Tags
As those of you who have been following my recent posts will realise, we have in our midst a phenomenon not uncommon a convert to the Catholic Church who, in the zeal of his conversion, seems to think that those who have failed to follow him are in mortal peril of their souls.
Well, I’ve news for this former atheist; he’s not the first to have such an opinion. Now I shall leave it to another, more mature convert, C451, to say something about what his church actually teaches, but it is my understanding that it most emphatically does not teach that only Catholics can go to heaven, or that all Baptists are bound for a hot place in the afterlife.
I simply refuse to disfigure Jessica’s blog with a polemic against a church she and I admire, and which does so much good, and bears such a witness. What I will maintain is that those who misrepresent it as saying all non-Catholics are ‘stuffed’ are suffering from ‘convertitis’, a well-known disease in which the sufferer imagines himself (rarely herself) to be better able than the Pope to pronounce on Catholic teaching.
The plain fact is that there’s not a church older than a few moments which does not have somewhere in it record something for which it needs to apologise; the church of perfected saints does not exist this side of the next world. We’re a bunch of sinners and we stand in need of what we got through the Grace of the Lord God of hosts.
There’s a level, and it is here, at which if some under-educated and over-enthusiastic convert wishes to demonstrate the crassness of his understanding of Christianity, that’s of no matter; I enjoy a good on-line scrap, and ask no quarter, neither do I give any. But.
But there is a level at which it is a terrible thing that the God of love is used to preach a message of exclusion. As any visitor to my own neglected blog knows, in my hot youth I was associated with Presbyterian movements in parts of the UK which took their belief that all Catholics were heathens in disguise (imagine Bosco with a Belfast accent) way beyond an internet scrap; their Catholic counterparts did the same.
When you’ve seen fists and Molotov cocktails fly in the name of the God of love, it does one of two things to you. You either become more entrenched in your view that you have to deal with the other lot firmly, or you realise where you’re going before the signs saying ‘to hell’ get too frequent.
I’ve seen Catholics tell me I’m going to hell before they tried to speed the process up, and I’ve seen Protestants do the same. Well, call me a sentimentalist and lacking in rigour, but if that is where you think your Christian faith is taking you, then you are wrong – it is where Satan is taking you.
The Gospel message is simple enough. It is there in the beatitudes and the command to love your neighbour and to love God and to follow Christ. Trying doing that and you’ve your work cut out. You could try wading through a couple of thousand pages of rules and regulations, but you know what, that what it amounts to.
All Along the Watchtower 
“the church of perfected saints” – I suppose this is the core of the problem. I have always been suspect of the sanity of anyone who claims to have the elite, unique and correct revelation from God.
LikeLike
Me too. This seems to me self-evident.
LikeLike
Frankly, Geoffrey, a quick read of the argument that you had with him is not a terribly edifying experience.
I know from personal experience that the rush of conversion and initiation can provide a certain excess of zeal — but it is uncharitable to out and out blame him for this !!!
OTOH, not everyone has an immediate appreciation for theological and ecclesiological subtleties…
Here’s the thing though, I don’t know if I’m less impressed by his blundering attacks upon non-Catholics than by your knee-jerk responses attacking Catholicism.
I can see frustration the one with the other motivating the apparent anger in your exchanges, except that the true victim of your battle was the orthodoxy of the Faith in itself, not to mention his and your duties of Charity.
The doctrine extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is VERY frequently misunderstood by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, but the choice to just up and simply ignore the teaching completely is just as bad, IMO, as the desire to use it as some kind of Hammer Against Protestantism.
—
Elsewhere, I recently contributed the following (in a slightly different version) :
The doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus was explained by an Ecumenical Council held soon after the declaration of the doctrine in Antiquity (sorry, can’t remember which one, nor if the Pope himself signed that explanation).
Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware has perhaps the finest exegesis of the doctrine that I’ve seen so far :
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church” (G. Florovsky, “Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church”, in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a “visible” and an “invisible Church”, yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
This teaching is Katholikos in the finer sense of that word, and though it is a wound in the Body Mystical that such a fine teacher should be outside of Full Communion with the Holy Church of God, his teaching itself is strong evidence of his desire for that Communion with God and all of His Saints, Living and Dead, through our Lord Christ and His, our Church.
This teaching is the occasion of our fervent hope and prayer that those Faithful to our Christ will be given the means and the Grace to return to Full Communion with all of those Faithful to God in Our Catholic and Apostolic Church.
—
The notion that the doctrine might claim that all of those non-Catholics will be damned is quite as absurd as the teaching that the doctrine should be simply ignored and rejected as a “bigotry”.
LikeLike
Bravo,brilliant double talk good brother Jabba.
LikeLike
Bozo, you’re utterly wrong, as usual.
LikeLike
How could i be wrong? I didnt say anything.
LikeLike
Who says such a thing. Bosco?
LikeLike
Hi good sister Jess.Sometimes good brother Jabba sees ghosts.He constantly is doing battle with phantoms. Its a side effect form bowing ones head for too long.
LikeLike
Keep on kow-towing to your cement dove, bozo, and stuffing your $$$ into the clutching fingers of the false prophet antichrists who have erected this idol up above the house of iniquity where you habitually engage in these acts of blasphemy.
LikeLike
No cement dove over the calvary where i go. Not even a cross. Sorry good brother Jabba.Ill let you know when we get a graven image like Jupiter or Tammuz, like your chruch has.
LikeLike
Here is a great picture of the lovely cement dove risen high in your local Cavalry Chapel Lake Elsinore :
http://www.calvaryle.org/
Can you spot the Costume Holy People in this picture ?
(who are those Scarlet Women anyway, and why do they parade their brazen un-Christ-like immodesty so contrary to the Sole Scripture that you Cavalry Capel-goers supposedly adhere to ???)
For extra points, can you spot the graven image (Hint : try looking Top Centre)
LikeLike
Here are some more wonderful Cavalry Chapel Lake Elsinore people worshipping a lovely graven image :
http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/lake-elsinore/lake-elsinore-headlines-index/20111217-lake-elsinore-drive-through-nativity-is-religious-experience.ece
LikeLike
Poor Jabba. The nativity scene was some other church, on machado st. Its a calvary, but not mine. The other wedding scene, i dont know where that was taken, but not the one i go to. Youre going to have to do better than that to besmirch me good brother Jabba. I dont need to post pics of graven images to besmirch you. We all know what Jupiter looks like, with his worn down foot from you slobbering all over it.
LikeLike
Jabba, charity here consists of telling someone when they are wrong.
LikeLike
See above — Geoffrey, I’m telling the both of you that you’re both wrong.
The fact that the path towards salvation leads normally into the Catholic Church does not permit one to second-guess the state of grace of individual non-Catholic souls, but nor is it a “bigoted” doctrine given that our Christ established ONE Church, NOT 30,000+
But of course — we’re asked to offer our hand in holy friendship, love, and Charity ; not point one’s finger and shout “j’Accuse !!!“
LikeLike
And when that is done to me I reciprocate. When someone tells me I am going to hell, I don’t.
LikeLike
This is classic. I love it. The CC says there is no salvation outside of it. This doctrine is embarrassing at best. Here come the politically correct catholics who try to close the barn door after the horse has gone. Good brother Jabba does a song and dance about how non catholics can get into heaven, for some reason or another. Hahahahaha. All those doctors of the church and Popes who said emphatically that there is no salvation outside, well, they were just kidding. They are misunderstood. You see, they had their fingers crossed behind their back.I can go find 100 catholics, rite now, that will swear there is no salvation outside. Uh Oh. The CC is divided, like its separated brethern the protestants. We dont want to be acting like protestants, now do we?
LikeLike
Bozo, be a good fellow and shut the F up, given that you’ve not even the foggiest notion what you’re talking about, and that you are posting some of your moronic and pole-dancing gibberous fanaticisms as if they might somehow be constitutive of anything that’s within even spitting distance of truth.
