When do you claim that the Catholic Church began

[Genesis315]

Concerning the IC, t’s not a change. The Church had not definitively ruled on the subject yet. Just like some people (like St. Cyprian) believed it was necessary to re-baptize heretics until the pope gave a definitve ruling on it. The Dominicans had an erroneous belief based on St. Albert’s explanation of biology. St. Thomas actually wavered on the subject changing his position a couple times. The debate then rose up with the Dominicans arguing against the IC and Franciscans arguing for it. I seemed the Dominicans just didn’t want to admit St. Thomas was wrong. One can trace the idea of Mary being all holy and free from any stain back to the Fathers.

 

[mozart-250]

The Church itself has official teachings on all of these issues - and they don’t contradict themselves.

The problem is that on many of these issues the official teaching is ambiguous enough that good Catholics can and do disagree on precisely what the church does teach.

Witness all of these threads concerning the status of Protestants (is Billy Graham saved). Good Catholics cite Catholic sources and conclude our chances range from 0.1 percent to 99.9 percent.
So we have multiple beliefs both in good faith citing Catholic sources on the same topic. So non-identical beliefs mean different religions?

Or consider origins where one Catholic apologist (Robert Sungenis) believes in a literal 6 day creation while other Catholic apologists believe in theistic evolution. The source church documents are so ambiguous that both beliefs are possible. So non-identical beliefs mean different religions?

From what I have observed, the difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics can and do disagree about what exactly the church teaches while Protestants can and do disagree about what exactly the Bible teaches.

 

[jmcrae]

The problem is that on many of these issues the official teaching is ambiguous enough that good Catholics can and do disagree on precisely what the church does teach.

Witness all of these threads concerning the status of Protestants (is Billy Graham saved).

Only God knows what will happen to Billy Graham. The Church doesn’t speculate officially on how God will judge individuals of other faiths.

Good Catholics cite Catholic sources and conclude our chances range from 0.1 percent to 99.9 percent.

Well, the reality is that it’s either 100% or 0%. We simply don’t know. “Good” Catholics shouldn’t even be speculating out loud about stuff like that.

So we have multiple beliefs both in good faith citing Catholic sources on the same topic. So non-identical beliefs mean different religions?

Not when the differences are within the allowable parameters given by the religion itself.

Or consider origins where one Catholic apologist (Robert Sungenis) believes in a literal 6 day creation while other Catholic apologists believe in theistic evolution. The source church documents are so ambiguous that both beliefs are possible. So non-identical beliefs mean different religions?

Both Robert Sugenis and Mark Shea can attend the same Mass and receive the same Holy Communion from the same priest - they are both members of the same Church. Their differences in opinion don’t make either of them to be less Catholic than the other, because the Church has not made any kind of a ruling on that particular subject.

It sounded to me like this is something your aunt and your parents would most likely not do, probably because one or both religions actively teaches against something that is commonly taught in the other.

From what I have observed, the difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics can and do disagree about what exactly the church teaches while Protestants can and do disagree about what exactly the Bible teaches.

Hopefully in the spirit of Faith Seeking Understanding, in both cases. In the case of the Church, the teachings of the Church are available in the Catechism. Anything we don’t find in the Catechism is open for speculation.

 

[Contarini]

Concerning the IC, t’s not a change. The Church had not definitively ruled on the subject yet.

I know that. I’m not alleging contradiction here, just change. When at one point you say “it’s OK to believe one of two things” and then you say “it’s only OK to believe one of those things,” that’s a change. As I said above, you can define “change” more narrowly, but that’s confusing and misleading to most people.

Just like some people (like St. Cyprian) believed it was necessary to re-baptize heretics until the pope gave a definitve ruling on it.

That’s a change too.

One can trace the idea of Mary being all holy and free from any stain back to the Fathers.

I know that, though it’s spoken of more vaguely. Defining something more closely is a change too.

Look at this in the original context: I’m saying that before Trent certain people could be orthodox Catholics who could not be orthodox Catholics afterward without changing their opinions. Therefore, so say that the Catholic Church was in all respects the same before and after Trent is to misuse language.

Edwin

 

[mozart-250]

It sounded to me like this is something your aunt and your parents would most likely not do, probably because one or both religions actively teaches against something that is commonly taught in the other.

Actually the United Methodist Church practices open communion…so that is not true. I am fairly sure the Nazarene church does also.

