No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.Coke Bear said:That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?Coke Bear said:I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?
1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.
Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.
I'll trust Jesus. He said so.
Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??
Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?
first American pope
71,971 Views |
965 Replies |
Last: 3 mo ago by Assassin
Did Irenaeus write that these bishops of Rome were the supreme leaders of the whole church and that this primal office was passed down in succession? No one is saying that there weren't singular bishops of Rome after 150 AD. The historical evidence does not support it until that time. Papal supremacy isn't supported by history until much later. Eusebius is writing nearly 300 years after Jesus. And does he say that these bishops of Rome held the office as the supreme leader of the entire church? And how does all this square with all the facts I presented about the early councils (Nicaea, Constantinople) which clearly rejects this claim?Coke Bear said:Silly argument. You are trying to conflate today's perceptions of the papacy as the same as it was understood it the early Church. It not viewed in the same way as it was viewed centuries later.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Can't ANY Roman Catholic here be honest, and acknowledge that NONE of the above necessarily leads to the conclusion that Clement was the supreme leader of the church? Everything that is said about Clement's letter could be said about the apostle Paul and his letters, to a tee. In fact, Paul wrote to many more churches. Maybe Paul was the supreme leader?
I don't know what "majority" of scholars that you're referring to, nor do I care. You are trying to force a latter understanding on the papacy than how it is viewed today to fit your false narrative. Clement was highly respected for his leadership in the Roman Church.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Letters from one church to another over certain issues were very common. The majority of scholars view Clement's letter as merely a fraternal (church to church) letter, rather than a letter from an office of supreme authority aimed at settling a dispute. The letter doesn't even name Clement as the writer. Nor does it even mention the writer is the supreme leader of the church. Very curious omissions, if the letter was indeed from the pope exercising his authority in "settling a dispute", don't you think?
Except Ireneus wrote in AD 180 in Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) the list of popes (Bishops of Rome): Peter, Linus, Anacletus (Cletus), Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, Elecutherius, etc.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The fact remains that there exists nothing in history that explicitly cites papal supremacy and papal succession coming from Rome or explicitly names the "popes", including in the Bible, until up to the fourth century. Every "evidence" you provide is pure eisegesis with a certain conclusion already in mind. This is not an intellectually honest treatment of history. It'd be a highly, highly dubious suggestion that the Holy Spirit either forgot or just didn't make it clear in the Bible to every Christian who would ever exist just who the supreme leader of the entire church was. You'd think that since our salvation depends on it as Roman Catholicism asserts, that it's something that would have been made crystal clear.
Eusebius also compiled his list of Popes in his Ecclesiastical History in 313 AD.
You are once again falling for the false doctrine of sola scriptura.
Sola scriptura is true doctrine, and the reason why Roman Catholicism has found herself deep in heresy and idolatry is primarily because of her rejection of it.
I'm not just telling you you're wrong, I'm showing you. That most certainly IS a discussion.FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The Church's position is that it's been the "ancient and constant faith" and that it's "always been believed by the Church" (Vatican I) that Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16, and that "feed my sheep" meant Peter was the head over the whole church. But the writings of the early church fathers clearly do not support that and in fact definitively refute it. ANY Church historian who is familiar with the patristic writings KNOWS THIS.FLBear5630 said:They are only clear and historical facts to you. We have told you the Church's position and commentary supporting the position. Your response is consistently been, that is not correct. I am sure the Catholic Church has researched their responses over the past 500 years. You ask and you are getting answers, you are the only one telling others that they are wrong. That is the methods. You are not here to hear our responses, you are here to tell us we are wrong. That is BS...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, come now, you clearly questioned my motives in your post. And what exactly is the problem with my "methods"? When did holding people to historical facts and clear, explicit Roman Catholic doctrine and calling out bad logic and reasoning, and requesting people actually stay on point and answer questions become such a problematic "method"?Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:Fre3dombear said:FLBear5630 said:Fre3dombear said:FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:Ok, let's be VERY clear, I am NOT providing a defense. I, nor anyone else on here, need to defend their beliefs to you or to otBusyTarpDuster2017 said:You keep attempting the "criticism of something means latent desire of it" argument as a last ditch effort to hide the fact that your defense is falling apart. No one here is stupid enough to buy it, so it's time to stop arguing like a juvenile and take adult responsibility for yourself and your beliefs by re-examining them closely in light of the well reasoned and well supported facts and arguments provided.FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true, I think I'd be questioning whether that church was really from God and whether I should be be believing what they teach anymore. I wouldn't be talking about how great the church music is and how consistent the rituals are from church to church like it was McDondald's. I'd care a great deal about the truth behind the substance, not how it's dressed to look, sound, and feel. And I'd think that any true believer in Jesus would feel the same. But that's just me.
As I said over a week ago, good thing you don't have to be Catholic. We have showed numerous times where the info comes from, you don't have to agree with it, yet you keep discussing .
You do seem intrigued, even jealous of the history, as you continue to say the same things. I would go and talk to a Priest, it seems whatever brand of Protestantism you take part in is not doing it for you. Maybe Tammy Faye or Jerry Falwell seem a bit shallow, who knows.
But methods, schmethods..... am I right? Isn't that the important question? Why turn the focus on my methods? I can tell you, the reaction I'm getting is actually a sign that I'm making sense.
I strongly suspect that the only "methods" you and others here would approve of would be ones that don't effectively challenge your beliefs so that everyone goes home happy, content on believing what you've always believed. But if what you've believed is wrong, then what good is that?
I'm sorry, you don't get to pick and choose what constitutes as clear historical facts. Objective reality disagrees with you. When I tell you you're not correct, it's not by opinion, it's by clear and obvious standard logic and reasoning. To illustrate, I'll give an example of one of your "answers" to one of my questions - when I asked where do the Marian dogmas originate from Jesus or the original apostles, you argued that it was where Mary was honored in the Bible. If you really, truly can't see why it's an extremely flawed (and thus wrong) line of reasoning to say that Mary's sinlessness, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension are being taught in the Bible merely by her "being honored" - then we just can't have a reasoned discussion here. You're not grounded in objective reality, basic logic, and common sense. And to say that I'm "getting answers" like this to my questions and that I'm not in any position to say that they're wrong, is just laughable.
Here we go again. You are not looking for our answers or even the Church's basis for believe. You are looking to tell us we are wrong, you are right. That is not a discussion.
Go watch your TV evangelist and circle jerk with them. Peace be with you.
But you're still not addressing the "silly" argument - your whole argument for Clement being the supreme leader of the whole church based on what's in his letter could be used for Paul as well. It was your "silly" argument!Coke Bear said:Silly argument. You are trying to conflate today's perceptions of the papacy as the same as it was understood it the early Church. It not viewed in the same way as it was viewed centuries later.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Can't ANY Roman Catholic here be honest, and acknowledge that NONE of the above necessarily leads to the conclusion that Clement was the supreme leader of the church? Everything that is said about Clement's letter could be said about the apostle Paul and his letters, to a tee. In fact, Paul wrote to many more churches. Maybe Paul was the supreme leader?
Let's hear what that no-name, know-nothing church historian, you know, that Emeritus Professor of Church History at Cambridge University and former member of the Pontifical Historical Commission, Eamon Duffy, who wrote a whole book about the history of all the popes, has to say about Clement's letter:
"Clement made no claim to write as bishop. His letter was sent in the name of the whole Roman community, he never identifies himself or writes in his own person.... The letter itself makes no distinction between presbyters and bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth as at Rome, the church at this time was organized under a group of bishops or presbyters, rather than a single ruling bishop."
Once again, church history isn't kind to what you're saying.Quote:Quote:
It doesn't take any kind of an "expert" to know that these beliefs are REQUIRED in Roman Catholicism upon pain of anathema (removal from body of Christ, thus doomed to Hell).
Perhaps it does not take an expert, but it certainly takes someone better educated than you. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty and separation from participation in the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist). Excommunicated individuals can and do still attend Mass. Excommunication is a call for repentance and reconciliation with the Church. It is NOT a condemnation to hell. The Catholic Church even teaches that sincerely repented souls who did not reconcile to the Church still go to heaven. Even an anathema (the most severe form of excommunication) is not a damnation of the soul.
In the Council of Nicaea II in 787 AD, the patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasios, said "An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven, carrying them off into the outer darkness" (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 89)
Later, Tarasios says, "... lest I be subjected to an anathema and found condemned on the day of the Lord." (p. 90)
After this Council, all the bishops wrote a letter to the emperor Constantine, where they said, "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God." (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 585)
Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
Nice job moving the goal posts! You are poorly misinformed. You are either obtuse or a troll. Are you some Aggie sowing dissension on our message board.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Once again, church history isn't kind to what you're saying.Quote:Quote:
It doesn't take any kind of an "expert" to know that these beliefs are REQUIRED in Roman Catholicism upon pain of anathema (removal from body of Christ, thus doomed to Hell).
