Do you think Protestants should not leave their denomination and rather change it from within?

[JRKH]

And yet you will get denial from one end of the earth to another.

It makes no sense to me. The world has to run on One Chief and many Indians.

I don’t think that you will get much argument from protestants on this. The disagreement tends to lie in just who that “Chief” is. The protestant view tends to be much more “flat” than the Catholic view…when it comes to hierarchy

Look at every structure of any business in this world. You must always have someone who has to have the say or it would never work.

Yes this is true, but without (name removed by moderator)ut from every level, and responsibility taken among the many employees, supervisors, middle managers, senior VPs etc…the job of the one at the top would be virtually impossible. The person at the top a a large organization depends upon those who help him.
Jesus founded a "Community = ekklesia = Church…That Church works best through dialogue, debate and prayerful council among it’s members - in humble submission one to the other in seeking Truth…
In this, many of us do rely on our priests, Bishops, the Curia and ultimately the Holy Father…But make no mistake, whether we are talking about an industrial organization or the Catholic Church - it requires the efforts of all of us in union to make it work…

Peace
James

 

[Contarini]

There’s a terrible lack of historical reading then actual understanding IMHO. Then when finally done this usually becomes interpreted to fit one’s side of the debate historically. There was a reason why all gathered around Rome and I’m convinced it was Divine Providence, in fact its Biblical with the Church and early Christians.

Course the next question would be, "Well Do You Have The Original Language? " Well of course

“Ad hanc ecclesiam propter potentiorem (or potiorem) principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qaui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio.”

Actually that isn’t the original language. It’s a Latin translation of the Greek, which has been lost!

Edwin

 

[exnihilo]

I disagree. I have no duty whatever to Anglicanism or to the Episcopal Church. I have a duty to a concrete community of baptized Christians who gather for worship and try to practice Christian fellowship with each other. That community was not “born of sin,” though of course it is marred by sin like all communities.

I think I understand you now. You are saying you have a duty to your local congregation. I strongly agree. But it seems to me we also have a duty to the larger body. The larger body helps to define the constituent parts.

Do you really mean you have no duty to Anglicanism of TEC? I would think you have some duty to it. The duty might well be less than the duty to the local congregation, but there has to be some duty.

It seems to me that your analogy works against your argument. There is a community of persons *now *to whom you owe allegiance (again, I can speak more clearly about this on a local level), no matter how messy the history behind them.

My analogy was presented just to point out the confussion that seems to exist in such matters. I’m actually uncertain how to work it out. But it seems to me you are saying the duty is more to the local level. Again I agree.

Well, the shaking dust off was about evangelism and not about leaving one’s community.

Yes the words are given at the instruction of the twelve to evangelize. But I think we can draw out a more general principle that we do not have to keep banging our heads against the wall when others will not listen. It seems to me that God is always there to guide us but if we refuse to be led at some point he will in some sense withdraw from us.

 

[MasterAsia]

and some Catholics here list themselves as “Roman Catholic” Does that mean they are Roman first? Of course not. Both names - Roman Catholic and Lutheran - have as origins slurs from opponents. When we confess the creeds, confess ourselves within the One Holy Apostolic Church.

whatever, if it makes it easier for you in dialogue.

Well at first glance looking at your affiliation one would think you are Roman Catholic too. It is misleading. Since we label ourselves for convenience (point of another Lutheran here) why not be explicit in labeling yourself as a Lutheran (in an “evangelical Catholic” forum LOL) for convenience’s sake.

The current and previous popes seem to encourage corporate recinciliation, so I guess there is a value in it.

agreed.

You are welcome to that narrow view. That doesn’t seem to be what I’m hearing from your Church, however.

It’s great that we agree on some important things (even narrow views hehe).

Uh, no. Calvin was later (25 years younger than Luther), the anabaptists’ rootsd are completely different, and Zwingli was never “with” Luther.

Before the widespread use of the Internet in the Philippines, I am already doing face-to-face religious dialogue (in a smaller extent with Muslims). I was around 22 years old during that time, and I was able to talk with priests/pastors/ministers/Muslims who are more than twice my age. So what if Calvin is 25 years younger than Luther? LOL

Joan of Arc, was even younger when he was “herding” older and powerful men. Jesus was only 12 years old during the “Finding in the Temple” with old wise religious dudes.

As for Zwingli…
“Gradually Zwingli began to oppose the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, having come into contact with the writings of Martin Luther.”

There wasn’t one.

Well Martin Luther, “the one” in Protestantism, opened Pandora’s box via Sola Scriptura. All of Protestantism for what ever the circumstance or personality behind it adhere to that primary principle espoused by Martin Luther. Whether be it the traditional holy texts, or certain “new revelations” they all adhere to Sola Scriptura. In essence that is the beginning of all things Protestant.

Luther remarked: “a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it.” And come on, just think about it, Sola Scriptura enables anybody to “better” Luther.

Lutheranism has never been hierarchical in the sense that Catholicism is.

Now you are into hierarchy? This is about Protestantism for which Lutheran is merely a subset. Hierarchy is irrelevant because in Protestantism you can travel horizontally.

Well you might not be aware how Protestants would slide through different Protestant groups (for reasons espoused by this thread and other things) just to avoid Catholicism. (And by virtue of Providence, Catholic intellectual converts usually try-it-out with other different Protestant churches - just to be sure. hehe)

In my team (at work) one of my former staff is a Lutheran, but he attends evangelical (born again) services or Catholic Church masses if no Lutheran house of worship is available.

Another good example is the Protestant “journeys” of the famous agnostic Bart Ehrman. Here is a map of his journey (avoiding Catholicism)
Studies: Fundamentalist Bible College → Evangelical Christian College → Presbyterian College.
Churches/Belief: Episcopalian → Plymouth Brethren Bible Chapel → Presbyterian → Baptist → Agnostic

Of course not. Brats and beer have a calming effect.

Let me tell you a secret. Once we got close to some Muslims, they are even the ones who invite us for beer (it was a surprise the first time around, though they will never eat pork). Truly, beer is bridge to peace.

Oh, you mean like the Old Catholics, or PNCC, or SSPX? Please, we are all faced with division, and its terrible effects on Christ’s Church.

SSPX? There are here in the Philippines. Although I haven’t heard any SSPX mass, people who did have nothing but great reviews. Plus, we are having beer with them about this problem (in case you didn’t know ).

PNCC? We are having beers with them too.

Perhaps, if the thought had not occured to you, that efforts at unity at not advanced by name-calling (sola-persona), but by prayer and charitable dialogue. I look forward to the latter happening between us.

Sola Persona is not name calling it is a label that says Sola Scriptura is largely (and dangerously flawed) based on personal interpretation. I do not desire a religious unity that will render us to submit to Sola Scriptura. There is no stopping us from becoming friends even in the presence of religious differences.

As it is with friendship, religion takes a backseat. It is very true and most obvious if you have friends of a competing belief, especially Muslims.

 

[FinalRepentance]

I’m an Anglican and know that within our denomination there is much to be improved on. (For instance, I think there is much to be learnt from Catholics regarding a higher view of Mary in response to the verse “…henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”)

However, I subscribe to the words of Billy Graham “'By all means look for the perfect church, and when you find it, join it. But remember, when you join it, it ceases to be perfect!”

One who seeks the perfect Church will have to wait a very long time (until death) to find it.

Hence the question, do you think there is value instead in staying in your own church and in the words of Mahatma Gandhi “Be the change you want to see”?

You make a strong point. But why not remain in both churches?

 

[Contarini]

It makes no sense to me. The world has to run on One Chief and many Indians.

Since Jesus said that the Church was supposed to run on exactly opposite lines to those of the world in precisely this area (Matt. 20:25-27; Mark 10:42-44; Luke 22:25-26), I think this is a terrible argument, frankly.

It’s this kind of approach to the Papacy that rightly puts off Protestants and Orthodox, because it seems to indicate that Catholics have fundamentally missed the point on a pretty basic issue.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for the info. I didn’t realize St. Irenaeus testified about Pope Benedict XVI.

Effectively he did. Any serious questions about papal succession concern the period preceding, not succeeding the time of Irenaeus.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

=MasterAsia;9411394]Well at first glance looking at your affiliation one would think you are Roman Catholic too. It is misleading. Since we label ourselves for convenience (point of another Lutheran here) why not be explicit in labeling yourself as a Lutheran (in an “evangelical Catholic” forum LOL) for convenience’s sake.

As you’re new here, there’s history behind the listing, even other than the historical reference of the type of Lutheran I see myself as. I would suggest you google “evangelical Catholic” before you accuse of “misleading”.

Before the widespread use of the Internet in the Philippines, I am already doing face-to-face religious dialogue (in a smaller extent with Muslims). I was around 22 years old during that time, and I was able to talk with priests/pastors/ministers/Muslims who are more than twice my age. So what if Calvin is 25 years younger than Luther? LOL

you seemed to imply that they came on the scene at the same time.

As for Zwingli…
“Gradually Zwingli began to oppose the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, having come into contact with the writings of Martin Luther.”

And that means they were of the same communion, other than Catholic, how?

Well Martin Luther, “the one” in Protestantism, opened Pandora’s box via Sola Scriptura. All of Protestantism for what ever the circumstance or personality behind it adhere to that primary principle espoused by Martin Luther. Whether be it the traditional holy texts, or certain “new revelations” they all adhere to Sola Scriptura. In essence that is the beginning of all things Protestant.

Ask the Anglicans and Methodists about that. That said, I’m not sure what difference that makes, other than the implication (is there here?) that those who “followed” Luther really didn’t think about it, simply following a pied piper of sorts. I have no particular (theological) fondness for Calvin or Zwingli, but I don’t consider them lemmings, either.

Luther remarked: “a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it.” And come on, just think about it, Sola Scriptura enables anybody to “better” Luther.

And you don’t see the hyperbole in that?

Now you are into hierarchy? This is about Protestantism for which Lutheran is merely a subset. Hierarchy is irrelevant because in Protestantism you can travel horizontally.

Where did you get this from: Lutheranism has never been hierarchical in the sense that Catholicism is.
Here again you erroneously speak of protestantism as a monolith. I could only move to another protestant commuion if they accepted Augsburg.

Well you might not be aware how Protestants would slide through different Protestant groups (for reasons espoused by this thread and other things) just to avoid Catholicism. (And by virtue of Providence, Catholic intellectual converts usually try-it-out with other different Protestant churches - just to be sure. hehe)

Actually, I’ve said before that I would much sooner be Catholic than any other western communion, with the possible exception of more High-church Anglican.

In my team (at work) one of my former staff is a Lutheran, but he attends evangelical (born again) services or Catholic Church masses if no Lutheran house of worship is available.

Can’t imagine why. Are you saying that Catholic catechesis is doing a great job of avoiding these kinds of mistakes? Obviously, I can’t always say that about Lutheran catechesis.

Another good example is the Protestant “journeys” of the famous agnostic Bart Ehrman. Here is a map of his journey (avoiding Catholicism)
Studies: Fundamentalist Bible College → Evangelical Christian College → Presbyterian College.
Churches/Belief: Episcopalian → Plymouth Brethren Bible Chapel → Presbyterian → Baptist → Agnostic

So?

SSPX? There are here in the Philippines. Although I haven’t heard any SSPX mass, people who did have nothing but great reviews. Plus, we are having beer with them about this problem (in case you didn’t know ).

PNCC? We are having beers with them too.

I’ll have to try one.

Sola Persona is not name calling it is a label that says Sola Scriptura is largely (and dangerously flawed) based on personal interpretation. I do not desire a religious unity that will render us to submit to Sola Scriptura. There is no stopping us from becoming friends even in the presence of religious differences.

No. It’s name calling. You would consider it name calling if I referred to you as “Romanist” or “Papist”.

I would never expect you to submit to anything you personally do not believe in.

Agreed on the last statement, though I would hope that includes a high level of charity.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

I can understand not wanting to leave friends, family. people you love, believe me I do. But would not the perfect relationship with Jesus in the Eucharist be more important?

It still wouldn’t be a solved problem form me.

If, the Holy Sprit gave me enough wisdom to think that the RCC what the only way for salvation, I still would be in a quandary - my wife and children would probably not make the leap with me, and without me as a father and husband in communion with them, I’m am not absolutely certain that even their imperfect faith would be assured in the long run.

I pray that God would give me guidance in this, if the time does arrive.

 

[robwar]

I’m an Anglican and know that within our denomination there is much to be improved on. (For instance, I think there is much to be learnt from Catholics regarding a higher view of Mary in response to the verse “…henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”)

However, I subscribe to the words of Billy Graham “'By all means look for the perfect church, and when you find it, join it. But remember, when you join it, it ceases to be perfect!”

One who seeks the perfect Church will have to wait a very long time (until death) to find it.

Hence the question, do you think there is value instead in staying in your own church and in the words of Mahatma Gandhi “Be the change you want to see”?

I was raised in the Methodist church and growing up in that church, i saw a number of conflicts between people and their views. Some were very liberal (religious ed director did not believe in the virgin birth) and others wanted a more conservative evangelical church and stayed because they thought it was a big mission field. Considering that you are Anglican and your communion has had a lot of turmoil in recent years you have to ask these questions. If you stay, will you realistically change the direction of the problems in the Anglican communion? Do these problems point to a deeper issues? Does the Anglican church contain and follow complete Christian truth founded by Christ? Billy Graham’s point is really more about the fact that every church has imperfect people in it than imperfect in doctrine. I did not join the Catholic church because every Catholic practices and follows their faith perfectly. I joined because the Catholic church is the church that contain the complete truth about Jesus and his teachings. There is a difference between infallible and impeccable. Yes, we and every other faith has impeccable people in it but it is infallible in teaching. If you stay, to be honest with you, you probably are not going to change the deep seated problems you see and experience. Or use these problems to seek out further what is truth and then join that.

 

[gabjus]

You make a strong point. But why not remain in both churches?

How?

I was raised in the Methodist church and growing up in that church, i saw a number of conflicts between people and their views. Some were very liberal (religious ed director did not believe in the virgin birth) and others wanted a more conservative evangelical church and stayed because they thought it was a big mission field. Considering that you are Anglican and your communion has had a lot of turmoil in recent years you have to ask these questions. If you stay, will you realistically change the direction of the problems in the Anglican communion? Do these problems point to a deeper issues?

I think you rightly say that most problems point to deeper issues. However, staying is the best way to change it. I think Catholics have experienced many times themselves how much hard it is to convince a Protestant to change simply because they have the label ‘Catholic’. I do not realistic expect to change much. But neither would I say I make no influence at all, since we cannot help but influence others (even by staying silent). I only pray that the influences I make (no matter how small) are directed by the Holy Spirit.

Does the Anglican church contain and follow complete Christian truth founded by Christ? Billy Graham’s point is really more about the fact that every church has imperfect people in it than imperfect in doctrine. I did not join the Catholic church because every Catholic practices and follows their faith perfectly. I joined because the Catholic church is the church that contain the complete truth about Jesus and his teachings. There is a difference between infallible and impeccable. Yes, we and every other faith has impeccable people in it but it is infallible in teaching.

Of cos Anglicans don’t have the complete Christian truth, for we know partially and prophesy (teach) partially, as at present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror. I think there is a decent amount of people trying to make sure Anglicans are good stewards of what we are handed with (even though yes there are plenty of politics, but which church doesn’t?).

Admittedly, Graham’s point is probably more about the imperfect people, the practices done by them (formally or otherwise), rather than imperfect doctrine, though I am unsure if he really made such a dichotomy.

If you stay, to be honest with you, you probably are not going to change the deep seated problems you see and experience. Or use these problems to seek out further what is truth and then join that.

I do not want to solve deep seated problems. And obviously I can’t. I pray that the Holy Spirit will do it. And the Holy Spirit can use whoever he pleases. Even if he uses me to solve chicken-feet baby problems, that’s good enough for me too.

Blessings,
gabjus

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by FinalRepentance
You make a strong point. But why not remain in both churches?

I was wondering that also. There’s no “dual communion”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It’s a Latin translation of the Greek, which has been lost!

Edwin

Shame we can’t compare. We “do” have the Latin, Against Heresies in its entirety! And the date is also a known.

Fragments of Syriac, Greek and Latin exist to compare.

google.com/url?q=http://www.textexcavation.com/irenaeusah.html&sa=U&ei=fS7bT5vHFIne9ASl6JTnCg&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=Re1BgSPtGucoY_wxkmZfmQ&usg=AFQjCNGyE4X2c0L4gpj3tGUvSre9hAmpNQ

I guess that sort of leaves us with what we do have and an “assumption” of what we do not have. However, there was no point on contention in this work and the quotation, between the 2 and 4th century which it is dated from. Or that work must be missing also?

 

[Contarini]

I was wondering that also. There’s no “dual communion”.

Canon law certainly forbids it. I’m unclear on what the consequences are. I’ve seen Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez engage in it with my own eyes (in the chapel of Duke Divinity School, where he had just preached), and in spite of having been investigated by the CDF a number of times (not for that reason, as far as I know), he remains a Catholic theologian in good standing.

However, short of receiving communion, as far as I can see one could participate in a non-Catholic church in a variety of other ways. The Vatican’s “Principles and Norms for Ecumenism” explicitly say that Catholics may take part in prayers, Scripture reading, etc., and may even preach, and the Church has frequently encouraged such things as joint study of Scripture.

So it seems to me that one could quite easily participate in most aspects of a non-Catholic church’s parish life while also being a Catholic in good standing and not violating any teaching or current discipline of the Church.

Many folks on this forum resist this idea, but in previous debates they’ve been unable to support their position with any recent directive from the Vatican. Certainly pre-Vatican-II discipline forbade this kind of thing (or indeed any visit to a Protestant church that was not motivated by social considerations), but it’s a well-known principle that discipline can and does change.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Canon law certainly forbids it. I’m unclear on what the consequences are. I’ve seen Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez engage in it with my own eyes (in the chapel of Duke Divinity School, where he had just preached), and in spite of having been investigated by the CDF a number of times (not for that reason, as far as I know), he remains a Catholic theologian in good standing.

However, short of receiving communion, as far as I can see one could participate in a non-Catholic church in a variety of other ways. The Vatican’s “Principles and Norms for Ecumenism” explicitly say that Catholics may take part in prayers, Scripture reading, etc., and may even preach, and the Church has frequently encouraged such things as joint study of Scripture.

So it seems to me that one could quite easily participate in most aspects of a non-Catholic church’s parish life while also being a Catholic in good standing and not violating any teaching or current discipline of the Church.

Many folks on this forum resist this idea, but in previous debates they’ve been unable to support their position with any recent directive from the Vatican. Certainly pre-Vatican-II discipline forbade this kind of thing (or indeed any visit to a Protestant church that was not motivated by social considerations), but it’s a well-known principle that discipline can and does change.

Edwin

I find what you’re saying here a bit confusing. If you’re talking about inter-communion, then I would point out that most Christians (with a few exceptions like the Orthodox) have some inter-communion. For example, the RCC doesn’t object to giving communion to members of the PNCC, even though they are not in full communion.

However, when I said “dual communion” I was referring to FinalRepentance’s question, “But why not remain in both churches?” (which seem to me to be impossible).

 

[lulu88]

**Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).

Christians in these churches should, of course, respect their own church’s guidelines regarding when it would be permissible for them to receive Communion in a Catholic church.

Canon law explains the parameters: “If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (CIC 844 § 4).**

lulu

 

[Peter_J]

Exactly. Hence, there’s inter-communion (e.g. between the RCC and the PNCC); but there isn’t “dual communion” because a member of the PNCC can’t be in full communion with the RCC and still be in full communion with the rest of the PNCC as well (excepting, of course, if the rest of the PNCC also decided to come into full communion with the RCC).

 

[Contarini]

I find what you’re saying here a bit confusing. If you’re talking about inter-communion, then I would point out that most Christians (with a few exceptions like the Orthodox) have some inter-communion. For example, the RCC doesn’t object to giving communion to members of the PNCC, even though they are not in full communion.

However, when I said “dual communion” I was referring to FinalRepentance’s question, “But why not remain in both churches?” (which seem to me to be impossible).

OK, I assumed you were talking about receiving the Eucharist in both churches.

Why exactly does “remaining in both churches” seem impossible?

Of course, a lot depends on what “remaining” means.

If I seek full communion with Rome, I will obviously step down from Diocesan council–it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to share in the governing of a community that doesn’t act in full communion with and under the authority of the Catholic Church.

And as I said, I’m aware that receiving the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church is forbidden, but that doesn’t seem to be your issue.

All the other many ways in which one “remains” in a community seem open to me.

But I welcome criticisms.

Why exactly does “belonging to both” seem so obviously impossible?

Sure, in a formal canonical sense one needs to belong to one or the other. But I don’t think that’s the issue here.

I would suggest that the flawed assumption that shapes how folks look at this is that Protestant churches are “other churches” that occupy the same “space” as the Catholic Church. But that’s obviously false. Your Church doesn’t teach this. There’s only one Church.

Protestant churches are, in your Church’s formal teaching, “ecclesial communities” of baptized people with an imperfect relationship to the Catholic Church.

Why would a person seeking full communion with the Church not be able to continue to share (albeit now “imperfectly” with regard to Eucharist and government) in the life of the community that shares “imperfectly” in the life of the Catholic Church?

This is a very real and very personal issue for me.

Edwin

 

[adf417]

I think it is not a bad idea depending on the true intent of the individual, which only Gods knows, and also conforming to church teachings. If I make my obligations at my Catholic church then what happens afterwards should be considered outward evangelization. I can see myself as attending Mass on Saturday and going to a protestant service on Sunday. This would be no different than attending Mass on Saturday and attending a non-Catholic bible study or prayer service later on in the week right?

I have been considering doing just this myself.

Peace!!!

 

[AlwaysCurious]

Why would a person seeking full communion with the Church not be able to continue to share (albeit now “imperfectly” with regard to Eucharist and government) in the life of the community that shares “imperfectly” in the life of the Catholic Church?

This is a very real and very personal issue for me.

Edwin

Seems to me that this is a good way to make sure a person never has any real peace (at least from the ecclesiastical point of view). It would be like knowing that my shoulder is dislocated, and that it’s really going to hurt to set it, so I try to content myself with living with the dislocation.

I’m curious about this idea of trying to work within an “imperfect” community to seek full communion. Does it mean I’m operating as a sort of “double agent” to push individuals toward the Church? Does it mean I’m trying to change the outlook of the parish as a whole so that it will return home together (and what if that never happens)? Does it mean I’m hoping the Church will change its teaching such that there’s really nothing wrong at all with these “ecclesial communities”? Or is it ultimately a rationalization?

I guess no matter how you look at it, it’s a tough spot. All the more reason to keep praying for unity!