Catholic vs. Roman Catholic?

[patriarch]

Recently an invitation to visit godsfellowship.com popped up in my inbox. On visiting the Catholic forum on that site I encountered this post from Fr. Rob.  It is clear as crystal to me that Fr. Rob (and his disciples) and I do not share a common faith.  But since One Bread, One Body is place for Catholic *fellowship* and not defense of the Catholic faith (which includes the de fide elements of belief in the primacy of the pope, the intercession of Our Lady and the saints, etc.), I have no problem with their leaving the forum, however dear they might be. "They went forth from us, but they were not of us.  if theyhad been of us, with us they would have stayed." And if they have not left, doing so would lend a certain amount of clarity to the situation.  We are not in communion.  We do not believe the same way.  And since that is the case, let us continue to talk, but in an ecumenical forum.

Perhaps you all have resolved this, but I have been away and in repeated attempt to find my way back into this forum I have been confronted with this problem of having to defend elements of the Catholic faith *within a Catholic forum.*  I have no problems answering questions non-Catholics may pose here, or of helping people come to a deeper understanding of the faith, but having to contend *here* with the assertions of someone who presents himself as a Catholic priest and has at the same time an entirely different faith is extremely discomfitting.  It seems to me that within the assembly of Catholics, ecumenical manners do not apply, as they would not among any other Christian church.  If you present yourself as a Lutheran, Lutherans have every right to ask you to leave them if you no longer profess Lutheranism.  It is a question of simple honesty. If you want to be a primitive Lutheran, fine, but do it someplace else.

Perhaps it would be possible for the members of the Primitive Catholic Church to have their own fellowship forum in which they can explain to interested parties who come there the nuances of their beliefs.  But persons who come to One Bread, One Body have the right to encounter the Catholic faith as it is commonly understood and professed, and not be thrown into confusion or sidetracked by persons who are trading on the name Catholic to advance the cause of a faith which is at variance with that of  those who are in union with Rome, who pray to our Mother Mary, and who invoke the intercession of the saints, believe in Purgatory etc.

Holy Mary and all the saints, pray for us....

Patriarch 




<TABLE height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0>
Fr. Rob's letter:
<TBODY>


<TR>


<TD width="100%"><SPAN class=postdetails>There IS a Bibilical Catholicisim out there!</SPAN></TD>


<TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right>&nbsp;</TD></TR>


<TR>


<TD colSpan=2>


<HR>


</TD></TR>


<TR>


<TD vAlign=top colSpan=2 height="100%"><SPAN class=postbody>Blessings all,

I have just come over to visit from Christian Forums, where there has been a nasty spat over what it means to be a Catholic.

For those of you who have never met me, I am a Presbyter (Elder, Priest. . . whatever term you seem to relate to better) in the Primitive Episcopal Church. We consider ourselves to be a Catholic Church because we hold fast to the faith that was once and for all delivered to the Saints.

I have seen posted here a lot of the classic attacks against Roman Catholics. While many of them are gross exaggerations, some of them find their roots in the truth.

I want you to know, however, that there is a form of Catholicisim out there where:

1. God's word is held to be infalliable.
2. All tradition must be checked against that infalliable word.
3. Saints are not Prayed to.
4. Images are not worshipped.
5. There is no Pope to wield universal jurisdiction.

I would invite you to join me in discussing the faith of the Primitive Church, the original successors of the Apostles, in a loving and understanding manner, and to come to a greater understanding of the non-Roman forms of the Catholic faith.

In brief, the Bible is it's own best interpreter. 90-95 % of the so-called "problem verses" of Scripture are worked out internally, in context. When necessary, we turn to the Ancient Church (i.e., AD 400 and before. . .preferrably before AD 300) to provide a witness with regards to how the Church received and accepted the Gospel and "memoirs of the apostles" (i.e., the New Testament). While we do maintain some of the "trappings" of the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox Church (example: our ministers wear vestments, some very simple, some more ornate), we are a Church that strives for the Primitive Ideal.

We do not pray to Mary, we do not invoke Mary in any way (unless you consider asking the Father for grace to follow her example of holiness an invocation). We do not teach that Mary was Immaculately Concieved (i.e., concieved without sin). We do not teach that Mary was assumed into heaven at the end of her life. We do not teach that she was a perpetual virgin, we do not demand you pray the Rosary.

