The Universal Church

[mcq72]

it’s reasonable to think then, that maybe Schaff , was feeling that point Irenaeus is making and he didn’t like it

Well, i reread his quote, and not sure he betrays any bias. The only bias he alludes to is the text giving rise to “much discussion”. Is this not true, the much discussion?

One can guess he was apologetic to P view, but another option is that he was apologetic that the translation does not end " much discussion", or leads to it. Discussion could end when translation is easy and stronger in its position , one way or the other. He seems to say, one can’t make the translation more in favor of papacy explicitly, or against it, to end much discussion. Certainly as an historian he has seen point blank statements for and against papacy explicitly. Unfortunatley, this text is not one of those, hence “discussion” still on what Iranaeus meant.

Just thinking back at you out loud…lol

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

it’s reasonable to think then, that maybe Schaff , was feeling that point Irenaeus is making and he didn’t like it

Well, i reread his quote, and not sure he betrays any bias. The only bias he alludes to is the text giving rise to “much discussion”. Is this not true, the much discussion?

One can guess he was apologetic to P view, but another option is that he was apologetic that the translation does not end " much discussion", or leads to it. Discussion could end when translation is easy and stronger in its position , one way or the other. He seems to say, one can’t make the translation more in favor of papacy explicitly, or against it, to end much discussion. Certainly as an historian he has seen point blank statements for and against papacy explicitly. Unfortunatley, this text is not one of those, hence “discussion” still on what Iranaeus meant.

Just thinking back at you out loud…lol

In the section we’re referencing, from Irenaeus, Re: authority, in this section of “Against Heresies” Bk 3 ch 3 para 2-3 Irenaeus is addressing authority

Irenaeus gives his Reasons for his points

Because

Gnosticism possessed no central authority for either [doctrine] or [discipline]; considered as a whole it had no organization similar to the vast organization of the [Catholic] [Church]. It was but a large conglomeration of [sects], of which [Marcionism] alone attempted in some way to rival the constitution of the [Church], and even [Marcionism] had no unity. No other classification of these [sects] is possible than that according to their main trend of thought. We can therefore distinguish: (a) [Syrian] or [Semitic]; (b) Hellenistic or Alexandrian; (c) [dualistic]; (d) [antinomian] Gnostics.

was excerpted from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

So

Irenaeus defends ONE authority in particular, and he shows pertinent names in succession, as to where that authority comes from.

As we know

Just as Paul warned Bp Titus 3:10 against those who cause

αἱρετικὸν hairetikos
disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, factious, schismatic, a follower of false doctrine

so then

Irenaeus argues the same against the Gnostics.

And

in extension, Schaff, as he reads Irenaeus arguments, can’t avoid reflecting on his own errors in where HE is, in this matter as well

again,

just thinking out loud

 

[mcq72]

in extension, Schaff, as he reads Irenaeus arguments, can’t avoid reflecting on his own errors in where HE is, in this matter as well

again,

just thinking out loud

You are thinking out loud in your dreams steve…lol

Actually, like good Catholics, and any Christian worth his salt, he may work this out in fear and trembling before the Lord at one point or another, but still resting in ones given convictions , trusting in the Lord, not in ones righteousness.

Irenaeus defends ONE authority in particular, and he shows pertinent names in succession, as to where that authority comes from.

Again, what Iranaeus meant is open to much discussion, and is argued from both sides of the tiber.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

yet one needs to ask how do I know that without my church having councils, or as centralized heirarchy of authority as you have? That is how am I not confused about abortion, gay issues, ordination issues, and remain theologically fundamental, without your supposed keys?

You don’t seem confused on the matter – YET. And Amen to that!! But so many Protestant Christians have changed their position over the years. It’s quite ridiculous . Of course I feel as though the non-Catholic Churches, even Eastern Orthodox are not protected from teaching error. Both, as an example, tend to allow contraception(Greeks not Russians) which sadly, removes God from the marital union/equation.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

in extension, Schaff, as he reads Irenaeus arguments, can’t avoid reflecting on his own errors in where HE is, in this matter as well

again,

just thinking out loud

You are thinking out loud in your dreams steve…lol

Actually, like good Catholics, and any Christian worth his salt, he may work this out in fear and trembling before the Lord at one point or another, but still resting in ones given convictions , trusting in the Lord, not in ones righteousness.

I’ll just say,

Anyone worth his salt, especially a historian,

doesn’t try and re do history so they can justify their own errors.

