Posted on 11/15/2006 10:40:30 AM PST by stfassisi
I agree, this article doesn't really square with the little I know about mainstream Protestantism and the idea about Luther having secret books is kinda silly....
Ah, be careful. Someone might take that the wrong way. This can be confusing ground. If we are saying "no salvation outside the Church", then Protestants MAY be included with the Barque of Peter because they have been baptized in the Trinity. That is the main way people enter into the Church - whether it is performed by a heretic or not (as per St. Cyprian, c. 250 AD and later). Thus, INDIVIDUAL Protestants who do NOT REJECT the Catholic Church (the proper understanding, NOT the misconceptions) ARE INDEED part of the Church where salvation is found. Now, their COMMUNITIES are not "churches" properly speaking. But individually and invisibly, a Protestant has entered the Church and MAY be still part of it. God will decide in the end.
Thus, technically, you are correct, but we must provide an explanation. The denomination is not part of the Church, but the individual very well may be part of the Church...
I am giving a class on this tonight, so I have to be careful in this matter!
Regards
I am pretty sure they aren't or hadn't been because the King of England appointed bishops of their own liking, something reserved for Rome (at the time). Thus, Rome claims apostolic succession had been broken because of these political appointments (rather than apostolic succession). I know that converts from Anglicanism must go through another ordination if they desire to remain a priest.
Regards
Thanks for the correction, brother. I guess I was a bit too hasty and firing from the lip...how unlike me :)
-A8
I LOVE that phrase
Modern day Catholic doctrine teaches that non-Catholic Christians, and even Jews and Moslems, may possibly be saved, a sharp contrast with the anathemas of the Council of Trent, which condemned all who do not believe in the specific doctrines of Catholicism to Hell. The traditionalist faction, which thinks itself as the only true Catholics left on earth, regard the changes in the Mass, mostly adopted in the 1960s, as incorporating Masonic, Protestant, and pagan practices. Thus, in their opinion, which is closer to that of the Catholic Church of the 16th through 19th Centuries than is modern mainstream Catholicism, the Mass and the sacraments as they exist in mainstream Catholicism are as invalid as those in Protestant churches.
The fact is that Catholic doctrine has changed and developed over the centuries, especially in those areas not specifically addressed in Scripture, such as transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, the celibacy of the priesthood, etc. It was not until the Council of Trent that the Deuterocanonical books were finally and dogmatically included in the canon of Catholic Scripture.
The definition of who is a Catholic is adherence to Catholic doctrine, drawn from Scripture, tradition, and those teachings of the Papacy and church councils deemed infallible, as it stands at a particular moment in time. What defined Anselm, Bellarmine, or Newman as Catholic in their particular eras is not exactly the same as what is the case in 2006. In other words, the teachings of the Catholic Church are not immutable.
The fact that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc., did not agree on all specifics does not indicate a lack of unity to their essential teachings. Likewise, the Catholic Church does not reject those theologians who are not in agreement with all the principles to which they currently adhere. The unifying factors include agreement on those doctrines that define orthodoxy, which are in Scripture, were defined in the first six ecumenical councils, and are part of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine (the Trinity, the divine inspiration of Scripture, the Substitutionary Atonement, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, eternal reward and punishment), as well as specific doctrines on which they concurred and which are Protestant distinctives, such as the five "solas", the priesthood of the believer and the primary definition of the church on earth as the invisible body of Christ made up of believers, rather than the institutional church.
Those who adhere to these doctrines are Protestants; those who don't are not. R.C. Sproul and Alfred Mohler are Protestants; Shelby Spong and Peter Gomes are not. By your definition of Catholic, Karl Keating and Scott Hahn are Catholics, but Hans Kung and Nicholas Gruner are not.
*Grant accepted :)
However, not all the theologians who are considered Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church over the centuries are in 100% agreement with Catholic doctrine as it stands in 2006.
*Were they alive, they would be. All Holy Mother Church Teaches is part of the Original Deposit of Faith. Over time, guided by the Holy Spirit, we see the truth more deeply and clearly
Augustine of Hippo was closer to Calvin and Luther in soteriology than is the modern Catholic church, specifically, the issue of divine election vs. free will.
*Not even close. I understand why Calvinists try and co-opt him though.
Thomas Aquinas had problems with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as Catholic teachings define it (though not denying the Virgin Mary's sinless condition when Jesus Christ was conceived
*Yep, and as I memorised back in the day "WOW" supplied the explanation WOW is William of Ware
Modern day Catholic doctrine teaches that non-Catholic Christians, and even Jews and Moslems, may possibly be saved, a sharp contrast with the anathemas of the Council of Trent, which condemned all who do not believe in the specific doctrines of Catholicism to Hell.
*Not at all. Vatican Two tied together two, seemingly contradictory, Traditions.
The traditionalist faction, which thinks itself as the only true Catholics left on earth, regard the changes in the Mass, mostly adopted in the 1960s, as incorporating Masonic, Protestant, and pagan practices. Thus, in their opinion, which is closer to that of the Catholic Church of the 16th through 19th Centuries than is modern mainstream Catholicism, the Mass and the sacraments as they exist in mainstream Catholicism are as invalid as those in Protestant churches.
*LOL Dont I know that ... I think of them as Protestants in Fiddlebacks
The fact is that Catholic doctrine has changed and developed over the centuries, especially in those areas not specifically addressed in Scripture, such as transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, the celibacy of the priesthood, etc.
*Doctrine develops it does not change. I'll give you a million dollars if you can cite ONE Doctrinal Change. Try Usury, Try Slavery etc. You will fail.
It was not until the Council of Trent that the Deuterocanonical books were finally and dogmatically included in the canon of Catholic Scripture.
*Just because it hadn't been formally defined doesn't mean it wasn't part of Tradition.
The definition of who is a Catholic is adherence to Catholic doctrine, drawn from Scripture, tradition, and those teachings of the Papacy and church councils deemed infallible, as it stands at a particular moment in time. What defined Anselm, Bellarmine, or Newman as Catholic in their particular eras is not exactly the same as what is the case in 2006. In other words, the teachings of the Catholic Church are not immutable.
*Of course they are. To be Catholic, one must maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority. It has always been thus
The fact that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc., did not agree on all specifics does not indicate a lack of unity to their essential teachings.
*It sure does. Shall I limn all the ways they disagreed over essentials?
Likewise, the Catholic Church does not reject those theologians who are not in agreement with all the principles to which they currently adhere.
*Try reading Instruction on The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian promulgated when our current Pope was Prefect of the Congregation for thew Doctrine of the Faith
The unifying factors include agreement on those doctrines that define orthodoxy, which are in Scripture, were defined in the first six ecumenical councils, and are part of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine (the Trinity, the divine inspiration of Scripture, the Substitutionary Atonement, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, eternal reward and punishment), as well as specific doctrines on which they concurred and which are Protestant distinctives, such as the five "solas", the priesthood of the believer and the primary definition of the church on earth as the invisible body of Christ made up of believers, rather than the institutional church.
Those who adhere to these doctrines are Protestants; those who don't are not. R.C. Sproul and Alfred Mohler are Protestants; Shelby Spong and Peter Gomes are not. By your definition of Catholic, Karl Keating and Scott Hahn are Catholics, but Hans Kung and Nicholas Gruner are not.
*It is the Catholic Church's Teaching on what is necessarty to be Catholic. Again, it is not "mine"
MIne would be much more severe :)
Yeah..but as for having to publicly admit as much it is a bit like being forced to eat SPAM at a table where everybody else is eating giant slabs from a beautiful Prime Rib Roast.
No sola Scriptura means that God has, in the sense of a past tense, reviled all there is to know about him. Of course the historical formation of the Bible proves that wrong, because in order for that to be true, the Bible would have had to come down as a single one time event like the Muslim revelation. No more is to be added to our Bible because the Church says so. And the Church is herself inspired by the Holy Spirit in making that assertion.
If a book or person claims to have favor with God and speak the voice of God and contradict the Bible, then one of the sources IS NOT from God. You pick.
And for that reason Catholics do not accept things which contradict what has been reviled in the Bible. This does not however mean that revelation is confined solely to the Bible, but that the Bible is a measure of Truth. After all, if all that Christ did and taught were written down, there would not be enough libraries to hold the Books. And in any case, in order to rely on the Bible alone, one would need assurance of private interpretation, something which is inherently un-scriptural. Thus Sola Scriptura is a self contradictory doctrine, as well as being unhistorical.
You stated a hypothesis that the Fathers and Doctors of past centuries would wholly agree with the teachings of Catholicism as it stands in 2006, even though their writings during their life indicate disagreement on specific issues. Hans Kung and Nicholas Gruner are men in 2006 who do not wholly agree with these teachings. There is no need to speculate as to where they stand. I further understand that Father Gruner may presently be in active disobedience to his ecclesiastical superiors. How then, given the definition in Lumen Gentium, can these men be Catholics?
As for Gruener, he is suspended a divinis due to his disobedience. I don't know much about any heresies he might be attached to
Frankly, we are far too lax :)
With this much ignorance (about Samhain, Oidhche Shamhna) displayed this early on, I was not encouraged to read what followed.
It's sounds very much like a transcription from a taped recording of a class he taught. He spoke the way it is set down and this can be somewhat confusing when you read it. Of course there are no bookmarks, the man was brilliant and if he said he had read Luther's unpublished works, he did, and in the original Latin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.