3DOP Posted April 15, 2022 Posted April 15, 2022 Navidad So would you also reject the idea that the Catholic Church is part of the world-wide church today? 3DOP When a Catholic refers to the "Catholic Church", he already means the "world-wide Church". Your question seems to me to ask if the Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church! I understand that is not what you meant to ask. But the Catholic Church is the whole, not a part. I am sure you know, but some readers might not, that the word "catholic" means universal: "The word catholic comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου katholou 'on the whole, according to the whole, in general', and is a combination of the Greek words κατά 'about' and ὅλος 'whole'. The first use of "Catholic" was by the church father Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans." ---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_(term) There is a very important sense in which the Church retains the original and full meaning of this term "catholic" as used by St. Ignatius in the early 2nd Century. "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." The Church claims that "catholicity" is important, but it is only one of the four essential marks by which the Church is identified. The Church is identified as "Catholic", because that is what She is. But the Church might also speak of Herself as the "One" Church, the "Holy Church", the "Apostolic" Church, or even the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" Church. I think in great part, it is simply for an economy of words that She became known everywhere as simply the Catholic Church. I believe I should stop there for now, incomplete as this first post certainly is. 3DOP
3DOP Posted April 15, 2022 Posted April 15, 2022 continued from above... Hi again Navidad, It has occurred to me to say that I know I am not personally infallible. Perhaps I am blind and deceived about what I have believed is true in religion. The Catholic Church, according to Her own teaching, can never be "a part of the world-wide church today". The Catholic Church claims to be the whole. Let me repeat the question you asked of me above: "So would you also reject the idea that the Catholic Church is part of the world-wide church today?" I believe everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches. If it can be demonstrated that the Catholic Church holds that She is merely "a part of the world-wide church today," I would be astonished, flabbergasted, etc. and I would be forced to re-evaluate my conversion in 1995. Until that improbability happens, the answer to your question, however, is in the affirmative, that I reject that idea as being incompatible with Catholic teaching. Please bear with me as I try to briefly make it clearer why the branch theory is difficult from a Catholic point of view. Navidad Or is it the concept of it being a "branch" that is the sticking point? 3DOP That seems like the same question to me. Correct me though if I a missing something important. Navidad Since the very early 1500s the Anabaptist movement as exemplified today in the Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren groups has rejected a view of itself as being a "branch" of the reformation. It has a much stronger sense of self as an early restorationist group. 3DOP The Catholic Church was already 1500 years old in the early 1500's according to what the Catholic Church teaches about when Christ founded the Church. Historically, I grant that the Anabaptist movement preceded the so-called reformations of Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, and Zwingli. I can appreciate why one from the Anabaptist tradition would not be able to accept themselves as a "branch" of the reformation when it has its own separate roots. In a similar way, the Catholic Church would be denying Her own roots, founded upon the Apostles of Christ Himself, if She were, after 1500 years, to accept as fellow branches, Christian bodies, founded so late as the Renaissance, that separated themselves from any plausible claim to apostolic origin. You claim that these groups are restorationist in nature. Do they truly reject as false and fallen away, the Catholic Church, with all of its audacious claims to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, with a true restoration of the same? It has seemed to me that the historic emphasis of all the groups that have roots in the 16th Century is to deny the existence of any Christian institution that carries the four marks of the Catholic Church. The reason I limit the expression of restorationist to the LDS and perhaps a couple of others that emerged later, in the 19th Century, would be because they would not ignore the biggest problem of apostolic roots. Who that was sent from God authorized any of the men who founded these reformed churches to say that the mark of apostolicity could be dispensed with. It is an unattractive and uninspiring doctrine which teaches that Christ who founded His Church on a Rock, would after 1500 years, rouse up people in far away Renaissance Europe to rise up against this claim of a rock foundation, and any alleged need for apostolicity. Restorationist groups necessarily go further than mere reformation. A restorationist group today would not say that God wants us to wade through all the claims of all the churches that deny that they have apostolic origin in trying to decide which one God actually started. It would be hard to decide on the basis of the massive available data, which among the non-Catholic, non-Restorationist churches are the truest among others. Nor do Restorationists tell us that it is equally well if we attach ourselves to whatever Christian body suits our particular temperament and personality. A true Restoration would necessarily involve the reactivation of apostolic authority. This is what is so much more