laternonjuror
Active Member
S.Augusstine was several hundred years before Trent and I should imagine would have chosen more apt terms a1000 yrs later ,1564 AD>
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree. Historically, the early, medieval, and modern Church has always taught Catholic principles and doctrines and has always been called "Catholic".[QUOTE/]
Originally the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch of the Suburbicarian Church of Rome. According to Bingham, that consisted of the Catholic Church about Rome,
for a few Lleagues! With the three islands. Northern Italy had its own patriarch.
Right from the early Church the bishops of Rome sought aggrandisment, even to falling foul of the Councils of Carthage and ulitimatly S. Cyprian and the African Bishops. At one time Rome tried to pass off the Canons of a quite shabby council
"Sardica,' as a copy of Niceae ,in an effort to get his wicked way!Luckily the Africans queried sending to Constantinople for assurance as ,just what wwas, the bona fides, Canons of that famous Council
Augustine comments on this, pointing out that even those practicing private judgment in his day had no doubt what people meant when they asked "where is the Catholic Church?"
S.Augusstine was several hundred years before Trent and I should imagine would have chosen more apt terms a1000 yrs later ,1564 AD>
You mean to say that Roman Catholics share a common set of values and that they agree with one another! Maybe all the history books, commentaries and newspaper articles I've read over the years must be wrong."They" don't agree among themselves because "they" are not a single church body. The RCC doesn't agree with them either, so she is subject to the same criticism as any one of them.
No, what I meant there was that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the Christian churches and so if anybody is going to say "look at how all those other churches are in disagreement with each other," they cannot honestly or logically save out one of them from the consideration in order to claim that it isn't part of the dissention. If that were possible, it would be just as possible to have the claim be...You mean to say that Roman Catholics share a common set of values and that they agree with one another!
Oh I don't know. Augustine taught the Catholic teachings long before Trent, such as God's Mother's sinlessness.
I couldn't agree more, no 0ne would dispute your comments. But Augustine was a member of a Carthaginian Council that twice rejected papal claims quite spectacularly!His predecessor S>Cyprian, rejected Papal Claims , but not the Bishop of Rome.! Matt. 16, was there alright, but was understood differently!Cyprian wrote the text book, on the position of the bishop in the Catholic state of things in Roman Africa, which is used as a text book today,
but he rejected ,'Roman Claims,' as we know them.Cyprian lived in a world of free independent bishops meeting in synods, local councils. Cyprian and Augustine were westerners, but believed in discussion and the agency of the Holy Ghost in guidance.
In the Catholic Church authority is Revelation, Scripture and Holy Tradition. To me H/T is a matter of Apostolic tradition and the Early fathers in Seven Councils.I don't think he taught private judgment. He did teach about the authority of the Catholic Church.
Interestingly Fuller in his book, suggests that at this,the greatest council of the Christian era, 325 AD. That particular Churches sent details of local belief to the Great Council Fathers, to let them know what was early tradition. It was the Council that interpreted the ideas, not individuals.
Ooopsie. This contained a serious type. This should have said VATICAN website, not Catholic website. I have edited the post.Yes, many, many Catholics use the slang. It's not a problem. But it doesn't stop Catholic from being the correct term. If you go to the Catholic website, you will find that the term Roman Catholic is never used.
As I've already stated, Catholics are among the first to use the slang term, and it's quite alright. It doesn't stop "Catholic" from being the correct term. And it doesn't stop a few rare people from using "Roman" in a derisive way.That is most curious. For a denomination which is otherwise quite circumspect in its parsing of words, I find it strange that it would willfully choose to use a term which is said to be "slang" as a means of identifying itself. There are a large number of church buildings here with signs identifying them as being Roman Catholic. Perhaps they do not belong to your denomination, but are posing by subverting the fullness of the truth.
Under the Nonconformist Relief Act of 1779, dissenting preachers were allowed to conduct religious services for their respective congregations; but only if they declared themselves to be Dissenters to the Church of England. They still had to take the Oath of Supremacy. This act did not extend to Catholics, who were still banned from conducting Catholic Masses in England. It wasn't until 1791, under the Catholic Relief Act 1791, that this same condition was extended to Catholics. Again they had to declare themselves dissenters from the Church of England, but the Oath of Supremacy was dropped as a requirement.Fancy that, we learn something every day! In 1791 , or about, the Roman Bishops wrote to the British Government and described themselves as ',protestant' dissenting catholics.'(Cal SP.') What did they mean by this?
Under the Nonconformist Relief Act of 1779, dissenting preachers were allowed to conduct religious services for their respective congregations; but only if they declared themselves to be Dissenters to the Church of England. They still had to take the Oath of Supremacy. This act did not extend to Catholics, who were still banned from conducting Catholic Masses in England. It wasn't until 1791, under the Catholic Relief Act 1791, that this same condition was extended to Catholics. Again they had to declare themselves dissenters from the Church of England, but the Oath of Supremacy was dropped as a requirement.
As I've already stated, Catholics are among the first to use the slang term, and it's quite alright. It doesn't stop "Catholic" from being the correct term. And it doesn't stop a few rare people from using "Roman" in a derisive way.
Oh I don't know. Augustine taught the Catholic teachings long before Trent, such as God's Mother's sinlessness.[QUOTE/]
This is quite true, I should imagine! The question remains is it the same answer one would have received then, as now? Augustine believed in the Sinlessness of the Theotokos. Catholic teaching, i.e. the teaching of the Seven Councils, these are that it is unthinkable that the Mother of God is sinful. Eph,II. There is however no mention of an Immaculate Conception. My own Church holds to the authority of the Seven Councils and we teach their finding on the Lady Mary! Inspite of Roman Catholic additions,(Conception,) the Catholic Answer is simply that Mary is "All Holy, Ever Virgin and Immaculate."
No additions.
Isn't it interesting that at a time when the Catholic Church was being persecuted in Catholic France, the English government started relaxing the ban on the Catholic Church in England.tz620q I'm obliged to you for your response, it is a question that I've never been able to find an answer for
Thank you!
Nothing you have said refutes my comments.Dear Open Heart,
I cannot for the world imagine that your religious friends in England would give a false name, but I can assure you they have used ,'Roman,' to distinguish themselves from traditional,' Anglican.' catholics.
At the time of Trent, when the then (1564) Pope called his followers out of the Church in England, it led to some confusion, both describing themselves as Catholic, this was overcome by our departed bretheren using the prefix, Roman.!
Some years ago, 10/15, there was some infighting in a small town a few miles from where I live and it finished with many of your members being given copies of the Creed of Trent, which also contains the description, Holy Roman Church !Does this help?
Sounds like a good idea. Obviously "private interpretation" can have multiple meanings. If the mainline faiths (EO, RCC, Anglican, Lutheran) discourage it as the norming standard, it seems that we have to put that in the historical perspective of the Radical Reformation, where the "any plow boy and milk maid" motto was embraced to the extent where private interpretation was given precedence over any form of corporate teaching authority.Maybe it's time we returned to the topic of EOs and RCs using--or not--"private interpretation." My view is that that the comment "private interpretation" is nothing other than an insult, since it is not the case that Protestant churches advocate "private interpretation" any more than Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches do...and also that members of all of these faiths nevertheless do it to some degree, even those who pretend that they do not.
So, can we say that it's an issue only with the Radical Reformation and, say, some other very 'fringy' churches of later origin?Sounds like a good idea. Obviously "private interpretation" can have multiple meanings. If the mainline faiths (EO, RCC, Anglican, Lutheran) discourage it as the norming standard, it seems that we have to put that in the historical perspective of the Radical Reformation, where the "any plow boy and milk maid" motto was embraced to the extent where private interpretation was given precedence over any form of corporate teaching authority.
Because you really like to argue. Everyone else pretty much agrees that while its true Catholics use private interpretation to some degree, we pretty much depend upon the magisterium as our highest authority, and while Protestants use books and their pastor's opinions, they reserve the right to their private interpretation (guided by the holy spirit) as being the highest authority.Maybe it's time we returned to the topic of EOs and RCs using--or not--"private interpretation."
With the criteria that I stated before, I would agree. I'm sure we've all met Christians who have "found the truth" and are so sure of it that they will not allow anyone to disagree with them without pulling the "my interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit talking directly to me, so you must be wrong" card. That is the type I was referring to before. Most of the mainline Reformation churches seem to have some form of authority to establish what doctrine is to be believed. So while private interpretation exists within all groups, some do not allow it to change the communal faith.So, can we say that it's an issue only with the Radical Reformation and, say, some other very 'fringy' churches of later origin?
With the criteria that I stated before, I would agree. I'm sure we've all met Christians who have "found the truth" and are so sure of it that they will not allow anyone to disagree with them without pulling the "my interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit talking directly to me, so you must be wrong" card. That is the type I was referring to before. Most of the mainline Reformation churches seem to have some form of authority to establish what doctrine is to be believed. So while private interpretation exists within all groups, some do not allow it to change the communal faith.
The only knock that I can think of (and it is one that the EO use on the RCC) is that this doctrine has not been entirely consistent over centuries. It is very easy to be conformed to this world and very difficult to adhere to consistent beliefs over generations.
And these Christians are exclusively Protestant.I'm sure we've all met Christians who have "found the truth" and are so sure of it that they will not allow anyone to disagree with them without pulling the "my interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit talking directly to me, so you must be wrong" card.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?