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

[crazzeto]

Yes, you are right in stating that it is not up to the individual believer to make the decision in any official capacity, however, we as Catholics must know our faith (as revealed thus far) in order to know when someone is leading us astray (think of priests who teach things contrary to the faith thus allowing for parishioners to be deceived).

p.s. When I say teachings I do not mean, of course, pronouncements made ex-cathedra as I believe in papal infallibility, I refer only to papal teachings “spoken” non-infallibly (which again does not mean they are fallible, in fact, many are expressions of infallible truths of the faith).

Yes exactly, I was just posing the question and reframing it back in the context of Lumen Gentium before Anna get’s to it

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .But I think before we talk about that we need to talk about the nature of the authority which Christ left us with in his Church.

Crazzeto,

I need to do more study, before I can have a reasonably intelligent conversation about authority. I’m working my way through Anglican/Catholic/Eastern Orthodox books. I’m always open to reading suggestions.

Just started reading “The Primacy of Peter,” John Meyendorff Editor.

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

Crazzeto,

I need to do more study, before I can have a reasonably intelligent conversation about authority. I’m working my way through Anglican/Catholic/Eastern Orthodox books. I’m always open to reading suggestions.

Just started reading “The Primacy of Peter,” John Meyendorff Editor.

Anna

I realize how burdonsome it can be to have to read a ton and a half of books (well at least for me, I’m a slow deliberate reader). So how about I recommend something you can listen to in your car (or iPod if you have one).

lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/how-to-bring-fallen-away-catholics-back

It’s an excellent talk by Dr. Hahn covering a multitude of subjects. It’s generally more geared for the Catholic who wishes to evangalize the fallen away Catholic, but I think you’ll find the information generally useful. He also provides just enough references for you to do your own digging in the liturature to verify what he’s talking about.

Here’s a preemptive helpful him to help you with his Eucharistic section, you’ll need to find digital copies of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud’s =)

In this talk, Dr. Hahn recommends Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by "Bible Christians by Karl Keeting:

I own this book but have not had the chance to read it yet, but Dr. Hahn describes it as “essential”, so I figure it must be pretty good!

So when you signed up for this forum originally, whatever your intentions were, did you ever suspect you’d be buying an endless number of books as a result of joining??

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Orthodox would agree with you…but with the caveat that half the Church left the other and lost that mandate from where they’re standing.

When he is in accord with orthodoxy: faith, morals and doctrines,of course. Again Anna,either Jesus promised the HS to His Church and His bishops or He did not?

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .Complicated? It should not be complicated at all.You seem to be making more complicated than it is due to the fact you are asking far to many people the same questions. Narrow it down to the official church teachings and not the opinions of others here.

I suppose it’s not so complicated. One must submit mind and will to the Pontiff.

When he is in accord with orthodoxy: faith, morals and doctrines,of course. Again Anna,either Jesus promised the HS to His Church and His bishops or He did not?

You are not submitting mind and will to his person but rather to his teachings which must be in accord with the deposit of faith, i.e., what has been revealed thus far via ecumenical councils, papal pronouncements (ex-cathedra), that which was/is agreed upon by the ordinary universal magisterium guided by the Pope, as well as scripture and tradition. Therefore, even if he teaches in a non-infallible way (not ex-cathedra) this does not mean that what he is saying is fallible.

p.s. If perchance the pontiff is not teaching according to what has been revealed then you are not obliged to submit mind and will to his teachings because he excommunicates himself from the body of Christ.

True, but then one would point to Lumen Gentium… In which case the response is, it’s not up to the individual believer to make the decission that this has happend on an official capacity. Now if you feel it might have, you can feel free to ask the questions and see what Church authorities think. If such a thing is true, I have no doubt there would be switch action.

Yes, you are right in stating that it is not up to the individual believer to make the decision in any official capacity, however, we as Catholics must know our faith (as revealed thus far) in order to know when someone is leading us astray (think of priests who teach things contrary to the faith thus allowing for parishioners to be deceived).

p.s. When I say teachings I do not mean, of course, pronouncements made ex-cathedra as I believe in papal infallibility, I refer only to papal teachings “spoken” non-infallibly (which again does not mean they are fallible, in fact, many are expressions of infallible truths of the faith).

Yes exactly, I was just posing the question and reframing it back in the context of Lumen Gentium before Anna get’s to it

And you wonder why I say this is complicated? You still can’t agree with each other regarding submission of mind and will to non-infallible teachings.