appealing about LDS claims against the Catholic Church, if I may put it that way. In less aggressive ways than in the past, LDS do not hesitate to say that for some reason, that the Catholic Church is fallen away. This seems much more plausible to me than to believe that today, God wants me to be a member of a Catholic Church that recognizes itself as another branch of a world-wide church. This is why I have a continuing interest in LDS claims. In this one very important respect, LDS are quite Catholic! Navidad, in wrapping up for now, I am hoping you can begin to grasp the height of the historical hurdles presented in suggesting that such a venerable (ancient) institution as the Catholic Church, could ever somehow view itself as merely a branch of something so very recent. No offense intended at all, but it couldn't work as an historical model. Perhaps these thoughts can also shed some light on why the Latter-day Saint might appreciate the same predicament. Take care, Rory 1
Navidad Posted April 16, 2022 Author Posted April 16, 2022 1 hour ago, 3DOP said: continued from above... Hi again Navidad, It has occurred to me to say that I know I am not personally infallible. Perhaps I am blind and deceived about what I have believed is true in religion. The Catholic Church, according to Her own teaching, can never be "a part of the world-wide church today". The Catholic Church claims to be the whole. Let me repeat the question you asked of me above: "So would you also reject the idea that the Catholic Church is part of the world-wide church today?" I believe everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches. If it can be demonstrated that the Catholic Church holds that She is merely "a part of the world-wide church today," I would be astonished, flabbergasted, etc. and I would be forced to re-evaluate my conversion in 1995. Until that improbability happens, the answer to your question, however, is in the affirmative, that I reject that idea as being incompatible with Catholic teaching. Please bear with me as I try to briefly make it clearer why the branch theory is difficult from a Catholic point of view. Navidad Or is it the concept of it being a "branch" that is the sticking point? 3DOP That seems like the same question to me. Correct me though if I a missing something important. Navidad Since the very early 1500s the Anabaptist movement as exemplified today in the Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren groups has rejected a view of itself as being a "branch" of the reformation. It has a much stronger sense of self as an early restorationist group. 3DOP The Catholic Church was already 1500 years old in the early 1500's according to what the Catholic Church teaches about when Christ founded the Church. Historically, I grant that the Anabaptist movement preceded the so-called reformations of Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, and Zwingli. I can appreciate why one from the Anabaptist tradition would not be able to accept themselves as a "branch" of the reformation when it has its own separate roots. In a similar way, the Catholic Church would be denying Her own roots, founded upon the Apostles of Christ Himself, if She were, after 1500 years, to accept as fellow branches, Christian bodies, founded so late as the Renaissance, that separated themselves from any plausible claim to apostolic origin. You claim that these groups are restorationist in nature. Do they truly reject as false and fallen away, the Catholic Church, with all of its audacious claims to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, with a true restoration of the same? It has seemed to me that the historic emphasis of all the groups that have roots in the 16th Century is to deny the existence of any Christian institution that carries the four marks of the Catholic Church. The reason I limit the expression of restorationist to the LDS and perhaps a couple of others that emerged later, in the 19th Century, would be because they would not ignore the biggest problem of apostolic roots. Who that was sent from God authorized any of the men who founded these reformed churches to say that the mark of apostolicity could be dispensed with. It is an unattractive and uninspiring doctrine which teaches that Christ who founded His Church on a Rock, would after 1500 years, rouse up people in far away Renaissance Europe to rise up against this claim of a rock foundation, and any alleged need for apostolicity. Restorationist groups necessarily go further than mere reformation. A restorationist group today would not say that God wants us to wade through all the claims of all the churches that deny that they have apostolic origin in trying to decide which one God actually started. It would be hard to decide on the basis of the massive available data, which among the non-Catholic, non-Restorationist churches are the truest among others. Nor do Restorationists tell us that it is equally well if we attach ourselves to whatever Christian body suits our particular temperament and personality. A true Restoration would necessarily involve the reactivation of apostolic authority. This is what is so much more appealing about LDS claims against the Catholic Church, if I may put it that way. In less aggressive ways than in the past, LDS do not hesitate to say that for some reason, that the Catholic Church is fallen away. This seems much more plausible to me than to believe that today, God wants me to be a member of a Catholic Church that recognizes itself as another branch of a world-wide church. This is why I have a continuing interest in LDS claims. In this one very important respect, LDS are quite Catholic! Navidad, in wrapping up for now, I am hoping you can begin to grasp the height of the historical hurdles presented in suggesting that such a venerable (ancient) institution as the Catholic Church, could ever somehow view itself as merely a branch of something so very recent. No offense intended at all, but it couldn't work as an historical model. Perhaps these thoughts can also shed some light on why the Latter-day Saint might appreciate the same predicament. Take care, Rory Rory: Thanks so much for your replies and the time and effort you put into them. I really do appreciate it. I understand all that you are saying. The Catholic church cannot think of itself as a branch of the broader Christian community. I do understand that. Let me see if I can do this in a linear model. My unanswered question that I probably haven't worded well, stems from four facts I intellectually think are just that - factually correct: 1. Christian groups exist other than the entity we know as the Catholic Church. 2. Individual Christians exist who do not belong to the entity we know as the Catholic Church. 3. Therefore there is a Christian community of individuals and groups that exists outside of the boundaries of the entity we know of as the Catholic Church. 4. Lists exist of which non-Catholic Church Christian groups exist that practice baptisms that the Catholic Church or some defined group of Catholic churches will accept for adult converts to the Catholic church who are willing to be catechized, but who do not wish to be re-baptized. I will stop there and see if to your knowledge, the entity we know of as the Catholic church agrees factually with these four points or not? I am trying very hard to do this without asking too many questions. I am not asking what you personally believe or prefer, but about whether the Catholic church authorities would pragmatically agree with the four points in 1-4. If the Catholic church authorities would not agree with these four points then I might have one more question. If they do agree that these four points are factual - my last question is this - What then is the relationship of the Catholic church to the groups in #1; the individuals in #2 and the collective individuals and groups in #3. Or is there no relationship period? I probably should also say that I have an appointment next week with the Catholic bishop in charge of the diocesan ministries in northwestern Chihuahua. I hope to have a good discussion/dialogue with him as well. I am also writing a history of the Catholic Church in Chihuahua during the period of the 1930s. I am hoping he can/will fill in some gaps in my knowledge in that regard. Take care. Thanks so much.
3DOP Posted April 16, 2022 Posted April 16, 2022 16 hours ago, Navidad said: Rory: Thanks so much for your replies and the time and effort you put into them. I really do appreciate it. I understand all that you are saying. The Catholic church cannot think of itself as a branch of the broader Christian community. I do understand that. Let me see if I can do this in a linear model. My unanswered question that I probably haven't worded well, stems from four facts I intellectually think are just that - factually correct: 1. Christian groups exist other than the entity we know as the Catholic Church. 2. Individual Christians exist who do not belong to the entity we know as the Catholic Church. 3. Therefore there is a Christian community of individuals and groups that exists outside of the boundaries of the entity we know of as the Catholic Church. 4. Lists exist of which non-Catholic Church Christian groups exist that practice baptisms that the Catholic Church or some defined group of Catholic churches will accept for adult converts to the Catholic church who are willing to be catechized, but who do not wish to be re-baptized. I will stop there and see if to your knowledge, the entity we know of as the Catholic church agrees factually with these four points or not? I am trying very hard to do this without asking too many questions. I am not asking what you personally believe or prefer, but about whether the Catholic church authorities would pragmatically agree with the four points in 1-4. If the Catholic church authorities would not agree with these four points then I might have one more question. If they do agree that these four points are factual - my last question is this - What then is the relationship of the Catholic church to the groups in #1; the individuals in #2 and the collective individuals and groups in #3. Or is there no relationship period? I probably should also say that I have an appointment next week with the Catholic bishop in charge of the diocesan ministries in northwestern Chihuahua. I hope to have a good discussion/dialogue with him as well. I am also writing a history of the Catholic Church in Chihuahua during the period of the 1930s. I am hoping he can/will fill in some gaps in my knowledge in that regard. Take care. Thanks so much. Ouch...I should have saved before attempting to post. My server was disconnected and I lost my post. I do not think I have the heart, even if I had the time to do it all again right now. It was tight with no typos. After I recover (heh) and also have some extra time, I will not purposely fail to revisit this thread. At the latest, I have two weeks vacation after the first week of May. SIGH. Not the first time, and probably not the last. I need to take myself less seriously anyway. 😬 Allow me to wish you Phil, our LDS friends who may be following, and all of our non-Catholic friends who celebrate the glorious Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ tomorrow great joy. May all of our Easters be very blessed. Rory 1
2BizE Posted April 17, 2022 Posted April 17, 2022 In other countries outside of the USA, are Mormons aligned politically similar to US Mormons where a significant percentage all belong to the same political party?
JustAnAustralian Posted April 17, 2022 Posted April 17, 2022 Being a registered member of a political party isn't something that people generally do in Australia. 2
Recommended Posts