Perhaps it does not take an expert, but it certainly takes someone better educated than you. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty and separation from participation in the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist). Excommunicated individuals can and do still attend Mass. Excommunication is a call for repentance and reconciliation with the Church. It is NOT a condemnation to hell. The Catholic Church even teaches that sincerely repented souls who did not reconcile to the Church still go to heaven. Even an anathema (the most severe form of excommunication) is not a damnation of the soul.
In the Council of Nicaea II in 787 AD, the patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasios, said "An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven, carrying them off into the outer darkness" (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 89)
Later, Tarasios says, "... lest I be subjected to an anathema and found condemned on the day of the Lord." (p. 90)
After this Council, all the bishops wrote a letter to the emperor Constantine, where they said, "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God." (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 585)
Paraphrase:
BTD: Wouldn't you as a Catholic want to correct your fellow Catholic "who is separated from the body of Christ, thus doomed to hell."
Me: Actually, the Church teaches excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, it has to do self-exclusion from the sacraments as ministered by the Church. [As an aside, the last anathema was issued over 100 years ago, and the penalty was officially removed from Canon law over 40 years ago.]
BTD: But that is not what the Catholic Church was doing over a thousand years ago. Check mate, Catholics!
*************
For someone who is concerned about honesty and good faith dialogue, you sure are an unserious person.
My initial point stands: You are in no position to opine on what should or should not warrant a reaction on matters of dogma or faith between one Catholic and another.
Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best they can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
Moving the goal posts?? How is showing what a supposedly infallible Church Council says about anathemas moving the goal posts when we're talking about what anathemas are? Where's the "dishonesty"?DallasBear9902 said:Nice job moving the goal posts! You are poorly misinformed. You are either obtuse or a troll. Are you some Aggie sowing dissension on our message board.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Once again, church history isn't kind to what you're saying.Quote:Quote:
It doesn't take any kind of an "expert" to know that these beliefs are REQUIRED in Roman Catholicism upon pain of anathema (removal from body of Christ, thus doomed to Hell).
Perhaps it does not take an expert, but it certainly takes someone better educated than you. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty and separation from participation in the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist). Excommunicated individuals can and do still attend Mass. Excommunication is a call for repentance and reconciliation with the Church. It is NOT a condemnation to hell. The Catholic Church even teaches that sincerely repented souls who did not reconcile to the Church still go to heaven. Even an anathema (the most severe form of excommunication) is not a damnation of the soul.
In the Council of Nicaea II in 787 AD, the patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasios, said "An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven, carrying them off into the outer darkness" (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 89)
Later, Tarasios says, "... lest I be subjected to an anathema and found condemned on the day of the Lord." (p. 90)
After this Council, all the bishops wrote a letter to the emperor Constantine, where they said, "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God." (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 585)
Paraphrase:
BTD: Wouldn't you as a Catholic want to correct your fellow Catholic "who is separated from the body of Christ, thus doomed to hell."
Me: Actually, the Church teaches excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, it has to do self-exclusion from the sacraments as ministered by the Church. [As an aside, the last anathema was issued over 100 years ago, and the penalty was officially removed from Canon law over 40 years ago.]
BTD: But that is not what the Catholic Church was doing over a thousand years ago. Check mate, Catholics!
*************
For someone who is concerned about honesty and good faith dialogue, you sure are an unserious person.
My initial point stands: You are in no position to opine on what should or should not warrant a reaction on matters of dogma or faith between one Catholic and another.
And do you realize you just argued for either the infallible Council or current Catholic teaching being in error? You both can't be right!
And by the way, ^^that would be checkmate, actually. Not that I'm keeping score. Thanks for helping me make one of my intended points.
So.... you're saying that in CHRISTIANITY, someone can be presented the Gospel, reject it wholeheartedly, and still be saved by seeking God in a different but sincere way?DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best they can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
I am sorry, sir, but you're only deceiving yourself. This is most certainly NOT Christianity.
And regarding Roman Catholicism and requirements for salvation, there's still that pesky CCC 1129: "The sacraments are necessary for salvation". If you're saying that Roman Catholicism also teaches that they are NOT necessary, then Roman Catholicism is engaging in double talk, and is internally inconsistent. A mark against it being the true church.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.... you're saying that in CHRISTIANITY, someone can be presented the Gospel, reject it wholeheartedly, and still be saved by seeking God in a different but sincere way?DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best they can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
I am sorry, sir, but you're only deceiving yourself. This is most certainly NOT Christianity.
And regarding Roman Catholicism and requirements for salvation, there's still that pesky CCC 1129: "The sacraments are necessary for salvation". If you're saying that Roman Catholicism also teaches that they are NOT necessary, then Roman Catholicism is engaging in double talk, and is internally inconsistent. A mark against it being the true church.
You keep throwing out these wild hypotheticals. Wholly reject? According to who,? You have problems with several of the Catholic Church's positions.
You are not Catholic, problem solved. See how the Holy Spirit works.
Now go study some more and when your faith is mature enough, the Church will still be here. Been here for over 2000 years all the way back to Christ when he started it.
Your problem is a lack of faith. You want answers. God requires faith. There is no faith needed if everything adds up. At some point, you need to take a leap. There is no book with every answer in a nice bundle. Good luck.
FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.... you're saying that in CHRISTIANITY, someone can be presented the Gospel, reject it wholeheartedly, and still be saved by seeking God in a different but sincere way?DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best they can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
I am sorry, sir, but you're only deceiving yourself. This is most certainly NOT Christianity.
And regarding Roman Catholicism and requirements for salvation, there's still that pesky CCC 1129: "The sacraments are necessary for salvation". If you're saying that Roman Catholicism also teaches that they are NOT necessary, then Roman Catholicism is engaging in double talk, and is internally inconsistent. A mark against it being the true church.
You keep throwing out these wild hypotheticals. Wholly reject? According to who,? You have problems with several of the Catholic Church's positions.
You are not Catholic, problem solved. See how the Holy Spirit works.
Now go study some more and when your faith is mature enough, the Church will still be here. Been here for over 2000 years all the way back to Christ when he started it.
Your problem may be a lack of faith. You want answers. God requires faith. There is no faith needed if everything adds up and there is no doubt. At some point, you need to take a leap. There is no book with every answer in a nice bundle. Good luck.
John 20:25: Thomas expressed his doubt, stating he would only believe if he could see the wounds in Jesus' hands and side.
.
That "wild hypothetical" is what your fellow Catholic is suggesting.FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.... you're saying that in CHRISTIANITY, someone can be presented the Gospel, reject it wholeheartedly, and still be saved by seeking God in a different but sincere way?DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best they can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
I am sorry, sir, but you're only deceiving yourself. This is most certainly NOT Christianity.
And regarding Roman Catholicism and requirements for salvation, there's still that pesky CCC 1129: "The sacraments are necessary for salvation". If you're saying that Roman Catholicism also teaches that they are NOT necessary, then Roman Catholicism is engaging in double talk, and is internally inconsistent. A mark against it being the true church.
You keep throwing out these wild hypotheticals. Wholly reject? According to who,? You have problems with several of the Catholic Church's positions.
You are not Catholic, problem solved. See how the Holy Spirit works.
Now go study some more and when your faith is mature enough, the Church will still be here. Been here for over 2000 years all the way back to Christ when he started it.
Your problem is a lack of faith. You want answers. God requires faith. There is no faith needed if everything adds up. At some point, you need to take a leap. There is no book with every answer in a nice bundle. Good luck.
Studying more is exactly what led me to see that Roman Catholicism is in deep error.
You guys can keep repeating the same mantra of "we've been around for 2000 years all the way back to when Christ started it" all you want, but when you're repeatedly asked to actually SHOW that Roman Catholic beliefs today are actually traceable back to the teaching of Jesus and the original apostles, and you can't do it, then your claim repeatedly falls flat. In fact, this is what I've been demonstrating throughout this thread, if only if you guys would just open your eyes and minds.
DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best they can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
That's curious.
So in 1983, they declare that the hundreds of years of anathema were wrong?
The council of Trent and Vatican 1 and other councils were not only not infallible... but were straight up wrong?
The magesterium got it wrong for almost 2,000 years?
If they were wrong for 2 millennia, why should we believe them now?
FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.... you're saying that in CHRISTIANITY, someone can be presented the Gospel, reject it wholeheartedly, and still be saved by seeking God in a different but sincere way?DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best they can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
I am sorry, sir, but you're only deceiving yourself. This is most certainly NOT Christianity.
