The development of Doctrine

[MoreCoffee]

The councils of the Catholic Church provide a good record of how Christian doctrine has developed, largely in response to heresies and partly in response to internal debates on the meaning of the scriptures. Here is a summary of the twenty-one councils of the Catholic Church.


The following is taken from Your guide to the ecumenical councils of the Church

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE EAST​

#1 Nicea (325)
Condemned Arianism, confirmed Divinity of Jesus, established Easter date
In the early fourth century, after Emperor Constantine ended religious persecutions, an Alexandrian priest named Arius was popularizing the heresy that Jesus was not equal to God the Father, not divine, that Jesus had a beginning, was created and not eternal. Arius and his followers conceived Jesus as a great prophet, but not God. Opposing Arius, defending the orthodox view that Jesus was divine and of the same substance as God the Father, was St. Athanasius, a cleric from Alexandria. The debate about the divinity of Jesus became so heated that Constantine advised Pope Sylvester I that he was calling a council of bishops to resolve the issue. Made up of 300 primarily Eastern bishops, this first ecumenical council, although not unanimously, condemned Arianism and excommunicated Arius. They developed the Nicean Creed, emphasizing Jesus as “Consubstantional with the Father … Begotten not made, one in being with the Father.” This language rejected Arianism and established clear teaching on Christ’s divinity. The bishops at Nicea also agreed to the date when Easter is celebrated.
#2 Constantinople I (381)
Condemned Arianism, Macedonianism; added Holy Spirit to Creed
In 381, Emperor Theodosius called all the bishops to Constantinople because Arianism remained widespread and also to confront another developing heresy. It appears that Pope St. Damasus was never notified about the council and only centuries later did the Holy See acknowledge the council as ecumenical. The 150 bishops attending reaffirmed the decisions of Nicea regarding Arianism and also condemned Macedonianism, a heresy denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The council proclaimed the Third Person of the Trinity as equal to the Father and the Son, and emphasized such belief by adding a clause to the Creed of Nicea: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life; he proceeds from the Father, is adored and honored together with the Father and the Son; he spoke through the prophets.” This language was accepted by the Eastern bishops and later in the West.
#3 Ephesus (431)
Rejected Nestorianism and claimed Mary as Mother of God
Around 428, Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople preached that Mary was not the Mother of God (Theotókos). He and others held that Jesus was two persons, one human, one divine, and that Mary gave birth to a human; thus Jesus was not God and Mary could not be the Mother of God. Against Nestorius, and supported by Pope St. Celestine I, was Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, who professed the Christian belief that Jesus was one person with two natures, one human, one divine. The arguments of Nestorius and Cyril were widely and passionately debated; at length, Emperor Theodosius II gathered the bishops at Ephesus where Nestorius was excommunicated and his teachings condemned. The 200 bishops confirmed Jesus was one person with two natures; that He was God and Mary was the Mother of God. Overjoyed upon hearing the decision, the people paraded through the streets chanting, “Holy Mary, Mother of God.”

” [W]e confess the holy virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her.” — Council of Ephesus (431)

#4 Chalcedon (451)
Confronted Monophysitism and declared Christ had two natures
Chalcedon confronted the Monophysitism heresy, which held that Christ had one nature, that his human nature had been absorbed by the divine. Some heretics claimed that Jesus was not human at all. The council, invoked by Emperor Marcian, was attended by as many as 600 bishops, the largest gathering at a general council to date. The council had full approval of Pope St. Leo the Great, who sent a letter condemning the one nature theory; the bishops affirmed that Jesus possessed two natures, fully human and fully divine.
#5 Constantinople II (553)
Affirmed decisions of early councils, condemned supporters of Nestorianism
The bishops were summoned by Emperor Justinian I in 553 to reaffirm the decisions of the previous councils, especially that Jesus had two natures and that followers of Nestorius were teaching heresy. Pope Vigilius was invited to attend but sent representatives, adding to some 150 bishops, almost all from the East. The council anathematized certain writings of Theodoret of Cyr, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ibas of Edessa. Their works, supporting Nestorianism and written 100 years earlier, were known as the “Three Chapters.”
#6 Constantinople III (680-81)
Decreed that Jesus had two wills
Summoned by Emperor Constantine IV, with approval of Pope St. Agatho, this council dealt with the contention that Jesus did not have two wills, one human and one divine. The heretics claimed he had only one will, a divine will. The 175, mostly eastern, bishops rejected the idea of one will (called Monothelitism) and decreed that Christ had “two natural wills without division, without change, without separation, without confusion.” Those who supported the heresy, including Pope Honorius I, were condemned.
#7 Nicea II (787)
Denied Iconoclasm, encouraged veneration of images
In 730, Emperor Leo III had demanded that images in worship places be removed, asserting that the use of statues, pictures and icons was idolatry. Denying the veneration of images became known as iconoclasm and was opposed at this council summoned by Empress Irene. The council’s 300 bishops, including representatives of Pope Adrian I, ruled that veneration of an image was directed to the holy person the image represented, not the image itself.
#8 Constantinople IV (869-70)
Photius rejected as Patriarch of Constantinople
In the ninth century two individuals were claiming the position of Patriarch of Constantinople. Depending on the emperor, and to some decree the pope, either Ignatius or Photius held that role. In 867, after being deposed by Pope St. Nicholas I, Photius presided over a local council of bishops that excommunicated the pope and condemned certain Western beliefs, including the Filioque that Rome had added to the Creed. Shortly after becoming emperor, Basil summoned a general council to sort out the true patriarch. At the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869 (the eighth ecumenical council) with some 100 bishops present, all the decisions of the earlier local council in 867 were rejected; the attending bishops anathematized Photius and demanded that everyone consecrated by Photius be removed from office. The Eastern Church has never accepted the council of 869 as ecumenical, maintaining that Nicea was the last ecumenical council. In 877, the emperor reinstated Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[MoreCoffee]

