TWOTD Ping

The Catholic Church was Founded By The son of GOD... the Protestant Tradition was founded by a disgruntled follower of Christ Church!
That about sums it up...

BLA-A-A-AT! [Loud Basketball Buzzer Noise!]

The definition of Roman Catholicism is imprecise and tendentious. By tendentious, I mean that it suggests a judgment about so-called Roman Catholicism. The indications of tendentiousness are furthers by the short list of people who disagree with Roman Catholicism's self-concept. It's as though a definition of Euclidean geometry included a list of other non-Euclidean systems, or a definition of "Republican" included a list of parties which disagree with Republicans.

By imprecise I mean that what is called Roman Catholic does not comprise ALL of Catholicism. In our creed we say, "I believe (in) one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church," and we do think the fullness of that Church is found among those in communion with the See of Peter in Rome, but the Latin Rite Catholics (the ones with whom most people are familiar, "Roman Catholics") do not exhaust that class of people. There are at least several other groups ("rites") in communion with Rome.

These failings in this definition cast, and should cast, great doubt on the reliability of the TWOD list.

***These failings in this definition cast, and should cast, great doubt on the reliability of the TWOD list.***

Any attempt to capture the essence of a church in a coupe of brief sentences will certainly be unfulfilling. FWIW I was equally disappointed by the Protestant definition.

If you want it fast, go to McDonald’s, for something more satisfying go to a coo to order restaurant.

My thumbnail sketch explanation for Muslim friends -- both traditions view submission to God's will as the chief duty of man.

• Catholics say we can know God's will through the divinely created community that created the Bible.
• Protestants say we can know God's will primarily through the divinely given Bible that created the community.

Both traditions look to the Blessed Trinity as the true God, and to Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and Redeemer. The bone of contention is -- do we primarily trust the revelation? Or the interpretive framework build up around that revelation?

The definition of Roman Catholicism is imprecise and tendentious. By tendentious, I mean that it suggests a judgment about so-called Roman Catholicism....These failings in this definition cast, and should cast, great doubt on the reliability of the TWOD list.

Most Catholic-penned definitions "suggest judgements about so-called Protestantism" too. What does that say (from a Protestant POV) about the reliability of Catholic dictionaries?

These links address another view of the definition in much greater detail.

Beginning Catholic: The Catholic Church's Origin [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: Church Authority In Scripture [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: Catholic Tradition: Life in the Spirit [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: Infallibility: Keeping the Faith [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: Moral Conscience: Catholic Teaching for a Strong Faith [Ecumenical]

What does that say (from a Protestant POV) about the reliability of Catholic dictionaries?

I think that's a VERY VERY good question. Short answer, Either own a lot of dictionaries, or own one, but don't take its word (uh, so to speak.)

The problem, or part of it, is that theology is in some sense ideological, and ideologies sort of align the concepts and thoughts which are viewed from their perspective, as though they were a fans, and everything we looked at or thought about had streamers or something. (NOT my most successful image!)

For example, one of our on-going "Is NOT! Is TOO" controversies is over the relationship between the group calling itself "the Church" in, say, 520 AD and the group calling itself (as far as we know) "the Church" in, say 120 AD.

For us feelthy Papists it seems a matter of common sense that they are identical, one organization in a different stage of its development. But it's also an article of faith for us.

Others could say, "How can you say it's identical? It's different in a zillion respects! It's not the same thing, it's a brand new (and bad) thing -- or at best the morbid decay of a once good thing!" There are not insignificant observable reasons for saying this, but it is also a matter of faith. There must have been something like an apostasy if it's okay to give up on the old mob and start up a new outfit.

Still, Gamecock, while I note that you don't like the definition of Protestantism is it at least a little suggestive that there isn't a list of people who disapprove of it in that definition while there is in the "Roman Catholicism" definition?

It's tricky, I guess, and no one will be happy. I grew up (NOT as a Catholic) thinking that "Protestant" meant pretty much "denying that a church needs to be in communion with the See of Peter to be fully a church."

Here on FR I find that it seems to mean something more specific. I'm waiting for someone to say "My denomination is Protestant" and someone else to say, "No, it isn't." Maybe that disagreement will bring to the surface some definitions of Protestant.

