Are the Ecumenical Councils valid?

[GodsGrace]

That is TOTALLY FALSE. Please read my post quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I will now quote from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia from the article titled "Sacrifice of the Mass":

A LITERAL SACRIFICE
"...The definition of the Council of Trent supposes as self-evident the proposition that, along with the "true and real Sacrifice of the Mass" there can be and are in Christendom figurative and unreal sacrifices of various kinds... If the Mass is to be a true sacrifice in the literal sense, it must realize the philosophical conception of sacrifice...

THIS FALSE TEACHING ORIGINATED WITH IRENAEUS
In a series of writings, Dr. Wieland, a Catholic priest, likewise maintained in the face of vigorous opposition from other theologians, that the early Christians confined the essence of the Christian sacrifice to a subjective Eucharistic prayer of thanksgiving, till Irenaeus (d. 202) brought forward the idea of an objective offering of gifts, and especially of bread and wine. He, according to this view, was the first to include in his expanded conception of sacrifice, the entirely new idea of material offerings (i.e. the Eucharistic elements) which up to that time the early Church had formally repudiated... But here unfortunately Catholics and Protestants part company. The latter can see in the Mass only a "denial of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ".

AN UNAUTHORIZED HUMAN PRIEST SACRIFICES CHRIST
Since ex vi verborum the consecration of the bread makes really present only the Body, and the consecration of the Chalice only the Blood, the tendency or the double consecration is towards a formal exclusion of the Blood from the Body. The mystical slaying thus approaches nearer to a real destruction and the absolute sacrificial moment of the Mass receives an important confirmation...

Here the Council of Trent interposed with a definition of faith (Sess. XXII, can. iii): "If any one saith, that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. . . but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits only the recipient, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, n. 950).

In other words, non-Catholics are accursed (anathema) for rejecting the Catholic Mass!

The Council of Trent was a long time ago E.
And as to the Mass....
I have to go by what priests tell me...
The CCC is already old and, TTYTT, I just don't want to debate with it.
And I don't think you even posted the paragraph....
Could you? I just can't do this right now.

 

[Giuliano]

@Giuliano
The Church is distinctive among institutions in the history of mankind: it is human and yet divine; perfect, yet in need of reform; holy, yet made up of sinners; infallible, yet led by fallen, fallible humans. That’s a hard concept to express to someone outside the Church—sometimes it’s hard for us inside the Church to remember it.

Lots of times, I don't know what "the Church" means when Catholics use the phrase. I don't know what you mean in that quote.

While many seem to disregard the study of history as a wasteful pastime, events in Catholic Church history are often used to attack us. Based on ignorance, prejudice, or confusion, people know, or think they know, something about our Church’s past that is scandalous, cruel, or just bad. They use this misinformation or some distorted view of an event to attack the Church’s credibility on current moral issues, as if to say an institution that can perpetrate such misdeeds in the past can’t tell me what to do with my body (artificial birth control, abortion, fornication, etc.); it can’t tell me what’s right and what’s wrong.

I would not take my car to be fixed to a mechanic who owned several cars that had problems he could not fix. By their works, you can know people. Does a good tree bring forth bad fruit? I can study the origins of the Catholic Church's teachings on birth control -- back to Augustine and no further back. He invented those ideas. The Catholic Church still retains many of his ideas; and there will not, cannot be,complete reconciliation with the Orthodox Church as long his Augustine's invented idea about "original sin" remains a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Pride is the problem. Sometimes the Orthodox Church retained correct doctrines when Rome wandered off, and that is a problem that only Rome can fix by admitting its error, admitting there is no precedent for their idea of original sin before Augustine invented it.

I admire Peter -- I love him -- for his ability to change his mind easily when someone else was right and he could see it. Would to God his successors could do the same. Peter knew that harmony in the Church depended on his ability to see when others were right and to admit he was wrong. The Catholic Church seems to think if they admit even once that their "infallible" doctrines were wrong, their whole world would collapse. No one would see them as having real authority or wisdom. It is pride. That attitude also drives people away when they see clearly where the Catholic Church is wrong but refuses to admit it.

If the sheep are thirsty, but their shepherd does not lead them to water, why should the sheep think? If they need food, and he does not lead them to food, what do they think? Let's get realistic. Sheep trust their shepherd because he acts in their interest, not in his own. If he does not act in their interest, they are likely to wander off. Yet the Catholic Church seems not to perceive how their failures often led others to go look for other shepherds. All they can see is what they want to see to justify themselves, that the others are false shepherds. They seem not to see how they could have created the problem by being poor shepherds themselves.

I was reading the Catechism one day and read about wounds to unity. It admitted that the Catholic Church had inflicted some of its own. I was thunderstruck that they seemed to think that statement was enough. What wounds? What were they talking about? Could anyone go to confession and say, "I have sinned," and have the priest say, "Okay, say some prayers and you can go now." He would not. He would want to know what sins, and rightfully so. A good priest is a blessing indeed when people can gain great insights in confession by talking to their priest. Wouldn't it be great if all the Protestants had someone to talk to like that, even if they didn't consider him a priest? A good priest can get people to understand things so they won't repeat them.

Yet so far as I know, the Catholic Church has not fully confessed to the wounds they inflicted on the Body of Christ. They say some things, but is what they have said enough? Not that I need to know or that it would benefit me; on the contrary, it would benefit them. I think they need to know so they can and will avoid the same mistakes.

The pope is infallible only when teaching on matters of faith and morals. The Church has never taught that the pope is impeccable, unable to err in practical matters and actions.
Knowing Enough History to Defend It: Catholic History and Apologetics - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

This statement also boggles my mind. I have a question. No one seems to know when the Pope speaks ex cathedra and when he does not. Is there an authoritative list? If so, I never found it. Then I ask, why have this teaching if nobody knows what it means so they can tell when he's speaking ex cathedra and when he isn't?

One doctrine is known to have been made official by a Pope speaking ex cathedra. It also remains a stumbling block to unity with the Orthodox Church and other churches. Was it worth it then for a Pope to issue the statement? The Catholic Church survived for centuries without a clear doctrine on the matter. It would have survived in the future without it. Catholic theologians were debating it, and people demanding an answer. Here again, the Orthodox Church shows its wisdom by saying some questions are "controversial" and cannot be answered. People are free to think as they want since the Orthodox Church doesn't take an official position -- had not in the past and will not in the future; but Catholic theologians thought they needed to know about the matter of the Immaculate Conception, and Pope did not silence them by saying it was not a question appropriate for him to try to settle. As his position of holding "all truth" seemed to be in question, he decided to make a statement and say he had the authority. That was in 1854. Eighteen centuries of "not knowing" were ended. We have to ask how Christianity survived for that long remaining in uncertainty on this. It's clearly not part of the "truth" received by the Apostles and handed down by Tradition.

I find it unnecessary and unfortunately also a stumbling block to unity. It was an attempt to "know" things men do not need to know. I could sit next to someone in church peacefully if he disagreed me on this question. Arguing about it isn't worth it. I think the Orthodox Church is right in how they interpret:

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Where is there any profit in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? I don't see it. I don't see how it helps Catholics become better Christians, and I don't see how not believing it hurts those who don't. To me, it's not worth disputing and creating greater schism, putting an unnecessary obstacle in the way of reconciling others to the Catholic Church. If the Popes don't see it that way, then I guess they don't; but I wish they could see how they have made it so hard for others to establish unity with them because they want to right and don't want to say to anyone else, "Yes,I think you're right and I was wrong." They undermine their own authority. They do not see how Judah did not lose any authority when he said about Tamar, "She hath been more righteous than I." He became right when he said that. He would have undermined his familial authority by not admitting it. People would have known he was wrong and wouldn't admit it. Who would trust him then?

 

[Giuliano]

So are you actually saying that you believe any person could consecrate a host? I mean change it to the real presence?

I do, based on the promise that Jesus could be in the midst of those gathered in his name. If people approach Communion with the right attitude, it may not be that important if they adopted the idea of the Real Presence with their minds. God judges by the heart.

Some say one thing with their mouths and then do something else. Others don't let those words out of their mouths and may even say the opposite but still do it. What people say they believe may not be that important. What they do matters.

Matthew 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

Asking for a fish: something good
the father won't give a serpent: something harmful to the son

I think you got it.

 

[epostle]

Lots of times, I don't know what "the Church" means when Catholics use the phrase. I don't know what you mean in that quote.

"Church has many meanings, depending on the context. In this context used, it means the Catholic Church.

I would not take my car to be fixed to a mechanic who owned several cars that had problems he could not fix. By their works, you can know people. Does a good tree bring forth bad fruit? I can study the origins of the Catholic Church's teachings on birth control -- back to Augustine and no further back. He invented those ideas. The Catholic Church still retains many of his ideas; and there will not, cannot be,complete reconciliation with the Orthodox Church as long his Augustine's invented idea about "original sin" remains a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Pride is the problem. Sometimes the Orthodox Church retained correct doctrines when Rome wandered off, and that is a problem that only Rome can fix by admitting its error, admitting there is no precedent for their idea of original sin before Augustine invented it.

Augustine did not invent Romans 5.

I admire Peter -- I love him -- for his ability to change his mind easily when someone else was right and he could see it. Would to God his successors could do the same. Peter knew that harmony in the Church depended on his ability to see when others were right and to admit he was wrong. The Catholic Church seems to think if they admit even once that their "infallible" doctrines were wrong, their whole world would collapse. No one would see them as having real authority or wisdom. It is pride. That attitude also drives people away when they see clearly where the Catholic Church is wrong but refuses to admit it.

You have the standard Protestant misconception of what infallibility means.

