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

  • Thread starter Thread starter gabjus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
But as long as not all baptized Christians are in communion with each other, and for that matter as long as any baptized Christians are not glorified saints (in other words until Jesus comes), we will be “dislocated.”

Perfectionist ecclesiologies, like other forms of perfectionism, are trying to evade the limitations of our existence “in pilgrimage.”
I’m curious about this idea of trying to work within an “imperfect” community to seek full communion.
All communities of the Church Militant are imperfect, because all are made up of imperfect people.

Protestants have particular imperfections arising from their lack of union with the See of Peter and their abandonment of certain parts of the deposit of faith.
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)?
No, it means that I’m refusing to turn my back on anything good and true, period. It means that if I conclude that communion with the Church involves communion with Rome, and that my present community is imperfectly in communion with the Church for that reason, then I may need to have an imperfect communion with my present congregation (by not receiving communion–though even that is very difficult for me to contemplate). But to refuse to have any communion at all would not reflect what the Catholic Church actually teaches about these communities’ relationship with the Church.

Conservative Catholics are very concerned about “giving the impression” that all religions are the same and everything is OK.

They aren’t nearly enough concerned about giving the impression that Protestants are not really brothers and sisters in Christ at all, instead of being imperfectly united to the Church. That’s actually the impression that many non-Catholics have.

There’s a radical dissonance between saying that there are many gifts and graces within Protestantism, and acting as if there aren’t.

Edwin
 
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.
You’re right that’s not the issue I was talking about.

I should clarify: when I said “dual communion”, I meant that in the sense of being in full communion with 2 different groups who are not in full communion with each other. That’s just not happening – just consider the Zoghby Initiative, or read any of the various discussions of same.

I don’t mean to imply that there can’t be ways of “belonging” other than full communion. There are – a simple example would be someone who is in full communion with the PNCC receiving communion in the RCC.
 
You’re right that’s not the issue I was talking about.

I should clarify: when I said “dual communion”, I meant that in the sense of being in full communion with 2 different groups who are not in full communion with each other. That’s just not happening – just consider the Zoghby Initiative, or read any of the various discussions of same.

I don’t mean to imply that there can’t be ways of “belonging” other than full communion. There are – a simple example would be someone who is in full communion with the PNCC receiving communion in the RCC.
I guess I need a definition of “full communion.” It’s a term that gets thrown around a lot. If it doesn’t mean Eucharistic intercommunion, what does it mean? In mainline Protestant circles (where open communion is widely practiced anyway) it tends to mean that ministers of one denomination may serve as ministers in another. But that doesn’t affect the present question regarding the possibility of individual laypeople practicing “dual communion.”

As I said, I can certainly see that if I were to enter into full communion with Rome I’d have to give up serving in any kind of governmental capacity in Anglicanism (I was on the vestry until this year, and am still on the diocesan council). And a fortiori it wouldn’t be possible to function as a clergyperson in both (whereas one may function simultaneously as a clergyperson in both TEC and ELCA, or in the Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren, or in the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic churches, though the last is probably the most difficult owing to the huge liturgical differences:p).

Edwin
 
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”.
Whatever is your personal story it is still misleading. The Catholic Church has more than a billion adherents. Catholics from the third-world who are just recently having Internet connection will surely be confused about your label. In the Philippines we have a lot of “Evangelical Catholics” who are Catholics. Lutherans here label them themselves as “Lutheren”.

And what happened to the old Internet rule of taking and presenting things at face value? Although we are allowed freedom to represent ourselves, we still ought to be factual as well as practical.

Imagine after you have gone (knock on wood) people would say “oh this guy labeled himself an Evangelical Catholic” Then would go on to read that JonNC was holding heretical positions. Why give a greater probability for confusion, when it can be clear at first hand? Unless you are not really a proud Lutheran.
you seemed to imply that they came on the scene at the same time.

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

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.

And you don’t see the hyperbole in that?

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.
Not true, you either misread or is misrepresenting my statements. Probably you are having an assumption that you thought I was having. Now you know it is none of what you thought you knew. 😉

Again Luther is the “prime mover” of Sola Scriptura. In effect there must be a level of expectation via Sola Scriptura that others who will subscribe to Sola Scriptura will have different and diversified conclusions. How hard is that to understand? LOL That is why there are Baptists and Methodists too, not only Lutherans. One ultimate doctrine (courtesy of Martin Luther) that is the father of all these Protestant denominations.
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. 🤷
One would wonder why you would incline to be Catholic, “I would much sooner be Catholic”. 😉

Maybe because the things that bind us are more important than the things that divide us. 😉 😃
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.
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. 😉
Here in the Philippines, in real life, we take verbal assaults from Protestants and Muslims. Protestants in the midst of their worship services will call us anything from pagans to apostates. Muslims in the midst of the the feast of the Nazarene where 9 million Catholics attend, would openly mock us of idolatry and paganism. I don’t know about our brothers and sisters overseas, but here in the Philippines we are proud papists and Romanists. 😉

Why don’t you shed your onion skin. The Internet is a straightforward communication medium. If the high-level of charity for you equates to a liberal and politically correct wording that serves only your own personal feelings then I am sorry you are not going to get it from us. In the Philippines, face-to-face dialogue with Protestants demands the highest charity by shutting off any argumentation in the defense of Marian beliefs and the papacy. In real life, Catholics here are decent and submissive and will not provoke nor add fuel to the fire that we only remain silent in the midst of religious assault. Only in the Internet that we have a chance to equalize the playing field. Expect uncompromising positions regarding doctrine, but charity (and beers) in anything else. 😉

Sola Persona is a scholarly derivation of the true meaning of Sola Scriptura, and that just means personal interpretation. It has positive and negative connotations, but as a Catholic, we perceive that the risks outweighs the benefits.
 
I guess I need a definition of “full communion.” It’s a term that gets thrown around a lot.
True, it does get thrown around a lot.
If it doesn’t mean Eucharistic intercommunion, what does it mean?
If memory serves, back before the ELCA and TEC-USA had a “full communion” agreement, they had a “eucharistic sharing” agreement, right? I don’t recall the year.
 
True, it does get thrown around a lot.

If memory serves, back before the ELCA and TEC-USA had a “full communion” agreement, they had a “eucharistic sharing” agreement, right? I don’t recall the year.
As I recall, Peter, (and I was ELCA at the time), this is correct.

“Call to Common Mission” is more than eucharistic hospitality, getting to Edwin’s thought.
It is called, as I remember, full altar and pulpit fellowship - sharing of clergy, etc. Perhaps that’s as close to a definition of “full communion” as one can get. 🤷
Jon
 
I am silently encouraging by example the acceptance of Anglo-Catholicism in my church; or rather, the awareness of Anglo-Catholicism. I’m not encouraging merging with any other church.
 
I converted myself a couple of years ago, Mum had just died ,those who cared were the local Catholic Priest and the congregation. The Anglican church knew what have happened but have not contacted me to this day and that includes the clergy!

I also cared for her for several years but may as well have dropped off the face of the earth as far as the Anglican church was concerned, again it was the local Catholic Priest and the congregation who cared and kept me sane.
 
I was a Baptist( not that attending a denom makes one anything) when I was brought into the Church. I could not have changed them and I wasn’t going to try. My first obligation is to my own soul and leading the way by example and commitment. I am where I needed and need to be. I prefer non Catholic denom to the archaic and inaccurate term “protestant”. They are generally not protesting…they are just not Catholic.😉
 
When it comes to changing the minds of non-catholics about the Blessed Virgin Mary it seems to be an uphill battle. Mary is the one name that if you mention it in a group of non-catholics, you can almost feel the ice in the room. How that must break our Lord’s heart.

I live in Calgary which is a huge city with a long winter. I’m a widow and I’m not comfortable driving long distances. It takes me 1 1/2 hours by bus to attend an Anglo Catholic Church. So I attend our neighbourhood Anglican Church which is close enough to walk to and one of our three Priests is Anglo Catholic. I have never made any secret of the fact that I am an Anglo Catholic and I love Mary but I don’t expect to ever change anyone’s thinking…although I do keep praying. Every once in awhile I come across someone else in our Parish who is also an Anglo Catholic which I feel is a gift to me from the Lord…so I don’t feel so all alone.

My advice to anyone who loves and respects Mary, if the circumstances permit, is to seriously consider changing to the Catholic Church or the Anglo Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top