A Historical Dare to Protestants

[Tomster]

Tomster,

Much of what you write is common in non-Roman understandings of the Church of Christ. Your shortcoming in describing either modern or orthodox Protestant theory, is likely due to the variety of Protestest expression which resists a common definition.

For example, an orthodox Lutheran understanding of the Church would be very similar to what you describe as the Roman position; i.e., that no one regenerated by grace through lively faith can help but do the good works which are fruit of the Spirit given to the Christian. Indeed it is an alien righteousness that justifies us before God, for all I have are filthy rags to offer from myself, but Christ’s merits are sufficient for me. Thus the good I do, united to Christ through His Holy Church, is still flawed and imperfect, but because it is done in faith, it is received as the fruit of faith. That which I do which is carnal and not based on faith impairs my relationship with Christ and His mystical body, and demands my repentance… that I may receive grace again by faith and be forgiven, restored.

Or, as Melancthon and other Lutheran Reformers wrote, saving faith cannot coexist with mortal sin-- they are contradictory principles. Faith must be active in love, and when we do otherwise, we demonstrate a lack, impairment, or perhaps even a dead faith… which cannot receive grace and cannot save. Thus faith becomes the principle through which we understand the Church to be united in Christ, working out in love toward God and neighbor, in a constant tension between faith and repentance. The Church then becomes the ecclesia of repentant sinners, called by their common Lord and Savior, to a common faith and common life together, receiving together the blessings of His grace and merit-- the end of which being our salvation.

Peace.

First of all, for the sake of completeness, let us set aside an extreme opinion which no Catholic could ever hold, but which was the position taken by Luther, Calvin, and Jansen, and is still set forth in some Protestant formularies. The foundation of this opinion is the denial of the reality of sanctifying grace as a supernatural gift and the consequent assertion that Adam’s condition, before his fall, was purely natural. After his fall, therefore, it will follow that his nature was intrinsically depraved and corrupted, and a thing evil in itself. This is a fatal and truly horrible teaching. It means that every human act is of itself and in itself evil. It makes man to be a sink of moral corruption by nature. Natural virtue becomes impossible, and unregenerate man can do nothing of himself but sin. This was and is a blasphemy against God’s goodness.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Perhaps we could better analyze this, if you provide the direct reference for your quote. The position, as presented in the Lutheran Confessions (which were ascribed to by Luther, at least those composed before his death) understand that situation with a bit more nuance than you’ve presented.

The state of man before the fall was blessed and without sin. After the fall, we understand a total depravity of man in things divine-- not in all things. Without sanctifying grace received by faith we are unable to please God, because anything done apart from faith is sin. This does not preclude the fallen, unregenerate man from acts of civil righteousness-- such things as choosing not to kill, not to steal, etc. Luther and the Lutheran reformers drew a distinction between the relationship of man to God and the relationship of man to society; each having a different context before the fall, after the fall, and after regeneration in Christ.

Did you have some other reference you were drawing from?

Peace.

 

[Tomster]

Simply put, if Adam’s endowments were natural, then, since by his sin he lost them both for himself and for us, it will follow that man’s nature now is intrinsically and essentially vitiated by being deprived of some elements originally proper to it; it will therefore be in itself an evil thing. This is, in fact, the position taken by many of the early Protestant theologians, and later maintained by the Jansenists. If, on the other hand, these endowments were something given to Adam over and above all that went to make up his full manhood, then it follows that, inspite of their loss, human nature remains complete, in essence unimpaired by original sin, intrinsically whole and good inits itself.

 

[Masonic333]

To all those who deny that the “Roman Catholic Church” (and/or Eastern Orthodox) is the Church founded by Christ, then I have a little dare for you. Prove from Scripture and history that your denomination is the one founded by Christ.

I say use ‘history’ because Scripture is vague enough that anyone, even us evil old Papists (or those in the process of converting to Papism), could claim that their doctrines match Scripture (after all, don’t most of those tens of thousands of Protestant denominations claim that they are each based on Scripture).