Here on FR I find that it seems to mean something more specific. I'm waiting for someone to say "My denomination is Protestant" and someone else to say, "No, it isn't." Maybe that disagreement will bring to the surface some definitions of Protestant.

I should dig up some of the arguments I've had with your fellow Catholics on that point (wherein THEY claim so-and-so is Protestant, and we say "no they aren't"). Especially in regards to a) Baptists, and b) Rastafarians.

In the meantime, I offer up this thread for consideration, re "definitions of Protestant".

Very nice post you linked me to. While, as ought not to surprise you., I’m familiar with the other sense of protest, it gets my attention (I’m not understating, I’m just wondering) that my very Calvinist history profs at Seminary did not bring that side out.

I think you made some good points, among them being that Roman Catholicism cannot be exclusively equated with Catholicism. To mention just one point - apostolic succession. Several bodies within the Catholic tradition believe in an apostolic ministry (the numerous Orthodox churches, orthodox Anglicans, etc.) but do not accept the complete understanding of that as expressed by the R.C. Church. Catholic means not only “universal” but is a reference to those churches which (at a minimum) accept the doctrinal and systematic theology of the first four great ecumenical councils. Also, theological understanding evolves. The post-Tridentine Roman Catholic Church is very different (doctrinally and dogmatically) from that which it was before the 16th century. The same can be said for all other churches. Finally, it’s very difficult to make statements in terms of generalities about any religious body. It’s not that the generalities are always wrong per se, but that they are grossly inadequate without more specifics. And, I think it’s too slick to play the “numbers game.” The poster said there were a billion Roman Catholics. Great, but so what? There are 1.4 billion Muslims. We should focus on the unique and distinctive elements that made Judeo-Christian theology and Graeco-Roman culture into the greatest gift the world has ever known - Western civilization.

To my understanding, there are three branches of apostolic Churches who recognize eachother as starting from the get-go, but for whatever sad reasons aren’t in full Communion today. These are the “Catholic”, the “Orthodox”, and the “Oriental” Churches. Or am I wrong about that? Do any of those three recognize the Anglican Church as being apostolic? The Anglicans, especially the nose-bleedin’ kind do seem to be the closest to the three “Apostolic Churches” among other sorts of Christians.

Freegards

Your point is certainly worthy of consideration but it goes further than I was going. Even if we were to stipulate that communion with the "See of Peter" was the test or marker for the plene esse of Church (and as matter of fact that's what I believe, so keep your throwing rocks handy) Byzantine Rite, Maronites, and I think there are even some Copts, — I must get this straight in my own head some day — are in "communion with etc", but would not think of themselves as "Roman Catholics"

As to the numbers game, as it applies to the "priest shortage", one of my former pastors said, "What shortage? Jesus had only 12, and one of them was a bum, and HE did okay."

Just thought I'd share that.

Your analysist is correct, from the Catholic Church’s theological perspective. Catholic Church doctrine with respect to the Holy Eucharist is clearly spelled out in the Missal used to celebrate Liturgy at Sunday Mass. Canon 844 states that sharing the Eucharist is not allowed for members of those churches with whom we (Rome) are not yet fully united.

Members of the Orthodox Church (Constantinopile and Patriarch Bartholomew and the other Eastern Patriarchs), The Assyrian Church of the East (those who rejected the terminology used at the Council of Chalcedon) and the Polish National Church are urged to respect their own Church disciplines. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the code of canon law does not object to the reception of Holy Communion by Christians of these Communions.

Thus, The Catholic Church recognizes that each of these Communions has valid Holy Orders, thus a valid Eucharist, both of which comes from Apostolic Succession.

Anglicans are a difficult group to get a handle of since the “via middle” strategy of Queen Elizabeth has allowed the Anglican church to be defined as Protestant in the 39 articles and original book of Common prayer, but at the same time allow for the Oxford Movement (Tractarians) to bring back Catholicity within the Anglican Communion. THus, one has everything from Calvinist, evangelicals, liberal protestantism, which borders on unitariansim, and Catholic minded Anglicans in the Anglican Communion. Since the intent of the the Church of England in the 16th century was not to ordain Priests to celebrat sacraments, this was done by Thomas Cramner who changed the Rite of Ordination from the old Sarum-use of the Roman Rite (Catholic form of the Roman Rite used in England since 13th century) to a more Protestant Rite. In the late 19th century, Pope Leo XIII (1896) decreed that Anglican Orders were not in conformity with Catholic doctrine.

Still, the Anglo-Catholic movement in the Anglican Communion helped move Cantebury closer to Rome as the former Abp of Cantebury, Mike Ramsey, was a product of the Oxford Movement. Thus, many thought that it was a better than 50-50 proposition that Cantebury would seek a corporate re-union with Rome after Vatican II.

However, the move to ordain women clergy started the trend of moving away from orthodoxy in the Church of England and we have seen how that decision has continued down to this day as the Church of England is about to have serious issues in the upcoming Lambeth Conference which may forever alter that communion, perhaps with many Catholic leaning Anglicans coming back to Rome.

Regards

You make some good observations. You refer to the plene esse and that has its theological place but I think on the ecumenical level we’d do better to think in terms of bene esse. For example, the meaning of the mass or Eucharist has divided Christianity for centuries and not just theoretically. Historically, tens of thousands have died and killed each other over various interpretations. This very un-Christian savagery culminated in the Thirty Years War (1618-48). Despite some subsequent intolerance and persecution that was a defining event for Christianity. It was tacitly recognized that killing and vicious persecution were not only inimical to the spiritual essence of Christianity but such DIDN’T WORK! Relative to the mass, one can believe that when the priest consecrates the elements (bread and wine) that they embody a Real Presence, i.e. the Body and Blood of Christ. However, it’s quite another matter to deem one who doesn’t define this mystery in terms of Transubstantiation a heretic. I think it’s ok to define being “in communion” with another religious body in terms of a minimum standard of doctrinal agreement. However, to believe that “they all may be one” is a noble ideal but impossible in this fallen world of human nature. There was NEVER a time in the two millenia of Christian history when that existed. I think the most important attitude is one of sincere mutual respect and cooperation to further common goals - especially when Western civilization and our shared highest values are under critical assault from Islamofascism and other evil forces.

Hundreds of orthodox Anglican clergy and thousands of their parishoners have left ECUSA to form bodies that continue traditional Anglican doctrine, discipline and worship. This is not only because of the invalid “ordination” of women but the more recent Robinson debacle. It’s a movement that continues to grow in numbers and popularity.

Thanks a lot for taking the time with that awesome post, C.T.1564. I was familiar with who can recieve our Communion, but I wasn’t sure about the Anglicans and if the other apostolic Chrches recognized them as being apostolic.

Freegards

I’ll pray that these Anglicans continue to find Christian places for themselves.

Freegards

Wow, does THAT ever sound Anglican!

I'm going to go over what I think you're saying as though it were a more formal argument. I may get it wrong, but if I do this it may be clear where my mistake is.

1. It would be better to think of bene esse than of plene esse.
2. An example is disagreement over the "meaning" of the Eucharist.
3. Disagreements over this has led to division and bloodshed.
4. Division and bloodshed are bad.

   (Here's where I get lost, I guess. I would distinguish between

   • (the question of Eucharistic Doctrine and Church authority to define the same AND
   • )the question of fighting and killing over it.)
   
   
   
5. It's okay to have a Eucharistic Doctrine, but it's not okay to think that someone who disagrees is in error, and who persists in disagreement is a heretic.

   (I'm lost again. Is it because Eucharistic Doctrine is unimportant or because the Truth is unimportant or the question of whether the Church can or should proclaim the truth is unimportant? Is the very concept of heresy somehow wrong?

   (To me, the assertion that Christ is really present in the Blessed Sacrament is one of systemic ramification. It touches on questions of The Incarnation, The Hypostatic Union, to what extent and in what way we may talk about the sanctification of Creation generally, and of time, space, and eternity. )

6. The High Priestly prayer of our Lord for unity will never be answered and never was answered.
7. We should treat one another with respect and cooperation, especially in this critical time.

