Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An interview with a former Roman Catholic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So I am back to my phone again, editing to add an apology if the grammar stinks. I can't proofread well here. I gotta address the "doctrines of demons" charge. First on the charge of celibacy: There are 24 Catholic Churches under the Bishop of Rome, the Latin Rite is the largest. Out of 24 it is the only one that asks for celibacy of clergy who are going into the priesthood if they were not previously part of a Rite that allows marriage or if they came in from say Anglicanism or Orthdox and were a clergyman. There are approximately 100 married Latin Rite priests in the U.S. Now other rites do have married priests with families etc. In the Latin Rite priestly celibacy is a discipline vs a doctrine and subject to change should the Pope together with the Cardinals decide to change it. However the reason it has not changed up to this point is that it comes up frequently as a point of discussion and the married priests and often the other Catholic rites actually argue for the Latin Rite to stay celibate. The demands of a priest are very high. In Catholicism the priest takes on the role of exemplifying Christ to the parish, something that our married priests find difficult.
    Also it is of note that the tradition rests on the fact that Paul was celibate and Jesus was also Celibate. Our deacons are often times married men. Sometimes in underserved parishes a seminarian will become the deacon.
    Now when St. Paul wrote this letter to Timothy it's important to note certain sects of Christianity such as the Montanists, Manichaeans, and Encratites placed an emphasis on severe asceticism of all members not just clergy or one kind of clergy with rigorous demands, And the Early Christian church completely condemned this as heretical. A more modern sect closely resembling the three mentioned are the now extinct Shakers who taught that sex was the original sin and men and women ought to stay separate at all times.
    In the Catholic Church outside of the discipline of male priests, we have monks and nuns ( those who discern a call to devote themselves solely to the service of the Church) but all others are only encouraged celibacy before the wedding night and fidelity in marriage. Because one is not required unless they choose the religious life it wouldn't fit the verse. Secondly in "forbidding foods". Corporate fasting on holy days has been around since Judaism. As has private fasting. I would hardly categorize fish Fridays during lent and advent as forbidden foods. Lastly fasting is only corporate on two days of the year and one hour a week, Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. And the hour before Mass. Anyone who is pregnant or sick or young is not required to participate in any of the fasts. More so; fasting in scripture is encouraged, on the ground that we are not " like the hypocrites. I would gather that if a sect is so focused on a doctrine that it rejects the saving work of Christ on the Cross and substitutes things like fasting and celibacy then it would fit.
    certainly in the case of the 19th century shakers it fit quite well.
    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
    George Bernard Shaw

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
      So I am back to my phone again, editing to add an apology if the grammar stinks. I can't proofread well here. I gotta address the "doctrines of demons" charge. First on the charge of celibacy: There are 24 Catholic Churches under the Bishop of Rome, the Latin Rite is the largest. Out of 24 it is the only one that asks for celibacy of clergy who are going into the priesthood if they were not previously part of a Rite that allows marriage or if they came in from say Anglicanism or Orthdox and were a clergyman. There are approximately 100 married Latin Rite priests in the U.S. Now other rites do have married priests with families etc. In the Latin Rite priestly celibacy is a discipline vs a doctrine and subject to change should the Pope together with the Cardinals decide to change it. However the reason it has not changed up to this point is that it comes up frequently as a point of discussion and the married priests and often the other Catholic rites actually argue for the Latin Rite to stay celibate. The demands of a priest are very high. In Catholicism the priest takes on the role of exemplifying Christ to the parish, something that our married priests find difficult.
      Also it is of note that the tradition rests on the fact that Paul was celibate and Jesus was also Celibate. Our deacons are often times married men. Sometimes in underserved parishes a seminarian will become the deacon.
      The Latin Rite is by far the largest segment of the Roman Catholic Church. The only reason priestly celibacy is not enforced in the other rites is because enforcement would drive the other rites away. Attempted enforcement is a big reason why my diocese is Orthodox today. The Byzantine Rite churches in the US are slowly being Latinized. I went to a conference at the Metropolitan Cantor Institute a few years ago, and some of our traditional songs had been altered (in the English translation) to reflect Catholic dogma.
      Now when St. Paul wrote this letter to Timothy it's important to note certain sects of Christianity such as the Montanists, Manichaeans, and Encratites placed an emphasis on severe asceticism of all members not just clergy or one kind of clergy with rigorous demands, And the Early Christian church completely condemned this as heretical. A more modern sect closely resembling the three mentioned are the now extinct Shakers who taught that sex was the original sin and men and women ought to stay separate at all times.
      In the Catholic Church outside of the discipline of male priests, we have monks and nuns ( those who discern a call to devote themselves solely to the service of the Church) but all others are only encouraged celibacy before the wedding night and fidelity in marriage. Because one is not required unless they choose the religious life it wouldn't fit the verse. Secondly in "forbidding foods". Corporate fasting on holy days has been around since Judaism. As has private fasting. I would hardly categorize fish Fridays during lent and advent as forbidden foods. Lastly fasting is only corporate on two days of the year and one hour a week, Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. And the hour before Mass. Anyone who is pregnant or sick or young is not required to participate in any of the fasts. More so; fasting in scripture is encouraged, on the ground that we are not " like the hypocrites. I would gather that if a sect is so focused on a doctrine that it rejects the saving work of Christ on the Cross and substitutes things like fasting and celibacy then it would fit.
      certainly in the case of the 19th century shakers it fit quite well.
      Pfft. You guys practically don't fast. I agree, though, that fasting isn't about forbidding foods, but abstaining from some foods for a time.

