For the latest on RC disunity, and inside politics of RC apologetics . . .
http://www.catholicconvert.com/wwwboard/messages/36547.html
ES
Scott responded:
>> For the latest on RC disunity, and inside politics of RC apologetics . . . <<
I read the message on the other board. I'm not sure how that relates to "RC disunity." One person asked to be takne off a list, another took it personally - what has that got to do with "RC disunity" or "unity?" I see a personality clash, but I see nothing to do with Roman Catholicism there.
Wonky replies:
This is one area of discussion that I find interesting. What I refer to as the "paper" unity of the RCC. They are united because the same name is on their churches. They are united because they say so. I have thought about joining something like Steve Rays board and just having posts titled "Ahhh the unity." When they get into all the bickering they do. I doubt if the this is the unity Jesus prayed for.
Scott replies:
Wonky,
The "unity" that Catholics have is not necessarily on every jot and tiddle of teaching that has come from other Catholics, past or present. We DON'T agree on everything - and that's no shocker. However, Catholics ARE united on ALL THINGS that are DEFINED DOGMA, for if ANY "Catholic" rejects ANY defined dogma, at that point they cease to BE Catholic. They may still CALL themselves Catholic, but there's a difference in CALLING and BEING.
What I find "interesting and revealing" is how often Protestants attempt to point out this "disunity" in Catholics, but they are drawing at straws here. In fact, it is truly a strawman argument, for they build this strawman (false argument) based on a false premise (that every Catholic ought to agree on everything ever taught by a fellow Catholic, past or present). I find it interesting because Protestants use this argument in a manner as to say, "See, they're just as bad as we are." Revealing because they admit to the disunity among Protestants. BUT - the big difference here is that Catholics agree and MUST agree on all things dogmatically defined. We find Protestants disagreeing on things very essential to the Faith - and even have some Protestant sects that believe if you're not "one of them," you're going to hell. Some accept a nearly Catholic definition of the Real Presence in the Eucharist - others claim it is only symbolic.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Wonky replies again:
"The "unity" that Catholics have is not necessarily on every jot and tiddle of teaching that has come from other Catholics, past or present. We DON'T agree on everything - and that's no shocker. However, Catholics ARE united on ALL THINGS that are DEFINED DOGMA, for if ANY "Catholic" rejects ANY defined dogma, at that point they cease to BE Catholic. They may still CALL themselves Catholic, but there's a difference in CALLING and BEING."
The above would almost a precis definition of what I refer to as "paper" Unity. You define unity in such a way that it doesn't matter that you are not in unity. If you can use the above then protestant can say, "We are all united because we should all believe what the bible teaches."
Wonky
Scott continues the response:
Scott said: "The "unity" that Catholics have is not necessarily on every jot and tiddle of teaching that has come from other Catholics, past or present. We DON'T agree on everything - and that's no shocker. However, Catholics ARE united on ALL THINGS that are DEFINED DOGMA, for if ANY "Catholic" rejects ANY defined dogma, at that point they cease to BE Catholic. They may still CALL themselves Catholic, but there's a difference in CALLING and BEING."
Wonky responds: The above would almost a precis(e) definition of what I refer to as "paper" Unity. You define unity in such a way that it doesn't matter that you are not in unity. If you can use the above then protestant can say, "We are all united because we should all believe what the bible teaches."
Scott replies:
Wonky, your definition of a "paper unity" is lacking. Catholics ARE unified on absolutely EVERY dogma, period. EVERYTHING that is necessary for Saving Faith IS agreed upon by EVERY Catholic. Yes, there are some, even many, "little things" that Catholics disagree on, but not ONE Catholic can deny even ONE dogma - for to do so puts them under automatic excommunication, (out of full communion with the Catholic Faith).
Your example of "We (Protestants) are all united because we should all believe what the bible teaches" is also lacking because Protestants cannot agree on "what the Bible teaches."
Catholics debate many things among themselves, but Faithful Catholics do NOT debate matters of dogma. Matters of dogma are defined and undeniable. I also do not deny that there are "dissenters" that "call" themselves Catholic - and "dissent" is fine, unless they are dissenting on matters of dogma.
