Who or what am I?

[Waiting]

I appreciate the comments from everyone. I enjoy the discussion.

I do not so much have problems with the doctrine or teaching of Roman Mariology, my problem is more the mandatory acceptance of a set of doctrines that presuppose the infallibility of the councils and Popes who issued the doctrine.

I can accept the current Mariology with minimal reservation, what I have the most trouble with is the claim of perfection of church tradition.

The church is made of men, and men in every case are fallible.

When Jesus instituted His Church, He stated that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He also said that what the Apostles bound on earth would be bound in heaven. What they loosed on earth would be liised in heaven. That means that though the Church is made up of men, it is kept from error by the Holy Spirit. Men make mistakes, but in matters of truth of faiith and morals, there is a heavenly guarantee against error.

 

[Camondw]

John 16:7

John 16:12-13

Did Jesus lie?

To be clear, you are making the claim that John 16 is the promise that the Holy Ghost will lead and inspire the church to the same degree that He inspired and lead the authors of scripture?

 

[JM3]

Sounds pretty Catholic to me!

I’d say you sound pretty Catholic! Also you don’t deviate from Catholic belief in the above quote. My Catechism is not here right now or I would get you the exact quotes…

Steph

These statements are, sadly, true. I know very few Catholics that actually believe and follow what the Church teaches. Most, who call themselves Catholic, pick and choose what they will believe, as though they have a right to do this. Their pride blinds them to the truth.

 

[jwakja]

Good thoughts on infallibility on www.newadvent.org. Explores meaning that I had not considered myself with my narrow definition of the term. Good luck, see you at Mass.

 

[JM3]

To be clear, you are making the claim that John 16 is the promise that the Holy Ghost will lead and inspire the church to the same degree that He inspired and lead the authors of scripture?

Yes. Either you believe Jesus or you do not. That is your choice.

Sometimes a child does not understand what a parent says or why they said it.

 

[Camondw]

These statements are, sadly, true. I know very few Catholics that actually believe and follow what the Church teaches. Most, who call themselves Catholic, pick and choose what they will believe, as though they have a right to do this. Their pride blinds them to the truth.

Sadly true because they are right and I am not in the church? Or are you saying sadly true in that they are not seeing relevant differences between Catholic dogma and my statements?

 

[Camondw]

Yes. Either you believe Jesus or you do not. That is your choice.

I see your point. Most Protestants say that Christ was guaranteeing the Spirit to each believer to interpret for themselves, though obviously that argument can be shot-down because of all the rotten theology that “individual” interpretation has wrought.

I do not have an answer this this particular point except to say that it is unclear to me that He was promising the Spirit to the church at large in a way that would make it infallible, even in decrees of doctrine and morals.

 

[losh14]

Camondw - I must say, I’m impressed by your studiousness and your thorough sharing of beliefs. Thank you for sharing and asking your question - I’ll treat it with the spirit in which you asked it.

I have an odd assortment of beliefs and I am trying to find out where I belong in the faith…

Indeed, it is very Catholic. Your “deviations” on the other hand speak more to an openness to God’s Grace, that “everything is possible”, so to speak, in a Biblical and not derogatory fashion.

The breaks within the Church - the Great Schism, Henry’s separation of England, the Reformation - these are all terrible events born of human faults. Does Grace prevail? Yes. Can we believe it the Catholic Church is most correct without denying that there is truth outside of it as well? Yes, absolutely, and I don’t think it is antithetical to say that Grace is with our Protestant brethren. It would only be antithetical to say “So I can leave the Catholic Church and go wherever because all religions are the same” - but you’re not saying that here, not at all.

To specifics:

I believe apostolic succession is or may be preserved outside of the Roman church.

This is something for a larger topic on apostolic succession. Even where succession does not exist, that does not prevent the pastor from being a means of Grace to his flock.

I believe that there is no instance wherein man may not be flawed.

To a point, I agree with you. At the same time, there MUST be occasions of infallibility, or we cannot trust the promulgation of Scripture, nor the ministry of reconciliation, which is Divine in origin but acted out by human agents. There must be divine protection of truth from error. Also, this brings up the question, if you accept the decisions of ecumenical councils, but do not think them infallible, then on what basis do you consider them to have authority?

I accept that the Roman church is the intended institution of Christ’s church, however, I believe that salvation is possible and even common outside of the Roman church, though never outside of Christ.

It is through the hardness of human hearts that we have so many churches. We pray for reconciliation and unity, but in the meantime it would be an error and an arrogance to say that God saves no one but a faithful Catholic.

I accept the New Testament statement that in order to be saved one must “say with his mouth and believe in his heart…”.

