When do you claim that the Catholic Church began

[Keikiolu]

We keep reading reports from people who claim that the Catholic Church began at various times throughout history and at the same time that they are either the true Catholic Church, or that somehow they are really connected to the true Catholic Church but the Catholic Church just won’t recognize them.

Ok, fine, now state your claim when the Catholic Church began and state how you are either the real Catholic Church as opposed to the Catholic Church that holds that name or how the Catholic Church isn’t the Catholic Church and at any rate your group has split from them.

CDL

The Church, the (mystical) body of Christ, has always existed, as, through and in God the Son.

It is perfectly analogous to when “life begins”.

Life begins when God creates a “soul”.

When did God create the “soul” of His Son?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

You know this was the thought held by virtually all Christian for the first centuries.

That the Church apostasized? I know you don’t mean that, but that is what I was expressing disagreement with in the part you quoted!

Yes, there were heresies, but for the answers, the faithful always turned to the successors of the apostles. This is what the apostles taught and this has been the constant tradition passed down. There is no refuting this point.

I’m not trying to. It’s irrelevant to estesbob’s claim.

And the notion of an invisible church is a new invention.

Which is why I don’t believe it! I would never say, as many Catholics on this board would say, that a member of the visible Church is “not really a Catholic.” The church is made up of those who profess faith in Christ and are sealed by the sacraments. That’s pretty visible–far more visible than the “true Catholic Church” a lot of you seem to believe in.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

So the fact that these groups of two or three who CLAIM to be gathered in Christs name often come to diametrically opposed views of Christ, morality, and what it takes to be saved is irelevantant?

Diametrically opposed views of Christ? Really? Give an example.

Errors that do not contradict faith in Christ are hardly “irrelevant,” but they are not fatal either.

Was Christ’s last words “Im leaving now -you all get to figure everything out for yourselves”?

Certainly not.

Having said that he allowed nmillions of people to get it wrong and thus suffer eternal damnation until wiser people figured out what he “really” meant?

Since I have repeatedly said that I do not believe that people who get some doctrine wrong are eternally damned (Protestants would be in really bad shape if this were true!), your incessant repetition of this claim is looking more and more like malicious misrepresentation. You are sinning against both truth and charity when you claim that I (or Protestants in general) believe something that I in fact do not. Can I put it any more plainly?

And I do not think that the Reformers figured out what he “really” meant. They got some things right, and they messed a lot of other things up. By and large, I’m inclined to think that they did more harm than good.

The only claim I am going to make confidently for Protestants is that we are Christians (theologically and not just historically). But I will make the further claim that all those who are Christians (in the theological sense, i.e., the sense Catholics acknowledge) are members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, without qualification. We need to qualify the way the Church’s unity is expressed in this world, and not the way in which baptized believers are members of the Church. That is my one really big doctrinal difference with Catholicism.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[sterryfamily]

The church is made up of those who profess faith in Christ and are sealed by the sacraments. That’s pretty visible–far more visible than the “true Catholic Church” a lot of you seem to believe in.

Edwin

Edwin,

I have the utmost respect for you, your learning and your reasonableness. But, you are twisting again. With your knowledge of history, you are certainly aware that this idea you are repeating (“The church is made up of those who profess faith in Christ and are sealed by the sacraments”) would have been considered heretical by the apostles and their followers for centuries. One who did not follow the bishops and the magisterium were heretics for the early church - a confession (and even sacramental seal) was not enough. For you, or anyone, to promote this new line of thinking, especially when you know the writings of the early Christians is, at best, disingenuous.

 

[Sixtus]

estesbob

Re: When do you claim that the Catholic Church began
Actually i think it began at the Annunciation.

Amen,

But it went through various stages of development thereafter such as Peter’s reply to Christ who asked ‘who do you say I am’.

 

[estesbob]

Diametrically opposed views of Christ? Really? Give an example.

So you think there are no differences of opinion between what it takes to be saved between Jehova Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Baptists, and Catholics?

Errors that do not contradict faith in Christ are hardly “irrelevant,” but they are not fatal either.

Well if one is teaching , for instance, the false doctine of Saved by Fatih alone (a doctrine created in the 1,500s) it most could be fatal-soulwise that is.

Since I have repeatedly said that I do not believe that people who get some doctrine wrong are eternally damned (Protestants would be in really bad shape if this were true!), your incessant repetition of this claim is looking more and more like malicious misrepresentation. You are sinning against both truth and charity when you claim that I (or Protestants in general) believe something that I in fact do not. Can I put it any more plainly?

. What doctines is it we can safely ignore? And if we all get to gather around and figure things out for oursleves what need of there is for a Church anyway? For that matter why would we have needed the Church to codify Scripture-why not just throw all the books out there and let these little groups pick and choose what is right?

And I do not think that the Reformers figured out what he “really” meant. They got some things right, and they messed a lot of other things up. By and large, I’m inclined to think that they did more harm than good.

We agree on that . Not only did they not figure out what he really meant but they created their own religions to suit there own beliefs and in many cases created their own god to go along with these beliefs. Their reasons ranged from disagreements with Church Hiercarchy to lust for attractive women.

The only claim I am going to make confidently for Protestants is that we are Christians (theologically and not just historically). But I will make the further claim that all those who are Christians (in the theological sense, i.e., the sense Catholics acknowledge) are members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, without qualification. We need to qualify the way the Church’s unity is expressed in this world, and not the way in which baptized believers are members of the Church. That is my one really big doctrinal difference with Catholicism.

Protestants are indeed Chisitans-Christians who through their invincible ignorance have settled for a pale shadow of the truth. There is great joy in Heaven when one of our seprarted bretheren sees the light and comes home.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

I have the utmost respect for you, your learning and your reasonableness. But, you are twisting again. With your knowledge of history, you are certainly aware that this idea you are repeating (“The church is made up of those who profess faith in Christ and are sealed by the sacraments”) would have been considered heretical by the apostles and their followers for centuries. One who did not follow the bishops and the magisterium were heretics for the early church - a confession (and even sacramental seal) was not enough. For you, or anyone, to promote this new line of thinking, especially when you know the writings of the early Christians is, at best, disingenuous.

There’s nothing disingenuous about it. I don’t claim that my view is the same as that of the early Christians. A far better case could be made that the Catholic Church is disingenuous here, since you *do *claim that your view of this matter is the same as that of the early Christians, which it clearly isn’t. You do not regard non-Catholic Christians in the same way St. Cyprian regarded the Novatians or even the way St. Augustine regarded the Donatists. You twist yourselves into knots trying to reconcile Vatican II with “Unam Sanctam” and the Council of Florence.

This is a clear case where nearly all Christians today agree that the Fathers were wrong. The divisions within Christianity have become so many, and all of us have so much experience of piety and holiness in other Christian churches, that almost no one can still maintain (as Augustine did, for instance) that the means of grace found in other churches are nullified in effect by the sin of schism (let alone the even sterner Cyprianic/Donatist position that schismatic sacraments are simply invalid). It’s just that Protestants are more straightforward about it than Catholics.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Edwin;

The only Sacraments we see as valid are those that can be done by lay people (baptism and marriage), and those that are done by priests and Bishops in valid succession from the Apostles, together with the correct form and matter.

This is also only in relation to conversion to the Catholic faith. (That is, someone baptized in a heretical or schismatic Church is truly baptized, and thus, does not receive Baptism a second time; someone married in a heretical or schismatic Church is truly married, and thus does not have to do the ceremony over again in the Catholic Church - someone Confirmed by a valid Bishop is truly Confirmed, and is therefore not re-Confirmed, etc.)

We don’t comment officially one way or another on the salvation of heretics and schismatics themselves, who never actually convert during their lifetime.

I don’t see how that’s any different than what the early Fathers accepted, when taken as a whole.

 

[Contarini]

So you think there are no differences of opinion between what it takes to be saved between Jehova Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Baptists, and Catholics?

You’re changing the terms. I said that Christians do not diametrically differ about Christ. I did not say that we do not differ at all about Christ (whether Christ exercised omniscience during His earthly life, for instance), and I did not say that we do not differ diametrically about other things. Mormons and JWs do differ from orthodox Christians about Christ seriously enough that I would hesitate to say that they profess the same Christ we do, so I would not consider them members of the Church. But SDAs, Baptists, and Catholics certainly all believe in the same Christ and are all members of the Church.

Differences about “what it takes to be saved” are a different matter. They are not differences about Christ, and the subject of soteriology is far less important than post-Reformation Christians have come to believe. We are not saved by understanding how to be saved–this is one of the biggest errors of modern evangelicalism.

Well if one is teaching , for instance, the false doctine of Saved by Fatih alone (a doctrine created in the 1,500s) it most could be fatal-soulwise that is.

Any doctrine can be fatal if taken the wrong way (i.e., in a manner that does not foster faith, hope, and charity), and of course it is much easier to do this with bad doctrines (such as OSAS) than with good ones. But again, you are changing the terms of the argument. I said that such errors “are not fatal”–i.e., they are not intrinsically fatal. They may be and generally are interpreted in a manner that more or less supports (however clumsily) faith, hope, and charity. OSAS, for instance, is more often than not interpreted to mean that a “true Christian” will not behave in certain ways. It’s still wrong, but it’s not incompatible with Christian faith.

What doctines is it we can safely ignore?

None.

And if we all get to gather around and figure things out for oursleves what need of there is for a Church anyway?