Irenaeus defends ONE authority in particular, and he shows pertinent names in succession, as to where that authority comes from.

mcq72:

Again, what Iranaeus meant is open to much discussion, and is argued from both sides of the tiber.

The Teaching of the Church is clear from the beginning.

Just as Paul warned Bp Titus 3:10-11 against those who cause

αἱρετικὸν hairetikos
disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, factious, schismatic, a follower of false doctrines

Paul says They are condemned.

Another way of saying this is

outside the Church there is no salvation.

Gee, sounds familiar. We know what Church is there.

 

[mcq72]

I’ll just say,

Anyone worth his salt, especially a historian,

doesn’t try and re do history so they can justify their own errors.

Did he redo history ? No.

Did he try? I dont think so, as you do. Never the less, who stopped him? He stopped himself. Whatever therefore he was trying, it was not above acting with integrity in his field.

Again, I believe you misjudged his words. You would need to show me more of His written conversation on the matter to prove your point.

The Teaching of the Church is clear from the beginning.

No it is not.

It is more clear that doctrine developed, and then applied anachronistically to beginning.

Just as Paul warned Bp Titus 3:10-11 against those who cause

Yes warning against causing factions.

Wrong doctrine causes factions inherently also, as does right doctrine. Those that make it, believe it, and those that don’t believe it, don’t follow it.

Paul says They are condemned.

Another way of saying this is

outside the Church there is no salvation.

Sounds like a Chick tract…sorry but same kind of legalistic flavor in my opinion ( and not always bad, variety being the spice of life).

 

[BohemianBrother]

I think you can say that protestants who tossed out morality also tossed out the prime protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which gave them the basis for right doctrine.

From a catholic standpoint: Shouldn’t we, protestants who revere catholic scriptures, be then at least a little catholic?

I know people in my church don’t use contraception even when it is not mandated from them. People who truly love and fear God are often much closer to each other than their official doctrines are. Liberal protestants are just people who think it’s nice to go to church on Sunday, that’s it. They’re our version of cafeteria catholics.

 

[mcq72]

Of course I feel as though the non-Catholic Churches, even Eastern Orthodox are not protected from teaching error.

Again, this is a type of salvation by heirarchy, by institution. Regardless of needed institution and heirarchy, whether you have one bishop or pastor to many, even with cardinals and popes or presidents or council’s or synods, they, we, are totally dependent on the Holy Spirit for truth and wisdom and insight. Dependency on Him is our protection.

So while I agree the Lord gives us a body, full of checks and balances, none are above dependency on the head. A Rolls Royce can break down just as much as a chevy, and are dependent upon tlc from the mechanic.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Oh I’ve heard them rationalize it away though and they use the scriptures to do so. The sin of Sodom wasn’t what we know as sodomy it was actually rape and being inhospitable.

I do think all non-Catholic Churches are in a sense Catholic lite.

Do they preach against contraception in your Church from the pulpit? The only protestant denomination I have seen do that is the Independent fundamentalist baptist.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Ok, agree we need God-fearing/led men to lead… but the Holy Spirit is not gonna tell me that contraception is not okay and tell you that it is. So you need absolute truth. If we are indeed led into ALL TRUTH (John 16:13) as Jesus says then it should be expected, yes?

 

[Tommy999]

I do think all non-Catholic Churches are in a sense Catholic lite.

That reminds me of of a quote by the late comedian Robin Williams, who was Episcopalian. He once stated that it was “Catholic Lite”, saying something to the effect that his faith tradition had “All the rituals of Catholicism but only half the guilt”.

 

[Wannano]

Ok, agree we need God-fearing/led men to lead… but the Holy Spirit is not gonna tell me that contraception is not okay and tell you that it is. So you need absolute truth. If we are indeed led into ALL TRUTH (John 16:13) as Jesus says then it should be expected, yes?

Your post above really struck a nerve with me. I have for almost 60 years struggled with this concept. As I grew up and left my childhood community I was subjected to association with people who were Christians but practiced their faith within contexts that allowed them to be “carnal” according to what I had been taught. That and within the context of deciding what really Jesus desired for his followers in terms of church doctrine. To be totally honest, after being on CAF for as long as I have, I feel I have a basic understanding of Catholicism but the quest for absolute truth keeps me from finding it to be the answer.

So much of what we feel is guidance from the Holy Spirit is conditioned by our upbringing, experience and personality.

