Ship of Fools: Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical?

Thread: Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029676

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

I quote from the Orthodox Christian Center:
The reader should be aware that my motivation for compiling these texts does not stem from a desire to "bash the heterodox" but rather to help my fellow Orthodox brothers and sisters to understand that much of the rhetoric we hear today regarding Western Christians is not faithful to Holy Tradition. It thus undermines the unity and uniqueness of the one true Church the Orthodox Church, which embodies the very criterion of Christianity, being the sole preserver of the unadulterated Apostolic and Holy Tradition.
It is necessary to state from the outset, that the attitude to the Christian West has never been discussed by any representative body of the Orthodox Church. Neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants have ever been condemned or excommunicated as such, so a common policy in regard to them has never been adopted. ("The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Anglicans,"

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Some people think they are. What is there to discuss?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Among my own beliefs, there are a couple that are probably heretical from traditional Catholic, Orthodox, or even Protestant view point. This doesn't concern me much.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I suspect all denominations have an element of heresy in them.

[ 10. March 2016, 15:37: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

I see much to be admired in the Orthodox Church.
They have the advantaged of being untarnished by the likes of Luther, Calvin, Knox and Cranmer.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
I see much to be admired in the Orthodox Church.
They have the advantaged of being untarnished by the likes of Luther, Calvin, Knox and Cranmer.

Okay, so you're not Protestant. Where exactly is this supposed to be going?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Of course the Protestants and Roman Catholics are a bunch of heretics. Just ask the Orthodox!

Of course the Orthodox and Protestants are a bunch of heretics. Just ask the Roman Catholics!

Of course the Roman Catholics and Orthodox are a bunch of heretics. Just ask the Protestants!

Parsing who is and isn't really a Christian is one of the longest lived pastimes in the Church (however defined). Just remember, it's all fun and games until someone gets burned at the stake!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

As Shipmates will know, I'm something of an Orthophile ... but I think you'll find, Frankenstein, that they've got as much to say about the Papacy and various 'additional' aspects of Roman Catholicism - as they see it - as they have to say about schismatic Protestants ...

[Roll Eyes]

In fact, they see us as two sides of the same Western coin and not at all as distinct from one another as we see ourselves ...

I'll leave that to the Orthodox shipmates to explain ...

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

They have the advantaged of being untarnished by the likes of Luther, Calvin, Knox and Cranmer.

But tarnished by a grisly succession of grotesques with proclivities for everything from deliberate blinding to anti-Semitism.

No Christian family is free from embarrassing members.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No Christian family is free from embarrassing members.

How true! Just look at the original apostles! We have one who betrayed Jesus; one who denied him; one who doubted the resurrection...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Thank God I was liberalized before I turned 60.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, and it ill-behoves any Christian tradition to try to make out that its own grotesques are less grotesque than anyone else's ...

We Protestants can raise the Orthodox an Ivan The Terrible and Rasputin ...

They can raise us dodgy televangelists and various charlatans ...

As for the RCs, then the same Church produced St Francis of Assisi and the Borgia Popes ...

I suspect though, that what Frankenstein was getting at wasn't so much that Luther, Calvin, Cramner and whoever else he mentioned were grotesques or morally suspect - more that he didn't agree with their theology ...

Which is a different matter.

But then, if it's theology we're talking about then the Orthodox don't like Aquinas - and aren't too keen on Augustine - and the RCs are suspicious of Byzantine hesychasm ...

And round and round we go.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I suspect all denominations have an element of heresy in them.

I seem to remember even Jesus Christ was found guilty of blasphemy by the institutional religious authorities of the time. Jesus the Heresiarch. Got an intriguing sort of ring to it.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants have ever been condemned or excommunicated as such, so a common policy in regard to them has never been adopted. ("The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Anglicans,"

So, what was Patriarch Michael Cerularius doing in 1054 then? Anyway, we got the Orthodox first in the Great Schism, so that must mean his return fire doesn't count.

(I think the RC's and the Orthodox are well down the road to reconciliation. I wish them every good thing.)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Where exactly is this supposed to be going?

The gutter

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We Protestants can raise the Orthodox an Ivan The Terrible and Rasputin ...

'm currently reading Simon Sebag-Montefiore's just-published history of the Romanovs, which is practically non-stop sex and violence ("A bit like my family", as Baldrick said, "but without the sex".

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But then, if it's theology we're talking about

Given that the thread title uses the word "heretical" and not something about containing weirdos in its family tree, then yeah, it's theology we're talking about.

I don't understand the point of the OP, frankly. He asks "Are Protestantism and RCism heretical?" then posts a quote by an Orfie that says they aren't. Forgive me but it looks like an attempt to stir up shit.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Forgive me but

Asking forgiveness in advance before making personal insults in Purgatory does not legitimise your behaviour.

Alan has already linked to a perfectly suitable Hell thread for this purpose. If posters can't find a constructive way to address the OP I for one will be content to let it sink like a stone.

/hosting

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So the very criterion of Christianity isn't unfailing kindness?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I suspect all denominations have an element of heresy in them.

This.

I was about to say - all of us are heretics, none has the whole of the truth.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

Just because it seemed relevant:

"Beliefs must be distinguished from faith.
Beliefs belong to the century one lives in.
Faith goes on from age to age because it is
not a set of beliefs but an attitude - the
attitude of trust".
Wilfred Cantwell Smith

So what do churches have in common?

And what divides them?

GG

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

I don't understand the point of the OP, frankly. He asks "Are Protestantism and RCism heretical?" then posts a quote by an Orfie that says they aren't. Forgive me but it looks like an attempt to stir up shit.

OK listen this was my fault; I found the link from which the clips come. In fact the page is quite complicated and gives an overview of the history of views of the RCC by various Orthodox writers.

I know that one cannot cast all Orthodox in any particular view, my point was simply in response to Frankenstein's claim on another thread of a cosy relationship between Orthodox and the RCC. I was simply trying to show that there exist Orthodox and there exist Roman Catholics who consider the other to be heretics.

And I was making this point in response to the (apparent) suggestion that church unity would only be established if everyone returned to being part of the RCC.

I was just saying that the splits in the church go back a long way and it isn't just a fault-line between Orthodox-and-Catholic on one hand and Protestants on another - but that the thing is complicated with many different voices from different positions calling each other names.

That's it. Unless someone wants to try discussing how widespread these views are in the RCC and the various Orthodox jurisdictions - which I can't comment upon - I'm not seeing what further there is to say on this subject.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I would say that all denominations are in some way heretical if (a) they claim that they possess a complete understanding of the Faith and (b) fail to accept wholeheartedly that they are but one part of the multifaceted Church of God.

(That doesn't mean, by the way, that I necessarily approve of the fissiparous nature of much of Protestantism, as I often think that the splits have been triggered for far-too-human reasons).

[ 11. March 2016, 08:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

There are technical definitions of the word "heretic", steeped in profound, beard-stroking theology. In practice, however, the word is used by any group in favour of the more basic "Not-we" to add a varnish of respectability to their hatred of the Other. So yes, from someone's point of view we're all heretics, but as W.S.Gilbert so perceptively said, "When everybody's somebody, then no-one's anybody."

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

'heretic' comes from 'heresy' which means originally 'choosing for oneselves, instead of remaining within the community'

In everyday use at present it generally indicates someone with wrong religious ideas , at least from the point of view of the person using the word.

It is also a loaded word from the past and reminds Protestants of burnings at the stake and other cruel and most probably Catholic punishments for heresy.

As BT says we are almost all heretics as most of us follow the religion which was passed on to us by our parents, always adapting it slightly and perhaps unofficially to suit our own very personal beliefs.

The Catholic Church, as it is normally understood, no longer uses this word except in a very technical sense.

In its official teachings it sees really all who honour God as members of the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, though it recognises as well that not all of those are linked in full communion with the Holy See. That, I think, is most definitely a fact.

But surely all of us,or at least most of us believe that the community to which we belong most closely mirrors the ideal of the invisible ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

In its official teachings it sees really all who honour God as members of the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, though it recognises as well that not all of those are linked in full communion with the Holy See. That, I think, is most definitely a fact.

I'm not sure if that is a fact, actually. I suspect that it views some of the other church denominations on a similar level as it perceives Buddhists and Islam.

quote:
But surely all of us,or at least most of us believe that the community to which we belong most closely mirrors the ideal of the invisible ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

I think there are a whole heap of churches who would never use that language because the creeds are not part of their faith-language.

And I think many would not assume that the "Holy Catholic and Apostolic church" is a form of Platonic ideal anyway. I strongly suspect that many on my side of the fence see only one "True" church - which overlaps many different denominational boundaries - which one is either in or not in.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure if that is a fact, actually. I suspect that it views some of the other church denominations on a similar level as it perceives Buddhists and Islam.

On what basis do you say this, mr cheesy?

I've not come across anything from the RCC in recent years - either officially or unofficially - that suggests that they regard Christian groups outside of their own purlieu as being on a similar level to Buddhists and Muslims.

Quite the opposite in fact.

I suspect that there's a certain anti-RC prejudice that is so entrenched within some parts of Protestantism that even if the Pope were to knock on our doors tomorrow and offer us a million pounds we'd check the wad to make sure it was legitimate tender and not counterfeit ...

Or we'd complain that he was giving it to us in £20 notes rather than in £10 and £5 ones or something ...

Saying that there are Christians who are not in communion with the Pope is simply a statement of fact. It doesn't imply that they are not necessarily Christians.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

On what basis do you say this, mr cheesy?

Well stuff like this from Pope Pius XIII in 1957:

quote:
To be Christian one must be Roman; one must recognize the oneness of Christ's Church, that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles, who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ's Vicar on earth.

Also this kind of thing where the highest structures of the RCC in the past has questioned the validity of other churches.

quote:
"This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church, and therefore the plural term churches can refer only to particular churches."

quote:
Originally posted by Gam:
I've not come across anything from the RCC in recent years - either officially or unofficially - that suggests that they regard Christian groups outside of their own purlieu as being on a similar level to Buddhists and Muslims.

Quite the opposite in fact.

Well no, Francis has appeared to be more embracing that other recent Popes. But then he has also been embracing of those from other faiths, I'm not totally convinced that he considers other churches to contain authentic Christians.

Practice on the ground is a different thing.

quote:
I suspect that there's a certain anti-RC prejudice that is so entrenched within some parts of Protestantism that even if the Pope were to knock on our doors tomorrow and offer us a million pounds we'd check the wad to make sure it was legitimate tender and not counterfeit ...

Or we'd complain that he was giving it to us in £20 notes rather than in £10 and £5 ones or something ...

That's certainly true but I don't really see the relevance.

quote:
Saying that there are Christians who are not in communion with the Pope is simply a statement of fact. It doesn't imply that they are not necessarily Christians.

On the contrary, it seems that for at least some in the RCC hierarchy, non-communion clearly does raise questions about whether the other is really Christian.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Things have changed a lot Post-Vatican II, mr cheesy - and not just under the present incumbent.

Sure, you'll come across individual RCs who can be arsey about other churches and denominations (see what I did there ... [Biased]

) but I'm not aware of any official or unofficial 'line' since around the mid-1960s that suggests that the RCC doesn't consider other Christians to be 'proper' Christians.

Sure, they don't recognise Anglican and other orders - but that's not the same as saying that those who hold such orders or that those who are involved in Protestant churches aren't real Christians.

I really don't know where you're getting this idea from.

Often on the Ship I get the impression that some Protestants think that because the RCC and the Orthodox believe themselves to be the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that they don't believe that the rest of us are Christians ...

That's not what they are saying ... sure, they regard all other groups as somehow impaired or incomplete - through not being in communion with them - but they aren't saying that members of those groups aren't 'saved' or aren't 'proper' Christians.

Yes, one can encounter zealots and fundies in both the RCC and the Orthodox Churches who do take that kind of line - and I've come across a few - particularly online ...

But by and large, on the ground, they'd regard us as fellow believers who don't happen to be in full communion with them - but who could potentially become so given some adjustments.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I think this is the kind of thing that prompts Jesus to bang his head against the nearest meteor; wonder why he ever bothered with us; change his phone number; take us off his Christmas and Hannukah card lists; and go incarnate as a clam*, in another galaxy. No forwarding address.

*Nod to CS Lewis.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I really don't know where you're getting this idea from.

It'll be from the things said (and unsaid) like this.

I accept there is nuance and different ways to view this stuff. But saying that some outside the church may be saved is exactly a parallel of saying some Muslims and some Jews will be saved. Nothing I've read suggests that the RCC officially believes that other Christian churches are really Christian nor really churches.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I agree with mr cheesy who says that there is only one 'True' church.
Most Christians would believe that they,for various reasons, are part of that one 'True' church.
The idea od community is somewhat different in the Catholic church from that of most of the communities springing from the Protestant Reformation.Most Catholics do not concern themselves with the nitty gritty of church doctrine and teaching but the sense of 'community' of belonging to the whole,something bigger than ourselves, is a very palpable one.

Mr Cheesy uses the term one 'True' church,but that one 'True' church is surely 'holy' universal in time and space and based on the teachings of the Apostles.Whether we use these terms or not,they are not unknown. I may be wrong but I thought that mr cheesy was CofE.The terms Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church are certainly used in the CofE and in many of the churches of the Reformation period.

The reason why the Catholic Church doesn't often use the term 'church' for other denominations is because it realises,just like me cheesy, that there is in the final analysis only one 'True' Church.

However they do use the term church for each individual diocese.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I may be wrong but I thought that mr cheesy was CofE.The terms Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church are certainly used in the CofE and in many of the churches of the Reformation period.

To be clear, I have been in the CofE a long time and my spiritual language does include the creed. However my spiritual tribe is evangelical - and most of my family are very conservative baptist evangelicals. For them the words mean nothing (or perhaps more accurately, less than nothing). I hope that makes it clearer. Just because I know what the words mean does not mean that those I know in the evangelical churches do. They don't.

quote:
The reason why the Catholic Church doesn't often use the term 'church' for other denominations is because it realises,just like me cheesy, that there is in the final analysis only one 'True' Church.

However they do use the term church for each individual diocese.

I think the difference is the extent of overlap. It appears that most in the RCC believe that the "True" church overlaps significantly with the RCC structure.

Many Evangelicals I know would say that the "True" church has nothing to do with denominational structures and that only rare Roman Catholics would be within the "True" church - apparently more-or-less by accident due to them having a personal faith commitment and a relationship with Jesus as saviour.

You might not like this, but it the reality of how a large number in that spiritual heritage view you.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Most Christians would believe that they,for various reasons, are part of that one 'True' church.

I like to think so, certainly. But I don't equate that with any particular denomination here on earth - I think the One True Church is simply the Body of Christ and as such consists of Christians across the world, be they Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Fundypentagelical or whatever.

Just as in the Father's house there are many mansions, so in the Church there are many different expressions of faith. Sure, some of them look and feel completely different to each other - but then (to return to the Body of Christ metaphor) an ear looks and feels completely different to a pancreas, yet both are still valuable parts of the same body.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't get this, mr cheesy, on the one hand you provide a link to an article which, whilst asserting that salvation cannot be found outside the Church - as understood from an RC - and by extension - Orthodox ecclesiology - yet clearly states that non-Catholics can be saved ... and with some tone of disapproval ...

And at the same time you cite conservative evangelical relatives of yours who might consider it possible for RCs to be saved 'by accident' as it were ... and whilst not doing so approvingly ie. 'this is my position ...'

Whilst ignoring what the Catholic Herald article also says - that just because someone is 'within' the fold, as it were, it doesn't mean that they aren't a wolf in sheep's clothing --

'How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!' - a quote from St Augustine's homilies.

So people outside the fold may also be inside the fold in some mysterious way ... and yes, RCs and Orthodox would extend that to some Protestants - in a similar way as they might to Jews, Muslims and Buddhists or Hindus.

But that's not saying that Protestants are the 'same' as people of other faiths - that Protestants aren't Christians. At least, that's not how I understand it ... unless I'm missing something.

What the article - and what I take to be the official RC position - seems to be saying is that Presbyterians and other Protestants might not be damned simply on account of not being members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - and if they are saved then in some sense they always were a member of that somehow - even without realising it - they would stand a better chance - as it were - if they were to unite themselves with Holy Church as the RCs see it.

Which whilst it might rankle with Protestant sensibilities does carry a certain internal logic which may - or may not - apply to the views of fundamentalist evangelicals.

I suppose in their different ways, both the strong-line RCC take on this and the ardent take of the Protestant conservative evangelicals are like book-ends ... they are both setting strict parameters.

However, in my own experience, I've found RCs and Orthodox to be far more expansive in terms of their view of who might ultimately be saved than most conservative evangelicals I've met.

It's one thing for us Protestants to wring our hands and bemoan Rome's position on this when our fellow co-religionists on the more conservative end are busily condemning to Hell anyone and everyone who doesn't hold to the same tenets as them or who hasn't prayed a particular prayer or believed in a particular way or given assent to this, that or the other set of propositions ... and so on and so forth ...

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Most Christians would believe that they,for various reasons, are part of that one 'True' church.

Actually, if the "One True Church" spends much time banging on about who's in and who's out, I'd be embarrassed to be a member of it.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't get this, mr cheesy, on the one hand you provide a link to an article which, whilst asserting that salvation cannot be found outside the Church - as understood from an RC - and by extension - Orthodox ecclesiology - yet clearly states that non-Catholics can be saved ... and with some tone of disapproval ...

And at the same time you cite conservative evangelical relatives of yours who might consider it possible for RCs to be saved 'by accident' as it were ... and whilst not doing so approvingly ie. 'this is my position ...'

Whilst ignoring what the Catholic Herald article also says - that just because someone is 'within' the fold, as it were, it doesn't mean that they aren't a wolf in sheep's clothing --

'How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!' - a quote from St Augustine's homilies.

So people outside the fold may also be inside the fold in some mysterious way ... and yes, RCs and Orthodox would extend that to some Protestants - in a similar way as they might to Jews, Muslims and Buddhists or Hindus.

But that's not saying that Protestants are the 'same' as people of other faiths - that Protestants aren't Christians. At least, that's not how I understand it ... unless I'm missing something.

Hard to respond to a comment that is so full of double/triple negatives. If you want me to answer try being concise and clear what the question is.

You asked me previously why I thought that the RCC treats other churches as it treats other religions. I've given you some reasons and links with the words of the most recent two Popes plus some explanation of how I interpret those words.

You are free to disagree. I accept I could be wrong - but I also assert that I'm not the only person who sees the highest hierarchy speaking in that way.

The fact that my conservative Evangelical relatives believe the opposite is not really anything to do with that point, I was responding to the comment about the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", from whom they would only accept the words "One Holy Church".

quote:
What the article - and what I take to be the official RC position - seems to be saying is that Presbyterians and other Protestants might not be damned simply on account of not being members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - and if they are saved then in some sense they always were a member of that somehow - even without realising it - they would stand a better chance - as it were - if they were to unite themselves with Holy Church as the RCs see it.

As I said earlier, this is about how one views the overlap between the RCC (in this case) and the One True Church. Understandably, perhaps, the RCC sees itself as fully encompassed by that phrase with occasional people within the faith but outwith of it. Evangelicals would in many cases not describe structures at all when talking about the True Church and some would describe the structures of the RCC as being the antithesis of the True Church.

quote:
Which whilst it might rankle with Protestant sensibilities does carry a certain internal logic which may - or may not - apply to the views of fundamentalist evangelicals.

I think all positions are internally consistent. The issue is not to find a view which is most internally consistent, but to understand how different perspectives of the faith understand each other. In my experience, those who are totally unused to other worldviews tend to have a very linear way of understanding other Christian traditions outwith of their own. In the case of the RCC beliefs, I still believe that the official doctrine is that other churches are not really Christian or churches. Of course, many Protestants think the reverse about the RCC.

My view, which I've articulated here very recently, is that I have absolutely no issue with anyone following their conscience into any church. but that I reject the RCC's claims to be the centre and definition of Christianity and thus could never be a RC.

quote:
I suppose in their different ways, both the strong-line RCC take on this and the ardent take of the Protestant conservative evangelicals are like book-ends ... they are both setting strict parameters.

Yes.

quote:
However, in my own experience, I've found RCs and Orthodox to be far more expansive in terms of their view of who might ultimately be saved than most conservative evangelicals I've met.

As I also said previously. the practice on the ground may vary.

quote:
It's one thing for us Protestants to wring our hands and bemoan Rome's position on this when our fellow co-religionists on the more conservative end are busily condemning to Hell anyone and everyone who doesn't hold to the same tenets as them or who hasn't prayed a particular prayer or believed in a particular way or given assent to this, that or the other set of propositions ... and so on and so forth ...

Excuse me, I am clearly not doing that. I am acknowledging that there are some from my own paddock that call RCs non-Christian. But I'm also asserting that the "normal" position of the RCC hierarchy is that salvation is only to be found within that church.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure that in 'real life' that many people - of whatever Christian confession or tradition - spend their every waking moment mithering about who's in and who's out ...

It seems to be more of a feature of:

- Online discussion boards.

- Converts from one tradition to another - who use it as a way of confirming/justifying their paradigm shift.

- Fundies of all stripes and kinds - RC, Orthodox and Protestant.

Now, that isn't to say that the RCC and the Orthodox DON'T believe themselves to the the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - of course they do ...

Nor is it to say that there aren't people within each who are almost obsessive about it ... I met a lovely Romanian monk once who told me, sadly, how when he first joined the monastery in Romania some of the older guys there were convinced that both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism were Satanic ... and that they only don't come out with those sort of accusations now because they've learned to button their lip - not because they've revised their opinions ...

But by and large, I've found those who DO believe themselves to be part of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in a 'visible' sense aren't necessarily going around lamenting - or else rubbing their hands - that there are other people around who might not be part of it ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

OK listen, I'm unwell and tetchy. I'm not going to keep repeating myself - if you disagree than put up more of an argument than "In my experience x group of people are not like that". I've already agreed that practice on the ground varies. The point is about the official doctrine of the church, not how individual Roman Catholics treat other people.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I'm happy to be with the official doctrine of the RC Church that all who call on the name of Christ and many of those who would call on the name of Christ if they knew about it are part of the (one True) Church.

The Catholic church says that we have to love God and our neighbour as best we can, before we can achieve the bliss of Heaven.

Not everyone in the Church is guaranteed that salvation.Although it is given freely we have to accept Christ's offer, or at least not outrightly reject it.

Just being in the Church just means 'being in the Church'

There is a visible entity on earth which is known as the Catholic Church.
The largest single body of Christians are members
of that visible entity.Without spending too much time comparing numbers it does give the visible Catholic Church the right to speak for a large body of Christians.

But that visible entity recognises a much greater invisible entity,which we could call the 'One True'Church.

Just as mr cheesy is not concerned in any positive way with the claims of the Catholic Church (of which BTW the Church of England,claims to be an integral part,though separated from the visible form) I am neither worried nor depressed by the views of some of his Baptist Evangelical relatives. They are entitled to their views, just as I am entitled to mine.

The closer we come to Christ, the closer we come to each other.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry, cross-posted with mr cheesy ...

Ok - fair enough, you've clarified your position but I still think you are missing some subtleties and nuance.

I apologise for my convoluted post but one of the reasons for that is that, by its very nature, this issue is so convoluted that it requires caveats and qualifications.

Which is what I was introducing - and admittedly in detriment to both written style and sense.

I s'pose the old Orthodox adage, 'We can say where the Church is, but not where it isn't ...' has to apply to any viewpoint that posits a 'visible' Church rather than - in Protestant terms - an 'invisible' one.

However we cut it, both ends of the spectrum seem to take a 'not all Israel are Israel' approach on this one.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

The closer we come to Christ, the closer we come to each other.

If you mean that the closer we get to Christ then the less we try to force other Christians to conform to our own understanding, then I agree.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Count me as another one who isn't too interested in drawing lines.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I should add that not only Catholics, not only Orthodox, not only Protestants of the more than 20000 stripes, not only Jews, not only Muslims, not only Hindus, not only Buddhists, but indeed ALL OF HUMANITY, we are children of God.

With a common father,no matter how we recognise Him or Her or Them,we are all brothers and sisters.

We are sometimes separated by language, by culture, but we have to try to work together,respecting our differences.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I'm glad we agree,mr cheesy,as I have no interest in trying to force you to my point of view.

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I should add that not only Catholics, not only Orthodox, not only Protestants of the more than 20000 stripes, not only Jews, not only Muslims, not only Hindus, not only Buddhists, but indeed ALL OF HUMANITY, we are children of God.

With a common father,no matter how we recognise Him or Her or Them,we are all brothers and sisters.

We are sometimes separated by language, by culture, but we have to try to work together,respecting our differences.

I totally agree

[Votive]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I suspect all denominations have an element of heresy in them.
I seem to remember even Jesus Christ was found guilty of blasphemy by the institutional religious authorities of the time. Jesus the Heresiarch. Got an intriguing sort of ring to it.

That's an intriguing observation, Anselmina. But of course, there is a sense in which the religious authorities of His time were absolutley correct: anyone who claimed for Himself what Jesus did - that he was the Son of God (i.e., was Himself divine) - was gulity of the worst kind of heresy: blasphemy. Only, they forgot to include the caveat "unless such a person really is what he claimes to be." And, of course Jesus was, or rather, Is: "Before Abraham was, I AM".

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, all those are Christians who are validly baptised. All those are heretics who hold to an opinion contrary to a defined teaching of the Catholic Church, but only some of those are heretics "proper". The distinction is drawn between those who happen to hold to an erroneous belief in ignorance of it being contrary to defined teaching (such are called "material" heretics) and those who in full knowledge of what the Church teaches propose something contrary to it (such are called "formal" heretics). To the extent to which you distance yourself from the teachings of the Church, to that extent you compromise your Christian identity. But the baptised are the baptised and there is a clear distinction drawn byt he Church between them and the non-Christian religions.

