REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I mean "minor" ONLY in the sense of they are not salvation issues, IMO, and they are not the "basics" preached by Peter and Paul and co. in Acts (as Paul said, "we preach Christ crucified"). I'm glad for you and Guill. (need to find a good abbrev. for him!) that you are very blessed by this. I am always blessed by taking communion, too - in fact, our church does this weekly.

But many Christians disagree on salvation issues. For instance, Calvin believed in predestination to the point that “once a man is born, it is too late to damn or save him�. But many Christians believe that we have free will to accept God. Many Christians believe that Baptism is something which is a vital part of salvation; many others believe that it is, at the most, a public declaration of faith. “Traditionalist Catholics� believe that only Catholics [maybe only Traditionalists, I’m not sure] can be saved; regular Catholics (and of course non-Catholics) do not.
By the way, I am not as yet blessed by it; I believe in the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church teaches that those who are not formally members (and in a state of grace) are not to receive the Eucharist; therefore, I do not. But I have heard absolutely awesome stories, both spiritual and regarding Eucharistic miracles, and I merely bear witness to the blessing received by Catholics from the beginning of the Catholic Church.

And if so, how is Mary exempt from it, since it says "all men"?

To paraphrase Captain Jack Sparrow, “except for Mary, who is in fact, a woman.� Seriously, though; “all� does not always mean “all�. As I have said before; the Bible says that All have sinned; but Christ did not. David wrote in the Psalms, “There is none righteous, no not one�; but at least one person during the time of David was called “righteous�; I don’t remember who. Matthew 3:5 says that “all Judea� went out to John the Baptist, and were baptized by him. Acts 3:9 says that all the people saw the lame man at the Temple. Romans 3:9 says that Jews and Greeks are “all under sin�. Does that make sense?

Because it may have been a proper action, but asked with an improper heart attitude (which would have been evident to Jesus, IMO).

Well, I must say that I can’t agree with that. I don’t think Jesus would acquiesce to good action with a bad attitude, because, as you coincidentally pointed out earlier, He looks on the heart, not the outward appearance.

I’m no expert in Mariology, so I’ll let Arein do the foot work.

Me neither; I’m much more into Eucharistic theology. But I’ll try to help you answer any questions, Ar. Teamwork!

I'm off, guys! I'll let you know what I think of ROTK tomorrow

Looking forward to it.

You're talking to a proud descendant of Robert the Bruce

Sweeeeeeeeeet. IIRC, my father's family comes from the same town as Martin Luther.

I think I first found out a few years ago when I saw some information about a movement within the Catholic Church to name Mary as "co-redemtrix" or something like that. So - you Catholic 'mooters - I'm curious about your thoughts on this. And also curious to know how you would react if you're opposed to it (as I gather about Gwaimir from his opening sentence above), but it becomes accepted as church doctrine.

If I remember correctly, "Co-redemptrix", a Latin title, does not mean what it sounds like in English. I believe that it actually means "She who is with the Redeemer", not that the Virgin with Christ redeems us; that would be ridiculous, IMO. And, presuming that it does in fact mean that, then I have no problem with it at all, being quite certain that she is with the Redeemer.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
LOL, Rian. I know what you mean... its amazing that a movie could be loved so much by so many people it managed to insult. Grrr, now I'm in the mood to slap it into the DVD player.

I have it on vhs. My favorite scene is when all the Scot soldiers line up and lift their kilts. Full male frontal nudity... gotta love that.

[Rían]

I have it on vhs. My favorite scene is when all the Scot soldiers line up and lift their kilts. Full male frontal nudity... gotta love that.

Is THAT what's under (or not under) those kilts? I always thought they wore cute little boxers!

Perhaps the fact that I'm a descendant of Robert the Bruce explains why I like to run around the house in my skivvies ...

or less...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Another thing: Does it not make sense that God, as the creator of the law would fulfill it perfectly? And would not this include "Honour thy father and mother"?

again, way too much extrapolation, IMO - but if you think it's right, that's up to you - I don't have a problem with your believing it. There are lots of other possible ways that Jesus could have "honored" his mother which are also not stated in the Bible.

