 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 09:46 am |
|
Has anyone ever heard of someone making a family tree of all the Protestant denominations/churches that have formed since the Reformation? If not, that would be a noteworthy project to on which to work. It could be a witnessing tool to Protestants to show the stability of the Catholic Church.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
DavidVS
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 45 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Disappointed Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 12:18 pm |
|
I don't know about other Protestant denominations but I did learn the history of the Church of England last night on the History Channel. As you know, the Church of England is the mother church to the Episcopal Church in the USA and other countries.
In a nutshell, this is it: Henry VIII, the King of England, badly wanted a male heir. He and his wife were having no luck, so he thought he'd divorce her and try again with Ann Boleyn. Since England was a Catholic country at the time, Henry asked the Pope to grant a divorce. The Pope refused. In a rage, Henry told the Pope he had no more authority in England. Henry seized all the Catholic churches in England, renamed them the Church of England and made himself head of the church. He granted himself a divorce and married Ann Boleyn. Things didn't go to well with Ann either so Henry, head of the Church of England, had her beheaded.
As far as I know, that is the illustrious history of the Church of England and it's affiliated Episcopal churches throughout the world. Their founder was King Henry VIII, a madman and murderer.
I mean no offense to members of the Episcopal Church. But facts are facts and . . . the truth will set you free.
____________________
http://www.MiracleRequest.Com
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 01:39 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: Has anyone ever heard of someone making a family tree of all the Protestant denominations/churches that have formed since the Reformation? If not, that would be a noteworthy project to on which to work. It could be a witnessing tool to Protestants to show the stability of the Catholic Church.
I've seen such a thing actually shaped like a tree, but I can't tell you offhand where I saw it. I'll try to see if I can find something. David Emery probably has one tatooed on the back of his hand or as his screensaver. He has everything!
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 208 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 01:51 pm |
|
David:
You basically have it correct. Was he a madman? I'm not sure about that. Murderer? Yes, undeed. But note: Henry never used the word divorce because, in his own mind, he knew that divorce was wrong and Henry considered himself Catholic till the day he died. He used Annulment.
Henry was actually quite a learned scholar. He got a dispensation from the Pope to marry his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon (9 yrs. his senior). Catherine had several male children but all died in infancy. Mary (later Queen) was the only surviving child of Catherine. (Henry had several other children by mistresses, only one of which he acknowledged). He was unable to get the Pope to nullify his marriage to Catherine, so then he took the step to break with Rome. Then he nullified his marriage to Catherine. Anne Boleyn only had the daughter Elizabeth -also no males. Henry had her beheaded after accusing her of infidelity with her brother and others. Third wife Lady Jane Grey died giving birth to Edward VI. Number 4 (Anne of Cleves) was nullified, number 5 (Catherine Howard) was beheaded, and number 6 (Catherine Parr) outlived Henry.
How do those of the Anglican tradition justify their denomionational split with Rome?
Here are examples: (1) "For many years the Church in England was isolated from Rome and developed differently". Problem: In any case, before and during Henry's early reign it was certainly connected with Rome. Around 1520 Henry was named "Defender of the Faith" by the Pope for his opposition to Luther. (2) "It wasn't unusualy for popes to grant annulments to Kings for political reasons, but in this case the Pope was having problems with Catherine's nephew, Charles V, and was a virtual prisoner in Castel Gandolfo." Problem: By the time of the final split, The Pope's problem with Charles V had eased and besides, who held the moral high ground here? (3) "England's national pride prevented them from being subjugated to a foreign Pope." Problem: That was not a problem prior to Henry's decision. (4) "The split was part of the general Protestant reformation." This may be more accurate.
After Mary's (dau. of Catherine) short reign there was a legitimate heir, Mary Queen of Scots (Henry's neice), but she was a Stuart (and Catholic) so Elizabeth I made sure she was kept apart and eventually had her executed. The son of Mary Queen of Scots became King James. Yes, the one that appointed the committee to write that version of the Bible.
