Catholicism, Christianity, Denominations?

[Joanne]

As an aside on infant baptism, the Presbyterian church I attended practiced infant baptism (sprinkling on the head with water) but taught that it was not associated with salvation but rather a covenant with God to rear your child in the teachings of the Bible/Christianity. At some point in the future, your child would either choose to be a "convenant breaker" or a "covenant keeper". The Methodist church practices infant baptism, but I am unclear what their beliefs on it are. The Baptist church does not practice infant baptism - they dedicate infants/children in a ceremony in front of the church. This was the same experience I had in my current non denominational church. I have not been at an infant baptism at a denomination in which the ceremony was intended to confer salvation to the infant's soul. (But I can only speak for my experience in the above denominations.)

 

I was a cradle Presbyterian (USA). We practiced infant baptism, which in ritual and content was more of a Christening than a salvational issue. The wording is about the parents, family and church community promising to bring up the child in the wisdom, love and admonition of the Lord. There is not the sense of urgency that a baby be baptised for salvational reasons. (I am/was a bad Presbyterian anyway, as I do not believe in predestination :lol:)

 

On the communion in a Lutheran setting ... We are currently attending a Lutheran church, Missouri Synod. It is not a theological match for me. In any case, I do not take communion because the context is that you only partake if you believe that the bread/wine are Jesus. :glare: I believe Jesus is *present* in the elements, but not in the literal sense that is described in the communion literature. I was glad to go to a Christmas Eve service at my old (Presbyterian) church where an open table is practiced and I could, in my own quirky understanding of a Christian faith, celebrate *communion* with Christ. It was supposed to happen. :lol:

 

OP, I wish I could participate in the content of your questionsth but your criteria for Christian excludes me.

[mcconnellboys]

They were, indeed, "first" when we're talking about Catholic vs. Protestant. However, when we look at Catholic vs. Orthodox, who retains the fullest extent of the religious practices that were "first" may be more fuzzy....

[OregonNative]

I'm a bit puzzled by your orange comments....

 

You're asking people (in part) for THEIR experiences/opinions/etc with Christianity...

 

....but only if they meet *YOUR definition of a Christian? :confused:

 

 

 

*Edit: I happen to share those two specific beliefs myself. I still find it puzzling (and a bit sad) that you ask for people's 'stories' - yet with restrictions.

I was trying to be specific w/o being offensive. I'm sorry my statement came off as sounding restrictive. What I was trying to say has been bolded in part of Amy's reponse below-

I do not consider Christianity:

nor could I be a Mormon or of other faiths that believe in tradition or popes or further prophecy.

Edited December 28, 2010 by OregonNative

[mcconnellboys]

And just in case there is some misunderstanding about this, because I've heard other Protestants make similar statements over the years - we do all understand that Catholics and those in the Orthodox church ARE Christians, right?

[mcconnellboys]

I would hope, that as Christ offered his body and blood for all, that anyone offering communion would also make it available to any who seek it. It is up to the seeker to know their own heart and God certainly knows it.

 

I know that some churches have closed communion. I think I do not agree with that....

[Avila]

Vatican II was the last Church council, which happened in the early 60s. Theology didn't change, but customs and practices did. One of the biggest differences was allowing Mass to be said in common languages instead of in Latin. It is a lot more complicated than that, but in general, traditionalists take things back to before those changes happened.

 

Their issue with the papacy is a lot more complicated. Basically, they take issue with the authority of the papacy, mostly due to disagreements over Vatican II and the changes within the Church. They believe they are the remnant of the "real" church, and they are in schism. I don't completely understand their position.

 

I did spend a year at a Latin Mass, Tridentine parish. But they were not one of the groups in schism. So I know a lot more about the Latin Mass part of it than the rest. And I loved the Latin Mass aesthetically. It was also really nice to make that connection with history for me.

 

Again, totally off topic. Sorry!

[OregonNative]

On the communion in a Lutheran setting ... We are currently attending a Lutheran church, Missouri Synod. It is not a theological match for me. Could you explain why?

In any case, I do not take communion because the context is that you only partake if you believe that the bread/wine are Jesus. :glare: I believe Jesus is *present* in the elements, but not in the literal sense that is described in the communion literature. Would you mind expanding on this statement? I have never really thought about this.

 

OP, I wish I could participate in the content of your questions but your criteria for Christian excludes me.

 

Please feel free to participate! I would LOVE to hear what you do/don't believe and why. Educating myself and understanding different points of view is very important to me. I was trying SO hard to not obviously exclude one faith and I think I have only created confusion. :001_huh:

[texasmama]

And just in case there is some misunderstanding about this, because I've heard other Protestants make similar statements over the years - we do all understand that Catholics and those in the Orthodox church ARE Christians, right?