Now I know some of this won't jive with those who want to believe or to have others believe that the Catholic Church is way liberal on the whole who is and isn't a sound Christian thing, but I think it is essential that Catholics are just honest about this. It's our teaching and I think we have to own it, and not equivocate for the sake of getting along.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What the article - and what I take to be the official RC position - seems to be saying is that Presbyterians and other Protestants might not be damned simply on account of not being members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - and if they are saved then in some sense they always were a member of that somehow - even without realising it - they would stand a better chance - as it were - if they were to unite themselves with Holy Church as the RCs see it.

As much as IngoB and I crossed swords, I will say this about missing him: when something like this came up, he would have the relevant paragraph(s) from the official RCC catechism to hand, and tell us what Mother Rome actually believes.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's one thing for us Protestants to wring our hands and bemoan Rome's position on this when our fellow co-religionists on the more conservative end are busily condemning to Hell anyone and everyone who doesn't hold to the same tenets as them or who hasn't prayed a particular prayer or believed in a particular way or given assent to this, that or the other set of propositions ... and so on and so forth ...

Or, in this country, who votes for the wrong political party.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Understandably, perhaps, the RCC sees itself as fully encompassed by that phrase with occasional people within the faith but outwith of it. Evangelicals would in many cases not describe structures at all when talking about the True Church and some would describe the structures of the RCC as being the antithesis of the True Church.

So which one is really being uncharitable? The Catholic who sees Church as being hierarchical, and admits that people who are outwith the hierarchy may still be saved, or the Protestant who views Church as being coterminus with the Saved, and condemns the largest Christian body in the world wholesale to perdition? Hell, if "charitable" is too far a stretch, how about even "halfway realistic"?

quote:
As I also said previously. the practice on the ground may vary.

Would it not behoove one who is not familiar with the practice on the ground to paint with a narrower brush?

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK listen, I'm unwell and tetchy. I'm not going to keep repeating myself - if you disagree than put up more of an argument than "In my experience x group of people are not like that". I've already agreed that practice on the ground varies. The point is about the official doctrine of the church, not how individual Roman Catholics treat other people.

Then read this: Lumen Gentium

Then this: Dominus Iesus

And then come back seeking clarification of terms and passages you don't understand. Then you will have a very reasonable appreciation of the Catholic Church's doctrine on the Church as currently expressed. At which point it may be appropriate to start to pick holes in it, disagree with it or accept joyfully and be welcomed in. 😉

[Link wasn't working - fixed. Oh, and welcome back [Yipee]

- Eliab Purgatory host]

[ 12. March 2016, 07:46: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Catechism of the Catholic Church

836 all men are called to the catholic unity of the People of God. And to it,in different ways belong or are ordered : the Catholic faithful,others who believe in Christ and finally all mankind....

837 Even though incorporated into the Church,one who does not persevere in charity is not saved.He remains in the bosom of the Church,but 'in body' not 'in heart'.

838 The church knows she is joined in many ways to the baptised who are honoured by the name of Christian,but... have not preserved communion of unity with the successor of Peter ... they are in CERTAIN,although IMPERFECT COMMUNION with the Catholic Church.

846 The Church,a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.Hence they cannot be saved who,KNOWING that the Catholic church was founded as necessary by God through Christ would refuse to enter or to remain within it.

847 This affirmation is NOT aimed at those who no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church.

848The Church still has the obligation and the sacred right to evangelize all men.

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

Parsing who is and isn't really a Christian is one of the longest lived pastimes in the Church (however defined). Just remember, it's all fun and games until someone gets burned at the stake!

Well said, bearing in mind that Calvin burned one of his opponents at the stake (according to what I read)

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Most Christians would believe that they,for various reasons, are part of that one 'True' church.
I like to think so, certainly. But I don't equate that with any particular denomination here on earth - I think the One True Church is simply the Body of Christ and as such consists of Christians across the world, be they Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Fundypentagelical or whatever.

Just as in the Father's house there are many mansions, so in the Church there are many different expressions of faith. Sure, some of them look and feel completely different to each other - but then (to return to the Body of Christ metaphor) an ear looks and feels completely different to a pancreas, yet both are still valuable parts of the same body.

Christ is a diamond, so perfectly cut, with multiple facets so bright.
Around Him stands all manner of men, each seeing one aspect of light,
Christ turns but a fraction, and the sparkling lights change;
New wonders the viewers perceive.
Each light somewhat different; specifically meant,
for the ones who the Spirit receive.
None has the right to say to another, the light that you see isn't true.
The facet for him was cut for his purpose; yours was cut spec’ly for you.
But all viewers jointly, their own lights held true, make a composite brilliant reflection.
It's the Body of Christ . . . The Diamond's intent . . .
TO MIRROR ITS WONDROUS PERFECTION

[Theophilocrates]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Catechism of the Catholic Church

836 all men are called to the catholic unity of the People of God. And to it,in different ways belong or are ordered : the Catholic faithful,others who believe in Christ and finally all mankind....

837 Even though incorporated into the Church,one who does not persevere in charity is not saved.He remains in the bosom of the Church,but 'in body' not 'in heart'.

838 The church knows she is joined in many ways to the baptised who are honoured by the name of Christian,but... have not preserved communion of unity with the successor of Peter ... they are in CERTAIN,although IMPERFECT COMMUNION with the Catholic Church.

846 The Church,a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.Hence they cannot be saved who,KNOWING that the Catholic church was founded as necessary by God through Christ would refuse to enter or to remain within it.

847 This affirmation is NOT aimed at those who no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church.

848The Church still has the obligation and the sacred right to evangelize all men.

Forget the content and look at the style.

The numbers (and such big numbers: "eight hundred and forty eighthly ..") suggest massive scope and organisation. Imagine if this was an agenda what the meeting would be like, if someone's to do list what the person would be like.

"Even though incorporated into the church, one who does not persevere .." - this is not everyday language. It seeks to define and clarify, to manage and control.

847 is interesting because although a softer statement it implies that other affirmations are aimed at people. It goes on to talk about the church, calling it Christ's church, and I'm surprised, because in the other statements there is none of the modesty that you would expect from those who recognise that they are merely caretakers and not proprietors of the church.

The document uses man and men for person and people. I don't know it's age, but it is more than thirty years since this sort of English was acceptable.

837 is interesting because it uses metaphorical language: bosom, heart and body. I think this is the correct language to use about God, so it intrigues me to wonder why it is here and not elsewhere. Perhaps this bullet point's recognition of the importance of charity, alone in a volley of others that have forgotten it, is significant.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

hatless. NOTHING is significant. Absolutely nothing. Our grandiosity is the ultimate tragi-comedy. We are the couple rowing on the beach in Time Bandits, she holding their baby in the opening to their hovel, he stalking off to go walk about. Rearing out of the sea is a giant, perfectly occluded by the hovel. He steps on the tableau without noticing in passing.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So which one is really being uncharitable? The Catholic who sees Church as being hierarchical, and admits that people who are outwith the hierarchy may still be saved, or the Protestant who views Church as being coterminus with the Saved, and condemns the largest Christian body in the world wholesale to perdition? Hell, if "charitable" is too far a stretch, how about even "halfway realistic"?

I don't think there is anything to be gained from attempting to parse which is the more reasonable, the more charitable position.

The issue is not to try to weigh which is right but in how different Christians view and perceive each other. And maybe the perception of the perception of the Other.

quote:
Would it not behoove one who is not familiar with the practice on the ground to paint with a narrower brush?

No idea what this means.

[ 12. March 2016, 10:12: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, all those are Christians who are validly baptised. All those are heretics who hold to an opinion contrary to a defined teaching of the Catholic Church, but only some of those are heretics "proper". The distinction is drawn between those who happen to hold to an erroneous belief in ignorance of it being contrary to defined teaching (such are called "material" heretics) and those who in full knowledge of what the Church teaches propose something contrary to it (such are called "formal" heretics). To the extent to which you distance yourself from the teachings of the Church, to that extent you compromise your Christian identity. But the baptised are the baptised and there is a clear distinction drawn byt he Church between them and the non-Christian religions.

OK this leads to the question of what is valid baptism. Does a presbyterian, pentecostal or baptist baptism count as valid - given that some might not acknowledge the RCC baptism as valid?

What about the Salvation Army? Maybe these points are answered in the links others have provided, I'll look at them next.

quote:
Now I know some of this won't jive with those who want to believe or to have others believe that the Catholic Church is way liberal on the whole who is and isn't a sound Christian thing, but I think it is essential that Catholics are just honest about this. It's our teaching and I think we have to own it, and not equivocate for the sake of getting along.

Seems fair to me.

But then, given I absolutely reject some of the defined teaching of the RCC, I'm clearly a "proper" heretic even if my baptism might be considered valid.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Then read this: Lumen Gentium

Thank you. Can you help me unpack this? There seem to be sections which can be interpreted in different ways; for example Para 13 appears to be associating true believers with acknowledging the Primacy of Rome, Para 15 talks about people who are baptised but not in the church and seems to suggest certain behaviours which would be necessary to be "joined with us in the Holy Spirit" - can you talk about what is valid baptism, and how this applies to Baptists, Salvation Army etc? What about people who do not recognise the Primacy of Rome and do not believe that Rome is in fact Christian?

quote:
Then this: Dominus Iesus

With reference to Para 2 and Para 3, how does the church's relation to Islam, say, differ to its relation with the Salvation Army?

Thanks.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nothing I've read suggests that the RCC officially believes that other Christian churches are really Christian nor really churches.

Well, in part at least, she officially believes both those things. Both Forthview and Trisagion have given you some material pertinent to that. Although reading through the whole documents Trisagion linked to might seem like a bit of a chore, I recommend doing so nonetheless.

As I said earlier, the RCC does generally accept all the validly baptised as being Christian, and it does accept that some non-Catholic (i.e., not in communion with the Holy See) communities of the baptised are churches proper. Most of Orthodox churches fall under that category.

Other such Christian communities - those without particular distinguishing features or "marks of the Church" (such as Holy Orders in the apostolic successsion) are not considered churches properly so called - they are instead termed "ecclesial communities" (i.e., communities that nonetheless bear some of the features that mark them out as resembling the Church(es) proper). Wiki has a clear, short account here.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The time has come, the walrus said ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The time has come, the walrus said ...

to speak of many things; of shoes and ships and sealing wax; of cabbages and kings.

I was just thinking about the Walrus and the Carpenter the other day.

Not sure the relevance here, though.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK this leads to the question of what is valid baptism. Does a presbyterian, pentecostal or baptist baptism count as valid - given that some might not acknowledge the RCC baptism as valid?

The RCC accepts as valid all those baptisms which are intended as such and which meet the criteria of the recitation of the formula "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and which involve the simultaneous movement through water or of water upon the recipient (anything from full immersion through, at a minimum, to the pouring of water over the head of the recipient).

Any baptism - even if performed by a non-baptised person - would count as baptism as far as the RCC is concerned. If any of these criteria is lacking, however, there would be a presumtion of invalidity and in order to be received into the Catholic Church the person would have to undergo a valid baptism (either conditionally if there was some doubt, or unconditionally if there was no doubt as to the invalidity of the first one).

In my case - baptised at the age of 12 by the Scottish Episcopal Church - all the essential criteria were met and I was clearly able to remember that they had been. So when I came to be received into the RCC I was not "rebaptised" even conditionally and instead proceeded straight to Confirmation.

Hope this helps.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

Hope this helps.

It does, thanks. But it also suggests that the RCC does not believe those with invalid baptism are Christians, no?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Read the excerpts from the Catechism provided.
Baptism is the normal way of entering the Church,but God's love extends to all His creation where they call themselves Christians or not.

Yes,there are those who call themselves Christian but who are not baptised. If for some reason they cannot follow the direct command of Christ,then there is the 'baptism of desire'. By this we understand that there are some who lack the formal ceremony of baptism but who have a real desire to be members of Christ's Body

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

In other words, those who are not baptised by water in the manner I described above are not, in the full straightforward sense of the term, Christians.

Those who genuinely desire baptism but who cannot get it are deemed to have "baptism of desire" and if they die in that state are not presumed to have lost their chances of salvation thereby. The same applies a fortiori to those who have a "baptism of blood", i.e., who die for the faith even without having received water baptism. They are presumed to have attained salvation through martyrdom.

But both these categores are exceptions to the general "rule" that a water baptism as described is an essential criterion for full, striaghtforward membership of the Church.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Forget the content and look at the style.

The numbers (and such big numbers: "eight hundred and forty eighthly ..") suggest massive scope and organisation. Imagine if this was an agenda what the meeting would be like, if someone's to do list what the person would be like.