On the other hand, Protestantism disagrees on vital areas, such as baptism and holy communion. Every single faithful Catholic is absolutely united on these matters. Show me a person who claims to be Catholic, but denies the necessity of baptism - and I'll show you a heretic that is under the penalty of automatic excommunication. The same holds true for any professing Catholic that might deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist, he/she would be a heretic and automatically excommunicated. But Protestantism is quite divided on these two points alone. Some demand baptism by immersion, others say sprinkling is OK, still others say baptism is not a necessity at all. THAT is disunity on a matter critical to salvation - unless you're in the category that thinks it's not essential (but then you have the other two categories that condemn you).
This attempt to say Catholics are disunited is a "paper disunity." If there is ANY disunity among Faithful Catholics, it is NOT in matters of dogma.
Respectfuly,
Scott<<<
“ES” (Eric Svendsen) continues:
<<I read the message on the other board. I'm not sure how that relates to "RC disunity." One person asked to be takne off a list, another took it personally - what has that got to do with "RC disunity" or "unity?" I see a personality clash, but I see nothing to do with Roman Catholicism there. >>
That's the problem with the RC definition of "unity." Biblical unity is "loving the brethren fervently." All I see among RC apologists is bickering, hatred and infighting. As for the RC definition of "doctrinal unity," that's been violated as well. Sungenis believes that the rotation of the earth is completely contrary to Scripture and RC teaching. Armstrong, Shea et al, disagree. That qualifies as *doctrinal* disunity. If you'd rather "spin" it as outside of either of those, that's your choice. But if so, you're living in a dream world, imo.
ES
To which someone called “James” replies:
Unity of Church government is important unless one feels Church gov't itself is unimportant. "How good it is to live like brothers..." not without fights and squabbles, but remaining in the family, the body of Christ. I am unmoved by the presence of RC inside squabbles- it seems to me that to argue that such disagreements are important is to remove any earthly or human reality from the idea of unity and put in the realm of "airy-fairy" platonic spiritual realities, never to be seen by any of us this side of the grave. I haven't got the impression that this is the sort of unity RC's claim, and it seems a bit of a strawman to argue that this must be the position they must defend.
James
To which “John4_34” says:
James,
I fear you mis-understand the purpose of Eric's posting of the link. He is not trying to create a strawman of the RC position of unity that they must defend. Rather he is illusrating a double standard. The kind of squabble that Eric has given (another) example of is exactly the kind of squabble that RC use as evidence for disunity amongst protestants. When ity haapens with them though it doesn't signal disunity. Why not? THAT is the point
Scott replies:
John wrote:
>> I fear you mis-understand the purpose of Eric's posting of the link. He is not trying to create a strawman of the RC position of unity that they must defend. Rather he is illusrating a double standard. The kind of squabble that Eric has given (another) example of is exactly the kind of squabble that RC use as evidence for disunity amongst protestants. When ity haapens with them though it doesn't signal disunity. Why not? THAT is the point. <<
Scott responds:
John, do all Protestants agree on the necessity of baptism? No, they don't. Those that say it IS necessary condemn those that say is isn't necessary. THAT is a valid point in regard to the disunity of Protestantism - and BOTH groups would claim to be sola scripturists. Which group is right? Which group has the "right" to condemn the other? Based on what?
I didn't raise this topic here on Eric's board - ERIC did. (Again, assuming ES = Eric Svendsen, and based on someone else refering to the source here as "Eric"). It seems "ES" was attempting to build a strawman, and I called him on it. Please see my response to Wonky for a few more details in this regard.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
John4_34 responds:
Scott,
First let me point out that you are yourself engaging in the false comparison of the unity of one denomination vs. the unity of many denominations. That means that it is irrelevant whether protestants disagree across denominational lines over the necessity of baptism. It is uity within a particular denomination that matters if you want a fair and valid comparison. And I charitably assume you do.
I could make asimilarly unfair comparison: The RCC and Salt Lake disagree on any number of issues. Both would claim that they follow the True Church, with the infallibly defined dogmas, Tradition, magiterium etc. That is a valid point of disunity. Thus STM is invalid.
I could get more specific, and point out that a ong thos specifically Christian groups which claim to hld to Tradition, there is likewise no unity, the RCC and EOC disagreeing on a number of fundamental issues.
But let's get more specific, since I don't want to make the logically invalid comparison you make. Do all RCs agree that there is a current Pope? No, they don't. Those that say there is say those that say ther isn't are not true RCs. Both groups would claim to be true STMers, or, more to the point, tru RCs. THAT is a valid point of disunity among RCs.
The fact is Scott that you engage in a very real double standard. There is no way you can define disunity for which there is not also a coresponding division within the RCC. I suggest that if you want to be taken seriously you drop srguments that involve double standards, especially ones that can be turned back on you to devastate your own position.
To which Scott says:
John4_34 said:
>>Scott,
First let me point out that you are yourself engaging in the false comparison of the unity of one denomination vs. the unity of many denominations. That means that it is irrelevant whether protestants disagree across denominational lines over the necessity of baptism. It is uity within a particular denomination that matters if you want a fair and valid comparison. And I charitably assume you do.
I could make asimilarly unfair comparison: The RCC and Salt Lake disagree on any number of issues. Both would claim that they follow the True Church, with the infallibly defined dogmas, Tradition, magiterium etc. That is a valid point of disunity. Thus STM is invalid.
I could get more specific, and point out that a ong thos specifically Christian groups which claim to hld to Tradition, there is likewise no unity, the RCC and EOC disagreeing on a number of fundamental issues.
But let's get more specific, since I don't want to make the logically invalid comparison you make. Do all RCs agree that there is a current Pope? No, they don't. Those that say there is say those that say ther isn't are not true RCs. Both groups would claim to be true STMers, or, more to the point, tru RCs. THAT is a valid point of disunity among RCs.
The fact is Scott that you engage in a very real double standard. There is no way you can define disunity for which there is not also a coresponding division within the RCC. I suggest that if you want to be taken seriously you drop srguments that involve double standards, especially ones that can be turned back on you to devastate your own position. <<
Scott replies:
John, I have not yet been "devastated" and please see my other responses in this thread that refutes your proposed devastation. The very fact that "Catholicism is one denomination and Protestantism is not" is precisely the point.
I must also add, *I* did not bring up this issue on Eric's board - ERIC did! :-)
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
John4_34 adds:
I almost forgot to mention Scott:
You want to make claims about the unity of dogma in the RCC.
May I simply point out that there are RCs who, while affirming all the same dogmas you do, reach veryu different understandings fo those dogmas? Consider salvation. Some RCs say that Protestants cannot be saved unless they become RCs. Others say they can be saved without beoming RC. Still others say it doesn't matter since by virtue of baptism of desire, all people are going to be saved anyway!
So where is that unity?
To which Scott responds:
John4_34 adds:
>> I almost forgot to mention Scott:
You want to make claims about the unity of dogma in the RCC.
May I simply point out that there are RCs who, while affirming all the same dogmas you do, reach veryu different understandings fo those dogmas? Consider salvation. Some RCs say that Protestants cannot be saved unless they become RCs. Others say they can be saved without beoming RC. Still others say it doesn't matter since by virtue of baptism of desire, all people are going to be saved anyway!
So where is that unity?<<
Scott replies:
You refer to the dogma called EENS (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - Outside the Church there is No Salvation). No Catholic denies this dogma - what they have discussions on is just what constitutes "outside the Church." If Baptism is the initiation into the Church, then Protestants with a valid rite of Baptism (which includes most) MAY NOT be outside the Church - THAT is the point which is debated - not the dogma itself.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
“James” again says:
John,
Thanks for the clarification, it was not evident to me that that was ES's intent. Please see my comments to DTK, I think they are still relavent, even with the clarification. What do you think?
James
DTK (aka David King, or “skyman” on IRC) says to James:
You wrote: Unity of Church government is important unless one feels Church gov't itself is unimportant. "How good it is to live like brothers..." not without fights and squabbles, but remaining in the family, the body of Christ. I am unmoved by the presence of RC inside squabbles- it seems to me that to argue that such disagreements are important is to remove any earthly or human reality from the idea of unity and put in the realm of "airy-fairy" platonic spiritual realities, never to be seen by any of us this side of the grave. I haven't got the impression that this is the sort of unity RC's claim, and it seems a bit of a strawman to argue that this must be the position they must defend.
I don't know if you're new to such exchanges, but this is "the sort of unity" that Roman apologists charge Evangelicals with lacking all the time. For those of us who have been engaging these charges from Roman apologists for years now, it is not a straw man because "turn around" is fair play to counter their charges. If they're going to make these charges against Protestants, they need to be consistent and recognize them within their own communion. It is pertinent because Roman apologists need to have their feet held to the fire on the basis of the nature of their own arguments against evangelicals. It is not a straw man argument to point out their inconsistency and double-standards, when they're guilty of the very thing with which they have attempted to indict Evangelicals.
DTK
To which Scott responds:
DTK wrote: I don't know if you're new to such exchanges, but this is "the sort of unity" that Roman apologists charge Evangelicals with lacking all the time. For those of us who have been engaging these charges from Roman apologists for years now, it is not a straw man because "turn around" is fair play to counter their charges. If they're going to make these charges against Protestants, they need to be consistent and recognize them within their own communion. It is pertinent because Roman apologists need to have their feet held to the fire on the basis of the nature of their own arguments against evangelicals. It is not a straw man argument to point out their inconsistency and double-standards, when they're guilty of the very thing with which they have attempted to indict Evangelicals.
Scott responds:
David, when "ES" attempts to make an "apples and oranges" comparison, he will be called on it, as I have done. The point of this discussion is that you cannot show even ONE Catholic that denies a defined dogma. If you do come up with one, then such a person has automatically excommunicated themselves by that very denial. Such a "Catholic" would be rightly labelled a heretic. It is truly a "strawman" for there truly is no such thing as a faithful Catholic that denies even one point of dogma.
Scott<<<
(Portion here has been removed by request from soneone who wishes to remain anonymous).
James’ response to DTK was this:
DTK,
I think I'm getting it.... You mean that RC's argue that Evangelicals are unified because they can't agree on anything because they lack an authoritative magisterium.... I can see how your turn about would be an effective instrument to combat this. I guess I was reading my own troubled thoughts into it- It seems to me respect for Church gov't is important and biblical, and I attribute the disunity of Protestants to a lack of a good ecclesiology and a desire for the individual to be judge of Church and Scripture.
I guess I should have lurked a bit longer, and worked harder at getting over the repugnance I feel at the tone of certain arguments and try to understand them instead of judging them......
Thanks for your patience,
James
John4_34 replies to James with:
"It seems to me respect for Church gov't is important and biblical, and I attribute the disunity of Protestants to a lack of a good ecclesiology and a desire for the individual to be judge of Church and Scripture."
No one disputes that church governance is important and biblical. If you want to say that the fact that there are various denominations that make up protestantism is chalked up to a poor ecclesiology and the dominance of rugged individualism then I have some comments.
1) I think it is obvios that the standard of comparison is improper. RCism is after all one denomination, where protestantism is many denominations. A fair comparison would be the unity of RCism to any one denomination. Even then you have to clear about what you mean by unity. Different systems of governance promote different kinds of unity.
2) Assuming that by unity you refer to ecclesiastical unity, this is a a tautology. Protestants are not united like one denomination because they are not one denomination.
3) What in your mind is a "good ecclesiology"? Is it one that furthers ecclesiastical unity? relational unity? doctrinal unity? A mixture of these? Something else, say one tha furthers the mission of the Church (Matt 28:18-20)? This is a value statement that speaks more about your assumptions than about Protestant unity or ecclesiology.
4) The desire for everyone to be their own judge is evident within the RCC too. RCs disagree as to how many infallible statements have been made, the way to interpret RC teaching, etc. Remember, having an infallible magisterium does not remove the personal interpretation, it jusy adds an extra step. Instead of each person (in your schema) being his own judge of church and scriture, you have each person being his own judge of church, scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.
To which Scott says:
John said:
>> Now Protestantism does not have this of course, but then Protestantism isn't one denomination, but many, and comparing it to the RCC, which is a single denomination, is not a valid comparison. <<
I'm pleased that "ES" raised this issue, because you're making the Catholic point crystal clear here! Thank you. Catholicism is indeed one denomination and Protestantism is not. THAT is the point. You're attempting to lessen the importance of that statement, but you cannot do it, it IS an important point.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
James also replies to John:
Well, my church experiences do not confirm your affirmation, especially in the realm of Church discipline. Disgraced pastors, communicants who become disgruntled and refuse discipline go to or found another church. Churches frequently practise closed communion, demand rebaptism, ignore or scoff at policy statements by other churchs- for example some ordain women, some do not, some have ordination requirements, some don't ordain, some have supervisory elders, etc. I don't think this is what the reformers had in mind, and more important, I don't think this is what Jesus and the Apostles had in mind, and all the sins of the RC church will not make the participation of the protestant churches in this particular problem less problematic. Indeed, I want a postive ecclesiologic vision, maybe a bit like that I mentioned by the Lutherans, to capture my imagination. Denominationalism doesn't cut it.
None the less, I appreciate the interaction :)
James
John4_34 replies:
"Well, my church experiences do not confirm your affirmation, especially in the realm of Church discipline. Disgraced pastors, communicants who become disgruntled and refuse discipline go to or found another church."
These exist in the RCC as well. Especialy the clergy thing. Or have you not been watching the news lately?
"Churches frequently practise closed communion, demand rebaptism, ignore or scoff at policy statements by other churchs- for example some ordain women, some do not, some have ordination requirements, some don't ordain, some have supervisory elders, etc."
This also happens in the RCC. Priests will forbid an RC taking communion b/c the RC is not from his parish. It happens!
Some of what you mention is stuff that happens BETWEEN denominations. Remember the standard of comparison issue.
You really need to remember that the RCC is just another denomination. That means it is a contributor to the problems you list. It does not stand apart from them. Think of it this way. The problems you see in protestantism are problems that the RCC contributes to as a part of Christianity. By your logic this fact disqualifies Christianity. I don't think that is what you want to argue. Maybe your postive ecclesiology should be leading you to the Mormons or something? I don't think so!
"I want a postive ecclesiologic vision, maybe a bit like that I mentioned by the Lutherans, to capture my imagination. Denominationalism doesn't cut it."
The RCC is a contributor to denominationalism. But let me say this: denominationalism does not necessarilly lead one to sectarianism. The two have too often gone together, but they don't necessarily do so.
BTW, I too appreciate your interaction.
“Ree” responds to James as well with:
>>>Well, my church experiences do not confirm your affirmation, especially in the realm of Church discipline. Disgraced pastors, communicants who become disgruntled and refuse discipline go to or found another church. Churches frequently practise closed communion, demand rebaptism, ignore or scoff at policy statements by other churchs- for example some ordain women, some do not, some have ordination requirements, some don't ordain, some have supervisory elders, etc. I don't think this is what the reformers had in mind, and more important, I don't think this is what Jesus and the Apostles had in mind, and all the sins of the RC church will not make the participation of the protestant churches in this particular problem less problematic. Indeed, I want a postive ecclesiologic vision, maybe a bit like that I mentioned by the Lutherans, to capture my imagination. Denominationalism doesn't cut it.<<<
Your point seems to be that denominationalism is not the ideal, and it's not the vision of unity Jesus had in mind. I agree with you on that. The problem is when RC's use this fact as "proof" that they're right and we're wrong. Because even if denominationalism has problems (and it does), the alternative Roman Catholic's offer has far greater and more fundamental problems, and it doesn't even avoid the problems we have with denominationalism.
Ree
To which Scott replies:
Ree said:
>> Your point seems to be that denominationalism is not the ideal, and it's not the vision of unity Jesus had in mind. I agree with you on that. The problem is when RC's use this fact as "proof" that they're right and we're wrong. Because even if denominationalism has problems (and it does), the alternative Roman Catholic's offer has far greater and more fundamental problems, and it doesn't even avoid the problems we have with denominationalism. <<
Ree, I must ask for fair and equal treatment here. I was reprimanded by "ES" for not supplying this forum with examples when making charges. I ask the same from you. Your claim that "the alternative Roman Catholics' offer has far greater and more fundamental problems...." is vague, and in "ES's" words, "invalid."
Scott<<<
(Portion here has been removed by request from soneone who wishes to remain anonymous).