 

As a lifelong Protestant, yes, I understand this. I can only speak for myself, but I consider both Catholic and Protestant denominations to be Christian.

[Avila]

I would hope, that as Christ offered his body and blood for all, that anyone offering communion would also make it available to any who seek it. It is up to the seeker to know their own heart and God certainly knows it.

 

I know that some churches have closed communion. I think I do not agree with that....

 

 

I am sad that anyone who wants to receive communion and can't is hurt by this. It isn't personal, not toward a particular person or group.

 

Communion signifies a unity that we sadly don't have, at this point. Saying Amen when you receive would be saying "I believe" to things that, as a non-Catholic, you don't believe (not necessarily you as in the PP personally, but just in general).

 

I think it is harder when a group does believe in the real presence and cannot receive. But most other Christians do not believe in the real presence. I guess it comes down to how important you think correct belief is. St. Paul talks about the consequences of receiving communion without proper discernment, and the Catholic Church takes that seriously and applies that here ( 1 Cor. 11:23-29).

 

And only Catholics in a state of grace should receive it, so there are rules that apply even within our parameters too.

 

There is usually a prayer in the back of the missalette to make a Spiritual Communion, and that would be open to anyone wishing to pray it.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Asenik

[Parrothead]

Pre-Vatican II is any time prior to Vatican II which was the last ecumenical council at the Vatican. It opened under Pope John Paul XIII in 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI in 1965.

 

There are those that think the changes that came about during Vatican II changed the Church for the worse. The most notable change that they object to i the use of the Novo Ordo Mass.

 

They also refuses to obey the Pope - the leader of the Church.

 

There is another group SSPV - Society of St. Pius V - that broke away from the SSPX and is possibly sedevacantist.

 

 

Yes, Catholics believe that St. Peter was the first Pope. Matthew 16:18.

[Teachin'Mine]

Admittedly, I haven't read through the thread, so I apologize if this has all been said already.

 

I'm R. Catholic. The Catholic Church believes that Scripture is complete and can not be added to. The Church is based upon Scripture and upon the traditions handed down by the Apostles. Only so much was written, but of course there was so much more that they were told, taught, instructed, etc..

 

Some of the differences between Catholicism and Protestant beliefs:

 

Protestant churches came to be because someone "protested" against one or more of the Catholic Church's teachings. As an example, King Henry XIII wanted to re-marry, and the Church forbid that marriage. So he broke ties with Rome, the Pope, and formed his own church - the Church of England with himself as the head of that church.

 

Each Protestant church has slightly different beliefs, so you'd have to get the details on each one to know how they differ from the Catholic Church. Some of the ways are that the Catholic Church believes in the True Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, while most Protestant churches look at it as symbolic. The head of the Catholic Church is the Pope, who is infallible on matters of faith. The Pope is still human and capable of error, but not on very specific matters of faith. I think it might be helpful to read the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed to know what Catholics believe.

 

Here's a link: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a2.htm

 

You're asking great questions! If you want to have any specific questions answered about the Catholic faith, you can ask a priest. There are also classes available which anyone can attend who is interested in learning more about the Catholic faith.

[OregonNative]

And just in case there is some misunderstanding about this, because I've heard other Protestants make similar statements over the years - we do all understand that Catholics and those in the Orthodox church ARE Christians, right?

 

Is there a reason why a Catholic identifies them self as such, but a Protestant Christian calls them self Christian? If someone is Lutheran, Methodist etc., they don't use that as a defining term-at least in my experience. Just wondering if this has some sort of historical basis maybe trying to separate the Catholics from Christianity. As you can tell, I have SO much to learn.

[ChandlerMom]

But my point is why would anyone want to go to a RC church and partake in something s/he doesn't believe in?

 

If you are Episcopalian, you don't believe in the RC faith, so why go there and want to be in communion? :confused: Not that I am saying you do, but the general *you.*

 

It is not just the belief in the Body and Blood, but also WHERE.

 

As I mentioned in my post, I attended catholic High School; maybe 2/3 of the students were catholic (I wasn't). We had mandatory religion classes and mandatory mass. Why did I go to mass at the RCC if I wasn't RCC? Because I was marched there in single file line by the priests several times a year. :D We always had school on Good Friday and spent half that day in mass. We were instructed on the RCC beliefs of the Eucharist. We were told it was our choice whether to commune, but were free to do so as long as we approached it with respect and meaning. As a Lutheran I had many discussions with several of the priests about it, one of whom taught seminary. It was NOT RCC policy (but then the Jesuits have a long history of being 'rebels'), but the jist of what they said was that what was in our hearts was between us and God.

 

I guess after all Jesus shared the first communion with Judas. Again, I have no interest in getting into a debate on the meaning of the Eucharist or whether open or closed communion is "right". I was just presenting my own personal experience of how much policies can vary from place to place, even within one denomination.

[asta]

As a lifelong Protestant, yes, I understand this. I can only speak for myself, but I consider both Catholic and Protestant denominations to be Christian.

 

Ok. I read this so often on these boards.

 

Protestant comes from the word "protest". You have to have something to protest against.

 

Luther was protesting the Catholic Church.

 

Voila! Protestantism!

 

(I hadn't read Teachin'Mine's post when I wrote the above)

 

 

Is there a reason why a Catholic identifies them self as such, but a Protestant Christian calls them self Christian? If someone is Lutheran, Methodist etc., they don't use that as a defining term-at least in my experience. Just wondering if this has some sort of historical basis maybe trying to separate the Catholics from Christianity. As you can tell, I have SO much to learn.

 

Yes. The Protestant Reformation didn't begin until 1517. Prior to that, there simply were no Protestants. If a person was a Christian, they were a Catholic. Try to remember that the word "Catholic" means "universal". There was only ONE type of Christian: a "universal Christian". Even though there were groups living in different areas, with assorted cultural differences, the basic message remained the same. There was not a cohesive liturgy for Christianity until the Catholic Church wrote one.

Edited December 28, 2010 by asta

[Teachin'Mine]

Actually as a Catholic I feel very close to other Christians. I truly believe that one day - maybe not in the too distant future - we will all be one. :) There is way more that unites us than divides us.

[texasmama]

I think it is harder when a group does believe in the real presence and cannot receive. But most other Christians do not believe in the real presence. I guess it comes down to how important you think correct belief is. St. Paul talks about the consequences of receiving communion without proper discernment, and the Catholic Church takes that seriously and applies that here ( 1 Cor. 11:23-29).

 

My non denominational church pastor generally quotes that scripture and asks people to search their hearts before taking communion. It is very serious business at our church. The church does not believe in transubstantiation, but communion is taken very seriously, as the Bible indicates that it should be. (Just piggybacking on what you said here.:001_smile:)

[Trish]

Well I see a lot of focus within religious groups as to why (whatever) is right and (those other people) are either wrong, or REALLY wrong, etc. For me, that sort of misses the central point, which is what we're striving for, GOD. Specifically, JESUS.

 

I think religious structures and the various Christian denominations serve as a support for those of willing heart to SEEK OUT THE PATH TO JESUS. I think He can be found from any of the denominations as long as the person is on that positive spiritual path.

 

Of course my own denomination (Catholic) teaches that ours is the "best" way, but I was always taught you can be saved no matter what denomination you're coming from. (that is not necessarily how they were taught in the early parts of the 20th century, though!)

 

So I think it comes down to the individual and what is working for them.

 

I also think when Jesus returns, there will be no NEED for any of the religious denominations, they will just fall away because no one will rely on those support structures anymore. Man-made perceptions of what religion "ought" to be will dissolve, along with enmity between the various groups.

 

Yes, religion is a crutch, but technically we're all invalids!

[texasmama]

Ok. I read this so often on these boards.

 

Protestant comes from the word "protest". You have to have something to protest against.

 

Luther was protesting the Catholic Church.

 

Voila! Protestantism!

 

I do understand this. Did I not describe it correctly? Is it wrong to call Catholicism a "denomination"? (Trying to understand here, as I am confused.)

[OregonNative]

 

Protestant churches came to be because someone "protested" against one or more of the Catholic Church's teachings. As an example' date=' King Henry XIII wanted to re-marry, and the Church forbid that marriage. So he broke ties with Rome, the Pope, and formed his own church - the Church of England with himself as the head of that church.:001_huh: [b']I never knew this![/b]

 

The Pope is still human and capable of error, but not on very specific matters of faith.-Could you explain this further? How is he unable to be incorrect on specific matters of faith?

I think it might be helpful to read the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed to know what Catholics believe.

I read these every Sunday in church growing up, but never really understood them. Just one of those things you recite from memory:001_huh: My mom brought me a church program for her Lutheran church when she visited this year. For the first time, I realized that the Nicene Creed mentions the Catholic church!

 

Here's a link: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a2.htm

.

 

I also learned that in 325 AD (First Council of Nicea) this part of the Nicene Creed was not present:

 

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

Anyone know why it was added in 381 AD (First Council of Constantinople)?

[Joanne]

And only Catholics in a state of grace should receive it, so there are rules that apply even within our parameters too.

 

.

 

See, for me, if grace exists, there is no believer not in it. Ok, that sentence is poorly contructed. Let me try again:

 

I believe in an open communion table, and I believe in it strongly. My relationship with God is between me and God; not a man made intercessory construct that determines if I qualify to participate in the eucharist.

 

As far as grace goes, I believe that unconfessed, unhealed, unrepentent sin blocks me from God, but who needs his communion more than someone in this state? If I have to confess and get right with God before communion, I am working for my own grace.

[ChandlerMom]

Is there a reason why a Catholic identifies them self as such, but a Protestant Christian calls them self Christian? If someone is Lutheran, Methodist etc., they don't use that as a defining term-at least in my experience. Just wondering if this has some sort of historical basis maybe trying to separate the Catholics from Christianity. As you can tell, I have SO much to learn.

 

Actually, I think most folks who identify themselves to others just as "Christians" are most often fundamentalist neo-conservative Christians. Catholics, Lutherans, Presbies, Methodists...tend to use their denomination. I think the difference is that most non-fundamentalists are less evangelical and tend to hold their beliefs a bit more privately and don't talk as openly about their faith. But that's just my observation based on small number statistics. ;)

[mom2a&z]

The gist of it is that the more I looked at the history and the church fathers, the more seriously I looked at the Catholic Church. John Henry Newman has a famous quote "To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant." I found that to be very much true, in my case.

 

 

:iagree: That was my experience as well. I was a Southern Baptist for years until I felt God calling me out of that church. (Loved everything about it. The pastor and the people were great!) Reading the writiings of the early church fathers lead me directly to the Catholic Church.

 

When I started researching Church history I couldnt' be Protestant any more. I had fallen away from all practice of religion because it was illogical to me all the many branches of Protestantism teaching various things. It cannot be possible that PastorX teaches it a sin to cut your hair and Pastor U if you drink at all. It cannot be true that once saved always saved and you have to work for your salvation.

 

Sola scriptura never made sense to me because everyone interpreted the Bible differently. How did we get the Bible anyway. It didn't fall from the sky as it is. God intrusted man to bring it to us. I think it is good to read the Bible yourself but without somewhat of a knowledge of the language, customs, culture and literature you can place your own perceptions on it.

 

:iagree:

 

This is true for me, too.

 

My husband was raised Catholic. I was raised Lutheran. For most of our marriage, we attended Lutheran churches, both LCMS and ELCA. In the end, neither were anything I was interested in. I had a long-time dissatisfaction with both but wasn't sure what to do about that or where to go. Once I started doing some reading and then going to Mass, I knew where we belonged. My husband is a practicing Catholic again. My three daughters and I are doing RCIA now.

 

I started attending RCIA last year. This spring, my dh decided to convert as well, so now the whole family is in RCIA. I finally feel like I've come home.

[Avila]

As far as grace goes, I believe that unconfessed, unhealed, unrepentent sin blocks me from God, but who needs his communion more than someone in this state? If I have to confess and get right with God before communion, I am working for my own grace.

 

I am not disagreeing with you, and I appreciate hearing your perspective on it. :)

 

I think the flip side of that is that God extends his grace to all, but not all choose to accept it. We don't think we are working to earn it, but choosing to accept the grace that God is offering us through the sacraments.

 

Grace is the life of God in your soul. Sin kills the soul, but the sacraments are God's instruments to restore life to the soul. So the sacraments are a gift and not a burden. Receiving any of them is an act of faith and not works.

[unsinkable]

As I mentioned in my post, I attended catholic High School; maybe 2/3 of the students were catholic (I wasn't). We had mandatory religion classes and mandatory mass. Why did I go to mass at the RCC if I wasn't RCC? Because I was marched there in single file line by the priests several times a year. :D We always had school on Good Friday and spent half that day in mass. We were instructed on the RCC beliefs of the Eucharist. We were told it was our choice whether to commune, but were free to do so as long as we approached it with respect and meaning. As a Lutheran I had many discussions with several of the priests about it, one of whom taught seminary. It was NOT RCC policy (but then the Jesuits have a long history of being 'rebels'), but the jist of what they said was that what was in our hearts was between us and God.

 

I guess after all Jesus shared the first communion with Judas. Again, I have no interest in getting into a debate on the meaning of the Eucharist or whether open or closed communion is "right". I was just presenting my own personal experience of how much policies can vary from place to place, even within one denomination.

 

Mass is not celebrated on Good Friday. :confused:

 

Plus, Catholic schools are usually CLOSED on Good Friday b/c it is such a holy day in the Church.

 

There is NO debate in true Catholic teaching on the meaning of the Eucharist. It's pretty straight-forward. You can debate on your own ideas or beliefs or whatever...or not, since you don't want to.

 

But just because you experienced inaccurate or false or wrong teaching by a school that was Catholic does not mean that there is a variation of dogma in the Church.

Edited December 28, 2010 by unsinkable
changed policies to dogma.

[mcconnellboys]

Well, prior to the Reformation there were Catholics, Orthodox, and various assorted gnostic groups who were all considered heretics (so were the reformers, at first). The one Catholic (universal) church had split between the Orthodox and Catholics a lot earlier....

[asta]

I also learned that in 325 AD (First Council of Nicea) this part of the Nicene Creed was not present:

 

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

Anyone know why it was added in 381 AD (First Council of Constantinople)?

 

One holy catholic and apostolic church

 

means

 

One holy universal and following in the steps of the apostles church

 

not

 

One holy Roman Catholic and following the Pope church

 

It is a common misunderstanding.

[Teachin'Mine]

I also learned that in 325 AD (First Council of Nicea) this part of the Nicene Creed was not present:

 

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

Anyone know why it was added in 381 AD (First Council of Constantinople)?

 

I'm still looking for more specific information, but if you go back to this link, http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a2.htm , go to the bottom and click on the right arrows to get more detailed info.

 

If you notice, in the creed, the word catholic is with a lower case c and therefore refers to universal - not the Catholic Church. :)

 

Here's a link explaining further: http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

Edited December 28, 2010 by Teachin'Mine

[Parrothead]

I also learned that in 325 AD (First Council of Nicea) this part of the Nicene Creed was not present:

 

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

Anyone know why it was added in 381 AD (First Council of Constantinople)?

Here is a line by line breakdown of what was changed in 381. It was a lot more than just adding the last line.

 

Could you explain this further? How is he unable to be incorrect on specific matters of faith?

Only 2 times in the 2000+ year history of the Catholic Church has the pope spoken twice ex cathedra - from the chair. These times were to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Mary's conception without Original Sin) and the Assumption of Mary (Mary being taken body and soul to Heaven). Those are the only times the pope has been infallible. It is not correct to say the pope is correct in everything he says.

[Parrothead]

Mass is not celebrated on Good Friday. :confused:

 

Plus, Catholic schools are usually CLOSED on Good Friday b/c it is such a holy day in the Church.

 

There is NO debate in true Catholic teaching on the meaning of the Eucharist. It's pretty straight-forward. You can debate on your own ideas or beliefs or whatever...or not, since you don't want to.

 

But just because you experienced inaccurate or false or wrong teaching by a school that was Catholic does not mean that there is a variation of dogma in the Church.

:iagree: so totally and very much so. Mass is a celebration and there is no celebration on Good Friday. The tabernacle is empty.

[OregonNative]

One holy catholic and apostolic church

 

means

 

One holy universal and following in the steps of the apostles church

 

not

 

One holy Roman Catholic and following the Pope church

 

It is a common misunderstanding.

 

I'm still looking for more specific information' date=' but if you go back to this link, http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a2.htm , go to the bottom and click on the right arrows to get more detailed info.

 

If you notice, in the creed, the word catholic is with a lower case c and therefore refers to universal - not the Catholic Church. :)

 

Here's a link explaining further: http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp[/quote']

 

:blush::svengo: Thanks Ladies! See how much I don't know!!

[asta]

Here is a line by line breakdown of what was changed in 381. It was a lot more than just adding the last line.

 

I was about to say that. The brouhaha with the Nicene Creed wasn't in 381 with the "one holy catholic church" bit - it was the "proceeds from the father and the son" bit (the filioque) in 589! THAT was what started the ball rolling for the schisms...

[Ellie]

Finally, open/closed communion can vary. When I went to a Jesuit HS I was allowed to take communion, even though I am not RCC. However at a RCC wedding I did not take communion. Some groups believe you need to be in a state of grace; others require baptism or instruction; others offer it as a free and open gift from God. I won't get into a theological argument on that! :D

The Church teaches that you must be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist. Those who allowed you to do so when you were not were in error.

 

Non-Catholic Christians have different requirements for recieiving communion. Not so the Catholic Church.

[OregonNative]

Only 2 times in the 2000+ year history of the Catholic Church has the pope spoken twice ex cathedra - from the chair. These times were to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Mary's conception without Original Sin) and the Assumption of Mary (Mary being taken body and soul to Heaven). Those are the only times the pope has been infallible. It is not correct to say the pope is correct in everything he says.

Thank you for explaining this!! Off to research the Assumption-

Edited to add: I looked up the Assumption and am confused (big surprise right?)

From Wiki: was only relatively recently defined as infallible dogma by the Catholic Church, and in spite of a statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not. Why wouldn't Mary have died? She was human right?

 

"having completed the course of her earthly life," leaves open the question of whether the Virgin Mary died before her assumption or whether she was assumed before death; both possibilities are allowed. Mary's assumption is said to have been a divine gift to her as the 'Mother of God'. Ludwig Ott's view is that, as Mary completed her life as a shining example to the human race, the perspective of the gift of assumption is offered to the whole human race.[13] Yes, I'm confused. What exactly is assumption?

 

I see other "denoms" believe in the assumption as well.

From Eastern Christianity Comparison (is this part of the Catholic Church?)

Many Catholics also believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they add that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed, while others believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven without first passing through death. Huh?

Edited December 28, 2010 by OregonNative

[OregonNative]

I was about to say that. The brouhaha with the Nicene Creed wasn't in 381 with the "one holy catholic church" bit - it was the "proceeds from the father and the son" bit (the filioque) in 589! THAT was what started the ball rolling for the schisms...

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound ignorant. That was info I found on Wiki when reading the Nicene Creed.:001_huh: There is so much I don't know!

[mcconnellboys]

Well, as I'm sure you know, the term "Catholic" means universal and there was in the beginning only one church that was Christian. Everyone who was Christian was "Catholic". Not that the church necessarily called itself that at the time....

 

Then there was a split between what became the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches in 1054. (That was just a final straw; the disputes had been going on for a while.)

 

Here's just a couple of websites that talks about the split (from differing perspectives). There are many sources of info on it online:

 

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.htm

 

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/split-Roman-Church.htm

 

http://aquietmoment.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/why-did-the-eastern-orthodox-and-catholic-churches-split-2/

 

http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/the-split-between-roman-catholic-and-orthodox-churches/

 

From an historical perspective, one of the main points of contention came over wording of the Nicene Creed, but there was much more of a power struggle as a back story....

 

And there continued to be splits after that time period, too, both in the East and West, but we won't get into all those groups that most folks have never even heard of....

 

I don't think that Protestants referring to themselves as "Christian" had anything to do with them saying that Catholics were NOT Christian, I think that as the new religions came into being, they simply wanted to identify that they were Christ centered religions.

 

Someone who had never heard of Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc. would not necessarily know that they were followers of Christ who were breaking away from the teachings of the Catholic church when their followings first arose. The terms "Lutheran" and "Calvinist" only arose over time. And so it was with all denominations.

 

Also, there were so many denominations that arose in the wake of the Reformation! Where there had really only been one recognized "true" church in the West up to that time (the Catholic), now there were a multitude of churches that proclaimed their ways were "true", or "Christian"....

[OregonNative]

Well, as I'm sure you know, the term "Catholic" means universal .

Actually, I did not know this:001_huh:

[unsinkable]

Thank you for explaining this!! Off to research the Assumption-

 

Oh, dear. :lol:

[Parrothead]

I was about to say that. The brouhaha with the Nicene Creed wasn't in 381 with the "one holy catholic church" bit - it was the "proceeds from the father and the son" bit (the filioque) in 589! THAT was what started the ball rolling for the schisms...

I left out the bit about the flioque because I didn't want to confuse her. :D

[Parrothead]

Thank you for explaining this!! Off to research the Assumption-

I'll pull out my books in case you have questions.

[Parrothead]

Actually, I did not know this:001_huh:

Just to clarify, catholic with a little c means universal. Catholic with a capital c is the Church.

[Avila]

Just to add for the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception:

 

For the Catholic Church, no doctrine is defined until it is violated. Basically, this means that when everyone is in agreement, there isn't a need to define and discuss something. I know that goes against the modern sense of put everything out there up front, but that is how things have traditionally been handled.

 

This also means that just because you don't see something in print, that doesn't mean that when you do see it, it is innovative or that it is THAT point in time that Catholics started believing it. There just isn't any need to argue about it until someone violates that particular position. Before that, it existed in the oral teaching of the Church. And in a mostly illiterate world, most teaching of any kind was ORAL. Before the printing press, books were not widely available and were so expensive that even literate people didn't own many of them. Even universities consisted mainly of lectures and not textbooks.