What do you mean by 'suggest'?
Suggesting is a similar activity to evoking in one way, and in another is similar to alluding, which you consider functions of poetic and religious language. So are you asserting that the size of the catechism gives you a feeling of religious awe?
Are you asserting an individual and subjective association, that because subjective other people may not share? There's no general interpersonal association between this and an agenda.
The document I can think of of the top of my head that is most similar formally, in consisting of numbered paragraphs, is Traherne's Centuries of Meditations. That doesn't remind me of an agenda.

quote:
"Even though incorporated into the church, one who does not persevere .." - this is not everyday language. It seeks to define and clarify, to manage and control.

It's not everyday, certainly. 'Incorporated into the church' is religious language if anything is.
You assert that it seeks to define and clarify, to manage and control, as if that follows from it being not everyday language. This does not follow.
Nothing in the passage is an actual definition.

You say 'to define and clarify, to manage and control' as if those activities are variations upon a theme, as if in a thesaurus. But they are not variations upon a theme. Indeed, clarification is antithetical to control of the addressee.

quote:
847 is interesting because although a softer statement it implies that other affirmations are aimed at people. It goes on to talk about the church, calling it Christ's church, and I'm surprised, because in the other statements there is none of the modesty that you would expect from those who recognise that they are merely caretakers and not proprietors of the church.

I'm not sure how you would expect statements to show modesty in their style. They're declarative sentences that aim to clarify, which I feel is as appropriately modest as language can be in its style.

quote:
837 is interesting because it uses metaphorical language: bosom, heart and body. I think this is the correct language to use about God, so it intrigues me to wonder why it is here and not elsewhere. Perhaps this bullet point's recognition of the importance of charity, alone in a volley of others that have forgotten it, is significant.

And yet other paragraphs use metaphorical language, such as 'incorporate' and 'pilgrimage'. Indeed, I'd say that those are, if not in their first youth, still more effective as metaphors than the tired, indeed dead, language of 'heart' and 'bosom'.

[ 12. March 2016, 12:58: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]Thank you. Can you help me unpack this?

Yes, of course. Bear with me, I'm travelling today and have only my telephone: tomorrow is similarly busy. I'll get to it as soon as I am able - likely to be Monday.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Well mr cheesy, the walrus spoke portentously about nonsense.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

In discussions about heresy, it disturbs me that I perceive a hair-splitting logic in the pronouncements of the churches that's utterly absent in the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of the scribes and Pharisees, on the other hand....

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I think that is why the Catholic church tends to avoid the use of the emotive word 'heresy' nowadays.
Of course it still exists as a theological concept.

We are not the ones who judge.It is God who judges,but the Church tries its best to clarify
and teach,as it has a divine mandate so to do, so that people just may have a better understanding of how they will be judged.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
In discussions about heresy, it disturbs me that I perceive a hair-splitting logic in the pronouncements of the churches that's utterly absent in the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of the scribes and Pharisees, on the other hand....

It doesn't disturb me really - there are plenty of Christians with which I have little in common. I suppose more of an issue is what different groups think they're doing when they mix with others, particularly in the context of ecumenical events.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think this is the kind of thing that prompts Jesus to bang his head against the nearest meteor; wonder why he ever bothered with us; change his phone number; take us off his Christmas and Hannukah card lists; and go incarnate as a clam*, in another galaxy. No forwarding address.

*Nod to CS Lewis.

Now I'm considering how one would crucify a clam...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that is why the Catholic church tends to avoid the use of the emotive word 'heresy' nowadays.
Of course it still exists as a theological concept.

We are not the ones who judge.It is God who judges,but the Church tries its best to clarify
and teach,as it has a divine mandate so to do, so that people just may have a better understanding of how they will be judged.

So how does the Church do that for me? In what way am I found wanting by the Church? What does the Church know that I don't? How? About judgement? Or anything? I mean ANYTHING?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Dafyd, what on earth was that about? What is this argument you're trying to have with me?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

LC--

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think this is the kind of thing that prompts Jesus to bang his head against the nearest meteor; wonder why he ever bothered with us; change his phone number; take us off his Christmas and Hannukah card lists; and go incarnate as a clam*, in another galaxy. No forwarding address.

*Nod to CS Lewis.

Now I'm considering how one would crucify a clam...

Pssst...he made sure to choose unfallen clams in an unfallen water world. No crucifixion possible nor necessary. This is his way of recuperating.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

They might make chowder of him. As a sacrament, I mean...

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Martin60 0bviously if you know everything you don't consider that you need the Church.

Jesus came to remind us how we can live a better life. He gave teaching through his stories and parables and sometimes directly in reminding us to love God and our neighbour.

These may seem very simple things but it takes some people as lifetime to learn them.

Even if it doesn't seem like it, everything that the Church does, is done with the aim of reinforcing the message which Jesus gave us.

It's sometimes a bit like the law of the land.
It doesn't always seem like anything the ordinary person can understand , but it is basically there to provide justice and peace for the citizens of a country.

For the Church we are not individuals alone in this world, but part of a faith community.

Now whether you personally consider yourself not to be in need of guidance by the Church, does not necessarily indicate that there are others who feel exactly the same. Nor does it release the Church from its obligation put upon it by its it to the world at large.Divine Master to attempt to follow His way and to explain

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Dafyd, what on earth was that about? What is this argument you're trying to have with me?

You said some things I think are false, based on underlying theses about language that I think are false and have bad philistine consequences.
I expressed disagreement. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?

[ 13. March 2016, 09:54: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Am I the only one who doesn't have a clue what the various current discussions are about? [Confused]

(By all means, go ahead [Smile]

)

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The time has come, the walrus said ...

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Am I the only one who doesn't have a clue what the various current discussions are about?

(By all means, go ahead )

Me too

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Are you aware of The Walrus and the Carpenter by Lewis Carrol. It appears in at least some versions in one of his Alice books but has little connection to the story.

Jengie

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Are you aware of The Walrus and the Carpenter by Lewis Carrol. It appears in at least some versions in one of his Alice books but has little connection to the story.

Jengie

I'm pretty sure it is in all versions of Through the Looking Glass but fail to understand the repeated partial quotations on this thread - other than as partially hidden criticisms of the thread, other posters or the churches under discussion (I can't parse which).

Frankly it illustrates why Martin's opaqueness is entirely unhelpful at times.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

My opacity is a metaphor for that, the meaning, the value, of the thread, resonant with LeRoc.

Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5, lines 26-28 come to mind.

[ 13. March 2016, 14:10: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
They might make chowder of him. As a sacrament, I mean...

On a planet whose highest life form is the clam, who eats chowder?

[gaaa! spelling]

[ 13. March 2016, 14:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Cannibals. And Christians.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My opacity is a metaphor for that, the meaning, the value, of the thread, resonant with LeRoc.

Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5, lines 26-28 come to mind.

Martin, you have a choice as we all do; can you please either contribute constructively or take your one-liners and use them elsewhere?

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

I'm with LeRoc and Martin60 [Confused]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I see. So because we don't understand what others post, that means we can all suggest it is nonsense. Is that it?

If it is too hard, don't read or contribute to the thread. Not difficult.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Yes, of course. Bear with me, I'm travelling today and have only my telephone: tomorrow is similarly busy. I'll get to it as soon as I am able - likely to be Monday.

I have another question relating to this: Chesterbelloc has said that the RCC recognises baptism conducted in the correct way and says this is about the words used. So does this mean that the person doing it doesn't matter?

And if that is the case for baptism, why isn't it the same for other sacraments such as the Eucharist?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Chesterbelloc has said that the RCC recognises baptism conducted in the correct way and says this is about the words used. So does this mean that the person doing it doesn't matter?

And if that is the case for baptism, why isn't it the same for other sacraments such as the Eucharist?

To save Trisagion the bother - although I hope he will correct me if he thinks I've got this wrong - I can confirm (pun foreseen but otherwise unintended) that in an emergency any person whatsoever who intends to do what the Church does in baptism and uses the correct formula and matter may baptise another. This means, to some extent, that "the person doing it doesn't matter" - even a properly disposed atheist could in extremis baptise. But "properly disposed" would mean understanding (however braodly) what baptism is meant to be and, even if not believing in such effects as it is supposed by the Church to have, nonetheless performing it "in that spirit" (at the very least not intending not to do what the Church intends) and with those technical spefications. Such is the importance of baptism in the economy of salvation that anyone may perform it even in these extreme circumstances.

But the Holy Eucharist is something else. I don't want to make too much of this, but it would be possible - say, for someone who died between their baptism and their first Communion - for a baptised person to attain salvation without ever having received the Blessed Sacrament. By divine ordinance (as the Church understands it), only a validly ordained priest is capable of effecting the Eucharistic Sacrifice - so here, the person doing it very much does matter. Because that's the way Christ instituted it, according to the RCC.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My opacity is a metaphor for that, the meaning, the value, of the thread, resonant with LeRoc.

Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5, lines 26-28 come to mind.

Rather than put the hosts to the trouble of working out what you're on about, and whether it's a breach of a commandment, how about we let the irrelevant obscurities drop?

If you think the subject proposed for discussion on this thread is pointless, then don't post on it.

Eliab
Purgatory host

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

To me it stands to reason that if we are to look for "true" Christianity, the place to find it is close to its cradle. Thus the Orthodox Churches, both Eastern and Oriental, founded by Apostles of Christ are closest historically and geographically to where it all began. As Christianity spread westwards into Europe, it added innovations which weren't part of the original faith, such as Augustine's original sin, the filioque, culminating in the Calvinist TULIP and atonement models such as psa. I thus have the utmost respect for the authenticity and Apostolic origins of the Orthodox Church.

Where I lose my respect for it is in things such as its warring overlapping jurisdictions, and its utter refusal to deal in any meaningful way with the rest of Christendom. To the Orthodox the rest of Christianity has taken a wrong path and there's nothing to discuss except that they repent and repudiate that path. A convert to Orthodoxy is required to repent of being in schism with the Church of Christ. This is nonsense. A person raised in Catholicism or Protestantism may decide that Orthodox teaching is more authentic, but they have nothing to repent of in terms of already being Christian. Try talking to the monks of Mt Athos about their astronomically incorrect calendar, and you'd be lucky to get out alive!

I attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy several times a year, and the seamless way in which liturgy, spirituality and mysticism combine is absolutely beautiful, but I don't repent of having been brought up in a different tradition, nor do I have any interest in hearing prayers in Old Slavonic.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

originally posted by PaulTH

Thus the Orthodox Churches, both Eastern and Oriental, founded by Apostles of Christ are closest historically and geographically to where it all began. As Christianity spread westwards into Europe, it added innovations which weren't part of the original faith,

Surely the church in Rome was also founded by an apostle of Christ.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

The Church of England was founded by Jesus.

I suspect that other denominations rejoice that they were too.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

quote:

originally posted by PaulTH

Thus the Orthodox Churches, both Eastern and Oriental, founded by Apostles of Christ are closest historically and geographically to where it all began. As Christianity spread westwards into Europe, it added innovations which weren't part of the original faith,

Surely the church in Rome was also founded by an apostle of Christ.

PaulTH gave 3 criteria. You focused on one and ignored the other 2.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A convert to Orthodoxy is required to repent of being in schism with the Church of Christ. This is nonsense.

You're right, this is nonsense. But it's not universal. I was not made to repent of being a heretic. One can't really be a heretic unless one is first Orthodox. And as far as I know Protestants aren't "in schism" but just outside the Orthodox fold, full stop.

This may be because you're visiting a church that does services in Slavonic. Run away.

Warring overlapping jurisdictions are a scandal and a shame. This is not our finest hour.

Don't ask the monks of Athos about anything except the path to union with God. Anything else and they are talking outside their area of expertise, and their opinion is worth no more or less than that of any other person on the planet. I suspect the more truly pious ones -- the ones farthest along in the quest to know and be known by God -- don't flap their gums about politics or calendars or the evils of Protestantism.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The Church of England was founded by Jesus.

Ah, so those feet in ancient times did walk upon England's mountains green. Well that answers that question.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

"One true church" thinking is ecclesial chauvinism.

And is no more attractive than any other kind.

Human nature being what it is, the point of view that one religious or national tradition is superior to others sounds ever so much more reasonable when the tradition being discussed is one's own. When it's not one's own, it can come across as foolish, prideful, self-serving, or idolatrous.

To everyone except the French, the idea that France is what God wants every country to be like is nonsense.
God is not foreign.

That a Frenchman should at some level feel this is not surprising. It's human to feel a loving appreciation of one's own place, people and culture.

But we expect of reflective and intelligent Frenchmen that they have the empathy to realise that Germans and Italians have similar feelings about their own countries. And therefore to hold their chauvinistic feelings of French superiority as a personal, subjective opinion, not as an objective truth. And certainly not as a justification for treating others less well than they expect others to treat them.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

quote:

originally posted by PaulTH

Thus the Orthodox Churches, both Eastern and Oriental, founded by Apostles of Christ are closest historically and geographically to where it all began. As Christianity spread westwards into Europe, it added innovations which weren't part of the original faith,

Surely the church in Rome was also founded by an apostle of Christ.
PaulTH gave 3 criteria. You focused on one and ignored the other 2.