And regarding Roman Catholicism and requirements for salvation, there's still that pesky CCC 1129: "The sacraments are necessary for salvation". If you're saying that Roman Catholicism also teaches that they are NOT necessary, then Roman Catholicism is engaging in double talk, and is internally inconsistent. A mark against it being the true church.
You keep throwing out these wild hypotheticals. Wholly reject? According to who,? You have problems with several of the Catholic Church's positions.
You are not Catholic, problem solved. See how the Holy Spirit works.
Now go study some more and when your faith is mature enough, the Church will still be here. Been here for over 2000 years all the way back to Christ when he started it.
Your problem is a lack of faith. You want answers. God requires faith. There is no faith needed if everything adds up. At some point, you need to take a leap. There is no book with every answer in a nice bundle. Good luck.
Pretty sure the Bible is the book with all the answers.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Moving the goal posts?? How is showing what a supposedly infallible Church Council says about anathemas moving the goal posts when we're talking about what anathemas are? Where's the "dishonesty"?DallasBear9902 said:Nice job moving the goal posts! You are poorly misinformed. You are either obtuse or a troll. Are you some Aggie sowing dissension on our message board.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Once again, church history isn't kind to what you're saying.Quote:Quote:
It doesn't take any kind of an "expert" to know that these beliefs are REQUIRED in Roman Catholicism upon pain of anathema (removal from body of Christ, thus doomed to Hell).
Perhaps it does not take an expert, but it certainly takes someone better educated than you. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty and separation from participation in the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist). Excommunicated individuals can and do still attend Mass. Excommunication is a call for repentance and reconciliation with the Church. It is NOT a condemnation to hell. The Catholic Church even teaches that sincerely repented souls who did not reconcile to the Church still go to heaven. Even an anathema (the most severe form of excommunication) is not a damnation of the soul.
In the Council of Nicaea II in 787 AD, the patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasios, said "An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven, carrying them off into the outer darkness" (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 89)
Later, Tarasios says, "... lest I be subjected to an anathema and found condemned on the day of the Lord." (p. 90)
After this Council, all the bishops wrote a letter to the emperor Constantine, where they said, "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God." (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 585)
Paraphrase:
BTD: Wouldn't you as a Catholic want to correct your fellow Catholic "who is separated from the body of Christ, thus doomed to hell."
Me: Actually, the Church teaches excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, it has to do self-exclusion from the sacraments as ministered by the Church. [As an aside, the last anathema was issued over 100 years ago, and the penalty was officially removed from Canon law over 40 years ago.]
BTD: But that is not what the Catholic Church was doing over a thousand years ago. Check mate, Catholics!
*************
For someone who is concerned about honesty and good faith dialogue, you sure are an unserious person.
My initial point stands: You are in no position to opine on what should or should not warrant a reaction on matters of dogma or faith between one Catholic and another.
And do you realize you just argued for either the infallible Council or current Catholic teaching being in error? You both can't be right!
And by the way, ^^that would be checkmate, actually. Not that I'm keeping score. Thanks for helping me make one of my intended points.
You are moving the goalposts because when your bad-hypothetical is shown to be worthless or insincere you move on to some esoteric tangent that is subject to different circumstances but pretend it is what you meant all along.
You are also moving the goalposts by refusing to acknowledge that your understanding of Catholic doctrines is informed incorrectly by applying a Protestant construct to a Catholic concepts.
I understand why a Protestant would make the mistake of thinking that excommunication or even the former anathema = removal from the body of Christ = doomed to hell. That is a very Protestant theological point of understanding. But like GM selling the "Chevy Nova" in South America to comical failure, something is being lost in translation here.
But spending just a little time to understand Catholicism would correct your misapprehension: excommunication and even the seldom used anathema, in the Catholic sense, means self-exclusion from participating in the sacraments and a call to repentance. Furthermore, it is a very not-Catholic thing to think of others in terms of them dooming themselves to hell. This is because Catholics generally view that judgment as solely belonging to the Lord and we just don't go there. I get it, I spent four years in a Waco, Protestants do see the world through such a lens. But for Catholics, talking like that, well, it would be the equivalent of you considering infant baptism. It just doesn't register.
Finally, there are plenty of contextual and historical references that will help you understand the formulation of the councils "let them be an anathema" and its traces to the NT, in particular St. Paul. It is beyond this medium to discuss it, other than to say, in short, you are mixing up a dogmatic formulation with the practical application of the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication. The resources are out there for you to understand and reconcile the issue. But I'm going to take a wild guess and predict that you won't search out those resources.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.... you're saying that in CHRISTIANITY, someone can be presented the Gospel, reject it wholeheartedly, and still be saved by seeking God in a different but sincere way?DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best the can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
I am sorry, sir, but you're only deceiving yourself. This is most certainly NOT Christianity.
And regarding Roman Catholicism and requirements for salvation, there's still that pesky CCC 1129: "The sacraments are necessary for salvation". If you're saying that Roman Catholicism also teaches that they are NOT necessary, then Roman Catholicism is engaging in double talk, and is internally inconsistent. A mark against it being the true church.
1. I leave judgment to the Almighty, but I struggle to see a logical, coherent way in which a Christian could reject the Gospel wholeheartedly while "sincerely seeking God" and doing his will as he can best understand it. Why do you come up with these silly, nonsensical hypotheticals? Is this the best you can do. Are you really missing that this is the beachhead that gets Catholicism to respect Protestants as Christian brothers and sisters?
2. The entirety of 1129 refers to sacramental graces and refers to believers. 1129 must be read with 1127 and 1128, which are under the heading of Sacraments. Finally, 1129 is sourced to Canon IV of the Sacraments section of council of Trent. Canon IV states that not each Sacrament is required of each individual. Where this eventually takes you is that Baptism and reconciliation (repentance) are crucial sacraments.
ShooterTX said:DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best they can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
That's curious.
So in 1983, they declare that the hundreds of years of anathema were wrong?
The council of Trent and Vatican 1 and other councils were not only not infallible... but were straight up wrong?
The magesterium got it wrong for almost 2,000 years?
If they were wrong for 2 millennia, why should we believe them now?
Nope. The formulation of "let them be an anathema" is a callback to st. Paul's formulations in Galatians and I Corinthians (and probably Romans, used to signify separation from Christ or the Church body). If any future Catholic council were to issue dogmatic proclamations there is a 100% chance that it would use the same "let him be an anathema" formulation. Vatican II did not issue any formal dogmatic proclamations, so that construction is not there.
As language evolves over the course of 2000 years, "anathema" as the actual ecclesiastical penalty was a solemn ceremony that was a sort of extra spicy excommunication. I may be remembering it incorrectly, but around 1200 or 1300, the actual process by which one is excommunicated is formalized with an "anathema" penalty being a more significant version of excommunication. The key to a anathema (punishment) being the burning out of candles by the pertinent Church judicial body signifying that the body would not reconsider the issue until concrete, definitive proof of repentance and reconciliation to the Church are demonstrated. A key point to this little conversation being that neither an excommunication nor an anathema as practiced was a damnation to heaven, but rather a call to reconciliation. The second key point being that the Church actively wants reconciliation with all excommunicated persons.
The anathema penalty (not council formulation) is so rarely used for a variety of reasons: mainly that most excommunicated individuals aren't still seeking to be Catholic, that by 1983 the penalty is removed from Canon law. Excommunication (self-exclusion from the Church body; particularly the sacraments), of course, continues to be part of Canon law and consistent with St. Paul's and the council's usage of "anathema".
Exactly.ShooterTX said:DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best they can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
That's curious.
So in 1983, they declare that the hundreds of years of anathema were wrong?
The council of Trent and Vatican 1 and other councils were not only not infallible... but were straight up wrong?
The magesterium got it wrong for almost 2,000 years?
If they were wrong for 2 millennia, why should we believe them now?
Again - how is it a "tangent" to quote what a supposed infallible Council and early bishops said about what an anathema was... in a discussion about anathemas?? How exactly is that a "worthless" hypothetical?? How exactly did I misconstruct a Catholic concept? I'm literally quoting your own "infallible" Council and the bishops from your church history!DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Moving the goal posts?? How is showing what a supposedly infallible Church Council says about anathemas moving the goal posts when we're talking about what anathemas are? Where's the "dishonesty"?DallasBear9902 said:Nice job moving the goal posts! You are poorly misinformed. You are either obtuse or a troll. Are you some Aggie sowing dissension on our message board.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Once again, church history isn't kind to what you're saying.Quote:Quote:
It doesn't take any kind of an "expert" to know that these beliefs are REQUIRED in Roman Catholicism upon pain of anathema (removal from body of Christ, thus doomed to Hell).
