Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[benedictus2]

I moved my reply to you to a new thread to prevent derailing this one.

Which thread?

 

[Marcarios]

I dont see how the sale of indulgences , which was questioned even before Luther is any different then what the Jews were doing with the Temple when Christ overturned the tables of the money changers and those who sold doves and such things … Something funny about the Indulgence Business in Europe , 100 years before Luther , Jan Huss questioned the motives of the Roman Catholic Hiearchy and he was burned at the stake at a so called “Ecumenical” Council. What they did to Huss , they would have done to Luther if they could. I think a modern example albeit non religious is the whole deal with Julian Assange. If it was up to the State Dept they would want him dead too.

 

[benedictus2]

The Catholic Church teaches that we are justified and sanctified in baptism, however this does not remove concupiscence, which is our sin nature (tendency toward sin). Do you think that state of being is “miserable sinner”?

Are you equating what happens at baptism with forensic justification?

You need to bear in mind that the justification that Luther speaks of is not what happens at baptism.

From the forensic point of view, the person has been “covered” by the blood of Christ, or as I was taught, that when God looks at me, he does not see all my shortcomings, but only His Son Jesus.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that God cannot see your sins because you have been covered by the blood of Christ? Is that how you understand the salvific nature of Christ’s blood? That you are in fact dung heap covered with snow? So we have a heaven full of dung heaps covered with snow?

2 Cor 5:20-21
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Ps 32:1-2
Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
2 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputes no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

Paul retrieves this notion of imputation in Romans.

Rom 4:2-8
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin.”

Here Paul is using the language of accounting. God has made a “deposit” into our account.

What has all that got to do with my statement that if justification is forensic then God is lying to Himself by declaring us just when we are not? Do the above support this?

The difference for Catholics, is that we don’t think God is just doctoring the books (imputed righteousness) but that an actual deposit (infusion) of righteousness has occured. But one can see why they interpret it that way.

But is this discussion about why they interpret it that way or is this about whether such an exegesis is erroneous or not?

This is not about why the error was made but whether it is an error or not.

Remember, while those born Protestant are not liable for believing erroneously (unless they have bee presented with the truth and obstinately cling to their misconceptions), Luther had no excuse because he knew the correct exegesis yet he proceeded to manufacture one anyway.

Although I agree with you, it is incumbent upon us to look to the log in our own eye first. There is an abysmal amount of “pick and choose” Catholics in America that are also causing splintering in the Church. I would sooner see a Reformed Christian living the Gospel message to the best of their ability than pews full of lukewarm Catholics who think they can choose Church teachings as if they are in a cafeteria line.

I would not have thought that that kind of statement would come from you.

Isn’t it that we say (when the bad popes are brought into the discussion) that it is one thing for some people to behave badly it is completely another to teach the wrong doctrine?

The picking and choosing that happens in the Catholic Church is not the result of a faulty philosophy that led to faulty theology. We are not simply talking about cafeteria people here but what underpins the “cafeteria-nes” of these people.

We can probably even say that the reason we have cafeteria catholics is due to protestant influence because if people were properly catechized there would be less cafeteria catholics.

 

[mirandajb]

Yes it did some good. It got the church to wake up by realizing how corrupt the clergy was. The sale of indulgences stopped - the Council of Trent did a ton of good. But long term, it was a disaster. Didn’t Luther once say that if he had known what would’ve happened he never would’ve broke?

Did he really say that??? Hmmm interesting.

 

[benedictus2]

If you do not wish to DISCUSS and have DIALOGUE with a person who disagrees with you, and DISCUSSION and DIALOGUE is the PURPOSE of the forum, then yes, you should not be there.

Kindly show how my posts indicate that I do not wish to DISCUSS and DIALOGUE.

From where I am sitting that is exactly what I was doing until you got on your “charitable” and “tolerant” high horse and accused me of being “intolerant” and “uncharitable” from out of nowhere (which is actually an intolerant and uncharitable thing to do sans proof). I suggest you go back to my initial reply to you regarding nominalism and follow it from there and point out where I have shown a resistance to DISCUSS and DIALOGUE.

And for some reason or another, you have jumped to the conclusion that I am somehow “hitting protestant with bricks” for being protestant. **For the record all I have ever addressed is the error in the teaching. That - is - all. ** Except Luthers’ scrupulosity which affected his theology.

IT is no different than a Protestant coming here and telling us our beliefs are wrong. It is unproductive.

How is my first and succeeding replies to you similar to this?

And if something is in error, should we just say in “tolerant” and"chartable" fashion : Yea I get why you came to that conclusion. That’s okay. That’s your truth, this is mine.

And another point, a lot of threads start that way. Please show how it is unproductive.

You seem to have a way of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. How does it cost you anything to affirm what is Catholic within the faith traditions of others?

How is asking "Is Sola Fide very Catholic? " throwing the baby with the bath water?

You’ve danced around the question: Is Sola Fide very Catholic?

Have you ever read any of Luther’s writings on sanctification?

I did. I think Jon or some other CAF member gave me a link. You can’t escape the split between justification and sanctification and the fact that justification is forensic. You cannot escape the error.

 

[JustaServant]

Do you think the Protestant Reformation did anything good? I personally thing it was one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the human race, but could’ve been avoided. And if it were avoided, things would be a lot better off today. Why did it happen, and what could have been done to stop it, and what can be done now to reverse the damages wrought by it?

Years ago, when I was an evangelical I heard a Catholic teacher on television make the statement that Protestantism, by it’s very nature, leads to theological liberalism. At the time I thought the statement offensive, but now on this side of the Tiber I can see his point.
Protestantism, does indeed lead logically to theologial liberalism and relativity. And that leads logically to unbelief.
I base this conclusion on the shaky concept of ‘scripture alone’. Without anything to anchor to, they drift.
This can be seen very clearly by just observing the path various denominations have taken from thier roots. Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal, Lutheran. The mainline roots of those denominations have all gone liberal. There are sub-groups that have hung on to thier roots, which must be commended. But those sub-groups become smaller and smaller as the decades roll on.
This is not meant to bash Protestants. It is meant to analyze the foundation.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Any lie is an evil (that is how we ended up in this quagmire in the first place. Some of them seem innocous enough but they become spring boards for other evils.

The concept of forensic jutification essentially says that God lies to Himself declaring us just when in fact we are not - we are the same miserable sinner that we are. Can you think anyting more ludicrous than that?

This forensic understanding (as I have detailed in a previous post) derives from a very bankrupt philosphy - nominalism - whicfh happens to be the father of deconstructionism and relativism.

It is no wonder that the pick and choose mentality is what underpins protestantism and it is not wonder that this ever splintering group is able to justify the splintering. This also becomes teh bedrock of Sola Scriptura and the rightness of private interpretation.

We have to understand that evil starts with a lie. Without it, it can’t be sustained.

They have done really well working against the Church, keeping people from the Truth and so forth. And confusing the world about God and His Church.

You have good understanding.

 

[guanophore]

I would not have thought that that kind of statement would come from you.

Why is that? Did you think I had no appreciation for the efforts of my separated brethren to live in holiness?

  Isn't  it that we say (when the bad popes are brought into the discussion) that it is one thing for some people to behave badly it is completely another to teach the wrong doctrine?

The picking and choosing that happens in the Catholic Church is not the result of a faulty philosophy that led to faulty theology. We are not simply talking about cafeteria people here but what underpins the “cafeteria-nes” of these people.

HOe is it not a faulty theology? What else underpins this rejection of the doctrine of the faith? Is it not the same malfunction that allowed the Reformers to reject the doctrines of the faith, and create their own?

Is it not an effort to make the One Faith over in one’s own image, rather than clinging to what was handed down from the Apostles?

We can probably even say that the reason we have cafeteria catholics is due to protestant influence because if people were properly catechized there would be less cafeteria catholics.

Are you really going to blame Catholics behaving faithlessly on Protestants? Honestly. If it were not for Catholics behaving faithlessly the Reformation could have been prevented. It was the conflation of Papal authority with secular rule and the corruption of people in positions of leadership that fomented the rebellious sentiment in the first place. Luther was just a small pebble who started the landslide.

I do agree with you, though, that if Catholics were properly catechized there would be less cafeteria mentality. But this is a fault of Catholic catechesis, not Protestants. It is not their fault if they catechize better than Catholics. They are doing what they beleive God wants them to do, by teaching the faith. They stand in the tradition of Apollos. Most Catholics cannot articulate their beliefs, much less defend them using the Scripture and the Sacred Tradition.

 

[JonNC]

guanophore:
I do agree with you, though, that if Catholics were properly catechized there would be less cafeteria mentality. But this is a fault of Catholic catechesis, not Protestants. It is not their fault if they catechize better than Catholics. They are doing what they beleive God wants them to do, by teaching the faith. They stand in the tradition of Apollos. Most Catholics cannot articulate their beliefs, much less defend them using the Scripture and the Sacred Tradition.

When I hear what some Lutherans say, I’m not convinced this is a fact.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Did he really say that??? Hmmm interesting.

forum.chnetwork.org/index.php?topic=4004.0;wap2

 

[Contarini]

But they weren’t “claims about history”.

Of course they were. They were writing about what they believed had existed centuries earlier.

They weren’t writing for the benefit of us 500 years later. They were writing for their contemporaries, and they did in fact state that entire Bibles in English were at that time to be seen in England.

The KJV preface says this, but it appears to be talking about what we call the “Wyclif” Bible. That’s not under dispute. Everyone knows that there was such a Bible, and that it was banned by the Catholic Church. The question is whether there was such a Bible approved by the Catholic Church even tacitly (i.e., not condemned). It is possible that the KJV translators refer to some Bible approved by the Catholic Church that has since been lost, but it seems far more likely that they refer to the “Wycliffite” Bible.

Furthermore, if such Bibles existed in 1611, obviously they hadn’t been destroyed in the “first wave” of iconoclasm. That doesn’t harm your thesis much, since Cromwell’s era was still in the future! But more to the point, you are multiplying entities without necessity by supposing (without any evidence) that they refer to something other than the “Wyclif” Bible.

I would like to see your evidence from the other authors. The CE says that they claimed that the whole Bible was translated before the time of Wyclif, not that these copies existed to their own day.

A word about lying: I think that you are ignoring the ease with which a convenient rumor could be honestly accepted as truth in the 16th century (and many other centuries)–I’m not referring to the KJV passage in particular, but in general to your generalizations about whether sixteenth-century authors can be trusted. I have no reason to believe, for instance, that Foxe deliberately lied about anything in his account of Protestant martyrs, but that doesn’t mean that I accept uncritically anything for which I have only his say-so–I don’t.

And as for Wycliff, historians seem to believe that he did not, and indeed could not have, produced a version of the entire Bible.

Indeed, and that’s why I use “Wyclif” in scare quotes. The point is that there was a Bible associated with his followers, and that this Bible was banned by the Church as either heretical or at least tending to encourage heresy, both because of a general suspicion of laypeople reading the Bible directly and because of a concern about the bias of the translation (which was more directly at work in the case of Tyndale, later–I have not studied the “Wyclif” Bible enough to be sure how much ground there was for such a concern in that case).

I repeat: the KJV translators appear to be speaking of the “Wyclif” translation–that is, the translation that was current in the late Middle Ages in England and which was forbidden by the Church. No one is disputing that this translation existed. The question is whether there was an earlier translation (or a later one not forbidden by the Church).

Not at all theoretical. The fact that Bibles were systematically destroyed wholesale by protestants also is attested by Protestant historians.

Which historians and where? This article speaks of Protestants destroying Catholic books (and also of the Protestant insistence on destroying images of the Cross, which you allege sometimes led them to destroy Bibles), but does not further specify.

Edwin

 

[wisdomseeker]

guanophore:
Why is that? Did you think I had no appreciation for the efforts of my separated brethren to live in holiness?

HOe is it not a faulty theology? What else underpins this rejection of the doctrine of the faith? Is it not the same malfunction that allowed the Reformers to reject the doctrines of the faith, and create their own?

Is it not an effort to make the One Faith over in one’s own image, rather than clinging to what was handed down from the Apostles?

Are you really going to blame Catholics behaving faithlessly on Protestants? Honestly. If it were not for Catholics behaving faithlessly the Reformation could have been prevented. It was the conflation of Papal authority with secular rule and the corruption of people in positions of leadership that fomented the rebellious sentiment in the first place. Luther was just a small pebble who started the landslide.

I do agree with you, though, that if Catholics were properly catechized there would be less cafeteria mentality. But this is a fault of Catholic catechesis, not Protestants. It is not their fault if they catechize better than Catholics. They are doing what they beleive God wants them to do, by teaching the faith. They stand in the tradition of Apollos. Most Catholics cannot articulate their beliefs, much less defend them using the Scripture and the Sacred Tradition.

When I read what you said here, I wonder, are you trying to justify what they have done?

Do you expect every Catholic to be perfect? if not, one can be justified for committing evil against the Church?

Is it not Our Lord the avenger of all evills?

Believing does not make it true. Just because the majority of Catholics cannot defend the Faith, it does not make them guilt but more innocent and victims of those who lie. God will avenge the innocent.

 

[guanophore]

When I hear what some Lutherans say, I’m not convinced this is a fact.

Jon

I wasn’t trying to imply that the catechesis was accurate.

 

[CopticChristian]

Of course they were. They were writing about what they believed had existed centuries earlier.

The KJV preface says this, but it appears to be talking about what we call the “Wyclif” Bible. That’s not under dispute. Everyone knows that there was such a Bible, and that it was banned by the Catholic Church. The question is whether there was such a Bible approved by the Catholic Church even tacitly (i.e., not condemned). It is possible that the KJV translators refer to some Bible approved by the Catholic Church that has since been lost, but it seems far more likely that they refer to the “Wycliffite” Bible.

Furthermore, if such Bibles existed in 1611, obviously they hadn’t been destroyed in the “first wave” of iconoclasm. That doesn’t harm your thesis much, since Cromwell’s era was still in the future! But more to the point, you are multiplying entities without necessity by supposing (without any evidence) that they refer to something other than the “Wyclif” Bible.

I would like to see your evidence from the other authors. The CE says that they claimed that the whole Bible was translated before the time of Wyclif, not that these copies existed to their own day.

A word about lying: I think that you are ignoring the ease with which a convenient rumor could be honestly accepted as truth in the 16th century (and many other centuries)–I’m not referring to the KJV passage in particular, but in general to your generalizations about whether sixteenth-century authors can be trusted. I have no reason to believe, for instance, that Foxe deliberately lied about anything in his account of Protestant martyrs, but that doesn’t mean that I accept uncritically anything for which I have only his say-so–I don’t.

Indeed, and that’s why I use “Wyclif” in scare quotes. The point is that there was a Bible associated with his followers, and that this Bible was banned by the Church as either heretical or at least tending to encourage heresy, both because of a general suspicion of laypeople reading the Bible directly and because of a concern about the bias of the translation (which was more directly at work in the case of Tyndale, later–I have not studied the “Wyclif” Bible enough to be sure how much ground there was for such a concern in that case).

I repeat: the KJV translators appear to be speaking of the “Wyclif” translation–that is, the translation that was current in the late Middle Ages in England and which was forbidden by the Church. No one is disputing that this translation existed. The question is whether there was an earlier translation (or a later one not forbidden by the Church).

Which historians and where? This article speaks of Protestants destroying Catholic books (and also of the Protestant insistence on destroying images of the Cross, which you allege sometimes led them to destroy Bibles), but does not further specify.

Edwin

I have no reason to believe, for instance, that Foxe deliberately lied about anything in his account of Protestant martyrs, but that doesn’t mean that I accept uncritically anything for which I have only his say-so–I don’t.

Fox like Martyrs Mirror includes the entire list of Catholics up until the reformation as those that died for the faith. Fox mentions Cyprian and lauds Cyprian for being a wonderful example.

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, an eminent prelate, and a pious ornament of the Church.

If someone could read the Patristics and then see that both of these treatises dishonestly include Catholics as their Christians in suffering and then deny that this was the Catholic Church not some sort of Protestant figment of Christianity they would conclude that Fox and Martyrs mirror lied. The lie is inferring that this is Protestant history of Christianity. There is no Protestant history of Christianity prior to 1600.

 

[JonNC]

I wasn’t trying to imply that the catechesis was accurate.

Actually, what I was trying to say is that Lutheran catechesis is often poor, as well.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

The KJV preface says this, but it appears to be talking about what we call the “Wyclif” Bible. That’s not under dispute. Everyone knows that there was such a Bible, and that it was banned by the Catholic Church. The question is whether there was such a Bible approved by the Catholic Church even tacitly (i.e., not condemned). It is possible that the KJV translators refer to some Bible approved by the Catholic Church that has since been lost, but it seems far more likely that they refer to the “Wycliffite” Bible.

You dont’ think it might have been the Douay?

 

[mirandajb]

forum.chnetwork.org/index.php?topic=4004.0;wap2

Many thanks…God bless

 

[Maryann_C]

Trying to get back on track… I would say that Luther said it well “I confess, that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests.” [Walch. IX. 1311]

Wishing I had seen this forum thread post earlier since it is one that I have grappled with alot since coming into the fullness of the faith from the Church of England 3 years ago, I did go back and read ALMOST all posts so as to try not to repeat points already made. I think it was Petergee who made the very good points that, error has been occurring since the very beginning of church history and that at many times saints have been highlighted because of their very work and writings against such heresies to bring the faithful back to the truth.
To those who have grappled with the idea that somehow God intended for the reformation , that it was part of His plan, I say there is a scripture verse that you may be only partly familiar with, as I once was , you may be leaning on ’ God makes ( or works) all things for good’ but the real verse is Romans 8:28 and the key part that hit me like a baseball bat recently is the last , often un quoted part " with/for those who love him,* who are called according to his purposes*". To me this says that the reformation may have been the Devil’s plan to try to destroy the Church but he can not thwart God and as you know Jesus promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against’ His Church , that the Holy Spirit would be with his apostles until the end and that we are called to be One as the Father and Jesus are one.

The good fruits I see coming out of the reformation is scholarly discussion , the thirst for Bible studies that are so well done in protestant circles and all those former ‘protestant’ ministers and other converts to the fullness of communion with the Catholic Church, who have explored ,argued against , studied and grappled with all the reasons to believe, who have seen and experienced the lack of authority that is the very real and natural fruit of the protestant revolt and have realised that Authority comes from God and was handed down to the apostles and from them on in succession this is how the truth was to be preserved. They hold a mirror up to so called ‘Cradel Catholics’ because they are on fire and I believe the Holy Spirit is pouring out his fire on the Church anew through them, they are the new Pentacost recent Popes have prayed for.

Importantly the oneness of the Church can not be an almost ethereal 'we all believe in the same Jesus but you believe your way and I believe mine and let’s all relatively love eachother by never saying anything against eachother in judgment and we will all meet in heaven ’ kind of oneness. No, it is an essential oneness, a oneness that is in Jesus as he is in the Father so that when people see the Church they see Jesus and so see God. To me this is a Church of sacrificial love, and ocean of mercy and unwavering teaching of truth , a marriage of both the human and Divine in essence…where else can you see ALL of the Gospel , despite all the human frailties, but in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Trying to get back on track… I would say that Luther said it well “I confess, that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests.” [Walch. IX. 1311]

Wishing I had seen this forum thread post earlier since it is one that I have grappled with alot since coming into the fullness of the faith from the Church of England 3 years ago, I did go back and read ALMOST all posts so as to try not to repeat points already made. I think it was Petergee who made the very good points that, error has been occurring since the very beginning of church history and that at many times saints have been highlighted because of their very work and writings against such heresies to bring the faithful back to the truth.
To those who have grappled with the idea that somehow God intended for the reformation , that it was part of His plan, I say there is a scripture verse that you may be only partly familiar with, as I once was , you may be leaning on ’ God makes ( or works) all things for good’ but the real verse is Romans 8:28 and the key part that hit me like a baseball bat recently is the last , often un quoted part " with/for those who love him,* who are called according to his purposes*". To me this says that the reformation may have been the Devil’s plan to try to destroy the Church but he can not thwart God and as you know Jesus promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against’ His Church , that the Holy Spirit would be with his apostles until the end and that we are called to be One as the Father and Jesus are one.

The good fruits I see coming out of the reformation is scholarly discussion , the thirst for Bible studies that are so well done in protestant circles and all those former ‘protestant’ ministers and other converts to the fullness of communion with the Catholic Church, who have explored ,argued against , studied and grappled with all the reasons to believe, who have seen and experienced the lack of authority that is the very real and natural fruit of the protestant revolt and have realised that Authority comes from God and was handed down to the apostles and from them on in succession this is how the truth was to be preserved. They hold a mirror up to so called ‘Cradel Catholics’ because they are on fire and I believe the Holy Spirit is pouring out his fire on the Church anew through them, they are the new Pentacost recent Popes have prayed for.

Importantly the oneness of the Church can not be an almost ethereal 'we all believe in the same Jesus but you believe your way and I believe mine and let’s all relatively love eachother by never saying anything against eachother in judgment and we will all meet in heaven ’ kind of oneness. No, it is an essential oneness, a oneness that is in Jesus as he is in the Father so that when people see the Church they see Jesus and so see God. To me this is a Church of sacrificial love, and ocean of mercy and unwavering teaching of truth , a marriage of both the human and Divine in essence…where else can you see ALL of the Gospel , despite all the human frailties, but in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

 

[CopticChristian]

Trying to get back on track… I would say that Luther said it well “I confess, that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests.” [Walch. IX. 1311]

Wishing I had seen this forum thread post earlier since it is one that I have grappled with alot since coming into the fullness of the faith from the Church of England 3 years ago, I did go back and read ALMOST all posts so as to try not to repeat points already made. I think it was Petergee who made the very good points that, error has been occurring since the very beginning of church history and that at many times saints have been highlighted because of their very work and writings against such heresies to bring the faithful back to the truth.
To those who have grappled with the idea that somehow God intended for the reformation , that it was part of His plan, I say there is a scripture verse that you may be only partly familiar with, as I once was , you may be leaning on ’ God makes ( or works) all things for good’ but the real verse is Romans 8:28 and the key part that hit me like a baseball bat recently is the last , often un quoted part " with/for those who love him,* who are called according to his purposes*". To me this says that the reformation may have been the Devil’s plan to try to destroy the Church but he can not thwart God and as you know Jesus promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against’ His Church , that the Holy Spirit would be with his apostles until the end and that we are called to be One as the Father and Jesus are one.

The good fruits I see coming out of the reformation is scholarly discussion , the thirst for Bible studies that are so well done in protestant circles and all those former ‘protestant’ ministers and other converts to the fullness of communion with the Catholic Church, who have explored ,argued against , studied and grappled with all the reasons to believe, who have seen and experienced the lack of authority that is the very real and natural fruit of the protestant revolt and have realised that Authority comes from God and was handed down to the apostles and from them on in succession this is how the truth was to be preserved. They hold a mirror up to so called ‘Cradel Catholics’ because they are on fire and I believe the Holy Spirit is pouring out his fire on the Church anew through them, they are the new Pentacost recent Popes have prayed for.

Importantly the oneness of the Church can not be an almost ethereal 'we all believe in the same Jesus but you believe your way and I believe mine and let’s all relatively love eachother by never saying anything against eachother in judgment and we will all meet in heaven ’ kind of oneness. No, it is an essential oneness, a oneness that is in Jesus as he is in the Father so that when people see the Church they see Jesus and so see God. To me this is a Church of sacrificial love, and ocean of mercy and unwavering teaching of truth , a marriage of both the human and Divine in essence…where else can you see ALL of the Gospel , despite all the human frailties, but in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

No, it is an essential oneness, a oneness that is in Jesus as he is in the Father so that when people see the Church they see Jesus and so see God. To me this is a Church of sacrificial love, and ocean of mercy and unwavering teaching of truth , a marriage of both the human and Divine in essence…where else can you see ALL of the Gospel , despite all the human frailties, but in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

And the Church is one by the clebration of the Eucharist. I see too often the desire to join together as you say, the bridges, the desire to be one…and that one is as you say.:grouphug:

United in OHCAC:thumbsup: