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

[jrtrent]

Well don’t Eastern Orthodox Christians have differing views on Purgatory, and the succession of the Papal Position

Yes. There are actually quite a few differences keeping Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics apart, at least from an Orthodox position. One list I’ve found is in the book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, in which the author offered the following list of changes that he saw as essential for union:

items that Roman Catholics must repudiate and reject (not merely brush aside or theologize around):
papal universal jurisdiction
papal infallibility
papal Petrine exclusivism (i.e., that only the pope is Peter’s successor)
development of doctrine
the Filioque
original sin understood as guilt transmitted via “propagation”
the immaculate conception of Mary
absolute divine simplicity
merit and satisfaction soteriology
purgatory and indulgences
created grace

items that Roman Catholics would have to accept and fully confess:
the authority of the Ecumenical Councils over the pope
the essence/energies distinction

practices Roman Catholics would need to restore:
reconnect confirmation/chrismation to baptism rather than delaying it
give Holy Communion to all church members, including infants

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. There are actually quite a few differences keeping Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics apart, at least from an Orthodox position. One list I’ve found is in the book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, in which the author offered the following list of changes that he saw as essential for union:

items that Roman Catholics must repudiate and reject (not merely brush aside or theologize around):
papal universal jurisdiction
papal infallibility
papal Petrine exclusivism (i.e., that only the pope is Peter’s successor)
development of doctrine
the Filioque
original sin understood as guilt transmitted via “propagation”
the immaculate conception of Mary
absolute divine simplicity
merit and satisfaction soteriology
purgatory and indulgences
created grace

items that Roman Catholics would have to accept and fully confess:
the authority of the Ecumenical Councils over the pope
the essence/energies distinction

practices Roman Catholics would need to restore:
reconnect confirmation/chrismation to baptism rather than delaying it
give Holy Communion to all church members, including infants

It is curious that the word “Roman” is attached to Catholicism here. The Roman, or Latin rite, is only one of 23 rites in the Catholic Church, all in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Do you think that this author is ill-informed about this? One has to wonder…

 

[jrtrent]

Do you think that this author is ill-informed about this? One has to wonder…

No, I don’t think so. Rather than speaking of different rites within the Roman Catholic church, I think he was referring to all those who unite themselves with the Bishop of Rome.

Finally, those united with the Pope of Rome are properly called “Roman Catholics,” not “Catholics,” just as we are properly called “Orthodox Christians” rather than just “Orthodox.” [There are, of course, also Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Presbyterians, etc.] oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/catholic-and-orthodox

This seems in keeping with information in a recent thread in which someone wondered it were true that Joseph Ratzinger said in his book God’s Word that “the whole Church, both East and West, is Roman Catholic since we are in communion with the Pope.” All I could find online was a preview of that book, but in that preview, Mr. Ratzinger makes the point that using the word “Catholic” differentiates itself from a Christianity of Scripture alone and confesses “the authority of the living word, that is, the office of apostolic succession.” He also said that the word “Roman” in the formula Roman Catholic, distinguishes between “Christianity related to the Roman office of Peter, and Christianity that has separated itself from this.”

 

[CopticChristian]

No, I don’t think so. Rather than speaking of different rites within the Roman Catholic church, I think he was referring to all those who unite themselves with the Bishop of Rome.

Finally, those united with the Pope of Rome are properly called “Roman Catholics,” not “Catholics,” just as we are properly called “Orthodox Christians” rather than just “Orthodox.” [There are, of course, also Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Presbyterians, etc.] oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/catholic-and-orthodox

This seems in keeping with information in a recent thread in which someone wondered it were true that Joseph Ratzinger said in his book God’s Word that “the whole Church, both East and West, is Roman Catholic since we are in communion with the Pope.” All I could find online was a preview of that book, but in that preview, Mr. Ratzinger makes the point that using the word “Catholic” differentiates itself from a Christianity of Scripture alone and confesses “the authority of the living word, that is, the office of apostolic succession.” He also said that the word “Roman” in the formula Roman Catholic, distinguishes between “Christianity related to the Roman office of Peter, and Christianity that has separated itself from this.”

Trent,

Now that you have pointed out the difficulties of the Bishop of Rome and Patriarchs of the Orthodox coming together…

Who speaks for Protestant thought…

Is there one Lutheran Pastor that unites all Lutheran thought?
Is there one Presbyterian that unites all Presbyterian thought?
Is there one Methodist that unites all Methodist thought?
Is there one Anglican that unites all Anglican thought?
Is there one Baptist that unites all Baptist thought?
and on and on

Where do you propose the unity of Protestant thought to be, with whom and where will we see that?

 

[PRmerger]

No, I don’t think so. Rather than speaking of different rites within the Roman Catholic church, I think he was referring to all those who unite themselves with the Bishop of Rome.

Then it appears that he is misinformed.

The Ruthenian Catholics do not refer to themselves as Roman Catholics.

It would be like a Sociology professor saying, “The majority of Chinese people live in Japan.”

It makes everything else that this Sociology professor says suspect, no?

Finally, those united with the Pope of Rome are properly called “Roman Catholics,” not “Catholics,” just as we are properly called “Orthodox Christians” rather than just “Orthodox.” [There are, of course, also Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Presbyterians, etc.] oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/catholic-and-orthodox

This is an incorrect assertion by the OCA.

Which is part of the reason this apostolate is not called Roman Catholic Answers, but rather Catholic Answers.

This seems in keeping with information in a recent thread in which someone wondered it were true that Joseph Ratzinger said in his book God’s Word that “the whole Church, both East and West, is Roman Catholic since we are in communion with the Pope.” All I could find online was a preview of that book, but in that preview, Mr. Ratzinger makes the point that using the word “Catholic” differentiates itself from a Christianity of Scripture alone and confesses “the authority of the living word, that is, the office of apostolic succession.” He also said that the word “Roman” in the formula Roman Catholic, distinguishes between “Christianity related to the Roman office of Peter, and Christianity that has separated itself from this.”

This is true. But to refer to the Roman Catholic Church is to ignore the other 22 rites.

Best to use “Catholic”.

Just as it is best to use “Asian” and not “Chinese” when one is speaking universally.

 

[JonNC]

Trent,

Now that you have pointed out the difficulties of the Bishop of Rome and Patriarchs of the Orthodox coming together…

Who speaks for Protestant thought…

Is there one Lutheran Pastor that unites all Lutheran thought?
Is there one Presbyterian that unites all Presbyterian thought?
Is there one Methodist that unites all Methodist thought?
Is there one Anglican that unites all Anglican thought?
Is there one Baptist that unites all Baptist thought?
and on and on

Where do you propose the unity of Protestant thought to be, with whom and where will we see that?

It is, indeed, whay both you and JR say, the problem we all share - how to overcome our division.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

It is, indeed, whay both you and JR say, the problem we all share - how to overcome our division.

Jon

Jon,

The Orthodox have leadership that is not the Roman Leadership however within the realm of Protestant thought I see no leadership, only talk of how to overcome division without a consensus from any Protestant that I can register.

 

[cmodrmac]

The answer is yes:

The Orthodox Patriarchs will not give up any of their authority -nor will the Lutheran leaders-the Episcopal Church is in schism and becoming increasingly irrelevant- surely you do not think the Assemblies of God denomination wants to give up their doctirines and mega churches-need I talk about the Southern Baptists?

Do you for one moment think the this Pope will give up one iota of his Authority-?

It is about Power and control -peronalities -plus all of the denominations feel they are right or they would not have formed in the first place-

 

[jrtrent]

Where do you propose the unity of Protestant thought to be, with whom and where will we see that?

If by unity you mean the eventual joining of all Protestant churches, or even the agreement of all within a particular branch (e.g., Baptists), then I don’t propose that any such unity will ever take place. There are irreconcilable differences between churches regarding such things as the meaning and procedures for the sacraments, predestination vs. free will, and forms of church government. I believe these differences exist because no church is perfect.

. . . as God permits men to mar the perfection of His designs in their behalf, and as men have both corrupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the Church, we must not expect to see the Church of Christ existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments; though it is possible that one of those fragments more than another may approach the scriptural and apostolic ideal, which existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work." (Smith’s Bible Dictionary)

However, I do believe that there is, or should be, sufficient unity amongst all Christian churches that we can recognize each other as Christians and work together toward common goals. The OP had said that Catholics and Protestants hold enough things in common that “we are simply just siblings in Christ.” Maybe at some point Catholics and Protestants, or even different types of Protestants, can come to the point of understanding and accepting our differences rather than squabbling over them. Another blurb from Smith’s Bible Dictionary emphasizes what Christians hold in common when compared to non-Christian faiths:

This difference [between Christian and non-Christian religions] is constituted by the Christian religion having Jesus Christ, His revelation, and His precepts for the objects of its contemplations and the motive of its actions. The Church, therefore, consists of all who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Savior of mankind, who gives credit to His gospel, and who hold His sacraments, the seals of eternal life, in honor.

 

[CopticChristian]

If by unity you mean the eventual joining of all Protestant churches, or even the agreement of all within a particular branch (e.g., Baptists), then I don’t propose that any such unity will ever take place. There are irreconcilable differences between churches regarding such things as the meaning and procedures for the sacraments, predestination vs. free will, and forms of church government. I believe these differences exist because no church is perfect.

. . . as God permits men to mar the perfection of His designs in their behalf, and as men have both corrupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the Church, we must not expect to see the Church of Christ existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments; though it is possible that one of those fragments more than another may approach the scriptural and apostolic ideal, which existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work." (Smith’s Bible Dictionary)

However, I do believe that there is, or should be, sufficient unity amongst all Christian churches that we can recognize each other as Christians and work together toward common goals. The OP had said that Catholics and Protestants hold enough things in common that “we are simply just siblings in Christ.” Maybe at some point Catholics and Protestants, or even different types of Protestants, can come to the point of understanding and accepting our differences rather than squabbling over them. Another blurb from Smith’s Bible Dictionary emphasizes what Christians hold in common when compared to non-Christian faiths:

This difference [between Christian and non-Christian religions] is constituted by the Christian religion having Jesus Christ, His revelation, and His precepts for the objects of its contemplations and the motive of its actions. The Church, therefore, consists of all who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Savior of mankind, who gives credit to His gospel, and who hold His sacraments, the seals of eternal life, in honor.

Trent,

Here is the dilema

What is the Revelation?

What are the precepts for the object of its contemplations?

What is the gospel?

What are the Sacraments?

What is the one central focus that unites Christian in Worship?

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

The Orthodox have leadership that is not the Roman Leadership however within the realm of Protestant thought I see no leadership, only talk of how to overcome division without a consensus from any Protestant that I can register.

Gosh, Coptic, and yet for 1,000 years the leaders in Rome and the East have failed to overcome division. For sure, even amongst Lutheranism (the only communion I can speak for), there is debate on how to approach ecumenical dialogue. To that, we as Lutherans have much to be ashamed of, that we can’t speak with one voice on this issue. Then again, the CC has had 1,000 years to work on it, and success is still illusive.
I guess we all have this sin of our divisions to confess.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The answer is yes:

The Orthodox Patriarchs will not give up any of their authority -nor will the Lutheran leaders-the Episcopal Church is in schism and becoming increasingly irrelevant- surely you do not think the Assemblies of God denomination wants to give up their doctirines and mega churches-need I talk about the Southern Baptists?

Do you for one moment think the this Pope will give up one iota of his Authority-?

It is about Power and control -peronalities -plus all of the denominations feel they are right or they would not have formed in the first place-

There is, of course, a level of truth in this, but there is also clear movement in days since Vat II that the Holy Spirit is moving in His Church, providing us greater opportunities for dialogue and need for closer ties, if not full unity. As mentioned on another thread, there is now open dialogue between confessional Lutherans (LCMS and the International Lutheran Council) and the CC. This would have been unheard of 50 years ago.

In short, I am somewhat more optimistic than your post.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

Gosh, Coptic, and yet for 1,000 years the leaders in Rome and the East have failed to overcome division. For sure, even amongst Lutheranism (the only communion I can speak for), there is debate on how to approach ecumenical dialogue. To that, we as Lutherans have much to be ashamed of, that we can’t speak with one voice on this issue. Then again, the CC has had 1,000 years to work on it, and success is still illusive.
I guess we all have this sin of our divisions to confess.

Jon

Jon,

The division is multifactorial, however, in consideration that this is one of them…it is based on words…

“and the Son” and “through the Son”

It has to do with the nature of the Trinity, Christology, and the Holy Spirit…no one denies either just an understanding of the Trinity…

It differs from other words that deny Apostolic Tradtion/Scripture and infallibility

EO/Catholic Latin/East all agree on the concept of infallibility…Council of Bishops vs a Bishop

It is not a division based on The Bible alone, which Bible, whose Bible, and in that division there exists division/division/division/division and no unity whatsoever…

All Catholics unit in the Eucharist as the central focus of belief and from that all else follows…

Want in?

catholic.com/tracts/filioque

The expression “from the Father through the Son” is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: “The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin cedula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).

Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily).

However, union is still possible on the filioque issue through the recognition that the formulas “and the Son” and “through the Son” mean the same thing. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “This legitimate complementarity [of expressions], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed” (CCC 248).

Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

The division is multifactorial, however, in consideration that this is one of them…it is based on words…

It has to do with the nature of the Trinity, Christology, and the Holy Spirit…no one denies either just an understanding of the Trinity…

It differs from other words that deny Apostolic Tradtion/Scripture and infallibility

EO/Catholic Latin/East all agree on the concept of infallibility…Council of Bishops vs a Bishop

It is not a division based on The Bible alone, which Bible, whose Bible, and in that division there exists division/division/division/division and no unity whatsoever…

All Catholics unit in the Eucharist as the central focus of belief and from that all else follows…

Want in?

catholic.com/tracts/filioque

Coptic, regardless of what the division is about, it is still division.

I am in. I just pray for the day we are in together, instead of separately.

Jon

 

[empantarhei]

I just pray for the day we are in together, instead of separately.

Jon

 

[empantarhei]

If by unity you mean the eventual joining of all Protestant churches, or even the agreement of all within a particular branch (e.g., Baptists), then I don’t propose that any such unity will ever take place. There are irreconcilable differences between churches regarding such things as the meaning and procedures for the sacraments, predestination vs. free will, and forms of church government. ** I believe these differences exist because no church is perfect. **

. . . as God permits men to mar the perfection of His designs in their behalf, and as men have both corrupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the Church, we must not expect to see the Church of Christ existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments; though it is possible that one of those fragments more than another may approach the scriptural and apostolic ideal, which existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work." (Smith’s Bible Dictionary)

However, I do believe that **there is, or should be, sufficient unity amongst all Christian churches that we can recognize each other as Christians and work together toward common goals. The OP had said that Catholics and Protestants hold enough things in common that “we are simply just siblings in Christ.” Maybe at some point Catholics and Protestants, or even different types of Protestants, can come to the point of understanding and accepting our differences rather than squabbling over them. ** Another blurb from Smith’s Bible Dictionary emphasizes what Christians hold in common when compared to non-Christian faiths:

This difference [between Christian and non-Christian religions] is constituted by the Christian religion having Jesus Christ, His revelation, and His precepts for the objects of its contemplations and the motive of its actions. The Church, therefore, consists of all who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Savior of mankind, who gives credit to His gospel, and who hold His sacraments, the seals of eternal life, in honor.

 

[Porknpie]

Coptic, regardless of what the division is about, it is still division.

Jon, despite your words above, I give you credit in knowing that not all division is the same. Sometimes though you point to the Catholic/Orthodox division and in doing so imply that division is division…that it is all the same…which is not true. We’re united with seven sacraments with the Eucharist being the summit of our faith. Protestantism is missing the gift of the real presence and the grace that comes with it…and there exist great errors on faith and morals…

Catechism for lurkers below…

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."137

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138

1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.139

1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."140

I am in. I just pray for the day we are in together, instead of separately.

Jon

So do I.

 

[CopticChristian]

Jon, despite your words above, I give you credit in knowing that not all division is the same. Sometimes though you point to the Catholic/Orthodox division and in doing so imply that division is division…that it is all the same…which is not true. We’re united with seven sacraments with the Eucharist being the summit of our faith. Protestantism is missing the gift of the real presence and the grace that comes with it…and there exist great errors on faith and morals…

Catechism for lurkers below…

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."137

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138

1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.139

1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."140

So do I.

Pork,

Wow,

You are Catechizing…

 

[JonNC]

=Porknpie;10341146]Jon, despite your words above, I give you credit in knowing that not all division is the same. Sometimes though you point to the Catholic/Orthodox division and in doing so imply that division is division…that it is all the same…which is not true. We’re united with seven sacraments with the Eucharist being the summit of our faith. Protestantism is missing the gift of the real presence and the grace that comes with it…and there exist great errors on faith and morals…

My friend,
I would quote Cardinal Ratzinger here, but I know you already know the quote, and you know the sentiments it relates. I do not believe, for a moment, that I have not received His real body and blood since the day of my first Holy Communion. I have felt His presence in a very real way, knowing full well, while on my knees, my hands elevated to receive His precious body, that it is His true body and from the chalice, His true blood. It is as real and as true as my Baptism, and as the words of Holy Absolution spoken upon my confession.

Catechism for lurkers below…

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."137

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138

1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.139

1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."140

Amen.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

My friend,
I would quote Cardinal Ratzinger here, but I know you already know the quote, and you know the sentiments it relates. I do not believe, for a moment, that I have not received His real body and blood since the day of my first Holy Communion. I have felt His presence in a very real way, knowing full well, while on my knees, my hands elevated to receive His precious body, that it is His true body and from the chalice, His true blood. It is as real and as true as my Baptism, and as the words of Holy Absolution spoken upon my confession.

Amen.

Jon

Jon,

Sometimes…often times…I am not clear. I know LCMS believes in the real presence. This was not the subject of my comment. Nearly all of Protestantism…does not. LCMS is an exception.

Pork.