We celebrate the Lord's Supper as our central service of Worship. We belive that Jesus Christ is truly present in our Communion, in a way that is far beyond our understanding.

We baptize infants, as in the early Church, in some places infants were baptized, in other places they were not.

Our Presbyters hear confessions if the people desire to make one, but no-one is forced. On the topic of Confession we say, "All may, none must, some should." We beleive that it is God, not the Presbyter, for forgives the sins, but the Presbyter is there to witness the confession and provide council, something that cannot be done when you simply pray to God for forgiveness. Again, we do not force it.

I could go on and on. . .but I need some rest.

I look forward to hearing from you all! And please, one request. . . I am quite busy. I love to chat, though. Therefore, might I please ask that you be patient with me if you have questions. . . as I can only focus on one specific topic at a time. Thanks!

Blessings,</SPAN>
<SPAN class=gensmall></SPAN></TD></TR>


<TR>


<TD vAlign=bottom colSpan=2><SPAN class=postbody>
_________________
Father Robert Lyons
Presbyter, The Primitive Episcopal Church
Pastor, Chaplain, Regional Dean</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

&nbsp;

 

[jukesk9]

Patriarch,

I understand your concerns. I believe that the Administration is going to have the rules changed to identify One Bread, One Body as the Catholic Faith that is subject to the Pope. May the Blessed Virgin pray for all of those who post here.

I want you to know, however, that there is a form of Catholicisim out there where:

1. God's word is held to be infalliable.
2. All tradition must be checked against that infalliable word.
3. Saints are not Prayed to.
4. Images are not worshipped.
5. There is no Pope to wield universal jurisdiction.


The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith professes belief in God's Word as infallible.&nbsp; Sacred Tradition does not and can not contradict Scripture.&nbsp; The Catholic Faith also professes belief in the Communion of Saints where we are all part of the Body of Christ and therefore those who have gone before us that are united in Christ are able to pray for us.&nbsp; Catholics do not and have not worshipped images.&nbsp; The Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Peter, is the head of the Catholic Church.&nbsp; The papacy was instituted by Christ Himself when he gave Peter the challenge of tending the flock and the keys to the kingdom.&nbsp;The Early Church, which is the Catholic Church, believed this.&nbsp; To say that there is another form of Catholicism that does not believe this&nbsp;is protestant at best, heretic at worst.&nbsp;

 

[jukesk9]

I just checked out www.godsfellowship.com and boy is it full of anti-catholic rhetoric, even in the Catholic Forum.....Rapture Ready part deux.

 

[ZooMom]

I received that e-mail invitation as well, but I haven't checked it out. I probably won't. Did anyone *not* on the Catholic forum get invited?

 

[Kotton]

Hey, Zoomom, should I feel neglected by not getting an INVITE?

&nbsp;

Or just thankful!



Kotton

 

[ZooMom]

Apparently, just thankful. RR makes me sick, and if this new place is anything like it, I want to stay far away. But your e-mail isn't showing, which explains why you didn't receive your invitation.

 

[Fr. Rob]

Originally posted by patriarch
It is clear as crystal to me that Fr. Rob (and his disciples) and I do not share a common faith. We are not in communion. We do not believe the same way. And since that is the case, let us continue to talk, but in an ecumenical forum.

My disciples? Geesh. . . you give me far too much credit.

As far as a common faith, I hope we at least share the basic Catholic elements of the faith as outlined in Scripture and the Three Creeds. If not, we have problems.

I have never said we believe totally the same way, but there is much more that unites us than separates us.

but having to contend *here* with the assertions of someone who presents himself as a Catholic priest and has at the same time an entirely different faith is extremely discomfitting.

You are not contiending with my assertions. You are contending with the assertions that my jurisdiction of the Catholic Church (which has chosen the name Primitive Episcopal to describe itself) puts into practice. Again, if we profess the three creeds in common (we'd better!) than we have more in common than you seem to be giving credit for.

It is a question of simple honesty. If you want to be a primitive Lutheran, fine, but do it someplace else.

Hmmm. . . never said I wanted to be a Lutheran of any form.

But persons who come to One Bread, One Body have the right to encounter the Catholic faith as it is commonly understood and professed, and not be thrown into confusion or sidetracked by persons who are trading on the name Catholic to advance the cause of a faith which is at variance with that of those who are in union with Rome,

Ah! And there's the rub. Last time I checked, there is no copyright on the name Catholic. Catholic means universal. . . and refers to the faith that was once delivered to the Apostles, as written in scripture, expounded upon in valid tradition, and embidied in the Creeds.

