Talk:Roman Catholicism

From Theopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Archives

First Sentence

I think that one is even more offensive, because now it makes it sound as though ther is no hope of it being christian. What's wrong with "worlds largest christian church." ? Acedaroflebanon 01:28, 16 March 2006 (EST)

Changed intro sentence. This should be adequate. Gomarus 07:34, 16 March 2006 (EST)

Yeah, that's great. Thanks Gomarus. Now, you don't need to worry about me trying to convert you all. You're just as Christian as the Catholics and vice versa. Like I say, 'let's talk about where we disagree while we rejoice together in Christ.'

Acedaroflebanon

Article not 'encyclopedic'

There are some serious problems with the way this article is written. It is adversarial rather than encyclopedial (now that's a new word!). Not only does it instantly pit Roman Christianity against any other Church, but it does so in a way which assumes that "most" Protestants are Reformed; i.e. the way it assumes "most" Christians follow the 5 Solas. As the article progresses it almost invariable does so with this Us vs Them attitude. Were I Roman Catholic I would take on look at this and think 1) "You people know nothing about Catholicism except for what you dislike and the garbage you've been fed" and 2) "Why would I ever want to participate on Theopedia?!". If that's not the response you want from Roman bretheren, I suggest this article receive a major overhaul.

I know Theopedia (as an organization) likes to believe it can be ecumenical (I've read the 'about' pages a number of times). To believe your are Right is to also be free to love those you feel are Wrong - think about that for a moment: If you are going to treat "Wrong" Christians according to their works and understanding of the Faith, then you are not an imitation of God, who, thanks be to him, does not respond to us based upon our works and understanding of the Faith but based upon his freely loving and loving free Self! — unsigned comment by chrismon (talk • contribs)

Chrismon, real quick, be sure to sign your name at the end of your comments using four tildes (~). In reply to your comments, the issue a little bigger than one may think. Theopedia is Reformed, and so articles here are criticized according to the Reformed faith. Perhaps it shouldn't sound as though all Christians are Reformed, but due to the nature of this wiki, it will be compared to Reformed theology at some point. Also, I can see how it could come across that we know nothing but what has been fed to us, and thus we focus on what we don't like. To me, the question then becomes, "what's the point of this article?" Right now, it seems the point is to briefly show where Reformed theology disagrees with RC. Maybe we need to add a section on the agreements, but I also don't want to shy away from mere disagreement. Let me know your thoughts, and others please chime in too. JordanBarrett (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
From the guidelines I certainly got the impression that points of view must be expressed in their relation to the Reformed tradition. But I did not think that encyclopedic fact must always be couched in Reformed opinion. My comments were to ask: Why not let an article establishing a definition for Roman Christianity explain Roman views in a Roman fashion? That would be "encyclopedic". Then have another article on the Reformed tradition's problems with Roman views. To do both within one article does not teach anyone about what Roman Catholicism actually is, just what the Reformed tradition dislikes or has misinterpreted. There is no value in giving a Reformed critique of a Reformed understanding of Roman views! (To do so would sure make Theopedia appear as though it seeks to be nothing more than a community of insensitive ideologues of opinion!) Chrismon 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand more what you're saying now. I do believe there is a balance in keeping a Reformed conviction and yet remaining 'encyclopedic' in nature. I looked over the article again (something I should have done before jumping in this convo), and I agree that it's hardly encyclopedic. One example that came to my mind was to simply provide a short history, or chronology of what developed and how the RCC got where it is today. I wish I had the time to help with a revamp, but if you are willing to begin it and see it through, I will definitely help where I can. Thanks for your input. JordanBarrett (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the Roman Catholic Church is wrong or right, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be unbiased. The article as it currently stands is clearly there to promote an agenda rather than present unbiased information. — unsigned comment by 213.121.172.195 (talk • contribs)

I have accepted a toned down version of the statements in question since it has been a bone of contention to Roman Catholic visitors. But for the record, Theopedia rejects the requirement to provide "neutral" content, or a neutral point-of-view (NPOV), as maintained in Wikipedia. We present a conservative Protestant point-of-view and are openly biased in that regard. Jim Ellis 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Radical Reformation

The second paragraph of the first section mentions the Roman Catholic Church not wanting to accept "radical reform." I don't believe this is accurate. I believe this comment will confuse the difference between the Magisterial Reformation and the Radical Reformation. Luther, Calvin, and Crammner are Magisterial Reformers. And the specifically rejected the claim that they were departing from the Catholic Faith but from the church in Rome. Also this article does not discuss the anti-pope controversy of the 14th century. The point being, the Roman Church was never as monolythic as it is now until sometime after the Reformation. Some would claim they are still not that unified. --Ryan Close 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Basic Tenets

I know that Roman Catholicism is huge and there are years of councils, letters, writings, decisions and the like to go over but there are some basic things that can be addressed. For example, we can address what Catholicism and Protestantism have in common by even putting sections (as in the Calvinism section) on God, the Scriptures, their position on Salvation being worked out (which is a Protestant tenet if you think about it) and then their disagreements in points as in Justification being by faith and their view of the authority of Scripture in contradistinction to the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura. I know the Wiki article is amazing but lets give this article some Theopedic meat. --Rey 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Our hope is to gain more editors who can even spend 10 minutes a day doing such things. By all means feel free to head up this project and hopefully we can begin reworking this article and give it some more substance. Jordan Barrett (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Content: Feel Free to Edit then Post

The Catholic Church explains that it is a temporal institution founded by Jesus Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, in an unbroken lineage, for purpose of saving Mankind. As such the Catholic Church is the repository of True Knowledge of Christian Religion and Thought and Salvation. That is not to say that truth is not found in other religious spheres. They would argue that (1) pagans have no clear knowledge of God but they do have revelation (Romans 1 and 2); (2) that the religious community of the Jews, though demarcated as a bearer of Divine Revelation, have not accepted the fuller revelation which has been under the purview of the Church (Romans 9 – 11); (3) that historical branches of Christianity, although has a higher truth than those before and is very much related to the Catholic Church, are not the final arbiter of Truth. In other words, when studying the universal history of the Church it is important to look at the other branches of Christianity because they seceded from the True Catholic Church and thus historical commentary becomes available. For “new doctrinal discussions arose as a result of these secessions, ending usually in fuller and more exact statements of Christian teaching, and new methods had to be adopted to nullify the attacks made by apostates on the Catholic Faith. In this way non-Catholic communities have often indirectly influenced the development of the interior life of the Church and the growth of new institutions.”

The History of the Church is broken up into several periods which is generally discussed among various parties. Although the hard divisions are not possible since History is made up of many events and causal considerations must constantly be kept in mind there is a general idea of the divisions.

The first period would consist of the foundation of the Church which consists of three phases (under two Epochs) in the Graeco-Roman world. Phase One, the Apostilic Epoch (from Christ to the Edict of Milan, 313): The foundation of the Church by the Christ-chosen Apostles;. Phase Two, the Epoch of Persecution: the expansion and coalescing of the Church during persecution; Phase Three, The Christian Empire: the time where the Church united with the State. During each of these stages the Church dealt with heresies, the canonization of Scripture and the “urgent and important task of converting and educating new Western Nations” which “brought a new element into the life of the Church”.

The second period is explained to be where the Church serves “as mistress and guide of the new Romanic, German, and Slavic states of Europe, the secession of Oriental Christendom from ecclesiastical unity and the final overthrow of the Byzantine empire.” Epoch One (Trullan Synod to Leo IX, 1054): specifies the time of the union of the papacy to the new western society; Epoch 2 (1054 – 1303): “the great fellowship of the peoples under the supreme guidance of a common religious authority.” This epoch is also explained to be a time where the hierarchy in the Church is being polluted where in Epoch 3 (1303 – 1521): the consequences of the 2nd Epoch become evident with growing and civil authorities had more say in the ecclesiastical workings of the Church. This resulted in the decline of power of the papacy and a call for reforms

The third period comes in light of that apparent collapse of ecclesiastical unity. Epoch 1 (from 1521 to Treaty of Westphalia, 1648): Everyday life is fractured from the Christian Church and Protestantism manages to further divide the Church by having entire nations secede and therein entering into a conflict with the Catholic Church. As European nations mostly defected from the Catholic Church, there was an increased zeal to preach to pagans which yielded great success for the Catholic Church. The 2nd Epoch (from 1648 to the French Revolution, 1789): with Protestanism accepting the supreme power of the State, and the Greek Church under the protectorate of the Russian state, other rulers in Catholic nations began to try to use the Church as a tool to weaken the power of the papacy. With such a culture, there was a spread of shallow believers and a general decline of the Church’s influence in religious life. The Third Epoch (from 1789) we see the oppression of the Church by the Revolution and now, a Church that has some support from the downfall of the previous political system, is ready to recommit her direction to religious activities such as missionary work, preaching the Gospel and trying to increase Church life in the populace. As such, while Protestants continue to divide and shallow believers increase in that movement, the Catholic Church (they say) prove to be the true guardian of Divine Revelation and Truth.


Structure of the Church. The Catholic Church, as describing herself as the only legitimate and official inheritor of the Ministyr of Jesus Christ by the authority and right of an unbroken lineage of succession of leaders beginning with St. Peter until the present day Pope. Since the Pope continues in that official and divine capacity, the organization of the Church is based on a strict hierarchy. “The pope appoints and presides over the cardinals, whose numbers grew dramatically in the late 20th century, reaching 182 under John Paul II (1978–2005). Each of the church's 500 archbishops is the head of an archdiocese. These in turn are divided into about 1,800 dioceses, each headed by a bishop. Within dioceses are parishes, each served by a church and a priest. Only men can enter the priesthood, but women who wish to enter holy orders can become nuns, who are organized into orders and convents.”

Infallibility and the Church Infallibility, is explained, to mean more than exemption from actual error: it means exemption from even the possibility of error. Infallibility does not require holiness in life—for men are sinful by nature—and lastly it is not dependant on the fallible arguments or decisions of sinful men. The final result is demarcated as infallible, not the process of getting there.

That is not to say that the people in the Church are personally infallible (they are after all, Human) but in connection with doctrine which is founded in the infallible Jesus Christ, regarding faith and morals, when the Church teaches on those things, it is on the basis of Christ that the doctrine is infallible (which focus on interpretation as distinguished from Inspiration which is Divine influence and Revelation which is Divine Making Known).

As proof of fallible men (which the Church is made up of) becoming infallible speakers, the Catholic Church can cite the bestowed gift of prophecy on men like King Saul and Caiphas. As proof of the infallibility dogma, the Catholic Church firstly appeals to Scripture in the following passages: Matthew 28:18-20; Matthew 16:18; John 14, 15, and 16; I Timothy 3:14-15; and Acts 15:28. Thirdly they would argue from Tradition that the Church has always regarded herself as infallible in doctrinal matters citing the letters of St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian and St. Cyprian.

Therefore, The Pope, as one who progresses in an official capacity since the day of St Peter, is the infallible interpreter of divine revelation only when he speaks in theological issues or as a decision. Infallibility in the individual of the Pope is not on the basis of his person (whereas the Church is infallible corporately) but on the basis of the spiritual gift that is given by God and specified by the handing down of the position from the previous papal authority, all the way back until Peter.

References:

--Rey 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no driving need to add a lot of background/content to the basic article. In my opinion, the purpose of Theopedia is best served by a concise description which emphasizes the theological distinctions between RCC and evangelical Protestantism. This is not to suggest no room for improvement, but external links and resources can give the more detailed information, history, and such, if the reader is interested in more. Jim Ellis 17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame really since Theopedia currently has a lot of intra-Protestant information and close to nil when it comes to Catholicism, Greek Orthodox or variants. The point is not to merely post background content: the article I'm suggesting posits the strongest support for a couple of the major Catholic positions (infallibility, the imbued grace of the Church, the Petrine Succession). With seeing the historical content and the support for those positions the Wikipedia article can then intelligently demarcate the major differences by showing major protestant critiques.--Rey 03:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
My previous comments represent my first reaction to the suggested additions. We can certainly still consider incorporating the ideas you present above. But I think some serious editing is needed. First, the writing seems a bit stilted and cumbersome. It's hard to discern the significance you are aiming at in each of the sections. Rewording and simplifying would help. The quotations need to be properly cited. The current references don't satisfy that need. The Britannica links don't work; I guess you have to be a registered member. Do you see the added info necessitating some rewording/reformatting in the existing article, or are you thinking of just pasting it in? Thanks for your interst. Jim Ellis 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is relevant to this discussion, so I'll try and be brief: generally speaking, Theopedia is the kind of encyclopedia that simply seeks to describe a person, event, doctrine, etc. Here and there we will provide further information (criticisms, replies, etc.) but that is not the main goal. Personally, I often feel the temptation to write an article as if it is a paper in one my theology courses, requiring a thesis or argument, points and counterpoints, conclusion and full bibliography. Most of our articles should be much more simplistic than that, and, as Jim mentioned, we can point our readers on to further information through our external links. I don't think this negates some of your suggestions, but hopefully it provides a context with which to view them through. Jordan Barrett (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I posted it in here so that others could edit as they saw fit: reword and simplify, by all means. The purpose of this information is to give facts and content to a very glossed over section. Right now Theopedia often sets up Ideas and passes them as facts instead of merely presenting facts: for example lumping Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism into one group just different sides of the compass or boiling down the Great Schism to estrangement or putting an apparently unbiblical doctrine of Transubstantiation while ignoring that some Protestants hold to consubstantiation.--Rey 21:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.theopedia.com/Talk:Roman_Catholicism"
Personal tools