Christian Unity

[guanophore]

 You're right.  I am qualifying the verse.  The JWs say they believe in Jesus, but they don't because they don't accept who he really is.  If someone says:  "I know Lek.  He's that guy who is a staunch democrat", then he doesn't know Lek.  Of course, we could go on and on and further qualify the verse,

Yes, and you have made my point for me. The doctrine of the faith is essential, because those who do not accept it are not in unity.

It so happens that all Christians agree on this point about the identity of Christ, and do not accept the JW position to be orthodox. But any doctrine can be a point of dissension.

  but the point is that even the catholic church accepts baptized protestants as part of the church.

But imperfectly joined, just as Catholics are when they are in a state of mortal sin.

   So there must be a reasonable point at which a person is a follower of Christ short of being fully brought into the catholic church.

By what authority do you make this assertion? Do you have any Scripture that can support such a view? Catholics accept baptized Christians because this is the Apostolic teaching, and historical belief of the Church.

What might the imaginary “reasonable point” be? Is that subject to the perception of the person’s own reason?

  Maybe we can't be sure, but God knows the heart.  Because we don't know, we accept people as fellow christians, who look the part, but are not christians in the heart.  But I still contend that all "followers of Christ" are part of his church--and they're not all catholics.

Indeed, and it is the differences in doctrine that prevent full unity.

   That's not saying that those who know a truth about him and refuse to accept that truth are his followers.  I'll go as far as to say that if I was fully convinced that the doctrines of the catholic church were true and refused to accept them, then I would not be a follower of Christ or vice versa for the catholics.

Yes, I think we are all in agreement on this point.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, and you have made my point for me. The doctrine of the faith is essential, because those who do not accept it are not in unity.

It so happens that all Christians agree on this point about the identity of Christ, and do not accept the JW position to be orthodox. But any doctrine can be a point of dissension.

But imperfectly joined, just as Catholics are when they are in a state of mortal sin.

By what authority do you make this assertion? Do you have any Scripture that can support such a view? Catholics accept baptized Christians because this is the Apostolic teaching, and historical belief of the Church.

What might the imaginary “reasonable point” be? Is that subject to the perception of the person’s own reason?

Tough to say. Could be just about anything, since it’s imaginary.

 

[Tomdstone]

The faith is ONE.

I don’t believe so. Some Catholics say that the Blood was shed for many, whereas others say that the Blood was shed for all.

 

[adf417]

**So there must be a reasonable point **at which a person is a follower of Christ short of being fully brought into the catholic church. Maybe we can’t be sure, but God knows the heart.

Greeting Lek,
I believe the two bolded phrases above contradict each other. I agree with the first as long as the reason is not left up to each individuals interpretation and I also think we certainly can be sure! Christ established His church as seen in Matthew 16 and the very last words in Matthew state - "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Peace!!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t believe so. Some Catholics say that the Blood was shed for many, whereas others say that the Blood was shed for all.

You’ve missed the point and continue to engage in fallacious reasoning. I addressed this at length previously in post #68.

Perhaps you missed that, also.

Or else you saw it but simply don’t want to let go of something that helps you justify your separation from the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t believe so. Some Catholics say that the Blood was shed for many, whereas others say that the Blood was shed for all.

The One Faith is not determined by any individual Catholic or not. Furthermore, it is not changed by what "some Catholics say’. The faith is defined by what was contained in the once for all divine deposit that was received by the Church from the Apostles.

Within that One Faith there is some room for different ways of understanding (theology) while still espousing the same doctrine.

Jesus’ redemptive shedding of blood provided for the reconciliation of all mankind to God. Yet we know that not all choose to be cleansed by His Blood, or to take advantage of the redemption that was provided for them in Christ. Jesus blood is shed so that we can be saved, but not all will be saved. So you see, both things are true.

 

[Lek]

Greeting Lek,
I believe the two bolded phrases above contradict each other. I agree with the first as long as the reason is not left up to each individuals interpretation and I also think we certainly can be sure! Christ established His church as seen in Matthew 16 and the very last words in Matthew state - "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Peace!!!

What I was meant was that we can’t be sure if a person who professes Christ is really a member of the church. God knows who are his and who are not. Christ knows who are his church and who are not.

 

[Tomdstone]

Or else you saw it but simply don’t want to let go of something that helps you justify your separation from the Catholic Church.

Ad hominem argument. An attack against me instead of answering the specific question at hand. At some Masses, the priest has said that the Blood was shed for all; at others, the priest says the Blood was shed for many. This indicates a difference in belief.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ad hominem argument. An attack against me instead of answering the specific question at hand. At some Masses, the priest has said that the Blood was shed for all; at others, the priest says the Blood was shed for many. This indicates a difference in belief.

No, it indicates confusion that resulted from a poor translation - which has now been corrected. Priests may still use the old language occasionally out of habit because they said those words for so many years, and it’s hard to make the change.

Vatican Corrects Controversial Translation
By: Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/magazine/articles/vatican-corrects-controversial-translation

For all or for many?
By Dr. Edward Sri
catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1866

Now, the heart of the error of *your *argument was addressed in post #68 - which you still have not interacted with.

 

[John_Lazarus]

And we have no reason to take it on. We have enough of our own without adding Haugen Haas to it!

I thought they made ice cream…

 

[JonNC]

I thought they made ice cream…

That’s Häagen-Dazs, John.

Jon

 

[cmodrmac]

" The Catholic Church "return?! " to unity with the Lutheran Church?!
You must be kidding? Your church are the one who broke with us, not the other way around.
If there is ever going to be a reunion between the two churches YOUR church has to drop its heresy and humbly approach Rome. "

the above was posted here-as long as the above minnset exists there never can be any serious attempts at Unity

Just hateful-I would remind the Lutherans that the Pope excommunicated Martin Luther-it would seem that that fact would have to be undone at the very least-

The majority of roman catholics are non english speakers it would be interesting to see if there are any attempts at Unity for example in South America

---

 

[Peter_J]

-as long as the above minnset exists there never can be any serious attempts at Unity

Indeed. We need to stop fighting with words and get back to physical weapons.

 

[Peter_J]

(Kidding.)

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic Church "return?! " to unity with the Lutheran Church?! You must be kidding? Your church are the one who broke with us, not the other way around. If there is ever going to be a reunion between the two churches YOUR church has to drop its heresy and humbly approach Rome.

the above was posted here-as long as the above minnset exists there never can be any serious attempts at Unity

I think we are all very fortunate that this is not the case. Those of our shepherds on both sides are working diligently to restore unity. It is not the purview of those of us in the pews to repair the doctrinal issues that divide us.

That being said, it is incumbent upon all of us to work toward unity in charity. The kind of bigotry and demanding attitudes that interfere can only be healed on an individual level. Somehow, cmodrmac, we must love people like MarianCatholic into unity. Those of us that find such expressions offensive must be the first ones to reach out to the offender in love, realizing that such mindsets are a blockage to unity.

Just hateful

I don’t think this kind of expression is at all intended to be hateful. This is how many people perceive history. Christians on both sides have had poor catechesis, and not enough background in Church history. It is meant to be an expression of the truth as it is understood.

I would remind the Lutherans that the Pope excommunicated Martin Luther-it would seem that that fact would have to be undone at the very least-

Not at all. Fortunately for the benefit of unity, the Lutheran faith is not based upon Luther as a person, or even most of his writings. That means that Luther does not play a part in the efforts toward unity.

I say this is fortunate because it is not possible for the Church to “undo” what has happened. There is a recent thread on why Luther was excommunicated. Since he went to his grave in a continual state of rebellion against the Church, he cannot be restored to communion.

 

[Peter_J]

the above was posted here-as long as the above minnset exists there never can be any serious attempts at Unity

I think we are all very fortunate that this is not the case. Those of our shepherds on both sides are working diligently to restore unity.

Indeed.

I’m not well acquainted with the poster whose comment started this exchange (and, for that matter, there are many, many, many who post their thoughts on the 'net with whom I am not well acquainted) but just consider this alternate statement: As long as there are protestants with the mindset of Jack Chick, there can never be any serious attempts at unity. (Granted that’s an extreme example, but it gets the point across I hope.)

 

[MarianCatholic]

Yes, I would be very happy if the Catholic Church returned to unity with the church. But I am afraid there is a long way to go.

The Catholic Church "return?! " to unity with the Lutheran Church?!
You must be kidding? Your church are the one who broke with us, not the other way around.
If there is ever going to be a reunion between the two churches YOUR church has to drop its heresy and humbly approach Rome.

Please dont take my statement and just place it out of context on purpose.
The above quotes are the dialouge between Harkonnen and Me and I answered Harkonnen without bearing in mind that it would be of any relevanse or interest of any third parties to be honest.

The first part of my post (the unbolded part) is a matter of historical facts that are somewhat undeinable to be honest so I guess that leads to the Bolded part of my post as the trigger of all these responses.

I guess I got a bit carried away when answering the false Historical statement made by Mr Harkonnen and that made me write the rest of my post with big letters.
I stand by my statement however as I see Ecumenical dialouges as lukewarm and meaningless to be honest, at least dialouges between The Church and the Protestants “Sola Scriptura” is very far from reaching a point where unity is even slightly realistic.

Im more in favor of working to someday obtain unity with the Eastern Churches (EO) as we both believe in the Scared Tradition and generally are closer to one another.

Besides why is Unity so (name removed by moderator)ortant after all?
We should be focused on keeping our relationship with our Brethren outside of the Church and we should strive towards sharing parts of our faith with them.
Such as praying together occationally among other matters, but this resemingly hopeless effort to worship under the same roof again seems both impossible and pointless to me.

Compromises has to be made in order to obtain unity, that means one side (or both) has to admit that some of their teachings are Heresy and has been for at least 500 years.
I mean, either Luther was right in his opinion that Tradition is of lesser importants or he was wrong and commited Heresy?
Unity is hopeless becouse there is no way on earth that the Lutherans may come back into communion with the Catholic Church and maintain Luthers view on Sola Scriptura.
One of the two parties has to let go of their teachings in order for that to happen and as I see it the Catholic Church will never agree with Luther on this and never should agree with this Heresy.

So again the Lutheran Church have to let go of their Heresy in order to return to Communion Formulated by me as a Catholic of course as a Lutheran wouldeve put it the other way around I guess

 

[guanophore]

Indeed.

I’m not well acquainted with the poster whose comment started this exchange (and, for that matter, there are many, many, many who post their thoughts on the 'net with whom I am not well acquainted) but just consider this alternate statement: As long as there are protestants with the mindset of Jack Chick, there can never be any serious attempts at unity. (Granted that’s an extreme example, but it gets the point across I hope.)

You are right, Peter. We cannot allow small minded and bigoted people to interfere with the work toward unity.

1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Eph 4:1

 

[guanophore]

Please dont take my statement and just place it out of context on purpose.
The above quotes are the dialouge between Harkonnen and Me and I answered Harkonnen without bearing in mind that it would be of any relevanse or interest of any third parties to be honest.

In that case you will have to send a private message, ,because otherwise everyone on the thread will consider it fair game.

Also, if you look at the stats on the home page, you will see that it is not unusual to have 10 “lurkers” reading your posts for every one that answers. Once you post it, it is “public”

The first part of my post (the unbolded part) is a matter of historical facts that are somewhat undeinable to be honest so I guess that leads to the **Bolded** part of my post as the trigger of all these responses.

I guess I got a bit carried away when answering the false Historical statement made by Mr Harkonnen and that made me write the rest of my post with big letters.
I stand by my statement however as I see Ecumenical dialouges as lukewarm and meaningless to be honest, at least dialouges between The Church and the Protestants “Sola Scriptura” is very far from reaching a point where unity is even slightly realistic.

I have a response to you:

13 But you, brethren, be not weary in well doing. 2 Thessalonians 3:13

We are obligated to work for unity, so let us not allow ourselves to be discouraged. If you go to the particular poster and click on the name, one of the options is to 'read all posts by…". You can use that option to get some background on the poster, to help understand the context from which they write. You will find that this particular poster is carrying no small resentment and hostility toward Catholicism for a number of personal issues.

I agree that the ecumenical dialogues do seem ponderously slow, but that is really way above our pay grade. It is for those appointed by Christ to resolve, and we must pray, pray, pray, and manifest love in our interactions with our separated brethren. Given that SS has so many different definitions, and given that many Protestants are at last coming to experience the utter failure of it, the results might yield more than we expect. Catholics also affirm the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture, and there are many liturgical Christians that have a very near Catholic view on SS.

In the end, I fear, what will unify the Church is persecution, which is becoming more evident every day. The more Christian values are attacked, ,the more we will need to transcend our differences and come together.

Im more in favor of working to someday obtain unity with the Eastern Churches (EO) as we both believe in the Scared Tradition and generally are closer to one another.

Then I encourage you to do so. Dialogue with the Eastern Christians here, or try out the EO Forum to better understand the issues, and pray, pray, pray. I think you may find that the same small minded bigotry may exist on that side!

Besides why is Unity so (name removed by moderator)ortant after all?
We should be focused on keeping our relationship with our Brethren outside of the Church and we should strive towards sharing parts of our faith with them.
Such as praying together occationally among other matters, but this resemingly hopeless effort to worship under the same roof again seems both impossible and pointless to me.

Jesus wants unity, so we must work toward it.

Compromises has to be made in order to obtain unity, that means one side *(or both)* has to admit that some of their teachings are Heresy and has been for at least 500 years.

I don’t think so. A great deal of the separation is not doctrinal. This is especially true for the factors that separated East and West in the Great Schism.

I mean, either Luther was right in his opinion that Tradition is of lesser importants or he was wrong and commited Heresy?

Whatever Luther thought is irrelevant, since none of the present day ecclesial communities are dependent upon his ideas.

 

[guanophore]

Unity is hopeless becouse there is no way on earth that the Lutherans may come back into communion with the Catholic Church and maintain Luthers view on Sola Scriptura.

You may not be aware that Lutherans do not espouse Luther’s views on a number of issues. But, if one Lutheran decides that Scripture and Tradition are two strands of the one divine revelation, ,what is to prevent that Lutheran from coming home?

The Lutheran communion right now is so fragmented and skidding into modernism, with whole synods adopting heresy, those traditional Lutherans whose views are primarily Catholic will have no where else to go!

One of the two parties has to let go of their teachings in order for that to happen and as I see it the Catholic Church will never agree with Luther on this and never should agree with this Heresy.

No, but just as understanding has been reached on the issue of justification, a better understanding can be reached on SS. I don’t think this will happen with whole synods, but I do think that there are individuals and even whole parishes that might unite.

So again the Lutheran Church have to let go of their Heresy in order to return to Communion

Your error here is that you seem to imagine “the Lutheran Church” is some sort of united entity, which it is not. Another error is that Lutherans have never been in communion with Roman Catholics, so they are not “returning” to anything.

The fact is that when people convert (or revert like I did) there are usually many heresies that must be let go, SS being only one of many. You make it sound like the HS cannot make this happen!

**Formulated by me as a Catholic of course as a Lutheran wouldeve put it the other way around I guess**

Well, I think this position on either side is not productive. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, not ours, to change hearts.