Christians and Catholics

[pianowelsh]

Hello im back for a quick post. just to clarify - i wrote so much as i was ILL and not doing much else!  That I can see I dont believe there is out and out war Catholics/other denominations - I think this is by and large imagined in this present ecumenical day and age.  There are of course very clear instances where  Catholics would differ from evangelical protestant (i use the term very lighly) teaching. ie Communion/mass where the body/blood of the lord is a once for all time sacrifice which is remembered. The wine and bread do not become again the body and blood as I believe is the case in 'catholic' teaching (transubstanciation).  There is also the issue of 'father' protestant evangelicals would have an issue calling a church figure 'father' because God has adopted us and we call him abba father and scripture would seem to indicate to protestants not to call earthly  authorities (non biological) father out of respect for the intimacy we have with God our heavenly father daily.  Im sure there are many other issues which are actually relatively small But as many have already expressed it is personal relationship with Christ Jesus that saves and not perfect doctrine. Not to diminish the importance of sound doctrine.

[cfortunato]

There is also the issue of 'father' protestant evangelicals would have an issue calling a church figure 'father' because God has adopted us and we call him abba father and scripture would seem to indicate to protestants not to call earthly  authorities (non biological) father out of respect for the intimacy we have with God our heavenly father daily. 

What I find curious about this is that the same passage says you aren't to call anyone "Father " ALSO says that you aren't to call anyone "Teacher," either, but Protestants have no problems calling people "teacher" - like "Sunday School Teacher." 

And Paul says (in Corinthians) that "In Christ Jesus, I became your father through the gospel."  And of course, Protestants call their biological father "father." Personally, I think that the refusal to call pastors "father" is one of those that Protestants didn't do simply because the Catholics DID.

And I don't get your statement that you don't call a pastor "father" out of respect for God being your father.  I mean, after all, you call him "pastor," which means "shepherd," and you don't see that as minimizing "The Lord is my shepherd," do you?

[pianowelsh]

ok ok - im not trying to argue with you. Im merely raising the points of difference or at least some of them. Yes  teacher (I need to check up the origional word used there) but i believe the idea is that you dont pledge yourself to them as was common in that time frame. The reason being The Holy spirit being in us the teacher that conforms us to christ through the word (spoken and written).  I personally dont call the 'sunday school teacher' that I would call them youth worker. The idea behind that being that they labour/work to bring the gospel to the youth of the church - but true i wouldnt have a problem with someone calling them teacher because thats what they do the teach the word of God. I have heard it taught in the corinthians passage as Paul meaning this in the context of him being the initiator of the gospel reaching them and in a sense giving birth to that church but we have to note he is very quick to refer up to Jesus Christ in whose power He went. Pastor yes i dont have a problem with that because in a with Chirst ascended the pastors role is vital to litterally keep the sheep on the path and feed them until his return. Of course illustrations run out at some point and this one does pretty quickly but it serves a purpose. This is slightly different from father in that we love our father we respect and obey our father and there is an intimacy and a trust which there isnt elsewhere to invest such devotion into a man in one sense begins to unpick the work of the cross where God opened up that special relationship direct with himself.   I dont mean to pick over words.. it can get very legalistic but we have to becarefull because sometimes words cover over what we really mean and disguise what we really believe to be true.  We all need to examine these things someitmes.

[timothy42b]

The idea behind that being that they labour/work to bring the gospel to the youth of the church - but true i wouldnt have a problem with someone calling them teacher because thats what they do the teach the word of God.

You should have a problem with them being called teacher, because many of them are female (at least in my church.)  Females are clearly forbidden to teach in the NT. 

[abstractentity]

What I personally find so funny is the actual history of the term being used in America.

Protestants were actually the ones to primarilly use "Father" to refer to their ministers 200-300 years ago in America.  Catholics in America only used the word "Father" to priests taht were were monks. Non-monastic priests usually were addressed with mister/don/monseiur/etc.

The Irish Catholics were to the ones to popularize the use of "Father" to all priests in America and as more and more Catholics started using it, Protestants started to avoid using it, accusing it as part off the errors of Rome (partly due to an increasingly literal interpretation of Matthew 23:9)

From the KJV:
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Out of context, it literally says to call no-one your Father, even your biological one, but we must take it in context because it contradicts other parts of Scripture if we don't. Christ in this passage is warning us not to give this role of authority to those who do not have it,  to make "spiritual gurus" out of people in such a way that it replaces or puts it on a level equal to God. 