For me, it was history that won me over to the Catholic Church. No other group (save the Eastern Orthodox) can trace their history as far as back as the Catholic Church. That is a key point, because unless you can somehow connect your denomination chronologically to the Apostles, then you are claiming that there was a period of time where there was no ‘true Church’ and this sort of violates that whole gates of Hell prevailing against the Church thingy. Yeah, not good.

So, fire away.

Well, I suppose your convinced that God and Jesus are Roman Catholics, as was the Blessed Virgin Mary. I suppose you believe that the “Blessed Virgin Mary” and Joseph never made love (or in the RC psyche “had SEX”).

Without wishing to cause offence. I believe a little reading of the history of the Roman Empire particularly Phinney might be helpful. Also the formation of the early Church (Christian not RC).

Read a little its amazing what you will learn.

Masonic333

 

[Tomster]

Well, I suppose your convinced that God and Jesus are Roman Catholics, as was the Blessed Virgin Mary. I suppose you believe that the “Blessed Virgin Mary” and Joseph never made love (or in the RC psyche “had SEX”).

Without wishing to cause offence. I believe a little reading of the history of the Roman Empire particularly Phinney might be helpful. Also the formation of the early Church (Christian not RC).

Read a little its amazing what you will learn.

Masonic333

Just think if you read a “lot” what you would learn.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Tomster,

Again, I think you’re presenting the Lutheran position mixed with others, and not reflecting the intentional nuances of our position. If you have a reference that disturbs you and you would like to discuss, please offer it.

On a side note, please remember that Lutheran Christians do not work or worry about defending everything that dripped from the pen of Luther. His age was full of controversy and contention… our best attempts at confessing the catholic faith were done in the Augsburg Confession and it’s Apology, coupled with the three great historic creeds.

Cheers.

 

[George_Everson]

Based on the criterion you mention, the Roman Catholic Church does seem to have the oldest pedigree so to speak. However, there is a sad fact I need to bring up. In many cases specifically among Evangelical Protestants there is a lack of knowledge about church history. Most evangelicals who know anything about the subject believe the Church was founded in the 1st century, was corrupted in the 2nd and didn’t flourish again until either: the Reformation, the revivals of the 18th and 19th century, or their own particular denomination was founded.

The problem here is exactly as you say. It would mean the church failed for a period of time to exist on earth in clear contravention to the words of Christ Himself.

George Everson,
Lynchburg, Virginia

 

[stbruderklaus]

I won’t speak for most Evangelicals, but I’ll represent my own tradition…

Lutherans, among others, are part of the western catholic context. In our own parlance, we’re catholics of a simpler confession, and simpler piety than Roman Christians.

As for historicity, Luther and the Lutheran Reformers were very fond of the early Fathers and the practices of the early Church-- especially that 500-900 year era that encapsulated the first 7 ecumenical councils and the undivided Church. The Lutheran confessions are littered with references to Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, Chrysostom, the councils and canons… because we realize the faith is ancient and unbroken from the time of Christ and the Apostles. The Scriptures are the fundamental reference point for theological expression, but they are always carried forward and presented in the arms of the Church. In short, we stand on the shoulders of giants.

The church at Rome is indeed ancient-- there’s even a letter of Paul to that group of Christians (which was, incidentally, established before either Peter or Paul went there.) Likewise, however, the church at Antioch, Ephesus, Constantinople, Alexandria, Corinth, and numerous other locales in the 1st century housed churches established by the Apostles or their direct successors. Rome is not unique in its claim to have been established during the Apostolic Era and continuing to this day-- many others of the East do as well.

Like the East, the Western church branched out with missionary activity. The catholic Christian faith was sent all over Europe, and since Augustine was an important part of that evangelization, he is clearly reverenced in both England and Germany. Luther, as an Augustinian monk, Doctor of Sacred Scripture and a priest, saw himself functioning in his vocation within the western catholic context, working for much of his life to make peace with the Roman Patriarch of the west. Sadly, the Roman Patriarchs have been much less successful holding their branch of the catholic church together than the eastern Patriarchs have, but then, none of the other ancient Patriarchs tried to assume total kingly control of the others, as if their Apostolicity was better than the rest… and the East doesn’t seem to have suffered as much with having confused worldly authority and coersion with ecclesial authority.

Authentic Lutherans who understand their history, still seek to heal the breach between us and Rome, since division in the western catholic Church is not good for anyone. It also still remains for the Patriarch of the West to make up with the other Apostolic Patriarchs that he walked away from in 1054.

Cheers.

 

[CoachSTL]

LuthernDK,

I have been reading your comments and you seem to be somewhat versed on the history of the Church. But I also notice that your spirit seems to be one of creating confusion too. You work very hard at redirecting the meaning of other’s comments by asking for definitions to words, such as, “unity” and “church”. Surely, you understand the meanings to these words in the context by which they are written on this forum.

Just to clarify. When a Catholic talks about the “true church”, he or she is referring to the Catholic Church as we know it today. True means that he or she believes that the Church was physically founded by Christ, and physically exists today as perveyor of His Holy Teaching. And, in clear conscience, a Catholic must hold that it is Jesus’ Church, the one refered to in Scripture, in order to be Catholic.

You must try to understand that the Catholic Church, as we know it today, is the only christian teaching that has carried on the traditional teachings of the Apostles. It is the only that could. It is an unbroken chain of commands given to mankind by Christ for our salvation. This lineage can be traced Historically, Traditionally and Scripturally. Why, for any reason, would Jesus want his children to wander aimlessly on this earth without a true foundational teaching. This teaching can only come from one church, His Church.

Consider this. In order for one to accept Christ as Savior, one also has to accept the reality that he created on this earth. His existence is the Sacred Tradition that He established. His Teaching was all oral, never written. Surely, with faith and reason, you can see that His Teaching could never fall to the powers of hell and be overcome by man’s manipulation. There must be a scource of truth in order for Jesus’ existence to be true.

You are correct in saying that men opposed to His Teaching will try to confuse the matter of His authenticity to other men. This has been done, and is being done today, and will continue until the end of time. And some, who are not seeking the real truth of Jesus’ message, and who are weak in faith, are susceptible to follow these false messages. But, this is not proof that powers of hell have overcome His Church and that His true message has fallen all away. It is only proof of His prophecy instead.

Jesus had to have a keeper of His Teaching, and it is embedded in His Church, founded upon Peter, the Rock. One can chose to believe or not. But just because one does not, does not mean that it is not true.

To claim that the RC church is the church founded by Jesus is quite simply not true. The church structure that can date its historical roots back the furthest is probably the Aramaic-speaking church in Jerusalem, so if you’re only interested in history, that’s where you need to go.
Yes, the Reformation came from the RC church, and so, I’m not going to try to say that the Lutheran churches as organizations predates the RC church. That would be foolishness, and that is not what I claim.

What I DO claim, however, is basically this:

1: The measure of a “true church” is not it’s organization, not even its history. It is its theology. Are its teachings in accordance with Scripture? In my view, the gates of Hell did overcome the RC church during certain periods in time, which led to unbiblical doctrines and abuse of the offices of the church.

2: I do not consider any one denomination (and yes, I claim the RC church as a Christian denomination. Don’t derail this thread by trying to start an argument over that…) to be the Church Catholic (“kat holikos” = “for all” = “universal”), which is what Jesus spoke of in Matt 16.The Church Catholic is the spiritual unity between ALL believers - regardless of denominations.

 

[Tomster]

Based on the criterion you mention, the Roman Catholic Church does seem to have the oldest pedigree so to speak. However, there is a sad fact I need to bring up. In many cases specifically among Evangelical Protestants there is a lack of knowledge about church history. Most evangelicals who know anything about the subject believe the Church was founded in the 1st century, was corrupted in the 2nd and didn’t flourish again until either: the Reformation, the revivals of the 18th and 19th century, or their own particular denomination was founded.

The problem here is exactly as you say. It would mean the church failed for a period of time to exist on earth in clear contravention to the words of Christ Himself.

