P
pablope
Guest
Which covers England?
- Status
L
ltwin
Guest
You need to brush up on your Revolutionary War history. The King, in either his civil or ecclesiastical personality, was persona non grata. The Episcopal Church bent over backwards to make the point that no civil magistrate had any authority in its internal affairs.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Yep. England hasn’t been a sovereign state (i.e. a kingdom) since 1707.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I’d say that Hus was! Certainly more so than the Emperor and Council that betrayed and condemned him.Contarini
But Wycliffe and Hus were “morally, spiritually, and theologically trustworthy?”
- The increasing suspicion among late medieval radical reformers (most notably Wycliffe and Hus) that the institutional Church was no longer morally, spiritually, and theologically trustworthy.
That’s the danger.Now there’s a great point! It’s either that or every man is a pope!
C
Contarini
Guest
Since 1558 the title has been “Supreme Governor,” not “head.” (Catholics pretty consistently exaggerate the role of Henry VIII in the formation of Anglicanism, when in fact most of the formularies of current Anglicanism were shaped decisively under Edward and Elizabeth.)
And no, that doesn’t apply to the Episcopal Church.
I do not regard the Episcopal Church, or Anglicanism, as “my church.” The “Episcopal Church” isn’t a Church at all, and the belief of our current Presiding Bishop that it is one is one of my biggest and clearest disagreements with her. The Church in which orthodox Anglicans believe is not Anglicanism but the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I think “Roman” Catholics are right in saying that our relationship with the Catholic Church is currently imperfect. Whether our orders are in fact invalid is a point on which I do not profess competence, but I know that I have encountered Christ in the sacraments administered in Anglicanism.
For many years, I have been torn between this conviction that Christ is present in Anglicanism (a conviction not contradicted by Catholic teaching) and my conviction that I ought to be in union with Rome.
At this point, I have requested the local priest to receive me into the Catholic Church, but he has told me that since I’m moving in a few months it would be better to wait until then.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Maybe
More seriously, the point under discussion is whether infallibility can solve the epistemological problem of certainty. That is to say, given that our views on religious matters are open to error, can infallibility remove the possibility that we are wrong? And the point I’ve been making is that it can’t, because our decision to trust the Church (and Scripture) is itself a fallible one. I appealed to Aquinas to show that in his view, those truths which surpass reason cannot be proved with complete certainty (demonstratively–in the way that mathematical truths can be proved, for instance), and that faith is an opinion to which, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we cleave with complete conviction (“to think with assent”).
The second quote you cite does not refer to the infallibility of Christ’s Church
Indeed. That’s not my point. I’m not criticizing infallibility–only the way you are using and interpreting the concept.
To believe that something is correct is not to say that it was infallibly determined. Infallibility does not just mean the absence of error, but the absence of the possibility of error (see the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on “infallibility”).Correct me if I mistake your argument. Do you believe that Lutheran teachings might be false? If you do, then why are you arguing for something that is doubtfully true? If you do not believe they are in error, then you must believe they are infallibly true. How do you know they are infallibly true when you deny that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches God’s truth? Why is the Lutheran truth infallible because it comes from Luther, whereas the Catholic truth is false because it claims to come from the Holy Spirit?
That being said, the tenacity with which confessional Protestants defend the teachings of their respective communions does seem odd given their denial of ecclesial infallibility. This doesn’t apply to us Anglicans. What Anglicans regard as binding is expressed in the “Lambeth Quadrilateral”: the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the authority of the Scriptures, the two sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, and the historic succession of bishops. All of these things are shared with Catholics and Orthodox, of course. Everything else is more or less open to debate.
Furthermore, as I said in my previous post, I have now unequivocally expressed to the local priest my desire to be received into the Catholic Church, so I’m in a transitional state with regard to Anglicanism.
Edwin
Scripture and the confessions, along with the tradition of the Church, do not provide for women in the priesthood.
Jon
A
adf417
Guest
Edwin I pray your transition is quick, painless and fulfilling in every way. Catholicism will be much more complete with the likes of you as it is clear you have much to offer.
God Bless!!!
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, it’s already been about eighteen years since I started seriously considering conversion to Catholicism. It’s been very long, and very painful. Pray that I will not waver this time (every time up to now, I’ve “blinked,” including last fall when the priest emailed me to say that I was confusing the other members of the RCIA class and should meet with him personally–I kind of got the impression that he found me a nuisance and wasn’t very enthusiastic, and I was having a very rough semester and was getting cold feet anyway, so I just put the whole thing on hold until last week).
