Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
controversy over inclusive mass
-
19-04-2006 12:16pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Catholic and Church of Ireland hierarchies have expressed concern about the concelebration.
...Akrasia wrote:Catholic and Protestant churches have issued statements condemning this expression
Concern does not equal condemnation.
The Church are well within their right to tread cautiously with issues like this. I wouldn't agree with you that church leaders "insist" that we should remain seperate and divided. The fact of the matter is, catholics differ from protestants, because of their beliefs. At the end of the day, both denominations differ on important issues and neither want to end up confusing people. It's simply easier.
Again, I don't see how this qualifies as 'condemning' anything.0 -
scouser.tommy wrote:...
Concern does not equal condemnation.
The Church are well within their right to tread cautiously with issues like this. I wouldn't agree with you that church leaders "insist" that we should remain seperate and divided. The fact of the matter is, catholics differ from protestants, because of their beliefs. At the end of the day, both denominations differ on important issues and neither want to end up confusing people. It's simply easier.
Again, I don't see how this qualifies as 'condemning' anything.
It was a political statement, and the clear intention was to say to priests of both denominations 'Don't let this happen again'0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I am a dyed in the wool ecumenicist. I believe that unity (with diversity) amongst the Christian churches is one of the primary tasks of this generation's Christians. It is not something that will come about when we see the other aspects of God's Kingdom materialised. It is prior to the full ushering in of the regenerated world we are working towards.
As an evangelical Christian who wants to see unity amongst Christians, I believe that communion or Eucharist or bread-breaking or the Jesus feast or whatever you want to call it is the path to unity, not the result of it. I would hazard a guess that Wolfsbane sees communion to be a much more plainly symbolic action than I do. But we can both share communion over the risen Christ we proclaim as Lord and his (one and only
) sacrifice for us. I believe the major barrier to unity between the reformed churches and the Roman Catholic church is their refusal to break bread with us. All the other differences really are secondary (not to pretend that priestly marriage, ordained women, dismantled hierarchies and an end to mariology are not huge matters) but their refusal to share communion with other Christians is unsupportable to me. Whether we are transubstantative or consubstantative or symbolic or some other theological formulation, we all come to remember Christ in this meal and meet him afresh.
Brian said at one point that the Catholic church still claims to be the "One true Church". Sadly in practice this is true and is clearly seen in communion. But in doctrine the Catholic hierarchy have written that the Catholic Church "is subsumed within the invisible universal church". If this famous declaration is true, then community with Christ should be shared with the wider Christian community.
As a digression:wolfsbane wrote:As Michael points out, Mass is not just another version of the Lord's Supper that Protestants observe. It is an actual sacrifice for sins.
Well Michael either stopped being a Catholic after Vatican II or he is no longer a Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church does not believe that it is another sacrifice of sins. Arguing with a Catholicism from the 1600s won't win you any friends Wolfsbane. Maybe its because you seem so strongly attached to a "historical evangelistic" faith that no longer really exists. 0 -
Akrasia wrote:Can I just get this absolutely straight. Transtubstantiation means the physical change of the Eucharist from bread and wine, into Flesh and blood right?
The thing i really really don't understand is, if this physical change occurs, how come there is no physical change. if you did a scientific analysis on consecrated eucharist, you would discover that it's still bread and wine.
It is a substantative difference. Some disagreement exists over whether this is Aristotlean in origin or if it arose in the post-Ecumenical era. The Catholic church teaches that nonessential outward properties remain the same while a sustantial change (in a sort of Christianised Platonic form) produces an entirely new thing. The classic apologetic example is that of food when it metabolises. Metabolised food becomes part of our body in what would be deemed a natural substantial change. In the Eucharist, the supernatural substantial change leaves the bread chemically unchanged but somehow charges it with the essence of Christ.
But I am not the ideal advocate of transubstantiation.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
And I must go someway to regaining my Wolfsbane Authentic Evangelical badge when I agree that justification and sanctification by Grace alone and the supreme authority of Scripture are key doctrinal beliefs for the practicing, Christ worshipping Christian.
But crucially Wolfsbane, you are either unaware or disregard that Catholic doctrine holds firmly to both. For me, this is the deal breaker. Rather, deal maker. Darn it! Us ecumenical theistic evolutionist can never get our ideas straight. 0 -
-
-
wolfsbane wrote:Excelsior said:
Yes, I am indeed unaware that Catholic doctrine holds firmly to both. If you can show me that, I will gladly accept Romanism as authentically evangelical.
Lets see what you've got.
Hey let me clarify here Wolfy. No point in insulting Catholics and calling them evangelicals. Individual practising Roman Catholics can be evangelical in their expression of faith (and all Roman Catholics ought to be evangelistic) but the Catholic church wouldn't want to embrace the evangelical tag. But they do share the common primary beliefs (with admitted saddening diversity on the ground in parishes) of all orthodox Christianity through the ages, including in terms of soteriology and authority.
Now give me a moment to rifle through my Documents of Vatican II. In Dei Verbum (10), "Yet this magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it."
As for the debate about justification by faith alone, you must be aware of the 1997 joint delcaration between the Catholic and Lutheran churches on their shared, common and congruent understanding of salvation. URL="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html"]here[/URL
Far more informally, I was searching for a reference made by the Catholic bishops in 1994 and I found this from the Christmas sermon in the Papal household last year by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa:
"Christianity does not start with that which man must do to save himself, but with what God has done to save him...Gratuitous justification through faith in Christ is the heart...and it is a shame that this has been practically absent from the ordinary preaching of the church."
Doesn't look like the preaching of the private spiritual guide of the Antichrist to me. 0 -
Michael G wrote:Yes, that's fine, but what denomination do you say you belong to? Your description sounds like a definition of very low-church protestantism, which is fine if that is what you are. But it would be meaningless to call yourself a Roman Catholic or an Anglican. Wolfsbane's Tony Blair analogy is a good one.
Well I am actually an extraordinarily high church dissenter of the Calvinistic bent. My preferred label to let you box me with would be a Reformed Catholic. Crucially for this debate, my theological education was received at the hands of the premier English speaking Catholic seminary in the world, St. Patricks' Maynooth.Michael G wrote:By the way I think Wolfsbane has shown pretty clearly that I am not a 1600s Catholic; we still belive that the Mass is a sacrifice. One of the disturbing things about the Drogheda incident is the Irish Independent surveys afterwards which seemed to show that not only most "Catholics" but also most priests saw nothing wrong with it. What that indicates to me is that Catholic education, and priests' training, has collapsed. Most Catholics, and their priests, now seem to have a protestant understanding of the Eucharist.
Hmm. I wonder, then, if you are going to be able to stop this movement towards Christians eating communion in community.Michael G wrote:I may have to go over to the St Pius X people after all, but I still have hopes of the new Pope.
I have hopes for Ben XVI too but they are that he would return to his biblical roots which he and Hans Kung advocated during the last council and that he would let the Spirit guide the devout Catholics who hold that before the beautiful ideas of the Eucharist, there is the beautiful reality of a community of Christians created by the active force of the Spirit of God around the sacred bread and wine of the Jesus meal.
I know and love many Pius X people. But they aren't the Christians who have taken seriously Jesus' command to go out into the darkness to bring salt and light. Where sincere Catholics have chosen to take communion with sincere Christians from different traditions, then you have a problem so complex that I am thankful I fell in love with a girl before I became a Christian (and so ended up on track to be a Presbyterian minister rather than a celibate Priest. ) 0 -
Cantab. wrote:Leave the theology to the bishops and have some respect for those who devote their lives to their quest for truth.
Cantab, I really appreciate your posts on this forum but I have to pick on you over this. What right have you as a Christian to delegate theology to some experts? Were the Apostles experts? Was the greatest theologian of all time, a man who was busy setting up churches, getting beaten and making tents an expert? All Christians are called to devote their lives to the quest for truth and I don't think you should let this hierarchical view of truth persist.
You obviously have the ability and the motivation. Theologise!
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Excelsior said:
I agree - just got carried into hyperbole by the very thought of it!Hey let me clarify here Wolfy. No point in insulting Catholics and calling them evangelicals. Individual practising Roman Catholics can be evangelical in their expression of faith (and all Roman Catholics ought to be evangelistic) but the Catholic church wouldn't want to embrace the evangelical tag.
Now, that is the question. That Rome holds to some essential truths - like the deity of Christ - is agreed. But the nature of the gospel itself, what it means to be justified in God's sight, that is another matter.But they do share the common primary beliefs (with admitted saddening diversity on the ground in parishes) of all orthodox Christianity through the ages, including in terms of soteriology and authority.Now give me a moment to rifle through my Documents of Vatican II. In Dei Verbum (10), "Yet this magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it."
