Christian Unity

[PRmerger]

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.

Marian, you took the bait of House Harkonnen and did exactly what he intended: to provoke you into saying something without preparing it thoughtfully.

His comment was provocative and inflammatory, to be sure, but responding with a plain rationality would do more to refute that nonsensical statement than with another inflammatory response.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps because Luther can no longer undo his actions which led to his excommunication in the first place?

 

[Erich]

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.

Except that you do not possess the fullness of truth. From Is the Church Visible or Invisible?

Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared,  addressing its first earthly leader, "I will entrust to you the keys of  the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to  bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: "Refer it to the Church" (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church  on earth, that they are "the light of the world. A city set on a  mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it  under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to  all in the house" (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).

…
Christ’s Church does have an invisible quality in that it is his Mystical Body on earth. But to understand the Church as having no visibility at all - and, as a consequence, no authority at all - conjures up a Church as tenuous as feathers in the wind. It’s almost as if Jesus, in setting up his Church, didn’t quite know what he was doing.

 

[Tomdstone]

The way that you caracterise me as a person and my views by calling me names makes any further correnspondance meaningless to be honest.

I dont see how calling people “small minded and bigoted” are helpful or even fulfilling the purpose of this site as its strickly written in the rules of this forum that we are to discuss with Charity.

I agree. It is better to discuss the issues rather than launching vicious personal attacks.

 

[Peter_J]

Precisely. Thanks, Guano.

As you noted above, it doesn’t really matter to Lutherans, but I’m curious. Why not? If the pope has the power to bind and loose, why couldn’t the current man in that office (who is an infinitely better theologian and person than Leo X was) undo the excommunication?

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.

There’s a subtlety here that I probably shouldn’t attempt to deal with on an “internet discussion forum” … but let me just point out that people sometimes assume that not-undoing an excommunication is tantamount to a repitition of that excommunication.

 

[guanophore]

“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.

I think you are right on with this, Tomster. Jesus clearly had something specific in mind when He prayed for unity. It is not a matter of us defining it, but understanding what He defines.

 

[guanophore]

But do you agree that the way that Roman Catholics see unity is by having everyone convert to Catholicism?

Pretty much.

Otherwise what would be the point of believing one has the fullness of faith?

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.

Converts are rarely persuaded about this. In fact, most of American Catholics do not. One must be open to be converted to this view.

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.

Yes. It is a sad fact that many American Catholics have become Protestants, and don’t realize it.

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?

Yes. We cannot water down what we have received from the Apostles just because people refuse to accept it. The faith is ONE, whole, and indivisible. When we start to pull out strands, thinking that they are not important or unpalatable, the entire garment becomes unravelled. It is not up to us to tweak the gospel to make it palatable for moderns, but it is for us to preserve the One Faith as it was handed down to us.

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.

Certainly they do not. This is why we must be continually working toward unity. Most of the objections are based on things the CC does not believe.

 

[Christian_Unity_1]

But if some Protestants say that Roman Catholics are not Christians, then what?

Ok let’s define some beliefs of denominations.

Please don’t lump all Protestant denominations in a single bucket. Protestants is an awful classification since it just means denominations who’s origin is the protests of the 1500’s Catholic Church.

Now some Protestants specifically Seven Day Adventists and some Southern and or non-denominational Baptists actually teach the Catholic Pope is the Antichrist and the Catholic Church is the devil’s army. These are NOT the teachings of most Protestant churches, but the fundamentalist teachings of a couple of extremist groups. These groups have zero interest in any dialog with the Catholic Church. Christian Unity is between groups willing to accept their common belief in Christ as their savior and the Creeds that define the Christian religion.

I know this first hand as my brother is non-denominational Baptist and he actually believes I will go to hell for sending my son to a Catholic school. He also believes the KJV Bible is the only true word… refusing to accept the true history and translation of his KJV Bible.

This is similar to the non-Christian Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses calling themselves Christian… as they are not. Though in these cases they do have historical origins in the Protestant reformations.

This is also analogous to Muslims who have many good faithful Allah loving members and a small minority of radical fundamentalists.

 

[guanophore]

Ok let's define some beliefs of denominations.

Please don’t lump all Protestant denominations in a single bucket. Protestants is an awful classification since it just means denominations who’s origin is the protests of the 1500’s Catholic Church.

What is so awful about that?

Now some Protestants specifically Seven Day Adventists and some Southern and or non-denominational Baptists actually teach the Catholic Pope is the Antichrist and the Catholic Church is the devil’s army.

The Lutheran confessions contain this also.

These are NOT the teachings of most Protestant churches, but the fundamentalist teachings of a couple of extremist groups.

I think if you study the documents of Anglican and Calvanism there is a great deal of antiCatholic content. One can hardly find groups more anti-Catholic than Presbyterians.

I know this first hand as my brother is non-denominational Baptist and he actually believes I will go to hell for sending my son to a Catholic school. He also believes the KJV Bible is the only true word… refusing to accept the true history and translation of his KJV Bible.

Let us all pray earnestly for the ill informed.

 

[Christian_Unity_1]

What is so awful about that?

Because it lumps together many different views into a single “Protestant” view. This is just plain wrong and creates far too many misunderstandings.

Would you like Mormons being called Christian brothers just because Mormons claim to be Christians? Surely not…

The Lutheran confessions contain this also.

Yes but see my comments below.

There is a HUGE difference in the meaning of the Lutheran Confessions between the ELCA and the LCMS.

Every LCMS pastor takes an oath during his ordination called a “Qui” subscription to the Confessions. That oath means they promise to uphold and follow the doctrines (teachings) as defined by the Confessions BECAUSE they are a correct explanation of Scripture. Every ELCA pastor takes an oath at his or her ordination known as a “Quatenus” subscription to the Confessions. That oath means they promise to uphold the doctrines espoused in the Confessions “IN SO FAR AS” they correctly reflect the Scriptures. See stjohnhubbard.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23&Itemid=42

The ELCA does agree the Pope does meet the requirements for the antichrist. Even an honest Roman Catholic can acknowledge the corruption of Pope Leo. Regardless that does not mean the Scripture states the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

I think if you study the documents of Anglican and Calvanism there is a great deal of antiCatholic content. One can hardly find groups more anti-Catholic than Presbyterians.

Yes and again …different Protestants. The Anglican Church was only formed to allow Henry to get a divorce, so of course there will be many anti-Catholic docs. Presbyterians and Methodists are out of context because they have zero interest in Christian Unity with the Catholic Church so these two Churches will continue to teach anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Let us all pray earnestly for the ill informed.

That we do agree.

 

[guanophore]

Because it lumps together many different views into a single “Protestant” view. This is just plain wrong and creates far too many misunderstandings.

In this case “it just means denominations who’s origin is the protests of the 1500’s Catholic Church” regardless of theology.

Would you like Mormons being called Christian brothers just because Mormons claim to be Christians? Surely not…

I hardly see the analogy. Protestants are Christians.

Yes but see my comments below.

There is a HUGE difference in the meaning of the Lutheran Confessions between the ELCA and the LCMS.

I am beginning to grasp this. All Protesant sects are defined by which parts, and how much of the Apostolic faith they reject. The practice of Sola Scriptura is largely the source of this departure, but I see that private interpretations of the Confessions results in a continued trajectorry of departure from the Apostolic faith.

Every LCMS pastor takes an oath during his ordination called a “Qui” subscription to the Confessions. That oath means they promise to uphold and follow the doctrines (teachings) as defined by the Confessions BECAUSE they are a correct explanation of Scripture. Every ELCA pastor takes an oath at his or her ordination known as a “Quatenus” subscription to the Confessions. That oath means they promise to uphold the doctrines espoused in the Confessions “IN SO FAR AS” they correctly reflect the Scriptures. See stjohnhubbard.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23&Itemid=42

So every new generation that comes along can reinterpret the scriptures to suit the modern culture, then reject any parts of thebConfessions that don’t suit their personal needs. What an ingenious vow!

The ELCA does agree the Pope does meet the requirements for the antichrist.

Can you give examples of things that Pope Frances has done that would help me undersatnd this?

Even an honest Roman Catholic can acknowledge the corruption of Pope Leo. Regardless that does not mean the Scripture states the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

There have been some very bad Popes and Bishops. To me it seems very strange to hold something against a successor 500 + years later.

 

[PRmerger]

The ELCA does agree the Pope does meet the requirements for the antichrist.

Really?

I had never heard this before.

What are these requirements, and where are they listed?

 

[guanophore]

Really?

I had never heard this before.

What are these requirements, and where are they listed?

To be faithful to the Confessions, all Lutherans must categorically reject the office of the Papacy.

Some modern Lutherans have recognized that the Popes of the last century have been nothing like those of the Reformation and before in exercising the Petrine ministry. This has led to the use of some “if’s” such that “if” the Pope is not doing what is delineated in the Confessions, then he is not the antichrist, just the office is? I am sure the Lutherans can straighten me out on this point.

 

[steido01]

So every new generation that comes along can reinterpret the scriptures to suit the modern culture, then reject any parts of the Confessions that don’t suit their personal needs. What an ingenious vow!

Precisely why we LCMS folks will never share fellowship with the ELCA until they retract their errors. How can we possibly stand with a running body? Frankly, the LCMS -as a whole and in regard to doctrine- has more in common with Rome.

Really?

I had never heard this before.

Me either. It was my understanding that the ELCA had entirely conceded that the papacy did not/does not fit the description.

What are these requirements, and where are they listed?

There are three marks that Lutherans have identified as congruent with Scriptural descriptions of anti-Christ. As explained in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, which guano linked to:

1. 
   *]The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

1. 
   

   *]Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

   *]And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

   These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

1. 
   

   Some modern Lutherans have recognized that the Popes of the last century have been nothing like those of the Reformation and before in exercising the Petrine ministry. This has led to the use of some “if’s” such that “if” the Pope is not doing what is delineated in the Confessions, then he is not the antichrist, just the office is? I am sure the Lutherans can straighten me out on this point.

   Well, Lutherans have recognized from the beginning that the men in the office can be Christian or wicked – it’s never the person we reject, but the claims listed above.
   
   I’m sure someone will accuse me of “softening” what they think Lutherans believe, but it must be noted that when Lutherans use the label “antichrist,” they do not mean what, say, a bible-alone non-denominational, rapture-believing Millenialist does. To us, it’s simply a theological concept, as ‘heretic’ or ‘adiaphora’ or ‘Transubstantiation.’ I can only ask others to read our texts without imposing preconceived notions they may have picked up from pop culture.
   
   The Reformers who wrote the claims in the Treatise were not stupid men, and intended the label to be a call to repentance from what they saw was corrupted doctrine coming from the papacy. So each of the three reasons is historically conditional – that is, they are dependent upon the official stance (and perhaps, as some Lutherans hold, simply the practices of that office). That should be good news for all sides, because it shows that the single-most divisive issue does have possible solutions (for instance, #2 no longer applies because the pope no longer has the power to enthrone or depose kings. The US Electoral College is weird enough – no need to add a pope to the mix. ). This belief has been passed down to the LCMS, which states:
   
   
   
   

   The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:

   The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5, 23-24; Mark 13:6, 21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

   However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20-21, 24-25, 11:36-45; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2:18, 4:3; Rev. 17-18) … Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

   In a footnote, the Commission adds:

   To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran Confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds.** At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.**

 

[Erich]

This has led to the use of some “if’s” such that “if” the Pope is not doing what is delineated in the Confessions, then he is not the antichrist, just the office is?

The difficulty with that explanation is that the term Antichrist applies to a person not an office.

The Antichrist is mentioned by name in only four verses of Scripture: 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3, and 2 John 7. There are other verses that many people link to the Antichrist, but since he isn’t named in them, the connection is not certain. The four Johanine verses must serve as the core of our knowledge before trying to link other verses to them.

In 1 John 2:18–19, we read, “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.”

This passage appears to speak of a major individual Antichrist, as well as many minor individual Antichrists, who apparently are apostate Christians for “they went out from us.” The appearance of the individual Antichrist is yet future (“Antichrist is coming”), but the presence of the many Antichrists is a signal that “it is the last hour.”

In 1 John 2:22–23, we read, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.”

This is consistent with the apostate nature of the many Antichrists, for they have “deny[ied] that Jesus is the Christ” and, in denying the Son, they have implicitly denied the Father. Presumably the same would be true of the individual Antichrist.

1 John 4:1–6 gives practical tests for discerning which spirits bearing revelation are from God and which are not. In John 4:3, we read that “every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of Antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.”

This shows that the Antichrist movement is inspired by spirits bearing false revelation and that refuse to confess Jesus. This movement had begun in John’s day but would grow afterward.

Finally, in 2 John 7, we read, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

Nothing there about the pope (any pope!) or the papacy.

 

[Tomdstone]

Now some Protestants specifically Seven Day Adventists and some Southern and or non-denominational Baptists actually teach the Catholic Pope is the Antichrist and the Catholic Church is the devil’s army. .

If so, then I don’t see how you can have Christian unity.

 

[guanophore]

Precisely why we LCMS folks will never share fellowship with the ELCA until they retract their errors. How can we possibly stand with a running body? Frankly, the LCMS -as a whole and in regard to doctrine- has more in common with Rome.

Thanks to you and some other Lutherans here this has become increasingly clear to me.

Me either. It was my understanding that the ELCA had entirely conceded that the papacy did not/does not fit the description.

I think the Scriptural guidelines can be applied to any individual, and should be, but applying them to an office seems counterproductive.

 

[guanophore]

The difficulty with that explanation is that the term Antichrist applies to a person not an office.

The Antichrist is mentioned by name in only four verses of Scripture: 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3, and 2 John 7. There are other verses that many people link to the Antichrist, but since he isn’t named in them, the connection is not certain. The four Johanine verses must serve as the core of our knowledge before trying to link other verses to them…

Nothing there about the pope (any pope!) or the papacy.

Whatever the sins of the popes, greed, avarice, lust for power, none of them met this criteria. I think Luther was going by his own criteria.

 

[hn160]

In this case “it just means denominations who’s origin is the protests of the 1500’s Catholic Church” regardless of theology.

I hardly see the analogy. Protestants are Christians.

I am beginning to grasp this. All Protesant sects are defined by which parts, and how much of the Apostolic faith they reject. The practice of Sola Scriptura is largely the source of this departure, but I see that private interpretations of the Confessions results in a continued trajectorry of departure from the Apostolic faith.

It seems that your current pope, Pope Francis would like to change the view on homosexual unions and evolution. He says that he doesn’t have any problem with the so-called Big Bang Theory. If you throw out the Genesis accounts as myths, then you must throw out Christ as both God and man and Christ’s Resurrection and reduce Christ as a just teacher with his resurrection as a myth.
Luther said that both popes and church councils countedicted each other. One thing do not call the Lutheran Church a sect, The Roman Catholic Church is headed in that direction.

So every new generation that comes along can reinterpret the scriptures to suit the modern culture, then reject any parts of thebConfessions that don’t suit their personal needs. What an ingenious vow!

Can you give examples of things that Pope Frances has done that would help me undersatnd this?

There have been some very bad Popes and Bishops. To me it seems very strange to hold something against a successor 500 + years later.

 

[Peter_J]

Because it lumps together many different views into a single “Protestant” view. This is just plain wrong and creates far too many misunderstandings.

I agree with you that lumping-together can be a problem, but I think your objection to the term “protestant” oversimplifies things.

Consider: I don’t have a problem with people lumping Catholics (ICWR), Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans together under the term “catholics”.