|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Are other Christians really Christian?
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Twilight and Rowen,
Thanks for the above. It just stopped me posting something near-hellish.
cheers,
m (just there in The Cult)
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
This could indeed get "hellish" unles we keep an important distinction in mind. The OP is not about the status of different Churches ... it's about whether or not certain Christian traditions really can be considered Christian.
I guess everyone's answer will differ somewhat given a comprehensive list. Personally and in Church position terms I/we would not consider Christian anyone or any Church that denied certain key beliefs ... eg., the resurrection, the divinity of Christ, the Incarnation, the Trinity etc. We would be hard pressed to distinguish those groups from, say, Liberal Judaism or Islam in respect of those particular issues, (other matters aside).
The trouble is that the word "Christian" is often misapplied as an ethical adjective or "a saved person." So, if one denies the title "Christian" to someone, reactions based on these misapplications invariably involve questions of holiness or salvation. The term "Christian" should not include such judgements, (let alone differences in ecclesiology!)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
I agree with Father Gregory.
I do not mean this in any nasty fashion, but, given Jesuitical Lad's participation here, may I ask if there are other RC scholars who could provide clearer explanations of the points he is making? JL (not that this is unusual) is using terminology that is largely Thomistic, and very confusing to those who are unfamiliar with the specific context. As well, some turns of phrase (such as that God may choose to save some non-Catholics) are poorly used.
Karl Rahner (who was not especially gifted with clarity of expression, but remains one of my favourites) was using 'anonymous Christians' to speak of all as being redeemed through Christ - but he did not use the Augustinian approach to original sin or later approaches to atonement, and was referring more to a cosmic redemption, with the Incarnation as key in creation. In effect, he saw all of us (aware or not) as part of the Church according to his views about God as lord of all creation. (I am over simplifying, but including this because those who are unfamiliar with the full scope can see 'anonymous' something as highly insulting.)
I agree with Greta that this thread is very interesting, and that I hope it continues.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I have serious misgivings about any group which either applies or denies the description "Christian" to any person in defiance of that person's own claim. I have extremely serious misgivings about any group which sets itself up as the sole rightful owner and arbiter of the term.
It would be like one of my children deciding that he was going to be the one to judge whether his siblings could rightfully claim to be my children. Whether he is correct or not, it is not his judgement to make. He may regret his arrogance if I catch him offending my other children in my name.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
quote:
Am I right to think that you believe that God may choose to save some non-Catholic Christians ?
He may choose to. It depends how one interprets the dogma that outside of the Church there is no salvation. I'd probably choose to say that they were implicit/anonymous Catholics if they were saved.
I would like to submit my reservation for the combustible section of the afterlife, seeing as how I have, with full knowledge, explicitly and formally rejected a number of Roman Catholic dogmas.
This position is the other side of the "Roman Catholics are going to hell" coin. The irony is delicious.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Newman's Own,
I don't understand the problem. I haven't denied the potential salvation of non-Catholics; I'm just trying to make it clear that this is still a matter of some debate within the Catholic Church, whilst trying to also make clear that it is a de fide dogma of the Church that outside the Church there is no salvation. Since the dogma is still, it seems, developing somewhat, I don't think it's possible to offer a single answer.
Of course, this has nothing to do with whether non-Catholics are Christian or not. You will never hear a Catholic - well, not one with more than a single brain cell - claim that Protestants are not Christian. We don't understand Christian in terms of "saved".
Erin,
How can you possibly know whether your ignorance is vincible or not? As for this being similar to the "Romanists burn eternally" line of reasoning - hardly! That position is almost always based on ignorance of what we actually believe. If someone wants to argue that Catholics do not have a saving relationship with Christ based on our actual beliefs, then I think that's a line of reasoning worth debating.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Here in the sovereign south we have a church that has trouble believing that other churches within the same denomination are true Christians. We are occasionally treated to newspaper advertisements from one church telling another church where they are wrong and why they are going to hell. Off track a little, I recall a conversation that was telling. A new congregation was using a synagogue as a temporary home. A member of the synagogue was at a funeral of a church member friend. She said “I guess I will see her in heaven.” The church member replied, “No. You are going to hell.”
