Posted on 12/08/2009 11:41:52 AM PST by Gamecock
**You bow to a statue of Mary...**
No I don’t bow to a statue of Mary. How can you see that? Isn’t this a personal attack?
**Of course you deny it but you provide the visible evidence...**
I’m wondering how you peep in on Catholics’ lives to actually ‘see’ this visible evidence. Aren’t you making assumptions with one finger pointing at Catholics and three fingers pointing back at you? But of course, I can’t see that either. LOL!
**You just like to call it what is isn’t...**
Believe me, it is not worshipping. The only worship that Catholics do is to the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Hopefully you might desist in these false accusations.
Until the Protestant reformation, the terms did mean the same thing. Now, they do not. There is now a large segment of the Christian church which is wholly distinct from the Catholic church.
Whether that separation was guided by the Holy Spirit, as I believe, or a heresy may be debatable. So, the question is, is the body of Christ-followers, Protestants, that is specifically and intentionally not affiliated with Catholicism included in the church of Christ as discussed in the scripture?
I believe the Christian church referenced in scripture is encompassed by the combination of the modern Catholic and Protestant churches. If you believe Protestants are heretics — then you may still believe that Catholicism is the only Christian church. I think you’re wrong ... but you’re entitled to be wrong if it suits you.
SnakeDoc
You refuse to acknowledge the facts when they’re put plainly before you. The Vatican considers your church to be, quote: “the Roman Church.” Your Pope, according to the Vatican, is considered, quote: “the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Pius XII wrote, quote: “To be Christian one must be Roman.”
These are *facts* about your church, provided by those in authority within your church. You can argue against it till you’re blue in the face, but the fact remains that you are a member of the ROMAN Catholic Church.
I agree that all Christians are members of the catholic church, i.e., the Church universal. Only some are members of your church, the Roman Catholic Church.
It is not a fact. I have told you again and again, I am not Roman.
Again, the name of the Catholic Church is, yes, the Catholic Church.
I agree that all Christians are members of the catholic church, i.e., the Church universal.
Yes, this is the Catholic Church.
You bring up a good point and it's something else I've been wanting to elaborate on. It's a bit lengthy. To any Catholics reading, I want to point out that I am NOT arguing for this view here... that is not what I do. Instead, I am simply pointing out the way some of us Protestants see things.
Most Protestants recite the Nicene Creed during our worship services. Everything within that Creed is an essential part of our faith, and that includes the reference to the "One holy catholic and apostolic Church." Our interpretation just happens to be very different than that held by Catholics.
Catholics have been known to throw out the, How Old Is Your Church argument when debating with Catholics (I've seen it at least twice in this thread alone). While factually correct in its assessments regarding the ages of particular church bodies, it is a poor example of apologetics as it completely ignores the Protestant understanding of the Church to the point of being irrelevant.
Protestants don't identify "The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ" with any particular earthly institution. We see earthly Churches as being human institutions composed of men. Many of us will grant that the institution now known as The Catholic Church was technically founded by Christ since it grew out of that original body of believers commissioned by Christ. Whereas Catholics believe that this particular institution is synonymous with the entirety of the universal Christian Church, however, Protestants distinguish between the two. We believe that Christ founded a spiritual body, not a structured institution, and that while the latter certainly characterized the former in its early years it is not necessarily an essential property.
Our view, then, is that in early Christianity the universal Christian Church was synonymous with what Catholics would call the Early Catholic Church. Defined doctrine was not monolithic within that body - Protestants would argue that beliefs which characterize our beliefs existed alongside doctrines which are more characteristic of the Catholic Church today. It is easy to forget that things were not as clearly defined back then as they are now, particularly in terms of salvation by faith and Scripture as the as the ultimate measure of Tradition. If I am not mistaken, where doctrine has not been explicitly defined in the Catholic Church there is freedom of opinion.
Unfortunately, the hardness of hearts in men led to splits in the institutional structure of the Church. From a Protestant point of view, where one Institutional Church once stood, after 1054 there were two Institutional Churches (or perhaps even more, if you include groups like the Coptics, whose schisms might have been due more to a misunderstanding than actual heresy). The universal Church itself was not split in twain according to the Protestant view, but merely the institutional administrative bodies that ministered to the members of that Church.
With the Reformation, what Protestants perceive is not the creation of a bunch of new Churches so much as a mass of organizational schisms which led to new administrative institutions based around differing points of view. Considering that we do not believe institutional unity to be a necessity, we are quite alright with this. At this point it is essential to define what Sola Scriptura really is. To the majority of Protestants, Sola Scriptura does NOT mean that all doctrine must be DERIVED directly from Scripture. That is not the classical understanding. Instead, the doctrine derives from the idea that Scripture is the inspired and infallible Word of God. Doctrine, forms of worship, the actual canon - these things all undeniably preferably proceed from Tradition going back to the time of the apostles. What Sola Scriptura teaches, however, is that Tradition must be weighed and measured according to what is taught by Scripture. Traditions which are not taught in Scripture are held not to be necessary for Christian salvation. The application of this is different depending on denomination, of course - some, like myself, see non-scriptural traditions as perhaps good yet non-binding while others believe that traditions not affirmed by Scripture are to be outright rejected. Other differences arose regarding methods of interpretation. Yes, new understandings of Christian doctrine inevitably arose and new denominations were founded around those, but these were considered much along the lines of "Development of Doctrine" within new contexts rather than sudden discoveries of "Real Christianity." Among Protestants, "Real Christianity" is pretty much the same as it is among Catholics - Faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. The differences are in forms of worship and in particular doctrines that are ultimately considered non-essential to salvation.
It is essential to understand that, within the Protestant view, the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" is not identifiable with one institution and is intangible here upon earth. As an Anglican, I accept that my Church has no claim to representing the ENTIRE Church of Christ, which I hold to include Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and a host of others. Outside the Church there is NO salvation, but all Christians ultimately belong to it. This is not to say that the Church is "invisible" by any stretch, however - it is very visible through the various institutional organizations that represent it! It's "unity" consists of our willingness to place aside doctrinal differences in love and charity and focus upon our similarity - our Faith in Christ.
Agree, disagree, whatever... I just wanted to share some of my views on the "Church" subject.
I do not have a church, the Catholic Church is not mine: it belongs to Christ, its founder and leader.
huh?
I did laugh. Good comedy. A bit melancholy-tinged by the fact you took it quite seriously.
Well....there is that...
*lolz*
You are stubborn, refusing even to concur with your Vatican and your Popes.
Note to self: Don’t waste energy on Petronski from now on.
Actually, it's not a "knee jerk" thing at all.
It's more of a mockery. Something along the lines of, "you can do better...your forefathers sure did."
I was born into a Jewish home and raised by my Orthodox Grandparents until the age of 12. My mother who is married to a Methodist did not keep her home religious, we had a Christmas tree and a Menorah, I was given presents at Easter and for Passover. I grew up in a neighborhood that was split Jewish and Catholic, my best friends in High School were Catholic and I was at Mass more then at Temple for most of those years. My college roommate for my Freshman and Sophomore years was Hindu.
I married a Baptist whose mother was (I mean no offense by this description) what I knew as a bible “thumper” faith healing, speaking in tongues, tent revivals, etc. After spending a good portion of my life with the belief I was being called to the Catholic Church, I converted four years ago.
I actually have a point to my “unusual” religious background -
The only people I have ever met that believe or claim Catholics pray to Mary are non-Catholics.
True.
...refusing even to concur with your Vatican and your Popes.
False.
Very true.
Petronski isn’t in error, and neither is the Church.
The problem is what is meant by “church,” and to what “Roman” is referring.
sitetest
I’m always amused when lectured on accuracy by those who will not even capitalize the word Church in their (albeit-malformed) references to the Catholic Church.
Actually, NYer is a Maronite Catholic. She hears Aramaic in her liturgies, not Latin. (Of course, they have some liturgies in the vernacular, but their origin is still from Aramaic)
I bet if you took a poll, you might find a Melkite or two around here and maybe even the occasional Syro-Malabar, as well and maybe even a Chaldean or two. If you were actually interested, I would imagine that NYer could give you a fairly decent breakout (she maintains the Eastern Catholic ping list, after all)
Just because you're Catholic doesn't, 100%, mean that you are ROMAN Catholic. In this country, it's a pretty good bet, but it's hardly a 100% likelihood.
It might stick in the throat to do otherwise.
sitetest
I know that there is at least one Russian Catholic (colloquially) here in the forum.
sitetest
Of course, if one really wants to nitpick, they could note that Maronites are originally based out of Lebanon, which was a part of the Byzantine Empire up until the Muslims occupied the region. The Byzantine Empire, of course, did not call itself the Byzantine Empire - it continued to call itself the Roman Empire. The “Byzantine” title was placed upon it by the West, which wished to distinguish that Empire from the Holy Roman Empire.
This is significant because, even under the rule of Islam, Middle Eastern Christians tried to retain their “Roman” identity and called themselves such. So, TECHNICALLY, Maronite Catholics are “Roman Catholics” in a very real sense.
I could be wrong on that, but it’s true if memory serves.
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.