Edwin
A
adf417
Guest
Wow! 18 years…stubborn old coot!
I suppose his comment could have been from the negative but please don’t assume so. I can only guess an intelligent, well read, person like you would bring up much in discussion that would confuse or fluster the average joe. Meeting with him personally might even speed up your RCIA process.
Peace!!!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Contarini
All I wish to say is that I think most Protestants repudiate the Catholic doctrine of infallibility, yet they claim it for themselves. They have to. So there’s the irony. Individual Protestants think like each one of them is a pope or a council in perfect possession of the truth insofar as Christ left the truth to be accepted and meditated upon. They cannot explain why they are infallible but the Catholic Church could not be infallible. A conundrum, to be sure!
I hope your journey home will be a pleasant one full of surprises and many gifts, both from God to you and you to God.
All I wish to say is that I think most Protestants repudiate the Catholic doctrine of infallibility, yet they claim it for themselves. They have to. So there’s the irony. Individual Protestants think like each one of them is a pope or a council in perfect possession of the truth insofar as Christ left the truth to be accepted and meditated upon. They cannot explain why they are infallible but the Catholic Church could not be infallible. A conundrum, to be sure!
I hope your journey home will be a pleasant one full of surprises and many gifts, both from God to you and you to God.
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t think it was negative in the sense of thinking I was a bad person, at all, more in the sense of not really wanting to be bothered with my rather cerebral approach to things.Wow! 18 years…stubborn old coot!
I suppose his comment could have been from the negative but please don’t assume so. I can only guess an intelligent, well read, person like you would bring up much in discussion that would confuse or fluster the average joe. Meeting with him personally might even speed up your RCIA process.
Peace!!!
Ironically, I long to cut through the intellectual complexity and have a “simple faith,” and in many ways I do. But faith for me can’t involve just ignoring the intellectual complexities.
My comments in RCIA really were unnecessary. It was a good, solid program–actually very impressive, content-wise–but I found it rather boring at times. The leaders would ramble on at considerable length and didn’t do much to try to get people to participate. I find it very hard to listen to other people talk without putting my oar in. It’s a weakness of mine–one reason why I find this forum addictive. So the other participants were already finding the material way over their heads, and my comments, instead of making things simpler, tended to be along the lines of “yes, and Aquinas says this about what you are saying, doesn’t he?” Completely pointless, really, but hard for me to resist given my personality and the way my brain works. It’s also why I have not been very successful as a college professor. Some students love me, but the majority find me too confusing and over their heads. (The fact that all of this last year happened as my career was imploding–in fact one reason I went ahead with it was that I no longer needed to worry about losing my job for becoming Catholic, since the evangelical college where I taught had downsized and laid me off anyway–made it harder to deal with.)
Very frustrating, since I badly want to communicate with people outside academia. I guess I just need to keep working at it, and find the right medium for doing so.
At any rate, the priest now says that since I’m moving in a few months I should deal with it then. So I will follow his advice. There will be all kinds of other difficulties, I’m sure–most likely the parish in Kentucky will give me the usual “attend RCIA, and wait a year, or two years, or whatever.”
It’s tough, because I don’t want to demand special consideration, but when parishes treat me like an initial inquirer the results are unsatisfactory for everyone, because I’m not a beginner at this–I’ve been round and round the issues for a very, very long time now.
On the other hand, the fact that most Catholic parishes make you “jump through hoops” is probably good. I have friends who converted to Catholicism and then “deconverted” later. If I didn’t have the fortitude to persevere through the obstacles in becoming Catholic, I probably wasn’t ready for the frustrations of actually being Catholic either.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No, they don’t, unless, again, you are defining “infallibility” just as “being right,” which is not the CE’s definition or the definition I’ve seen in any Church document.
Infallibility means that you can’t be wrong, not just that you aren’t wrong.
Edwin
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**Contarini
Infallibility means that you can’t be wrong, not just that you aren’t wrong.**
Here perhaps you are being unnecesarily argumentative. If it’s that you can’t stand hearing people say something without disagreeing or correcting them, I can see why you are continually imploding on several levels. I’ve had the problem myself at various points in my career, and some in this forum might say I still have it.
