#1: I said we do not consider our priests, or bishops or even the Pope to be infallible (in the sense that we think they’re not susceptible to human error). The post to which I replied had pretty much accused us of that.
How about just admitting that they are doctrinal disagreements, respecting each other, not quibbling about things that are “secondary” and concentrating on the unity of things we have in common.
Not at all, actually. I thought I clarified my meaning.
I see your point…
Speaking for me, and not House, I don’t see any mutual agreement to ignore these vast differences. In fact, the differences you mention are precisely the reason I have always said I would be Catholic before I would be any other type of protestant (except may be Anglo-Catholic).
Two thoughts:
The post apostolic church had more than the OT Scriptures. Read Pope St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians. He cites numerous writings of the apostle Paul and refers to them as Scripture - 40 years after their composition. The fathers prior to the councils of Laodicea, Rome, Hippo and Carthage quote extensively from the Scriptures, such that 99% of it could be reconstructed just from their quotes. If that weren’t the case, the council of Nicea would have been hard pressed to refute Arius from the NT. Yet they do so quite handily. The semi-Dan Brownish worldview that is used by Catholics with respect to the history of the canon simply doesn’t match the historical record.
The term catholic is defined by the Athanasian Creed quite succinctly. None of it mentions Popes or magisteriums. Be that as it may, we have always called ourselves catholics and we did so long before the 1800s.
Who is denying that?
That’s certainly a reasonable explanation. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t thing there’s anything in Unum Sanctam that gets in the way of salvation if understood in a Catholic context, and especially given the modern Catholic clarifications.
Just quickly, what do you mean when you say Pope Leo X “preached another gospel”? I mean, what of what he taught strikes you as different?
If one considers Scripture, one sees that the “pillar and ground” of truth is “the church.”
Isn’t St.Clement’s identification of Paul’s writings as Scripture a demonstration of tradition and the beginnings of what would later be relied on to develop the canon? What about inspired texts that were not yet identified as Scripture? Before the canon existed, how could alleged sola scriptura Christians be assured that the texts they were following were inspired?
I hope that my reply above will help you understand the Catholic view of the Great Schism.
That’s cool. My denomination settles disputes through synods and councils as well. In fact the practice of sola Scriptura is a source of unity IMO. Denominations that practice sola scripture join into communion all the time, such as my own tiny Lutheran denomination and the even tinier ELS. But bigger ones as well such as the ELCA and the EC. In fact, I would say that churches practicing sola scripture by far more unified them the “apostolic” churches that refuse to recognize scripture as the final authority. That’s why sola Scriptura practicing denominations join up all the time, but your church and the Orthodox Church have been in dispute for approximately 1000 years with no viable solution except a few “let’s play nice” type agreements.
That’s not what JPII stated of the EOs, he called them “the other lung” of the church. Not some group that’s outside the church completely. Even so, IIRC, EOs see Roman Catholicism as a breach of tradition and not the other way around, the Roman Catholic Church is the one that needs to be invited back, not theirs. Seems like there is not going to be anything like unity as long as this attitude persists. That’s why I think reliance on “Sacred Tradition” etc is a recipe for disunity and disaster.
Sure. I like to discuss and dialogue about our shared commonalities. Unfortunately those secondary things get me labeled a heretic, and even worse a “separated brother”.
I want to answer your post about Pope John Paul 2’s describing the EO as one of two lungs here… in Ut Unam Sint, the reference (para. 54) is wistful and conditional.
) --that the lack of the “lung” of the EO means the Church is somewhat incomplete, and I could see too that without the Protestants, the Church is also somewhat incomplete. The East has the mysticism; the Protestants have the enthusiasm–which is not to say that neither is found in the Catholic Church!–but that the Church would be enriched by unification with all our “separated brethren” which I say with sorrow on the first word and emphasis on the second; I don’t know why you see this as a bad thing to say and I very much do not mean it badly. I would hope that you feel towards non-Lutherans a spiritual kinship with sorrow at our separation?The Church has not called you a heretic or instructed catholics to do so.
Maybe not recently.
It is clear that the principles established at the Reformation and denial of a single authoritative teaching office have led to many different “truths.” And with so many different truths and no way of deciding which truth is right, if any, truth comes a matter of opinion. “If it works for you, man.” Truth, then, is relative, since it cannot be determined if there is any such thing as “Truth.”
