Zobel said:

---

History is messy. Israel's history was messy, so was the early church. We can see though what was and wasn't real, what wasn't god-pleasing. In time it works itself out. Judge the tree by its fruit.

---

Appreciate your definition of tradition, and I do appreciate the idea of being true to what was always passed down or intended. Something I can interested in for sure.

Regarding your statement of being able to see through and working itself over time, would the Bible be a fruit in this sense?

I'm not sure. "The Bible" is a collection of writings a specific group of people used as authoritative texts. Some other sects used more or less books.

I was talking more about - with the benefit of hindsight, how'd things go for different groups? Did they continue to make saints? To hold to the traditions they were given? Did they live God pleasing lives?

Zobel said:

---

I think a lot of this is a problem of framing, because it's a debate about how Rome talks about, defines, and handles tradition from people whose denomination raison d'etre is not being part of the RCC.

I don't see how you can arbitrarily divide scripture from any other tradition. It came in the same way, was formed in the same way, was similarly vague for centuries in the same way. The only reason it even seems possible is - in grand irony - that there is a tradition of treating it as a separate category. It is not, and that can't be justified under even casual scrutiny.

"Tradition" as a long list of specific items and legal definitions with numbers next to them is a Roman thing - not a universal Christian one.

Tradition is simply what the Greek word says - what is handed down. We learn from the fathers what they learned apostles what they learned from Christ. It's a way of life and a pattern of being in the world. It includes how we worship, how we sing, what we celebrate, and absolutely what scriptures we use. The traditions include the teachings that were used to sift the scriptures. It's all one piece.

This is not a new discussion. St Vincent of Lerins answered it over 1500 years ago. How do you know? You see what Christians have been doing, believing, practicing in a universal way, from ancient times, with wide agreement. (Universality, antiquity, consent - or everywhere, always, by all). This is necessary because he noted that people interpret scripture differently and all heretics quote scripture.

To your specific question - does papal infallibility meet this? Objectively, no. That's not an opinion, it's fact. It was even met with strong resistance within the RCC during Vatican I.

The other point that matters is this isn't really most of our job to discern. That's what bishops are for, they sit in Moses' seat. They will be judged for what they do, they are responsible for themselves and their entire flock.

But practically, you can see this working out in time. No one is going to leave a post-it note on your forehead saying what is and isn't "infallible". History is messy. Israel's history was messy, so was the early church. We can see though what was and wasn't real, what wasn't god-pleasing. In time it works itself out. Judge the tree by its fruit.

---

Clearly don't agree with all of it but do appreciate the bolded statements.

I follow you but I think there is opportunity to find unity short of being decisive on teachings that are not found in what the church has defined as holy scripture and that Jesus and the Apostles clearly taught and those that come from tradition especially where there is a gap of time spanning a couple centuries between the apostles and the first confirmation of those traditions, or where those teachings are clearly not essential to the gospel itself.

For example, the core beliefs found in he creed (not just the words themselves and saying it), Baptism, Eucharist (true real presence), etc are required to be believed.

Things beyond like purgatory, assumption, immaculate conception, veneration of saints, images/icons etc are taught. However, if you have questions or doubt, seek more education or understanding within the church. But, action creat division should be met with discipline up to and eventually including excommunication.

I mean there is a lot of ground between what I'm saying and Christians killing Christians over differences here. The above is in mo way intended to be comprehensive, just a to illustrate the concept.
It seems to me that leaders among the Christian faithful should not cease working on this and that there is enough common ground in terms of gospel teachings and understandings that more unity can be achieved.

I do t think the church is doing enough by stating in CCC 838 that it sees us all in union just imperfectly, but at least it's doing that!

Catag94 said:

---

I follow you but I think there is opportunity to find unity short of being decisive on teachings that are not found in what the church has defined as holy scripture and that Jesus and the Apostles clearly taught and those that come from tradition especially where there is a gap of time spanning a couple centuries between the apostles and the first confirmation of those traditions, or where those teachings are clearly not essential to the gospel itself.