Perhaps the next time you get into RCIA you might keep in mind that you are the follower, not the leader, and that others are not fascinated by Socratic discourse. Maybe things will get a little boring again, but if your sponsor is not a bore, that should alleviate the problem somewhat. When you seek a parish, ask a priest to direct you to an RCIA program that is not “Catholicism for Dummies” oriented. Explain your circumstances and he will understand and will be able to assist. You don’t have to belong to the parish closest to where you live. If there is a Catholic college or university nearby, there is sometimes a university parish that is operated for the benefit of university students.
The worst kind of convert is the one who comes home half-hearted and determined to set the Catholic Church straight on a few things. I recommend the attitude of Aquinas on his deathbed. Submit! **The Church is infallible. That means with respect to basic teachings it cannot be wrong and is not wrong. **
Anything short of readiness to submit means you are not ready for RCIA.
My opinion here. So check with your prospective pastor.for confirmation.
Good luck and God bless.
P.S. I will be available for further discussion of Sola Scriptura only by private message. I have exhausted my interest in this thread.
Infallibility means that you can’t be wrong, not just that you aren’t wrong.**
Here perhaps you are being unnecesarily argumentative. If it’s that you can’t stand hearing people say something without disagreeing or correcting them, I can see why you are continually imploding on several levels. I’ve had the problem myself at various points in my career, and some in this forum might say I still have it.
Perhaps the next time you get into RCIA you might keep in mind that you are the follower, not the leader, and that others are not fascinated by Socratic discourse. Maybe things will get a little boring again, but if your sponsor is not a bore, that should alleviate the problem somewhat. When you seek a parish, ask a priest to direct you to an RCIA program that is not “Catholicism for Dummies” oriented. Explain your circumstances and he will understand and will be able to assist. You don’t have to belong to the parish closest to where you live. If there is a Catholic college or university nearby, there is sometimes a university parish that is operated for the benefit of university students.
The worst kind of convert is the one who comes home half-hearted and determined to set the Catholic Church straight on a few things. I recommend the attitude of Aquinas on his deathbed. Submit! **The Church is infallible. That means with respect to basic teachings it cannot be wrong and is not wrong. **
Anything short of readiness to submit means you are not ready for RCIA.
My opinion here. So check with your prospective pastor.for confirmation.
Good luck and God bless.
P.S. I will be available for further discussion of Sola Scriptura only by private message. I have exhausted my interest in this thread.
C
Contarini
Guest
And the Catholic Encyclopedia, and John Henry Newman, are also unnecessarily argumentative?
Some might. Some might also say that it was stupid of me to be as vulnerable as I was on a forum full of argumentative people such as yourself.
And where do you find me denying any teaching of the Church?
Edwin
P
pocohombre
Guest
Perhaps,but I would never say scripture as whole does not point to the “surety of His salvation” for it does. That you can throw it away, if you really had it, is another question.
P
pocohombre
Guest
I am not a “fiver” Calvinist, yet name me anything you can do in this regard and it seems God is a step ahead of you making it possible for you to do so. I think you get to the pearly gates and before entering it says, “You have chosen wisely” (Choose ye this day whom ye will serve). On the other side as you pass through the sign reads, "Chosen,predestined since before the foundations of the earth).
C
Contarini
Guest
Full-blown (or at least four-point) Calvinism is the only doctrine that makes any sense of eternal security, in my opinion.
I agree with your last sentence.
All I’m saying is that you want to position eternal security as being all about what God does. But it isn’t. Especially in its non-Calvinist (or not fully Calvinist) form, it makes a single human choice determinative of one’s eternal destiny. Non-Calvinist eternal security is the worst form of works righteousness–it’s salvation by one simple work.
Edwin
P
pocohombre
Guest
OK Edwin,thanks. I am thinking of a circles and where does my part of the deal begin and end and where does His and which comes first in that circle ? Is “five points” saying there are a series of “works” as opposed one or none ?
C
Contarini
Guest
It’s not really “five points” per se (the fifth point is limited atonement). It’s more the doctrine of election–in the Calvinist understanding, perseverance is guaranteed by election. I didn’t know if you were a Calvinist, and I’m still not sure from what you are saying, but if you are then I think your language makes more sense… With my challenge about unbelievers I was trying to argue that if you think faith is necessary for salvation, then you are saying that given something on our part (true faith at some point) salvation is guaranteed.
But you know what? I was being too argumentative. I understand that you are putting it in the way that matters to you.
In the same way though, for Catholics the promises of Christ to the Church are about Christ’s faithfulness, not about glorifying the human leaders of the Church.
Edwin
- Status