One could charge Catholics with doing this to the pope and the hierarchy in general, but from Scripture and Tradition we can see that Christ did give a special authority to certain people for their authority does not ultimately come from themselves, but Christ. 

[fencingfellow]

Didn't read every post, so this may be too off-topic =(
Anyway...

Any argument of Christians vs. Catholics is immediately moot, because Catholics are Christians.  A Christian is simply someone who believes that Christ is the Messiah.  At least get your terminology right.  Moreover, addressing Protestants collectively is a poor idea, since there are huge differences between Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc, etc...

Continue

[timothy42b]

Didn't read every post, so this may be too off-topic =(
Anyway...

Any argument of Christians vs. Catholics is immediately moot, because Catholics are Christians.  A Christian is simply someone who believes that Christ is the Messiah.  At least get your terminology right.  Moreover, addressing Protestants collectively is a poor idea, since there are huge differences between Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc, etc...

Continue

Agreed except for you've stuck Anglicans in the wrong category.

We have stayed with the correct faith while Catholics and Protestants have wandered in various and sundry directions. 

[mycrabface]

Didn't read every post, so this may be too off-topic =(
Anyway...

Any argument of Christians vs. Catholics is immediately moot, because Catholics are Christians.  A Christian is simply someone who believes that Christ is the Messiah.  At least get your terminology right.  Moreover, addressing Protestants collectively is a poor idea, since there are huge differences between Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc, etc...

Continue

As I have mentioned before, I got this topic because its being taught for one of my subjects. The term protestants and catholics are used. does that ans your question

[timothy42b]

Ooops. 

You didn't have that in the original post, but I see you did clarify it a few posts later.  I didn't catch it though. 

Hostility between Catholic and Protestant is real and has a long history.  But they're both Christian. 

[prometheus]

Today I read that hostility towards atheists in the US is off the scale...

Apperently in the US atheism embodies neocapitalism and other forms of materialism.


Surely, the US is very different from Europe. It seems that all political concepts and oppositions are turned around. Liberalism is left wing, neocapitalism is left wing, etc.

[fencingfellow]

As I have mentioned before, I got this topic because its being taught for one of my subjects. The term protestants and catholics are used. does that ans your question

I wasn't asking a question, just making an observation.
Even if this is for a class, it seems like a poor idea (for a teacher or anyone) to try to characterize all Protestant sects as one group.

[abstractentity]

Agreed except for you've stuck Anglicans in the wrong category.

We have stayed with the correct faith while Catholics and Protestants have wandered in various and sundry directions. 

Would you care to elaborate? That seems like a bit of a hard position to defend. (Also who are you in communion with?)

Since you believe that Catholics have "wandered in various and sundry directions", how have we done this? Also, what points do you disagree with Cardinal Newman in hisEssay on the Development of Christian Doctrine? 

[cfortunato]

Would you care to elaborate? That seems like a bit of a hard position to defend. (Also who are you in communion with?)

Since you believe that Catholics have "wandered in various and sundry directions", how have we done this? Also, what points do you disagree with Cardinal Newman in hisEssay on the Development of Christian Doctrine? 

Anglicans regard themselves as both Protestant and Catholic, and some come strongly down on the Catholic side of the ledger.

And one could certainly argue that the fundamental idea of non-papal catholicism is, indeed, the oldest form of Christianity.  I have not read Cardinal Newman's essay (and I have no excuse for it - it's on my shelf) but is not the concept of Development of Doctrine an admission that the faith has changed and is not the faith "delivered, once for all, to the saints"?

[cosine]

Agreed except for you've stuck Anglicans in the wrong category.

We have stayed with the correct faith while Catholics and Protestants have wandered in various and sundry directions. 

I don't feel like a debate right now, but just want to mention that what you've said would be said and defended by all three of the Christian denominations you listed. 

[timothy42b]

Anglicans regard themselves as both Protestant and Catholic, and some come strongly down on the Catholic side of the ledger.

And one could certainly argue that the fundamental idea of non-papal catholicism is, indeed, the oldest form of Christianity.  I have not read Cardinal Newman's essay (and I have no excuse for it - it's on my shelf) but is not the concept of Development of Doctrine an admission that the faith has changed and is not the faith "delivered, once for all, to the saints"?

You took it more seriously than I had intended, it was humor.

Personally I think no one denomination has a better claim on the truth than any other, and that you choose where you worship based mostly on style.  I certainly can't claim Anglican theology is any purer, but I will argue our music is pretty good.  "In communion with" implies mutuality.  Every Christian is welcome at our table but I'm not sure the converse is true. 

I will read that essay, thanks.  Denominations have developed a better understanding of the nature of God over time, and denominations have strayed down the path of heresy, and I'm not sure you can always tell the difference. 

[026497]

Personally, I prefer Catholics more(i attend catholic schools). i've been to churches of both christian and catholic before. the 'leader' (dunno what they call) of christian used 30 min in 2 hours worship to persuade me to donate  very annoying. and said if i didn't do so, i would be a sinner forever and couldn't get in heaven. i was really stressed. but, in the catholic church, much different. nobody persuade me to donate or frighten me(just a box outside the church where you can put money in).

[timothy42b]

Personally, I prefer Catholics more(i attend catholic schools). i've been to churches of both christian and catholic before. the 'leader' (dunno what they call) of christian used 30 min in 2 hours worship to persuade me to donate  very annoying. and said if i didn't do so, i would be a sinner forever and couldn't get in heaven. i was really stressed. but, in the catholic church, much different. nobody persuade me to donate or frighten me(just a box outside the church where you can put money in).

Two hours?

Earlier I said my denomination is pretty tolerant but I have to admit we are not, on this point.

We start on time and an hour later we're done.  Simple professionalism. 

[cfortunato]

[[Two hours?

Earlier I said my denomination is pretty tolerant but I have to admit we are not, on this point.

We start on time and an hour later we're done.  Simple professionalism. ]]

Not where I come from.  An hour is pretty short for a high church Episcopal Service in New York City, and I would say that Christ and St. Stephen's is the only one I've seen do a service that short, for their high main Mass.  The Cathedral is an hour and a half.  St. Mary the Virgin (Uber-Anglo-Catholic)is an hour and fifteen.  More than one Episcopal Church in Harlem goes for two hours - they have a more evangelical approach and believe in long Sermons AND high liturgy.

In case your wondering, I've spent the last 6 months church hunting.

[abstractentity]

Anglicans regard themselves as both Protestant and Catholic, and some come strongly down on the Catholic side of the ledger.

Some Anglicans like to regard themselves "catholic" in the little "c" sense with their "branch theory", especially some of the Anglo-Catholics, but the two other main members of this branch, Catholicism/Byzantine and Oriental Orthodoxy deny this theory.  They deny this theory because Catholicism and Orthodoxy consider themselves "the Church" in its fulness.  The Anglican Church has never claimed to have this status and thus can only ever consider itself just another denomination. 

Catholicism cannot even consider Anglicanism as a "church" like it does with Orthodoxy and labels it instead an "ecclesial community" because of its overall departure from "catholic" belief and not having valid order of priesthood (and therefore no valid sacraments except for baptism and marriage as they do not require and ordained minister). 

(Of course, some orthodox and radtrad Catholics deny that Catholicism since Vatican II has had valid orders but thats another matter as they don't represent their entirety of their group)

And one could certainly argue that the fundamental idea of non-papal catholicism is, indeed, the oldest form of Christianity.  I have not read Cardinal Newman's essay (and I have no excuse for it - it's on my shelf) but is not the concept of Development of Doctrine an admission that the faith has changed and is not the faith "delivered, once for all, to the saints"?

Taking all of deposit of faith and history in consideration, it is difficult position to outright deny some kind of papal chrisitianity.  To deny Peter's Primacy of some kind  is ludricious based just on Scripture. What is debated is the level of authority and the ability to pass on this authority.  We do see from both Eastern and Western Fathers some kind of acknowledgement of the Bishop of Rome's authority (and even appealing to it) becaue he is the successor of Peter. 

Just because the Papacy wasn't "formally defined" in Christianity's oldest form doesn't mean it did not exist and was not an integral part of it.  This is why I brought up this concept of development (which is not the same thing as change). The inherent substance doesn't change, but develops just like a mustard seed grows into a tree. The Doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrines dealing with Christology require it, why should the papacy be any different? 

[cfortunato]

Some Anglicans like to regard themselves "catholic" in the little "c" sense with their "branch theory", especially some of the Anglo-Catholics, but the two other main members of this branch, Catholicism/Byzantine and Oriental Orthodoxy deny this theory.  They deny this theory because Catholicism and Orthodoxy consider themselves "the Church" in its fulness.  The Anglican Church has never claimed to have this status and thus can only ever consider itself just another denomination.  ]]


No, that's just silly.  The Eastern Orthodox accept the validity of the Bishop of Rome - he's just in schism.  As do the Anglicans.  The idea that "Catholicism" is defined by whether or not you deny that anybody else is Catholic is just silly.  Where in the world did THAT definition come from?

