Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[EvangelCatholic]

It appears that even the Vatican is looking for a way to de-emphasize papal infallibility. In the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue they point out that Lutherans could take holy Communion in a Catholic parish and still not believe/ accept infallibility.

 

[in_servitude]

It appears that even the Vatican is looking for a way to de-emphasize papal infallibility. In the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue they point out that Lutherans could take holy Communion in a Catholic parish and still not believe/ accept infallibility.

I looked through that document that you provided. It’s very long - so I searched for the word “Vatican” since you were saying that even the Vatican is looking for a way to de-emphasize papal infallibility.

When the word “Vatican” showed up in the document - it was always in reference to the Second Vatican Council. When it showed up in the footnotes, it was a link to the vatican.va website. So, I could not see where the Vatican is saying that they are trying to find some way to de-emphasize papal infallibility.

The truth is that the Church as a teaching on papal infallibility - that isn’t going to change. Perhaps you could point to a particular place where it states simply what you say it says. I’d like a pointer to the place where the Vatican says that non-Catholics can take communion. (An aside: I think I’m going to start a thread about how much I can’t stand the word “take” when someone talks about receiving the Eucharist.)

 

[PaulDupre1]

We do not ever offer money for a Mass as a means to pay that eternal light shine upon the dead but rather pray for the faithful departed.

Nicely put. Thank you.

Paul

 

[frobert]

The truth is that the Church as a teaching on papal infallibility - that isn’t going to change. Perhaps you could point to a particular place where it states simply what you say it says. I’d like a pointer to the place where the Vatican says that non-Catholics can take communion. (An aside: I think I’m going to start a thread about how much I can’t stand the word “take” when someone talks about receiving the Eucharist.)

I can imagine ways in which the CC can get around papal infallibility with smoke and mirror word games, but in the absence of another split, I can not imagine how it would get around infallible teachings. The CC, by setting itself up as the guard of spirituality, appears to be the victim of its own trap.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Can you name a couple false teachings that needed to be taken out of the Catholic Church? I’m just curious what they are.

Sure. Papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility, paying for indulgences and essentially bilking folks out of their money to fund vast building projects, the theology that we can somehow unite our suffering to that of Christ’s for someone’s salvation, the idea that we need to expiate our own sins in some place called purgatory. All these things had to go, and the RC church jettisoned paying for indulgences which is to its credit, but there is still some work to go.

 

[steido01]

I looked through that document that you provided. It’s very long - so I searched for the word “Vatican” since you were saying that even the Vatican is looking for a way to de-emphasize papal infallibility.

When the word “Vatican” showed up in the document - it was always in reference to the Second Vatican Council. When it showed up in the footnotes, it was a link to the vatican.va website. So, I could not see where the Vatican is saying that they are trying to find some way to de-emphasize papal infallibility.

The truth is that the Church as a teaching on papal infallibility - that isn’t going to change. Perhaps you could point to a particular place where it states simply what you say it says. I’d like a pointer to the place where the Vatican says that non-Catholics can take communion. (An aside: I think I’m going to start a thread about how much I can’t stand the word “take” when someone talks about receiving the Eucharist.)

Me too.

 

[PaulDupre1]

(An aside: I think I’m going to start a thread about how much I can’t stand the word “take” when someone talks about receiving the Eucharist.)

I think I would enjoy such a thread. Words are important, because they shape our ideas and concepts about everything. The Church teaches that “As we pray, so do we believe”. That is true, but I also think that “As we speak, so do we think”.

Who controls the vocabulary controls the thoughts.

Paul

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I looked through that document that you provided. It’s very long - so I searched for the word “Vatican” since you were saying that even the Vatican is looking for a way to de-emphasize papal infallibility.

When the word “Vatican” showed up in the document - it was always in reference to the Second Vatican Council. When it showed up in the footnotes, it was a link to the vatican.va website. So, I could not see where the Vatican is saying that they are trying to find some way to de-emphasize papal infallibility.

The truth is that the Church as a teaching on papal infallibility - that isn’t going to change. Perhaps you could point to a particular place where it states simply what you say it says. I’d like a pointer to the place where the Vatican says that non-Catholics can take communion. (An aside: I think I’m going to start a thread about how much I can’t stand the word “take” when someone talks about receiving the Eucharist.)

You are correct that each dialogue produced lengthy discussions. I’ll add a few quotes/ links to some of the documents relevant to infallibility. I haven’t read all the Dialogues and need to find passages I have read.

BTW the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is the official body working with Lutherans: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/

LUTHERAN—ROMAN CATHOLIC DIALOGUE
TEACHING AUTHORITY AND INFALLIBILITY IN
THE CHURCH

Lack of Christian faith would and should so preclude. But the operative presumption is that Christian faith sufficient for Eucharistic sharing exists in the case of Catholics and Orthodox despite the inability of the latter to accept all these particular dogmas. We believe that this presumption regarding Christian faith should be extended also to Lutherans. If so, it would not thereby follow that limited Eucharistic sharing was justified in their case too. But it would follow that such sharing ought not to be ruled out because of Lutheran failure to accept these three teachings.
ts.mu.edu/readers/content…0.1/40.1.5.pdf

C. Lutheran Perspectives
(28) If perspectives such as the foregoing prevail, papal primacy will no longer be open to many traditional Lutheran objections. As we have noted (see 3 above), Lutherans increasingly recognize the need for a Ministry serving the unity of the church universal. They acknowledge that, for the exercise of this Ministry, institutions which are rooted in history should be seriously considered. The church should use the signs of unity it has received, for new ones cannot be invented at will. Thus the Reformers wished to continue the historic structures of the church.21 Such structures are among the signs of the church’s unity in space and time, helping to link the Christian present with its apostolic past. Lutherans can also grant the beneficial role of the papacy at various periods of history. Believing in God’s sovereign freedom, they cannot deny that God may show again in the future that the papacy is his gracious gift to his people. Perhaps this might involve a primacy in which the pope’s service to unity in relation to the Lutheran churches would be more pastoral than juridical. The one thing necessary, from the Lutheran point of view, is that papal primacy be so structured and interpreted that it clearly serve the gospel and the unity of the church of Christ, and that its exercise of power not subvert Christian freedom.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm

 

[in_servitude]

You are correct that each dialogue produced lengthy discussions. I’ll add a few quotes/ links to some of the documents relevant to infallibility. I haven’t read all the Dialogues and need to find passages I have read.

BTW the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is the official body working with Lutherans: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/

I took a look at your vatican.va site, and I couldn’t find much that spoke to papal infallibility.

Also, I looked through the site you referenced at the USCCB. The intro of that document states:

Introduction
In the discussions conducted in the United States between Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians, we have found broad areas of agreement on the Nicene Creed and the christological center of the faith as well as on baptism, the eucharist, and the Ministry of word and sacrament.1 In the most recent sessions of our dialogue, we have moved to the problems of how that Ministry might best nurture and express the unity of the universal church for the sake of its mission in the world. It is within this context that we have considered papal primacy.

Visible unity in the church has from the earliest times been served by several forms of the Ministry. Some of these forms, such as that exercised in the ecumenical councils,2 have not been the subject of major disputes between Catholics and Lutherans. By contrast the role of the papacy has been the subject of intense controversy, which has generated theological disagreements, organizational differences, and psychological antagonisms.

In discussing the papacy as a form of Ministry within the universal church we have limited ourselves to the question of papal primacy. No attempt has been made to enter into the problem of papal infallibility. While this issue must be faced in the discussions between our churches, we believe that this limitation of the scope of our present discussion is justified, since papal primacy was a doctrinal issue long before papal infallibility became a major problem.

Catholics are very interested in Christian unity. And, there will be some flexibility shown by the Church to work toward that unity. However, I have not seen the Church be willing to discard dogma or doctrine in hopes to gain acceptance of those protesting the Church.

Further down in that document, it does say that there can be flexibility shown. It seems that the Lutherans were expressing a concern for a loss of freedom. So, the United States Bishops argue that there could still be some flexibility shown. I doubt that the USCCB is arguing that dogma and doctrine is up for redefinition.

The next paragraph in that document pretty much spells that out.

(29) Our discussions in this dialogue have brought to light a number of agreements, among the most significant of which are:
· Christ wills for his church a unity which is not only spiritual but must be manifest in the world.
· promotion of this unity is incumbent on all believers, especially those who are engaged in the Ministry of word and sacrament;
· the greater the responsibility of a ministerial office, the greater the responsibility to seek the unity of all Christians;
· a special responsibility for this may be entrusted to one individual Minister, under the gospel.
· such a responsibility for the universal church cannot be ruled out on the basis of the biblical evidence;
· the bishop of Rome, whom Roman Catholics regard as entrusted by the will of Christ with this responsibility, and who has exercised his Ministry in forms that have changed significantly over the centuries, can in the future function in ways which are better adapted to meet both the universal and regional needs of the church in the complex environment of modern times.

There is nothing in here that makes be believe that the Catholic Church is stepping away from the role of pope as having an infallible grace granted by the Holy Spirit through ordination. If the Lutherans agree that the unity must be manifest in the world, that says that there should be visible unity, and not some kind of theoretical unity.

 

[wumpiesmommy]

In a word… US!!! Heh.

 

[MaryT777]

In a word… US!!! Heh.

Yep. LOL…
Mary.

 

[Novocastrian]

I’m confused by your answer. Is there any reason why the church in Corinth would write to Clement? Is there any reason why Clement would think that he has any business writing back with answers? Is there any reason why people would care to transmit that letter through time? If Clement is just bishop of some other location, it doesn’t make sense.

Because of the strong links between the city of Corinth and the city of Rome. They were well connected by maritime trade. Furthermore, Corinth wasn’t an ordinary Greek city within the Empire, it was a Roman colony refounded by Caesar shortly before his assassination.

Because of the strong links between the Roman and Corinthian churches. These links clearly go back to the time of Paul, cf. Romans 16. Also note from Acts 18.1-2 that when the Jewish Christians are expelled from Rome by Claudius, they go to Corinth (or at least leading figures such as Priscilla and Aquila do).

Because that’s what bishops do. For centuries in the early church we see bishops writing authoritatively to one another on the basis of their teaching authority, not because they have a legal jurisdiction. Examples as prominent as Augustine and Ambrose should be enough to convince you that one needn’t be Bishop of Rome to write to other churches offering advice, theological correction or spiritual counsel.

As for John, there’s no hard historical evidence that he was alive in the 90s AD. Even if he were, he would likely have been in exile on Patmos, assuming that the Evangelist, the Apostle and the Divine are all the same person.

 

[Picky_Picky]

You must have misheard. There are a few Anglican sects not in the mainstream Communion of Anglicans/Episcopalians that are coming into and have come into Union with Rome. The ones that did do not have women clergy, gay marriage etc.
The Church of England, as well as the mainstream Anglican Communion accepts all those things.

There was a very small Lutheran sect saying it was coming into Communion with Rome, but there is no basis for this claim nor any evidence. This sect’s retired leader joined the Roman Catholic Church as a layman after resigning his ministry.

The Church of England does not conduct same sex marriages, and it led the opposition to same sex (civil) marriages being established in law.

 

[in_servitude]

Because of the strong links between the city of Corinth and the city of Rome. They were well connected by maritime trade. Furthermore, Corinth wasn’t an ordinary Greek city within the Empire, it was a Roman colony refounded by Caesar shortly before his assassination.

Okay - that’s an interesting theory. It was the business connections that determined how the bishops related to one another.

Because of the strong links between the Roman and Corinthian churches. These links clearly go back to the time of Paul, cf. Romans 16. Also note from Acts 18.1-2 that when the Jewish Christians are expelled from Rome by Claudius, they go to Corinth (or at least leading figures such as Priscilla and Aquila do).

That also makes some sense. I could see that Paul might have made the introductions and created ties.

Because that’s what bishops do. For centuries in the early church we see bishops writing authoritatively to one another on the basis of their teaching authority, not because they have a legal jurisdiction. Examples as prominent as Augustine and Ambrose should be enough to convince you that one needn’t be Bishop of Rome to write to other churches offering advice, theological correction or spiritual counsel.

Offer advice? When I read the letter, it wasn’t offering advice. Telling people what they can and cannot do goes beyond advice. Clement speaks with authority - and it appears to me that he was called upon to settle an argument.

Can you give me an example of a time when Augustine took orders (as a bishop) from Ambrose? I’m not aware of this - but then again, I’ve only read Augustine’s “Confessions” which was written before he became a bishop.

As for John, there’s no hard historical evidence that he was alive in the 90s AD. Even if he were, he would likely have been in exile on Patmos, assuming that the Evangelist, the Apostle and the Divine are all the same person.

As for “hard historical evidence” - that can cut a lot of different ways. Such as the connections between churches due to Paul’s influence.

People really haven’t changed in the last 2000 years. They still don’t like being told what to do, especially when they have their own leadership structure operating.

 

[josephback]

Also bring up that Martin Luther wrote violent things especially concerning the Jews and if he was so great, why at the end of his life would he describe a six step plan to eliminate them which was used by Hitler. This should shut them up.

This may be true, but in all fairness it’s an ad hominem attack that could equally be used against many Catholics. By their fruits you will know them to be sure. But if Luther’s character is used a person better have an answer for all the pre and post Reformation examples of corrupt individuals in the Christian body, otherwise they’ll get blindsided.

To the OP, when I was outside of Rome I never thought of it as protest but as a glorious brave, and courageous recovery of the Gospel, per what I was taught almost from the cradle. It didn’t occur to me that there was a serious time gap between Christ and the “Reformers”, or what this could mean for what they taught.

 

[Novocastrian]

You must have misheard. There are a few Anglican sects not in the mainstream Communion of Anglicans/Episcopalians that are coming into and have come into Union with Rome. The ones that did do not have women clergy, gay marriage etc.
The Church of England, as well as the mainstream Anglican Communion accepts all those things.

There was a very small Lutheran sect saying it was coming into Communion with Rome, but there is no basis for this claim nor any evidence. This sect’s retired leader joined the Roman Catholic Church as a layman after resigning his ministry.

The Church of England has thus far resisted same-sex marriage, laus Deo.

 

[Novocastrian]

This may be true, but in all fairness it’s an ad hominem attack that could equally be used against many Catholics. By their fruits you will know them to be sure. But if Luther’s character is used a person better have an answer for all the pre and post Reformation examples of corrupt individuals in the Christian body, otherwise they’ll get blindsided.

Amen. All Christians live in glass houses…

 

[Novocastrian]

Offer advice? When I read the letter, it wasn’t offering advice. Telling people what they can and cannot do goes beyond advice. Clement speaks with authority - and it appears to me that he was called upon to settle an argument.

Advice can be authoritative.

Can you give me an example of a time when Augustine took orders (as a bishop) from Ambrose? I’m not aware of this - but then again, I’ve only read Augustine’s “Confessions” which was written before he became a bishop.

I don’t mean to each other. But each of them writes letters with authority; it’s just not the same as the kind of jurisdictional authority claimed now by the Roman Church.

As for “hard historical evidence” - that can cut a lot of different ways. Such as the connections between churches due to Paul’s influence.

Well we have the documentary evidence of Paul’s letters, reliably dated, etc. Not so for John’s living into the mid 90s of the first century.

 

[in_servitude]

Well we have the documentary evidence of Paul’s letters, reliably dated, etc. Not so for John’s living into the mid 90s of the first century.

Yes.

But as far as I know, we do not have letters from Paul saying that he wants Corinth to cooperate with some other church. Thus, the argument that Paul’s connections between the churches that he founded created lasting connections between the churches themselves is one that does not have hard evidence. That was my point about insisting on hard evidence - it can cut both ways.

 

[Tommy999]

Most modern protestants aren’t protesting anything.

Most protestants spend their time living out their lives just like Catholics do – to the best of their ability with God’s help. They go to church to praise God and to learn how to be better people and more effective Christians, just like Catholics do.

Believe it or not, most protestants consider themselves “Christians” who are part of the broader Christian faith and do not look at themselves as “protestants”.

“Protestant” is a term used more by Catholics to label non-Catholic Christians whose denominations sprung from the beliefs of the Reformation centuries ago, just like Jews look(ed) at non-Jews as “Gentiles”. Since that split took place so long ago, protestants usually don’t think about it much. I know I didn’t use to give it much thought.

Most of those in my circle of family and friends do not know much about Catholicism and don’t care to because they are happy in their current faith.

I happen to be different in that I stumbled across a Catholic radio station and started listening to it while driving back and forth to work and enjoy learning more about the Catholic faith. That’s what I joined CAF. I also enjoy some of the songs and talk shows on the local Catholic radio station.

Most of my friends don’t even think about Catholicism, so I guess you could say they aren’t protesting anything – they’re just living out their lives like folks everywhere do.