The Catholic Church

[grampben]

A fascinating position.
I suppose you disapprove of, maybe even disavow, the use of the word and doctrine of the ‘Trinity’ to describe the nature of God?
I would also imagine you are equally critical of the term ‘hypostatic union’?

So, God cannot be found in all He creates?

Is trinitarianism a pagan concept?
The words trinity and hypostatic union aren’t in the Bible, but the concepts are clearly referred to. Any ‘proof’ of transubstantiation from the Bible only proves the real presence, not transubstantiation.
As I said before, transubstantiation isn’t just terminology.

** So, God cannot be found in all He creates?**
I said manifestations of God. God is the triune God, creation points towards God but when I said MANIFESTATION that meant the pagan idea of pantheism.

 

[ralphinal]

Is trinitarianism a pagan concept?
The words trinity and hypostatic union aren’t in the Bible, but the concepts are clearly referred to. Any ‘proof’ of transubstantiation from the Bible only proves the real presence, not transubstantiation.
As I said before, transubstantiation isn’t just terminology.

** So, God cannot be found in all He creates?**
I said manifestations of God. God is the triune God, creation points towards God but when I said MANIFESTATION that meant the pagan idea of pantheism.

Actually, the trinitarian concept is found in a few pagan faiths. It is not totally unique to Christianity. What is totally unique is the actuality of a Trinune God.

 

[grampben]

Actually, the trinitarian concept is found in a few pagan faiths. It is not totally unique to Christianity. What is totally unique is the actuality of a Trinune God.

Like what? I saw a refutation on this site from an old This Rock article (I think) by Jimmy Akin.

 

[grampben]

Can’t find it, but here is something similar:
catholic.com/library/is_catholicism_pagan.asp

1. Is there a parallel? Frequently, there is not. The claim of a parallel may be erroneous, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source.

For example: “The Egyptians had a trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis, and Horus, thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known” (Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am an Agnostic). This is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood (not surprising, since the Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being (the Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim of an Egyptian trinity is simply wrong. There is no parallel.

So please, sir, where is the concept of trinity as it is understood by most of christianity in any other religion?

 

[ralphinal]

Like what? I saw a refutation on this site from an old This Rock article (I think) by Jimmy Akin.

I think that that article was against the Mithras/Catholic connection.

This is from a fundamentalist site.

Alexander Hislop, in his book, “the two Babylon’s”, traces the history of the practices and traditions of the Roman Catholic church. He writes on pg. 18, “All these forms have existed from ancient times, while overcome with idolatry, the recognition of the Trinity was universal, proving how deep rooted in the human race was the doctrine on the subject , which comes out so distinctly in Genesis” Robert watts in New Apologetic says "The Pagan triads are “residuary fragments of their lost knowledge of God, not different stages in a process of evolution. But evidence of a moral and spiritual degradation” (Augustus H. Strongs systematic Theology p.352

Naturally, I dispute the idea that the Catholic CHurch became pagan. Most of the trinities in Paganism are triads, not true trinities.

Rome had Janus, who had two faces. I am sure that there were others like that.

 

[cfrancis]

Is trinitarianism a pagan concept?
The words trinity and hypostatic union aren’t in the Bible, but the concepts are clearly referred to. Any ‘proof’ of transubstantiation from the Bible only proves the real presence, not transubstantiation.
As I said before, transubstantiation isn’t just terminology.

** So, God cannot be found in all He creates?**
I said manifestations of God. God is the triune God, creation points towards God but when I said MANIFESTATION that meant the pagan idea of pantheism.

You are playing loosely with your distinction. Worse, you’re jousting a straw man. The claim is, the term “transubstantiation” creates the doctrine of the Real Presence.
The truth is, it is an attempt to explain the Truth, just as ‘Trinity’ is an attempt to explain the nature of God, and ‘hypostatic union’ is an attempt to explain the nature of Jesus Christ.

What you don’t like is the doctrine itself, not the term that describes it: you do not believe Christ’s Body and Blood can appear to us as bread and wine, instead choosing to believe His Body and Blood can subsist along with the bread and wine.

To say the concepts of the ‘Trinity’ and the ‘hypostatic’ union are “clearly referred to” in Scripture is to stand, unknowingly, on the work of the great minds who fought the heresies in the early Church.
In fact, your assertion can be stated just as emphatically in support of transubstantiation: it is “clearly referred to” in Scripture.

At which point, we’re in a contest of opinions…

 

[Peter_J]

Yes. Either the Catholic church is right, or Jesus lied:

Personally, I prefer “Either the Catholic Church is right, or I’ll eat my hat.”

To each his own, I suppose.

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you for your insight. You are absolutely right about the ignorance of Anglicanism here. It’s rampid.