Eh? "Ignored" because didn't choose to address? Moonlitdoor put a fair point to PaulTH who seemed to imply by what he said that Rome was not founded by an Apostle. Why should he have to address everything else PaulTH said in order to put this straight?

Anyway, Rome wasn't founded by one of the Apostles.

It was founded by two of the Apostles.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

To go back to the OP 'Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism heretical ?'The OP does not suggest who might be calling whom heretical.

Orthodoxy,one might suppose,could call Protestantism and Roman Catholicism heretical.
However,as mousethief has just reminded us,those who have not already been Orthodox,cannot be branded as 'heretical' if they have never been part of the Orthodox community.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church which is a compendium of Catholic teaching - not an ex cathedra statement, but an attempt to explain Catholic teachings and understandings to those who might be interested, has amongst its 2855 paragraphs only two which touch upon heresy.

2089 Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must must be believed with divine and catholic faith. Apostacy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

817 speaks about wounds to unity

In fact in this one and only Church of God there arose from the beginning certain rifts which the Apostles strongly censure..in subsequent centuries more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.
The ruptures do not occur without human sin.
Where there is sin, there are also schisms, heresies and disputes. Where there is virtue, there are also harmony and unity, from which arises the one heart and the one soul of all believers.

818 However one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into those communities (separated from the Catholic Church) and in them brought up in the faith of Christ, AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ACCEPTS THEM WITH RESPECT AND AFFECTION AS BROTHERS.
All who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ and have the right to be called Christians and WITH GOOD REASON are accepted a brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

So, in short from a Catholic POV only a person who has been baptised into the Catholic faith, who has a full understanding of the teachings of the Church and yet obstinately denies the truth can be considered as a 'heretic'.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Surely the church in Rome was also founded by an apostle of Christ.

Certainly it was, and the primacy of the See of Peter was recognised by the Universal Church of the first millennium. But the Bishop of Rome, one of the original five patriarchs of the Church was regarded as primus inter pares, not as a the ultimate authority. Early in the history of the Church, the problem of Babel intervened with the Latin speaking West and Greek speaking East not always understanding each other. St Augustine, for example, had little understanding of the writings of the Greek speaking Fathers of the Church.

It was on the question of papal authority that the Great Schism occurred. The Popes and the Latin West thought they had the right to impose doctrinal innovations on the rest of the Church, wheras the East would only accept changes made by an Ecumenical Council. The rest is history. Many innovations were made in the West following the schism and even Pope Benedict XVI had the humility to realise that in any future reunion, Rome couldn't require the Orthodox to accept doctrine formulated after the schism.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Pope Benedict XVI had the humility to realise that in any future reunion, Rome couldn't require the Orthodox to accept doctrine formulated after the schism.

He did? When? Where? And what do you mean by "doctrine formulated" after the Schism?

[NB: Picking on this claim in particular is not meant to imply that I don't take issue with the rest of your post.]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

*Forthview, can I put in a polite request that you put a space after your commas?*

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Chesterbelloc, but of course you can put in any polite request. I do try to put spaces after commas and I will try to space things out even more in the future.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I certainly wasn't attempting to take sides in whether the Roman Catholic or Orthodox church better preserves the faith of the early church as I don't have the knowledge, or even much idea of how one should go about deciding.

But whoever introduced whatever errors, I don't think the explanation can be that one was founded by the apostles and the other came along later. The church in Rome probably started a few years after churches in Greece and Turkey, but long before the particular divisions PaulTH refers to were manifest.

As Mousethief said, I did not refer to geography. There is no doubt that there were plenty of churches closer to the Holy Land than Rome is, I don't know anything about how significant that was.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
He did? When? Where? And what do you mean by "doctrine formulated" after the Schism?

In "Principles of Catholic Theology" written by Joseph Ratzinger in 1988, he wrote,
"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium." Thus papal infallibility could never be required belief for Eastern Christians. The St Vincent of Lerins principle applies, that only doctrine believed always and everywhere can be required belief for a Christian. Of course Protestants would say that only doctrine that can be proved from Scripture should be required belief.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Chesterbelloc, but of course you can put in any polite request. I do try to put spaces after commas and I will try to space things out even more in the future.

Much obliged, sir.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In "Principles of Catholic Theology" written by Joseph Ratzinger in 1988, he wrote,
"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium."

Ah, well, that's a rather different thing from what you seemed to be claiming above.

For one thing, Ratzinger was speaking as private theologian Joseph Ratzinger, not as Pope.

For another, he restricts himself there to one doctrine: papal primacy.

For another yet, it is very much a matter for debate how much about papal authority had already been settled doctrine before the schism. It was certainly more that "primus inter pares" (first among equals).

Finally, I'm not sure I - or Tradition - would necessarily agree with Cardinal Ratzinger about this. Certainly not if he was suggesting that certain defined, infallible doctrines of the Roman Church would be optional for the Orthodox in a formal reunion situation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
"Ignored" because didn't choose to address? Moonlitdoor put a fair point to PaulTH who seemed to imply by what he said that Rome was not founded by an Apostle. Why should he have to address everything else PaulTH said in order to put this straight?

PaulTH said a certain group of churches met three criteria. Moonlitdoor then objected based on the fact that Rome met one of them. But if Rome didn't meet the other two, then it doesn't fulfill all three and so doesn't fall in with the churches PaulTH listed. So ignoring the other two criteria makes PaulTH out to be saying something he didn't say.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

mousethief, you are reading PaulTH's post very differently and much more schematically than I did. What he said was:

quote:
To me it stands to reason that if we are to look for "true" Christianity, the place to find it is close to its cradle. Thus the Orthodox Churches, both Eastern and Oriental, founded by Apostles of Christ are closest historically and geographically to where it all began.

Now, you can read a strict 3 criteria schematic argument into that if you like, but I don't see it myself. Even if it's there, it was definitely not clear that PaulTH was not implying that Rome was not founded by an Apostle. How was moonlitdoor - or any of us - supposed know he wasn't implying that from what he actually said?

And what does geographical or "historical" closeness have to do with greater "truth" when we're talking about an actual Apostolic Church, i.e., one just as close to the source of truth - the witness and minstry of Peter as an apostle of the Lord - as any of the others? Why would Rome's greater physical distance from the Holy Land or its very slighly later foundation have anything to do with it given that it was founded by one of the Twelve, let alone the apostle whom Christ set at its head?

In short, there was nothing lacking or misleading in moonlitdoor's response to PaulTH that would justify your challenge.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

So... Rome believes it was set up by the Apostle(s) but the Orthodox don't accept this. Is that right?

I'm not criticising, just trying to keep up.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

I'm pretty sure the Orthodox do indeed believe that the See of Rome was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul.

Such confusion as there is arose when PaulTH* seemed to imply (although he has since clarified that he did not mean) that Rome was not founded by an apostle. When moonlitdoor pointed this out, mousethief took umbrage on the grounds that he was taking PaulTH* out of context by not addressing all three of the latter's "criteria" for being a true Church.

Personally, I think mousethief unfairly criticised the relevance of moonlitdoor's point to what Paul actually wrote, and "over-understood" the cogency and force of Paul's actual comment.

But that's just me.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I see no reason for the Orthodox not to accept that the See of Rome was founded by Peter and sanctified by the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in the city.

Some Orthodox might say, that with the transference of the capital of the Empire at the time of Constantine, Byzantium became the New Rome, and that the Bishop of New Rome had at least equal status with the Bishop of Old Rome.

Some again would say that, with the fall of the city of Byzantium/Constantinople/New Rome , the seat of the most important patriarch moved to the Third Rome, namely Moscow.

I'm sure this doesn't muddy the waters.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
846 The Church,a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.Hence they cannot be saved who,KNOWING that the Catholic church was founded as necessary by God through Christ would refuse to enter or to remain within it.

Does this imply that someone who knows that the Catholic Church CLAIMS to be necessary for salvation, but disagrees, cannot be saved?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

No.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Finally, I'm not sure I - or Tradition - would necessarily agree with Cardinal Ratzinger about this. Certainly not if he was suggesting that certain defined, infallible doctrines of the Roman Church would be optional for the Orthodox in a formal reunion situation.

An example of such a defined infallible doctrine would be the Immaculate Conception? Its purpose is to protect the Blessed Virgin Mary from original sin. The Orthodox Church doesn't believe in original sin in the sense of inheriting the guilt of Adam and Eve. That originates with St Augustine. So the Immaculate Conception would be totally irrelevant to Orthodox theology. And if it's a required belief because of papal infallibility, it falls within Cardinal Ratzinger's criterion of something Orthodox Christians can't be required to believe. There's no evidence of this being taught anywhere prior to the 12th century.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
846 The Church,a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.Hence they cannot be saved who,KNOWING that the Catholic church was founded as necessary by God through Christ would refuse to enter or to remain within it.
Does this imply that someone who knows that the Catholic Church CLAIMS to be necessary for salvation, but disagrees, cannot be saved?

Could go either way, ISTM, depending on whether the disagreement is seen by the RCC as willfulness or ignorance.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
846 The Church,a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.Hence they cannot be saved who,KNOWING that the Catholic church was founded as necessary by God through Christ would refuse to enter or to remain within it.
Does this imply that someone who knows that the Catholic Church CLAIMS to be necessary for salvation, but disagrees, cannot be saved?

I'd supplement Martin's "no" with a "not necessarily". Certainly someone could be non-culpably incapable of assenting fully to such a dogma.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There's no evidence of [the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception] being taught anywhere prior to the 12th century.

On the contrary, there is quite a bit of evidence, with a move towards such a doctrine perhaps discernable as far back as Gregory of Nazienzen, through to what you could call a pretty substantial expression in the writings of John Damascene of the idea that Mary's existence was sinless from her conception.

[ 14. March 2016, 21:44: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
PaulTH said a certain group of churches met three criteria. Moonlitdoor then objected based on the fact that Rome met one of them. But if Rome didn't meet the other two, then it doesn't fulfill all three and so doesn't fall in with the churches PaulTH listed. So ignoring the other two criteria makes PaulTH out to be saying something he didn't say.

Of course, only one out of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch can meet the criterion of being the closest geographically to the church the Apostles founded. Two if you say Jerusalem is a special case.

Ditto historically. In fact, there the criteria don't work quite as well as PaulTH intends. The church in Antioch is mentioned in Acts, as is Rome; but the church in Alexandria isn't. Constantinople certainly isn't.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There's no evidence of [the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception] being taught anywhere prior to the 12th century.

According to my (admittedly cursory) research conducted in 2013, the term "immaculate" (αχραντος) was recorded as being applied to Mary's conception in the 11th century. Aquinas was dead-set against it, although Duns Scotus argued for it. And which one is the official philosopher of the RCC? They should listen to their own heroes better.

[ 15. March 2016, 02:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
846 The Church,a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.Hence they cannot be saved who,KNOWING that the Catholic church was founded as necessary by God through Christ would refuse to enter or to remain within it.
Does this imply that someone who knows that the Catholic Church CLAIMS to be necessary for salvation, but disagrees, cannot be saved?
I'd supplement Martin's "no" with a "not necessarily". Certainly someone could be non-culpably incapable of assenting fully to such a dogma.

Someone could know AND believe this RCC dogma but be ultimately non-culpable DESPITE that which is not of faith being sin, because the premiss that the church can make sinners is false.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There's no evidence of [the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception] being taught anywhere prior to the 12th century.
On the contrary, there is quite a bit of evidence, with a move towards such a doctrine perhaps discernable as far back as Gregory of Nazienzen, through to what you could call a pretty substantial expression in the writings of John Damascene of the idea that Mary's existence was sinless from her conception.

I think there is a lot of evidence that the Fathers saw Mary as "without stain" but that would also be consistent with her being "highly favoured" and protected by Grace from birth. It's by no means clear to me that the Fathers believed, generally, that her conception needed to be immaculate. Nor is it clear to me why God's Grace would be insufficient from her birth, rather than by special provision at conception.

It's a developed doctrine within Catholicism, following the schism. That much seems completely clear. As a "heretical member" of an "ecclesial community", I think the doctrine is far-fetched, but I can see that it is consistent with more general thinking about the Theotokos. I just don't see that it is necessary.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
According to my (admittedly cursory) research conducted in 2013, the term "immaculate" (αχραντος) was recorded as being applied to Mary's conception in the 11th century. Aquinas was dead-set against it, although Duns Scotus argued for it. And which one is the official philosopher of the RCC? They should listen to their own heroes better.

You'll forgive me if I can't but hear this as, "They should only listen to those of their theologians who agree with us". And it's odd to hear from someone whose Church rags us for believing in Papal infallibility that we should some how be committed to believing in Aquinas's infallibility.

As it happens, Aquinas's principal (and cogent) objection to the doctrine was effectively answered by Scotus and those subsequent theologians who had developed a better understanding of what the Fathers had been saying. The Fathers spoke of Mary as "prepurified" in a way that foreshadowed the doctrine, and John Damascene even speaks of Mary as "all pure" and as "most holy" from her conception. [But I will resist the temptation to invite mousethief to listen to one of his "own heroes" better.]

Of course, it took time for the doctrine to develop fully into its defined form, but the seeds were certainly there in the Fathers, without whose writings we would almost certainly never have conceived it.

More from me later.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Yes but "pre-purified" can just as easily mean before Jesus' birth as before Mary's birth. The notion of a pure (i.e sinless) vessel doesn't preclude the prior effect of original sin. Unless, that is, you wish to limit the effectual grace of God in a specific life. I don't think that is necessary - indeed it seems to me to be presumptious to believe it is necessary.

BTW, I'm seeking to argue with Catholic theology in mind here. My own understanding is nearer the writing of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

quote:

16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (italics mine)

In the Incarnation, God is with us and Jesus is identified with us. The classic doctrine of the second person on the Trinity confirms both aspects.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You'll forgive me if I can't but hear this as, "They should only listen to those of their theologians who agree with us". And it's odd to hear from someone whose Church rags us for believing in Papal infallibility that we should some how be committed to believing in Aquinas's infallibility.

Leading at least some, I would hope, to see the humor thus employed.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The Church does not 'make sinners'.
It attempts to explain what 'sin' is.
Only a person who KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS what 'sin' is and yet decides to do it, can commit a sin.

Of course that is not always the same as the law of the land where ignorance of a law is no defence.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You'll forgive me if I can't but hear this as, "They should only listen to those of their theologians who agree with us". And it's odd to hear from someone whose Church rags us for believing in Papal infallibility that we should some how be committed to believing in Aquinas's infallibility.
Leading at least some, I would hope, to see the humor thus employed.

It escaped me, I'm afraid.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes but "pre-purified" can just as easily mean before Jesus' birth as before Mary's birth. The notion of a pure (i.e sinless) vessel doesn't preclude the prior effect of original sin.

Thanks, Barnabas - agreed.

But what I wanted to establish in this exchange was that PaulTH's implication that there was nothing heard of a doctrine of/closely resembling the Immaculate Conception until well after the Schism was wide of the mark. Some of the Fathers definitely were making noises in that specific direction, and I gave the example of John Damascene (d. circa 750) as perhaps coming closest to that doctrine in his explicit references to the Virgin's conception.

What I didn't intend to do - or have the time to do! - is argue the doctrine back from first principles, so forgive me if I don't take it right back to Scripture (with which I obviously believe it is consistent) this time round.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The Church does not 'make sinners'.
It attempts to explain what 'sin' is.
Only a person who KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS what 'sin' is and yet decides to do it, can commit a sin.

Ohhhhh yes it does. It makes me one by my not buying its fictions, beautifully adduced by Chesterbelloc.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

You don't seem to be too worried.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Not in the slightest mate. Just sad that we still have 10,000 years to go.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Only a person who KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS what 'sin' is and yet decides to do it, can commit a sin.

This is, I must say, a very western and juridical definition of sin.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Only a person who KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS what 'sin' is and yet decides to do it, can commit a sin.
This is, I must say, a very western and juridical definition of sin.

I don't know if it's "western" or not, but it's certainly not what I would recognise as quite the Catholic definition.

Sorry, Forthview: I had intended to let this pass, but since mousethief has zoomed in on it, I couldn't ignore it. I think what you were getting at are some of the necessary conditions for mortal sin, but I'm not sure. Certainly, we can commit sins without a full and immediate understanding of what makes them sinful - I do about a dozen times a day.

That's all I have time for at the moment...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Only a person who KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS what 'sin' is and yet decides to do it, can commit a sin.
This is, I must say, a very western and juridical definition of sin.

Agreed. But then, I'm a non-Augustinian protestant when it comes to an understanding of sin. Particularly original sin. So you and I are likely to agree. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive? The Western church can easily overlook the corporate consequences of those "alls". In fact, overlooking corporate consequences in favour of an individualised gospel is a problem within nonconformist protestantism.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Some of the Fathers definitely were making noises in that specific direction, and I gave the example of John Damascene (d. circa 750) as perhaps coming closest to that doctrine in his explicit references to the Virgin's conception.

Yes but only someone with an Augustinian concept of original sin, in which non-baptised infants are damned, would need to consider the Immaculate Conception. I don't believe any child is conceived with a macula or stain of sin. Neither does the Orthodox Church. We are surely born with an evil urge, but not conceived with stain of sin. The whole idea of the IC is meaningless without a belief in original sin.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabbas62:
As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive? The Western church can easily overlook the corporate consequences of those "alls". In fact, overlooking corporate consequences in favour of an individualised gospel is a problem within nonconformist protestantism.

I couldn't agree more. This is another reason I could never be other than a universalist. Christ is in agony and God's work unfinished while anyone remains outside the ark of salvation.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

why is it that children are not considered to be capable of 'sin' ? because they do not realize the implications of their actions.

Granted that children will often have some idea of when they are doing wrong and may even take malicious pleasure in so doing.

'Venial' sins are simply human imperfections.

Of course there are certain actions which are 'sinful' but if we do not know which actions are sinful, we cannot be held responsible.

To commit a 'mortal' sin you must have full knowledge of the gravity of the situation and you must have decided to go ahead anyway.

Human imperfections are human imperfections and sins are, well, 'sins'

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Children know full well the consequences of their actions from a very early age.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
why is it that children are not considered to be capable of 'sin' ? because they do not realize the implications of their actions.

Are children not considered capable of sin, or are they not held responsible for their sin until they are old enough to understand the implications of their actions.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Only a person who KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS what 'sin' is and yet decides to do it, can commit a sin.
This is, I must say, a very western and juridical definition of sin.
Agreed. But then, I'm a non-Augustinian protestant when it comes to an understanding of sin. Particularly original sin.

Count me as another Protestant—and a Reformed one at that—who has increasingly moved toward a non-Augustinian understanding of "sin" and "original sin."

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Children are not held responsible for their actions until they are of an age to realise the implications of these actions.

As I said we all have selfish (sinful ? ) tendencies and some children can take pleasure in annoying, torturing others, while generally being aware that this is wrong.

there are 'sins' which contravene the moral order

there is 'sin' which comes from the heart rebelling against God.

for Christians the notions of 'sins' come from the 10 Commandments of Moses and the Two great commandments of Jesus.

One example could be Thou shalt not kill

If you kill someone, generally we would consider that a sin.

Is it, however, always a sin ? What if the state has capital punishment, is the person who carries out the execution guilty of 'sin' ?

Are the citizens of the state, who do not agree with capital punishment guilty of sin by implication ?

What if your stste is involved in armed warfare and you are called upon to bear arms. Is it a sin to kill in defence of the state ?

Even without these externals affecting the killing of another person is it more serious to plot the death of someone else because for some reason you want rid of that person ?

Is plotting and planning as bad as actually killing the person you want rid of ?
?
What if you didn't really mean to do it, but did it all the same ? Is that as serious ?

What if the killing was a total accident ? Do we bear any responsibility ?

What if we are of weak mind and have no real understanding and yet for one reason or another, could be malice, could be simple experimentation, how far does 'sin' come into all this ?

Before Vatican 2 the Catholic Church spent a lot of time detailing all the possible sins which one could commit.
We could follow our conscience but the Church would teach that conscience has to be informed

There is much less of that now. The law of a land, while it may not be based upon the 10 commandments asks the same questions about various transgressions, but may not always arrive at the same conclusions as moral theologians.

To commit a grave sin , before Vatican 2 ,it was considered that one needed :
a) sufficiently serious matter

b)sufficiently full knowledge

c)full consent of the will.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Again, children know full well the consequences of their actions from a very early age, they are VERY moral beings. Like all higher animals.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Of course there are certain actions which are 'sinful' but if we do not know which actions are sinful, we cannot be held responsible.

This assumes that only those things are sins that we could be held accountable for in a court of law. A very narrow and juridical view of sin, which rather superimposes human forensic concepts on God and Her justice.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The whole idea of the IC is meaningless without a belief in original sin.

Or at least a very particular understanding of original sin, which is coupled with and arises from a very juridical understanding of sin.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
As I said we all have selfish (sinful ? ) tendencies

I don't make much distinction between selfish and sinful. When I exalt myself or my own needs above the needs of others, I am sinning. When I put others first, I am(at least temporarily) free from sin. I really don't see sin in terms of violating rules emphasised by one religious group or another, but in how I treat my fellow travellers in this world.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

That's fine, Paul. It just means that you make your own definition of sin.
So indeed do many, if not indeed most of us.

The Church believes that it has a mandate to remind people about the definitions of sin as given by Moses and by Christ.

The Church attempts to explain these to Christian people, that they may have a better understanding of right and wrong.

It's the same with civil law. Most people don't bother too much about what lawyers say, but the law of the land governs our lives here on earth and the Law of God points the way to life beyond death.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The Church believes that it has a mandate to remind people about the definitions of sin as given by Moses and by Christ.

Which Church? And which definitions? It's not as if Christ sat down and said, "Okay, an action is a sin if and only if it meets the following criteria," then laid out a list of unambiguous adjectival phrases. Defining sin is a communal activity, but different communities have come up with different lists.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The Church believes that it has a mandate to remind people about the definitions of sin as given by Moses and by Christ.

While we still follow the Law of Moses with regards to the ten commandments, the majority of Moses' 613 do's and don't's were junked by the Church as early as the Council of Jerusalem c48-50AD. This is when Jesus had made it clear that not a jot or tittle of the Law would pass away. Even Paul who was a strong advocate of not requiring adherence to the Law for gentile converts, kept it himself as a Jew. So the definition of sin can and does change from time to time and from culture to culture. An example would be when the pharisees criticised the disciples for not washing before eating. The rabbis as heirs of the pharisees required all this ritual washing, but in Jesus' time, especially among Galileans the matter was far from settled.

What never changes is the requirement of the golden rule, of love of God and neighbour and of the mandatum novum, "Love one another as I have loved you." You are of course right when you say that I'm making my own definition of sin, but if I have no sense of a certain act being sinful, how can I feel guilty enough to repent of it. An example I would use. The Catholic Church teaches that the use of all forms of artificial contraception is sinful. Many people, even practicing Catholics disagree, They think it's sensible to plan a family according to means, and to prevent the spread of HIV or Zika virus. You will never convince such people that they are sinning.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

If you have no sense of certain acts being sinful
and therefore cannot repent of them,then you are following the ideas which I proposed earlier.

To commit a sin, you have to be aware that it is a sin, you have to decide in spite of your knowledge and belief that it will harm your relationship with God and neighbour and yet still decide to do it.

When I say that you have to be aware it is a sin I don't mean that you know that the Catholic church declares it to be a sin. You have to be aware yourself that the action is sinful, not just that the Church says it is sinful.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Paul,as far as I know you are not a Catholic.
You are under no obligation to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

You are your own man and follow your own path.

I mentioned earlier the ten commandments which are fulfilled by the two Great Commandments of Jesus to love God and to love our neighbour as we love ourselves.

There are instances in the Gospels where individuals ask Jesus as to how they should love their neighbour, so it is not unknown for people to ask for help in interpreting and understanding better the real sense of the Words of Jesus.

This the Church has attempted to do over the centuries, hoever very often in a negative way.

Since Vatican 2 the Church has tried to be more positive and to concentrate on the fact that God loves us. Church teaching tries to help us to respond to God's love.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
To commit a sin, you have to be aware that it is a sin, you have to decide in spite of your knowledge and belief that it will harm your relationship with God and neighbour and yet still decide to do it.

That's one definition of sin. There are others.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

As by it atheists can't sin.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
To commit a sin, you have to be aware that it is a sin, you have to decide in spite of your knowledge and belief that it will harm your relationship with God and neighbour and yet still decide to do it.
That's one definition of sin. There are others.

I still think Forthview is blurring the line between mortal sin and venial sin. In the case of the former only:

quote:
full knowledge and complete consent [is required]. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

In the case of the latter:

quote:
One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

In other words, venial sin, where full knowledge, understanding and consent can be lacking, is also real sin. I think this distinction matters and, judging from her latest Catechism (from which my quotes come), so does the RCC - even after Vatican II(!).

Also, John Damascene (St John of Damascus) certainly didn't subscribe to a full Augustinian, post-schism, "Western" understanding of original sin. But he clearly believed in a version of the doctrine that was compatable with believing that Our Lady was preserved from all sin from her very conception.

So the notions that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - that Mary was free from all sin from her very conception - is (1) nowhere to be found in the Fathers and (2) is completely meaningless except in the context of the most strict "Augustinian" understanding of original sin, are clearly mistaken.

[ 18. March 2016, 18:26: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Compatable is definitely mortal.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Of course we should not treat venial sin as of no consequence. While it may be considered as less serious than grave or mortal sin - less serious can still mean 'serious'

How do we become aware of the 'moral law' ? There are many interpretations of the moral law, certainly not only those interpretations of the moral law favoured by the Catholic Church.

Most of us do from a fairly early age have some conception of right and wrong. For Christians, and here I count all Christians who have a sense of belonging to a Christian community, that sense of right and wrong should be refined with reference to the teachings of Jesus , in particular the reference to the Two Great Commandments as well as the 10 Commandments of the Hebrew Bible.

Without full knowledge we cannot have fully sinned and that is why we have the term 'venial' sin.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Without full knowledge we cannot have fully sinned and that is why we have the term 'venial' sin.

No, I'm sorry to be pedantic, but I think this is important. Venial sins are really sins - that is, they are blameworthy and require at least some penance. They are actual sins. I think we should be clear about this.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

So if you don't have knowledge - don't know that what you're doing is sinful or don't know what you're doing - you aren't sinning? Even if there are horrific results? The Catholic Church goes for intention rather than outcome?

If so, that makes sense, in the context of an individual's salvation. It does makes me wonder about the collective good - or bad. Unconscious participation in things that are extremely detrimental to oneself or others makes me see the point of Purgatory (in the afterlife, not here!)

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

There is no one who is more selfish than a baby. The baby has no thought for others . The baby will find it difficult to think about the needs of any others apart from itself.

As we grow we become more aware of the needs of others and also that in the end it is better for ourselves if we think of others as well as ourselves.

In saying that we cannot sin without knowledge of sin does not mean that there is no such thing as sin.

Sin is evil. Evil is selfishness. Evil is pride and arrogance and a lack of thought for others both for God and for our neighbour.

Certain actions are sinful, but an individual cannot be considered as culpable of an action which that person which they honestly do not know to be wrong.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Sorry about last sentence.

The meaning of the word 'sin' is connected with 'guilt'

There are actions which can be considered sinful

But if one 'commits a sin' without knowledge that what one is doing is wrong, can one be held culpable for that action ?

Leaving aside the Catholic Church, the law of many lands does not normally allow for ignorance in absolving one of a crime. And yet, even then there are people whom the law of a land does not find as fit to plead and who cannot be found guilty of a crime.

If the law of the land allows for non culpable ignorance, so much so a loving God who will not punish us for what we do not know to be wrong.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Given that the thread mentions Catholicism specifically, and on the question of sin.

When all else fails, read the instructions?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

You know, you could do worse. [Biased]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I have.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Way back thread Martin 60 said that the premiss that the Church makes sinners is false.

I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that but I agree that it is false that the Church makes sinners of us.

The Church ,believing that it has a mandate tries to explain what sin is and to answer specific questions about the details of our 'sins' It does not make sinners of those who are not members of the Church. Nor indeed does it make sinners of members of the Church. It tries to point out what the best way forward is.

Let me give you an example which I was thinking about.

The Catholic Church declares that all Catholics, unless impeded by some major reason, should attend Mass on Sundays.

Anyone, who does not believe that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be, is not likely to pay any attention to this.

Are these people committing a sin by not attending Mass on a Sunday ?

Now ,even if they KNOW that the Catholic Church considers attendance at Mass on Sunday to be of great importance, if they do not accept that the Church has any right to demand this, because the do not consider the Church to be what it claims to be, then these people cannot be considered as having committed a sin.

To commit a sin you have to have knowledge, including belief that the knowledge is trustworthy and should be acted upon.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I have.

Done worse or read the instructions?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The meaning of the word 'sin' is connected with 'guilt'

The English house word "sin," yes. The Hebrew and Greek words used in the OT and NT that we translate as sin, not as much.

I'm not trying to downplay the role of understanding in culpability. I just think sin—or sinfulness, if you prefer—goes much deeper than that, and we miss the point if we focus on sin simply as an act to which punishment can attach.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
To commit a sin you have to have knowledge, including belief that the knowledge is trustworthy and should be acted upon.

No. No you don't. To commit a sin you have to break God's moral law. Knowingly or unknowingly, in knowledge or in ignorance, voluntarily or involuntarily, by what you have done, or by what you have left undone.

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'm not trying to downplay the role of understanding in culpability. I just think sin—or sinfulness, if you prefer—goes much deeper than that, and we miss the point if we focus on sin simply as an act to which punishment can attach.

Yes. This. The juridical model of sin misses a hell of a lot (pun intended) about what sin is all about.

[ 19. March 2016, 18:05: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So if you don't have knowledge - don't know that what you're doing is sinful or don't know what you're doing - you aren't sinning? Even if there are horrific results? The Catholic Church goes for intention rather than outcome?

Yes, intention rather than outcome, on the whole - which is what double effect is all about.

But really, I don't think Forthview's being at all reliable here insofar as the Church teaches that one can be culpably ignorant. Not knowing or failing to bring to mind something which you ought to be aware of with regard to an objectively wrong action makes that action culpably wrong. Also, one can obectively sin but not be culpable (or be less culpable) for that sin if one is, for example, "invincably ignorant" about its wrongness. Another exception is engrained habit, where one is so habituated to certain sins that one's full consent may be lacking and therefore one's culpability reduced. But even if your culpability were reduced to almost zero by psychological factors, you would still have sinned objectively.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Unconscious participation in things that are extremely detrimental to oneself or others makes me see the point of Purgatory (in the afterlife, not here!)

Absolutely, Ruth - bingo. Sins committed carelessly - either doing things which we ought not to have done or omitting things one ought to have done - are still sins and need fixing.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
To commit a sin you have to have knowledge, including belief that the knowledge is trustworthy and should be acted upon.
No. No you don't. To commit a sin you have to break God's moral law. Knowingly or unknowingly, in knowledge or in ignorance, voluntarily or involuntarily, by what you have done, or by what you have left undone.

This.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'm not trying to downplay the role of understanding in culpability. I just think sin—or sinfulness, if you prefer—goes much deeper than that, and we miss the point if we focus on sin simply as an act to which punishment can attach.

Also this.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I hope it's not rude to jump in so late in this thread; I find my sig quote (for which I must thank shipmate Jbohn) very helpful for thinking about sin. That is - the 'punishment' is the destruction which is inherent in the act, and is itself what makes that act worth avoiding.

I guess I think about 'God's wrath' in similar terms.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The thing to remember in respect to human sin is that God is on our side. He wants us to be free from sin. He's not some stone-faced magistrate emotionlessly meting out cold judgment. This is why it is important to see sin not just from a juridical point of view. The church is the hospital for sinners, and God is the Great Physician.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Thanks, mousethief -- that wording, about God being on our side, shines the light on this topic from a different direction for me.

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Not knowing or failing to bring to mind something which you ought to be aware of with regard to an objectively wrong action makes that action culpably wrong.

Willful ignorance would fit in here too, yes?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Not knowing or failing to bring to mind something which you ought to be aware of with regard to an objectively wrong action makes that action culpably wrong.
Willful ignorance would fit in here too, yes?

Absolutely.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

I'd put it that wrong is double-edged. In general if I steal from someone, then not only have I hurt them, but I have hurt myself - damaged my relationship with God - taken a step closer to being the sort of person who steals.

In particular cases, it may be that only one of those two negative impacts occurs. If I just forget to pay someone back, they feel the loss/damage but I don"t. If I steal from someone who never finds out, I experience the loss/damage but they don't.

If we use "sin" for the general case then many of the things we might want to say about sin are only sometimes true. The alternative is to use "sin" for only those acts that hurt others or only those acts which damage ourselves.

If we don"t know that we're using the word to mean different things then we'll talk last each other even more than usual...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If we use "sin" for the general case then many of the things we might want to say about sin are only sometimes true.

That's not necessarily a bad thing; it just means we need to be more careful in our language, and maybe invent some terms to match our differentiated categories.

quote:
If we don't know that we're using the word to mean different things then we'll talk past each other even more than usual...

Absolutely! Which is why I gave my definition of sin -- acting contrary to God's moral law.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If we use "sin" for the general case then many of the things we might want to say about sin are only sometimes true.
That's not necessarily a bad thing; it just means we need to be more careful in our language, and maybe invent some terms to match our differentiated categories.

Hold on a moment there - if you start differentiating categories you might end up doing scholastic theology. Do you want to make Mount Athos cry?

[Two face]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Do you want to make Mount Athos cry?

Daily.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If we don't know that we're using the word to mean different things then we'll talk past each other even more than usual...
Absolutely! Which is why I gave my definition of sin -- acting contrary to God's moral law.

If I didn't know better, I might think you're sounding slightly Presbyterian. [Devil]

One of the only bits from catechism class (Westminster Shorter) that I can remember exactly is "What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God."

In my own experience in my own tradition at least, "sin" is primarily used to refer to the condition of sinfulness, not to specific acts. We regularly talk about sin as that which separates us from God. Referring to a specific act as "a sin" is much less common.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Which is why "transgressions" is probably a better choice of terms. Or even "trespasses."

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

To commit a sin you have to break God's moral law.
Knowingly or unknowingly, in knowledge, or in ignorance, voluntarily or involuntarily, by what you have done or left undone - so says mousethief.

Certain actions can be considered as sinful or as breaking God's moral law. Do we include amongst these sinful actions, killing someone ? This is mentioned in the famous '10 commandments'

Is that action of killing someone (or indeed oneself) breaking God's moral law ?

I have cited some examples where it might be considered licit in the eyes of the law of many lands. Is it considered to be a sin in these cases ?

What if one slipped on a banana, involuntarily fell over and knocked down an old lady who fell and banged her head and died? Is that breaking God's moral law ?

I maintain that one would have to have the intention of killing someone, without any external force majeure compelling us to carry out the act , which renders the action of killing, a sin where guilt can be attributed to the perpetrator.

While sinful actions are always sinful , it is when the sinful action is undertaken with fore knowledge, with deliberate intention that the person who carried out a sinful action can be adjudged as guilty.

What Catholics call 'venial' sins are imperfections where we, hopefully, learn to improve.

This is not to give carte blanche to anyone to do what they like and say' well I didn't know it was wrong.' God, who is the final judge of our actions, will know when we are telling the truth
and be able to judge us accurately.

I would still like to think that those who have been for various reasons deprived of knowledge of God's moral law, will be able to receive God's mercy and not be judged guilty of actions which they did not know to be sinful.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

But you're not sure?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
To commit a sin you have to break God's moral law . . . .

Forthview, I think the issue that some of us are having is not necessarily disagreement about the importance of intention with regard to sinful acts. Rather, the issue we are having is a discussion about "sin" that is focusing almost exclusively on acts, on "committing a sin," which in turn leads almost exclusively to issues of guilt and judgment. I think that's a limited view of sin.

Sin, as I understand it, is primarily a condition. As I have heard it put, it's not what we do, it's who we are. We are people created in the image of God whose relationship with God is marred by sin. The sins we "commit" are manifestations of that more pervasive human condition of sin.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Nick said:

quote:
Sin, as I understand it, is primarily a condition. As I have heard it put, it's not what we do, it's who we are. We are people created in the image of God whose relationship with God is marred by sin. The sins we "commit" are manifestations of that more pervasive human condition of sin.

I think I understand what you're saying and how you mean it, but saying "sin is who we are" can be very dangerous, especially to someone who is depressed. The idea has driven many people away from Christianity, and others into hopelessness. And very judgmental people make it into "sin is who *you* are". It's gravely damaging, and smacks of Jonathan Edwards' horrifying "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" sermon.

IMHO, your "condition" language is much more helpful. Human condition, fallen/imperfect world, evolutionary growing pains, mistakes, growing, learning, falling down and going boom (like a toddler), and figuring out how to get back up again.

(That's directed at the wording, not at *you*, Nick.)

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Of course I am happy to agree with Nick Tamen that sin is a 'condition'

That being the case one cannot commit a 'condition'

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm not sure if the 'condition' language for sin is helpful for me. As I've argued before on the Ship, I reject theologies of sin that are too much about me, and this seems to be that way.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Martin60 I have absolutely no doubts about the breadth of God's mercy towards us, his imperfect creatures.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Whilst I have some sympathy with the idea of sin being a condition and at the same time with it being not-a-condition - for me the greatest sins are those we do without thinking, without being aware, without perceiving of the effects of our actions.

These are, to coin a phrase, structural sins.

Now, I suppose the question is whether we're going to get to Judgement Day and have to answer for the fact that we knew upwards of 50% of the planet were continuing with the kinds of shitty lives we can barely comprehend - but blocked it out from our perception that was instead filled with the problems of baggage at airports and the colour of deckchairs at Ikea.

I can see that going both ways, really. I can see the Lord saying "it's ok guys, I know you did your best and you had a lot of stuff on your plate, what with the church spire, the roof, the argument with the organist, the collapse of the CofE as we know it and the Pope's instagram feed. Don't worry about it, come on in and see all the rooms I have in my house for you."

Or, I guess, I can see him being rather pissed that we were consistently more worried about the slight economic disadvantage to our islands of having Chinese steel a bit cheaper than we can make it on world markets - than the reality of the lives of thousands of his precious creatures a few hundreds of miles away.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think I understand what you're saying and how you mean it, but saying "sin is who we are" can be very dangerous, especially to someone who is depressed. The idea has driven many people away from Christianity, and others into hopelessness. And very judgmental people make it into "sin is who *you* are". It's gravely damaging, and smacks of Jonathan Edwards' horrifying "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" sermon.

I very much agree, actually, which is why I almost didn't include it in my post, and why I tried to balance it with the predicate of being created in the image of God.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not sure if the 'condition' language for sin is helpful for me. As I've argued before on the Ship, I reject theologies of sin that are too much about me, and this seems to be that way.

That's not how I think of it, fwiw. I think of it being at least as much a "we/us" thing as an "I/me" thing. I think of it as a condition—a disease, if you will—that not only affects us individually but also collectively. It is just as much manifested in social systems that perpetuate economic injustice and institutionalized racism, for example, as it is in an individual's lack of generosity or bigotry.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

God does not want humans to kill other humans. Whether or not any given human authority makes some exceptions is rather irrelevant to that. Killing is transgressing God's law, whether it's intentional or not. Again, the problem is reducing sin and morality to legal culpability

If you kill some old lady accidentally, via b banana peel or some other agency, you are generally not considered to have chosen to do wrong, assuming you were using the due diligence reasonably expected of someone walking near others. If the reason you tripped was that you weren't paying attention because you were texting, you might be found culpable of something like manslaughter due to reckless endangerment. But barring something like that, "it wasn't your fault."

But it does not follow from that that God is fine with people killing old ladies accidentally. To use a sports metaphor, your foot came down out of bounds. Which is of course a metaphor for breaking God's moral code. In brief, you sinned.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So if an old lady dies at my hand with no negligence or malice on my part, due to an act of God, I've still sinned?

That's rhetorical of course.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So if an old lady dies at my hand with no negligence or malice on my part, due to an act of God, I've still sinned?

That's rhetorical of course.

Is it bad form to attempt to answer a rhetorical question ?

Because it seems to me that we're struggling with the common usage of the word "sin" here. There are two aspects to the unfortunate demise of the old lady. One is whether this is something that we're OK with or whether it triggers our sense of wrongness, our sense that this is something that should not happen.

Then if we decide that this is a falling-short from the way the world should be, there's then the secondary question of whether anyone is culpable, at fault, to blame.

So we can use "sin" to mean that this is something that shouldn't have happened, if the word carries no overtones of blameworthiness, if the sin wasn't necessarily committed by anyone.

Or we can use "sin" to mean something like "moral crime" and not deem the incident sinful until it's been demonstrated that someone is guilty.

If we confuse the two meanings, if by using this word we convey unwarranted overtones of guilt, then we can come across as awfully judgmental people.

Talk of "God's moral law" being broken sounds like there'a a guilty person, a moral felon, who's to blame. If that is what is meant, then the corollary is that if no-one is to blame them there's no sin.

If instead we mean that these sort of unfortunate events happen because this isn't a perfect world, then we need to find a terminology that doesn't sound like it's trying to heap blame on people.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So we can use "sin" to mean that this is something that shouldn't have happened, if the word carries no overtones of blameworthiness, if the sin wasn't necessarily committed by anyone.

Or we can use "sin" to mean something like "moral crime" and not deem the incident sinful until it's been demonstrated that someone is guilty.

By using "committed" in your first description, you seem to be conflating the two from the get-go.

The question, it seems to me, is whether we can or should use "sin" to mean things that I didn't know about, or couldn't have avoided. But the world is such that sometimes I have agency in things that I didn't desire or couldn't help. That doesn't make them okay. If I have agency in them, I need to seek forgiveness. (Or whatever you call it when it happens because you FAILED to act. Antiagency? Whatever.)

This is very, very difficult to accept for people brought up on a juridical understanding of sin.

And yes maybe "moral law" is bad wording because it brings to mind the juridical model. One of the earliest definitions of sin I can remember learning was "stepping outside of God's will." Which can be voluntarily or involuntarily, wittingly or unwittingly done.

Perhaps we need to coin a word. Ultratheovoluntas. Outside the will of God.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

"Through negligence, through weakness, through our own deliberate fault" as the Anglicans pray.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Admittedly I can't find an exception to an old lady dying at my hand that doesn't involve my human weakness.

From the MOST pointed sharp end of personal experience.

Which isn't a confession with legal ramifications. You should have been there. I HAVE made such a public decision that was implemented. And we're not just talking assent.

And no, we're not talking stoning.

Medical.

And as far as I'm concerned it was ALL according to God's will.

My service as a jury foreman is greyer. But STILL according to God's will. I feel guiltier for it nonetheless. Because I led the jury in a process I proposed.

For good and ill.

What ISN'T?

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
"Through negligence, through weakness, through our own deliberate fault" as the Anglicans pray.

I don't have a problem with the idea that we should seek forgiveness for:
- the wrongs we committed intentionally (deliberate fault)
- the temptations we failed to resist (weakness)
- the times we didn't care enough to pay the attention ee should (culpable negligence)

But Mousethief is going beyond that to suggest that we need forgiveness for matters like slipping on a banana skin where our body is involved but our conscious mind is not engaged.

For failing to resist gravity ?

I don't see God as wanting people to hurt themselves or others in accidents - outcomes that nobody wills and nobody is tempted to and nobody is culpable for failing to foresee and avoid. But these things happen. Life falls short of how we think it should pan out.

But then, if you see God as in control of everything then perhaps there's no such thing as an accident?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Russ: For failing to resist gravity ?

I had to post this.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Russ I think you're thinking about it juridically. I can't be held accountable if my conscious mind wasn't involved. But being held accountable is irrelevant. It's not the point. It's a red herring.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

If I slip on a banana skin and knock someone over as a result, I think most people would have a hard time accepting that I wasn't going to apologize on the basis that it wasn't my conscious fault.

The apology might be less effusive than if I'd been the one who left the banana skin lying around, and I wouldn't expect to be charged with assault as a result, but nevertheless an apology of some sort would be required.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Nicely put.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

Back when I was starting out as a lawyer, I acted for a client seeking an injunction to restrain a deeply troubled member of his extended family from harassing him. We got the order, but it seems to have been one psychological burden too much for the other party, who killed himself a couple of weeks later.

I didn't feel guilty exactly - the application was an entirely proper one and I'd presented the case fairly and without malice or misrepresentation. But I felt in some way personally affected - enough to feel the need to go to a priest and talk it through*.

Unlike mousethief, I'm not entirely comfortable using "sin" to describe whatever it was I needed to bring to God. I use "sin" to mean moral fault, and as far as I can discern, I wasn't personally and morally at fault in what I did. I couldn't have handled my role in the dispute much differently. It wasn't exactly moral pollution or 'uncleanness' from which I needed to be purified, either, nor was it about 'feeling bad' personally and wanting to feel better. There was something, though, which I didn't have a clear everyday word for, that needed to be addressed.

I think the closest I can get to it is 'helplessness'. I'd been involved, albeit rather late in the story, and in a supporting role, in a dispute that cost a human being their life. The outcome was tragic, causing deep grief and distress, and must have been contrary to God's will. The issue for me wasn't so much my culpability as my involvement, as part of a species, a society, a justice system, in which this sort of thing can happen, and which doesn't seem to have the power to prevent it, even though it was a result that no one (as far as I know) sought or desired. There had been a collective failure, and individual helplessness in the face of that failure, and that is something from which I need to be saved.

I think that's the sort of thing mousethief is including in the Orthodox understanding of "sin". Although I don't use the word "sin" with as wide a meaning as would include the concept, I would agree that it is included in the class of things to save us from which Jesus assumed our human nature and died on the cross.

(*I didn't use the word "confession" for that at the time - my church is a little too MOTR Anglican for that to be a regular discipline - but that's essentially what it was).

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

Thank you, very helpful Eliab [Votive]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think that's the sort of thing mousethief is including in the Orthodox understanding of "sin". Although I don't use the word "sin" with as wide a meaning as would include the concept, I would agree that it is included in the class of things to save us from which Jesus assumed our human nature and died on the cross.

This is very well put. Maybe another way of looking at our understanding of sin is "causing harm." One can cause harm unintentionally, and in such a way that one could not be convicted of wrongdoing in a court of law. But causing harm is certainly outside of God's will for us.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mdijon: If I slip on a banana skin and knock someone over as a result, I think most people would have a hard time accepting that I wasn't going to apologize on the basis that it wasn't my conscious fault.

An apology isn't always an admission of wrongdoing. The English are famous for apologising when someone steps on their toes.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

That is less of an apology and more of a verbal tic. Certainly not the same sort of thing as an apology for falling on someone.

But neither are an admission of wrongdoing - my points was to dissect admissions of wrongdoing for the need for an apology. I'm sure that many cultures beyond the famously apologetic English would see the need to apologize if you accidentally fell on someone without fault.

[ 25. March 2016, 13:53: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Most real Eliab can't be helped. It's NOBODY'S fault. Nobody. Even when it is. It isn't. It's contingent. No forgivenes or repentance is necessary, possible, meaningful. The simplicity of Christ is be kind for its own sake and by the way you get to live for ever. Anything else?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That is less of an apology and more of a verbal tic. Certainly not the same sort of thing as an apology for falling on someone.

But neither are an admission of wrongdoing - my points was to dissect admissions of wrongdoing for the need for an apology. I'm sure that many cultures beyond the famously apologetic English would see the need to apologize if you accidentally fell on someone without fault.

Unless you're a politician, or corporation, of course. In which case the person you fell on is in the wrong.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That is less of an apology and more of a verbal tic. Certainly not the same sort of thing as an apology for falling on someone.

But neither are an admission of wrongdoing - my points was to dissect admissions of wrongdoing for the need for an apology. I'm sure that many cultures beyond the famously apologetic English would see the need to apologize if you accidentally fell on someone without fault.

Yes. There are similarities but also difference between

- the polite apology - I'm sorry that this happened, it was an accident, I did not intend it, please do not interpret this as an act that has significance for our relationship

- the contrite apology - I'm sorry for what I did, it was wrong of me to do it, I have had a change of heart and repented of this act, and wish to restore our relationship to where it was before I damaged it by my wrongdoing.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That is less of an apology and more of a verbal tic. Certainly not the same sort of thing as an apology for falling on someone.

But neither are an admission of wrongdoing - my points was to dissect admissions of wrongdoing for the need for an apology. I'm sure that many cultures beyond the famously apologetic English would see the need to apologize if you accidentally fell on someone without fault.
Unless you're a politician, or corporation, of course. In which case the person you fell on is in the wrong.

Or the person you shot while hunting, if you're a certain American vice-president.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Back to the OP, the answer is of course yes.

Remember this?

Agnes Poirier, the UK editor for French news magazine Marianne said today what I thought and said here from 20:50, in essence I recall at the time, or wish I had, echoed brilliantly as ever by Polly Toynbee., exposing the Pope's justification of violence which he re-iterates AGAINST ISIS.

ANY and ALL Christian justification of violence in the name of a God of ANY violence is heresy.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Back when I was starting out as a lawyer, I acted for a client seeking an injunction to restrain a deeply troubled member of his extended family from harassing him. We got the order, but it seems to have been one psychological burden too much for the other party, who killed himself a couple of weeks later.

I didn't feel guilty exactly - the application was an entirely proper one and I'd presented the case fairly and without malice or misrepresentation. But I felt in some way personally affected - enough to feel the need to go to a priest and talk it through*.

Unlike mousethief, I'm not entirely comfortable using "sin" to describe whatever it was I needed to bring to God. I use "sin" to mean moral fault, and as far as I can discern, I wasn't personally and morally at fault in what I did. I couldn't have handled my role in the dispute much differently. It wasn't exactly moral pollution or 'uncleanness' from which I needed to be purified, either, nor was it about 'feeling bad' personally and wanting to feel better. There was something, though, which I didn't have a clear everyday word for, that needed to be addressed.

I'm glad, Eliab, that you found an understanding priest who was able to help.

If I've understood you right, you undertook what is in effect a Christian rite of purification to cleanse your soul from the "bad karma" that had attached itself to you, by circumstance, through no fault of yours.

I don't have any trouble believing that life can work out like that sometimes.

The issue for me is about how we use language - how to say things clearly, to avoid misunderstanding, and honestly, in particular so as not to - by the way we use words - impute fault where there is none ?

Insofar as there is a "common usage" meaning of "sin", I'd tend to agree that that meaning is something like "moral fault".

So I guess my question is to Mousethief:

if you use "sin" to mean something like "bad karma which may or may not involve fault", how do you use words like "guilt" and "repent" ?

Can you be guilty but not at fault ? Can you repent if there is nothing for you to do differently because the sin is something that just happened to you rather than a wrong choice you made ?

Or does sin as such involve no guilt and require no repentance ?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0