[[Taking all of deposit of faith and history in consideration, it is difficult position to outright deny some kind of papal chrisitianity.  To deny Peter's Primacy of some kind  is ludricious based just on Scripture. What is debated is the level of authority and the ability to pass on this authority.  We do see from both Eastern and Western Fathers some kind of acknowledgement of the Bishop of Rome's authority (and even appealing to it) becaue he is the successor of Peter.  ]]

No, - the question is not whether PETER had some sort of primacy, it's whether the current Bishop of Rome has some sort of primacy - and not just primacy, but supremacy.  Peter was, after all, the bishop of Antioch - an Eastern See - before he was the Bishop of Rome.  And, traditionally, he sent Mark to Alexandria, the Coptic See.  Peter, at least theoretically, might be the source of the orders of almost every Bishop on earth.  So why is only one regarded as his sucessor?

In addition, I know of no evidence that the Eastern Sees EVER regarded the Bishop of Rome as having more authority than, say, the bishop of Antioch.  The oldest mention of the monarchical episcopate (and first use of the word Catholic to describe the church) comes not from Rome, but from Antioch and the letters of Ignatius (cf AD 107).  The title "Pope" was first conferred on the Bishop of Alexandria, not Rome.

You will note that the early councils of the church all took place around Constantinople.  None of them took place in Rome.

Rome didn't even have a representative at the 5th, 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils.  The Eastern Church has still always regarded them as fully binding ecumenical councils, even though they took place before 1054 and the schism.

In the first century, Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote to the Corinthians giving them advice.  He seems to ONLY be giving them advice, not orders, and at no time does he actually claim to have any authority over them.  In fact, he doesn't even MENTION his office.

[cfortunato]

Correcting formatting.

Some Anglicans like to regard themselves "catholic" in the little "c" sense with their "branch theory", especially some of the Anglo-Catholics, but the two other main members of this branch, Catholicism/Byzantine and Oriental Orthodoxy deny this theory.  They deny this theory because Catholicism and Orthodoxy consider themselves "the Church" in its fulness.  The Anglican Church has never claimed to have this status and thus can only ever consider itself just another denomination. 

No, that's just silly.  The Eastern Orthodox accept the validity of the Bishop of Rome - he's just in schism.  As do the Anglicans.  The idea that "Catholicism" is defined by whether or not you deny that anybody else is Catholic is just silly.  Where in the world did THAT definition come from?

[[Taking all of deposit of faith and history in consideration, it is difficult position to outright deny some kind of papal chrisitianity.  To deny Peter's Primacy of some kind  is ludricious based just on Scripture. What is debated is the level of authority and the ability to pass on this authority.  We do see from both Eastern and Western Fathers some kind of acknowledgement of the Bishop of Rome's authority (and even appealing to it) becaue he is the successor of Peter.  ]]

No, - the question is not whether PETER had some sort of primacy, it's whether the current Bishop of Rome has some sort of primacy - and not just primacy, but supremacy.  Peter was, after all, the bishop of Antioch - an Eastern See - before he was the Bishop of Rome.  And, traditionally, he sent Mark to Alexandria, the Coptic See.  Peter, at least theoretically, might be the source of the orders of almost every Bishop on earth.  So why is only one regarded as his successor?

In addition, I know of no evidence that the Eastern Sees EVER regarded the Bishop of Rome as having more authority than, say, the bishop of Antioch.  The oldest mention of the monarchical episcopate (and first use of the word "Catholic" to describe the church) comes not from Rome, but from Antioch and the letters of Ignatius (cf AD 107).  The title "Pope" was first conferred on the Bishop of Alexandria, not Rome.

You will note that the early Ecumenical Councils of the church all took place around Constantinople (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon).  None of them took place in Rome, or anywhere near it.  The Bishop of Rome or a representative was expected to travel to Constantinople to participate.  The rest of the church was not expected to travel to him.

Rome didn't even have a representative at the 5th, 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils.  But the Eastern Church has still always regarded them as fully binding ecumenical councils, even though they took place before 1054 and the schism.

In the first century, Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote to the Corinthians giving them advice.  He seems to ONLY be giving them advice, not orders, and at no time does he actually claim to have any authority over them.  In fact, he doesn't even MENTION his office.

[chelsey]

Interestingly, I learned more about Religion/devotion and theology in my first year university Music History course than I did in 12 years attending catholic schools (and weekly masses!).