There is a new movement within this denomination. A preacher recently preached a sermon comparing getting to heaven like being able to jump to the moon. Humans just can’t do it by themselves. He then said that differences between churches, and one being more correct than others, was like him in a jumping contest with Michael Jordan (basketball player extraordinaire). Michael Jordan might be a much better jumper than him; it just wouldn’t make any real difference in a contest to jump to the moon. The sermon was intended to address differences between churches of this denomination. I think it applies to differences between denominations as well.
In any event, which “original” church are we to follow? The ones set up by Simon Peter and associates? The Pauline churches? The Holy Roman Church as was before the split? How about the community Matthew addressed in Antioch versus the community John addressed?
Does God care? I don’t think so.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Tortuf,
What if Jesus set one up? Would that suggest God cared?
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
If someone wants to argue that Catholics do not have a saving relationship with Christ based on our actual beliefs, then I think that's a line of reasoning worth debating.
Oh please! That might require research!! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Erin,
How can you possibly know whether your ignorance is vincible or not? As for this being similar to the "Romanists burn eternally" line of reasoning - hardly! That position is almost always based on ignorance of what we actually believe. If someone wants to argue that Catholics do not have a saving relationship with Christ based on our actual beliefs, then I think that's a line of reasoning worth debating.
I know what the doctrines say and I understand them as well as any lay person. I reject them on the grounds that they are in extreme error.
As to the other issue... well, I see one group of people saying "you're going to hell because you're Roman Catholic" and another group of people saying "you're going to hell because you're not Roman Catholic". Doesn't matter what it's based on, in the end the sentiment is still the same. "You believe something that is not what I believe, and therefore you will fry for all eternity". Not much complexity to either position.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Not much complexity to either position.
Not when you put it like that, no. But that's because your representation of the Catholic position is simplistic - and also, as I tried to hint earlier, not representative of current understandings of the dogma in question.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Not much complexity to either position.
Not when you put it like that, no. But that's because your representation of the Catholic position is simplistic - and also, as I tried to hint earlier, not representative of current understandings of the dogma in question.
How is it not representative of the current Roman Catholic understanding? What is not representative about it? You've actually said on this very thread that people who aren't professing Roman Catholics yet somehow manage to find themselves saved must really be Roman Catholics at heart. In other words: "if you're saved, you must have been Roman Catholic after all". How in the world does this differ in any practical way from "if you're not Roman Catholic you're going to hell"?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Not much complexity to either position.
Not when you put it like that, no. But that's because your representation of the Catholic position is simplistic - and also, as I tried to hint earlier, not representative of current understandings of the dogma in question.
Well, JL, "simplistic" is exactly how the RCC position comes across to me. Since I cannot assent to RCC dogma (thanks for the correction, btw) on several key issues, by your church's official stance, I am "out of fellowship" with both Jesus and the "one true Church," and am also odds-on damned.
To me, what is simplistic is the RCC dogma that appoints to the RCC the determination of who is "officially" redeemed and in fellowship with God, or not. Scot's excellent post nailed my sentiments EXACTLY:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
It would be like one of my children deciding that he was going to be the one to judge whether his siblings could rightfully claim to be my children. Whether he is correct or not, it is not his judgement to make. He may regret his arrogance if I catch him offending my other children in my name.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Hear Hear!
I am overwhelmed by the eloquence of the exposition of the errors of our Catholic Faith.
I remain underwhelmed by the ambition of those who have done so. quote:
1 Peter 2:9
You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood ...
Is there any RCC sacrament that should be withheld from non-RCC? Why shouldn't non-RCC be ordained? Consecrated? If you could convince us to make you pope, then you could really tell us how we should do things.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Is there any RCC sacrament that should be withheld from non-RCC? Why shouldn't non-RCC be ordained? Consecrated? If you could convince us to make you pope, then you could really tell us how we should do things.
Speaking for myself, I don't really care what the RCC does with its sacraments or who it dispenses them to. I avoid RC churches these days because I believe the closed table to be an offense to the gospel, so that's a non-issue for me.
I'm not too thrilled when people say that I'm really a Roman Catholic at heart, especially when I know better. I find that offensive -- not because being Roman Catholic is a horrible thing, but rather because of the implication that if I were really open to Jesus I couldn't be anything else.
Grrrrr. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Hear Hear!