If the sheep are thirsty, but their shepherd does not lead them to water, why should the sheep think? If they need food, and he does not lead them to food, what do they think? Let's get realistic. Sheep trust their shepherd because he acts in their interest, not in his own. If he does not act in their interest, they are likely to wander off. Yet the Catholic Church seems not to perceive how their failures often led others to go look for other shepherds. All they can see is what they want to see to justify themselves, that the others are false shepherds. They seem not to see how they could have created the problem by being poor shepherds themselves.

Then 1.1 billion people are deceived, according to you. Most bishops and popes have been dedicated servants, and many were very holy.

I was reading the Catechism one day and read about wounds to unity. It admitted that the Catholic Church had inflicted some of its own. I was thunderstruck that they seemed to think that statement was enough.

What more do you want? The 16th century was a very difficult time in history, and it says both sides were to blame, because it's the truth.

What wounds? What were they talking about? Could anyone go to confession and say, "I have sinned," and have the priest say, "Okay, say some prayers and you can go now." He would not. He would want to know what sins, and rightfully so. A good priest is a blessing indeed when people can gain great insights in confession by talking to their priest. Wouldn't it be great if all the Protestants had someone to talk to like that, even if they didn't consider him a priest? A good priest can get people to understand things so they won't repeat them.

This has nothing to do with CCC817-820. Maybe you should read it again.

Yet so far as I know, the Catholic Church has not fully confessed to the wounds they inflicted on the Body of Christ. They say some things, but is what they have said enough? Not that I need to know or that it would benefit me; on the contrary, it would benefit them. I think they need to know so they can and will avoid the same mistakes.

There are those who will never be satisfied, no matter how many popes have apologized over wrongdoings. "not fully confessed to the wounds they inflicted on the Body of Christ." because popes don't apologize for anti-Catholic fiction.

This statement also boggles my mind. I have a question. No one seems to know when the Pope speaks ex cathedra and when he does not. Is there an authoritative list? If so, I never found it. Then I ask, why have this teaching if nobody knows what it means so they can tell when he's speaking ex cathedra and when he isn't?

One doctrine is known to have been made official by a Pope speaking ex cathedra. It also remains a stumbling block to unity with the Orthodox Church and other churches. Was it worth it then for a Pope to issue the statement? The Catholic Church survived for centuries without a clear doctrine on the matter. It would have survived in the future without it. Catholic theologians were debating it, and people demanding an answer. Here again, the Orthodox Church shows its wisdom by saying some questions are "controversial" and cannot be answered. People are free to think as they want since the Orthodox Church doesn't take an official position -- had not in the past and will not in the future; but Catholic theologians thought they needed to know about the matter of the Immaculate Conception, and Pope did not silence them by saying it was not a question appropriate for him to try to settle. As his position of holding "all truth" seemed to be in question, he decided to make a statement and say he had the authority. That was in 1854. Eighteen centuries of "not knowing" were ended. We have to ask how Christianity survived for that long remaining in uncertainty on this. It's clearly not part of the "truth" received by the Apostles and handed down by Tradition.

https://www.catholicfidelity.com/ap...cy/ex-cathedra-and-infallibilty-by-steve-ray/

Is there a list of infallible teachings?

I find it unnecessary and unfortunately also a stumbling block to unity. It was an attempt to "know" things men do not need to know. I could sit next to someone in church peacefully if he disagreed me on this question. Arguing about it isn't worth it. I think the Orthodox Church is right in how they interpret:

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Where is there any profit in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? I don't see it. I don't see how it helps Catholics become better Christians, and I don't see how not believing it hurts those who don't. To me, it's not worth disputing and creating greater schism, putting an unnecessary obstacle in the way of reconciling others to the Catholic Church. If the Popes don't see it that way, then I guess they don't; but I wish they could see how they have made it so hard for others to establish unity with them because they want to right and don't want to say to anyone else, "Yes,I think you're right and I was wrong." They undermine their own authority. They do not see how Judah did not lose any authority when he said about Tamar, "She hath been more righteous than I." He became right when he said that. He would have undermined his familial authority by not admitting it. People would have known he was wrong and wouldn't admit it. Who would trust him then?

Immaculate Conception and Assumption

 

[Giuliano]

"Church has many meanings, depending on the context. In this context used, it means the Catholic Church.

That doesn't help much since it doesn't tell me if it means the spiritual Church or the visible earthly church.

Augustine did not invent Romans 5.

He put a spin on it that had never existed before. According to him, people "inherit" sin in direct contradiction to the Bible. Then he taught that unbaptized babies go to hell because of original sin. I conisder that a pernicious doctrine and an accusation against God Himself, imputing injustice to God as well as a lack of Love.

You have the standard Protestant misconception of what infallibility means.

I don't think so. That's why I don't understand why Popes can't admit errors. Certainly infallible doesn't mean inerrant. I don't expect anyone to be inerrant.

Then 1.1 billion people are deceived, according to you. Most bishops and popes have been dedicated servants, and many were very holy.