These arguments above plus theological arguments about the meaning of the Eucharist (The Lutheran argument was adopted)are so ingrained into Anglican teaching that it makes it difficult for them to consider the Church in Rome. Note that Queen Mary is still called "Bloody Mary" and Elizabeth I is still called "Good Queen Bess," in those circles. A good movie about this is "A Man for All Seasons" which won an Academy Award in the 60's. Also read Cardinal John Henry Newman.
Regards
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 166 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 01:59 pm |
|
Darlene -
If there isn't anything online, in the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, publ. 1965, Rev. Albert Nevins ed., - there is a family tree, or, "schematic" of what you're talking about on the inside cover and back pages ( 2 page spread), showing the derivation of the principal Protestant denominations and their relation to each other.
God bless. 
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 03:11 pm |
|
Darlene, here are a few links that may be of some help. Note that I have elsewhere mentioned that nobody can calculate exactly how many different denominations or churches there are because of several factors: How do we define “denomination”? How do we discover denominations that are so small only the members know who they are? How do we count non-denominational “denominations” where no actual denominational superstructure exists? How do we keep track of the splits and start-ups, especially those that are not advertised? Do we include or exclude cults and frauds posing as Christian denominations? Etc., etc.
This is one of the best charts I have seen of denominational heritage. It is by no means complete, but it is far more than I have seen elsewhere. Note that it was compiled by an interdenominational group.
This is the classic study on denominations done by David B. Barrett and others. It has been updated several times, the latest showing about 38,000 Christian denominations according to the definitions worked out by Barrett. His definitions and methods have been criticized by both Catholics and Protestants (as well as sociologists), but what he has assembled is still the best listing we are likely to get from anyone.
This is one Catholic apologist’s take on Barrett’s figures.
The bottom line on the number of denominations and their various historical and creedal interrelations is that quantifiable and verifiable information is available in only a few instances. The rest must be compiled by extrapolation and conjecture. That’s not very helpful, but the human heart is not very reliable, either.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 04:19 pm |
|
Here are some other references that are more or less visual.
Wikipedia: Also shows the Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches which the Catholic Church recognizes as having valid sacraments and doctrine. Click on each denomination to see the derivations.
Catholic Update: Text only. Can be ordered for mass distribution.
Jewish Origins: Shows the Jewish derivation of all Christian branches. Very visual, shaped like a menorah.
Religious Tolerance: Their chart shows the organizer of each major branch of Christianity from the Amish to the Unification church. It is interesting that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, according to their chart, share the same founders: Jesus and Paul.
Request.org: A UK web site obviously Protestant in its leanings, has a visual representation of the major breaks. It starts with the Great Schism of 1054 and shows the Catholic Church as just another branch, albeit the only one without a starting date.
None of these show the "tree" format that I originally hoped for. I will continue to look for it and let you know if I find it.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
AB
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29th, 2006 11:08 am |
|
David VS,
I think your analysis of the Anglican Church is incomplete. At the time of Henry VIII, the Protestant Reformation was actively spreading across Europe. England had its own Protestant movements that were trying to gain traction, both Calvinist and Lutheran. The actions of Henry provided the spark, but plenty of fuel had gathered and was ready to burst into flame.
You might think of Henry as similar to Constantine, who was not above arranging the murder of his brother-in-law to achieve sole control of the Roman empire and whose motives with regard to the church could be viewed with suspicion. The significance of the church flowering in the fourth century does not rest with Constantine alone, as important as he was. It rests fundamentally on the church itself and how it was being prepared for this moment.
Similarly, the English Protestant movement was ready to burst forth, and Henry happened to be the one who took advantage of this already existing phenomenon. Many in this forum have noted that Popes who have acted inappropriately do not make the entire Catholic Church corrupt or invalidate its authority. We should take care to exercise the same discretion with regard to the Protestant movement.
All of that said, I do not believe that any of this necessarily affects the Catholic judgment that the Anglican Church is in apostasy and no longer has valid orders or sacraments. It's just that the legitimacy of Anglicanism does not depend on the behavior of Henry VIII. The true argument lies elsewhere.
There has been a lot of papal behavior over the centuries that has been at least as bad as Henry's and, in some cases worse. I agree with those who say that this does not remove the authority of the Catholic Church, but let's not turn around and make an argument against Protestants that the Church rejects when it is applied to itself.
AB
|
|
|
DavidVS
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 45 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Disappointed Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29th, 2006 11:22 am |
|
AB,
I believe there is another difference between the Anglican Church and other Protestant churches. When Henry VIII formed the Church of England, he siezed all the Catholic cathedrals in England and turned them over to the new Church of England.
When Martin Luther and others left, I believe they just left - and built their own churches. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Please correct me if I am wrong. I am not trying to pick on the Anglican Church, I am just trying to gain a clear understanding of the history of Christianity.
Last edited on Thu Nov 30th, 2006 01:40 pm by DavidVS
____________________
http://www.MiracleRequest.Com
|
|
|
AB
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30th, 2006 05:54 pm |
|
David VS,
I think this is incorrect, although there may have been some different experiences throughout Germany and the other Lutheran countries. In the German states, the general principle was that the religion of the area depended on the religion of the ruler. Thus, there were some areas (southern Bavaria, for example) that stayed predominately Catholic. I visited Nuremberg a few years ago, which is in an area known as Franconia (in the state of Bavaria). The two old churches, St. Sebald and St. Lawrence date from the 13th-15th centuries and are Lutheran. The main Catholic Church on the square, Frauenkirche, dates from about 1816. Apparently, the old Catholic churches in the city became Lutheran, while the Catholics needed to build a new church several centuries later, when that became possible.
In Munich, which was in a Catholic area, I believe the old main church (also called Frauenkirche--Our Lady's Church) remained Catholic.
AB
|
|
|
Truthseeker
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | Costa Mesa, California USA |
| Posts: | 340 |
| First Name: | Laura | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | lapsed and returned CATHOLIC!!!!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30th, 2006 06:23 pm |
|
AB wrote:
There has been a lot of papal behavior over the centuries that has been at least as bad as Henry's and, in some cases worse. I agree with those who say that this does not remove the authority of the Catholic Church,AB
Hi AB-
Can I ask you....? I've never heard a non-Catholic say things like this. How can you, as a non-Catholic, believe in any kind of Catholic church authority? And how can you believe in any Catholic church authority and not become Catholic?
You're the only person I "know" who seems to accept the Catholic church without being on the road to Rome, so to speak. I am always confused by this. But...you do show me a thing or two about charity. You do always post with respect for whatever beiliefs you post about, even if they are not your own. I'm trying to learn that from you.
love,
Laura
____________________
Lord, please make my will your Will!
|
|
|
AB
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 1st, 2006 11:41 am |
|
Dear Laura,
My point was that the behavior of neither Henry VIII, nor that of misbehaving Popes or bishops, can be used as a basis for denying the authority of their respective churches. The argument must be based on other factors.
Personally, I struggle. I strongly connected to a tradition with a rich heritage and through which the gospel has been made real for me, in which I have experienced the grace of Jesus Christ, and in which I find supportive fellowship in my journey of faith. At the same time, I am strongly attracted to the continuity of the Catholic Church, its central role in articulating and initially defining doctrine, and its spirituality (particularly the Mass and contemplative monastic orders).
For the moment, I try to live in both worlds to some degree. I try to get to weekday masses when I can, and I go on retreat in a monastery once or twice a year. I have a friend who is a retired priest and former protestant with whom I can share things. For the moment, this will have to do, and I will have to rely on God's grace, as must we all.
Although I do appreciate the Catholic Church very much, there are some things that hold me back. First, a little more charity on the part of the church could have avoided much of the division that took place in the Reformation. Luther believed, with some justification, that abuses were occurring in the sale of indulgences and appealed to the Pope believing that the Holy Father would be responsive to obvious abuses of the church's authority. Instead, he received a bull of excommunication. The church waited 100 years to make the needed reforms and did so in a way that drew a wall to keep the reformers out instead of a door to bring them back in.
Second, the church's practice on intercommunion is confused. The teaching, as I understand it, is that intercommunion must await a full organic and visible union among Christians, presumably in the Catholic Church. To me, this makes the sacrament a sign of grace rather than a means of grace, an almost protestant interpretation. It shows a lack of confidence that the Holy Spirit, acting through the sacraments, could achieve what we cannot under our own efforts. More important, it places agreement on doctrine ahead of everything else in the Christian life. (I do understand, however, that most on this site are current or former evangelicals for whom agreement on doctrine is extremely important.)
To this extent, the approach to Protestants defined by the Council of Trent is still in effect, albeit in a civil and gentle spirit. After nearly 500 years, how's that working out for you? The Catholic Church and the Orthodox communion have agreed on virtually everything except for the specific role of the Pope, and the Pope is still unable to share the Eucharist with his Orthodox brothers. I understand that the church must set some boundaries, but it has set them so closely, so rigidly, and so defensively that any final reconciliation is virtually impossible without full capitulation.
My journey is not yet over, and I may yet find a way to overcome all that keeps me away. (There is more, but this is enough for now.) I am still on the road, and I continue to be greatly blessed by the gospel in both the communities in which I share.
AB
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 1st, 2006 02:40 pm |
|
AB wrote: Although I do appreciate the Catholic Church very much, there are some things that hold me back. First, a little more charity on the part of the church could have avoided much of the division that took place in the Reformation. Luther believed, with some justification, that abuses were occurring in the sale of indulgences and appealed to the Pope believing that the Holy Father would be responsive to obvious abuses of the church's authority. Instead, he received a bull of excommunication. The church waited 100 years to make the needed reforms and did so in a way that drew a wall to keep the reformers out instead of a door to bring them back in.
There certainly were abuses in the Church. However, that does not excuse the invention of doctrine. Church leaders were not blameless in the excesses that were taking place in the Church during Martin Luther's time. Corruption was rampant, but that did not justify his deletion of books from the thousand-year old Canon of Scripture, the creation of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide as doctrines, the ordination of priests and bishops, etc., etc. The Church actually addressed Luther's concerns in a timely manner for the Church: Future cardinals were chosen who were more interested in reforming the abuses, leading to a less corrupt and more spiritual pope who ultimately called a council that enacted the reforms.
Things happened much slower then. There were no telephones, no overnight mail, no teleconferences, no Internet. It probably took months for Luther's message to even reach the pope and when it did, it was a letter from a single priest to a corrupt ruler who was much more interested in amassing personal wealth than in the spiritual life of his flock. The process of reform couldn't begin until after his death, and then the deaths of cardinals and bishops who were personally benefiting from the corruption. We see it in politics even today. There can't be true political reform because the politicians who would have to enact the reforms are the ones putting the money in their pockets, whether they're called campaign contributions, honorariums, speaking fees, or bribes. The only difference is that some are legal and others are not. It is slowly getting better, but the process is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Luther started a revolution when an evolution was what was needed. Jesus started the last necessary revolution. He established his Church and guaranteed through the Holy Spirit that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
When the "Traditional Catholic" movement led by Archbishop Lefevre and others began in the 70's in response to the change of the mass from Latin to the vernacular, what they initially wanted was permission to continue to use the so-called Tridentine style of liturgy. The permission was granted to them in the early 1980's because their argument was actually reasonable. Did they wait for the Church to study the issue and for the Holy Father to address the matter? No. They broke from the Catholic Church and formed their own schismatic denominations. Now that they have been given what they initially wanted (and the rules are probably going to be loosened even further in the near future), there are additional problems. They have established their own seminaries, ordained their own priests and bishops, and even elected popes! Once you denounce the authority of the Church, anything can and will happen. Healing the wounds is much harder than it would have been initially because their errors and heresies have compounded. They want it their way instead of God's way.
Luther was not excommunicated because of his statements against the abuses of the Church. When the reforms were enacted, the Church was actually validating his position. He was excommunicated for denying the authority of the Church, revising the bible, inventing new doctrine, ordaining ministers, confiscating churches, etc. And even today, when Protestants denounce false doctrines, they are welcomed into the Church with open arms.