I am overwhelmed by the eloquence of the exposition of the errors of our Catholic Faith.
I remain underwhelmed by the ambition of those who have done so.
Gosh LD, sorry to underwhelm you, I'll try and whelm you better in the future....
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
1 Peter 2:9
You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood ...
Is there any RCC sacrament that should be withheld from non-RCC?
As I understand the RCC sacraments: No.
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Why shouldn't non-RCC be ordained? Consecrated?
Because we'd toss that dogma of mandatory unmarried clergy, ditto papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, among others? Because maybe we'd make a believer's relationship with God more important than the furtherance of our religious empire?
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
If you could convince us to make you pope, then you could really tell us how we should do things.
Vote for me for Pope! My platform: No frocks, no non-married clergy, heave the Latin and speak English or whatever's the most commonly understood language in the parish, free homiletic instruction for all clergy, all clergy at every level are accountable to both lay people and other clergy, and as soon as my reforms are enacted, I abdicate and sell off the Vatican to the government of Italy as a museum.
Howzzat?
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
no,no, no ken, hang onto the frocks and the sung Latin: the RC woman has limited options for cocking a snook at the clergy without these accoutrements!
Anyway, if we didn't have all this window-dressing we might even be Christian....
cheers,
m ( thoroughly enjoying the turn the thread has taken)
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
no,no, no ken, hang onto the frocks and the sung Latin: the RC woman has limited options for cocking a snook at the clergy without these accoutrements!
M, I don't speak Welsh. What the heck is "cocking a snook"?
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Dearest kenwritez,
I married into a tribe of Welsh Calvinistic Mthodists-so I don't speak the lingo either!!!
To cock a snook is to put one's thumb against one's nose and waggle one's fingers-the non verbal equivalent of "up yours".
cheers,
m
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
How in the world does this differ in any practical way from "if you're not Roman Catholic you're going to hell"?
When you say "if you're not Catholic, you're going to Hell" without any qualification, to most people that will mean only those whose Catholicism is explicit. So, considering what I think is nowadays the most popular understanding of the dogma, it would be a simplistic presentation if let to stand alone. That's all.
quote:
Originally posted by kenwritez:
To me, what is simplistic is the RCC dogma that appoints to the RCC the determination of who is "officially" redeemed and in fellowship with God, or not.
No, the dogma does not do that. First off, it is Catholic teaching that Christ redeemed the world - but being redeemed does not necessarily guarantee salvation. (Nor, for that matter, does justification necessarily entail salvation.) Anyway, the dogma does not appoint to the Catholic Church any such determination; rather, what it says is that God has established an ark for salvation, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.
And being Christian - even a Catholic Christian - does not assure one of salvation.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
"disposition"... being properly disposed towards it
You pointed me at JLG's quote for the meaning of "properly disposed".
I don't have any problem with the idea that one should receive devoutly, not be conscious of unrepented sin, and not have just eaten or drunk something else.
But that seems a million miles away from a requirement to believe in a particular philosophy of what is "real", or to believe in papal infallibility or any of the other doctrines that keep thinking people out of the Roman Catholic Church.
I'm not saying that there aren't thinking people inside the Roman Catholic Church, I'm just making clear that I'm not talking about those who are ignorant, prejudiced, or not-yet-evangelised, but thinking adults who perceive that becoming a member of the RCC means formally assenting to ideas which they just don't think are true. Who observably take communion just as devoutly and reverently in their own churches as the average Catholic does.
Having shot down the idea that non-Catholics are not worthy, and the idea that non-Catholics are not reverent or devout enough (both of which may go down very well in inward-looking circles of traditionalist Catholics who don't mix enough with Christians of other denominations) is it possible that on the third try you could say in plain language just why it is that you personally believe that non-Catholics and Catholics shouldn't take communion together ?
quote:
I'm not sure what the question means. I can't break up my beliefs and organise them into two brackets of "unite" and "divide", because I don't think it's Catholic teaching that causes division, but rather it's the decision to reject it that does so.[quote]
Are you really saying that you don't know what are the points of agreement and disagreement between Catholics and other Christians ?
And surely you must recognise that it takes two to argue...
[quote]True unity can only be grounded in Truth.
