Catholic = Christian Really.

[maudman]

Hello all,

Great comments here.. And I have a few of My own..
Often times we jump into theological differences and we point out times of opposition.. When beliefs appear so different.. But the Church wasn’t just dealing with heresy but division itself in the extremes of personal conflict.. Universal Doctrine was for unity not separation… The Roman Catholic Church it often appears is without prophetic Vision to most and Like most debates it’s the unseen or unmentioned things that drive the spirit of opposition..

Rome not unlike many saw itself in the Prophetic vision, but not in the Character that at times is displayed by some.. In the Vision the Saints received the Kingdom of the beast of Rome Dan 7 and this meant to Rome that she was vesture with all that was within its power to maintain a kingdom in the Covenant.. It’s that word Covenant… God makes a new Covenant and with the covenant often comes the responsibilities of running a kingdom… The new Israel was now mostly gentile And Roman theology and Faith was built on specific traits of which.. Loyalty, Trustworthy and obedience (Mithraism) were the foundation of that faith.. And in the Scripture Christ spoke that he found no greater faith in all Israel than that of the Roman.. Servitude without such traits was brittle and fragile.. Traditions of early Fathers were the bedrock of the Church… And in Rome as well as the scriptures personal corruption of some didn’t deter Gods love for his people… One Might complain about the Church and say all manner of things but history bears witness that it is the greatest of all Christian faiths.. And Like the Parable of the talents when Christ spoke.. He gives the one talent to the servant that has ten.. He that is over much shall be given much and he that is over a little? What little he has shall be taken and given to him that has much..

You may think the RCC is peculiar in the things it say’s? Anathema is the reason for that.. To be accursed is to believe what you want for whatever reasons… And as long as it’s clear you’re not RCC when you say them? Then that’s OK.. It is the levels of Christian faith.. And as Christ said he that is faithful in much will inherit much..

Peace and Godbless

[psif]

St. Bernard and even St Liguori are moderate compared to St. Maximilian Kolbe. St. Kolbe proclaimed the Holy Spirit was "quasi-incarnatus" in Mary. Or as Scott Hahn writes in First Comes Love, p. 136: "Kolbe was even so bold as to say that Mary was like an incarnation ("quasi-incarnatus") of the Holy Spirit.

I think there's a happy medium between Protestant ignoring of Mary and excessive Catholic devotion to Mary.

[One Bad Pig]

I think there's a happy medium between Protestant ignoring of Mary and excessive Catholic devotion to Mary.

[George Blaisdell]

I think there's a happy medium between Protestant ignoring of Mary
and excessive Catholic devotion to Mary.

Arsenios

[mitzi]

Hello all,

Great comments here.. And I have a few of My own..
Often times we jump into theological differences and we point out times of opposition.. When beliefs appear so different.. But the Church wasn’t just dealing with heresy but division itself in the extremes of personal conflict.. Universal Doctrine was for unity not separation… The Roman Catholic Church it often appears is without prophetic Vision to most and Like most debates it’s the unseen or unmentioned things that drive the spirit of opposition..

Rome not unlike many saw itself in the Prophetic vision, but not in the Character that at times is displayed by some.. In the Vision the Saints received the Kingdom of the beast of Rome Dan 7 and this meant to Rome that she was vesture with all that was within its power to maintain a kingdom in the Covenant.. It’s that word Covenant… God makes a new Covenant and with the covenant often comes the responsibilities of running a kingdom… The new Israel was now mostly gentile And Roman theology and Faith was built on specific traits of which.. Loyalty, Trustworthy and obedience (Mithraism) were the foundation of that faith.. And in the Scripture Christ spoke that he found no greater faith in all Israel than that of the Roman.. Servitude without such traits was brittle and fragile.. Traditions of early Fathers were the bedrock of the Church… And in Rome as well as the scriptures personal corruption of some didn’t deter Gods love for his people… One Might complain about the Church and say all manner of things but history bears witness that it is the greatest of all Christian faiths.. And Like the Parable of the talents when Christ spoke.. He gives the one talent to the servant that has ten.. He that is over much shall be given much and he that is over a little? What little he has shall be taken and given to him that has much..

