Posted on 03/02/2007 5:58:49 PM PST by NYer
Says Its Philosophies Are Incompatible With Church
ROME, MARCH 2, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The Church has not changed its ruling on Catholic membership in the Masons, said the regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary.
Bishop Gianfranco Girotti made this statement Thursday at a conference on the topic of Freemasonry held at the St. Bonaventure Pontifical Theological Faculty.
The bishop presided over the congress held in cooperation with the Socio-Religious Research and Information Group of Italy. Officials of Masonic associations and grand masters also took part in the meeting.
Bishop Girotti reminded his listeners that the Church has always criticized the concepts and philosophy of Freemasonry, considering them incompatible with the Catholic faith.
He mentioned the last official reference document, "Declaration on Masonic Associations," which was signed by the then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, on Nov. 26, 1983.
The text states that since the principles of Masonic associations "have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church," membership in them, therefore, "remains forbidden."
"The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive holy Communion," adds the declaration signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now Benedict XVI.
Father Zbigniew Suchecki, an expert in the subject, quoted number 1374 of the Code of Canon Law, which reads: "Whoever is inscribed in an association that plots against the Church must be punished with a just penalty; whoever promotes or directs that association, must be banned."
"Masonry's attempts to express divine truths are based on relativism and do not agree with the principles of the Christian faith," said the Conventual Franciscan.
Bishop Girotti made reference to the statements of some priests who have declared publicly their membership in Masonry and called for the intervention of "their direct superiors," not excluding the possibility that "measures of a canonical character might come from the Holy See."
Most of them I would evaluate as being very, very rational in their belief systems. But none that I know who are fully bought into Freemasonry would I identify as Christians (Protestant/Catholic notwithstanding).
It seems that, from what I have come to understand, that they have dissected religion and faith and attempted to develop a science from it. The Grand Architect, as it were.
Again, don't get me wrong: I have a great deal of respect for many Freemasons that I know and consider several of them to be my friends...it's just that I do not see how a person can truly be a Freemason and simultaneously truly be a Christian. And don't take the thoughts above as a slam. Just honest observations from my POV.
Maybe somebody could illuminate me on this one...
(serious question addressed to any possible Freemasons who post here. I'd love to have a dialogue on the subject w/o slams)
The other two little pigs rejoiced in the re-affirmation of their choice of nuilding material while the smart one sat in the corner and cried.
The Vatican is on a roll.
Hey everybody, let's get our personal houses in order. The curial house is starting to be a magisterium again. Read the signs. When that happens, things happen. God speaks to His people.
Oh my God, I am heartily sorry, and I detest all my sins because of Thy just punishments...
Which reminds me of a question I've had for years, but never asked it before. This might be a good place to ask it:
Matthew 18:20 Bible quote - Jesus said, 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst.'
Do Catholics believe that Jesus would not be in the midst of those who are gathered in His name unless they were Roman Catholic?
Thanks for a reply.
Lord Jesus, have mercy!
Many Americans are Masons and certainly are not anti-Christian. However, fundamentally, the organization's principles are anti-Christian and particularly anti-Catholic. It was a sort of deist, "illuminati" organization that had mostly the liberals of its time as members. Probably only in the US was it considered just a fraternal organization on the same level with the Elks or the Rotarians.
One of the problems is that Freemasonry in Europe and your average small-town US Mason are competely different, and for Americans it is very hard to understand how good old Uncle Harry with his Masonic ring could have anything to do with plots to overthrow the Church. Obviously, Uncle Harry didn't have anything like that in mind - but European Masonry certainly did and still does today.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/freemasonfaq.html
John Salza has had this site up for years and continues to allow it to grow. He has a book on the Masons.
You might also wish to read a most illuminating book by Whalen which is available from many Catholic sites on Freemasonry. It is excellent.
The average Freemason who is a member of a "Blue Lodge" is in it normally for a social situation or may be in a construction trade where it is widely expected that one is a member. It is in the higher orders that things get "interesting."
Freepmail for further discussion.
Frank
Thanks for the response.
But I'd actually like to hear it from one of them.