My position on the matter is that, just because has the numbers does not mean that Rome has exclusive claim. I'd never call a Pentecostal or a JW a Catholic... but I am proud to be a Catholic. I am thankful for my Catholic faith.

You are free to disagree, of course, but I chose Catholcisim at the age of 7. . . and I was ordained a Catholic Presbyter five years ago. I will be a Presbyter until the day I die, and I am thankful to God for that fact.

I am a Catholic. Just not your kind.

Fr. Rob

PS- It's been several years since I posted on MB's, but last time I checked, it was a breach of netiquitte to repost from one board to another without the permission of the poster. . . for reasons including the fact that, at times, such posts are made out of context (and putting this one here without a description of the anti-Catholic flaming that was going on over at GFMB's is only telling half the story).

 

[Fr. Rob]

Originally posted by jukesk9
Patriarch,

I understand your concerns. I believe that the Administration is going to have the rules changed to identify One Bread, One Body as the Catholic Faith that is subject to the Pope.

Indeed, if that is done, that would tend to settle the matter.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith professes belief in God's Word as infallible.

Sorta yes, sorta no. There is a wider range of belief allowed in matters such as creation, the flood, etc. The Roman Communion does not require a belief in a literal seven day creation of it's clergy, nor a belief in a literal, worldwide flood. My jurisdiction does, and my Bishop will not ordain anyone who does not accept these as true. The question then is, I suppose, more along the lines of is the bible inspired literally in all places, figuratively in all places, or only figuratively in those places that are identified as figurative?

Sacred Tradition does not and can not contradict Scripture.

Agreed. And yet, insofar as I can tell, Sacred Tradition does indeed go too far in the Roman Communion.

The Catholic Faith also professes belief in the Communion of Saints where we are all part of the Body of Christ and therefore those who have gone before us that are united in Christ are able to pray for us.

I have posted before on this topic, and never did receive an adequate answer. The early church taught that it was NOT to be done, and one early father, Lactantius, wrote as late as 313 ad: "It is clear that those who make pratyers to the dead do not act as becomes men. They will suffer punishment for their impiety ang guilt. Rebelling against God, the Father of the human race, they have undertaken unforgivable rites. They have violated every sacred law."

There's Sacred Tradition on the topic. . . an unforgivable rite. Not much clearer than that.

Catholics do not and have not worshipped images.

Church teaching does not change the fact that some folks indeed HAVE worshipped the images and relics, and also it does not change the perception that Catholics do.

The Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Peter, is the head of the Catholic Church.

While we could go around and around on this one, we won't. The Early Church did not accord Peter the rites that the Roman Communion today does. Gregory the Great rejected the title of Universal Bishop, as had all his predecesors. The Early Church, through Clement of Alexandria, witnesses that special knowledge was imparted to Peter, James and John, that they imparted it to the rest of the Apostles, and from there to the seventy. The Early Church was never in any universal agreement on the status of Peter, other than the status of a first-among-equals one.

The papacy was instituted by Christ Himself when he gave Peter the challenge of tending the flock and the keys to the kingdom. The Early Church, which is the Catholic Church, believed this.

No, the Early Church believed that the power of the Keys was the power of binding and loosing, and that ALL the apostles had received it. I cannot find one reference to this power of binding and loosing being limited to Peter alone, for even the Apostolic Constitutions grant it to all bishops.

[/quote]To say that there is another form of Catholicism that does not believe this is protestant at best, heretic at worst.[/QUOTE]

I would close by stating, simply:

"Unity in Essentials. . . diversity in non-essentials . . . and in all things chairty."

It would be nice if we could all live by that, myself included.

Fr. Rob

 

[Wolseley]

I could get into this, but I'm not going to. There are several things here that I believe to be slams, which I could address, but it's not worth it.

It's easier to wash the hands, wipe the dust, and just walk away.

Believe whatever you want.

 

[VOW]

Yanno, this is the LAST place of refuge for "Catholics"....and now even that appears to be gone.

<sigh>


Peace, I hope,
~VOW

 

[patriarch]

On the Catholic forum we have to debate what the Catholic faith is? Nonsense. There is a simple solution to this problem. Since Fr. Rob et al have already decided not to be in communion with us, simply ban them from the forum. What is the problem?

Lee

 

[Fr. Rob]

Originally posted by Wolseley
There are several things here that I believe to be slams, which I could address, but it's not worth it.

Slams? How is stating something a slam?

Look; the message forum over at GF is horrendously anti-Catholic. They aren't horrendously anti-Roman Catholic, they are anti-Catholic in any sense of the word.

My overarching goal is to bring Protestants who misunderstand the Catholic faith into that Catholic faith which I love dearly. Sometimes, you have to use their lingo. . . sometimes you have to speak on their level.

By posting something here, out of context, a sore spot on this board was deliberatley re-opened.

A few days ago, I was PM'ed by a member of this board and asked about my comments on the GF message that Patriarch just posted. If he wishes to comment on my response, he may. However, if Patriarch had a problem with my comments on another board in other company, he should have taken it up with me first, before opening another thread that might cause a blowout on this board.

 

[Wolseley]

On the Catholic forum we have to debate what the Catholic faith is? Nonsense. There is a simple solution to this problem. Since Fr. Rob et al have already decided not to be in communion with us, simply ban them from the forum. What is the problem?

You can only be banned for violating the rules.

In any case, banning or suspension is the province of the staff.

Slams? How is stating something a slam?

Vicar, I would prefer not to get into it today, if you don't mind. You and I will never see eye to eye, and I'd prefer to just leave it at that.

 

[Fr. Rob]

Originally posted by Wolseley

Vicar, I would prefer not to get into it today, if you don't mind. You and I will never see eye to eye, and I'd prefer to just leave it at that.

Glad to see your sense of humour is not depleated

As for the whole not getting into something, well, if you don't want to talk about it. . . don't bring it up.

You are right, WOLS, we will never see eye to eye. Yet we do share more in common than we do with most Protestants.

As far as Patriarch's last post:
I find it sorrowful that this board finds itself so threatened by Poly, Avila, and myself that there has to be a call to ban us. Geesh. What's he afraid of? Is he so afraid that we are going to steal sheep from Rome that we have to be banned? If the sheep leave the pasture, that's their business. My business is to find sheep that are not in pastures, and bring them into that portion of the farm that God has given me to tend.

I'll worry about my sheep, and the lost ones. You worry about yours.

Fr. Rob

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by ZooMom
I received that e-mail invitation as well, but I haven't checked it out. I probably won't. Did anyone *not* on the Catholic forum get invited?

I didn't get an invite. Surprise, surprise.

 

[Fr. Rob]

My invite specifically invited me to the Catholic section. Since then, I have been blasted by e-mails from folks who want me to leave my "Babylonian" ways, to cast off the "Doctrine of the Nicolations". When I posted what the Doctrine of the Nicolations was from my Early Church dictinoary and from the Fathers, it was ignored.

I never went to the Rapture Ready boards that I hear all the horror stories about, but I don't see how thy can be worse!

Fr. Rob

 

[Julie]

"[The following is] an exact translation of the doctrine of the Church of Rome as taught to-day in all Roman Catholic seminaries, colleges and universities, through the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, vol. iv., p. 90:

'Though heretics (Protestants) must not be tolerated because they deserve it, we must bear with them till, by the second admonition, they may be brought back to the faith of the church. But those who, after a second admonition, remain obstinate to their errors, must not only be excommunicated, but they must be delivered to the secular power to be exterminated.'"

 

[Fr. Rob]

Not being a fan of Thomas Aquinas, his style, or his substance, I cannot comment on the authenticity of what you have submitted here. . .

On the other hand, I can say that it sounds like another bit of anti-Catholic bashing that got quoted by Jack Chick or someone else.

Catholics aren't headed straight for hell. . . and there is no verse of scripture or ounce of quotation that you can come up with that will change that fact.

There will be plenty of faithful Catholics in heaven, and I am sure that fact will dismay Jack Chick to no end.

 

[Wolseley]

Julie, if you had the faintest idea of what you were talking about, you'd know that Thomas Aquinas died 247 years before the first Protestant showed up on the scene.

It's obvious that all you're doing is quoting anti-Catholic drivel that you have heard from someone else; it's also quite clear that you've never delved into the Summa Theologica enough to corroborate your references. If you had, you'd know fully well that Aquinas never mentioned "Protestants".

Enough is enough, Julie. Your last three posts have earned you a two-week vacation; methinks you need a rest from drive-by posting. Have a pleasant rest.

 

[Wolseley]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm

No reference to Protestants here, as you can plainly see.