How or why?

[elvisman]

A lot of Protestants are anywhere from ambivalent to accepting of Catholics; not all protest against Catholicism. I do agree that they’re all united in saying the CC is not the One True Church, but that extends well beyond Protestantism, too. Any marginal or apostate group will agree with this, too, but they aren’t Protestants.

What unites them as Protestants (in terms of doctrine) is that they protest in a different way- in the sense that a “protest” is a proclomation. For example, a Protestant is someone who protests the doctrine of Sola Fide. They aren’t fighting against Sola Fide- that’s one of the things they support, or protest. (We don’t use the word that way anymore, but that was the original intent of the Reformers). So in that sense, I would tend to think anyone who protests (in a positive sense) the core Protestant doctrines is Protestant. I can also see why someone might want to categorize by ecclesiological descent, but that’s not the first thing I would go to.

As for the delineation you make between the Reformers and the Protestants of today, this is quite accurate of what the Church teaches. I do think it took a little too long for the CC to stop treating the “Protestants of today” exactly like the Reformers, but aside from waiting until 1964 for that to officially happen, I can’t really complain about how the Catholic POV turned out. Thanks, JPII.

And we would differ in the way we define Protestantism.

Whereas, I do believe we should celebrate our similarities, we cannot deny our differences because therein lies the cause of factions. I also think that although Vatican II called for ecumenism - it was sadly, misunderstood. Many people (including many Catholics on this forum) erroneously believe that the Church now teaches that we should embrace all denominations - that is, the beliefs of all denominations - which is patently false.

The document Dominus Iesus is very clear on the Church’s position that although Protestants are related to the Body of Christ, they aren’t churches in the full sense of the word, but “ecclesial communities” in need of coming home to the fullness of truth.**

 

[jericho777]

To put in better perspective for you…here is an article about Paul’s respect for authority and to give you better understanding of Paul’s ministry…both lessons of humility and respect:

*At the time near his conversion Paul was described as “a young man” (neanias). Sometime after the death of Stephen he had his conversion, encountering the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Immediately following his encounter with Christ he was blinded for three days and eventually healed by a Christian named Ananias who also baptized him (Acts 9:9-19). Hereafter, according to Galatians, Paul went into the Desert of Arabia (Gal 1:17)…It is not possible to say with certainty but it would seem that some amount of time would be necessary to pray, reflect and experience formation in the Christian way, possibly with other Christians. *

Paul then returned to Damascus and joined the Christian community there for a period of almost three years (Gal 1:18). While there he took to debating in the synagogues and was so effective in demonstrating that Jesus was the hoped for messiah that some of the Jews there conspired to kill him. He fled the city and went to Jerusalem (Acts 9:20-25). Paul states that he went there to confer with Cephas (Peter) (Gal 1:18). Paul seems to imply that he thought it was time to confer with Peter since he had begun to teach and even now was gaining disciples. Later he would describe the purpose of another visit to Peter and the other leaders: to present the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles…so that I might not be running, or have run in vain (Gal 2:2). While there on this first visit he stayed for 15 days and also met James.

…the Holy Spirit to Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them (Acts 13:3). Thus, the leaders of the Church there laid hands on Barnabas and Saul and send them forth on Mission. Here we have an ordination and the source of Paul’s status as Apostle (bishop).

**On Paul’s submission to authority – We can see therefore, that Paul was not a lone ranger. He did submit what he taught to Peter and later to others apostles and leaders (Acts 11 & 15). He states that to have preached something other than what the Church proposed would be to run “in vain” (Gal 2:2). Here was a man who was formed by the community of the Church and who submitted his teachings to scrutiny by lawful authority. Here was man who went forth on his missions only after he was ordained and sent. Further, Paul and Barnabas, as they went through the towns and villages on their missionary journeys, also established authority in each church community they founded by appointing presbyters in each town (Acts 14:23). Upon completion of their first missionary journey they reported back to the leaders at Antioch who had sent them (Acts 14:27) and later to the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Hence we have an accountability structure in the early Church and a line of authority. Paul was no. He both respected authority and established authority in the churches he established. He also makes it clear to the Galatians and others that he has authority and that he expects them to respect it.

Here is the whole article: blog.adw.org/2010/10/what-st-paul-can-teach-us-about-respect-for-church-authority/

Hi pablope, Paul states in the text that after God saved him he preached 3 years before even going to Jerusalem to get “acquainted”. That doesn’t sound to me he was submitting to authority. Remember he taught 3 years without the knowledge or blessing of the church.

Gal 1:15-19 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

We also know his doctrine was not from men but God. How could he deny what the LORD had already taught him? Gal 1:12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Also in Acts 15 it is clear Paul’s practice of the doctrine of grace was different from the church. They had different doctrines. Why did Paul have the doctrine of grace and the church did not?

 

[cooterhein]

And we would differ in the way we define Protestantism.

**Whereas, I do believe we *should *celebrate our similarities, we cannot deny our differences because therein lies the cause of factions. I also think that although Vatican II called for ecumenism - it was sadly, misunderstood. Many people (including many Catholics on this forum) erroneously believe that the Church now teaches that we should embrace all denominations - that is, the beliefs of all denominations - which is patently false.

I do think Catholics on this forum are quite different from average Catholics, though. Most Catholics in America (at least 70% in any poll) will say even they, as Catholics, can do a wide variety of things that are prohibited by the Church and still be good Catholics. You rarely see those people on CAF, and when you do, they might just find other places to go. But if you are a self-described “hard core Catholic” who laments poor catechesis and cares very much about making sure you and all Catholics know the Church’s teaching and abides by it, I think you’re in good company here. There might be a couple more places you could go, but you’ll also do quite well right here.

The document Dominus Iesus is very clear on the Church’s position that although Protestants are* related* to the Body of Christ, they aren’t churches in the full sense of the word, but “ecclesial communities” in need of coming home to the fullness of truth.

I do agree that Dominus Iesus is clear as far as it’s read carefully and understood, and while I don’t doubt that you’ve done just fine with it, it has been my experience that certain parts are sort of difficult to nail down with precision. The situation itself is not exactly straightforward, so it can’t be helped that the topic is complex. Even here on CAF, though, I have lurked around a little without posting at times and noticed that when there’s discussion on this document, it tends to be something that takes a little work to get through. Not the kind of thing where you can read it once and reproduce Church teaching in your own words, you know?

I know that among non-Catholics, it’s pretty common that a once-through reading will lead to the conclusion that Catholics see non-Catholics as being in a position very similar to non-Christians. This conclusion also exists among Catholics, though it’s far less common- I would only worry about that as far as being able to show non-Catholics why that is. So if anyone else winds up looking at it, I would say it’s a good idea to read it several times and be more careful with it than you normally might be.

 

[cooterhein]

Thank you for your sincere response. First of all, by all means I have never meant to say or claim that you or other non-Catholics are not Christians. Now for your questions?

Thank you very much for your response. Protestants (not necessarily all non-Catholics) tend to have a bit of an exclusive focus on the relationship between “who’s a Christian” and “who’s been united to Christ’s Body.” Beyond that, I think we share a desire to see good things happen within the Body.

For us, though, “unity of the Body” is a bit of a self-defining holy grail. All Christians are united to Christ’s Body and to each other, everyone who’s united to Christ’s Body is a Christian, and this is the relationship of one to the other. The result is that when things are said about/against unity, we easily take that to mean “you’re not united to Christ’s Body.”

It can get a little confusing for us when an unfamiliar variable like the CC is added in, the CC is Christ’s Body, and disunity with the visible teaching authority of the Church is synonymous with disunity from the Body. I think this had something to do with what caused me to ask those kinds of questions, and perhaps take offense at something that was inconsistent with your intent. I’m sorry about that, and I’m glad we got through it.

Good questions. The only thing I can say is that by pointing fingers,matters will not change for Christianity and for unity. As you stated, this is our current reality and the facts of life. The RCC does encourage and does work towards ecumenism

Thank you very much for your response; the list of things from 281 to 286 are of particular interest. I had not seen those before.

*.

Hope this helps you out?*It does help me out; thank you very much.

These are some of the interesting things that sometimes come up with ecumenical activities, though. I can speak for what I see on my side, anyway. I think there’s some things that are common to all of us when we consider getting involved in these things, and then there’s other things where it depends on the person.

One thing I think you can depend on is that any Protestant who gets involved in ecumenism with Catholics will wish to let the Catholics know who we really are. That rarely, if ever, will involve presenting the idea that we are the One True Church. But I think it usually does involve making Catholics aware of Christians outside of the Catholic Church who love Jesus, live out Christianity every day, and belong to Him. On a personal level in the daily life of a Protestant, there’s very little else that matters. Additionally, we have an idea of what it means to call yourself the One True Church, and according to that paradigm, any Catholic that sufficiently assents to the things we bring to ecumenical dialogue can’t be that kind of One True Church person.

I’ve seen a couple of other things happen that depend on the person, though. It is true that…how can I say this. Catholics are supposed to do ecumenical dialogue with conversion in mind, and it’s not consistent with Church teaching that you do anything different. There are some Protestants who know this and others who don’t. For the ones who don’t, they might even participate in some of these things without realizing what’s going on. If that’s what happens and they find out later on, they may feel like they were lied to or lured there under false pretenses (even if it’s a matter of ignorance and no one else’s fault). Not everyone gets super offended like that, though, but there is an ok chance that this information will make them decide to stop doing these kinds of things. Overall, I think you get better results when people know this ahead of time.

For those who are aware of the Catholic requirements from the beginning, some will approach it as if each side is trying to convert the other, so it’s worth doing for the competition. Others know what’s going on and don’t want to convert any Catholics, but they’re opposed to the idea of Christians converting other Christians on principle, and they’ll show up just long enough to find out why Catholics don’t share that principle. If you ever think this is happening, it’s good to choose your words wisely. For some, though, it doesn’t really matter what you say- they’re just curious, you tell them what’s up, and you won’t ever see them again.

Under any set of circumstances, a Protestant who doesn’t wish to convert Catholics will probably spend a good deal of time wondering if it’s worth it for them to do ecumenical dialogue when the goal of Catholics is to convert them. From that perspective, there’s always going to be something for the Catholic to work on. But for the Protestant whose only goal is to learn about Catholics as brothers/sisters in Christ- or at most, develop some friendships while working together on certain things- those specific goals aren’t quite as sustainable or demanding. Consequently, this kind of Protestant might feel like they can’t be as invested as Catholics, and they may wind up asking “Aren’t there other things that I could get more invested in? Ie., I’d like to convert people, too- just not Catholics.” (Of course, there’s plenty of Protestants who do want to convert Catholics, but that’s some insight into people who don’t).

Oh, I almost forgot. Most Protestants know quite a few ex-Catholics that are now Protestants. When the Protestant is sufficiently informed by his friends and knows the Catholics have “intent to make converts” while the Protestant does not, it’s hard for such a Protestant to explain himself to his ex-Catholic friends.

Thanks for letting me ramble on a little. These are some situations that might arise, and by that I mean obstacles to ecumenism (from my side). I hope you got something useful from it.

 

[Nicea325]

Thank you very much for your response. Protestants (not necessarily all non-Catholics) tend to have a bit of an exclusive focus on the relationship between “who’s a Christian” and “who’s been united to Christ’s Body.” Beyond that, I think we share a desire to see good things happen within the Body.

For us, though, “unity of the Body” is a bit of a self-defining holy grail. All Christians are united to Christ’s Body and to each other, everyone who’s united to Christ’s Body is a Christian, and this is the relationship of one to the other. The result is that when things are said about/against unity, we easily take that to mean “you’re not united to Christ’s Body.”

It can get a little confusing for us when an unfamiliar variable like the CC is added in, the CC is Christ’s Body, and disunity with the visible teaching authority of the Church is synonymous with disunity from the Body. I think this had something to do with what caused me to ask those kinds of questions, and perhaps take offense at something that was inconsistent with your intent. I’m sorry about that, and I’m glad we got through it.

Thank you very much for your response; the list of things from 281 to 286 are of particular interest. I had not seen those before.

It does help me out; thank you very much.

These are some of the interesting things that sometimes come up with ecumenical activities, though. I can speak for what I see on my side, anyway. I think there’s some things that are common to all of us when we consider getting involved in these things, and then there’s other things where it depends on the person.

One thing I think you can depend on is that any Protestant who gets involved in ecumenism with Catholics will wish to let the Catholics know who we really are. That rarely, if ever, will involve presenting the idea that we are the One True Church. But I think it usually does involve making Catholics aware of Christians outside of the Catholic Church who love Jesus, live out Christianity every day, and belong to Him. On a personal level in the daily life of a Protestant, there’s very little else that matters. Additionally, we have an idea of what it means to call yourself the One True Church, and according to that paradigm, any Catholic that sufficiently assents to the things we bring to ecumenical dialogue can’t be that kind of One True Church person.

I’ve seen a couple of other things happen that depend on the person, though. It is true that…how can I say this. Catholics are supposed to do ecumenical dialogue with conversion in mind, and it’s not consistent with Church teaching that you do anything different. There are some Protestants who know this and others who don’t. For the ones who don’t, they might even participate in some of these things without realizing what’s going on. If that’s what happens and they find out later on, they may feel like they were lied to or lured there under false pretenses (even if it’s a matter of ignorance and no one else’s fault). Not everyone gets super offended like that, though, but there is an ok chance that this information will make them decide to stop doing these kinds of things. Overall, I think you get better results when people know this ahead of time.

For those who are aware of the Catholic requirements from the beginning, some will approach it as if each side is trying to convert the other, so it’s worth doing for the competition. Others know what’s going on and don’t want to convert any Catholics, but they’re opposed to the idea of Christians converting other Christians on principle, and they’ll show up just long enough to find out why Catholics don’t share that principle. If you ever think this is happening, it’s good to choose your words wisely. For some, though, it doesn’t really matter what you say- they’re just curious, you tell them what’s up, and you won’t ever see them again.

Under any set of circumstances, a Protestant who doesn’t wish to convert Catholics will probably spend a good deal of time wondering if it’s worth it for them to do ecumenical dialogue when the goal of Catholics is to convert them. From that perspective, there’s always going to be something for the Catholic to work on. But for the Protestant whose only goal is to learn about Catholics as brothers/sisters in Christ- or at most, develop some friendships while working together on certain things- those specific goals aren’t quite as sustainable or demanding. Consequently, this kind of Protestant might feel like they can’t be as invested as Catholics, and they may wind up asking “Aren’t there other things that I could get more invested in? Ie., I’d like to convert people, too- just not Catholics.” (Of course, there’s plenty of Protestants who do want to convert Catholics, but that’s some insight into people who don’t).

Oh, I almost forgot. Most Protestants know quite a few ex-Catholics that are now Protestants. When the Protestant is sufficiently informed by his friends and knows the Catholics have “intent to make converts” while the Protestant does not, it’s hard for such a Protestant to explain himself to his ex-Catholic friends.

Thanks for letting me ramble on a little. These are some situations that might arise, and by that I mean obstacles to ecumenism (from my side). I hope you got something useful from it.

You are very welcomed. And no you did not ramble on at all,it all made perfect sense. I personally believe what has happened over the centuries is that Catholics and Protestants simply misunderstand each other and have false premises about each other. As a result, both sides are pointing fingers and not working at the heart of the matter: unity and converson of the heart towards the Gospel of Jesus. Any thoughts to add?

God Bless

 

[cooterhein]

You are very welcomed. And no you did not ramble on at all,it all made perfect sense. I personally believe what has happened over the centuries is that Catholics and Protestants simply misunderstand each other and have false premises about each other. As a result, both sides are pointing fingers and not working at the heart of the matter: unity and converson of the heart towards the Gospel of Jesus. Any thoughts to add?

God Bless

No more thoughts to add, really. Thank you very much for your thoughts and contributions! I think I have one more question, though.

Suppose you’re talking to a Protestant, or maybe more than one Protestant, about ecumenical things you could do together- probably some of the things that are on the list. How would you let them know that you have a responsibility to do this with conversion in mind, especially if they aren’t approaching it as people who want to convert you?

In my mind, you kind of have to bring it up at some point because you have to make sure they hear it from you instead of from an ex-Catholic in their congregation. If they hear it from somewhere else first, it’s probably not going to happen. So how do you tell a non-Catholic that you want to pursue ecumenism with them, but that you will be hoping to convert them even if they don’t want to convert you?