[mcconnellboys]

I understand, but I do not agree as I don't think any one way has precedent in correctness over another. There are Catholic churches where communion is open and I have partaken of communion (last at my son's graduation from Catholic school here, for example). I have taken communion when we attended Catholic mass in Baton Rouge in past, too....

 

I believe that God can sort out who should and should not take communion; who sins by partaking and who does not. In fact, I tend to think that He is the only one who can truly judge who is worthy and who is not. I'm not really sure that it's anyone else's business to make that decision to keep someone separate from God if they wish to partake....

 

And I understand the position of those who do believe this; don't get me wrong. I do not mean to argue that my position is correct and that of others is incorrect. I do not know with absolute certainty what is "correct" and best in anything we do. I am not God. I think only He knows and I have to simply act in life as I think He directs me (not that I do that good a job of that, either, but I'm trying)....

[OregonNative]

I'll pull out my books in case you have questions.

 

I posted some above after quoting you: I am copying them here so you don't have to search-

From Wiki: was only relatively recently defined as infallible dogma by the Catholic Church, and in spite of a statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not. Why wouldn't Mary have died? She was human right?

 

"having completed the course of her earthly life," leaves open the question of whether the Virgin Mary died before her assumption or whether she was assumed before death; both possibilities are allowed. Mary's assumption is said to have been a divine gift to her as the 'Mother of God'. Ludwig Ott's view is that, as Mary completed her life as a shining example to the human race, the perspective of the gift of assumption is offered to the whole human race.[13] Yes, I'm confused. What exactly is assumption?

 

I see other "denoms" believe in the assumption as well.

From Eastern Christianity Comparison (is this part of the Catholic Church?)

Many Catholics also believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they add that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed, while others believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven without first passing through death. Huh?

[mcconnellboys]

Well, that's a whole 'nother conversation, LOL! I think you'll find that Mary, Jesus, and Elijah are the three earthly beings who have been transported body and soul into Heaven....

[Parrothead]

I understand, but I do not agree as I don't think any one way has precedent in correctness over another. There are Catholic churches where communion is open and I have partaken of communion (last at my son's graduation from Catholic school here, for example). I have taken communion when we attended Catholic mass in Baton Rouge in past, too....

 

I believe that God can sort out who should and should not take communion; who sins by partaking and who does not. In fact, I tend to think that He is the only one who can truly judge who is worthy and who is not. I'm not really sure that it's anyone else's business to make that decision to keep someone separate from God if they wish to partake....

 

And I understand the position of those who do believe this; don't get me wrong. I do not mean to argue that my position is correct and that of others is incorrect. I do not know with absolute certainty what is "correct" and best in anything we do. I am not God. I think only He knows and I have to simply act in life as I think He directs me (not that I do that good a job of that, either, but I'm trying)....

Communion is never open in the Catholic church. There may not be an announcement prior to mass, or as part of the Eucharistic prayers, and the Missal may not (I've never seen one not) have it printed on the inside front cover. I can't stress enough that the Catholic church teaches that one must be in a state of grace prior to receiving the Eucharist. Part of being in a state of grace includes the Sacrament of Reconciliation to confess any mortal sins.

 

If one is at a Catholic church where non-Catholics are invited to partake of the Eucharist this particular church is in schism with Rome and technically is not a Catholic church.

[Caitilin]

I posted some above after quoting you: I am copying them here so you don't have to search-

From Wiki: was only relatively recently defined as infallible dogma by the Catholic Church, and in spite of a statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not. Why wouldn't Mary have died? She was human right?

 

"having completed the course of her earthly life," leaves open the question of whether the Virgin Mary died before her assumption or whether she was assumed before death; both possibilities are allowed. Mary's assumption is said to have been a divine gift to her as the 'Mother of God'. Ludwig Ott's view is that, as Mary completed her life as a shining example to the human race, the perspective of the gift of assumption is offered to the whole human race.[13] Yes, I'm confused. What exactly is assumption? This means that the person is taken up bodily to Heaven, not simply spiritually.

 

I see other "denoms" believe in the assumption as well.

From Eastern Christianity Comparison (is this part of the Catholic Church?)

Many Catholics also believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they add that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed, while others believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven without first passing through death. Huh?

The Catholic Church (and the Eastern Orthodox also, though with shades of difference) has an understanding of Mary as especially special, that she was the Ark of the New Covenant, and that, in order for her to be worthy of that exalted honor, she is intrinsically different. Thus her being transported to Heaven, and the Catholic view that she was conceived without being subject to original sin. This is theologically complicated, and I don't claim to have a thorough understanding of the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox views. The main thing is that Mary is viewed with particular honor and veneration, but not worship, by the RCC and EOC.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Caitilin

[unsinkable]

I understand, but I do not agree as I don't think any one way has precedent in correctness over another. There are Catholic churches where communion is open and I have partaken of communion (last at my son's graduation from Catholic school here, for example). I have taken communion when we attended Catholic mass in Baton Rouge in past, too....