If you mean by this that there is no true unity if people lie to each other about what they really think for the sake of social acceptability, then you've got a point. But I wonder if in that case there is ever any "true unity". Does not any union, even a marriage, require tact on some subjects, some holding back of what one really thinks ?
If on the other hand "Truth" is the label you put on what anyone else would call "Catholic Doctrine", than what you are in effect saying is "no unity unless you believe what I believe". Which explains nothing, but just re-states the problem.
Please keep talking to us - we may get somewhere eventually.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Tortuf,
What if Jesus set one up? Would that suggest God cared?
Sure... if you believe God only works through Jesus.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
Like going on the wagon?
One year I gave up alcohol for Lent, and in doing so discovered my drinking had seriously fallen off - I didn't miss it a bit. Probably should give up not drinking for Lent.
quote:
originally posted by JL:
When you say "if you're not Catholic, you're going to Hell" without any qualification, to most people that will mean only those whose Catholicism is explicit. So, considering what I think is nowadays the most popular understanding of the dogma, it would be a simplistic presentation if let to stand alone. That's all.
So instead of letting this stand alone, you say that if a non-Catholic is saved, he or she must have really been a Catholic at heart after all. It amounts to the same thing, and is offensive either way.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Russ,
Would you be willing to worship the Eucharist?
RuthW,
Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I don't subscribe to the view that the Truth changes according to whether someone somewhere finds it offensive or not (a lot of Muslims find the Incarnation offensive - uh-oh, there goes Christianity) so all I can say is I hope you find some way to reconcile your emotions with the fact that Catholics accept "outside the Church, no salvation" as dogma.
I would love to hear why it's offensive, though.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
jl,
Do you worship the Eucharist? As fanatical as I am, I would not describe my Eucharastic devotions as worship. If such were the case there would be justification for the assertion that we are idolaters. The difference between worship and devotion is very important to me and is not a semantic techncality.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
CorgiGreta,
I'm aware of the difference. Catholics worship the Eucharist.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I am amazed. Please elaborate. Apparetnly there is much about the Roman Cahtolic Curch of which I am unaware. I assume that you do not mean that you worship Christ in the Eucharist, but that you worship the Sacrament itself.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
CorgiGreta,
For a Catholic, the distinction you make is false. Let me quote from the Catechism:
quote:
1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.
1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord... [etc.]
We worship the Eucharist, for it is God. Is it latria, not hyperdulia or dulia, which we offer to the consecrated Host.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Last sentence was meant to be a statement, not a rhetorical question. "It is", not "Is it".
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I don't subscribe to the view that the Truth changes according to whether someone somewhere finds it offensive or not (a lot of Muslims find the Incarnation offensive - uh-oh, there goes Christianity) so all I can say is I hope you find some way to reconcile your emotions with the fact that Catholics accept "outside the Church, no salvation" as dogma.
I would love to hear why it's offensive, though.
Would you be offended if someone kept telling you that you were really a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, despite your protestations to the contrary? And every time you disagreed, apologized for your inability to grasp the truth?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Would you be offended if someone kept telling you that you were really a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, despite your protestations to the contrary? And every time you disagreed, apologized for your inability to grasp the truth?
But surely a Buddhist would say that if I attained Nirvana then I must have unconsciously been following the eight-fold path.
I don't think I'd be offended, but I may try to avoid them after a while.
In any case, I think that that I approach the issue somewhat differently from JL. As I read the documents of Vatican II, membership in the Church is "analog", not "digital." It's not a matter of "in" or "out" but of falling somewhere along a continuum. We RC's believe that the RC's Church is the full and adequate institutional embodiment of the Church of Christ, but we recognize that other christian bodies are also embodiments of the Church, though we hold them to be so to a less full degree.
Where I think I differ from JL is that it seems to me that it is being a member of Christ's body that is crucial, not one's canonical status vis a vis the Church of Rome. Indeed, I'm rather surprised to see him interpret Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus as meaning "outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation." It seems that the Church's clear teaching is that all baptized non-RC's are part of the Church of Jesus Christ, and so the issue of those extra ecclesiam would be irrelevent.
