T
Tomster
Guest
Yep, the Fathers are unanimous on that one. Even after a painfully long and drawn out process, Cardinal Newman agreed.
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
Exactly! For the life of me, I do not comprehend why non-Catholics have such a difficult time understand what constitutes church. Some have even told me one does not need ANY church at all?
T
Tomster
Guest
I know. Especially those communions who hold the writings of St. Paul in such high regard. If only they would take the time to really read and try to understand what he said on this supremely important topic. Oh well. :compcoff:Exactly! For the life of me, I do not comprehend why non-Catholics have such a difficult time understand what constitutes church. Some have even told me one does not need ANY church at all?
N
Nicea325
Guest
It is a very difficult point or better yet, a fact to get a across. I find it more challenging with fundamentalist and so called non-denominationalist.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Not the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Shhh, Trebor135. We’re just Protestants in funny hats, don’tcha know. 
But I like your hats.Shhh, Trebor135. We’re just Protestants in funny hats, don’tcha know.
To the OP, I would enter RCIA the next day, for a number of reasons, but mostly this:
as the thread shows, for the EO and CC to return to unity, I would consider it an undeniable and irresistible evidence of the Holy Spirit moving in His Church. By no other means is unity a possibility, but the Holy Spirit.
Jon
I
Indifferently
Guest
I don’t think the idea of the Church is contested among the Fathers either. Which is why I freely assert that the RCC and EOC are both part of the Church. This idea that to be part of ‘the Church’ we must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome is a doctrinal innovation unknown to the Fathers. Yes, we ought to all be in communion, but to say that one bishop arbitrators that is simply not attested in the early Church at all.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Yup! Protestants who get high on incense for a couple hours every Sunday morning and give up meat and dairy for about seven weeks straight every spring.Shhh, Trebor135. We’re just Protestants in funny hats, don’tcha know.
T
Tomster
Guest
Well, there is a reason for all of this. A good place to start is right here -----> www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htmExactly! For the life of me, I do not comprehend why non-Catholics have such a difficult time understand what constitutes church. Some have even told me one does not need ANY church at all?
Pelagianism taught that salvation could be achieved solely upright moral behavior which was possible for every human being, even without grace. This heresy called into question the sacraments, the Incarnation, and the doctrinal teachings of the Church.
Since, according to Pelagius, there is no original sin in the sense of an inherited sin from Adam and Eve’s original disobedience from God, Baptism washes away personal sins, not original sin. Salvation is achieved through an upstanding moral life, which every human being can lead by using his or her mind and free will. Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Clearly, this position calls into question the practice of infant Baptism
The fundamental problem with the Pelagian view of Christianity is that without original sin and its effects, we do not need a Redeemer. Christ and the Cross become unnecessary. Even Christ’s mission of Revelation is called into question because if our mind and will are not weakened by the effects of sin, we can know what we need to know - the moral law - without the necessity of Revelation.
Further, since the moral law is all we need to know, the mysteries of faith revealed by Christ which we cannot know through human reason, such as the Trinity, are unnecessary. Therefore, Christ is unnecessary. If Christ is unnecessary, then the Church is unnecessary.
Pelagius did not establish a rival Church organization to the Catholic Church. Partly, this lack of organization among Pelagians is attributable to the implications of Pelagianism: the Church was not necessary.
Taking a look at the history of Pelagianism, we can see how different aspects of his heresy, to a greater or lesser degree, have been embraced by the many offshoots of the Reformation whether they know it or not.
T
Tomster
Guest
Not so. www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
There is a wealth of information regarding the ECFs in the middle of this tract.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Precisely. Much like the JW’s who believe Arius was correct and orthodox in teaching. JW’s in many ways are neo-Arianist because they deny Jesus divinity.
D
dzheremi
Guest
And many (most?) Protestants are effectively gnostic…why does this mean that the rest of us should agree with the RCC’s ecclesiology, exactly?
P
Peter_J
Guest
That is, at least arguably, what happened when the Melkite Catholic Church (the only one of the Greek Catholic Churches that is officially a patriarchate) started its communion with Rome.
Even so, the idea that that’s going to happen again in our time is a pretty wild speculation (as is the idea of Rome admitting to being wrong
)
T
Trebor135
Guest
I’ve heard this charge before, and I’d like to hear you expand on the intriguing idea.
Good question.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Do you know Philip J. Lee’s book “Against the Protestant Gnostics”? I’ve been trying to find a reasonably priced copy for a few years now, ever since hearing it mentioned on Fr. Andrew Damick’s “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” podcast on AFR. Lee is apparently a Presbyterian pastor. I was raised Presbyterian, and I don’t believe I ever heard any pastor in that church ever talk about gnosticism (or any other history related to the pre-Reformation Church, for that matter). Anyway, the argument can be made that at least “low church” Protestants are essentially gnostic in their (probably unintentional) embrace of dualism which is inherent in their rejection of the sacraments/mysteries, the veneration of saints, asceticism, and pretty much anything else that has to do with physical reality in worship. You’ve probably heard all the hits, so there’s no real need to go over them in detail now. But that’s essentially what I meant: Much of modern Protestantism, steeped in Evangelist and Revivalist tendencies, is about feeling and assurance rather than action and working out one’s salvation with fear and trembling. It’s in their dematerialization of the Christian life rather than any explicit affirmation of Gnostic principles that the label fits.
P
Peter_J
Guest
So noted.
But, interestingly enough, for S. M. Hutchens it doesn’t depend on which side “bends” to the other – see the forth paragraph of:
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
This is interesting Pete. Many good points. Hummm I suppose we need to venture deeper into a
" apocalyptic setting, including apocalyptic-scale martyrdom."
“If you two grand ladies can figure out which of you is the real Mrs. Jesus, then perhaps the rest of us can come on home.”
Above statement reminds me of Jon.
D
dzheremi
Guest
With due respect, the article is terrible. (Sorry, Peter.) It’s clearly written by an Antiochian who doesn’t have to live in Antioch.
Martyrdom is already happening on a huge scale in the Middle East and parts of Africa (e.g., northern Nigeria), and it has not brought the Orthodox and Roman Catholics any closer to union. In fact, I would think a more honest assessment of the situation is that what intercommunion you do see on the ground in response to pastoral difficulties is not a good thing, because it reflects the incredibly insecure state of Christianity in the places where it goes on (Iraq, Syria, etc). Call me crazy, but I don’t think that it’s a good thing that the integrity of our communions is broken down by violence and oppression from outsiders. I much prefer how it is in the United States or other western nations where our churches are strong enough to have friendly but well-defined relationships with those outside of the communion.
Put bluntly, I would not trade a single Christian’s blood or security (no matter what church they are from) in order to be in communion with Rome, because I don’t want to be in communion with Rome in its current form in the first place. (Fr. Patrick got that part right, at least.)
A
adf417
Guest
Hi chimo, I like you’re thinking on this thread. It seems sincere and thought out to a degree that receptiveness resounds and I applaud you for this. :clapping:
I can’t help think that receptiveness to the Holy Spirit it the very 1st trait we must all discern for this topic to go anywhere and begin to fulfill John 17 in the world.
BTW - I think I can see myself converting - if that means I would need to.
Peace brother!!!
- Status