For example, the core beliefs found in he creed (not just the words themselves and saying it), Baptism, Eucharist (true real presence), etc are required to be believed.

Things beyond like purgatory, assumption, immaculate conception, veneration of saints, images/icons etc are taught. However, if you have questions or doubt, seek more education or understanding within the church. But, action creat division should be met with discipline up to and eventually including excommunication.

I mean there is a lot of ground between what I'm saying and Christians killing Christians over differences here. The above is in mo way intended to be comprehensive, just a to illustrate the concept.
It seems to me that leaders among the Christian faithful should not cease working on this and that there is enough common ground in terms of gospel teachings and understandings that more unity can be achieved.

I do t think the church is doing enough by stating in CCC 838 that it sees us all in union just imperfectly, but at least it's doing that!

---

I feel every bit of what you're saying. I really do. I've tried having these conversations when I was away from the church. The problem is the bolded. The Catholic Church is essentially doing this already. You can have difficulties with the teachings, you just can't stand resolutely against them. From the catechism.

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated, doubt can lead to spiritual blindness. (CCC 2088)

So if I say I find some of the veneration of Mary a little weird when I came back, that doesn't mean I'm against the Church. But if I say that I will NEVER be open to venerating Mary then I am in obstinate doubt. If I act on that (telling other parishioners this is wrong, saying it online, etc) then I've moved into full heresy (in the church's eyes) and need to be removed.

I think the vast majority of Protestants would stay in obstinate doubt or heresy (from the church's perspective) on the issues you mentioned. They would even do it with some of the creed based beliefs that you mentioned. So if that's the case, what does the church do other than changing its teachings? And if it changed its teachings, the ones currently holding to them would leave the church anyway, so we're still divided.

I guess what I still fail to understand is why that bold is held so tightly? So we basically overlook the essential tenets and only focus on those bolded parts creating division.

Interesting.
First, as a Non-Catholic Christian (I frankly don't care for the term Protestant, but I get it), I studied every part of the creed critically years ago and found they, when understood, absolutely are what I believe. So, for me, knowing how Protestants think fee for them most part, I find it hard the think the creed would be an issue. They may need understanding, but it shouldn't be an issue.
I think the Catholic celebration and view of the Eucharist is proper and I believe it. But, I know most of the Protestant believers are going to stop short of that. They may fee more comfortable with a consubstantiation, but that's really irrelevant as ai do see and don't expect the Catholic Church to budge here. However, requiring a belief in the represent of Christ's body and blood should remain.

I think if the church would (I'm under no illusion this will happen) start here and at least welcome those who profess the creed as belief and the real presence truly communing together, we could have more a a profound yet still not perfect union. From there, the Catholic Church I predict would find itself with an opportunity to further its teachings more deeply.


ETA: I agree with you that it's sad how today's Protestants probably don't realize just how even the reformers would condemn their practices and theology potentially.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I guess what I still fail to understand is why that bold is held so tightly? So we basically overlook the essential tenets and only focus on those bolded parts creating division.

---

We're not overlooking the essential tenets. We agree on those.

The problem is how it has historically worked out. Take consubstantiation: that was the topic of multiple councils in the 900s and 1000s. It became a topic that needed to be dealt with. So let's say the church says that it holds no official position on this and you can hold either one as true. What do we do with the ones who inevitably get to "it's just a symbol?" Sounds like you're ok with drawing a line there, so those guys are out. So we still have disunity. More than we have now? Perhaps. But one church? No. Because they will break off and start their own Christian churches no different than we have seen throughout history.

The line will always be drawn somewhere. It has to be. So do we choose to draw the line, or is that in the purview of the Holy Spirit guiding the church?

I can buy the fact that the transubstantiation is a legitimate difference, so I will put that to the side.

What is it about Mary, Saints, Icons, etc?