A little yeast can leaven the whole bread.

What more do you want? The 16th century was a very difficult time in history, and it says both sides were to blame, because it's the truth. This has nothing to do with CCC817-820. Maybe you should read it again.

There are those who will never be satisfied, no matter how many popes have apologized over wrongdoings. "not fully confessed to the wounds they inflicted on the Body of Christ." because popes don't apologize for anti-Catholic fiction.

I'd lack clarity. I'm not asking them to agree to some of the outlandish propaganda issued by fanatical Protestants; that would lying to placate people.

Ex Cathedra and Infallibilty by Steve Ray ::

Is there a list of infallible teachings?

I would think people would know when a Pope speaks ex cathedra. How is a Catholic to know what to believe when he's not certain what's what?

Immaculate Conception and Assumption

Yes? How does the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception help you lead a better life?

 

[GodsGrace]

"Church has many meanings, depending on the context. In this context used, it means the Catholic Church.

Augustine did not invent Romans 5.

You have the standard Protestant misconception of what infallibility means.

Then 1.1 billion people are deceived, according to you. Most bishops and popes have been dedicated servants, and many were very holy.

What more do you want? The 16th century was a very difficult time in history, and it says both sides were to blame, because it's the truth. This has nothing to do with CCC817-820. Maybe you should read it again.

There are those who will never be satisfied, no matter how many popes have apologized over wrongdoings. "not fully confessed to the wounds they inflicted on the Body of Christ." because popes don't apologize for anti-Catholic fiction.

Ex Cathedra and Infallibilty by Steve Ray ::

Is there a list of infallible teachings?


Immaculate Conception and Assumption

@Giuliano is right about Augustine and original sin.

I also very much resent that the church accepted this teaching at that time.
And am rather shocked that it did....

Have you studied original sin?
It did not exist before as Augustine taught it.
We do not INHERIT the sins of our fathers....

We only suffer from the EFFECT of original sin.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think there are some clues about how people will be as priests by observing how they behave in seminaries.

If they don't want gay priests being actively gay, why are some seminaries so gay? We had some here in the US; and now we find out they do in Brazil too.

Homosexuals In the Seminaries. A Startling Survey In Brazil - CatholicCitizens.org

First of all, the interviewees say, homosexuality in their seminaries “is a common thing, a reality ever more present.” So normal “that it even reaches the point of being trivialized.” It is the widespread conviction among them “that in reality 90 percent of seminarians today are homosexual.”

Spain had the same problem with gay priests when the Inquisition was to ferret them out. (I wish I could remember where I read this.) The Pope wrote to Spain asking how it was going; and the answer came back that if they got rid of all the actively gay priests, there wouldn't be enough priests to function. England had the same problem. Anselm was probably gay but I think also probably abstinent; but he knew there were lots of gay priests in the English church.

St Anselm

Most of the following letters were written during his early residence at Bec, though he was already becoming noted for his scholarship and philosophy, infectious enthusiasm, and spiky personality (his high principles would eventually create friction with his English rulers, William II and Henry I. There is little reason to doubt the purity of Anselm’s theological concept of friendship, or even his celibacy, but neither can we deny the erotic force behind his yearning and frustrated desire, his heartbreak and even jealousy. The intensity of his emotional experience with his pupils and the `beloved lover’ (dilecto dilectori) to whom he addresses his epistles makes clear his gay sensibility.

The Council of London in 1102 wanted to enact ecclesiastical legislation which declared – for the first time in English history – that homosexual behaviour was a sin, and they recommended that offending laymen be imprisoned and clergymen be anathematized. But Anselm as Archbishop of Canterbury prohibited the publication of their decree, advising the Council that homosexuality was widespread and few men were embarrassed by it or had even been aware it was a serious matter; he felt that although sodomites should not be admitted to the priesthood, confessors should take into account mitigating factors such as age and marital status before prescribing penance, and he advised counselling rather than punishment. St Anselm’s letters appeared during the last flowering of homosexual love before fanatical anti-gay prejudice swept across Europe in the twelfth century, as documented by John Boswell in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (1980).

I think they just have to learn to deal with it. And some don't and create problems. Mostly they get changed from one parish to another.

What about heterosexuals in seminaries? Watch them to see if they're chaste. I think being married to enter a seminary might be a good idea.


What's for sure is that Peter was married. I'm not sure when they decided men had to be unmarried, nor do I know what rules they had before that.
So you know what I mean, and the problems the practice seem to encourage.

The same problem is found today in some Protestant churches when the minister is married. There was one case recently when a man must have decided he wanted to be straight so he married a woman and became a minister. When it came out he was having flings with men, his wife stood by him at first; later she gave up trying to defend the indefensible.
He also introduced what I'd call a heresy with his views on "original sin." That was his invention completely. There will never be a complete reconciliation with the Orthodox Church as long as the Catholic Church hangs onto that. I find the idea repugnant; and I also think he derived it as a way to explain his own spiritual failure.

