Music

[MichaelFilo]

Thank you. Their faith bears fruit in praise in thanksgiving. Aside from the obscurity of that line (what kind of fruit) that says nothing about God being pleased with their worship. He may still be happy at their intent to praise and give thanks to Him and subsequently is happy for that, but the actual worship outside of the full Communion of the Catholic Church is displeasing.

[Jaime]

If you find the reference to "fruit" to be obscure, I invite you to read the entire Vatican II document. I am only quoting a small portion of it. It contradicts your statement of [quote] Even if it were just "God is Good" it is a lie, since they reject God's Church. [/quote]

Protestants are in communion with the Church albeit an imperfect communion through the virtue of baptism.

Protestants can create good things.
Protestants can praise God.

The Catechism supports this. It is authoritative.

And we are not discussing the validity of their worship but of their music.

Edited May 7, 2005 by jaime

[mulls]

lol

[MichaelFilo]

I think I will go read Vatican two. However, you must remember, nothing is infalliable unless expressed to be so before it is said. If Vatican two does not bind such a thing by some sort of clear statement, then it will still be alot of popes in history vs modern pope and bishops. The council is infalliable, but any statement meant to be infalliable must be proceed with a statement that aims to make it thus.

God bless,
Mikey

[Jaime]

This is how it finishes

[quote]Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.[/quote]

If decreed by a council or the Pope, it is to be considered infallible.

I hope this clears the way for you to be more charitable to our protestant brethren Michael.

[Jaime]

And we're back in business!!

Shall we continue?

[MichaelFilo]

You did say to go read Vatican Two, and as such, I'll go do so. Therefore, I can't be very active on this thread until I've read it, but there is ALOT of documents... although it is something I am sure you are aware of.

God bless,
Mikey

[Jaime]

Michael

Actually I was just suggesting reading through UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO. But I would never deter one from reading all of the documents.

This one in particular is the one that pertains to our discussion.


Also it was an open invitation to others to join in as well.

[Jaime]

This is an important topic so

BUMP

[MichaelFilo]

They are in an imperfect communion with Rome. Congratulations. They even are "justified by Faith". This doesn't even touch on whether their worship, seprated from the Church in visible unity (outside of the house), is any good. It doesn't even touch the topic whatsoever.

God bless,
Mikey

[Jaime]

[quote] They are in an imperfect communion with Rome. Congratulations[/quote]

That reads with a bit of animosity there Michael. Although I don't know why. I was simply pointing out where you were in error about protestants. We do believe that salvation exists for them and we are called to treat them with love and charity. Also that we believe that good things can come from them, inclusive of their music. Which after all is the topic at hand.

Cam has asserted that most Christian (protestant) music promotes Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide. Since (as he loves to toss around frequently) the burden of proof is on him to prove so. He hasn't.

We can continue on but someone is going to have to take up Camster's torch. Unless there are other folks that feel there are doctrinal issues with Christian music in general.

[Q the Ninja]

Doesn't that document say that they might exist (partially) within the Church of Christ, which subsists under (in?) the Catholic Church?

Edited May 9, 2005 by Q the Ninja

[Jaime]

By virtue of their baptism, they maintain in partial communion with the Church.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote]Jesus Christ, then, willed that the apostles and their successors -the bishops with Peter's successor at their head-should preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and rule the Church in love.[b] It is thus, under the action of the Holy Spirit, that Christ wills His people to increase, and He perfects His people's fellowship in unity: in their confessing the one faith, celebrating divine worship in common, and keeping the fraternal harmony of the family of God.

