The key to settling doctrinal differences when they occur...

[JRKH]

JohnnyReb,
I just want to take the opportunity to thank you for your well thought out and interesting posts. I find you to be a clear and concise presenter of your views (I’m a little jealous:blush) It’s a joy to talk with you.

For me, that is why there have to be lines drawn as to who is Christian and who is not. I use the creeds-apostles and nicene, as a gauge. Even if not openly accepted by all Christians, the points taught in there are. JWs reject the incarnation-taught in the creed, for instance. They insist on embracing the Arian heresy rejected at Nicea.

It isn’t that you and I disagree on this, but you see, without an authoritative body - Church to define these types of things the door is open for anyone to claim he is a Christian and hold any sort of heretical belief. Without an authoritative Church, there would not even have been the early councils to provide the very things that you mention above and use as your defining parameters.

In general terms I have found this to be true. I think we all as Christians have to examine ourselves. For me the fullness of truth-as most Catholics speak of it- doesn’t matter as much as if the person has embraced the Gospel and accepted God’s grace, whether they are Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox.

As the first step onthe Journey toward God, you are absolutely right. It takes a lifetime to learn less than half of what we would like to know about God, and His salvic plan, but we must all take that first step and then keep walking in Christ.

With the praxis of Sola Scriptura-all that is required is that our doctrines or dogmas that we teach are necessary for salvation-or that save us, be in harmony with the Word of God. That is it. It doesn’t promise a flawless understanding. We see dimly as now but when Christ returns, it will all be made clear. We must also have faith.

Yet without an Authoritative Body, who determines what things are “necessary for salvation”…I asked this question on a protestant board, and found that there was not agreement among Protestants as to what was essential and what was not…
Some of the things that seperate various protestant denominations (leaving the RC and EO out of it) are…The necessity of Water Baptism, Predestination or Free Will, The real presence in the Eucharist…These are not trifles, but things that at least one side of the argument sees as touching on salvation and therefore “necessary”.
Yet they ALL claim that they are “good to go” because it’s all based on Scripture…

A couple of things. What does it mean to listen to the church? I take it you mean listen to the Catholic church. That is at the heart of the disagreement.

Well in these types of discussions I like to try and leave the Catholic church out of it and look simply at Scriptures. In other words my intent is not to make you Catholic so much as to get you to look at the biblical evidence.
Church - Ekklesia = community called out. In other words, We tell it to the community at large (or trusted representatives of that community) publically and some decision is reached. This might mean that only one side is right, or it might mean that both sides have good and bad features. Once the decision - consensus - is reached, everyone is to accept the teaching (listen to the church). And if they refuse to “listen to the Church” they are to be put out of the community. This principle is then explicitly demonstrated in Acts 15.
The Protestant model of SS and Private interpretation basically removes the need to “listen to the Church”, since private conviction, if strong enough, is sufficient to not listen to the church
The Protestant will accept Mt 18:15-18 as it applies to the local community, but fails to see how this principle grows and reaches out from the local community to the worldwide church. Their rejection of a single Authoritative Church body precludes the logical progression from individual to local group to entire church…Yet this is the model that the Bible gives. And I can find NO biblical evidens to suggest that SS and private interpretation trumps Church teaching…

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

From our perspective, CC has taken on the belief that it solely is the church universal.

I agree that this is a stumbling block - But it is because so many people view the CC as just another denomination. It is not. It (along with the EO) are the only two Churches that date back to the Apostles. All other groups split off from them. The CC did not “take on” this belief, it was given by Christ himself.

In doing so, as I started before, the CC engages in the private interpretation that it chastizes NCCs for. For us, unity is not doctrinal uniformity. I embrace what Augustine said. In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty and in all things charity. There were many reasons, not just doctrinal, that stood in the way of the reformers forming one united ecclesiastical body-political and geographic boundries played a role.

1. The Catholic church does not engage in “private interpretation”. The teachings are thoroughly vetted both publically and within the Magisterium itself against Scripture, Oral tradition and various historical writings and positions. All done prayerfully and under the protection of the Holy Spirit. In other words this is not “private interpretation”, but “Telling it to” and then “listening to The Church”.
2. Essentials unity, non essentials liberty…is a fine “catchphrase”, but as I pointed out earlier, protestants cannot even agree on what is essential…
   I might also mention that Augustine said something to the effect that he would not even believe Scripture except as moved to by the Catholic Church.
3. As for the reformers problems…I don’t find your argument here very convincing. The early Church was being hunted and persecuted first by the Jews and then by the Romans, the communities were widespread and constantly expanding. I don’t think that the Reformers had any greater difficulties than did the ECF’s.

I hope see us all work toward unity. Christ’s prayer is very appropriate. Being fully God, perhaps he foresaw some of the struggles that his church would have. Perhaps we are going to have to embrace each other despite our disagreements.

Amen to this my friend…Let us embrace as you say, but let us keep drawing each other ever more closely to unity in Christ and with each other. So that we may make St Paul smile that we heed his call in 1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Peace
James

 

[JohnnyReb]

JohnnyReb,
I just want to take the opportunity to thank you for your well thought out and interesting posts. I find you to be a clear and concise presenter of your views (I’m a little jealous)) It’s a joy to talk with you.

Thank you so much. I too have appreciated this discussion. You have been very friendly but challenging to me as well.

It isn’t that you and I disagree on this, but you see, without an authoritative body - Church to define these types of things the door is open for anyone to claim he is a Christian and hold any sort of heretical belief. Without an authoritative Church, there would not even have been the early councils to provide the very things that you mention above and use as your defining parameters.

In some ways we agree about this. The scriptures teach that the church is the pillar of truth-what does that mean? What does a pillar do? Its a support. A rock solid support. This passage from Ephesians 3 is relevent:

7 I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,11 according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It is up to the church to share the truth of God with all of humanity. In context of the passage, Paul is speaking of his work in sharing the Gospel (v 7). Would you agree that we both believe that it is the job of the church to uphold the truth and even define it? It always seems to come back to unfortnate rift in agreement regarding the nature of the church.

Yet without an Authoritative Body, who determines what things are “necessary for salvation”…I asked this question on a protestant board, …The necessity of Water Baptism, Predestination or Free Will, The real presence in the Eucharist…These are not trifles, but things that at least one side of the argument sees as touching on salvation and therefore “necessary”.
Yet they ALL claim that they are “good to go” because it’s all based on Scripture…

Yes, individuals and institutions get dogmatic about certain beliefs. I have seen what you talking about myself. That does happen. However when I have talked to most evangelical Christians-Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostal or Converative Lutheran or Anglican or non-denominational-and asked “What makes group X non-Christian” (JWs, Mormons, etc…) the answers are similar-rejection of the Bible as the Word of God, denial of Christ’s deity, resurrection, incarnation or whatever. The division that irrates me often involves Catholics and Orthodox. Some say they are not, some say individuals may be if they embrace the true Gospel despite Rome’s “heresies” others say they are. Those that deny CC and OC are Christian generally are ignorant of their teachings mostly because of “works righteousness” .

Quote:
A couple of things. What does it mean to listen to the church? I take it you mean listen to the Catholic church. That is at the heart of the disagreement.

Well in these types of discussions I like to try and leave the Catholic church out of it and look simply at Scriptures. In other words my intent is not to make you Catholic so much as to get you to look at the biblical evidence.
And if they refuse to “listen to the Church” they are to be put out of the community. This principle is then explicitly demonstrated in Acts 15.

I appreciate this approach. The only issue I take with the whole thing is that some of the decisions made by the council (such as to refrain from blood) were not permanently bind, others were (that we do not need to circumcise Gentiles). They did listen to the Holy Spirit at the time and followed his leading. Later on, God revealed his will for the issues involved and provided direct spiritual teaching that addressed the issue in Pauls’ letters.

The Protestant model of SS and Private interpretation basically removes the need to “listen to the Church”, since private conviction, if strong enough, is sufficient to not listen to the church
The Protestant will accept Mt 18:15-18 as it applies to the local community, but fails to see how this principle grows and reaches out from the local community to the worldwide church.

I would say that in the case of non-Catholics, it only goes as far as their denomination. They will move beyond the boundries of the local church. I saw that in obtaining membership and later credentials in the A/G. When getting my license-my local church and local board approved me. However the general council saw what they determined was a flaw in one of my theological positions. They asked for clarification and a written statement that I would conform to the A/G position. I gladly gave it to them at the time.

Quote:
From our perspective, CC has taken on the belief that it solely is the church universal.

I agree that this is a stumbling block - But it is because so many people view the CC as just another denomination. It is not. It (along with the EO) are the only two Churches that date back to the Apostles. All other groups split off from them. The CC did not “take on” this belief, it was given by Christ himself.

That is where we disagree about the nature of the church.

 

[JohnnyReb]

1. The Catholic church does not engage in “private interpretation”. The teachings are thoroughly vetted both publically and within the Magisterium itself against Scripture, Oral tradition and various historical writings and positions. All done prayerfully and under the protection of the Holy Spirit. In other words this is not “private interpretation”, but “Telling it to” and then “listening to The Church”.
2. Essentials unity, non essentials liberty…is a fine “catchphrase”, but as I pointed out earlier, protestants cannot even agree on what is essential…
   I might also mention that Augustine said something to the effect that he would not even believe Scripture except as moved to by the Catholic Church.
3. As for the reformers problems…I don’t find your argument here very convincing. The early Church was being hunted and persecuted first by the Jews and then by the Romans, the communities were widespread and constantly expanding. I don’t think that the Reformers had any greater difficulties than did the ECF’s.

As for the the first point, when a church claims to be infallible, it is accountable to no one or nothing but itself and their own understanding. That is what makes the CC approach a private interpretation. I hate comparing the CC to non Christian groups, but it is the same approach take by the Mormons. Mormon men will not take off their sacred temple garments or magic underwear I call it, even when they shower. They will lay their arm outside the tub with the garments resting on them, because their church demands that they never should take them off. The Mormon has no grounds to question their church because their church claims to be infallible.

Was Augustine referring to the Catholic Church (Rome) or the Catholic Church (body of Christ)?

As for the third point, that is a valid point. Scholars are not even sure how unified the early church was though. Both of us would like to think it was unified on every thing, but even the necessity of the councils proves that it was not the case.

Quote:
I hope see us all work toward unity. Christ’s prayer is very appropriate. Being fully God, perhaps he foresaw some of the struggles that his church would have. Perhaps we are going to have to embrace each other despite our disagreements.

Amen to this my friend…Let us embrace as you say, but let us keep drawing each other ever more closely to unity in Christ and with each other. So that we may make St Paul smile that we heed his call in 1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
Peace
James

Amen. I hated seeing in one discussion Catholics and Episcopalians throwing stones at each other because of the sexual sins that have occured in each body. We need to be lifting each other up. When disagreements occur, Christians should submit to their leaders over them, they should take it to the church. I do not believe that the CC is infallible, so their teachings are subject to evaluation by the church universal as much as my beliefs are or the beliefs of the Anglicans or Lutherans or Pentecostals.

 

[JRKH]

Thank you so much. I too have appreciated this discussion. You have been very friendly but challenging to me as well.

I’m glad that our conversation is being as valuable to you as it is to me.

In some ways we agree about this. The scriptures teach that the church is the pillar of truth-what does that mean? What does a pillar do? Its a support. A rock solid support. This passage from Ephesians 3 is relevent:

7 I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,11 according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It is up to the church to share the truth of God with all of humanity. In context of the passage, Paul is speaking of his work in sharing the Gospel (v 7). Would you agree that we both believe that it is the job of the church to uphold the truth and even define it? It always seems to come back to unfortnate rift in agreement regarding the nature of the church.

Absolutely we agree on this. But of course our ability to effectively “make known” this truth is adversely affected by the rifts.

Yes, individuals and institutions get dogmatic about certain beliefs. I have seen what you talking about myself. That does happen. However when I have talked to most evangelical Christians-Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostal or Converative Lutheran or Anglican or non-denominational-and asked “What makes group X non-Christian” (JWs, Mormons, etc…) the answers are similar-rejection of the Bible as the Word of God, denial of Christ’s deity, resurrection, incarnation or whatever. The division that irrates me often involves Catholics and Orthodox. Some say they are not, some say individuals may be if they embrace the true Gospel despite Rome’s “heresies” others say they are. Those that deny CC and OC are Christian generally are ignorant of their teachings mostly because of “works righteousness” .

I agree with the above. However, the problem of essentiasl goes even deeper in that various protestants who consider each other Christina will still disagree no what is essential for salvation.

I appreciate this approach. The only issue I take with the whole thing is that some of the decisions made by the council (such as to refrain from blood) were not permanently bind, others were (that we do not need to circumcise Gentiles). They did listen to the Holy Spirit at the time and followed his leading. Later on, God revealed his will for the issues involved and provided direct spiritual teaching that addressed the issue in Pauls’ letters.

While I’m no Scholar, I suspect that the “blood” issue had more meaning in that time than we might attach to it today. So the various things in Paul’s letters that might relate to the decision(s) at Jerusalem are more likely clarifications than changes.We see this sort of thing go on all the time. For instance the recent flap about the pope and condoms… a poor example, but still relevent. The Pope made a statement that was not misquoted, but was misunderstood and fruther explanation, clarification, was needed.

That is where we disagree about the nature of the church.

Fair enough. This would be a thread all to itself.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

As for the the first point, when a church claims to be infallible, it is accountable to no one or nothing but itself and their own understanding. That is what makes the CC approach a private interpretation. I hate comparing the CC to non Christian groups, but it is the same approach take by the Mormons. Mormon men will not take off their sacred temple garments or magic underwear I call it, even when they shower. They will lay their arm outside the tub with the garments resting on them, because their church demands that they never should take them off. The Mormon has no grounds to question their church because their church claims to be infallible.

Well - When I am speaking of “private interpretation” I am not speaking of it in an institutional manner but in an individual one.
As an example, when you were seeking your A/G credentials you said that you had to submit your views to them and that they needed more info from you in order to make sure you were “OK”. In doing this you were submitting yourself to “the church” and the church’s doctrines and teachings. You were not acting on “private interpretation”…
It appears from your writings though that you are no longer a memeber of the A/G. Why is that? Do you now disagree with their theology? If so then you defied the church and acted on Private interpretation…You and the bible and your understanding trumped the church…and since you can simply join another “Christian” church holding views more closely to yours…What does this say about “listen to The Church”
Caveat: The above may not apply directly to you - I don’t know if my assumptions are correct, but the principle applies.

Was Augustine referring to the Catholic Church (Rome) or the Catholic Church (body of Christ)?

A good question and one well worth pondering, particularly when one ponders on the authority needed in order to determine the canon of the Scriptures in the first place. Authority also needed in order to make the decisions of the various councils univerally accepted.

As for the third point, that is a valid point. Scholars are not even sure how unified the early church was though. Both of us would like to think it was unified on every thing, but even the necessity of the councils proves that it was not the case.

Bingo!! and you know what the councils mean to me? They mean the absolute essential underlying desire by the Early Church to be “One”…The councils came out of a desire in the early church to overcome conflicts and dissentions. A desire to resolve matters, formally and authoritative, for the Good of the entire ody of Christ.

Amen. I hated seeing in one discussion Catholics and Episcopalians throwing stones at each other because of the sexual sins that have occured in each body. We need to be lifting each other up. When disagreements occur, Christians should submit to their leaders over them, they should take it to the church. I do not believe that the CC is infallible, so their teachings are subject to evaluation by the church universal as much as my beliefs are or the beliefs of the Anglicans or Lutherans or Pentecostals.

…subject to the Church universal… hhmmmm… So…
Wwhen will the “Church universal” meet in authoritative council to pass it’s judgement on the teachings of the Catholic Church (and while their at it, on each others)?

How can the “church universal” pass judgement when it doesn’t even agree amongst itself? When it defines itself as “invisible” (body of believers) and basically non-authoritative (each group is independant of the others)?
When it must “agree to disagree” on such basic matters as the real presence (can both sides be right)?
How can anyone “tell it to The (universal) Church” under these conditions? How can anyone “Listen to the (universal) Church” when the universal church contradicts itself?

These questions above are the ones that sent me back home to the Catholic Church for two reasons.
First and foremost there is simply no biblical, or early church evidence that a disunified Church was Christ’s intent. In fact the biblical evidence points the other way. It points toward a visible, united and authoritative Church.
Secondly, no protestant I have ever talked to or challanged on the matter has been able to show positive biblical or historical evidence for the kind of independence they wish to claim for themselves (relying on the bible as sole authority). The only evidence given is negative evidence…By that I mean that instead of showing where the bible DOES support their view, they try to show where the Bible DOES NOT support the RC/EO view. This generally consists of reinterpreting certain verses and passages in the bible and/or artificially limiting them.

They can’t answer the question - Why didn’t the judaizers just set up another “Church” in Antioch? Why didn’t Paul suggest this as a solution? If the Body of Christ is suppose to be doctrinally independant (to the point of holding opposing views on baptism, the real presence etc…), why the need for a council of Church leadership to settle the matter?

Peace
James

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Was Augustine referring to the Catholic Church (Rome) or the Catholic Church (body of Christ)?

The CC because there was no distinction. The Church of Rome belonged to the CC. The term ‘Roman’ was used much later by those against Rome’s authority…

 

[JohnnyReb]

Well - When I am speaking of “private interpretation” I am not speaking of it in an institutional manner but in an individual one.You were not acting on “private interpretation”…
It appears from your writings though that you are no longer a memeber of the A/G. Why is that? Do you now disagree with their theology? If so then you defied the church and acted on Private interpretation…You and the bible and your understanding trumped the church…and since you can simply join another “Christian” church holding views more closely to yours…What does this say about “listen to The Church”
Caveat: The above may not apply directly to you - I don’t know if my assumptions are correct, but the principle applies.

Thanks James. I do see that you are just using my example and you don’t mean anything personal by it. Let’s just say that I am much more Catholic in my theology now that I was then. The AG is a wonderful organization with many good people, and many of my friends to this day. Pentecostalism deviates too much from historical Christianity for me. My history is Pentecostalism to Catholicism to Anglicanism.

In fact, last time I spoke with the local parish Priest about some of my personal misgivings with Catholicism, I told him that I agreed with 85-90 percent of it. He told me, good, I am probably doing better than the vast majority who will receive the Eucharist at Mass tomorrow. I appreciated his honesty about that.

So I a way, I did make a private interpretation. I never claimed that I didn’t. In fact, for me to deny private interpretation, or anyone else, we have to make a private interpretation that that I cannot make a private interpretation.

A good question and one well worth pondering, particularly when one ponders on the authority needed in order to determine the canon of the Scriptures in the first place. Authority also needed in order to make the decisions of the various councils univerally accepted.

Ahh the formation of the canon, another long discussion that I have been a part of here and at other forums (CARM for instance a few years ago)

Bingo!! and you know what the councils mean to me? They mean the absolute essential underlying desire by the Early Church to be “One”…The councils came out of a desire in the early church to overcome conflicts and dissentions. A desire to resolve matters, formally and authoritative, for the Good of the entire ody of Christ.

I hear you. I think there are only a few ways to deal with these problems, doctrinal uniformity (Catholic/Orthodox way), or unity that is going to allow for doctrinal diversity, sort of a “those doctrines are secondary” approach-my approach. Yet another way is to use the Bible alone to prove why you are right and everyone else is wrong. That leads to endless debates and dissention among God’s people. I can appreciate the Catholic/Orthodox handling of these matters.

…subject to the Church universal… hhmmmm… So…
Wwhen will the “Church universal” meet in authoritative council to pass it’s judgement on the teachings of the Catholic Church (and while their at it, on each others)?

How can the “church universal” pass judgement when it doesn’t even agree amongst itself? When it defines itself as “invisible” (body of believers) and basically non-authoritative (each group is independant of the others)?
When it must “agree to disagree” on such basic matters as the real presence (can both sides be right)?
How can anyone “tell it to The (universal) Church” under these conditions? How can anyone “Listen to the (universal) Church” when the universal church contradicts itself?

These questions above are the ones that sent me back home to the Catholic Church for two reasons.
First and foremost there is simply no biblical, or early church evidence that a disunified Church was Christ’s intent. In fact the biblical evidence points the other way. It points toward a visible, united and authoritative Church.
Secondly, no protestant I have ever talked to or challanged on the matter has been able to show positive biblical or historical evidence for the kind of independence they wish to claim for themselves (relying on the bible as sole authority). The only evidence given is negative evidence…
They can’t answer the question - Why didn’t the judaizers just set up another “Church” in Antioch? Why didn’t Paul suggest this as a solution? If the Body of Christ is suppose to be doctrinally independant (to the point of holding opposing views on baptism, the real presence etc…), why the need for a council of Church leadership to settle the matter?

Peace
James

That’s valid point. My reasons for not returning to Catholicism at the this time are not really doctrinal or belief oriented in the sense of particular doctrines or beliefs. It has to do with the fact that as I understand it, Catholicism is an all or nothing proposal. We are not to receive the Eucharist if we are in disagreement with any church teachings. I know we do have doubts at times. The church claims to be infallible, so if it is even wrong on one point of doctrine or dogma, that claim is ruined. It casts doubt on the church’s credibility. Aside from the Orthodox, no other body claims infallbility for itself. So if there is a slight disagreement with their doctrine, I can still remain part of the communion. I did so as a member of the AG for 10 years.

Last time I went to confession the priest urged me to return to the church because he could tell my intent was not to openly oppose the church or cause division. They were caused by a genuine desire to understand the truth and wrestle with it, something we all do “Lord, I believe, help me with my unbelief” sort of thing. I know that conflict is not going to resolved here at CAF, but on my own with God.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks James. I do see that you are just using my example and you don’t mean anything personal by it. Let’s just say that I am much more Catholic in my theology now that I was then. The AG is a wonderful organization with many good people, and many of my friends to this day. Pentecostalism deviates too much from historical Christianity for me. My history is Pentecostalism to Catholicism to Anglicanism.

In fact, last time I spoke with the local parish Priest about some of my personal misgivings with Catholicism, I told him that I agreed with 85-90 percent of it. He told me, good, I am probably doing better than the vast majority who will receive the Eucharist at Mass tomorrow. I appreciated his honesty about that.

I would agree with that pastor as well. Thanks for the background info. It helps.

So in a way, I did make a private interpretation. I never claimed that I didn’t. In fact, for me to deny private interpretation, or anyone else, we have to make a private interpretation that that I cannot make a private interpretation.

I liked that last line…It all does get a bit dicey - eh?

Ahh the formation of the canon, another long discussion that I have been a part of here and at other forums (CARM for instance a few years ago)

“hehehehehe”, he chuckled, wringing his hands, sensing another rabbit warren conversation topic. “Easy to get into, but difficult to get out of…bwahahaha…”

I hear you. I think there are only a few ways to deal with these problems, doctrinal uniformity (Catholic/Orthodox way), or unity that is going to allow for doctrinal diversity, sort of a “those doctrines are secondary” approach-my approach. Yet another way is to use the Bible alone to prove why you are right and everyone else is wrong. That leads to endless debates and dissention among God’s people. I can appreciate the Catholic/Orthodox handling of these matters.

I’m not against diversity - on some matters and where diversity doesn’t interfere with truth, but on matters where both sides cannot be right, and it touches on salvation there has to be an authority if for no other reason than to promote and distribute the determination of the Church universal.

That’s valid point. My reasons for not returning to Catholicism at the this time are not really doctrinal or belief oriented in the sense of particular doctrines or beliefs. It has to do with the fact that as I understand it, Catholicism is an all or nothing proposal. We are not to receive the Eucharist if we are in disagreement with any church teachings. I know we do have doubts at times. The church claims to be infallible, so if it is even wrong on one point of doctrine or dogma, that claim is ruined. It casts doubt on the church’s credibility. Aside from the Orthodox, no other body claims infallbility for itself. So if there is a slight disagreement with their doctrine, I can still remain part of the communion. I did so as a member of the AG for 10 years.

I can understand this. I struggled with it for years. But I have to say I think you are wrong about having to agree to everything. I don’t agree with everything…because I don’t understand everything. But because I don’t understand everything, I give the benefit of the doubt to The ancient, historical Church. Do you see what I mean?
The Church was given the authority to “bind and loose”…“whatever”…and that is pretty broad attitude. I am to listen to The Church…Jesus says so. I know that may sound simplistic, but there it is.
Because I know that the Church has this authority, given from the very mouth of my Lord and King, I must, in good conscience and obedience to my King, believe what I understand, and accept (not reject) that which I do not understand.

The great advantage of this is that, now that I have settled that matter for myself, I can get on with the task of “work(ing) out my salvation with fear and trembling”; of growing in Love for God and neighbor; of caring for my wife etc…I don’t have to examine every belief and judge for myself.

Last time I went to confession the priest urged me to return to the church because he could tell my intent was not to openly oppose the church or cause division. They were caused by a genuine desire to understand the truth and wrestle with it, something we all do “Lord, I believe, help me with my unbelief” sort of thing. I know that conflict is not going to resolved here at CAF, but on my own with God.

I think your confessor is very wise indeed. With the great depth and richness in the Church, no one can fully understand everything. And even after a lifetime of study whatever we do understand willpale in comparison to the reality of the beatific vision. Mybe that is why I am so drawn toward the mystical tradition rather than the more rational.

Peace
James

 

[JohnnyReb]

I would agree with that pastor as well. Thanks for the background info. It helps.

I’m not against diversity - on some matters and where diversity doesn’t interfere with truth, but on matters where both sides cannot be right, and it touches on salvation there has to be an authority if for no other reason than to promote and distribute the determination of the Church universal.

I can understand this. I struggled with it for years. But I have to say I think you are wrong about having to agree to everything. I don’t agree with everything…because I don’t understand everything. But because I don’t understand everything, I give the benefit of the doubt to The ancient, historical Church. Do you see what I mean?
The Church was given the authority to “bind and loose”…“whatever”…and that is pretty broad attitude. I am to listen to The Church…Jesus says so. I know that may sound simplistic, but there it is.
Because I know that the Church has this authority, given from the very mouth of my Lord and King, I must, in good conscience and obedience to my King, believe what I understand, and accept (not reject) that which I do not understand.

The great advantage of this is that, now that I have settled that matter for myself, I can get on with the task of “work(ing) out my salvation with fear and trembling”; of growing in Love for God and neighbor; of caring for my wife etc…I don’t have to examine every belief and judge for myself.

I think your confessor is very wise indeed. With the great depth and richness in the Church, no one can fully understand everything. And even after a lifetime of study whatever we do understand willpale in comparison to the reality of the beatific vision. Mybe that is why I am so drawn toward the mystical tradition rather than the more rational.

Peace
James

I think he too offered helpful advice. I do tend to over complicate things. Can’t you tell?

There is great wisdom in this approach and understand why you and other Catholics (and myself previously) take it. So many times Christians get caught up in needing to prove themselves right about this or that. As you point out, the hardliners who cling tightly to their positions and have to do this cause confusion for many like you and Joe, the OP.

When it comes to drawing the lines as to what is essential and makes one a Christian or not, there is no list of doctrines in scripture. The only way to do this is to use tradition in a way, to look to the life and practice of the church. The Fundementalist movement was a reaction against modernist rationalism which embraced 5 central doctrines that were under attack at the time: The Bible as the Word of God, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, his substitutionary atonement for our sins, the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the immenient return of Christ. This list is not in the Bible, but each of these things are taught in the Bible. Does someone embrace these? Good, accept them as a brother in Christ and agree to disagree about peripheral doctrines-like speaking in tongues and Calvinism.

Tradition is more than a list of doctrines that are not found in the Bible. I have come to see it as also including beliefs developed in the life and practice of the church by its divinely inspired and guided actions down through the centuries.

Any belief in Sola Scriptura requires us to tip our hat to tradition and the church’s authority. Any honest Protestant will admit this. The Bible does not have a divinely inspired table of contents.

I think the one thing that seperates Catholics and Protestants and maybe always will is the nature of the church.

 

[JRKH]

I think he too offered helpful advice. I do tend to over complicate things. Can’t you tell?

Been there - done that…:banghead::hypno:
Maybe that’s why you and I see things so similarly.

There is great wisdom in this approach and understand why you and other Catholics (and myself previously) take it. So many times Christians get caught up in needing to prove themselves right about this or that. As you point out, the hardliners who cling tightly to their positions and have to do this cause confusion for many like you and Joe, the OP.

When it comes to drawing the lines as to what is essential and makes one a Christian or not, there is no list of doctrines in scripture. The only way to do this is to use tradition in a way, to look to the life and practice of the church. The Fundementalist movement was a reaction against modernist rationalism which embraced 5 central doctrines that were under attack at the time: The Bible as the Word of God, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, his substitutionary atonement for our sins, the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the immenient return of Christ. This list is not in the Bible, but each of these things are taught in the Bible. Does someone embrace these? Good, accept them as a brother in Christ and agree to disagree about peripheral doctrines-like speaking in tongues and Calvinism.

Tradition is more than a list of doctrines that are not found in the Bible. I have come to see it as also including beliefs developed in the life and practice of the church by its divinely inspired and guided actions down through the centuries.

Any belief in Sola Scriptura requires us to tip our hat to tradition and the church’s authority. Any honest Protestant will admit this. The Bible does not have a divinely inspired table of contents.

All good points.

I think the one thing that seperates Catholics and Protestants and maybe always will is the nature of the church.
Could you expand on this - Nature of the Church a bit? I’ve heard this before, but I’m not sure I quite understand what is meant by it.

Peace
James

 

[JohnnyReb]

Been there - done that…:banghead::hypno:
Maybe that’s why you and I see things so similarly.

All good points.

I think the one thing that seperates Catholics and Protestants and maybe always will is the nature of the church.

Could you expand on this - Nature of the Church a bit? I’ve heard this before, but I’m not sure I quite understand what is meant by it.

Peace
James

Sure I will. The disagreement I see between the CC and Protestants, and Orthodox for that matter, is that the CC sees the church as one visible, united institution that is hierarchial. Protestants see the church as transcending organizations, but as the body of believers. Institutions are just how believers have organized themselves, I suppose.

The agreements I see are that both sides see Christ as the head of the church. Non CCs wrongly say that Catholics say that the Pope is the head of the church and not Christ. We also agree that the no one can truly start a church other than Christ.

 

[Nicea325]

Sure I will. The disagreement I see between the CC and Protestants, and Orthodox for that matter, is that the CC sees the church as one visible, united institution that is hierarchial. Protestants see the church as transcending organizations, but as the body of believers. Institutions are just how believers have organized themselves, I suppose.

Actually your statement is not entirely true. The CC has always taught the body of believers is also the church,not simply hiearchial. Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven,not the democracy of Heaven.

The agreements I see are that both sides see Christ as the head of the church. Non CCs wrongly say that Catholics say that the Pope is the head of the church and not Christ.

The key phrase: Non CC’s **wrongly say **that Catholics say that the Pope is the head. Non-Catholics rarely take the time to truly find out what the CC truly teaches,rather they assume which is normally wrong.

We also agree that the no one can truly start a church other than Christ.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Honestly I have heard the opposite but I actually have more hope from talking to other Christians here.

Let me expand a bit though. There are Christians are of many denominations here who once you get to know a bit, you realize they are really devote people, hold no animosity toward you or your faith. And farnkly it isn’t hat that they don’t believe what you believe. They really just don’t know for usre, and are looking for their own best interest.

Now obviously there are many in the 20-25 yo range who also arrive full of self and with just enough education and practical experienece to be dangerous.

Nonetheless to the larger part I see those willing to talk and I believe if the conversations were in person and a real in person effort was made. We could be much father alnog this path of correcting issues instead of creating more denominations.

Just my 2-cents.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Actually your statement is not entirely true. The CC has always taught the body of believers is also the church,not simply hiearchial. Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven,not the democracy of Heaven.

I like that, it being the kingdom of heaven, not the democracy of heaven. I was always troubled about in the low church traditions if a pastor said something wrong he could be voted out on the whim of the congregation. Sometimes its his job to say things we don’t want to hear.

I do have a question. I know the CC says that Protestants are seperated brothers and sisters in Christ. In what sense are they part of the church? I mean we are seen as believers, not unbelievers, right?

The key phrase: Non CC’s **wrongly say **that Catholics say that the Pope is the head. Non-Catholics rarely take the time to truly find out what the CC truly teaches,rather they assume which is normally wrong.

We also agree that the no one can truly start a church other than Christ.

So true. I know before I studied Catholicism, I believed alot of things that were untrue about it. Such a shame so many still do.

 

[JRKH]

I like that, it being the kingdom of heaven, not the democracy of heaven. I was always troubled about in the low church traditions if a pastor said something wrong he could be voted out on the whim of the congregation. Sometimes its his job to say things we don’t want to hear.

This has always bothered me too. To me what you point out above is kind of the extreme end-result of the rejection of ekklesial authority.

I do have a question. I know the CC says that Protestants are seperated brothers and sisters in Christ. In what sense are they part of the church? I mean we are seen as believers, not unbelievers, right?

There is a wonderful section in the Catechism on this very thing under “Wounds to Unity” (beginning with para 817) Para 819 is probably the best answer to your question, but the entire section about the Chuch being One is well worth the read.

So true. I know before I studied Catholicism, I believed alot of things that were untrue about it. Such a shame so many still do.

Yes it is. I so glad there are those like yourself to take the time to learn. I think it means a lot more when a non-catholic corrects another non-catholic about what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

James said:
Could you expand on this - Nature of the Church a bit? I’ve heard this before, but I’m not sure I quite understand what is meant by it.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought perhaps this is what you were refering to but I wasn’t sure. I have heard and discussed this with protestants on another board and after much discussion and reflection I find I have a couple of basic problems with the protestant church model.
To me, this explanation is a justification that is looking at it from the wrong end…In other words, the protestants, with their rejection of authority and many divisions need a definition that will allow for this. So from where they are now and looking backwards they say, “The organization doesn’t matter, it’s the belief that’s important regardless of where or how you worship”.
But look at it from the other end and something quite different emerges. Look at it from the first century onward. Christians were one group - scattered and even hunted, yet they sought doctrinal unity by communicating and by council etc.
In other words they desired visible authoritative unity. And that to me is the key. The Church structure results not from something imposed, but from something desired by the Early Ekklesia. Christ recognized the need and granted the authority (keys, bind and loose…whatever, tell it to the church, pillar and bulwark, be one as he and the father are one… etc.)
Early on there was one Church and it strove for Unity in Spirit and in Doctrine, driven by a desire to be one people, one church, one faith, one baptism one Gospel.
So you see, by looking forward from the beginning, the development of the Church structure was organic and driven by the desire for unity and led by the Holy Spirit. It was not artificially imposed.
It wasn’t until the last 500 years that this idea of “invisible church”, “body of believers” model was espoused and accepted by the protestant churches.

While I can’t say I expressed myself terribly well, I did write a blog on this at another website. It was in response to a discussion we were having there but you might find it an interesting read. Here is a link

The agreements I see are that both sides see Christ as the head of the church. Non CCs wrongly say that Catholics say that the Pope is the head of the church and not Christ. We also agree that the no one can truly start a church other than Christ.

Yes the Pope gets a lot of flak - and undeservedly so.
I have to disagree though with the last statement. Anyone can start a church, and many have. I would not say that each and all are christian churches even if they claim it. That Church in Westboro Church that wanted to burn copies of the Koran and is demonstrating at the funerals of dead soldiers comes to mind. I don’t believe that Christ has anything to do with such groups.

Peace
James

 

[JohnnyReb]

Thanks for the clarification. I thought perhaps this is what you were refering to but I wasn’t sure. I have heard and discussed this with protestants on another board and after much discussion and reflection I find I have a couple of basic problems with the protestant church model.
To me, this explanation is a justification that is looking at it from the wrong end…In other words, the protestants, with their rejection of authority and many divisions need a definition that will allow for this. So from where they are now and looking backwards they say, “The organization doesn’t matter, it’s the belief that’s important regardless of where or how you worship”.
But look at it from the other end and something quite different emerges. Look at it from the first century onward. Christians were one group - scattered and even hunted, yet they sought doctrinal unity by communicating and by council etc.
In other words they desired visible authoritative unity. And that to me is the key. The Church structure results not from something imposed, but from something desired by the Early Ekklesia. Christ recognized the need and granted the authority (keys, bind and loose…whatever, tell it to the church, pillar and bulwark, be one as he and the father are one… etc.)

One of the not so desireable legacies of the Protestant reformation, Protestants will admit, is the willingness of Protestants to seperate over very minor issues without agreeing to disagree, and even seperate based on cultural influences. The color of carpet in the sanctuary has actually split churches down the middle before. I’m not kidding. While Catholics have the dissention and disagreements (over the Novus Ordo vs Trinidentine Mass, SSPX etc…) you guys are splitting apart over them.

We don’t reject authority, just have a different view of what it means, and I think there is the rub. Catholics are quick to point to the disagreements that exist among non-Catholics as proof that Protestants view of authority is lacking, but in doing so, often overemphasize the disagreements and gloss over the agreements.

Early on there was one Church and it strove for Unity in Spirit and in Doctrine, driven by a desire to be one people, one church, one faith, one baptism one Gospel.
So you see, by looking forward from the beginning, the development of the Church structure was organic and driven by the desire for unity and led by the Holy Spirit. It was not artificially imposed.
It wasn’t until the last 500 years that this idea of “invisible church”, “body of believers” model was espoused and accepted by the protestant churches.

While I can’t say I expressed myself terribly well, I did write a blog on this at another website. It was in response to a discussion we were having there but you might find it an interesting read. Here is a link

The church has always struggled for unity-doctrinally and ecclesiastically. The the first few centuries, Christians had incomplete canons, used some extra books, many doctrinal issues were not settled. Still today, all of Christendom cannot settle on issues such as the role of the church, the Pope, flioque, miracles, the Eucharist, predestination, and the like.

Either one of two ways of settling this must be embraced. Believe that your church is infallible and authoritative to settle these matters, or accept doctrinal uniformity and accept other Christians despite those differences. Is there any other way?

 

[JRKH]

One of the not so desireable legacies of the Protestant reformation, Protestants will admit, is the willingness of Protestants to seperate over very minor issues without agreeing to disagree, and even seperate based on cultural influences. The color of carpet in the sanctuary has actually split churches down the middle before. I’m not kidding. While Catholics have the dissention and disagreements (over the Novus Ordo vs Trinidentine Mass, SSPX etc…) you guys are splitting apart over them.

Good points as always. Yes there are some issues within the church that seem to cluster around a pre-Vat II and Post-Vat II viewpoint. But I have to say that those who are truly adamant in their rejection of Rome are few while groups like the SSPX are still in talks with the Holy See. Rome is working to heal the wounds…

We don’t reject authority, just have a different view of what it means, and I think there is the rub. Catholics are quick to point to the disagreements that exist among non-Catholics as proof that Protestants view of authority is lacking, but in doing so, often overemphasize the disagreements and gloss over the agreements.

As to protestant differences, yes folks can and will point to splits occurring over trivial matters, but to me they pale when compared to the opposing schools of thought that are not so much denominational in nature as they are theological. OSAS, Real Presence, Baptism to name just a couple. Both using Scripture:
One protestant School of thought teaches the Real Presence while another teaches a symbolic presence. They both cannot be right.
One teaches that Water Baptism is necessary to salvation, another does not. They can’t both be right.
One teaches that once “saved” you cannot lose your salvation, anoth teaches you can lose tour salvation. They can’t both be right.

What kind of definition of “Authority” divides the One Truth of the Mind of God and tries to claim that both sides are right? or that both sides are acceptable? That’s not authority like Jesus desired for us.
Through Scripture teh Holy Spirit calls for:

John 17:20-21
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
How much division is allowed in the “oneness” described above?

Rom 15:5-6
5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, **that all of you agree **and that **there be no dissensions **among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

2 Cor 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

Php 1:27
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

1 Pet 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.
The common theme here unity of mind, praising with one voice, avoiding dissention etc. Combine these, exhortations with the instructions in Mt 18:15-18 and the example in Acts 15 and I just don’t see a Scriptural picture of the “Protestant Model” of authority.

The church has always struggled for unity-doctrinally and ecclesiastically. The the first few centuries, Christians had incomplete canons, used some extra books, many doctrinal issues were not settled. Still today, all of Christendom cannot settle on issues such as the role of the church, the Pope, flioque, miracles, the Eucharist, predestination, and the like.

Yes the Catholic/EO “biblical” model is messy and yes we fight among ourselves - we’ve been doing it from the get-go, but that desire for unity - the unity that Christ prayed for is still there.
As for the issues that “All of Christendom” can’t settle on? The ancient Churches (RC/EO have pretty much settled on. There are some issues that still need resolved, mostly semantics and getting over historical issues. But things liek the Eucharist, miracles, predestination - all were pretty much resolved long before Luther and Calvin. The Pope - more a matter of specifics than an outright rejection of primacy. The filoque, to me it’s primarily semantics…I’m sure that the theologens will be able to figure that one out eventually.

Either one of two ways of settling this must be embraced. Believe that your church is infallible and authoritative to settle these matters, or accept doctrinal uniformity and accept other Christians despite those differences. Is there any other way?

I think perhaps you mistyped a bit above. I’m sure you meant accept doctrinal non-uniformity and accept the differences…
Christ and the bible teach me to seek authoritative unity. Both of the most ancient Christian Churches are authoritative. So I have to opt for choice one.
My Protestant brothers, some of who are beginning to see this biblical model too, need to rekindle the desire for unity - visible and authoritative - among the various groups so that they can come together and hash out their differences in humility and to so to answer Christ’s prayer in John 17:20-21.

Peace
James