To paraphrase Captain Jack Sparrow, “except for Mary, who is in fact, a woman.� Seriously, though; “all� does not always mean “all�. As I have said before; the Bible says that All have sinned; but Christ did not. David wrote in the Psalms, “There is none righteous, no not one�; but at least one person during the time of David was called “righteous�; I don’t remember who. Matthew 3:5 says that “all Judea� went out to John the Baptist, and were baptized by him. Acts 3:9 says that all the people saw the lame man at the Temple. Romans 3:9 says that Jews and Greeks are “all under sin�. Does that make sense?

I think the straightforward and obvious interpretation (which I think is the most sensible one) of "all Judea" is pretty obvious. Yes, the Bible says explicitly that "all have sinned", but it also says explicitly that Jesus was sinless; again, "context, please!", I think, will clear up that point. The David point is closer, I think, but one possible point is not a good basis to base a doctrine of that magnitude on, when all other indicators point otherwise - IOW, it's made clear over and over that no one is without sin except Jesus, and there is no mention of Mary being any different in terms of sin nature.

And I still don't see the difference between original sin and sin nature in regards to Mary - could you explain it, please? Apparently you're saying Mary had a sin nature, but not original sin - what's the difference?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
[B]Well, it’s possible, but highly unlikely. You see, “apostolic succession� means that the Apostles made successors, by laying on of hands. They made successors, and those successors made successors, etc. etc. etc. Any (true) Catholic or Orthodox clergyman was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by another bishop, who was ordained by another bishop, all the way back to the Twelve. That is what is meant by apostolic succession; that an uninterrupted line of ordination by laying on hands is preserved from the time of the apostles. So, it's not really a matter of "opinion", but of actual fact. Does that make any sense?

Yes, but it wasn't my point - I'm referring to how I think Protestant churches (or any true Christian church) is in the same line as the one started by Peter. "Apostolic succession" is not the Bride of Christ; the Church is, and the Church includes any true believer.

BTW, that's why it's a bit dangerous, IMO, to have so much emphasis on one church being in the "true line" - it's not a church per se, but it is the people all over the world who are believers that make up the true Church, as I'm sure you would agree.

But seriously, that’s not really true. The Protestants broke all ties with the Catholic Church. Despite the fact that it’s called the Reformation, they did not reform what already existed, but started separate churches. There were others who worked to reform the Catholic church; the Protestants worked to found new churches. Does that make sense?

Yes, but again, that's not my point - if there were true believers in those "separate churches", then they're part of the same line of the true church founded by Peter, IMO.

They certainly are part of the Church. Now, I believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago. I believe that the Church Christ founded then continues to this day, as the Catholic Church; which is why I believe that Paul, Peter, et al were Catholic.

And why I believe that they were NOT Catholic, nor anything else in particular - they were the FOUNDATION of the true church, and if there are now separate, beautiful towers near the top, one labelled "Catholic" and another "Protestant", then you can't say that the foundation is "Catholic" or "Protestant". But again, I see your point, altho I disagree with you.

I'm very sorry you got this impression. I did not intend to suggest that you aren't a "real Christian" or anything of that kind. To quote St. Augustine: “We know where the Catholic Church is. We do not know where she is not.� Those who are formally outside the Church are often within her spiritually. In fact, any baptized Christian is considered by the Catholic Church to be a spiritual member therein. I believe this refers to baptism by blood and baptism by desire as well, but I’m not sure. In other words, it is the RC Church; but I believe that that includes, invisibly, much more than is visibly included in it; such persons as Charles Spurgeon, C. S. Lewis, you, and many, many more I believe to be "invisible" members of the Church.

And I consider myself to be a true member of the Church, and NOT an invisible member of the RC church. But you may think of me how you like.

BTW, I've taken communion at a RC church before, because I know I do it to God and I'm a believer. I did NOT intend any disrespect to Catholicism; I just think that my position as a Christian transcends the particular church that is called RC. Does this bother you?

Well, let me ask you: Do you believe in the age of accountability? Also, as I said before, the Catholic Church does not teach sola Scriptura, though some people have certainly come to the Church through it.

What do you mean by this?

I don't make this argument; I merely point out that it's the same line of reasoning.

And I point out that the reasoning is invalid because the secondary parts are entirely different. Yes, the argument could still be made (one can say anything after all), but it's a fallacious argument, IMO.

Ah; my apologies. I was raised thinking so, and since we seemed virtually the same, I just assumed you did, too.

However, I don't think it turns into the body and blood of Christ. I don't see enough support for this. But as I said, we do it weekly at our church, and it is very important to me.

Laymen.

Then I will read it, but not take it to be a formal position of the RC church.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

I consider my church to be in this same line. Do you? I'd like to hear your opinion on this, if you would, please.

No, I don’t, unfortunately, for the reason’s highlighted by Gwaimir. It goes back, like everything else, to sacramental theology based on the incarnation... the divine entering the world through real physical signs indicating an invisible grace. The laying on of hands is a real physical sign, without which there is no validity to the sacrament. Without this laying on of hands there simply can’t be the efficacious nature of a sacrament, and, therefore, no apostolic succession. Once the efficacious nature of the sacraments was rejected by the Protestant Movement they ceased to remain in the Apostolic tradition, for they claimed that this Apostolic tradition ceased to have any validity for them. It would be the same as a group of people saying there was no validity to the US constitution... you can’t say that this group still belongs to the tradition of the US constitution when they reject the very defining character of that tradition.

I think the main point of contention, in regards to our discussion, is in the word “symbol.� A symbol can be something like a statue of a famous historical person. In this case its pretty obvious that the person is not present in the statue, but that the statue is a symbol in the sense that it reminds the onlooker of a dead guy. In the case of the sacraments, however, the symbol indicates the real presence of grace that we can not see. The Eucharist isn’t a symbol like a statue of a historical person, but is a physical indication that Jesus Christ is truly present in all his majesty and glory. A symbol here is the outward sign of an internal essence that by that essence’s nature can not be sensed by corporeal creatures. In its essence the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, only the accidents remain unchanged. In the laying on of hands a real grace is conferred from God indicated by the physical action. In essence, God confers the sanction of the sacerdotal office and all that implies as a sacrament. It is the existence of this essential real grace that many in the Protestant Movement rejected, first by rejecting the reality indicated by the symbol, then later by rejecting the symbols themselves.

(Note: the Lutheran Church claims apostolic succession from the apostles, and claim that the succession of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches is invalid. Lutherans still have a strong sacramental theology, though it has evolved in significant ways contrary to the Catholic understanding since the 16th century. The Anglican Church also claims apostolic succession that the Eastern Orthodox Churches claim is invalid, and, until only recently, was regarded as valid but illicit by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church regards the apostolic succession of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as valid.)

Division in Christianity is a great scandal and cause for pain. I should re-iterate once again who is to blame for this division. Christian division is due to the stupidity and corruption of Catholics.

--Dave

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Original Sin is a sin which Adam and Eve committed, as the father and mother of the human race. According to the Catholic Church, this sin was inherited by mankind afterward, and is washed away by baptism. It is a stain upon the soul, a sin. Concupiscience is the natural tendency to commit sin; it is not a sin in and of itself, but generally it leads to sin; it is of course possible for us, through the grace of God, to resist the temptation to sin brought by concupiscience.

Let me crack out my Catholic Encyclopedia, and see if it's more understandable.

Sin, Original. The primary and essential element of original sin is the privation of sactifying grace from, the lack of supernatural life in, the soul of every human creature born into the world since the Fall (but cf. Immaculate Conception); it is not an actual sin [Gwai's Note: Actual Sin theologically refers to an act or omission against the Law of God; a personal sin] but a state of sin in which each individual is involved by virtue of the solidarity of the human race: the will of all humankind rebelled in Adam, the head, fountain and representative of the race, when he rejected God's gift of a supernatural life by disobedience (the Fall). His sin was the sin of human natureand inheres as habitual sin in all who share in hat nature by bodily generation. The effects of original sin are, firstly, its own essence, the loss of sanctyying grace; then, the loss of integrity, resulting in concupiscience, a general propensity towards an uncontrolled love of onself and of creatures; and the loss of immortality and impassibility. It must be noted that the Church repudiates and ahbors the doctrine that concupiscience is itself original sin or that man is wicked by the very condition of his nature as such or that original sin is an essential corruption of the soul. Original sin is entirely remitted, not simply covered up by external imputation of the rigtheousness of Christ, by Baptism, byt concupiscence, the tendecy to sin, and the phsycial disabilities of death and suffering remain.

Concupiscence. The general name given to any movement of the sensitive appetities towards whatever the imagination portrays as good or away from whatever it portrays as bad; hence desire, love, hate, are forms of concupiscence. In holy Scripture concupiscence usually means the desire of worldly things. But the word is used particularly of the insubordination of the sensual appetite against the dictates of reason and the general propensity of human nature to sin, in cosequence of the Fall. But this concupiscence must not be identified with original sin.

Sorry, it turned out to be a bit longer than I expected... Hope it helps anyway.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
No, I don’t, unfortunately, for the reason’s highlighted by Gwaimir....

(all these questions are asked in a friendly way - no hard feelings, just interested in your opinion)

Guillaume - So you consider my church to be what? An "invalid" church? A "valid" church but not in the apostolic line?

Is it part or NOT part of the Church referred to in the Bible, which is the Bride of Christ, IYO? (Guillaume's opinion) And if not, what does that make me, IYO? A bridesmaid? Or am I, IYO, an "invisible" member of the RC church?


Gwai - sorry, that doesn't help, but I"m tired - I'll have to read it again later. I don't see the difference still.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, but it wasn't my point - I'm referring to how I think Protestant churches (or any true Christian church) is in the same line as the one started by Peter. "Apostolic succession" is not the Bride of Christ; the Church is, and the Church includes any true believer.

Hmm...I suppose I would say that the Protestant churches are spiritually in the same line, and not physically. But I don't think that it was in God's plan to exclude the physical; He made that as well.
The Bride of Christ is the Church; and I believe that Christ the Church instituted by Christ is the Catholic Church (a question for those who don't: When do you believe that the Catholic Church came into existence? And what happened to Christ's Church, that it was replaced by Rome's?). I also believe, as I said before, that not all in the Catholic Church are those formally in it; many Protestants I believe are members of the Church.

BTW, that's why it's a bit dangerous, IMO, to have so much emphasis on one church being in the "true line" - it's not a church per se, but it is the people all over the world who are believers that make up the true Church, as I'm sure you would agree.

I disagree. The Church is a Church per se; but the entire membership of that Church is known by none but God. I agree that the believers (also, those who never were able to hear the Gospel, but sought God hard and earnest throughout their lives) all over the world (and all through time) make up the true Church; but I also believe that this Church has a visible body, even though not not all of her members are visible.

Yes, but again, that's not my point - if there were true believers in those "separate churches", then they're part of the same line of the true church founded by Peter, IMO.

Well, I really can't say anymore on this; when I believed in Protestantism, I never had any concept of succession, or a line of the Church, so in that aspect, I'm completely limited to Catholicism.

And why I believe that they were NOT Catholic, nor anything else in particular - they were the FOUNDATION of the true church, and if there are now separate, beautiful towers near the top, one labelled "Catholic" and another "Protestant", then you can't say that the foundation is "Catholic" or "Protestant". But again, I see your point, altho I disagree with you.

If there are now two separate, beautiful towers, one labelled "America" and another "England", then you can say that the foundation was "England", and the "American" tower came from the "English" tower.

And I consider myself to be a true member of the Church, and NOT an invisible member of the RC church. But you may think of me how you like.

Member of the RC Church (invisibly or visibly) and true member of the Church are one and the same to me.

