"bible Christians" And The Blessed Virgin Mary

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1677162' date='Oct 14 2008, 09:31 AM']Of course, in obedience to the Church and Papacy, one must also recognize that Protestants are Christians... hmm. [/quote]The Popes in recent time have called some Non-Catholic communities “[i]Christian[/i]”, but as only in a subjective sense of the term, and to further the supposed “[i]ecumenical dialogue[/i]” with those communities. We have received, also it is my opinion and my assertion, that the Catholic Church is the one True Church of God, instituted by our Blessed Lord upon [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintp07.htm"][b]Pope Saint Peter the Apostle[/b][/url], to teach, govern, and sanctify mankind unto eternal salvation.[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1677162' date='Oct 14 2008, 09:31 AM']I've never heard a specific age given for St. Joseph's possible first marriage. Seeing as women married at age 14 or 15, I can't imagine his first marriage was at age 40.[/quote]I hope it can be forgiven if I side with the opinion of [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url] concerning the virginity of [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj01.htm"][b]Saint Joseph[/b][/url]. Moreover considering the Latin Vulgate, a masterpiece of the Church and repeatedly hailed by Popes and General Councils, is attributed by some to [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url] himself. Also sense he is considered a father of the Church and thus would be receiving these doctrines more directly from the successors of the Apostles than we are today.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Selah]

[quote]Being a "bible christian" is like having tunnel vision.[/quote]

You must have met my father, because he said the very same thing

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1677381' date='Oct 14 2008, 06:06 PM']The Popes in recent time have called some Non-Catholic communities “[i]Christian[/i]”, but as only in a subjective sense of the term, and to further the supposed “[i]ecumenical dialogue[/i]” with those communities. We have received, also it is my opinion and my assertion, that the Catholic Church is the one True Church of God, instituted by our Blessed Lord upon [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintp07.htm"][b]Pope Saint Peter the Apostle[/b][/url], to teach, govern, and sanctify mankind unto eternal salvation.[/quote]

Accepting Protestants as fellow Christians does not dilute in the least our belief that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ. The Church accepts them as Christians because it is true. There is a stronger emphasis these days on ecumenical dialogue, which is simply a recognition that if we are the one, true Church, and Protestants have separated from us, it is our responsibility to reach out to them with love and mercy to bring them closer to Christ through His Church.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1677381' date='Oct 14 2008, 06:06 PM']I hope it can be forgiven if I side with the opinion of [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url] concerning the virginity of [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj01.htm"][b]Saint Joseph[/b][/url]. Moreover considering the Latin Vulgate, a masterpiece of the Church and repeatedly hailed by Popes and General Councils, is attributed by some to [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url] himself. Also sense he is considered a father of the Church and thus would be receiving these doctrines more directly from the successors of the Apostles than we are today.[/quote]

I'm not familiar with St. Jerome's theory about St. Joseph's virginity. Of course, his translating of the Bible into Latin or status as a Church Father and even a saint have no bearing on whether his theory (and, more importantly, his reasoning) concerning St. Joseph is correct. But it sounds interesting nonetheless.

Edited October 15, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1677732' date='Oct 14 2008, 11:00 PM']Accepting Protestants as fellow Christians does not dilute in the least our belief that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ. The Church accepts them as Christians because it is true. There is a stronger emphasis these days on ecumenical dialogue, which is simply a recognition that if we are the one, true Church, and Protestants have separated from us, it is our responsibility to reach out to them with love and mercy to bring them closer to Christ through His Church.

I'm not familiar with St. Jerome's theory about St. Joseph's virginity. Of course, his translating of the Bible into Latin or status as a Church Father and even a saint have no bearing on whether his theory (and, more importantly, his reasoning) concerning St. Joseph is correct. But it sounds interesting nonetheless.[/quote]Simply put, I don't think you are understanding me...

Respectfully I think you need to review this “[i]discussion[/i]” again, if it could be so called. While I could spend time explaining more clearly and reaffirming what I said before, I don't think its needed. The fact that I posted links to [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url]'s profile, posted the excerpt from him, along with the source to this excerpt, so this makes your comment seem silly to me.

Concerning the “[i]Non-Catholics[/i]” being objectively true Christians, I invite you to show a [b][u]direct[/u][/b] and [b][u]explicit[/u][/b] quote from a Pope that states [u]Non-Catholics are objectively true Christians[/u]. [i]Most of all one that is binding upon the faithful...[/i]

Edited October 15, 2008 by Mr.CatholicCat

[T-Bone _]

I've developed the theory that it's a perverted view of sexuality that leads to doubts of Mary's virginity.

[tinytherese]

What do people think of Josephite marriages (marriages where spouses agree not to have intercourse?) I've heard of some saints do it like St. Catherine of Sweden. I'm not considering doing it. I'd just like to hear what the phamily has to say about it.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1678056' date='Oct 15 2008, 03:22 AM']Respectfully I think you need to review this “[i]discussion[/i]” again, if it could be so called. While I could spend time explaining more clearly and reaffirming what I said before, I don't think its needed. The fact that I posted links to [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url]'s profile, posted the excerpt from him, along with the source to this excerpt, so this makes your comment seem silly to me.[/quote]

Well, I must admit I didn't read the stuff about St. Joseph because this thread is about Mary's virginity, so I skipped over it. I just read the excerpt from St. Jerome. To me, it's an interesting theory, but he doesn't provide any compelling reason for me to believe it. The Church leaves it open to speculation and I'm not convicted to believe one way or the other about St. Joseph.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1678056' date='Oct 15 2008, 03:22 AM']Concerning the “[i]Non-Catholics[/i]” being objectively true Christians, I invite you to show a [b][u]direct[/u][/b] and [b][u]explicit[/u][/b] quote from a Pope that states [u]Non-Catholics are objectively true Christians[/u]. [i]Most of all one that is binding upon the faithful...[/i][/quote]

Has any pope used the phrase "objectively true Christians" in reference to Catholics? I don't have any papal sound bites. The Catechism says Protestants can rightfully call themselves Christians. It doesn't call them "objectively true Christians," just Christians. What's the purpose of adding the "objectively true" adjectives?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1678286' date='Oct 15 2008, 03:41 PM']What do people think of Josephite marriages (marriages where spouses agree not to have intercourse?) I've heard of some saints do it like St. Catherine of Sweden. I'm not considering doing it. I'd just like to hear what the phamily has to say about it.[/quote]

If they have solid discernment and spiritual direction, are making the decision out of their free will, and share a well-grounded faith, then more power to them. I think around the time of St. Francis there were also many married couples deciding to join religious life, so it's not at all unheard of. Also occurs to me that there's an early female saint who was betrothed to a husband after making a vow of celibacy. Her husband didn't learn about this until after they were married, but he actually agreed to it and I think himself became a saint... would help if I could remember their names... hmm.

I imagine it's very important that the couple have a vocation, apostolate, or some specific purpose for which they are abstaining. They need something to consume all that time and energy that would otherwise go into raising children.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1678303' date='Oct 15 2008, 03:01 PM']If they have solid discernment and spiritual direction, are making the decision out of their free will, and share a well-grounded faith, then more power to them. I think around the time of St. Francis there were also many married couples deciding to join religious life, so it's not at all unheard of. Also occurs to me that there's an early female saint who was betrothed to a husband after making a vow of celibacy. Her husband didn't learn about this until after they were married, but he actually agreed to it and I think himself became a saint... would help if I could remember their names... hmm.

I imagine it's very important that the couple have a vocation, apostolate, or some specific purpose for which they are abstaining. They need something to consume all that time and energy that would otherwise go into raising children.[/quote]

It was St. Cecilia. Her husband and his brother converted and were martyred for the faith. Then she was too.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius[/b] - [b][url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"]Saint Jerome[/url][/b] (383AD)
"21. But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: [b][u]I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born[/u][/b]. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, [u]the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin[/u]."
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm[/url][/quote][quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1678299' date='Oct 15 2008, 02:55 PM']Well, I must admit I didn't read the stuff about St. Joseph because this thread is about Mary's virginity, so I skipped over it. I just read the excerpt from St. Jerome. To me, it's an interesting theory, but he doesn't provide any compelling reason for me to believe it. The Church leaves it open to speculation and I'm not convicted to believe one way or the other about St. Joseph.[/quote]I respectfully disagree with you LouisvilleFan; it is my strong opinion that [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url] very clearly and concisely gave compelling reason for his opinion. The commentary from [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url] [u][b]is chiefly conserning the virginity of the Blessed Virgin[/b][/u], which he then elaborates further with [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj01.htm"][b]Saint Joseph[/b][/url]. Thus in my personal opinion, I think [b][u]the quotation is extremely relevant to this topic[/u][/b].

If you think there is no compelling reason then I think you need to read the excerpt from [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url] again. In brief synopsis he in the excerpt covers the fact the Scriptures are silent about this matter, that we are not to assume rashly about the Holy Family who are not common but holy and just people, that we cannot accept “[i]possibility[/i]” ([i]“What if”[/i]) as a rule of judgment, and further based on his own knowelge he refutes the idea that [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj01.htm"][b]Saint Joseph[/b][/url] had other children from diffrent wives ([i]past or present[/i]) calling it, “[i]rashness which springs from audacity not from piety.[/i]” That it is in the dignity of God Incarnate to have His Foster Father, [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj01.htm"][b]Saint Joseph[/b][/url], to be a virgin so that from a virginal wedlock, a virgin son was to be born, for as he pointed out virginity is the fruit of marriage.

Being a great Church Scholar, he was an educated man on this subject, educated enough concerning the Scriptures that the Church entrusted him the task of putting together the Latin Vulgate. Being a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm"]Church Father[/url] showing that what he was taught is coming more directly from the Apostles than they are to us today, thus is of importance to us. There are no other [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers"]Church Fathers[/url] that I know of that dispute with [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url]'s opinion. The Church indeed has given no doctrinal definition to this matter concerning the virginity of [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj01.htm"][b]Saint Joseph[/b][/url], but since this is coming from a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm"]Church Father[/url], [i]and no one contradicts him that I know of[/i], this sets a strong precedence for his opinion.

Alone upon on the fact that it is coming from a Scholarly Church Father, who is well grounded in the Scriptures, that this precedence should be at least admitted and respected. It does however allow for differing opinions and does allow for speculation. Notice I have repeatedly used the term “[i]opinion[/i]”. But what [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url] wrote then is as relevant now as it was then...

"[i]What Jerome is ignorant of, no man has ever known.[/i]" - [b][url="http://saints.sqpn.com/sainta02.htm"]Saint Augustine of Hippo[/url][/b][quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1678299' date='Oct 15 2008, 02:55 PM']Has any pope used the phrase "objectively true Christians" in reference to Catholics? I don't have any papal sound bites. The Catechism says Protestants can rightfully call themselves Christians. It doesn't call them "objectively true Christians," just Christians. What's the purpose of adding the "objectively true" adjectives?[/quote]Because I have been using these terms throughout this conversation and you have seemingly ignore them. Because I have stated that "[i]Non-Catholics[/i]" can in a subjective sense be considered “[i]Christian[/i]” and you have seemingly ignored this. Because repeatedly I have used the term “[i]Non-Catholic[/i]” and you keep insisting “[i]Protestants[/i]”, thus ignoring again what I write. The frame of reference for our discussion is non-existent, and apart of the reason I concluded that you are not understanding me, [i]for whatever reason[/i].

But of course that is how I feel about this whole “[i]discussion[/i]” so far, if it could be considered such.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1678387' date='Oct 15 2008, 07:30 PM']I respectfully disagree with you LouisvilleFan; it is my strong opinion that [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url] very clearly and concisely gave compelling reason for his opinion. The commentary from [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url] [u][b]is chiefly conserning the virginity of the Blessed Virgin[/b][/u], which he then elaborates further with [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj01.htm"][b]Saint Joseph[/b][/url]. Thus in my personal opinion, I think [b][u]the quotation is extremely relevant to this topic[/u][/b].[/quote]

Since threads usually stray off topic and the stuff about St. Jerome didn't appear to be on topic while skimming through the thread, I did not bother to read it initially. Still, St. Jerome didn't say anything in the excerpt that gives me reason to believe one way or the other. In fact, I thought the most popular theory among Catholics was that St. Joseph indeed did have children from a previous marriage, but again, it's all speculation. But, I at least see how it's relevant to the thread. I'm not disputing that.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1678387' date='Oct 15 2008, 07:30 PM']for as he pointed out virginity is the fruit of marriage.[/quote]

This is a compelling point. If this was in the excerpt, I missed it.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1678387' date='Oct 15 2008, 07:30 PM']Being a great Church Scholar, he was an educated man on this subject, educated enough concerning the Scriptures that the Church entrusted him the task of putting together the Latin Vulgate. Being a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm"]Church Father[/url] showing that what he was taught is coming more directly from the Apostles than they are to us today, thus is of importance to us. There are no other [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers"]Church Fathers[/url] that I know of that dispute with [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url]'s opinion. The Church indeed has given no doctrinal definition to this matter concerning the virginity of [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj01.htm"][b]Saint Joseph[/b][/url], but since this is coming from a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm"]Church Father[/url], [i]and no one contradicts him that I know of[/i], this sets a strong precedence for his opinion.[/quote]

I understand St. Jerome should be respected as one of the chief Church Fathers, but what were his reasons for believing in St. Joseph's virginity? He had to have reasons. I don't mind reading him for myself, but a little foretaste of what to expect would be nice.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1678387' date='Oct 15 2008, 07:30 PM']Because I have been using these terms throughout this conversation and you have seemingly ignore them. Because I have stated that "[i]Non-Catholics[/i]" can in a subjective sense be considered “[i]Christian[/i]” and you have seemingly ignored this. Because repeatedly I have used the term “[i]Non-Catholic[/i]” and you keep insisting “[i]Protestants[/i]”, thus ignoring again what I write. The frame of reference for our discussion is non-existent, and apart of the reason I concluded that you are not understanding me, [i]for whatever reason[/i].[/quote]

Well, by "non-Catholics," I presume you are referring to "non-Catholic Christians," as opposed to Muslims, Hindus, and other non-Christians. And, since we're clearly referring mainly to Protestants more than the Orthodox, I'm just trying to clarify the conversation by referring more specifically to Protestants rather than the very broad category of non-Catholics.

Also, getting to the point of our terminology, the Catechism gives two objective reasons why Protestants are deserving of the name Christian: valid Baptism and faith in Christ for the salvation of sins. In addition, they believe in the Trinity as three Persons in one God and most accept the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds. These are clear and objective reasons. Why do you say they are considered Christian only in a subjective sense?

Edited October 16, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1678808' date='Oct 16 2008, 01:00 AM']I understand St. Jerome should be respected as one of the chief Church Fathers, but what were his reasons for believing in St. Joseph's virginity? He had to have reasons. I don't mind reading him for myself, but a little foretaste of what to expect would be nice.

Well, by "non-Catholics," I presume you are referring to "non-Catholic Christians," as opposed to Muslims, Hindus, and other non-Christians. And, since we're clearly referring mainly to Protestants more than the Orthodox, I'm just trying to clarify the conversation by referring more specifically to Protestants rather than the very broad category of non-Catholics.

Also, getting to the point of our terminology, the Catechism gives two objective reasons why Protestants are deserving of the name Christian: valid Baptism and faith in Christ for the salvation of sins. In addition, they believe in the Trinity as three Persons in one God and most accept the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds. These are clear and objective reasons. Why do you say they are considered Christian only in a subjective sense?[/quote][b]Respectfully, I ask you to re-read what I wrote for better understanding.[/b]

Just to be sure I spoke on this particular topic with a doctorate of theology; He is head of religious education and “[i]RCIA[/i]” at the local Cathedral. Also, for a long while he was a professor of seminarians. He really knows his stuff, he is very wise and passionate. He knew in fact exactly what I was referring to and was not quite sure what the “[i]conflict[/i]” or “[i]misunderstanding[/i]” could be. Respectfully, [i]again[/i], I ask you to re-read what I wrote for better understanding.

When I am referring to something or someone, I attempt my best to provide a source that can be investigated or examined. Casually mentioning the [i][url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"]Catechism of John Paul II[/url][/i] is hardly helpful, moreover because this is not necessarily exactly what [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/pope0264.htm"][b]Pope John Paul II[/b][/url] thought. Neither is it an infallible work of faith. Regardless, please quote verbatim what you are referring to and the work you are extracting it from. [i]As a casual note, the word “Protestant” isn't even in the [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"]Catechism of John Paul II[/url].[/i]

[b]Respectfully, again, I ask you to re-read what I wrote for better understanding.[/b][quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1678808' date='Oct 16 2008, 01:00 AM']This is a compelling point. If this was in the excerpt, I missed it.[/quote]Completely...

Edited October 16, 2008 by Mr.CatholicCat

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1678905' date='Oct 16 2008, 04:27 AM'][b]Respectfully, I ask you to re-read what I wrote for better understanding.[/b]

Just to be sure I spoke on this particular topic with a doctorate of theology; He is head of religious education and “[i]RCIA[/i]” at the local Cathedral. Also, for a long while he was a professor of seminarians. He really knows his stuff, he is very wise and passionate. He knew in fact exactly what I was referring to and was not quite sure what the “[i]conflict[/i]” or “[i]misunderstanding[/i]” could be. Respectfully, [i]again[/i], I ask you to re-read what I wrote for better understanding.[/quote]

I re-read what you wrote and the quote from St. Jerome. It does have to be read carefully to put together his point about virginity being the fruit of marriage, which is why I missed it. Still, he doesn't give any other reasons there, but maybe no other reasons are necessary.

Okay, so your friend knew what you were referring to by "non-Catholics"? Perhaps I'm just not educated enough to catch the nuance. To me, non-Catholics includes everyone from the SSPX to outright Satan worshipers. That's why I find the term deserving of some clarification, but I'm just a layperson with a Bachelor's degree in Business, so maybe I should keep my nose out of theology and just show up to Mass and pay my tithe.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1678905' date='Oct 16 2008, 04:27 AM']When I am referring to something or someone, I attempt my best to provide a source that can be investigated or examined. Casually mentioning the [i][url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"]Catechism of John Paul II[/url][/i] is hardly helpful, moreover because this is not necessarily exactly what [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/pope0264.htm"][b]Pope John Paul II[/b][/url] thought. Neither is it an infallible work of faith. Regardless, please quote verbatim what you are referring to and the work you are extracting it from. [i]As a casual note, the word “Protestant” isn't even in the [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"]Catechism of John Paul II[/url].[/i][/quote]

Last I checked, this is just a message board If it were an academic discussion among doctorates, I'd write more professionally for such an audience. I figure you know the Catechism well enough that I don't need to look up the exact paragraph (though apparently I might as well memorize it because a good number of people on phatmass think non-Catholics cannot be Christians, and every time I see it I refute it, and every time I'm asked for the specific source as if I'm lying about it being from the Catechism).

Now, recently I'm also finding a lot of people don't think the Catechism is "good enough," which I find rather frustrating, because that seems to make the Catechism useless. Perhaps someone can fill me in on its purpose, especially since men like Francis Cardinal Arinze recommend devotional reading of the Catechism. If anything quoted from the Catechism is so easily refuted with "it's not infallible," why does it exist and why should I read it?

Regardless, one source is [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1271.htm"]paragraph 1271[/url] of the Catechism, which says "Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians," and follows with a quote from [i]Unitatis redintegratio[/i]. This makes for as objective reason as any for considering someone a Christian, Catholic or otherwise.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1678942' date='Oct 16 2008, 09:56 AM']I re-read what you wrote and the quote from St. Jerome. It does have to be read carefully to put together his point about virginity being the fruit of marriage, which is why I missed it. Still, he doesn't give any other reasons there, but maybe no other reasons are necessary.[/quote]I gave a whole paragraph ([url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=85787&view=findpost&p=1678387"]Post #25, Paragraph 2[/url]) to explain directly the “[i]reasoning[/i]” of [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj06.htm"][b]Saint Jerome[/b][/url] in this excerpt from his work. But honestly, it is verbatim from his work “[i][b]for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage[/b][/i]”. It isn’t hiding in implications nor is it constructed from his concepts presented, [u]it is verbatim stated[/u]. How could it be missed unless one was not paying full attention, which as you pointed out this is a message board so I do understand, [b]I sympathize[/b]. [i]Regardless this is still communication and there are responsibilities to insure that effective, honest, and ethical communication occurs[/i].[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1678942' date='Oct 16 2008, 09:56 AM']Okay, so your friend knew what you were referring to by "non-Catholics"? Perhaps I'm just not educated enough to catch the nuance. To me, non-Catholics includes everyone from the SSPX to outright Satan worshipers. That's why I find the term deserving of some clarification, but I'm just a layperson with a Bachelor's degree in Business, so maybe I should keep my nose out of theology and just show up to Mass and pay my tithe. [/quote]This issue or matter I didn’t discuss with him. Though from hearing his lectures I think the may be inclined to agree with me, though I could be absolutely wrong. But consider this, your opinion used to decide who is “[i]Christian[/i]” or not is based in some capacity arbitrary judgment, which you are using the [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"][i]Catechism of John Paul II[/i][/url], that illustrates doctrines of the Church that are so paramount that defection from them would be like apostasy, [i]a complete renunciation of the Christian faith[/i].

This term “[i]Protestant[/i]” might not used in supposed “[i]ecumenical dialogue[/i]” for it may be taken offensively. I am not opposed to “[i]ecumenical dialogue[/i]”; I think the opinion of His Holiness [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/pope0265.htm"][b]Pope Benedict XVI[/b][/url] I agree with, that the calling to ecumenism is irrevocable.

Protestantism can also be considered a vague term by some, if not offensive, since one possible [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism"]definition[/url] of could be: “[i]Protestantism refers to the forms of Christian faith and practice that [u]originated in the 16th century Protestant Reformation[/u]. Protestant doctrine, also known in continental European traditions as Evangelical doctrine, in opposition to that of Roman Catholicism.[/i]”

But could one consider for example “[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism"][i]Mormons[/i][/url]” or “[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%E2%80%99s_Witnesses"][i]Jehovah's Witnesses[/i][/url]” as “[i]Christian[/i]”? While there is issue with the validity of Baptism in their particular communities, they still profess a fundamental faith in our Blessed Lord. Generally speaking if I were to refer to someone whom could not even be considered [i]subjectively Christian[/i], I would most likely refer to them as “[i]Non-Christian[/i]”.

