The philosophy behind the theology

[bbbbbbb]

1. No one said ALL authority was given to men. That is only you putting words in my mouth. But it seems your concept of the Church is incapable of having ANY authority, being invisible and all.

2. Of course there is no mention of "Rome" or the "Vatican". There was no need for distinction- there was but one Church. This is where history and reason come into play. If your church's foundation and ideology only go back to the 16th century it couldn't have been what Scripture was referring to.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

This is what your denomination states in its catechism -

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

That definitely looks to me like a claim to all authority.

 

[Albion]

The debate has never been Word of "God vs. Opinion of man"but "Where do we turn when we can't agree about what the Word of God actually means."

No, it has not. That is always the direction in which the Catholic posters here want to turn such discussions, as though holding human opinion to be God's revelation is sound theology. However, the issue is still "To what do we turn in order to know God's will--Scripture...OR...Scripture + Human opinion, speculation, legend, custom, etc.?"

 

[SMA12]

No, it has not. That is always the direction in which the Catholic posters here want to turn such discussions, as though holding human opinion to be God's revelation is sound theology.

Quite the contrary. Sola Scriptura is in fact what makes a person believe his or her own opinion of scripture is God's revelation.

However, the issue is still "To what do we turn in order to know God's will--Scripture...OR...Scripture + Human opinion...?"

Then how do you separate one from the other? You can't.

It's an over simplification to say I listen to Scripture and that's that. You cannot separate what you read from your perception of what you read. Yet everyone has a different perception.

Again I say the debate is not scripture vs human opinion, but where we turn for truth when we cannot agree on what scripture means.

Lastly, some honest unanswered questions I have already asked that I would be interested in your answers:

• Then what authority do non-fringe Protestants turn to for proper interpretation? Why is that source, whatever it may be, authoritative? And if it were reliable, then why can't non-fringe Protestants agree about [fill in the blank]? ...which church you should you go to for an authoritative decision if the Church itself is invisible?

• ...it seems your concept of the Church is incapable of having ANY authority, being invisible and all.

• Of course there is no mention of "Rome" or the "Vatican"[When talking about the Church's authority]. There was no need for distinction- there was but one Church. This is where history and reason come into play. If your church's foundation and ideology only go back to the 16th century it couldn't have been what Scripture was referring to.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Quite the contrary. Sola Scriptura is in fact what makes a person believe his or her own opinion of scripture is God's revelation.

Then how do you separate one from the other? You can't.

It's an over simplification to say I listen to Scripture and that's that. You cannot separate what you read from your perception of what you read. Yet everyone has a different perception.

Again I say the debate is not scripture vs human opinion, but where we turn for truth when we cannot agree on what scripture means.

Lastly, some honest unanswered questions I have already asked that I would be interested in your answers:

• Then what authority do non-fringe Protestants turn to for proper interpretation? Why is that source, whatever it may be, authoritative? And if it were reliable, then why can't non-fringe Protestants agree about [fill in the blank]? ...which church you should you go to for an authoritative decision if the Church itself is invisible?

• ...it seems your concept of the Church is incapable of having ANY authority, being invisible and all.

• Of course there is no mention of "Rome" or the "Vatican"[When talking about the Church's authority]. There was no need for distinction- there was but one Church. This is where history and reason come into play. If your church's foundation and ideology only go back to the 16th century it couldn't have been what Scripture was referring to.

I am finding out that your own Church is now becoming increasingly invisible. On another board you have dismissed two of your Church members as not being actual members, despite the fact that they hold membership in your visible Church. It seems to me that you believe in a Church composed only of members which meet your specific criteria. The implicatons are interesting. First, you hold your own opinion higher than that of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. Second, you believe in a Church which is not visible, i.e. is not composed of members of a visible church organization.

One other aspect to the invisible Catholic church worth mentioning here is the popular concept promoted by your Church (which I know you yourself do not ascribe to) that all members of the Eastern Orthodox churches are members of the Catholic church, albeit "separated brethren" and all members of Protestant churches are members of the Catholic church, as well, as long as they are in a state of invincible ignorance. The cloak of invincible ignorance as a means of membership in the Catholic Church has been extended to all of humanity, as well. Thus, the Catholic Church has now ceased entirely to be visible and is quite invisible.

 

[Albion]

Quite the contrary. Sola Scriptura is in fact what makes a person believe his or her own opinion of scripture is God's revelation.

Nope, no, not at all. But since you've had the real meaning explained to you many times here and it hasn't deterred you from misrepresenting it, I won't go through that again.

Then how do you separate one from the other?

you just said it. They're separate.

It's an over simplification to say I listen to Scripture and that's that. You cannot separate what you read from your perception of what you read. Yet everyone has a different perception.

Even if we were to agree on that, it IS NOT WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA MEANS.

Again I say the debate is not scripture vs human opinion,

Sure it is. I stand on Scripture and you on Scripture but also equally so on the writings of Popes, Councils, and Early Church Fathers.

Or are you willing to say that you do NOT consider the latter three to be, as your church claims, infallible dispensers of additional divine revelation?

 

[SMA12]

I am finding out that your own Church is now becoming increasingly invisible. On another board you have dismissed two of your Church members as not being actual members, despite the fact that they hold membership in your visible Church. It seems to me that you believe in a Church composed only of members which meet your specific criteria. The implicatons are interesting. First, you hold your own opinion higher than that of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. Second, you believe in a Church which is not visible, i.e. is not composed of members of a visible church organization.

I didn't say they weren't actual members. I said a Catholic can excommunicate himself if he openly rejects Catholicism, regardless of what he calls himself. It's not a difficult concept. Their actions have pretty obviously demonstrated their rejection of Catholic teaching. And the Catholic Church teaches as much, so no I do not value my own opinion over that of the Magesterium. Nice try through. Do you know what is needed to come back into communion? Sincere repentance.

One other aspect to the invisible Catholic church worth mentioning here is the popular concept promoted by your Church (which I know you yourself do not ascribe to) that all members of the Eastern Orthodox churches are members of the Catholic church, albeit "separated brethren" and all members of Protestant churches are members of the Catholic church, as well, as long as they are in a state of invincible ignorance. The cloak of invincible ignorance as a means of membership in the Catholic Church has been extended to all of humanity, as well. Thus, the Catholic Church has now ceased entirely to be visible and is quite invisible.

Yes they are all separated brethren. Unless, they are not ignorant, and openly reject Catholicism. Hence Biden and Pelosi. They have chosen this for themselves. Again it's not to difficult to see the difference if you set aside your agenda for a moment.

 

[SMA12]

Nope, no, not at all. But since you've had the real meaning explained to you many times here and it hasn't deterred you from misrepresenting it, I won't go through that again.



you just said it. They're separate.


Even if we were to agree on that, it IS NOT WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA MEANS.


Sure it is. I stand on Scripture and you on Scripture but also equally so on the writings of Popes, Councils, and Early Church Fathers.

Or are you willing to say that you do NOT consider the latter three to be, as your church claims, infallible dispensers of additional divine revelation?

You stand on your opinion of what Scripture means. That is not as sturdy as 2000 years of Church teaching about what Scripture means.

 

[Steeno7]

I guess it comes down to who has received the anointing in them and who hasn't....

"As for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in Him." 1 John 2:27

 

[bbbbbbb]

I didn't say they weren't actual members. I said a Catholic can excommunicate himself if he openly rejects Catholicism, regardless of what he calls himself. It's not a difficult concept. Their actions have pretty obviously demonstrated their rejection of Catholic teaching. And the Catholic Church teaches as much, so no I do not value my own opinion over that of the Magesterium. Nice try through. Do you know what is needed to come back into communion? Sincere repentance.



Yes they are all separated brethren. Unless, they are not ignorant, and openly reject Catholicism. Hence Biden and Pelosi. They have chosen this for themselves. Again it's not to difficult to see the difference if you set aside your agenda for a moment.

It seems that you do not consider them to be actual members even though they themselves see themselves as being actual members and the Catholic Church also sees them as actual members, given the fact that they are able to receive the Eucharist at Mass. Thus, it comes down to your own personal interpretation of their spiritual lives, as evidenced by their words and actions versus their interpretation combined with that of the Catholic Church.

All things considered, I think I will take the position of the Catholic Church as being more authoritative than your own.

My point still stands that you believe fully in an invisible church.

 

[SMA12]

It seems that you do not consider them to be actual members even though they themselves see themselves as being actual members and the Catholic Church also sees them as actual members, given the fact that they are able to receive the Eucharist at Mass. Thus, it comes down to your own personal interpretation of their spiritual lives, as evidenced by their words and actions versus their interpretation combined with that of the Catholic Church.

All things considered, I think I will take the position of the Catholic Church as being more authoritative than your own.

My point still stands that you believe fully in an invisible church.

You really aren't sure what you are talking about, but I'll give you a break- you aren't even Catholic

1) Just because one receives the Eucharist doesn't mean they are in communion with the Church. Having free will, a Catholic in a state of of mortal sin, can choose to receive- but in doing so is only bringing condemnation upon himself.

2) I can call myself a giraffe, but that doesn't make it so. So just because one nominally calls oneself Catholic, but rejects the teachings of Catholicism, is that person truly Catholic? Redefining terms is a common trick the devil uses to lead many astray, in my opinion.

3) As I have not said anything out of line of Catholic teaching, I don't know why you insist I value my opinion over that of the Catholic Church. You seem to think you have me cornered because I said the actions of Pelosi and Biden are actions that, according to Catholic teaching, can cause one to excommunicate one's self. But you say "Oh yeah, they receive communion!" And I refer you back to point #1.

4) A formal public excommunication is a different matter. I said one may be beneficial to all involved, but just because one isn't issued, doesn't mean a person hasn't already excommunicated themselves. But just because the bishop hasn't issued one doesn't mean I disagree with the Catholic Church, as there is no binding teaching stating when a public excommunication is necessary and when it isn't.

5) Lastly your whole argument about the Catholic Church being invisible is based upon a) my alleged disagreement with the Catholic Church and b) your impression that a person can be in full communion with the Church and openly reject it at the same time. Both are false.

More so, it seems to me your entire argument is a knee jerk response to not being able to answer my question: How is an invisible Church able to have any authority whatsoever? Rather than answer the question, you only set out to try to prove the Catholic Church is invisible. Even if it were so you only would have proven that neither your version of the Church nor my version of the Church is the authentic authoritative Church, because you gave no response as to how an invisible Church is capable of authority.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You really aren't sure what you are talking about, but I'll give you a break- you aren't even Catholic

1) Just because one receives the Eucharist doesn't mean they are in communion with the Church. Having free will, a Catholic in a state of of mortal sin, can choose to receive- but in doing so is only bringing condemnation upon himself.

2) I can call myself a giraffe, but that doesn't make it so. So just because one nominally calls oneself Catholic, but rejects the teachings of Catholicism, is that person truly Catholic? Redefining terms is a common trick the devil uses to lead many astray, in my opinion.

3) As I have not said anything out of line of Catholic teaching, I don't know why you insist I value my opinion over that of the Catholic Church. You seem to think you have me cornered because I said the actions of Pelosi and Biden are actions that, according to Catholic teaching, can cause one to excommunicate one's self. But you say "Oh yeah, they receive communion!" And I refer you back to point #1.

4) A formal public excommunication is a different matter. I said one may be beneficial to all involved, but just because one isn't issued, doesn't mean a person hasn't already excommunicated themselves. But just because the bishop hasn't issued one doesn't mean I disagree with the Catholic Church, as there is no binding teaching stating when a public excommunication is necessary and when it isn't.

5) Lastly your whole argument about the Catholic Church being invisible is based upon a) my alleged disagreement with the Catholic Church and b) your impression that a person can be in full communion with the Church and openly reject it at the same time. Both are false.

More so, it seems to me your entire argument is a knee jerk response to not being able to answer my question: How is an invisible Church able to have any authority whatsoever? Rather than answer the question, you only set out to try to prove the Catholic Church is invisible. Even if it were so you only would have proven that neither your version of the Church nor my version of the Church is the authentic authoritative Church, because you gave no response as to how an invisible Church is capable of authority.

We seem to have developed two strands to this discussion - who is actually and truly Catholic and the invisible Church. I will deal with the first in this post and the second in the next post in order to keep things clear.

It is my understanding, and please feel free to correct me if I am in error, that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has the authority to determine to is Catholic and who is not. That authority does not extend to non-Catholics such as myself nor to Catholics who are not part of the Magisterium. For those individuals, any allegations as to what constitutes a real Catholic is a matter of their own, personal understanding and is not necessarily that of the Catholic Church.

Thus, when the Magisterium of the Catholic Church determined that members of the Eastern Orthodox Church are not schismatics (although they were determined to be so for many centuries), but "separated brethren" the membership of the Catholic Church increased exponentially. In a similar way, when the Magisterium determined that Protestants were no longer heretics, but are also "separated brethren" then individuals such as myself became ipso facto Catholics. The fact that I do not consider myself to be a member of your Church has no bearing on the fact that your Church claims me as a member.

To be quite clear on the matter, the Catholic Church has not determined that any of its members are, or will be, saved, but simply that they belong to the organization which defines itself as the Catholic Church.

If I were to assert that one or more of these "members" is not a true Catholic, then I would be acting outside the authority of the Catholic Church, would I not?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Now, to the issue of the Invisible Catholic Church.

In centuries past the Catholic Church defined itself as being composed of all individuals who, at a minimum, were baptized by the Catholic Church. It was a clearly defined body of individuals.

Times have changed, however. Today the Catholic Church claims as members all who have been baptized with the trinitarian formula of baptism and is extending its claim to traditionally non-Christian religions such as Judaism. Thus, it is entirely impossible to determine who actually is and who is not a member of the Catholic Church as most of these individuals would actively disavow any affiliation with the Catholic Church. As a result, the Catholic Church is now, at best, translucent, and, at worst, quite invisible.

 

[Albion]

Now, to the issue of the Invisible Catholic Church.

In centuries past the Catholic Church defined itself as being composed of all individuals who, at a minimum, were baptized by the Catholic Church. It was a clearly defined body of individuals.

Times have changed, however. Today the Catholic Church claims as members all who have been baptized with the trinitarian formula of baptism and is extending its claim to traditionally non-Christian religions such as Judaism. Thus, it is entirely impossible to determine who actually is and who is not a member of the Catholic Church as most of these individuals would actively disavow any affiliation with the Catholic Church. As a result, the Catholic Church is now, at best, translucent, and, at worst, quite invisible.

Not sure that SMA or other Catholics who usually profess not to understand what is meant by the "invisible church" will follow along with what's been written, but your point seems completely correct. Any Christian who isn't a Roman Catholic but is unknowingly considered to be so by the RCC, has to be part of an invisible church concept as advocated by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[SMA12]

We seem to have developed two strands to this discussion - who is actually and truly Catholic and the invisible Church. I will deal with the first in this post and the second in the next post in order to keep things clear.

It is my understanding, and please feel free to correct me if I am in error, that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has the authority to determine to is Catholic and who is not. That authority does not extend to non-Catholics such as myself nor to Catholics who are not part of the Magisterium. For those individuals, any allegations as to what constitutes a real Catholic is a matter of their own, personal understanding and is not necessarily that of the Catholic Church.

Thus, when the Magisterium of the Catholic Church determined that members of the Eastern Orthodox Church are not schismatics (although they were determined to be so for many centuries), but "separated brethren" the membership of the Catholic Church increased exponentially. In a similar way, when the Magisterium determined that Protestants were no longer heretics, but are also "separated brethren" then individuals such as myself became ipso facto Catholics. The fact that I do not consider myself to be a member of your Church has no bearing on the fact that your Church claims me as a member.

To be quite clear on the matter, the Catholic Church has not determined that any of its members are, or will be, saved, but simply that they belong to the organization which defines itself as the Catholic Church.

If I were to assert that one or more of these "members" is not a true Catholic, then I would be acting outside the authority of the Catholic Church, would I not?

The Catholic Church has defined what churches are in full communion and which aren't. But it hasn't wasted its time determining individual to individual who is a practicing and who isn't. Aside from the rare formal excommunication.

Now, one issue we may have is defining the term "true Catholic". If you define it as anyone who has a Catholic baptismal certificate or name on a church roster, then sure Pelosi/Biden meet that criteria. But when I say true Catholic, I am talking about someone who is more than nominally Catholic. I am talking about a practicing Catholic who actually believes in Catholicism.

I don't understand how saying is these people are not practicing Catholics goes against the Magestrium. Both publically display their actions and belief that in direct contradiction to Catholicism. There obviously is no Magesterial teaching saying either one of these people are practicing Catholics. There is Magesterial teaching, however, that says a non practicing Catholic should not recieve the Eucharist. Everything I have said is in line with Magesterial teaching.

Maybe another misunderstanding between us are the terms "member of the Church" and "in communion with the Church". They are different and maybe I was unclear. Biden and Pelosi, may be "members" but they aren't in communion, thus should not recieve Holy Communin. It's a wheat and tares kind of thing.

If a person in your congregation was baptized Christian, calls himself Christian, but goes around proclaiming to millions of people that Jesus is one thousands of gods, do you consider him a true Christian? Or do warn unsuspecting people he may be influencing that what he is preaching is not authentic Christianity. This is the same concept, only maybe slightly less extreme. Maybe more...

 

[SMA12]

Now, to the issue of the Invisible Catholic Church.

In centuries past the Catholic Church defined itself as being composed of all individuals who, at a minimum, were baptized by the Catholic Church. It was a clearly defined body of individuals.

Times have changed, however. Today the Catholic Church claims as members all who have been baptized with the trinitarian formula of baptism and is extending its claim to traditionally non-Christian religions such as Judaism. Thus, it is entirely impossible to determine who actually is and who is not a member of the Catholic Church as most of these individuals would actively disavow any affiliation with the Catholic Church. As a result, the Catholic Church is now, at best, translucent, and, at worst, quite invisible.

You are confusing members of the Church with the authoritative institution itself. I am a practicing member, yet I don't have the authority that the Catholic Church itself has. The Church has authority regardless of who is and isn't a member. Two very separate issues.

 

[Albion]

I am a practicing member, yet I don't have the authority that the Catholic Church itself has. The Church has authority regardless of who is and isn't a member. Two very separate issues.

Nevertheless, to say that is to describe an "invisible church" concept.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Catholic Church has defined what churches are in full communion and which aren't. But it hasn't wasted its time determining individual to individual who is a practicing and who isn't. Aside from the rare formal excommunication.

Now, one issue we may have is defining the term "true Catholic". If you define it as anyone who has a Catholic baptismal certificate or name on a church roster, then sure Pelosi/Biden meet that criteria. But when I say true Catholic, I am talking about someone who is more than nominally Catholic. I am talking about a practicing Catholic who actually believes in Catholicism.

I don't understand how saying is these people are not practicing Catholics goes against the Magestrium. Both publically display their actions and belief that in direct contradiction to Catholicism. There obviously is no Magesterial teaching saying either one of these people are practicing Catholics. There is Magesterial teaching, however, that says a non practicing Catholic should not recieve the Eucharist. Everything I have said is in line with Magesterial teaching.

Maybe another misunderstanding between us are the terms "member of the Church" and "in communion with the Church". They are different and maybe I was unclear. Biden and Pelosi, may be "members" but they aren't in communion, thus should not recieve Holy Communin. It's a wheat and tares kind of thing.

If a person in your congregation was baptized Christian, calls himself Christian, but goes around proclaiming to millions of people that Jesus is one thousands of gods, do you consider him a true Christian? Or do warn unsuspecting people he may be influencing that what he is preaching is not authentic Christianity. This is the same concept, only maybe slightly less extreme. Maybe more...

Thank for the clarification. We seem to be in some sort of gray area here. While I agree with and understand the concept that one is not actually Catholic unless one has an active faith in Catholicism, there are multitudes of members of the Catholic Church who, on one hand, actively profess Catholic dogma, but on the other hand fail to live up to their profession. Their failure generally falls under the title of sin. As you know, in Catholicism there are venial sins and and there are mortal sins. Leaving aside those who commit venial sins (which is virtually every Catholic) let us look at those who commit mortal sins (a smaller number, but still extremely large). These include multitudes of relatively (and I use that term liberally) devout Catholics who attend Mass at Christmas and Easter, but at no other time, nor do they perceive any particular reason to confess their absence from week Mass as a sin, although they might do so when they go to Confession.

The question then arises as to where the Magisterium draws the line in determining who is a member of the Church. We all know that they include all manner of folks, including those who outspoken in their opposition to Catholic dogma. The rub comes with who is in communion with the Church. Would a person who skips Mass one Sunday to play golf with his buddies be considered to be in communion? If not, then the number of actual members in communion with the Catholic Church is amazingly small. Would you not agree?

Concerning the Catholic Church's claim on members of other churches, it is evident that it is quite empty as the claim is not made concerning individuals, who are clearly not in communion with the Catholic Church, but it is a hypothetical claim with no reality to it at all.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are confusing members of the Church with the authoritative institution itself. I am a practicing member, yet I don't have the authority that the Catholic Church itself has. The Church has authority regardless of who is and isn't a member. Two very separate issues.

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church claims an unknowable number of individuals as members. These "members", although hardly practicing, constitute a completely invisible church, known only to God.

A comparable situation occured with the Russian Orthodox Church when it was a department of the Russian Communist government. It claimed that every citizen of the USSR was a member. At least they knew the actual number of members, from government census records, which constituted their visible church.

 

[lesliedellow]

Protestants are entirely capable of living without a self serving institution, claiming to have divine authority.

Considering that it is supposed to believe in original sin, how does the Catholic Church manage to except itself from Lord Acton's famous dictum that power tends to corrupt? To those of us looking on from outside, it seems to apply with full force.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Protestants are entirely capable of living without a self serving institution, claiming to have divine authority.

Considering that it is supposed to believe in original sin, how does the Catholic Church manage to except itself from Lord Acton's famous dictum that power tends to corrupt? To those of us looking on from outside, it seems to apply with full force.

The Catholic explanation of original sin differs from that of the Protestant understanding. Their view is not that man is born a sinner with a naturally sinful and corrupt nature, but that man is born innocent of sin, but carries the stain of Adam's sin which then is cleansed by the rite of baptism.