The Church, then, is God's only flock; it is like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it:(16) for it serves all mankind through the Gospel of peace(17) as it makes its pilgrim way in hope toward the goal of the fatherland above.(18) [/b]

This is the sacred mystery of the unity of the Church, in Christ and through Christ, the Holy Spirit energizing its various functions. It is a mystery that finds its highest exemplar and source in the unity of the Persons of the Trinity: the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit, one God.[/quote]

Partially communion does not institute being "in the house". As a matter of fact, it doesn't even constitute being "in the flock" (NB: "The Church, then, is God's only flock), but more likely on the fringes of the flock. The point of the matter is this, their worship is still not unified with the Church, but rejects Her in Her Truth. They do not "profess the Faith of the Catholic Church in it's entireity". They are then, "outside of the house" but more approrpriatly described as on the property.

By the way, is it just me, or is "imperfect communion" rather vague?

As far as the actual music, if they put their trust in the Bible to be their only authority, then any music they write is based on the principles of Sola Scriptura. Therefore, every single Protestant song must preach and profess is, because of it's author, and his intent for writing it. It woul dbe like a Catholic writing a song on the bible, although the Catholic's view of the bible is that it finds it's authority from the Church, and so the the song is not base don error.

Albiet, through all of this, music is subjective. In effect, what is to a Protestant bibles verses that come from the only authority on Faith, is to a Catholic a part of the Faith, that being tradition.

God bless,
Mikey

[Jaime]

[quote]They are then, "outside of the house" but more approrpriatly described as on the property. [/quote]

I'm sorry Michael but you are incorrect

Again I refer you to

[quote]The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized [b]are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect[/b].[/quote]

That is authoritative and infallible. You may not like it but its true. They are in the flock.

Likewise the music is neither Sola Scriptura or Sola fide. Primarily because most Christian songs are about a personal relationship. They are not proclaiming a belief to be held as a truth by all. Also, most do not quote scripture directly.

Are there some songs that are preaching Sola Scripture or Fide? Yeah but they don't number too many. The vast majority are simply a personal glorification of God. "This what you mean to me". Personal

[MichaelFilo]

Then please, do the honors. Explain what it means to be "in communion" and then "imperfect communion". If you are to claim that the former means that they are like any other Catholic, they are "in the house", then you could easily extend that to the Eastern Rites... and so the popes were wrong, since that is what some of them referred to when saying they were not "in the house". However, even VII doesn't claim that. They are in [b]imperfect communion[/b]. They are not part of the Church in the sense as to be part of the flock. That is the True Church. Neither are they liars (because of their own fault) and are still baptized like you and me. That does not mean that they are in full communion with the Church, and it does not mean that they are some how united because of their ignorance to being seperated. They are STILL seperated. Their worship still falls outside of that of the Church. They are therefore, still oustide of the house. Their worship, still displeasing. God wished his Churchses to be united, and he showed this on the night of the Passion. If they (even if to no fault of their own) are not united (in a full communion, that is, in a manner that the Lord prayed for) with the Catholic Church, they are still not pleasing God with their worship, since it disobeys Him.

To give a parallel. God is not pleased with the Protestant who converts a Catholic because the Protestant felt that the Catholic was steeped in lies and so he went to convert the Catholic (even if all along the Protestant thinks he is right). Ignorance may leave room for salvation, and imperfect communion might even provide that much. It does not mean that the Protestant is anymore right, and it does not make his worship pleasing to God.

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 10 2005, 12:16 AM'] If you are to claim that the former means that they are like any other Catholic, they are "in the house", then you could easily extend that to the Eastern Rites... and so the popes were wrong, since that is what some of them referred to when saying they were not "in the house". [/quote]
The eastern rites are part of the Catholic Church. The orthodox are not.

[Jaime]

[quote] Then please, do the honors[/quote]

Honestly Michael I don't understand the animosity.

Are Protestants in union with the Church? Yes. Therefore salvation is possible. Are they in perfect union? No they are separated to a degree. But you want to make it an all or nothing statement. If you want to then the bottom line is they are a part of the Church.

If you look at it from a broader "shades of gray" perspective, then they have a ways to go. (Incidentally we do to until we live like the saints)

Here's an analogy that might help you understand this better.

You yourself are in high school. Let's say there are 400 kids in your class. Some are going to be honor students. Some will get decent grades. Some will barely squeak by and some will fail.

The honor students will graduate with the fullest understanding of their education and will be the best prepared for the next step (like college).

The students who get decent grades are getting less than the full understanding from their education. They will have to make up for that in the next step they take.

And so on.

The ones who barely squeak by still graduate right? But they need to do the most work to comprehend all that the honor student already has acheived.

While it is a poor analogy, there are parts that work. Catholicism holds the fullness of the Truth. When we take full advantage of the teachings, we are preparing ourselves for the next world. Protestants hold part of the truth. Does that mean that eventually they don't have to learn it all? No. None of us are free from learning the fullness of the Truth.

But just as the kid in your class that is barely squeaking by, he's still getting some knowledge. He may not have mastered it. But he has got some.

So let's say this kid is your best friend. You love him like a brother. You're the honor student and he's squeaking by. What do you do? Do you write him off and say " You just don't get it!"?

Or do you work with him and try to help him understand what you have figured out?

The Protestant is our best friend.

This is what is meant by [b] and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.[/b]

We embrace them as brothers so that they may learn the fullness of the Truth.

Edited May 10, 2005 by jaime

[MichaelFilo]

To Cmom, I should specifiy, the Eastern Rites that fell into schism.

To you Jamie, this isn't about animosity. If what I wanted were to change the Church's position, I should want nothing, beacuse I am falliable. However, constant tradition teaches that outside of the Church, there is no salvation. A heretics has seperated himself from the Church (that is what schism means, and all heretics are in schism (Aquanis for that tidbit)). If a heretics has seperated himself from the Church, and is doomed to Hell unless he convert, then how do you suppose someone born where the heretic left off, in schism and having left the Church, is somehow instantly where the heretic started, a Catholic? I have always stood by this reasoning "it isn't what Vatican II teaches that is wrong, it is the modernist who takes it to mean what he wishes" when it comes to such small but important things. If the Church declares that an imperfect communion is suffecient to allow salvatiion to even a heretic and a schismatic, then I am bound to obey it. However, She does not state they are in perfect communion, that is, in unity with the Church. That means they are NOT keeping in the unity asked by the Lord. The popes have spoken, claiming that none outside of the full unity of the Catholic Church (that is "in the house") can please God with their worship. If this were about salvation, we would have agreed a while back that Augustine was truely correct when he said when Rome speaks, the matter is closed. However, we are not talking about that (which your analogy would seem to convey), but instead on their worship. I cannot reject the popes, not contradicted by Vatican II, and believe what I will. That is being a "cafeteria Catholic" as is the norm to sling at liberals around these parts.

God bless,
Mikey

[Cam42]

[quote]Are Protestants in union with the Church? Yes.[/quote]

No, they are not. They are separated from us in a very real way. What does the Church teach about unity?

[quote]What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony." But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.  (CCC 815)[/quote]

How many of those unitive actions do the Protestants ascribe? The answer 1. Not very convincing.

We cannot ascribe culpability though. The Church teaches also:
[quote]"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."[/quote]

They are brethren, but they are separated. They are not in union. We are to respect them as humans, but we are not to ascribe those things that are inherently Catholic to them.

[quote]How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)[/quote]

The Church is necessary. We know this.

Incidentally, why are Protestants called Protestants? Because they are protesting the Church. They create disunity by their protestations. They are breaking the bonds of unity by their affirmation of those things contrary to the Church.

In the end, we all see two things. 1. Protestants are not in union with the Church, because they are heretical in teaching. They deny the basic tenents of the Church, just as the Orthodox do. Just as the schismatics do. 2. Protestants living today are not culpable for their state. Why? Because they through no fault of their own have not had the proper catechesis. So, we should accept them as Christian, but evangelize and catechize them, so that they may enter into union with the Catholic Church once again.

Cam

N.B. Mikey follow this line, it is a better track to follow.