k2aggie07 said:

---

I think they're wrong too. But if they're wrong, they were wrong in council and in a formal declaration of a doctrine that literally excommunicated the entirety of Christendom other than the Roman Church. It's kind of a big deal.

If you reject that definition you are under an anathema and, upon confessing that, it is likely you would not be given the Eucharist. Or at least you shouldn't be under the terms of that statement. That is the whole purpose of an anathema.

---

I dont think they had the authority to make that anathema though. I dont believe their inaccuracy invalidated their bishops, priesthood nor confection of eucharist.

If the Church is infallible, and we see the councils as crystallizing in doctrine what exists as the faith, then what we have here is a variance of faith. In other words, either the church that made that statement (the clergy and endorsing laity) is correct or they are not the Church.

k2aggie07 said:

---

You have to be careful. The Eucharistic assembly, the ekklesia, is well defined. The common vernacular church has morphed in meaning. You'll only offend people or confuse them saying that.

---

The church is the body of Christ, Christ does not exist outside of his body as he was fully human in addition to being fully divine. As an analogy this is why there are countless icons of Christ and not of the Father, who is limitless, where Christ existed in finite form. Regardless of the colloquial usage of the term, without the Bishops and Eucharist, no church exists? If I am wrong PLEASE correct me

k2aggie07 said:

---

If the Church is infallible, and we see the councils as crystallizing in doctrine what exists as the faith, then what we have here is a variance of faith. In other words, either the church that made that statement (the clergy and endorsing laity) is correct or they are not the Church.

---

The Church is infallible, but those pronunciations werent upheld by the entire church at Ecunemenical council, right? Therefore they could just be in error.

Again, Church is an English word with a Germanic root. The Greek word means assembly, and careful study shows that both in the NT and historically it is a Eucharistic assembly. Historically this has only and always been understood to be with the bishop.

I don't think, though, that even the Eucharistic assembly is the limit of the Church. It IS the Church but this does not exclude those who have never partaken of the Eucharist from salvation. Christ's love and divine economy extends at His will to all men.

So again, while I can say where the Church is with utter certainty - that is, where the people and the bishop are - it is none of my business to say where the Church isn't.

Sure, but Rome says she is the sole arbiter of ecumenical councils (ie with papal endorsement) and counts Vatican I as such.

I hate to disagree, but that is NOT the same thing as declaring that the Pope is infallible. I live in the Bible Belt, and I hear that all the time. It's described as if we Catholics believe that, if the Pope awakens on a Tuesday and believes it's a Wednesday, we all need to change our calendars.

https://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings

Lastly, thank you for the kind salutation and may peace be with you. And with your Spirit.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Sure, but Rome says she is the sole arbiter of ecumenical councils (ie with papal endorsement) and counts Vatican I as such.

---

Sure, but if theyre wrong where does that leave us? Thats what I was referring to earlier with the Orthodox churches in communion with East and West. From my understanding they have a "the church is wrong on original sin and infallibility but theyre still a valid church" understanding.

JTatter88 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Sure, but Rome says she is the sole arbiter of ecumenical councils (ie with papal endorsement) and counts Vatican I as such.

---

Sure, but if theyre wrong where does that leave us? Thats what I was referring to earlier with the Orthodox churches in communion with East and West. From my understanding they have a "the church is wrong on original sin and infallibility but theyre still a valid church" understanding.

---

What Church's are in communion with the East and the West?

I'm not suggesting that the common idea that the pope is infallible is what I disagree with. I disagree vehemently with the statement I quoted in Vatican I. No person is the Church, and no one possesses the charisms personally which belong to the Church communally. The Roman Bishop is a bishop. He can't perform the Eucharist without someone to the say the amen, and he doesn't enjoy infallibility in his person apart from the Church. There is no personal charism of infallibility that belongs to the office of Bishop of Rome.

And for that statement, your church says anathema to me. It's unacceptable.

Bishop Firmilian said it perfectly so many centuries ago - "he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all."

k2aggie07 said:

---

I think it's because the basic fundamental identity philosophy for Americans is egalitarianism, expressed in radical individualism. We even see this in evangelicals saying Jesus is a personal savior, even the faith needs to be about the individual.

Roman Catholicism and truly ancient Christianity is not compatible with this, it is both expressly hierarchical and radically communal. Everything about the Church, from the charisma of ordination to the presence of the Holy Spirit to even the identity of the Church itself is related to multiple believers unified in Christ.

The modern view of the church by way of contrast is not a single community or a plurality of single communities which are one in quality by virtue of connection to Christ but instead a summation of individuals which as individuals constitute the whole.

The two basic approaches are, on some level, completely incompatible. There will always been any tension or friction there, even if it is unspoken or even not understood or overt.

---

Disagree in large part because the Orthodox Church exists largely outside of any animosity. If it were so simple you would receive the same scorn.

It's far more reasonable as an expression of history, even contemporary.

AgLiving06 said:

---

JTatter88 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Sure, but Rome says she is the sole arbiter of ecumenical councils (ie with papal endorsement) and counts Vatican I as such.

---

Sure, but if theyre wrong where does that leave us? Thats what I was referring to earlier with the Orthodox churches in communion with East and West. From my understanding they have a "the church is wrong on original sin and infallibility but theyre still a valid church" understanding.

---

What Church's are in communion with the East and the West?

---

I believe ALL of the EC's consider themselves in communion with EO, but its not quite 100% reciprocal.

AGC said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

I think it's because the basic fundamental identity philosophy for Americans is egalitarianism, expressed in radical individualism. We even see this in evangelicals saying Jesus is a personal savior, even the faith needs to be about the individual.

Roman Catholicism and truly ancient Christianity is not compatible with this, it is both expressly hierarchical and radically communal. Everything about the Church, from the charisma of ordination to the presence of the Holy Spirit to even the identity of the Church itself is related to multiple believers unified in Christ.

The modern view of the church by way of contrast is not a single community or a plurality of single communities which are one in quality by virtue of connection to Christ but instead a summation of individuals which as individuals constitute the whole.

The two basic approaches are, on some level, completely incompatible. There will always been any tension or friction there, even if it is unspoken or even not understood or overt.

---

Disagree in large part because the Orthodox Church exists largely outside of any animosity. If it were so simple you would receive the same scorn.

It's far more reasonable as an expression of history, even contemporary.

---

Most Americans don't know what the Orthodox Church is. Most probably just think they're Catholics

JTatter88 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

JTatter88 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Sure, but Rome says she is the sole arbiter of ecumenical councils (ie with papal endorsement) and counts Vatican I as such.

---

Sure, but if theyre wrong where does that leave us? Thats what I was referring to earlier with the Orthodox churches in communion with East and West. From my understanding they have a "the church is wrong on original sin and infallibility but theyre still a valid church" understanding.

---

What Church's are in communion with the East and the West?

---

I believe ALL of the EC's consider themselves in communion with EO, but its not quite 100% reciprocal.

---

Can you link to a single church that is in communion with the Bishop of Antioch as well as the Bishop of Rome?

I'm not aware of any church, but could certainly be wrong (K2 will correct me for sure if I am).

AgLiving06 said:

---

JTatter88 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

JTatter88 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Sure, but Rome says she is the sole arbiter of ecumenical councils (ie with papal endorsement) and counts Vatican I as such.

---

Sure, but if theyre wrong where does that leave us? Thats what I was referring to earlier with the Orthodox churches in communion with East and West. From my understanding they have a "the church is wrong on original sin and infallibility but theyre still a valid church" understanding.

---

What Church's are in communion with the East and the West?

---

I believe ALL of the EC's consider themselves in communion with EO, but its not quite 100% reciprocal.

---

Can you link to a single church that is in communion with the Bishop of Antioch as well as the Bishop of Rome?

I'm not aware of any church, but could certainly be wrong (K2 will correct me for sure if I am).

---

Quick question. Why Antioch vs Constantinople?

k2aggie07 said:

---

I'm not suggesting that the common idea that the pope is infallible is what I disagree with. I disagree vehemently with the statement I quoted in Vatican I. No person is the Church, and no one possesses the charisms personally which belong to the Church communally. The Roman Bishop is a bishop. He can't perform the Eucharist without someone to the say the amen, and he doesn't enjoy infallibility in his person apart from the Church. There is no personal charism of infallibility that belongs to the office of Bishop of Rome.

And for that statement, your church says anathema to me. It's unacceptable.

Bishop Firmilian said it perfectly so many centuries ago - "he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all."

---

You are quoting Vatican I. The Holy Spirit continually reveals the nature of God and Jesus Christ to and through the Church. The Catholic Church believes that Revelation is ongoing, and did not end when the final pages of the Bible were written. To that end specifically with regards to the confusion surrounding Papal infallibility and other issues, please see Lumen Gentium as below. Vatican I was not final teaching on this issue. Have a great night.

https://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/magisterium

What council overturned Vatican I? Is what I quoted no longer a formal teaching of the Roman Church?

JTatter88 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

JTatter88 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

JTatter88 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Sure, but Rome says she is the sole arbiter of ecumenical councils (ie with papal endorsement) and counts Vatican I as such.

---

Sure, but if theyre wrong where does that leave us? Thats what I was referring to earlier with the Orthodox churches in communion with East and West. From my understanding they have a "the church is wrong on original sin and infallibility but theyre still a valid church" understanding.

---

What Church's are in communion with the East and the West?

---

I believe ALL of the EC's consider themselves in communion with EO, but its not quite 100% reciprocal.

---

Can you link to a single church that is in communion with the Bishop of Antioch as well as the Bishop of Rome?

I'm not aware of any church, but could certainly be wrong (K2 will correct me for sure if I am).

---

Quick question. Why Antioch vs Constantinople?

---

I've visited an Antioch Orthodox Church so it came to mind first. Constantinople works as well.

I could say Jerusalem or Russia or Alexandria as well and the result will still be the same.

In my opinion/experience, it is largely because there has always been a prots vs RCC divide creating an us vs them mentality. Any time you do that, it's going to stir up resentment and misinformation.

Having lived in a Baptist town as a Lutheran and being very involved in the pro-life community, I've seen animosity from both sides due to the unique place in the spectrum that we hold.

As I have grown up and learned more about different denominations..and the evolution and growth of progressive/non denominational churches (and UMC, ELCA, DoC, all the very "liberal" denominations)... I find that I see a much more practical divide when I segregate the churches by Eucharistic and non-eucharistic practices.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

In my opinion/experience, it is largely because there has always been a prots vs RCC divide creating an us vs them mentality. Any time you do that, it's going to stir up resentment and misinformation.

Having lived in a Baptist town as a Lutheran and being very involved in the pro-life community, I've seen animosity from both sides due to the unique place in the spectrum that we hold.

As I have grown up and learned more about different denominations..and the evolution and growth of progressive/non denominational churches (and UMC, ELCA, DoC, all the very "liberal" denominations)... I find that I see a much more practical divide when I segregate the churches by Eucharistic and non-eucharistic practices.

---

I think there are other differences too. Few prots would retreat to Judas as their patron saint when their clergy (to the top) is shuffling abusers around. We are all sinners after all...

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

In my opinion/experience, it is largely because there has always been a prots vs RCC divide creating an us vs them mentality. Any time you do that, it's going to stir up resentment and misinformation.

Having lived in a Baptist town as a Lutheran and being very involved in the pro-life community, I've seen animosity from both sides due to the unique place in the spectrum that we hold.

As I have grown up and learned more about different denominations..and the evolution and growth of progressive/non denominational churches (and UMC, ELCA, DoC, all the very "liberal" denominations)... I find that I see a much more practical divide when I segregate the churches by Eucharistic and non-eucharistic practices.

---

I heard it put this way about Lutherans.

If you are doing it right, the Protestants are accusing you of being Catholic and the Catholics are accusing you of being Protestants.

AgLiving06 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

In my opinion/experience, it is largely because there has always been a prots vs RCC divide creating an us vs them mentality. Any time you do that, it's going to stir up resentment and misinformation.

Having lived in a Baptist town as a Lutheran and being very involved in the pro-life community, I've seen animosity from both sides due to the unique place in the spectrum that we hold.

As I have grown up and learned more about different denominations..and the evolution and growth of progressive/non denominational churches (and UMC, ELCA, DoC, all the very "liberal" denominations)... I find that I see a much more practical divide when I segregate the churches by Eucharistic and non-eucharistic practices.

---

I heard it put this way about Lutherans.

If you are doing it right, the Protestants are accusing you of being Catholic and the Catholics are accusing you of being Protestants.

---

Yep.

AGC said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

In my opinion/experience, it is largely because there has always been a prots vs RCC divide creating an us vs them mentality. Any time you do that, it's going to stir up resentment and misinformation.

Having lived in a Baptist town as a Lutheran and being very involved in the pro-life community, I've seen animosity from both sides due to the unique place in the spectrum that we hold.

As I have grown up and learned more about different denominations..and the evolution and growth of progressive/non denominational churches (and UMC, ELCA, DoC, all the very "liberal" denominations)... I find that I see a much more practical divide when I segregate the churches by Eucharistic and non-eucharistic practices.

---

I think there are other differences too. Few prots would retreat to Judas as their patron saint when their clergy (to the top) is shuffling abusers around. We are all sinners after all...

---

For sure, but that divide is probably a good idea of where they stand on female clergy, tradition, infant baptism, sexuality, laser light shows etc.

I dont hate catholics or catholicism......it doesn't matter other than this "He who has the Son has the life, he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life"

I read your link but I don't see what it has to do with the statement of papal infallibility from Vatican I.

Why do they hate Catholicism?

Not enough laser light shows during mass.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I like beer. My folks visited Alabama and brought me back a ton of Yuengling for my birthday so I am happy right now.

But no I won't share. I will buy Shiner for y'all.

---

Quote:

---

"Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake

---

queso1 said:

---

Why do they hate Catholicism?

Not enough laser light shows during mass.

---

editing my earlier post to include laser light shows

One, shiner is not a rock or snake. It is still beer and all beer is good. Some is gooder than others. It's not even the worst beer.

Two, you can't get Yuengling in Texas and it's my favorite and it was my birthday present and I don't wanna share so I don't have to and you can't make me.

Quote:

---

I've definitely been treated poorly by Catholics for not being one. Pretty much their opinion was it is their way or the highway.

I've been to a few Catholic services and felt not welcome. I'm not allowed to recieve communion or blessings. I don't know any of the saints. My Baptism doesn't count. The Bible is different. I didn't know when to stand sit or kneel. It might be as simple as not wanting to hang out with people who keep telling you that you are wrong. If any of the above is incorrect, please correct me but it was the impression I had.

---

1. You cannot receive communion, but you absolutely can receive a blessing from the Priest/Eucharistic minister while others are receiving the Eucharist.

2. Your Baptism should count as long as you were baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and there was a presence of water (immersion or by poured). So while there are definitely people who wish to enter the Church who don't have a valid Baptism, I would say that if you come from a typical Protestant background the Baptism is more than likely valid.

3. Not knowing when to stand, kneel, or generally what is being said when can definitely take time to get used to. It is not uncommon for someone to not be fully comfortable going to Mass at first. In my opinion, the people you went with who were Catholic should have at least told you a few things to expect ahead of time.

It sounds to me like you encountered the Catholic Church with a group of people that did not have respect for where you were coming from and possibly exhibited a lack of patience as well. I'm sorry to hear that was your experience.

AgLiving06 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

In my opinion/experience, it is largely because there has always been a prots vs RCC divide creating an us vs them mentality. Any time you do that, it's going to stir up resentment and misinformation.

Having lived in a Baptist town as a Lutheran and being very involved in the pro-life community, I've seen animosity from both sides due to the unique place in the spectrum that we hold.

As I have grown up and learned more about different denominations..and the evolution and growth of progressive/non denominational churches (and UMC, ELCA, DoC, all the very "liberal" denominations)... I find that I see a much more practical divide when I segregate the churches by Eucharistic and non-eucharistic practices.

---

I heard it put this way about Lutherans.

If you are doing it right, the Protestants are accusing you of being Catholic and the Catholics are accusing you of being Protestants.

---

That's an important point. My local Methodist church used to be, and still is to a great degree, very liturgical. A Catholic friend visited one Sunday and remarked how much like it was his own church experience. Communion weekly, confession of sin in the liturgy and asking for grace, then sharing the peace of Christ. OTOH, our charismatic summer Aldersgate experience is pretty non-liturgical up until the final Sunday, where mass communion is celebrated.

Quote:

---

It is still beer and all beer is good.

---

?????
Texas Pride Beer, for example?

Not all beer is good and compared to yuengling, shiner is at least a garden snake.

Sharing is caring, k2. Do unto others.

It is better than the alternative - no beer.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

AGC said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

In my opinion/experience, it is largely because there has always been a prots vs RCC divide creating an us vs them mentality. Any time you do that, it's going to stir up resentment and misinformation.

Having lived in a Baptist town as a Lutheran and being very involved in the pro-life community, I've seen animosity from both sides due to the unique place in the spectrum that we hold.

As I have grown up and learned more about different denominations..and the evolution and growth of progressive/non denominational churches (and UMC, ELCA, DoC, all the very "liberal" denominations)... I find that I see a much more practical divide when I segregate the churches by Eucharistic and non-eucharistic practices.

---

I think there are other differences too. Few prots would retreat to Judas as their patron saint when their clergy (to the top) is shuffling abusers around. We are all sinners after all...

---

For sure, but that divide is probably a good idea of where they stand on female clergy, tradition, infant baptism, sexuality, laser light shows etc.

---

Uh...sexuality and female clergy probably don't belong here because they're present pretty equally.