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE WEST — THE POPE CALLS ALL COUNCILS​

#9 Lateran I (1123)
Condemned lay investiture
The first Lateran Council, held at the Palace of Lateran in Rome, was called by Pope Callistus II with 300 bishops attending. The attendees affirmed and decreed that a monarch did not have the authority to bestow spiritual powers on a bishop; such authority was reserved for the Church. The intent was to end the so-called lay investiture, which permitted a king to invest a bishop with both temporal and spiritual powers. Among other decisions, crusaders were granted indulgences for their service, simony was prohibited and a priest could not marry once ordained.
#10 Lateran II (1139)
Renounced acts of antipope Anacletus
Lateran II took place 16 years later, and as many as 500 bishops met in the same location. Upon the death of Pope Honorius II in February 1130, a few cardinals quickly and secretly elected Innocent II as pope. Other cardinals, appalled by the covert action, elected a different pope, Anacletus II. Now there were two popes who considered themselves duly elected, and a chaotic situation lasted until Anacletus died in 1138. The next year, Innocent II convoked the Second Lateran Council, where all the acts and consecrations of Anacletus were annulled and his supporters condemned.

#11 Lateran III (1179)
Papal elections


Papal elections were the main focus of this council called by Pope Alexander III. At the time, there was little clarity as to how a pope was elected, with many advocating for a unanimous vote of the College of Cardinals, but such a vote was most unlikely. Lateran III decided that a two-thirds vote was necessary for a papal election, and anyone disagreeing with the election would be excommunicated. The attendees also decreed that the courtroom testimony of a Christian was to be believed over that of a Jew. The minimum age for ordination was established and members of the heretical Waldenses and Albigenses, who professed beliefs counter to the Church, were condemned. These groups would be later eradicated during a European crusade.

#12 Lateran IV (1215)
Annual participation in the sacraments of Eucharist and Confession

Taking only three sessions, this is among the most renowned of all Church Councils. Called by Innocent III, more than 400 bishops decreed that Catholics were obligated to receive the sacraments of Eucharist and Penance at least once a year during the Easter season. The term “transubstantiation” (change in substance) was promoted to describe the miracle taking place when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.


#13 Lyon I (1245)
Excommunicated King Fredrick II

There had long been a struggle between the pope and temporal rulers. A 13th-century antagonist was King Fredrick II of Germany, who defied Pope Gregory IX at every opportunity and was excommunicated more than once. Seeking to make the papacy part of his monarchy, Fredrick continuously opposed the Holy Father. The pope called for a council at Rome in 1241 in large measure to deal with the obstinate king, but Frederick kidnapped over 100 bishops sailing to Rome. Pope Gregory died that year and confronting the king fell to Pope Innocent IV, who in 1245 called for a general council at Lyon, France. While other issues were discussed, the focus was on Fredrick, who was accused of numerous actions against the pope, of heresy and of kidnapping the bishops, and he was considered an enemy of the Church. The 150 bishops deposed the king; no Christian was obligated to give him their obedience.

#14 Lyons II (1274)
Reunion of East and West, Filioque, papal elections

Like what you're reading? Sign up to receive our daily email!

Focused on reunion between Eastern and Western Churches, this council was summoned by Blessed Pope Gregory X in 1274. Eastern Church attendees accepted the primacy of the pope as leader of the Church and the amendment to the Nicean-Constantinoplian Creed regarding the Holy Spirit, “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son,” (the Filioque) long objected to by the East. These were major concessions, but short-lived because, when the Eastern representatives returned home, support for their actions fell apart. These issues still divide much of the East and West. The council also dealt with the issue of prolonged papal vacancies and decreed that a conclave should begin within 10 days after a pope’s death.

#15 Council of Vienne (1311-12)
Suppressed the Knights Templar

Pope Clement V called the council in response to pressure from King Philip IV of France. Among other demands, Philip wanted the Knights Templar condemned and disbanded. The Templars were Christian soldiers organized and committed to protecting pilgrims going to the Holy Land. They took monastic vows, had grown out of the First Crusade and become powerful, influential and very wealthy. King Philip desperately needed funds so he was after the group’s wealth. He first had numerous Templars arrested and through torture got them to confess to crimes they may or may not have committed. Pope Clement, fearful of Philip, had selected the under-300 bishops in attendance. The Templars were not allowed to defend themselves, and Clement acted pretty much unilaterally in using the charges of Philip to disband the group.

#16 Constance (1414-18)
Election of Pope Martin V, conciliarism

From 1378 until 1417, Catholics had two popes; one Roman and one from Avignon, France, where the Holy See had relocated for a period of 70 years. The cardinals first elected Urban VI, but some quickly became disenchanted with their choice. Many of the cardinals moved to France where they invalidated the election of Urban and elected Clement VII, so there were two lawfully elected popes. Naturally each pope set up their own papacy and selected bishops and cardinals. In 1409, the cardinals, disgruntled with the problem, elected a third pope. This chaos resulted in a general council being called at Constance, Switzerland,in 1414. Early on, each of the popes either resigned or was deposed, and the bishops elected Martin V as pope. The bishops also decreed that a general council was forthwith supreme over a pope: “… t [the council] has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the Faith.” Attendees decreed that future councils would be held at regular intervals, the next within five years after Constance. Pope Martin approved the acts of the council except for a pope being subject to a council (conciliarism).

#17 Basel, Ferrara, Florence (1431-45)
Reestablished pope over general council, attempted reconciliation between East and West

Pope Martin attempted to call a council five years following Constance, but because of widespread wars, not enough bishops could attend. Martin died, and while Pope Eugene IVopened a council in Basel in December 1431, thinking the situation was unruly, he quickly sought to dissolve it. Bishops wanted the council to continue and tried to invoke the rejected decree made at Constance that a council was superior to a pope. Eugene refused, as no pope had ever approved such a decree. A stalemate ensued, and the bishops at Basel elected antipope Felix V. In 1438, after a failed attempt at Ferrara, Italy, a council was opened in Florence. In the end, the Byzantine representatives accepted the Western language in the creed and supremacy of the pope. But, as had happened before, not everyone in Constantinople accepted the results, and the split between East and West remained. The bishops defined belief in purgatory. Felix later resigned, and the role of the pope over a council endured until questioned again in 1511.

#18 Lateran V (1512-17)
Roles of pope and general council

A resurgence of conciliarism resulted from an unrecognized council held at Pisa, Italy, in 1511. With only 15 bishops attending, and erroneously called by King Louis XII of France, the bishops declared a general council ruled over a pope. No pope had ever agreed to such a decree. As a result, Pope Julius II summoned a general council to be held in the Palace of Lateran in 1512. Julius died before the council began, and it was presided over by Pope Leo X. The Lateran Council rejected all the decisions made at Pisa. The bishops also decreed that a crusade be conducted against the Turks; but no crusade was ever carried out. While the council lasted five years, little else was accomplished.

 

[MoreCoffee]

THE REFORM COUNCILS — TRENT, VATICAN I, VATICAN II​

#19 Trent (1545-63)
Rejected the Protestant Reformation, affirmed Church teachings, implemented reforms
Lasting 18 years, due to wars and plagues, the Council of Trent was called in reaction to the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. This was a crisis; it was a schism in Christianity that has never healed. The council confirmed Catholic beliefs in view of the heretical teachings of the excommunicated Martin Luther and implemented long overdue internal reforms. For 200 years, the Church had been aware of needed reforms but for various reasons failed to act in a definitive way. Many of the council reforms were directed at the clergy — their recruitment, training, lifestyle and obligation to remain celibate. Bishops were limited to control of one diocese and had to reside therein. The preparation of a catechism was directed. In response to the Protestants, the council affirmed and solidified the sacred teachings of the Church including the Mass, purgatory, justification, the Seven Sacraments, that Divine Revelation comes from both Scripture and Tradition, that Church teachings on the Bible are infallible and that the books in the Bible are inspired by God. The practice of indulgences was continued but selling of indulgences condemned. While Pope Paul III convoked the council, four other popes would be elected during the council. As few as 30 and as many as 200-plus bishops attended the council’s 25 sessions.

“Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops … were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace, and also the councils assembled together, in which more profound issues were settled in common, the opinion of the many having been prudently considered, both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order.” — ‘Lumen Gentium,‘ Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council (1964, No. 22)

#20 Vatican I (1869-70)
Papal Infallibility
Summoned by Blessed Pius IX, the council of 800 bishops provided the pope with infallibility, declaring, “It is divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.” In addition to establishing papal infallibility, the bishops condemned liberalism, pantheism, materialism and issued a constitution on faith and revelation.
#21 Vatican II (1962-65)
Promoted Christian unity, addressed the role of the Church in the 20th century
This was generated to be a reforming council. Convoked by Pope St. John XXIII, with over 2,800 attendees, this was the largest ever ecumenical council. The liturgy was revised, the role of the laity was expanded, ecumenism was urged and Catholics were challenged to increased witnessing of the Faith. There was belief that needed fresh air would begin blowing in the Church. As time moves the Church further and further away from Vatican II, initial confusion and uncertainty have stabilized, and fewer and fewer of the faithful have experienced Catholicism before the most recent of the 21 ecumenical councils.

 

[Josiah]

@MoreCoffee

Thank you for post 1-3. That's helpful, constructive and informative.


A couple of observations....

1. Your observation of DEVELOPMENT is obvious. And I applaud you in admitted that. There are those "fundamentalist" Catholics who insist that everything the Catholic Church teaches has always been taught, that it all comes from the Apostles, that no doctrinal changes have happen. This, as you show, is absurd and totally unhistorical. OF COURSE the doctrine of the Catholic Church has evolved, developed, changed. And even those who insist that nothing has changed, it's just that MUCH has been added by way of explanation or to address new issues; okay, well, that's change. If I step out the door... find it's cold... and put on my jacket then my attire has changed. NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS. Not at all. Truth is OFTEN something we come to, eventually. Any study of the history of all this shows that controversy arises, various opinions develop... and then there may be debate, study, prayer, conversation, arguing, prayer, study... often for centuries... but EVENTUALLY something of a consensus, a resolution, occurs - although seldom perfectly. There's no need for Catholics to deny this or feel embarrassed by this, it's okay. And yeah, it's true in all theology camps - not just Catholics (some groups more than others).

2. Those councils you mention in POST #1 could - perhaps, maybe, sort of - be thought of as "Ecumenical" or "Decisions of the Church." Well, the first 7 anyway. And they are largely accepted by the vast majority of Christians today: Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed and beyond. # 8 is kind of in a group of it's own. But the ones you mention in posts 2 and 3... at least 13 of them, MOST of them.... are by no means "ecumenical" or "decisions of the church." They are councils of the singular, individual, unique Catholic Church, decisions of ONE church - not THE church, YOUR church - not THE church; they are no more "ecumenical" than the meeting of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in Tampa Florida in 2021 (I was there). Conventions of ONE church. Again, NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. No reason for any Catholic to deny that or feel embarrassed by that. ALL churches have meetings like that. Because issues arise in all organizations... and sometimes decisions need to be made. But that doesn't make them "ecumenical" or "decisions of the church" - that's just absurd.


Thanks again! Blessings on your Lenten observation.


- Josiah



.(this dot is for you)

 

[MoreCoffee]

There are those "fundamentalist" Catholics who insist that everything the Catholic Church teaches has always been taught, that it all comes from the Apostles, that no doctrinal changes have happen.

I can't say I have ever met such a person. It is, however, true that every doctrine of the Church has its roots in revelation which has existed from the beginning and with that as a foundation for one's understanding of Church Dogmatics, it follows that the Church has always believed what she teaches now; in 'seed' form for some dogmas that were later made explicit, and in explicit form for many Dogmas that have always been explicit in the Church's teaching and liturgy.

 

[MoreCoffee]

2. Those councils you mention in POST #1 could - perhaps, maybe, sort of - be thought of as "Ecumenical" or "Decisions of the Church." Well, the first 7 anyway. And they are largely accepted by the vast majority of Christians today: Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed and beyond. # 8 is kind of in a group of it's own.

What you have written is not right because it is only the first three councils that all branches of the ancient Church accept. Catholic and Orthodox receive the first seven, Oriental Orthodox receive only the first three, Catholics receive the eighth, and Catholics receive the nineth through the twenty-first.

Some protestants receive none, many receive the first three (by implication) but mainly in their Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity alone. And of course, even those which receive the first three have objections to some terms and dogmas taught in Ephesus and Chalcedon.

 

[Josiah]

What you have written is not right because it is only the first three councils that all branches of the ancient Church accept. Catholic and Orthodox receive the first seven, Oriental Orthodox receive only the first three, Catholics receive the eighth, and Catholics receive the nineth through the twenty-first.

Okay, so you are less charitable to the Catholic Church than I was. But you just affirmed my point (again).... MOST of the 21 Councils you listed are by no means "ecumenical" or "decisions of the church." At least 13 of them are decisions of YOUR church - the Catholic Church - and none other, no different really than the meeting I attended of the LCMS 3 years ago in Tampa Florida. NOT ecumenical. NOT a decision of "the" church. Again, NOTHING WRONG with your church or mine having a meeting and making proclamations on things (including doctrine) - all churches do it, but that your church also has done this is just the reality you prove.

And yes, you prove that the distinctive dogmas of the Catholic Church "developed" - its own doctrine evolved and changed. Anyway you look at it. Undeniably. Again, NOTHING wrong with - that but as you prove, it's the case.


Blessings on your Lenten observation...


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But you just affirmed my point

I do not think that you have a point.

 

[Lanman87]

My issue with the Catholic Definition of Doctrinal Development is that it is claim that everything taught in the "Apostolic Deposit of Faith" is what the Catholic church teaches. As you said, the teaching is that everything was already there, but in "seed form" and not fully developed. I believe the Catholic church, particularly during the medieval period, saw a lot of "seeds" that didn't really exist. And worse, many times, these "seeds" gained political power and wealth for the church and, by extension, to various bishops and Popes.

I would argue that many of the Catholic dogmas were never part of the "Deposit of Faith" but came into being from several sources. Theological speculation (like Mary is new Eve, or Mary is new ark) is probably the most common source of doctrinal development. But I also can't discount synchronization with existing cultural or religious practices. Sometimes beliefs and practices take a life of their own, especially if they are popular with the people or bring power and authority to the bishops.

Most religions have some form of synchronization with the culture. I believe the modern evangelical "Rock concert" worship services are a form of synchronization with the American music cultural. Our Christmas traditions have all kinds of synchronization with pagan winter solstice celebrations. That doesn't mean those things are "evil", you might could even say they are examples of Christ overcoming evil.

However, There are very few evangelicals who are dogmatic about the style of music in the church or an order of worship or any number of other things that make local churches unique. (the exception being the Church of Christ who are dogmatic about pretty much everything).

My issue with Catholics is not so much what they teach, it is the dogmatic nature of things that shouldn't be dogmatic. What someone believes about Mary, or purgatory. or Papal Infallibility, or even Transubstantiation has nothing to do with a persons standing "In Christ". It may (or may not) mean the are wrong about or may not fully understand or accept the reasoning for those doctrines. But being wrong about something doesn't change our position in Christ. Having a living faith in Christ is what guarantees our position of being "in Christ". When can be wrong about a lot of things, but if our faith in Christ is living and true then we are born again, forgiven, adopted, accepted, and empowered children of God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

My issue with the Catholic Definition of Doctrinal Development is that it is claim that everything taught in the "Apostolic Deposit of Faith" is what the Catholic church teaches. As you said, the teaching is that everything was already there, but in "seed form" and not fully developed. I believe the Catholic church, particularly during the medieval period, saw a lot of "seeds" that didn't really exist. And worse, many times, these "seeds" gained political power and wealth for the church and, by extension, to various bishops and Popes.

I would argue that many of the Catholic dogmas were never part of the "Deposit of Faith" but came into being from several sources. Theological speculation (like Mary is new Eve, or Mary is new ark) is probably the most common source of doctrinal development. But I also can't discount synchronization with existing cultural or religious practices. Sometimes beliefs and practices take a life of their own, especially if they are popular with the people or bring power and authority to the bishops.

Most religions have some form of synchronization with the culture. I believe the modern evangelical "Rock concert" worship services are a form of synchronization with the American music cultural. Our Christmas traditions have all kinds of synchronization with pagan winter solstice celebrations. That doesn't mean those things are "evil", you might could even say they are examples of Christ overcoming evil.

However, There are very few evangelicals who are dogmatic about the style of music in the church or an order of worship or any number of other things that make local churches unique. (the exception being the Church of Christ who are dogmatic about pretty much everything).

My issue with Catholics is not so much what they teach, it is the dogmatic nature of things that shouldn't be dogmatic. What someone believes about Mary, or purgatory. or Papal Infallibility, or even Transubstantiation has nothing to do with a persons standing "In Christ". It may (or may not) mean the are wrong about or may not fully understand or accept the reasoning for those doctrines. But being wrong about something doesn't change our position in Christ. Having a living faith in Christ is what guarantees our position of being "in Christ". When can be wrong about a lot of things, but if our faith in Christ is living and true then we are born again, forgiven, adopted, accepted, and empowered children of God.

Isn't the above what is usually stated by Protestant denominational teachers? And isn't following Protestant denominational teaching rather similar to following anybody that claims to teach the truth? There isn't much to differentiate one group from another as far as their faithful following goes.

 

[Josiah]

Isn't the above what is usually stated by Protestant denominational teachers? And isn't following Protestant denominational teaching rather similar to following anybody that claims to teach the truth? There isn't much to differentiate one group from another as far as their faithful following goes.

@MoreCoffee,

It's true that SOME of the proto, "seed" unique/distinctive teachings of the singular Catholic Church can be found among at least one (and often more) individuals that the Catholic Church calls "Fathers." If you dig hard enough, long enough - some are there. Sometimes. Which is part of the reason why your individual denomination calls them (and not other early Christian authors) its "fathers." Yup. Same can be found of the various, several Orthodox denominations and often of Protestant teachings. Even the LDS quotes from the "Fathers" of the RCC, claiming to see "proto" teachings of its unique dogmas in them.

But...
1) SOME of YOUR "fathers" is not the same as all 12-14 Apostles, none of whom were Apostles and all of whom lived LONG after the Apostles.
2) NONE of the individual men the Catholic Church calls "fathers" was Catholic at every point - even in "proto" or elementary form.

The simple (and IMO completely unavoidable) truth is that the distinctive, unique Roman Catholic doctrines came over time - indeed over many centuries in most cases. Nothing wrong with that, but that IS the case. Just as is true with the different teachings in the various Orthodox churches and in Protestant churches. NONE of the "Fathers" before AD 311 were fully and completely Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran or Anglican... although often the "seeds" of which can be found here and there among them.

The simple (and IMO unavoidable) truth is: issues arose, LONG after the Apostles. And often these questions and issues and theories were debated, studied, etc. Often for centuries. And they got "cranked" out variously over time among various churches - including your individual one. Your singular denomination agrees with NO OTHER (just itself) - as is not unusual for any singular denomination; it has a grand unity of ONE - itself alone with itself alone. Again, not unique in that way. It can "see" some "seeds" of SOME of its unique teachings in its own "Fathers' but then so can other denominations. Again, even the LDS quotes from YOUR church's "Fathers" to prove its teachings were those of the early church.... well, IT interprets a snippet here and there to indicate such, just like the RCC does.


A blessed Easter to you and yours...


- Josiah


.

 

[Lanman87]

Isn't the above what is usually stated by Protestant denominational teachers? And isn't following Protestant denominational teaching rather similar to following anybody that claims to teach the truth? There isn't much to differentiate one group from another as far as their faithful following goes.

The big difference is that most denominations aren't dogmatic about many of the things they teach. While they may 100% convinced that their understanding is true, they also understand that Salvation comes by Grace through Faith. And that anyone with a genuine faith in Christ is part of the body of Christ, even if they are wrong about the apostolic mode and reason for baptism, or predestination, or church government, or faith versus works.

In many ways, American Evangelicals are more catholic than Catholics. The reason being is because we accept each other as part of the universal (catholic) church. As a result we can work together for the cause of Christ and support each other in ministry and service. A shared faith in Christ is more powerful than doctrinal differences. I've been part of a men's bible study led by the local Presbyterian Pastor that included men from the Methodist, Baptist, and non-denominational churches. It was a great time of study, prayer, and support. While we may disagree and share our disagreements, we also prayed for each other and helped each other with struggles. Disagreement does not have to mean disunity because what unifies us is a shared faith in Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and being siblings in Christ.

There are exceptions to this attitude. Church of Christ and many Fundamentalist Independent (KJV only) Baptist come to mind. But for the vast majority, we accept all who claim a saving faith in Christ as part of the universal church. Catholics (and Orthodox) can't say that.

In my mind, Catholics are rejecting those whom Christ has accepted because in Catholicism Faith in Christ is not enough. To be a Catholic, you must also have faith in the infallibility of the church and accept everything that it "Infallibly" teaches and faithfully perform and participate in all the works, rites, and sacraments required by the church in order to attain final salvation and avoid a prolonged stay in purgatory.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The big difference is that most denominations aren't dogmatic about many of the things they teach.

It seems that your posts are a little bit dogmatic about alleged differences between Catholics and Protestants where following teaching is concerned. Is it, in your opinion, a virtue to create teaching unique to oneself rather than follow the teaching of one's Church?

While they may 100% convinced that their understanding is true, they also understand that Salvation comes by Grace through Faith.

What do Catholics believe about Salvation's source?

And that anyone with a genuine faith in Christ is part of the body of Christ, even if they are wrong about the apostolic mode and reason for baptism, or predestination, or church government, or faith versus works.

Is that what God has revealed?

In many ways, American Evangelicals are more catholic than Catholics.

What is the meaning of catholic and Catholic?

The reason being is because we [evangelicals] accept each other as part of the universal (catholic) church.

What is the meaning of evangelicals?

As a result we can work together for the cause of Christ and support each other in ministry and service.

Do Catholics work together with evangelicals and vice versa?

A shared faith in Christ is more powerful than doctrinal differences. I've been part of a men's bible study led by the local Presbyterian Pastor that included men from the Methodist, Baptist, and non-denominational churches.

I too have prayed, in a prayer meeting, with people from the Seventh Day Adventist Church, Baptist Church, Anglican Church, Orthodox Church, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, and some other groups whose names do not come to mind as I type.

While we may disagree and share our disagreements, we also prayed for each other and helped each other with struggles.

This is what we prayed for on many occasions.

I do remember the first occasion I went to that prayer meeting, on that occasion a Baptist lady prayed for 25 of the 30 minutes we had for prayer on that day.

Disagreement does not have to mean disunity because what unifies us is a shared faith in Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and being siblings in Christ.

It is what unifies Christians. Catholics sometimes call "Protestants" our separated brethren.

There are exceptions to this attitude. Church of Christ and many Fundamentalist Independent (KJV only) Baptist come to mind. But for the vast majority, we accept all who claim a saving faith in Christ as part of the universal church. Catholics (and Orthodox) can't say that.

Catholics can't say that?

In my mind, Catholics are rejecting those whom Christ has accepted because in Catholicism Faith in Christ is not enough.

This is a Catholic teaching, you say, I haven't read it in the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

To be a Catholic, you must also have faith in the infallibility of the church and accept everything that it "Infallibly" teaches and faithfully perform and participate in all the works, rites, and sacraments required by the church in order to attain final salvation and avoid a prolonged stay in purgatory.

I am confused by your post. What is purgatory according to your understanding? What is salvation as you understand it? And what are these infallible teachings that one ought not accept? It seems to me that if a teaching is infallible then it is worthy of belief and ought to be believed.

 

[Lanman87]

It seems that your posts are a little bit dogmatic about alleged differences between Catholics and Protestants where following teaching is concerned. Is it, in your opinion, a virtue to create teaching unique to oneself rather than follow the teaching of one's Church?

What do Catholics believe about Salvation's source?

Is that what God has revealed?

What is the meaning of catholic and Catholic?

What is the meaning of evangelicals?

Do Catholics work together with evangelicals and vice versa?

I too have prayed, in a prayer meeting, with people from the Seventh Day Adventist Church, Baptist Church, Anglican Church, Orthodox Church, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, and some other groups whose names do not come to mind as I type.


This is what we prayed for on many occasions.

I do remember the first occasion I went to that prayer meeting, on that occasion a Baptist lady prayed for 25 of the 30 minutes we had for prayer on that day.


It is what unifies Christians. Catholics sometimes call "Protestants" our separated brethren.

Catholics can't say that?

This is a Catholic teaching, you say, I haven't read it in the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

I am confused by your post. What is purgatory according to your understanding? What is salvation as you understand it? And what are these infallible teachings that one ought not accept? It seems to me that if a teaching is infallible then it is worthy of belief and ought to be believed.

I was going to write a long reply answering each question but it would be time consuming and kind of pointless.

I'll just say that Catholics and non-Catholic Christians have a different definition of "church" and of "salvation".

Catholics can't say that Protestants (non-Catholic Christians) are members of the universal church. At best, they will say we are imperfectly connected (by a valid baptism) to the church but aren't a part of it. We can't participate in the life of the church because our sacraments aren't valid (according to various Catholic apologist).

I don't believe that taking sacraments makes one part of the universal church. It is faith in Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit that makes one connected to and be "In Christ". Which in turns makes someone part of the "Body of Christ", the "ecclesia", "the church".

Am I wrong to say that according to Catholic teaching, we aren't ultimately saved (get to heaven) by Grace through faith, but must add good works, participation in the sacraments, and participating in the various obligations required of those in the Catholic church? And that not doing any one of those may jeopardize a persons final salvation?

Is it a mortal sin for a baptized Christian to not join the Roman Church? I've had people tell me that. In a nutshell, they said that you can become a Christian by having faith and being baptized but because you don't join the Catholic church you are committing a mortal sin therefore you will not remain "In Christ" and will go to hell. Because I've listened to Catholic apologist and arguments and have rejected their arguments then I've rejected the truth and therefore I have rejected Christ and will go to hell, unless I repent and join the church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was going to write a long reply answering each question but it would be time consuming and kind of pointless.

I'll just say that Catholics and non-Catholic Christians have a different definition of "church" and of "salvation".

Catholics can't say that Protestants (non-Catholic Christians) are members of the universal church. At best, they will say we are imperfectly connected (by a valid baptism) to the church but aren't a part of it. We can't participate in the life of the church because our sacraments aren't valid (according to various Catholic apologist).

I don't believe that taking sacraments makes one part of the universal church. It is faith in Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit that makes one connected to and be "In Christ". Which in turns makes someone part of the "Body of Christ", the "ecclesia", "the church".

Am I wrong to say that according to Catholic teaching, we aren't ultimately saved (get to heaven) by Grace through faith, but must add good works, participation in the sacraments, and participating in the various obligations required of those in the Catholic church? And that not doing any one of those may jeopardize a persons final salvation?

Is it a mortal sin for a baptized Christian to not join the Roman Church? I've had people tell me that. In a nutshell, they said that you can become a Christian by having faith and being baptized but because you don't join the Catholic church you are committing a mortal sin therefore you will not remain "In Christ" and will go to hell. Because I've listened to Catholic apologist and arguments and have rejected their arguments then I've rejected the truth and therefore I have rejected Christ and will go to hell, unless I repent and join the church.

There's quite a lot that is inaccurate in your post. You can check specifics using the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

 

[MoreCoffee]

Am I wrong to say that according to Catholic teaching, we aren't ultimately saved (get to heaven) by Grace through faith, but must add good works, participation in the sacraments, and participating in the various obligations required of those in the Catholic church? And that not doing any one of those may jeopardize a persons final salvation?

CHAPTER THREE

GOD'S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

1949 Called to beatitude but wounded by sin, man stands in need of salvation from God. Divine help comes to him in Christ through the law that guides him and the grace that sustains him:

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.1

---

1 Phil 2:12-13.
Article 1

THE MORAL LAW

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. the moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

---

2 Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum: AAS 20 (1887/88), 597; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 90, 1.
3 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc, 2, 4: PL 2, 288-289.
4 Rom 10:4.

Etcetera, read on in this chapter at Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

 

[Lanman87]

CHAPTER THREE

GOD'S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

1949 Called to beatitude but wounded by sin, man stands in need of salvation from God. Divine help comes to him in Christ through the law that guides him and the grace that sustains him:

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.1

---

1 Phil 2:12-13.
Article 1

THE MORAL LAW

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. the moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

---

2 Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum: AAS 20 (1887/88), 597; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 90, 1.
3 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc, 2, 4: PL 2, 288-289.
4 Rom 10:4.

Etcetera, read on in this chapter at Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

That doesn't really answer my question...

 

[MoreCoffee]

That doesn't really answer my question...

If you read enough, it answers what you asked.

 

[Lanman87]

If you read enough, it answers what you asked.

It says a lot but leaves a lot of open questions.

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. CCC 846

What exactly does that mean? If I'm a Baptist and I read a book that tells me that Catholicism is true and I need to enter into it and I reject that message does that mean "I know the Catholic church is necessary and refuse to enter it or remain in it"?

Or does that means I have to accept that message as true, but if I still refuse to enter, that I can't be saved?

How about if one was baptized Catholic, was confirmed Catholic and later leaves Catholicism for a non-Catholic church? (Which includes the Lead Pastor of the church I attend and several active members of our local church). Do people like that know that the Catholic church is necessary and yet refused to remain in it?

Is my Pastor, who professes faith in Christ, teaches people about Christ, and works in ministry of the Gospel damned because he left the Catholic church?

The CCC is very vague about such hard questions. And honestly, if you ask 10 Catholics you will get varied answers. (I've even watched videos of priest and bishops giving different answers) Some will say that anyone who rejects the message that the Catholic Church is necessary cannot be saved. Others will say whoever agrees/accepts the fact that the Catholic church is necessary and refused to enter it cannot be saved. Some will say that anyone who was baptized Catholic and had Catholic teaching and leaves the church cannot be saved (unless they return) and others will say that even being baptized and taught Catholicism doesn't mean that a person "knows the church is necessary" and therefore leaving the CC for a Protestant church doesn't automatically mean you can't be saved.

My Answer is "If you have genuinely placed your faith in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the gift of eternal life then you are saved". Therefore you can be a Baptist and be saved, a Methodist and be saved, a Catholic and be saved, and Lutheran and be saved, a Presbyterian and be saved and so on.

And that the true universal (catholic) church is made up of all the saved and not limited to one organization, fellowship, denomination or tradition.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. CCC 846

What exactly does that mean?

It means what it says, specifically, if a person, Magnus, for example, knows that the Catholic Church is founded by God as necessary for salvation and yet obstinately refuses to enter it or to remain in it then he is not saved. Magnus cannot know that the Catholic Church is founded by God as necessary for salvation if he doubts it, or if he is convinced it is not true.