 

[BohemianBrother]

Yes, I know, it is truly sad. The historical-critical method of Bible reading is used by heterodox “mainliners” to allow for shameless cherry picking and outright misunderstanding of Bible verses. It is usually easy to see, as most arguments are extra-biblical and little more than ad hoc excuses for various immoralities.

The only official document that I found on contraception was one of the sanctity of family, which stated that sexuality is not here for our pleasure, but for reproduction only. The few times I’ve heard about it from the pulpit, it was always promoting sexual abstinence outside of reproduction, and that indulging in any earthly pleasure is a sin, including sexual intercourse. It is hard to find a definite statement though. Because of the congregational history of my church, such binding statements are only made when there is a conflict over such issue.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

That is hilarious lol

 

[Lenten_ashes]

So much of what we feel is guidance from the Holy Spirit is conditioned by our upbringing, experience and personality.

I would say our interpretation of the scriptures is most definitely conditioned by those things you mentioned. Because the Spirit is not the author of confusion.

Let me just clarify…even though I think we can and do have 100% doctrinal truth…i also see some negative in defining everything the way the RCC has. It has, I think inadvertently, led to a further divide with the Eastern churches, and to a lesser degree, the non-Catholic Churches.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I had to google the Church of Brethren. Is it sort of Baptist leaning?

 

[mcq72]

If we are indeed led into ALL TRUTH (John 16:13) as Jesus says then it should be expected, yes?

Agreed, I am not one to partake of the sin to say it is above one’s paygrade.

 

[mcq72]

It is hard to find a definite statement though

You have plenty of definite statements…in fact don’t think the document could have been more definite…unfortunately

 

[steve-b]

I’ll just say,

Anyone worth his salt, especially a historian,

doesn’t try and re do history so they can justify their own errors.

mcq72:

Did he redo history ? No.

Did he try? I dont think so, as you do. Never the less, who stopped him? He stopped himself. Whatever therefore he was trying, it was not above acting with integrity in his field.

On the contrary, he didn’t back off. But after reading stuff like that, he gave IMV, caution to all who read his footnotes.

mcq72:

Again, I believe you misjudged his words. You would need to show me more of His written conversation on the matter to prove your point.

OK

I said I excerpted that part of the quote from Schaffs translation.

Here’s the full footnote 3313 at the end of this section from Irenaeus.

Schaff by trying to find 2 Catholics at the time, who agreed with Schaff, really didn’t help Schaff’s case to undo Irenaeus’s point.

The Teaching of the Church is clear from the beginning.

mcq72:

No it is not.

It is more clear that doctrine developed, and then applied anachronistically to beginning.

Development of doctrine is Catholic Church teaching,

and in extension,

showing a belief isn’t made up out of thin air, but showing a belief to go back through time to the beginning through scripture, Tradition, and the on going teaching of the magesterium.

Just as Paul warned Bp Titus 3:10-11 against those who cause

mcq72:

Yes warning against causing factions.

Wrong doctrine causes factions inherently also, as does right doctrine. Those that make it, believe it, and those that don’t believe it, don’t follow it.

Paul is warning a Bishop what to do with those who won’t listen and be corrected by the Church.

AND

No doctrine/dogma in the Church has been voided. They ALL rermain as true.

Paul says They are condemned.

Another way of saying this is

outside the Church there is no salvation.

mcq72:

Sounds like a Chick tract…sorry but same kind of legalistic flavor in my opinion ( and not always bad, variety being the spice of life).

Paul wrote that statement to Bp Titus, to include the Chicks of the world as he did all the other
αἱρετικὸν hairetikos people like him, disposed to form sects, or be sectarian, heretical, factious, schismatic, and a follower of false doctrines.

IOW it’s to all those who go against and stay against the Church Jesus established.

 

[BohemianBrother]

It is an evangelical and reformed oriented offshoot of the underground Unity of Brethren which remained in Czech lands after the forced recatholization in 1648. It is originally a united church of reformed and brethren congregations, influenced by the Free Church of Scotland’s missions, which formed after freedom of religion was established in Austria-Hungary. Those who emigrated in 1648 founded the later Moravian church.

We’re basically just evangelicals who adhere to a confession which is older than the Augsburg one, think of ourselves as congregational, but really are presbyterian in polity, and some of our congregations have a liturgy, while most have praise bands.

And there is painfully little good information in English on the internet…