|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Almost thou persuadest me (to the Roman Catholic Church)
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
But surely you agree that in practice short of an inquisition of the creepy kind cradle-Catholics will end up much less orthodox in belief than people who must as grown-ups decide that they believe (or will say they believe) everything the church teaches.
Perhaps, but not necessarily. If people are properly catechised and they are continually being taught the faith effectively I think the gap could be much narrower than it doubtless is at present.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Most Catholics,just like most Anglicans and most other Christians are brought into the family of the Church at an early age.
This may be true of Anglicans where you are, but it is not true of Anglicans where I am. I'd estimate that upwards of half of the people in my parish were not baptized in the Episcopal Church.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is one thing to become a citizen of for example the UK, it is quite another to have such a naturalised citizenship revoked over offences against the UK. In order to become a UK citizen it is requires that you have lived in the UK for several years, that you pass a test concerning your knowledge of British traditions and customs, that you swear allegiance to the crown... Whereas those who are born to British nationals can get their UK citizenship even if they never set foot on British soil, nobody tests them on their knowledge of British traditions and customs, and their allegiance to the crown is assumed rather than vowed. Furthermore, those who are naturalised UK citizens can have their citizenship revoked, can become denaturalised, over grievous offences against the UK as decided by its government. But the level of offence required for that is quite beyond for example a lack of knowledge of British traditions and customs.
Becoming a member of the RCC means to become a naturalised citizen of the City of God, and to swear allegiance to its Lord. As for any nation (or tribe, if you wish...), becoming part of it is rather different than getting thrown out of it. Unlike for a regular nation we are all born in exile, in the City of Man, and will not see our adopted country till our death. Yet just as for normal nations, there are special provisions made for the children of those who are already nationals, even though they are not born in the home country. They can gain citizenship from their parents, typically by walking into one of the local embassies...
The analogy between citizenship and being in full communion with the church is truly awful. Justifying special privileges for the children of some people but not others because that's what nation-states do implies some pretty ugly things about the church. That it is easier to enter the church as a child than as an adult makes a lot of sense, but not based on your analogy.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It's really no more difficult taking the Church on trust than taking Jesus on trust.
On the contrary. The church is made up of fallible people and has committed atrocious atrocities over the last 2000 years. Christ is not made up of fallible people.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenuphar
Shipmate
# 16057
|
Posted
I wonder if it would be useful to to phrase it as "taking the Church's doctrines on trust," as it is those, rather than the all-too-fallible members, that are considered authoritative?
Posts: 161 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nenuphar:
I wonder if it would be useful to to phrase it as "taking the Church's doctrines on trust," as it is those, rather than the all-too-fallible members, that are considered authoritative?
Even then, it's completely different from taking Jesus at trust. It's taking the interpretation of fallible members on trust.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Lots of the valuable responses to me have already been answered by people I agree with, but to cover other things: quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it. And yet converts must have better understanding than that?
This is simply not true. In John 6, for example, Jesus absolutely requires a specific belief of his disciples. And he loses a lot of them because they just cannot believe in this. In Matt 16:23, he tells St Peter brutally what he thinks of his lack of understanding. And of course, if we count his various teaching encounters with the Jews, in particular with the Pharisees, then Christ cannot be accused of doctrinal "laissez faire" in the slightest. If you merely look at the apostles, then you are suffering from severe selection bias: you are then of course considering the very people that somehow made the cut. Many Jews who encountered Jesus didn't.
Do you really think all of church doctrine is as simple and essential to Christianity as what's covered in John 6?
Re Jesus telling Peter off, yeah Peter gets in trouble with Jesus quite a bit, but he doesn't say you can't be my disciple unless you understand and assent to everything I teach.
Do you seriously not see a difference in degree between the doctrine Jesus specified and insisted on and a doctrine say on Mary, who Jesus did not talk about that I can think of. (Except my mother and brothers are those... which is scarcely about Mary.)
It's not that Christ was laissez faire. It's that he had priorities and whether the disciples understood that he was coming back from the dead ahead of time apparently wasn't one of them. And most of us consider that Christ rose from the dead a reallybasic Christian teaching. Follow me, love God, things like that seem to have been way more important to him. He certainly discussed them very clearly so that his hearers did understand.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
fineline =if you were to stoop down and enter the Church by the narrow gate , then you might find that it opens out onto a wide and open expanse within the big tent ,which is the Catholic Church.
Christians who find in Jesus ,the Saviour of mankind,and who can put their trust in Jesus,can equally put their trust in the community of His mystical Body ,the Church.The apostolic teaching
and the sacraments of the Church are our guides and wayposts through life.
What we may find difficult to accept are our own imperfections and the perceived imperfections of
others.Most of us are good at seeing the imperfections,cruelties and atrocities of others.
These imperfections are part of human life and we should strive to eliminate them in our own lives and as far as possible in the lives of others.
Christians of all stripes and ranks,even popes, have sometimes failed miserably at following Christ,but it does not make the message of Christ,nor the teaching of the Church any less valuable as an ideal to aim towards.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
fineline =if you were to stoop down and enter the Church by the narrow gate , then you might find that it opens out onto a wide and open expanse within the big tent ,which is the Catholic Church.
Not exactly obvious from outside the gate!
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
You could die tomorrow! God's own family is open to you today. Why remain outside?
If God is calling you to know Him through His Church, as he seems to be doing, just trust and love and go forward to Him. He will give you the graces you need.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I've flirted with Rome for over 45 years -when I was on the verge, an RC told me that I would either go to Hell or be 'invincibly ignorant' if I didn't go over.
That stopped me - what arrogance on behalf of the RCC.
I will never go over while that sort of thinking is in place.
That's quite a small thing to cut oneself off from the Bride of Christ. Pray for that RC you referred to?
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenuphar:
I wonder if it would be useful to to phrase it as "taking the Church's doctrines on trust," as it is those, rather than the all-too-fallible members, that are considered authoritative?
Even then, it's completely different from taking Jesus at trust. It's taking the interpretation of fallible members on trust.
You take the fallible members who wrote Scripture and the fallible members who decided what was or was not to be in the canon of Scripture on trust don't you?
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is simply not true. In John 6, for example, Jesus absolutely requires a specific belief of his disciples. And he loses a lot of them because they just cannot believe in this. In Matt 16:23, he tells St Peter brutally what he thinks of his lack of understanding. And of course, if we count his various teaching encounters with the Jews, in particular with the Pharisees, then Christ cannot be accused of doctrinal "laissez faire" in the slightest. If you merely look at the apostles, then you are suffering from severe selection bias: you are then of course considering the very people that somehow made the cut. Many Jews who encountered Jesus didn't.
But a few chapters earlier in John 4, Jesus reveals Himself to the Samaritan woman whose doctrine was totally wrong other than that she believed the Messiah was coming.
It is also revealed in Acts that many who were baptized by John did not properly understand what they were told about the coming Savior.
Jesus criticizes the apostles for not understanding who He was and what He had to accomplish on Earth. In John 6 disciples leave because they do not want to accept Christ's sacrifice and participate in His Holy Communion.
Certainly we have no evidence in Scripture that Jesus was concerned with what His disciples believed about His mother. Of course Scripture is a result of church tradition, but the character of Jesus as described in those books is not one of someone who would bind His followers to anything beyond the most important belief - that He is our Lord and Savior.
The decision to join the RCC is not one based on Scripture, but on tradition. So you would probably make this point more effectively relying on tradition, because Scripture doesn't seem to support you.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
OTOH, scripture can be found to support all manner of things, all manner of strange and mundane denominations. In the end, they are all personal accounts originating outside the borders of the Church. They may contain truths, may contain errors, but none are authoritative.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
OTOH, scripture can be found to support all manner of things, all manner of strange and mundane denominations. In the end, they are all personal accounts originating outside the borders of the Church. They may contain truths, may contain errors, but none are authoritative.
I agree. Which is why the choice of a church once it is established to believe the core Christian doctrines must be a matter of tradition.
I was calling IngoB out for using Scripture to make a point that simply cannot be made by Scripture. Because everyone's church will be found to have non-Scriptural beliefs and doctrines and practices. The New Testament doesn't fill in enough blanks for anyone to make the claim that they are the TRUE church from it. And that certainly includes the RCC, whose claim to authority is based on the extra-Scriptural tradition of Peter in Rome. It has nothing to do with what Jesus expected of His followers in the slightest.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
OTOH, scripture can be found to support all manner of things, all manner of strange and mundane denominations. In the end, they are all personal accounts originating outside the borders of the Church. They may contain truths, may contain errors, but none are authoritative.
I know you're only calling things as you see them, Invictus_88, but I wish you wouldn't blithely assert that your Church is the Church. It comes across to me as really arrogant and dismissive.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thing is, though, SCK, if Invicta88 believes his Church to be THE Church then he cannot do otherwise than state as much - even if gives offence to those who don't agree with him.
One might equally accuse Steve Langton on other threads of 'blithely' assuming that the Anabaptist way is THE scriptural way ...
Steve Langton - or anyone else on these boards - will undoubtedly have come to the conclusions he's reached through prayer, study, debate and much else besides.
Invicta88 will no doubt have gone through a similar process in order to adopt the views he holds.
This isn't an exact analogy, of course, but if Invicta88 believed that Peru was north of the Equator and you believed that it was to the south of the Equator, would he be 'blithe' and dismissive by sticking to his guns that it is actually north of the Line.
I know it cuts against the Protestant grain for any group to claim to be The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - but in the case of the RCs and Orthodox that IS what they believe. There they stand, they can do no other ... whether the rest of us like it or not.
Sure, it can sound arrogant but at the same time I do believe it behoves the rest of us to seek to understand why they hold that view and what the implications are.
One could argue that the rest of us are being 'blithe' and arrogant by insisting that they adopt a looser and more fluid ecclesiology.
It might be different in Invicta88's case but I've yet to find an RC or an Orthodox Christian who didn't believe that I wasn't a 'proper' Christian because I wasn't part of their Church. That doesn't stop them from telling me that I am somehow outside the Church in the way that they understand it. I've got used to that and as time has gone on I've developed more of an understanding as to why they think this to be the case.
I'm sure there would be zealots in both communities who might assert that those beyond their own boundaries can't be 'saved' but it's not a view I've come across at all in real life.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenuphar:
I wonder if it would be useful to to phrase it as "taking the Church's doctrines on trust," as it is those, rather than the all-too-fallible members, that are considered authoritative?
Even then, it's completely different from taking Jesus at trust. It's taking the interpretation of fallible members on trust.
You take the fallible members who wrote Scripture and the fallible members who decided what was or was not to be in the canon of Scripture on trust don't you?
I take the Bible as being written by fallible humans using human language to somehow describe a God who is beyond language. It gives us a glimpse of something we can't fully understand. Language can point towards something greater, but can't contain it. Therefore, I have a difficulty with more fallible humans coming along and giving a 'definitive' interpretation of this language, as if such an interpretation and enclosure of God within it were possible.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One could argue that the rest of us are being 'blithe' and arrogant by insisting that they adopt a looser and more fluid ecclesiology.
looks over shoulder to see if four horsemen are coming
Wowser: Gamaliel posted something I agree with.
And FWIW: thanks much to Ingo for having helped me begin to comprehend what the RCC actually says rather than what its critics say it says.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I'm not sure I'm comfortable having someone called 'Moron' agree with me, but thanks all the same ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, though, SCK, if Invicta88 believes his Church to be THE Church then he cannot do otherwise than state as much - even if gives offence to those who don't agree with him.
I suppose, though, in a discussion with people who all hold different views on this, it aids discussion to acknowledge that what one is saying is not a view held by all. Such as saying 'what Catholics believe to be the Church' rather than simply 'the church'. I'd find it easier to understand and appreciate what someone is saying if they clarify the assumptions that underly their views. I don't even fully understand what is meant when a Catholic says 'the church' - does this really apply only to baptised Catholics, or does it include Christians of other denominations? The Catholics I know see me as a Christian too, but I'm not even sure if this is in accordance with Catholic doctrine or just their own view.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, though, SCK, if Invicta88 believes his Church to be THE Church then he cannot do otherwise than state as much - even if gives offence to those who don't agree with him.
One might equally accuse Steve Langton on other threads of 'blithely' assuming that the Anabaptist way is THE scriptural way ...
No, I think it's different. If I said my church is the church then the unavoidable (ISTM) implication is that I believe everyone not in my church is not in the church, i.e. is not (or is not fully) part of the worldwide body of Christ.
That seems to me a rather stronger claim than something like 'I think my way [on whatever issue] is scriptural and yours isn't'; as long as there is no implied claim that therefore you aren't really a Christian or really saved or really part of the body of Christ etc.
There's surely scope for Christians to disagree robustly on many matters of practice and doctrine (which inevitably, at heart, means I think my way more closely adheres to what God intends than your way does) without any implication of being unsaved or what have you.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
There's surely scope for Christians to disagree robustly on many matters of practice and doctrine (which inevitably, at heart, means I think my way more closely adheres to what God intends than your way does) without any implication of being unsaved or what have you.
There is scope, and increasingly I'm inclined to think it's largely because one institution unflinchingly sets the discussion boundaries.
You can have mealymouthed types all day long spouting their opinions but when it comes down to it someone has to make a stand.
And by God, they will. And bless them for it.
(sorry, Gamaliel... ![[Smile]](smile.gif) please note the lower case m)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
There's surely scope for Christians to disagree robustly on many matters of practice and doctrine (which inevitably, at heart, means I think my way more closely adheres to what God intends than your way does) without any implication of being unsaved or what have you.
Surely?
No dear. Not when you're dealing with fundamentalists.
Militant Roman Catholics are just as bad as militant conservative evangelicals and other essentially wrong people.
The only way, truth and life is The Church of England.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
There's surely scope for Christians to disagree robustly on many matters of practice and doctrine (which inevitably, at heart, means I think my way more closely adheres to what God intends than your way does) without any implication of being unsaved or what have you.
There is scope, and increasingly I'm inclined to think it's largely because one institution unflinchingly sets the discussion boundaries.
You can have mealymouthed types all day long spouting their opinions but when it comes down to it someone has to make a stand.
And by God, they will. And bless them for it.
Ah the attraction of false, convicted certainty over truth......so deceptive......
But hey, whatever floats your goat. Go for it! Why not?
[code]
[ 21. May 2014, 20:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron
There is scope, and increasingly I'm inclined to think it's largely because one institution unflinchingly sets the discussion boundaries.
You can have mealymouthed types all day long spouting their opinions but when it comes down to it someone has to make a stand.
And by God, they will. And bless them for it.
Excellent! I am all for not being mealymouthed.
I assume that this institution, which is making a noble and courageous stand for the truth, will have the decency and grace to both explain and defend its position? Not a lot to ask, is it?
After all, if such an institution is keen on truth, then I am sure it will adhere closely to God's idea of how authority works, as taught by our Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 10:42-45):
quote:
But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
(emphasis mine, of course)
It's wonderful to think that your godly institution doesn't "lord it over people".
Care to let us know which institution this might be? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I assume that this institution, which is making a noble and courageous stand for the truth, will have the decency and grace to both explain and defend its position?
You are apparently confusing me with a RCC diehard.
Not that I don't think it would be a more than acceptable way to die .
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, though, SCK, that neither the RC Church nor the Orthodox Church restrict salvation to the members of their particular body, nor do they restrict it to Christians.
There are conservative evangelicals who would take a lot more restrictive line on who will ultimately be saved than either of these historic Churches.
Now, it wasn't always so, of course. At one time the RC Church DID teach that one had to belong to the Church - as they understand it - in order to be saved.
They no longer teach that.
I'm not sure the Orthodox have ever taken any hard and fast line on this one - certainly the Orthodox I know treat me as if I'm a fellow Christian only one who happens not to belong to their Church.
I can see what you're saying. I'm simply suggesting that the RC and Orthodox positions on this one doesn't necessarily imply a value judgement on where thee or me or anyone else who is neither RC nor Orthodox stands in salvific terms.
Neither body holds to the kind of Protestant evangelical soteriology that you appear to be taking as read - as the generally accepted baseline for the discussion.
I'm not saying that evangelical soteriology is wrong, simply that if you or I are going to engage in discussion with RCs or Orthodox then we need to get to grips with their ecclesiology and their soteriology in order to do so in any meaningful sense.
Otherwise we are always going to be talking past each other.
We often mean different things by the same terminology - so we have to make sure we both know what the other is talking about.
My analogy for discussions with Orthodox and RCs is that we are rather like the British and the Americans - two nations divided by a common language. We are related, certainly, but some of the terminology is different.
It's a bit like the British and the Aussies too, insofar as when you meet an Australian you immediately recognise the cultural similarities but then differences begin to emerge - and some of these differences can be wider than you at first thought.
So when we Protestants are talking about salvation or the Church and so on with RCs and Orthodox we have to take a sense check to make sure that we are talking about the same things - and not apples and pears or raisins and grapes perhaps ...
All beer is beer but ale is a different kind of beer to lager, for instance.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
We believe that all baptised persons are Christians. We also believe that the Church - which I believe to be the Orthodox Church (an RC would say the Roman Catholic Church, naturally) - to be the ordinary means through which a person is saved. Does that all those outside are damned? Not necessaily so.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I might be missing something but some of the more fundamentalist/conservative Protestants on these boards strike me as being more likely to pontificate as to whether someone is really a Christian or not than any of the RC or Orthodox posters.
They know who they are.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I sense an irregular verb.
I am nuanced.
You are sloppy.
He is mealymouthed.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I sense an irregular verb.
I am nuanced.
You are sloppy.
He is mealymouthed.
I never did do all that well in English.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I sense an irregular verb.
I am nuanced.
You are sloppy.
He is mealymouthed.
I never did do all that well in English.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
They know who they are.
And, we are fairly sure who you mean too. We are watching, and I suggest you stay well clear of the line.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
There's surely scope for Christians to disagree robustly on many matters of practice and doctrine (which inevitably, at heart, means I think my way more closely adheres to what God intends than your way does) without any implication of being unsaved or what have you.
I think we have to distinguish between speculative matters of doctrine, on the one hand, and down-to-earth moral issues, on the other.
We had the beginnings of a discussion on another thread recently about the difference of tone in Jesus' interaction with the Sadducees concerning their non-belief in the resurrection and with the Pharisees concerning their disparaging, oppressive and hypocritical attitude to the ordinary people. Jesus simply told the Sadducees that they were mistaken (Mark 12:24, 27), whereas He sternly denounced the Pharisees in the strongest possible terms - see Matthew chapter 23 - calling them "sons of hell", "brood of vipers" etc. Jesus also asked the Pharisees how they could escape the condemnation of hell.
Now it's clear from Jesus' tone and approach that salvation seems primarily concerned with moral issues and not matters of doctrine, even matters as important as belief in the resurrection.
On the basis of this, I don't think we can regard a professing Christian as an unbeliever (or inferior believer) because of some difference of view concerning various doctrinal speculations, no matter what pedigree they have within Church Tradition. However, we are called to exercise discernment concerning people who treat others in an oppressive manner, such as, for example, professing Christians having a disparaging attitude towards the poor, which was an issue discussed on the "Policing Religion" thread. "You will know them by their fruits" implies a moral judgment, which we are invited to make, to discern false prophets, and by extension, false Christians.
A professing Christian who holds a different view of baptism or the eucharist can hardly be dismissed as a fraud, but a professing Christian who goes out and commits murder can be.
I know that there will be those who say that we have no right to make any such judgment about anyone, because, after all, we are all sinners. I understand that, and we discern "with fear and trembling". But we need to acknowledge that Jesus invites us to use discernment - such as recognising "wolves in sheep's clothing" - and the Apostle Paul identified certain others as "false brethren" (2 Corinthians 11:13-15,26).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
fineline - it is not wrong of your Catholic friends to see in you a Christian,if that is indeed what you claim to be.
The present catechism says the following :
814 From the beginning the one Church has been marked by a great diversity .... within the unity of the People of God a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together.The great richness of diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity.Yet sin and its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity and so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to 'maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace'. (Eph 4:3)
815 What are the bonds of unity ?
Above all charity ,but also
profession of one faith received from the Apostles
common celebration of divine worship
apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders
816 The sole Church of Christ is that which our Saviour entrusted to Peter's care..This Church,constituted and organised as a society in the present world SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church
governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him
817 from the very beginning there arose rifts .... and in later centuries more serious dissensions for often of which men from both sides were to blame
818 HOWEVER ONE CANNOT CHARGE WITH THE SIN OF SEPARATION THOSE BORN INTO THE (SEPARATED)COMMUNITIES AND IN THHEM BROUGHT UP IN THE FAITH OF CHRIST AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ACCEPTS THEM AS BROTHERS ALL WHO HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED BY FAITH IN BAPTISM ARE INCORPORATED INTO CHRIST THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE CALLED CHRISTIANS AND WITH GOOD REASOE ARE ACCEPTED AS BROTHERS IN THE LORD BY THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Do you really think all of church doctrine is as simple and essential to Christianity as what's covered in John 6?
No, I hold to a complex gradation of doctrinal certainty. Why are you asking? You asserted that Jesus "never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it." I proved you wrong from scripture. That's all.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Re Jesus telling Peter off, yeah Peter gets in trouble with Jesus quite a bit, but he doesn't say you can't be my disciple unless you understand and assent to everything I teach.
Make that an "or" instead of an "and", and that indeed is what I see Jesus asserting time and again. Now, admittedly, in scripture we do not have an explicit statement that a disciple is to follow his master in all things, at least until they become a master themselves. But then of course the very idea that this could not be so is very modern. The whole ancient world and indeed much of the East to this day operate on this principle. From Jesus we have in scripture statements that do not only assume this principle, but frankly go to the next level, like "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." And of course, Jesus Himself establishes excommunication (Matt 18:15-17).
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Do you seriously not see a difference in degree between the doctrine Jesus specified and insisted on and a doctrine say on Mary, who Jesus did not talk about that I can think of.
Obviously I see a difference. But in this specific case, I do not see a difference as far as the requirement of faith goes.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It's not that Christ was laissez faire. It's that he had priorities and whether the disciples understood that he was coming back from the dead ahead of time apparently wasn't one of them. And most of us consider that Christ rose from the dead a reallybasic Christian teaching.
Jesus did not stop teaching after his crucifixion. In this particular case He clarified His words most drastically by actually returning to the disciples from the dead. And as the case of the doubting Thomas shows, Jesus was very keen indeed that His apostles believed in His resurrection.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But a few chapters earlier in John 4, Jesus reveals Himself to the Samaritan woman whose doctrine was totally wrong other than that she believed the Messiah was coming.
That's a really horrible summary of what was going on in John 4. At any rate, that Christ reveals Himself to people who are not yet thinking, speaking and behaving like a good disciple of Christ, indeed, who are not His disciple at all, is actually a necessary condition for Christ getting any disciples. I'm not sure that Christ was all that interested in preaching to the choir, but he certainly needed to acquire one first...
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I was calling IngoB out for using Scripture to make a point that simply cannot be made by Scripture.
The points I have made here by using scripture certainly can be made by using scripture, or at least nobody has so far refuted them. I have not, for example, tried to claim here that the Immaculate Conception can be proven unequivocally from scripture, as you somehow seem to believe.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The only way, truth and life is The Church of England.
We all know that you are desperately trying to pimp a thoroughly bland institution. Still, I think it would be good to stop short of outright blasphemy, wouldn't you agree?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
IngoB - it would be helpful to understand what is "horrible" about my understanding of John 4.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
IngoB - it would be helpful to understand what is "horrible" about my understanding of John 4.
I don't know how you understand John 4. I merely said that your summary here was horrible. We actually do not have any indication of "false doctrine" concerning this woman, other than by prior assumption of the presence of false doctrines among Samaritans. In fact, in the only doctrinal exchange here (concerning the proper place of worship) Jesus corrects both Jewish and Samaritan practice on equal terms. We have a case against the woman according to her (sexual) morals, though very interesting non-literal interpretations are possible there (identifying the five husbands with the five senses, etc.). And in the main exchange concerning the "living water", far from showing herself either doctrinally or morally corrupted, the woman reacts as she ought in spite of falling short in understanding. This whole exchange has a lot to do with how conversion can be achieved by understanding a person and their desires (note that the woman while still not certain herself actually manages to reel in many Samaritan converts), but is not intended to tell us what is required of a disciple of Christ.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
fineline - it is not wrong of your Catholic friends to see in you a Christian,if that is indeed what you claim to be.
Okay. So the catechism would allow that I'm a Christian but not part of the Church? What is the Catholic definition of the Church - because my non-Catholic understanding of the Church is that it is all Christians, including myself.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
fineline - it is not wrong of your Catholic friends to see in you a Christian,if that is indeed what you claim to be.
Okay. So the catechism would allow that I'm a Christian but not part of the Church? What is the Catholic definition of the Church - because my non-Catholic understanding of the Church is that it is all Christians, including myself.
This might be the kind of thing you seek
In part it reads-
quote:
SECOND QUESTION
What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
RESPONSE
Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[ in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[
I know its a long quote but its a matter of public record not a copyrighted production.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Do you really think all of church doctrine is as simple and essential to Christianity as what's covered in John 6?
No, I hold to a complex gradation of doctrinal certainty. Why are you asking? You asserted that Jesus "never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it." I proved you wrong from scripture. That's all.
He didn't throw the ones who left out though. They left on their own.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Re Jesus telling Peter off, yeah Peter gets in trouble with Jesus quite a bit, but he doesn't say you can't be my disciple unless you understand and assent to everything I teach.
Make that an "or" instead of an "and", and that indeed is what I see Jesus asserting time and again.
Surely someone who is as logical as you sees that changing an or to an and radically changes the meaning of the statement. In other words, you agree that Jesus never says that. The Catholic church does.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Do you seriously not see a difference in degree between the doctrine Jesus specified and insisted on and a doctrine say on Mary, who Jesus did not talk about that I can think of.
Obviously I see a difference. But in this specific case, I do not see a difference as far as the requirement of faith goes.
I, on the other hand, believe that if Christ required us to believe Mary was a virgin, he would have certainly bothered to tell us so. Christ said lots of hard things, say the sermon on the mount. He certainly wasn't one to mince words about what mattered to him, so I'm going to conclude that doctrine like the virginity of Mary wasn't what he needed his disciples to believe or act on.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It's not that Christ was laissez faire. It's that he had priorities and whether the disciples understood that he was coming back from the dead ahead of time apparently wasn't one of them. And most of us consider that Christ rose from the dead a really basic Christian teaching.
Jesus did not stop teaching after his crucifixion. In this particular case He clarified His words most drastically by actually returning to the disciples from the dead. And as the case of the doubting Thomas shows, Jesus was very keen indeed that His apostles believed in His resurrection.
He needed them to know once he had risen from the dead because he needed them to tell all the rest of us. But he didn't need them to take it on faith ahead of time. He certainly could have told them more explicitly and then expected them to believe him. It would have saved them a lot of pain and panic when he was crucified if he had. And if their beliefs were as important to him as their actions, I suspect he would have.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, that's because your view is non-RC, of course.
The RC view of the Church has been articulated above:
' ... one faith received from the Apostles
common celebration of divine worship
apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders
816 The sole Church of Christ is that which our Saviour entrusted to Peter's care..This Church,constituted and organised as a society in the present world SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church
governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him'
So the Church is those who are in full communion with the Pope as the successor of Peter and those bishops who are in communion with him.
So that leaves out the Anglicans because they aren't in communion with the Pope, even though they claim apostolic succession. It also leaves out members of the various Free Churches and independent churches and also the Orthodox Churches as they aren't in communion with Rome either - although they are regarded as 'sister' churches.
The Orthodox view, of course, is that the Church includes all those in communion with the various Orthodox Patriarchs and Bishops who claim Apostolic Succession. They believe that Rome has severed that link by acting unilaterally on the Creed (the notorious 'filioque' clause) and by - in their view - demanding obedience and submission from everyone else.
Rome, for her part, sees the Orthodox as somewhat wilful, rebellious and independent, refusing to accept the authority of the Pope as the successor of Peter.
But you probably knew all that already.
The only way out of this impasse, from an Orthodox perspective, would be for Rome to repudiate some of her 'errors' and for the Pope to become the Western Patriarch once again rather than some kind of universal Pontiff.
From Rome's perspective the issue can only be resolved if the schismatic Protestants recognise the error of their ways and return 'home' and if the Eastern Churches stopped being so stroppy and toed the line.
Neither of which I see happening any time soon.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
fineline - all the baptised are members of the Catholic Church - by virtue of that baptism.
However you and many other Christians are in impaired communion with the Church,
The Catholic Church does not use the word 'Catholic ' for those who are in impaired communion with the successor of Peter partly because many non-Catholics don't want to be called Catholic in case people think that they are what many people understand by the word 'Catholic',
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Orthodox view, of course, is that the Church includes all those in communion with the various Orthodox Patriarchs and Bishops who claim Apostolic Succession. They believe that Rome has severed that link by acting unilaterally on the Creed (the notorious 'filioque' clause) and by - in their view - demanding obedience and submission from everyone else.
The first step would be to repent and confess the orthodox faith. Then it would be possible to address things such as primacy.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
fineline - all the baptised are members of the Catholic Church - by virtue of that baptism.
However you and many other Christians are in impaired communion with the Church,
The Catholic Church does not use the word 'Catholic ' for those who are in impaired communion with the successor of Peter partly because many non-Catholics don't want to be called Catholic in case people think that they are what many people understand by the word 'Catholic',
Okay. Can I just clarify this, to make sure I understand. Being a Christian who was baptised in a Baptist church makes me a member of the Catholic church (and therefore of 'The Church'), but I'm not allowed to take communion with the Roman Catholics. So is this more a case of not being a member of their particular segment of The Church?
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, the RC position, Fineline, would be that you are not a member of the Church but a member of a church (small c) which isn't in communion with the RC Church. So you can be a Christian and a member of a church (small c) or an 'ecclesial body' as they sometimes refer to it, but you are not ipso facto a member of the Church, Big C.
From an RC perspective you can be a Christian and not a member of the Church. The two things aren't coterminous as they are in Protestant ecclesiology.
Back in the day, of course, some Anglicans wouldn't even have regarded Baptists and other dissenters as members of the Church (Big C) but members of 'conventicles' or sects. That wouldn't necessarily mean that they didn't believe them to be true Christians, of course.
From an RC or an Orthodox point of view you can be a 'better' Christian than any of them are whilst remaining in some kind of separated body.
So you could be a better Baptist, a better Methodist, a better Anglican, a better Salvationist, Pentecostal or whatever else ... but you are still not 'inside' the Church but remain in some kind of 'impaired communion' with Her.
It'd be a bit like saying that you can be British without living in the UK but you are fully British if you live here.
Or like saying that the Church is that town 15 miles down the road and that people who live just outside it aren't part of it but closer to it than those who are 15 miles away.
So, in practice, RCs and Orthodox would recognise some groups as being closer to them than others whilst still not being part of the Church.
That doesn't mean that those people aren't 'saved' because unlike in evangelical Protestant soteriology, you can be a member of the Church and still not ultimately be saved ...
Being 'saved' and being a Christian aren't coterminous.
In both the RC and Orthodox scheme of things there is scope for anyone to be saved - not simply those in communion with the Church (as they understand it). Under 'normal' circumstances they'd say that this is how God generally 'works' but ultimately salvation is his business and not for us to determine who is ultimately in or out.
The Orthodox often say, 'We can say where the Church is but not where it isn't.'
But I've heard them argue over that too ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
He didn't throw the ones who left out though. They left on their own.
Well, there's a distinct difference between being Jesus and being the Church. Let's assume that you have several false beliefs, for the sake of argument. Nevertheless, we assume that you also confidently assert that you are following Jesus Christ appropriately. If Jesus was around in the flesh, he could then say to you "No, Gwai, these beliefs of yours are wrong, and you should rather believe this and that." At that point you really have no choice but to either change your beliefs or stop following Christ. You cannot reasonably pretend that Jesus is in agreement with your beliefs, He just told you that He isn't. However, what happens if the Church tells you: "No, Gwai, these beliefs of yours are wrong, and you should rather believe this and that." Suddenly you have a third option, you can pretend that the Church has misunderstood Jesus, whereas you understand Jesus correctly. This is only possible because the Church isn't Jesus. The upshot of this is quite simple. If Jesus want to keep his followers doctrinally on track, all He has to do is to declare His doctrines and require stringently that they be followed. This is what we seem Him do, and it leads to the desired effect: those who are unwilling to believe in what He says stop following Him. But to achieve the same effect as Jesus, the Church has to do more. She has to exclude precisely those from her community who take the third option and will claim that they know better than the Church what Jesus wants of them. Only if she does that will she achieve the same separation that Jesus can achieve simply by demanding that His followers believe certain things.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely someone who is as logical as you sees that changing an or to an and radically changes the meaning of the statement. In other words, you agree that Jesus never says that. The Catholic church does.
The RCC requires only an "or" there, just like Jesus. I've changed your statement because it is a false assertion.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I, on the other hand, believe that if Christ required us to believe Mary was a virgin, he would have certainly bothered to tell us so. Christ said lots of hard things, say the sermon on the mount. He certainly wasn't one to mince words about what mattered to him, so I'm going to conclude that doctrine like the virginity of Mary wasn't what he needed his disciples to believe or act on.
I'm not entirely sure why we are now talking about the (perpetual) virginity of Mary. That certainly is not identical with her Immaculate Conception. Anyhow, this is really just some version of "sola scripture", a belief that I find nonsensical. While scripture certainly is a major part of the deposit of faith, perhaps even the major part, it simply isn't the be all and end all of Christian faith. If Christian tradition clearly transmitted Mary's virginity to us, and if this is confirmed by the Church, then that is as good to me as anything I find in the bible. One could even say that scripture is simply one particular kind of the same mechanism. It is written down oral tradition canonised by the Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
He needed them to know once he had risen from the dead because he needed them to tell all the rest of us. But he didn't need them to take it on faith ahead of time. He certainly could have told them more explicitly and then expected them to believe him. It would have saved them a lot of pain and panic when he was crucified if he had. And if their beliefs were as important to him as their actions, I suspect he would have.
It's an interesting question to work out what Christ exactly knew, what He communicated, how it was understood and why He didn't force His disciples into a clearer understanding. Just about the least satisfying and least likely answer I can imagine is "because Jesus did not care about right belief but only about right action." In fact, that answer is obviously self-contradictory. If the pain and panic of the disciples could have been avoided, then "Action Jesus" obviously should have spared them this negative experience by telling them exactly what was going to happen. It would have been the right thing to do.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, the RC position, Fineline, would be that you are not a member of the Church but a member of a church (small c) which isn't in communion with the RC Church. So you can be a Christian and a member of a church (small c) or an 'ecclesial body' as they sometimes refer to it, but you are not ipso facto a member of the Church, Big C.
This was my original understanding; however, this does not appear to be what Forthview is saying, nor what the segment of the catechism he quoted is saying. My understanding of both so far is that all Christians are members of the Catholic church, while those baptised as a Roman Catholic are a part of what they see as the church of the apostle Peter, which 'subsists in the Catholic Church'. This suggests to me that Roman Catholics see themselves as a group within the broader category of The Church, rather than other other denominations being outside of it.
Is this a correct understanding of what the Catholics believe, Forthview, or have I misunderstood?
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The only way, truth and life is The Church of England.
We all know that you are desperately trying to pimp a thoroughly bland institution.
What you call bland, I call diverse, democratic and therefore Holy.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Still, I think it would be good to stop short of outright blasphemy, wouldn't you agree?
I have a high ecclesiology. Don't you?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
fineline - all the baptised are indeed members of the Body of Christ - the Church.
But you are in impaired communion with that visible constituted entity known in the world as the Catholic Church.
The idea of 'communion' is extremely important in the Catholic Church.That is the bond of charity,the celebration of the divine mysteries in communion with one another,expressed
in communion with the local bishop who is in communion with the successor of St Peter. We are all limbs of the one Body of Christ.
By remaining outside of Catholic unity you are a broken off limb of the Church,but still very much a limb of the Body of Christ.
Sacramental Communion also expresses both individually and communally our common unity in the faith.If you do not wish to express that unity fully,why would you wish to receive Communion in a Catholic Church ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