BTW, I've taken communion at a RC church before, because I know I do it to God and I'm a believer. I did NOT intend any disrespect to Catholicism; I just think that my position as a Christian transcends the particular church that is called RC. Does this bother you?

It doesn't "bother" me. I do think that it's not something that (assuming you were aware of the restrictions) you should not have done; but it doesn't bother me. I believe that one should honour the customs of others. The reason that the Catholic Church asks those who are not visibly members thereof to partake of Communion, is because the Catholic Church sees Communion, in part, as a sign of visible unity. Also, considering the EXTREME holiness, sanctity, and sheer awesomeness that hte Church attributes to the Eucharist, I think it's certainly very understandable if they don't open it to everyone. Also, without the Sacrament of Confession, it is impossible really to have any idea whether or not someone is in a state of grace, which is how the Church applies 1 Corinthians 11:29 "For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks condemnation to himself, not discering the Lord's Body." I think that it's certainly a good thing to respect the custom's of those around you, even if you don't agree with them; if one does not, then to me at least, it does indicate disrespect, almost as if their opinion (especially about something like this) wasn't important enough for one to bother with. Now, I'm not offended at all by that action; but I believe very much that people should observe the customs of those they are among. For instance, if I were to pray with my Protestant friends, I would not ask for the saints intercession, out of respect for them. Now, it would be a different matter with you, because you said that you have no problem with that. But the majority of Protestants do, and I would defer to them in this way, if I knew they had a problem with that, or if I didn't know one way or the other.

[Rían]

OK - thanks for answering We'll continue to disagree on some points, but that does nothing to affect our friendship, and we can both pray for each other (BTW, I could really use some prayer for wisdom in a school-related issue now...)

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Invisible? Rian, you are anything but invisible on this forum

I can’t use the terms “valid� or “invalid� regarding Christians or Christian Churches; I used those terms specifically in regard to the sacraments. You are either a Christian, or you are not. Now we can debate for two hundred pages what it means to be Christian, but I will nip in the bud the most common misconception: sin has nothing to do with it!

There are sinful Christians and blameless Christians and repentant Christians and marginal Christians and even Christians turned atheists and Christians turned pagan and Christians turned Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, etc., etc., etc...

No matter what you might be doing at the moment, sinning or praying, practicing virtue or vice, no matter if you worship a jolly green giant or a can of spam, once you become a Christian, you are always a Christian!

Its an indelible mark conferred at baptism. Baptism not just washes away sin, but it transforms the person into something new... into a Christian. It’s like being born all over again... and hey! that’s from the bible, isn’t it. So, just like I can never be anything but a human being because that was what I was born as, so I can never be anything other than a Christian because that was what I was reborn as through baptism. Now just because I’m a human doesn’t mean that I’m a good human. Just because I’m Christian doesn’t guarantee that I’m a good Christian or even a saved Christian. Like being a good human, being a good Christian takes effort on my part. Thus, I, and, coincidentally, the Catholic Church, accept only one prerequisite in order to regard anyone as a Christian: baptism.

(The sacrament of baptism can be conferred by anyone and is considered valid as long as the thing being baptized is a human being, water is used to baptize, and it is done “In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit [or Ghost, as the case may be].�)

So I figure as long as you have been baptized with water and in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, (edit: and it is conferred and recieved in good faith) you are my sister in Christ, and a citizen of the New Jerusalem. The words of the fathers of the second Vatican Council reflect well my own thoughts and feelings regarding other Christian Churches:

But even in spite of [obstacles arising from differences in discipline and doctrine] it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism 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...

It follows that the separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficiency from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. (Decree on Ecumenism, 3.)

no hard feelings, just interested in your opinion

I understand what you mean about hard feelings, and believe me there are none taken from your questions or responses. However, there are plenty of hard feelings in regards to this sad reality of division, in the sense that it is almost a constant source of pain for me. Most of my friends are Protestant, and the experience of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, is like holding the grandest prize in my hands, but not being able to share it with those dear to me. No matter how many tears I shed, no matter how many different ways I try to explain it, they just don’t see that prize... and the more that prize consoles me and comforts me, the more guilty I feel that others, especially my family and friends, don’t have the same consolation and comfort.

--Dave

[Rían]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
No matter what you might be doing at the moment, sinning or praying, practicing virtue or vice, no matter if you worship a jolly green giant or a can of spam, once you become a Christian, you are always a Christian!

Its an indelible mark conferred at baptism. Baptism not just washes away sin, but it transforms the person into something new... into a Christian.

Are you talking about infant baptism?

It’s like being born all over again... and hey! that’s from the bible, isn’t it. So, just like I can never be anything but a human being because that was what I was born as, so I can never be anything other than a Christian because that was what I was reborn as through baptism.

I think Gwai disagrees with this, but I agree - I think once one is "born again", there is no going back (altho one may decide to be a terrible person) because "the old has passed away, the new has come" (rough quote) But that's just my opinion, altho supported by scripture, IMO.

...or even a saved Christian.

what do you consider an "unsaved Christian" to be?

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Rian,

Are you talking about infant baptism?

All baptisms to include infant baptism (but not baptisms for the dead or proxy baptisms).

An unsaved Christian is anyone who is baptized that for whatever reason chooses not to co-operate with grace. I can’t point out any examples, because we aren’t capable of judging at that level, and its expressly forbidden for us to do so.

There is a tradition that all “born-again� Christians are saved. This isn’t the case, though. Baptism or being “born-again,� is no guarantee that one is saved. Just because a Christian is born again of water and spirit does not mean that they are somehow incapable of sinning or falling away from the faith.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Are you talking about infant baptism?


I think Gwai disagrees with this, but I agree - I think once one is "born again", there is no going back (altho one may decide to be a terrible person) because "the old has passed away, the new has come" (rough quote) But that's just my opinion, altho supported by scripture, IMO.


what do you consider an "unsaved Christian" to be?

I'd never really thought about it that way, but no, I don't disagree. I'd believed in the indelible mark of Baptism (also Confirmation and Holy Orders, IIRC), but I just never thought of it in terms of "Christian" or "non-Christian" before. But yes, when it's put that way, I do agree (You're still a Christian, Ru! ). But I also agree with Guillame, that a Christian is not necessarily saved.

I will pray for you.

*has the feeling he wasn't supposed to ask about Ru's church...oops *

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Thus, I, and, coincidentally, the Catholic Church, accept only one prerequisite in order to regard anyone as a Christian: baptism.

Interesting... again, some of our dividing points start with differing definitions. To me, and I suppose most Protestants, the implication with the word 'Christian' is that one be 'saved'... that THIS is what it means to be a Christian. One poster on this forum takes it a step further: while seeming to be 'saved' - they don't think they measure up to the word 'Christian' and see it as a goal to strive for... the origin of which word originally indicated 'little Christ' (I have a friend who thinks along similar lines... but he's a whole 'nuther matter! ).

Once we define this word in our two different ways, it affects everything we say about it. Sometimes we'll be expressing a similar thought - but those thoughts will sound in opposition because of our definitions (I've heard that soon after America came into WW2, England suggested we 'table' the matter of German U-boats, to which the US vehemently objected... in England, this meant to bring it up for discussion, in the US, it meant to postpone discussion on it).

And actually - I agree with Guillaume about the possibility of the 'saved' to fall away. Also, Rian, supported by scripture. It may be helpful to view it as 'jumping away' rather than 'falling away' though. It isn't so much an 'oops!' thing as an 'I'm getting outta here' thing. There are actually scriptures to support both views... and I think it's beyond human wisdom to know exactly how they all fit together. At least, it must be, since we get such varying ideas on them. I think that if we, once in Heaven, rush to God with a doctrinal dispute... we'll walk away finding that we were BOTH a bit wrong. But that's getting into the non-essentials - and has to do with whether one's (Protestant) church tends toward being Calvinist, or Wesley-Arminian... or 'Cal-minian' - as I've heard a hybrid described. ... or whatever else.