As for going directly to the teachings of the CC; I did that. I went to the Vatican website and searched documents. I found LUMEN GENTIUM. Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

Since you all cannot agree on what this document is saying about submitting mind and will to non-infallible teachings; I’m going to trust that LUMEN GENTIUM means what it says.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Meyendorff is good at debunking so many of the cherry-picking, proof-texting, cut-and-paste stuff you’ll get in here. He’s scholarly and so are the other guys in the book like Schmemann. The Orthodox argument they make is very logical, based on the Fathers and church history, and shows you the other side that is not presented in this forum. It’s a great read. Love it.

Crazzeto,

I need to do more study, before I can have a reasonably intelligent conversation about authority. I’m working my way through Anglican/Catholic/Eastern Orthodox books. I’m always open to reading suggestions.

Just started reading “The Primacy of Peter,” John Meyendorff Editor.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I realize how burdonsome it can be to have to read a ton and a half of books (well at least for me, I’m a slow deliberate reader). So how about I recommend something you can listen to in your car (or iPod if you have one).

lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/how-to-bring-fallen-away-catholics-back

It’s an excellent talk by Dr. Hahn covering a multitude of subjects. It’s generally more geared for the Catholic who wishes to evangalize the fallen away Catholic, but I think you’ll find the information generally useful. He also provides just enough references for you to do your own digging in the liturature to verify what he’s talking about.

Here’s a preemptive helpful him to help you with his Eucharistic section, you’ll need to find digital copies of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud’s =)

In this talk, Dr. Hahn recommends Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by "Bible Christians by Karl Keeting:

I own this book but have not had the chance to read it yet, but Dr. Hahn describes it as “essential”, so I figure it must be pretty good!

So when you signed up for this forum originally, whatever your intentions were, did you ever suspect you’d be buying an endless number of books as a result of joining??

Crazzeto,

I had a lot of books before I joined the forum, but the stack is getting higher. lol.

Scott Hahn’s books are very readable. I think I told you that I read The Lamb’s Supper, Rome Sweet Home, and Swear to God.

I’ll check on the others you gave.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Meyendorff is good at debunking so many of the cherry-picking, proof-texting, cut-and-paste stuff you’ll get in here. He’s scholarly and so are the other guys in the book like Schmemann. The Orthodox argument they make is very logical, based on the Fathers and church history, and shows you the other side that is not presented in this forum. It’s a great read. Love it.

Gurney,

It is a great book. I just need to stay off the forums long enough to finish it. I usually read one book after another; but am lagging behind a bit right now.

Anna

 

[josie_L]

And you wonder why I say this is complicated? You still can’t agree with each other regarding submission of mind and will to non-infallible teachings.

As for going directly to the teachings of the CC; I did that. I went to the Vatican website and searched documents. I found LUMEN GENTIUM. Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

Since you all cannot agree on what this document is saying about submitting mind and will to non-infallible teachings; I’m going to trust that LUMEN GENTIUM means what it says.

Anna

Yes, we do agree on what this document is saying, moreover, nothing we have said conflicts with what it said.

 

[1holycatholic]

Meyendorff is good at debunking so many of the cherry-picking, proof-texting, cut-and-paste stuff you’ll get in here. He’s scholarly and so are the other guys in the book like Schmemann. The Orthodox argument they make is very logical, based on the Fathers and church history, and shows you the other side that is not presented in this forum. It’s a great read. Love it.

I can’t comment on all the books mentioned, but what’s to say that Meyerdorff or Hahn aren’t inadvertently doing scholarly cherry picking? Instead of reading someone’s take on history I prefer to read the historical writings themselves.

 

[Anna_Scott]

You are not submitting mind and will to his person but rather to his teachings which must be in accord with the deposit of faith, i.e., what has been revealed thus far via ecumenical councils, papal pronouncements (ex-cathedra), that which was/is agreed upon by the ordinary universal magisterium guided by the Pope, as well as scripture and tradition. Therefore, even if he teaches in a non-infallible way (not ex-cathedra) this does not mean that what he is saying is fallible.

p.s. If perchance the pontiff is not teaching according to what has been revealed then you are not obliged to submit mind and will to his teachings because he excommunicates himself from the body of Christ.

True, but then one would point to Lumen Gentium… In which case the response is, it’s not up to the individual believer to make the decission that this has happend on an official capacity. Now if you feel it might have, you can feel free to ask the questions and see what Church authorities think. If such a thing is true, I have no doubt there would be switch action.

Yes, we do agree on what this document is saying, moreover, nothing we have said conflicts with what it said.

josie L,

I’m starting to think I’m in the twilight zone, here.

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

josie L,

I’m starting to think I’m in the twilight zone, here.

Anna

I think that she and I are trying to say the same thing, though admittingly in a little bit of an off way.

One is too assume that when the Pope publishes something it is truth. If one doubts what the Pope is saying represents orthodoxy, then they should probably pose questions to their pastor (or if necessary Bishop), and have faith that if indeed what the Pope is teaching isn’t orthodoxy, then it will be called out pretty quickly.

Actually, that this point if such a thing happend it almost certainly would be caught pretty quickly. The faith is settled in and explained enough that it’s more difficult for a rouge bishop (even pope) to slip in heresy.

As I said, it’s actually a very simple system when you get down to it. The ony thing that can muck it up is personal sin, and I would bet personal sin on the part of the individual lay believer, rather than the Pontiff at this point.

I hope that helps,

Carlo

 

[Anna_Scott]

I can’t comment on all the books mentioned, but what’s to say that Meyerdorff or Hahn aren’t inadvertently doing scholarly cherry picking? Instead of reading someone’s take on history I prefer to read the historical writings themselves.

1holycatholic,

I agree. Reading the historical writings themselves is the ideal way to study. I think we should do this as much as possible.

However, scholars commit their lives to such study. Most of the lay population, myself included, would have a difficult time reading the full works of all the Church Fathers. So, I have to do the next best thing, which includes reading books by scholars and theologians.

I have a copy of CCC, which cites Scripture, ECFs etc. These are selected quotes. Isn’t this cherry picking, also? It’s just cherry picking that the CC claims is correct. That may or may not be the case.

My point is “cherry picking” is really inescapable. I guess we must strive to “pick” responsibly. And yes, that does sound rather comical.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think that she and I are trying to say the same thing, though admittingly in a little bit of an off way.

One is too assume that when the Pope publishes something it is truth. If one doubts what the Pope is saying represents orthodoxy, then they should probably pose questions to their pastor (or if necessary Bishop), and have faith that if indeed what the Pope is teaching isn’t orthodoxy, then it will be called out pretty quickly.

Actually, that this point if such a thing happend it almost certainly would be caught pretty quickly. The faith is settled in and explained enough that it’s more difficult for a rouge bishop (even pope) to slip in heresy.

As I said, it’s actually a very simple system when you get down to it. The ony thing that can muck it up is personal sin, and I would bet personal sin on the part of the individual lay believer, rather than the Pontiff at this point.

I hope that helps,

Carlo

I think we have exhausted the topic. Well, I’m exhausted anyway. Like I said, I will just trust that LUMEN GENTIUM means what it says.

Anna

 

[1holycatholic]

1holycatholic,

I agree. Reading the historical writings themselves is the ideal way to study. I think we should do this as much as possible.

However, scholars commit their lives to such study. Most of the lay population, myself included, would have a difficult time reading the full works of all the Church Fathers. So, I have to do the next best thing, which includes reading books by scholars and theologians.

I have a copy of CCC, which cites Scripture, ECFs etc. These are selected quotes. Isn’t this cherry picking, also? It’s just cherry picking that the CC claims is correct. That may or may not be the case.

My point is “cherry picking” is really inescapable. I guess we must strive to “pick” responsibly. And yes, that does sound rather comical.

Anna

I’ve read a lot of the ECF wirings. There’s always more to read.

I’ve read enough of the ECFs to recognize pure unadulterated hooey from some “scholars.”

I do read that type of material, adjunct to the ECF writings.

 

[Nicea325]

And you wonder why I say this is complicated? You still can’t agree with each other regarding submission of mind and will to non-infallible teachings.

Anna,

Key word:non-infallible. It is not an infallible doctrine,so why do you insist that all Catholics must agree and be on the same page? If the pope says he is a pine tree,does that mean we all must submit to his mind and will on the issue?

It is not an infallible doctrine…so why so much fuss over it? Do you agree on everything the President says?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Well, at least I am in good company. According to your statement, Pope John Paul II and Pope Pope Benedict XVI missed that teaching on hell, too.

Anna

Oh really? Do you even know what it is??

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde Rombloa,

Which post of yours about fallible teachings did I miss? Any oversight was not intentional.

Anna

I didn’t post anything about fallible teachings. Crazzeto said you may have missed my reference to you about the Church’s teaching on Hell. That’s what I responded to.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I suppose it’s not so complicated. One must submit mind and will to the Pontiff.

Anna

That is dead wrong.

 

[josie_L]

josie L,

I’m starting to think I’m in the twilight zone, here.

Anna

You failed to put in my (2nd) response to Crazzetto in which I agreed with him, so I’m confused as to why you think I’m contradicting him.

NOTE TO ALL CATHOLICS: Please direct Anna to Church teachings, i.e., stop offering your comments (this particular topic is complicated).

NOTE TO ANNA: Please stop asking Catholics what you yourself can derive from Church teachings.

God bless.