Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?

[Saints_Alive]

Do we really want another 50 years of division between Catholics ?

 

[Christian_Unity]

I pray for unity very often. The vast majority of my friends are various forms of protestants. The majority of them are beautiful people and beautiful Christians - trying hard to live a life following Christ. They despise the Catholic church. They may not all admit it, though some do, but they seem to exist to 1) love Christ and 2) denigrate the Catholic church - and not always in that order. I know that sounds a little strong, but I see it all the time.

Do they have wild misunderstandings of the Catholic church - yes. Do they care to hear my “clarifications?” Not really. Do we have great discussions about loving Christ, helping others, growing in faith…absolutely - they’re marvelous. But then we get back to “what’s with you Catholics and confession…” “you realize Mary wasn’t a virgin?” “why do Catholics worship statues…” the same old stuff. I’m often simultaneously filled with hope, and then heartbroken.

My wife often says “just imagine what we could do working directly together.” Amen!

Very insightful and nice post!

 

[hn160]

JonNC - here’s a couple of links regarding the Mormons and Martin Luther.

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=52ae48bf641ab010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

blog.mrm.org/2010/04/martin-luther-and-mormonism/

Give me a break, Mormons love Luther. The first article is just mainly history, the second article is just a twisting of Luther. Joseph Smith and the rest of the Mormon hierarchy probably never rever read any of Luther’s writings or the Lutheran Confessions and are just running off at the mouth.

 

[guanophore]

  Remember that they (other Christian believers of the trinity) consider Jesus' church to include ALL denominations, not just the one centered in Rome.

Truth is not a matter of majority opinion. The fact that more people believe an idea does not make it any more true.

Jesus’ church, by definition, cannot “included ALL denominations”. This is because the action of “denominating” means to “take one’s name from”. All non-Catholic ecclesial communities are defined by which parts, and how much of the Apostolic faith they reject.

And, as has been pointed out, the one thing ALL denominations agree upon is that the CC does not have it right.

The CC teaches something similar to what you are saying here, in that we believe that the Body of Christ includes all who are joined to Christ in baptism and faith. This concept does not apply to “denominations” but to persons.

Remember too of what Jesus promised. Matthew 16:18 “…and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.” We must greet our fellow humans as Brethren with Love. To turn the other cheek does not being weak in doing so.

Amen!

I am definitely not promoting Calvinism.

You have continually asserted the doctrines in which you place your faith, which are Calvanistic. I think you see it as non-proselytizing. You say you are here to learn about Catholicism.

The issues of a Calvinist’s understanding of predestination, the sovereignty of God, and free will should NEVER divide the body of Christ.

On what basis do you make such an assertion? Why should the CC react any differently to such heresies than she did to those of the Judiazers in the first centuries?

Why is your authority to give us “SHOULDS” of more value than the Apostles, who instructed us NOT to accept such a different gospel?

Most Protestants under these issues very similar to what most Catholics believe on these very difficult issues.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but I do agree that most Christians to agree in the majority of errors. These issues are not “difficult” for us, though. It is a simple matter to either accept what the Apostles once for all deposited to the Church, or to accept doctrines created 1500 years later. Such a decision is not difficult for an informed Catholic.

A step toward unity in the body of Christ is to learn to disagree agreeably on many issues.

the fact that we can agree to disagree does not create unity. It amicably allows the disunity to exist between us.

When we defend our personal view of Christianity in too strong of a way, the result will be disunity and division in the body of Christ.

This statement seems to confirm what was noted above, that what you seem to be wanting us to do is to set aside our faith so that we can all have a warm fuzzy feeling toward one another.

Catholics are not at liberty to set aside the One Faith which has been entrusted to us. We also cannot fail to make a vigorous defense for the faith. You also might not realize it, but you defend your personal view of Christianity quite strongly as well.

Protestants see the church to not be an exclusive denomination or branch of Christianity. We see the church universal to be those in Christ from all the different denominations and branches of Christianity.

Yes, this is Catholic.

We also consider all those who are not visibly identified as Christian or in Church that may be mystically joined to Christ as part of HIs One Body.

I think you see this concept in the Sacred Scriptures… because there are verses in Scripture which speak of multiple churches.

Yes, we do see this concept in the Scriptures, though the Scriptures reflect One Church (not any denominations). Particular Churches in the NT are all Catholic, of the same mind, same doctrine. They are all part of one unified whole, not “multiple churches” in the sense that we have today with contradictory doctrines, rejecting the authority appointed by Christ over the flock.

 

[batman1973]

Guan, the LCMS and WELS churches rejects the joint declaration. The LCMS calleded it a “betrayal of the gospel” I’d post a link, but hard to do on a smartphone. Google it. From my understanding, the LCMS will not be unifying with Rome anytime soon. High Church Lutherans see themselves as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I agree.

 

[CopticChristian]

Truth is not a matter of majority opinion. The fact that more people believe an idea does not make it any more true.

Jesus’ church, by definition, cannot “included ALL denominations”. This is because the action of “denominating” means to “take one’s name from”. All non-Catholic ecclesial communities are defined by which parts, and how much of the Apostolic faith they reject.

And, as has been pointed out, the one thing ALL denominations agree upon is that the CC does not have it right.

The CC teaches something similar to what you are saying here, in that we believe that the Body of Christ includes all who are joined to Christ in baptism and faith. This concept does not apply to “denominations” but to persons.

Amen!

You have continually asserted the doctrines in which you place your faith, which are Calvanistic. I think you see it as non-proselytizing. You say you are here to learn about Catholicism.

On what basis do you make such an assertion? Why should the CC react any differently to such heresies than she did to those of the Judiazers in the first centuries?

Why is your authority to give us “SHOULDS” of more value than the Apostles, who instructed us NOT to accept such a different gospel?

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but I do agree that most Christians to agree in the majority of errors. These issues are not “difficult” for us, though. It is a simple matter to either accept what the Apostles once for all deposited to the Church, or to accept doctrines created 1500 years later. Such a decision is not difficult for an informed Catholic.

the fact that we can agree to disagree does not create unity. It amicably allows the disunity to exist between us.

This statement seems to confirm what was noted above, that what you seem to be wanting us to do is to set aside our faith so that we can all have a warm fuzzy feeling toward one another.

Catholics are not at liberty to set aside the One Faith which has been entrusted to us. We also cannot fail to make a vigorous defense for the faith. You also might not realize it, but you defend your personal view of Christianity quite strongly as well.

Yes, this is Catholic.

We also consider all those who are not visibly identified as Christian or in Church that may be mystically joined to Christ as part of HIs One Body.

Yes, we do see this concept in the Scriptures, though the Scriptures reflect One Church (not any denominations). Particular Churches in the NT are all Catholic, of the same mind, same doctrine. They are all part of one unified whole, not “multiple churches” in the sense that we have today with contradictory doctrines, rejecting the authority appointed by Christ over the flock.

Mr. G,

This has all been hashed out before years ago, as some say do not look to the past, however to fail to look to the past fails to help us define our Future…Cardinal Neuman wrestled as CU wrestles…and God wins…

A Christian was bound to take without doubting all that the Apostles declared to be revealed; if the Apostles spoke, he had to yield an internal assent of his mind; it would not be enough to keep silence, it would not be enough not to oppose: it was not allowable to credit in a measure; it was not allowable to doubt. No; if a convert had his own private thoughts of what was {197} said, and only kept them to himself, if he made some secret opposition to the teaching, if he waited for further proof before he believed it, this would be a proof that he did not think the Apostles were sent from God to reveal His will; it would be a proof that he did not in any true sense believe at all. Immediate, implicit submission of the mind was, in the lifetime of the Apostles, the only, the necessary token of faith; then there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment. No one could say: “I will choose my religion for myself, I will believe this, I will not believe that; I will pledge myself to nothing; I will believe just as long as I please, and no longer; what I believe today I will reject tomorrow, if I choose. I will believe what the Apostles have as yet said, but I will not believe what they shall say in time to come.” No; either the Apostles were from God, or they were not; if they were, everything that they preached was to be believed by their hearers; if they were not, there was nothing for their hearers to believe. To believe a little, to believe more or less, was impossible; it contradicted the very notion of believing: if one part was to be believed, every part was to be believed; it was an absurdity to believe one thing and not another; for the word of the Apostles, which made the one true, made the other true too; they were nothing in themselves, they were all things, they were an infallible authority, as coming from God. The world had either to become Christian, or to let it alone; there was no room for private tastes and fancies, no room for private judgment.

Found on page 40/41 of the USA Catechism for Adults…

The entirety of this discourse can be found here, written in 1849…

newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse10.html

 

[robwar]

Guan, the LCMS and WELS churches rejects the joint declaration. The LCMS calleded it a “betrayal of the gospel” I’d post a link, but hard to do on a smartphone. Google it. From my understanding, the LCMS will not be unifying with Rome anytime soon. High Church Lutherans see themselves as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I agree.

thank-you, that was what I heard as well, but haven’t looked up the documents. My understanding is that this joint declaration which was 30 years in the works was really a decapitation of what Luther taught on faith and works. It wasn’t that the Catholic Church compromised in this area but that the Lutherans groups involved moved to a more Catholic understanding. To quote this as some sign that Lutherans and Catholics are agreeing on something new is bogus at best because not all Lutherans were on board or even agreed with it and became another divisive issues again.

 

[robwar]

乐彩彩票|乐彩彩票手机端

Maybe you are right.

I would like to point in with this picture of Billy Graham with JP II is that Billy Graham came to see the Pope, not the Pope to Billy Graham. Popes have and do meet with all sorts of religious leaders not just the Christian ones. JP II met the Dalai Lama more than any other religious leader. That doesn’t mean the we are joining forces with Buddhism. Billy Graham is probably considered America’s pastor of sorts and would be perhaps be the most well known and prominent Evangelical leader. I am sure that Billy Graham got flack for going to met the Pope.

 

[CopticChristian]

I would like to point in with this picture of Billy Graham with JP II is that Billy Graham came to see the Pope, not the Pope to Billy Graham. Popes have and do meet with all sorts of religious leaders not just the Christian ones. JP II met the Dalai Lama more than any other religious leader. That doesn’t mean the we are joining forces with Buddhism. Billy Graham is probably considered America’s pastor of sorts and would be perhaps be the most well known and prominent Evangelical leader. I am sure that Billy Graham got flack for going to met the Pope.

Rob,

I believe that the important issue here is that while 500 years ago those that broke from the bosom of the OHCAC to invent a new religion with the intent to bury, destroy and replace the OHCAC not only failed but left those that grew in their legacy confused, lost and wondering so that while they became fragmented and disoriented the OHCAC continued the journey and like a magnet…the monolith that was to be destroyed, survived, and has become akin to the monoliths that we recall in 2001 space odyssey…something to marvel and wonder about…

Those Monoliths from 2001 could not be understood as to how or what they were and many Protestants today look at the OHCAC as if it were akin to those monoliths not understanding or knowing from whence it came…

 

[lax16]

Give me a break, Mormons love Luther. The first article is just mainly history, the second article is just a twisting of Luther. Joseph Smith and the rest of the Mormon hierarchy probably never rever read any of Luther’s writings or the Lutheran Confessions and are just running off at the mouth.

I said the Mormons highly regard Luther, not love him.

I have been told by a Mormon who did a mission that Martin Luther wrote the Bible.
I have been told by a Lutheran that the Mormons in Utah “love the Lutherans and love doing business with them”…
Our Mormon friend wants to send her daughter to the Lutheran school but thinks the Catholic schools are, in her words, “so weird.”
These stories are anecdotal, true, but believe me the Mormons like the Lutherans and Luther.

You may be right. Whether or not any Mormons or their hierarchy have ever read any of Luther’s writings is something I don’t know. I do know as a Catholic in Utah, the Lutherans are regarded in a much more favorable light.

 

[lax16]

Give me a break, Mormons love Luther. The first article is just mainly history, the second article is just a twisting of Luther. Joseph Smith and the rest of the Mormon hierarchy probably never rever read any of Luther’s writings or the Lutheran Confessions and are just running off at the mouth.

The main point about the Mormons and Luther is this (not whether they loved him):

from: Heroes and Heroines:
Martin Luther—
Defender of Justice and Seeker of Truth

President Joseph F. Smith said that “Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, and all reformers, were inspired in thoughts, words, and actions to accomplish what they did for the liberty, and advancement of the human race. They paved the way for the more perfect gospel of truth to come.” (Improvement Era, “Editor’s Table: Fountain of Truth,” June 1907, page 629.)

Isn’t it true that Luther did pave the way for reformers - including Joseph Smith?

 

[JonNC]

=lax16;10127281]
Are you referring to the East and West?

And the OO, and the western divisions.

Have I accused you of something?

No. My first post was not a response to you, but the general tone of the thread.

Will provide more info.
(I had a conversation with a Lutheran a few months back and she was saying how it is great to do business with the Mormons because they just love “us Lutherans”.)

Well, we’re quite the lovable people , but I don’t think they love our theology.

That is what the Mormons say. (However, I am aware of the vast differences in your theology!)
Obviously there is a man that comes between the Church Jesus began 2,000 years ago and where you attend church today.

No man has come between me and the Church of Christ, except myself and my sin on too many occasions.

I am sorry if I missed you saying that before.
Are you referring to papal infallibility? What is universal jurisdiction?

I generally don’t include the infallibility issue because it is a whole other issue, but universal jurisdiction of the pope is acentral issue, not only of the Great Schism, but also the Reformation.

I was referring to some lay Catholics.
Yes, the Church of England has obviously had great success with Pope Benedict bridging the gap between the churches.

And with us as well.

I am glad to hear you say that.

Thanks. I spend very little time at other sites because this is clearly the best.

I guess it is a question being asked in Lutheran circles. I had no idea.
Do you think not being in communion with the Bishop of Rome is anymore warranted?

I guess it depends on what one means by warranted. I think, yes, for the unity of the Church Militant, that should be the goal.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

thank-you, that was what I heard as well, but haven’t looked up the documents. My understanding is that this joint declaration which was 30 years in the works was really a decapitation of what Luther taught on faith and works…

I’ve read the joint deceleration several time and I personalty though it was generally upheld Lutheran confessional teaching. As for the LCMS rejection, I think where it comes short is that they feel that the Catholic church hasn’t quite fully abandoned works, only that they have diminished it to insignificance. Personally, I feel that the Catholic position in the Joint Deceleration amounted to an agreement with the historic Lutheran position - only in that it came from a different direction.

That said, Johann Tetzel is quite dead, and at some point the LCMS should perhaps reevaluate if they are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[benjohnson]

I’d like to take that last sentence back as doing a bit of research it looks like Johann Tezel was put into circumstances that were very trying. Martin Luther wrote to him when Tezel was publicly humiliated and on his death bed that said - "“that the agitation was not that of his [Tetzel’s] creation, but that the child had an entirely different father”. Tezel makes for a good villain, but perhaps history should be a little kinder to him as Luther was kind to him.

 

[JonNC]

I’ve read the joint deceleration several time and I personalty though it was generally upheld Lutheran confessional teaching. As for the LCMS rejection, I think where it comes short is that they feel that the Catholic church hasn’t quite fully abandoned works, only that they have diminished it to insignificance. Personally, I feel that the Catholic position in the Joint Deceleration amounted to an agreement with the historic Lutheran position - only in that it came from a different direction.

I completely agree, Ben. You know, the Catholic Church issued a clarification after the JDDJ was signed. there’s no reason the LCMS couldn’t sign on, and issue a clarification.
I, too, have read the document, and consider it well within Lutheran teachings.
I wonder if the real reason we haven’t signed is because the LCMs leadership is more embarrassed to sign on with the ELCA/LWF than it is with the CC.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

I said the Mormons highly regard Luther, not love him.

IF the LDS church highly regards Luther, they probably admire him as a man and his apparent audacity. And IF they say they highly regard Luther’s teaching then I would quite surprised.

I could think of only one other church that espouses Christ that is more antithetical to Luther’s though than the LDS church - that would be the Unification Church.

 

[batman1973]

I completely agree, Ben. You know, the Catholic Church issued a clarification after the JDDJ was signed. there’s no reason the LCMS couldn’t sign on, and issue a clarification.
I, too, have read the document, and consider it well within Lutheran teachings.
I wonder if the real reason we haven’t signed is because the LCMs leadership is more embarrassed to sign on with the ELCA/LWF than it is with the CC.

Jon

For all the LCMS Lutherans on this forum:

TOWARD TRUE RECONCILIATION
A Comment on Lutheran-Roman Catholic Relations

You may have heard that a declaration was signed that claims to resolve a key difference between the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church. What you may not have heard is that more than 45 percent of the Lutheran church-bodies in the world did not support the declaration.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is the oldest and second-largest Lutheran church-body in the United States. We would like to explain why we could not support the declaration.

We rejoice that we have much in common with our fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church. Because of what we have in common, we are committed to working toward true reconciliation of our important differences. We could not support the declaration because it does not actually reconcile the difference between us concerning the most important truth of Christianity.

What is that truth? God loved the world so much that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect life in our place and to die for our sins. God declares us to be totally righteous and completely forgiven because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God gives us eternal life as a free gift through trust in Christ alone.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that something more than trust in Christ is necessary for us to be saved. It teaches that we are able to merit, through our works, eternal life for ourselves and others. We believe this teaching obscures the work of Jesus Christ and clouds the central message of the Bible.

Therefore, despite what has been reported in the public media about the Lutheran-Roman Catholic declaration, very significant differences remain in regard to how we understand salvation, a fact that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges.

We pray for genuine reconciliation of differences among Christians. Our church is intent on working for the day when the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed with one voice. We will continue to work toward true reconciliation.

A Statement from the Office of the President
The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod
International Center
1333 South Kirkwood Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63122-7295

 

[asd72]

In response to the statement by the Lutheran MS that trust in God alone is all that is neccessary for salvation:

Jesus said His commandments were to love God and neighbour with agape love, which is an active, self sacrificing love. The way God loves. If we become a Christian and do not join our faith with works of love it is dead (James 2:14-20).

The Apostles Paul describes it as faith working through love (Gal 5:6), and says if he has faith without love he is nothing (1Cor13:2).

Here is a tract on merit, which the article also refers to.

catholic.com/tracts/reward-and-merit

“If at the end of your very good works, you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book, at the end of our works, which are indeed “very good”, since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you of the Sabbath of Eternal Life.”

St Augustine

Eph 2:10 describes it well. Initial salvation is an unmerited free gift, but we then have to join our efforts with Gods grace.

 

[guanophore]

For all the LCMS Lutherans on this forum:

Thank you batman. I am glad to learn that the refusal to support it is based upon a misunderstanding.

I get very frustrated too with the use of the term “merit” by the Roman Catholic Church. In seminary, I studied Greek, and my Latin is not even servicable. I think sometimes the use of Latin terminology creates a lot of these kinds of misunderstandings.

The CC uses “merit” where the Gk uses “reward”. When these terms are substituted into statements they clearly render a very different meaning for our non-Catholic brethren. Here is an example of how “merit” is understood:

Phil 1:27
7 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ

We are called to become that which God has declared us to be (holy in his sight), and live a life that is meritorious, or worthy of that high gift.

2 John 7-8
8 Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.

Now all of us would agree that we cannot obtain salvation by “working for” it, and we would also agree that salvation is not a payment for anything we have done (wage). But, we also agree that work is needed, and expected (unless a person dies right after baptism).

The Catholic understanding of “merit” is that we actually become worthy of the gift that has been given to us. In the words of St. John the Baptist, bear fruit that befits repentance".

Col 1:9-11
…that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.

“Merit” means that we are bearing fruit, and engaging in every good work that God has designed for us since the foundation of the world.

Another use of the Catholic concept of “merit” is a refelction of how we conduct ourselves:

1 Peter 3:1-2
:1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.

When our behavior “merits” our status in life (submitted to Christ and walking by the Spirit) then others will consider our calling a meritorious one (worthy).

So yes, the CC teaches that we can “merit” for ourselves (become the righteousness of God in Christ) and for others. Our good works can benefit others in many ways, but specifically in this context:

1 Peter 4:7-9
8 Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.

Not only our own sins, but those of others. This is a work of grace, working through faith. We are not claiming that anything of ourselves can cover sins!

1 Cor 7:14-16
14 For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. 16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

We will all agree that a wife cannot “save” her husband, or vice versa, so what is the Apostle saying?

If a believing husband or wife is able to demonstrate the character of Christ in the relationship, this will cover a multitude of sins. The partner may be won over by the merit of the spouse. This is not something that either partner “earns”, but it is grace, working through faith, bringing reward into the relationship.

So also do we “merit” with God when we are obedient. As Jesus illustrates in the parable of the talents, to those who have, more will be given. If we are faithful in small things, He will give us larger. This is grace, not ego.

We both agree that we are saved by grace, through faith. We also agree (as is stated in the Declaration) that it is a certain KIND of faith. It is faith that works.

 

[mexolic]

I think Protestants will always have misconceptions and disagreements about Catholic beliefs. What Protestants claim about Catholics: *Catholics worship the saints. Catholicism is a cult. Catholics are not true Christians. *