Roman or Catholic?

[Albion]

A previous discussion. Note post #60, which includes a quote from post #54. I realise that one Protestant doesn't represent all Protestants...but my observation was that some people beleive this.

If it is Penumbra's posts you are referring to, I think you misread them. The idea expressed did not seem to have anything to do with a physical, legal unity of denominations.

Anyway, it is certainly not something Protestants are likely to say.

My point when mentioning the belief of some that a number of Protestant churches make up the One True Church is what leads us to ask about the divsions. I do not believe that there are churches that teach different doctrines to the Catholic Faith that are part of the visible Church.

I know that. However, all that is necessary to defuse the contention that the Protestant churches, being disunited, cannot be the true Church of antiquity is for each of them to say that the others are phonies...just like you do with the Catholic churches. And on the other side, can't Protestants also point to the various separated "Catholic" (or any other set of churches) bodies and say, "See they are disunited, therefore they cannot be the One?" Logically, they can.

I would also get into the issue of authority--many Catholics would argue that we have a much more realistic claim to a teaching authority that is divinely instituted than a myriad of churches that differ doctrinally and were founded centuries after Christ:

Once again, though, you are comparing one church to a collection of others and proclaiming that unity proves authenticity. It's all in the selection of churches you want to consider. If, for instance, a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod were to take up your own argument and use it like you do, he would say,"We are united in the faith. Those other churches--the Roman Catholic, the Calvinists ones, the Orthodox Eastern churches, etc. are disunited. They cannot be the true church. But we are united."

In fact, this is exactly the argument used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. We are one and the same everywhere, they say, and then they contrast that with all the other Christian churches that exist, yours and mine included.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

If it is Penumbra's posts you are referring to, I think you misread them. The idea expressed did not seem to have anything to do with a physical, legal unity of denominations.

Anyway, it is certainly not something Protestants are likely to say.

No...post #60 at the bottom of page 6 is from 12volt_man and pretty much directly says this. Though not *exclusively* the One Church as you said.

I think the issue of trying to prove/disprove the authenticity and universality of Catholicism isn't just related you unity...and you make a very good case as to why it is difficult to use this unity to prove Catholicism over Protestantism. For me, it comes down to Matthew 16:18-19. This in my mind disproves the catholicism and authenticity as the One Church of all Christian denominations against Catholicism. But, of course, all the non-Catholics here would disagree....or else they'd be Catholic anyway.

Pax

 

[Albion]

No...post #60 at the bottom of page 6 is from 12volt_man and pretty much directly says this. Though not *exclusively* the One Church as you said.

Isn't that--exclusively the One Church--what we are discussing?

I think the issue of trying to prove/disprove the authenticity and universality of Catholicism isn't just related you unity...and you make a very good case as to why it is difficult to use this unity to prove Catholicism over Protestantism.

Well then, we got somewhere, you and I. The claim that got me into this was based solely upon visible unity.

 

[SPALATIN]

Where the Roman Catholic Church stands in relation to the universal church is a debateable subject within Protestantism, although the author of the blog entries I linked to takes the position that Roman Catholic baptism places one under the New Testament covenant. But obviously we consider the Roman Catholic Church far too sectarian to be called catholic. Sectarianism isn't about location, but about beliefs and practice.

So what do most protestants consider Lutherans to be? I mean if it weren't for Luther many of you still would be Roman Catholic. And he didn't leave by his own volition he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X because he wouldn't recant his position on indulgences. Only after his excommunication did he strive to build a church based on truth.

So are Lutherans as sectarian as Roman Catholics? We believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament though we don't hold to the same ideal of Transubstatiation or Consubstantiation as many think we do. We hold that Baptism is what brings salvation to a human being whether infant or adult.

So on these things are we also sectarian?

 

[Albion]

So what do most protestants consider Lutherans to be? I mean if it weren't for Luther many of you still would be Roman Catholic. And he didn't leave by his own volition he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X because he wouldn't recant his position on indulgences. Only after his excommunication did he strive to build a church based on truth.

So are Lutherans as sectarian as Roman Catholics? We believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament though we don't hold to the same ideal of Transubstatiation or Consubstantiation as many think we do. We hold that Baptism is what brings salvation to a human being whether infant or adult.

So on these things are we also sectarian?

Bingo! We're all sectarians.

The only point to be made is that while we all choose the sect that comes closest to our understanding of the Bible's message, the real church of Christ is not an organization.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Isn't that--exclusively the One Church--what we are discussing?

What I was addressing is the possibility that the One True visible Church is made up of many churches that are not visibly united and hold different doctrinal believes.

Well then, we got somewhere, you and I. The claim that got me into this was based solely upon visible unity.

I still feel, obviously, that there are reasons to support the belief that the Catholic Church is the One Church. The fact that we have remained as one Church under the Bishop of Rome for 2000 years is one of many.

Pax

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Bingo! We're all sectarians.

The only point to be made is that while we all choose the sect that comes closest to our understanding of the Bible's message, the real church of Christ is not an organization.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, for sure.

Pax

 

[Albion]

What I was addressing is the possibility that the One True visible Church is made up of many churches that are not visibly united and hold different doctrinal believes.

Well, sure. That is one way of looking at it--that the true church is made up of believers not identified with any particular denomination. However, the claim that this Protestant view is being compared to is not comparable. The Catholic view identifies the true church with one organization only and then, as the argument we were talking about goes, it applies that to Protestant churches and finds them wanting. If Catholics were to say that they see a visible, One, true Church in their own body alone while Protestants see unity as transcending denominations, the argument would be balanced.

I still feel, obviously, that there are reasons to support the belief that the Catholic Church is the One Church. The fact that we have remained as one Church under the Bishop of Rome for 2000 years is one of many.

I know. And dozens of other churches look at the same and different verses and find that their own denomination, and it alone, is what Jesus had in mind.

If you want me to comment on the 2000 years thing, the first item I'd mention is that the Church of Rome has hardly remained "one Church" for 2000 years. It has split and split again. In fact it has suffered the greatest splits of all Christian churches. You are just holding onto one of the parts in each of the splits (no different from the Protestant example, really).

 

[Albion]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, for sure.

Pax

Of course. Almost all sects deny that they are sects. Those that admit the obvious are at least making a good start on overcoming sectrarianism, in my view.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Of course. Almost all sects deny that they are sects. Those that admit the obvious are at least making a good start on overcoming sectrarianism, in my view.

I guess it depends how you describe sect. If you're going to say sect means one possible organisation that is no more or less the original one then I would say no, I'm not part of a sect. If you simply mean an organisation that has certain teachings then of course I'm part of a sect.

Sect would usually imply something seperate from the original community, or one facet of that community. In that case, I would say the Catholic Church is perfectly that Community and that ecclesia, and not a 'sect' or part of it.

Pax

 

[Albion]

I guess it depends how you describe sect. If you're going to say sect means one possible organisation that is no more or less the original one then I would say no, I'm not part of a sect.

Of course you do. Other Christians do the same thing, but some take the view that the true church is not identifiable with any particular ecclesiastical organization.

Sect would usually imply something seperate from the original community, or one facet of that community.

OK, and we're all descendents of that so-called undivided church of the first millennium. No church today is that church.

IIn that case, I would say the Catholic Church is perfectly that Community and that ecclesia, and not a 'sect' or part of it.

You're loyal to your particular sect, just as the Orthodox Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Mormons, Anglicans, and others are to theirs...each using nearly the same justification. Yeah, I can respect that.

 

[SPALATIN]

I still feel, obviously, that there are reasons to support the belief that the Catholic Church is the One Church. The fact that we have remained as one Church under the Bishop of Rome for 2000 years is one of many.

Pax

And yet if you really think about some of the Roman Bishops that have held the office over the past 20 centuries you might even say that you are still a church despite being under the Bishop of Rome.

 

[A. believer]

So what do most protestants consider Lutherans to be? I mean if it weren't for Luther many of you still would be Roman Catholic. And he didn't leave by his own volition he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X because he wouldn't recant his position on indulgences. Only after his excommunication did he strive to build a church based on truth.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Most Protestants consider Lutherans fellow Protestants, of course. And the fact that Luther was given the boot is part of the very point I was making. Rome is notorious for abrogating all authority to itself and, when fellow Christians bring up legitimate issues that need to be addressed, simply taking it upon itself to excommunicate them. Hence the many Roman initiated, Roman perpetuated schisms throughout history.

So are Lutherans as sectarian as Roman Catholics? We believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament though we don't hold to the same ideal of Transubstatiation or Consubstantiation as many think we do. We hold that Baptism is what brings salvation to a human being whether infant or adult.

So on these things are we also sectarian?

Certainly in one sense, Lutherans are as sectarian as any denomination since denominationalism is inherently sectarian. But not in the sense in which I was using the word. I was talking about Rome's historic propensity toward creating schism by abrogating all authority to itself alone and toward pronouncing anathemas and excommunicating anyone who questions the so-called absoluteness of its authority.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

OK, and we're all descendents of that so-called undivided church of the first millennium. No church today is that church.

You know I'd have to disagree with you...but we'll agree to leave it there and respect each other's opinions.

You're loyal to your particular sect, just as the Orthodox Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Mormons, Anglicans, and others are to theirs...each using nearly the same justification. Yeah, I can respect that.

Thank you.

Peace be with you.

 

[A. believer]

My view is that until the thousands of Protestant denominations can get together and agree between themselves on what they actually believe, they can't even start to put a credible case that they represent any sort of catholic faith.

Perhaps that's because you're incapable of evaluating the arguments of your opponents within the context of their presuppositions instead of your own. That's something I find that many people, including many Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants, have a great deal of trouble doing--surprisingly, this is even so with those who've converted from one tradition to one of the others.

 

[racer]

This would also get into the issue of authority--many Catholics would argue that we have a much more realistic claim to a teaching authority that is divinely instituted than a myriad of churches that differ doctrinally and were founded centuries after Christ:

Matthew 16:18-1918 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

As provided by A. believer a week or so ago:

He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 1)
​

Augustine expounds upon what specific authority is granted according to Matthew 16:18. If one turns to the bosom of the Church in repentance and it is obvious to the Church that he has truly became a new person, then the Church is to recognize that his sins are forgiven. That's what churches do. He, Augustine, did not take this simple straight forward verse and read anything into it. He did not see this verse as bestowing on Peter or the Church an unrestricted license on interpreting Scripture or establishing doctrine.

Still, I'm not here to argue. I think it's a bit late for that...I'm into the discussion now. Pax.

But, we can discuss issues which we disagree on in a polite and civil manner, can't we.

 

[SPALATIN]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Most Protestants consider Lutherans fellow Protestants, of course. And the fact that Luther was given the boot is part of the very point I was making. Rome is notorious for abrogating all authority to itself and, when fellow Christians bring up legitimate issues that need to be addressed, simply taking it upon itself to excommunicate them. Hence the many Roman initiated, Roman perpetuated schisms throughout history.

A,

To the Bishop of Rome, Luther was nothing but a rabble rouser who got in the way of his fund-raiser. Excommunication, he thought was a way to bring Luther in line as no one would dare stand up to the church in that way and expect to get away with it. Luther was going to stand as an example to anyone who dared defy the Pope.

Luther wanted to debate these issues of Special indulgences and of course the sideshow that Johann Von Tetzel was putting on to sell these indulgences. The indulgences had no true spiritual value (I know that Roman Catholics will argue this) and Luther knew this. After Excommunication, he was considered an outlaw in his own country and he had to go undercover as a knight named George. During this time he translated the Bible into the native language as well as other works.

Certainly in one sense, Lutherans are as sectarian as any denomination since denominationalism is inherently sectarian. But not in the sense in which I was using the word. I was talking about Rome's historic propensity toward creating schism by abrogating all authority to itself alone and toward pronouncing anathemas and excommunicating anyone who questions the so-called absoluteness of its authority.

With this i agree.

 

[racer]

Certainly in one sense, Lutherans are as sectarian as any denomination since denominationalism is inherently sectarian. But not in the sense in which I was using the word. I was talking about Rome's historic propensity toward creating schism by abrogating all authority to itself alone and toward pronouncing anathemas and excommunicating anyone who questions the so-called absoluteness of its authority.

And, following the "schism" of Luther's day, is the "schism" (not split) created over the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Like Luther, Von Dollinger, was not seeking to split from his church, he simply refused to compromise his beliefs on the issue. So, what happened? He was excommunicated.

 

[A. believer]

And, following the "schism" of Luther's day, is the "schism" (not split) created over the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Like Luther, Von Dollinger, was not seeking to split from his church, he simply refused to compromise his beliefs on the issue. So, what happened? He was excommunicated.

Exactly. As I assume you already know, I have a young Roman Catholic on another thread taking issue with the fact that William Webster said that von Dollinger "left" the RCC over the doctrine of papal infallibility. Apparently according to this young man, von Dollinger's credibility as a source is impugned over the fact that he was, as he calls it, "exed" by the Roman pontiff with whom he disagreed, and by extension, Mr. Webster's credibility is impugned for saying that von Dollinger "left" the RCC. And I get the impression that the person making that argument is genuinely oblivious to the circularity of his reasoning.

 

[A. believer]

For those who've benefitted from this series on Douglas Wilson's blog (and for those who will benefit if they take the time to read it ) there are two more entries that have been added since I first started this thread. Again, here's a link to the whole series.

Roman or Catholic