My Story

Catholic Converts ^ | January 26, 2007 | Chris

[annalex]

Many of your own popes are good examples of that.

Of what? Calvin proposed wholly unorthodox, unheard-of before theological heresy. Which pope did anything similar?

[PetroniusMaximus]

“Of what? Calvin proposed wholly unorthodox, unheard-of before theological heresy.”

Well, I'm not a defender of Calvinism - but that's not quite true. Calvin got a lot of his ideas from Augustine.

“Which pope did anything similar?”



"... Honorius I was condemned and excommunicated for heresy by the sixth general council in 680. The heresy in question was Montheism in which Jesus is seen as a divine-human, rather than the orthodox belief of physeis that he is both fully God and fully man. Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople wrote to Honorius asking him to decide the question that was causing much division at the time. Instead of clarifying the view of the Church, Honorius did nothing. His lack of action was so scandalous that for 3 centuries, each new Pope had to state at his coronation that he: “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” The Roman Breviary contained the condemnation of Honorius on the Feast of St Leo II right up until the 18th century. "

[PetroniusMaximus]

“Someone suggested Mark.”

Only an arch HERETIC or an APOSTATE would suggest studying Mark before Matthew!!!!!!

I protest!!!! and I am officially splitting off from this hypocritical and heretical “Bible study” and will be starting my own Bible study!!!

So there!!!

;)

[annalex]

Even assuming all your quote suggests, all Honorius did was not clarifying the proper doctrine in the face of heresy. This has nothing in common with Calvin who simply started a new religion and claimed the leadership of the Holy Ghost in doing so.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“As Papertyger commented, they are requirements within the God-given jurisdiction of the Church to regulate the lives of the faithful (Matthew 18).”

annalex & papertyger, let’s look at an example:

“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” Col 2.

Paul here is saying not to allow anyone to “pass judgement” on you in matters of food or drink. St. Paul told believers not to allow anyone, no one, nobody to pass judgement on them regarding food and drink. He is laying out a principle of personal freedom that flows naturally out of Jesus death on the cross. (Col 2; 14-16)

Do you think that the RCC now has the authority to “pass judgment on [believers]in questions of food and drink”???

[PetroniusMaximus]

“all Honorius did was not clarifying the proper doctrine in the face of heresy. “

You asked for something similar, I gave you something similar (in your frame of reference).

*****************

“This has nothing in common with Calvin who simply started a new religion and claimed the leadership of the Holy Ghost in doing so.”

Calvin did not “start a new religion”. He sought to reform Christianity. You're just worked up.

Mohamed started a new religion.

[papertyger]

Do you think that the RCC now has the authority to “pass judgment on [believers]in questions of food and drink”???

How many languages you I have to tell you "yes" in before you get it?

Frankly, I regard your reading of Col 2 of the same pedigree as the Pharisee's accusation against the disciples for harvesting on the Sabbath.

[annalex]

It is "the world", not the Church that is attempting to pass judgement in Colossians 2:

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, 17 Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, 19 And not holding the head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God. 20 If then you be dead with Christ from the elements of this world, why do you yet decree as though living in the world?

Indeed, Christians are free from the dietetic and calendaric restrictions that the Judaizers attempted to impose on them.

[annalex]

OK, technically, Calvinists are Christians, but I cannot think of a more radical departure from Christian patrimony than the fantastical notion of predestination to hell. This goes to the ontological essence of God.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“but I cannot think of a more radical departure from Christian patrimony than the fantastical notion of predestination to hell. This goes to the ontological essence of God.”

I very much agree with you on this. I debate them regularly

[PetroniusMaximus]

“How many languages you I have to tell you “yes” in before you get it?”

I was hoping you would eventually hit upon a language that forced you to use common sense! :) (it's a joke)

************

“Frankly, I regard your reading of Col 2 of the same pedigree as the Pharisee's accusation against the disciples for harvesting on the Sabbath.”

An intriguing notion. Please explain further.

How could the defense of Christian freedom against legalism be viewed as Pharisee-ism?

[Paridel]

I am Anglican, but have many Catholic friends and have been attending a Catholic weekly bible study for some time. I have a great respect for the Catholic church, although there are some minor issues I have that in no way preclude me from doubting the faith of my fellow believers in the Catholic church. In fact, reading the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict I feel like the Church is addressing the issues I have, and hope that in due time the Anglican church will be able to again be in full communion with Rome.

I am of course also very upset with some the views portions of my church have taken (e.g., on homosexuality). We lack the strong hierarchy of the Catholic church which to some extent has allowed this to occur. So I am keenly aware of the need to stand fast by our principles.

However, I am greatly confused by your attitude towards other Christians. Also by your lumping Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses in with churchs such as the Anglicans and Lutherans.

It should not surprise you that the Catholic Church (and what I view as the catholic church -- being all true believers Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or otherwise) has a way of distinguishing true Christians and their beliefs. This is in our creeds (the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed). I say these every week as I am sure you do in mass. Furthermore, the Catholic church recognizes the baptisms of church's that baptize with water and in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They do not of course recognize Mormon baptisms.

Perhaps it will also surprise you the extend that the Catholic church is pursuing "we agree on X, Y, and Z" statements of faith with other denominations.

I encourage you to read Pope John Paul II's call for Christian Unity Ut unum sint.

Furthermore, I would like to point out the works produced by groups such as the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (e.g., "The Gift of Authority"), and the similar commissions with the Lutheran and Methodist churches. Or things such as Cardinal Ratzinger's "fraternal regards" to Episcopals trying to fight the gay influence in our church.

Clearly the Catholic Church sees good in finding common ground, and has indeed (thankfully) backed away from the more caustic positions seen previously (e.g., Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos)

-paridel

[TheThirdRuffian]

I have not forgotten about this; I have an inquiry out to how to handle the mechanics on an online bible study.

The interaction issue is difficult.