Apologies for the delay in reply, if any of my questions or comments exceed your memory of this conversation, mea culpa.
I think it's hard to argue against the Catholic church as the oldest organized standard of the Body, at least in terms of pulling the whole thing into that particular shape. Sure.
But that 'particular shape' is one of many local churches, all being a part of the one Church.
Well, the one Catholic Church, to be sure. I'm equally sure they aren't Baptists, by way of.
I don't understand what you mean here.
But I'll add to my answer. Not only is the 'particular shape' a number of parishes all in communion with each other, but it is also that all Christians are under the authority of her supreme pastors. Those pastors are called bishops, and they were created by the Apostles themselves. Nobody could become a bishop until the Apostles created the first one, through the imposition of their own hands, which is what we now call the sacrament of Holy Orders, 'Orders' being akin to the word 'Ordain,' as in 'ordained priest' or 'ordination.'
So the bishops are also integral to the 'particular shape' of the Church. And the physical lineage (through the physical imposition of hands) of the Apostles are only so many men right now, and they are all Catholic and Orthodox clergymen, since both have celebrated the sacrament of Holy Orders from the beginning, with both Catholic and Orthodox churches being the originals.
What are they all selling? Christianity, to continue to use the model.
What's 'Christianity?'
Here's my own view, and it's the Catholic (and Orthodox; although it's not so easy to tell what the Orthodox believe, because they don't publish anything approaching the depth, breadth, and thoroughness of the Catholic Church's 'Catechism of the Catholic Church') view. The Eucharist, or 'Lord's Supper,' is the center of Christianity. Everything else about the Christian faith emanates out from the celebration of this sacrament, for Christians.
More below.
A Biblical literalist in what sense? That it's the literal word of God? I think Protestants are on board with that one too...
In the sense that unless the genre of the text indicates otherwise, that the Word of God should be taken in its plainest, 'literal,' ('wooden,' even) sense, taking into account the whole witness of all of the Scripture (perspicuity; comparing/interpreting Scripture with Scripture). And, no, Protestants are not on board with that one, because of the Eucharist.
I laid out Christ's words on the matter, when He instituted the Eucharist; He said, "This is My body." Only the Catholics (and the Orthodox) take Him literally. That is what I mean in calling myself a biblical literalist. The Scripture is the literal Word of God, and I take it literally.
, though most Protestant denominations would argue against the elevation of tradition found in the Catholic understanding.
The Gospel of Luke is admitted to be the written version of Sacred Tradition. It has since been authoritatively declared to be Scripture. This gives some idea of how the Church views Sacred Tradition; it is a body of knowledge, a knowledge base, that has come either directly from the Apostles, or it is knowledge that was authorized by the Apostles, much like how Peter authorized Paul's epistles to be declared Christian Scripture. Peter didn't write Paul's epistles, but Romans-Philemon have been given Peter's authorization, and so they have the same authority as if Peter himself wrote them.
The Church from the beginning kept this Apostolic knowledge base safe, through word-of-mouth, through oral tradition, but now we have possibly the whole Sacred Tradition recorded for us in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church,' which was the first new catechism the Church has published since the 1500s.
So in short, the place of Sacred Tradition is on par with Sacred Scripture, and there is no disagreement between these two authorities, but rather they integrate together to form the full Word of God. Both Tradition and the Scriptures have come down to us through the authority of the Apostles, which is Christ's own authority. And the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is on full display in the introduction to Luke.
My attitude is that so long as it isn't salvific I'm not going to get bent out of shape by it.
No one's trying to bend you out of shape. My gift is the desire to see the one Body of Christ, the one Church, His Bride, reunited. If I can change your mind, then you'll be an asset.
Our Lord said, "this is my body."
The Body was never meant to be a structure, but the people who rely on Christ and on grace. And in that there is one body, one catholic and apostolic faith.
You're talking about the Body of Christ who are the Church. In this quote, Christ is talking about the body of Christ that is 'this bread,' as in, "For as often as ye eat this bread . . . ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come" (1Co11:26KJV).
Along with bolstering the place of Peter's pastorate in the Church, John also in his Gospel, written after Peter's murder, bolstered the notion of the 'Real Presence' of Christ in the Eucharist, in chapter 6 of that book. Yet again, an example of what had been only Sacred Tradition, that knowledge base that hadn't been written down, being committed to writing, and it then turning into Sacred Scripture.
No, there's one body that teaches that it is the only body (actually, the Church of Christ does that too)...at least a couple that teach they are literally that thing and that outside of their membership is to be outside of the body after one form or another. I think that's lamentable.
The whole notion of there being a choice in the matter, is not scriptural. For 1000 years in fact, there was no choice. Back then, if you believed the one Christian Gospel, then there was only one choice, and that was the one Christian Church, which is today known as the Catholic Church.
You're a JD. You understand probably better than most that the Reformation was primarily about the human right of religious liberty, and that at the time, Christians in their civic capacity (not acting as the Church, iow, but as citizens) did not recognize, affirm, or protect the right to religious liberty, because they condemned Martin Luther to death, and only through the assistance of a powerful friend did he avoid execution.
The Reformation of course also produced a competing theological position to Catholicism, but it had to, in order to justify the legitimacy of Protestants, because as I said, the notion of there being a choice in 'which church,' is not scriptural (cf. 'Sola Scriptura').
And as to "outside of their membership is to be outside of the body after one form or another," I suppose you could accuse the Catholic Church of this, but what I find in her authorized teachings on the matter is extreme grace, and reason. Her position is that she is the Body of Christ, full stop. But, she believes and teaches that membership in the Body is not identical to membership in the Catholic Church, because it depends upon Christian faith, believing the Gospel. As such, she describes those of us who are not Catholic as "separated brethren," with more emphasis on 'brethren,' and "imperfectly united"* with her, but with more emphasis on 'united.' She calls us 'Christians.'
(* I believe this is the precise phrase, but I have not double checked at the time of this writing.)
I conclude that men have a way of turning nearly everything into politics, after a fashion. True when a couple were arguing over seating arrangements and true in too many expressions of faith today.
I'm not sure if you're referring to entanglements between the Church and civil authorities, or the Church's magisterium claiming to teach authoritatively and infallibly in matters of faith and morals.
See, I think you're wrong about Peter too.
Fair enough.
You're narrowing your understanding to fit your need.
I'm not sure which 'need' you're talking about. I set out how I've arrived in the Catholic school of theology, coming from a Protestant school. I used Protestant methods to get here. My only need is to know my faith. And being a history buff, as I learned more of the history of 'Christianity,' what I saw was that it was the same as the history of the Catholic Church, for the first 1000 years of the Church's existence. Using this fact, I dove back into Sacred Scripture, and found that the only Christian traditions that take the Lord literally at His word, when He said, "This is My body," are the Catholics and the Orthodox. Settling on Catholicism was simply acknowledging both the historical and the biblical data on the matter of Peter's primacy as supreme pastor of the Church. The Church was the Catholic Church in the beginning, and there is no compelling reason to doubt that she remains that, to this day.
...I'd say Jesus built a stand and men have been mistakenly trying to improve it ever since.
So here's one way I read that: You acknowledge that the Catholic way, is the same way that Christ Himself instituted. But I doubt that's what you meant. Instead, here: 'McDonald's' serves drivethrough hamburger sandwiches, and then there are a wide variety of other drivethrough hamburger restaurants. The difference between them is that at McDonald's, you actually get a hamburger sandwich, but at the other non-Orthodox drivethrough hamburger restaurants, they don't actually give you anything, and it's your job to imagine, like Peter Pan's Lost Boys, that you're enjoying a hamburger sandwich, but there's actually nothing there. And that is because 'McDonald's' (and the Orthodox 'drivethrough hamburger restaurants') only employs authentic restaurateurs, the ordained priests, who consecrate 'this bread,' and when you receive communion, you are actually ingesting the body of Christ, just as He taught when He said, "This is My body."
When we repeat something over and over again, the repetition physically changes us, and this change infects everything that we do, think, and say. The Lord Jesus instituted the Eucharist, and it is explicitly celebrated in His memory, so it is His original plan for all of us believers to continually receive Holy Communion, and to me, speculatively, it is due at least in part to the physical change that repetition imparts upon us, and imprints within us. When we remember Him, we get better at everything. He feeds us with His own body, in the Eucharist, which is a thing that in many, many Protestant churches, has been relegated to mimicking once a month, or even as infrequently as once a year. Categorically different from the Catholic (and Orthodox) thinking, which is that the gathering together to worship Christ centers around the Eucharist, just as it always has, going all the way back to Acts 2:42 KJV, "they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
So, fwiw.
