Christians lets Get Ecumenical:Ecumenical!

[SAVINGRACE]

Dear dzheremi,

Please allow me to summarize and clear up a few things here;

I would like to thank you for your response and express my sincere gratitude for your (name removed by moderator)ut here, and for you not fleeing from a difficult discussion.

My responses reflect what you have posted, I regret that the train of thought is missed by you from our exchanges. I assure you, my post’s are a response to you what you posted.

Quickly moving on here, our exchange reflects exactly what my post’s all point too here. That the Orthodox have taken the Catholic position and interprets it their own way to protest against which leads to misunderstandings and misgivings of my Catholic faith.

If I have posted anything negative here, I only repeated what you stated; “Catholics must become Orthodox”. Under your own pretense, you appear to take offense at my response. When no offense was ever given by me.

Again this proves communication of understanding is what is missing in ecumenical dialogue without taking a hard line during an exchange. **I only pointed out your hard line “Catholics must become Orthodox”, is not keeping within an ecumenical dialogue.

You rejected the ecumenical dialogue offered here, by stating I a Roman Catholic have to become Orthodox first.**

Simply put, When your ecumenical effort is to convert others to Orthodoxy, I disagreed with your Orthodox view of an ecumenical effort as not being ecumenical, that is all. My comments are not to offend you, but to deal directly with the hard knocks that infect our communions.

That said, I have no problem with you disagreeing with Catholicism, but disagree with what She truly teaches, not with what you wrongly perceive She teaches.

Due to the Orthodox autocephalous church’s, I believe each Orthodox Church should be taken on a case by case ecumenical dialogue with Rome. For we cannot group or generalize all Orthodox Church’s under the same ecumenical dialogue.

That has been the confusion here, because I have failed to address your Coptic Church independently of the Other Orthodox independent Church’s. Which left you in the dark from some of my posts, when I was addressing all of Orthodoxy not in full communion with Peter. For this I have failed you and apologize.

Peace be with you

 

[dzheremi]

Help me out here for my own learning; Do Coptics fall under the Heading of Orthodox? or are Coptics historically officially labeled Orthodox by the early Church Council and the bishop of Rome?

If you don’t have an answer? What constitutes your Orthodox Catholic faith? I hope this is a fair question, because these day’s I find everyone calling themselves Orthodox for some reason?

Peace be with you

I can’t say anything about what Rome thinks or has historically thought, since they have not been in communion with us since circa 451 (or a few years earlier, if you want to count from the time when Pope Leo I excommunicated HH Pope Discoros, to which Dioscoros responded in kind; or a few years later, if you want to count from the Council of Dvin in which the Armenians condemned Chalcedon). So Rome’s opinion is not relevant to anything concerning the Oriental Orthodox communion of which the Coptic Orthodox Church is a member. As far as its faith is concerned, the Oriental Orthodox communion recognizes only the first three councils (Nicaea, Ephesus, and Constantinople) as being ecumenical and hence binding on itself. It does not recognize the later councils of the Romans (Eastern or Western) in the same way, though it does not necessarily reject their decisions on that account (e.g., we are not and have never been iconoclasts, so we likely would affirm the seventh council in which iconoclasm was repudiated, if it had been necessary to do so [but since we never had a problem with iconoclasm as the imperial church did, such a council was never necessary for us]).

 

[Richard_Feynman]

No, the second Vatican council has made it clear. The Roman Catholic dialogue with the Orthodox becomes ecumenical to arrive at a clear understanding and correct interpretation of each ones differences.

I risk confusion when grouping all Orthodox Church’s here, when I say we both are Catholic in every way, due to our apostolic succession, sacred Liturgies, valid priesthood, valid holy orders, valid sacraments. In these we need not convert the Orthodox to Catholicism or vice versa because we are all already Catholic.

The term Ecumenism according to Vatican II does not attempt to convert Orthodox Church’s into Latin Church’s, it seeks to remove the misunderstandings of Catholicism which some of the Orthodox Church’s from being under suppression missed the battles which the Popes defeated with clarification of Church doctrine.

Now that the danger is removed and the world heresies have been dealt with, the time has come to deal with our brothers who remain in schism with the Chair of Peter through ecumenical efforts in order to clarify misgivings and misinterpretation of doctrine by the Orthodox Church’s.

It is difficult to group all of these together, because each one is independent of one another. They are not all united to one head, as all the apostolic Successors are united and full communion to Peter’s Chair in the West.

The Orthodox have rejected the Chair of Peter as the head of the apostles. This is the main reason “authority” that feeds the schism from the Orthodox against the Popes of Rome.

Since the invention of the new Rome in Constantinople, the See of Peter and his authority has been sought after by both secular powers and the Patriarchs of Constantinople. These same sentiments from these Orthodox Church’s protest against Peter’s authority since the presumed date 1054 a.d. to today.

It must be mentioned here, that some of these Church communities, although have been dubbed heretics never the less, they have not moved away from the valid apostolic succession, valid sacraments and valid priesthood.

When it comes to the non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians, the effort for communion is made through reconciliation not ecumenism. That is according to Vatican II documents.

These so called protestant Christians fall under the umbrella of Catholicism by virtue of their valid baptism, and by no fault of their own, remain our separated brethren.

Yet these Christians have no valid sacraments, no valid priesthood, no valid apostolic succession, therefore the dialogue is reconciliation due to their separation that removed them from the True Apostolic Catholic Faith.

So a note to the OP, “Christians lets Get Ecumenical” can be misleading officially.

Some Evangelization is still required in much of the reconciliation of Christians to full communion because they are not Catholic as are the Orthodox Church’s.

I hope I did not digress too much here, but I sensed this thread was not addressing true ecumenism. But I am happy to share with those who disagree with me or object to Vatican II’s declaration on Ecumenism.

Peace be with you

This is AWESOME! thanks for clearing up my confusion! I should read up on Vatican II.
Thank you so much for this!!!

Richard Feynman

 

[Peter_J]

Help me out here for my own learning; Do Coptics fall under the Heading of Orthodox? or are Coptics historically officially labeled Orthodox by the early Church Council and the bishop of Rome?

If you don’t have an answer? What constitutes your Orthodox Catholic faith? I hope this is a fair question, because these day’s I find everyone calling themselves Orthodox for some reason?

Peace be with you

Hi again, Gabriel of 12. I would like to recommend greater education on these matters. The Coptic Orthodox Church is part of the Oriental Orthodox communion, and hence are in communion with neither the Eastern Orthodox nor with the Roman Communion; as a matter of fact, they weren’t in communion with the “Undivided Church” from the mid-fifth century onward.

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

If you are interested in some new ideas on ecumenical dialogue and the Trinity, please check out my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, and give me your thoughts on improving content and presentation.

My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universal Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:

1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.
2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the “body of Christ” (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.
3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.

Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.

• The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.

** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.

After the Hindu and Buddhist conceptions, perhaps the most subtle expression and comprehensive symbol of the 3rd person of the Trinity is the Tao; involving the harmonization of “yin and yang” (great opposing ideas indentified in positive and negative, or otherwise contrasting terms). In the Taoist icon of yin and yang, the s-shaped line separating the black and white spaces may be interpreted as the Unconditioned “Middle Path” between condition and conditioned opposites, while the circle that encompasses them both suggests their synthesis in the Spirit of the “Great Way” or Tao of All That Is.

If the small black and white circles or “eyes” are taken to represent a nucleus of truth in both yin and yang, then the metaphysics of this symbolism fits nicely with the paradoxical mystery of the Christian Holy Ghost; who is neither the spirit of the one nor the spirit of the other, but the Glorified Spirit proceeding from both, taken altogether – as one entity – personally distinct from his co-equal, co-eternal and fully coordinate co-sponsors, who differentiate from him, as well as mingle and meld in him.

For more details, please see: www.religiouspluralism.ca

Samuel Stuart Maynes

 

[cmodrmac]

wonderful posts

the answer is fairly simple-Protestants of different denominations have slowly been working towards Unity -the Episcopal Church is in communion with the evangelical Lutherans as well as the Old Catholics as well as the Moravians -my Parish also has joint services with the Unity and Unitarian churches

the issue is that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not participate and do not respect the Protestant Clergy as equals- period-if we are to have ecumenism all have to view the other clergy as Brothers and Sisters in Christ

there is a second big issue which is the issue of human sexuality -it divides within and between denominations and shows no sign of abating & the issue is so strident with particularly Roman Catholics that even peaceful dialog is precluded

So there will continue to be at best superficial ecumenism - I see no hope for resolution of this issue at all - we may see continued ecumenism among the Protestant main line but not much else

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

wonderful posts

the answer is fairly simple-Protestants of different denominations have slowly been working towards Unity -the Episcopal Church is in communion with the evangelical Lutherans as well as the Old Catholics as well as the Moravians -my Parish also has joint services with the Unity and Unitarian churches

the issue is that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not participate and do not respect the Protestant Clergy as equals- period-if we are to have ecumenism all have to view the other clergy as Brothers and Sisters in Christ

there is a second big issue which is the issue of human sexuality -it divides within and between denominations and shows no sign of abating & the issue is so strident with particularly Roman Catholics that even peaceful dialog is precluded

So there will continue to be at best superficial ecumenism - I see no hope for resolution of this issue at all - we may see continued ecumenism among the Protestant main line but not much else

That’s the sort of ecumenism most of us want to avoid.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is AWESOME! thanks for clearing up my confusion! I should read up on Vatican II.
Thank you so much for this!!!

Richard Feynman

Your very welcome Richard; A valid point to consider here as one of the many reasons why non-Catholic Christians fall under reconciliation, is mainly due to the fact many of them do not have a valid Liturgy that goes all the way back to the apostles.

A non-Catholic Christian can mix their different forms of worship with each other because they come from man. These non-Catholic communities can enter an ecumenical dialogue with each other without valid apostolic succession, invalid sacraments, invalid priesthood, mostly because they removed themselves away from a valid Apostolic Liturgy.

Our Catholic divine liturgy does not reject the non-Catholic Christians, we welcome and invite them, yet they don’t follow the biblical principle of discerning the body, blood of Christ in Communion nor are many of them baptized and have not celebrated the sacrament of reconciliation, so it is the Catholic Church’s responsibility to protect them from falling into contempt with God. Thus reconciliation is sought after to establish peace and communion with our separated brethren.

Just like the Orthodox Church’s, We have to take each non-Catholic Christian community one at a time to reach reconciliation, because each one has a different set of belief’s or doctrines that brings them closer to the body of Christ in His Church or removes them further away from the Mystical body of Christ and communion.

That is why it is so important for our separated brethren to investigate their Apostolic history from which they departed and be reconciled back to God and His True presence, when it is God who teaches us, not men.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Samuel Maynes;11928540]If you are interested in some new ideas on ecumenical dialogue and the Trinity, please check out my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, and give me your thoughts on improving content and presentation

.

Hello Samuel, you have some interesting subjects here; I just finished writing a 300+ page commentary and research on the Trinity and the Filioque.

Trying to keep within the OP here; I only have one recommendation when discussing the Trinity, and I hope it helps you; The Trinity is a mystery which no man can define. The Catholic Church only reveals what God has revealed to her about the divine Trinity.

When man begins to interpret the Trinity by man’s thoughts and man’s invented ways and not how God has revealed Himself to our humanity, you can bet it is wrong.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

dzheremi;11925980]I can’t say anything about what Rome thinks or has historically thought, since they have not been in communion with us since circa 451

dxheremi, And that is the whole purpose of engaging with Rome through an ecumenical dialogue to bring your community into the light from the dark of your misgivings and misinformed understandings of the hard fought battles Rome, when She had to do it alone and defend the apostolic faith against heretics and heresies, exercising the keys of Peter to bind and loose and defined with clarity Church doctrine, that has never changed.

By the grace of God, a window of opportunity is made available thru mediums such as this, where we can communicate and grasp each other’s historical differences and reach an understanding of what they Truly are.

So long as we maintain a grip of why our early Fathers disagreed and continue to hold to the sentiment of resistance to reject each other’s view while in the dark, makes it difficult to come to a reasonable conclusion to reach for full communion.

Because you can’t say “anything what Rome thinks or historically taught”, keeps you in the dark and one sided view of historical events that has taken place over the centuries. We as Latin Catholics want to bring you into the light through ecumenism.

Peace be with you

 

[seanman611]

Like an earlier poster said, start off with the disagreements and differences and don’t try to pretend like they are not there.

That said, there has been some interesting developments between Lutherans and Anglicans. Many Anglican provinces have entered into full Communion agreements with various Lutheran bodies. Much of this is due to some Lutheran bodies accepting Apostolic Succesion and agreeing to have an Apostolic Bishop present at any new ordinations. However, many Scandinavian Lutheran bodies have valid Apostolic Succession and dialogue with them has been going really well. When a Communion agreement is reached it allows the Anglicans and Lutherans to share clergy, however, both church groups still remain seperate and autonomous at the same time.

Since many, if not most, Anglican provinces ordain women to the priesthood, I highly doubt any progress will be made with the Catholics or the Orthodox. Communion with the Orthodox was actually really close in the 1920s.

However, Anglicans coming to a Communion agreement or really any agreement hinges on Anglicans accepting Roman Catholic doctrine 100%, there is no compromise. This is not a criticism of the RCC, but it is hard to come to a compromise or any sort of agreement when one side believes they are 100% right to start with.

 

[JonNC]

Like an earlier poster said, start off with the disagreements and differences and don’t try to pretend like they are not there.

That said, there has been some interesting developments between Lutherans and Anglicans. Many Anglican provinces have entered into full Communion agreements with various Lutheran bodies. Much of this is due to some Lutheran bodies accepting Apostolic Succesion and agreeing to have an Apostolic Bishop present at any new ordinations. However, many Scandinavian Lutheran bodies have valid Apostolic Succession and dialogue with them has been going really well. When a Communion agreement is reached it allows the Anglicans and Lutherans to share clergy, however, both church groups still remain seperate and autonomous at the same time.

Since many, if not most, Anglican provinces ordain women to the priesthood, I highly doubt any progress will be made with the Catholics or the Orthodox. Communion with the Orthodox was actually really close in the 1920s.

However, Anglicans coming to a Communion agreement or really any agreement hinges on Anglicans accepting Roman Catholic doctrine 100%, there is no compromise. This is not a criticism of the RCC, but it is hard to come to a compromise or any sort of agreement when one side believes they are 100% right to start with.

And there is talk and dialogue between the LCMS and ACNA. One our side, cautious, until we see how the ACNA decides of women clergy.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Apostolic succession is the acceptable norm as stated in the JDDJ

This is true above all in regard to the specific formation of the ecclesial ministry of leadership (episkop�). The development of the ministry into an episcopate standing in a historic succession, i.e., the continuity of apostolic succession which occurred already very early in history250 was fully affirmed by the Lutheran Reformation and emphatically championed251 just as other church realities were affirmed and conserved which had come into being in the course of history (e.g. the biblical canon, the creeds of the ancient church). For Lutheran thinking too it is entirely possible to acknowledge that the historical development of an episcopate in a historic succession was not something purely within the sphere of history, set in motion only by sociological and political factors, but that it “has taken place with the help of the Holy Spirit” and that it “constitutes something essential for the church”.252
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_church3.html#3.4

 

[Faithdancer]

And there is talk and dialogue between the LCMS and ACNA. One our side, cautious, until we see how the ACNA decides of women clergy. The ACNA allows female clergy…but this is old news now. I believe it is up to the individual bishops and dioceses? Unless I’m mistaken, women can be ordained as priests, but not as bishops.

The Anglican Church in America, by contrast, does not ordain women as either priests or bishops. I’m not sure about the diaconate…probably not. There is an ACA church very close to where I live. They also use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, exclusively. I think they consider the ACNA to be excessively modernist. I’ve attended services at both ACNA and ACA churches and found them to be generally low church/ broad church in worship style.

Hope this helps- peace!

Jon

 

[Faithdancer]

Don’t know what happened in the previous post- somehow my reply got mashed up with JonNC’s post,. Anyway-

JonNC’s statement: “And there is talk and dialogue between the LCMS and ACNA. One our side, cautious, until we see how the ACNA decides of women clergy.”

And my reply: "The ACNA allows female clergy…but this is old news now. I believe it is up to the individual bishops and dioceses? Unless I’m mistaken, women can be ordained as priests, but not as bishops.

The Anglican Church in America, by contrast, does not ordain women as either priests or bishops. I’m not sure about the diaconate…probably not. There is an ACA church very close to where I live. They also use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, exclusively. I think they consider the ACNA to be excessively modernist. I’ve attended services at both ACNA and ACA churches and found them to be generally low church/ broad church in worship style."

Weird!

 

[seanman611]

Don’t know what happened in the previous post- somehow my reply got mashed up with JonNC’s post,. Anyway-

JonNC’s statement: “And there is talk and dialogue between the LCMS and ACNA. One our side, cautious, until we see how the ACNA decides of women clergy.”

And my reply: "The ACNA allows female clergy…but this is old news now. I believe it is up to the individual bishops and dioceses? Unless I’m mistaken, women can be ordained as priests, but not as bishops.

The Anglican Church in America, by contrast, does not ordain women as either priests or bishops. I’m not sure about the diaconate…probably not. There is an ACA church very close to where I live. They also use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, exclusively. I think they consider the ACNA to be excessively modernist. I’ve attended services at both ACNA and ACA churches and found them to be generally low church/ broad church in worship style."

Weird!

I think that you are correct. Many continuing Anglicans consider the ACNA to be nothing more than Episcopalians who disagree on the homosexual issue.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

However, Anglicans coming to a Communion agreement or really any agreement hinges on Anglicans accepting Roman Catholic doctrine 100%, there is no compromise. This is not a criticism of the RCC, but it is hard to come to a compromise or any sort of agreement when one side believes they are 100% right to start with.

No offense is taken, but clarification should be made here of the Catholic position.

1.There is no compromise in any revelations of God made known to our humanity through Jesus Christ who reveled these mysteries to His Own Church Jesus built upon Peter and His apostles.

The history of the Roman Catholic Church proves She is Rock on these revelations of God, when history proves She has never moved nor will she ever move by every wind of doctrine made by men.

2.As far as social issues, small “t” traditions, theological undertakings and interpretations etc. are all subject to change provided that they are in keeping with the morality revealed by God and with respect and dignity of human life.

Although it may take a century or two for the Catholic Church to adopt any such social changes. Never the less She is fully human and fully divine in the mystical body of Christ.

1. The Roman Catholic Church will not move away from those things revealed by God, When She defended protected them against heretics and heresies, with the divine keys given to Peter to bind and loose on earth ,who with his apostolic brethren throughout the centuries defined, defended, clarified these unchangeable revelations of God, made doctrine binding on all Christians built upon Rock.

I pray your Christian communities are never suggesting for the Catholic Church to Change what God has revealed through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ?

Peter and all the apostolic successors never have the authority or power to change what Jesus has given them to teach, preach, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus alone commissions Peter to feed, and tend His flock with the divine keys until Jesus returns, and to confirm his brethren when they have fallen away and reconciled with Jesus mystical body the Church.

Your not suggesting that Peter and the apostolic successors to divide or separate what God has joined together do you?

Peter’s chair is the only apostolic successor who has never fallen into heresy since the resurrection. When all other’s have.

The Rock never changes, only men do. What does not change is Jesus priesthood, apostolic succession, valid sacraments and the divine liturgy. Note however, languages, cultures and small “t” traditions practiced within the divine liturgy are subject to change. But what God has ordained within the Church is not subject to any change, for example the Eucharist.

The Catholic Church does not insist on being 100 percent correct all the time. She fails just like all other’s have. Her faith although is a gift from God that does not change or is subject to change. She does not change what God has given her to proclaim and teach to all peoples, nations, tongues and tribes.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Apostolic succession is the acceptable norm as stated in the JDDJ

That is good news if Apostolic succession is reached, believed in or sought after. Because with it brings the True revelations of Jesus Christ including a divine liturgy.

Authority historically has always plagued Peter, first by the first century Jews and pagan Roman Empire, then the Patriarch’s of Constantinople with their pagan/heretical Emperors, later some of Peter’s own brethren and Catholic secular powers, then the Protestant reformation.

Jesus prophecies of Peter still hold true today, when Peter is both persecuted while Jesus Christ has never left Peter.

When ever the apostolic succession adopts a change of it’s character and essence of being, it loses it’s apostolicity and becomes a man made item, never a divine office instituted Jesus Christ Himself.

The professed Creed, apostolic succession, valid sacraments, valid priesthood and a divine apostolic liturgy unchanged, would probably be all or meet that which is required for the Anglican’s and Lutheran’s. Returning to these divine revelations of God. handed down to us by the original apostles.

Don’t force changes to the divine office ordained by God.

If the father’s of the reformation would remain or return to the apostolic Church, and hold to their teachings in the form of theology, disciplines instead of doctrine. Full communion is not that far away.

Had the reformers teachings remained in theological understandings and not made doctrine by them. It would be easy to adopt these in their priesthood disciplines, just as many or our existing Dominican, Jesuit’s, Oblates of St. Joseph, St. Francis, Marian and Eucharist devotional Priest’s have adopted to their disciplines, teachings and devotions etc.

I believe Martin Luther had he not protested the authority of Peter and the apostolic successors and divine teachings and implemented his sola scriptura, sola fide as a teaching discipline, He would of probably be canonized a saint by now. Because there is much substance in these, but without being made doctrine and without the “Sola” attached to them, they remain Catholic today. Something to think about

Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

Don’t know what happened in the previous post- somehow my reply got mashed up with JonNC’s post,. Anyway-

JonNC’s statement: “And there is talk and dialogue between the LCMS and ACNA. One our side, cautious, until we see how the ACNA decides of women clergy.”

And my reply: "The ACNA allows female clergy…but this is old news now. I believe it is up to the individual bishops and dioceses? Unless I’m mistaken, women can be ordained as priests, but not as bishops.

The Anglican Church in America, by contrast, does not ordain women as either priests or bishops. I’m not sure about the diaconate…probably not. There is an ACA church very close to where I live. They also use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, exclusively. I think they consider the ACNA to be excessively modernist. I’ve attended services at both ACNA and ACA churches and found them to be generally low church/ broad church in worship style."

Weird!

IF that is the case, I suspect that dialogue will not go far beyond pleasant conversations, of where we do agree.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

How do we Christian Churches try to be more ecumenical? How can we be? Whether your a Catholic or Lutheran or some other Church, the one great thing I can say for every single Cchurch is that we are trying find the Truth about Jesus. We all want Jesus, and if we all want Jesus why don’t try to work together against a Culture of Death? I feel we owe it to the world and most importantly Jesus! We want Jesus, and the people need Jesus do together let us try to be more ecumenical in leading others to him.
God Bless. My fellow Christians.

This is a good attitude to have. We should “always be ready to give an account for the faith we have” but certainly not feel threatened by accusers. Satan is the accuser of the faithfull.

I have friends in other denominations. The genuine Christians will show a Spirit that puts the love of Christ first and foremost, while at the same time being able to hold the other Christian accountable for departing from the deposit of faith.

I have gotten into many deep doctrinal discussions with my friends from the denominations. I try to open my heart, mind, and eyes to know where they are coming from. There has been only one person so far in my fellowship which came to a point where I would no longer fellowship with. He was in no particular communion, then joined a Church. At that point, things changed because I asked him to confirm his accussations against me by his new pastor. He would not allow me to discuss the things we were debating with his pastor, so I said I was no longer able to fellowship with him. Its not a good feeling to come to that deep of a split with someone who seems to have faith in Jesus.

What we need to do, is personally find our sources of Confirmation and make sure they are all in harmony. I think they should be things like; the Holy Spirit, Sacred Scripure, Church Teaching, our conscience, and our Pastor and respected Christian friends. I try to do my best using all of these to Confirm what I believe and share towards others.

Peace,
Michael