Catholic OR Protestent

[JRKH]

Lets be clear. Luther died for no one on a cross. He, like all of us, was in need of a redeemer. It is the redeemer who established the Church.
If we are to hold the Church to the first mark, unity, in an institutional sense, then it is difficult to argue that the Church, in any communion, actually exists. OTOH, if we recognize that we are first united, His Church is first united, by baptism, then we are indeed united, and His Church continues in the Church Militant.

Luther was an Augustinian friar. He was incapable to “establish a church”. Lutherans are members of the OHCAC.

Jon

Jon,
I bolded the section above because I think you hit a very important point…What DO we use to determine unity.
Institutional unity, while important, is not in my estimation the best measure of Christian unity. Even within the Catholic Church we have “factions”.
However reducing it to something as simple as Baptism makes it pretty much meaningless. Why would Paul have admonished the Corinthians - telling them to throw someone out of the community - if all that was required for unity was baptism?

For the protestant (in the broad usage of the word), the problem really comes down to not being able to truly fulfill what Scripture describes the early Church to be - and what Christ prayed for it to be. The very foundation of the Reformation - the ingrained outlook of many protestants - works against a truly biblical style of unity.

I know that the Lutherans and some others utilize councils and such and I applaud these. There needs to be more of them.
But I also know that there was no council among the reformers - or their immediate successors - to resolve their differences. No church council determined that the biblical canon should be 66 instead of 73 books. No council meets to resolve matters of faith that come up within the communion.

Each group goes it’s own way…and frankly I don’t see that anywhere in the bible.

Setting aside the idea of unity under the bishop of Rome…Just looking a Scripture for the model of what Christ and the Apostles intended the unity to look like…can “Sola Scriptura” protestants really say that they are following the biblical example of unity?

Like I say - I know that Lutherans and some others DO hold councils - but I would feel much more comfortable about Protestantism as a whole if I saw more of this…yet - the very foundation of the reformation works against it…

Peace
James

 

[Richard_Feynman]

I do have a question about Martin Luther… Does his stance of “the Catholic Church is corrupt therefore the theology is corrupt,” fall under an ad hominem fallacy? Is he didn’t have this view, please inform me what view he did have. thank you!

Richard Feynman

 

[pablope]

Lets be clear. Luther died for no one on a cross. He, like all of us, was in need of a redeemer. It is the redeemer who established the Church.
If we are to hold the Church to the first mark, unity, in an institutional sense, then it is difficult to argue that the Church, in any communion, actually exists. OTOH, if we recognize that we are first united, His Church is first united, by baptism, then we are indeed united, and His Church continues in the Church Militant.

Luther was an Augustinian friar. He was incapable to “establish a church”. Lutherans are members of the OHCAC.

Jon

JOn…I do not think the “One” is the way it was understood on how you describe it when the Creed was written…same with the word “Catholic”.

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;11930993]Jon,
I bolded the section above because I think you hit a very important point…What DO we use to determine unity.
Institutional unity, while important, is not in my estimation the best measure of Christian unity. Even within the Catholic Church we have “factions”.
However reducing it to something as simple as Baptism makes it pretty much meaningless. Why would Paul have admonished the Corinthians - telling them to throw someone out of the community - if all that was required for unity was baptism?

Thanks, James. Your comments and thoughts are always thought provoking and engaging.
I would say you are correct, that while baptism is the very basic unity of the Church, it isn’t the only one. And unity needs to be much more, just as Baptism isn’t where we stop in our sanctification.

For the protestant (in the broad usage of the word), the problem really comes down to not being able to truly fulfill what Scripture describes the early Church to be - and what Christ prayed for it to be. The very foundation of the Reformation - the ingrained outlook of many protestants - works against a truly biblical style of unity.

I think that may be true of some.

I know that the Lutherans and some others utilize councils and such and I applaud these. There needs to be more of them.
But I also know that there was no council among the reformers - or their immediate successors - to resolve their differences. No church council determined that the biblical canon should be 66 instead of 73 books. No council meets to resolve matters of faith that come up within the communion.

Well, there were attempts - Marburg, for example. And the Lutheran take on the canon is rather different than other non-Catholic western communions, as well. What one does see today is communication between communions, even within the “protestant world”, notably Anglicans and Lutherans, but there are others.
From** this Lutheran’s **perspective, our differences with other protestant communions seem overwhelming, particularly that of sacraments. Not liturgy, though that’s important to me, not the canon of scripture or sola fide, but baptismal regeneration and the real presence. Some talk about essentials and non-essentials. These are **the ** essentials, along with the word.

Each group goes it’s own way…and frankly I don’t see that anywhere in the bible.

Setting aside the idea of unity under the bishop of Rome…Just looking a Scripture for the model of what Christ and the Apostles intended the unity to look like…can “Sola Scriptura” protestants really say that they are following the biblical example of unity?

No. None of us can. And let me say that, again my personal view, there is a better chance of broader unity with the Bishop of Rome than without him.
I think that is why to focus of Lutheran ecumenism has usually been toward sacramental, apostolic communions.

Peace
James

And also with you, my friend.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

JOn…I do not think the “One” is the way it was understood on how you describe it when the Creed was written…same with the word “Catholic”.

Perhaps not, but there has been a lot of division in the Church since then, and it seems to me important to latch on to that which unites us, as a foundation of overcoming that which divides us.

Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

is the catholic church truly the orginal church? I notice the orthodox church makes this claim as the first church and there are other churches that claim they are the remenant. But what makes the catholic church so special? I mean i see the attacks on it the church, and i am sort of a calvinist due to the predestination thing

Believing in predestination is by itself no reason to be a Calvinist. Catholic theology has always taught predestination (as well as, for example, Lutheranism as far as I know). Protestants only teach predestination because they took it from Catholicism. They did not invent it out of nothing. Read this popular book by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange for a Catholic take.

amazon.com/dp/0895556340/

 

[JonNC]

Believing in predestination is by itself no reason to be a Calvinist. Catholic theology has always taught predestination (as well as, for example, Lutheranism as far as I know). Protestants only teach predestination because they took it from Catholicism. They did not invent it out of nothing. Read this popular book by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange for a Catholic take.

amazon.com/dp/0895556340/

Yes. Lutherans share the theology of predestination with Catholics, in that we both believe that God intends a predestination to salvation. The double-predestination, where some are predestined by God to eternal condemnation, is a Calvinist view.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

is the catholic church truly the orginal church? I notice the orthodox church makes this claim as the first church and there are other churches that claim they are the remenant. But what makes the catholic church so special? I mean i see the attacks on it the church, and i am sort of a calvinist due to the predestination thing

If I’m asked why I’m Catholic, I say it’s the same reason I remain Catholic.

Because

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…"

iow the Church Jesus started ἐκκλησία , τῆς] throughout all καθ’kata ὅλης holos] is the Kataholos Church = Catholic Church. The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

• St IgnatiusBp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., ordained by apostles, disciple of St John the apostle, called the Church the Catholic Church Epistle to the Smyrnæans of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians . As an aside, Ignatius calls himself Catholic in the Catholic Church because that’s what he learned from John.
• St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
• Muratorian canon http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian.html
• Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]Chapter 3
• Cyprian~250 a.d. calls the Church the Catholic Church Epistle 54
• The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d., it’s a matter of faith to believe in the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”
• Augustine ~395 There are many other things that most justly keep me in her * bosom. . . . The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental (ch 5 v6)
• etc

The same Church Pope Francis is over today, 266th successor to St Peter.

Jesus does NOT approve of division in His Church John 17:20-23 , andthe consequences for division from the Catholic Church is disasterous for one’s soul Galatians 5:19-21 there is no expiration date to that warning*