Vanishing Catholics

According to recent demographic surveys, it seems there are presently 30 million people in the U.S. who identify themselves as “former Catholics.” That figure is both surprising, and, for Catholics, disheartening.

Over the past 50 years or so, a profound change, other than that effected by Vatican II, has taken place in the Catholic Church. It might be described as the phenomenon of “vanishing Catholics.” The Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor, has identified four major challenges facing the Church today. First on his list is the exodus of young adults from the Church. According to recent demographic surveys, it seems there are presently 30 million people in the U.S. who identify themselves as “former Catholics.” That figure is both surprising, and, for Catholics, disheartening. It represents a little less than 10 percent of the total population of this country. It also means that had those persons remained Catholic, approximately one in three Americans would be identified as Catholic. Only two religious groups represent a larger percentage of the U.S. population: Protestants (cumulatively) and current Catholics.

This phenomenon is disheartening not only for bishops and priests, but also for faithful Catholics generally. Many older Catholics are saddened at the sight of their children and grandchildren abandoning the Church.

Questions naturally arise. What has caused such a massive defection? How might one account for this phenomenon? It hardly seems possible that any single factor could explain a phenomenon of such magnitude. Various reasons for people leaving the Church are well-known. Many of them have been operative from the earliest times of Christianity. In his first letter to Timothy, St. Paul reminds him that “The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines …” (1 Tm 4:1-7). In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul speaks of dissensions and divisions among the faithful (1 Cor 1:10-16).

From the first centuries up to modern times, there have been doctrinal differences (heresies) which led to great numbers separating themselves from the Roman Catholic Church. Many others have left the Church for what can be described as practical reasons, rather than doctrinal differences.

Among the latter, there are many who separated themselves from the Church because of marriage problems. There are those who left because they became greatly dissatisfied with inadequate preaching, uninviting liturgy, and minimal hospitality in their parishes. It seems worth noting that expecting church attendance and public worship to be therapeutically satisfying often leads to disappointment and eventual alienation.

Not a few have left the Church because of real or perceived mistreatment by bishops or pastors. Reactions have a way of becoming overreactions. An overreaction to clericalism and paternalism in the Church resulted in autonomy becoming absolute. Evelyn Underhill offered a helpful analogy in this regard. She likened the Church to the Post Office. Both provide an essential service, but it is always possible to find an incompetent and annoying clerk behind the counter. Persons who expect all representatives of the Church to live up to the ideals proposed by the Church will typically become disillusioned and leave. Persons with such expectations would have left the Church of the Holy Apostles.

Most recently, a cause for many leaving the Church is the scandal of clergy sexual abuse. This has been a stumbling block not only for those directly affected, but for Catholics generally. Because of the questionable role played by a number of bishops, their moral authority is diminished. The time when bishops could command is past. Now, they can only hope to persuade and invite. Loyalty to bishops had been widely identified with loyalty to the Church. As the former loyalty diminished, so did the latter.

Clearly there are times when the Church is more of an obstacle than a help to faith. At Vatican II, the Council Fathers pointed out that the Church is always in danger of concealing, rather than revealing, the authentic features of Christ. Often enough, members of the Church’s leadership have been guilty of a sin typical of many religious teachers—namely, being more concerned about preservation of their authority than about the truth.

While specific reasons can be cited, it is helpful to recognize several underlying attitudes that are operative. (1) There is an anti-dogmatic spirit which is suspicious of the Church’s emphasis on fidelity to traditional teachings. (2) There is the widespread belief that one can be free to ignore, deny, or minimize one or more received doctrines without feeling compelled to break with the Church. (3) There is also the belief that, guided by their own conscience, regardless of how that matches—or fails to match—generally accepted Catholic teaching, persons can develop their own understanding of what it means to be Catholic. Someone has coined a phrase that describes persons with those attitudes, calling them “cafeteria Catholics,” i.e., those who pick and choose what to accept of official Catholic teaching and ignore the rest.

Two questions arise in the face of the phenomenon of “vanishing Catholics.” One question is of a more theological and ecclesial level: are those departed to be considered heretics or schismatics? A second question arises at the practical level: how can those who have left be reunited with the Church? Regarding the first question, it is worth noting that, while speaking of dissension and division among the faithful, and of separation from the community of believers, the New Testament does not make a distinction between heresy and schism. Since the definition of the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction, it is difficult to see how there can be a schism that is not a heresy.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2089), heresy “is the obstinate, post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is, likewise, an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” Schism is “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” The Theological Dictionary, compiled by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, defines heresy as “primarily an error in matters of faith. The heretic takes a truth out of the organic whole, which is the faith, and because he looks at it in isolation, misunderstands it, or else denies a dogma.” “Schism occurs when a baptized person refuses to be subject to the Pope, or to live in communion with the members of the Church, who are subject to the Pope.”

In any case, given the variety of reasons for people leaving the Church, the degree of separation, and especially assuming good will on the part of those leaving, it is difficult to classify them as heretics or schismatics. Church authorities have the right and the duty to take measures against heresy and schism when those become evident. Clear denial of a dogma cannot be tolerated. But between this and a purely private, material heresy, there are many shades. Not every challenge to accepted theology is heretical. There are many partial non-identifications that endanger faith and unity but do not rise to the level of schism. Nor does every act of disobedience to human laws in the Church imply schism.

While speculative questions about heresy and schism are significant and need to be addressed, they pale in comparison to the practical question of how those departed can be reunited with the Church. That question is as complex as are the reasons for people leaving the Church. That question is further complicated when one addresses the question of the underlying attitudes that are operative.

Obviously, the Church must work at removing any obstacles to reunion. With Vatican II, that work was begun. The Council recognized the Church is semper reformanda, always needing to be reformed. The actual return of individuals requires something more than an adjustment in Church practices or new programs. It is a matter of God touching the individual with his grace.

A final question that can prove troubling is how the massive defection from the Church is to be reconciled with God’s providence. This is simply one of many instances in which we are challenged to believe in an omnipotent God, who is also a loving, provident Father. Providence is not an occasional, intrusive, manipulative presence, but one that is with us both in tragedy and in joy, in the joy that consists not so much in the absence of suffering, as in the awareness of God’s presence. To find the strength to experience calmly the difficulties and trials that come into our lives is a tremendous challenge. If, however, we are able to do that, every event can be “providential.” In a sermon on the feast of the Ascension, Pope Leo the Great said: “For those who abandon themselves to God’s providential love, faith does not fail, hope is not shaken, and charity does not grow cold.”

There can be a very subtle, almost imperceptible temptation to think we know better than God how things should be. We can be like the naive little girl, who, in her prayers, told God that if she were in God’s place, she would make the world better. And God replied: “That is exactly what you should be doing.”

“Well, I will believe in Rome. As Newman in essence said, to go back into history is to cease to be Protestant.”

...Well, it doesn’t surprise me that Newman would say that. Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t work that way in practice.

...Now, the rest of what you wrote probably seems convincing to you, in the same way Romans here want to tell Protestants that Luther supported certain beliefs - as if I follow Luther, or must believe what he believed. I am certainly grateful to Luther for recovering the Gospel and opening the door for believers to study the Word and arrive at a complete understanding of all revelation. But I am not convinced about anything because Luther may have believed it.

...................

“You will not find the doctrines you find in American Evangelical Protestantism in the early CHurch.”

...Oh, sure. Not in the early church, if you mean hundreds of years out, after paganism crept in. In the Bible, yes. In the actual early church, yes. And let’s be frank, the NT Church did not have all the inspired writings to systematically examine, so there will be differences.

“Do you think the Early Church, the Church Fathers and the Doctrines expressed at say the first 4 Councils [Nicea 325AD, Constantinopile 381AD, Ephesus 431AD and Chalcedon 451AD], who had the same NT books as you and I do [although the NT canon itself is a process of development and defining not really codified totally until the late 4th century] had a theology as it relates to Sacraments, Ecclesiology, soteriology consistent with the Catholic Church, and for that matter, Orthodoxy, or American Evangelical Protestantism?”

...Your question presumes an answer that you prefer.

...A much better question is how could they arrive at a number of crucial decisions theologically, and yet accept paganism in many practices? Nature of man, I guess. They often went around killing those in opposition in earlier times, even though they got the Virgin Birth right. Why? Human nature I guess.

...Again, I don’t doubt that you are convinced these arguments you put forth are air-tight. But you are arguing within a box you prefer.

“You will note I did not mention Christology as I have no evidence, as of yet, that you embrace any of the numerous Trinitarian and Christological heresies of the early Church, Gnosticism, Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc, etc.”

...You kill me with the arrogance of your post, but I’ll leave that to Him.

In the meantime, perhaps you might revisit the topic of this thread and explain why Catholics are vanishing.

What i meant in the second second part refers to Roman Catholicism while what you had described is indeed more the Easter Orthodox model, for you said "we look not to a pope" in contrast to it being "about individual men interpreting the bible and presenting that as definitive" (which is not exactly what i meant, but the pope and magisterium defining what Scripture and tradition mean).

No, again I will tell you, what I have described is not more Eastern Orthodox, but Catholic. Thoroughly Catholic. What you are here presenting, such as your notion that popes can define what Scripture or tradition means, is merely the common misconception which is becoming more and more ubiquitous, even among Catholics. But, it isn't true. Popes are obviously teachers, but just as any other teacher they don't make up what they pass on to others, but instruct people in things which they have themselves learned. And they learn it from Holy Mother Church and the Holy Spirit, who doesn't change His mind from generation to generation.

In contrast, the EOs reject papal infallibility and his having power he can exercise unhindered.

Papal infallibility is another issue altogether. It has had no significant historic bearing on the faith. Since it was defined at the first Vatican Council it has been invoked a grand total of two times, and those were both already Catholic doctrine (demonstrating my point about innovative teaching). Nothing I have said has anything to do with infallibility.

... the Catholic approach to doctrine and dogma, in which the church, not Scripture is supreme, has led to the perpetuation of extraScriptural and unBiblical traditions...

You have entered into another error here. God, not the Church nor Scripture, is supreme. And your notion of "extrascriptural and unbiblical tradition" is artificial. Scripture itself is simply a part of the tradition of the Church, and must be understood as an expression of that tradition. The idea that all tradition is in the Bible is itself unbiblical and cannot be found there. But, that isn't my point either. What matters is that we do not get our traditions, any of them, from a pope who decides it would be cool to have some new teachings or ways of doing things. Or at least that is not where they properly come from. That is very untraditional, and sadly has become popular lately. The pope should serve tradition just as we do, but that is becoming less and less understood these days, mostly because of these very common misconceptions which your own posts demonstrate so clearly.

...and usually end with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering mythical purgatory.

Only the saved can enter purgatory. Nobody is "good enough." We are saved only by the grace of God, and purgation happens after salvation. It really serves no purpose to erroneously cite Catholic dogma to a Catholic. You only weaken whatever point you hope to make.

That is not my claim, but Rome's

Ah, you are citing a profession of faith, and stretching the meaning as it is used in that profession. There is no claim by the Church that all the fathers ever held a single unanimous interpretation of the faith, and that assertion in that text isn't actually suggesting it.

But, again, all of this is neither here nor there. It doesn't touch on the errors of these times. Your own posts, over and over, reveal a foundation in modern misconceptions of what the Church is and how it operates. That you have fallen for so many canards is indicative. It doesn't matter to me that you do not accept the true teaching of the Church, as many do not, but I do find it illustrative that you don't even know what they are. You think they are Eastern Orthodox, and that only shows how ubiquitous these erroneous ideas really are.

redleghunter:

I am aware of St. Paul’s address to the “overseers” of the Church at Ephesus [could be Bishops or elders/presbyters to guide the Church there] in Acts 20. But the question is what did the Church in Ephesus believe and who were the heretics that he warned them about.

Did what the Church at Ephesus believe differ from what St. Paul did at Troas where “On the first day of week, when we gathered together to Break Bread.” (Acts 20:7) and then again “Break Bread” (Acts 20:11) is consistent with Christians in the NT gathering on Sunday to celebrate a Rite, a Eucharist, a Sacramental Meal, etc.

Was this Eucharistic Celebration in Acts 20:7-11 in line with Jesus and his Apostles on the Road to Emmaus [Luke 24: 28-35] where Christ took bread and Blessed it and Broke it and...their eyes were opened...and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the Bread”

So my contention is that Christ sent his Apostles just as the Father sent Him and the Apostles appointed Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons to guide the various Churches in the Mediterranean world and as those Men died out, they appointed men to carry on the Christian Message

How then can this be linked from Christ to the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers in the early Post-Apostolic era. Developing this idea from Pope Benedict’s work Principles of Catholic Theology we start with the notion that An Apostle is One who is “Sent” From Christ. For example, in the Synpotic Gospels (Mk 3:13-19, Mt 10:7-9; Lk 6:12-16) shows Jesus summoning the Apostles and it is referred to as a calling (c.f., Mk 3:13-19) and thus the Apostles share in Christ Ministry.

Two statements are important notes Pope Benedict (p .273) that link Christ and the Apostles mission are “anyone who rejects you rejects me….and rejects the one who sent me” (c.f., Lk 10:16; Mt 10:40). In St. John’s Gospel, we read “As the Father sent me, I send you” (cf. John 20:21). So, the word “send” or “being sent”, which is what Apostle means is key: If we understand Christ in relation to the Father as being sent by the Father (c.f. John 3:17), then the office of Apostle has an Christological reference point.

In the early NT period as recorded in Acts 14:14, Acts refers to St. Paul as an Apostle {Paul refers to himself as an Apostle in Rom 1:1; Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1} as well as Barnabas but we still see leadership with the 12 [Reconstituted 12 in Acts 1:15-26 and the selection of Maththais] and St. Paul and Barnabas.

Acts 11 thru 13 shows St. Paul and Barnabas’s missionary activity was connected to the Apostles “they sent Barnabas to go to Antioch” (cf Acts 11:22); “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul….then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off” (cf Acts 13:2-3. So in this context, we see Paul and Barnabas and their mission and ministry connected with the other 12 Apostles. It is one Church in communion with each other.

As we read St. Paul’ Letters, we see him develop a strong theology of Apostleship in 2 Corinthians. As Pope Benedict, notes, 2 Cor 5:20-22 illustrates this where St. Paul states “we are ambassadors for Christ as it is as God is appealing through us”. In his letter to the Romans, ST. Paul describes his ministry as “performing the priestly service of the Gospel of God” (cf. Romans 15:16).

As we move later into Acts, we see the start of a development of Bishop and Presbyter to succeed the Apostles. Pope Benedict notes that in St. Paul’s farewell address to the Church at Ephesus (cf. Acts 20:18-35, which you sited), we see an already developed theology of Apostolic Succession and thus the office of presbyter is now linked to Apostle but it is the Holy Spirit who instituted the priesthood (Acts 20:28)

While the distinction between Bishop and Presbyter is not always clear, a distinction does emerge in the NT and a clear linkage between Apostle and Presbyter is made in the NT. For example, a distinction is made between Bishop and Presbyter as it is the “overseer” who installs “presbyters” (cf. Acts 6:6; 2 Tim 1:6) and we see ST. Paul directing Titus to “appoint Presbyters in every town” (cf. Titus 1:5) and while the office of Bishop and his role is not strictly distinguished from the other presbyters (cf. Titus 1:7-10; 1 Tim 3:2-7), as Pope Benedict notes, the transfer of responsibility from ST. Paul to Titus and Timothy is an example of the formulation of the concept of Apostolic Succession.

Pope Benedict notes that the linkage between Apostle and Presbyter (cf. 1 Pet 5: 1-4) is the clearest linkage between the office of Apostle and presbyter and is thus the shows in practice a transfer of the theology of Apostle to presbyter as the Apostle Peter denotes himself as a “fellow presbyter.” Former Pope Benedict notes that The presbyter, receives a gift, through God’s Grace, and as Pope Benedict further writes (Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 204) “he is not the source of his priesthood” it comes from Christ and thus all he is able to do and should do is:

a) Be a “steward of the mysteries of God” (c.f. 1 Cor 4:1).
b) A “good steward of God’s varied Grace” (c.f. 1 Pet 4:10).

Now as we end the Apostolic Age and move to the period of the Early Church Fathers. What do see and believe. Do we believe after the death of the last Apostle, lets say St. John around 90AD that the Church went off the rail and the Church was left an orphan. Obviously, that would contradict numerous passages from the Gospels from the words of Christ himself. So, I as a Catholic reject that the Church went off the rails after the death of the Apostle John., Catholic and Apostolic Church:

In the late 1st century, we see the connection between the early Church and the Apostles as evidenced in St. Clement of Rome’s (3rd successor of St. Peter) Letter to the Church in Corinth to heal the schism there. We also see in the late 1st early 2nd century, the Church is faced with the Early Heresy of Gnosticism: A True God of the Spiritual World and an Anti-God (Lesser God) who created the Material World. [Dualism.

At that same time, we see the Church Fathers and the Church of Rome exercising a Primacy in the early Church. Again, back to St. Clement of Rome, 3rd Successor to St. Peter. Pope Benedict in a catechetical lecture (3/7/2007) notes that the most important testimony concerning his life comes from ST. Irenaeus, who was Bishop of Lyons until 202. He attests that St. Clement “had seen the blessed Apostles and “had been conversant with them” and might be said to have had the preaching of the Apostles still echoing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes (Adversus Haer. 3,3,3).

Since Clement was Bishop of Rome, his letters took on importance. One letter that has survived to our times is universally acknowledged as his. Again, Pope Benedict notes that Eusebius of Caesarea, the great “archivist” of Christian beginnings, presents it in these terms:

“There is extant an Epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged as genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter Church. We know that this Epistle also has been publicly used in a great many Churches both in former times and our own” (Hist. Eccl 3, 16)

Pope Benedict then writes that Clement’s intervention-—we are still in the 1st century was prompted by a serious problem besetting the Church of Corinth: The elders of the community in fact, had been deposed by some young contestants. The sorrowful event was recalled once again by ST. Irenaeus who wrote “In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren in Corinth, the Church of Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Church of Corinth exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles” (Adv Haer. 3,3,3).

Pope Benedict concludes: Thus, we could say that this letter was a first exercise of the Roman Primacy after St. Peter’s death. In addition, St. Clement writes about the transition from Christ, to Apostles to the Bishops and Deacons of this time and how the Apostles made provisions to appoint Bishops to lead the Churches and instruct those Bishops that if they die, other approved men should be appointed to continue their ministry, etc [See links below from the Reformed site that has the translations by P. Schaff, the Reformed Patristic Scholar]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xlii.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xliv.html

If we now move to St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD, a Martyr and Apostolic Father who new St. John. He Wrote 7 letters, 6 to Churches including Ephesus, Rome, Philadelphia and Smyrna (both in Revelation). Again, all the of the leading Protestant Patristic Scholars of the 19th century {Schaff, who I have linked his works, Lightfood, Harnak, Funk and Zahn attest to their authenticity, even though at first they all hesitated due to the STRONG CATHOLIC THEOLOGY in them [for emphasis not yelling]. St. Ignatius Calls the Church Catholic at this time. In addition, he was confronting the Heretical Gnostic Sect known as the “Docetist”, who argued that Christ only appeared Human thus the Eucharist made no sense. In response to this Heresy, St. Ignatius’s writings give us many early examples of Catholic Doctrine

A.) Talks about Bishops, Priests and Deacons (Hierarchy 3-tiered ministry)
B.) Particular Churches are Catholic through Communion with One of Them: The Church of Rome, which St. Ignatius writes in his letter to Rome, “Presides in Charity”
C). Strong Eucharistic Language (see letter to Church of Smyrna)
D). Mentions St.’s Peter and Paul as being in Rome.

By the later 2nd century, we have St. Ireneaus of Lyons (Circa 180 AD) writing against Gnostics (One them was Marcion, who was excommunicated in Rome in 144 AD and forced church to begin addressing the Canon of Scripture thus another example of the Primacy of the Church of Rome)

He wrote to orthodox Christians that these Gnostics do not have “Apostolic Tradition”. He uses the Church of Rome to prove his point, since it would be tedious to do all the successions. He writes:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the succession of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; (we do this, I say), by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, also by pointing out that the faith preached to men, which comes down to our times by means of the succession of Bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority-—that is the faithful everywhere inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.

Also in the late 2nd and early 3rd century, another heresy called Modalism [heresy that claimed the Father, Son and Spirit are just different modes or functions of the same Individual. The problem with Modalism is that it stressed the Oneness of God to such and extreme as to distort the Trinity [other extreme is to stress the Trinity of Persons to such a degree as to distort the Oneness of God].

Now its major proponent was Sabellius, who was excommunicated by Pope Callistus in 220 AD and because of Rome and the Pope’s stance, orthodox Christological Doctrine was preserved as was orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine [although it would not be until the later Councils of Nicea, Constantinopile, Ephesus and Chalcedon that these doctrines would be fully defined.] Regardless, all the Church Fathers that followed Pope Callistus would all reject Modalism.

On a related note, Modalism/forms of it have reappeared in certain Protestant groups such as Oneness Pentecostalism and some mainline Protestant groups that are now baptizing in the Name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, which is consistent with Functionalism/Modalism heresy.

Now, this post is long enough but it is on these points that I believe Christ became Incarnate, he founded a Church {Mt 16:18} and which is the pillar and foundation of Truth [1 Timothy 3:15] and he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church [which he did at Pentecost in Acts]. The Apostles carried the message of Christ to the Roman and Greek world in the Mediterranean and they appointed Men to lead the Church after their Deaths and these Men did the same down thru the time period I laid out above. I believe that the Holy Spirit continued to guide the Church thru the Council of Nicea (325 AD), Constantinopile in 381 AD, Ephesus in 431 AD, Chalcedon 451AD, 2nd Constantinopile in 553AD, 3rd Constantinopile in 680-681AD, 2nd Nicea in 787AD, 4th Constantinopile in 869 AD, 1 Lateran 1123 AD, 2nd Lateran 1139AD, 3rd Lateran 1179AD, 4th Lateran 1215 AD, 1st Lyons in 1245 AD, 2nd Lyons in 1274 AD, Council of Vienne 1311-1313 AD, Council of Constance in 1414-1418AD, Council of Florence [also called Ferrara or Basle] in 1431-1439AD, 5th Lateran in 1512 to 1517AD, Council of Trent 1545-1563AD, First Vatican Council 1869-1870 and 2nd Vatican Council 1962 to 1965.

So where do you think the Church went off the tracks?

No, again I will tell you, what I have described is not more Eastern Orthodox, but Catholic.

I disagree. Your popeless description also lacks the concept of a formal office like as in Rome that infallibly defines things like Trent did. Can you even provide me with an infallibly defined complete canon all the Byzantine rite must hold to? RCs look to their sacred magisterium for precise definitions, but in the East the office seems less concrete and the doctrine more metaphysical.

Popes are obviously teachers, but just as any other teacher they don't make up what they pass on to others, but instruct people in things which they have themselves learned. And they learn it from Holy Mother Church and the Holy Spirit, who doesn't change His mind from generation to generation.

They do worse than make things up, they affirm things as truth which were made up as far as Scripture is concerned, infallibly or non infallibly, whether it be the Assumption of Mary or nonsense such as "when the glorious Virgin Mary entered triumphantly into heaven and was elevated above the choirs of angels to the throne of the Most Holy Trinity.

Since it was defined at the first Vatican Council it has been invoked a grand total of two times, and those were both already Catholic doctrine (demonstrating my point...

Demonstrating my point. Catholic doctrine does not mean Bible doctrine, and the subjection of Scripture by Rome means perpetuation of external traditions that should have been abandoned. Can you provide even one prayer to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord out of the multitudes in Scripture, or in instruction on who to pray to (our Mother who art in Heaven")?

You have entered into another error here. God, not the Church nor Scripture, is supreme.

That is a given of course, but Rome presumes to be the supreme authority that defines who God is and what His wills it, even if it has not actual Scriptural support, as such doctrines do not need such, only that do not contradict Scripture, bu which is in the judgment of Rome, which is not be challenged.

And your notion of "extrascriptural and unbiblical tradition" is artificial. Scripture itself is simply a part of the tradition of the Church, and must be understood as an expression of that tradition.

No it is not, but Scripture is the result of separating the "chaff" of uninspired tradition with the "wheat" which is inspired.

The idea that all tradition is in the Bible is itself unbiblical and cannot be found there.

At least you admit it.

What matters is that we do not get our traditions, any of them, from a pope who decides it would be cool to have some new teachings or ways of doing things.

Of course he claims it was always taught, even as with the Assumption, "the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.'" (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266)

The perpetuated Petrine papacy reigning over the church from the beginning is another invention, and even many CFs did not see Mt. 16:18 as being Peter, which even Catholic scholarship provides evidence against .

Only the saved can enter purgatory. Nobody is "good enough." ... It really serves no purpose to erroneously cite Catholic dogma

I did not say you became good enough to enter purgatory, but that you become good enough to enter glory via purgatory. But not in Scripture, regardless of attempts to extrapolate support from it. And it is you who are misrepresenting sound doctrine.

Ah, you are citing a profession of faith, and stretching the meaning as it is used in that profession.

Thus you yourself example the place for interpretation, yet i actually made it more reasonable, for as stated, they are promising never to interpret Scripture except in accordance with the UC of the fathers, not contrary to their UC.

There is no claim by the Church that all the fathers ever held a single unanimous interpretation of the faith, and that assertion in that text isn't actually suggesting it.

That is an absurd profession then, as they are promising never to violate something that does not exist, except by Rome playing loose with the term "unanimous."

Your own posts, over and over, reveal a foundation in modern misconceptions of what the Church is and how it operates...You think they are Eastern Orthodox, and that only shows how ubiquitous these erroneous ideas really are.

I am stating things based on what Rome says and acts, while you are the one in the desert claiming to be correct, yet in reality your popeless description and absence of the Roman sacred magisterium is far more Eastern, while both pass on errors as apostolic truth as taught in Scripture.

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.