However, this thread has strayed far from the original point so let me bring it back. What I was saying can be best illustrated by a hypothetical:

Let us say we start with religious organization ‘A’. This organization can be either a church…denomination…whatever.

On down the line let us say this religious organization splits into two organizations we will call A’ (A prime) and B. I use the A’ and B notation because it is quite a common occurrence that in a schism one of the parties keeps the property…retains the name…or whatever…while the second party vacates the property and adopts a new name.

Now imagine a fair minded, neutral observer who knows nothing about the details of the schism other than it happend. What would he conclude?

In the absence of any other data, the natural, default assumption would be that both A’ and B are descendents of A and both have equal claim upon A.

Now this is not the only logical possibility here. You have at least two others:

• Perhaps ‘B’ is a heretic organization and has no claims to A.
• Perhaps A had drifted from its original foundation and B is really A according to the founders of A.
  (and you have all sorts of alternative explanations between these two extremes).

However, a fair minded, neutral observer would not start with either of these assumptions. He would start with the assumption that A’ and B are on equal footing with respect to A and would demand convincing evidence to reach another conclusion (burden of the proof being upon the one making the alternative claim).

Since I have not studied in detail how all of the branches of Methodism have come into existence, my natural assumption is that all branches have equal claim to the original A. I am applying similar reasoning in the case where A is now the apostolic church.

 

[estesbob]

Let us say we start with religious organization ‘A’. This organization can be either a church…denomination…whatever.

On down the line let us say this religious organization splits into two organizations we will call A’ (A prime) and B. I use the A’ and B notation because it is quite a common occurrence that in a schism one of the parties keeps the property…retains the name…or whatever…while the second party vacates the property and adopts a new name.

I would agree that a neutral person with absolutely no knowledge of Church History could come to that erroneous conclusion. One who took the time to research the issue, however, could come to no other conclusion other than the Catholic is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. Either that or Jesus lied to Peter and allowed His Church to be in error for 1,500 years.

 

[Contarini]

One who took the time to research the issue, however, could come to no other conclusion other than the Catholic is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. Either that or Jesus lied to Peter and allowed His Church to be in error for 1,500 years.

So the many people who have studied church history intensely but have not accepted Catholicism were either fools or liars? Jaroslav Pelikan, Heiko Oberman, Henry and Owen Chadwick, J.N.D. Kelly, Peter Brown–shucks, my own advisor David Steinmetz–all a bunch of idiots?

This is simply a contemptible argument. You are casting sweeping aspersions on the character of people who have studied the matter in far more depth than you are ever likely to.

History will not do what you are trying to make it do. It does not lead to conclusive theological conclusions, because what you get out of it depends to a great extent on your presuppositions.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

So the many people who have studied church history intensely but have not accepted Catholicism were either fools or liars? Jaroslav Pelikan, Heiko Oberman, Henry and Owen Chadwick, J.N.D. Kelly, Peter Brown–shucks, my own advisor David Steinmetz–all a bunch of idiots?

This is simply a contemptible argument. You are casting sweeping aspersions on the character of people who have studied the matter in far more depth than you are ever likely to.

History will not do what you are trying to make it do. It does not lead to conclusive theological conclusions, because what you get out of it depends to a great extent on your presuppositions.

Edwin

They are not liars-they just suffer from invincible ignorance.
Either Jeusus lied and let his Church be in error for 1,500 years or not. I think the answer is preety clear to those who look into it.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

They are not liars-they just suffer from invincible ignorance.
Either Jeusus lied and let his Church be in error for 1,500 years or not. I think the answer is preety clear to those who look into it.

Edwin,

I do believe that Estebob’s logic is impeccable. I don’t think one can escape it. Pelikan came most of the way home when he converted to the Orthodox Catholic Church (using the fuller and more ancient name).

I invite you to come home as well.

CDL, A United Methodist pastor for 27 years who succumbed to God’s wooing.

 

[Contarini]

They are not liars-they just suffer from invincible ignorance.

I think it’s interesting that “invincible ignorance” has mutated among Catholics from “having no way of knowing about the truth” to “may know all about the truth, but have some mysterious inner blindness that is not their own fault.” I’m glad of this, because it allows you to be gentler toward us non-Catholics–and frankly I take a somewhat similar view of non-Christians. But it’s another example of just how much Catholicism really has changed.

Isn’t it far more probable that you are being a bit too enthusiastic about the conclusiveness of historical evidence than that all these scholars couldn’t see where the evidence was obviously pointing? Nothing in your faith requires you to believe that historical evidence proves Catholicism conclusively. Isn’t it possible that you have a less than firm grasp on exactly what historical evidence (in general) can and cannot prove?

Either Jeusus lied and let his Church be in error for 1,500 years or not. I think the answer is preety clear to those who look into it.

You cannot come close to proving that Jesus promised that the Church would never err in any respect. There is no good reason to believe that any doctrinal error at all would amount to the gates of hell prevailing. This is an assumption you make because it suits your case.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I do believe that Estebob’s logic is impeccable.

Veritatem dixisti. Quod non est, peccari non potest.

Edwin

 

[GregoryPalamas]

You cannot come close to proving that Jesus promised that the Church would never err in any respect. There is no good reason to believe that any doctrinal error at all would amount to the gates of hell prevailing. This is an assumption you make because it suits your case.

Edwin

Edwin,

You are correct on this point but Estebob’s point is still true. Either Catholicism is Christ’s Church or Christ is a teller of tall tales.

CDL

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

You are correct on this point but Estebob’s point is still true. Either Catholicism is Christ’s Church or Christ is a teller of tall tales.

CDL

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

 

[estesbob]

I

You cannot come close to proving that Jesus promised that the Church would never err in any respect. There is no good reason to believe that any doctrinal error at all would amount to the gates of hell prevailing. This is an assumption you make because it suits your case.

Edwin

We are told the Gates of Hell will never prevail against his Church. The simple, unvarnished truth is all of Protestanism is based upon the premise that Chirst let his Church exist in grieveous error, condeming millions of people to eternal hellfire until “enlightened” men came along in the 1500s. Of course those "enlightened " men have since went in 30,000 different directions but that is a discussion for anohter time and place.

 

[estesbob]

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

Neother do lots of atheissts and agnostics but that does not negate the fact that Protestanism is based on a incompetent God who waited until 1,500 years after his Sons death to allow his people to be saved,

 

[mozart-250]

I would agree that a neutral person with absolutely no knowledge of Church History could come to that erroneous conclusion. One who took the time to research the issue, however, could come to no other conclusion other than the Catholic is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. Either that or Jesus lied to Peter and allowed His Church to be in error for 1,500 years.

As usual, Edwin gives the same answer I would have, except much better worded.

Yup, one can come to the conclusion that the Catholic denomination is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ if one starts with a number of assumptions that your neutral person with no knowledge of church history checking this all out is likely to start have. Otherwise, you tell me how he would gets from A to B.

One assumption is that “gates of hell prevail against” is equivalent to “impossible to teach error in faith and morals” (I could note that his equation violates the normal English language usage of the verb ‘prevail’).

As far as invincible ignorance goes, I have seen enough inanities on both sides to conclude that invincible ignorance is not limited to Protestants.

 

[Contarini]

We are told the Gates of Hell will never prevail against his Church. The simple, unvarnished truth is all of Protestanism is based upon the premise that Chirst let his Church exist in grieveous error, condeming millions of people to eternal hellfire until “enlightened” men came along in the 1500s.

No, it isn’t. Period.

The only thing Protestantism as a whole is based on (as opposed to Catholicism and Orthodoxy) is the claim that Christ is present where two or three are gathered in His name.

Repeating falsehoods about Protestantism does not make them true, any more than repeating falsehoods about Catholicism makes them true.

Edwin

 

[sterryfamily]

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,

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

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

 

[jmcrae]

No, it isn’t. Period.

The only thing Protestantism as a whole is based on (as opposed to Catholicism and Orthodoxy) is the claim that Christ is present where two or three are gathered in His name.

We believe that two are gathered in His name, in the marriage bed, and in the Confessional.

What we don’t believe is that two or three can get together and create a new religion in His name. He only created one, and He expects and wants all of His followers to be in it. (John 17)

 

[estesbob]

No, it isn’t. Period.

The only thing Protestantism as a whole is based on (as opposed to Catholicism and Orthodoxy) is the claim that Christ is present where two or three are gathered in His name.

Repeating falsehoods about Protestantism does not make them true, any more than repeating falsehoods about Catholicism makes them true.

Edwin

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