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

On 1 Apr 2006 04:03:26 -0800, "Revd. Eric Potts" <loiner2003@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

Gareth McCaughan wrote:
It seems to me -- and presumably to the leaders of those
non-RC churches in which the Creed is used, so however
dishonest or crazy this is it's something that many people
find reasonable -- that it's about as near as one can get
to what the Council intended in the modern world. The
entity that used to be picked out by the phrase "one
holy catholic and apostolic church" no longer exists.
It has split, and split again, and each of its progeny
is something different to what it once was.

Alec himself didn't pick up on this point, so I run the risk of
oputting in his mouth words he wouldn't utter! I do not wish to do that
and will be happy to withdraw if that seems to be the case.

But I would have expected Alec to respond to the above by saying
something like:
"the entity that used to be picked out by the phrase 'one holy catholic
and apostolic church' does indeed still exist; the fact of splits mean
that its 'progeny' cannot claim that title but the original still is
extant." Is not this - perhaps not in those exact words - what the RCC
does in fact claim for itself? So that when it acknowledges the
presence of the Spirit in those bodies which it now refers to as
'ecclesial communities' it does so on the basis that anything of truth
which is found in those bodies is itself only there because it is found
first in the RCC?

That is what I believe, but it wasn't really germane to the points I
was trying to make, so I didn't pursue it.

And herein does lie a distinction in relationships between those of the
Catholic Church and Donatists etc and relationships today between the
RCC and so-called 'ecclesial communities' - namely that such communties
are not deemed to be essentially heretical in the sense of damned but
are in fact vehicles through which Christians might genuinely exercise
faith and find salvation, even if they are believed to be lacking in
fullness of faith in some way.

IIUC Augustine's complaint about the Donatists wasn't that they held
incorrect opinions - though he clearly believed they did - but that
they had abandoned Catholic unity to express those opinions. The
Donatists believed themselves to be the only remnant of the true
Catholic Church, and that the worldwide communion had fallen away
through its wrongheaded laxity towards sinners.

The rest of the Donatists' theology was scarcely if at all different
from the Catholics'. They believed in rebaptism and that an unworthy
minister did not validly offer the sacraments, but everything else was
the same. They were more similar to the Catholics than (say) the
Methodists are to the RCC.

For whatever reasons he was much more scathing about them than the
modern RCC is towards the 'separated brethren', even saying that their
baptism, while valid, was of no avail to someone who remained outside
the Catholic Church. That's a historic difference, but I don't think
it makes the relationship between the CC and the Donatists materially
different from the relationship between (say) the RCC and the CofE

And since there is now seen to be salvation outside the RCC (albeit
perhaps derived therefrom) then the RCC is making a de facto
acknowledgement that it is not identical with the fourth century
Catholic Church. (And about time too, some of us might be tempted to
add.)

The RCC says that there is (or at least can be) salvation even for
non-Christians, so I wouldn't make too much of that argument, Eric.
--
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