Catag94 said:

---

1) Thank you. I was unaware of the Orthodox prohibition of receiving in communities outside of the Orthodox Church. I was working off my understanding within the RCC.

2). That article is interesting in that it talks about all the differences sort of falling under one main philosophical fundamental. But, I get what you mean.

I think it's a few of the details where I find myself unwilling to convert to RCC as it would be disingenuous of me. But, that's not to say I disagree with any of Christ's or His disciples' teachings. In fact, if I were transported to Caesarea in front of Peter, I'd be part of his following for sure.

Unfortunately, those that followed Peter over the centuries have added additional required beliefs to be a par of what they say is the church founded on, if not by, Peter.
Today, those people in Cornelius's home would need to go through a course and profess belief in a few more things (some of which may be rejected by Peter himself) in order to become part of the church despite having clearly received the Holy Spirit.

---

Unfortunately many of things that seem added on are really "added" because of a challenge to what is traditionally held as belief inside of the church.

Take sinless Mary for example. Even Luther held to this belief. Fast forward a few hundred years to today and now most Protestants belief this to be heretical. So what does the church do? I see 3 options:

1. State that sinless Mary doctrine as dogma and put the argument to rest.

2. State that sinless Mary is false and essentially call the vast majority of historical Christians heretics?

3. Take a neutral stance and say you can believe either.

3 seems reasonable, but when you have each side believing that the other is a heretic, can you really choose this path? How can your church stay together with such a pivotal issue results in each side believing the other to be false Christians?

That's how these declarative statements are made. The divinity of Christ, the trinity, the true presence… none of these were additions. They were arguments that were resolved inside of the church, for the good of the church, but looks an addition from outside the church. If it wasn't for the belief being challenged in the first place, then the "requirement" to believe it would not exist.

ETA: I think the only reason those early believers would need to sit through a course today is because of the need to educate them against the challenges they will receive from other Christians. Being a Catholic is very simple. It is complicated by the fact that your faith is one of, if not the, primary target of Protestants. This is why all the different denominations really do frustrate me. I teach the confirmation class at our parish and about 1/3 of my time is spent teaching kids how to respond to all the questions lobbed at them from their friends in school, or what I know they'll hear in college. I don't want to talk about denominational differences, but if I don't, I will be watching kids walk away from the faith due to questions raised by other Christians.

No worries. I didn't take offense.

I do think that believing in God, The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit; the virgin birth, death, burial, resurrection of God The Son, and His ascension into Heaven, and his seating at the right hand of the Father; that He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end; His holy, catholic (universal) and aplastic church-(all in accordance with Holy Scripture) is the key essential and THE common denominator that will find us all assembled in His presence in a time only the Father knows.

As I mentioned in another thread, I think we should absolutely be able to rally hand in hand with the Nicene Creed as our fundamental statement of faith.

I just fail to understand how Mariology and Transubstantiation are these critical, salvific issues. Correct me if I am wrong, if they are not. And if not, why are they so divisive?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

As I mentioned in another thread, I think we should absolutely be able to rally hand in hand with the Nicene Creed as our fundamental statement of faith.

I just fail to understand how Mariology and Transubstantiation are these critical, salvific issues. Correct me if I am wrong, if they are not. And if not, why are they so divisive?

---

Unless I misread you, I think you and I agree here. I do not believe that the Marian Doctrines are salvific and so to point number 3 posted a few spots up by The Banned, this seems like a reasonable approach and the church would stay together because it should focus on Jesus (the Trinity) and the scriptures.
That said, if someone like I were to refuse to believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that would/should be an impasse in my view. To a point the Banned made earlier, though I receive Christ first in a Baptist Church, I reject many Baptists practices and teachings, in fact, possibly more than I do Catholic. As an example, I hold to the belief that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. In this point, I'd argue that my view of this is likely far more reliable than that of the 8 year olds receiving for the first time, but that's a whole other discussion.

I'm with you but that is not the faith. It is the symbol of the faith, it points to it. Actually having a common understanding of the faith is more important than saying some words, especially if we have a bunch of provisos and qualifiers or even disagreements about what those words mean.

A small number are, yes.

Because inevitably questions about who Mary is or about the Eucharist become discussions about Christ. They are not abstract things, they are directly part of the faith. The reason Protestants tend to minimize them is either because they don't agree on the underlying issues or don't have the collective memory or experience of the heresies that led to those issues becoming issues in the first place. Which is why you see Protestant churches retreading old ground in terms of heresies they profess from time to time.

Zobel said:

---

I'm with you but that is not the faith. It is the symbol of the faith, it points to it. Actually having a common understanding of the faith is more important than saying some words, especially if we have a bunch of provisos and qualifiers or even disagreements about what those words mean.

---

I think it was the faith through the Acts of the Apostles and for say the first couple centuries or so. Some of the other things start to arise in the third century I believe.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

As I mentioned in another thread, I think we should absolutely be able to rally hand in hand with the Nicene Creed as our fundamental statement of faith.

I just fail to understand how Mariology and Transubstantiation are these critical, salvific issues. Correct me if I am wrong, if they are not. And if not, why are they so divisive?

---

I desire unity, so I appreciate this approach and wish it would work. The reason why I don't think it does is because of how it works in reality, and we get to see it in real time. A few examples:

- how well would your reformed church stay together if half the congregants believed that they had to choose God, and that double predestination was false? Would it stick together or would the minority group eventually move to a church that aligned with their views?

- how well would it be received in your church if a group of congregants took a public stance that Mary was sinless her entire life?

- if someone in your church said that John 6 proves transubstantiation, how well would that go? Or that salvation is something you can lose is in the Bible? Or public confession of sins being necessary? Or that baptism is not just a symbol?

These may seem like "extras" until it causes a rift in the church. And these were all things taught by the early church, so you essentially have to declare over a millennia of Christians as heretics (which some Protestants do). So you can try to say that we only have to agree on what's in the Creed, but in practice, that wide variety of thought can and will cause issues.

This is why the apostles wrote in sticking with the bishop. We all need some formal leadership to make the decisions on what differences are and are not allowed to be in union with each other. ALL denominations do this. Even the loosey goosey Unitarians are going to require you not hold certain beliefs or you don't get to stay with us.

So it's not that mariology is critical for salvation. It was critical to put down a rift in church unity. I would say that salvation was there for all of the Christians prior to the trinity becoming dogma. There is a world in which the teaching of the trinity was never needed, but the reality is that people in the church disagreed, a decision needed to be made, and now it is a matter that is "required" where before it was not.

Just thinking out loud, I would maybe appeal that we should be seeking local unity at a lower level where we (you and I) might disagree on more detailed doctrines, but also be able to find unity at a higher level with the fundamentals like the pillars established in the Nicene Creed.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Just thinking out loud, I would maybe appeal that we should be seeking local unity at a lower level where we (you and I) might disagree on more detailed doctrines, but also be able to find unity at a higher level with the fundamentals like the pillars established in the Nicene Creed.

---

I think this is how the church did work and still does. Think of the Arian crisis. It was held by many (maybe even most) churches. Other churches did not. But it didn't stay that way precisely because that difference became untenable. So a council had to be convened to set the record straight. So a first or second century Christian never had to worry about what the heck a hypostatic union was. Now Christians do. You could be a well meaning but misinformed Arian back in the early 300s. Now you cannot.

Starting with unity at the higher level is great for me, and I think we see that happen when it comes to pro-life issues, disaster relief, fighting secularism in the culture etc. But we will still be separated on Sundays, which sucks. The children in our respective churches will be have conversion attempts from other Christians to deal with. Non believers will still see us as disjointed and confusing. God will still use the body of believers to do His work here on earth, but I don't think it was what Christ intended.

ETA: still does work this way meaning that there is still room for disagreement, differences and debate. It's just much more constrained now after 2000 years of debate settling. The wiggle room for differences in theology is less now that it was, but there is still some.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Just thinking out loud, I would maybe appeal that we should be seeking local unity at a lower level where we (you and I) might disagree on more detailed doctrines, but also be able to find unity at a higher level with the fundamentals like the pillars established in the Nicene Creed.

---

have conversion attempts from other Christians to deal with

---

I think the bigger issue are the churches - whether it be Roman, Reformed, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Orthodox, that are just completely whiffing on the big items and legitimately leading their people astray.

At the end of the day, I don't think heaven is only going to be filled with those that were members of a reformed church who signed an agreement following the 1689 Confession.

Do you think heaven will only include those that truly partook of the Eucharist?

Well, to be frank "dying and going to heaven" is sub-Christian eschatology. If you combine that with the belief in pre-existence of souls to the point that only our souls go to heaven, it's actually pagan and non-Christian. So even these kinds of questions reveal major underlying differences.

I've said multiple times that there is opportunity for salvation "outside" of the Catholic Church (l prefer irregular/unknown union) so I think there are people who never receive the Eucharist here that are going to be a part of the saints. Everyone before Jesus that followed God qualify there.

But that is a separate question from what it should look like down here. It's clear that Jesus prayed for them to be one. These issues stand in the way of oneness, so all we can do is pray and seek to solve the differences.

I get it and appreciate to some extent the idea of holding fast to the precepts of the understood traditions.

Maybe this is too simplistic of a question, but if someone came up to you on the street and said they affirm the Nicene Creed, what else would you tell them they need to do in order to be saved. Obviously you have to take them at their word for being authentic in their profession of the creed.

"big mess"

We (RCC) believe that God will judge you based on what you know and acted vs. what you didn't know. The RCC has a term for this- "vincible and invincible ignorance."

ETA: warning to all R&P lurkers...

PabloSerna said:

---

"big mess"

We (RCC) believe that God will judge you based on what you know

---

Will the test be open book?

In order to be saved? Wrong question. Knowing the creed doesn't save you. Or even saying it with sincerity.

This isn't about "being saved" because that binary isn't how we think about it. We are saved, being saved, and will be saved. The scriptures speak of it in all three tenses. If you want to be saved, you need to be being saved. The best way to do that is within the church. Repent, be baptized, and live the life in the church. That is a life of prayer, fasting, almsgiving, repentance, worship, community. All of this is given to us for our salvation. This is what the authors of the NT unanimously affirm.

Zobel said:

---

Sorry man, underneath "hey man we just like all believe in Jesus and stuff" is a big mess.

I was at a funeral the other day and the non-denom pastor said the "epiousios" (daily) bread was about the essence of God and invited us to pause to take in the essence of God and the departed. At the end he said the soul came down to the body and was now returned to God. Both heresies varying between dumb woo woo bad use of words and explicit this-was-condemned-at-an-ecumenical-council bad.

---

We get a lot of canonizations in funeral Masses. I mean, "Jim Bob Blanton is practically a saint even though he rarely darkened the door of his parish, but he surely was a jolly chap. And his brisket was heavenly."

Zobel said:

---

This isn't about "being saved" because that binary isn't how we think about it. We are saved, being saved, and will be saved. The scriptures speak of it in all three tenses.

---

All three tenses seem binary to me.

Zobel said:

---

In order to be saved? Wrong question. Knowing the creed doesn't save you. Or even saying it with sincerity.

---

How is that the wrong question? That is what the Philippian Jailer asked Paul.

I understand "knowing" a creed is not salvific; I am appealing that this example is of someone who truly believes the creed and lives a live attempting to live that out.

Quote:

---

The best way to do that is within the church. Repent, be baptized, and live the life in the church.

---

Why did Paul leave this out? Is this one of those oral tradition mandates that didn't get recorded in scripture?

Acts 16:30-34
30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

The binary sense is whether it has happened or not.

That it has happened, is happening, and will happen is not binary, because neither of the binary options (has happened or not) are correct.

Zobel said:

---

The binary sense is whether it has happened or not.

That it has happened, is happening, and will happen is not binary, because neither of the binary options (has happened or not) are correct.

---

I still don't get it. The first sense is "it has happened." What do you mean by that?

We have been saved through grace. Yet we are also being saved and we will be saved. All of those are equally true, because salvation is a process, not an event. And the process will not culminate in this lifetime, if we can ever say it truly does. If the only sense that you understand salvation is in a binary - have you been saved? - then you are creating a false dichotomy. We who are faithful have been saved and are being saved - it's both now, and not yet.

Binary means means 0 or 1. Nothing else. Saved or not.

There is 0, 1, 2, 3 here.

I think I get what you're saying. I'm still wondering what you mean by the first sense - we have "been saved". The other two I can grasp as in we are gradually putting off the old man and putting on the new. And of course a future justification.

I still think all three are binary. You can't kind of be saved. I get you can't have one without the others.

You are saved in the sense that Christ acted unilaterally to save you, but at the same time if you don't persevere you won't be saved. So are you saved? It's yes, but also yes ongoing, and also not yet.

Predestination = God's Plan of Salvation for Mankind

Romans 8:29-30 says, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified"

ETA: this does not take away one's free will. Clearly Jesus called Judas.

Create Account said:

---

I think I get what you're saying. I'm still wondering what you mean by the first sense - we have "been saved". The other two I can grasp as in we are gradually putting off the old man and putting on the new. And of course a future justification.

I still think all three are binary. You can't kind of be saved. I get you can't have one without the others.

---

Do you believe in any version of once saved always saved? If so, that's probably why y'all aren't getting on the same page here

I'm not sure. I can only say I rarely feel like I'm saved.

Create Account said:

---

I'm not sure. I can only say I rarely feel like I'm saved.

---

You and me both. That's why the way Zobel is articulating the terminology around "saved" is important.

We were saved: God gave us the grace to recognize Him and we did

We are BEING saved: He is still giving us the grace but letting us stay in a state of sanctification that we can persist in or bail on at any time.

We will be saved: this is based on the "being" part. We will live for X number of days, and in each of those days we can decide to leave our faith in God behind. None of us know what we will do. But if we do persist in following Hjs call, then we will be saved in the future.

This is a radical divergence from any form of "once saved, Always saved" "unconditional election", "always saved, always saved", etc. Because of Luther and Calvin this is a tendency to view "being saved" as a moment in time, which makes what Zobel is saying sound like a foreign language.

Is the RCC/EO view that justification and salvation are two distinct "things"? Or all in the same bucked of being saved?

Justification just means pleasing to God and or righteous, especially when you look at how that same Greek word is used to translate the Hebrew OT. That word carries a legal connotation in other Greek use, but I think it is a mistake to read it that way. Or at least to read it exclusively that way.

So yes it is part of salvation, but it is not all of it. You will be pleasing to God if you're faithful, you will also become righteous, and you will grow to be like Him by participating in His grace - theosis, becoming like God.