Perhaps you recall what Mrs. Beaver said in the recent film version of C.S. Lewis’ book, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: “It’s the world dear. Did you expect it to be small?”

If Mrs. Beaver were here right now, I’m sure she’d respond to your complaint about ignorance with “It’s the internet dear. Did you expect it to be scholarly?”

 

[GailMac4]

Dear Ckempston - you state:" I’d have several caveats with this. Paul said it was OK for there to be differences, even in seemingly faith-based issues such as what is appropriate to eat or drink, or what days are held holy, etc. If you simply mean, “one in doctrine” on the basics, or salvation issues, then I’d ask you to define the basics."

Here are the basics: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven; and was incarnate be the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made man; He was crucified also for us; suffered under Pontius Pilate and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven; He sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead; and of His kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life; Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is adored and glorified; Who spoke by the Prophets. And one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

If you can’t agree on this basic text, then you’re not Catholic. Oh there ARE a few things besides you’ll need to agree on to become a Catholic. What religion are you anyway?

Peace,

Gail

 

[Peter_J]

The Catholic Church teaches that there is no more public revelation being unloaded on us. That ended when John died.

…

Alright. Let’s see what “new doctrines” you have in mind.

I think you’re missing the point here, ckempston.

I understand that you believe that these things were not contained in the Deposit of Faith.

But the point is that we (myself, Ralphinal, other Catholics) believe that they were contained in the Deposit of Faith.

(Or, if you want to look at it in reverse, if you can convince me that the Immaculate Conception was not contained in the Deposit of Faith to begin with, then I will definitely have to also agree with you that it is not a doctrine now either.)

 

[ckempston]

Dear Ckempston - you state:" I’d have several caveats with this. Paul said it was OK for there to be differences, even in seemingly faith-based issues such as what is appropriate to eat or drink, or what days are held holy, etc. If you simply mean, “one in doctrine” on the basics, or salvation issues, then I’d ask you to define the basics."

Here are the basics: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven; and was incarnate be the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made man; He was crucified also for us; suffered under Pontius Pilate and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven; He sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead; and of His kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life; Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is adored and glorified; Who spoke by the Prophets. And one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

If you can’t agree on this basic text, then you’re not Catholic. Oh there ARE a few things besides you’ll need to agree on to become a Catholic. What religion are you anyway?

Peace,

Gail

Great, I agree with every word that you wrote. As far as my religion, I follow Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

 

[ckempston]

…

I think you’re missing the point here, ckempston.

I understand that you believe that these things were not contained in the Deposit of Faith.

But the point is that we (myself, Ralphinal, other Catholics) believe that they were contained in the Deposit of Faith.

(Or, if you want to look at it in reverse, if you can convince me that the Immaculate Conception was not contained in the Deposit of Faith to begin with, then I will definitely have to also agree with you that it is not a doctrine now either.)

If, among the ECFs, there was even a remote amount of disagreement over the smallest Catholic doctrine that is not explicitly found in the Scriptures, then that would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it was not a part of the Deposit of Faith. If there was some mystical “Deposit of Faith,” then there never would have been a debate about the nature of Jesus (along with a hundred other things discussed and “voted” upon in various councils).

 

[Phillipos]

I believe it was St. Ignatius who coined the term “Catholic”. The Roman part I believe has to do with the rite, i.e. melkite, latin, eastern, etc…

 

[Peter_J]

If, among the ECFs, there was even a remote amount of disagreement over the smallest Catholic doctrine that is not explicitly found in the Scriptures, then that would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it was not a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Opinionated, aren’t you?

P.S. What if I were to show you that there was “a remote amount of disagreement”, among the ECFs, against Sola Scriptura?

 

[Peter_J]

If there was some mystical “Deposit of Faith,” then there never would have been a debate about the nature of Jesus (along with a hundred other things discussed and “voted” upon in various councils).

Do you deny the existence of a “Deposit of Faith”? Or do you just mean that the whole “Deposit of Faith” is contained in the Scriptures?

 

[vocatio]

You don’t get it do you. I’m Anglican, I’m NOT Episcopalian.

Actually, you’re a Catholic that defected to Anglican. Am I right? If I were to judge what you’ve said thus far I’d say that if you believe what you say you should be journeying to the Eastern Orhtodox Church. Why didn’t you convert to Eastern Orhtodoxy or Eastern Catholic? Really? You’ve never elaborated on that. I know many Catholics that have fallen away from Catholicism but really from what they thought they understood incorrectly. However, I know you are not the typical average former Catholic. But something really pushed your botton like me. Priest scandals wasn’t it? I don’t believe it was theology that converted you. The story I’ve heard is typical anger - justified anger.

Anglican is what I was considering in the beginning if I didn’t convert to Orthodoxy. I knew Anglicans are different than Episcopalians. But I was drawn more to the more anciet looking historical church, the Orthodox Church. I became convinced that the bishop of Rome did and still does have authority. I do believe that there were way too many heretic Catholics in the past that ended up creating other religions or justified division, schism. However justified someones anger is doesn’t mean it’s okay. But it may be understandable that sinful men are the cause of all the Protestant faiths and schimatics. But I did not want to believe it in the beginning until I started reading history more closely. It ain’t over yet. I still read as much as I can. I lean towards Eastern Catholicism but have a great fondness for the Orhtodox Church. I’m not in authority to say whether or not the Anglican church has a valid Eucharist but at least they have the understanding of this Most Sacred Sacrament. But you don’t see me hanging out on an Anglican website… So why do you hang out here knowing that you once were Catholic? Which part of Catholicism do you miss?

 

[John1]

Doing well. We had a hectic holiday. I usually work a light schedule at the end of the year, since I have my son with me, but for some reason this week is absolutely crazy. Being in Real Estate, I am not upset about that in this market.

I hope that you had a happy Christmas season as well.

Ok. So the Christian Church founded by Christ would still have the authority to bind and loose.

What is binding and loosing?

I’ve wondered about this also, because Jesus says this again to the rest of the Apostles after he said it to Peter. I know it mentions the same terminology in the Hebrew text in the OT book of Job 38:31, I believe. In Job it refers to God bind the chains of the Pleides and loosing the cords of Orion. It may be that it refers to the authority Jesus gives to his Apostles to forgive the sins, or heal, the people.

 

[guanophore]

The church does not exist independent of believers. It is not an “institution” with a separate existence.

This is a strange statement. Jesus built His church on the foundation of the Apostles and PRophets. He is the Head, and the Soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit. In this sense, the Church existsa 'apart" from all the present believers on earth. No new generations “subtract” from what God has already created. I think the major error Protestants make on this point is a failure to recognize that the Church is far more than the collection of believers here on earth. She has sanctified and divine elements that exist over and above the current generation of persons on earth.

If you simply mean, “one in doctrine” on the basics, or salvation issues, then I’d ask you to define the basics.

This is a good place to start. According to history, Jesus trained HIs Apostles in all the “basics” prior to a word of Scripture being written.

This is vague enough to mean just about anything.

In this case, it means that athe Church acts in continuity of faith and practice with the Apostles.

Depends on what you mean here. It has never reached all men in all times. It took 1500 years just to reach the New World. I’d revise this to say that its purpose is to become catholic and reach all men (The Great Commission).

Well, we are not talking here about purpose, but the marks of the True church. the Church started by Jesus is one in faith throughout the whole world (CAtholic).

The church is the Bride of Christ.
The church is the Body of Christ.
Christ is the head of the body.

Depending on how you interpret them, some of your statements could be considered mutually exclusive. E.g., since I’m validly baptized, I’m a part of the church based on your first criteria, but since I don’t fit in with other doctrines of Catholics, I am not a part of the church. So, my question would be, are they all required?

You are joined, however, improperly, to the One Body of Christ, the Church.

 

[benedictus2]

Ok, let’s look at this claim.

Did the authority to bind and loose end when the last Apostle died?

Yes. Either the Catholic church is right, or Jesus lied:

How does that follow?

With the yes, you are saying that binding and loosing ended with the last apostle and yet your next statement affirms that the Catholic Church is indeed right because if she was not right, then Jesus lied. Is that a slip or are you agreeing here that the Catholic Church is indeed right?

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

If Truth continues to be revealed to this day, Jesus was mistaken.

Where your reasoning fails here is that you are limiting Truth to revelation with respect the Gospel. But until today and till Christ’s second coming, Truth still has to be discerned as moral and theological issues come up to discern what truly conforms to revealed Truth and thus the will of God. Lies still sprout so the Holy Spirit is still needed to guide the Church into all truth.

It seems to me that you are saying that having guided the writing of the scriptures, somehow we no longer need the Holy Spirit anymore. That is a rather strange claim by someon who claims to be Christian.

Here’s a case in point. Contraception: Either it is okay or it is not? Which is the Truth? Which conforms to the will of God? Protestants reckon this is good along with divorce and yet up until 1930 all Christians denominations held that contraception is wrong.

Are you saying that there is no truth that needs to be discerned in this case?

 

[benedictus2]

Precisely.
It is icrementalism. The story of cooking the frog slowly changing the water temperature little by littleso that you dont realize what is happening.

Nope. Not incrementalism. You are hoping for a retarded church that failed to grow from infancy.

You obvioiusly have no concept of development.

And the analogy of the frog is another non-sequitur from you as can be expected.