This is a true statement from the New Testament. But, if you think of it as a sole condition - believe, confess, and be saved - please also consider Ac 16:31, Ro 8:5-8, 23-25, 1 Pt 3:21, 1 Cor 15:2, and other verses. Faith is essential, but ask yourself “What is the faith that saves?” What does it mean to believe with the heart, rather than with the mind?

There are certain sacraments that are not practiced or encouraged in the ACNA such as confession and absolution.

In the ACNA, is it normative to receive forgiveness by directly confessing to God in prayer? Also, if a parishoner approaches an Anglican priest with serious or difficult sins, does the priest take a counseling role?

Also the ACNA is vague on their understanding of the Eucharist, they tend to have a more con- rather than trans- view of the Holy Eucharist.

I’ve heard this. So more would say “Christ is with the Host” rather than “Christ is Present in the Host”?

I believe that I fall somewhere between Anglican and Catholic. Any advice? Is anyone else in this precarious position?

Hardly precarious - you are an exploring, praying, thinking, believing Christian who is exploring two faith traditions that have much in common, and whose history of animosity is distant. Keep reading, keep praying, keep yourself open to the Grace that has been revealed to you.

I have many Catholic views, but am not (according to Rome) in communion with them… but I also have a different view of the sacrament than is the typical Anglican view meaning I do not feel completely secure in receiving the Eucharist there either.

I cannot speak for what an Anglican might say about this. From a Catholic perspective, you should not receive Eucharist in the Catholic Church for now, though you are always welcome to pray with us and worship with us. I should mention I rarely receive the Eucharist - I am a celiac, and our parish is rather dismissive of my condition. When the Cup is offered, I take only the Cup. More often than not, it runs out before I get up there, and so I simply make a round-circuit from the cry room to the altar and back. So maybe we’ll both be making an act of Spiritual Communion this Sunday, eh?

As I reflect on the difference - “with” versus “in” - it seems so small and nuanced, two theologians duking it out 500 years ago, though admittedly with the hefty weight of warmongering German princes awaiting an excuse to go to war against those heathens in the next town over. Even as I look it up in wiki (sorry, I don’t know where else to look up Anglican theology easily), it strikes me that there’s not one absolute view within the Anglican Communion. I think for now it’d be best for you to continue to examine yourself, and consult with both an Anglican and a Catholic priest. I’d even go so far as to say you should discuss with other than your parish priest. Many Catholic priests are wonderful counselors, or organizers, or leaders - some are even good homilists. Not all of them are good at explaining theology. To know theology isn’t the same as being able to teach it. So find one who can talk with you and help you think through it.

I’ll keep you in my prayers, friend. You’ve given me something more to be thankful for.

 

[FightingFat]

These statements are, sadly, true. I know very few Catholics that actually believe and follow what the Church teaches. Most, who call themselves Catholic, pick and choose what they will believe, as though they have a right to do this. Their pride blinds them to the truth.

What you say is very true, and I too wish that more people were properly Catholic, it makes all the difference (as illustrated, for example, by this story I read in the Catholic Herald today- this young man’s life was changed when he met real Catholics his own age).
I think until people are prepared to engage with these issues, they will tend to follow their gut, or what they have heard regarding them. I know I wasn’t as orthodox ten years ago as I am now, I’m on a journey and we can’t all start out at the finish. As I learn more, I become more in tune with the Church’s teaching, and thus a little closer to the almighty, but in order to believe it, I have to wrestle a little, like Jacob in the Jabbok!

As LG 8 states:

…many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its [The Catholic Church’s] visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Whatever grasp we each hold of the beauty and truth of God’s plan for us, constitutes a force which impels each one of us nearer to Him, in search of the truth.

I love that paragraph: “These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”

 

[JM3]

Sadly true because they are right and I am not in the church? Or are you saying sadly true in that they are not seeing relevant differences between Catholic dogma and my statements?

It was not directed at you, just a general statement that some Catholics are not as Catholic as they should be.

Do not base your faith on the actions of others. Read the Bible prayerfully and ask for guidance. If you become a pest, He cannot refuse you.

 

[Camondw]

Camondw - I must say, I’m impressed by your studiousness and your thorough sharing of beliefs. Thank you for sharing and asking your question - I’ll treat it with the spirit in which you asked it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camondw
I have an odd assortment of beliefs and I am trying to find out where I belong in the faith…
Indeed, it is very Catholic. Your “deviations” on the other hand speak more to an openness to God’s Grace, that “everything is possible”, so to speak, in a Biblical and not derogatory fashion.

The breaks within the Church - the Great Schism, Henry’s separation of England, the Reformation - these are all terrible events born of human faults. Does Grace prevail? Yes. Can we believe it the Catholic Church is most correct without denying that there is truth outside of it as well? Yes, absolutely, and I don’t think it is antithetical to say that Grace is with our Protestant brethren. It would only be antithetical to say “So I can leave the Catholic Church and go wherever because all religions are the same” - but you’re not saying that here, not at all.

To specifics:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camondw
I believe apostolic succession is or may be preserved outside of the Roman church.
This is something for a larger topic on apostolic succession. Even where succession does not exist, that does not prevent the pastor from being a means of Grace to his flock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camondw
I believe that there is no instance wherein man may not be flawed.
To a point, I agree with you. At the same time, there MUST be occasions of infallibility, or we cannot trust the promulgation of Scripture, nor the ministry of reconciliation, which is Divine in origin but acted out by human agents. There must be divine protection of truth from error. Also, this brings up the question, if you accept the decisions of ecumenical councils, but do not think them infallible, then on what basis do you consider them to have authority?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camondw
I accept that the Roman church is the intended institution of Christ’s church, however, I believe that salvation is possible and even common outside of the Roman church, though never outside of Christ.
It is through the hardness of human hearts that we have so many churches. We pray for reconciliation and unity, but in the meantime it would be an error and an arrogance to say that God saves no one but a faithful Catholic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camondw
I accept the New Testament statement that in order to be saved one must “say with his mouth and believe in his heart…”.
This is a true statement from the New Testament. But, if you think of it as a sole condition - believe, confess, and be saved - please also consider Ac 16:31, Ro 8:5-8, 23-25, 1 Pt 3:21, 1 Cor 15:2, and other verses. Faith is essential, but ask yourself “What is the faith that saves?” What does it mean to believe with the heart, rather than with the mind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camondw
There are certain sacraments that are not practiced or encouraged in the ACNA such as confession and absolution.
In the ACNA, is it normative to receive forgiveness by directly confessing to God in prayer? Also, if a parishoner approaches an Anglican priest with serious or difficult sins, does the priest take a counseling role?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camondw
Also the ACNA is vague on their understanding of the Eucharist, they tend to have a more con- rather than trans- view of the Holy Eucharist.
I’ve heard this. So more would say “Christ is with the Host” rather than “Christ is Present in the Host”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camondw
I believe that I fall somewhere between Anglican and Catholic. Any advice? Is anyone else in this precarious position?
Hardly precarious - you are an exploring, praying, thinking, believing Christian who is exploring two faith traditions that have much in common, and whose history of animosity is distant. Keep reading, keep praying, keep yourself open to the Grace that has been revealed to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camondw
I have many Catholic views, but am not (according to Rome) in communion with them… but I also have a different view of the sacrament than is the typical Anglican view meaning I do not feel completely secure in receiving the Eucharist there either.
I cannot speak for what an Anglican might say about this. From a Catholic perspective, you should not receive Eucharist in the Catholic Church for now, though you are always welcome to pray with us and worship with us. I should mention I rarely receive the Eucharist - I am a celiac, and our parish is rather dismissive of my condition. When the Cup is offered, I take only the Cup. More often than not, it runs out before I get up there, and so I simply make a round-circuit from the cry room to the altar and back. So maybe we’ll both be making an act of Spiritual Communion this Sunday, eh?

I am honored and grateful for your in-depth response to my concerns.

I will prayerfully consider all you have said.

On the matter of ACNA Eucharist, they just say “Real Presence” and leave it at that, though the 39 Articles of Religion (theological “creed” of the Anglican Communion explicitly reject a Trans- view of Eucharist.

 

[Camondw]

If you become a pest, He cannot refuse you.

I like that. There is more truth in that little statement than most will realize.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I am honored and grateful for your in-depth response to my concerns.

I will prayerfully consider all you have said.

On the matter of ACNA Eucharist, they just say “Real Presence” and leave it at that, though the 39 Articles of Religion (theological “creed” of the Anglican Communion explicitly reject a Trans- view of Eucharist.

And so, are you or are you not an Anglican? If you reject transubstantiation, then you reject Catholicism. If you reject that Christ founded the Church on Peter, then you cannot be Catholic. That means that the Bishops do have authority because Christ granted it and the Holy Spirit inspires it.

Your statements of human failure sound like a Protestant apologist I know…

 

[JM3]

I have an odd assortment of beliefs and I am trying to find out where I belong in the faith.

I believe all the statements of the Nicene/Apostles’/Athanasian Creeds. I accept everything from the first 4 ecumenical councils.

I believe that it is though the sacrifice of Christ that I am saved. I am justified by the blood of Christ which eliminates my original sin and gives me a redeemed nature that is able to do good. I believe that I must confess my sins to God to be forgiven. I believe that grace is imparted not imputed in the sacraments. I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and I believe that prayers for the dead are efficacious. I believe the Saints will pray for me and with me, as intercessors in the same capacity as my brethren on Earth. I believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. I believe in the importance of Apostolic succession. In these matters I believe my faith to be very Catholic.

Where I feel I deviate is as follows:
I believe apostolic succession is or may be preserved outside of the Roman church. (for example, in the Anglican Communion many priests have lines of succession that tie into the Roman lines of Apostolic ministry) I believe that there is no instance wherein man may not be flawed. (I do not accept the principle of the infallibility of councils or of ex cathedra) I accept that the Roman church is the intended institution of Christ’s church, however, I believe that salvation is possible and even common outside of the Roman church, though never outside of Christ. I accept the New Testament statement that in order to be saved one must “say with his mouth and believe in his heart…”.

I currently and a participant in the new province of The Anglican Church in North America. However, there are certain sacraments that are not practiced or encouraged in the ACNA such as confession and absolution. Also the ACNA is vague on their understanding of the Eucharist, they tend to have a more con- rather than trans- view of the Holy Eucharist.

I believe that I fall somewhere between Anglican and Catholic. Any advice? Is anyone else in this precarious position? I have many Catholic views, but am not (according to Rome) in communion with them so I aught not receive Eucharist in a Roman church, but I also have a different view of the sacrament than is the typical Anglican view meaning I do not feel completely secure in receiving the Eucharist there either.

And so, are you or are you not an Anglican? If you reject transubstantiation, then you reject Catholicism. If you reject that Christ founded the Church on Peter, then you cannot be Catholic. That means that the Bishops do have authority because Christ granted it and the Holy Spirit inspires it.

Your statements of human failure sound like a Protestant apologist I know…

Perhaps, Juliane, you should read his posts before you judge.

 

[losh14]

I do not so much have problems with the doctrine or teaching of Roman Mariology, my problem is more the mandatory acceptance of a set of doctrines that presuppose the infallibility of the councils and Popes who issued the doctrine.

I’m the opposite. Having been Catholic for most of three decades, I still struggle with Marian veneration - to the point I actually don’t practice it.

And I think there are parts of church tradition that most Catholics would at least raise an eyebrow to - now whether you accept what is core and central is another story. I can deal with the rather odd classification of fish as “not meat” (I don’t like fish anyway, so vegetarian Fridays are no problem for me), but I close my eyes when I take the Cup, out of respect for the Presence.

 

[Camondw]

Your statements of human failure sound like a Protestant apologist I know…

I take that as a bit of a compliment actually. I am only 26 but have read Pink, Lewis, Luther, Calvin, Sproul, MacArthur, Ravi Zacharias, Yancy, Tolkien (yes, he wrote more than fantasy), Chesterton, Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Catechism, 1689 Catechism, I am working on the Catholic Catechism (a true beast of a read) and a host of council cannons, papal bulls (english translations) and nearly every passage of scripture multiple times. I am not trying to brag, only emphasize that being accurate and knowing truth is a driving force in my life.

I was raised in a “Reformed” non-denominational church that was very focused on education and on the building of apologetics. I am versed in Van Till’s and in Bahnsen’s apologetics.

In light of all I have read and all that I continue to read, I cannot help but sound like a protestant apologist, I know the arguments on that side.

I want to say that I appreciate being taken seriously here.

I feel quite challenged by the john 16 post earlier in this thread.

 

[Camondw]

I have works by Aquinas, More and others that I have not gotten to yet.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Rome requires acceptance of ex cathedra and the infallibility of tradition and councils. I feel that scripture precludes me from ever trusting that a given human statement is flawless.

There’s a certain irony in rejecting the belief that human statements can be protected by the Holy Spirit… on the basis of human statements protected and inspired by the Holy Spirit (Scripture). In Acts 15:28, the Church Council of Jerusalem speaks on behalf of the Holy Spirit. I don’t understand why that doesn’t settle the debate?

 

[JM3]

being accurate and knowing truth is a driving force in my life.

What we know and believe is reflected in what we do. Thus, we are judged on our works, for our works reflect what is in our hearts. (Revelation 20:12)

 

[Camondw]

There’s a certain irony in rejecting the belief that human statements can be protected by the Holy Spirit… on the basis of human statements protected and inspired by the Holy Spirit (Scripture). In Acts 15:28, the Church Council of Jerusalem speaks on behalf of the Holy Spirit. I don’t understand why that doesn’t settle the debate?

In part it comes from 20 years of learning that the act of divine revelation has ended.