Of course not! Any Christian baptized using a Trinitarian formula is a true child of God! When they gather in His Name, He is among them! What we believe is that Christ instituted seven sacraments while on earth and Catholics have the wherewithal to have the sanctifying grace imbued by all of them. Most Christian denominations have only two: Baptism and Matrimony. That does not preclude grace or of going to heaven. It is just that Christ left all of us other conduits to His grace like the Eucharist and Reconciliation.
See the Encyclical, Dominus Iesus, by Pope John Paul II to see the full import of this.
Just wait. The whole "great Presidents were Masons" and "where do you Catholics get this stuff?" will come. I have had this discussion many, many times.
F
Nah, I won't even bother with the Illuminadi stuff. I'm just talking about the Philosophy.
First of all, there are a couple of misconceptions that you have with your statement.
#1, the term "Roman Catholic" only covers a portion of the Catholic Church, those that worship using the Latin Rite. There are, as NYer could point out better than I, many other particular churches that comprise the Catholic Church.
#2, the term "Catholic Church" is the Universal Church. It is the collection of all Christians. Including the brethren separated by schism, such as those who are in Protestant groups.
So, in a manner of speaking, your statement, Do Catholics believe that Jesus would not be in the midst of those who are gathered in His name unless they were Roman Catholic? would be correct, after a manner of thinking, if you only deleted the word "Roman." Because anybody who could be called Christian are, either directly or indirectly, part of the Catholic Church. They just might not recognize it.
Encyclical of Leo XIII on Freemasonry.
Many of us do recognize it, but we don't capitalize "catholic".
Good explanation. Thank you.
It probably follows the same thought process of Catholics who are pro choice. They don't internalize their faith but simply profess it, by virtue of their membership through Baptism.
One has to wonder what appeal Freemasonry offers over membership in a truly Catholic organization, the Knights of Columbus.
#1, the term "Roman Catholic" only covers a portion of the Catholic Church, those that worship using the Latin Rite. There are, as NYer could point out better than I, many other particular churches that comprise the Catholic Church.
Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:
"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).
Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.
A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his of her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaldeans, the Maronites retain Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and His disciples) for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.
This might be correct if you corrected Catholic Church to catholic Church in the sense of universal and not in its normal sense. I point out this section of the Catechism:
855 The Church's mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity.357 Indeed, "divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity (my emphasis) proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects."358
The answer that NYer gave was on the Catholic Church in the capital "C" sense.
See 24.
I am afraid I do not concur with you on that sir. The Catholic Church (Capital C on both) is, in fact, the catholic church (lower-case C on both). The aim of ecumenism is to restore separated brethren to the Church, not to compromise the teaching of the Church to sate separated brethren.
The "little c" usage of Catholic is simply a linguistic trick developed by western schismatic bodies to rationalize their anti-Tiber positions with the Biblical concept of the mystical Body of Christ. I don't buy into that feeble linguistic sleight of hand.
Sorry. I should have pinged you on my post #26. Nothing personal there.
This is what I meant to say. Your qualification in the original response confused me totally. It is from Mark Shea and mirrors Dominus Iesus.
It Didn’t Go Out with Vatican II
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207fea3.asp
The Church’s Position on Salvation outside the Church Is Unchanged
By Mark P. Shea
My pal Dave is a convert like me. When he first began looking at the Church, he often asked questions of confident, relaxed, and well-meaning lay Catholics who gave him the same answer.
"How about those doily thingamabobs on women’s heads?" he’d ask.
"Oh, that went out with Vatican II," they’d reply.
"Latin?"
"Oh, that went out with Vatican II."
"The Immaculate Conception?"
"Oh, that went out with Vatican II."
"The doctrine of the Trinity?"
"Oh, that went out with Vatican II."
Now even Dave, as little as he knew about Catholicism, was reasonably sure that the doctrine of the Trinity had not gone "out with Vatican II." To find out what was really going on he was going to have to look further than hearsay from Catholics catechized by Fr. Groovy and Sr. Issues.
Many of us have been in a similar position. It-Went-Out-with-Vatican-II disease causes many Catholics to talk as though the Church before the Council was a completely different animal than the Church after the Council and not, as is the case, a divinely guided continuation of the same Church.
Funny thing is, both arch-conservative dissenters and arch-liberal dissenters from the Catholic Church talk this way. For the arch-traditionalist dissenter, the post-conciliar Church is bad because it is no longer the Catholic Church, and the goal is to climb into a Wayback Machine and return to some Golden Age. For the arch-liberal, the post-conciliar Church is supposedly NewChurch or WomynChurch or AmChurch or McChurch—a faboo new Church having nothing whatever to do with that awful old "pre-Vatican II Church."
It is only on the somewhat minor matter of whether the old or new Church is good that conservative and liberal dissenters disagree. On the central question of whether there are two Churches, pre- and post-Vatican II, they are in happy agreement. How good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity!
But if you ask the Church itself, you get a different answer. It goes on insisting that there is one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.
"Well, yes," say our progressive and traditionalist dissenting friends in unison. "They have to say that for propaganda purposes. But the fact remains it’s really two different Churches before and after the Council. Because before the Council the Church taught extra ecclesiam nulla salus or ‘outside the Church there is no salvation.’ But Vatican II taught that Protestants and other non-Catholics—heck, even non-Christians—could be saved. That’s a total reversal and it’s wonderful/terrible!" (Here the progressive and traditionalist dissenters fall on each other shouting, "It’s wonderful!" "It’s terrible!" and roll away in the dust.)
Leaving our friends to work out their differences in this productive manner, we need to stop and think about this notion, since it is so common. Did the Church reverse itself at Vatican II and declare that outside the Church there is salvation? Did the Church before Vatican II teach that only Catholics could be saved?
The answer to this riddle is to be found in an ancient and arcane Catholic book: the New Testament. In that book we find two sayings that have to be held as true and cannot be explained away.
The first is a saying by Jesus of Nazareth that reflects rather remarkably the "pre-Vatican II" teaching that outside the Church there is no salvation. For Jesus tells us, "He who is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30) in a manner that is more reminiscent of George W. Bush talking to states that sponsor terrorism than of a Rogerian counselor affirming us in our okayness. It’s exactly the sort of sentiment that makes the arch-progressive dissenter squirm and complain about the exclusiveness of the pre-Vatican II Church. And yet there it is on the lips of Christ himself.
Worse yet, there it is still on the lips of the post-Vatican II Church in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 846 of which tells us (in a large, bold-type heading no less) "‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’
"How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the head through the Church which is his body."
The Catechism goes on to quote from the great Vatican II document Lumen Gentium: "‘Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: The one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it’ (LG 14; cf. Mark 16:16, John 3:5)."
How about that—the Church still teaches dogmatically! It says that "outside the Church there is no salvation." And it does so for the simple reason stated by Jesus: "He who is not with me is against me."
"So you say," grumbles the disgruntled arch-traditionalist dissenter. "But the Vatican II Church offers with the right hand only to take away with the left. For it immediately turns around in the very next paragraph of the Catechism to write, ‘This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation" (LG 16).
"‘Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men’ [CCC 847–848]. This," says the arch-traditionalist dissenter, "leaves the door wide open for the indifferentist notion that everybody from everywhere is going to be saved whether he is a member of the Church or not."
That’s a serious charge and would be a serious argument that the Second Vatican Council was wrong—if it were true. The problem is, neither the Catechism nor Lumen Gentium teaches that "everybody from everywhere is going to be saved whether he is a member of the Church or not." On the contrary, the Church teaches that anybody from anywhere, if he is saved, will indeed find (perhaps to his surprise) that he is, in fact, in some form of union with the Catholic Church.
The Church teaches this because of another passage in Scripture: "John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.’ But Jesus said, ‘Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us’" (Mark 9:38–40).
John assumes precisely what our arch-traditionalist dissenter assumes: If you are not in visible union with the Church—if you are not "following us" (by which he means "following the apostolic college")—then you can’t possibly be under the influence of Jesus Christ. But Jesus corrects him: "He that is not against us is for us."
This saying is the complement to the first saying we considered, "He who is not with me is against me." It makes the commonsense point that there is no salvation outside the Church, yet some folks are linked with the Church in ways they didn’t realize—as if they’re in the same building but hanging mostly out the window.