Perhaps it does not take an expert, but it certainly takes someone better educated than you. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty and separation from participation in the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist). Excommunicated individuals can and do still attend Mass. Excommunication is a call for repentance and reconciliation with the Church. It is NOT a condemnation to hell. The Catholic Church even teaches that sincerely repented souls who did not reconcile to the Church still go to heaven. Even an anathema (the most severe form of excommunication) is not a damnation of the soul.
In the Council of Nicaea II in 787 AD, the patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasios, said "An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven, carrying them off into the outer darkness" (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 89)
Later, Tarasios says, "... lest I be subjected to an anathema and found condemned on the day of the Lord." (p. 90)
After this Council, all the bishops wrote a letter to the emperor Constantine, where they said, "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God." (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 585)
Paraphrase:
BTD: Wouldn't you as a Catholic want to correct your fellow Catholic "who is separated from the body of Christ, thus doomed to hell."
Me: Actually, the Church teaches excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, it has to do self-exclusion from the sacraments as ministered by the Church. [As an aside, the last anathema was issued over 100 years ago, and the penalty was officially removed from Canon law over 40 years ago.]
BTD: But that is not what the Catholic Church was doing over a thousand years ago. Check mate, Catholics!
*************
For someone who is concerned about honesty and good faith dialogue, you sure are an unserious person.
My initial point stands: You are in no position to opine on what should or should not warrant a reaction on matters of dogma or faith between one Catholic and another.
And do you realize you just argued for either the infallible Council or current Catholic teaching being in error? You both can't be right!
And by the way, ^^that would be checkmate, actually. Not that I'm keeping score. Thanks for helping me make one of my intended points.
You are moving the goalposts because when your bad-hypothetical is shown to be worthless or insincere you move on to some esoteric tangent that is subject to different circumstances but pretend it is what you meant all along.
You are also moving the goalposts by refusing to acknowledge that your understanding of Catholic doctrines is informed incorrectly by applying a Protestant construct to a Catholic concepts.
I understand why a Protestant would make the mistake of thinking that excommunication or even the former anathema = removal from the body of Christ = doomed to hell. That is a very Protestant theological point of understanding. But like GM selling the "Chevy Nova" in South America to comical failure, something is being lost in translation here.
But spending just a little time to understand Catholicism would correct your misapprehension: excommunication and even the seldom used anathema, in the Catholic sense, means self-exclusion from participating in the sacraments and a call to repentance. Furthermore, it is a very not-Catholic thing to think of others in terms of them dooming themselves to hell. This is because Catholics generally view that judgment as solely belonging to the Lord and we just don't go there. I get it, I spent four years in a Waco, Protestants do see the world through such a lens. But for Catholics, talking like that, well, it would be the equivalent of you considering infant baptism. It just doesn't register.
Finally, there are plenty of contextual and historical references that will help you understand the formulation of the councils "let them be an anathema" and its traces to the NT, in particular St. Paul. It is beyond this medium to discuss it, other than to say, in short, you are mixing up a dogmatic formulation with the practical application of the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication. The resources are out there for you to understand and reconcile the issue. But I'm going to take a wild guess and predict that you won't search out those resources.
You got trapped, and now you're trying to flail your way out. My God, man, just be honest, that's all I'm asking. You either have to admit that the Council was wrong, or that current Catholic teaching is wrong. Forget about who's a Protestant here and who's Catholic, and just talk to me like a fellow human being - your position puts you in a bind, doesn't it?
1. How is it a "nonsensical hypothetical"?? There are probably millions upon millions of people all over the world who believe in a "God" and have formulated their own understanding of it and have pursued that on their own terms, while fully rejecting the biblical gospel. There are people on this very forum like that. Have you talked with Waco1947? Regardless, that hypothetical cuts straight to the heart of what you said, and effectively illustrates the problem with it. I think that's why you have such a problem with it. If you really believe what you said, then your answer HAS to be "yes, that person can still be saved". Why not just stick to your guns? How did my mere "nonsensical hypothetical" completely derail your position?DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.... you're saying that in CHRISTIANITY, someone can be presented the Gospel, reject it wholeheartedly, and still be saved by seeking God in a different but sincere way?DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best the can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
I am sorry, sir, but you're only deceiving yourself. This is most certainly NOT Christianity.
And regarding Roman Catholicism and requirements for salvation, there's still that pesky CCC 1129: "The sacraments are necessary for salvation". If you're saying that Roman Catholicism also teaches that they are NOT necessary, then Roman Catholicism is engaging in double talk, and is internally inconsistent. A mark against it being the true church.
1. I leave judgment to the Almighty, but I struggle to see a logical, coherent way in which a Christian could reject the Gospel wholeheartedly while "sincerely seeking God" and doing his will as he can best understand it. Why do you come up with these silly, nonsensical hypotheticals? Is this the best you can do. Are you really missing that this is the beachhead that gets Catholicism to respect Protestants as Christian brothers and sisters?
2. The entirety of 1129 refers to sacramental graces and refers to believers. 1129 must be read with 1127 and 1128, which are under the heading of Sacraments. Finally, 1129 is sourced to Canon IV of the Sacraments section of council of Trent. Canon IV states that not each Sacrament is required of each individual. Where this eventually takes you is that Baptism and reconciliation (repentance) are crucial sacraments.
2. And therefore, Roman Catholicism DOES hold that one has to believe x, y, and z for their salvation, contrary to what you argued against at length above. Does this have to be this hard?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That "wild hypothetical" is what your fellow Catholic is suggesting.FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.... you're saying that in CHRISTIANITY, someone can be presented the Gospel, reject it wholeheartedly, and still be saved by seeking God in a different but sincere way?DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best they can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
I am sorry, sir, but you're only deceiving yourself. This is most certainly NOT Christianity.
And regarding Roman Catholicism and requirements for salvation, there's still that pesky CCC 1129: "The sacraments are necessary for salvation". If you're saying that Roman Catholicism also teaches that they are NOT necessary, then Roman Catholicism is engaging in double talk, and is internally inconsistent. A mark against it being the true church.
You keep throwing out these wild hypotheticals. Wholly reject? According to who,? You have problems with several of the Catholic Church's positions.
You are not Catholic, problem solved. See how the Holy Spirit works.
Now go study some more and when your faith is mature enough, the Church will still be here. Been here for over 2000 years all the way back to Christ when he started it.
Your problem is a lack of faith. You want answers. God requires faith. There is no faith needed if everything adds up. At some point, you need to take a leap. There is no book with every answer in a nice bundle. Good luck.
Studying more is exactly what led me to see that Roman Catholicism is in deep error.
You guys can keep repeating the same mantra of "we've been around for 2000 years all the way back to when Christ started it" all you want, but when you're repeatedly asked to actually SHOW that Roman Catholic beliefs today are actually traceable back to the teaching of Jesus and the original apostles, and you can't do it, then your claim repeatedly falls flat. In fact, this is what I've been demonstrating throughout this thread, if only if you guys would just open your eyes and minds.
I do not think you will find what you are looking for. If Catholicism doesn't do it for you, focus on what does. Hopefully you will find something that brings you closer to God. I am sorry you have not found it.
The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.Coke Bear said:That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?Coke Bear said:I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?
1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.
Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.
I'll trust Jesus. He said so.
Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??
Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?
If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.
Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"
You are trying to make a claim of a "supreme leader" that the church never claims. The office of the papacy has grown over the last two millennia. Just like the Church has changed and grown over that time. The Church that Jesus founded 1995 years ago upon Peter is still here. He promised that. It is the same church which has grown just like the mustard seed as Jesus said it would.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Did Irenaeus write that these bishops of Rome were the supreme leaders of the whole church and that this primal office was passed down in succession? No one is saying that there weren't singular bishops of Rome after 150 AD. The historical evidence does not support it until that time. Papal supremacy isn't supported by history until much later. Eusebius is writing nearly 300 years after Jesus. And does he say that these bishops of Rome held the office as the supreme leader of the entire church? And how does all this square with all the facts I presented about the early councils (Nicaea, Constantinople) which clearly rejects this claim?
Nicaea and Constantinople please link back to these "facts". I do not know to what you are referring.
I can only imagine that you have once again attempted to twist the wordings of these councils to fit your revisionist history.
Nicaea was mostly concerned with the ending the Arian heresy. It gave us the original Nicaean Creed and confirmed the divinity of Christ.
Do you agree with the Council that Jesus is divine and of the same substance as God (homoousios)?
Pope Sylvester I did not attend the Council, but he sent two legates to represent papal authority. He later ratified it.
Constantinople this continued the work of Nicaea and affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit arguing against the Macedonian heresy.
Do you agree with this Councils findings?
It did grant the See of Constantinople a place of honor second only to Rome.
Please define sola scriptura and state the passage and verse that claims that sola scriptura is true doctrine.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Sola scriptura is true doctrine, and the reason why Roman Catholicism has found herself deep in heresy and idolatry is primarily because of her rejection of it.
The bible NEVER claims this. It is self-refuting.
Coke Bear said:You are trying to make a claim of a "supreme leader" that the church never claims. The office of the papacy has grown over the last two millennia. Just like the Church has changed and grown over that time. The Church that Jesus founded 1995 years ago upon Peter is still here. He promised that. It is the same church which has grown just like the mustard seed as Jesus said it would.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Did Irenaeus write that these bishops of Rome were the supreme leaders of the whole church and that this primal office was passed down in succession? No one is saying that there weren't singular bishops of Rome after 150 AD. The historical evidence does not support it until that time. Papal supremacy isn't supported by history until much later. Eusebius is writing nearly 300 years after Jesus. And does he say that these bishops of Rome held the office as the supreme leader of the entire church? And how does all this square with all the facts I presented about the early councils (Nicaea, Constantinople) which clearly rejects this claim?
Nicaea and Constantinople please link back to these "facts". I do not know to what you are referring.
I can only imagine that you have once again attempted to twist the wordings of these councils to fit your revisionist history.
Nicaea was mostly concerned with the ending the Arian heresy. It gave us the original Nicaean Creed and confirmed the divinity of Christ.
Do you agree with the Council that Jesus is divine and of the same substance as God (homoousios)?
Pope Sylvester I did not attend the Council, but he sent two legates to represent papal authority. He later ratified it.
Constantinople this continued the work of Nicaea and affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit arguing against the Macedonian heresy.
Do you agree with this Councils findings?
It did grant the See of Constantinople a place of honor second only to Rome.Please define sola scriptura and state the passage and verse that claims that sola scriptura is true doctrine.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Sola scriptura is true doctrine, and the reason why Roman Catholicism has found herself deep in heresy and idolatry is primarily because of her rejection of it.
The bible NEVER claims this. It is self-refuting.
It doesn't, that is Luther. Bible actually tells us to use oral tradition and was in practice since the beginning.
I have no issues with those that do, Lutheran's are sacramental and their services are very much structured the same. Episcopal is similar.
I believe what we are arguing is style l, not substance. But I can't back it up with three citations, just a personal believe.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again - how is it a "tangent" to quote what a supposed infallible Council and early bishops said about what an anathema was... in a discussion about anathemas?? How exactly is that a "worthless" hypothetical?? How exactly did I misconstruct a Catholic concept? I'm literally quoting your own "infallible" Council and the bishops from your church history!DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Moving the goal posts?? How is showing what a supposedly infallible Church Council says about anathemas moving the goal posts when we're talking about what anathemas are? Where's the "dishonesty"?DallasBear9902 said:Nice job moving the goal posts! You are poorly misinformed. You are either obtuse or a troll. Are you some Aggie sowing dissension on our message board.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Once again, church history isn't kind to what you're saying.Quote:Quote:
It doesn't take any kind of an "expert" to know that these beliefs are REQUIRED in Roman Catholicism upon pain of anathema (removal from body of Christ, thus doomed to Hell).
Perhaps it does not take an expert, but it certainly takes someone better educated than you. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty and separation from participation in the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist). Excommunicated individuals can and do still attend Mass. Excommunication is a call for repentance and reconciliation with the Church. It is NOT a condemnation to hell. The Catholic Church even teaches that sincerely repented souls who did not reconcile to the Church still go to heaven. Even an anathema (the most severe form of excommunication) is not a damnation of the soul.
In the Council of Nicaea II in 787 AD, the patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasios, said "An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven, carrying them off into the outer darkness" (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 89)
Later, Tarasios says, "... lest I be subjected to an anathema and found condemned on the day of the Lord." (p. 90)
After this Council, all the bishops wrote a letter to the emperor Constantine, where they said, "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God." (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 585)
Paraphrase:
BTD: Wouldn't you as a Catholic want to correct your fellow Catholic "who is separated from the body of Christ, thus doomed to hell."
Me: Actually, the Church teaches excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, it has to do self-exclusion from the sacraments as ministered by the Church. [As an aside, the last anathema was issued over 100 years ago, and the penalty was officially removed from Canon law over 40 years ago.]
BTD: But that is not what the Catholic Church was doing over a thousand years ago. Check mate, Catholics!
*************
For someone who is concerned about honesty and good faith dialogue, you sure are an unserious person.
My initial point stands: You are in no position to opine on what should or should not warrant a reaction on matters of dogma or faith between one Catholic and another.
And do you realize you just argued for either the infallible Council or current Catholic teaching being in error? You both can't be right!
And by the way, ^^that would be checkmate, actually. Not that I'm keeping score. Thanks for helping me make one of my intended points.
You are moving the goalposts because when your bad-hypothetical is shown to be worthless or insincere you move on to some esoteric tangent that is subject to different circumstances but pretend it is what you meant all along.
You are also moving the goalposts by refusing to acknowledge that your understanding of Catholic doctrines is informed incorrectly by applying a Protestant construct to a Catholic concepts.
I understand why a Protestant would make the mistake of thinking that excommunication or even the former anathema = removal from the body of Christ = doomed to hell. That is a very Protestant theological point of understanding. But like GM selling the "Chevy Nova" in South America to comical failure, something is being lost in translation here.
But spending just a little time to understand Catholicism would correct your misapprehension: excommunication and even the seldom used anathema, in the Catholic sense, means self-exclusion from participating in the sacraments and a call to repentance. Furthermore, it is a very not-Catholic thing to think of others in terms of them dooming themselves to hell. This is because Catholics generally view that judgment as solely belonging to the Lord and we just don't go there. I get it, I spent four years in a Waco, Protestants do see the world through such a lens. But for Catholics, talking like that, well, it would be the equivalent of you considering infant baptism. It just doesn't register.
Finally, there are plenty of contextual and historical references that will help you understand the formulation of the councils "let them be an anathema" and its traces to the NT, in particular St. Paul. It is beyond this medium to discuss it, other than to say, in short, you are mixing up a dogmatic formulation with the practical application of the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication. The resources are out there for you to understand and reconcile the issue. But I'm going to take a wild guess and predict that you won't search out those resources.
You got trapped, and now you're trying to flail your way out. My God, man, just be honest, that's all I'm asking. You either have to admit that the Council was wrong, or that current Catholic teaching is wrong. Forget about who's a Protestant here and who's Catholic, and just talk to me like a fellow human being - your position puts you in a bind, doesn't it?
It is a tangent because you keep moving between the ecclesiastical penalty ceremony of an "anathema" and the dogmatic proclamation use of "anathema". The same word has different meanings and import within context and 2000 years of time. The dogmatic proclamation usage of anathema (consistent with St. Paul) means separated from the body of Christ (excommunicated). Over time, there was a formal anathema ceremony used for particularly egregious excommunications. The ceremony was rarely used and the ceremony of an anathema was removed from Canon law while the concept (separation from the Body of Christ) still remains in Canon law via the term "excommunication". If you can't understand this then there is nothing more to do here.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. How is it a "nonsensical hypothetical"?? There are probably millions upon millions of people all over the world who believe in a "God" and have formulated their own understanding of it and have pursued that on their own terms, while fully rejecting the biblical gospel. There are people on this very forum like that. Have you talked with Waco1947? Regardless, that hypothetical cuts straight to the heart of what you said, and effectively illustrates the problem with it. I think that's why you have such a problem with it. If you really believe what you said, then your answer HAS to be "yes, that person can still be saved". Why not just stick to your guns? How did my mere "nonsensical hypothetical" completely derail your position?DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.... you're saying that in CHRISTIANITY, someone can be presented the Gospel, reject it wholeheartedly, and still be saved by seeking God in a different but sincere way?DallasBear9902 said:Woah, woah, woah guys. Look at Pope BTD the Lesser over here declaring what is and is not Christianity.... The Church does not say what will or will not get one into Heaven (with exceptions like Canonized Saints) because that judgment belongs to the Almighty alone. The Church does teach that living in communion with the Magisterium and participating in the Sacraments are outward signs of God's grace, but ultimately the reception of the gift of God's graces and perseverance in faith is between the believer and God, alone. I am happy to provide references to the Catechism if you need them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so if I belonged to a church that said you had to believe in x, y, and z for your salvation, and I can't show biblically, historically, or even logically that any of those things are true
Catholics do not apply a you "must believe x, y, and z for your salvation" construct.
This is a very puzzling, yet perhaps revealing, statement. If this is true, then you're saying Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Because central to Christianity is that you must believe in the gospel for your salvation.
But regardless, Roman Catholicism literally and explicitly declares that one MUST believe in the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy and infallibility, among other things (icon veneration) otherwise be subject to anathema - which does indeed historically mean condemnation to Hell as I've supported above.
The Church requires its members to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in order to fully participate in the Sacraments as ministered by the Church. The Church openly acknowledges that God's graces are not bound strictly to the Sacraments as ministered by the Church and, obviously, God's graces have far wider and greater reach. Thus, while the Church believes that being in the Church and using the Sacraments as visible signs of friendship with and the grace of God, the Catechism also acknowledges that individuals outside the visible bounds of the Church, who sincerely seek God and do his will as best the can understand it, may also be saved.
Again, the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas today, has not issued one in about 100 years*, and formally removed the penalty from Canon law in 1983. Clearly, your understanding of the Catholic faith and its teachings is fatally flawed. A more humble man would take the opportunity to learn something from those better informed than himself, but you don't seem to be bound by such silly parameters.
*even when the Church did issue anathemas, they were rarely used and were reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly excommunicated Catholics who continued to hold themselves out as being in full communion with the Church.
I am sorry, sir, but you're only deceiving yourself. This is most certainly NOT Christianity.
And regarding Roman Catholicism and requirements for salvation, there's still that pesky CCC 1129: "The sacraments are necessary for salvation". If you're saying that Roman Catholicism also teaches that they are NOT necessary, then Roman Catholicism is engaging in double talk, and is internally inconsistent. A mark against it being the true church.
1. I leave judgment to the Almighty, but I struggle to see a logical, coherent way in which a Christian could reject the Gospel wholeheartedly while "sincerely seeking God" and doing his will as he can best understand it. Why do you come up with these silly, nonsensical hypotheticals? Is this the best you can do. Are you really missing that this is the beachhead that gets Catholicism to respect Protestants as Christian brothers and sisters?
2. The entirety of 1129 refers to sacramental graces and refers to believers. 1129 must be read with 1127 and 1128, which are under the heading of Sacraments. Finally, 1129 is sourced to Canon IV of the Sacraments section of council of Trent. Canon IV states that not each Sacrament is required of each individual. Where this eventually takes you is that Baptism and reconciliation (repentance) are crucial sacraments.
2. And therefore, Roman Catholicism DOES hold that one has to believe x, y, and z for their salvation, contrary to what you argued against at length above. Does this have to be this hard?
1. It is a nonsensical hypothetical because (x) a "Christian" ( a properly baptized person) (y) who "sincerely seeks God and to do His will" and (Z) "wholeheartedly rejects the Gospel" is logically incoherent. A person seeking to do do God's will by definition has not "wholeheartedly rejected" the Gospel (as doing God's will is a key part of Jesus's teachings in the Gospels), yet that is the hair brained hypothetical you came up with. My statement was clearly about individuals OUTSIDE the visible bounds of the Church, and yet you made it about individuals inside the Church.
2. It does not have to be this hard, but when your mind is made up and you clearly have no interest in exchange of ideas and information, well, yeah, it will be this hard for you. I can't help you there.
I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?Coke Bear said:The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.Coke Bear said:That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?Coke Bear said:I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?
1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.
Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.
I'll trust Jesus. He said so.
Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??
Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?
If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.
Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"
If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.
Quote:
Please define sola scriptura and state the passage and verse that claims that sola scriptura is true doctrine.
The bible NEVER claims this. It is self-refuting.
**** Sola scriptura is the doctrine that since Scripture is all that the church has in its possession that is God-breathed (his actual and direct words), then Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. ****
The common Roman Catholic retort that sola scriptura "isn't in the Bible" never makes sense no matter how often it gets repeated. Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth. If it is true that the only direct words of God we possess are in Scripture, and it is true that God's word is infallible, then it absolutely and necessarily follows that the only infallible words of God that we possess are in Scripture. Therefore, it also follows that the only thing that can serve as an infallible rule of faith, is Scripture.
Scripture doesn't need to verify itself within itself as being infallible Scripture for us to regard it as such. This is completely nonsensical reasoning. To illustrate this kind of faulty logic, suppose someone were to take the biblical verse, "And leaving them, he [Jesus] went out of the city to Bethany and lodged there." (Matthew 21:17), and interpret that in some completely ridiculous way, saying it is code for Jesus having an affair with a woman named Bethany, symbolized by his "leaving them" and leaving the city, which means he left his beliefs and role as perfect Savior to commit a sin. Your response (I hope) would be to say, "Umm, no... it's just saying that Jesus left the town and went to another city where he spent the night. We are to read that for what it's plainly saying." To which he would respond, "Where in Scripture does it say that you have to read that verse for it's plain meaning, and not symbolically?"
Or, to give another simpler example, suppose someone says you have to read all the words in the Bible in reverse. You'd insist that we're supposed to read it forwards to get any meaning, but they argue that it's nowhere in the Bible that says you have to read it forwards and not backwards. If you think sola scriptura has to be in the Bible itself in order to be true, then you have to buy both these arguments here as well.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quote:
Please define sola scriptura and state the passage and verse that claims that sola scriptura is true doctrine.
The bible NEVER claims this. It is self-refuting.
**** Sola scriptura is the doctrine that since Scripture is all that the church has in its possession that is God-breathed (his actual and direct words), then Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. ****
The common Roman Catholic retort that sola scriptura "isn't in the Bible" never makes sense no matter how often it gets repeated. Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth. If it is true that the only direct words of God we possess are in Scripture, and it is true that God's word is infallible, then it absolutely and necessarily follows that the only infallible words of God that we possess are in Scripture. Therefore, it also follows that the only thing that can serve as an infallible rule of faith, is Scripture.
Scripture doesn't need to verify itself within itself as being infallible Scripture for us to regard it as such. This is completely nonsensical reasoning. To illustrate this kind of faulty logic, suppose someone were to take the biblical verse, "And leaving them, he [Jesus] went out of the city to Bethany and lodged there." (Matthew 21:17), and interpret that in some completely ridiculous way, saying it is code for Jesus having an affair with a woman named Bethany, symbolized by his "leaving them" and leaving the city, which means he left his beliefs and role as perfect Savior to commit a sin. Your response (I hope) would be to say, "Umm, no... it's just saying that Jesus left the town and went to another city where he spent the night. We are to read that for what it's plainly saying." To which he would respond, "Where in Scripture does it say that you have to read that verse for it's plain meaning, and not symbolically?"
Or, to give another simpler example, suppose someone says you have to read all the words in the Bible in reverse. You'd insist that we're supposed to read it forwards to get any meaning, but they argue that it's nowhere in the Bible that says you have to read it forwards and not backwards. If you think sola scriptura has to be in the Bible itself in order to be true, then you have to buy both these arguments here as well.
LOL. This is for real? Hahaha.
What a ridiculous attempt at sophistry. No one was talking about any "ceremonies". Now who's moving the goalposts??!!DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again - how is it a "tangent" to quote what a supposed infallible Council and early bishops said about what an anathema was... in a discussion about anathemas?? How exactly is that a "worthless" hypothetical?? How exactly did I misconstruct a Catholic concept? I'm literally quoting your own "infallible" Council and the bishops from your church history!DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Moving the goal posts?? How is showing what a supposedly infallible Church Council says about anathemas moving the goal posts when we're talking about what anathemas are? Where's the "dishonesty"?DallasBear9902 said:Nice job moving the goal posts! You are poorly misinformed. You are either obtuse or a troll. Are you some Aggie sowing dissension on our message board.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Once again, church history isn't kind to what you're saying.Quote:Quote:
It doesn't take any kind of an "expert" to know that these beliefs are REQUIRED in Roman Catholicism upon pain of anathema (removal from body of Christ, thus doomed to Hell).
Perhaps it does not take an expert, but it certainly takes someone better educated than you. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty and separation from participation in the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist). Excommunicated individuals can and do still attend Mass. Excommunication is a call for repentance and reconciliation with the Church. It is NOT a condemnation to hell. The Catholic Church even teaches that sincerely repented souls who did not reconcile to the Church still go to heaven. Even an anathema (the most severe form of excommunication) is not a damnation of the soul.
In the Council of Nicaea II in 787 AD, the patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasios, said "An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven, carrying them off into the outer darkness" (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 89)
Later, Tarasios says, "... lest I be subjected to an anathema and found condemned on the day of the Lord." (p. 90)
After this Council, all the bishops wrote a letter to the emperor Constantine, where they said, "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God." (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 585)
Paraphrase:
BTD: Wouldn't you as a Catholic want to correct your fellow Catholic "who is separated from the body of Christ, thus doomed to hell."
Me: Actually, the Church teaches excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, it has to do self-exclusion from the sacraments as ministered by the Church. [As an aside, the last anathema was issued over 100 years ago, and the penalty was officially removed from Canon law over 40 years ago.]
BTD: But that is not what the Catholic Church was doing over a thousand years ago. Check mate, Catholics!
*************
For someone who is concerned about honesty and good faith dialogue, you sure are an unserious person.
My initial point stands: You are in no position to opine on what should or should not warrant a reaction on matters of dogma or faith between one Catholic and another.
And do you realize you just argued for either the infallible Council or current Catholic teaching being in error? You both can't be right!
And by the way, ^^that would be checkmate, actually. Not that I'm keeping score. Thanks for helping me make one of my intended points.
You are moving the goalposts because when your bad-hypothetical is shown to be worthless or insincere you move on to some esoteric tangent that is subject to different circumstances but pretend it is what you meant all along.
You are also moving the goalposts by refusing to acknowledge that your understanding of Catholic doctrines is informed incorrectly by applying a Protestant construct to a Catholic concepts.
I understand why a Protestant would make the mistake of thinking that excommunication or even the former anathema = removal from the body of Christ = doomed to hell. That is a very Protestant theological point of understanding. But like GM selling the "Chevy Nova" in South America to comical failure, something is being lost in translation here.
But spending just a little time to understand Catholicism would correct your misapprehension: excommunication and even the seldom used anathema, in the Catholic sense, means self-exclusion from participating in the sacraments and a call to repentance. Furthermore, it is a very not-Catholic thing to think of others in terms of them dooming themselves to hell. This is because Catholics generally view that judgment as solely belonging to the Lord and we just don't go there. I get it, I spent four years in a Waco, Protestants do see the world through such a lens. But for Catholics, talking like that, well, it would be the equivalent of you considering infant baptism. It just doesn't register.
Finally, there are plenty of contextual and historical references that will help you understand the formulation of the councils "let them be an anathema" and its traces to the NT, in particular St. Paul. It is beyond this medium to discuss it, other than to say, in short, you are mixing up a dogmatic formulation with the practical application of the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication. The resources are out there for you to understand and reconcile the issue. But I'm going to take a wild guess and predict that you won't search out those resources.
You got trapped, and now you're trying to flail your way out. My God, man, just be honest, that's all I'm asking. You either have to admit that the Council was wrong, or that current Catholic teaching is wrong. Forget about who's a Protestant here and who's Catholic, and just talk to me like a fellow human being - your position puts you in a bind, doesn't it?
It is a tangent because you keep moving between the ecclesiastical penalty ceremony of an "anathema" and the dogmatic proclamation use of "anathema". The same word has different meanings and import within context and 2000 years of time. The dogmatic proclamation usage of anathema (consistent with St. Paul) means separated from the body of Christ (excommunicated). Over time, there was a formal anathema ceremony used for particularly egregious excommunications. The ceremony was rarely used and the ceremony of an anathema was removed from Canon law while the concept (separation from the Body of Christ) still remains in Canon law via the term "excommunication". If you can't understand this then there is nothing more to do here.
As you yourself admit, the Church's dogmatic proclamation is that an anathema is a separation from the body of Christ, which necessarily means going to Hell. And another dogmatic proclamation is that belief in the Marian dogmas are required, or you are anathema (separated from the body of Christ, thus going to Hell). I can't even begin to know how you would think that "ceremonies" affects these inescapable facts, or how it's even relevant. You're flailing to get out of a hole, and you're mistaken if you think people reading this forum aren't intelligent enough to see that. Why not just be honest and face up to it, instead of making things worse for yourself?
Is that list attached to your Keys?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?Coke Bear said:The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.Coke Bear said:That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?Coke Bear said:I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?
1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.
Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.
I'll trust Jesus. He said so.
Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??
Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?
If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.
Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"
If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.
By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts
The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church
I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.
No sir. The bolded is where you lose the plot by applying your protestant construct. The Church explicitly states that a separation from the body of Christ (excommunication) is not a condemnation, and does not necessarily mean one is going to hell. Excommunication (separation from the Body of Christ) is a call to reconciliation with the Church. That is literally what the Church teaches. The Church welcomes excommunicated individuals to the Mass and desires for them to be reconciled to the Church. Your whole construct is unpersuasive because you refuse to engage in what the Catholic Church is saying but instead you would rather tell the Catholic Church what it is that the Catholic Church teaches. Again, the Church is extremely careful when it comes to declaring who is bound for heaven, hell or purgatory, particularly when it comes to individuals. The Church is careful about this because (a) that authority belongs only to the Lord and (b) Jesus warned us about judging others.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What a ridiculous attempt at sophistry. No one was talking about any "ceremonies". Now who's moving the goalposts??!!DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again - how is it a "tangent" to quote what a supposed infallible Council and early bishops said about what an anathema was... in a discussion about anathemas?? How exactly is that a "worthless" hypothetical?? How exactly did I misconstruct a Catholic concept? I'm literally quoting your own "infallible" Council and the bishops from your church history!DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Moving the goal posts?? How is showing what a supposedly infallible Church Council says about anathemas moving the goal posts when we're talking about what anathemas are? Where's the "dishonesty"?DallasBear9902 said:Nice job moving the goal posts! You are poorly misinformed. You are either obtuse or a troll. Are you some Aggie sowing dissension on our message board.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Once again, church history isn't kind to what you're saying.Quote:Quote:
It doesn't take any kind of an "expert" to know that these beliefs are REQUIRED in Roman Catholicism upon pain of anathema (removal from body of Christ, thus doomed to Hell).
Perhaps it does not take an expert, but it certainly takes someone better educated than you. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty and separation from participation in the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist). Excommunicated individuals can and do still attend Mass. Excommunication is a call for repentance and reconciliation with the Church. It is NOT a condemnation to hell. The Catholic Church even teaches that sincerely repented souls who did not reconcile to the Church still go to heaven. Even an anathema (the most severe form of excommunication) is not a damnation of the soul.
In the Council of Nicaea II in 787 AD, the patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasios, said "An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven, carrying them off into the outer darkness" (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 89)
Later, Tarasios says, "... lest I be subjected to an anathema and found condemned on the day of the Lord." (p. 90)
After this Council, all the bishops wrote a letter to the emperor Constantine, where they said, "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God." (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 585)
Paraphrase:
BTD: Wouldn't you as a Catholic want to correct your fellow Catholic "who is separated from the body of Christ, thus doomed to hell."
Me: Actually, the Church teaches excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, it has to do self-exclusion from the sacraments as ministered by the Church. [As an aside, the last anathema was issued over 100 years ago, and the penalty was officially removed from Canon law over 40 years ago.]
BTD: But that is not what the Catholic Church was doing over a thousand years ago. Check mate, Catholics!
*************
For someone who is concerned about honesty and good faith dialogue, you sure are an unserious person.
My initial point stands: You are in no position to opine on what should or should not warrant a reaction on matters of dogma or faith between one Catholic and another.
And do you realize you just argued for either the infallible Council or current Catholic teaching being in error? You both can't be right!
And by the way, ^^that would be checkmate, actually. Not that I'm keeping score. Thanks for helping me make one of my intended points.
You are moving the goalposts because when your bad-hypothetical is shown to be worthless or insincere you move on to some esoteric tangent that is subject to different circumstances but pretend it is what you meant all along.
You are also moving the goalposts by refusing to acknowledge that your understanding of Catholic doctrines is informed incorrectly by applying a Protestant construct to a Catholic concepts.
I understand why a Protestant would make the mistake of thinking that excommunication or even the former anathema = removal from the body of Christ = doomed to hell. That is a very Protestant theological point of understanding. But like GM selling the "Chevy Nova" in South America to comical failure, something is being lost in translation here.
But spending just a little time to understand Catholicism would correct your misapprehension: excommunication and even the seldom used anathema, in the Catholic sense, means self-exclusion from participating in the sacraments and a call to repentance. Furthermore, it is a very not-Catholic thing to think of others in terms of them dooming themselves to hell. This is because Catholics generally view that judgment as solely belonging to the Lord and we just don't go there. I get it, I spent four years in a Waco, Protestants do see the world through such a lens. But for Catholics, talking like that, well, it would be the equivalent of you considering infant baptism. It just doesn't register.
Finally, there are plenty of contextual and historical references that will help you understand the formulation of the councils "let them be an anathema" and its traces to the NT, in particular St. Paul. It is beyond this medium to discuss it, other than to say, in short, you are mixing up a dogmatic formulation with the practical application of the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication. The resources are out there for you to understand and reconcile the issue. But I'm going to take a wild guess and predict that you won't search out those resources.