I agree that we ought not to be fighting with one another or killing folks who disagree with us. I know that Cranmer got toasted, at least purportedly, on the question of his (subtler than usually portrayed) Eucharistic Doctrine. I think Bloody Mary would have found some way to toast him anyway, but that's neither here nor there. Toasting people for that is fer shur wrong.

I agree that we ought to seek ways to work together and that we ought to let Charity be our strong suit in interactions.

I would say further that "accentuation of the positive" in Eucharistic thinking would be very interesting and fruitful and that a study of the differences and samenesses among, say Hooker's teaching, which a friend characterized as "Real Presence in the believer", Virtualism, and our Papist clunky realism would be very interesting. That is, for example, "Compare and contrast what Zwingli, Hooker, and Aquinas would say are the benefits to the faithful recipient of the Sacrament." I'd read that paper eagerly.

But, whether I should say "God help me," or "Glory be to God," (or both), I think and believe that the plene esse of Church does indeed subsist in those "rites" in communion with the See of Peter, and that that fullness of being has real and existentially perceptible benefits to those who participate in it by being members of that cluster of rites or denominations. It matters. It matters a LOT, IMHO.

In fact, I will venture this conjecture. The Church of England attempted and sought to obey God without remaining in communion with the Successor of Peter. In the intervening centuries that effort was blessed with much fine thought and piety. But

• from the early conflicts manifested by the differences between the first and second prayerbooks of Edward VI, and
• the later Laud v. Cromwell polarity,
• through the admixture of Deistic thought, and
• the Evangelical v. Oxford controversies,
• right up to the Liberal v. Evangelical v. Nashotah House catholic differences of the recent past

what we've seen is the fissiparous tendency, not only the inability but the asthenic intention to will or to obey in Anglicanism generally.

Lambeth 1930 proves to be the weak spot in the dike where non-"Catholic" Christendom gives way to the world's desire to demote sexual intercourse from sacred act to recreation, within three decades we have divorced and remarried priests and bishops, and within another three we are ordaining (or attempting to ordain) not just women but practicing homosexuals of whatever gender and sex, and areccountenancing the artificial insemination of unmarried female clergy.

The House of Bishops, meeting at Port St. Lucy pronounced the ordination of the Philadelphia Eleven to be invalid — NOT irregular but valid, but invalid — and within months, without breaking step, are admitting the same women to the practice of their alleged priestly orders.

Paul Moore, Diocesan of New York, who for years cheats on his wife (and family) with several men, portrays himself as thoughtfully compelled to ordain a Lesbian without mentioning that he has a very personal dog in the fight.

And Elizabethan Settlement to the contrary notwithstanding, priests in the US boast of tossing consecrated wine down the piscina or on the flower bed and of feeding consecrated bread to dogs. It is as if they are compelled to disobey the covenants they made when they were ordained in order to show their low-church views of the sacrament. (It was this kind of thing which led me to think that the word "Covenant" has no practical application in Anglicanism; neither in marriage, nor in obedience to one's bishops or primte, nor in any way whatsoever.)

Finally, TEC culminates an almost 3 decade long process of prayer book revision with a new prayerbook, which has to survive two readings at General Convention, and within a couple of decades is hanging out to dry a cleric who wants the protection of the National Office in observing probably the only uncompromising rubric ever in TEC (refresh your memory, page 446) and, and this is the scary part, nobody bats an eye!

Rubric Schmubric. That was then; this is now. We do as we please when we please. Today those women aren't priests, but tomorrow we'll let them preside at Eucharists. Today getting caught in compromising positions with personnel of the same-sex is grounds for deposition. Tomorrow, charging your diocesan with a violation of vows for ordaining homosexuals is grounds for being convicted of "behavior unbecoming".

This is not the behavior of a body with a will or reason. This is not the behavior of a body which even WANTS a will (rightly understood). This is frowardness dressed as a virtue. This is not the behavior of a body which seeks to discern and then follow God's will. This is a body which "makes theology" and does so on the fly, and which thinks it quaint that anyone should hold it somehow responsible to what it said yesterday.

All this tirade is to suggest that maybe there's not a whole lot of bene esse without a sufficient dose of plene esse. That while there may be a kind of momentum which carries one along for a few centuries, sooner or later the inevitable fissiparous tendencies manifest themselves.