As far as the idea of "implicit RC's" goes. . . well, I suppose I'd say that in order to be saved one must be willing to accept and believe all that God says to be true. Since I think RC dogma is true, I presume that all who will be saved have an implicit willingness to believe it, and will believe it when they see God face to face, though they might find themselves surprised in doing so. But I also think that all of us -- RC and non-RC alike -- will be surprised and amazed when, no longer seeing dimly in a mirror, the fullness of God's truth is revealed to us.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Where I think I differ from JL is that it seems to me that it is being a member of Christ's body that is crucial, not one's canonical status vis a vis the Church of Rome. Indeed, I'm rather surprised to see him interpret Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus as meaning "outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation." It seems that the Church's clear teaching is that all baptized non-RC's are part of the Church of Jesus Christ, and so the issue of those extra ecclesiam would be irrelevent.
But rejection of the Pope's authority places one outside of the Church, despite the validity of any Trinitarian baptism. That's the clear teaching of Unam Sanctam. (Full text here.) And, as Unam Sanctam states - in a manner which sounds pretty much like an infallible statement to me, given how it's presented - "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
I'm just waiting for someone to call me a Feeneyite... ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
...And, as Unam Sanctam states - in a manner which sounds pretty much like an infallible statement to me, given how it's presented - "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Well he would say that, wouldn't he?
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
pardon me if i'm dubious.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I don't subscribe to the view that the Truth changes according to whether someone somewhere finds it offensive or not (a lot of Muslims find the Incarnation offensive - uh-oh, there goes Christianity) so all I can say is I hope you find some way to reconcile your emotions with the fact that Catholics accept "outside the Church, no salvation" as dogma.
I would love to hear why it's offensive, though.
Because you keep tell Erin, Scot, me, et al., that as we are not in communion with the see of Rome, we're going to hell. How hard is it to understand that?
I'm with Erin on the issue of the closed table, as well. I don't care what kind of ecclesiology it comes from - it's blatantly inhospitable.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
But rejection of the Pope's authority places one outside of the Church, despite the validity of any Trinitarian baptism. That's the clear teaching of Unam Sanctam. (Full text here.) And, as Unam Sanctam states - in a manner which sounds pretty much like an infallible statement to me, given how it's presented - "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Well, I have no idea what a Feeneyite is, so I'll pass on that one.
As for "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff," I see every reason that's perfectly in error, a "papal fallability."
I see nothing in Scripture, absolutely nothing, that in any way supports the Roman claim of being the one, true Universal Church, outside of which is no salvation. (I'm not sure if the orthodox also claim Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus; Fr. Greg?).
IMHO, the fact the RCC makes this claim in the first place degrades Catholicism to the status of a cult, no different than the Moonies or Branch Davidians: A rigid doctrinal structure which admits of no error and is under the authority of a single leader to whom is attributed perfection and whose fiats cannot be questioned.
(I'll also be the first to admit there are some Protestant denominations as well as individual church bodies which operate in similar heavy-handed ways, notably the Church of Christ.)
What makes my position in this debate ironic is two years ago I was ejected from a Christian-oriented newsgroup by its moderator after I affirmed Roman Catholics could be just as much a Christian as any Protestant. (A position I still hold, btw.)
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
The United Methodist Church has an Apostle's Creed (full text here Apostle's Creed ) that contains the words "I believe in the Holy Spirit,the holy catholic Church . . .." Catholic here means universal church. Perhaps the dogma is correct. At least all Methodists profess to believe in the catholic church.
Of course, it may not be the same one people are arguing about here. It is possible that the catholic church Jesus established through his rocky apostle was the church of all believers in Him. That is what I believe in any event. Mind you, I will never convince some folks I am right. On the other hand I think a certain devoted debater is having a great deal of fun yanking everyone's chains. More power to him.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Because you keep tell Erin, Scot, me, et al., that as we are not in communion with the see of Rome, we're going to hell. How hard is it to understand that?
Well, if I had said that, I'd understand your getting upset. However, as I have pointed out several times now, the dogma is generally interpreted by Catholic theologians as meaning that those who are saved are members of the Catholic Church in some sense, or at the very least receive their salvation through the Catholic Church. I have never, ever said that anyone is going to Hell for failing to explicitly profess allegiance to the See of Rome - and I have most certainly never committed the mortal sin of telling people that they're going to go to Hell.