George Everson,
Lynchburg, Virginia

What is interesting is that on August 29, 1954 the World Council of Churches published a statement titled “Our Oneness in Christ and Our Disunity as Churches.” In the closing portion of the statement the Council stated, “the measure of our concern for unity is the degree to which we pray for it. We cannot expect God to give us unity unless we prepare ourselves to receive his gift by costly and purifying prayer.” Especially valuable are communal prayers, for “to pray together is to be drawn together.” Therefore, “we urge, whenever possible, the observance of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, January 18-25, or some other period suited to local conditions, as a public testimony to prayer as the road to unity.”

In order to properly evaluate the foregoing statement of ecumenical principles, we must first recognize it as a compromise between disparate elements in the Council of Churches. At one extreme are those who believe there is strength in doctrinal and ritual differences, for whom the Council should be only a federated cooperative with no ambition to any sort of organic merger. They are “keenly sensitive to the gains in vitality” which come from church disunion. At the other other extreme are the “Orthodox” groups, for whom the unity of the Church already exists and, in fact, is to be found within the exclusive limits of their own communion. This claim was so jarring on the sensibilities of certain Protestant churchmen, they publicly asked what business the Orthodox had in belonging to the World Council of Churches. Feeling on the point was quite mutual.

Between these extremes lies the majority of denominations in the ecumenical movement. They are undecided either on the nature of the church or on the kind of unity it is suppossed to have. Some maintain the unity is an existing reality, within certain theological boundaries. Their problem is to define these boundaries, within which the church must be united and beyond which diversity is allowed. Others define the church as purely invisible, “a community only known to God.” The problem is to give better expression to this existent - so far mostly invisible - union among the divided members. Still other consider the church essentially visible, but without restricting limits, capable of embracing “all those who profess and call themselves Christians, however diverse their belief and practice.”

continued

 

[nsper7]

Based on the criterion you mention, the Roman Catholic Church does seem to have the oldest pedigree so to speak. However, there is a sad fact I need to bring up. In many cases specifically among Evangelical Protestants there is a lack of knowledge about church history. Most evangelicals who know anything about the subject believe the Church was founded in the 1st century, was corrupted in the 2nd and didn’t flourish again until either: the Reformation, the revivals of the 18th and 19th century, or their own particular denomination was founded.

The problem here is exactly as you say. It would mean the church failed for a period of time to exist on earth in clear contravention to the words of Christ Himself.

George Everson,
Lynchburg, Virginia

For Protestants who make those claims, especially groups like the Baptists and Anabaptists who claim that there was some ‘secret remnant’ of true Christians, it begs another question:

Where were they when the Catholic Church, according to their view, was screwing things up so badly? After all, if there was a remnant out there, why were they not carrying out the Great Commission? Why were they not reaching out to all peoples, especially the “Catholics” led astray? Isn’t this sort of crypt-Christianity a violation of Christ’s command to seek to make disciples of all people?

I daresay that if a group makes that sort of claim (i.e. secret remnant), then are they not hypocritical?

Also, there is no evidence of any groups holding these views (i.e. the Five Solas, TULIP, etc.) during the Pre-Reformation era? My understanding is that the Catholic Church was quite scrupulous about gathering and reporting information on various heretical groups, usually advising the faithful to be on the lookout for certain behaviors and statements. There is no evidence, I believe, of any recognizably ‘Protestant’ ideas being spread around Pre-Reformation. Most heretical groups were Gnostic of some kind or perhaps Judaizers including crypto-Jews).

There were certain individuals who challenged the Catholic Church (i.e. Wycliff and Hus); however, one was about promoting the laity reading Scripture (I think) and the other was about both species of the Eucharist being offered to the laity.

 

[Tomster]

It really gets interesting now because faced with these discordant opinions, the Council had to make a choice and settled on the Lutheran theory of man’s utter depravity after the fall. Accordingly, disunion among the churches is certainly sinful, but unavoidable, in the view of our corrupted nature. Thus, " we may think of the church as we are able to think of the individual believer, who may be considered at one and the same time both justified and a sinner." In other words, the Lutheran idea on man’s justification becomes also the speculative basis for the church’s simultaneous unity and disunity. Even as individual believers are and ever remain sinners, although “justified” by God, in Christ who alone is just; so the churches are divided among themselves, while united in their founder, Jesus Christ, who alone is one. Disunity, therefore, is no less inevitable in the churches of Christ than sin in the individual Christian. They cannot help being divided, any more than he can help committing sin. After all, the members of the church are human, suffering from the common effect of Adam’s fall that vitiated the nature of man. If any semblance of unity can be found in the Church, it must be something extrinsic, a kind of appropriation, where the unity of Jesus Christ, is imputed to the society He founded. Really and formally, the Church is not united and cannot be, this side of heaven, by reason of her fallen members in whom the virtue of charity, which makes for solidarity, has been utterly destroyed.

continued

 

[Tomster]

What practical conclusions should be drawn? To be consistent the theologians of the World Council should have resigned themselves to the status quo and not have presumed to change the unchangeable. Fortunately, though illogically, they went on to offer a series of remedies to “heal our disunity of churches,” thus negating their doctrinal supposition while, from the Catholic viewpoint, opening the way to a possible solution of the gravest problem in Christianity.

The success of the world ecumenical movement will depend in large measure on what sentiments become dominant in the member churches. If the rigid Reformation concept prevails, according to which the Church’s unity is invisible her disunity is inevitable, then the ecumenical movement is destined to fail. The churches of the World Council may continue to cooperate in solving their social and economic problem, with tangible benefits to everyone concerned; but real unitive progress will never be made where radical differences in faith and worship are conceded, on principle, to be irremediable.

 

[stbruderklaus]

From my readings of the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, one can see quite a history of Christian bishops coming together to figure out what is essential in the Christian confession and practice, versus what is not. This practice of unity in essentials and liberty in non-essentials seemed to infuse the first 700 years of Christian experience.

As for the ideas of the Solas of the Reformation, in their proper context and not the distorted representation given by some Roman apologists, one can find them all over the early Church Fathers. In fact, one might be shocked to know that several of the early Fathers did not interpret the Peter as rock passage in Matthew to be a successor of bishops in Rome, but rather that the confession of Peter was the Rock upon which Christ built His Church (cf. commentaries from St. Chrysostom, and others.)

Cheers,
Brad

 

[stbruderklaus]

I might also note, that before the burning and killing began in Germany, the Lutheran Confessions argued not for a rigid application of their understandings of Scripture and the Great Tradition upon other Christians, but a tolerance of their simpler confession and piety within the context of their German lands. The Churches of Germany argued, particularly in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, that their confession was a simple catholic witness to historic and Biblical Christianity that should be tolerated within the communion of the Roman Patriarch. It is the Roman Patriarch who decided to be unequivocal and intollerable to the Lutheran confession of faith that split the western Church, and ushered in numerous other attempts to re-interpret the faith apart from a tyrannical pope.

Now, in our days, we don’t have tyrannical popes wielding power in both secular and ecclesial spheres… and noticably more tolerant of theological opinions even within the Roman communion. Two paths seem open to Lutheran Reunion with Rome-- either a full ecumenical council where our bishops may be seated with a vote, or an invitation of tolerance from Rome that says Lutherans may be welcomed in alongside other Augustinian orders from which they sprang.

Peace.

 

[Tomster]

I might also note, that before the burning and killing began in Germany, the Lutheran Confessions argued not for a rigid application of their understandings of Scripture and the Great Tradition upon other Christians, but a tolerance of their simpler confession and piety within the context of their German lands. The Churches of Germany argued, particularly in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, that their confession was a simple catholic witness to historic and Biblical Christianity that should be tolerated within the communion of the Roman Patriarch. It is the Roman Patriarch who decided to be unequivocal and intollerable to the Lutheran confession of faith that split the western Church, and ushered in numerous other attempts to re-interpret the faith apart from a tyrannical pope.

Now, in our days, we don’t have tyrannical popes wielding power in both secular and ecclesial spheres… and noticably more tolerant of theological opinions even within the Roman communion. Two paths seem open to Lutheran Reunion with Rome-- either a full ecumenical council where our bishops may be seated with a vote, or an invitation of tolerance from Rome that says Lutherans may be welcomed in alongside other Augustinian orders from which they sprang.

Peace.

Thanks Brad.

Please bear in mind, though, how the Catholic Church views ecumenism.

Taken in the Protestant sense, ecumenism is neither the attempt nor the wish to re-unite Christian groups, considered as dissident, to a single Church considered as the sole true one. It arises among those who hold that no Christian confession in its present state possesses the fullness of Christianity; that even if some one of them is true, it does not, as a confession, possess the totality of truth, but that other Christian values exist outside it, not only among Christians confessionally separated from it, but in other confessions or other Churches, as confessions and as Churches.

To the extent to which this ecumenism supposes that the different existing Christianities, having all failed at some point, posses each but a part of the truth and ought therefore, repenting and humbling themselves before God, to negotiate on a footing of equality, to consent to some sacrifices, and to unite in the profession of what of Christian truth is common to them all, while mutually respecting their differences - to the extent to which ecumenism is that, there can be no such thing as Catholic ecumenism.

But if ecumenism, as a specific movement of thought and action, is simply an awareness that a problem of re-union exists, that this problem is not exhausted, nor even fully opened up, by an exclusive emphasis on individual conversions, but that there is room for a theological determination of the status of the dissident Christianities as Christianities, of the relations of the dissident Churches, as Churches, to the true Church and to its unity - then indeed there can be, and we think that there ought to be and is, Catholic ecumenism.

 

[stbruderklaus]

I think I understand the path you’re presenting, and thanks for the offering.

I would note, however, that the Roman idea of ecumenism in the 2nd millenium was different than Christian ecumenism in the 1st millenium. In the first, we were united by ecumenical councils, and the will of the whole was (generally) humbly accepted by those of dissenting opinion to retain the bonds of unity in peace. It was only after the Roman pontiff arrogated to himself a kingly role over the other historic Patriarchs and all Christians that the schisms began… first with the Eastern Orthodox, and 500 years later with the Reformation.

I would not hope to argue a position based on a congealed definition of Protestantism, but I will offer that authentic, confessional Lutheran expression of Christianity (perhaps with a kindred spirit in the Anglo-catholics) seek unity in the principles of the 1st millenium of Christian experience, rather than the horribly divided and bloody factions of the 2nd millenium. The first 7 councils are marked by the clearly stated intentions of the gathered Fathers to apply Sacred Scripture and valid Tradition to the life of the Church in their time, answering the questions of their time. Such a premise would do the world much good today.

I understand that current Roman dogma recognizes the Bishop of Rome as princely king of all Christians and bishops, unconstrained by the will of councils and unchallengable in his fiat, with the price of unity being complete submission to him and his every declaration. Granted, Romans hope (confess, really) that he won’t ever lead them astray, but a billion other Christians in the world look back at history and challenge that assertion.

I look forward to a day that both Romans and other Christians can return to visible, corporate unity in repentance for their respective and collective sins which have strained unity and inspired schism. Frankly, I hope the 3rd millenium will bring us a renewed vision of the 1st, while we collectively repent together of the 2nd.

Peace.

 

[seekdatruth]

You work very hard at redirecting the meaning of other’s comments by asking for definitions to words, such as, “unity” and “church”. Surely, you understand the meanings to these words in the context by which they are written on this forum.

Wow, this is so sad! Do you not see the very questions raised AREthe definitions of “unity” and “church”?
Of course, Catholics believe that only applies to the Catholic Church. So yeah, this is what blinds us and divides us.
Gosh, I almost want to be a Lutheran reading this stuff. They, at least, do not seem to harbor such arrogance! What does it hurt to say that we are all united because we all believe in Christ our Savior? What does it hurt to call us all one church in that way? How can Peter not still be the (rudimentary though it is) foundation upon which all the schisms are based? Why is peace such a dangerous idea to Catholics? Why do we need to have Jesus all to ourselves?
Jesus did not fail, he did not lie. We *are *one in the respect that God gave us Jesus Christ to save us-- ALL OF US! Arrogance and hatred is more like Satan’s work than that of Jesus. I want so badly to believe in the Catholic Church, but this is like a huge, glaring, sign to me to just run away, and no doubt to many, many others as well. I see (maybe wrongly) the Pope himself condemning such attitudes, or at least saying that we shouldn’t be so quick to automatically condemn others, yet time and time again the very substance of the Church–Her people–create such divides. It breaks my heart, and no wonder we see tears of blood from statues of the Virgin Mary, surely, this isn’t what He wants from the Catholic Church.
Yeah, beat me down, Catholics. Strip away my right to be called a Catholic on CAF. I’ve got nothing to loose.

 

[CoachSTL]

SeekDaTruth,

Your description of a Catholic is awful. Catholics, like the Apostles, are obligated to preach the truth about Jesus’ Teachings. You, as a seeker of ‘DA’ truth are obligated to try and comprehend what is being said to you. If it is false, than, in the end, it will be shown to you, and all that the Catholic Church teaches was in vain.

As a Catholic am obligated by the very nature of Christ’s teaching to love all people, and I am obligated, in clear conscience, to speak what I know to be true and defend the faith. Sometimes this truth is challenged, like it has been on this thread.

Jesus loved everyone, and does love everyone, and so do I. But, Jesus gave people conditions in order to get into heaven. And He gave them the freedom to choose if they wanted to follow Him or not. What He did not do was give people the freedom to pick and choose which of His teachings they could to follow, and then assume that they were on the path of righteousness.

I am sorry that this is hard for you to swallow. I will pray for you.

God bless you!

Wow, this is so sad! Do you not see the very questions raised AREthe definitions of “unity” and “church”?
Of course, Catholics believe that only applies to the Catholic Church. So yeah, this is what blinds us and divides us.
Gosh, I almost want to be a Lutheran reading this stuff. They, at least, do not seem to harbor such arrogance! What does it hurt to say that we are all united because we all believe in Christ our Savior? What does it hurt to call us all one church in that way? How can Peter not still be the (rudimentary though it is) foundation upon which all the schisms are based? Why is peace such a dangerous idea to Catholics? Why do we need to have Jesus all to ourselves?
Jesus did not fail, he did not lie. We *are *one in the respect that God gave us Jesus Christ to save us-- ALL OF US! Arrogance and hatred is more like Satan’s work than that of Jesus. I want so badly to believe in the Catholic Church, but this is like a huge, glaring, sign to me to just run away, and no doubt to many, many others as well. I see (maybe wrongly) the Pope himself condemning such attitudes, or at least saying that we shouldn’t be so quick to automatically condemn others, yet time and time again the very substance of the Church–Her people–create such divides. It breaks my heart, and no wonder we see tears of blood from statues of the Virgin Mary, surely, this isn’t what He wants from the Catholic Church.
Yeah, beat me down, Catholics. Strip away my right to be called a Catholic on CAF. I’ve got nothing to loose.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Again, just a Lutheran perspective…

I’ve been finding that one tends to encounter different Roman Catholics in different venues… on this particular venue, I’ve run into very ecumenically minded folks, and some very narrow minded folks… but I think that shouldn’t surprise us. Frankly, I’m surprized to find so many genuinely friendly folks on a site dedicated to Roman apologetics, since any group’s apologists tend to see the world in terms of zero-sum encounters.

I think it’s true that the Roman Pontiff tends to speak in much more concilliar language than many apologists on this site, but I’ll also offer that the average Roman Catholic I interface with on a day to day basis here in the Archdiocese of Seattle, tends to be very warm, welcoming, and supportive of the value found in other Christian communities. They seem to be less threatened to understand their own Catechism’s instruction that all Christians are united by faith and baptism to the Lord’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and without dipping into vitriol can perceive within their own communion a fullness that they don’t see in other communions.

This I can appreciate, because as a Lutheran, I have very similar understandings from my own perspective. But when we can recognize the orthodoxy within each other’s communions, we can engage in charity regarding the things we find unorthodox about each other… in done in a loving spirit, this is conducive to uniting Christians in the faith, hope, and love that Christ called for.

Anyway-- don’t judge the whole Roman communion based on what you experience here. Start chatting with your local parish’s folks and priests, and you’ll probably get a better feel for how the Roman communion is expressed in your own locality.

Peace.