This does not mean that I do not respect or will not cooperate and seek personal and spiritual closeness with the Episcopalians. On the contrary!

It does mean that the new "continuing Anglican" groups have their work cut out for them in distinguishing themselves from other groups (Methodists for example) which have split from the C of E and then suffered further splits and divisions.

BTW, M.Div, VTS 1976.
Deacon and Priest (or so they tell me) 1977.
Renounced and received and confirmed in the Latin Rite of the Cahtolic Church, 12/26/1994.

That’s quite a dissertation! I’ll just try to address what I think are the salient points and, hopefully, without too much oversimplification. Relative to the Eucharist, I had cited the multitude of interpretations that theologians formulated over the centuries. You yourself referred to several of them. But with finite human nature comes an inevitable subjectivity. YOUR truth is not necessarily My truth. This applies to one’s understanding of the Eucharist. The reason for that, obviously, is that we are not dealing with empirically verifiable propositions. Rather, these are matters of personal faith. One must admit that the truth for him, even if absolute to him, is relative in the overall scheme of things. This, in my view, is merely a form of Christian humility. That doesn’t mean I have to accept your “truth” but that I ought to respect your own sincere faith commitment. You seem to imply that I’m some sort of apologist for ECUSA. Far from it. Even in terms of what used to be Anglican Catholic orthodoxy, the “ordination” of women is invalid. As you doubtless know, there are certain criteria that must be met for any sacrament to be valid, among them Form and Intention. These are totally absent in the case of women being ‘ordained.’ Thus, in such situations, the Sacrament of Ordination is invalidated. These women may be “ministers” of some sort but they are definitely NOT priests in the traditional Catholic meaning of holy orders. To put the matter of religious and theological differences in one mundane sentence, we can disagree but still be friends. Or so it should be.

YOUR truth is not necessarily My truth.

Wow! That is remarkable!

One must admit that the truth for him, even if absolute to him, is relative in the overall scheme of things.

Well you know the next move: Is THAT relative in the overall scheme of things? Are there some situations or contexts in which the truth for me is NOT relative in the overall scheme of things?

If not, then we have found the philosopher's stone, the one unquestionable truth, to wit: All truths, except this one, are relative.

And, as a footnote, we are of all men the most to be pitied — within, that is, a certain context to be determined later. Neither death, life, angels, principalities, things present, things to come, powers, height depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord ... relatively speaking that is.

Concerning the appeal to humility: If I give you a "diamond as big as the Ritz" and you continue to live poor and to profess poverty, are you being humble or nuts (and ungrateful)?

If, just suppose, God decided to stay with a group and to continue to unfold His self-disclosure to them, I don't think it would be humility to refuse to avail oneself of that unfolding self-disclosure.

Also, touching intention: while intention does have something to do with the esse of a deed, a good intention does not render feckless, I think, the evil consequences of an objectively evil deed. That is, if I think abortion is a public service, I still commit deadly sin if I perform one.

So, IF one has, or even thinks one has, the inside skinny on matters of morals, one is obliged to promulgate certain things. To fail to do so would be to remain silent as a blind man wandered to the edge of the abyss.

As to the matter of women's ordination, my contention is that Anglicanism is unable to form an intention. A sort of emergency fall-back intention for us feelthy Papists is "In obedience, I intend whatever the Church intends in this sacrament." And, of course, we think we have a concrete referent when we say "The Church", and not some "invisible" entity.

If, as an Episcopalian, I tried to do that, to be obedient, there was nothing there to obey! From top to bottom the idea that what anyone said yesterday was in effect today was considered laughable, if it was considered at all.

And that is why Bishop Pike could be spiritualist and consult necromancers, and Bishop Spong could nurture perversion in the bosom of his diocese and Bishop Moore could have his homosexual lovers, and to-be-bishop Vicky Gene could leave his family and repudiate his vows to find a lover more to his liking. That is, because intentions are for the moment (that is: essentially indistinguishable from whims), and not real at all.

To put the matter of religious and theological differences in one mundane sentence, we can disagree but still be friends. Or so it should be.

Certainly! But that does not mean the disagreements are not real and does not exclude the possibility that one of us is wrong and the other, quel horreur, may actually be right!