You may think the RCC is peculiar in the things it say’s? Anathema is the reason for that.. To be accursed is to believe what you want for whatever reasons… And as long as it’s clear you’re not RCC when you say them? Then that’s OK.. It is the levels of Christian faith.. And as Christ said he that is faithful in much will inherit much..

Peace and Godbless

Hello Maudman;

Have you read the back page from the subscription "The Word Among Us"? - The title of the back page says "Pray with Pope Benedict XVI" and here's the prayer: (January 2008, edition)

Dear Lord,

During this month when we pray for Christian unity, we ask you to strengthen the church's commitment to full visible unity. Let your people, your church, manifest ever more clearly her nature as a genuine community of love. Let us truly reflect the communion of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus,we also pray that the church in Africa, which is preparing to celebrate the second Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Africa, may continue to be a sign and channel of reconciliation and justice in a continent still suffering from war, exploitation, and poverty. Lord, bless all of your people in Africa."

The article listed in this subscription is an excellent read, "They Are Our Brethren" John XXIII and Christian Unity. I will quote part of this article for you:

"Pope John also welcomed the heads of many churches to the Vatican. For instance, not since the fourteenth century had an Archbishop of Canterbury set foot inside the Vatican - until Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher's visit in 1960. The pope reminded those separated from the Catholic Church of the words of St Augustine: "Whether they wish it or not, they are our brethren. They cease to be our brethren only when the stop say, "Our Father.""

When once asked about the possibility of Christian unity, Pope John replied, "I realize that it will take a long time. Neither you nor I will be there to celebrate the great feast of reconciliation. Neither will my immediate successors. But someone must begin to clear away the obstacles that stand in the way."

Again, a very good article - as it gives only a brief back history, "In December. 1965, Pope Paul VI joined Patriarch Athenagoras I in lifting the mutual excommunications between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that had been in place since 1054. In 1995, Pope John Paul II dedicated an entire encyclical to ecumenism (That They May Be One), and throughout his pontificate went out of his way to meet with leaders of other Christian denominations. And Pope Benedict XVI has continued along this path, urging Catholics to pray and work for unity"

Mitzi

P.S. A late addition but I save them - as to enjoy reading them (again)

[robrecht]

Sorry for my extended absence from this site. Parts of my posts in this thread are still present when quoted by others, but perhaps my views are better expressed in a more coherent post. By the way, I do have permission to post here and in other Christian subforums.

I am here to support Catholicity in her claim that Catholics are Christian. It is a shame that this claim needs to be made or defended, but there is quite a bit of (oftentimes implicit) anti-Catholicism here and elsewhere that leads some to make and defend this claim. Catholicity has asked that the discussion remain on topic and doesn't run into debates about the Virginity of Mary, with which I am happy to comply.

I think all of the points raised here that might lead some to believe Catholics are not really Christian are basically misunderstandings and distortions of Catholic faith. Don't get me wrong, I am indeed critical of many of the same things, as could be seen from some of my posts here, but properly understood, these points certainly do not disqualify Catholics from the love of their Father and Brother and the Holy Spirt in communion with all Christians everywhere. So, yes, anti-Catholicism is partly the fault of Catholics themselves who leave themselves open to criticism of the quality of their Christian belief. But, the degree of distortions and lack of self-critical reflection on the part of those who engage in anti-Catholic polemics cannot only be laid at the door of Catholics themselves. Every denomination has imperfections of the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Insofar as the Catholic Church is much older than most churches and denomications, it has had the opportunity to preserve (and pervert) the Christian gospel in many cultural and historical incarnations. But despite these great opportunities for distortion, the Catholic faith is nonetheless still strong and still undeniably Christian.

Of course, some theologies, theologians, and individual Christians who do not share the Catholic faith may not recognize this fact. Some may mistakenly appeal to their own interpretation of Paul as a test of the validity of the beliefs of others, but Catholics accept the writings of Paul as inspired sacred scripture, as well as the writings of James and other NT authors. And we believe that the best interpretation of these writings is not necessarily only defined by individuals. Catholics also believe in the authoritative interpretation of sacred scripture and dogma by the those who have been given this authority in the Church. Authorities frequently disagree and may fail in their mission. But so can individuals. Catholics do not believe that every individual Christian needs to be a scripture scholar in order to have a basic, practical and loving understanding of their faith.

Specifically, with respet to the presence of Jesus, sacrificed and risen, in our celebration of the Eucharist or our honor of the role of Jesus' mother in salvation history, these mysteries have been discussed by theologians and saints in many different ways in thousands of discussions throughout the last nearly 2,100 years. If some feel it is important to condemn some theologians or saints of blasphemy or idolatry or being mere scoffers, I would ask that they make some effort to understand those discussions in their historical, theological and sometimes polemical context before making their condemnations. It is a matter of justice and honor for such a great cloud of witnesses that have gone before us. Just as some beliefs or statements of others may appear wrong-headed or silly to us, so might the condemnations of same when they are not rooted in proper understanding of and love for others.

I sometimes look at reformation churches and theologies as akin to orthodox, conservative and reform Judaism. A reform movement need not, and typically should not, declare that the parent faith from which it springs is invalid or satanic or otherwise evil. Reform movements are also subject to the forces of compromise, acclimation, and assimilation to the cultures in which they are born and with which they are sometimes in greater accommodation. Elements of the parent institution may also have assimilated with earlier cultural standards, but both sides are subject to the historical processes that calcify institutions. The tension that results can be a healthy corrective for both sides, but that healthy growth that arises from tension and conflict will not be realized by those that merely condemn. This happended on both sides during the reformation and counter-reformation. I think Luther and other reformers were as guilty as the Tridentine bishops in their mutual condemnations and misunderstandings. But do not msunderstand the conciliar definitions of anathematized beliefs to be an exercise of the extremely rare judicial process. Like Melanchthon, I think most Catholic authorities sought reunification, if on their own terms, but also with a recognition of the need for reform. As is often said by historians, the Counter-Reformation was both counter to the Reformation as well as a reformation in its own right.

[Aner]

Cathlicity (sp) - I don't know if you will ever read this but I did appreciate you respectfully sharing your feelings and requesting assistance and understanding of others perspectives. I provided my most heartfelt sentiment earlier - though I recognize the equal meaningfulness of other sentiments.

I was wondering btw whether you could provide the citation for the Council of Trent "quote" - I may have missed it but I don't think it was there.

The one point I am still interested is the notion that parts of Christ/God can only be accessed through the church. It is a foolish position scripturally and the fullness of Christ. There is value in THE church which is both far bigger and far smaller than the Vatican.

My other battle is the on-going defense of evil that now reaches to the highest level - and that we would even begin to acquiesce to the thought of such behavior - much less come up some horrible philosophical prattle providing "understanding" to pedophilia (recent statement by the pontiff).

Rob

I appreciate your approach - I simply am deeply trouble by the inability to see and expose, rather than defend" evil....

Best,
Greg

[RBerman]

Of course, some theologies, theologians, and individual Christians who do not share the Catholic faith may not recognize this fact. Some may mistakenly appeal to their own interpretation of Paul as a test of the validity of the beliefs of others, but Catholics accept the writings of Paul as inspired sacred scripture, as well as the writings of James and other NT authors. And we believe that the best interpretation of these writings is not necessarily only defined by individuals. Catholics also believe in the authoritative interpretation of sacred scripture and dogma by the those who have been given this authority in the Church. Authorities frequently disagree and may fail in their mission. But so can individuals. Catholics do not believe that every individual Christian needs to be a scripture scholar in order to have a basic, practical and loving understanding of their faith.