That is not a statement affirming the supremacy of Scripture. Note the two things said:
1. Yet this magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. That's OK.
2. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. This does not refer to Scripture alone, but to all its 'traditions' also. The Immaculate Conception of Mary, Mary's Assumption into heaven, etc. - none of which are mentioned in the Bible. Rome pronouces as dogma both the teachings of Scripture and the fables it has invented down the years. Both have equal authority according to Rome, and are equally binding on the conscience of every Catholic. To reject any is to be lost.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Yes, I am aware of that. It is a very carefully-worded document. Does it teach justification by faith alone? Not expressly. One might draw that conclusion if one took some phrases in that way; but not so if in another way. There seems to be a degree of wiggle room so that each side can avoid explicitly rejecting the historic understanding of their churches.As for the debate about justification by faith alone, you must be aware of the 1997 joint delcaration between the Catholic and Lutheran churches on their shared, common and congruent understanding of salvation. [here]
Yet is has indeed upset some conservative Catholics, who perceive a rejection of Trent's teaching on justification:
The same July 1999 article closely examines The Lutheran-Catholic Accord, exposing the cave-in by the “Catholic” Church to the Protestant concept of justification. The Accord was presented as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and received a tumultuous response from Catholics and Lutherans alike—both pro and con. For our purpose here there was pretty much general agreement that the Catholic Church finally came around to the Protestant theology that man is saved by “faith alone.” In fact the Wall Street Journal (11/3/99) celebrated this development by editorializing, “The joint declaration---effectively concedes the theological debate to Luther.” This conclusion was supported by the Accord throughout the document and was actually spelled out in the Annex of the original release which stated that one is justified by “faith alone.” It provoked such an outcry in conservative Catholic circles that a “clarification” was issued. The language of choice now is that man is saved by “grace alone.” All of this led to more protests from interested parties and the debate goes on.http://www.novusordowatch.org/story110305.htm
Evangelicals (authentic sort) take the other view:
Notice, "by grace alone" is not the same as "by faith alone." Notice, "not because of any merit on our part" does not exclude merit produced by the Spirit of God. Notice, "receiving the Holy Spirit" is not defined. Rome believes that the Holy Spirit is called down in the waters of infant baptism and imprinted in confirmation. Christians do not.
Along with this equivocating language there are some other twists which deserve our attention. Within JDJ there is an authentication of the use of the word "sacrament" as the way in which the Holy Spirit works. Lutherans and Roman Catholics disagree as to the exact number and essential meaning of the word "sacrament." But Sacramentalism is left within the document as though it were a Christian concept and somehow part of the Christian experience. It is not. Sacramentalism is taken to the limit by Rome. Rome teaches that her sacraments are necessary for salvation for those adherents to Romanism. Sacramentalism is more low key in Lutheranism but appears as a sort of common glue [point of common faith] in JDJ between the LWF and Rome. Christians would balk at Sacramentalism of any kind since the entire idea behind Sacramentalism undermines biblical justification. http://www.cwrc-rz.org/articles/article-004.php
Yes, pure gospel stuff. I hope he means it in the Evangelical understanding of those terms, not the traditional Roman one. The phrase practically absent could indicate Evangelical thinking, but even if that were so, it would not mean the Roman Catholic Church is authentically Christian. Individuals, or even large groups of them, are not the official Catholic Church.Far more informally, I was searching for a reference made by the Catholic bishops in 1994 and I found this from the Christmas sermon in the Papal household last year by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa:
"Christianity does not start with that which man must do to save himself, but with what God has done to save him...Gratuitous justification through faith in Christ is the heart...and it is a shame that this has been practically absent from the ordinary preaching of the church."
Doesn't look like the preaching of the private spiritual guide of the Antichrist to me.
In fact, most Roman Catholic theologians today are not expressing official Catholic doctrine. They are the equivalent of the liberals and modernists in the Protestant camp. They are further from the gospel than the formulators of Trent, for the latter at least believed in the inerrant Scripture.
The Roman Catholic Church tolerates such modern heretics for its own reasons. It is sufficient for us to understand that the theology of individual clergymen/theologians or groups of them is not what constitutes Roman Catholicism. The magisterium of the Church is the definer of their beliefs.
I have shown that Roman Catholic doctrine holds neither to the supreme authority of the Scripture nor to the Evangelical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone. That indeed is a deal-breaker to regarding that Church as truly Christian. That individuals within it hold the Evangelical truth on these things is a cause of joy for us all.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement