Eccumenicalism

[SteveVH]

until the Church is reunited, he said.

No, not in the post to which I was originally responding. He said nothing of the sort. He has since explained himself which makes his point, well, pointless. None of us know how long we will be in purgatory and I am fairly certain that there will be some Catholics who will spend more time there than many Protestants.

Agreed, if the truth in question is truth that is basically constitutive of the Faith.

I suppose my basic difficulty with Catholicism is that I still believe in that much derided Protestant doctrine of “essentials.” I see the difficulties with it, and that’s why I have belabored my brains and conscience to get myself to agree that transubstantiation and the Marian dogmas and so on are really essential for unity. But I don’t see it. (This is not to say that I reject those doctrines–at worst I’m agnostic about them.) At the end of the day I think the Lambeth Quadrilateral is more or less right about what is required for reunion. And this is in part because I don’t see experiential evidence that Catholics have the “fullness of the Faith” in a practical sense, to the degree that would be required to justify making all the Catholic distinctives necessary for union.

I’ve gone back and forth on this, and may yet do so. I see the force of the other side as well. I see the beauty of saying "no, there’s this incredibly rich full Faith and if we water down one little bit we have abandoned the trust Christ gave us. . . . " but as I said, the reality of the Catholic Church doesn’t seem to support such a grandiose claim. The Trinity and the Incarnation seem to be enough to support a vibrant, rich, full, authentically Christian faith and life, even if Catholicism represents a fuller understanding of the implications of these dogmas.

When the Catholic Church holds, as the source and summit of its faith, belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it would seem that any rejection of this, alone, would place one outside of the Church. That is, if we are talking “essentials”.

First of all, a purely “invisible church” isn’t the historic Protestant position at all. And in the second place, even people who believe in a purely invisible church often believe that belief in certain doctrines is necessary in order to belong to it.

Obviously it matters what you believe. If you don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead, for instance, you’re not recognizably a Christian.

But if you don’t believe in the Real Presence in the Catholic sense of the term, you are still recognizably a Christian. You just fail to see some of the implications of what you believe.

Bottom line: can Catholics justify separating baptism and Eucharist, denying Eucharist to Christians in good faith whose baptism Catholics recognize.

Yes, out of nothing more than charity; we don’t want anyone to eat or drink unworthily. Not believing that Christ is truly present would be eating or drinking unworthily, as Paul tells us.

Continued…

 

[SteveVH]

This is deeply personal for me. In the abstract, yes I can accept the Catholic position. As an individual, I would be horrifically arrogant in refusing to enter the Church based on the relatively minor scruples I have about things like women’s ordination. But I’m not just an individual. That’s what makes it so complicated. I worry that my reasons for not becoming Catholic have just been cowardly–a desire not to create conflict within my family or make life difficult for myself or make my wife angry because I’m implicitly questioning the ordination that she hopes to receive sometime soon in the Episcopal Church. . . . But it’s more than that, because it’s about the nature of the Church.

I can certainly understand your dilemma and can empathize with you on second guessing your motivations. I do that all the time. But I think you hit on the real point, that being “the nature of the Church”. It is exactly the nature of the Church that matters. If the Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ then that means that this Church received unprecedented authority and the protection of the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth. If one can accept that, then one must also accept its teachings, even when they might conflict with what we personally wish to believe. It is then that we must submit our private thoughts and views to the teachings of the Church.

I have had to do this with a number of issues; capital punishment, marriage after divorce, contraception… I have had to learn the reasons that the Church holds its positions and every single time, after actually looking into it, I have had to admit that the Church was correct all along.

I think Catholics, especially since Vatican II, want to have their cake and eat it too with regard to Protestants. You say out of one side of your mouth that Protestants are separated brothers and there are many elements of truth, etc. You recognize Protestant baptisms. And yet you say that Protestants cannot be welcomed into full communion without repudiating many of their beliefs and practices (women’s ordination is the one that looms largest for me for personal reasons). I am not sure you can have it both ways.

In other words, the Church should submit to the private notions of individuals? You believe that women should be ordained therefore the Church should say “no problem”? Protestants cannot be welcomed into communion when they are not in communion. This is very much like a child born into a family (Baptism) and then rejecting the family to strike out on their own. How can they share a meal with their family when they, of their own volition, remain apart from their family? They are brothers and sisters by Baptism, but that is pretty much where it ends. They are always welcome to come home, but they had better be prepared to live by the house rules.

Absolutely, but two questions arise:

1. Does the Roman Communion (i.e., the “Church” in your terms) “possess” the truth? It may possess it in the sense that none of its dogmas contradict the truth, while those of other churches sometimes do. But it certainly doesn’t possess it in the sense of having worked out all its implications. That’s still a work in process, and one in which all Christians need each other.
2. As I suggested to Genesis 315, it is possible to reunite with people and still call them to a fuller understanding of the truth. I’m not arrogantly claiming that Rome ought to do this. I’m throwing it out as a possibility, which maybe the assumptions that have shaped Christian polemic since the Arian controversy if not before lead us to ignore.

You are correct that the Church grows in its understanding of the immense Truth given to it. As I said in another post, I know a lot more of what it means to be a father and a husband now than I did when I first became one. Uncovering the riches of the deposit of faith is, as you say, a work in process. This does not mean, however, that we should compromise that truth through some sort of democratic process with all Christian denominations. The Church is charged with guarding the truth which it received, not making it more palatable to those who reject it.

Anyway, thanks for your response. It is much appreciated.

Steve

 

[Erich]

Remember, Arianism was once larger than the Catholic Church, but the Arians were reconciled to the Catholic Church by accepting the Catholic Church’s teaching about the divinity of Christ, and now there are no Arians

except for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, …

 

[SteveVH]

except for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, …

Yep. Old heresies never seem to die. They just keep showing up under different names.

 

[Erich]

My view is that the church is already “one”. Christ’s body is made up of all his followers. He doesn’t look at one denomination as part of his family and turn his back on his followers from another denomination.

Did Christ found a visible Church or an invisible Church? From this link,

Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly leader, “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: “Refer it to the Church” (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church on earth, that they are “the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house” (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).
…
Christ’s Church does have an invisible quality in that it is his Mystical Body on earth. But to understand the Church as having no visibility at all - and, as a consequence, no authority at all - conjures up a Church as tenuous as feathers in the wind. It’s almost as if Jesus, in setting up his Church, didn’t quite know what he was doing.

From this link:

Protestant apologists commonly respond that, although Protestants may disagree among themselves on “non-essential” matters, they are united in the “essentials” of the faith.

One problem with this argument is that Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.

Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs (Eph. 4:4–5). He did not establish numerous churches with contradictory beliefs. Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

Also, St. Paul refers to the Church as the Body (not the Soul) of Christ in various passages. Bodies are visible, souls are invisible.

 

[Peter_J]

1. The unity of Christians is essential, and Protestant smugness about ongoing division is horrific

I think I see a new thread in the making: How to deal with smug comments from some protestant people.

 

[Jack007]

It’s one thing to nominate the Pope as “head of the church” (although in fact, Christ is the head of the Church). Christ Himself nominated Peter as the Rock, and said He would found His Church on Peter. No problem.

He also said what Peter “bound” and “loosed” on earth would be bound and loosed in heaven. That’s in Scripture. And the Protestants can’t deny it.

with you so far.

But not once do I recall Christ ever saying Peter or any of his successors would be “infallible”.

he said that the exact no of times he said abiut the trinity…

It seems to me the NT writers went to some trouble to point out Peter’s fallibility - Christ had to rebuke him almost immediately after telling him he was the rock; he sank after taking his eyes off Christ; he wanted to build 3 tents for Christ, Moses and Elijah (as thought 3 supernatural beings needed a tent each); he denied Christ 3 times; he ran away with all the rest at the arrest; St. Paul had to correct him on circumcision, and the demands of the Mosaic Law.

what do you get after removung those which do not regard to faith and morals?

Peter’s infallibility is loud and clear, and it’s in the Biblical canon for a reason. And I think one of the reasons was / is to make it loud and clear to his successors they’re not fallible either.

So when a bunch of ultra-montanists in Vatican I, in a tizz because they felt threatened by what they called “modernism”, grasping at straws in a century which had seen the Pope snubbed by Napoleon, the Catholic Church targeted by Bismarck, surrounded by revolution in Italy, then decided that if nobody else believed them, they’d better declare themselves “infallible”.

And having done so, well, ergo, we must be infallible. We’ve said so, so everybody else better believe it or else.

or emphasise the existing temporal sovereignity

 

[dmar198]

dmar198;12354469:

Remember, Arianism was once larger than the Catholic Church, but the Arians were reconciled to the Catholic Church by accepting the Catholic Church’s teaching about the divinity of Christ, and now there are no Arians.

except for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, …

I don’t think those groups count as Arians, though they do share the Arian belief that Jesus was not God. Having one thing in common doesn’t mean you have all things in common. Lutherans and Methodists share a belief in Sola Scriptura, but Lutherans aren’t Methodists because they differ on many other points. So also, Arians and those other groups share a belief that Jesus was a creature, but those other groups aren’t Arians because they differ on many other points. But that’s all probably just semantics.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t think those groups count as Arians, though they do share the Arian belief that Jesus was not God. Having one thing in common doesn’t mean you have all things in common. Lutherans and Methodists share a belief in Sola Scriptura, but Lutherans aren’t Methodists because they differ on many other points. So also, Arians and those other groups share a belief that Jesus was a creature, but those other groups aren’t Arians because they differ on many other points. But that’s all probably just semantics.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that these groups are the modern Arians. But rather that they embrace the heresy of Arianism. We could say the same thing about the New Age movement and Gnosticism. They embrace other heresies as well; annihilation of the soul, and so forth… The point is, the heresies live on.

 

[Jack007]

and ecumenism, not eccumenicalsm.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Well, that is a lot different than your first remark that " I don’t think Protestants get into heaven." As Catholics, we have no idea how long any one of us will be “camped outside the Pearly Gates” either so I don’t know why you even make the point.

I make the point, because I know a lot of good Protestants. I’ve given you my reasons, and I’m concerned that if the church never reunifies, they’ll never get in.

Other than that I couldn’t care less about “papal infallibility”, since I’m already in the Catholic Church myself, and the last thing I think about during my waking hours is whether the Pope is “infallible” or not. I’ve got other more concrete concerns from 9 to 5, and my other waking hours as well.

 

[Erich]

he said that the exact no of times he said abiut the trinity…

Peter’s infallibility is loud and clear, and it’s in the Biblical canon for a reason.

Jesus told Peter (in Luke 22:31-32), “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not: and when you are converted, strengthen your brothers.”

Does anyone seriously think that Jesus only meant for that to apply to Peter himself and not Peter’s successors until the end of time? Or that He was just kidding when He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (contrary to what He said in Matt. 16:18)? Or that He would have admonished His followers to “hear the church” (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth – i.e. without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible?

 

[Lek]

I make the point, because I know a lot of good Protestants. I’ve given you my reasons, and I’m concerned that if the church never reunifies, they’ll never get in.

Other than that I couldn’t care less about “papal infallibility”, since I’m already in the Catholic Church myself, and the last thing I think about during my waking hours is whether the Pope is “infallible” or not. I’ve got other more concrete concerns from 9 to 5, and my other waking hours as well.

From what you say, you’re basing this belief on statements from your ex-pastor; some of them being in visions. Have you gone to scripture to back up this belief? Where does it say that “good” protestants go to purgatory, but can’t go to heaven until the church reunites? Visions can be meaningful communications from God, but they can also be from Satan or his demons, or they can just be illusions. I wouldn’t be basing my beliefs on the beliefs of another person, living or dead, without testing them against God’s word.

It sounds to me like you became a catholic because you believed that protestants can’t go to heaven. That’s trying to gain heaven on a technicality. The reason a protestant is not a catholic is because he disagrees with the doctrines of the catholic church. If you say that you’re a catholic and don’t accept their doctrine, then are you a catholic? God knows your heart. He’s smart enough to know if you’re just claiming to be a catholic because you’re afraid of not going to heaven, but not being one in truth. God doesn’t grant salvation to individuals based on whether or not the church is reunited, but rather because of the state of the individual concerned. He wants to see our hearts.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I think I see a new thread in the making: How to deal with smug comments from some protestant people.

I think a liberal application of triumphalism has been known to cure it. Or kill it.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Food for thought;

Ecumenism and reconciliation are two different things here; Ecumenical efforts are applied to those Orthodox Catholic Church’s who are out of communion with Peter’s chair.

The Ecumenical dialogue attempts to repair those in schism, who maintain their apostolicity to the apostles, seven sacraments, valid priesthood and practice their apostolic liturgy.

A schism is a tear in the garment requiring Ecumenical efforts to be sown. Orthodox Church’s are not separated from the body of Christ, they are in schism with their Prince of the apostles Peter, when all other essential things remain intact from the apostles.

Reconciliation addresses Protestant Christians who left the Church= the body of Christ.

Those Protestants who separated from their apostolic roots directly from Peter and Paul. It is this separation which Protestants left behind, which begins with their apostolic succession, valid sacraments, valid priesthood and their apostolic liturgical practices.

The Catholic Church prays and laments for our separated brethren (Protestants) to reconcile with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from which they separated themselves from.

A separation such as Protestantism is a separation from the Body of Christ (apostolic succession, valid sacraments, valid priesthood and apostolic liturgy) which requires a reconciliation.

A reconciliation seems difficult, due to protestants have denominated from their founding fathers reformed Christian communities into many different facets of faiths, with the label of Christian. Non-denominations may require both reconciliation and evangelization.

Neither the Pope or magisterium can change what God has joined together. The Pope cannot change what God has built upon Rock =Peter.

Here is the building block towards reconciliation with our separated brethren.

1. Place a side (for an interval of time) all the negatives and prejudices you have been told about Peter (Pope) and the Catholic Church from non-Catholics and protestants leaders, both historical and present.

2.Come back to your roots from which your founding fathers departed from, just for a while or a visit. Long enough to learn from your Mother Church who has never stopped loving you. All the misconceptions such as “infallibility” and make sure you get the correct interpretation of what Jesus Christ left His Church a protection from error in the Holy Spirit.

1. Continue to learn all those diverse apostolic teachings from the Catholic Church which have become a stumbling block preventing you for your return or reconciliation to your true Apostolicity in the True Body of Christ.
2. You owe yourself and loved ones this one of many opportunities to seek out this Truth from which you remain separated from. To do so with a solace mind and true spirit to know the Truth without hindrances, God will bless your efforts and waits with open arms and will come running to you. Many protestants have taken this path to seek the Truth and have come home and confessed their ignorance to the Truth who is Jesus Christ.
3. Once you’ve ridden this path to leave what others have influenced your judgment and seek out the Truth, then decide for your salvation.

As far as the OP and infallibility is concerned. It is a negative doctrine holding to the promises of Jesus Christ to Peter, “I will be with you until the end of the age”. Peter holds the divine keys on earth singularly on earth in communion with Jesus Christ our head in heaven who binds and looses whatever Peter binds and looses. Infallibility protects and defends the teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ from ever falling into error. This is a promise from God not man.

In summary Infallibility protected the apostle Peter to allow the Gentiles into the Church, when the first century Jews will have nothing to do with the Gentiles. When you ponder this, Peter’s infallible teaching came from Heaven. So when the Pope speaks Ex-Cathedra = from the Chair of Peter, know that the Holy Spirit will protect Peter from teaching error. and what Peter (Pope) reveals will never contradict or conflict with Jesus revelations and teachings. It isn’t Peter’s or the Popes faith that is infallible, it is Jesus Himself who is Infallible protecting Peter from sinking.

Peace be with you

 

[Jack007]

Jesus told Peter (in Luke 22:31-32), “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not: and when you are converted, strengthen your brothers.”

Does anyone seriously think that Jesus only meant for that to apply to Peter himself and not Peter’s successors until the end of time? Or that He was just kidding when He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (contrary to what He said in Matt. 16:18)? Or that He would have admonished His followers to “hear the church” (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth – i.e. without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible?

i did not deny that

 

[Erich]

i did not deny that

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you did. I was intending simply to reinforce your earlier point that “Peter’s infallibility is loud and clear, and it’s in the Biblical canon for a reason.”

 

[Jack007]

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you did. I was intending simply to reinforce your earlier point that “Peter’s infallibility is loud and clear, and it’s in the Biblical canon for a reason.”

i see.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Lek;12354278] In my mind, there will never be one christian church, under (or not under) the pope, in which all members accept the same interpretation of christian doctrine.

Technically through out recorded history from St. Peter to the present Pope with unbroken apostolic succession, there has always remained One Christian Church under the Pope, all believing in the same divine revelations of Jesus and His teachings unchanged, which the Popes defended with the divine keys of binding and loosing declaring them doctrine in order to separate the Sheep from the Goats. This One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has outlived great empires, kings, nations, heresies, persecutions, death by Martyrdom through out the centuries.

The catholic church and the orthodox and anglican churches have been trying for centuries, but in order to reconcile there must be concessions on both sides. This is why I can never envision an end to christian denominations.

The autocephalous Orthodox Church’s remain Catholic in their apostolic succession. They have never left the mystical body of Christ, schism is not a departure from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, from which they profess in the Credo. Ecumenism is called for here, on the subject of authority, not reconciliation, because they maintain their apostolic successors to the apostles with valid sacraments.

The Orthodox do not denominate from their apostolicity. The Anglican Church on the other hand has denominated into different branches of Christian faith communities. Validity becomes the question for the Anglican Church, which requires a reconciliation of only a return to validity.

My view is that the church is already “one”. Christ’s body is made up of all his followers.

The true followers of Jesus, are those who follow His teachings and revelations handed down to us from His Apostles whom Jesus commissioned and ordained for all nations, people and tongues, for “when they hear you, they hear me”… The 2000 year Catholic Church has not removed herself from these teachings, when all others not in communion with her have left or refused to adhere to Jesus commandments and authority Jesus place on Peter and the apostles.

The question is,? do you follow new winds and doctrine by men, claiming new revelations apart from what Jesus fulfilled and revealed? Do these protestant and non-Catholic Christian leaders have the divine given authority to absolve sin and practice this divine apostolic office? This is a question every Christian should ask themselves.

Or do you follow Peter and the apostles whom Jesus gave the power and authority to forgive sin, bind and loose on earth and administer His sacraments beginning with baptism in the name of the Trinity?

This we know for sure, Peter since the first century remained in Rome, and Peter to this day has not left Rome. The promises Jesus made to Peter of being with him, and commissioned Peter to feed and tend His flock until Jesus returns is being fulfilled today and in every age before the world.

Peace be with you

 

[Jack007]

Technically through out recorded history from St. Peter to the present Pope with unbroken apostolic succession, there has always remained One Christian Church under the Pope, all believing in the same divine revelations of Jesus and His teachings unchanged, which the Popes defended with the divine keys of binding and loosing declaring them doctrine in order to separate the Sheep from the Goats. This One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has outlived great empires, kings, nations, heresies, persecutions, death by Martyrdom through out the centuries.

The autocephalous Orthodox Church’s remain Catholic in their apostolic succession. They have never left the mystical body of Christ, schism is not a departure from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, from which they profess in the Credo. Ecumenism is called for here, on the subject of authority, not reconciliation, because they maintain their apostolic successors to the apostles with valid sacraments.

The Orthodox do not denominate from their apostolicity. The Anglican Church on the other hand has denominated into different branches of Christian faith communities. Validity becomes the question for the Anglican Church, which requires a reconciliation of only a return to validity.

The true followers of Jesus, are those who follow His teachings and revelations handed down to us from His Apostles whom Jesus commissioned and ordained for all nations, people and tongues, for “when they hear you, they hear me”… The 2000 year Catholic Church has not removed herself from these teachings, when all others not in communion with her have left or refused to adhere to Jesus commandments and authority Jesus place on Peter and the apostles.

The question is,? do you follow new winds and doctrine by men, claiming new revelations apart from what Jesus fulfilled and revealed? Do these protestant and non-Catholic Christian leaders have the divine given authority to absolve sin and practice this divine apostolic office? This is a question every Christian should ask themselves.

Or do you follow Peter and the apostles whom Jesus gave the power and authority to forgive sin, bind and loose on earth and administer His sacraments beginning with baptism in the name of the Trinity?

This we know for sure, Peter since the first century remained in Rome, and Peter to this day has not left Rome. The promises Jesus made to Peter of being with him, and commissioned Peter to feed and tend His flock until Jesus returns is being fulfilled today and in every age before the world.

Peace be with you