 

I believe that God can sort out who should and should not take communion; who sins by partaking and who does not. In fact, I tend to think that He is the only one who can truly judge who is worthy and who is not. I'm not really sure that it's anyone else's business to make that decision to keep someone separate from God if they wish to partake....

 

And I understand the position of those who do believe this; don't get me wrong. I do not mean to argue that my position is correct and that of others is incorrect. I do not know with absolute certainty what is "correct" and best in anything we do. I am not God. I think only He knows and I have to simply act in life as I think He directs me (not that I do that good a job of that, either, but I'm trying)....

 

An individual partaking in Holy Communion at a RCC is an act between that person and God.

 

A RCC priest or a RCC offering Holy Communion to any and all is a completely different situation. According to the RCC, it's wrong.

[Avila]

I posted some above after quoting you: I am copying them here so you don't have to search-

From Wiki: was only relatively recently defined as infallible dogma by the Catholic Church, and in spite of a statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not. Why wouldn't Mary have died? She was human right?

 

"having completed the course of her earthly life," leaves open the question of whether the Virgin Mary died before her assumption or whether she was assumed before death; both possibilities are allowed. Mary's assumption is said to have been a divine gift to her as the 'Mother of God'. Ludwig Ott's view is that, as Mary completed her life as a shining example to the human race, the perspective of the gift of assumption is offered to the whole human race.[13] Yes, I'm confused. What exactly is assumption?

 

I see other "denoms" believe in the assumption as well.

From Eastern Christianity Comparison (is this part of the Catholic Church?)

Many Catholics also believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they add that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed, while others believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven without first passing through death. Huh?

 

At the end of her life, we believe that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven. She wasn't the only mortal to have this happen, as the same thing happened to Elijah.

 

There is no consensus on whether she died and was then assumed OR the time just came for her life on earth to be over and her son came then to take her to Heaven.

 

There has never been a church claiming to have her relics or to be the place of her burial.

[specialmama]

I'd like to share my analogy. My parents are Roman Catholic, and I am a Bible-believing, Christ-following, born-again non-denominational Christian LOL, and I like to use this illustration with them: Christ came to plant a tree (the church) and that tree still exists. But every time a human being twists things, interprets things differently, adds rules, etc., then a branch (denomination) is formed off that tree. There are so many branches; many are close to the trunk and the nourishment and truth Christ offers. But many branches are far removed, even dead. The way I see it, if one is close to Christ, the rest will follow. If one is growing and daily receiving nourishment from Him, they will want to follow HIM regardless of what their church or any man says. With spiritual maturity, the gift of discernment will show followers if they ought to leave their church or denomination if that branch is not fruitful.

 

These discussions can go around for millenia because the words can mean different things to different people. But the truth is the truth is the truth. John 15: 1-8 1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

[Parrothead]

I posted some above after quoting you: I am copying them here so you don't have to search-

From Wiki: was only relatively recently defined as infallible dogma by the Catholic Church, and in spite of a statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not. Why wouldn't Mary have died? She was human right?

 

"having completed the course of her earthly life," leaves open the question of whether the Virgin Mary died before her assumption or whether she was assumed before death; both possibilities are allowed. Mary's assumption is said to have been a divine gift to her as the 'Mother of God'. Ludwig Ott's view is that, as Mary completed her life as a shining example to the human race, the perspective of the gift of assumption is offered to the whole human race.[13] Yes, I'm confused. What exactly is assumption?

 

I see other "denoms" believe in the assumption as well.

From Eastern Christianity Comparison (is this part of the Catholic Church?)

Many Catholics also believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they add that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed, while others believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven without first passing through death. Huh?

Your second bolded part answers your first question. The Blessed Virgin Mary may not have died as a divine gift - a gift from God. She was simply brought to Heaven body and soul at the end of her Earthly life.

 

While there is a definite dogma that the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed (taken to heaven body and soul) that dogma does not state how and if BVM died first. It is left to the individual Catholic to decide what he/she believes about. Some say she died and at the moment of death was assumed to Heaven. Others say she was assumed to Heaven just prior to death.

 

Eastern Christianity includes the Eastern Orthodox church. As Asta and I very breifly discussed a few posts up, the Great Schism of 1054 was where the Church split "officially" into East and West.