 

[pablope]

Hi pablope, Paul states in the text that after God saved him he preached 3 years before even going to Jerusalem to get “acquainted”. That doesn’t sound to me he was submitting to authority. Remember he taught 3 years without the knowledge or blessing of the church.

Gal 1:15-19 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

We also know his doctrine was not from men but God. How could he deny what the LORD had already taught him? Gal 1:12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Also in Acts 15 it is clear Paul’s practice of the doctrine of grace was different from the church. They had different doctrines. Why did Paul have the doctrine of grace and the church did not?

I think you should re-read my post or go straight to the source. In the article, Paul spent 3 years debating, proving the Messiah (not preaching), and became well known. Then goes to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to Peter and the apostles. I think this is in Gal 2…so that his gospel is not in vain. Before he goes on his missions, he is ordained before he is sent. This is the submission and respect to authority.

Yes, he did receive his revelation directly from God. But, he did not establish a church of his own, does he? He could have, but he did not, and this is Paul’s humility. He founded churches in his missionary journeys, but always in union with Peter and the apostles. Recall that he reports back to the Jerusalem elders.

I am not sure why you are saying Paul’s doctrine is different from the Church. When you examine what he taught, it is perfectly in line with the Gospels.

 

[fbl9]

good yous are finally over the babbling of x number.
If Luther was so correct in his ideas why is there not just Catholics and Lutherans?

 

[elvisman]

I do think Catholics on this forum are quite different from average Catholics, though. Most Catholics in America (at least 70% in any poll) will say even they, as Catholics, can do a wide variety of things that are prohibited by the Church and still be good Catholics. You rarely see those people on CAF, and when you do, they might just find other places to go. But if you are a self-described “hard core Catholic” who laments poor catechesis and cares very much about making sure you and all Catholics know the Church’s teaching and abides by it, I think you’re in good company here. There might be a couple more places you could go, but you’ll also do quite well right here.

I would agree with you about some Cathollics but I think your numbers are a bit influenced by the mainstream media. I think you’ll find lukewarm Christians in every denomination.

I do agree that Dominus Iesus is clear as far as it’s read carefully and understood, and while I don’t doubt that you’ve done just fine with it, it has been my experience that certain parts are sort of difficult to nail down with precision. The situation itself is not exactly straightforward, so it can’t be helped that the topic is complex. Even here on CAF, though, I have lurked around a little without posting at times and noticed that when there’s discussion on this document, it tends to be something that takes a little work to get through. Not the kind of thing where you can read it once and reproduce Church teaching in your own words, you know?

I really don’t see Dominus Iesus it as confusing or unclear. I believe ity’s pretty straightforward and that’s precisesly why the Pope has gotten so much flack for it in the press from various Protestant denominations.

I know that among non-Catholics, it’s pretty common that a once-through reading will lead to the conclusion that Catholics see non-Catholics as being in a position very similar to non-Christians. This conclusion also exists among Catholics, though it’s far less common- I would only worry about that as far as being able to show non-Catholics why that is. So if anyone else winds up looking at it, I would say it’s a good idea to read it several times and be more careful with it than you normally might be.

I honestly don’t know many Catholics who see Protestants as non-Christians - at least not the ones that are even remotely educated. Some of the most charitable Christians I know are Protestants and it is my fervent prayer that they come home to the fullness of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

This is from the World Christian Encyclopedia. Since it started doing what it does, it’s been essentially unrivaled as the authoritative source on religious data.

Interesting.

I found this online. It is written by a non-Catholic Research Assistant at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.

Email from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary “Global Christianity” to Ms. Shenandoah XXXX, SFO (Secular Franciscan Order)
author of Lamp Unto My Feet to be published by PublishAmerica
Received 9/28/2007 11:17 a.m. MST

Hello Ms. XXX,

Thank you for your inquiry. I can assure you that the figure of 39,000 is in no way inflated. This number represents our most current, up-to-date data. As we are constantly updating this figure, it is not published in print form. The figure of 33,800 from the year 2000 was printed in our book World Christian Trends, (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2001). Part 12 of World Christian Trends (WCT), Table 12-1 gives figures of denominational totals for all 238 countries of the world. These figures are also represented graphically in WCT on page 917, Global Map 14. The definition for denominations used in WCT, and also in our publication World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford, 2001) is as follows:

"Any agency consisting of a number of congregations or churches voluntarily aligning themselves with it. As a statistical unit in this survey, a 'denomination' always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries."

More precise listings of denominations can be found in the World Christian Encyclopedia, under the article for each country. These lists are not exhaustive, as there are too many small denominations to list separately, but they should help give a clearer picture. Furthermore, the Southern Baptist Convention has over 40,000 congregations in the US alone; not to mention the Baptist General Conference, Baptist Bible Fellowship International, etc. So we are definitely not counting each congregation as its own denomination. We are also not lumping all Baptists into a single denomination, but counting each organization separately. I hope this information helps.

Justin J. XXXXX
Research Assistant
Center for the Study of Global Christianity

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
130 Essex Street #228
South Hamilton, MA 01982 USA
E-mail: csgc@gcts.edu

www.WorldChristianDatabase.org
www.GlobalChristianity.org
www.GCTS.edu
World Christian Encyclopedia
source

 

[cooterhein]

good yous are finally over the babbling of x number.
If Luther was so correct in his ideas why is there not just Catholics and Lutherans?

Schism happened first, and the Coptics split well before that?

 

[fbl9]

Schism happened first, and the Coptics split well before that?

Schism is not a total departure, unlike Lutherans. According to my info the Coptics returned to the Catholic Church.

If Luther’s ideas were so correct why are there not just Catholics and Lutherans?

 

[Nicea325]

No more thoughts to add, really. Thank you very much for your thoughts and contributions! I think I have one more question, though.

Suppose you’re talking to a Protestant, or maybe more than one Protestant, about ecumenical things you could do together- probably some of the things that are on the list. How would you let them know that you have a responsibility to do this with conversion in mind, especially if they aren’t approaching it as people who want to convert you?

In my mind, you kind of have to bring it up at some point because you have to make sure they hear it from you instead of from an ex-Catholic in their congregation. If they hear it from somewhere else first, it’s probably not going to happen. So how do you tell a non-Catholic that you want to pursue ecumenism with them, but that you will be hoping to convert them even if they don’t want to convert you?

Actually this is how I approach it and by all means, I am not an expert on ecumenical issues or topics. First, I believe that religion/faith and/or God should not be forced fed to anyone. Second,when I meet Protestants who are truly interested, I tell them what the Catholic Church teaches and try to eliminate any misconceptions he or she or they may have about Catholicism. Third, I tell them that as Catholics we believe and teach conversion is a life time process,not a one time event. Conversion involves one who willingly submits his or her life and will to follow Jesus Christ. Fourth,salvation is a conversion of heart and from a life of sin to a life of righteousness. Finally,as Catholics and Protestants we must focus on our similarities and listen to our differences and respect them.

 

[cooterhein]

Schism is not a total departure, unlike Lutherans. According to my info the Coptics returned to the Catholic Church.

If Luther’s ideas were so correct why are there not just Catholics and Lutherans?

I don’t assume that all of Luther’s ideas were “so correct.” If I did, I’d be Lutheran. I’m not, so it’s safe to assume that I adhere to Luther’s ideas by something less than the full extent. And with the Coptics, I don’t know my way around them as well, but isn’t there a Coptic Catholic Church and a Coptic Orthodox Church, both in Egypt? What I’m looking at says there’s about 200k members of the Coptic Catholic Church, which is in full communion with Rome, and about 57 million members of the Coptic Orthodox Church worldwide, which makes up 95% of Christianity in Egypt. Can you confirm that the 57 million members of the Coptic Orthodox Church are now in full communion with Rome, or is it just the 200k from the Coptic Catholic Church?

It is fair to ask why we aren’t all Lutherans, and that’s a good question. I’ll start by saying there is doctrinal unity among Protestants that goes largely unrecognized by Catholics, and we do recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Brothers and sisters that we do not need to convert. However, there are a couple of reasons why Luther wasn’t able to unite Protestantism under his headship.

The main reason, in all honesty: He probably would have liked to, but there were people who didn’t want him as their leader and he wasn’t able to force himself on them. There is more to be said about the Free Church mentality that developed, the real explosion of denominations that had to do with America’s unique development, the things that happened in the Great Awakenings, and the fact that unlike Orthodoxy and some of the other groups in schism, the One True Church claim by Rome was repudiated but not matched with Luther’s own claim.

From an ecclesial standpoint, Luther didn’t claim to have a God-given right to lead all Christians. The Lutherans haven’t ever claimed to be the One True Church. They’ve had a history of good relations with the Anglicans, for example- two groups of Christians that acknowledge each other as fellow Christians in different communions with some different practices, but still no less a part of the same Body. But from the standpoint of what Luther actually tried to do, he did try and get everyone to adopt his teaching. He was pretty upset when he couldn’t “convince” people to do that. He ultimately wasn’t able to simply because he wasn’t able to.

It’s really the same reason that not everyone’s Catholic, you know. You believe everyone needs to be in submission to one man in Italy because you’re the One True Church. At different points in history, there have been a huge number of strategies that were employed in order to make everyone be in proper submission to him and it. That hasn’t worked as well as you’d like, especially over the course of the last 1,000 years. The simplest reason that I can think of for describing why that is…

As much as different people have tried to do the same thing (both inside and outside the CC), they just haven’t been able to do it. Whether you choose to view that as an incomparable tragedy, a moderately sad fact of life, a triumph for humanity and its relationship to religion, or a neutral phenomenon in the course of history that we must all adjust to is pretty much up to you. I don’t think it’s a really good idea for me to try and convince you to feel a certain way about it, but I do think that’s the way of it.

 

[fbl9]

Thanks for the well thought out post cooterhein:thumbsup:

Do you beleive that Luther’s teaching of sola scripture to be wrought of the Holy Spirit’s guidence? Do you follow Luther’s teaching regarding sola scripture?

In St.Paul’s first Epistle to the Corithians he writes of a foundation that no other can lay down.3:10-13. All christains have layed down this same foundation on which they have built.What are the “building” materials of this structure? Personally i refer to this sturcture as one’s house of faith.

As to the Coptics me have no more than what i have noted.

 

[jericho777]

I think you should re-read my post or go straight to the source. In the article, Paul spent 3 years debating, proving the Messiah (not preaching), and became well known. Then goes to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to Peter and the apostles. I think this is in Gal 2…so that his gospel is not in vain. Before he goes on his missions, he is ordained before he is sent. This is the submission and respect to authority.

Yes, he did receive his revelation directly from God. But, he did not establish a church of his own, does he? He could have, but he did not, and this is Paul’s humility. He founded churches in his missionary journeys, but always in union with Peter and the apostles. Recall that he reports back to the Jerusalem elders.

I am not sure why you are saying Paul’s doctrine is different from the Church. When you examine what he taught, it is perfectly in line with the Gospels.

Immediately after his conversion he preaches the gospel Acts 9:19-20 Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.

With his own mouth he declares not going to Jerusalem to submit to the church or get its approval but straight to preaching the gospel. Gal1:16-17 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

His trip to Jerusalem was to get “acquainted”. That is not submitting at all. Gal 1:18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter.

The reason Paul’s doctrine was different from the churches’ is he was teaching grace apart from the works of the law while the church was still practicing the works of the law.

Scripture is quite clear as to Paul’s thoughts and actions.

 

[elvisman]

Immediately after his conversion he preaches the gospel Acts 9:19-20 Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.

With his own mouth he declares not going to Jerusalem to submit to the church or get its approval but straight to preaching the gospel. Gal1:16-17 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

His trip to Jerusalem was to get “acquainted”. That is not submitting at all. Gal 1:18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter.

The reason Paul’s doctrine was different from the churches’ is he was teaching grace apart from the works of the law while the church was still practicing the works of the law.

Scripture is quite clear as to Paul’s thoughts and actions.

Huh??
Where was the Church teaching works apart from faith? The doctrines Paul was teaching were NOT any different than that of the rest of the Church. they are CHURCH doctrines not Paul’s doctrines. Paul got them directly from Jesus but that doesn’t mean that they were different. Otherwise, Jesus is nothing but a hypocrite.