Second, the church's practice on intercommunion is confused. The teaching, as I understand it, is that intercommunion must await a full organic and visible union among Christians, presumably in the Catholic Church. To me, this makes the sacrament a sign of grace rather than a means of grace, an almost protestant interpretation. It shows a lack of confidence that the Holy Spirit, acting through the sacraments, could achieve what we cannot under our own efforts. More important, it places agreement on doctrine ahead of everything else in the Christian life. (I do understand, however, that most on this site are current or former evangelicals for whom agreement on doctrine is extremely important.)
I don't think the Church's position on intercommunion is confused at all. The Church believes that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of our Savior containing the Soul and Divinity of God. The Church insists that those who receive communion in the Catholic Church (and thus consume the entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus the Christ) profess and accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and do so in a visible manner. Currently, only the Catholic, Orthodox, Eastern Oriental, and Polish National Churches accept the Real Presence in the same way as the Catholic Church, and members of those Churches are allowed full intercommunion. The Orthodox are even more strict. Even though they accept orders, sacraments, and doctrines of the Catholic Church as valid, they believe intercommunion is dependent on visible union, so Pope Benedict was not able to concelebrate with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, nor to receive Eucharist at the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
The Church's position on intercommunion, by the way, is based on Paul's warning to those who sin against the Body and the Blood by failing to discern its true nature. It is not the Church's rule; it is God's rule as set out in inspired Scripture.
To this extent, the approach to Protestants defined by the Council of Trent is still in effect, albeit in a civil and gentle spirit. After nearly 500 years, how's that working out for you? The Catholic Church and the Orthodox communion have agreed on virtually everything except for the specific role of the Pope, and the Pope is still unable to share the Eucharist with his Orthodox brothers.
This is based on beliefs of the Orthodox, not the Catholics. The Catholic Church would (and does) happily allow the Orthodox to receive Eucharist and even concelebrate mass in the Catholic Church. However, the Orthodox have not given that permission to the members of their Church, and they do not allow Catholics to receive sacraments in Orthodox Churches except in extreme circumstances. The Pope did not share Eucharist with his Orthodox brothers out of his respect for their rules, not his.
I understand that the church must set some boundaries, but it has set them so closely, so rigidly, and so defensively that any final reconciliation is virtually impossible without full capitulation.
So should the Church allow intercommunion with those who do not accept the Church's teachings and doctrines, as the Anglicans do? I certainly don't think so. Should the Precious Flesh and Blood of our Savior be handed to someone who thinks it's merely bread and wine? No. That would be a grave sin against the Body and Blood, and would be a direct violation of the teachings of scripture. The Church cannot defy scripture.
You call it capitulation.
I call it accepting Truth.
The Church has shown, in its dialogue with the Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, as well as in the Joint Declaration on Justification with the Lutherans, that it is willing to bend over backwards to accept language that describes valid doctrine in a way that is more acceptable to those of other faiths. It has accepted the Nicene Creed without the filoque, it has agreed to theosis, it has changed the explanations of major items of doctrine without changing the doctrines themselves (which it cannot do).
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Truthseeker
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | Costa Mesa, California USA |
| Posts: | 340 |
| First Name: | Laura | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | lapsed and returned CATHOLIC!!!!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 1st, 2006 06:00 pm |
|
Thanks AB,
You've shared alot. I, like Rick, understand why non-catholics can't receive the Eucharist. Not only because it is the Body amd Blood of Jesus Christ, but also like you said, because we believe it is a sign of unity and not the means to unity. Although, I believe it is a means of Grace as well as the sign. I heard on a tape once that it is the consumation of our unity just as marital relations are the consumation of the marital union, and no matter how much love is involved, it's not appropriate unless there is already a union. On the other hand, I know what it's like to not be able to receive and it's easier to accept the reasonings when the reasonings don't exclude you.
I'm glad you don't give up on the Catholic faith because of your doubts and questions. It was difficult for me when I first started questioning (remember way back when?), but my acceptance has been easier, because I have not had as much to compare. I can't imagine being "in the middle" for so long. God's blessing to you. Thanks for sharing.
Rick - Please be gentle in your answers. AB sounds sincere in his doubts.
Love to you both-
Laura
____________________
Lord, please make my will your Will!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 1st, 2006 06:17 pm |
|
Truthseeker wrote: Rick - Please be gentle in your answers. AB sounds sincere in his doubts.
I apologize if I sounded harsh. That was not my intention. It is often difficult to convey emotion in a written-only format. I love my Church in spite of its human flaws, and I accept her authority even when things are done that I consider wrong. If Martin Luther and the other heretics and schismatics in the last 2000 years had felt the same, we would be one Body of Christ today. As far as I know, the Church has never excommunicated anyone for highlighting things that were later corrected by the Church, including Luther. The excommunications came when they performed schismatic acts or accepted heresy.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
inept_apologist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 8 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 05:28 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
This is one of the best charts I have seen of denominational heritage. It is by no means complete, but it is far more than I have seen elsewhere. Note that it was compiled by an interdenominational group.
^^ Thanks for sharing this!! Very informative!
____________________
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist
|
|
|
Truthseeker
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | Costa Mesa, California USA |
| Posts: | 340 |
| First Name: | Laura | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | lapsed and returned CATHOLIC!!!!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 3rd, 2006 08:10 pm |
|
Rick-
I have learned to love the church the same way. Partly beause of you. Thanks so much for always helping me to understand all that's hard to understand.
Love to you-
____________________
Lord, please make my will your Will!
|
|
|
AB
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 12:02 pm |
|
Dear Rick,
I apologize if my post was interpreted as being an attack on the church. To some degree, it was also off-topic. I simply tried to answer a question that was put to me, essentially, "Why are you not Catholic?" Although my response certainly has content that can (and probably should) be challenged, it is probably best to read it in terms of my feelings along with my thinking. My experience in trying to explain the practices and teaching of my own tradition leads me to understand that even practices that have a cogent explanation attached sometimes create feelings of pain or rejection. I hope, then, that my comments can be understood in terms of a friendly dialogue among Christians as described in "Ut Unum Sint."
I understand why the Pope felt that he must excommunicate Luther. At the same time, one can understand, I think, how Luther's statements against Papal authority and the nature of penance might have stemmed from what he regarded as a longstanding refusal to deal with the abuse of indulgences and the use of them for fundraising purposes. (The same point had been pursued in the 15th century by Jan Hus, the Bavarian reformer.) Both Luther and Pope Leo X were very strong individuals, and there seems to have been more of a tendency during that time for people to bring conflicts to head rather than to find ways of working through them.
Also, both Luther and Leo were working without the benefit of hindsight, and I suspect that neither of them fully understood the long-term impact of their actions and how we would still be so divided after nearly 500 years. Regardless of fault, then, (and I think there was plenty of fault on both sides) I have come to be very sad that all of us who seek to follow Jesus Christ as faithful disciples are so divided from each other and how we understand so little of what leads other Christians to do as they do. There were powerful historical forces at work, and it's hard to see how these great divisions could have been avoided. Yet, I wish this had not had to be. So I appreciate the Holy Father's recent statement that suggested that divisions among Christians are a "scandal" on all of us. (These are not his exact words, but I understood him to say this in a way that did not exempt of us from at least some degree of responsibility.)
My comments on the Eucharist probably reflect my feelings as much as my feeling, but I have read a number of explanations of the current position on intercommunion. The Catechism and the declaration on ecumenism from Vatican II seem to locate the problem in the lack of valid orders, and I recall reading official documents that locate the problem in the lack of full unity. I have seen it expressed in a variety of ways, and none of them are really satisfying to me on an emotional level. I don't mean for this to sound critical because I was on the other side of the argument when I had to make similar arguments before my own tradition changed its practice. The Catholic Church must form its sacramental practice to its own conscience, and it should not change because I think it should change. My comments are simply offered for whatever value people may put on them, and I do not mean to give offense.
In general, Rick, I appreciate the spirit that you bring as a moderator. You have a difficult role in seeking to create a welcoming environment in which people can ask questions and yet also defending the heart of the church's teaching. You do it remarkably well, and I appreciate your efforts. We can look forward to the day when we are no longer divided.
AB
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 01:27 pm |
|
AB wrote:
I apologize if my post was interpreted as being an attack on the church.
I didn't take it as an attack, and I apologize if my response seemed to be a defense. That was not my intention.
I took it as a look at the shameful situation in the second millennium of Christianity, starting with the Great Schism of 1054, from a very Protestant perspective rather than an objective one.
Face it: No one was right. The Catholics certainly weren't, but the Protestants weren't, either. Each side took it as an attack on the other. Unfortunately, they couldn't pick up the phone or establish a teleconference to clear things up.
In the last 40 years, since Vatican II, I truly believe the Catholic Church has bent over backwards to heal as many rifts as possible without compromising doctrine. The warm reception of Pope Benedict by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew last week is an excellent example of the fruit of that effort. For the first time, I am starting to feel optimistic that the Great Schism could be healed during my lifetime, or at least intercommunion established. IF that should happen, I will rush to the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in New Orleans to worship joyfully with them.
But if the Catholic Church truly believes it has Truth on its side (which I believe it does), then it cannot compromise essential doctrine. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have called for a dialogue with the Orthodox to redefine the Petrine ministry in a way that will be compatible with Orthodox teaching. It may be as simple as saying that the Holy Father grants automatic authority to the Patriarch of each autonomous Church to appoint bishops, approve liturgy, etc., and that the infallibility of the Chair of Peter is valid only when shared with the other Apostolic Sees. That would not compromise Catholic doctrine, but would become much more acceptable to the Orthodox. It would amount to a "capitulation" on the part of the Church and yet would not compromise Truth.
As for intercommunion, that can only take place with others who accept the Eucharist as it really is. Anyone who denies the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Eucharist cannot be permitted at our table. It would endanger their very soul. So on that issue, there can be no compromise.
At the same time, I admit my inclination is to defend my Church, which I truly love. The more I study and learn, the more I realize how little I know, and the deeper in love I fall. I feel truly sorry for those who receive the Eucharist without a full realization that they actually hold our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in their hands, on their tongue, and in their body. How sad for them! And it would be sadder still if we allowed intercommunion with those who don't even profess belief in the Real Presence. I have been invited to receive communion in Protestant churches and I could never do it. It's simply not Eucharist, and sometimes nothing is better than a poor substitute.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 166 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 01:41 pm |
|
AB -
In your letter to Rick you mentioned -
"The Catechism and the declaration on ecumenism from Vatican II seem to locate the problem in the lack of valid orders, and I recall reading official documents that locate the problem in the lack of full unity. I have seen it expressed in a variety of ways, and none of them are really satisfying to me on an emotional level. "
In this regard, are you familiar with JPII's Theology of the Body ? I believe it goes a long way in addressing Eucharistic theology, and certainly on an emotional / visceral level.
Also, -
"I understand why the Pope felt that he must excommunicate Luther. At the same time, one can understand, I think, how Luther's statements against Papal authority and the nature of penance might have stemmed from what he regarded as a longstanding refusal to deal with the abuse of indulgences and the use of them for fundraising purposes. (The same point had been pursued in the 15th century by Jan Hus, the Bavarian reformer.) Both Luther and Pope Leo X were very strong individuals, and there seems to have been more of a tendency during that time for people to bring conflicts to head rather than to find ways of working through them."
To your point, that's why the Church's teaching transcends any particular individual, even / especially Popes and others in servant leadership who have set poor examples of conduct.
That is also why Joan of Arc who was burned as a heretic became a saint, and the Bishop who condemned her was himself excommunicated.
Models for us then are those such as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Genoa, St. Therese of Lisieux, Bl. Sr. Maria Gabriella O.C.S.O., ....
Thanks for your thoughtful obeservations and opportunity to discuss from your point of view.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| | |