Well, that's the problem, Robrecht: The Roman Church accept Paul as an authority but then promulgates a false explanation of Paul's teaching on the very topic of which Paul said, "If someone teaches otherwise, let him be anathema." This puts individuals in the Roman Church in the unfortunate position of either believing falsity about the core of the gospel, or else rejecting the teachings of their own church. Thankfully, many choose the latter.

As is often said by historians, the Counter-Reformation was both counter to the Reformation as well as a reformation in its own right.

Quite so; many abuses were corrected by the Counter-Reformation. Sadly, it also dug in against Scripture on the core issue which sparked the Reformation in the first place.

[robrecht]

Well, that's the problem, Robrecht: The Roman Church accept Paul as an authority but then promulgates a false explanation of Paul's teaching on the very topic of which Paul said, "If someone teaches otherwise, let him be anathema." This puts individuals in the Roman Church in the unfortunate position of either believing falsity about the core of the gospel, or else rejecting the teachings of their own church. Thankfully, many choose the latter.

Quite so; many abuses were corrected by the Counter-Reformation. Sadly, it also dug in against Scripture on the core issue which sparked the Reformation in the first place.

In your opinion, the Roman Catholic Church teaches falsity about the core of the gospel, but, happily, you are not the ultimate authority in the interpretation of scripture. Problem resolved.

[RBerman]

In your opinion, the Roman Catholic Church teaches falsity about the core of the gospel, but, happily, you are not the ultimate authority in the interpretation of scripture. Problem resolved.

I am not the ultimate authority on anything, nor do I need to be. God is the ultimate authority, not you, not I, and not the Roman magisterium.

[Aner]

"...nor the Vatican magisterium..."

Thanks - point noted!

I happily and (hopefully) fully fall on my face before the Lord Jesus Christ in complete openness of heart and mind to Him and His will.

I am glad I don't need any other resource to fully meet the Lord but find that Christ is, as it is written, "the all things in all". Amen.

[robrecht]

I am not the ultimate authority on anything, nor do I need to be. God is the ultimate authority, not you, not I, and not the Roman magisterium.

So the question becomes: do you truly possess sufficient authority, insight, humility, wisdom and charity to criticize the faith of others?

[RBerman]

So the question becomes: do you truly possess sufficient authority, insight, humility, wisdom and charity to criticize the faith of others?

Why does that become the question? Sounds like you're pressing toward an ad hominem fallacy. I'm not questioning the depth of anyone's faith. I'm questioning whether the object of that faith matches with what Scripture says it ought to be. If you're not interested in that discussion, just say so, and we're done.

[robrecht]

Why does that become the question? Sounds like you're pressing toward an ad hominem fallacy. I'm not questioning the depth of anyone's faith. I'm questioning whether the object of that faith matches with what Scripture says it ought to be. If you're not interested in that discussion, just say so, and we're done.

It is simply my question. To be a bit more honest, you are not questioning but rather impugning the Catholic faith as false with respect to the core of the gospel. I question your credibility and capacity to advance such an insulting claim regarding the faith of others. I do not mind constructive criticism when it indeed has the authority of love and wisdom to genuinely be creative of deeper faith and communion.

[George Blaisdell]

So the question becomes: do you truly possess sufficient authority,[&] humility,

I have not yet been able to find anyone concerned about their own authority to have anything resembling humility, have you?

The Reformation tried to battle the Latins with the "authority" of Scripture...
And the Latins fought back with their self-proclaimed "Petrine authority"...

And so the battle for "authority" continues...

Meanwhile...
Back at the ranch...
The treasury of the Orthodox...
In stark contrast to the above...
Is obedience to Christ...

The Reformation resents Papal authority...
When Scripture is the authority...
Everybody gets to be their own Pope...

So here we have tons of little authoritarian popes
All arguing for the authority of their own opinions
Yet nontheless united against their first Archetype
Whom each individually now emulates...

So that us Orthodox types sniff around...
And obedience seems on the ropes...
Everyone is an authority...
All are arguing Scripture...
Nobody argues for obedience...
Except to their own opinions...
Sometimes...

Pro-football and the MMA are looking better and better...

Arsenios