R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The comments from non-Catholics in response to the article were brutal.
- Status
K
Kliska
Guest
And Catholics against the Pope and Vatican II…The comments from non-Catholics in response to the article were brutal.
Kind of provides evidence for Pope Francis’ point(s). :sad_yes:
A
adf417
Guest
Thanks Kliska,
Article good! The fruit at the bottom of the article (the commentaries) no so much.
It’s the picture, within Christianity, I was trying to portray in my previous posts.Peace!!!
L
ltwin
Guest
Well, obviously we aren’t in “total” unity. We are divided on a range of issues. However, there are degrees of unity. There are degrees of fellowship and communion that can be experienced today between the various denominations. Some, such as say Charismatics and Pentecostals or Lutherans and Anglicans or Scotch Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed, enjoy greater unity in relation to each other than they do to less similar groups.
As far as Pentecostals are concerned there is an invisible and visible aspect to Christian unity. There is the unity of the Spirit shared by all those who are born of the Spirit and then there is the visible unity shared by the members of each particular visible manifestation of the church, which includes people who have and have not been born of the Spirit.
Unity is not something that must be defined. If people are united, they know it. You know if something is dividing you from another person, whether it be a doctrine or a practice that keeps you separated. Closed communion is obviously one example. There are others. This points to areas of separation, and yet different churches that practice closed communion can still come together and have worship services that don’t feature sacraments/ordinances.
Once again, there are degrees of unity.
T
Tomster
Guest
“Unity is not something that must be defined.” No wonder there are areas of separation as you have pointed out.
While you say that unity is not something that MUST [emph. mine] be defined, I say that unity can and has been defined and it is necessary for it to be defined.
For more information, if you are interested, refer to “Satis cognitum”, “Mortalium animos”, and “Mystici corporis”.
Caution! Reading these encyclicals may cause you to question the basic principle of non-Catholic Christianity which is the principle of free thought which is the reason for the all of the separations you have admitted to.
M
meherdmann
Guest
Sorry, but scripture contradicts you.
“So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”- Philippians 2:1-2 RSV-CE
A
adf417
Guest
Greetings Itwin,
Something tells me this kind of unity is not what the OP was focusing on.
Peace!!!
T
Tomdstone
Guest
But do you agree that the way that Roman Catholics see unity is by having everyone convert to Catholicism? Isn’t it true that unity with Protestants can only come about, in the Catholic view, only if Protestants believe in the infalliblity of the Roman Pontiff when speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals and other Catholic teachings. Protestants would have to believe in the Catholic teaching that artificial contraception, practiced by married couples with 5 children for example, is a mortal sin, when you have a situation where, according to polls, many American Roman Catholics don’t even believe what the Catholic Church infallibly teaches about artificial contraception. If many American Catholics don’t believe the infallible Church teaching on artificial contraception, is it reasonable to demand that a Protestant believe the teaching?The comments from non-Catholics in response to the article were brutal.
Are the Roman Catholic requirements for unity of all Christians reasonable? From the Catholic standpoint, yes. But Protestants do not see things the same way.
M
meherdmann
Guest
Tomdstone, last I saw it was the Protestants who broke communion with the Catholic Church, not the other way around. Considering the Catholic Church has not changed its doctrine in its 2,000 year history (i.e. it has faithfully handed down the faith as taught by the original Apostles) why is it unreasonable to expect the Protestants to return to restore unity?
We need to evangelize those Catholics who dissent as well. I think St. Augustine said it best: “Those who choose to believe in the parts of the gospel they like and reject that which they don’t like believe not in the gospel, but themselves.”
E
Erich
Guest
This Bible Christian Society newsletter makes some good points. In summary:
Consider 1 Cor 11:18-19: “*In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”
*So, there were divisions among the Corinthian congregation. And, these divisions were such that they helped to reveal who had God’s approval. Which means, on the flip side, that there were those among the Corinthian congregation who did not have God’s approval.
Believers in an “invisible church of true believers” tend to also be believers in the notion that there are “essential” and “non-essential” doctrines and as long as we agree on the “essentials,” then we can have union with one another and we’re all saved. Problem is, who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential?”
The notion that that we can be in union with those we have doctrinal disagreements with…that there can be true unity among those with doctrinal differences…those with different versions of what is and is not truth… is a false notion. 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows that divisions among Christians - the Corinthians being written to by Paul were all members of the Church… they were all Christians - cannot simply be ignored by using a contrived theological system which divides doctrines into essential vs. non-essential. Differences among Christians are serious matters that lead to some being approved by God and some not being approved by God.
Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. Again, from 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.
Well, if the Apostles didn’t teach different doctrines, then why is it okay for the pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations to teach different doctrines one from another? And, if it wasn’t okay for the Corinthians to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that caused division within the Christian congregation…then why is it okay today for Protestants to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that cause division within Christianity?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Not all, but for our purposes, yes.
Yes to everything. The Catholics who disagree with the Church’s position on ABC are poorly informed.
And by the way, EVERY Protestant denomination taught that ABC was sinful prior to 1920. So, were they all teaching error then or are they teaching error now? Either way, the flip-flop proves that they are not infallible since they have taught error at some point.
You have said it.
I understand. Which is why I am here helping them understand why Catholicism is right and Protestantism is wrong…one person at a time.
L
Lek
Guest
When we speak of the “prosperity gospel”, we’re not speaking of their interpretation of the entire gospel, but that one facet of it. They still believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the savior, died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead, etc. Of course, if they follow Christ, they are our christian brothers and sisters. For many, that’s a stage in their journey towards becoming more complete followers of Christ. We’re all at different points in our process of sanctification.
I do understand your concern about what authority a non-catholic would use to determine who is a heretic. At what point does a person go from being a fellow christian, who has a disagreement or misunderstanding, to becoming heretical? If we allow for different interpretations of the bible how could we say that a person who perhaps interprets scripture to say that Jesus is not God is actually a heretic? We would have to rely on the power of the Holy Spirit working through that congregation to come together and make a decision about whether to expel him or her from the congregation. Jesus did say the following:
Matthew 18:20New International Version (NIV)
20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
If Jesus is present, then the Holy Spirit is also present to guide the decisions and actions of the church–that congregation as well as his whole church. I will say, though, that you have motivated me to look more thoroughly into this question since it’s something I haven’t specifically thought a lot about.
Hi meherdmann, and welcome to CAF.
As is usually the case with division, and as your Catechism says, there was blame enough to go around.
As for no change in doctrine, Orthodoxy probably raise both eyebrows to that statement. Let’s just say “development of doctrine” is often viewed as “innovation”, outside communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Jon
L
Lek
Guest
The catholic church accepts non-catholic christians as part of Christ’s church, even though they don’t accept every doctrine of the church. They even recognize their baptism, which is our entry into the church, to be valid to the point that they don’t need to be re-baptized upon entry into the catholic church. See the quote below.
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (CCC 838)
It is the same with protestant christians. Though I may believe that another christian doesn’t possess the fullness of the truth that I do, I still accept him as a brother in Christ, because we are both followers of Christ.
A
adf417
Guest
Greetings Lek and I hope you are having a blessed day!
The Catechism of the Catholic Church #818
as long as this “congregation” that is making decisions is in step with the church universal. Otherwise we end up with “many churches”.
Peace be with you Lek!
The Catechism of the Catholic Church #818Again
as long as this “congregation” that is making decisions is in step with the church universal. Otherwise we end up with “many churches”.:tiphat: Yes, there is much to ponder!
Peace be with you Lek!
P
Peter_J
Guest
Alright. Who’s that? (Er, I mean BreitBart, not Pope Francis
.)
K
Kliska
Guest
Breitbart is a “who” but passed away (conservative blogger/journalist/publisher), so now “Breitbart” is a what; an online conservative news outlet.Alright. Who’s that? (Er, I mean BreitBart, not Pope Francis
Why I always capitalize the second “B” when I type the website I don’t know. lol
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, it is possible, and some saints have been restored to communion posthumously, but this is when there was a mistake made and it was discovered they should not have been excommunicated. Luther’s case has been studied and reviewed by church authorities and theologians for 500 years, and no mistake has been found.
Luther basically excommunicated himself by espousing doctrines contrary to the Apostolic faith. He was quite adamant in his position.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is true that calling names to people does not serve Charity. It is equally true that we have an obligation to seek unity without letting small mindedness and bigotry interfere, that includes coming from inside our ourselves (if we say we have no sin, we lie), in our opponents, and in those with whom we feel we are already in unity.
Small mindedness and bigotry are realities that exist in every nook and corner. We have to find a way to identify our prejudices, and surmount them.
IOW, from Luther’s commentary on the 8th Commandment:
We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.
Jon
- Status