Posted on 02/08/2007 9:06:56 AM PST by Gamecock
He sure seemed to be very angry, didn't he?
During those days who would you have gone to for recourse or redress? If you hit a priest or a nun when I was a kid, you were expelled immediately, no questions asked. That's one of the things that made it hard for kids who were treated so poorly, no one could help them.
Look at the pederasty scandal. The scandal doesn't lie so much with the priests who were involved in the acts, but in the bishops who moved them around. Nobody seemed capable of protecting those kids. And the darkness that surrounds all of it can be found in the idea that a priest and bishop is entitled to a level of respect that is extremely hesitant to criticize such men publicly. This attitude provides cover for the serious misdeeds of clerics.
Bishop Law, now at Santa Maria Maggiore, administers the sacraments freely. It's cases like his that makes the resolution of the Donatist heresy seem like the biggest CYA in the history of organized anything. Sts. Peter and Paul thought the caliber of man mattered, because it does matter. You may not be able to destroy the sign and grace conferred by the sacrament, but you can still wound it.
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
IN BRIEF
866 The Church is one: she acknowledges one Lord, confesses one faith, is born of one Baptism, forms only one Body, is given life by the one Spirit, for the sake of one hope (cf. Eph 4:3-5), at whose fulfillment all divisions will be overcome.
867 The Church is holy: the Most Holy God is her author; Christ, her bridegroom, gave himself up to make her holy; the Spirit of holiness gives her life. Since she still includes sinners, she is "the sinless one made up of sinners." Her holiness shines in the saints; in Mary she is already all-holy.
868 The Church is catholic: she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is "missionary of her very nature" (AG 2).
869 The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.
870 "The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines"(LG 8).
In protestantism, a special emphasis or distinctive is sufficient to label it a denomination. I've just carried the same standard over to the discussion of orders in the RCC.
However, I modified somewhat by calling the RCC a big-tent macro-denom and it's orders being micro-denoms under that umbrella.
Using that logic, one could group all baptistic groups as one denomination; all of methodist origin as a denomination; all of the reformed as one, etc.
--Hmmm. A heretic of a heretic. Does that cancel out and make him orthodox??? :-)
I dunno. Sorta like what I am. Being Reformed Baptist puts me in a weird pseudo-barbarian, anabaptist minority of the Reformed, which in turn was sprouted from the Catholic Heresy. So I am a Semi-heretical offshoot of THE Heretical Offshoot from the Big Heresy. But I just like to call my branch Barbarian Orthodox Christianity. Had to buy a battle axe to join. And once I get outta the military, I need to grow the John the Baptist beard and hair. The eating of bugs thing might weird me out a bit, but as long as I stay away from grubs and other gooey critters I should do fine.
--For example, the Trinity. Not so clear without the Catholic Church and the first few Councils... I hadn't thought that such important things as the Trinity would be argued against by "Christians" - so your definition of Protestantism is beginning to make more sense...But what do you call those "Christians" who are heretical in the "Protestant's" views? Are they still considered Christian? At what point are they no longer Christian?
Well, like those of the Mormon faith that are trying as hard as they might to be accepted as Christian, it is a biblical thing. If the Gospel is preached as given by the Apostles, it is Christian. If it is changed, added to or thought tainted, they are not, and they teach another, a false gospel.
--What are the essential beliefs that unifies the church?
All found in the Scripture. Those that mess with the essentials found in the Scripture are most likely trying to alter the Nature of God or Man as taught by Scripture. Rather broad, I know, but all heresy is rooted in whether or not the Scripture is allowed to be THE authority in what the Natures of God and Man are.
You responded: All found in the Scripture.
Well, that's the rub. I think Christians on this very forum all believe that their own doctrines and beliefs are found in the Bible - and yes, even Catholics...
The thing is that people read Scriptures differently, thus, yielding different interpretations of the same passage. For example, how do you read John 6? Catholics take it literally. Protestants consider it a metaphor. So "all found in Scripture" doesn't say much.
Regards
I don't think beating a nine-year-old with a rubber hose falls into "anachronistic thought." This wasn't so long ago that we should excuse it as "in the distant past and different zeitgeist" category.
Do you have children, jo kus?
The Catholic Church is like a family. We do not perfectly agree with everything, nor is the Church monolithic. Priests and bishops teach things that are often out of line with Catholicism as a whole. But since we are not a corporation, we don't just "get rid of" such people who do not "tow the party line". In Protestantism, that is exactly what you do - or you form another community.
Where the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism (the various denominations) is that Catholicism is more diverse - while holding to several key items of the faith. Thus, IF Protestantism could look to a visible head, I suppose all the denominations - at least the mainstream ones - could all get together and form a rival "Catholic church" that would be similar in the diversity and unity aspect that we currently have. You would be united on the key elements of the faith, such as your visible head and the Paschal Mystery and the Trinity, while having diversity among the various other items of the faith, such as immersion or sprinkling of baptism.
However, Protestantism is so much more narrowly defined. The differences between various Protestant communities are often very narrow and theologically small. I suppose one could combine many of the "Lutheran" communities into one. I do not know why there are several Lutheran communities. However, I suppose it may have something to do with the whole idea - to read Scriptures and interpret it individually - then you get a bunch of like-minded individuals to form a community.
That is not the way the Bible sees things, however. People CONFORMED to what was taught - they didn't manipulate the teachings to their own satisfaction. There was a DOCTRINE that was guarded, as Paul tells Timothy. It was not meant to be tampered with. That is what has happened in Protestantism and with those Catholics who are on the extremes of liberal or conservativism.
I understand what you are saying. My question is "what is better - many different communities or one community"? Which is more representative of the Bible? Many or One? While we know that there were a number of geographic communities of Christians, they all appeared to have a unity in belief, in Baptism, and in the Breaking of the Bread.
inside the Catholic Church there is the same confusion and theological wanderings, and in some ways more contorted as some one tries to sound orthodox while not really being orthodox (if that makes sense).
I would be foolish to deny that. And thus the paradox of unity and diversity within the Church. To a point, you are part of this unity/diversity, since you have been validly baptized, thus, you are part of our Church. However, your "separation" is visibly ecclesiastical, while those who are Catholic and are theologically wandering outside the faith still remain within the visible "family". Again, the Oneness is very important.
To be honest, you and I have probably more in common theologically than many of your fellow American Catholics.
No doubt. I wish we shared more than just theological opinions, however. Wouldn't it be nice to share ecclesiastical oneness - where symbolically and substantially, we ARE the Body of Christ - who is One? Wouldn't it be nice if we were able to share Communion in Christ together? Thus, even though some of my Catholic brothers are a bit out there, we still share at the table of the Body and Blood of Christ, Who brings these separate parts of the Body together in a most intimate way, something that you and I cannot share at this time - although we intellectually share in many things.
Regards
People were spanked with switches less than fifty years ago. I was spanked with a belt as a child. I certainly am not condoning it, but if people did that sort of thing and it was accepted in society as part of disciplining one's child, who are we 500 years later to say something against it? We didn't live in that era and people had different ideas of how to discipline children.
Do you have children, jo kus?
Yes, but I never used a rubber hose. The belt I used once or twice on each of them and I have two grown children, another 16. The threat was often enough. Again, I don't condone abusive punishment, so I hope you don't think I am defending the use of a rubber hose!
Regards
Continued ecumenical talks cannot hurt. Our communities have already been discussing justification and have come to many agreements that have moved beyond the polemics of the 1500's.
Regards
--Well, that's the rub. I think Christians on this very forum all believe that their own doctrines and beliefs are found in the Bible - and yes, even Catholics...
Most of what the RCC teaches is not found in the scripture, rather they use the traditions of the Church for such as most of the Marian Doctrines, The Papacy, Purgatory, the saints, etc. Some of Catholic Doctrine is correct, such as the trinity, which is found in the Bible. But the RCC adds to the Gospel, rendering it non-salivific.
--The thing is that people read Scriptures differently, thus, yielding different interpretations of the same passage. For example, how do you read John 6? Catholics take it literally. Protestants consider it a metaphor. So "all found in Scripture" doesn't say much.
John 6 is speaking of Christ as the way to life. What does "do this in remembrance of me" mean to you? Does remembrance mean that bread and wine become flesh and blood?
Perhaps a bunch of early church fathers, a generation or three away from the Apostles taught of a sacrament that much like the Hebrewizers, was a new version of circumcision, this time a continual ritual rather than a quick cut? Remember, the Hebrewizers tried to add something to Christ's death on the cross and got corrected by James at Jerusalem. Do this and believe and you shall be saved! Do not do this and you are damned. Sounds a bit familiar.
Or perhaps the Eucharist is the covenant work which in itself is not going to save anyone, but much like baptism, is something one does for obedience, like prayer and repentance. No gnostic rituals that impart holiness. Just obedience to Christ's commandment.
Everything that Catholics believe and consider dogma can be found implicitly in Scriptures, just like the Trinity, the Papacy, and the concept of purgatory. If you accept trinity, I do not understand why you don't accept papacy, since they both developed in the years following the first century and neither were clearly explicitly taught in the Bible.
I am not sure how adding something to the Gospel makes the Gospel non-salvific...
John 6 is speaking of Christ as the way to life. What does "do this in remembrance of me" mean to you? Does remembrance mean that bread and wine become flesh and blood?
And what does "THIS IS MY BODY - said while holding a piece of bread - mean to you??? Do you doubt that Christ has the power to make Himself appear as something else? God appeared as a burning bush to Moses. Does this give you cause for concern? No? Perhaps it has something to do with it being a Catholic dogma...
Seems like EVERY Christian writer that followed John's Gospel believed the same thing. Unanimously so. I find this interesting, since other things you believe in, such as the doctrine of the trinity, were not unanimously believed or understood by those of the Church.
Or perhaps the Eucharist is the covenant work which in itself is not going to save anyone, but much like baptism, is something one does for obedience, like prayer and repentance. No gnostic rituals that impart holiness. Just obedience to Christ's commandment.
Perhaps you need to go back to Scriptures, because the Bible says that without Baptism and the Eucharist, you shall not have eternal life.
Regards
--Everything that Catholics believe and consider dogma can be found implicitly in Scriptures, just like the Trinity, the Papacy, and the concept of purgatory. If you accept trinity, I do not understand why you don't accept papacy, since they both developed in the years following the first century and neither were clearly explicitly taught in the Bible.
The Trinity is clearly shown in the New as well as the Old Testament, if not described explicitly.
The RCC must argue that the granting of the Keys and Binding and Unbinding to Peter brings in a question on whether there was proto-gospel written in Aramaic (The whole masculine/feminine rock debacle), not to mention the problem of not mentioning the succession or the 4 rules of infallibility (circa 1850's). Was Peter teaching ex cathedra when trying to convert the entire church to a hebrewdized bastardization?
Marian Doctrines are something which is not even suggested by those who intimately knew Mary and wrote in the Gospels and Epistles, and thus must be argued from the silence of the Scriptures. Why did Luke not mention Mary's Immaculate Conception to Theophilius when he was writing his Gospel, something he claims as the solid truth? Please try and read Matthew 11:24 and explain why belief and trust in God is better that giving birth to Jesus and nursing Him? Mary is blessed but more so by what she and every other of the elect do, hear and follow God.
Luke 11:27-28And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
Yup, she, like me is blessed. She got to be in a personal face to face intimacy that I will never have as His mother, but nothing more...It will be something to find out what that was like on the that side of Glory.
Purgatory is something that is purely ECF heresy.
--And what does "THIS IS MY BODY - said while holding a piece of bread - mean to you??? Do you doubt that Christ has the power to make Himself appear as something else? God appeared as a burning bush to Moses. Does this give you cause for concern? No? Perhaps it has something to do with it being a Catholic dogma...
Jesus' work was finished on the cross. Nothing that we can do can or will effect it. Either we accept the work and get saved, or try and do works and die by the law. The continual Mass for the purification of the believer is work, which cannot be effectual. If you rely on this work, you deny Christ's words "It is finished." and you will suffer much gnashing of teeth in a lake of fire, just like those who tried to get the church to enact a salvific circumcision. Peter was corrected, but the church that claims his throne are still following his failure.
--Perhaps you need to go back to Scriptures, because the Bible says that without Baptism and the Eucharist, you shall not have eternal life.
Mark 16"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."
Eucharist mentioned? Nope.
As a Baptist, following Christ's command for baptism is important. It must be a profession of belief by the believer, not a sprinkle on a babies head (Which always makes me wonder, for when it is said it is worse for those that are baptized and go to hell...why do it?). But the statement says he who disbelieved is condemned. Was Moses baptized? How about Abraham? How about the thief on the cross? Isaiah? Job? They were not, but they are in heaven, no? I bet none of them had the Sacraments. But all had the Bread of Life and the Blood of Christ, without the Holy Roman Church to give it to them.
But I am done for this weekend. Too much to do.
May God bless you and break free of the legalism that has you bound.
Otto
I will respectfully disagree with you. I have just completed a long discussion with another charecter who disagreed that the Bible clearly points it out. Also, I have a number of books on the subject - the Church Fathers and their writings - that would disagree with the notion that the Trinity is CLEARLY shown in Scriptures. Why do you think Arianism existed for several hundred years if it was so obvious from Scripture alone that God is a Trinity? Why do you think Jews CONTINUE to disagree on the idea that God is a Trinity, never mind that Jesus was divine?
The RCC must argue that the granting of the Keys and Binding and Unbinding to Peter brings in a question on whether there was proto-gospel written in Aramaic (The whole masculine/feminine rock debacle), not to mention the problem of not mentioning the succession or the 4 rules of infallibility (circa 1850's). Was Peter teaching ex cathedra when trying to convert the entire church to a hebrewdized bastardization?
The Greek Matthew is canonized, not the Aramaic version. It might be interesting for scholars to guess what was there, but it doesn't really matter, since what we have, the Greek version, is what matters. And clearly, Simon is called Cephas. Jesus says this in John 1. Paul also calls Simon Cephas. The "debate" of the masculine/feminine is a desperate and worthless argument when one considers that Simon was a man, not a woman.
I have no clue what you are talking about regarding "Peter trying to convert the entire Church to a Hebrewdized bastardization". Not only does it not roll off the tongue, it is not at all what the Scripture says. Perhaps you should re-read Acts 10-15 and see WHO God spoke to first to bring the pagans into the Church and was behind the Church's council to wave the requirement of circumcision.
Marian Doctrines are something which is not even suggested by those who intimately knew Mary and wrote in the Gospels and Epistles, and thus must be argued from the silence of the Scriptures.
Mary and her role in salvation history becomes more obvious when we read the Scriptures with the mind of the Church. The passages jump out at you when pointed out. Just as in the Trinity, the Marian doctrines came from gradual contemplation of the Scriptures and God's choice of bringing salvation THROUGH her.
Why did Luke not mention Mary's Immaculate Conception to Theophilius when he was writing his Gospel, something he claims as the solid truth? Please try and read Matthew 11:24 and explain why belief and trust in God is better that giving birth to Jesus and nursing Him? Mary is blessed but more so by what she and every other of the elect do, hear and follow God.
Why didn't Luke mention that the Holy Spirit was the third person of the Trinity? As to Matthew 11, who was the first person in Luke's Gospel to believe and trust in God? WHO is called blessed by all generations?
Yup, she, like me is blessed. She got to be in a personal face to face intimacy that I will never have as His mother, but nothing more...It will be something to find out what that was like on the that side of Glory.
Sorry to break this to you, but you are not blessed like Mary. People won't be speaking of you or me after we die. We will not be considered blessed by all generations. Our place in salvation history will likely be nowhere near Mary's role.
Purgatory is something that is purely ECF heresy.
LOL! The idea of purgatory precedes Christianity. Jesus Himself implies its existence in several places of the Gospels.
Jesus' work was finished on the cross. Nothing that we can do can or will effect it.
You need to re-read the Scriptures, because Paul clearly tells us that WE must have faith working in love. Since God desires ALL men to be saved - and all men are not, man must be somehow involved in who is saved.
The continual Mass for the purification of the believer is work, which cannot be effectual.
Your view of "work" is not the biblical view of work. The Mass is a participation in Christ's work on Calvary, as Christ is timeless.
It is finished." and you will suffer much gnashing of teeth in a lake of fire, just like those who tried to get the church to enact a salvific circumcision.
IF it is "finished", and Christ is done, then why did Christ give the Apostles the power to forgive sins AFTER the Resurrection in John's Gospel? WHY does Paul exhort men to pray continuously? Why does Jesus AND the Holy Spirit CONTINUE to intercede to the Father for our sakes? Again, you need to read the Scriptures again, you are missing vital parts of it.
Mark 16"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."
Eucharist mentioned? Nope.
First of all, I hope that you just made a mistake and not did some outright lie by manipulating Scriptures. The Scriptures actually say something else...
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Notice the present tense of "believeth", not your "believed" twisting. By misrepresenting the Scriptures, you falsely believe that something you did 20 years ago will bring you heaven no matter what you do between that point in time and your death.
A person can become disinherited from his reward. One of the many examples:
For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries Heb 10:26-27
Your idea of "being saved" is also not entirely biblical.
He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life 1 John 5:12.
Again notice the present tense. It doesn't say "he would HAD the Son 20 years ago in their life will have life regardless of what they do in the future". And what better way to have the Son then to receive Him into our very body and share physical communion with Him?
May God bless you and break free of the legalism that has you bound.
May God bless you and place within you the desire to come to the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church.
Regards
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.