What Catholic teachings do I object to?

[Traverse]

I didn’t say it was either/or. How am I supposed to know when tradition is truthful unless the precedent for extra-biblical tradition is given?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ltwin
That solution only works if the Catholic Church actually has the authority that it claims.

A profound misunderstanding. The CC did not claim anything out of its own will.Moreover, the CC repeats what she received from Jesus and the 12 Apostles.

 

[SteveVH]

Beats me. I’m not orthodox.

Are you suggesting there are no doctrinal differences?

Only one real stickler: the Filioque. Other than that, I know of no doctrinal issues that separate us.

Why are the churches then not one?

Primacy of the Pope.

Do you believe that orthodoxy is just as valid as catholicism?

In what way? They have valid apostolic succession. They have valid sacraments. They share Catholic doctrines (with the one exception). But as has been pointed out already, they are not “one”, even with each other. They are not catholic (small c) because they are not universal, but rather split among ethnic and nationalistic lines. So can they be called the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church? No.

This definition applies to many churches, though maybe not apostolic succession in a valid sense. They claim it, though.

Lots of people claim lots of things. So what?

Do orthodox churches actually refuse membership to certain nationalities? That’s news to me and very interesting information.

I have heard of people outside of these communities converting, so I don’t think it is prohibited. It is more the way they just developed.

 

[Nicea325]

I didn’t say it was either/or. How am I supposed to know when tradition is truthful unless the precedent for extra-biblical tradition is given?

Don’t have to say it,your position clears displays it. Extra-biblical tradition? The Bible alone belief is extra-biblical. Yes the Bible has authority,but no where is it taught anywhere in the Bible or by Jesus as the ONLY authoritative source.

 

[jmcrae]

I have heard of people outside of these communities converting, so I don’t think it is prohibited. It is more the way they just developed.

And converts are expected to take on the culture of the nationality in question - whereas I have never seen non-Western Catholics being required to adopt Western culture other than in the things that pertain to the Liturgy - and even in that case, they are certainly encouraged to make use of local musical styles, and local customs regarding dress and that sort of thing. The Mass is cross-cultural because it doesn’t come from any particular culture - it comes from Jesus, and belongs to all of us.

 

[SteveVH]

And converts are expected to take on the culture of the nationality in question - whereas I have never seen non-Western Catholics being required to adopt Western culture other than in the things that pertain to the Liturgy - and even in that case, they are certainly encouraged to make use of local musical styles, and local customs regarding dress and that sort of thing. The Mass is cross-cultural because it doesn’t come from any particular culture - it comes from Jesus, and belongs to all of us.

That’s a great point. I was not aware that converts were expected take on the culture. I have a friend who converted to the Greek Orthodox Church, but he lives in Alaska. He did say that he is pretty much expected at the Greek community gatherings but I took it as just an extension of Church fellowship. What you’re saying makes sense. I love the cultural diversity of our Church.

 

[Traverse]

Don’t have to say it,your position clears displays it. Extra-biblical tradition? The Bible alone belief is extra-biblical. Yes the Bible has authority,but no where is it taught anywhere in the Bible or by Jesus as the ONLY authoritative source.

You’re taking my words too far and not really trying to help answer any questions either. Breathing is extra biblical by your definition because the bible doesn’t tell us we should breathe to stay alive.

What I was trying to say is that is there is indeed tradition that goes along with the bible, but from what I’ve seen the bible (since becoming completed) has since recorded the sacred tradition within its pages. I’m trying to say that most things catholic subscribe to as sacred tradition is backed up biblically anyway and in the cases where it’s not my question is how can we determine that it is valid when it is tradition not directly from God (as most understand the words of the bible to be through the inspiration of the holy spirit) but from some person who claims to be guided by the spirit but doesn’t necessarily give any reason to believe what they claim is true?

Is the answer that “it’s from the church so we know it’s valid?” That’s what I’m trying to ascertain. My suggestion was that because the bible doesn’t give a precedence for tradition that is not also recorded in its words then how can I trust tradition that comes to light thousands of years after the word was completed? You trust it because of the knowledge we derive from the bible. Do we not? If a validly ordained bishop in the catholic church says something wrong, teaches something wrong, he can’t just call it tradition and we all call it a day. So my question is what is extra biblical tradition being verified by?

This is a little rambly, sorry if it’s unclear.

 

[Traverse]

Lots of people claim lots of things. So what?

That’s actually my point. The catholic church also claims lots of things. I’m not saying it’s wrong by default because I don’t know the answer, but my point is what makes the catholic church’s claim more valid?

 

[jmcrae]

… ] my question is how can we determine that it is valid when it is tradition not directly from God (as most understand the words of the bible to be through the inspiration of the holy spirit) but from some person who claims to be guided by the spirit but doesn’t necessarily give any reason to believe what they claim is true?

You should certainly not believe or follow any such person.

Is the answer that “it’s from the church so we know it’s valid?”

By “church” we don’t mean the local parish, or even the Vatican.

What we mean is, here is something that has been said over and over and over again by every Bishop in union with Rome who ever lived and who was ever interested in the subject. Here is the “sensus fide” of the whole world, from 33 AD until now, and at every place where the Catholic Church ever was. They were saying it in Ireland in 362 AD. They were saying it at Nicaea in 325 AD. They were saying it in Rome in 99 AD.

That’s what I’m trying to ascertain. My suggestion was that because the bible doesn’t give a precedence for tradition that is not also recorded in its words then how can I trust tradition that comes to light thousands of years after the word was completed?

Nobody is asking you to believe in anything like that - except for the Protestants, who are coming up with innovative liturgies and innovative doctrines that no Bishop of the Catholic Church ever heard of.

You trust it because of the knowledge we derive from the bible. Do we not? If a validly ordained bishop in the catholic church says something wrong, teaches something wrong, he can’t just call it tradition and we all call it a day.

No, certainly not. He would be excommunicated. (Perhaps he would start up his own Protestant church … )

So my question is what is extra biblical tradition being verified by?

By the Holy Tradition, which is all of the speaking, and singing, and writing that has been going on all over the world without stopping, ever since Christ stepped out of the Tomb one Sunday morning in April.

A good place to start is the three-volume edition of “The Faith of the Early Fathers,” edited by William Jurgens.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s actually my point. The catholic church also claims lots of things. I’m not saying it’s wrong by default because I don’t know the answer, but my point is what makes the catholic church’s claim more valid?

Because it is checked and double checked over and over again by Bishops in every nation all over the world and in each different century since the time of Christ.

 

[kwortham]

That’s actually my point. The catholic church also claims lots of things. I’m not saying it’s wrong by default because I don’t know the answer, but my point is what makes the catholic church’s claim more valid?

It is 2000 years of history.

 

[Traverse]

Can you be more specific, kworthman?

Thanks for the book recommendation, jm.

 

[SteveVH]

That’s actually my point. The catholic church also claims lots of things. I’m not saying it’s wrong by default because I don’t know the answer, but my point is what makes the catholic church’s claim more valid?

The Catholic Church was given the power to bind and loose. It is through this authority that its “claims”, so to speak, are valid, and it is exactly this lack of authority in ecclesial communities outside of the Catholic Church that invalidate their claims.

 

[kwortham]

Can you be more specific, kworthman?

Thanks for the book recommendation, jm.

All of the earliest Fathers were Catholic as witnessed by their catholic writings. Some ecclesial writers fell into heresy, however, their orthodox views remain for us to read. I would not have discovered the CC except for the writings of Clement of Rome, Saint Ignatius, Saint Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Mathetes and Irenaeus. These men cleared up mountains of scripture that were jibberish to me, before. Only through the catholic faith do these writings obtain clarity. The fathers have maintained this Christ founded orthodox catholic teaching throughout the centuries. As witnessed by the wonderful Saint Irenaeus:

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
Against Heresies - Book 3 Chapter 3 Paragraph 3 (Some editing, but link posted above so that you can see what was excluded):

[The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and [COLOR=“Magenta”]by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.]

 

[PRmerger]

Beats me. I’m not orthodox.

Are you suggesting there are no doctrinal differences? Why are the churches then not one?

Do you believe that orthodoxy is just as valid as catholicism? If not, then you know what I was really trying to say.

