What are "The Essentials"?

[benjohnson]

Ultimately, the Bible has to be interpreted and it’s going to be interpreted within whatever tradition or church doctrine your part of.

That’s the “Interpretation Problem” - Individual Lutherans can have poor interpretations of the Bible, and perhaps you’ve known a Catholic who has a poor interpretation of the teachings of the Magisterium.

I’m not sure what the solution is, but I wish someone would find one!

 

[PRmerger]

That’s the “Interpretation Problem” - Individual Lutherans can have poor interpretations of the Bible, and perhaps you’ve known a Catholic who has a poor interpretation of the teachings of the Magisterium.

When the Magisterium defines and declares a teaching, it is quite clear and anyone who claims to be unable to interpret what the Magisterium has defined is feigning ignorance, IMHO.

 

[snarflemike]

So far we’ve only got 3 essentials:

Monotheism
Virgin birth
Resurrection

I know some squishy Christians will even dispute the latter two, but I’m discounting them because they obviously have serious doubts about the truth of the bible.

So, any more essential doctrines that will universally be found in the bible by anybody who believes it to be true?

 

[PRmerger]

A few of them are: the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, and monotheism.

So these are the “essentials” that you believe the Bible proclaims, Sixpence? That is, if someone does not believe these “essentials” he cannot be a Christian?

Are there any others? What about the forgiveness of sins? Or that we must love one another?

Is there a conclusive list that you could proffer as an Evangelical, plus the Bible verses that back these up as “essentials”?

 

[Contarini]

If one goes by sola scriptura, what are the essential beliefs that every “believer” will discover, without fail, in the bible?

I don’t believe in sola scriptura, but I think basically the “essentials” would be those of the Apostles’ Creed, or possibly the Nicene Creed.

Some dogmatic Protestants would indeed add sola fide, and that completely explodes their position.

The more modest position I sketched above is, I think, harder to refute, especially if you stick to the Apostles’ Creed (well, the Descent into Hell is a bit shaky, maybe).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

When the Magisterium defines and declares a teaching, it is quite clear and anyone who claims to be unable to interpret what the Magisterium has defined is feigning ignorance, IMHO.

I find this no more convincing than its Protestant alternative.

It amounts to saying “my particular faction within Catholicism is the only ones who are sincere and/or intelligent.” No different from what the most sectarian Protestants say about their faction. The difference is that at least they have a visible communion that matches their view of the true Church, whereas you have a fairly small “ecclesiola in ecclesia.”

Edwin

 

[snarflemike]

I don’t believe in sola scriptura, but I think basically the “essentials” would be those of the Apostles’ Creed, or possibly the Nicene Creed.

Some dogmatic Protestants would indeed add sola fide, and that completely explodes their position.

The more modest position I sketched above is, I think, harder to refute, especially if you stick to the Apostles’ Creed (well, the Descent into Hell is a bit shaky, maybe).

Thanks, that’s a good starting point. Here’s the Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen

A few comments.

I would say this doesn’t explicitly teach the Trinity, and we know some bible-believers do not find the Trinity in the bible.

I wonder what would be the universal understanding of “the holy catholic Church”?

I think that without question there is no universal finding of the communion of saints in the bible.

But it’s a good starting point.

 

[PRmerger]

IIt amounts to saying “my particular faction within Catholicism is the only ones who are sincere and/or intelligent.”

It absolutely does *not *amount to saying “my particular faction within Catholicism is the only ones who are sincere and/or intelligent!”

What it “amounts to” is that there is the Catholic faith, and one knows what she teaches. To the degree that one conforms one’s views to the Church is the degree that one is consonant with Catholic teaching. To the degree that one diverges from the teaching is the degree that one has divorced himself from His Body, the Church.

Again, when the Magisterium has spoken definitively, there is no doubt about what she has proclaimed.

There are, of course, many who feign ignorance about this–in fact, there was a poster here who was doing his very best to proclaim that Pope B16 did not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Seriously.

With all due respect, Edwin, you are projecting your Protestant reality upon Catholicism. There are no “factions” within Catholicism. There are the teachings of Catholicism–and one can check the CCC for the “sure norm” of our faith–and then there are those who propose teachings under the guise of Catholicism. But we all know what the Church has definitively proclaimed.

 

[Contarini]

Thanks, that’s a good starting point. Here’s the Apostles Creed:

A few comments.

I would say this doesn’t explicitly teach the Trinity, and we know some bible-believers do not find the Trinity in the bible.

I wonder what would be the universal understanding of “the holy catholic Church”?

I think that without question there is no universal finding of the communion of saints in the bible.

But it’s a good starting point.

Right. I have come to reject any form of sola scriptura by arguing in two directions from this starting point:

1. Did the early Church (speaking of the second century primarily, when the basic outlines of the Apostles’ Creed were formed as the “rule of faith”) believe in this rule of faith because it was in Scripture, or because it was handed down by the Apostles in both oral and written forms? The evidence indicates the latter. And
2. As you point out, there are plenty of ambiguities here, including on matters (like the Trinity) that we generally think of as essential.

