re: Pope Francis has passed.

Posted on 4/24/25 at 10:23 am to lehaus45

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

45835 posts

Posted on 4/24/25 at 10:23 am to lehaus45

quote:
FooManChoo, You seem like a wonderful guy, but I have to disagree on your response.

I appreciate the kind remark. Happy to simply disagree if necessary

quote:
You are correct about me equating St Ignatius's use of Catholic Church and attaching it to the modern as well as the early church, since it is one and the same--the line of succession has never been broken

My concern at this time is not whether or not the RCC is part of the one, catholic Church of Jesus Christ, but whether or not the RCC as she exists today is in harmony with the understanding and teachings of the Church from the first centuries. While there is certainly unity in some areas, there seems to be a lot of disunity in others, and it seems the RCC doesn't agree that there is disunity. My lengthy response was to demonstrate the disunity.

quote:
Yes we tout history on our side because the Catholic Church is historical.

There's no doubt that much of what the RCC teaches today has unity with history, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the RCC claims a monopoly on Church history, as if all the ECFs were in full agreement with what she teaches today. I'm attempting to demonstrate that that view is incorrect, and Protestants have just as much a "right" to Church history, as Calvin did when he references hundreds of quotes from the Patristics in his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion to show that the Reformation wasn't novel.

quote:
It is a real stretch for some to come in 1500 years later and redefine Catholic or Universal as inclusive of all Christian churches.

Not at all. Protestants agree with the RCC that Christ gave us one Church, but we disagree with what the one Church looks like. Rome teaches that she alone comprises the true Church while Protestants believe that the true (visible) Church is comprised of all professing believers who join themselves to other believers in membership in a local church that faithfully proclaims the gospel, administers the sacraments and discipline, and that doesn't have to be under one "head" (the Pope), because the head is Christ, ultimately.

quote:
St. Ignatius wrote in his letter, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Yes, he was speaking of the local congregation which was governed by elders/presbyters with the bishop being in charge. He could have also said "wherever Christ's governors are, let the people be, as well, as the Catholic Church". I basically said the same thing above, minus the specific reference to the elders of the Church as rulers.

quote:
St Ignatius wrote to obey your bishop, but apparently that had a statute of limitations of 1500 years. After that time I guess, it was ok to break away and contradict the Church, and not work with your bishop to address issues and reform from within. Strange, I did not see that statute of limitations in biblical scripture, as that is our only guideline to follow.

Apologies if you weren't aware, but the Reformation actually started as an attempt at internal reform. While most Catholics aren't taught that portion of Church history (it seems), Martin Luther was actually a Catholic monk and professor that saw abuses of the Church (particularly around indulgences) and spoke up about it. It wasn't until he was excommunicated by the Pope that he was out on his own. And yes, Christians do have the duty to work to reform the Church from within before breaking off. My denomination teaches that very thing. The problem comes when reform is needed and the Church doesn't want to reform, but instead seeks to silence (and kill) those seeking reform. Ironically, if the RCC actually listened to Luther on indulgences, there may not have been a Protestant Reformation at all.

quote:
Heck, I didn't even see in the Bible that it was ok to remove books of the Bible if you didn't like them. Isn't it strange that our one book and only source of salvation didn't mention that anyone can adjust the Bible to their liking? I'm still trying to work that one out.

That's a matter of interpretation. You think Protestant removed books of the Bible while Protestants think Catholics added books that weren't authoritative. For the record, there has always been dispute about the deuterocanonical books all the way up until the Council of Trent, which finalized the official Catholic canon. Even Cardinal Cajetan (who disputed with Luther) rejected the deuterocanonical books as canonical prior to Trent.

Rome performs some anachronistic equivocation when it comes to the Bible, anyway. In history, it is clear that there were two classifications of "Scripture". There were books that were authoritative for doctrine, and books that were helpful to the Church. It's why many ECFs would refer to the deuterocanon as "Scripture" while excluding them from their canon lists. Jerome--who translated the Bible into Latin--even made this distinction, and reference can be found to this in the prefaces to some of the deuterocanonical books. The modern RCC (post-Trent) sees the Bible as one list of books, but that isn't how it was understood throughout history.

quote:
St. Ignatius had a line in his letter "But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils".

I agree. The Scriptures say something similar. We should avoid them as best as we can, but as Luther said, "Peace if possible. Truth at all costs". While we are to strive diligently after unity, we cannot compromise the truth in that pursuit.

quote:
As far as transubstantiation, it is the highest level of interpretation of the presence of God in the Eucharist, and if I am ever to be wrong about worshipping, I would easily rather be on the "over worshipped" side of the equation. Would God ever say, "Oh, you're over worshipping me, cut it out, don't, stop it now, I don't deserve such honor." I don't know if you know it but Catholics have Adoration Services in which the blessed host is displayed in a monstrance and available for those to kneel before it, meditate and pray. Parishes also have an Adoration Chapel with the host on display that is open always for worship. Catholics truly adore and worship the Eucharist, and that is not a bad thing, it is a wonderful thing.

With all due respect, this isn't merely an issue of "over worshipping" God in terms of our disagreement. The Council of Trent anathematized anyone who rejects the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Trent turned a disagreement into a matter of eternal life and death. Many Catholics today even say that Protestants do not have life because we do not truly feed on Christ, harkening back to Jesus' words in John 6. So while I appreciate your attitude on this subject, personally, it isn't merely a matter of simple disagreement, or of Catholics "over worshipping" God.

quote:
Correct me if my research is wrong, but didn't your church of Reformed Presbyterian believe the Pope to be the anti-Christ? Didn't your church also declare the US Constitution immoral because it did not list Christ as King of the country? Your members not allowed to vote? Has this been rectified? If so, how is it that a church that is only a few hundred years old could have change it's doctrine so often?

Yes (to the Papal office being the anti-Christ); yes to the Constitution being an affront to God due to religious pluralism and lack of respect for Christ as King of kings; yes to members not being allowed to vote historically, but that changed due to the SCOTUS allowing for an explanatory clause for oaths of office, etc.