**Post after post - you keep denying that Paul acquiesced to the Church’s authority and I showed you over and over again where he did just that in Acts 15:1-3. you keep referring to another visit where he stayed with Peter. **
That has NOTHING to do with the conversation.

 

[jericho777]

Huh??
Where was the Church teaching works apart from faith? The doctrines Paul was teaching were NOT any different than that of the rest of the Church. they are CHURCH doctrines not Paul’s doctrines. Paul got them directly from Jesus but that doesn’t mean that they were different. Otherwise, Jesus is nothing but a hypocrite.

**Post after post - you keep denying that Paul acquiesced **to the Church’s authority and I showed you over and over again where he did just that in Acts 15:1-3. you keep referring to another visit where he stayed with Peter.
That has NOTHING to do with the conversation.

The church was teaching faith and works. Remember the Judaizers telling the gentiles they had to be circumcised to be Christian? That faith alone in Christ was insufficient.

With Paul’s own mouth he says “I did not consult any man,17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles” Before he preached. I have given scripture references to support my position. Please see my last post.

Paul made several trips to Jerusalem please read scripture for yourself to see the details.

 

[pablope]

Immediately after his conversion he preaches the gospel Acts 9:19-20 Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.

With his own mouth he declares not going to Jerusalem to submit to the church or get its approval but straight to preaching the gospel. Gal1:16-17 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

His trip to Jerusalem was to get “acquainted”. That is not submitting at all. Gal 1:18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter.

Scripture is quite clear as to Paul’s thoughts and actions.

But you keep missing Acts 13, where in v 3, he is ordained before going on his mission:

2As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

And Gal 2:2:

2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

The reason Paul’s doctrine was different from the churches’ is he was teaching grace apart from the works of the law while the church was still practicing the works of the law.

Could it be your understanding is different because you want to (name removed by moderator)ut in the verse something you want to believe or confirm something you believe, for to see the true meaning of the verse, it would go against what have taught you?

“Works of the Law”…was this in Romans?..which would indicate Paul was talking about the law of Moses, if you stop picking and choosing verses, and read the whole chapter and consider the context, you would come to a different conclusion and would be in line with the Gospels.

 

[cooterhein]

Thanks for the well thought out post cooterhein:thumbsup:

Do you beleive that Luther’s teaching of sola scripture to be wrought of the Holy Spirit’s guidence? Do you follow Luther’s teaching regarding sola scripture?

Thank you, man! You’re asking some really good questions. I’m happy to respond.

I don’t believe Luther was ever protected from error by the Holy Spirit, but I also believe SS is the right way to go about doing things and I do follow it. I also think it helps to understand it in its relationship to the other Solas rather than a standalone doctrine. I do believe Luther was able to be guided by the Holy Spirit to the same extent that all Christians are, but again, I don’t believe he was protected from error. That certainly doesn’t mean he was incapable of getting some things right, though.

In St.Paul’s first Epistle to the Corithians he writes of a foundation that no other can lay down.3:10-13. All christains have layed down this same foundation on which they have built.What are the “building” materials of this structure? Personally i refer to this sturcture as one’s house of faith.

The materials listed are gold, silver, wood, hay, stubble, something along the lines of “precious stones”…I don’t think they correspond to material things, but to the body of work that individual Christians do throughout their lives. In some Bibles, I’m sure there’s a cross-reference to the passage where Jesus says to store up treasure in heaven and not on earth. It seems that the quality of each Christian’s body of work on earth corresponds to a couple of things: various materials used by analogy, and the nature of the non-salvific rewards that Christians receive in heaven. Some commentaries might draw a comparison to the parable of the rich fool, as well. I think there’s some application from that parable that makes a similar point about how the things done on earth are of eternal consequence, and the lives we live as Christians now will have something to do with how it is in eternity. Not that the eternal destination is different, of course- but the kind of reward that will be there waiting for us depends on what happens now.

How is it in Catholicism? I think there’s something in paragraphs 2009 and 2010 of the CCC that connects merit more strongly with salvific reward, and elsewhere, I think there’s something about these materials going into a “treasury of merit” over with the pope has control. Any comments on that? I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to explain either of those to the satisfaction of a reasonably knowledgeable Catholic, so I’d appreciate if you could show me how that’s done.