I adore Augustine's mother, St. Monica. But I could do without him. He fell into bad hands when he met Ambrose. I see him as one of the worst ever influences on the Catholic Church. I would say he invented the "Apostles Creed" in its present form, claiming it had always existed.

Apostles' Creed - Wikipedia

The title Symbolum Apostolicum (Symbol or Creed of the Apostles) appears for the first time in a letter, probably written by Ambrose, from a Council in Milan to Pope Siricius in about AD 390 "Let them give credit to the Creed of the Apostles, which the Roman Church has always kept and preserved undefiled".[5][6] But what existed at that time was not what is now known as the Apostles' Creed but a shorter statement of belief that, for instance, did not include the phrase "maker of heaven and earth", a phrase that may have been inserted only in the 7th century.[7]

If they always had it, why was Ambrose the first to know of it? Why hadn't they produced it at Nicea?

Two comments:
1. No need to ferret information...we all know about the inquisitions.

I also think you mentioned the Crusades...Not going back to read the post...no time...but I DO believe the crusades were necessary to keed the Christian faith saved...the plan of Islam was to destroy it.

2. Augustine and Original Sin. You're one of the few I've spoken to that know about this.
Most Christians believe original sin was always around...and it was in the sense that we inherit the sin nature...but we do not inherit Adam's sin...only the effects of it. We are responsible only for OUR OWN sins,,,not anyone else's. I also believe he ruined many doctrine of the CC. Predestination would be another matter. I must say, however, that the CC DOES believe in free will.

I'm not sure why you brought up the Apostles Creed.
This would have to be put right next to the Nicene Creed in order to compare properly.

Can't do this right now...if you could it would be great!

 

[GodsGrace]

That doesn't help much since it doesn't tell me if it means the spiritual Church or the visible earthly church.

He put a spin on it that had never existed before. According to him, people "inherit" sin in direct contradiction to the Bible. Then he taught that unbaptized babies go to hell because of original sin. I conisder that a pernicious doctrine and an accusation against God Himself, imputing injustice to God as well as a lack of Love.

I don't think so. That's why I don't understand why Popes can't admit errors. Certainly infallible doesn't mean inerrant. I don't expect anyone to be inerrant.

A little yeast can leaven the whole bread.

I'd lack clarity. I'm not asking them to agree to some of the outlandish propaganda issued by fanatical Protestants; that would lying to placate people.

I would think people would know when a Pope speaks ex cathedra. How is a Catholic to know what to believe when he's not certain what's what?
Yes? How does the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception help you lead a better life?

When the Pope speaks ex-cathedra, he has to put his beliefs in official writings, bulls, and/or has to be quoting from them.

 

[Giuliano]

@Giuliano is right about Augustine and original sin.

I also very much resent that the church accepted this teaching at that time.
And am rather shocked that it did....

Have you studied original sin?
It did not exist before as Augustine taught it.
We do not INHERIT the sins of our fathers....

We only suffer from the EFFECT of original sin.

The Bible seems clear on the point.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Augustine was also behind their teachings on birth control. How many Catholics has that driven away? We're told it is wrong to have sex unless there's a chance of making a baby. Sex was wrong unless you were trying to make a baby. Birth control is out. That position evolved also. The natural rhythm method got its start in 1930 -- perhaps as a way of deterring Catholics from leaving the church; but you tell me if people using that method are having sex with the intention of having babies. No, they trying to avoid having babies.

My view is the Jewish position that the husband is obligated to give his wife pleasure. Often they devote the Sabbath to it. If a man wanted a second wife, he'd better be prepared to please them both in bed -- that is the duty here:

Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Muslims adopted a similar position but today don't seem to practice it much. Their original position was that the husband should not take his pleasure before making sure his wife had hers. Sex can be loving if done with the purpose of bringing pleasure to the other. That is a good thing if you ask me. Paul gives the Jewish position:

Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

How can the two become one if the man is selfish in bed?

 

[Enoch111]

I also very much resent that the church accepted this teaching at that time.
And am rather shocked that it did....

1. No amount of criticism of the Catholic Church will make an iota of difference to those who are committed to it.

2. The best option for Christians is to leave them to their devices and focus on what the Bible teaches.

 

[Giuliano]

Two comments:
1. No need to ferret information...we all know about the inquisitions.

I also think you mentioned the Crusades...Not going back to read the post...no time...but I DO believe the crusades were necessary to keed the Christian faith saved...the plan of Islam was to destroy it.

I have no objection to people defending themselves when invaded; but is that the business of the state or the church? I don't see it being a matter of religion -- one Crusade turned very bad in Constantinople when the Doge of Venice did not do what he promised but pillaged Constantinople instead. The Catholic Church got blamed for that.

2. Augustine and Original Sin. You're one of the few I've spoken to that know about this.
Most Christians believe original sin was always around...and it was in the sense that we inherit the sin nature...but we do not inherit Adam's sin...only the effects of it. We are responsible only for OUR OWN sins,,,not anyone else's. I also believe he ruined many doctrine of the CC. Predestination would be another matter. I must say, however, that the CC DOES believe in free will.

I'm not sure why you brought up the Apostles Creed.
This would have to be put right next to the Nicene Creed in order to compare properly.

Can't do this right now...if you could it would be great!

Ambrose lived before the Council of Ephesus, so maybe we can excuse him a little; but he was still producing another creed when they already had one. The Council of Ephesus was emphatic when it looked at it.

The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe … [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.

1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.

Of course, the creed they published was not the same as the one produced at Nicea -- but I digress. I think Ephesus had a point in saying people should not be producing other creeds; and I think common sense should tell people they shouldn't be doing that. If an Ecumenical Council agreed to a creed after so much effort, who was Ambrose to claim he found another one? Are we supposed to believe the Apostles' Creed existed and nobody at Nicea had seen it? I would think if it had been authentic, people would have had it and produced it at Nicea -- the problem over what the creed should be would have been solved.

 

[Giuliano]

When the Pope speaks ex-cathedra, he has to put his beliefs in official writings, bulls, and/or has to be quoting from them.

It would nice if something like that was true, but nobody really knows what he has to do; and there is a curse on anyone who disagrees that Popes have this authority.

Decrees of the First Vatican Council - Papal Encyclicals

Therefore,

• faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
• to the glory of God our saviour,
• for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
• for the salvation of the christian people,
• with the approval of the sacred council,
• we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
  • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    • that is, when,
    • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
    • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
    • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  • he possesses,
    • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Is that curse or anathema still part of Catholic teaching? That is from the First Vatican Council, which is called an Ecumenical Council. They can say today that Protestants can be saved, but how could that be true if they are anathematized for not accepting this or does it refer only to Catholics?

 

[GodsGrace]

The Bible seems clear on the point.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Augustine was also behind their teachings on birth control. How many Catholics has that driven away? We're told it is wrong to have sex unless there's a chance of making a baby. Sex was wrong unless you were trying to make a baby. Birth control is out. That position evolved also. The natural rhythm method got its start in 1930 -- perhaps as a way of deterring Catholics from leaving the church; but you tell me if people using that method are having sex with the intention of having babies. No, they trying to avoid having babies.

My view is the Jewish position that the husband is obligated to give his wife pleasure. Often they devote the Sabbath to it. If a man wanted a second wife, he'd better be prepared to please them both in bed -- that is the duty here:

Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Muslims adopted a similar position but today don't seem to practice it much. Their original position was that the husband should not take his pleasure before making sure his wife had hers. Sex can be loving if done with the purpose of bringing pleasure to the other. That is a good thing if you ask me. Paul gives the Jewish position:

Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

How can the two become one if the man is selfish in bed?

You won't get any argument from me!
LOL

 

[Philip James]

I do, based on the promise that Jesus could be in the midst of those gathered in his name.

Hello Giuliano,

Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Likwise Ignatius of Antioch says 'do nothing apart from the bishop'

And in another place ' that is a proper Eucharist that is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he approves'

From the very beginning of the Church, presiding over the celebration of the Eucharist was restricted to the bishop or to those presbyters approved (ordained) by him.
We find this doctrine in all the ancient apostolic churches, and ignore it at our peril.

If one feels called by the Holy Spirit to preside over the celebration, they must submit themselves to their bishop for his approval (ordination)

To act outside the authority of ones bishop is to place oneself in danger of the rebellion of Korah.

Peace be with you.

Christ IS risen!
Alleluia!

 

[GodsGrace]

I have no objection to people defending themselves when invaded; but is that the business of the state or the church? I don't see it being a matter of religion -- one Crusade turned very bad in Constantinople when the Doge of Venice did not do what he promised but pillaged Constantinople instead. The Catholic Church got blamed for that.

Ambrose lived before the Council of Ephesus, so maybe we can excuse him a little; but he was still producing another creed when they already had one. The Council of Ephesus was emphatic when it looked at it.

The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe … [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.

1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.

Of course, the creed they published was not the same as the one produced at Nicea -- but I digress. I think Ephesus had a point in saying people should not be producing other creeds; and I think common sense should tell people they shouldn't be doing that. If an Ecumenical Council agreed to a creed after so much effort, who was Ambrose to claim he found another one? Are we supposed to believe the Apostles' Creed existed and nobody at Nicea had seen it? I would think if it had been authentic, people would have had it and produced it at Nicea -- the problem over what the creed should be would have been solved.

We had one council in Nìcea in 325 AD.
Another one in Constantinople in 381 AD
and one in Ephesus in 431 AD

The Nicean Creed was changed in Constantinople in 381.
It was determined that, indeed, the Nicene Creed was to be accepted in Ephesus in 431.

So, yes, of course the church was trying to stop all this creation of new creeds.

