Rome's selling point

Athanasius

Rome's attractiveness is that people perceive the Catholic Church as the authentic Church of Christ, the preserve of the faith handed down from the apostles. End of the story.

You can disagree all you like whether the Church really is those things. I know orthodoxy is a dirty word to you anyway. But that is the reason people become Catholic, because this is what they believe. It has nothing to do with exoticism, I'm afraid you've been reading too much anti-Catholic propaganda.

Yes, we like beauty and liturgy, but only because we recognise that they are the appropriate means by which to worship God and receive Him in our hearts.

You uttered some nonsense about sacramentalism in your last post, which I suspected was a not-so-subtle dig at our faith. Yes indeed, the sacraments are a major part of our faith, but not because they are somehow exotic but because they are true expressions of God's love.

We are uninterested in spectacle for its own sake, although I suspect you are right that a papal visit will bring many blessings and conversions. However, what you probably mistake for mere spectacle, that is to say public demonstrations of our faith, is indeed an important aspect of evangelising, and we see in the Anglican church the perils of hiding or not embracing fully our beliefs.

The decline of the Church of England can, I'm afraid, be all too easily explained: there is a lack of coherence in beliefs, leading even to a lack of beliefs at all in many quarters. Hence the liberal dominance, who are really rather embarrassed about being Christian at all. Meanwhile, there is the evangelical wing, who are at least strong in their convictions, but are generally made to feel like such strength of faith does not belong in the C of E, and are generally more interested in pursuing an anti-liturgical, pseudo-Calvinist line of thought. All of which is driving many with more orthodox beliefs to seek out a Church that is only interested in Truth.

You may think it is misguided - but that is why people swim the Tiber.

dominic lennon

Beautifully put, Athanasius.

Noa Zrk

"Catholicism is simply better at the public expression of faith".
No, Catholicism is simply better at Faith. It knows what it is, like Islam. No blurring at the edges, no wishy-washy view of what God is, a certainty of what is Good and what is Evil, no homosexual or women priests. No shameful origin in royal serial adultery. No bearded, equivocating, mumbling disaster as a world leader. The Church of England is nothing more than a another failing public sector department, seeking a government handout.

chris as usual

@ Athanasius
Thank you for your excellent comment.

Ben

Oh no! Theo is back, albeit with a slightly less bugeyed view of the RC's, but:

"...an established Church has thrown in its lot with the rituals of a declining empire state. If the appetite for celebrating Christian nationhood dies, a huge aspect of this Church’s life is over..."

Hang on, which is the declining empire state? New York? It's certainly not the Catholic Church. And which religious faith was present in England before Henry's excitable spat? - It was the catholic church, as it exists now and always has done. As noted on previous posts, catholics are more than patriotic and genuinely proud of our nation - and always have been. Get a grip Theo, or just come over, you know it makes sense.

Mr H

I have great respect for the RC church in modern times and am in awe with the humanitarian efforts it gets involved in around the world. I also respect the stance it makes in the face of public opinion with sensitive issues. Even if it demonises them in the liberal world view.

The Pope is a great ambassador for all Christian faiths and is very tolerant to Eastern faiths also.

The LDS church and the RC church, alongside the Muslim faith are continuously working alongside each other to help the desperate and disaster hit folk around the world and to give them some hope.

You know CHARITY never fails, no matter who is offering it and of what faith. So long as it is for the benefit of the receiver and is for a righteuous cause.

Whether you are RC, LDS, CofE, JW, Hindu, Seikh, Muslim, born again etc...it doesn't matter, we all have one purpose and that is to serve a God figure, however you see Him. Accept this and "love one another, as He has loved you" that is a commandment!!
This also should include the non-believer.

To Theo, try promoting simple faith in God instead of wittling on and being a critic. I somehow feel that you are sitting on the fence, throwing out teasers and seeing what gets said.
Take some guidance from Melanie Phillips and say it as it is.

I have my beliefs and obey the principles and doctrines of my LDS church and strive to actively serve and please God.
Here is an article of faith that we strive to live by:
"We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Noa Zrk

Mr H

This is seriously scary stuff.

Ronnie

'the Catholic Church as the authentic Church of Christ, the preserve of the faith handed down from the apostles.'

Handed down by the Emperor Constantine more like.

chris as usual

@ Ben
I think Theo was talking about the English Anglican Church establishment, not Rome.

Athanasius

Interesting theory, Ronnie. Which doctrines did Constantine invent?

Ronnie

Athanasius.

I didn't say 'invent' did I? Lets not rush to the wrong end of the stick.

However I should have said chosen from a wide selection for generally political reasons at the time. A choice that then became Orthodox/Roman Catholic doctrine.

Edmund Jerk

Surely 'Rome's selling point' is that the RC church does moral absolutes whilst the CofE could only tell you right from wrong if it was approved by the 'liberal' elite.

As an agnostic, if I had to join a church though it would be the CofE -- it's selling point is that it ISN'T the Roman Catholic church. That it's authority is based in this country and it's actions are taken by here and not in spiritual (quasi-imperial) base in Rome.

Athanasius

Ronnie,

Ok fair enough. But you did seem to imply that what has been preserved by Catholic Tradition is not that which had been handed down from the Apostles up to the time of Constantine. So perhaps you have an idea of which doctrines should have made it but didn't?

Ronnie

Athanasius.

My point is that the Apostles were not the only ones who had written, or passed on, accounts of Christ's teaching. However men decided that the Apostles version would be regarded as truth, the truth that you accept because the Orthodox churches tell you it is so.

A political deal was struck then and a nakedly political act is now, once again, being committed by the Catholic church. Call it 'truth' if you like but I won't be agreeing with you.

I would not presume to have the authority to make alternative selections of gospel fit to publish and, frankly, I don't think that those gathered at Nicaea had it either.

Athanasius

Ronnie,

My apologies, I misunderstood where you were going with this.

I concede that I cannot possibly refute your view adequately here, but I do think that there are good reasons for supposing the apostles 'got it right', and that the alternative gospels that we know of (mostly of 2nd century origin) were corruptions; and falling back on supposed political reasons is something of a cop-out (one should differentiate political involvement from political motivation: still, this is too big a topic to deal with here!!).

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on these points for now, but I do wonder why God would leave us in the state of aporia suggested by your reasoning. Of course, I can see the attractiveness of such an aporia, but I also think it rather unlikely - unless of course you are building up to a denial of the Christian concept of God altogether.

Ronnie

Clearly, Athanasius, we will not agree on this. As far as I am concerned the Christian concept of most things was hijacked at Nicaea, to be replaced by, divinity, manufactured guilt, blind obedience, a dislike of women and general theological inconsistency.

I would, however, be grateful if you could explain your differentiation between political involvement and motivation. You see far from being a cop out, as you suggest, citing 'political reasons' is at the very heart of the issue here. You would like this to be about doctrinal truth and it isn't. It's about power dressed up as something else, as usual.

Geoff Miller

The appropriately named Edmund Jerk says that if he were to join a church it would have to be the CofE simply because it was not Catholicism.

The reason given being that the CofE is based in this country and not Rome.

This only confirms the secular and political nature of the CofE which, frankly, sprang out of Henry VIII's codpiece.

Now that it has fallen by the wayside, has become confused/fractured over it's beliefs and is all but Disestablished it has become an irrelevant talking shop/property/investment company.

An appropriate end given that it was largely established to help legitimise the theft of Catholic church assets to enrich a King and his favourites whilst allowing him to divest himself of inconvenient wives.

The British people, having been dragooned into the CofE, will now have the opportunity to freely return to the faith of their ancestors and these politically correct times make it impossible for the CofE to object.

Checkmate.

The CofE has nowhere to go.

Mr H

Tradition:
We've always done it this way.
We're the oldest organisation, speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Established and unchallengeable.

Progression:
Changes with times and opinions
Adopts new ideas, drops old ones
Evolves beyond recognition

What do these describe?
Respectively the RC and CofE.

Who is right?
Both, really. A church of Christ would hold to tradition, i.e doctrine which is unchanging as long as its origin is from God and not man.
A church of Christ would progress by means of ongoing revelation. This to deal with changing social directions and to counter them when they go too far away. the modern revelation from God is to guide His children through lifes challenges.

Now, do these churches have these neccessary attributes?
For a church to be an authority to represent God Himself surely you would need the following:
Apostles, prophets, pastors
Authority - Priesthood
Revelation - ongoing through the above
Doctrines - laws of God
Covenants - promises

A Catholic priest once said, I paraphrase:
If there was a "falling away from the truth" as described in Amos then there is a need for a restoration of the truths. If that falling away hasn't happened yet then the only true church of Christ is the RC church with a continuous succession from Paul (or Peter, correct me on this one!)

So tell me, has there been a falling away from the truth happened yet? a period of confusion/corruption and twisting of the truths maybe to use but a few, or hasn't there?

Sir Graphus

You seem to think that the CofE is now exclusively composed of dithering liberals such as the ABofC. People have written here that the CofE doesn’t appear to believe in anything, and as such is doomed. If that were true, they’d probably be right. However, this neglects the large and growing number of Evangelicals. We are a pretty energetic bunch. Our churches are increasingly full, and increasing in number. The CofE will be fine. Thanks for all your concerns.

Athanasius

Ronnie,

I'm amazed, even somewhat impressed, you get all that out of Nicaea! It still seems to imply you know what authentic Christianity should look like though...

The distinction between political involvement and motivation is quite simple really. You seem to suggest that doctrinal choices were merely a matter of political expediency, but I'm asking you not to confuse the likes of Constantine or other political powers lending their support to something with a particular doctrine being chosen for political reasons rather than because it was the Truth revealed by Christ to His Church.

Don't get me wrong, I can certainly see where you are coming from. It is fairly obvious that the Nicene council was convened by Constantine for 'political' purposes, in so far as he wanted unity above all. And you could say that supporting the denunciation of Arianism had a political slant for him inasmuch as it looked more expedient to go with the flow, so to speak (given the unanimity of the Western voice on the issue). Of course, if this was his sole motivation (who knows?) he was sorely mistaken, as subsequent history proved: and this is really where the 'doctrine corrupted by politics' argument really flounders, since one has then to explain why when the Arians had the political supremacy the Nicene agreement was retained by the Church.

But even assuming you have a clever answer to that, one needs to point out that the deliberations were assuredly doctrinal; whatever Constantine's interests, there were real issues on the table that did need to be sorted out. And it was unquestionably in the interests of the Church, qua spiritual convent, to seek doctrinal unity - as it always is, since Truth can only be One. If you look at what records we have of Nicaea, the discussions and those surrounding the council were highly theological, rooted in Scripture. Athanasius in particular was adamant that only Scripture and the Tradition handed down from the Apostles 'counted', against the parvenu human theories of the Arians (who had scriptural quotations but not apostolic tradition on their side).

Of course, if you think that the Apostles were not the receivers of the authentic depositum fidei in the first place then there's not much one can say to argue with you - except that one struggles to find political motivations in the assertions of Apostolic Tradition in the earlier debates against the gnostics et al.

One may fall back on an argument of probability of sorts: if the God of Abraham and Jacob exists, and if His Son became incarnate, then it is more probable than not that He would choose particular individuals to safeguard and pass on His teaching; and it is more probable than not that the Holy Spirit would guide, defend and protect that faith throughout history against the heresies and perversions of man. The God I believe in would not leave and has not left us in aporia.

En touto nika!

Athanasius

Mr H,

"If that falling away hasn't happened yet then the only true church of Christ is the RC church with a continuous succession from Paul (or Peter, correct me on this one!)"

St Peter, my dear friend.

"So tell me, has there been a falling away from the truth happened yet? a period of confusion/corruption and twisting of the truths maybe to use but a few, or hasn't there?"

There hasn't!

By the way, I think most of the C of E would subscribe to the view that public revelation is finished (with the Apostles). Perhaps I shouldn't speak for them in this way, but this is certainly the view of most Anglicans I've spoken to - and it is also a Catholic teaching of course. I think the majority preferred to think of themselves as reformers (going back to original revelation) rather than communicating new revelation.

That is why both the Evangelicals and Traditionalists will despise the 'progresssive' wing of the C of E for what is basically fitting the teachings to suit the times rather than trying to shape society to fit true teachings.

Geoff Miller

Well said Athanasius (Oct 27th 4:29pm).

To quote someone with whom I have no political sympathy, Tony Benn, "You can be one of two things in politics - a sign post or a weathervane".

The RC church is a signpost - it seeks to show the way, whereas the liberal faction of the CofE is a weathervane - merely pointing where the prevailing winds of society blow.

To mix my metaphors - the RC church has roots that hold it to eternal truths whereas the CofE resembles tumble weed in it's desire to accommodate such things as homosexual activity.

If it cannot hold to the truth and seeks to accommodate everything it will become nothing. the current fracturing of the Anglican movement is evidence of this.

One contributor says that the Evangelical arm of the CofE is doing well. That is because, in their own way, they emulate the Catholic Church by sticking to scripture and being unafraid to be firm in their beliefs even if it "offends" the sensibilities of some.

Ronnie

Athanasius.

Thank you for your very interesting response. I doubt I can match it but I have been thinking about what you say.

I shy away in horror at the idea that I would profess to know what 'authentic' Christianity looks like. Our problem here is that I genuinely do not think, and never have, that the Catholic Church knows either. They present a very strong version supported by tradition and influence. They certainly force the pace when compared to the C of E. However in my view, that is not enough.

I agree that Constantine and the Church sought unity. The Labour and Conservative parties seek unity. Unity makes an organisation strong, the better to vanquish its enemies. Strength does not equal right, or indeed infalibility. And certainly not within the teachings of Christ. The Church became the new Rome. The Pope (ultimately) the new Ceaser, a very interesting dialectic.

I do not agree with you that 'Truth can only be One'. I've seen too much in my travels to believe that, however convenient it may be. Nor do I agree that only the Apostles were the recipients of Christ's true message, otherwise he could have arranged a weekend meeting with them and then retired to the countryside. Feeding the five thousand need never have been a problem.

Finally, you put forward a lot of 'probables'. They may satisfy you but I just don't think they will do. Your faith appears settled and I am genuinely pleased for you. Mine has awakened relatively recently because I think there are still questions to answer. But don't make the mistake of thinking that I have doubts, those are long gone.

As for nika. 'Just do it!' as they say. :-)

Athanasius

Ronnie,

Thanks for that considered reply. I think you get into all sorts of philosophical (never mind theological) difficulties imagining that truth can ever be more than one, but never mind that for now.

It is ultimately impossible to prove that you are wrong in what you say: it is always possible to come back with 'history is written by the victors' thus putting both Scripture and Tradition at the mercy of guesswork. That is why I resort to probables: but unlike you I think not only that they will do, but even that they must do (as to the rest, there is faith).

I confess I do not fully understand your point about having a weekend meeting with the apostles! But note that I did not say or mean to imply that revelation was given *only* to the apostles - patently it was not, since Scripture records Him teaching thousands! Rather, Christ chose the twelve precisely to be the safeguards of that depositum fidei.

This is where the probability comes into play, because the account I have given is one that follows on from Scripture and Tradition. If both of these are to be doubted, and some rival gospels are somehow more authentic, if the twelve were never chosen, if history has obscured the reality - then Christ and His Church have utterly failed! We are left with NO way of knowing anything! And it goes without saying that that will not do, and it would be supremely un-Godlike for God to leave us in such a state.

Of course, if Christ is not God Incarnate, then it is more likely - but then it hardly matters anyway! If this is one's line of reasoning, we don't even need to get as far as Nicaea, even the Arians were wasting their time!

Anyway, I hope indeed that your faith is not 'settled' but is still open to being shaped - not by me, but by the Lord, the God of Jacob and Abraham. God bless.

Ronnie

Athanasius.

'if history has obscured the reality - then Christ and His Church have utterly failed!'

No, I am afraid that you have got this very wrong. Only your church will have utterly failed. If the narrative created by the church, that is central its imposition of orthodoxy, is falsely based, then Christ has nothing to do with it.

In this case the narrative was entirely man-made, as I have said above, but Christ's message lives on. If the narrative is flawed it is because only some of the sources were used and the rest 'destroyed'.

However, even in the Gospels that were selected, Christ's message is clear.

The issue, Athanasius, is that I don't see Christ and the Orthodox churches as being indivisible. I beleive that the churches missed the point entirely.

God bless you too.

hadrian

What a load of utter theological tosh these papists and crypto-papists come out with!
The CofE is essentially a Reformed Church and its 39 Articles entirely at odds with the pseudo popery and humanism that have been infecting and enfeebling its Gospel mission for nigh on a century and a half.
That the declining Roman Church might cream off a ragbag of disaffected Anglican infiltrators would in the long run be no great loss to the CofE.The saddest aspect to all this is that our nation has sunk so low and is so dark spiritually few indeed can see the vital issue at stake- the grand Reformation recovery of Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide Sola Christus and Soli Deo Gloria. Between Justification by Grace alone through the imputed Righteousness of Christ alone and Rome's infused righteousness there is an unbridgeable gap. The loss of this message in the Protestant Churches is why they are so unspiritual places and our nation is steeped in scepticism which Rome with typical opportunism takes advantage of- though her own inherent humanism will destroy herself in the end.The 'exotic sacramentalism' is a poor lifeless substitute for spiritual Protestant worship earnestly based on Holy Scripture.

Athanasius

hadrian - it must be hard work being so filled with hate (not to mention being so hopelessly misinformed). Still, the Roman Church has existed for 2000 years despite many more vigorous attempts to destroy her or predictions of her impending doom, so I wouldn't get your hopes up. In the meantime, it might be worth finding out something about the "theological tosh" you so hate.

hadrian

Despite Rome's propaganda I think history indicates the Church of Rome as we know her today is a decidedly different beast from the early Christian Church and, quite contrary to its alleged boast 'semper eadem' has been evolving ever in a direction away from Scriptural religion which is anchored in Justification without the works of the Law before a God demanding perfect righteousness which is found in Christ alone and His atoning blood.
It is not, Athanasius, hatred to put this as unambiguously as possible, just honesty. What Rome (and all shades of humanism) hates ( but Rome with explicit with high cursing) the Reformers embraced as they found it in Holy Scripture answering their deepest spiritual experience. Countless others still embrace that message today.

hadrian

The 'theological tosh' of the Church of Rome could fill volumes, Athanasius. However, here's one that is such a glaring example it takes little for the spiritually minded Christian, however ill instructed, to recognise. And our duty to delve more deeply simply reinforces the entirely unbiblical character of the prized Romish doctrine.
I refer to the profane exaltation of Mary. She is blatantly termed Co-Redemptrix, Co-Mediatrix. These terms fly directly in the face of Scriptural religion that there is but ONE Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus and it is in Him alone, through His once shed blood, that redemption is found. To attribute these terms and functions alone to Mary is indeed blasphemous. As we know, however, Rome happily exalts her, in Rome's own eyes, in various other blatantly unBiblical ways: think of the claims of perpetual virginity despite what Matthew Chap1v24-24 states.