Why is the Vatican and Catholicism superior?

[Albion]

I'm curious, Albion, where do you look as an Anglican to clarify matters of morals and faith.

I ask this with all sincerity. Thanks.

Certainly.

I'd answer that--as Anglicans do (or say that they do)--I look, in order of importance, to the following:

1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Reason.

Each of these is capable of being misunderstood, but it's still the best answer IMO with respect to me personally and also to Anglicans generally. And if you want to follow-up, please do so.

 

[tadoflamb]

Certainly.

I'd answer that--as Anglicans do (or say that they do)--I look, in order of importance, to the following:

1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Reason.

Each of these is capable of being misunderstood, but it's still the best answer IMO with respect to me personally and also to Anglicans generally. And if you want to follow-up, please do so.

So, if you are experiencing confusion at the local level, say you are in disagreement with a priest or fellow parishioner, do you argue from Scripture/Tradition/Reason yourself or can you point to the institutional head of your Church for validation? (the infamous, "the Church agrees with me" argument)

Also, what would be the institutional head of your Church (if you have one) would it be your bishop, or something else?

Thanks again.

 

[PT Calvinist]

the infamous, "the Church agrees with me" argument

Impossible, it would be the oposite. "I agree with the Church." The Church can't agree with you because they have set statements (meaning: They don't change as fast as yours do mainly because they have a council to decide and they spend more time meditating on if it is Biblicaly sound.)

The Church is majority, you are one.

Post Script: Vatican is superior, Catholicism is superior.

Yet there is still not enough information on the superiority of the Vatican.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Impossible, it would be the oposite. "I agree with the Church." The Church can't agree with you because they have set statements (meaning: They don't change as fast as yours do mainly because they have a council to decide and they spend more time meditating on if it is Biblicaly sound.)

The Church is majority, you are one.

Post Script: Vatican is superior, Catholicism is superior.

Yet there is still not enough information on the superiority of the Vatican.

How many more pages of posts will be needed before we do have enough information

 

[Albion]

So, if you are experiencing confusion at the local level, say you are in disagreement with a priest or fellow parishioner, do you argue from Scripture/Tradition/Reason yourself or can you point to the institutional head of your Church for validation? (the infamous, "the Church agrees with me" argument)

Also, what would be the institutional head of your Church (if you have one) would it be your bishop, or something else?

Thanks again.

Well, there is confusion at the local level, no matter what church we want to discuss. That's what humans produce.

Being an Episcopal church, we have bishops, and they are to be our shepherds. Still, we don't vest them with any supposed infallibility, which is where I draw back from some of the arguments Catholic posters often use, thinking that if this or that person or groups of person decrees X, then that necessarily is the truth. It may settle the dispute but not be the right answer.

And we also have Canons and Constitutions as do most churches--and our famous Book of Common Prayer--which settle many possible disputes. As for those that might arise which are outside those formularies, we often leave unsettled, or to the individual's conscience, matters that other churches might feel require some definitive answer. But if you mean something as mundane as a dispute over retaining or firing a rector, well, that's just an administrative matter, isn't it, not something deeply doctrinal? This would normally be settled by the bishop and parish working together for some mutually acceptable answer, possibly including a congregational vote.

 

[PT Calvinist]

How many more pages of posts will be needed before we do have enough information

till we reach 1,000

 

[tadoflamb]

Impossible, it would be the oposite. "I agree with the Church." The Church can't agree with you because they have set statements (meaning: They don't change as fast as yours do mainly because they have a council to decide and they spend more time meditating on if it is Biblicaly sound.)

The Church is majority, you are one.

Post Script: Vatican is superior, Catholicism is superior.

Yet there is still not enough information on the superiority of the Vatican.

In real parish life, I run across lots of ideas which have no founding in the Catholic faith. As a Catholic, I can argue from Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and finally the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. For whatever reason, knowing what the Church says, versus what a fellow Catholic might say gives me a lot of peace. In other words, I'm not arguing from my own theology (God forbid) but that of the Church.

I'm curious if that can happen in other churches, particularly the Anglican Communion which is more familiar to me because of it's structure (bishops, etc.)

Another way it might be expressed is, "Your argument isn't with me, it's with the Church".

 

[PT Calvinist]

Another way it might be expressed is, "Your argument isn't with me, it's with the Church".

I see.

So this is why the Church is superior.

So if we question any loyal catholic, we are, in turn, questioning the church...?

 

[Albion]

In real parish life, I run across lots of ideas which have no founding in the Catholic faith. As a Catholic, I can argue from Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and finally the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. For whatever reason, knowing what the Church says, versus what a fellow Catholic might say gives me a lot of peace. In other words, I'm not arguing from my own theology (God forbid) but that of the Church.

I'm curious if that can happen in other churches, particularly the Anglican Communion which is more familiar to me because of it's structure (bishops, etc.)

Another way it might be expressed is, "Your argument isn't with me, it's with the Church".

In these other churches, "the Church" certain has spoken. However, we do not feel the need so keenly felt necessary to Roman Catholics for there to be some final referee who is considered, by stipulation, to be infallible. And before you say that not everything in Roman Catholicism has been made dogma, I need to add that the Magesterium is supposedly infallible and the decrees of the Pope are supposed to be accepted as if correct and obeyed, quite apart from ex cathedra decisions. And yes, there are many theological issues in which there is no need at all for a final, uniform, decision. There is nothing wrong with leaving non-essentials be, while holding to the essentials.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Is the Vatican superior to The Church of Jerusalem?

Forgive me...

 

[PT Calvinist]

Is the Vatican superior to The Church of Jerusalem?

Forgive me...

What is your definition of the "Church of Jerusalem"?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

What is your definition of the "Church of Jerusalem"?

The one that had St. James for it's first Bishop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church_of_Jerusalem

Forgive me...

 

[PT Calvinist]

The one that had St. James for it's first Bishop.

Forgive me...

Otherwise, According the the RC, The Church of Antioch is not superior to the Vatican, because the RCC was instantiated when Christ said to Peter: "This is my Rock". Meaning that the Catholic Church was before the Church of Antioch.



That would be considered heresy to your Church.

Note: This is not my opinion, but supported by Catholic belief.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

According to the RC, The Church of Antioch, being an Apostolic Church, is a part of the Vatican. Since historically, They are both of Apostolic origin.

Otherwise, According the the RC, The Church of Antioch is not superior to the Vatican, because the RCC was instantiated when Christ said to Peter: "This is my Rock". Meaning that the Catholic Church was before the Church of Antioch.



That would be considered heresy to your Church.

Note: This is not my opinion, but supported by Catholic belief.

I don't believe that. Show me where The Church of Rome claims that The Church of Antioch is part of the Vatican.

Sorry, never has been, never will be.

They have sat in council together, but never as one superior to the other. They are equals in council, as the Apostles were equals in council. They are Sees. http://orthodoxwiki.org/See

The Church of Antioch is the first daughter of The Church of Jerusalem.

If the Church of Antioch belongs to anyone it is Jerusalem.

Jerusalem and Antioch are greek and aramaic speaking Churches. Not Latin.

Forgive me...

 

[PT Calvinist]

you're right, I forgot to edit that

Otherwise, According the the RC, The Church of Antioch is not superior to the Vatican, because the RCC was instantiated when Christ said to Peter: "This is my Rock". Meaning that the Catholic Church was before the Church of Antioch.

The second part though, as you know is truth.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

you're right, I forgot to edit that

The second part though, as you know is truth.

They are the "only" Church in the world that interprets Matthew 16:18 that way.

That alone should give us great pause.

Christianity comes from Jerusalem.

Christ could have gone to Rome... he could have even been born in Rome if that is what he wanted... He chose Jerusalem.

Forgive me...

 

[PT Calvinist]

what about the noble Theophilus of Antioch?


Chapter XII.-Meaning of the Name Christian. And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed(17) is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

what about the noble Theophilus of Antioch?


Chapter XII.-Meaning of the Name Christian. And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed(17) is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

He is speaking of Chrismation after Baptism.

"Seal of The Holy Spirit."
"Seal!"
"Seal of The Holy Spirit."
"Seal!"
"Seal of The Holy Spirit."
"Seal! Seal! Seal!"

Forgive me...

 

[tadoflamb]

In these other churches, "the Church" certain has spoken. However, we do not feel the need so keenly felt necessary to Roman Catholics for there to be some final referee who is considered, by stipulation, to be infallible. And before you say that not everything in Roman Catholicism has been made dogma, I need to add that the Magesterium is supposedly infallible and the decrees of the Pope are supposed to be accepted as if correct and obeyed, quite apart from ex cathedra decisions. And yes, there are many theological issues in which there is no need at all for a final, uniform, decision. There is nothing wrong with leaving non-essentials be, while holding to the essentials.

You hit the nail on the head on why I love Catholicism. The Catholic Church has had a lot to say on lots of things concerning morals and faith. I suppose one reason for that is that the Catholic Church is confronted a lot, so the need arises to clarify teachings. If I need clarification, all I have to do is pick up my catechism with all it's cross references to scripture and Church documents.

For instance, in my parish from the top down, there seems to be a great deal of support for women's ordination. If left to myself and my own devices, I'd probably hop on the bandwagon. It's a popular notion these days. However, I know, and the Bishop of Rome knows, that the Church doesn't have the authority to ordain women. And so, instead of following popular thought, I tend to look towards Rome which for me has the greater authority.

True, not all things are dogma, but I, for one, believe the Catholic Church contains the fullness of God's revealed Truth, so if the Church says it, I try to follow it to the best of my ability.

Thank you very much for your posts, they've given me a greater appreciation for the AC.

 

[PT Calvinist]

because we are anointed with the oil of God.

Not material oil probably, for it is not mentioned in such Scriptures as Acts viii. 17, xix 6, Heb. vi. 2; but the anointing (1 John ii. 20) of the Holy Ghots. As a symbol, oil was used at an early period, however; and the Latins are not slow to press this in favour of material oil in the chrism, or confirmation.