Catholicity and the word Catholic

Comments on being Catholic/ or Catholicity: first from a discussion found here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/lawrence-feingold-the-motives-of-credibility-for-faith/#comment-149899   comment 90 which starts with a quote from the PCA guy and then is answered by the Catholic in the discussion:

We hold to apostolic tradition as Irenaeus gives its content (which is essentially the Apostles Creed).

Except what he writes about justification, about baptismal regeneration, and the existence of bishops as distinct from presbyters, about apostolic succession of the bishops, about ordination imparting a grace and an authority received in succession from the Apostles (see comment #38 of the “Apostolic Succession and Historical Inquiry” thread), about the sacrificial priesthood, about Mary as the Second Eve (see comment #30 in the “Mary’s Immaculate Conception” thread), about praying the Lord’s Prayer (see comment #18 in the “Reformed Imputation and the Lord’s Prayer” thread) though it contradicts Reformed theology’s claim that all our future sins are already forgiven, and about the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine of deification, when he writes that “the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.” (AH V. Pref.)

You wrote:

I agree that Augustine and Irenaeus were catholics. So was Calvin, Luther, Anselm, et al. So are confessional Protestants. What I would deny is that Augustine and Irenaeus were Roman Catholics.

Except St. Irenaeus says “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its preeminent authority,” (AH III.3.2), and St. Augustine’s statements about the authority of the bishop of Rome can be found here. Nor is the Reformed doctrine of justification by extra nos imputation compatible with what St. Augustine teaches about justification by infusion.

You wrote:

A church that holds to ecumenical creeds but says that it is the only church Christ founded is by definition not catholic, or at least not catholic enough.

The problem with that claim is that it is self-contradictory. The ecumenical creeds themselves (a) say that Christ founded only one Church (that’s what “one” means when they “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”) and (b) claim to be the faith of that one Church Christ founded. Moreover, St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine, whom you want to affirm as your own, claimed repeatedly to belong to and speak for that one Church Christ founded.

From Comment 91:

I’m sorry, but I don’t find where you extensively deal with the fact that the church was not catholic on Pentecost.

The Church had all four marks from her birth on Pentecost. There was never a time when the Church existed, and lacked any of her four marks. So it is not a “fact” that the Church was not catholic on Pentecost.

I had written:

“(i.e. did not come into existence as a schism from the Church at some point after the birth of the Church on Pentecost). Thus the Church is universal with respect to all peoples, and with respect to the whole of Christian history, and with respect to the same faith taught through all those times among all those peoples. Only the Catholic Church has this mark; it is the same Catholic Church that came into being on the day of Pentecost and was never formed by any mere man starting a schism or starting a denomination. This fulfills the prophecy given in Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan 2:44) that through a stone cut out from a mountain by no human hand, God would “set up a Kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever.”

To this you replied:

Here is where you are presuming Roman Catholicism. It’s not self-evident that the catholicity of the church depends on what you say it is. You are defining the church as primarily a visible institution, and you are assuming that other bodies broke away from the bishop of Rome.

I’m not presuming “Roman Catholicism” in saying what I said above. As I showed in the two comments I linked to in comment #84, catholicity as a mark of the Church is consistently understood throughout the Church Fathers as universality with respect to all the peoples who have embraced the teaching of the Apostles, universality with respect to the whole of Christian history, and universality with respect to the same faith taught through all those times among all those peoples.

The East does not agree with you, at least on the point that they broke away.

True, but that is no support whatsoever for your notion that the PCA has the mark of catholicity. Otherwise, I could point to people who disagree with you (e.g. myself) as evidence that you are mistaken.

Protestants certainly don’t agree with you on the church being primarily visible or that they broke away.

I agree. But the existence of persons who do not accept x does not establish the truth of ~x.

Luther, Calvin, et all certainly saw themselves as continuing the faith of what came before them.

Of course. But so have many heretics in Church history who preceded them. It is not enough to see oneself as right, in order to show or establish that one is right. Nor does their opinion provide any reason to believe that the PCA has the mark of catholicity.

If by definition the PCA isn’t catholic because the vast majority of its members are North Americans, then that rules out the early church as well.

The early Church was catholic from her beginning; St. Ignatius is already using the term at the beginning of the second century. And as I’ve already explained (by way of the Mormon example), catholicity includes universality with respect to the whole of Church history from the time of Christ. The early Church met that criterion of catholicity, because, having been born on Pentecost, there was no Church history prior to her.

But the PCA does not meet that criterion of catholicity, because (a) while you want to affirm pre-1973 Church history as the PCA’s own, the PCA came into existence in 1973, which therefore shows that pre-1973 history to be the history of something prior to itself, not her history, and (b) the PCA does not encompass the whole visible Church, as you yourself acknowledge when you speak of NAPARC in comment #86 above. By definition, a branch as such cannot be “catholic,” which is precisely why a schism from the Church cannot be catholic, as St. Augustine argued to the Donatists.

Catholicity as a mark of the Church is consistently understood throughout the Fathers as universality with respect to all the peoples who have embraced the teaching of the Apostles as that teaching has spread around the world, universality with respect to the whole of Christian history extending all the way back to Christ Himself, and universality with respect to the same faith taught through all those times among all those peoples.

If you take the position of Augustine on the eventual catholicity of the church, then any Protestant can say that as well.

St. Augustine never held to the “eventual catholicity” of the Church in the sense that she has ever existed without catholicity. For St. Augustine the Church was already catholic, and had always been catholic.

end

What the word Catholic meant in early times?  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

Mary Immaculate Conception?

see also a longer length video here: http://www.instituteofcatholicculture.org/born-without-sin-a-study-of-the-immaculate-conception/

A written debate between a Protestant and Catholic on this doctrine:https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/woman-and-serpent-take-2

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/12/debate-with-evangelical-on-the-immaculate-conception.html

more articles on Mary: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/holy-mary-mother-of-god

development of doctrine

What about disagreements in the Catholic Church?

This is from comment 2 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/10/divorce-remarriage-revisited/#comment-132828

(In reply to your comment #16 on Andrew’s “To Enter the Sanctuary by the Blood of Jesus.”)

You wrote:

Bryan, the bishops are divided and it’s not just some obscure point of church dogma or practice.

You’re still conflating the distinction between that which must at least be adhered to with religious submission of will and intellect, and that about which we are free to disagree. The Synod has no authority to change Church doctrine, and was convened to deliberate concerning pastoral practice. So the questions put up to the bishops for vote do not even rise to the level of that which must at least be adhered to with religious submission of will and intellect. (Again, see the document at footnote #11 in “The “Catholics are Divided Too” Objection.”) Even if some bishops disagreed with what must at least be adhered to with religious submission of will and intellect, we would still be obliged to adhere to it with religious submission of will and intellect. Deviation from magisterial teaching by some bishops does not ‘break’ the unity of the Magisterium. By simply stating that the bishops “are divided,” you conflate their differing opinions at the Synod as though this is equivalent to, or entails, Magisterial disagreement. But that conclusion does not follow from that premise. The teaching of the Magisterium is not divided, even when bishops in synod disagree, because the authentic Magisterium of the Church is not constituted by anything at the synodal level, even the majority opinion.

Not looking good for your choice of Rome. But once you go in on high papalism, you find out what’s wrong with monarchy — arbitrary rule. You might get Pius X, you might get Francis.

It is easy to prognosticate some future downfall of the Church. Naysayers have been doing it for two thousand years. They now lie in their graves, but the Church faithfully marches on, century after century after century. If Christ is the Son of God, then His Mystical Body, the Church, will remain faithful until He returns in glory. Christ and His Body are one. Hence faith in Christ requires and calls forth faith in His Church.

So when do you become disillusioned? (When does CTC admit disillusion even exists?)

That question would only begin to be pertinent when there was some good reason to become disillusioned. Your question presupposes that there is such a reason, but you have provided no such reason.

what about the Canon 3 of the 4th Lateran Council of 1215,

Concerning the use of the word exterminate in Canon 3 of the 4th Lateran Council of 1215, 

see here http://www.cpats.org/_webpostings/answers/2013_01JAN/2013JanHowWouldYouRespond.cfm    Here is part of the quote:

The whole of Canon 3 can be read here in translation:

• Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215, Canons 3

That web publication is cited in Fr. Cleenewerck's book, so apparently he was using that very translation. It was published in 1937, and it's actually a bit misleading. In particular, the wordexterminate is misleading in English: a more accurate translation would be expel. So the Fourth Lateran Council was urging secular authorities to expel heretics in their territory. Admittedly, that is not up to modern human rights standards, but for the 13th century, that's how they kept the peace. It's not talking about extermination in the sense of killing, so the whole thing becomes less shocking.
That point about language leads to another question. Fr. Cleenewerck doesn't cite any source for his readers to look at the canons in the original Latin. That is really not up to scholarly standards, which is surprising, since he holds several graduate degrees.

However , this guy does not agree with the above:http://history-christian-church.blogspot.com/2012/03/inquisition.html

 The fact that the Church did not directly assume the task of executing heretics, but turned them over, after conviction, to the secular arm, does very little towards qualifying its responsibility. For not only did it inculcate the general maxim, that in guarding the faith the temporal power must obey the spiritual, but, as has just been indicated, it required specitically, and under stress of the highest censures at its command, that the temporal power should diligently employ its exterminating sword against heresy.

 By an ecumenical decree, that of the Fourth Lateran Council, it ordained that the temporal lord who, after fair warning, should delay to purge his land of heretical defilement, should be excommunicated and lose all claim to allegiance. In the person of several Popes it prescribed, in authoritative terms, the adoption of a code which sentenced obstinate heretics to death by fire,

Then this from Catholic answers comment :http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=889548&highlight=canon+3+of+the+4th+Lateran+Council+of

First, let's quote the relevant document:

Lateran IV, Canon 3: "[Civil rulers] ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate/expel in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church." 1215 A.D.

First, let it be noted that the most significant word in Canon 3 is translated in two different ways: sometimes as exterminate, sometimes as expel. But let us suppose that exterminate is the correct translation. In that case, there is an apparent contradiction between this teaching and the modern teaching of the Church on the just use of the death penalty. 

Consider this quote from the Catechism: "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against [an] unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means" CCC 2267.

The Catechism seems to say that the State must not use the death penalty if they can avoid it, and its purpose is to "defend [] human lives against [an] unjust aggressor." ButLateran IV seems to say that the death penalty must be used against heretics. According to the Catholic Church, our teachings cannot change. How do we square this apparent contradiction?

By reading carefully. Lateran IV does not say that the death penalty must be used against heretics in all cases -- it says it must be used against "all heretics pointed out bythe Church." That phrasing is important. It acknowledges the Church's right to decide upon the moral use of the death penalty. And the Church says that the death penalty cannot be used against someone unless they are an "unjust aggressor" who is attacking "human lives" and who cannot be stopped in any other way.

Similar reasoning applies to Pope Leo X's Bull Exsurge Domine.

According to that document, Error 33 was: "That heretics be burned is against the will ofthe Spirit." 1520 A.D.

To say the same thing in other words, what Exsurge Domine is condemning is the idea that it is contrary to the Law of God to apply the death penalty to heretics. And we do condemn that: "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to thedeath penalty." But when? "[Only] if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against [an] unjust aggressor."

This is not a new interpretation of this teaching; this was how it was understood at thetime. I think that perhaps no better proof of this can be cited than St. Thomas More, who was in charge of executions in England shortly after Exsurge Domine was published. According to this saint, writing in 1528, the Church's teaching was tempered by the fact that heretics' executions should only be done once they themselves have become violent. He says this several times in his Dialog Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13:

"[The princes] never in fact would have resorted so heavily to force and violence against heretics if the violent cruelty first used by the heretics themselves against good Catholic folk had not driven good princes to do it."

"[A]s I said before, if the heretics had never started with the violence, then even if they had used all the ways they could to lure the people by preaching...yet if they had left violence alone, good Christian people would perhaps all the way up to this day have used less violence toward them than they do now."

"[F]rom the beginning [heretics] were never by any temporal punishment oftheir bodies at all harshly treated until they began to be violent themselves."

"[Therefore] what the Church law on this calls for is good, reasonable, compassionate, and charitable, and in no way desirous of the death ofanyone." (More, Thomas. Dialogue Concerning Heresies. Translated by Gottschalk, Mary. 2006. New York, NY: Scepter Publishers. p. 460-464)

Now I admit that this teaching was not always followed in the Middle Ages by everyone, and in the space of 1000 years from 500 to 1500 A.D. I am sure that there were people who ordered the deaths of heretics who could have been left alive. But apart from thefact that no one is obliged to follow unjust orders, it is worth pointing out that theAlbigensians, against whom Lateran IV was directed, were known to have existed in 1022 A.D., almost 200 years before the Albigensian Crusade was ordered against them, andthe Church's bishops did not order anything to be done against them until the papal legate Blessed Pierre de Castelnau was murdered by them when he was trying to peacefully recover the Albigensian regions to the Catholic faith. In this case, too, it was the heretics' violence which begot a violent response, though the violence of the Catholics was arguably beyond what was required.

[and]

 Cont'd from last post

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 In addition to what I've posted before on this thread, I wanted you to know that I've been giving your questions a lot of thought in and out of my classes lately, and I had some additional thoughts that I thought you might find helpful. It is my understanding of Church teaching that the Anathema of the Church falls underthe protection of papal infallibility only when it is attached to an ex cathedra papal declaration or a decree of an ecumenical council about faith or morality. Because of this,the threat of excommunication for doing X (or refusing to do Y) doesn't imply that the X is morally wrong or that Y is morally right. Therefore, if you were excommunicated for disobeying a cleric who told you to do something (e.g. execute a heretic), no matter what order he had given you, even if he was the pope himself, it would not imply that there was any Church teaching declaring that the action commanded of you was morally right. Theonly thing that could declare the teaching of the Church on the matter infallibly would be if there was an ex cathedra statement, or a decree from a council, that identified theaction under question and declared it to be morally right. If my analysis is correct, then, if you were told by a bishop that, under the authority vested in him by Canon 3 of the 4th Lateran Council, he hereby commanded you to execute a certain heretic; and if you then appealed to the pope, arguing that he had requested his death without good reason; and even if the pope then overruled you and commanded you to execute the heretic, and said that you would be excommunicated unless you did, all of this put together would *still* not mean that this was okay according tothe teaching of the Church. To determine the morality of the command, a Council(or the pope in an ex cathedra statement) would have to decree that it is okay for a heretic to be executed even if he is not an unstoppable violent criminal. That is not what the FourthLateran Council decreed, and it is not what Exsurge Domine decreed; therefore, nothing about the Church's teaching then was contrary to what it is now, even though it is possible that some commands of the Church's hierarchy were immoral. Could you consider this analysis thoughtfully and get back to me? I'd also like to see if aCanon Lawyer could verify it; it seems sound to me, but I'm not an expert in Canon Law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 Quote: Originally Posted by dronald So are you saying that the Church leaders (often and most likely with agreement) took a moral high ground by handing them over to authorities to be murdered over their beliefs instead of doing it themselves? No, the clerics handed them over to the civil authorities without requesting or commanding the shedding of blood, because that was forbidden by Canon 18 of the IVLateran Council: "A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics." "No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out." I think it is important to read Canon 3 with Canon 18 in mind. The execution of heretics was to be done specifically for "all heretics pointed out by the Church" (Canon 3), but ordinary clerics were forbidden from requesting such executions. Perhaps what these canons really show is how seriously the Church regarded the execution of heretics; it seems to have specified that executions should happen *when a Church organ other than an individual cleric investigated the matter and found it to be necessary. That is a very limiting principle on the right of nations to execute heretics, and perhaps it shows why theusual examples people can come up with were internationally controversial figures like Hus, Wyclif, Waldo, and the Albigensians. In the Reformation period, St. Thomas More also remarks on this point, defending theChurch from the accusation that it was merciless by saying that the Church's clerics did not request the State to execute heretics anyways; that was a State administered penalty, and, in More's opinion, they showed themselves to be Christ-like when they showed a history of avoiding the use of violence until it became necessary for defense against violence by the heretics themselves. (I provided quotes to that effect from him in a previous post; see post #55-56 of this thread.)

Cont'd next post

[and]

Cont'd from last post

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 Quote: Originally Posted by FathersKnowBest Suppose you're on a jury for a capital crime. You don't pronounce the sentence, you only determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. You know that there is a possibility that, if convicted, the accused could be sentenced to death. You believe that person to be guilty based on the evidence. Do you vote to convict, or acquit? I think you are bringing up a very important point, that even if we disagree with the use ofcapital punishment, changing that is not the juror's job, his job is just too give a verdict. But I think the Church's medieval hierarchy would be more admirable, viewed from a historical perspective, if they had protested the use of the death penalty in the case of non-violent heresies and if they had acted more strongly to change the law that applied thedeath penalty to non-violent heretics. To be clear, I am not saying that the Church's leaders never did protest, or that their typical silence or even support for the use of the death penalty against heretics constitutes proof that they overturned the early Church's more merciful attitude (because even when someof their writings supported it, this support was never asserted with dogmatic authority), but it sure would make the medieval Church look more admirable if brave souls more often stood up against this use of the death penalty as leaders of the Church. And perhaps they did, and I just can't find translated records of it yet. But I'll keep looking. Either way, since the Church never asserted with dogmatic authority that non-violent heretics may be executed, the argument that the Catholic States of the middle ages sometimes used the death penalty in immoral ways is no proof against the holiness or infallibility of the Church.

______________