Catag94 said:

---

Interesting.
First, as a Non-Catholic Christian (I frankly don't care for the term Protestant, but I get it), I studied every part of the creed critically years ago and found they, when understood, absolutely are what I believe. So, for me, knowing how Protestants think fee for them most part, I find it hard the think the creed would be an issue. They may need understanding, but it shouldn't be an issue.
I think the Catholic celebration and view of the Eucharist is proper and I believe it. But, I know most of the Protestant believers are going to stop short of that. They may fee more comfortable with a consubstantiation, but that's really irrelevant as ai do see and don't expect the Catholic Church to budge here. However, requiring a belief in the represent of Christ's body and blood should remain.

I think if the church would (I'm under no illusion this will happen) start here and at least welcome those who profess the creed as belief and the real presence truly communing together, we could have more a a profound yet still not perfect union. From there, the Catholic Church I predict would find itself with an opportunity to further its teachings more deeply.


ETA: I agree with you that it's sad how today's Protestants probably don't realize just how even the reformers would condemn their practices and theology potentially.

---

Even offering communion to those not in agreement with the church would be to go against church teaching based off of 1 Corinthian 11:27. The church doesn't withhold communion as a punishment but as a safeguard. Same as it does for those IN the Catholic Church. If I have mortally sinned, the church tells me not to receive for my own good, not to punish me.

So then can we ask if not holding to those traditions puts you in danger. I would say no, as long as you are ignorant (in the technical sense) of those teachings. I would also say no if you are aware of the teachings but don't fully understand/have a tough time with them. But if you are aware of the teaching and you actively disagree with them, it is in your best interest that the church prohibits communion out of concern that you potentially eat or drink unworthily. It's not a pronouncement of judgement on your soul but a temporal announcement that there is concern.

"To your specific question - does papal infallibility meet this? Objectively, no. That's not an opinion, it's fact."

Why do you diminish another religion for the sake of argument? This is not the place to make this claim. Is it possible that the EO is wrong in the primacy of the bishop of Rome? This is a whole other discussion and topic that is being discussed at much higher levels than a fan board for football.

I will try to be cognizant of diminishing your religion if you can ours. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but to call out a doctrine as false without due process is lacking in charity- my opinion of course.

While I completely agree with Paul in his letter to the Corithians and with the church in its quest to protect someone from eatingrinking judgement on themselves, I think that 1) As Paul himself says here each is to examine himself (not the churches job) and 2) if one examines himself, has a clean heart free of mortal sin but still knows the teachings of say icons and thinks to himself, that icons could be idols - so he disagrees but doesn't actively work to undermine the churches teachings to others, in no way would his receiving the body and blood of Christ be (IMO) a judgement.
Truly, Judas drank judgement on himself, but Christ Himself allowed him to and didn't refuse him though He knew Judas heart. Judas' heart was sinful, doubting that icons or even saints should be venerated or that Mary was immaculately conceived is not sinning against God who knows the heart when one's whole intention is to honor God at the highest level.

I would say that a very serious and thorough teaching about the eating and drinking judgement in the Eucharist is in order!

Zobel said:

---

I think a lot of this is a problem of framing, because it's a debate about how Rome talks about, defines, and handles tradition from people whose denomination raison d'etre is not being part of the RCC.

I don't see how you can arbitrarily divide scripture from any other tradition. It came in the same way, was formed in the same way, was similarly vague for centuries in the same way. The only reason it even seems possible is - in grand irony - that there is a tradition of treating it as a separate category. It is not, and that can't be justified under even casual scrutiny.

"Tradition" as a long list of specific items and legal definitions with numbers next to them is a Roman thing - not a universal Christian one.

Tradition is simply what the Greek word says - what is handed down. We learn from the fathers what they learned apostles what they learned from Christ. It's a way of life and a pattern of being in the world. It includes how we worship, how we sing, what we celebrate, and absolutely what scriptures we use. The traditions include the teachings that were used to sift the scriptures. It's all one piece.

This is not a new discussion. St Vincent of Lerins answered it over 1500 years ago. How do you know? You see what Christians have been doing, believing, practicing in a universal way, from ancient times, with wide agreement. (Universality, antiquity, consent - or everywhere, always, by all). This is necessary because he noted that people interpret scripture differently and all heretics quote scripture.

To your specific question - does papal infallibility meet this? Objectively, no. That's not an opinion, it's fact. It was even met with strong resistance within the RCC during Vatican I.

The other point that matters is this isn't really most of our job to discern. That's what bishops are for, they sit in Moses' seat. They will be judged for what they do, they are responsible for themselves and their entire flock.

But practically, you can see this working out in time. No one is going to leave a post-it note on your forehead saying what is and isn't "infallible". History is messy. Israel's history was messy, so was the early church. We can see though what was and wasn't real, what wasn't god-pleasing. In time it works itself out. Judge the tree by its fruit.

---

Would you categorize papal infallibility as a "tradition of men" akin to the handwashing Jesus identified? It was an accretion?

This would mean the Holy Spirit no longer guides, provides, or protects the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. When did this begin to happen? When the Pope added the filioque?

Regardless, I like how the RCC lists the specific items and definitions of what I'm supposed to believe. If tradition is simply what the Greek word says - what is handed down - it's good to know "what" is handed down, right? Just because it was vague for centuries doesn't mean it still has to be that way.

Catag94 said:

---

While I completely agree with Paul in his letter to the Corithians and with the church in its quest to protect someone from eatingrinking judgement on themselves, I think that 1) As Paul himself says here each is to examine himself (not the churches job) and 2) if one examines himself, has a clean heart free of mortal sin but still knows the teachings of say icons and thinks to himself, that icons could be idols - so he disagrees but doesn't actively work to undermine the churches teachings to others, in no way would his receiving the body and blood of Christ be (IMO) a judgement.
Truly, Judas drank judgement on himself, but Christ Himself allowed him to and didn't refuse him though He knew Judas heart. Judas' heart was sinful, doubting that icons or even saints should be venerated or that Mary was immaculately conceived is not sinning against God who knows the heart when one's whole intention is to honor God at the highest level.

I would say that a very serious and thorough teaching about the eating and drinking judgement in the Eucharist is in order!

---

Couple thoughts:

-what standards were they supposed to examine themselves by? The teachings of the apostles.

- what have the apostles successors taught? Follow the church's doctrines or at least don't obstinately doubt them.

- one examines their thoughts and realizes they don't agree with what the successors of the apostles have taught. Now what?


So to your example, I know you didn't mean it all encompassing, but I dint see a problem with it. Icons CAN be worshipped, against church teaching. This Christian can have that reservation. What he can't obstinately deny is that icons can also be venerated or that a saint can be the object of an intercessory prayer request. If he does, he needs to examine his conscience, where he'd realize he is not in alignment and needs to come to a firmer understanding BEFORE receiving the Eucharist. You don't get kicked out of the church until you obstinately refuse it.

And to your point that the person does their own examination, not the church, i agree. Anyone in this board could join in a Catholic communion line this Sunday and no one would know. It's whether or not they should.

PabloSerna said:

---

"To your specific question - does papal infallibility meet this? Objectively, no. That's not an opinion, it's fact."

Why do you diminish another religion for the sake of argument? This is not the place to make this claim. Is it possible that the EO is wrong in the primacy of the bishop of Rome? This is a whole other discussion and topic that is being discussed at much higher levels than a fan board for football.

I will try to be cognizant of diminishing your religion if you can ours. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but to call out a doctrine as false without due process is lacking in charity- my opinion of course.

---

Objectively, it is no. It is not everywhere always by all. Unless all doesn't include the Orthodox.

We believe in the bishop of Rome as first among equals. Just not his universal jurisdiction or his infallibility.

I'm sorry historical facts feel like an attack to you about your religion, but this seems like a problem with a decision rammed through a council by a radical Italian faction over the very loud objections of many RCC bishops and not a me or you problem.