I can't remember why I was interested in the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed before, but let's put them side by side:

THE NICENE CREED.
325 AD Nicea (ancient Greek city)

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv


THE APOSTLES CREED
The account of the origin of this creed, the forerunner and principal source of the Apostles' Creed,[8] as having been jointly created by the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with each of the twelve contributing one of the articles, was already current at that time.[6] from Wikipedia

(this creed did not address the Divinity of Jesus or the Holy Spirit)


I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

There is quite a difference between the two...
showing how Christianity developed.

 

[GodsGrace]

It would nice if something like that was true, but nobody really knows what he has to do; and there is a curse on anyone who disagrees that Popes have this authority.

It IS true.
When the Pope speaks ex-cathedra it is binding on all catholics and ONLY in this circumstance is he considered to be infallible.

The catholic church does believe that Popes have this authority...I did not question that.
In matter of MORALS and FAITH...the pope can speak with authority that is given to him from the cc itself.

Although the office of the Papacy did not begin with Peter,,,it is true that Rome was looked to as the city/and Bishop, that most represented the church and was sought after when a dispute arose.

Decrees of the First Vatican Council - Papal Encyclicals

Therefore,

• faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
• to the glory of God our saviour,
• for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
• for the salvation of the christian people,
• with the approval of the sacred council,
• we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
  • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    • that is, when,
    • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
    • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
    • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  • he possesses,
    • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

True. Once doctrine has been proclaimed,,,it cannot be changed.
Precisely because the cc wants to believe the Pope is not fallible in these matters.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Is that curse or anathema still part of Catholic teaching? That is from the First Vatican Council, which is called an Ecumenical Council. They can say today that Protestants can be saved, but how could that be true if they are anathematized for not accepting this or does it refer only to Catholics?

Yes. It's still part of catholic teaching.
Catholics must believe in catholic doctrine...this is why I left...there was too much to believe that I did not believe.

As to saying that Protestants can be saved:

Originally when the church declared that outside the church there is no salvation
(Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) there was no other church,,,only the catholic church.
So, outside the church there was no salvation...one had to be saved through the church...it was taught that the church saved....Jesus saved...but through the church.

This is interesting...read under HISTORY:
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Wikipedia


Now, with the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, it shows that the catholic church believes that persons outside the cc can be saved...However, they do believe that a person who knowingly understands the catholic faith and leaves the church is in danger.

For non-catholics:
The CCC no. 1271

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

 

[GodsGrace]

Lots of times, I don't know what "the Church" means when Catholics use the phrase. I don't know what you mean in that quote.

I would not take my car to be fixed to a mechanic who owned several cars that had problems he could not fix. By their works, you can know people. Does a good tree bring forth bad fruit? I can study the origins of the Catholic Church's teachings on birth control -- back to Augustine and no further back. He invented those ideas. The Catholic Church still retains many of his ideas; and there will not, cannot be,complete reconciliation with the Orthodox Church as long his Augustine's invented idea about "original sin" remains a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Pride is the problem. Sometimes the Orthodox Church retained correct doctrines when Rome wandered off, and that is a problem that only Rome can fix by admitting its error, admitting there is no precedent for their idea of original sin before Augustine invented it.

I admire Peter -- I love him -- for his ability to change his mind easily when someone else was right and he could see it. Would to God his successors could do the same. Peter knew that harmony in the Church depended on his ability to see when others were right and to admit he was wrong. The Catholic Church seems to think if they admit even once that their "infallible" doctrines were wrong, their whole world would collapse. No one would see them as having real authority or wisdom. It is pride. That attitude also drives people away when they see clearly where the Catholic Church is wrong but refuses to admit it.

If the sheep are thirsty, but their shepherd does not lead them to water, why should the sheep think? If they need food, and he does not lead them to food, what do they think? Let's get realistic. Sheep trust their shepherd because he acts in their interest, not in his own. If he does not act in their interest, they are likely to wander off. Yet the Catholic Church seems not to perceive how their failures often led others to go look for other shepherds. All they can see is what they want to see to justify themselves, that the others are false shepherds. They seem not to see how they could have created the problem by being poor shepherds themselves.

I was reading the Catechism one day and read about wounds to unity. It admitted that the Catholic Church had inflicted some of its own. I was thunderstruck that they seemed to think that statement was enough. What wounds? What were they talking about? Could anyone go to confession and say, "I have sinned," and have the priest say, "Okay, say some prayers and you can go now." He would not. He would want to know what sins, and rightfully so. A good priest is a blessing indeed when people can gain great insights in confession by talking to their priest. Wouldn't it be great if all the Protestants had someone to talk to like that, even if they didn't consider him a priest? A good priest can get people to understand things so they won't repeat them.

Yet so far as I know, the Catholic Church has not fully confessed to the wounds they inflicted on the Body of Christ. They say some things, but is what they have said enough? Not that I need to know or that it would benefit me; on the contrary, it would benefit them. I think they need to know so they can and will avoid the same mistakes.
This statement also boggles my mind. I have a question. No one seems to know when the Pope speaks ex cathedra and when he does not. Is there an authoritative list? If so, I never found it. Then I ask, why have this teaching if nobody knows what it means so they can tell when he's speaking ex cathedra and when he isn't?

One doctrine is known to have been made official by a Pope speaking ex cathedra. It also remains a stumbling block to unity with the Orthodox Church and other churches. Was it worth it then for a Pope to issue the statement? The Catholic Church survived for centuries without a clear doctrine on the matter. It would have survived in the future without it. Catholic theologians were debating it, and people demanding an answer. Here again, the Orthodox Church shows its wisdom by saying some questions are "controversial" and cannot be answered. People are free to think as they want since the Orthodox Church doesn't take an official position -- had not in the past and will not in the future; but Catholic theologians thought they needed to know about the matter of the Immaculate Conception, and Pope did not silence them by saying it was not a question appropriate for him to try to settle. As his position of holding "all truth" seemed to be in question, he decided to make a statement and say he had the authority. That was in 1854. Eighteen centuries of "not knowing" were ended. We have to ask how Christianity survived for that long remaining in uncertainty on this. It's clearly not part of the "truth" received by the Apostles and handed down by Tradition.

I find it unnecessary and unfortunately also a stumbling block to unity. It was an attempt to "know" things men do not need to know. I could sit next to someone in church peacefully if he disagreed me on this question. Arguing about it isn't worth it. I think the Orthodox Church is right in how they interpret:

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Where is there any profit in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? I don't see it. I don't see how it helps Catholics become better Christians, and I don't see how not believing it hurts those who don't. To me, it's not worth disputing and creating greater schism, putting an unnecessary obstacle in the way of reconciling others to the Catholic Church. If the Popes don't see it that way, then I guess they don't; but I wish they could see how they have made it so hard for others to establish unity with them because they want to right and don't want to say to anyone else, "Yes,I think you're right and I was wrong." They undermine their own authority. They do not see how Judah did not lose any authority when he said about Tamar, "She hath been more righteous than I." He became right when he said that. He would have undermined his familial authority by not admitting it. People would have known he was wrong and wouldn't admit it. Who would trust him then?

When catholics speak about the church...they mean the institution.
They know there is also a Church...but I never hear anyone speak of THAT invisible Church.

(well, never is a long time...but hardly ever).

 

[Giuliano]

There is quite a difference between the two...
showing how Christianity developed.

Have you ever noticed how they developed? Things tend to creep along, slowly changing bit by bit. First someone would write something without any precedent. Some people would agree, others not. When the Catholic Church wanted to establish precedents for their positions, they felt free to refer to the first person who wrote it as proof that this had always been taught. If they want to, they'll even cite people they condemned for other things, people like Origen.

If you ask why Origen can be cited after some of his teachings were pronounced heretical, they say it wasn't official yet. People were free to believe what they wanted before the Catholic Church issued its verdict. Where did Origen get his ideas? Why trust him on some things and not on others? Did he or did he not receive the truth delivered once to the saints?

 

[GodsGrace]

Have you ever noticed how they developed? Things tend to creep along, slowly changing bit by bit. First someone would write something without any precedent. Some people would agree, others not. When the Catholic Church wanted to establish precedents for their positions, they felt free to refer to the first person who wrote it as proof that this had always been taught. If they want to, they'll even cite people they condemned for other things, people like Origen.

If you ask why Origen can be cited after some of his teachings were pronounced heretical, they say it wasn't official yet. People were free to believe what they wanted before the Catholic Church issued its verdict. Where did Origen get his ideas? Why trust him on some things and not on others? Did he or did he not receive the truth delivered once to the saints?

Interesting, isn't it?
But the answer is the same as for the Nicene Creed.

Talk goes around.
Who says this...
Who says that...
The church had to confirm what IT believed to be true.

And, I repeat, up till the Nicene Creed I accept what the church taught.
After that...things changed.

Was it you that asked if the Crusades should have been fought by the state or by religion?
There was no difference at that point...the church was the state.

 

[Giuliano]

Hello Giuliano,

Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Maybe that should be true, it would be nice if it were; but things are not always that way, and the Catholic Church needs a way to make that so if they care about people.

Likwise Ignatius of Antioch says 'do nothing apart from the bishop'

I think you'd be hard pressed to find that idea before Ignatius. He was also probably the first person of note to argue in favor of making Sunday replace the Sabbath -- contrary to Paul's words about it not mattering.

It seems too that the Catholic Church modified his position on baptism.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism

Ignatius (Epistle to the Smyrnæans 8): "It is not lawful to baptize or celebrate the agape without the bishop.

That went to:

St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians 9) witnesses to the same usage in his days: "Without chrism and the command of the bishop, neither priest nor deacon has the right of conferring baptism."

Today it's:

In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew.