Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Catholicism and Christian denominations - what's the difference?
Topic Started: Sunday, 1. July 2012, 22:35 (1,061 Views)
tomais

Gerry-the realist and thoughfull one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Having read on this forum, suggestions that a clergyman who is not a member of the Catholic Church IS a priest, and support for diversity of doctrinal opinion I feel led to ask what is the point in claiming to be a Catholic unless one believes in:

1 God, yes, GOD, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, having founded only one Church, and that being the one named the Catholic Church.
2 Members and clergy of other denominations being sincere followers of Christ but not having the fullness of truth, authority to teach, or valid priesthood.
3 Papal Infallibility
4 The requirement that, for priesthood to be valid the individual's Holy Orders must be in the line of Apostolic succession.
5 Transubstantiation, and the impossibility of any person not a validly ordained priest, being able to be effectively consecrate bread and wine and thereby be party to the miraculous change in the bread and wine to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

Even if the vicar down the road is nicer than my priest, and more supportive to persons needing pastoral care, I would lose a lot if I attended his church instead of a Catholic Church.

I challenge any lover of fish and chips to switch chippies because the guy who sells cold soggy flavourless food is nicer than the one who well lovely tasty fish coated in nice crunchy crisp batter and chips made from best quality potatoes, fried to just the right consistency, soft inside and crisp on the outside.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
paul

I agree entirely with what Pete has said. Unfortunately, some priests do not have nice personalities and it becomes very difficult to relate to them. However, it is the Church that is important, not the odd individual priest. We are fortunate in belonging to an organisation with depth, tradition and a very clever theologian as our Holy Father. If you read any of his books you cannot but realise how fortunate we are in having him at the helm.

There was no democracy in the navy in my day. Leadership meant that the person in charge made a decision and others acted on it. There was never any request for opinions, that would have given the impression, rightly or wrongly that the leader was weak.

In our Church we have the assembly of Cardinals to assist the Holy Father in his decision making.

Aren't we fortunate in having such a Church.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Rose of York
Monday, 9. July 2012, 14:50
Having read on this forum, suggestions that a clergyman who is not a member of the Catholic Church IS a priest, and support for diversity of doctrinal opinion I feel led to ask what is the point in claiming to be a Catholic unless one believes in:
Alas they are priests only within the discipline of their own heritage, we were coming close to the mutual recognition of orders when the Anglican Communion broke ranks and ordained women. We do not recognise Anglican Orders as being valid within the Roman Catholic Church but they are priests within the Anglican Communion. Hence Anglican Priests applying to the Ordinariate have to be ordained by a current Roman Catholic Bishop. In principle a person is only a priest in the R C Church if their orders are recognised as being valid by the Roman Catholic Church. Hence if a woman applies to the ordinariate she will not be accepted because while she may be a priest in the Anglican Church she is ineligible for ordination in the Roman Catholic Church.
Edited by Penfold, Monday, 9. July 2012, 21:00.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Rose of York
Monday, 9. July 2012, 14:50
Having read on this forum, suggestions that a clergyman who is not a member of the Catholic Church IS a priest, and support for diversity of doctrinal opinion I feel led to ask what is the point in claiming to be a Catholic unless one believes in:

1 God, yes, GOD, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, having founded only one Church, and that being the one named the Catholic Church.
2 Members and clergy of other denominations being sincere followers of Christ but not having the fullness of truth, authority to teach, or valid priesthood.
3 Papal Infallibility
4 The requirement that, for priesthood to be valid the individual's Holy Orders must be in the line of Apostolic succession.
5 Transubstantiation, and the impossibility of any person not a validly ordained priest, being able to be effectively consecrate bread and wine and thereby be party to the miraculous change in the bread and wine to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
Just to be provocative, all those arguments* are things defined by the Catholic Church so you are into something of a circular argument; can you defend them on what Christ actually said/taught?



(*Certainly 2 to 5, I'll let you away with No 1 if you change Catholic to catholic :grin: )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Mairtin
Monday, 9. July 2012, 19:10
Just to be provocative, all those arguments* are things defined by the Catholic Church so you are into something of a circular argument; can you defend them on what Christ actually said/taught?



(*Certainly 2 to 5, I'll let you away with No 1 if you change Catholic to catholic :grin: )
To be equally provocative are you suggesting that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ who acts on earth with the authority of Christ, to teach and guide us in the ways of faith and morals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I think we have moved a long way from the postion where Catholics could be said to accept a common set of beliefs, if indeed that has been the case at any time. Could anyone seriously argue that there is conformity on the following

1. Central control from Rome
2. Woman priests
3. Homosexuality and gay weddings
4. gay priests
5. Contraception
6. Transubstantiation ( see recent Irish poll)
7. Couples cohabiting before marriage
8. The liturgy including the form of the Mass

John
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
John Sweeney
Monday, 9. July 2012, 21:04
I think we have moved a long way from the postion where Catholics could be said to accept a common set of beliefs, if indeed that has been the case at any time. Could anyone seriously argue that there is conformity on the following

1. Central control from Rome
2. Woman priests
3. Homosexuality and gay weddings
4. gay priests
5. Contraception
6. Transubstantiation ( see recent Irish poll)
7. Couples cohabiting before marriage
8. The liturgy including the form of the Mass

John
I think there is generally conformity of belief regarding:

Central control from Rome (accepted by most)

Homosexual activity and gay weddings (not generally approved of)

Actively gay priests (definitely not wanted, by the majority)

Transubstantiation (accepted by nearly everybody). I ignore the Irish poll of "Catholics", it polled people baptised Catholic, it was not restricted to practicing Catholics.

Couples cohabiting before marriage. Tolerated (but not approved of) by most of my generation, because we feel helpless in the face of the currently prevalent attitude.

The liturgy including the form of the Mass. Nearly all Catholics are happy with the New Rite, in English. Very few attend Latin Mass.

Common areas of disagreement are

Woman priests. I think about half of older Catholics would welcome them. Most young Catholics would.

Contraception. That is most likely the big one, on which a high proportion disagree with the teaching, including Catholics who have read the encyclical Humanae Vitae.

Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Penfold
Monday, 9. July 2012, 21:04
Mairtin
Monday, 9. July 2012, 19:10
Just to be provocative, all those arguments* are things defined by the Catholic Church so you are into something of a circular argument; can you defend them on what Christ actually said/taught?



(*Certainly 2 to 5, I'll let you away with No 1 if you change Catholic to catholic :grin: )
To be equally provocative are you suggesting that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ who acts on earth with the authority of Christ, to teach and guide us in the ways of faith and morals.
No, I'm not trying to suggest that, I don't have any particular issue with the things that Rose listed except that it strikes me that they are things that the Church herself has defined and defending them against external challenges - which I have done in other places, by the way - would be easier if there were some form of support in the direct teachings of Jesus.

For example, the primary defence of the role and powers of the papacy is "Thou art Peter and on this rock I build my Church" but that actually says nothing about infallibility.
Edited by Mairtin, Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 08:53.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Mairtin
Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 08:33
Penfold
Monday, 9. July 2012, 21:04
Mairtin
Monday, 9. July 2012, 19:10
Just to be provocative, all those arguments* are things defined by the Catholic Church so you are into something of a circular argument; can you defend them on what Christ actually said/taught?



(*Certainly 2 to 5, I'll let you away with No 1 if you change Catholic to catholic :grin: )
To be equally provocative are you suggesting that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ who acts on earth with the authority of Christ, to teach and guide us in the ways of faith and morals.
No, I'm not trying to suggest that, I don't have any particular issue with the things that Rose listed except that it strikes me that they are things that the Church herself has defined and defending them against external challenges - which I have done in other places, by the way - would be easier if there were some form of support in the direct teachings of Jesus.

For example, the primary defence of the role and powers of the papacy is "Thou art Peter and on this rock I build my Church" but that actually says nothing about infallibility.

I think you will find Jesus said a lot more than your limited quote

Quote:
 
English Standard Version (©2001) Mat 16: 18-19
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against itI will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”


Infallibility, which I did not mention, was redefined in 1871, but the authority of Peter as the Vicar of Christ to proclaim on Faith and Morals, which I asked you about, has always been at the heart of Catholic Teaching. However no doubt you 'Know' better.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Penfold
Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 13:49
I think you will find Jesus said a lot more than your limited quote

Quote:
 
English Standard Version (©2001) Mat 16: 18-19
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against itI will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Where does He say anything about Apostolic Succession and that Peter's successors would be infallible?

Quote:
 
... but the authority of Peter as the Vicar of Christ to proclaim on Faith and Morals, which I asked you about, has always been at the heart of Catholic Teaching. However no doubt you 'Know' better.

Why are you so prickly about this? I said that I have no issue with this that I am simply looking for help in defending the Church's position.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Mairtin
Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 14:11

Why are you so prickly about this? I said that I have no issue with this that I am simply looking for help in defending the Church's position.
Why do you consistently fail to answer the questions asked?
I asked, on this occasion,
Quote:
 
are you suggesting that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ who acts on earth with the authority of Christ, to teach and guide us in the ways of faith and morals.


I made no reference to infallibility I asked a direct question. If you accept that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ then that is all the authority he requires to teach and guide is in the ways of faith and morals. Your quote failed to give the full message of the commissioning of Peter by Jesus and the founding of the church. It is not the only evidence but it is a fuller and more accurate representation of the passage of scripture that you offered.
I am tiered if I seem prickly this is my only excuse, I admit it is a poor one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Penfold
Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 15:05
Why do you consistently fail to answer the questions asked?
I asked, on this occasion,
Quote:
 
are you suggesting that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ who acts on earth with the authority of Christ, to teach and guide us in the ways of faith and morals.


I made no reference to infallibility I asked a direct question.
I thought I had already made my position clear but here it is again - I DO believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ who acts on earth with the authority of Christ, to teach and guide us in the ways of faith and morals.

Now, can we get away from arguing about my personal beliefs and deal with the question I asked for help on, how do I respond to the accusation that the sort of things Rose listed - not just infallibility but the other things like the non-validity of Protestant priesthood, that valid priesthood must be based on Apostolic Succession, that only a validly ordained catholic priest can perform the Consecration - are all self-defined within the Church and are not supported directly by the teachings of Jesus?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Mairtin
Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 15:38
- are all self-defined within the Church and are not supported directly by the teachings of Jesus?
Read the catechism however you will consider that to be a waste of time since you seem to have a problem accepting that the church is founded and rooted in the teachings of Christ. The Catechism is littered with scriptural references and references to the early teaching of the church.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Penfold, I am afraid that is the same old tired nonsense which has put the Church in this country in the sorry state it is in today. Mairtin poses some important points backed up by reasoned arguments but your instinctive reaction is exactly the same as the Church at its worst has employed down through the ages ie it attempts to browbeat even mild scepticism with accusations of disloyalty

John
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply