Re: Conflicts, contrasts or differences between Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain

On 28 Mar 2006 00:52:26 +0100, Gareth McCaughan
<Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alec Brady wrote:

Cyril lived at the time of the Nicene Council, and his interpretation
of that clause of the Creed is contemporaneous with what that Council
meant. He clearly thinks of the Catholic Church as being a specific
and identifiable body.

Sure. But that body is not the same thing as the RCC is now,

On what grounds do you say that?

Well, um, it seems obvious. The route from that body to
the present-day RCC involves at least two major schisms;
the PDRCC is *a* descendant of the Nicaean[1] Catholic Church,
but clearly not the only one, and I see no reason to think
that it's the only real one, or the only one with the right
sort of continuity of essence, or any other such thing
that might justify claiming that it's the same thing.

[1] er, or perhaps Constantinopolitan.

and its relationship to the other bodies intended to be excluded
by the wording is not the same as the RCC's relationship now to
non-RC Christian groups such as (say) the Methodists or the Baptists.

Methodists are not Manichaeans, sure; and Baptists are not Montanists.
But in what relevant way do the non-Catholic churches differ from,
say, the Donatists?

I don't know enough about the Donatists to be sure.

(Is there in fact any reason to think that the wording
of the Nicene Creed was chosen to exclude the Donatists?)

I don't think it was chosen to exclude them; but certainly Augustine
thought that it did do so.

The Donatists claimed that *they* were the Catholic Church, or at
least a remnant of it, and that Augustine's lot were apostates.
Augustine's argument was that his lot were everywhere, while the
Donatists were only in North Africa; and that therefore his lot were
genuinely 'catholic', while the Donatists weren't

It's not clear to me whether someone saying the Creed and taking
"one holy catholic ... church" to mean "one universal church consisting
of all real followers of Christ, including in particular plenty of
people from all the main Christian denominations but probably not
most Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons"is nearer or further from that
original meaning than someone saying it and taking it to mean
"the body now calling itself the Catholic Church, headed by the
Pope"

No, I guess it isn't. It's very clear to me.

For one thing, the idea that the church consists of all *real*
followers of Christ is Donatism. But let it pass.

Er, no, it isn't; Donatism is not defined by any one of its
doctrines, and the fact that a heretical group believed some
proposition is no guarantee of its wrongness.

No, you're right, I should have said it's Donatist, not Donatism; and
it's not for me to say whether you should or shouldn't believe the
doctrine. But I would say that, at least, it's a doctrine that wasn't
accepted by the Catholic Church in Augustine's day, so there's prima
facie reason to think it wasn't what the Nicene Council intended.

Suppose you heard that there was a prominent modern denomination that
said - like Augustine - that the reason you should believe the Bible
was because *they* told you to. Which church would you imagine they
were?

I wouldn't be greatly surprised to find either the RCC
or an Eastern Orthodox group saying that. Nor to find
exactly parallel things being said by (say) the Mormons.

My argument isn't exactly that no-one else says that; but that no
other body fills all the criteria derived from Cyril and Augustine.
Therefore, if it matters to us that we accept the creed, what is to be
accepted is precisely that we believe in something that only the RCC
could possibly be.

For those who cannot accept that result, istm the most honest recourse
is to deny that the Creed has authority and to stop saying it - or at
least, to omit that clause. After all, there's nothing in scripture to
require belief in one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Or one could disagree that the consequent follows from my premises and
my data. I don't think that's tenable, but you can try to show me
where I've gone astray.

[SNIP: Various other rhetorical questions which seem to me
to contribute nothing but fog to the discussion; probably
I'm missing something, but all they seem to me to show is
that the present-day RCC *considers itself* the only real
heir of the Catholic Church in the time of Nicaea; so what?]

So if we are truthful when we say "I believe in one holy catholic and
apostolic church": and if we mean by that what the creed was intended
to bind us to: then there must be such a church in existence today. If
there isn't, we shouldn't be saying we believe there is. If there is,
then it will claim to be such, and the claims it makes for itself will
be the claims made for the CC at the time of Nicaea. The only body
that meets the criteria is the RCC.

That's the argument I think I'm making (though I may not have
expressed it well). Perhaps my logic is faulty, or perhaps my premises
are false. I'm up for discussing it.

-- but I must say the first seems nearer the mark to me than
the second.

Do you have any reason for that seeming, or is it just that
"all...wish to be called Catholics"?

I never thought I'd say this to you of all people, but:
kindly drop the thinly veiled accusations of heresy,
schismatism and bad faith, and come back to this when
you're willing to talk about it civilly and rationally.
I can only surmise that you've been having a bad day
or something, for which you have my sympathy, but I decline
to have your frustrations taken out on me.

I apologise for my rudeness. I hadn't had a bad day at all, though I
was tired and perhaps less self-critical than I ought to have been. I
will strive to do better.

I'd still like to hear why things seem the way they do to you.

(For the record: I have no particular wish to be called
a "Catholic", the power struggles between the "Catholics"
and the Donatists seem to me a more than averagely
unimpressive episode in the history of Christianity,
though as it happens I am not a Donatist.)

--
Alec Brady
"You have to regard everything I say with suspicion - I may be trying to
bullshit you, or I may just be bullshitting you inadvertently."
- J. Wainwright Mathematics 140b
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Conflicts, contrasts or differences between Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain
    ... Catholic Church and Donatists etc and relationships today between the ... Methodists are to the RCC. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Anti-Catholicism
    ... The Catholic Church is NOT ... The Catholic Church is an apostate church. ... > is the Word of God transmitted to inspired authors. ... > You give many anecdotes and quotes on the Saturday Sabbath; ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • ARE SEAN HANNITY AND LAURA INGRAHAM HYPOCRITES
    ... ARE SEAN HANNITY AND LAURA INGRAHAM HYPOCRITES ... was spoken about in the Walnut Park Baptist Church, ... Catholic Church, are more puzzling to me today than they were when I ...
    (talk.politics.misc)
  • Re: RCC is not Christs church 1
    ... Roman in the sense that it's not Chaldean, Eastern Orthodox, etc. ... Anytime parakaleo wants to dismiss a subject and move on in a hurry is ... If it's not Christ's Church, ... the Roman Catholic Church does not pretend the members of the ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Catholics in Sweden Must Challenge Rome
    ... 'Catholics in Sweden Must Challenge Rome' ... the strand of the church that borders on ... reading about bishops and priests in the Catholic Church in Ireland, ... We who believe in God must learn to be rebels. ...
    (soc.culture.vietnamese)