Posted on 06/14/2006 8:05:55 AM PDT by NYer
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.
To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:
Good post....and in the same way the word Baptist Church is a more cohesive body than you would imagine.
We would never say there are thousand of wards and stakes within the LDS Church and imagine them to be thousands of different denominations....nor would we say the same of Muslims and Hindu.
We can recognize the schizm betweet Shiite and Sunni as being similar to a division between Protestant and Catholic. As there are further divisions between Shiite or Sunni, there are further divisions within Protestant (as even Catholic to a lesser extent.)
Those divisions don't lessen them as Muslims and our's do not lessen us as Christian.....that was the ONLY point I was trying to make with my posting.
Do you think people who are BORN aren't created by God? Or do you think there is something sinful about sexual relations within marriage that makes babies dirty? I asked you once already.
So are you saying because the Christ dwelt within Mary's womb she was without original sin?
That's almost exactly what we are saying. What reason can you give for Jesus -- God Incarnate -- to not honor His mother by preserving her from sin? Christ was literally physically within Mary's womb. It's not a metaphor. If He could save His mother from sin, why wouldn't He?
SD
Well, I didn't respond because I thought you were being facetious, but since you asked again, I'll say it as simply as I can....I LOVE SEXUAL RELATIONS within marriage. I think Mary did too!,-) Or do you think that there was something especially dirty in regard to Joseph and her marriage vows? Was there something so potentially sinful about sexual relations with her husband, or having children that even after Christ left her womb, that sex (with her husband) would somehow make her sinful? As far as children are concerned, as a mother of five, I can tell you they were born full of sinfulness, and playfulness and ignorance, and mischief, with the potential to become saved by God's Grace.
What reason can you give for Jesus -- God Incarnate -- to not honor His mother by preserving her from sin?
No reason at all, in fact Jesus -- God Incarnate loves every one of us and saved us ALL from sin if we accept his gift.
You are the one positing that since Anna and Joachim had sex, Mary could not possibly been born without original sin. I'm asking you to clarify.
Was there something so potentially sinful about sexual relations with her husband, or having children that even after Christ left her womb, that sex (with her husband) would somehow make her sinful?
Of course not. But it just did not happen, for a number of reasons. Have you thought this through? What would it be like growing up in the shadow of God Incarnate? Would a merciful God do that to any child? Why can't you be more like your brother?
As far as children are concerned, as a mother of five, I can tell you they were born full of sinfulness, and playfulness and ignorance, and mischief, with the potential to become saved by God's Grace.
Do you think an infant has committed sins?
What reason can you give for Jesus -- God Incarnate -- to not honor His mother by preserving her from sin?
No reason at all, in fact Jesus -- God Incarnate loves every one of us and saved us ALL from sin if we accept his gift.
This is one of those times I fear you don't really understand the question.
SD
You are absolutely correct. You and I are applying different standards to the same words and emotions...just like we do with petras/petros/cephas or sprinkling/immersion/spirit baptism....that is what makes you Catholic and me Protestant. I trust that Jesus Christ will sort out our individual stupidities.
Do you agree to disagree? I do.
SD
Thanks, I appreciate the discourse. I stated earlier on this thread that I lacked understanding of Catholic doctrine. Your posts give me insight into our differences as well as our similarities. I appreciate it, I've learned some.
If the Baptist church is such a cohesive body, why are there so many disputes within it?
Why have they gotten the nickname "Battling Baptists" which is even acknowledged among Baptists themselves?
Some Baptists divisions:
1. American Baptists (Liberal branch)
2. Free Will Baptists
3. Southern Baptists
4. Primitive Baptists
5. Independent Fundamentalist Baptists
6. Progressive Baptists
7. Seventh Day Baptists (Sabbath on Saturday Baptists)
8. Sovereign Grace Baptists (Calvinistic Baptists)
Why ask why? :-)
Again, I come from a religious background that claims Christianity (but most here would dispute that.) There are many differences between mormonism and Christianity, from the tone of voice, style of prayer and concept of God.
Now as a Christian, when I attend different denominations or listen to different Christian teachers, regarldess of creed, the message is very similar. In fact most times I can't tell the difference in teachings between an evangelical minister, or a baptist preacher, or a lutheran priest. If I close my eyes I could be in about any Christian Church. (Catholic Churches are different in this regard.)
If you don't agree with me, try it. Listen to a recorded teaching and tell me if you can identify the teacher's denomination. I'll bet you can't nine times out of ten. There just aren't that many differences in doctrine....most of the differences are in style and are inconsequential IMHO.
If the Baptist church is such a cohesive body, why are there so many disputes within it?
Why were there so many disputes in the Catholic Church's history ?
Why have they gotten the nickname "Battling Baptists" which is even acknowledged among Baptists themselves?
As a Baptist, that's the first time I've ever heard of such a term.
But, far be it from me to say that Baptist always agree, ... because they don't.
As I mentioned before, Catholics haven't always agreed at all points of their history either.
I seem to recall the term ... antipope ?
I respectfully disagree with you. I can certainly tell a Pentecostal preacher from a Baptist preacher. One will start speaking gibberish, the other won't.
I can usually tell a Presbyterian from a Methodist and I can tell a Lutheran from a Quaker. There are differences in doctrines and to say that there isn't would be closing your eyes to the obvious.
