salival said:
But hasn’t the Catholic Church split betwen orthodox and catholics? and then between Catholics and reformers and then between Catholics and old Catholics? I am sure there are some more.
Ok, but how do you link Jesus claim to The Catholic Church?
Because of what vern humphrey said. As far as orthodoxy is concerned, I cannot help you there. I’ve only encountered Protestants and non-Christians in my theological debates, and since necessity is my main motivation, I have not really looked into orthodoxy at all.
.
No. The split between Catholics and Orthodox is based solely on the issue of the Papacy. Although the so-called Filoque Controvesy is often cited, there are no real doctrinal issues.
Sure, let’s say that we got The Bible from The Catholic Church, but so what? Just because of this does not means that The Church cannot err or that it is infallible in it’s interpretation of it. It can wander into error very much like the pharisees in the day of Jesus.
They have other issues like scholasticism and the fact that Catholics have gone out of their way to define many things which they consider speculaton.
Well they, just like the orthodox do not accept the infaiibility of the pope.
Sure, but it is a doctrine consistent with it’s own interpretation of The Bible. The thing is, what evidence do you have that it is in fact the correct interpretation.
Except that it hasn’t wandered into error – it has taught a consistent, coherent message for nearly two thousand years. Read the early Church Fathers and you will be impressed at how Catholic they are – and how today’s Church still delivers the same message.
“Scholasticism?” As in Medevial Scholasticism? How does that separate the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?
Well they, just like the orthodox do not accept the infaiibility of the pope.[/quopte]
That’s not the only difference – they do not have the Apostolic Successior or valid orders. As I say, they are not Catholics, no matter what they call themselves, and we do not recognize them.
salival:
That it is consistent with the early Church. Christianity is what it was – we believe as the early Christians believed. Since there has been no public revelation from the time of Christ and will be none to the end of the world, those who differ with the early Christians are obviously in error.
vern humphrey said:
Ok, if there had been no new public revelation form the time of Christ then what about the two dogmas about Mary? What about Papal infallibility? How are these not new revelation? What about the rosary and it’s mysteries?
Understanding of the truth develops. Perhaps you should go to John Henry Cardinal Newman’s *Development of Christian Doctrine *to understand this better. We perceive the truth more deeply as time passes, but that doesn’t mean that it has changed, just that we understand it better. It is the mustard seed growing into the mustard tree.
Scholasticism is the belief that all that can be known is known. It is essentially Platonic in outlook, and is based on referring everything to published authority. The great debate on this philosophical (not religious) issue came long after the Great Schism.
They are not based on new revelation, but merely a statement of what Catholics have always believed. The only change is that they have been defined de fide.
“Infalibility” is the proposition that the Church cannot teach error. There are three standards for infallibility:
There is nothing new about them – they simply formalize what Catholics have always believed. Peter, for example, exercised the Magisterium in his person.
What about it? There is no dogma there. The Rosary is simply an ancient custom, dating back to medieval Ireland.
It doesn’t develop – it is formalized.
Truth, of necessity, is unity. There cannot be two opposing doctrines which are both truth.
Ok, then what makes you think that God had the intention of stablishing another authority on earth (The Church) if he did not want to stablish an earthly authority in the first place?
If there is no proof then how can you say that it is the one true Church? Upon what evidence do you make this decision?
Ok, it may have come after it but The Catholic Church does relies a lot on Aquinas, a couple of Popes have encouraged and recommended it as the main philosophy of The Church. And this seems to bether the Orthodox and it also makes things a bit narrow. They also rely a lot in Augustine. Why are the other fathers given so little attention?
None of the apostles mentioned any of this nor is it found in any of the writtings up to the fourth century. So it is not really what has always been believed. Maybe her virginity, but not her assumption to heaven.
I know, it says that the Pope when speaking ex-cathedra in matters of faith and morals if free from erring. But this statement is rare, how can the Pope declare an infallible statement declaring himself to be infallible when declaring infallible statements? This seems like circular and biased.
Why does it prefers not to declare a given belief dogma if what The Church delcares to be infallible is free from error?
I have a hard time accepting that the Christians have always accepted the Pope to be infallible in matters of faith and morals. What evidence is there for this?
So, if there seems to arise some controversy over the Rosary then the Church could/would define that custom as de fide?
And what is the difference? Jesus didn’t give any explanation about the Trinity or the relationship between the persons or the filogue. It came about much latter thru the use of greek philosophy and was much later deepened and developed by Augustine, Aquinas, etc.