Believe whatever crap you want to, but this continual “preaching” of yours (if we can call it that — though it more resembles a tourette-sufferer’s outpourings than anything else) against the teachings of our Christ and His Apostles is an objective evil, and a spur towards the path of damnation and Hell.
LikeLike
Good brother Jabba, i dont have a religion or some agenda that im pushing. Its funny that you claim i go against the teachings of Christ. I dont bow befor graven images, i dont call costume holymen Father, i dont vainly repeat prayer. You should be more specific when you accuse me of things.
LikeLike
Your vain repetitions of outlandish gibberish have been continuing for more years than I care to count.
Keep on bowing to your cement dove, Bozo.
LikeLike
Great idea my good brother Jabba. Keep posting calvary videos. Someone here might get saved. Keep up the good work. ;-D
LikeLike
Another excellent post, Geoffrey. To my mind you are absolutely right that the Gospel message is rather a simple one. The bit that is harder to get one’s arm around is how we came to believe in that Gospel message and why we should believe it in the first place.
By that I mean to say that if I found a Bible and read it, I have no reason to accept it as being true. If I heard it preached, this many years from the actual events of God’s incarnation on earth and his Redemptive Sacrifice, then I must have great trust and belief in the person that is relating the truth of the Bible passages. The veracity of any Scripture is that it continues to live and grow and bear fruit; and a library of continuous historical references is essential as well. Without such a tradition that one can place their trust in, how can we come to believe in the Gospel. Thus the problems of the variations within the Christian traditions continue and challenge us to find ways in which we can live that Gospel message without losing our own souls while defending the institutions that brought us to the Faith. Those battles seem at times to lose more souls by the means of our battles than we win – not a very good outcome to what was to be a righteous endeavor for the love of God.
LikeLike
Indeed, Servus. I have, as you know, no quarrel with the real teaching of your Church. It is the false witness borne to it by this convert which I contest.
LikeLike
I do understand that Geoffrey. I guess it is just that I find myself at times overstepping the bounds of charity in discourse or argument and suspect that others do as well: not a rebuttal of your responses or his but a fact that our fallen natures often fail at realizing our charitable intentions to correct or “save” or whatever the motive might be.
LikeLike
I habitually overstep the bounds of charity with those who tell me I am damned, and I do so because I have seen where such stupid claims lead.
Believe me, I’d rather throw around hard words here than what used to happen in Belfast down the Shankill Road.
LikeLike
Yeah I bet that was no picnic.
LikeLike
God forgive me Servus. Though I took no active role, I did not oppose it as I should have done. It fuels my hatred of this sort of bigotry. Looks OK on the Internet – ugly on the street, and I;ve seen it there – indeed it was that which in part set me on the long journey away from sectarianism.
LikeLike
And no wonder. I am feeling that the times have now come even here in America that if any Christian step out in the public square and preach his beliefs that he might well come to a quick end: either beaten or killed. So, in a sense, I suppose we might all see, once again the same violence you talk about, only this time it will not have anything to do with what brand of Christianity you believe in. If you didn’t read it recently our own U.S. National Reserve has put Catholics and Evangelicals (along with the KKK and Al-Queda) as extremist organizations. It’s coming.
LikeLike
Yes, I think it is coming Servus, and when it does I will stand shoulder to shoulder with other Christians – not ask them their views on the filioque clause.
LikeLike
I like to think I will be given the courage to do the same as our brothers and sisters have in India, the Mid-East and Africa this past century. Sad to think what they have gone through; makes your experience just a small sampling of what continues to go on. It is said, I’m sure you know, that more Christian have been martyred in the 20’th century than in all the previous centuries combined. The 21st century isn’t looking any better.
LikeLike
It certainly isn’t Servus. I take the view that Satan’s provided us with enough enemies for us to be relieved of the effort of bashing each other.
