"Catholic" thinking Protestants?

[Stratiotes]

As an aside - on purgatory - by scripture alone we can find purgatory in the pages of 2 Macc. Problem is, like Marcion (the first Protestant?) and Luther, our Protestant brothers like to pick and choose which books are inspired based on their presuppositions and their own authority rather than by the authority of the church .

 

[protestantman]

I should probable give a little more clarity to my post. I am not saying that we should meet in the middle. Rather, what is our common ground? I am asking if it matters whether or not I choose to follow the succesion of Peter to be the true church, or if you do. The middle ground I speak of is the body of Christ? Are we all members or not? Is Christ not the head? Did he not warn the Apostles of decension over who was greater?

Why do so many assume that Matthew 16:18 meant the entire body of the church? I am asking if it is possible that Jesus meant Peter specifically? If you acknowlege Jesus is the Son of God, does he not do the same for you? Has God not built that same foundation in all who are saved?
If I say that Christ lives in me, who are you to judge whether i am a liar?(not saying you are, just making a bigger argument)
And if Christ lives in me, yet i am protestant, will Hell have any more power against me than it did Peter. And am I not an equal part of the church?

This is more what Im looking for. We could argue these points forever if we just qoute doctrine. The point is to meditate on the scripture and let the Holy Spirit teach us. Remember we are but infants in our faith, who must feed on breastmilk, because we are not ready for solid food. And to get the milk, we must seek the creator, not the Pope or Martin Luther.

 

[DDClark]

My study of early church history and church fathers has lead me to think about both the Catholic AND Orthodox church … and at the moment, I feel more drawn to Orthodox.

 

[Stratiotes]

Protestantman – I appreciate very much what you say and agree in basic concept. It is not a matter of salvation or how holy somebody is. Needless to say there are a whole lot of protestants a lot nearer heaven than I. That isn’t the point. The point is, all of us have to decide if we will remain our own authority choosing to make our church submit to our understanding (i.e., if I don’t like what this church teaches I’ll go to the one down the street) or submitting our understanding to what the church teaches (i.e., I don’t like what they said about X but I must be wrong so I will submit to their authority). It does not determine our salvation per se, but it does determine our obedience. And again, back to the Fathers – when Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch (both knew the Apostles by the way) say we should submit to the bishop/episcopos, we had better know who that bishop is so we can do it. And, disagreeing with your pastor and leaving his church over whether or not you believe the same things about infant baptism makes me wonder what “submit to the bishop” could mean if it doesn’t mean that. There was clearly an assumption of authority that we individualist thinking Americans (or moderns) do not often seem to grasp readily. It is built into our assumptions to kick against the idea of submitting to the church. But, the concept is not a new one – Jesus said it himself in Matt 23:1-3. So, while we can call each other brother/sister, we cannot claim common ground on the issue of authority because we disagree on where that authority is. I say the church has a visible authority here on earth to whom I must submit - you say it is invisible and you cannot submit to anyone since you do not know who they are. It is an irreconcilable difference.

 

[Stratiotes]

My study of early church history and church fathers has lead me to think about both the Catholic AND Orthodox church … and at the moment, I feel more drawn to Orthodox.

I can relate. I was on that fence for a while too so I decided to concentrate my studies on the Pope before jumping off. The Marian doctrinal differences between Orthodox and RC just don’t amount to any significant difference when compared to the difference on the Pope. Once that one is off the table, the others have no bearing on the decision.

 

[jmcrae]

So the Catholics are saying they know few if anyone who has read the Fathers and has become Protestant? That’s like trying to prove Catholicism is correct by pointing out how few Protestants get in line for the Eucharist at Mass. Catholics are your database: I challenge the validity of your sample.

Does this mean to say that you believe that the Fathers were, in fact, Catholic?

 

[Namesake]

Well, of course, or there would not be an ecumenical problem.

Very little? You are saying that the Trinity, the Incarnation, the sacrament of baptism, and the Bible all matter very little to you? That’s a pretty horrifying thing to say.

As for it being fine to continue this way–perhaps since the New Testament is one of those things we have in common with Catholics you don’t care much about our Lord’s prayer that we should all be one. But I do.

In Christ,

Edwin

Oh get real! Those aren’t insignificant things at all. The Catholic Church teaches things that Protestants just can’t accept, like Papal authority, etc.

 

[Truthstalker]

you say it is invisible and you cannot submit to anyone since you do not know who they are. It is an irreconcilable difference.

It is a common misconception to say that Protestants do not believe in a visible church on earth. When I became a member of the church I belong to, I promised to submit to the elders of that church. I do not feel free to simply abandon that and join, say, the Catholic Church because at a given moment I feel the CC is more correct on some issues. There are doctrinal issues I disagree with, there are things I don’t like, but it is also where God led me and has called me. I am more “Catholic” in remaining in submission where I am than running off to join another church, even though I have been given leave to join the CC if I believe it is the right Church.

It is true the locus of authority differs between Catholics and Protestants. Our elders and deacons have to submit to the Westminster Confession of Faith; our members have to agree to a much simpler statement. These however are subordinate to the authority of the Scriptures, which is not invested in men but in and by the Holy Spirit. We don’t need an infallible human authority.

My readings of the ECF, so far, show me a historical picture that is much more complex than Catholic apologists portray it as, and is much less oriented around Mary or the Pope than modern Catholicism is. Neither seems particularly important or emphasized. Jesus did not say “thou art Peter” and whip out a papal tiara and make the apostles kiss his ring. I can buy the papacy as a slowly recognized,God-directed historical development; what I cannot buy are the Catholic excesses in terms of a continual historical prominence or authoritative position politically or administratively. There is much that speaks in history against Catholicism as currently portrayed. Much of that may be resolvable. There seems to be a lot of reading of modern Catholic doctrine back into the ECFs, which is intellectually dishonest. Some issues to us simply were not issues to them. They need to be approached on their own terms, not ours.

On a lot of issues I am irritatingly close to Catholicism. But I also have major departures.

 

[mark_a]

I recently ran across some interesting books:
Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers by Christopher Hall

Mary For Evangelicals by Tim Perry

Tradition, Scripture, and Interpretation by D H Williams

They all sound very much like they could have been written by Roman Catholics or Orthodox believers but all were written by Evangelical Protestants. A friend of mine said a recent issue of “Christianity Today” has a focus on how more and more Protestants are seeking out the church fathers. This is, I think, an interesting trend of Evangelicals seeking their “roots” as it were. I’m sure some of you have noticed similar examples. (I would, by the way, highly recommend any one of those books to Protestant friends.) I am a strong believer in something I read that Karl Keating had said - “The most dangerous men in Christianity were the Fathers of the Church.”

What are your thoughts on this trend?

I recently read in World magazine that (surprise! surprise!) Augustine was an African.

 

[Truthstalker]

Does this mean to say that you believe that the Fathers were, in fact, Catholic?

What does it mean to be “Catholic”? They were members of the universal church. Would they agree with everything now said to be Catholic? We can only speculate.

 

[jmcrae]

What does it mean to be “Catholic”? They were members of the universal church. Would they agree with everything now said to be Catholic? We can only speculate.

Were they members of the organization that continued on from that time until now, that is called by the name “the Catholic Church” in modern times (even though it might not have been called that back in those days)?

 

[Truthstalker]

Were they members of the organization that continued on from that time until now, that is called by the name “the Catholic Church” in modern times (even though it might not have been called that back in those days)?

I see I am being difficult when you expect a simple yes.

They were members of the organization that generated what are now the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and non-Orthodox Eastern Churches. Typically the Greek Fathers would probably have been much more at home in what is now the Orthodox Church as opposed to the Latins in the Catholic Church. I don’t know what they would have done with medieval doctrinal developments, except that to this day the Orthodox ignore them.

 

[jmcrae]

I see I am being difficult when you expect a simple yes.

Well, a “yes,” or else a “No, they were actually Presbyterian.” Or whatever.

They were members of the organization that generated what are now the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and non-Orthodox Eastern Churches. Typically the Greek Fathers would probably have been much more at home in what is now the Orthodox Church as opposed to the Latins in the Catholic Church. I don’t know what they would have done with medieval doctrinal developments, except that to this day the Orthodox ignore them.

Thank you, that’s what I was looking for.

Are there any Protestant groups that can trace their origins back to the Fathers without going through, say, the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, or any of the non-Orthodox non-Catholic groups? (ie: can they trace a direct and unbroken lineage of leadership or community back that far?)

 

[graceandglory]

I prefer to think of it as “Protestant” thinking Catholics. Perhaps our separated brothers in the Catholic Church are ready to cross the Rhone…What? …Don’t look at me like that…

Oh, but EVERY baptized Christian is baptized into the Catholic Church. (whether they think so or not!)



When I was living as a protestant Christian, I didn’t think I was Catholic. The only problem was, I thought more like a Catholic than most Catholics did.

Does that make any sense?

 

[DarkMark]

Well, a “yes,” or else a “No, they were actually Presbyterian.” Or whatever.

Thank you, that’s what I was looking for.

Are there any Protestant groups that can trace their origins back to the Fathers without going through, say, the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, or any of the non-Orthodox non-Catholic groups? (ie: can they trace a direct and unbroken lineage of leadership or community back that far?)

No. All Protestant Churches started even at the Reformation or sometime later. If you check what major Protestant Church began, you will always see that they started after the 1500s.

Only the Catholic Church (the Orthodox community have valid succession to the Apostles) can make the claim that she can trace their lineage back to the Apostles. History proves this beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

[Stratiotes]

It is a common misconception to say that Protestants do not believe in a visible church on earth.

Indeed, it is a common misconception to think that “Protestants” have a core set of beliefs when there are practically as many denominations as there are protestants . But, I can assure you a very great number - and probably a majority - do indeed believe that the church is invisible. If you do not believe then try ask them where their elders, deacons, pastors, whatever get their authority to be “in charge.” There is the issue - if it is not invisible then where does the visible church get its authority? You may say God - amen - but how is that acted out practically? A denominational body lays hands on the individual? So where dose that denominational body get its authority to ordain? You see where that goes? Eventually you are forced to admit that somebody is their own authority or that there is some invisible church authority - unless you can show succession from the apostles.

 

[Stratiotes]

Lest we quibble over visible/invisible and what Protestants believe on the matter - being a former Presbyterian elder and deacon, I thought I’d dig out my Westminster Confession - the standard for most in the Reformed tradition…

Chapter 25, On the Church:
“I. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been…”
So, there is an invisible church in that we do not know who all the elect are. So, whether or not you’re one of the elect, I cannot say nor can you say of me.

“II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel…consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.”
That last part sounds exactly like something a Catholic would say . But, the visible part of the church seems rather difficult to nail down here in light of item I. If I cannot know whether or not you are in the invisible church, how would I know whether or not you were in the visible? Which, to me, is rather like just saying again that the visible church is really invisible also. In other words, if I cannot know if my elder is in the invisible church, how would I ever know if he was in the visible church? It is, for all practical purposes to me, impossible to see the visible church.

 

[Stratiotes]

Also from the Westminster Confession on the Lord’s Supper:

Chapter 29, paragraph V:
“The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly only bread and wine, as they were before.”

Compare that with say, Ignatious of Antioch in the early 2nd century in his epistle to the Smyrneans (and not an isolated case):
"Consider those who hold heretical opinions with regard to the grace of Jesus Christ which hath come unto us, how opposite they are to the mind of God. They have no care for love, nor concerning the widow, nor concerning the orphan, nor concerning the afflicted, nor concerning him who is bound or loosed, nor concerning him who is hungry or thirsty. They refrain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up. "

 

[Contarini]

Lest we quibble over visible/invisible and what Protestants believe on the matter - being a former Presbyterian elder and deacon, I thought I’d dig out my Westminster Confession - the standard for most in the Reformed tradition…

Chapter 25, On the Church:
“I. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been…”
So, there is an invisible church in that we do not know who all the elect are. So, whether or not you’re one of the elect, I cannot say nor can you say of me.

“II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel…consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.”
That last part sounds exactly like something a Catholic would say . But, the visible part of the church seems rather difficult to nail down here in light of item I. If I cannot know whether or not you are in the invisible church, how would I know whether or not you were in the visible?

This does not follow. The visible church is made up of all who profess the true religion. They may or may not be among the elect. You seem to be assuming that all members of the visible church are members of the invisible, but this is a completely illogical assumption.

The distinction between the whole company of the elect and the visible church (which contains tares among the wheat) goes back to Augustine, though Augustine didn’t call the elect an “invisible church.”

In other words, if I cannot know if my elder is in the invisible church, how would I ever know if he was in the visible church?

Because he professes the true faith. As long as he doesn’t fall into open heresy or immorality and thus show his profession to be a lie, it’s none of your business whether he’s in the invisible church or not. This is no different from the Catholic view. You’re making an issue out of thin air, because you seem unwilling to accept that classical Protestants really do believe in the visible Church!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Oh get real! Those aren’t insignificant things at all.

So why did you say that we have “very little” in common?

The Catholic Church teaches things that Protestants just can’t accept, like Papal authority, etc.

And this is more important than the Trinity and the Incarnation? Perhaps you should “get real”?

Furthermore, who is to say that we must remain Protestants, or that Catholics must remain Catholics? Isn’t the point of being a Christian to follow Christ wherever He leads? And He’s made it very clear that He wants us to be one. So if we are not one, someone is not following Christ and needs to repent. Most likely both sides do.

Edwin