Does your Non-Catholic religion teach any theological errors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stylteralmaldo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stylteralmaldo

Guest
This question is for non-Catholics only please.

The Catholic Church teaches that it does not have any theological errors in its teachings in faith and morals. I am wondering how many non-Catholic adherents agree with their denomination’s teachings in faith and morals 100% or is there an item or items where you are at odds with that faith tradition?

Please respond and then identify (if you wish) what faith tradition you come from and how you voted.

Thanks! 🙂
 
This question is for non-Catholics only please.

The Catholic Church teaches that it does not have any theological errors in its teachings in faith and morals. I am wondering how many non-Catholic adherents agree with their denomination’s teachings in faith and morals 100% or is there an item or items where you are at odds with that faith tradition?

Please respond and then identify (if you wish) what fatih tradition you come from.

Thanks! 🙂
Lutheran tradition on this vote. 🙂
 
Yes, I believe my “non-denominational non-Catholic” church has some errors in it’s statement of faith. The elders of “my” church believe they are correct just as I presume the Pope and Catholic leaders believe they are correct.

I hold that none but Christ has been perfect and thus that no church (or church theology) is either because people are involved.

For example, “my” church teaches that healing has been done away with. Absurd as I am living proof! It would be off topic to discuss errors in Catholic theology.

THE Church (as there is only one and all Christians members) will be perfect when Christ comes back to claim His bride and lead it in the millenial kingdom.
 
Yes, I believe my “non-denominational non-Catholic” church has some errors in it’s statement of faith. The elders of “my” church believe they are correct just as I presume the Pope and Catholic leaders believe they are correct.

I hold that none but Christ has been perfect and thus that no church (or church theology) is either because people are involved.

For example, “my” church teaches that healing has been done away with. Absurd as I am living proof! It would be off topic to discuss errors in Catholic theology.

THE Church (as there is only one and all Christians members) will be perfect when Christ comes back to claim His bride and lead it in the millenial kingdom.
So you believe thousands of denominations, all built on some slightly different private interpretation, to be one body of Christ? That sounds confusing, and confusion is not of God. How can that one body of Christ be considered perfect if they do not all hold the same doctrines?

I’m surprised at your statement, “Yes, I believe my “non-denominational non-Catholic” church has some errors in it’s statement of faith.” When it comes to matters of faith, Catholics do not believe there are errors.

There was only meant to be one Church.
1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Do you really think, with all the different denominations, everyone is speaking the same thing and everyone is perfect in the same mind and the same judgement? It’s quite evident there has been many schisms.

Christ Himself taught one Church.
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
St. Paul warns of those who do not agree.
Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.
The biggest error in protestantism is to think that private interpretation joins all Christians. All Christians are not joined if they hold different doctrines.
Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
Rom 15:5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Col 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.
If the Church is the body of Christ, and the Church is actually in everyone’s heart, how can Christ be perfect if we do not all hold the same truths?

If your Church is teaching you that the Catholic Church has done away with healing, then you have pointed out another error of your Church to us. These are the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, Baptism, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
Catholics believe Christ built His Church on Peter.
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Do you believe Christ to be the wise man or the foolish man?
Mat 7:24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock,
Mat 7:25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these my words and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand,
Mat 7:27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.
Mat 7:28 And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
 
This question is for non-Catholics only please.

The Catholic Church teaches that it does not have any theological errors in its teachings in faith and morals. I am wondering how many non-Catholic adherents agree with their denomination’s teachings in faith and morals 100% or is there an item or items where you are at odds with that faith tradition?

Please respond and then identify (if you wish) what faith tradition you come from and how you voted.

Thanks! 🙂
I answered the second “no” response with this caveat: while the LCMS doesn’t “teach” errors, it does allow errors to be believed and sometimes taught. Examples, receptionism in the Eucharist, and that private confession is available but not important. And while not a matter of “faith and morals”, it concerns me that the LCMS is, in my opinion, erring by not considering ecumenical efforts leading to unity with Rome (particularly, but not exclusively) as being a vital role of our reformation status.

Jon
 
Steve Pearson: **Yes, I believe my “non-denominational non-Catholic” church has some errors in it’s statement of faith. **

**If you believe that your church teaches error, why do you remain in it? Somewhere out there is a church that teaches ALL truth; otherwise Jesus is a liar.

I will also point out that there’s no such thing as a “non-denominational church”. It might be a church of just one denomination (which should be a red warning flag right there), but most likely it will be found to fit quite neatly into one of the existing denominations.**
 
This question is for non-Catholics only please.

The Catholic Church teaches that it does not have any theological errors in its teachings in faith and morals. I am wondering how many non-Catholic adherents agree with their denomination’s teachings in faith and morals 100% or is there an item or items where you are at odds with that faith tradition?

Please respond and then identify (if you wish) what faith tradition you come from and how you voted.

Thanks! 🙂
Nobody truly has any idea about the wisdom of God. As far as theology goes, I believe that my Anglican church has fewer errors than the Catholic church, but the important point here is that the Anglican church doesn’t teach concretely on 100% of faith and moral issues in the church and the reason why is because of what i stated in the first sentence of this post.
 
I have no idea what the various options are…but…given these realities:

(1) The number of theological areas in which sincere Christians who love God differ
(2) The number of possible positions within each theological area where there are differences.

I would say that it is very highly improbable that my denomination is 100% theologically correct.

I would also say that it is very highly improbable that your denomination is 100% theologically correct, despite your claims to the contrary.
 
I answered the second “no” response with this caveat: while the LCMS doesn’t “teach” errors, it does allow errors to be believed and sometimes taught. Examples, receptionism in the Eucharist, and that private confession is available but not important. And while not a matter of “faith and morals”, it concerns me that the LCMS is, in my opinion, erring by not considering ecumenical efforts leading to unity with Rome (particularly, but not exclusively) as being a vital role of our reformation status.

Jon
Absolutely, Jon. Agree 100% with what you say. Since we are reformists and Rome is still a Christian body, we should still be seeking to reform it.
 
TriuneUNity & JonNC: Ok. I think I can understand your point in a certain sense. For example, I know there are individual priests and also some bishops that have taught theological errors. And I sometimes wonder why the Catholic Church allows these priests and bishops to remain in active ministry. Is this the same context you see it, or does it run deeper than that from the Lutheran side?
 
TriuneUNity & JonNC: Ok. I think I can understand your point in a certain sense. For example, I know there are individual priests and also some bishops that have taught theological errors. And I sometimes wonder why the Catholic Church allows these priests and bishops to remain in active ministry. Is this the same context you see it, or does it run deeper than that from the Lutheran side?
I think so, yes. As far as it running deeper. Historically, Lutheranism always functioned with an episcopacy in church polity. One reason the Roman Church has largely remained faithful to the doctrines that it teaches is the strong episcopal background within it. While there may be individual priests and bishops who have taught/teach error they usually do not last for very long before the Pope starts to take notice (an example of this was the heresy of liberation theology). Lutheranism is not “built” to allow for a congregational polity, or elder rule by the local pastors without outside influence. While we do not hold that episcopacy is the God-ordained form of church governance, the Book of Concord assumes that that is how the church will be organized. So far, that has proven true. The Missouri Synod is pathetically weak on an organizational level. (The Wisconsin Synod has had better luck in this area.)
 
Nobody truly has any idea about the wisdom of God. As far as theology goes,** I believe that my Anglican church has fewer errors than the Catholic church**, but the important point here is that the Anglican church doesn’t teach concretely on 100% of faith and moral issues in the church and the reason why is because of what i stated in the first sentence of this post.
What errors do you believe are in the Catholic Church? Isn’t there a serious split happenning right now in the Anglican church over the decision to allow women bishops? Is that an error in your Church.?
 
How so? Are they organized differently or is it that they are a smaller organization making it easier for them to remain organized?
They are organized differently in that teaching authority tends to be more top-down than in Missouri. They aren’t episcopal in their structure but they have a doctrine peculiar to them and a few other smaller synods called the “unit concept” of doctrinal association. Meaning in order to have fellowship of ANY kind with another Christian, ALL sides must be in doctrinal agreement about every point of doctrine.

A Missouri Synod Lutheran, while he or she will not receive communion in another church, will still associate with Christians of other traditions, pray with them, seek ecumenical fellowship etc. whereas Wisconsin will not even pray with a Christian of a different tradition. As a result, their doctrinal distinctiveness has been maintained more (of course, the negative side is being a really small denomination). They also watch what their pastors are teaching a lot more closely since they have the authority to remove a pastor who is teaching falsehood. In Missouri, they cannot remove the pastor, all they can do is kick the congregation out of the Synod; but that still leaves the pastor in his teaching office.
 
They are organized differently in that teaching authority tends to be more top-down than in Missouri. They aren’t episcopal in their structure but they have a doctrine peculiar to them and a few other smaller synods called the “unit concept” of doctrinal association. Meaning in order to have fellowship of ANY kind with another Christian, ALL sides must be in doctrinal agreement about every point of doctrine.

A Missouri Synod Lutheran, while he or she will not receive communion in another church, will still associate with Christians of other traditions, pray with them, seek ecumenical fellowship etc. whereas Wisconsin will not even pray with a Christian of a different tradition. As a result, their doctrinal distinctiveness has been maintained more (of course, the negative side is being a really small denomination). They also watch what their pastors are teaching a lot more closely since they have the authority to remove a pastor who is teaching falsehood. In Missouri, they cannot remove the pastor, all they can do is kick the congregation out of the Synod; but that still leaves the pastor in his teaching office.
…and, in my opinion, they compromise the true nature of the reformation by not being involved in dialogue with others.
Jon
 
…and, in my opinion, they compromise the true nature of the reformation by not being involved in dialogue with others.
Jon
It seems the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans are quasi-Catholic. There may be a difference in that the Catholic Church will dialogue with other Christian traditions to the extent that those other faith traditions come to terms with the Catholic theological understanding.

I think an example of this is the joint declaration of justification which was signed by the ELCA but not by the LCMS nor the WELS. That joint declaration didn’t change the Catholic position at all. I’m not familiar enough with the ELCA prior to the declaration, but it seems that the LCMS and WELS saw that the Catholic Church didn’t change it’s stance, therefore there was no reason for them to sign on.

Did the WELS or LCMS even participate in the dialogue? I get the impression that there would be no way the WELS would participate since there position would be: ‘What is there to discuss, the Catholic Church needs to recant it’s position on justification’, whereas the impression I have of the LCMS is ‘We see what you have presented for justification, and we see your position has not changed, therefore we will not sign on’.

Am I reading the difference in approach correctly?
 
It seems the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans are quasi-Catholic. There may be a difference in that the Catholic Church will dialogue with other Christian traditions to the extent that those other faith traditions come to terms with the Catholic theological understanding.

I think an example of this is the joint declaration of justification which was signed by the ELCA but not by the LCMS nor the WELS. That joint declaration didn’t change the Catholic position at all. I’m not familiar enough with the ELCA prior to the declaration, but it seems that the LCMS and WELS saw that the Catholic Church didn’t change it’s stance, therefore there was no reason for them to sign on.

Did the WELS or LCMS even participate in the dialogue? I get the impression that there would be no way the WELS would participate since there position would be: ‘What is there to discuss, the Catholic Church needs to recant it’s position on justification’, whereas the impression I have of the LCMS is ‘We see what you have presented for justification, and we see your position has not changed, therefore we will not sign on’.

Am I reading the difference in approach correctly?
I think you are probably right about the stances of the three synods. And yes, the LCMS had limited participation.

However, I am disappointed with LCMS for not signing on (I’m LCMS, so this is my opinion). I don’t think the JDDJ misstates Lutheran theology on Justification, either. My view is that the document, to the extent that it goes, confirms the areas of agreement. If it had solved all of the issues between us, we’d be sharing the Eucharist next Sunday. But just because it isn’t complete doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support what convergence we do have.
Triuneunity, I think, has a view more in line with the LCMS, and will probably beg to differ with me. 😃

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top