tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post2287372759535763159..comments2024-03-25T14:27:40.121-05:00Comments on Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: One holy catholic and apostolic churchWeekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-61969268011749456312007-03-21T16:45:00.000-05:002007-03-21T16:45:00.000-05:00Timothy quoted above G. K. Chesterton. I have loo...Timothy quoted above G. K. Chesterton. I have looked in vain a long time for a quote I once read in Chesterton's works, to wit: (from memory) = "They stormed the steps of the Cathredral bursting in and ransacking all they could find. They destroyed the images of Holy Saints found there, defaced the Stations of the Cross, smashed the stained glass window, destroyed the alters and bhasphemed everything in sight. Then behind the alter they found a book - seemingly full of gibberish - the work of idolatros priests - and they took it and behold. Turned it into their mantra - nearly worshiping it's every content." I have liberally recalled it here - does anyone kknow it's source? LostOarEd Jacoutothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09522961191913866956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-88835540644031139742007-03-20T17:17:00.000-05:002007-03-20T17:17:00.000-05:00A month long hiatus - sorry, but it had to be. Th...A month long hiatus - sorry, but it had to be. The author did a commendable job of formulating a reply to my original queston, "...why are we (Catholics) and (Protestants) not one?" She uses the Nicene Creed as a profession of faith from an early Church Council (381 A.D.)because, rightly, she believes it does a good job of proclaiming what the church must be. Those early Christains had allmost 4 centuries to agree what Christ intended them to do with (this) new religion. In this (final) version of the Creed they clarify all of the essential things they believed in - including "...One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". The distinction I am making here is capitalizing each of these "Hallmarks" of the (Ture) Church. Depending upon the source it is interesting to note that these attributes of the Church are either capitalized or left in lower case letters. Most (but not all) Catholic and Orthodox sources capitialize them to emphasize the elements of this capital statement. Protestant and other Christians will usually record them in lower case to de-emplasize any hint (or clue) that the originators meant a specific, organized, and authoritized Church - which could only mean the Catholic Church with its large cadre of Bishops (loosly at first) federated with the Bishop at Rome. This is of course O.K. and perhaps not too much should be made of it - but the proper emphaz=sis on a word can have a significant meaning. For example, "One" in this context. It can be read as One - and no other. A layman unaware may assume it simply means "one of probably many". Not to belabor the point - but I think it is significant. "Holy". What did they mean? If that church then was Holy - and the word in the Creed is used as if it is formost in their belief that it is - must it not also be true that the Church today must also be? Apostolic? Many can calim to be - but the origins of most can be easily traced. In the case of (Roman) Catholicism most are hard pressed to identify the source if it is not as She claims. Some say the Roman Emperor Constantine -but though history can be vague for tilmes so long ago I think that case is hard to make for the serious student. And "catholic". While true that the word also means "universal" our author contends it was a word used "generally...and originaly did not refer to church matters or to the church in Rome. And yet here these Originators of the great Creed used it in a very important way in a very important Document - and not just generally - in an offhanded way to suggest "broadness". They then, and everybody since knows what Church is meant when "Catholic" is affixed as a preamble. 'Apostolic". Here she formulates a beautiful description of what and why this should mean to a church. When you finish reading it it occurs to (at least it did to me) to ask, when Christ admonished his Apostles shortly before He left this earch to take up the task of spreading His Word - His Church as the vehicle for this - just how did He impart to them the formula to continue once they themselves had passed? Where can we find evidence today of this happening - the way (and with the results) we can imagine He would have wanted? So far - I am left with only one adequate answer to the dilema for some, "We (I) believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostocic Church". The (Roman) Catholic Church. If not Her ..... then whom? LostOar (Ed Jacoutot)Ed Jacoutothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09522961191913866956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-8229665974157591012007-03-16T06:14:00.000-05:002007-03-16T06:14:00.000-05:00I find it interesting tha we don't discuss what it...I find it interesting tha we don't discuss what it means for the church to be holy.<BR/><BR/>set apart yes<BR/>but for what?seethroughfaithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15041055467020894063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-25609435052658964782007-03-11T09:08:00.000-05:002007-03-11T09:08:00.000-05:00I just wanted to come back to clarify that while t...I just wanted to come back to clarify that while the Catholic Church finds nothing wrong with Orthodox theology and doctrine, I didn't mean to make it sound like the fault for continuing separation lies only with the non-Catholic groups.Beckyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906873166719359978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-76468379200642539662007-03-10T22:17:00.000-06:002007-03-10T22:17:00.000-06:00I have retyped this over and over to get it perfec...I have retyped this over and over to get it perfect, but I think I'll just have to try again later. I just want to say that I believe that you misunderstand what the Catholic Church believes of herself -- we definitely do not believe the Church (on Earth) is perfect or that the members and leadership is impeccable. The range of doctrinal/theological freedom is far larger than what seems to be implied here.<BR/><BR/>I would encourage you to look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially this section which directly addresses this issue: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm<BR/>and Ut Unum Sint http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/_INDEX.HTM which more fully address how the Church views herself, especially in relation to other Christians.