|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical?
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Catechism of the Catholic Church
836 all men are called to the catholic unity of the People of God. And to it,in different ways belong or are ordered : the Catholic faithful,others who believe in Christ and finally all mankind....
837 Even though incorporated into the Church,one who does not persevere in charity is not saved.He remains in the bosom of the Church,but 'in body' not 'in heart'.
838 The church knows she is joined in many ways to the baptised who are honoured by the name of Christian,but... have not preserved communion of unity with the successor of Peter ... they are in CERTAIN,although IMPERFECT COMMUNION with the Catholic Church.
846 The Church,a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.Hence they cannot be saved who,KNOWING that the Catholic church was founded as necessary by God through Christ would refuse to enter or to remain within it.
847 This affirmation is NOT aimed at those who no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church.
848The Church still has the obligation and the sacred right to evangelize all men.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Agnostic Believer
Apprentice
# 18566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Parsing who is and isn't really a Christian is one of the longest lived pastimes in the Church (however defined). Just remember, it's all fun and games until someone gets burned at the stake!
Well said, bearing in mind that Calvin burned one of his opponents at the stake (according to what I read)
--------------------
Saying what I think I might know, helps me to know what I ought to think.
Posts: 22 | From: Holt, Norfolk, UK | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Agnostic Believer
Apprentice
# 18566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Most Christians would believe that they,for various reasons, are part of that one 'True' church.
I like to think so, certainly. But I don't equate that with any particular denomination here on earth - I think the One True Church is simply the Body of Christ and as such consists of Christians across the world, be they Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Fundypentagelical or whatever.
Just as in the Father's house there are many mansions, so in the Church there are many different expressions of faith. Sure, some of them look and feel completely different to each other - but then (to return to the Body of Christ metaphor) an ear looks and feels completely different to a pancreas, yet both are still valuable parts of the same body.
Christ is a diamond, so perfectly cut, with multiple facets so bright.
Around Him stands all manner of men, each seeing one aspect of light,
Christ turns but a fraction, and the sparkling lights change;
New wonders the viewers perceive.
Each light somewhat different; specifically meant,
for the ones who the Spirit receive.
None has the right to say to another, the light that you see isn't true.
The facet for him was cut for his purpose; yours was cut spec’ly for you.
But all viewers jointly, their own lights held true, make a composite brilliant reflection.
It's the Body of Christ . . . The Diamond's intent . . .
TO MIRROR ITS WONDROUS PERFECTION
[Theophilocrates]
--------------------
Saying what I think I might know, helps me to know what I ought to think.
Posts: 22 | From: Holt, Norfolk, UK | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
836 all men are called to the catholic unity of the People of God. And to it,in different ways belong or are ordered : the Catholic faithful,others who believe in Christ and finally all mankind....
837 Even though incorporated into the Church,one who does not persevere in charity is not saved.He remains in the bosom of the Church,but 'in body' not 'in heart'.
838 The church knows she is joined in many ways to the baptised who are honoured by the name of Christian,but... have not preserved communion of unity with the successor of Peter ... they are in CERTAIN,although IMPERFECT COMMUNION with the Catholic Church.
846 The Church,a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.Hence they cannot be saved who,KNOWING that the Catholic church was founded as necessary by God through Christ would refuse to enter or to remain within it.
847 This affirmation is NOT aimed at those who no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church.
848The Church still has the obligation and the sacred right to evangelize all men.
Forget the content and look at the style.
The numbers (and such big numbers: "eight hundred and forty eighthly ..") suggest massive scope and organisation. Imagine if this was an agenda what the meeting would be like, if someone's to do list what the person would be like.
"Even though incorporated into the church, one who does not persevere .." - this is not everyday language. It seeks to define and clarify, to manage and control.
847 is interesting because although a softer statement it implies that other affirmations are aimed at people. It goes on to talk about the church, calling it Christ's church, and I'm surprised, because in the other statements there is none of the modesty that you would expect from those who recognise that they are merely caretakers and not proprietors of the church.
The document uses man and men for person and people. I don't know it's age, but it is more than thirty years since this sort of English was acceptable.
837 is interesting because it uses metaphorical language: bosom, heart and body. I think this is the correct language to use about God, so it intrigues me to wonder why it is here and not elsewhere. Perhaps this bullet point's recognition of the importance of charity, alone in a volley of others that have forgotten it, is significant.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
hatless. NOTHING is significant. Absolutely nothing. Our grandiosity is the ultimate tragi-comedy. We are the couple rowing on the beach in Time Bandits, she holding their baby in the opening to their hovel, he stalking off to go walk about. Rearing out of the sea is a giant, perfectly occluded by the hovel. He steps on the tableau without noticing in passing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So which one is really being uncharitable? The Catholic who sees Church as being hierarchical, and admits that people who are outwith the hierarchy may still be saved, or the Protestant who views Church as being coterminus with the Saved, and condemns the largest Christian body in the world wholesale to perdition? Hell, if "charitable" is too far a stretch, how about even "halfway realistic"?
I don't think there is anything to be gained from attempting to parse which is the more reasonable, the more charitable position.
The issue is not to try to weigh which is right but in how different Christians view and perceive each other. And maybe the perception of the perception of the Other.
quote:
Would it not behoove one who is not familiar with the practice on the ground to paint with a narrower brush?
No idea what this means.
[ 12. March 2016, 10:12: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, all those are Christians who are validly baptised. All those are heretics who hold to an opinion contrary to a defined teaching of the Catholic Church, but only some of those are heretics "proper". The distinction is drawn between those who happen to hold to an erroneous belief in ignorance of it being contrary to defined teaching (such are called "material" heretics) and those who in full knowledge of what the Church teaches propose something contrary to it (such are called "formal" heretics). To the extent to which you distance yourself from the teachings of the Church, to that extent you compromise your Christian identity. But the baptised are the baptised and there is a clear distinction drawn byt he Church between them and the non-Christian religions.
OK this leads to the question of what is valid baptism. Does a presbyterian, pentecostal or baptist baptism count as valid - given that some might not acknowledge the RCC baptism as valid?
What about the Salvation Army? Maybe these points are answered in the links others have provided, I'll look at them next.
quote:
Now I know some of this won't jive with those who want to believe or to have others believe that the Catholic Church is way liberal on the whole who is and isn't a sound Christian thing, but I think it is essential that Catholics are just honest about this. It's our teaching and I think we have to own it, and not equivocate for the sake of getting along.
Seems fair to me.
But then, given I absolutely reject some of the defined teaching of the RCC, I'm clearly a "proper" heretic even if my baptism might be considered valid.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Then read this: Lumen Gentium
Thank you. Can you help me unpack this? There seem to be sections which can be interpreted in different ways; for example Para 13 appears to be associating true believers with acknowledging the Primacy of Rome, Para 15 talks about people who are baptised but not in the church and seems to suggest certain behaviours which would be necessary to be "joined with us in the Holy Spirit" - can you talk about what is valid baptism, and how this applies to Baptists, Salvation Army etc? What about people who do not recognise the Primacy of Rome and do not believe that Rome is in fact Christian?
quote:
Then this: Dominus Iesus
With reference to Para 2 and Para 3, how does the church's relation to Islam, say, differ to its relation with the Salvation Army?
Thanks.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nothing I've read suggests that the RCC officially believes that other Christian churches are really Christian nor really churches.
Well, in part at least, she officially believes both those things. Both Forthview and Trisagion have given you some material pertinent to that. Although reading through the whole documents Trisagion linked to might seem like a bit of a chore, I recommend doing so nonetheless.
As I said earlier, the RCC does generally accept all the validly baptised as being Christian, and it does accept that some non-Catholic (i.e., not in communion with the Holy See) communities of the baptised are churches proper. Most of Orthodox churches fall under that category.
Other such Christian communities - those without particular distinguishing features or "marks of the Church" (such as Holy Orders in the apostolic successsion) are not considered churches properly so called - they are instead termed "ecclesial communities" (i.e., communities that nonetheless bear some of the features that mark them out as resembling the Church(es) proper). Wiki has a clear, short account here.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The time has come, the walrus said ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The time has come, the walrus said ...
to speak of many things; of shoes and ships and sealing wax; of cabbages and kings.
I was just thinking about the Walrus and the Carpenter the other day.
Not sure the relevance here, though.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK this leads to the question of what is valid baptism. Does a presbyterian, pentecostal or baptist baptism count as valid - given that some might not acknowledge the RCC baptism as valid?
The RCC accepts as valid all those baptisms which are intended as such and which meet the criteria of the recitation of the formula "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and which involve the simultaneous movement through water or of water upon the recipient (anything from full immersion through, at a minimum, to the pouring of water over the head of the recipient).
Any baptism - even if performed by a non-baptised person - would count as baptism as far as the RCC is concerned. If any of these criteria is lacking, however, there would be a presumtion of invalidity and in order to be received into the Catholic Church the person would have to undergo a valid baptism (either conditionally if there was some doubt, or unconditionally if there was no doubt as to the invalidity of the first one).
In my case - baptised at the age of 12 by the Scottish Episcopal Church - all the essential criteria were met and I was clearly able to remember that they had been. So when I came to be received into the RCC I was not "rebaptised" even conditionally and instead proceeded straight to Confirmation.
Hope this helps.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Hope this helps.
It does, thanks. But it also suggests that the RCC does not believe those with invalid baptism are Christians, no?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Read the excerpts from the Catechism provided.
Baptism is the normal way of entering the Church,but God's love extends to all His creation where they call themselves Christians or not.
Yes,there are those who call themselves Christian but who are not baptised. If for some reason they cannot follow the direct command of Christ,then there is the 'baptism of desire'. By this we understand that there are some who lack the formal ceremony of baptism but who have a real desire to be members of Christ's Body
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
In other words, those who are not baptised by water in the manner I described above are not, in the full straightforward sense of the term, Christians.
Those who genuinely desire baptism but who cannot get it are deemed to have "baptism of desire" and if they die in that state are not presumed to have lost their chances of salvation thereby. The same applies a fortiori to those who have a "baptism of blood", i.e., who die for the faith even without having received water baptism. They are presumed to have attained salvation through martyrdom.
But both these categores are exceptions to the general "rule" that a water baptism as described is an essential criterion for full, striaghtforward membership of the Church.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Forget the content and look at the style.
The numbers (and such big numbers: "eight hundred and forty eighthly ..") suggest massive scope and organisation. Imagine if this was an agenda what the meeting would be like, if someone's to do list what the person would be like.
What do you mean by 'suggest'?
Suggesting is a similar activity to evoking in one way, and in another is similar to alluding, which you consider functions of poetic and religious language. So are you asserting that the size of the catechism gives you a feeling of religious awe?
Are you asserting an individual and subjective association, that because subjective other people may not share? There's no general interpersonal association between this and an agenda.
The document I can think of of the top of my head that is most similar formally, in consisting of numbered paragraphs, is Traherne's Centuries of Meditations. That doesn't remind me of an agenda.
quote:
"Even though incorporated into the church, one who does not persevere .." - this is not everyday language. It seeks to define and clarify, to manage and control.
It's not everyday, certainly. 'Incorporated into the church' is religious language if anything is.
You assert that it seeks to define and clarify, to manage and control, as if that follows from it being not everyday language. This does not follow.
Nothing in the passage is an actual definition.
You say 'to define and clarify, to manage and control' as if those activities are variations upon a theme, as if in a thesaurus. But they are not variations upon a theme. Indeed, clarification is antithetical to control of the addressee.
quote:
847 is interesting because although a softer statement it implies that other affirmations are aimed at people. It goes on to talk about the church, calling it Christ's church, and I'm surprised, because in the other statements there is none of the modesty that you would expect from those who recognise that they are merely caretakers and not proprietors of the church.
I'm not sure how you would expect statements to show modesty in their style. They're declarative sentences that aim to clarify, which I feel is as appropriately modest as language can be in its style.
quote:
837 is interesting because it uses metaphorical language: bosom, heart and body. I think this is the correct language to use about God, so it intrigues me to wonder why it is here and not elsewhere. Perhaps this bullet point's recognition of the importance of charity, alone in a volley of others that have forgotten it, is significant.
And yet other paragraphs use metaphorical language, such as 'incorporate' and 'pilgrimage'. Indeed, I'd say that those are, if not in their first youth, still more effective as metaphors than the tired, indeed dead, language of 'heart' and 'bosom'.
[ 12. March 2016, 12:58: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]Thank you. Can you help me unpack this?
Yes, of course. Bear with me, I'm travelling today and have only my telephone: tomorrow is similarly busy. I'll get to it as soon as I am able - likely to be Monday.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well mr cheesy, the walrus spoke portentously about nonsense.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
In discussions about heresy, it disturbs me that I perceive a hair-splitting logic in the pronouncements of the churches that's utterly absent in the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of the scribes and Pharisees, on the other hand....
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I think that is why the Catholic church tends to avoid the use of the emotive word 'heresy' nowadays.
Of course it still exists as a theological concept.
We are not the ones who judge.It is God who judges,but the Church tries its best to clarify
and teach,as it has a divine mandate so to do, so that people just may have a better understanding of how they will be judged.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
In discussions about heresy, it disturbs me that I perceive a hair-splitting logic in the pronouncements of the churches that's utterly absent in the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of the scribes and Pharisees, on the other hand....
It doesn't disturb me really - there are plenty of Christians with which I have little in common. I suppose more of an issue is what different groups think they're doing when they mix with others, particularly in the context of ecumenical events.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think this is the kind of thing that prompts Jesus to bang his head against the nearest meteor; wonder why he ever bothered with us; change his phone number; take us off his Christmas and Hannukah card lists; and go incarnate as a clam*, in another galaxy. No forwarding address.
*Nod to CS Lewis.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Now I'm considering how one would crucify a clam...
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that is why the Catholic church tends to avoid the use of the emotive word 'heresy' nowadays.
Of course it still exists as a theological concept.
We are not the ones who judge.It is God who judges,but the Church tries its best to clarify
and teach,as it has a divine mandate so to do, so that people just may have a better understanding of how they will be judged.
So how does the Church do that for me? In what way am I found wanting by the Church? What does the Church know that I don't? How? About judgement? Or anything? I mean ANYTHING?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
LC--
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think this is the kind of thing that prompts Jesus to bang his head against the nearest meteor; wonder why he ever bothered with us; change his phone number; take us off his Christmas and Hannukah card lists; and go incarnate as a clam*, in another galaxy. No forwarding address.
*Nod to CS Lewis.
Now I'm considering how one would crucify a clam...
Pssst...he made sure to choose unfallen clams in an unfallen water world. No crucifixion possible nor necessary. This is his way of recuperating.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Martin60 0bviously if you know everything you don't consider that you need the Church.
Jesus came to remind us how we can live a better life. He gave teaching through his stories and parables and sometimes directly in reminding us to love God and our neighbour.
These may seem very simple things but it takes some people as lifetime to learn them.
Even if it doesn't seem like it, everything that the Church does, is done with the aim of reinforcing the message which Jesus gave us.
It's sometimes a bit like the law of the land.
It doesn't always seem like anything the ordinary person can understand , but it is basically there to provide justice and peace for the citizens of a country.
For the Church we are not individuals alone in this world, but part of a faith community.
Now whether you personally consider yourself not to be in need of guidance by the Church, does not necessarily indicate that there are others who feel exactly the same. Nor does it release the Church from its obligation put upon it by its it to the world at large.Divine Master to attempt to follow His way and to explain
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Dafyd, what on earth was that about? What is this argument you're trying to have with me?
You said some things I think are false, based on underlying theses about language that I think are false and have bad philistine consequences.
I expressed disagreement. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?
[ 13. March 2016, 09:54: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Am I the only one who doesn't have a clue what the various current discussions are about? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
(By all means, go ahead ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The time has come, the walrus said ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Am I the only one who doesn't have a clue what the various current discussions are about?
(By all means, go ahead )
Me too ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Are you aware of The Walrus and the Carpenter by Lewis Carrol. It appears in at least some versions in one of his Alice books but has little connection to the story.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Are you aware of The Walrus and the Carpenter by Lewis Carrol. It appears in at least some versions in one of his Alice books but has little connection to the story.
Jengie
I'm pretty sure it is in all versions of Through the Looking Glass but fail to understand the repeated partial quotations on this thread - other than as partially hidden criticisms of the thread, other posters or the churches under discussion (I can't parse which).
Frankly it illustrates why Martin's opaqueness is entirely unhelpful at times.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
My opacity is a metaphor for that, the meaning, the value, of the thread, resonant with LeRoc.
Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5, lines 26-28 come to mind.
[ 13. March 2016, 14:10: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
They might make chowder of him. As a sacrament, I mean...
On a planet whose highest life form is the clam, who eats chowder?
[gaaa! spelling]
[ 13. March 2016, 14:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Cannibals. And Christians.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My opacity is a metaphor for that, the meaning, the value, of the thread, resonant with LeRoc.
Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5, lines 26-28 come to mind.
Martin, you have a choice as we all do; can you please either contribute constructively or take your one-liners and use them elsewhere?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470
|
Posted
I'm with LeRoc and Martin60
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I see. So because we don't understand what others post, that means we can all suggest it is nonsense. Is that it?
If it is too hard, don't read or contribute to the thread. Not difficult.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Yes, of course. Bear with me, I'm travelling today and have only my telephone: tomorrow is similarly busy. I'll get to it as soon as I am able - likely to be Monday.
I have another question relating to this: Chesterbelloc has said that the RCC recognises baptism conducted in the correct way and says this is about the words used. So does this mean that the person doing it doesn't matter?
And if that is the case for baptism, why isn't it the same for other sacraments such as the Eucharist?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Chesterbelloc has said that the RCC recognises baptism conducted in the correct way and says this is about the words used. So does this mean that the person doing it doesn't matter?
And if that is the case for baptism, why isn't it the same for other sacraments such as the Eucharist?
To save Trisagion the bother - although I hope he will correct me if he thinks I've got this wrong - I can confirm (pun foreseen but otherwise unintended) that in an emergency any person whatsoever who intends to do what the Church does in baptism and uses the correct formula and matter may baptise another. This means, to some extent, that "the person doing it doesn't matter" - even a properly disposed atheist could in extremis baptise. But "properly disposed" would mean understanding (however braodly) what baptism is meant to be and, even if not believing in such effects as it is supposed by the Church to have, nonetheless performing it "in that spirit" (at the very least not intending not to do what the Church intends) and with those technical spefications. Such is the importance of baptism in the economy of salvation that anyone may perform it even in these extreme circumstances.
But the Holy Eucharist is something else. I don't want to make too much of this, but it would be possible - say, for someone who died between their baptism and their first Communion - for a baptised person to attain salvation without ever having received the Blessed Sacrament. By divine ordinance (as the Church understands it), only a validly ordained priest is capable of effecting the Eucharistic Sacrifice - so here, the person doing it very much does matter. Because that's the way Christ instituted it, according to the RCC.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My opacity is a metaphor for that, the meaning, the value, of the thread, resonant with LeRoc.
Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5, lines 26-28 come to mind.
Rather than put the hosts to the trouble of working out what you're on about, and whether it's a breach of a commandment, how about we let the irrelevant obscurities drop?
If you think the subject proposed for discussion on this thread is pointless, then don't post on it.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
To me it stands to reason that if we are to look for "true" Christianity, the place to find it is close to its cradle. Thus the Orthodox Churches, both Eastern and Oriental, founded by Apostles of Christ are closest historically and geographically to where it all began. As Christianity spread westwards into Europe, it added innovations which weren't part of the original faith, such as Augustine's original sin, the filioque, culminating in the Calvinist TULIP and atonement models such as psa. I thus have the utmost respect for the authenticity and Apostolic origins of the Orthodox Church.
Where I lose my respect for it is in things such as its warring overlapping jurisdictions, and its utter refusal to deal in any meaningful way with the rest of Christendom. To the Orthodox the rest of Christianity has taken a wrong path and there's nothing to discuss except that they repent and repudiate that path. A convert to Orthodoxy is required to repent of being in schism with the Church of Christ. This is nonsense. A person raised in Catholicism or Protestantism may decide that Orthodox teaching is more authentic, but they have nothing to repent of in terms of already being Christian. Try talking to the monks of Mt Athos about their astronomically incorrect calendar, and you'd be lucky to get out alive!
I attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy several times a year, and the seamless way in which liturgy, spirituality and mysticism combine is absolutely beautiful, but I don't repent of having been brought up in a different tradition, nor do I have any interest in hearing prayers in Old Slavonic.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by PaulTH
Thus the Orthodox Churches, both Eastern and Oriental, founded by Apostles of Christ are closest historically and geographically to where it all began. As Christianity spread westwards into Europe, it added innovations which weren't part of the original faith,
Surely the church in Rome was also founded by an apostle of Christ.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
The Church of England was founded by Jesus.
I suspect that other denominations rejoice that they were too.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:
originally posted by PaulTH
Thus the Orthodox Churches, both Eastern and Oriental, founded by Apostles of Christ are closest historically and geographically to where it all began. As Christianity spread westwards into Europe, it added innovations which weren't part of the original faith,
Surely the church in Rome was also founded by an apostle of Christ.
PaulTH gave 3 criteria. You focused on one and ignored the other 2.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A convert to Orthodoxy is required to repent of being in schism with the Church of Christ. This is nonsense.
You're right, this is nonsense. But it's not universal. I was not made to repent of being a heretic. One can't really be a heretic unless one is first Orthodox. And as far as I know Protestants aren't "in schism" but just outside the Orthodox fold, full stop.
This may be because you're visiting a church that does services in Slavonic. Run away.
Warring overlapping jurisdictions are a scandal and a shame. This is not our finest hour.
Don't ask the monks of Athos about anything except the path to union with God. Anything else and they are talking outside their area of expertise, and their opinion is worth no more or less than that of any other person on the planet. I suspect the more truly pious ones -- the ones farthest along in the quest to know and be known by God -- don't flap their gums about politics or calendars or the evils of Protestantism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The Church of England was founded by Jesus.
Ah, so those feet in ancient times did walk upon England's mountains green. Well that answers that question.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
"One true church" thinking is ecclesial chauvinism.
And is no more attractive than any other kind.
Human nature being what it is, the point of view that one religious or national tradition is superior to others sounds ever so much more reasonable when the tradition being discussed is one's own. When it's not one's own, it can come across as foolish, prideful, self-serving, or idolatrous.
To everyone except the French, the idea that France is what God wants every country to be like is nonsense.
God is not foreign.
That a Frenchman should at some level feel this is not surprising. It's human to feel a loving appreciation of one's own place, people and culture.
But we expect of reflective and intelligent Frenchmen that they have the empathy to realise that Germans and Italians have similar feelings about their own countries. And therefore to hold their chauvinistic feelings of French superiority as a personal, subjective opinion, not as an objective truth. And certainly not as a justification for treating others less well than they expect others to treat them.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
"One true church" thinking is ecclesial chauvinism.
And is no more attractive than any other kind.
Human nature being what it is, the point of view that one religious or national tradition is superior to others sounds ever so much more reasonable when the tradition being discussed is one's own. When it's not one's own, it can come across as foolish, prideful, self-serving, or idolatrous.
To everyone except the French, the idea that France is what God wants every country to be like is nonsense.
God is not foreign.
That a Frenchman should at some level feel this is not surprising. It's human to feel a loving appreciation of one's own place, people and culture.
But we expect of reflective and intelligent Frenchmen that they have the empathy to realise that Germans and Italians have similar feelings about their own countries. And therefore to hold their chauvinistic feelings of French superiority as a personal, subjective opinion, not as an objective truth. And certainly not as a justification for treating others less well than they expect others to treat them.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:
originally posted by PaulTH
Thus the Orthodox Churches, both Eastern and Oriental, founded by Apostles of Christ are closest historically and geographically to where it all began. As Christianity spread westwards into Europe, it added innovations which weren't part of the original faith,
Surely the church in Rome was also founded by an apostle of Christ.
PaulTH gave 3 criteria. You focused on one and ignored the other 2.
Eh? "Ignored" because didn't choose to address? Moonlitdoor put a fair point to PaulTH who seemed to imply by what he said that Rome was not founded by an Apostle. Why should he have to address everything else PaulTH said in order to put this straight?
Anyway, Rome wasn't founded by one of the Apostles.
It was founded by two of the Apostles.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
