Hypocritical to accept the Bible but not the Catholic Church?

[Albion]

It was never catholic.
That is an ideal that became a myth.

I get the ideal part, but not the "never catholic" part there. The church at Rome does appear to have been catholic (i.e. authentic or orthodox) in the early days.

 

[Rick Otto]

I get the ideal part, but not the "never catholic" part there. The church at Rome does appear to have been catholic (i.e. authentic or orthodox) in the early days.

The "never catholic" part comes from acknowledging Christianity was never confined to the church at Rome, and from understanding "catholic" to mean "universal" rather than "right" or "true" as I understand orthodox to mean.

The issue of something being universaly believed & the issue of something being the only truth, are seperate in my opinion.

 

[Albion]

The "never catholic" part comes from acknowledging Christianity was never confined to the church at Rome, and from understanding "catholic" to mean "universal" rather than "right" or "true" as I understand orthodox to mean.

Yes, many people make that mistake. It doesn't mean universal in a geographical sense (although Catholics find it attractive to make the argument that their church is widespread, therefore....). It means universal in a philosophical sense, like saying that gravity is a natural law that operates everywhere or that certain concepts are "universals."

 

[Bill McEnaney]

See post #92.


I'm not intending to write a Master's thesis on this subject when all you asked for was one example. SO OK...before Transubstantiation, the belief was Real Presence. Limbo was the church's teaching for about five hundred years but now it's rejected, denied, apologized for. And I assume that you know that the church long maintained that there was no salvation outside the church and now it's taught (by the Pope, even) that pagans--not just non-Catholics--can be saved without ever hearing the Gospel. Only 9% of Catholics, according to a recent survey, think that they cannot. Compare that to what any pastor would have said less than a century ago.

I don't expect you to write a thesis, Albion. It probably wouldn't fit into a post, and it certainly won't fit into a PM. But I'm still waiting for evidence that Catholic doctrine about the Real Presence. I know you believe what you're telling us. I disagree with it. So far, I have no ancient evidence for what you believe about Transubstantiation. Please cite or source, or your post will still remind me of hearsay.

Ooh, now, after the comment about the 9%, I can hardly wait to write my post about the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Some posts ago, I meant it when I told you that I wanted to be your friend. But the post may un-ecumenical enough to get me another enemy.

 

[steve_bakr]

Yes, many people make that mistake. It doesn't mean universal in a geographical sense (although Catholics find it attractive to make the argument that their church is widespread, therefore....). It means universal in a philosophical sense, like saying that gravity is a natural law that operates everywhere or that certain concepts are "universals."

Yes, the Catholic Church is universal in a multi-cultural sense and in a philosophical sense.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, many people make that mistake. It doesn't mean universal in a geographical sense (although Catholics find it attractive to make the argument that their church is widespread, therefore....). It means universal in a philosophical sense, like saying that gravity is a natural law that operates everywhere or that certain concepts are "universals."

Regardless in which sense, geological or philosophical, it was never universal.

 

[Albion]

Yes, the Catholic Church is universal in a multi-cultural sense and in a philosophical sense.

I was explaining the meaning of the word there, Steve, nothing more.

 

[Albion]

I don't expect you to write a thesis, Albion. It probably wouldn't fit into a post, and it certainly won't fit into a PM. But I'm still waiting for evidence that Catholic doctrine about the Real Presence.

Oh, so now you're still waiting for "evidence."

First it was one case of a changed doctrine. Then you were 'still waiting' for a list--with the original doctrines identified; now you're still waiting for evidence in addition. I wonder what the next level up is? What I can do is inform you; I can't make you admit that a "non-Catholic" might be right about anything.

I know you believe what you're telling us. I disagree with it.

I know, but neither did I ask. If I had said that the Pope is an Argentinian, there would have been some objection to that too, I'm sure. I've been here long enough to know how the game works.

 

[Rick Otto]

Oh, so now you're still waiting for "evidence."

First it was one case of a changed doctrine. Then you were 'still waiting' for a list--with the original doctrines identified; now you're still waiting for evidence in addition. I wonder what the next level up is? What I can do is inform you; I can't make you admit that a "non-Catholic" might be right about anything.


I know, but neither did I ask. If I had said that the Pope is an Argentinian, there would have been some objection to that too, I'm sure. I've been here long enough to know how the game works.

Have not!

 

[Albion]

Have not!

Oh no. Does it get worse?

 

[steve_bakr]

One thing I know about Catholicism is that it has room for academics. I felt more restricted intellectually as a Protestant, admittedly because I spent many years in evangelical churches. In my view, Catholicism can be broader and deeper, once you discover its possibilities.

My favorite theologian is Karl Rahner. In his long career, primarily through his 23-volume Theological Investigations, Rahner dealt with an amazing variety of issues--including controversies such as birth control--with an incredible academic ability and depth. He put new life into the field of theology, partly due to his knowledge of philosophy as well as theology.

There are Protestant thinkers such as Karl Barth. There are also unique Protestant thinkers such as Jacob Boehme, but he is not as unique--in terms of sheer depth--as Meister Eckhart. Of course, one can't forget the inimitable St. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the greatest theologian in history.

I find Catholicism to be a rich treasure, and admittedly I don't have the baggage of many former Catholics who were cradle Catholics. I exhausted everything else first.

 

[Bill McEnaney]

One thing I know about Catholicism is that it has room for academics. I felt more restricted intellectually as a Protestant, admittedly because I spent many years in evangelical churches. In my view, Catholicism can be broader and deeper, once you discover its possibilities.

My favorite theologian is Karl Rahner. In his long career, primarily through his 23-volume Theological Investigations, Rahner dealt with an amazing variety of issues--including controversies such as birth control--with an incredible academic ability and depth. He put new life into the field of theology, partly due to his knowledge of philosophy as well as theology.

There are Protestant thinkers such as Karl Barth. There are also unique Protestant thinkers such as Jacob Boehme, but he is not as unique--in terms of sheer depth--as Meister Eckhart. Of course, one can't forget the inimitable St. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the greatest theologian in history.

I find Catholicism to be a rich treasure, and admittedly I don't have the baggage of many former Catholics who were cradle Catholics. I exhausted everything else first.

Steve, thank you. Most "baggage carriers" I've met left the Catholic Church for largely emotional reasons. Others did because they had learned too little about their religion. The time I spent in Protestant groups convinced me that Our Lord wanted me to stay in the Catholic Church, partly because the members of the thousands of Protestant denomination disagreed with one another on too, too many points.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Fr. Reginald Garrigoiu Lagrange, and Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton. Fr. Rahner and I probably would disagree more often than we agreed.

 

[Bill McEnaney]

Everyone, I'm sorry I've written too bluntly on this message board. I'll do my best to be tactful.

 

[Digout]

Neither the doctrine of Scripture(Protestant) nor the decision of the church(Catholic) can show us the truth. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to those who sacrifice, suffer, share and serve!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Neither the doctrine of Scripture(Protestant) nor the decision of the church(Catholic) can show us the truth. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to those who sacrifice, suffer, share and serve!

That sounds like Montanus' heresy. Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Digout]

That sounds like Montanus' heresy. Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

No. It isn't!

 

[SMA12]

Neither the doctrine of Scripture(Protestant) nor the decision of the church(Catholic) can show us the truth. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to those who sacrifice, suffer, share and serve!

A lot of Christians sacrifice, suffer, share and serve. And yet they disagree on just about everything. Is the Holy Spirit revealing contradictory "truths". No, that's non sense.

Yes, the Holy Spirit reveals truth. But to whom did Christ guarantee the Spirit to reveal it to and guard it from error?

Answer: the Church.

Which Church?

The only one that was around back then, historically speaking. The Catholic Church

 

[ViaCrucis]

No. It isn't!

Montanism said that he was the receiver of new revelation, and the harbinger of a new age of the Spirit, and as such received direct, special knowledge directly from the Spirit.

Christianity on the other hand asserted--and asserts--that Christ called His apostles and promised them that the Holy Spirit would be with them and bring to mind all that He had taught. These apostles went out into the world, establishing communities, ordaining pastors, and they set to writing what we now call the New Testament.

Christianity has never been about special, private knowledge received directly from God; but has been about the open and public confession of faith that has come to us from the apostles as found in Holy Scripture. Tradition plays its role in that we stand together as the People of God hearing, receiving, believing, and confessing the Word that has been given from the beginning--that same Word that is contained in Holy Scripture and professed and confessed through the public proclamation of the Christian Church, that is, what we have always believed, and that can be found in the Creeds and Confessions passed down through every age and generation.

It is this faith that we confess, not a new faith, not an esoteric faith, not a special knowledge that we become privy to in ourselves; but the public faith given to us from the beginning, most importantly:

"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures," - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

Or as the Apostles' Creed would put it:

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN."

This is the faith, the faith we have heard from the beginning, the faith we have believed from the beginning, and the faith that we continue to confess until the Day He comes again to judge the quick and the dead.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Digout]

A lot of Christians sacrifice, suffer, share and serve. And yet they disagree on just about everything. Is the Holy Spirit revealing contradictory "truths". No, that's non sense.

Yes, you have a valid point there. The truth should unite. Division is the influence of Satan. I believe, those who qualify to receive the truth are bound to agree with fundamental concepts of truth if they are not bound by religious dogmas.

Yes, the Holy Spirit reveals truth. But to whom did Christ guarantee the Spirit to reveal it to and guard it from error?

Answer: the Church.

Can you please back up your claim with a related verse for that?

Which Church?

The only one that was around back then, historically speaking. The Catholic Church

Historically speaking, it was the Jerusalem Church. A well organized church with its power and paraphernalia is unlikely to deliver the message and call of the Gospel to the poor and powerless!

 

[Digout]

Montanism said that he was the receiver of new revelation, and the harbinger of a new age of the Spirit, and as such received direct, special knowledge directly from the Spirit.

I am not claiming any new revelation. The Holy Spirit was sent to discern the truth from all sources. It is no longer the letter but the spirit of it!

Christianity on the other hand asserted--and asserts--that Christ called His apostles and promised them that the Holy Spirit would be with them and bring to mind all that He had taught. These apostles went out into the world, establishing communities, ordaining pastors, and they set to writing what we now call the New Testament.

Christianity has never been about special, private knowledge received directly from God; but has been about the open and public confession of faith that has come to us from the apostles as found in Holy Scripture. Tradition plays its role in that we stand together as the People of God hearing, receiving, believing, and confessing the Word that has been given from the beginning--that same Word that is contained in Holy Scripture and professed and confessed through the public proclamation of the Christian Church,

Very well put!

that is, what we have always believed, and that can be found in the Creeds and Confessions passed down through every age and generation.

I believe in Apostles' Creed only. Being a Protestant, I am not aware of confessions set out by Catholic church.

It is this faith that we confess, not a new faith, not an esoteric faith, not a special knowledge that we become privy to in ourselves; but the public faith given to us from the beginning,

Agreed.

most importantly:

"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures," - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

How much of Gospel was Paul was aware of and how much he preached?

Or as the Apostles' Creed would put it:

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN."

AMEN!

This is the faith, the faith we have heard from the beginning, the faith we have believed from the beginning, and the faith that we continue to confess until the Day He comes again to judge the quick and the dead.

-CryptoLutheran

Fine with me. Thanks. God bless