      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Darfius View Post

        Christ, like His Father, cannot lie. If you're still a sinner, He won't declare otherwise.
        I think you should be more worried about Matthew 7:2 "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

          I think you should be more worried about Matthew 7:2 "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."
          Mossy asked him to post here no more.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

            I think you should be more worried about Matthew 7:2 "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."


            Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

              Mossy asked him to post here no more.
              I didn't see that until after I responded.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                I didn't see that until after I responded.
                That happens!
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                  I didn't see that until after I responded.


                  Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    It is utterly false that the RCC offers no hope in this life or in eternity.

                    Saying that Catholic popes and priests have been lying for millennia is rather offensive, IMO. You may disagree with some teachings, but calling them deliberately perpetuated falsehoods is malicious and hateful.


                    There is indeed much in common between the evangelical church and Rome. There are also irreconcilable differences.

                    If you do not want any animosity or hard feelings, then you need to be more charitable in your characterization of the RCC. Be less polemic and more irenic. There are gentler ways to point out disagreements. Despite the real differences, Roman Catholics worship the same God in three Persons, and use the same Scriptures you do (with a few additions); Protestant thought, like Roman Catholicism, is deeply indebted to St. Augustine.

                    I hope to have time to watch the video. I will say, however, that I will not take its words as definitively accurate. I've read some ex-Orthodox polemic, and it's typically rather wide of the mark. There is, quite understandably, an impulse to denigrate that which one has left behind.
                    I'm very impressed by your irenic tone in defending a communion with which your own has some major issues.

                    That very last remark in your post is all too true. I think it is a result of falling out of love with something that used to be intimately bound up with one. I have heard of Mike Gendron as an ex-Catholic, But that is all I know of him.

                    Again, thanks.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      The Latin Rite is by far the largest segment of the Roman Catholic Church. The only reason priestly celibacy is not enforced in the other rites is because enforcement would drive the other rites away. Attempted enforcement is a big reason why my diocese is Orthodox today. The Byzantine Rite churches in the US are slowly being Latinized. I went to a conference at the Metropolitan Cantor Institute a few years ago, and some of our traditional songs had been altered (in the English translation) to reflect Catholic dogma.
                      Pfft. You guys practically don't fast. I agree, though, that fasting isn't about forbidding foods, but abstaining from some foods for a time.
                      Near as I can tell - "forbidding foods" is a reference to Old Testament rules about clean foods and unclean.
                      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                        Part 1

                        Well let's start with the obvious. Justin Peter's levels the accusation that the Roman Catholic Church is Satan's greatest counterfeit. Well let me draw attention to the theologyweb statement of faith which mentions the Apostle's Creed:

                        Apostle's Creed


                        1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

                        2. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.

                        3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

                        4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

                        5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.

                        6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

                        7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

                        8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,

                        9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,

                        10. the forgiveness of sins,

                        11. the resurrection of the body,

                        12. and life everlasting.

                        Amen.


                        Presumably Justin Peters doesn't have an issue with this Creed. One other accusation leveled is "Apostasy" and yet the Apostle's creed is essentially a standard statement of faith for every mainstream church, including the Latin Rite Catholics.

                        If you believe in the "apostasy" under Constantine then I would submit the Apostle's Creed as evidence against apostasy, especially if you believe this Creed. It’s history is interesting as most likely it was developed in 5th Century Gaul as an enhanced version of “the Old Roman Creed” Which essentially says this:

                        I believe in God the Father almighty;

                        and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,

                        Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,

                        Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,

                        on the third day rose again from the dead,

                        ascended to heaven,

                        sits at the right hand of the Father,

                        whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;

                        and in the Holy Spirit,

                        the holy Church,

                        the remission of sins,

                        the resurrection of the flesh

                        (the life everlasting).

                        This Creed first appears in a letter to Pope Julius about A.D 340.

                        Emperor Constantine ruled from 306-337. If the Church began to apostosize, then why would they have adopted creeds declaring that a belief in the Triune God was necessary for a Christian?
                        Creeds which by the way are considered utterly standard among most Evangelicals and Catholics.
                        The handful of Reformed authors I have read on the subject of what they call Rome's apostasy, see it as having happened gradually, over a long period of centuries. That way of looking at the matter would allow Rome to be Christian, then to be basically a true Church with some errors current in it, then to sink deeper and deeper into error, until it ceases to be a true Church - though it may well have some "true Christians" in it, who are saved despite their errors.

                        That gradual understanding would allow the CC, whether parts of it or all of it, to have an orthodox/Biblically orthodox creed, even if there were tendencies to apostasy at work in it. It might be apostate in Poland or Rome, but still be a true Church in Scotland or Venice.

                        That is my understanding of how Reformed Christians see the subject of apostasy when they say that the CC or Rome or the papacy is apostate.

                        I notice that the attention of such authors seems very largely to be limited to Western Europe & the Americas: Persia & Armenia & China & Ethiopia don't get a look-in either. Yet Nestorian Christianity in China began in 635, and lasted for centuries; the Nestorian Church spread through a good portion of the Far East.

                        An informed and accurate understanding of Church history is very much to be desired, on all sides. Not to propagandise or muck-rake or brag or accuse, but to inform.

                        Comment


                        • A: He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
                          B: Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,



                          Seemingly innocuous variations in the doctrine, not just that one, do demonstrate divergence.
                          Perhaps the most significant divergence though is the inclusion of the Trinity doctrine as dogma.
                          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by mossrose, 11-07-2021, 09:28 PM
                          146 responses
                          968 views
                          1 like
                          Last Post tabibito  
                          Working...
                          X