A conversation about unity.

Xeno.of.athens said:

When I read a reply that starts with, " so basically", I am inclined to take that as code meaning, " I am about to offer a summary that I am pretty sure is not full and accurate". and when you continue with observing, " you're insinuating that I need to...", I feel sure that my initial assessment is right.

You misunderstand the Catholic position if you presume it demands the wholesale rejection of all non-Catholic theological literature. The Church does not forbid engagement with Protestant scholarship; rather, she urges discernment. Unitatis Redintegratio teaches that “Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren” (§4). However, she also affirms that “the fullness of the means of salvation” subsists in the Catholic Church alone (Lumen Gentium §8). Thus, while you may read Millard J. Erickson or other non-Catholic authors, you must do so with the understanding that their theological frameworks lack the fullness of truth entrusted by Christ to His Church (cf. CCC §819).

Click to expand...

And that last bit is garbage. And in unity, as one brother to another, I'm calling it what it is.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Your accusation of rhetorical inconsistency fails to grasp the distinction between irenicism and doctrinal fidelity. The Church’s posture has not changed; she remains committed to truth in charity. Saint Paul exhorts, “Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ” (Ephesians 4:15). To proclaim the Catholic Church as the one true Church is not arrogance—it is obedience to Christ’s own words: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church” (Matthew 16:18). The Church does not posture; she professes. If her tone seems confident, it is because she speaks not from human invention but divine commission (cf. CCC §857).

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes, I know. I've heard all of that, and read all of that from the pontifical authority many times. I don't accept it. And, what's more, I'm going to assert that I'm STILL on my way to eternal life in Christ.

Also, here's what's going to happen. Since you seem to love to string-bead a bunch of citations, then I'm just going to begin listing my sources as well, just so you can see how very, very ignorant I am compared to all those you've thus far bumped into. I've had enough being shut down and hand-waived away. That's not going to happen any more.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Finally, your metaphor of the “Rabbit Hole” suggests a descent into confusion, yet the Church offers clarity, not obscurity. The Catechism teaches that “the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (CCC §171; cf. 1 Timothy 3:15). You are invited not to abandon inquiry, but to pursue it within the light of revealed truth. The Church does not fear deep questions; she welcomes them, provided they are asked in humility and with a willingness to be conformed to Christ. If you are prepared to seek truth without evasion, then yes—you are invited to enter the depths. But you must do so with reverence, not presumption.

Click to expand...

No, actually, being that I'm a philosopher, my reference to the "Rabbit Hole," apart from what the same reference may happen to be when used more colloquially by others, infers that there's a large number of highly questionable and debatable theological and conceptual (philosophical) topics and sub-topics that can be engaged. And they will be engaged in my arena, NOT YOURS!!! I definitely don't "evade"---- I invade, straight on and without fear. So, buttress yourself. You asked for it.

public hermit said:

You know something that makes for unity? Being able to admit you might be wrong, mistaken, or not have the whole truth. I know what Vatican II says about truth outside the Church, but from the outside, many within your church speak double-talk. You say we're in the truth but we don't have all of it. The fullness of faith? Please. It's simply an offense, which is also not conducive to unity.

Click to expand...

According to your standards you must admit you are wrong, mistaken, or do not have the whole truth in order to have unity. That combined with your "double talk" attack on Catholics does not make for unity. As I've said, of course everyone thinks they are right. That should not offend anyone. Let's focus on unity.

2PhiloVoid said:

No, actually, being that I'm a philosopher, my reference to the "Rabbit Hole," apart from what the same reference may happen to be when used more colloquially by others, infers that there's a large number of highly questionable and debatable theological and conceptual (philosophical) topics and sub-topics that can be engaged. And they will be engaged in my arena, NOT YOURS!!! I definitely don't "evade"---- I invade, straight on and without fear. So, buttress yourself. You asked for it.

Click to expand...

concretecamper said:

View attachment 369253

Click to expand...

You've misidentified me..................................... I'm coming from a completely different head space.

2PhiloVoid said:

Also, here's what's going to happen. Since you seem to love to string-bead a bunch of citations, then I'm just going to begin listing my sources as well, just so you can see how very, very ignorant I am compared to all those you've thus far bumped into.

Click to expand...

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
― Fulton J. Sheen

No religion is more misrepresented by others and attacked by others than Catholicism. Thus it is of great benefit TO ALL to have a Catholic Catechism that strives to put down exact Catholic beliefs. Thus one seeking true discussion can say here is what your Catechism says and here is why I maintain this particular belief is correct or incorrect. It gives a common starting point.

Valletta said:

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
― Fulton J. Sheen

Click to expand...

Let's............................be...........................................clear. I don't hate the Catholic Church. And I never said I did. So, please toss that idea into the nearest trash can when you get the chance. Thank you!

Valletta said:

No religion is more misrepresented by others and attacked by others than Catholicism. Thus it is of great benefit TO ALL to have a Catholic Catechism that strives to put down exact Catholic beliefs. Thus one seeking true discussion can say here is what your Catechism says and here is why I maintain this particular belief is correct or incorrect. It gives a common starting point.

Click to expand...

While it's true that I've only skimmed through a copy of the Cathechism, I am thumbing through my copy of The Catholic Encyclopedia as I sit here typing, along with the following three books (among others) from my extensive shelves.....


And one more.............

But there's so much more where that came from.

Let's talk about UNITY, PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO!!!!!

Valletta said:

According to your standards you must admit you are wrong, mistaken, or do not have the whole truth in order to have unity. That combined with your "double talk" attack on Catholics does not make for unity. As I've said, of course everyone thinks they are right. That should not offend anyone. Let's focus on unity.

Click to expand...

Yes, I could be wrong, but there is no double-talk in my position regarding unity. I believe and accept that you all are Christians, that the Orthodox are Christians, that the Pentecostals are Christians, etc. I believe we are all one, and we are all the true Church. There is no double-talk in that. I believe our unity is much greater than our differences because the living Christ is our unity, not some set of doctrines, not some set of practices, not a particular tradition, only faith in the risen Christ and the confession that Christ is Lord. Does that mean there are some people who are not Christians? Yes, of course it does, but it is a big tent when it comes to particular expressions of Christian faith, as it should be. Could I be wrong in that position? Yes, I could, but there is no double-talk.

2PhiloVoid said:

Let's............................be...........................................clear. I don't hate the Catholic Church. And I never said I did. So, please toss that idea into the nearest trash can when you get the chance. Thank you!


While it's true that I've only skimmed through a copy of the Cathechism, I am thumbing through my copy of The Catholic Encyclopedia as I sit here typing, along with the following three books (among others) from my extensive shelves.....

Barron, Robert. Exploring Catholic theology: Essays on God, liturgy, and evangelization. Baker Academic, 2015.​

​

Granados, Jos, Carlos Granados, and Luis Snchez-Navarro, eds. Opening up the Scriptures: Joseph Ratzinger and the foundations of biblical interpretation. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008.​

​

Wright IV, William M., and Francis Martin. Encountering the Living God in Scripture: Theological and Philosophical Principles for Interpretation. Baker Academic, 2019.​

And one more.............

Geisler, Norman L., and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Roman Catholics and evangelicals: Agreements and differences. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995.​

​

But there's so much more where that came from.

Let's talk about UNITY, PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO!!!!!

Click to expand...

There you go. The Catholic Encyclopedia was put together by five well-meaning Catholics in the very early 1900s.

Valletta said:

There you go. The Catholic Encyclopedia was put together by five well-meaning Catholics in the very early 1900s.

Click to expand...

I'm sure I can look up the Catechism online if I so wish as well. So, there you go. The point of all of this is: I don't have the take the RCC as seriously as it takes itself. I see it as but one other, even if prominent, Trinitarian Christian Church in this big'o world we all try to share together.

Xeno.of.athens said:

The whole thread is about Unity - except for the diversions where people keep throwing in their opinions and criticising whatever I've written because they think it's somehow naughty to say forthrightly what Catholics believe - The majority of posts are about unity in one way or another.

Click to expand...

It can’t be about unity if it is about the primacy of the Catholic Church. Unity requires respect, understanding, and a degree of middle ground. It also requires humility not arrogance.

2PhiloVoid said:

You've misidentified me..................................... I'm coming from a completely different head space.

View attachment 369254

Click to expand...

Yes, Copernicus found most rejected his ideas. Copernicus dedicated his theory to the pope and the pope accepted it as a theory.

Xeno.of.athens said:

You wrote flippantly of damnation, yet the Catholic Church teaches that Hell is no rhetorical flourish. It is eternal separation from God, freely chosen by obstinate rejection of divine truth. The Council of Florence (1439) solemnly defined: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into Hell immediately after death and there suffer eternal punishments” (DS 1306). If you knowingly reject the truths revealed by God and taught by His Church, and persist in mortal sin without repentance, then yes—by that measure, you condemn yourself.

You claim to place critical reasoning above faith, as though reason were sovereign and revelation subordinate. That is a grave error. The First Vatican Council (1870) defined that “faith is a supernatural virtue by which we believe that what God has revealed is true, not because its intrinsic truth is seen by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God who reveals it” (Dei Filius, ch. 3; DS 3008). Reason is not abolished by faith, but perfected by it. To exalt reason above faith is to enthrone pride and dethrone God.

You dismiss all sources—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant—as irrelevant to your judgements. That is intellectual arrogance masquerading as independence. The Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of truth, as affirmed by Dominus Iesus (2000): “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” (§4). To reject this is not merely to differ in opinion; it is to reject Christ’s own authority, for He said to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18).

You may speak “unabashedly and unapologetically,” but truth is not subject to your bravado. The Church does not bend to your rhetorical flair. She proclaims what God has revealed, whether you accept it or not. If you persist in rebellion, you will face the consequences—not because the Church condemns you, but because you condemn yourself by refusing the grace offered to you. “He who believes and is baptised will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

You are not beyond redemption. But you must humble yourself before the truth, not wield reason as a weapon against it. The Church calls you to repentance, not applause. One may walk away now—but no one will not walk away from judgement.

Click to expand...

Is there anything you want to walk back on this before I give my two-cents?

Xeno.of.athens said:

Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Click to expand...

Baptism was an outward sign of conversion, an inner change and new life. A person who has been born again, or born from above, John 3:3, has already experienced the Spirit at work in their lives.
Some people become Christians, receive the Holy Spirit, begin to live a changed life - which may, or may not involve speaking in tongues, and then are baptised at a later date. Some may die before they can be baptised.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Both verses reflect early Christian theology where baptism is not merely symbolic but sacramental—effecting forgiveness and spiritual rebirth.

Click to expand...

And yet many receive new birth, eternal life and become Christians before they can be baptised.

Xeno.of.athens said:

The claim that baptism was alien to Jewish practice and reserved solely for Gentile converts is historically and theologically false. While Levitical sacrifices were central to atonement under the Mosaic Law (cf. Leviticus 4–6), ritual washings—including full immersion—were integral to Jewish purification rites (cf. Leviticus 15:5–11; Numbers 19:19).

Click to expand...

But not integral to repentance or receiving absolution for sin.
That was my point. Jews believed they were God's people and the Mosaic covenant, given by God to his people, demanded animal sacrifices for sin.
Gentiles who wanted to become God's people - i.e. convert to the Jewish faith and be accepted under the Abrahamic covenant, were baptised.

Xeno.of.athens said:

John the Baptist’s ministry, directed at Jews, explicitly called for repentance and baptism “for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3), prefiguring Christian sacramental theology.

Click to expand...

Yes, because baptism for forgiveness of sin - rather than animal sacrifice for forgiveness of sin - was a new thing.
John proclaimed the way of the Lord; the Messiah was coming and everything would be made new. The Jews would have had to accept by faith that their sins were forgiven through baptism.
The Jews also hated water and, for them, the river Jordan symbolised death. We still use the river as an image of death today; "when I tread the verge of Jordan bid my anxious fears subside. Death of death and hell's destruction, land me safe on Canaan's side."

But Jesus saves; Acts 4:12, John 14:6, Romans 10:9.

Xeno.of.athens said:

The assertion that baptism does not effect forgiveness because some baptised individuals later apostatise or sin gravely betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of sacramental efficacy.

Click to expand...

New-borns who are baptised have not sinned, therefore have no need for forgiveness.
Toddlers and young children also have not sinned, do not need to ask for forgiveness and baptism is no guarantee they will not sin in the future.
Baptism cannot give eternal life.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Catholic doctrine, grounded in Scripture and Tradition,

Click to expand...

Ah yes, tradition - useful for when people have a belief which is not Scriptural.
I am not a Catholic so why would I accept Catholic doctrine?

Xeno.of.athens said:

teaches that baptism confers an indelible spiritual mark and truly remits all prior sin

Click to expand...

New-born/3 month old babies have no "prior sin".

Xeno.of.athens said:

To deny its regenerative power is to reject both Scripture and the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, from Justin Martyr to Augustine.

Click to expand...

If baptism gave regenerative power, then all those who were baptised as babies, have not been near a church since and who may have even turned to a life of crime, would still be born again.

Xeno.of.athens said:

I replied to your expressed thoughts what you make of The reply is entirely up to you. there is no need for a sarcastic, "Shocking!", but you are free to do what you like in your own posts.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, my being sarcastic is not helpful. I don't think I've misrepresented your position, but maybe I'm being unfair or not understanding so I'll ask. Do you think your position, the teaching of the Catholic Church, leads to unity? If so, then how so? I'm not seeing it in what you've said, but maybe there's a way to put it that helps me understand.