And Ken, I think that addresses the points you raised too. Well, I hope it does. There's clear water between Catholicism and the whacko-shows you mention. Again, nothing I am saying denies that Protestants are Christian (so I can't see the irony you mention.)
As for what a Feeneyite is - well, Father Feeney was a Jesuit who was condemned in the 1950s (IIRC) for teaching that only persons explicitly professing Catholic belief and having received water baptism could be saved. At least, that's one interpretation. His followers, some of whom are in communion with Rome and otherwise seem totally solid, orthodox Catholics, claim that what actually happened was that he was disciplined for disobedience, and that what he was teaching was never condemned as heresy in a valid manner. It's one of the most tortuous sideshows of twentieth-century American Catholicism, from what I've read of it.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Kenwritez
quote:
(I'm not sure if the orthodox also claim Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus; Fr. Greg[ory]?).
The original phrase is from St. Cyprian and it is sometimes referred to as Cyprianic ecclesiology. There is a long article about St. Cyprian here ...
St. Cyprian
St. Cyprian's formula is unexceptional if one's definition of the Church is construed by baptism. Some contemporary inter-faith theologians who try to remain faithful to Cyprianic ecclesiology try to widen the definition even further to include God fearers of other religions. It's difficult to see how this can be done without rendering the phrase useless .... which is how some liberal commentators actually think of it. The trouble is that if the Christian dispensation (which includes the Church) is thought to be immaterial to salvation then we have nothing left useful to say or do.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Me:
Because you keep tell Erin, Scot, me, et al., that as we are not in communion with the see of Rome, we're going to hell. How hard is it to understand that?
quote:
Jesuitical Lad:
Well, if I had said that, I'd understand your getting upset. However, as I have pointed out several times now, the dogma is generally interpreted by Catholic theologians as meaning that those who are saved are members of the Catholic Church in some sense, or at the very least receive their salvation through the Catholic Church. I have never, ever said that anyone is going to Hell for failing to explicitly profess allegiance to the See of Rome - and I have most certainly never committed the mortal sin of telling people that they're going to go to Hell.
You really don't see how this amounts to the same thing in my eyes, do you? And you don't see how this interpretation of dogma could be offensive to non-RCC Christians either.
Would you like to understand? I'm asking seriously. Because if you want to understand my point of view, I'm willing to make an effort to explain it further.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
I'll see your Unam Sanctam and raise you a Lumen Gentium 15:
quote:
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.
And for good measure I'll throw in Unitatis Redintegration 3 (a long quotation, but worth reading):
quote:
Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church --for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church -- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church -- do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.
I would say that the above pretty much summarize my own views on the matter.
Believe me, I am sympathetic with JL's desire to avoid the kind of sloppy ecumenism that says that differences don't matter or that one kind of christianity is as good as another, even if they are absolutely contradictory. But while I am not opposed to drawing lines, I'm not sure there is a need to draw one here.
As to how the above statements fit with Unam Sanctam. . . well, I suppose that's an intra-Catholic debate over the hermeneutics of church documents.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear FCB
It's that disjuncture between Cyprianic rigour and post-schism accommodation which is so fiicult for many people to square.
Dear Ruth
I carry no torch for Catholicism (except in so far as we share many things in common). However, (and although JL must answer this really), I do not see how a statement that many non-Catholics who are saved will do so in some way through the Catholic Church in any way infers that only hell fire awaits those who are not in full communion with Rome. I admite the tension between JL's and FCB's presentation but we are dealing with extracts here which taken out of context can mislead. Please read what I have said here in conjunction with what I have said to FCB above. (Needless to say, as an Orthodox Christian I do not believe that my salvation in any way directly involves the Roman Catholic Church ... but that's not the point).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PeterY
Shipmate
# 3962
|
Posted
FCB,
Thanks for all of that - I was really despairing that there really was nothing positive from the Roman Catholics, just an arrogant "We're right, you're wrong, so live with it." Your quotes give a much better perspective.
But, I would still take it a stage further (and possibly wander off topic a bit) by wondering why the sharing of the Eucharist is governed by ecclesiastical belief rather than Christian belief? Did Christ's commandment to "Do this" apply to the (or a) Church or did it apply to Christians? Why should sharing the Eucharist only come with full ecclesiastical communion? I may not agree with all Roman Catholic discipline; I may not agree with some (and only some) of its dogma ( I have to admit that I found Unam Sanctam a little whacky). But if Roman Catholics believe it, then that's great for them. Surely the Eucharist is beyond, indeed above, all of this; it is a sign of our unity as Christians, our unity in the essence of being Christians rather than a sign of ecclesiastical unity.
I know that the answer from some will be that the two, 'Christian' and membership of a particular church, cannot be so seperated because that particular church says that it cannot. But there is something very unconvincing about that; rather like someone saying that the Bible is without error because the Bible says that it's without error.
Posts: 120 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
To make a distinction of contrast or opposition between Christian belief and "ecclesiastical belief" is the root of the problem here. Some churches make no such distinction ... others do. Of course, distinctions do need to be made in respect of PARTS of church communions that fall away from the truth but in so doing they invariably fall away from the wider body as well. Even in the case of Arianism where the default was so comprehensive, St. Athanasius could appeal to the universal catholic believing of the Church in time as well as space.
Unless we can narrow the difference between these two different ecclesiologies we will never make progress on other derivative matters.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PeterY
Shipmate
# 3962
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fr Gregory:
quote:
To make a distinction of contrast or opposition between Christian belief and "ecclesiastical belief" is the root of the problem here.
and
quote:
Unless we can narrow the difference between these two different ecclesiologies we will never make progress on other derivative matters
Yes, I agree, but it still does not answer why the sharing of the Eucharist is primarily a matter of ecclesiastical unity. For instance, Baptism is not; the various Trinitarian churches accept each other's Baptism, but the sharing of the Eucharist will only come when we believe EVERYTHING a particular church teaches. It seems to me that this might be the wrong way round.
Posts: 120 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
asher
Shipmate
# 97
|
Posted
Great thread.
Really enjoyed reading it, but as I read I started to itch, and it was only when I went to bed last night that I found where to scratch. I guess that it’s a common enough idea to meet with Christ and to find Christ in the poor and broken:
I wonder what relationship their might be between God’s showing forth through the lives of the poor, and how we think about who is Christian?
I wonder whether those who have posted on this thread setting apparently strong boundaries, meet with Christ in the despised and rejected outside of their boundaries? If so, how does this affect how they think about who is Christian?
Is there no connection at all?
Peace
Asher
Posts: 224 | From: Norwich | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It's that disjuncture between Cyprianic rigour and post-schism accommodation which is so fiicult for many people to square.
No doubt. I too find them hard to square in theory. But I think some middle path through namby-pamby inclusivism and eccelsiastical triumphalism seems to me the only path forward.
Also, the Roman Catholic Church has a long history and has had to address different times and circumstances. In a sense, it is no surprise that Unam Sanctam and Lumen Gentium speak with different voices, since they speak to very different circumstances. I suppose the challenge (one that I have not myself ever taken up) would be to see how they can speak with such different voices and not be flat-out contradictory. I suppose my implicit faith in Church teaching would lead me to presume that they can somehow be reconciled.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Peter
The recognition of baptism FOLLOWS a recognition of the practice of initiation in running water and the name of the Trinity as a common practice and mutual designation of the term "Christian." Baptism is imperfectly realised in the sense that we have One Lord, One Baptism but not One Faith. Now, I know that some will say that we do have One Faith and things like total depravity, the flioque, the Immaculate Conception etc. are not really important differences. That claim can only be made by those who support it. It does not have a wider currency amongst those churches that uphold such teachings. As baptism is imperfectly realised in Christian unity terms the full expression of unity, (Holy Communion), we hold to be not yet fully interchangeable. I recognise the plausibility of the argument that "inter-Communion" might be a route to unity at other levels but historical experience I think shows that it has not led to such agreement in churches that practice inter-Communion with one another. Of course, this sends us right back to the question of what is important and what is not. That is where we should start because inter-Communion practice (yes OR no) is not going to change without that.
Dear Asher
It is not only Christians of course who meet Christ (as we might say) in the poor. I don't think we can define "Christian" by the practice of compassion and justice. We have no monpoloy on such things and, therefore, they cannot serve to define what is distinctively Christian unless there is an argument that it's HOW we do it that counts, (I would not be inclined to support such an argument ... disinterested unconditional sacrificial love may be practised by anyone.
Dear FCB
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