I am [b]not[/b] attempting to [i]intimidate[/i] or [i]disenfranchise[/i] anyone, I believe in an inclusive community and which is one of the things I enjoy about [b]Phatmass[/b]. The common bond, almost as if a "[b]Phamly[/b]" of persons truly existed, which indeed is so since we are of the same Human Family and moreover the [i]adopted[/i] Family of God.[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1678942' date='Oct 16 2008, 09:56 AM']Last I checked, this is just a message board If it were an academic discussion among doctorates, I'd write more professionally for such an audience. I figure you know the Catechism well enough that I don't need to look up the exact paragraph (though apparently I might as well memorize it because a good number of people on phatmass think non-Catholics cannot be Christians, and every time I see it I refute it, and every time I'm asked for the specific source as if I'm lying about it being from the Catechism).[/quote][i]I am [b]not[/b] attempting to suggest you are a liar[/i], [b]I am assuming [u]sincerity[/u] and [u]honesty[/u][/b], though I presume there is “[i]misunderstanding[/i]” that is springing from [i]poor communication[/i]; [i]in some manner or form[/i]. This is apart of the reason why I am truly imploring you to look at what I wrote again. I am uncertain of what could be unclear so I am attempting to understand your frame of reference, so that I can be “[i]other-oriented[/i]” in my communication, so I will be clearer, and that the communication is effective.

I sadly do not have the [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"][i]Catechism of John Paul II[/i][/url] memorized either, though I see this Catechism as one among many in a long history of Catechisms from the Church. Though I admit the [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"][i]Catechism of John Paul II[/i][/url] has stepped away from the traditional catechism setup ([i]question-answer[/i]) [i]and that I have some personal issues with some phrasings in it[/i]. Regardless, because neither of us has it memorized, [i]and I use this search engine because I hardly remember what I do read in it[/i] ([i]similarly the reason I offered the link for you to find it[/i]), [u]I think it could be considered tolerable that I asked what you are referring to[/u]. Since as a Catholic I am [b]not[/b] going to publically renounce the [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"][i]Catechism of John Paul II[/i][/url], rather I will attempt to uphold it, [i]which in my personal opinion some places in it are almost poetic and prophetic[/i].[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1678942' date='Oct 16 2008, 09:56 AM']Now, recently I'm also finding a lot of people don't think the Catechism is "good enough," which I find rather frustrating, because that seems to make the Catechism useless. Perhaps someone can fill me in on its purpose, especially since men like Francis Cardinal Arinze recommend devotional reading of the Catechism. If anything quoted from the Catechism is so easily refuted with "it's not infallible," why does it exist and why should I read it?[/quote]I do not know the personal opinions of others on Phatmass, or the Phamly, nor do I know the reasons they hold to those opinions. While I would like to assume that Catholics are Catholics, in my opinion the biggest divide between opinions can sometimes be good communication, [i]or rather lack thereof[/i].

The [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"][i]Catechism of John Paul II[/i][/url] is not useless, but rather could be considered a product, in a sense, of the “[i]authentic magisterium[/i]”, simply those things taught to us from the Church authority or is in a continuation of such. For example the “[i]authentic magisterium[/i]” could be considered the opinions of the Holy Father or other opinions of the Church; [i]which neither are defined doctrine nor definitively defined doctrine[/i]. Thus its importance to us, it’s a [b]teaching tool[/b] and tool of comparison...[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1678942' date='Oct 16 2008, 09:56 AM']Regardless, one source is [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1271.htm"]paragraph 1271[/url] of the Catechism, which says "Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians," and follows with a quote from [i]Unitatis redintegratio[/i]. This makes for as objective reason as any for considering someone a Christian, Catholic or otherwise.[/quote][quote][b]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/b]
[b]1271[/b] Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."
[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1271.htm"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1271.htm[/url][/quote]There is a saying, “[i]once a Catholic always a Catholic.[/i]” This saying is meaning that once a Catholic is Baptized, there is an indelible mark left upon the soul, that cannot ever be removed. So as Catholics we take up the idea at times that someone is simply non-practicing, even when they clearly have defected from the faith.

This is the parallel that I see when I read this paragraph [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"][i]Catechism of John Paul II[/i][/url], which to me is a subjective approach, not incorporating “[i]all[/i]” the aspects of what it means to be a [i]Christian[/i], rather focusing on a few aspect such as fundamental faith in Christ and Baptism. I see nothing wrong with this. For even this paragraph admits they are “[i]imperfectly[/i]” in communion with the Catholic Church. They are in this sense as the Second Vatican Council referred to them, our “[i][b]Separated Brethren[/b][/i]”. Which is a friendlier term than calling them [b][i]material heretics[/i][/b]; [i]though I feel free to expose known heresy and publically repudiate it.[/i]

Edited October 16, 2008 by Mr.CatholicCat

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1679021' date='Oct 16 2008, 02:21 PM']Protestantism can also be considered a vague term by some, if not offensive, since one possible [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism"]definition[/url] of could be: “[i]Protestantism refers to the forms of Christian faith and practice that [u]originated in the 16th century Protestant Reformation[/u]. Protestant doctrine, also known in continental European traditions as Evangelical doctrine, in opposition to that of Roman Catholicism.[/i]”[/quote]

That is true... a lot of people prefer to simply be Christian, especially those who don't personally affiliate with a particular denomination, and maybe not even a particular Christian philosophy or theology.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1679021' date='Oct 16 2008, 02:21 PM']But could one consider for example “[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism"][i]Mormons[/i][/url]” or “[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%E2%80%99s_Witnesses"][i]Jehovah's Witnesses[/i][/url]” as “[i]Christian[/i]”? While there is issue with the validity of Baptism in their particular communities, they still profess a fundamental faith in our Blessed Lord. Generally speaking if I were to refer to someone whom could not even be considered [i]subjectively Christian[/i], I would most likely refer to them as “[i]Non-Christian[/i]”.[/quote]

The widely-held belief of across Christianity is that Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and others stray too far from orthodoxy to be called Christian. It all goes back to sharing an orthodox belief in the Trinity, which provides the intent and form of valid Baptism.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1679021' date='Oct 16 2008, 02:21 PM']While I would like to assume that Catholics are Catholics, in my opinion the biggest divide between opinions can sometimes be good communication, [i]or rather lack thereof[/i].[/quote]

I have been involved in more than a few debates here that eventually came down to a difference in communicating the same or similar ideas. I probably tend to egg it on some just because I enjoy debating a little too much. Sounds like I was reading more into your original statement about non-Catholics who are subjectively called Christians than you intended, and probably because so many people here (and Catholics in general) are so quick to jump on the problems of other Christian beliefs and rarely consider the contributions these traditions have made. We have differences and must be honest about them, but we can also honestly recognize the good work God does through other Christians. That, to me, doesn't risk watering down Catholicism or make us less orthodox.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1679021' date='Oct 16 2008, 02:21 PM']There is a saying, “[i]once a Catholic always a Catholic.[/i]” This saying is meaning that once a Catholic is Baptized, there is an indelible mark left upon the soul, that cannot ever be removed. So as Catholics we take up the idea at times that someone is simply non-practicing, even when they clearly have defected from the faith.[/quote]

This is a tangent, but I find it interesting that Catholics have developed their own little twist on "Once Saved, Always Saved" Baptism and OSAS are even rooted in the same Scripture about being sealed by the Holy Spirit. Of course, Baptism is the correct interpretation, but false applications on both ends of the spectrum produce the same bad fruit: lazy, apathetic Christianity. Your average layperson doesn't see a lot of practical difference between "OSAS" and "OCAC." If I'm always Catholic or always saved, I can do whatever I want. Both are false applications, but at least OCAC is rooted in Truth.

I apologize for my careless reading earlier. This became more involved than I really intended. But I do understand a little better about the purpose of the Catechism. I suppose it does have some issues, but I'll never forget when my Baptist friend (who was raised Catholic) loaned me his copy of the Catechism. Ironically, this separated brother gave me the final push I needed to find an RCIA

Edited October 17, 2008 by LouisvilleFan