The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

[Anna_Scott]

Talk about a waste of an evening or any part of the day–Vogue! LOL

Come on gurney, give us gals a break.

Anna

 

[Bluegoat]

How is asking you to defend your assertions proof-texting? How did the soul enter this discussion? My experience on these boards is, when someone has nothing to say, he changes the subject.

You went to college??

I didn’t ask you to except to the extent of your remarks. If your style of debating is to allege things off the top of your head and not back them up you won’t be taken seriously.

Well, I’m sorry I was a bit short. But I am really not sure how to give you what you are asking for - or even what you are asking for. Do you want me to present the argument for Purgatory and Hell not being places? Do you want to see that there is some Catholic authority who accepts that? I see Anna has given some good excepts from the CCC, but I am hesitant to use it that way - it is not, I think, meant to be used that way - it doesn’t give an argument, and it doesn’t give much feeling for the discourse that has lead to various viewpoints within the Church, and it tends to give the impression that those views are a kind of monolith.

I suppose the thing is I don’t see myself as debating anything. I was just saying what the Church has said, one way or another, all long.

Yes, I did go to college, I did an undergraduate degree in classical philosophy. (Incidentally, does anyone know why the American usage is to say college instead of university?)

 

[Bluegoat]

Talk about a waste of an evening or any part of the day–Vogue! LOL

Yeah, it is brain candy! We were the hottest place in Canada today and I don’t think I am up for more serious fare though. (I also moved into the city recently, and am feeling a bit like a country-numbty, so I need to get some inspiration.)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Define “hot” in Canadian terms. Where I am we’re considering ourselves to have a serious cool spell because our temps are 92-93 F where usually it’s about 101 to 104 F here! The Central Valley of California gets so hot it’ll melt your face, man! LOL (I meant “man” rhetorically speaking as I know you’re not a man LOL…I know you’ll remind me of that )

Yeah, it is brain candy! We were the hottest place in Canada today and I don’t think I am up for more serious fare though. (I also moved into the city recently, and am feeling a bit like a country-numbty, so I need to get some inspiration.)

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well, I’m sorry I was a bit short. But I am really not sure how to give you what you are asking for - or even what you are asking for. Do you want me to present the argument for Purgatory and Hell not being places? Do you want to see that there is some Catholic authority who accepts that? I see Anna has given some good excepts from the CCC, but I am hesitant to use it that way - it is not, I think, meant to be used that way - it doesn’t give an argument, and it doesn’t give much feeling for the discourse that has lead to various viewpoints within the Church, and it tends to give the impression that those views are a kind of monolith.

I suppose the thing is I don’t see myself as debating anything. I was just saying what the Church has said, one way or another, all long.

Yes, I did go to college, I did an undergraduate degree in classical philosophy. (Incidentally, does anyone know why the American usage is to say college instead of university?)

Bluegoat,

The “blip” I quoted was to let Ferde Rombola know “time and space” is at least mentioned in CCC.

The concept of God and His “realm” is complicated. Great topic for Philosophers.

Contarini’s post on the Thread entitled, “Crisis of Religion (Current Catholic With Beliefs From Another Religion,)” touches on the subject. I noticed it earlier.

(I’m not arguing for or against his post.)

. . . .Western and Eastern Christians approach this matter somewhat differently. Eastern Christians would traditionally say that God’s essence is indescribable, so that words such as “living” or “existence” or even “being” fail to capture the reality of God. God is certainly not dead or non-existent or lacking in the perfections contained in the word “being,” but God is beyond life and existence and even being.

This “apophatic” tradition has influenced Western Christianity as well, but in varying ways. Probably the central tradition of Western Christianity is best represented by Thomas Aquinas. Even he would agree that the names we apply to God (including names such as “alive” or “being”) do not apply to God in the same way that they apply to us. But he would go beyond the apophatic approach to say that these names apply to God and to us in an “analogical” sense–in other words, when we use about God names taken from our experience of creatures (which all our language is), they do point to something positive in God in an accurate though only partial way. How different this is from the Eastern approach is a matter of debate. However, Aquinas does use the word “Being” as the most basic description of who God is, and that is genuinely different from the mainstream Eastern Christian tradition. Still, Aquinas doesn’t think that God is “a” being–God is not an example of a category of beings to which the rest of us also belong. God simply is Being–God’s essence is identical to His existence.

So the short answer to your question o) is that according to the two major traditions of historic, orthodox Christian theology: no, God is not “a living being.” God is Being itself to whom all names apply only analogously, or God is beyond even being. . . . .

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .(Incidentally, does anyone know why the American usage is to say college instead of university?)

Bluegoat,

Is this a trick question, or are you really asking?

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

the real question is does anyone care? LOL!!

Bluegoat,

Is this a trick question, or are you really asking?

Anna

 

[guanophore]

I appreciate these quotes. They demonstrate that teachings of the Catholic Church can change over time.

You misunderstand, Anna. The Teachings of the Church come from Jesus, through the Apostles. They were delivered ONCE FOR ALL to the Church. they cannot “change over time”. Our understanding of them may, but the Teachings are immutable.

The early fathers, as well as later theologians, contain elements of this sacred deposit of faith, and the thread of it can be followed. However, the writings of these individuals do NOT constitute the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

 So, it doesn't appear that the belief re hell held by the early Church is consistent with Catholic beliefs of today.

The beliefs of various individuals are not an accurate standard to use either, for the same reason on cannot assume that everything written by the Fathers is accurate. It has been my experience that the vast majority of modern American Catholics reject the teachings of the Church.

Again, my issue lies in how a Catholic relates to fallible teachings of the CC, and the fact that those fallible teachings change over time. This is important to sort out when considering Catholicism.

I agree that it is important to sort this out. Since the Teachings of the church are infallible, one need not find a way to relate to those that are fallible. Rather, the task is one of discerning which teachings are part of the once for all deposit of faith, and which represent opinions of the persons who formed them.

I appreciate your comments. Do you believe it is wrong for a Catholic to disagree with the teachings of a Pope, such as John Paul II?

Anna

We are taught to approach learning with an attitude of humility, so if I found myself in disagreement with the teachings of the Pope, the first reaction would be that he is a much more learned and holy man than myself, and that he knows very much about the faith that I do not , and therefore, I would benefit from more study. If I continued to perceive a discrepancy, then I would pray and ask God to bring me into line with His Truth. It may be that these steps will reconcile what I thought was a disagreement. However, since it is possbile for the Pope to teach something erroneous, I would continue to study and pray, and follow my conscience.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .It has been my experience that the vast majority of modern American Catholics reject the teachings of the Church.

. . . . .Rather, the task is one of discerning which teachings are part of the once for all deposit of faith, and which represent opinions of the persons who formed them . . . . .

How do you “discern” which teachings are part of the “once for all deposit of faith” and which represent “opinions” of the persons who formed them?

Anna

 

[Contarini]

I guess there’s no way to gentially pack my thoughts… Where has that gotten them?

I agree. The “three-legged stool” actually isn’t official Anglican teaching anyway (few things are short of the Nicene Creed!), but the popular interpretation of it (in which we somehow balance these three things) has done huge damage. It’s supposedly derived from Richard Hooker, but the way it’s generally used today has little to do with Hooker.

I think that we do all use these three things in formulating doctrine and/or theology, but that doesn’t say very much.

Edwin

 

[Cashue]

Actually the Vatican was there. The name comes from the Roman name of a low hill present there called [drum roll please…] Vatican hill. This was outside the walls of Rome and not one of the ‘seven hills’ of ancient Rome. In addition Vatican Hill was situated on the opposite bank of the Tiber River from the seven hills of Rome. Peter was martyred and buried there and early christians marked his grave as Pappias accounts. Later when Christianity was recognized as a religion a church was built on the site. That church was destroyed * and the present St, Peter’s Basilica was built over it. Excavations under the main altar have located Peter’s grave.

Now Paul was martyred across the Tiber river along the Appian way. He was also martyred outside the walls of Rome and a church was built over his tomb also. It is called St. Paul’s Basilica or more commonly ‘St. Paul’s outside the walls’.*

Yes, exactly my point - thank you you expressed it much better than me. I found these site too. I haven’t actually read them yet, but I think they are saying the same thing.

ccel.org/fathers.html

Thanks again
Cashue

 

[Bluegoat]

Define “hot” in Canadian terms. Where I am we’re considering ourselves to have a serious cool spell because our temps are 92-93 F where usually it’s about 101 to 104 F here! The Central Valley of California gets so hot it’ll melt your face, man! LOL (I meant “man” rhetorically speaking as I know you’re not a man LOL…I know you’ll remind me of that )

I don’t really know what F corresponds too, so I can’t appreciate your heat levels. Yesterday it was 29 degrees C here, which is about as warm as it gets here on the coast. Inland it will get into the low 30s at times. Where my husband works on Sable Island it tops out at about 17C.

Bluegoat,

Is this a trick question, or are you really asking?

Anna

I really am - is this a stupid question? Canadians and the British and the Aussies all say university. I think of a college as a - well a college - a part of a university, or maybe a community college. I wondered if there was some reason Americans just say college?

 

[Bluegoat]

I agree. The “three-legged stool” actually isn’t official Anglican teaching anyway (few things are short of the Nicene Creed!), but the popular interpretation of it (in which we somehow balance these three things) has done huge damage. It’s supposedly derived from Richard Hooker, but the way it’s generally used today has little to do with Hooker.

I think that we do all use these three things in formulating doctrine and/or theology, but that doesn’t say very much.

Edwin

Yeah, I have met quite a few people that understand it to mean that one must give way to the other if they are in conflict. Which always seems to mean Tradition is compromised for “reason”. But I think the Catholic model has issues as well. I’m coming to the conclusion it might just be a bad image.

 

[inkaneer]

I really am - is this a stupid question? Canadians and the British and the Aussies all say university. I think of a college as a - well a college - a part of a university, or maybe a community college. I wondered if there was some reason Americans just say college?

In the U.S. there are colleges and universities. The difference is that colleges only grant bacculaureate degrees [Batchelor degrees] while Universities grant Masters degrees and Doctorate degrees in addition to Batchelors. As a result colleges tend to be smaller in size and with a limited number of areas of major study than a university. Also a University will include various colleges within its self such as arts and science, engineering, education, business, etc.

 

[guanophore]

How do you “discern” which teachings are part of the “once for all deposit of faith” and which represent “opinions” of the persons who formed them?

Anna

This is the salient question, and the duty of each one of us to study, and show ourselves approved. We must be familiar with the Sacred Deposit of faith from it’s inception, found in the NT and in the Tradition found preserved by the HS infallibly in the church. By this Sacred deposit of faith do we judge all that is taught at every level, testing everything, and holding fast to what is good.

Today, a firm guide is found in the Catechism, where this deposit of faith is summarized and made accessible to the Church.

 

[Anna_Scott]

How do you “discern” which teachings are part of the “once for all deposit of faith” and which represent “opinions” of the persons who formed them?

This is the salient question, and the duty of each one of us to study, and show ourselves approved. We must be familiar with the Sacred Deposit of faith from it’s inception, found in the NT and in the Tradition found preserved by the HS infallibly in the church. By this Sacred deposit of faith do we judge all that is taught at every level, testing everything, and holding fast to what is good.

Today, a firm guide is found in the Catechism, where this deposit of faith is summarized and made accessible to the Church.

I’m looking for a more specific answer. How would you know if, for example, the Pope taught something outside the deposit of faith and the Catechism? The Pope has full access to the “Sacred Deposit of faith” and the Catechism to a greater extent than most Catholics in the laity. Yet Catholics still disagree with teachings of the Pope. Our recent discussion of whether or not the fires of hell are literal is an excellent example.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . It has been my experience that the vast majority of modern American Catholics reject the teachings of the Church. . . .

This comment is puzzling to me. If the majority of modern American Catholics reject the teachings of the Church, as you say, that is not an encouraging sign for one who is considering Catholicism. Why would I want to be in a Church whose members don’t even agree with its teachings?

Anna

 

[guanophore]

I’m looking for a more specific answer. How would you know if, for example, the Pope taught something outside the deposit of faith and the Catechism?

I thought that I made that clear in addressing every believer’s responsibility to study and mature in the faith? When I was unfamiliar with the Catechism, I believed whatever any Tom, Dick, and Harry claimed the Catholic church believed and taught. I was lured away from the faith into which I was baptized because I was ignorant, and like many Catholics, did not mature beyond a childhood presentation of the faith I received.

The Pope has full access to the "Sacred Deposit of faith" and the Catechism to a greater extent than most Catholics in the laity. Yet Catholics still disagree with teachings of the Pope.

Most Catholics who disagree with the teachings of the Pope do so on moral grounds. They wish to justify and defend a lifestyle of mortal sin.

Our recent discussion of whether or not the fires of hell are literal is an excellent example.

Anna

I don’t think so. Literal does not necessarily mean physical. We all agree that the fires of hell exist.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .If you have received the Apostolic faith, then you reject it, yes, you will burn in hell. That applies to everyone who becomes an apostate. . . .

So, if anyone rejects the Immaculate Conception of Mary, they will burn in hell? I didn’t even think Catholics believed in a literal burning in hell.

. . . .What part of the NT gave you the impression that hell was not “literal”? . . . .

Yesterday, in a 2-part post; I answered your question regarding why I believe the “fires of hell” are not literal. Here are the links, in case you missed them:

See my post #685 re Pope Benedict XVI & hell

See my Post #686 re Pope John Paul II & hell

I look forward to your comments.

Anna

P.S.
From "Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition."
Link: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1056

**PART ONE, THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO, THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER THREE, I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

ARTICLE 12
“I BELIEVE IN LIFE EVERLASTING”

IV. HELL**

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”
In CCC, there are references to “eternal fire,” but if you read on, hell is defined as something different.

Hell is described as To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell”
and eternal death" (GCD 69), also called "hell.

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1056 Following the example of Christ, the Church warns the faithful of the “sad and lamentable reality of eternal death” (GCD 69), also called “hell.”

1057 Hell’s principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I thought that I made that clear in addressing every believer’s responsibility to study and mature in the faith? When I was unfamiliar with the Catechism, I believed whatever any Tom, Dick, and Harry claimed the Catholic church believed and taught. I was lured away from the faith into which I was baptized because I was ignorant, and like many Catholics, did not mature beyond a childhood presentation of the faith I received. . . . .Most Catholics who disagree with the teachings of the Pope do so on moral grounds. They wish to justify and defend a lifestyle of mortal sin. . . … . .

This was my question:

I’m looking for a more specific answer. How would you know if, for example, the Pope taught something outside the deposit of faith and the Catechism? The Pope has full access to the “Sacred Deposit of faith” and the Catechism to a greater extent than most Catholics in the laity. Yet Catholics still disagree with teachings of the Pope. Our recent discussion of whether or not the fires of hell are literal is an excellent example.

Thanks,
Anna