Save for the question of authority (that is, the supremacy of the pope), there is no doctrinal difference. There may be some nuances of semantics, but that is not the same as saying there are doctrinal differences.

 

[october_baby]

May I respectfully disagree? My third born child has Catholic god-parents. Several times a year, I attend mass, and several times a year I drag a Catholic or two to our service. I marched in the anti-HHS mandate protest with my family, and one of my Catholic friends is teaching one of our Sunday School classes, just as there’s many Catholic students in my LCMS church’s school.

It’s up to us to co-operate with each other, and frankly, I find it easier than squabbling.

I’m not saying ALL protestants are that way, but from my experience MOST protestants are like that. I know from bitter experience being ex-protestant, having protestant family members, and posting on political blog with a majority of evangelicals and being ex-protestant
myself. So please don’t take it personally. Although you haven’t addressed the issue
of religious relativism that infects the United States and low protestantism in particular.
And as far as your catholic friends go, due to poor knowledge of catholic doctrine a lot of catholics don’t see a problem with attending protestant churches and being involved
with the church’s activities, some even convert, which some catholics would find
problematic. And I think catholic children going to a LCMS Sunday School would be
confusing for the children involved.
As for squabbling, I believe that there is only ONE,HOLY, and APOSTOLIC Catholic Church. If I did’t believe it, I would not have stayed catholic. I believe in inter-faith
dialogue,(especially about abortion.) but I believe on a layman level, that protestants are too close minded to drop their pre conceived notions.
Finally, as the ONE, TRUE, CHURCH I don’t believe that we need to change our doctrine
but persuade protestants of the TRUTH of our faith.

 

[andrewstx]

Apostolic Succession is only one of the four essential elements of Christ’s Church.

The other three are, that it is One. (Roman Catholic Church is One - check.) It is Holy. (Roman Catholic Church follows the Liturgy as given by Christ. Check.) The fourth qualification is that it is “Catholic” meaning that it welcomes all races, all nationalities, both male and female. (Roman Catholic Church does this - it does not limit itself to only certain nationalities or races or gender;nor is it primarily made up of one race or another - go to any Catholic Mass and you will see people of all races and nationalities in attendance - not only Greeks or only Russians, etc.)

There is a difference between the Orthodox and Catholic ideas of apostolic succcession. As I understand it the Catholic church sees AS as going through the Popes.

While Orthodox sees the succesion as going through the bishops as a whole and not just one, the pope.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t say it was either/or. How am I supposed to know when tradition is truthful unless the precedent for extra-biblical tradition is given?

The precedent for extra-biblical Tradition has been given. And you subscribe to it, Traverse. Each and every time you quote from the NT you are giving testimony to your submission to Sacred Tradition.

For is it not only through ST that you can know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired, Traverse?

 

[andrewstx]

Because of the question of authority. They reject the Pope, but they do not reject his teachings.

They are in schism. They are not heretics, though.

It’s an easy enough claim to test. Does the local Bishop trace his ordination back to an Apostle in an unbroken line? (If there is no local Bishop, then that answers that one without any question - you can’t have the Succession if there is no Bishop.)

Hence, “Greek Orthodox”, “Russian Orthodox” etc.

Not exactly. There are a lot of non-greek, non-slavic, non-arabic converts to Orthodoxy.
For example I was an american southwesterner who converted to Orthodoxy from the fundamental protetestant denomination that calls it’self the churches of Christ. There are many others as well

But the group least accepting to “xexnoi” is some, (not all or many) of the greeks. But generally Orthodox get along quite well.

My present parish is at least %75 converts from Protestant and Catholic churches. Completely non-ethnic.

 

[andrewstx]

And converts are expected to take on the culture of the nationality in question - whereas I have never seen non-Western Catholics being required to adopt Western culture other than in the things that pertain to the Liturgy - and even in that case, they are certainly encouraged to make use of local musical styles, and local customs regarding dress and that sort of thing. The Mass is cross-cultural because it doesn’t come from any particular culture - it comes from Jesus, and belongs to all of us.

That is incorrect, except for music. But at Christmas we have a service of lessons and Western carols.

At parish meals we don’t eat kibbee, or borscht, we have barbeque.

We dress like anyone else.