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you wrote here: "When men like C.S. Lewis are outside the Roman Catholic church, when churches like the Copts and the Orthodox are outside the Roman Catholic church, that church is not catholic." Lewis was, the Copts and the Orthodox are, not full members of the Catholic Church because they have chosen not to be. Members of the Orthodox Churches are in fact able to admitted to communion in a Catholic Church at any time, without grave reason, although this would contradict their own Church law. Apart from returning to the ancient belief that the bishop of Rome is the "First among equals" and the "visible principle and foundation of unity" in the Church, the Catholic Church does not condemn any Orthodox doctrine.Beckyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906873166719359978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-42935395762351030822007-02-25T08:09:00.000-06:002007-02-25T08:09:00.000-06:00Hi thereTimothy, first of all I was fairly careful...Hi there<BR/><BR/>Timothy, first of all I was fairly careful with my wording on the priests. My RC friends tell me that the married priests are transfers-in from other groups of Christians, not people who were Roman Catholic at the time of their ordination. <BR/><BR/>Here is an article from New Advent, the on-line Roman Catholic encyclopedia, regarding clerical celibacy, and stating that celibacy is required for all who are ordained into the higher grades. <BR/><BR/>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm<BR/><BR/>Your argument about "true and current practices" about clerical celibacy does not mention either of these very pertinent points. So yes, I had troubled to learn thatof which I speak and yes, I stand by my original point on clerical celibacy. <BR/><BR/>As to whether "all baptised Christians are members of the Catholic Church" as you say, that again presupposes that the Roman Catholic church is the Church Catholic which we all confess in the creeds. That's exactly the point I'm contesting. <BR/><BR/>-----------<BR/><BR/>Mark: I actually agree that the points need expansion, and in the directions mentioned. I stopped where I did because this is a blog after all and any given post should only be yea-long; I think I was already taxing the patience of the most dedicated blog-surfer with the length of this one. <BR/><BR/>Take care & God bless<BR/>WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-45028637308741956872007-02-24T20:49:00.000-06:002007-02-24T20:49:00.000-06:00Mr Fisher :),I don't have a dog in this fight, as ...Mr Fisher :),<BR/>I don't have a dog in this fight, as it were, but I think you need to expand on the first two points, apostolic and catholic. <BR/><BR/>One interpretation of Apostolic refers to the succession of the episcopate (and thereby their consecration of the presbytery). In that regard, of the larger denominations the Anglican, Roman, and Orthodox remain true to that notion of the term. As far as married priests, the <I>Roman</I> rite within the groups of rites which are in communion with the Bishop of Rome doesn't allow married priests. But some of those traditions allow married priests which remain in communion and under the authority of Rome, e.g. there are Eastern rite churches which are obedient to Rome. Also, there is provision (I forget the term) for Anglican priests (married) to cross the Rubicon and join the presbytery in the Roman church and remain married.<BR/><BR/>Catholicity (small "c") can be either as taken to mean comprehensive, but it also can mean interpreted as meaning that membership is open to all. <I>That</I> meaning is taken more often in the age of cafeteria Christianity.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10837999838469082203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-4095063856029382982007-02-24T20:39:00.000-06:002007-02-24T20:39:00.000-06:00Greetings! Saw your post on Google and have some c...Greetings! Saw your post on Google and have some comments...<BR/><BR/>>"Today, Rome forbids that a married Roman Catholic man could become even a humble parish priest, much less pope."<BR/><BR/>Actually, any baptised adult Catholic male, married or single, can be elected Pope. No priesthood required. <BR/><BR/>Catholics also have a large number of married priests with families. A good many of the married Catholic priests and their families are here in the United States.<BR/><BR/>The discipline of celibacy is often misunderstood by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.<BR/><BR/>>"Just on the surface, that seems to go against the idea that Rome has kept the ancient faith and practices unchanged from the days of the apostles."<BR/><BR/>Yes, the misunderstandings seem to go against the ancient faith; however, the true and current practices do not.<BR/><BR/>>"...if the true church is the "one holy catholic and apostolic church", that church already includes the Copts within that definition."<BR/><BR/>Of course the Copts are Catholic and are included in that definition.<BR/><BR/>Just this past December 2006, the ecclesiastical communion of Coptic patriarch Antonios Naguib of Alexandria was confirmed in the basilica of St Paul Outside-the-Walls in Rome. The Vatican participated.<BR/><BR/>All baptised Christians are members of the Catholic Church, which said Christians may or may not acknowledge.<BR/><BR/>All of your chosen examples against the Catholic Church don't seem to "hold water."<BR/><BR/>In closing, the words of G.K. Chesterton seem apt:<BR/><BR/>"I could not understand why these romancers never took the trouble to find out a few elementary facts about the thing they denounced. The facts might easily have helped the denunciation, where the fictions discredited it. There were any number of real Catholic doctrines I should then have thought disgraceful to the Church . . . But the enemies of the Church never found these real rocks of offence. They never looked for them. They never looked for anything . . . Boundless freedom reigned; it was not treated as if it were a question of fact at all . . . It puzzled me very much, even at that early stage, to imagine why people bringing controversial charges against a powerful and prominent institution should thus neglect to test their own case, and should draw in this random way on their own imagination . . . I never dreamed that the Roman religion was true; but I knew that its accusers, for some reason or other, were curiously inaccurate." <BR/>(The Catholic Church and Conversion, NY: Macmillan, 1926, 36-38)<BR/><BR/>God bless...<BR/><BR/>- TimothyTimothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06992217665437521336noreply@blogger.com