Do Protestant denominations have commonalities? Of course they do, but they all aren't exactly the same. Do you start speaking in tongues when you pray? Do you believe in free will or do you believe in predestination? Do you worship the Sabbath on Sunday or do you worship on Saturday? What is your opinion on Holy Communion? Do you share the same opinion as Lutherans and Anglicans on it? Do you believe in being "slain in the spirit?" Do you believe in the word of faith movement, otherwise known as name it and claim it? Do you believe in church music or believe in no church music? Do you believe in faith and works, or do you believe in faith alone? Do you believe in once saved, always saved or do you believe that it's possible to lose your salvation? Do you believe in baptizing infants like some Protestant churches or do you believe that should come later? Do you believe in women preachers or don't accept that women should be preachers?
Sorry for the long list of questions, but it's an example of where you do hold different doctrines and you don't all believe the same.
Hi Quester,
It's nice to see you.
I have a question. Are you and I the same denomination? Are we even Baptists, both of us? Then how come I agree with you 100% of the time? I guess we're not the battling sort, aye? ;-)
Some of those things I agree with, others I don't. My question is, "What difference does it make?" Often I don't agree doctrinally with the person standing next to me in Church...what difference does it make? See post #93
Sure Catholics haven't always agreed, but tough if they don't agree. We have a head of the Church that keeps doctrine in tact despite the squabblers and dissenters.
It still doesn't work. Moses had a special purpose, but no angel announced his birth, for there was nothing miraculous about it. David had a special purpose, but again, no angel announced his birth. Ditto Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Elijah, all the other prophets, etc. The only time we see angels annoucing births in Scripture is when there is something miraculous about the conception--in all other cases that I can think of off the top of my head, the miracle is that the woman was barren up to that point.
In this case, Miryam was "barren" due to virginity, so the type still fits.
And anyway, her befuddlement wouldn't be over how she was to conceive.
It would be if she took Gabriel's message to mean, "You will conceive now" (i.e., before the consumation of your marriage), which is evidentially the case.
The Lord can do what He wants.
Within the bounds of keeping His covenants, sure. But that's not the issue. You are (apparently, since you've not disputed my interpretation of your stance) saying that before the angel visited Miryam and Joseph with God's revelation, that they were already in a marriage pact in which they specified that they would never have sex. Can you provide a primary historical source that indicates that such sham marriages (sham even by the definition the Lord Himself gave in the person of Yeshua, who quoted Genesis) were in existence in the Judaism of the first century? Or is this an idea that you are importing backwards from later Roman Catholicism into the Biblical narrative?
According to the "rules," Jesus is a bit of a bastard, as others have alleged.
Not at all. The primary issue on whether a person was a bastard or not was whether his mother was unfaithful to his father--which in fact is the charge against Yeshua stated in the Talmud and hinted at in Yochanan's (John's) Gospel account. Miryam was not unfaithful to Joseph, and Joseph made a point of accepting Yeshua as his firstborn son, giving Him His legal claim to the throne of David.
Let's not get too carried away in trying to deny Mary her due.
I don't deny her her due. She was the most blessed of women as the mother of the Messiah, of God Incarnate. A Roman Catholic, bound to the Platonism of his faith, might think that having normal marital relations with her proper husband is somehow a stain on Miryam's reputation, but the Jewish mind is under no such delusion. On the contrary, that she brought forth other children, brothers (like Ya'akov [James] and Y'hudah [Jude]) and sisters to the Messiah Yeshua who were righteous and honorable men and who, in fact, ran the Jerusalem Church for over a century is not a stain on her reputation, but a very great honor, second only to the honor of having given birth to the King Himself!
Yeshua, His mother and (adopted) father, His brothers and sisters, and His disciples were not Roman Catholics. They were Jews who all lived within the context of first-century Judaism. Therefore, stop trying to filter the Scriptures through your Roman Catholic traditions, and learn to read them with Jewish eyes. You don't have to become Jewish, but you do need to learn to understand their perspective:
Yeshua saith unto them, "Have ye understood all these things?" They say unto him, "Yea, Lord." Then said He unto them, "Therefore every scribe (that is, a Jewish teacher of the Torah) which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old."
(Matthew 13:51-52)What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
(Romans 3:1-2)
Ok..went and looked at post #93. Is this what you are saying to me?"You are truly stupid! So get lost!"
Please check post #93. I hope you made a mistake in your reference.
Back to the issue at hand. Here's the difference it makes. You claimed in another post, #190, "There just aren't that many differences in doctrine....most of the differences are in style and are inconsequential IMHO."
I would venture to say that not agreeing with infant baptism, or once saved, always saved, or faith and works, vs faith alone is more than inconsequential and is much more than mere differences in style. Not to mention the fact that the list that I showed depicts many differences in doctrine which you said that there weren't that many differences in doctrines among Protestants.
While we're quoting St. Paul:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28
"Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all, and in all." Colossians 3:11
Hi Quester,
It's nice to see you.
I have a question. Are you and I the same denomination? Are we even Baptists, both of us? Then how come I agree with you 100% of the time? I guess we're not the battling sort, aye? ;-)
Hi CC,
Good to see you again too.
As to your question, ...I probably don't agree with you 100% of the time (Not that anything comes to mind).But ... I luv ya anyway.
Maybe 99.8%
God bless ..John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
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.