Who is the “we” who are “figuring it out for ourselves?” Are you suggesting that you as a baptized Catholic are not part of the Church? Laypeople do not figure things out for themselves. The Church as a whole–Pope, bishops, priests, lay Catholics, and, yes, non-Catholic Christians–figures things out. The Church is an organic unity, and it is absolutely essential.

For that matter why would we have needed the Church to codify Scripture-why not just throw all the books out there and let these little groups pick and choose what is right?

I am very grateful that Divine Providence preserved the relative unity of the Church until some of these basic points had been hammered out.

In Christ,

Edwin

We agree on that . Not only did they not figure out what he really meant but they created their own religions to suit there own beliefs and in many cases created their own god to go along with these beliefs. Their reasons ranged from disagreements with Church Hiercarchy to lust for attractive women.

Protestants are indeed Chisitans-Christians who through their invincible ignorance have settled for a pale shadow of the truth. There is great joy in Heaven when one of our seprarted bretheren sees the light and comes home.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin;

The only Sacraments we see as valid are those that can be done by lay people (baptism and marriage), and those that are done by priests and Bishops in valid succession from the Apostles, together with the correct form and matter.

This is also only in relation to conversion to the Catholic faith.

That is indeed what Augustine taught. That is not what Vatican II teaches; it is not what the Catechism teaches; it is not what Pope Benedict teaches; and it is not what most Catholics I know believe. I see no reason to take your word against that of all these authorities.

We don’t comment officially one way or another on the salvation of heretics and schismatics themselves

Whereas the Fathers did. Furthermore, while of course the Church doesn’t comment officially on the salvation of any individual non-Catholic (or any individual Catholic except for canonized saints), it is quite clear that the Magisterium today teaches that non-Catholics can be saved without converting. This has been demonstrated in abundant ways, and if you deny it you are simply blind. Your refusal to admit the plain teaching of your own Church is further evidence of the continuity problems within that teaching.

I don’t see how that’s any different than what the early Fathers accepted, when taken as a whole.

Even your spin is gentler than that of the Fathers, but you are not correctly representing the position of the Catholic Church today, unless not only I but most of the orthodox, well-informed Catholics I know are reading the relevant documents horribly wrong.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

That is indeed what Augustine taught. That is not what Vatican II teaches; it is not what the Catechism teaches; it is not what Pope Benedict teaches; and it is not what most Catholics I know believe. I see no reason to take your word against that of all these authorities.

My source is the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. As for me, I’ve never seen anything in the Catechism, the writings of the Pope, or in the documents of Vatican II that deny that the Catholic Church is the ordinary means of salvation for all of humanity. While, yes, admitting that God is certainly free to operate outside the Church, just as He is free to operate outside the laws of nature as we understand them.

I think it is reasonably well-understood that He does not do so very often.

Furthermore, while of course the Church doesn’t comment officially on the salvation of any individual non-Catholic (or any individual Catholic except for canonized saints), it is quite clear that the Magisterium today teaches that non-Catholics can be saved without converting.

But not that they will be. We are not saying that it’s at all likely. We are simply saying that it isn’t our call to make, and that God can do anything He wants to do.

If some people are taking that to mean that Protestants are likely to be saved, then they are reading the documents through rose-coloured glasses.

This has been demonstrated in abundant ways, and if you deny it you are simply blind. Your refusal to admit the plain teaching of your own Church is further evidence of the continuity problems within that teaching.

Where does it “plainly say” in any official documents that Protestants are likely to be saved? (Not merely that they can be.)

 

[estesbob]

This is a clear case where nearly all Christians today agree that the Fathers were wrong. The divisions within Christianity have become so many, and all of us have so much experience of piety and holiness in other Christian churches, that almost no one can still maintain (as Augustine did, for instance) that the means of grace found in other churches are nullified in effect by the sin of schism (let alone the even sterner Cyprianic/Donatist position that schismatic sacraments are simply invalid). It’s just that Protestants are more straightforward about it than Catholics.

Edwin

Agrement that the fathers were wrong??? Which Fathers? Certainly the Fathers of the One True Church. If they were wrng then, as said before, Jesus was a bald faced liar.

 

[Contarini]

Agrement that the fathers were wrong??? Which Fathers? Certainly the Fathers of the One True Church. If they were wrng then, as said before, Jesus was a bald faced liar.

Yes, you did say it before. But you gave no reason then, and you give no reason now. This is supposed to be a board for discussion, not simply asserting the same thing over and over with no argument.

Jmcrae, I am of course not disputing that your Church teaches that it is the normal means of salvation. But I would like to see where the RCIA or any other Church document says that baptism is devoid of grace for those who remain Protestants.

On the contrary, Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio 22 says:

1. Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life, as the Apostle says: “You were buried together with Him in Baptism, and in Him also rose again-through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead”.(40)
   Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.
   Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord’s Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.

There is no indication that the baptized are only incorporated into Christ if they eventually become Catholic. On the contrary, the last paragraph clearly has in mind those who do not go on to the fullness of life in Christ available in the Catholic Church.

Edwin

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I’m sorry, but saying a thing is so doesn’t make it so. You have to spell the logic out. This assertion is made by Catholics all the time, and it’s irresponsible and wrong.

I think it’s perfectly true that to say that the Church apostasized for centuries makes Christ out to be a liar. But you know I don’t believe that, and as an ex-Methodist you know lots of other Protestants don’t believe it either.

Edwin

Edwin,

Why does it matter who believes or disbelieves the truth? Why is that any kind of argument? Is truth really subject to popular vote?

CDL

 

[estesbob]

Yes, you did say it before. But you gave no reason then, and you give no reason now. This is supposed to be a board for discussion, not simply asserting the same thing over and over with no argument.

Jmcrae, I am of course not disputing that your Church teaches that it is the normal means of salvation. But I would like to see where the RCIA or any other Church document says that baptism is devoid of grace for those who remain Protestants.

On the contrary, Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio 22 says:

There is no indication that the baptized are only incorporated into Christ if they eventually become Catholic. On the contrary, the last paragraph clearly has in mind those who do not go on to the fullness of life in Christ available in the Catholic Church.

Edwin

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

**846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.Those who reject the church out of Invincible ignorance or those,. who, through no fault of their own do not know the Church, can be saved BUT even their salvation comes through the Church.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Diametrically opposed views of Christ? Really? Give an example.

Errors that do not contradict faith in Christ are hardly “irrelevant,” but they are not fatal either.

“Christ is a good man”, Bsp. Joseph Sprague. This is an Arian view.

“The sacraments are only symbols. Christ is only a Spirit”, many former lay and ministerial UM colleagues. This is a Gnostic or Docetic view.

“A practicing homosexual can be in persona Christi as a bishop”, one of your bishops.

I certainly disagree that a heretic can be a Christian. They may be something else but they are not Christians.

CDL

 

[sterryfamily]

There’s nothing disingenuous about it. I don’t claim that my view is the same as that of the early Christians. A far better case could be made that the Catholic Church is disingenuous here, since you *do *claim that your view of this matter is the same as that of the early Christians, which it clearly isn’t. You do not regard non-Catholic Christians in the same way St. Cyprian regarded the Novatians or even the way St. Augustine regarded the Donatists. You twist yourselves into knots trying to reconcile Vatican II with “Unam Sanctam” and the Council of Florence.

This is a clear case where nearly all Christians today agree that the Fathers were wrong. The divisions within Christianity have become so many, and all of us have so much experience of piety and holiness in other Christian churches, that almost no one can still maintain (as Augustine did, for instance) that the means of grace found in other churches are nullified in effect by the sin of schism (let alone the even sterner Cyprianic/Donatist position that schismatic sacraments are simply invalid). It’s just that Protestants are more straightforward about it than Catholics.

Edwin

The point remains that the apostles (who were taught and ordained by Christ) and early Christians taught that for one to be a part of the Church that Christ established for us, one must follow the magisterium; That we were given the promise by Christ that He would guide the magisterium into all truth. For one to profess, or insinuate otherwise is, indeed, disingenuous, unless they have no knowledge of the history.

Further, to imply that development of doctrine could not be guided by the Holy Spirit would be, again, to doubt Christ’s promise, and to make God behave in a way He never did in the old testament. He always used fallible men to impart His infallible truth, even as it developed over time. He also ALWAYS required His chosen people to follow the appointed leaders (no matter how sinful or stupid) in His covenants. Who are we to tell Him things can’t be that way anymore? That the new times require democracy and personal, intellectual assent?

 

[sterryfamily]

Whereas the Fathers did. Furthermore, while of course the Church doesn’t comment officially on the salvation of any individual non-Catholic (or any individual Catholic except for canonized saints), it is quite clear that the Magisterium today teaches that non-Catholics can be saved without converting.

Edwin

Again, you are twisting, here. The Church has never changed it’s position. She may claim a deeper understanding and impart it to her faithful, but it has never changed. The Church teaches that anyone in Heaven is a Catholic - only God knows when, where or how He converted them.

 

[sterryfamily]

Contarini:
There is no indication that the baptized are only incorporated into Christ if they eventually become Catholic. On the contrary, the last paragraph clearly has in mind those who do not go on to the fullness of life in Christ available in the Catholic Church.

Edwin

What, on earth, do you think is meant by, “Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.
… they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness…”?

 

[Matas]

I chose Pentecost, however, I would go even farther back to when Christ asked the first apostle to follow him, but that was not an option. Guess I should have checked “other”.

I chose Pentecost too, but I tell people that the Church started when Jesus spoke to Peter, “…and upon this rock I will build my Church.”