I reread this and I want to make sure it's understood - this isn't snark. This is a real problem, that exists as you say at the literal highest level. But I stand by the fact that it objectively fails the "everywhere always by all" test, and I am also sorry that because that is true, this has become a defining feature of your religion. It's a problem, and I mean that with genuine sorrow. It is the issue.

Quote:

---

Would you categorize papal infallibility as a "tradition of men" akin to the handwashing Jesus identified? It was an accretion?

This would mean the Holy Spirit no longer guides, provides, or protects the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. When did this begin to happen? When the Pope added the filioque?

Regardless, I like how the RCC lists the specific items and definitions of what I'm supposed to believe. If tradition is simply what the Greek word says - what is handed down - it's good to know "what" is handed down, right? Just because it was vague for centuries doesn't mean it still has to be that way.

---

Yeah I don't think the pope is infallible. I don't even think it's an accretion, that implies it has some kind of de facto existence that arose at some point. This just sort of appeared because it was declared. There's no history of everyone believing this from some point but it wasn't formally defined until later. That would be an accretion.

But no, it does not follow that because Rome made a declaration in error that they are bereft of the Holy Spirit.

And yes, I think schism is a real thing and has had consequences for the western church.

The problem with enumeration is it historically seems to lead to some combination of schism, minimalism, and legalism. I think the historical witness of the church is that the faith is an ineffable, experiential reality and our doctrinal and dogmatic statements underdefine it rather than characterize it.

It has nothing to do with me, I am pointing out that you are making a judgement about another religion that by the nature of your religion- is biased.

It fine to say, "I think" "I'm my opinion"- but to call something a "fact" is to cross a line.

PabloSerna said:

---

It has nothing to do with me, I am pointing out that you are making a judgement about another religion that by the nature of your religion- is biased.

It fine to say, "I think" "I'm my opinion"- but to call something a "fact" is to cross a line.

---

He's not wrong about the history of papal infallibility though…it's not an opinion.

Zobel said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"To your specific question - does papal infallibility meet this? Objectively, no. That's not an opinion, it's fact."

Why do you diminish another religion for the sake of argument? This is not the place to make this claim. Is it possible that the EO is wrong in the primacy of the bishop of Rome? This is a whole other discussion and topic that is being discussed at much higher levels than a fan board for football.

I will try to be cognizant of diminishing your religion if you can ours. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but to call out a doctrine as false without due process is lacking in charity- my opinion of course.

---

Objectively, it is no. It is not everywhere always by all. Unless all doesn't include the Orthodox.

We believe in the bishop of Rome as first among equals. Just not his universal jurisdiction or his infallibility.

I'm sorry historical facts feel like an attack to you about your religion, but this seems like a problem with a decision rammed through a council by a radical Italian faction over the very loud objections of many RCC bishops and not a me or you problem.

I reread this and I want to make sure it's understood - this isn't snark. This is a real problem, that exists as you say at the literal highest level. But I stand by the fact that it objectively fails the "everywhere always by all" test, and I am also sorry that because that is true, this has become a defining feature of your religion. It's a problem, and I mean that with genuine sorrow. It is the issue.

---

3 questions, two actual and one hypothetical

1. Can you explain to me how you think papal I fallibiktu works? Like what it looks like in practice?

2. When a council/councils declared something to be true against the wishes of many bishops, such as denouncing Arianism, does the bishop backlash invalidate the truth?

3. Hypothetical. Let's go back to the "first council" in Acts. Let's say all 13 apostles (including Paul here) were in attendance. Let's say the vote for making gentiles get circumcised is 3 against and 9 for. If Peter voted against, meaning the movement for circumcision passes 9 to 4, do you think that would have been the end teaching? Or do you think Peter's vote would have outweighed the others and gentiles would have still been exempt?

AGC said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

It has nothing to do with me, I am pointing out that you are making a judgement about another religion that by the nature of your religion- is biased.

It fine to say, "I think" "I'm my opinion"- but to call something a "fact" is to cross a line.

---

He's not wrong about the history of papal infallibility though…it's not an opinion.

