Posted on 12/28/2013 3:59:04 PM PST by NYer
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.”
580 bookmark. Thanks for the link to the Veritas Bible.
You are most certainly welcome. I would love to get access to all of Aquinas commentaries. I have excerpts of them which are cited in other COmmentaries, but not access to them like the ones from the Veritas Bible with Aquinas’s commentaries on the Four Gospels.
A Great Commentary with a consensus of all the Fathers Commentaries integrated into his.
Your description was indeed popeless, and i did not say the pope changed Catholic teaching, but he can be looked to for the final word, and has doctrinally perpetuated errors, and has unhindered power, and cannot be deposed without his consent.
Therefore, as I have said, infallibility is not the point.
I did not restrict his primacy to PI, nor do the EO's in contending against his full roman role.
You really should stop trying to tell Catholics what Catholics do.
You really should stop trying to tell me what Catholics do. Ever hear of Trent, Vatican 1, and thus the schism and sects resulting from V2? Stick to painting.
I did not say you became good enough to enter purgatory, but that you become good enough to enter glory via purgatory.
A distinction without a difference. It is indeed a distinction with a difference, as rather than being good enough to enter purgatory, as you had me saying, it is a purported place for becoming purified.
One is either saved or not, and there are no back doors into heaven. Purgation is not what you think it is.
A mere assertion. Purgatory is what i said it was, a place one becomes good enough to enter glory.
after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1030).
It is also for making expiation:
These must be expiated [atoned, be compensated] either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967)
Nothing in this makes any sense.
You seem to be having a problem following the argument. go back and re read it. You accused me of misrepresenting it, when in fact the words i put in brackets brought it in line with what is elsewhere taught, unless you believe the promise is never to interpret Scripture except as per the UC of the fathers, versus never being contrary to it, where it exists. It is the V1 statement itself that is misleading.
It amuses me how you keep insisting on an exaggerated role of the pope while also simultaneously arguing against the legitimacy of it. It is very interesting that those who attack the Catholic Church are always the ones most in favour of papal power, even though they also love to go on about how evil it is.
What you imagine may assume you, but i did not exaggerate the role of the pope, and certainly did not express favour of papal power. But straw men burn easy. It is actually hard to exaggerate the role and power of the pope and magisterium more than Rome and popes or Catholics have or do, either in establishing doctrine or enforcing it, or in application etc. .
Rightly, therefore, has Leo X. laid down in the 5th council of Lateran "that the Roman Pontiff alone, as having authority over all Councils, has full jurisdiction and power to summon, to transfer, to dissolve Councils, as is clear, not only from the testimony of Holy Writ, from the teaching of the Fathers and of the Roman Pontiffs, and from the decrees of the sacred canons, but from the teaching of the very Councils themselves." Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. — Leo XIII - Satis cognitum; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
"the Apostolic See has received and hath government, authority, and power of binding and loosing from the Incarnate Word Himself; and, according to all holy synods, sacred canons and decrees, in all things and through all things, in respect of all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world, since the Word in Heaven who rules the Heavenly powers binds and loosens there" - satis cognitum.
As Peter was given a new name so does the new Supreme Pontiff become known by another. After the election he extends his first blessing to the people -- a Benediction which was not given in the open for years until Pope Pius XI established the custom. The Coronation, one of the most magnificent of Vatican Ceremonies, takes place shortly after the election. With the Pope carried high in a golden chair and attended by brilliantly attired chamberlains and soldiers, the Coronation Mass is an unrivaled spectacle of beauty, dignity, and ancient pageantry. At the Coronation, in the midst of the pomp and splendor, a master of ceremonies recites in Latin: "Holy Father, thus does the glory of the world pass away." As the first Cardinal Deacon places the three-crowned Tiara on the head of the Pope, he says: "Receive the three-crowned Tiara, and know that thou are the Father of Princes and Kings, the Pastor of the earth, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, to Whom be honor and glory forever. Amen." The CORONATION of Pope Pius XII took place on the balcony of St. Peter's in March 1939. (From the book "The Vatican and Holy Year" by Stephen S. Fenichell & Phillip Andrews -- 1950 edition. http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/ReunionOfChristendom.htm)
Dictatus papae
Only he [the Pope] can summon universal councils
No synod can be called valid without the pope's agreement.
The pope may be judged by no one, even if he should deny the faith, as is seen from [Pope] Marcellinus.
All others can do nothing without him.
The Roman church by a singular privilege closes and opens the heavens to whomever it wishes, as Pope Julius testifies.
The pope's judicial decision may not be overturned by anyone except him himself or one of his successors.
He may change kingdoms, as did Gregory, Stephen, and Adrian. - http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/churchhistory511/topic%20three/DictatusAvranches.htm
But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ.. - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, p 119 - 120 )
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " - Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam.
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God . This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;...
He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ) http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10law.htm.
the pope certainly has definite prerogatives and authority, but it is all placed within a larger framework. Just as the president is not all-powerful in the USA, or shouldn't be, the pope cannot simply do as he wills at all times.
No, it is not as the Presidential limitations. Who will impeach the pope if he oversteps his bounds? You have gone from describing a popeless Catholicism with no mention of the magisterium to now having to minimizing his claim to unhindered excise of power.
He is bound by law too, and that really bothers those who dislike the Church.
Which means he does not need the consent of the bishops to declare a truth infallible, and who can depose the pope? Actually, it is the autocratic nature of Rome itself that is disturbing. For in essence, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Even if the pope were a raging heretic it wouldn't change the teaching of the Church one bit.
Worse, he can take a tradition of men, such as the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary and declare it as infallible, with submission to it binding, which was not the case in the early church.
Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church.. - http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p9ineff.htm
And yet "[It is error to believe that], if the Pope were a reprobate and an evil man and consequently a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful." - Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, Session VIII, and Hus: Session XV; DNZ:621, 617, 588)
And also we have this esteem of popes:
"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom." ( St. Catherine of Siena: A Biography By Anne B. Baldwin, p. 125,
But, that cannot be true for the attacker, and every word from every pope must be another gospel for Catholics.
Well, when you get back to me let me know. Word of popes often may not reflect RC doctrine, but it is when they do that it is often a problem, while their role and esteem by RCs is manifest by how they publish daily what he pope say on FR. Do a search!
And, when I hold a Catholic view of the pope, grounded in centuries of teaching and practice, you call me "popeless."
No, i called you that because in your description of the church and how it acts in passing on doctrine you did not even mention the pope, or the place of the magisterium. And which place in history is not manifest in you description.
Because they have asked or affirmed they want to be pings to notable posts. And as this is a forum, then as with other subject, anyone can become part of the exchange, or try to.
I think this thread warrants a Vanishing Elsie!
“There has to be some Church which ran the Seminary or maybe more accurately, which the seminary was affiliated with. Would you be willing to disclose who that seminary was affiliated with [note, not asking the name of the seminary, that can, I understand, get into too much personal information “
Pass. It wouldn’t have mattered if it was Catholic... Except in that case I wouldn’t have outlined a single book or made a single outline, etc.
aMorePerfectUnion:
Ok, tough to discuss things in this context, at least for me. I get you were raised Catholic, now something else. You stated that you were not in a church that is in the Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist or Pentecostal tradition. Given the Methodist tradition came from the Anglican tradition, I doubt that would be the case.
So if it is not one of those, the only thing one gets to, in my view [again, this is just my view], is this “non denominational label Bible Church” where some Pastor says we are going to follow the Bible, until of course, someone decides hey Pastor, the Holy Spirit spoke to me when I was reading the Bible and I don’t think you are following the Bible. And then, you get another “Bible Fellowship Church” that broke from the last “Bible Fellowship Church”
Not to pick a fight with you, but there are many others over the years who when I pose that question, will not respond with what type of Church they belong to. Why is it, given you have this view as well, that you will not say, I go to this church. So if someone goes to a Southern Baptist Church [and I personally know some SBC’s], then I can easily go to the SBC website and see their position statement, which is of course, sola scriptura is part of it, No Creeds, priesthood of all believers, etc, are from what I remember, part of their confession. If someone is Reformed, then it is Calvins Westminster confession, Lutheran, Augsberg Confession, Anglican, the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, etc.
Here are but two examples from the Holy Bible that Christ’s Gospel is found in both his written Word, and the oral teachings of his Apostles to his early Church:
“Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form.” 2 Thess 2:15
“The things which you have heard from me through many witnesses you must hand on to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others.” (2 Tim, 2:2)
......................
1. These two passages were written to someone who sat under the teachings of the Apostles who were the foundation of the Church. You have not.
2. I’ve asked you on a different thread exactly WHICH traditions are referred to by Paul in the II Thess passage. I asked you to list them and document that they are the traditions Paul wrote about. You didn’t answer. I assume you have been researching this and can now fully delineate and document these traditions. Please do so. I would very much appreciate knowing them.
If you can not do so, your point is moot. What good is something that cannot be known. More realistically, God saw to it that everything we needed was included in Holy Writ, once it was put on parchment.
3. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on what he learned directly from the Apostle Paul. Exactly what things did Paul say to Timothy and others that were to be passed on - in addition to that which made its way into God’s Inspired Word - particularly the portions Paul wrote??
Please list them and document that they are the exacty audible teachings Paul wrote to Timothy about. If you can not do so, your point is moot. What good is something that cannot be known. More realistically, God saw to it that everything we needed was included in Holy Writ, once it was put on parchment.
Thank you in advance for taking time to list these traditions and teachings and documenting exactly how we know your list included what Paul wrote - and no more.
“Well thanks for the response. I still don’t know what Church you belong to, despite your post here.”
SAY IT ISN”T SO CTrent!!! Knowing Christ’s Gathering - as God identifies in Scripture - is the only thing that counts. Examine your soul to be sure you are in the faith, as John wrote.
“Not sure what you mean in the context of pagan. In another thread, I mentioned that St. Paul quoted from pagan Greeks in 3 places. He was quoted in Acts 17:28 “In Him we live, move and have our being” which is a quote from Epimendes. He also quotes the Greek poet Menander in 1 Cor 15:33 and in Titus 1:12 he again quotes from Epimendes. Now, in 3 places St. Paul has quoted from Pagan Greek Poets. Of this, Saint Thomas Aquinas writes “One who is learned in Sacred Scriptures accepts truth wherever he finds it. This is why Paul, on several occasions, refers to the sayings of pagans.”
Paul repeated a common saying to lead his listeners to the truth. GOD saw fit to include this in Acts. If God included it, I certainly don’t argue with it. It does not follow that anything outside inspired Scripture has equal authority to Scripture. All truth may be God’s truth, as the saying goes, but all truth isn’t equal to Authoritative, Inspired Truth.
“I was frustrated with the ping fest from some of the other posters who chime in and hijack a thread and take it to where they want it as opposed to where two posters have the taken their take or perspective on the thread.”
Understood. It may be partly that Mediterranean temperament too! I’ve inherited half of one...
“Not to pick a fight with you, but there are many others over the years who when I pose that question, will not respond with what type of Church they belong to. Why is it, given you have this view as well, that you will not say, I go to this church.”
I prefer to deal with Truth, instead of denominational labels. If an idea is True, it withstands examination. If it is false, it is better to know.
BTW, I responded to your over-generalization of non-Catholic church growth on this very thread by detailing what is happening at the local assembly where I worship. That was detailed, but you never responded at all. If you want to know more, you can read it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3106141/posts?page=71#71
Still, the issue is Truth. Something is either True or it is not.
“How anyone could see a connection (same God) is amazing”Ever hear of Jesus?Ever heard of Abraham?
He's the Son of the God of the Bible.
The Islamic Muslim god has NO son.
Follow your pope to the muslim god or Jesus to the ONE AND ONLY GOD, who is quite a jealous God:
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God---Exodus 34:14The muslim/Islamic god instructs his followers to kill ALL Christians and Jews, in fact anyone that does not follow Islam.Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in that land. When they chase after their gods as though they were prostitutes and sacrifice to them, they may invite you to eat the meat from their sacrifices with them---Exodus 34:15
Exodus 20:3:
You shall have no other gods before me.Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!---Isaiah 5:20
Do you think this is the same god as the God of the Bible?
BTW, I sincerely wish you a Happy New Year. I hope it is a very good year for you and your family.
(You would think the Catholic church fathers would know the difference between a god that has no son, and the God of the Bible that has a Son, Jesus Christ our Saviour)
Daniel, I did not see your post to me before I posted my last reply to a poster, or would have included you in the "to" field.
See Post # 591 Here and thank you for the message!
“Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form.” 2 Thess 2:15
“The things which you have heard from me through many witnesses you must hand on to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others.” (2 Tim, 2:2)
The above are FACT. Makes no difference that a Catholic basher wants to twist scripture to conform to what he wants it to mean. Reminds me of Bill Clinton saying “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”
You need to give up and thank God for the Catholic Church. For without it you and rest would still be heathens. The Church gave you Word of God.
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
What a load of nonsense.
The Holy Spirit gave us the Word of God and the OT existed centuries before the Catholic church was a gleam in Constantine's eye.
We owe the Catholic church NOTHING. Zero. Zilch.
We'd still be saved even if the Catholic church didn't exist because GOD is the one who ensures that His word is spread and souls are saved. The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.
No denomination or organization can take credit for that.
amoreperfectUnion:
Oh I am ok with where I am at. I am in the faith expressed in the Nicene Creed. I will hold to that faith, thanks anyway. I will not push you any longer on the Church thing, it is obvious you are not going to respond
“Paul repeated a common saying to lead his listeners to the truth. GOD saw fit to include this in Acts. If God included it, I certainly don’t argue with it. It does not follow that anything outside inspired Scripture has equal authority to Scripture. All truth may be God’s truth, as the saying goes, but all truth isn’t equal to Authoritative, Inspired Truth.”
Ok, so the mere fact that something is from pagan thought and practice does not negate it, so you agree here. So St. Paul used Greek Pagan Poetry, St. Augustine used Plato, and St. Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle. So the notion that the Catholic Church has used Greek Philosophy in its theology has somehow tainted the faith is perhaps not true. You do freely admit in 2 of his letters [1 Corinthians and Titus] and also in Acts, St. Paul quotes from Greek poets.
NKP, just list the traditions. It’s that easy. Unless you can’t. :-)
Where’s the beef?!
One of my personal favorites from Martin Luther:
“Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them. What business have I, then, to preach against them as a pupil preaching against his teachers? Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: “Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the Creed: I believe in a holy Christian Church, etc.? Now I find this church in the papacy too. It follows, therefore, that if I condemn this church, I am excommunicated, rejected, and damned by God and all the saints.” [LW 24:304]. From the Protestant site Beggars All
So even ole Martin Luther recognized the Bible, or for it to survive 1,500 years down to his time would require God to work thru some Human Organization to define the canon, translate it, and preserve it down thru the centuries. Hey, I guess it was the First whatever church of somewhere in America that did that? or maybe the 2nd church of whatever. Of course the protestant guys over at that blog try to spin what he said but that is what he said. The arguments over there go back to the definition of the canon, was it infallible or not. I guess these guys hold to the recent protestant doctrine of the “Fallible Canon of infallible books” or something like that.
And another one is when he was charged with adding the word “alone” to St. Paul’s writings, he reportedly said
“If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightway: Dr. Martin Luther will have it so. Papist and .... are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom” [taken from Catholic Answers site, don’t have a protestant source for this one]
“So St. Paul used Greek Pagan Poetry, “
Paul used it in preaching. God included it in sacred Scripture - at least as part of the narrative. Beyond that, He didn’t endorse it in any further way.
“So the notion that the Catholic Church has used Greek Philosophy in its theology has somehow tainted the faith is perhaps not true. “
If God didn’t include it in His revelation, you won’t persuade me that it is equal to Scripture. Scripture trumps and judges all else. If the Catholic Church mixed pagan teaching with scripture, that’s falsehood.
Paul quotes it in preaching. God includes his actions in the narrative, but makes no further comment. Just because scripture records something, doesn’t mean it teaches it. Baal gets lots of ink in the OT, but no endorsement.
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.