LikeLike
That is true enough, Geoffrey. God is doing a bit of winnowing methinks. He may find that the best way to win souls in our century is to give us a chance to lay down our lives for our friends.
LikeLike
I fear it will come to that Servus. I sometimes thank God I am an old man, but then I remember Polycarp – and he was a good deal older than me.
LikeLike
Indeed so. It is astonishing how fast things can deteriorate in this modern age. Things that used to take centuries or at least decades to develop seem to manifest themselves almost overnight. I used to think that I would be long buried before I’d see what is now occurring in society and throughout the world.
LikeLike
True, Servus. I am now told that ‘gender’ is a choice, and we can choose whether we are male or female. Who do I sue for not being able to have a baby?
LikeLike
No one, Geoffrey. If you lived here in the US our taxes will fund a gender change operation under Obamacare at no cost to you. See how fair that is? And you have a better than good chance to adopt a baby and be called mom for the rest of your life.
LikeLike
Yes, I suppose that’s always possible. At what point do socialists run out of other folks’ money to spend?
LikeLike
They already did but are printing funny money to make us think that there is plenty to go around. God help us when the currency bubble breaks.
LikeLike
Over here we have a new definition of monetary union – the EU takes your savings and unites them with its money. What you have you share with us – whether you want it or not. My krugerands are looking a good investment.
LikeLike
I wish I still had mine and not too keen on repurchasing at todays prices. Land, food, water and bullets are probably better things to have if we eventually have to live off the land. I like you new definition of “monetary union”.
LikeLike
It’ll go hard with us old ‘uns if it comes to that – though my garden produces food for us. I suppose I could hit a rabbit with my walking stick 🙂
LikeLike
The makings for a good rabbit stew. 🙂
LikeLike
I could make a boomerang in my workshop, I suppose 🙂
LikeLike
You might have more accuracy with a slingshot. 🙂
LikeLike
Haven’t had one of those since Mrs Henderson confiscated mine when I was about 10 🙂
LikeLike
I guess that means you’re out of practice. 🙂
LikeLike
I fear so – Goliath is safe for now 🙂
LikeLike
Servus / Geoffrey – re: things ain’t what they used to be: perhaps I’m responsible, in my own small way, for the decline.
I remember many years ago, when I was supposed to be at school, we were waiting at the golf course to do some caddying. There was a telephone call and the caddy master asked, ‘by the way, none of you are supposed to be at the school, are you?’ We shook our heads. Then he said into the telephone, ‘No, no … none of your lot here. Yes, yes; if I see any of them I’ll let you know. Bye bye’. He put the phone down and then, shaking his head said, ‘the younger generation – they’re not educated like they used to be.’
So there does seem to be a continual decline in standards, that probably started at the time of Noah and I feel that I have contributed in some small way.
LikeLike
As did I, my friend, and as I probably continue to do in ways I don’t even understand yet.
LikeLike
What a bunch of old sinners we are to be sure.
LikeLike
You must put us in context though, Geoffrey. We were living through a cultural upheaval. 🙂 I’m hoping somebody cuts me a break!
LikeLike
That’s true – its all relative, after all 🙂
LikeLike
Nay, Jock, it were that Cain lad, his fault. or, if you want to be accused of being a misogynist, what about the Eve woman?
LikeLike
You are, of course, right – and neither of them would have been permitted to join the golf club.
LikeLike
Given what they’d have done with the clubs, good job.
LikeLike
It seems like this might be a suitable location to mark an anniversary. yesterday was the anniversary of the hanging of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in 1945, officially of course, for the attempt on Hitler’s life. Seems to be nearly universally noted as his martyrdom, although not quite a normal one.
LikeLike
Yes, I think it is coming Servus, and when it does I will stand shoulder to shoulder with other Christians – not ask them their views on the filioque clause
Exactly
LikeLike
Indeed Jabba. If it falls to my lot then I will die happily in the company of Catholics, Orthodox and Baptists – praising God and witnessing to Him, and His Mercy.
LikeLike
Geoffrey – I feel that you may have picked up the wrong end of the stick here.
It seemed to me that the poster with the unpronouncable Latin name took the plain man’s language understanding of ‘keys’ and took it to its logical conclusion.
Now, you can do one of two things here. You can either conclude that the doctrine is just plain garbage (and since it is a key defining feature of the Catholic church, you draw your own conclusions), or else you can do some very clever exegesis and come up with some very clever grammatical arguments to find a formulation that means the opposite of the ‘plain man’s language’ meaning.
I know that I prefer the first approach.
Perhaps the poster is heading in the right direction. He’s got to first base – understanding the ‘plain man’s language’ meaning of the Catholic understanding of ‘keys’. He now has to work out that this, while logically coherent is morally absurd. When he reaches that stage, bingo: everything will all fall into place.
LikeLike
My own view if straightforward Jock. Peter was made the steward, the chief shepherd. It is nowhere written that these things were passed on to the Bishop of Rome. Even if it were (and it isn’t) there is not one iota of non-Roman evidence that Peter was Bishop of Rome.
So, no evidence the keys were hereditary; no evidence that even if they were, the Bishop of Rome is their keeper; and no evidence that Peter was Bishop of Rome.
Have I missed anything?
LikeLike
Geoffrey – erm nope – that is a good, succinct summary – and exactly in line with what I think.
I just think that the Latin poster is taking the Catholic understanding to its logically correct, but morally bankrupt conclusion …..
LikeLike
I’d say he is taking a particularly thick-headed Catholic fundamentalist view to its conclusion. It is in the hope of making him think that I am continuing to challenge his assumptions. Lord, Jabba, not known for his ecumenical manner, says he’s wrong.
LikeLike
Have I missed anything?
Yes.
The first man with the title “Bishop of Rome” was technically the Second Bishop of Rome — either Pope Linus, or Pope Clement I (and NO the title Pope did not exist at that time).
Linus seems to be the more likely Candidate.
He was a Roman, and named Bishop (Episkopos — Overseer) of the church in Rome by Saint Peter ; and he was named successor of Peter during Peter’s lifetime AS WELL AS Successor to Paul during Paul’s lifetime.
The succession of the overall leadership of the Church is probably actually Christ > Peter > Paul > Linus (Bishop of Rome) > Popes — but the succession of the Bishops of Rome is still Peter > Linus > Popes. The Tradition sensibly uses this second, less problematic, version.
Peter’s status in this line of succession is peculiar, because his title “Apostle” manifestly supersedes his other titles as Disciple, Bishop, and Pope.
Peter was, regardless, the Leader of the “Congregation of the Apostles”, and Paul, regardless, explicitly confirmed Peter’s choice as successor by making Linus (or Clement) his own successor as well.
The Church was nevertheless in the even more extraordinary position than with our current Pope and the Pope Emeritus, of at one point having the first three leaders of the Diocese of Rome (Peter, Paul, Linus) exercising their particular ministries simultaneously !!! There’s perhaps a sort of Trinitarian manifestation of especial Grace in this, but there is OTOH not much real doubt that a singular successorship was established there by the decisions of Peter and Paul.
LikeLike
You may be right Jabba, problem is there isn’t a scrap of actual evidence to support what I admit is a likely scenario.
Peter was head of the Church in Antioch.
LikeLike
Befor i die, do i have to appoint a successor?
Meet the new Bosco
Same as the old Bosco
We wont get fooled again
LikeLike
Good brother Geoff, you havent missed anything. Christianity was against the law in Rome during Peters lifetime. Peter was no bishop of Rome. He never even went near Rome. These are flights of fantasy made to order.Just like russia says it invented everything, the CC claims it owns god and heaven.
Dont pay attention to what the green monster does, only look at what it claims. Jesus said; ” by their claims ye shall know them”
LikeLike
Geoffrey, there is ample evidence concerning Peter’s Ministry in Rome to be found in the writings of the Church Fathers — and it’s not the 19th Century any more, and one needn’t adhere to the bizarre notion that ancient Tradiotional knowledge is “not evidence”.
—
Bozo, I see that you have reverted completely to your utterly destructive and ignorant manners of intervention. Your indoctrinated fanaticism is sickening to witness.
LikeLike
I have no doubt Peter was in Rome Jabba. What I have lively doubts about are that he was ever its bishop and that the keys were hereditary accessories of the office of the bishop of that city.
LikeLike
What I have lively doubts about are that he was ever its bishop and that the keys were hereditary accessories of the office of the bishop of that city.
These are quite secondary issues, Geoffrey — the first man with the title of Bishop (Episkopos — Overseer) was named by Peter as his successor, as well as being obedient to Peter’s supremacy among the Apostles ; the other Apostle who was in Rome was also obedient to Peter’s leadership ; and Paul also immediately confirmed the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor upon Peter’s martyrdom, and also named the same Bishop of Rome as his own successor.
The issue of succession is not really a Catholic problem, but an Orthodox one ; though for some quite dubious reasons, the Protestants decided to make it theirs as well in the 16th century.
The question (that you’re probably not considering) of the papal heraldry is completely irrelevant — it’s just symbolic heraldry, and this heraldry carries no doctrinal weight.
The Biblical quote about Peter being handed the keys is not the source of Peter’s succession towards the Bishops of Rome and the line of Popes, it is used more as an illustration of the reality that this line of succession does in fact exist.
This illustration is more or less convincing to some as a justification of that line of succession, but the nature of the Petrine and the Papal supremacy belongs to the very nature of the Church, and not to this or that illustrative detail.
It is FAR more important that Christ established, and confirmed, A leadership of ONE of the Disciples over ALL of the others (and all of their own followers) than that Peter, and his own designated successor, and the line of succession following therefrom decided to establish the See of this leadership in Rome rather than elsewhere or nowhere ; to abandon the title of Apostle in favour of the title Bishop ; and then to use the title Pope to designate this Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
LikeLike
Thank you Jabba. I shall have a good think about that – but am grateful to you for the trouble and the time, as well as the information.
LikeLike
It’s important to understand that the Primacy of the Holy Father is NOT organically attached to the Diocese of Rome — but rather that the Diocese of Rome has been organically attached to the Leadership of the Church.
If the Diocese of Rome were to be destroyed, there would be nothing to prevent the Papal See being established elsewhere, and attached to a different Diocese.
The Pope is not the Leader of the Church *because* he is the Bishop of Rome ; he is the Bishop of Rome because he is the Leader of the Church.
It’s important not to understand this backwards.
LikeLike
Interesting, Jabba, very much so, and worth thinking hard about.
LikeLike
It is FAR more important that Christ established, and confirmed, A leadership of ONE of the Disciples over ALL of the others
Uh, say,good brother Jabba, Christ put no man above another man. I dont know what bible you read, but all men are the same, evil. This need you have for a human leader is standard amongst the unsaved. If you follow a human, both will fall into the ditch. By the way, early catholic writers arent gospel. Paul would have said something if Peter ever went to rome. Peter, being a jew and now a christian, wouldnt last long in rome.Let alone be some big shot bishop. Yes, Peter liked his big shiney robe and big fat ring, and for people to kiss it. Never mind the roman guards, who would have fed him to the lions. Oh, but the early church fathers said this and that. Yes, they claimed alot of things. Big talk. Now, 2000 yrs later and a trail of death by burning and tearing apart people, the claims they have are lawsuits, for billions of dollars.
LikeLike
Peter, being a jew and now a christian, wouldnt last long in Rome
Occasionally, you have these outbursts of sense.
He didn’t — they crucified him.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales,
Irenaeus, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Eusebius, Peter of Alexandria, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Damasus,Cyprian, Ambrose of Milan and many others all held that Peter was in Rome.
LikeLike
I never suggested he wasn’t. I simply asked for what I never get, confirmation he was its bishop and confirmation that the keys were hereditary in the office of the bishop of that city.
LikeLike
Geoffrey, you’re starting to sound like a doubting Thomas. 🙂
LikeLike
I really have no problem with the Catholic Church, Servus – just its Feeneyite wing dropping by and telling me I’m damned 🙂
LikeLike
I understand Geoffrey, just giving you a subtle reminder that unfortunately we all keep seeking absolute, irrefutable evidence for things that happened 2000 years ago and it is rather impossible to provide people with that. Just giving you a loving nudge. 🙂
LikeLike
I know, and you are, of course, correct. In my own view there’s more than enough evidence for everything in the NT, and I am impressed by what C has written about the early church and the Catholic claims.
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve enjoyed C’s articles immensely (and yours too, friend). I’m just struck at times that there are many who demand proofs. It reminds me of the History Channel crowd: who are always trying to contradict any and all Christian traditions and have posited scientific explanations for every miracle in the Bible. I know you are not of that crowd: but just giving you a shot over the bow so to speak in a friendly manner. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, I agree – and by the way, thank you, I am glad you are enjoying them.
LikeLike
I am indeed.
Even Bosco is starting to make me work. My memory failed me twice today in my comments (had to retract several statements made from memory): so even Bosco can be useful at times.
LikeLike
Irenaeus, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Eusebius, Peter of Alexandria, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Damasus,Cyprian, Ambrose of Milan and many others all held that Peter had the keys to the kingdom.
LikeLike
Aye, good sister SRDC, do all the clowns you mentioned happen to be catholic? Do you ever quote bible sources as proof that Peter was in Rome? Why do yall stay away from scripture? Its always men you love to quote. Let god be true and every man a liar.
LikeLike
The Pope is not the Leader of the Church *because* he is the Bishop of Rome ; he is the Bishop of Rome because he is the Leader of the Church.
Whew, kinda takes my breath away.
LikeLike
Pingback: Completely Skewed Yet Well-Rounded View of the World | karensunhumbleopinion
No-nonsense talk, Geoffrey. Part of my family is from Yorkshire, so I sympathise.
I do agree though that those who have grasped some new truth, such as recent converts, can often be a little too eager in their wielding of that truth without perhaps seeing another greater truth behind, yet to be discovered.
I do like your beatitudes comment – I find real favour with that one.
S.
LikeLike
You’ll recognise the Yorkshire straight talking then 🙂 It has set me thinking, and as what I’ve just posted may show, round the bend and back again, if I’m lucky. It seems to me worth a thought or two anyhow – even if I get shot down by the Legion of Mary.
LikeLike
Geoffrey you said, ” In my own view there’s more than enough evidence for everything in the NT”
I find that interesting that you find the evidence necessary to believe in the NT but not have enough evidence in the Church that gave you the NT.
There is some problem with Peter here, but why go looking for trouble? Those who knew Peter said that October 13, 64AD was a big day in his life. He died and was buried. Those who remember Peter also knew where he was buried.
Henry Throreau said something strange to our ears, but it was true. “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk”.
The place where Peter was remember, a church was built where he was buried, another church was built, below this church was found the words ”Here be Peter”. The testing found a skeleton of a man who had been strong was in his 70’s had no feet which if you are crucified upside down is the easiest way for a man with a sword to cut him down. The Skeleton had no head, the head was said to be in the pope’s personal church, it is spoken as Peter’s head.
There is no evidence circumstantial or otherwise can tell you it is Peter. If the DNA testing told you his remains were 1 century plus or minus 60 years and had Jewish DNA and the structure of his teeth had the rare minerals of the area of the sea of Galilee, would that convince you. Of course not, that is called Knowing, what we have is belief, if for us is that evidence is enough? For me Yes.
Is this because is it is Catholic Peter? Paul is buried in the Church beyond the walls, I think the Protestants would accept the same amount of evidence of this being Paul.
But Paul is the theological leader of that Church, not Peter.
LikeLike
I’ve no problem with any of that Tom. What I’ve a problem with is the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the wholeness of God’s church here in earth.
LikeLike
The Eastern Orthodox make the exact same claim. My EO friends try to convince me that they have the fullness of truth.
I have no issues with this, because Rome does not consider them to be heterodox, but the opposite is not true.
LikeLike
Indeed, which is why it is fruitless for anyone to hope with some sort of union, because EO ecclesiology has no means to allowing for it.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between revelation and natural reasoning. I have found the Latin church to be right by natural reasoning. This makes it easier for me to accept revelation. For some it’s the other way around.
LikeLike
Indeed. I think a lot depends on where you find yourself. Seventy years ago in my part of the world it’d have been rare to find a Catholic, and my own folk were not given to seeing Catholics with any tenderness, given their Ulster connections. So it was inevitable that if I was a Christian it would have been the sort I was.
LikeLike
Geoffrey you said ”What I’ve a problem with is the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the wholeness of God’s church here in earth.”
Well there are several options, one we all Catholic with the others a subset of the Catholic church. My Belief (except for Bosco)
Two The Catholic Church passed its sell by date, and is now dead and Christianity was reborn in the 1500. So the Catholic church has passed away and is no more. It is in fact a heresy.
Three The Baptist Church claims (some) that the Baptist church was separate and parallel to the Catholic Church, it is neither Catholic nor Protestant. This I heard when I was a boy in the Baptist Church. The trail of blood.
I believe the Baptist Church was a church founded in the 1600’s to separate itself from the CofE, and in form fit and function it is protestant.
In the settling of America the Baptist Church had great influence on the people moving west, it was important. Its theology was simple and straight forward, which fitted the American character quite well.
Talk more about the Baptist church development and what councils and theology formed the Baptists. And its health in the world. Compare it to the CofE, Catholic teaching.
I for one am fearful of the lack of will and lack of belief of authority that Protestantism will not speak out on. I see some Protestant groups who have renamed the RMS Titanic and white-washed the name of their church on the side, and by vote of hands by the passengers are steering toward the iceberg and their death. While the Captain and crew sworn to guard and guide the passengers by admiralty law, let them go to destruction silently.
LikeLike
Interesting thoughts Tom. I think I am with option one. I’ve never liked the trail of blood notion – all this claiming exclusivity for one’s own part of God’s church rents the seamless garment, perhaps?
LikeLike
Geoffrey – I thought this may interest you, it interested me. We had about 25 pastors and other clergy from all over the world for a meeting at St. Thomas this week. There was a Baptist or maybe CofE who started (illegal?) house churches in Israel and the Israeli made him swear if he did or did not believe Christ was true before allowing him to enter. The results of this swearing was the length of his visa to stay in Israel. This was news to me, perhaps not to you. I wonder what the theological thought on this.
LikeLike
Interesting Tom. I suspect he’d justify it to himself by saying he’d not get what he wanted if he told the Israelis the truth. A bit like those Columban Fathers in China who are officially there as teachers, because you can’t get a visa in China to be a missionary.
LikeLike
1. (Expecting no disagreement) This blog merits some award for wit, erudition and good will.
2. (Disagreement assured)
A. All major churches necessarily hold that they are sole custodians of Revealed Truth. After all, without it, what need does that church fill?
B. Catholics and some others deal with the conundrum this puts up for the Creator’s Justice by providing side doors for just folk outside the church. While this is a form of having while eating one’s cake, it does address justice logically.
C. The Gospel has Christ putting it all into loving God and neighbor, as the original post recalls. If one takes Him at what one believes is His word, all the rest is just make-work for ecclesiastical lawyers, right?
The posts here seem to share a love for the use of language; I half believe they are written nearly as much indulging that as in making the expressed points… In any case, it is a pleasure to read them.
LikeLike
Thank you Jack – I suspect you are right on all points 🙂 xx
LikeLike