---

If Arianism was held by most Christian's and bishops, does the divinity of Christ not fail the " everywhere always by all" test as well?

It's rooted in scripture - he passed that up.

So is Arianism.

Turns out you can declare whatever you like when you excommunicate everyone* who disagrees with you a couple centuries in advance.

*almost

The apostle themselves weren't teaching most of the things that seem to be in question. I think fairly clearly Paul was teaching Christ and Him crucified….the. gospel.
I think his writings to the Galatians is appropriate for this discussion:
Galatians 3:26-29 NIV
[26] So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, [27] for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

We could so easily and appropriately replace Jew with Catholic, Gentile with Protestant, etc.
my point is, we've gone way past what Jesus taught and what his disciples taught I fear.
When Jesus told them to go make disciples m, do you think they had been taught by Jesus all they needed and all that their disciples would need to know? Was there ever a real need to eventually start teaching anything about venerating saints or icons, about Mary's conception?

Catag94 said:

---

The apostle themselves weren't teaching most of the things that seem to be in question. I think fairly clearly Paul was teaching Christ and Him crucified….the. gospel.
I think his writings to the Galatians is appropriate for this discussion:
Galatians 3:26-29 NIV
[26] So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, [27] for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

We could so easily and appropriately replace Jew with Catholic, Gentile with Protestant, etc.
my point is, we've gone way past what Jesus taught and what his disciples taught I fear.
When Jesus told them to go make disciples m, do you think they had been taught by Jesus all they needed and all that their disciples would need to know? Was there ever a real need to eventually start teaching anything about venerating saints or icons, about Mary's conception?

---

What I'm trying to show is that the "need" to teach these things was because it was FOR unity in the church. Jesus didn't teach veneration of icons. But He did pray for unity. He wanted them to be one. And He gave them authority to bind and loose here on earth. He gave them AUTHORITY.

And they passed that on to others, as we see immediately both in scripture and other ancient texts from that time. As Clement wrote about, it was foreseen these problem would arise. So how do we stay "one in Christ Jesus" if there are conflicts? By following the AUTHORITY Christ left. Probably the 1000th time I've said this, but there is a reason Jesus left authoritative teachers and not a book. It's the only possible way we can be a unified body of believers and what has happened since the Protestant reformation should be the most convincing body of evidence we need.

So no, there is no "need" to teach these things for salvation. But there is a need to teach them to keep us as one, which is what Jesus tells us to do. And, if we must keep His commandments in order to follow Him, we need to seek oneness. And I hope I have shown that the division is not just Catholics saying "believe this or else". It's a two way street with no real middle ground. Someone has to relent. The Catholic Church isn't making anyone venerate icons. It simply teaches you can't object to it. And yet we still see this as one of many issues that keeps people from considering the church, so the choice not to consider it acceptable practice for others is just as exclusionary as the Catholic Church is claimed to be.

Quote:

---

So no, there is no "need" to teach these things for salvation.

---

See I disagree with this completely. Don't accept the premise that the relatively few words in scripture are the totality of the deposit of faith. Everything the apostles taught was for salvation.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

So no, there is no "need" to teach these things for salvation.

---

See I disagree with this completely. Don't accept the premise that the relatively few words in scripture are the totality of the deposit of faith. Everything the apostles taught was for salvation.

---

Maybe I should word it differently. Here's what I'm driving at: would you agree that there is no "need" for a council to denounce iconoclasm if iconoclasm doesn't exist? However, because iconoclasm was an issue it became a "need". The church could have theoretically existed just fine without any formal pronouncements if there wasn't a false teaching that arose.

Therefore, don't blame the church for saying you "need" to believe these things. Blame those that deviated from the church and tradition, creating a "need" to teach it definitively.

Yes. I agree. But the fathers don't say "in the past you could venerate icons or not, whatever, but NOW you MUST". They say the teaching is apostolic. I think we should take that seriously.

I'm with you. Please don't become frustrated.
From here, I ask, if one believes the gospel, professes faith in Jesus, receives the Holy Spirit and is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holt Spirit and lives a life that yields fruits of the Spirit (works), further, affirms belief in the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, and is free of mortal sin (by his own self inspection and knowledge of what this means), on what basis would the Catholic Church not see a profound enough unity with him to allow common celebration of the Eucharist if not a few other sacraments?

Or, in other words, the fundamentals not sufficiently establish a basis for that profound Union? And perhaps everything beyond these is peripheral to the message of the gospel and what makes us brothers in Christ.

Also, is it possible to sin against the church but that not be a sin against or in the eyes of God?

Zobel said:

---

Yes. I agree. But the fathers don't say "in the past you could venerate icons or not, whatever, but NOW you MUST". They say the teaching is apostolic. I think we should take that seriously.

---

I agree 100%. This is an easy conversation between Catholics and EO. But when discoursing with Christians who have been taught some form of sola scriptura, and are going to ask for some scriptural evidence, I have found it helpful to zoom out. I think we all want to be in the same fold together, and the language has gotten so incredibly confusing that even words like "venerate" and "apostolic" aren't viewed the same, so sticking with concepts helps more.

The reality is there was no "need" to teach it formally because it was accepted. Once it became a point of friction, it became "necessary" to make a formal deceleration. This is important because there is a mental barrier of entry. Many Protestant think they're being asked to believe in "extras". The reality is that the "extras" have been there all along, are totally licit, and cannot be viewed with disdain.

Catag94 said:

---

I'm with you. Please don't become frustrated.
From here, I ask, if one believes the gospel, professes faith in Jesus, receives the Holy Spirit and is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holt Spirit and lives a life that yields fruits of the Spirit (works), further, affirms belief in the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, and is free of mortal sin (by his own self inspection and knowledge of what this means), on what basis would the Catholic Church not see a profound enough unity with him to allow common celebration of the Eucharist if not a few other sacraments?

Or, in other words, the fundamentals not sufficiently establish a basis for that profound Union? And perhaps everything beyond these is peripheral to the message of the gospel and what makes us brothers in Christ.

Also, is it possible to sin against the church but that not be a sin against or in the eyes of God?

---

No frustration whatsoever. I find this both agonizing and exhilarating. Agonizing because I hate that differences exist in the first place. Exhilarating because it's great to have brotherly/sisterly talk with other Christians so that I can better understand.

I agree with all that you listed, and realize that maybe I haven't been blunt enough, so I'll try here: if a member of a Baptist/non-denom church openly states how much praying the rosary has yielded fruit in their life, how do you think that would go? Is the Baptist/non-denom church being exclusionary when they have the reaction you know for a fact they will? Why do they react that way if not for a strong desire to preserve the faith as they see it?

It's easy to say that we should rally around the fundamentals until we realize that the fundamentals are defined by those in charge and the peripheral is defined the same way. You can say prayers to the saints, sinless Mary, the real presence, etc is peripheral, but the majority of Protestants do not. The church is split because authority is split, and it's RADICALLY misdiagnosed because most of the basics you listed stem from a sola scriptura view where "everything else is extra" when reality is the idea of scripture alone is its own "extra". This is what causes Christians to often speak past one another.

Lastly, any sin against the church is against God, since the church is the Bride of Christ. But similar to the way my 2 year old cannot sin against the family the same way my 8 year old can, or the way they can as adults once they get there, we believe that God views these sins in His own merciful way. Culpability is the term we use. This is why you won't find any eternal judgment against anyone. Not even Judas gets a formal damnation from the church. That belongs to God and God alone, not His bride.

I'm beginning to think the early church as described by tradition was a form of Gnosticism.

The Banned said:

---

That belongs to God and God alone, not His bride.

---

You just need some scripture to beef that reply up

Psalm 51:3-4
[3] For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
[4] Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I'm beginning to think the early church as described by tradition was a form of Gnosticism.

---

(Insert not sure if serious gif here)

ETA: formal definition of Gnosticism is A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour.