Christian Truths are Christian Truths! Most Christians are Catholic and they don’t realize it.

[JonNC]

Jimmy,
Just some comments:

“What I mean is, that we share many of the same beliefs, the only difference is, .in many cases it comes down to the wording”

I absolutely agree.

Sacramentals

There is nothing wrong with sacramentals, so long as, as you say, they point to Christ.

Confession

I was not aware that some noncatholics believed that God is not present in the Catholic confessional. I would disagree with them, just as I disagree with the Catholic view that my Lutheran pastor does not have the power of the keys.

Papal Supremacy

I could accept the idea of the Bishop of Rome being first among equals. Infallibility troubles me. All that said, Pope JP II was an incredible leader for all Christianity, even if not recognized as THE leader. And no, I certainly don’t think my Lutheran leaders are infallible. Luther certainly wasn’t.

Grace, Faith, and Good Works

Catholics and Lutherans all believe that we are saved by Grace alone through faith. Neither deny the importance of good works, we just have differing views of the role of good works after we are saved by grace through faith.

Communion of Saints

Pray to and for the dead all you want. I’m not certain they hear us, but Christ certainly does, and he knows how we feel in our hearts towards those who have gone to the Church Triumphant.

Veneration of Mary

See Luther’s quotes.

Engraven Images

You mean like a crucifix?

Fasting

Nothing wrong with it, so long as we don’t view it as meriting grace.

See that, Jimmy? You’re more Lutheran than you know!!

Seriously, all of this points to the fact that we need to allow the HS to move us towards unity.

 

[rinnie]

Cant say i didnt warn ya Jim!

 

[JonNC]

“Improperly sold Indulgences”

Martin Luther, in his 95 Thesis, rambled on and on about the Catholic Church’s “improperly selling of Indulgences”. This was a local problem that, then Catholic Priest, Martin Luther had with a local Catholic Bishop.

Let me start by reminding people that the money for their minister’s salary and to build their church building did not magically appear. They asked for the money, they received it, and in many cases, their members believed that they were going to receive something in return…Like Heaven… or at least getting on the “good-side” of their preacher.

The Catholic Church corrected this local problem 500 years ago but whenever I turn the TV to a “Christian Channel”, what I usually see is some guy asking for money and promising something “abundantly” in return, like more money in their future, given to them by God. These are all great examples of “improperly sold Indulgences”; the only difference is that they do not use the Catholic word “Indulgence”.

Please tell me where I am wrong.

I missed this one, Jimmy. In the first paragraph, if a Christian gives the church money with these thoughts in mind, they are mistaken. We get to heaven only as a result of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Justification is by grace through faith, not grace through tithing. We give to the church as a response to our justification, just like we perform His good works as a response to our justification.

On the second point, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Jon

 

[PaulDupre]

John Chrystostom wrote that the presence of Jesus in the bread and wine had nothing to do with what the Priests did.

Nothing? Really? Source please. I can believe that he wrote that the efficacy of the sacrament is unaffected by the individual priest’s worthiness or lack thereof, because the sacraments are effected by Christ (who is all-holy) through the priest. That has always been Catholic teaching, echoed by a number of the ECFs.

Here is quote from John Chrysostom wherein he expresses his regard for the ordained priesthood:

They who inhabit the earth, they who make their abode among men, are entrusted with the dispensation of the things of heaven! Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you shall loose, shall be loosed.” Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding, but they can bind only the body. Priests, however, can bind with a bond that pertains to the soul itself, and transcends the very heavens. Whatever priests do here on earth, God will confirm in heaven, just as the master ratifies the decisions of his servants. Did He not give them all the powers of heaven? “Whose sins you shall forgive,” He says, “they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son, And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven, elevated above human nature, and freed of its limitations. - St. John Chrysostom, The Priesthood, 3,5,182

Paul

 

[Jimmy_B]

See that, Jimmy? You’re more Lutheran than you know!!

Seriously, all of this points to the fact that we need to allow the HS to move us towards unity.

LOL…Good one… I mean it… that was a good one!

The only difference is… and its a big one… the Catholic Church came before the Lutheran Church…

Peace

 

[Jimmy_B]

Cant say i didnt warn ya Jim!

Yep…I should have seen that one coming…I got my eye on you guys…

Peace

 

[JonNC]

LOL…Good one… I mean it… that was a good one!

The only difference is… and its a big one… the Catholic Church came before the Lutheran Church…

Peace

Jimmy,
Our Church came at the same time. Sadly, we separated at the same time. Hopefully very soon, we will reunite at the same time.
Which brings us to the point of your op, our similarities are a result of our common roots in the ancient Church. Prior to (and to a dgree, since) 1517, we have a common history.

Jon

 

[trustinyou]

As a Protestant I have no difficulty in accepting that much that we have in Protestant Christianity comes from the Catholic Church. After all the Catholic Church is a Christian Church and Christian truths as you say, Christian truths are Christian truths. At the time of the Reformation, Protestants recognized that the Catholic Church still had Christian truths. However they did not accept that all Catholic truths were Christian truths. Since the Catholic Church demands that all its truths be acepted, Protestants cannot be Catholic since, as much as we may share most beliefs, we do not accept everything that that Catholic Church teaches as right or required for belief.

This is were I get great peace out of the C.C. Ive noticed in most protestant churches there seems to be confusion,no authority,one believes what he/she wants to believe on the interpation of scripture. The primacy of Peter,the magerstim,…is defintly a gift from God

 

[JonNC]

This is were I get great peace out of the C.C. Ive noticed in most protestant churches there seems to be confusion,no authority,one believes what he/she wants to believe on the interpation of scripture. The primacy of Peter,the magerstim,…is defintly a gift from God

trustinyou,
I can see your point of view on that, and to a great degree I agree. It truly distresses me to see how the Lutheran Church has problems with unity. The flip side of that, however, is human sinfullness, such that abuses can filter into the practices of the Church. I think this is what Luther was responding to 500 years ago.
On another thread the question was raised about reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. If they (Orthodox) could accept the primacy, the “infallibility” of the pope, I could too.
Singular leadership is desirable, with some system of checks and balances.

 

[trustinyou]

trustinyou,
I can see your point of view on that, and to a great degree I agree. It truly distresses me to see how the Lutheran Church has problems with unity. The flip side of that, however, is human sinfullness, such that abuses can filter into the practices of the Church. I think this is what Luther was responding to 500 years ago.
On another thread the question was raised about reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. If they (Orthodox) could accept the primacy, the “infallibility” of the pope, I could too.
Singular leadership is desirable, with some system of checks and balances.

Hey JonNC…Abuses in the church has probably been from the beginning,though I dont believe its worth tearing the family apart(the body)…

 

[JonNC]

Hey JonNC…Abuses in the church has probably been from the beginning,though I dont believe its worth tearing the family apart(the body)…

I agree. My dad used to say it takes two to tango. So, whether we are talking about a thousand years ago or 500, there was probably plenty of blame to go around. The question is now, how hard are we as brothers and sisters in Christ willing to work toward reconciliation and unity?

Jon

 

[panoikei]

**Christian Truths are Christian Truths! Most Christians are Catholic and they don’t realize it. **

EXACTLY!!!
Someone who thinks like me for a change…

In many if not most cases non-Catholic Christians are a subset of Catholicism. However, there are extranious beliefs that are not Catholic … as found in Prosperity Theology or Premilinialism.

 

[Jimmy_B]

**[
](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm)

---

Catechism of the Catholic Church

---

The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82

**The vocation of lay people **

---

[898](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/898.htm’) "By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God’s will. . . . It pertains to them in a special way so to illuminate and order all temporal things with which they are closely associated that these may always be effected and grow according to Christ and maybe to the glory of the Creator and Redeemer."431

[899](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/899.htm’) The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church:

Lay believers are in the front line of Church life; for them the Church is the animating principle of human society. Therefore, they in particular ought to have an ever-clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is to say, the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope, the common Head, and of the bishops in communion with him. They are the Church.432
**
[900](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/900.htm’) Since, like all the faithful, lay Christians are entrusted by God with the apostolate by virtue of their Baptism and Confirmation, they have the right and duty, individually or grouped in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation may be known and accepted by all men throughout the earth. This duty is the more pressing when it is only through them that men can hear the Gospel and know Christ. Their activity in ecclesial communities is so necessary that, for the most part, the apostolate of the pastors cannot be fully effective without it.433
%between%**

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SyCarl
As a Protestant I have no difficulty in accepting that much that we have in Protestant Christianity comes from the Catholic Church. After all the Catholic Church is a Christian Church and Christian truths as you say, Christian truths are Christian truths. At the time of the Reformation, Protestants recognized that the Catholic Church still had Christian truths. However they did not accept that all Catholic truths were Christian truths. Since the Catholic Church demands that all its truths be acepted, Protestants cannot be Catholic since, as much as we may share most beliefs, we do not accept everything that that Catholic Church teaches as right or required for belief.

As catholics we do obey our Church. I believe obedience is of great importance to Jesus. we as lay people we need to trust that Jesus is going to keep His promise that His Church will last until the end of times and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. we do not believe going around in desbelief, we do not have such authority to interpret God s Word we need the Church to teach us. For that Jesus built a Church which is the one in charge. One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

 

[Believe_85]

trustinyou,
I can see your point of view on that, and to a great degree I agree. It truly distresses me to see how the Lutheran Church has problems with unity. The flip side of that, however, is human sinfullness, such that abuses can filter into the practices of the Church. I think this is what Luther was responding to 500 years ago.
On another thread the question was raised about reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. If they (Orthodox) could accept the primacy, the “infallibility” of the pope, I could too.
Singular leadership is desirable, with some system of checks and balances.

JonNC:
Please clarify, so we are all on the same page: What is your understanding of the infallibility of the pope? What does this mean, and why do you not accept it?

 

[1234]

There are and will always be major obstacles to unity, particularly if unity is defined as union with the RCC.

The main one is the alleged infallibility of the pope.

The nature of the mass is another. The nature of ‘transubstantiation’. Whereas high Anglicans believe in this dogma and maybe some Lutherans, the vast majority of Protestants do not. In addition, Anglicans believe that Jesus redeemed once and for all by his sacrifice.

The doctrines re Mary are another. The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were promulgated after Luther, and there’s no way to predict what he would have thought about them. The vast majority of Protestants do not believe in these doctrines.

The doctrines re ‘artificial’ birth control and the absolute condemnation of abortion and prohibition of divorce are other doctrines which most Protestants do not support at all.

I don’t know how a married Protestant and Anglican clergy could be inducted into the RCC, so to speak, without creating great resentment among the RC clergy. And Protestant and Anglican denominations would never support celibacy of the clergy, particularly in view of the pedophile and vocation crises afflicting the RCC clergy.

In addition, the vast majority of Catholics I know aren’t Catholic, they’re cafeteria Catholics. They don’t support celibacy, proscription against ‘artificial’ contraception and many other doctrines. I doubt if they strongly support the doctrines about Mary or the mass or infallibility, for that matter.

I think that the RCC would be best served in re-converting its own members, and in this, I wish them luck.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:
Please clarify, so we are all on the same page: What is your understanding of the infallibility of the pope? What does this mean, and why do you not accept it?

My understanding is that the pope is infalible (protected by the HS) in his statements on doctrine and morals (if I’m wrong in my understanding, please know I am here to understand better). While I have no doubt that men such as JP II were great Christian men, and have stated so on numerous threads, they are still just that, men.

 

[Believe_85]

My understanding is that the pope is infalible (protected by the HS) in his statements on doctrine and morals (if I’m wrong in my understanding, please know I am here to understand better). While I have no doubt that men such as JP II were great Christian men, and have stated so on numerous threads, they are still just that, men.

Food for thought from catholic.com:
Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Infallibility does not mean that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

I’d love to hear your response…where you agree, where you disagree and why

 

[JonNC]

Food for thought from catholic.com:
Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Infallibility does not mean that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

I’d love to hear your response…where you agree, where you disagree and why

Please understand my following remarks, that I am not questioning the good, learned intentions of popes and bishops. Most recently we have seen popes that from any reasonable standard are wonderful Christian leaders, most notably JP II.
In addition, contrary perhaps to my Lutheran-ness, I have no problem with the Catholic idea of apostolic succession, per se, or a unifying leadership that could come from the idea of the Bishop of Rome being first among equals.
I would also say that in most areas of doctrine and morals, the Catholic Church is on the mark. I believe, however, that the papacy has made mistakes over the centuries, and the scripture readings you quote are, shall I say, stretched in the implication of infallibility. Are they influenced and moved by the HS? Yes. Infallible, even in the area of doctrine? I think not.
If I accepted everything the Catholic Church says, I’d be Catholic. Non-catholic Christian leaders including the EO, also study the scripture, and have come to different conclusions about things, or maybe better, different ways of expressing things (the Eucharist comes immediately to mind). I also believe the HS can lead us to ways of expressing things new ways, whereby we can come closer to unity.
As a leader in this effort, I give recent popes great credit.

Jon

 

[Believe_85]

I would also say that in most areas of doctrine and morals, the Catholic Church is on the mark. I believe, however, that the papacy has made mistakes over the centuries, and the scripture readings you quote are, shall I say, stretched in the implication of infallibility. Are they influenced and moved by the HS? Yes. Infallible, even in the area of doctrine? I think not.

Jon

These statements make it look you didn’t read what I posted or I was not clear. I will try again. Yes there have been popes who have made mistakes in their own morality. No pope is infallible. Period! We are human, even the Pope!

After the pope meets with his bishops and discusses issues of faith and morals, he may choose to make an Official statement of the teachings of the Catholic Church on Faith or Morals. This is not the Pope’s personal opinion. The Holy Spirit guides the leaders of the Church. Catholics do not believe anything the pope says or does is infallible.

Since you brought it up, please give examples and/or references to Popes making an official statement related to faith/morals that is incorrect.