You got trapped, and now you're trying to flail your way out. My God, man, just be honest, that's all I'm asking. You either have to admit that the Council was wrong, or that current Catholic teaching is wrong. Forget about who's a Protestant here and who's Catholic, and just talk to me like a fellow human being - your position puts you in a bind, doesn't it?
It is a tangent because you keep moving between the ecclesiastical penalty ceremony of an "anathema" and the dogmatic proclamation use of "anathema". The same word has different meanings and import within context and 2000 years of time. The dogmatic proclamation usage of anathema (consistent with St. Paul) means separated from the body of Christ (excommunicated). Over time, there was a formal anathema ceremony used for particularly egregious excommunications. The ceremony was rarely used and the ceremony of an anathema was removed from Canon law while the concept (separation from the Body of Christ) still remains in Canon law via the term "excommunication". If you can't understand this then there is nothing more to do here.
As you yourself admit, the Church's dogmatic proclamation is that an anathema is a separation from the body of Christ, which necessarily means going to Hell. And another dogmatic proclamation is that belief in the Marian dogmas are required, or you are anathema (separated from the body of Christ, thus going to Hell). I can't even begin to know how you would think that "ceremonies" affects these inescapable facts, or how it's even relevant. You're flailing to get out of a hole, and you're mistaken if you think people reading this forum aren't intelligent enough to see that. Why not just be honest and face up to it, instead of making things worse for yourself?
I will not speculate as to why it is that you are so intent in claiming that authority for yourself.
I haven't given you any "protestant constructs", I've literally quoted you Roman Catholic teaching. If the Catholic Church today is not teaching that an anathema is a separation from God (and therefore makes one Hell-bound), then it is not teaching what it taught in its supposed infallible Councils. That's the bottom line. And nothing you're saying is escaping this. You're still stuck in the dilemma of having to decide who is wrong - the Roman Catholic Church then, or the Roman Catholic Church now.DallasBear9902 said:No sir. The bolded is where you lose the plot by applying your protestant construct. The Church explicitly states that a separation from the body of Christ (excommunication) is not a condemnation, and does not necessarily mean one is going to hell. Excommunication (separation from the Body of Christ) is a call to reconciliation with the Church. That is literally what the Church teaches. The Church welcomes excommunicated individuals to the Mass and desires for them to be reconciled to the Church. Your whole construct is unpersuasive because you refuse to engage in what the Catholic Church is saying but instead you would rather tell the Catholic Church what it is that the Catholic Church teaches. Again, the Church is extremely careful when it comes to declaring who is bound for heaven, hell or purgatory, particularly when it comes to individuals. The Church is careful about this because (a) that authority belongs only to the Lord and (b) Jesus warned us about judging others.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What a ridiculous attempt at sophistry. No one was talking about any "ceremonies". Now who's moving the goalposts??!!DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again - how is it a "tangent" to quote what a supposed infallible Council and early bishops said about what an anathema was... in a discussion about anathemas?? How exactly is that a "worthless" hypothetical?? How exactly did I misconstruct a Catholic concept? I'm literally quoting your own "infallible" Council and the bishops from your church history!DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Moving the goal posts?? How is showing what a supposedly infallible Church Council says about anathemas moving the goal posts when we're talking about what anathemas are? Where's the "dishonesty"?DallasBear9902 said:Nice job moving the goal posts! You are poorly misinformed. You are either obtuse or a troll. Are you some Aggie sowing dissension on our message board.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Once again, church history isn't kind to what you're saying.Quote:Quote:
It doesn't take any kind of an "expert" to know that these beliefs are REQUIRED in Roman Catholicism upon pain of anathema (removal from body of Christ, thus doomed to Hell).
Perhaps it does not take an expert, but it certainly takes someone better educated than you. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty and separation from participation in the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist). Excommunicated individuals can and do still attend Mass. Excommunication is a call for repentance and reconciliation with the Church. It is NOT a condemnation to hell. The Catholic Church even teaches that sincerely repented souls who did not reconcile to the Church still go to heaven. Even an anathema (the most severe form of excommunication) is not a damnation of the soul.
In the Council of Nicaea II in 787 AD, the patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasios, said "An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven, carrying them off into the outer darkness" (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 89)
Later, Tarasios says, "... lest I be subjected to an anathema and found condemned on the day of the Lord." (p. 90)
After this Council, all the bishops wrote a letter to the emperor Constantine, where they said, "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God." (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 585)
Paraphrase:
BTD: Wouldn't you as a Catholic want to correct your fellow Catholic "who is separated from the body of Christ, thus doomed to hell."
Me: Actually, the Church teaches excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, it has to do self-exclusion from the sacraments as ministered by the Church. [As an aside, the last anathema was issued over 100 years ago, and the penalty was officially removed from Canon law over 40 years ago.]
BTD: But that is not what the Catholic Church was doing over a thousand years ago. Check mate, Catholics!
*************
For someone who is concerned about honesty and good faith dialogue, you sure are an unserious person.
My initial point stands: You are in no position to opine on what should or should not warrant a reaction on matters of dogma or faith between one Catholic and another.
And do you realize you just argued for either the infallible Council or current Catholic teaching being in error? You both can't be right!
And by the way, ^^that would be checkmate, actually. Not that I'm keeping score. Thanks for helping me make one of my intended points.
You are moving the goalposts because when your bad-hypothetical is shown to be worthless or insincere you move on to some esoteric tangent that is subject to different circumstances but pretend it is what you meant all along.
You are also moving the goalposts by refusing to acknowledge that your understanding of Catholic doctrines is informed incorrectly by applying a Protestant construct to a Catholic concepts.
I understand why a Protestant would make the mistake of thinking that excommunication or even the former anathema = removal from the body of Christ = doomed to hell. That is a very Protestant theological point of understanding. But like GM selling the "Chevy Nova" in South America to comical failure, something is being lost in translation here.
But spending just a little time to understand Catholicism would correct your misapprehension: excommunication and even the seldom used anathema, in the Catholic sense, means self-exclusion from participating in the sacraments and a call to repentance. Furthermore, it is a very not-Catholic thing to think of others in terms of them dooming themselves to hell. This is because Catholics generally view that judgment as solely belonging to the Lord and we just don't go there. I get it, I spent four years in a Waco, Protestants do see the world through such a lens. But for Catholics, talking like that, well, it would be the equivalent of you considering infant baptism. It just doesn't register.
Finally, there are plenty of contextual and historical references that will help you understand the formulation of the councils "let them be an anathema" and its traces to the NT, in particular St. Paul. It is beyond this medium to discuss it, other than to say, in short, you are mixing up a dogmatic formulation with the practical application of the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication. The resources are out there for you to understand and reconcile the issue. But I'm going to take a wild guess and predict that you won't search out those resources.
You got trapped, and now you're trying to flail your way out. My God, man, just be honest, that's all I'm asking. You either have to admit that the Council was wrong, or that current Catholic teaching is wrong. Forget about who's a Protestant here and who's Catholic, and just talk to me like a fellow human being - your position puts you in a bind, doesn't it?
It is a tangent because you keep moving between the ecclesiastical penalty ceremony of an "anathema" and the dogmatic proclamation use of "anathema". The same word has different meanings and import within context and 2000 years of time. The dogmatic proclamation usage of anathema (consistent with St. Paul) means separated from the body of Christ (excommunicated). Over time, there was a formal anathema ceremony used for particularly egregious excommunications. The ceremony was rarely used and the ceremony of an anathema was removed from Canon law while the concept (separation from the Body of Christ) still remains in Canon law via the term "excommunication". If you can't understand this then there is nothing more to do here.
As you yourself admit, the Church's dogmatic proclamation is that an anathema is a separation from the body of Christ, which necessarily means going to Hell. And another dogmatic proclamation is that belief in the Marian dogmas are required, or you are anathema (separated from the body of Christ, thus going to Hell). I can't even begin to know how you would think that "ceremonies" affects these inescapable facts, or how it's even relevant. You're flailing to get out of a hole, and you're mistaken if you think people reading this forum aren't intelligent enough to see that. Why not just be honest and face up to it, instead of making things worse for yourself?
I will not speculate as to why it is that you are so intent in claiming that authority for yourself.
Regardless, you're STILL saying here that an anathema makes a person Hell-bound: if excommunication is separation from the Roman Catholic Church, and salvation can only be obtained through the Church, then without reconciliation with the Church one is Hell bound. I'm sorry, but that IS Catholic teaching. If you're saying it isn't, and that's true, then Roman Catholicism is full of double talk and internal inconsistency, and therefore has no credibility, and none of her so called infallible proclamations should be believed or trusted.