Jesus re-emphasizes this point in the parable of the sheep and the goats, which deals specifically with the judgment of "the nations." The strong suggestion of the parable is that those under judgment, both goat and sheep, are people who have no idea that in their acts of obedience and disobedience to conscience they were in fact responding to Jesus Christ: "Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’" (Matt. 25:37–39).
The saved sheep speak as non-Christians, as people who thought only that they were doing the right thing and had no idea that they were, in fact, acting by the secret grace of the Holy Spirit.
It is because of this that the Church has always insisted on the necessity of being in union with the Church while it simultaneously refused to make any ultimate judgment about who is unlinked to the Church. In other words, the Church has never declared any "anti-saints" who are certainly in hell to parallel its definite declarations about saints who are definitely in heaven.
In heaven there is sufficient light to see who’s there. But at the mysterious periphery of the communion of saints, it’s difficult to see what God is up to, so the Church doesn’t presume to judge. It simply bears in mind the tradition summed up in the Catechism’s paragraph 1257: "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."
Mark P. Shea is a popular writer and lecturer. His latest book, Making Senses Out of Scripture, is available from Catholic Answers. He writes from Mountlake Terrace, Washington.
I've read that Shea article before. It is outstanding. I'd like to bulk order it and put it in our parish bulletin some weekend.
Your qualification in the original response confused me totally.
I re-read my original response, what qualifications are you talking about? Not trying to start an argument, just not sure about what you're referring.
Thanks
OLD EYES + NO COFFEE + SLIGHT HANGOVER = DUMB RESPONSE TO YOUR INITIAL POST!
Sorry!
;-o)
It's obvious that you don't buy the position we take or you wouldn't have written such insulting garbage. It is not a simple linguistic trick. It is a different understanding than the one you have been taught.
The word 'catholic' means universal, whereas 'Catholic' refers to the Church founded by Jesus Christ. There is no need to insult anyone over this.
That is the position taken by the Catholic Church. We recognize only the authority of Jesus Christ & believe ourselves to be members of His church.
There is no need to insult anyone over this.
I'm afraid that it's an area where agreeing to disagree will be the best we'll be able to do.
And who are "we"?
Those of us who consider ourselves to be catholics.
Actually, I've been taught both versions (I was away from the Church for a number of years). And the rationale for the "little c" is EXACTLY what I was taught. And it is a fundamental point of Protestant dogma:
As a case in point, allow me to point out one of the fundamental documents of the Lutheran faith, the Smalcald Articles:
The same document that says this:
This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2, 4.
Says this:
We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in one holy [catholic or] Christian Church.
An interesting point is how Luther uses the construct, one holy [catholic or] Christian Church. He uses that construct throughout the document.
Now if you are more of a reformed type of person, we could look at the Westminster Confession, which states (in the same article):
I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.
and then...
VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.
I don't accuse you PERSONALLY of creating a linguisitic trick, but rather the "reformers" as a mechanism to justify their schism. I likewise am not trying to offend you personally or insult you personally, but rather to make a statement that I understand as being the truth, based not only upon my understanding of the Catholic Church but on my understanding of the doctrines of the Protestant bodies, as well.
And who is your bishop?
I know you didn't accuse me personally of creating a linguistic trick & where you see "mechanism", I see a belief different than your own. Creating it as a "trick" or "mechanism", as opposed to something believed is discounting, thus insulting.
I likewise am not trying to offend you personally or insult you personally, but rather to make a statement that I understand as being the truth, based not only upon my understanding of the Catholic Church but on my understanding of the doctrines of the Protestant bodies, as well.
I know you didn't mean to offend or insult me. I actually do understand where you're coming from & am trying to tell you that your position is insulting. Take an ivory tower intellectual as an example, where they consider you voting against your interests if you vote for someone opposed to things they think would be good for you. They have the best of good intentions, yet their position is insulting.
The only authority I recognize is Jesus Christ. Bishops are either His good servants or they are not. If I had been raised a Catholic, I question whether I'd be a Christian anymore, because Archbishop Rembrant Weakland was worse than awful for the Church in my area.
Excellent - as do Catholics!
Bishops are either His good servants or they are not. If I had been raised a Catholic, I question whether I'd be a Christian anymore, because Archbishop Rembrant Weakland was worse than awful for the Church in my area.
Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 ) Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, not Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture. For if individuals could correctly interpret Scripture, then all interpretations would be exactly the same as there can only be one Spiritual Truth for the plural of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).
Scripture clearly established "offices" and a "hierarchy" among Christians. The offices of "bishop, priest (presbyter) and deacon" are mentioned in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1,8; Titus 1:7 ). What else is this but "organization?" Or should we believe that any believer can "claim" to be a bishop, priest, deacon or even "apostle?" The word "office" is specifically used in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1) to describe these positions.
Is there to be only one Church or many? According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many.
Is there to be a visible "head" of the Church here on earth? Well, as I established under the heading of "Organization," not all believers are to have the same authority or equality within the Church. Did the Apostles have the exact same authority amongst themselves. No, they did not. For it was St. Peter alone that was the "rock" upon which Christ established His Church (Matthew 16:18). And it was St. Peter alone that was given the task of "feeding" Christ's sheep (John 21:15-17 ). Scripture clearly points out St. Peter as Christ's representative on earth. Christ did not ask the other Eleven to feed and tend His sheep. If you read The Acts Of The Apostles, it is clear that St. Peter leads the Apostles. Therefore, since the Apostles are to be replaced as they die (Acts 1:20-26), then it follows that whoever succeed(s) St. Peter is leader of the Church. There is only to be one shepherd of the Church (John 10:16). For the Apostles did not argue amongst themselves whether there was a "greatest" at all, but who amongst them was the greatest (Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46).
It normally starts out with someone, usually (but not always) who claims to be an avowed Catholic that posts some form of official church doctrine against freemasons. It is then followed with numerous posts claiming that masons can't be Christians, masons are anti-Catholic, worship devils and are responsible for all manner of political machinations....You should know. You have done this yourself.
None of these are true.
What puzzles me is, with all the challenges facing Christianity today, why do so many Catholics spend so much time peeking under their beds looking for Freemasons?
Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 )
Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.
The teaching isn't about authority. It is about settling differences between two people. We are given a very workable process to work out differences & if the process doesn't work, distance yourself from the one you feel has harmed you. Let him be unto *thee*... It doesn't say everyone should treat him thus, nor does it say the Church is to offer a judgment or has an enforcement role.
In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, not Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture. For if individuals could correctly interpret Scripture, then all interpretations would be exactly the same as there can only be one Spiritual Truth for the plural of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture.
Right, but considering the discussion that led us to where we are, we'd be getting into a circular argument on this point. The truth is the truth, not a complicated formula. I found it interesting that "truth" was used 110 times in 99 passages of the Bible & they were all in the New Testament.
The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27).
We agree.
Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error?
The gates of Hell won't prevail against Christ's church & His church can't commit error, as His church is His body. Men's religions can & do commit error.
The first three chapters of the Apocalypse Of Saint John names seven churches. Five of the seven are found to be in error. Smyrna & Philadelphia were the exception.
Ephesus left her first charity (or love, per KJV). Thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaites, which I also hate. There's now no way to know what the hated deeds of the Nicolaites are. You might think it would be important to know, wouldn't you? Guessing that it was the same as other early heresies that have better documentation left behind, especially since it is believed this particular heresy was one created by one of Jerusalem's original deacons is rather interesting.
From New Advent:
"because of the allegorical character of the Apocalypse, the reference to the Nicolaitans is merely a symbolic manner of reference, based on the identical meaning of the names, to the Bileamites or Balaamites." Symbolic, fine, I can go with that. Symbolic of what?
Pergamus was found to hold the doctrine of Balaam, to eat, and to commit fornication & also held the doctrine of the Nicolaites. Nicolaites are again mentioned. Irenaeus (Adv. haer., I, xxvi, 3; III, xi, 1) discusses them but "they lead lives of unrestrained indulgence." Since Balaam, fornication & Nicolaites are given separate mention in Apocalypse, have to think they're different things. When meaning is lost, new error is created.
Thyatira sufferest the woman Jezabel, who calleth herself a prophetess, to teach, and to seduce my servants, to commit fornication, and to eat of things sacrificed to idols. The errors of this church are pretty easy to recognize, so I won't go into them. Those within this church who are not following its teachings will live.
The sins of Sardis are not enumerated. New Advent offers little help. It would be helpful to know that they were doing wrong there.
Laodicea's sin was being lukewarm & I get the impression, a bit too comfortable in its worldly goods.
Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).
In the church or in all of humanity? I agree with your point, but don't see how the cite you chose applies to it.
Scripture clearly established "offices" and a "hierarchy" among Christians. The offices of "bishop, priest (presbyter) and deacon" are mentioned in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1,8; Titus 1:7 ). What else is this but "organization?"
Right, positions bearing responsibilities. Can't see where they're given actual authority tho. The closest would be, "1 Timothy 5: But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?". It speaks to his abilities to meet his responsibilities. I see instructions on selecting good men to be servants of the church, not an actual "hierarchy among Christians".
Or should we believe that any believer can "claim" to be a bishop, priest, deacon or even "apostle?"
Be foolish not to recognize that that has long been the case, would it not?
The word "office" is specifically used in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1) to describe these positions.
Right. I have no argument with that.
Is there to be only one Church or many? According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23).
There is only one. I think you & I have different views about what it looks like.
We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5).
Yes, we are. I don't see where men are given the power to make that happen on our own or through exercising power over defining the complete truth by religious organizations of men. Both of your cites talk more along the nature of a dialog thing.
There is only one. I think you & I have different views about what it looks like.
Indeed ... here is the dilemna. Scripturally, Christ established only one Church which He entrusted to one of His Apostles - Peter. In Mark 3:16; John 1:42, Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status. In 2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14 - God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth. And in Matt. 1:1 - Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven. In Matt. 16:19 - Jesus gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." In using the term "keys," Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom).
The rest follow ...
Matt. 5:14 - Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.
Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 - Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, "I will build my 'Church' (not churches)." There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because "binding and loosing" are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.
John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.
The only Church that goes back to St. Peter is the Catholic Church. All the other Christian denominations are offshoots of that One, Holy and Apostolic Church.
I see instructions on selecting good men to be servants of the church, not an actual "hierarchy among Christians".
Yes ... of course ... since you are interpreting these texts that have been translated into English. To fully comprehend this hierarchy, you must go back to the texts in their original languages.
Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word "ecclesia" only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.
Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to both the elders or priests ("presbyteroi") and the bishops ("episkopoi") of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.
Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.
1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi") who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.
1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ's Church also has elders or priests ("presbyteroi") who serve the bishops.
1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons ("diakonoi"). Thus, Jesus Christ's Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.
To better grasp the early Church, you need to extend your reading to the The Early Church Fathers . I recently posted a series on this to the Religion Forum. You may have missed the discussions. These are the stories of the first Christians, their practices and faith. To illustrate this point, I would refer you to the story of Alex Jones, a Pentecostal Minister, on fire with love for the Lord Jesus Christ. He wanted to do everything right for his congregation and began researching the practices of the first Christians, to better understand their form of worship. Well, rather than me recounting what happened, I'll simply leave it up to him to tell you his story.
Again, thank you for this exchange of posts.
Regarding your comment:
"I don't see what the big deal is. Catholics can't be Masons. Neither can they be Baptists, Muslims, or Hindus."
My father who died recently was both a Catholic and a Mason. So was his father. At least in my father's case, I'm talking about someone who studied deeply not only the roots of various religions and traditions, but also the perceived conflicts between them. By the way, he was also a Hindu. So, I would suggest that it is inaccurate to say that something cannot happen, when it, in fact, has happened (that is, a person being a Catholic, while also being a Mason and/or Hindu).
Not being as deeply knowledgeable on this as my late father, I can't exactly articulate his position, but it appears to me that it has to do with accepting that just because different traditions have different descriptions of ultimate reality, does not mean that any of them is wrong (perhaps in a similar way that neither the particle theory of light nor the wave theory of light is wrong).
I can understand that some will disagree with my father's position, but am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. That is, I agree with allowing coexistence of differing descriptions of ultimate reality.
If there are those who do not want to allow that, then I suppose they are entitled to that position. But, like you, I don't see what the big deal is.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
+
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.