transubstantiation was a way of saying that the Eucharist was the very body and blood of Jesus and that he was present in it in a real way. to believe something other than that was not correct. But it doesn’t mean that there are aspects of the Eucharist that are fully understood and defined.

 

[ckempston]

I think a little study of church history will show you that they spent their times defining things by what an accepted belief wasn’t. Transubstantiation was a way of saying that the Eucharist was the very body and blood of Jesus and that he was present in it in a real way. to believe something other than that was not correct. But it doesn’t mean that there are aspects of the Eucharist that are fully understood and defined.

Here’s a couple simple questions for you: Do the various creeds contain negative, or positive, statements? Are the canons from the Ecumenical councils mostly negative, or mostly positive? I think a study of church history will show you that the definitions are, with few exceptions, what the beliefs were not what they were not.

 

[grampben]

I think a little study of church history will show you that they spent their times defining things by what an accepted belief wasn’t. Transubstantiation was a way of saying that the Eucharist was the very body and blood of Jesus and that he was present in it in a real way. to believe something other than that was not correct. But it doesn’t mean that there are aspects of the Eucharist that are fully understood and defined.

But why does transubstantiation hve to be the only way of defining the real presence? Luther’s doctrine of sacramental union affirms the real presence.

 

[Peter_J]

Not really, since they hardly explain as many things as the Catholic church. The RCC is in a league of its own.

True, the RCC dogmatically defined several things that the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox didn’t.

But in regard to the Trinity, we all share the same history/developement. (The RCC, EOC and OOC were all one until the middle of the 5th century.) That’s what I meant.

 

[phil8888]

THE NAME RCC DID NOT GET THAT NAME UNTIL AFTER THE SPLIT OF 1511 AND THE NAME WAS GIVIN AS A INSULT TO THE CC

are you shouting, cuz I think we’re pretty much on the same page.

 

[ckempston]

True, the RCC dogmatically defined several things that the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox didn’t.

But in regard to the Trinity, we all share the same history/developement. (The RCC, EOC and OOC were all one until the middle of the 5th century.) That’s what I meant.

And here’s where I stand on that particular subject. I have no problem with the Trinity doctrine. It seems reasonable, although I would add the caveat that I highly doubt that it 100% accurately describes the divine nature, and just because a thing can be reasonably deduced from scripture doesn’t make it true. That being said, I would not tell someone they had to affirm the Trinity in order to be a Christian. However, if a Christian actively denied the Trinity, it would certainly raise a question, and I would be pretty curious as to what they meant, and would subsquently ask for clarification.

 

[sambos671]

Here’s a couple simple questions for you: Do the various creeds contain negative, or positive, statements? Are the canons from the Ecumenical councils mostly negative, or mostly positive? I think a study of church history will show you that the definitions are, with few exceptions, what the beliefs were not what they were not.

As an answer to what they were not due to divergent views at that time. They are statements of Affirmative. But consepts of the trinity are still considered a mystery because the fullness of the definition lies with God. The church can only attest to what has been revealed to it by the Holy Spirit and the Knowledge it has. For instance the Trinity is revealed to the Church Father Son and Holy Spirit. One God. Its a mystery how it works that aspect is not defined. But you can’t go beyond and define it as something it does not mean such as God just plays those different roles. Transubstantiation does not permit a definition not allowing for the actual body and blood of Jesus. But it does not say define the mystery of the miracle of it. Each definition is so because of contest to established teaching to prohibit an incorrect teaching. Not to say it is no longer a mystery or that it there are not fuller meanings within that consept that God may allow for. Like the Trinity is understood as one God; Father, Son, and Spirit. All of the same substance three persons. But does that prohibit an understanding of family with in the Trinity? No. But its not defined that way. Get my meaning?

 

[ckempston]

As an answer to what they were not due to divergent views at that time. They are statements of Affirmative. But consepts of the trinity are still considered a mystery because the fullness of the definition lies with God. The church can only attest to what has been revealed to it by the Holy Spirit and the Knowledge it has. For instance the Trinity is revealed to the Church Father Son and Holy Spirit. One God. Its a mystery how it works that aspect is not defined. But you can’t go beyond and define it as something it does not mean such as God just plays those different roles. Transubstantiation does not permit a definition not allowing for the actual body and blood of Jesus. But it does not say define the mystery of the miracle of it. Each definition is so because of contest to established teaching to prohibit an incorrect teaching. Not to say it is no longer a mystery or that it there are not fuller meanings within that consept that God may allow for. Like the Trinity is understood as one God; Father, Son, and Spirit. All of the same substance three persons. But does that prohibit an understanding of family with in the Trinity? No. But its not defined that way. Get my meaning?

Well, this gets to the very basis of my disagreement with Catholicism. There’s no need to define it any further than what is explicitly stated in Scripture. Because what happens is you end up explaing your explanations, then explaining your explanation to your explanation, ad infinitum. This is way too far from the simple faith held by the first Christians.

 

[ralphinal]

ckempston,
Is it acceptable for a Christian to hold that Jesus is not God?

Is it acceptable for a Christian to say that we have more than one God?

Is it acceptable for a Christian to say that the Father IS the Son and IS the Holy Spirit?