We could easily break up into 'mini-camps of one' around here if we let each matter of doctrine divide us though. Maybe America has had a proliferation of denominations just because of the whole American experience. But, 'Unity on the essentials, tolerance on the non-essentials' (I think that's more paraphrase than quote - of John Wesley ) is a nice standard to go by.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Interesting... again, some of our dividing points start with differing definitions. To me, and I suppose most Protestants, the implication with the word 'Christian' is that one be 'saved'... that THIS is what it means to be a Christian. One poster on this forum takes it a step further: while seeming to be 'saved' - they don't think they measure up to the word 'Christian' and see it as a goal to strive for... the origin of which word originally indicated 'little Christ' (I have a friend who thinks along similar lines... but he's a whole 'nuther matter! ).

The Catholic Church teaches not that salvation is a "once and for all" thing, but something that we must constantly continue to seek and strive for.

But, 'Unity on the essentials, tolerance on the non-essentials'

Ah, but everyone can't even agree on what the essentials ARE!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

An excellent apologetic for the Catholic Church (as a whole); and I've only finished the "blueprint" page!

I'll see if I can come up with the appropriate selections from the writings of the Fathers at a later time.

EDIT: Being an official Dimwitted Apprentice Loremaster, I forgot to post the link.

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/how.htm

[Nurvingiel]

Jesus started one church. It may have been called catholic because that means "the people", but the Catholic Church as we know it today was not the first church. (In fact, no church as we know it today is.)

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Jesus started one church. It may have been called catholic because that means "the people", but the Catholic Church as we know it today was not the first church. (In fact, no church as we know it today is.)

Depends on what you mean by “same,� I suppose. Thankfully, the Church has changed in many ways, because the world has changed in many ways. The fullness of truth and grace that was there at Pentecost, however, has not changed or gone away.

“Catholic� is a Greek word that means “universal,� btw. It was used as early as the first century to designate the body of believers that held the same, universal, doctrines taught by the apostles in opposition to the various Gnostic groups that had begun to incorporate practices from the mystery cults. It is interesting to note that Saint Ignatius of Antioch (AD 50-c.198) held that the catholic faith was that faith held by the bishops, the successors of the apostles.

We know for sure that Ignatius wrote six letters to the Christian communities in Ephesus, Magnesia, Philadelphia, Tralles, Rome, Smyrna, and one letter to the an individual, Polycarp.

Ignatius’ letters are of extreme importance because they demonstrate the realities of early church structure only fifty or so years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the course of his letters he outlines: (1) the Church was divinely established as a visible society for the salvation of souls (Phil, 3); (2) the unity of the Church is dependent on the episcopacy--the bishops as successors of the apostles (Mag. 6); (3) the hierarchy of the Church--bishops, priests, deacons, laity--was established by Jesus (Smy. 8); (4) the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smy. 8); (5) the use of the term “Catholic Church� to designate all Christians who hold the faith taught by the apostles and preserved by their successors (Ephesus., 5); (6) the primacy of the See of Rome (introduction to his letter to the Romans); (7) rejects the notion that private judgement is adequate to determine matters of pertaining to religion (Phil. 3); (8) the central place of communal worship and liturgy in the life of the Church (Ephes. 13); (9) the merit of virginity (Poly. 5).

In outline, the whole of the Catholic Church’s structure was present and treated as well established by a Christian writer, writing only 40-50 years after Jesus founded the Church. So like I said, it depends on what you consider “same.�

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
“Catholic� is a Greek word that means “universal,� btw. It was used as early as the first century to designate the body of believers that held the same, universal, doctrines taught by the apostles in opposition to the various Gnostic groups that had begun to incorporate practices from the mystery cults. It is interesting to note that Saint Ignatius of Antioch (AD 50-c.198) held that the catholic faith was that faith held by the bishops, the successors of the apostles.

Oops. Thanks for the update.

By same, I meant there were no different denominations like Protestant, Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, United etc.

I agree with you that it's good the church has changed.