Many years ago now I realized that if we Anglicans had been around in the fourth century, we would certainly have been Semi-Arians!

And yet I’m still Anglican. . . .

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think that without question there is no universal finding of the communion of saints in the bible.

Right, yet if we say we acknowledge the Communion of Saints, then we must also agree on a couple other idea’s.

a] That Saints will continue to rise up through Gods will.

b] Someone has to have the authority to distinguish and acknowledge these Saints.

 

[Contarini]

It absolutely does *not *amount to saying “my particular faction within Catholicism is the only ones who are sincere and/or intelligent!”

What it “amounts to” is that there is the Catholic faith, and one knows what she teaches.

But Catholics disagree on just what the Catholic Church teaches, on all sorts of points. They disagree on which magisterial teachings belong to which level, and what level of submission is due to which level, and so on. They disagree on the meaning of specific Magisterial teachings (see the endless debates about what the Popes meant when they condemned “socialism,” for instance).

Early sixteenth-century Catholics who spoke as you do–who insisted on strict obedience to magisterial teaching–uniformly believed (as far as I can tell) that the Church supported the burning of heretics. As I’ve pointed out many times, Pope Leo condemned Luther (among other things) for denying this teaching. If you were right, then sixteenth-century Catholics ought all to have “known” that heretics ought to be handed over to the civil authority to be burned alive, and those Catholics, like Erasmus, who dared to question this teaching even in a tentative way were just plain wrong. (Erasmus backed away from his earlier criticisms of the execution of heretics once that position had become associated with Protestantism. Of course, the very fact that early Protestants were criticized for thinking that heretics shouldn’t be executed is often obscured by Catholic apologists who want to claim that Protestants were just the same as Catholics on this point. They did in fact come to be very similar over time, but initially they tended to take a more “liberal” view.)

Yet that is not what most Catholics believe today. That is pretty clearly not what Pope Benedict believes. I doubt you could find a single bishop in good standing with the Church who believes this today (by that I’m ruling out the SSPX).

So clearly what you’re describing didn’t work in the sixteenth century. The “dissenters” were right. The “orthodox” were wrong.

Again, when the Magisterium has spoken definitively, there is no doubt about what she has proclaimed.

Petitio principii. You assume that there is universal agreement on when the Magisterium has spoken definitively. You aren’t even right about the conclusion granted your premise–look at all the disagreements about what Vatican I taught concerning papal infallibility, for instance.

There are, of course, many who feign ignorance about this–in fact, there was a poster here who was doing his very best to proclaim that Pope B16 did not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Seriously.

What makes you think he was feigning?

If he really meant that the Pope is a Zwinglian or even a Calvinist, then he was truly ignorant. But he may have been picking up on evidence that the Pope holds a more nuanced view of the Eucharist than that held by many “conservative” Catholics–which is probably true.

With all due respect, Edwin, you are projecting your Protestant reality upon Catholicism.

No, I’m observing the evidence. There is a visible body of people called the Catholic Church. There are factions within that body. One of those factions claims that all the other factions aren’t really Catholic. (This claim isn’t even entirely coherent, because there are disagreements as to just where to draw the line between those who are really Catholic and those who aren’t, it seems to me. But that’s a secondary and more dubious point.)

I’m “projecting Protestant reality” only in the sense that I’m describing the visible contours of the Catholic Church, without projecting the views of one particular group within the visible Catholic Church onto that reality.

There are no “factions” within Catholicism. There are the teachings of Catholicism–and one can check the CCC for the “sure norm” of our faith–and then there are those who propose teachings under the guise of Catholicism. But we all know what the Church has definitively proclaimed.

Circular. You think you know, so you declare, magisterially, that all those who differ from you are not really Catholics.

Do you really think this? That anyone who differs in the interpretation of any magisterial teaching, or holds different views from you as to the level of a particular teaching, is not really Catholic? At least if they hold laxer views? (If they hold stricter views, then I suppose you can both be Catholics as long as you are right and they aren’t! Which is a pretty big risk to take. . . . )

And what you fail to see, again, is that this is exactly what fundamentalist Protestants claim about Scripture. They claim that all those who differ are not real Christians. Why should anyone believe you and not them?

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

But Catholics disagree on just what the Catholic Church teaches, on all sorts of points

Yes. This is a fair point.

I think Jimmy Akin addressed that quite nicely in his essay entitled, quite apropos,“Disunity on Essentials”.

In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.

IOW: the tu quoque argument, while a valid indictment of Catholicism’s “disunity”, fails to measure up to the magnitude of disunity present among Protestantism.

 

[JonNC]

If he really meant that the Pope is a Zwinglian or even a Calvinist, then he was truly ignorant. But he may have been picking up on evidence that the Pope holds a more nuanced view of the Eucharist than that held by many “conservative” Catholics–which is probably true.

Edwin

Fro example:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper

And other Catholic theologians: regarding the difference between Transubstantiation and Sacramental Union:

51.The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Yes. This is a fair point.

I think Jimmy Akin addressed that quite nicely in his essay entitled, quite apropos,“Disunity on Essentials”.

IOW: the tu quoque argument, while a valid indictment of Catholicism’s “disunity”, fails to measure up to the magnitude of disunity present among Protestantism.

I don’t actually mean it as an indictment. I think that unity in one visible fellowship with many differing opinions is a good thing. I’m criticizing the claim by “conservative” Catholics that they are really the only true Catholics rather than just one faction.

I have no interest in defending Protestantism on this score. What I’m defending, actually, is Catholicism–as it really exists and not as it “should” exist in the minds of many folks on this forum.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

IOW: the tu quoque argument, while a valid indictment of Catholicism’s “disunity”, fails to measure up to the magnitude of disunity present among Protestantism.

If you lump a group of separate churches and give them a label, then of course you can find as much ‘disunity’ as you want depending on your initial grouping.

If I were to do the same, it would be to lump Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Orthodox, and SSPX - then label them ‘Catholic’ and say - “Look! They can’t even agree who the leader is! There’s too many answers!”

Of course, that isn’t quite fair.

…

Back to the subject at hand:

I think there’s one corner case where a simple biblical reading is more correct than tradition.

“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.”

Simply accepting this passage wipes away hundreds of years of squabbling about metaphysical labels, tortured interpretations, and clever explanations. For myself, when I receive, I don’t have to worry that I don’t understand it perfectly - because I have faith that Jesus’s instructions were sufficient.

 

[PRmerger]

So clearly what you’re describing didn’t work in the sixteenth century. The “dissenters” were right. The “orthodox” were wrong.

Yes, Edwin. We already talked about this 2 summers ago.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=459791&page=54

I thought that was already resolved.

Petitio principii.

Would you mind defining petitio principii for me? I know I can look it up. But you’re a teacher so you probably dig this, right? Just a short explanation, please.

Or, you could tell me to look it up. That would be fair. (But I won’t. Not right now, anyway.)

You assume that there is universal agreement on when the Magisterium has spoken definitively. You aren’t even right about the conclusion granted your premise–look at all the disagreements about what Vatican I taught concerning papal infallibility, for instance.

Again, I think there is quite a bit of understanding when the Church has spoken definitively.
Certainly there are those who are still maintaining that the Church did not speak authoritatively when she defined the inability to ordain women. But there were those in Jesus’ time as well who did not think he spoke authoritatively on .

What makes you think he was feigning?

Well, I suppose you’re right–he could have been sincere. But I don’t think so.

Here’s the link to his post and see what you think.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9366572&page=28.
Start at post #409

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Remember, Sola Scriptura doesn’t push aside other authorities, it only demands that those authorities align with Scripture on matters of doctrine.

Where in Scripture is this written?

 

[PRmerger]

Circular. You think you know, so you declare, magisterially, that all those who differ from you are not really Catholics.

I haven’t said that they aren’t “really Catholic.” Juridically, anyone who is baptized into the Catholic Church is a Catholic. (In fact, the Church proclaims that anyone who is baptized a Christian, using correct matter and form, is joined to the Church, although imperfectly. But I’m sure you already knew that, so let’s not go there right now.)

They have simply separated themselves from the OHCAC by their degree of divergence from the teaching of the Apostles.

So is Nancy Pelosi a Catholic? Juridically she is, and, as such, is entitled to all the “rights” that accompany this. It is also her duty and obligation to responsibly live the Catholic faith she espouses. To the degree that she does is the degree that she is united to the Church. To the degree that she doesn’t is the degree that she has separated herself from the Body.

So I never proclaim that someone isn’t a Catholic, unless she has formally separated herself from the Church.

(NB: I will use quotation marks on occasion to identify someone who was baptized Catholic but has separated herself informally from the Church’s teachings, but, as such, she is still juridically a Catholic.)

Now, it’s true that I have a high degree of intolerance for members here who put “Catholic” under their profile, but everything they profess is at odds with the Church and her teachings. There was one lady in particular who took great delight, IMHO, in proclaiming, "Well, I’m Catholic but I don’t believe ".

I am 100% behind the CAF policy that one cannot profess non-Catholic rhetoric and continue to use the designation “Catholic” here.

Incidentally, as an aside, I would not say that Mel Gibson is a Catholic. From what I’ve read, he has separated himself from the OHCAC and thus cannot claim to be a Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

If you lump a group of separate churches and give them a label, then of course you can find as much ‘disunity’ as you want depending on your initial grouping.

Yes, I see your point, ben.

But what lumps this group of separate churches together is the concept that all truths of the faith are found in the Bible, independent of a central entity that has the authority to discern the truths proclaimed therein. That is what separates them from the OHCAC.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right, yet if we say we acknowledge the Communion of Saints, then we must also agree on a couple other idea’s.

a] That Saints will continue to rise up through Gods will.

b] Someone has to have the authority to distinguish and acknowledge these Saints.

So is the Communion of Saints in or out? Let me add a thought cause if its in then, uh-oh we have to re-think…“purgatory”