How would Protestant react when the CC and OC unite?

[rr1213]

I would knock on the door of the nearest Catholic/Orthodox church that very day and beg to be received at the earliest opportunity.

Edwin

Why? If the Anglican Communion remained outside of that unification?

 

[colliric]

Anglicanism did not embrace an easy divorce ideology until recently. You completely misunderstand the HenryVIII issue, which concerned an annulment.

Beautiful language, indeed, is hard to let go of, because beauty is a reflection of God. The fact that you can sneer at it doesn’t say much for your religion, frankly.

Edwin

Actually I wasn’t sneering, I have a copy of “Hymns - Ancient and modern, School Pocket Edition” (The benefit of attending an Anglican School), I meant that I would do that too.

In fact that book was closer to me than the bible as it was my major worship tool for so long…

Heck I know quite a few of them off by heart I like them that much. My Favs(and the ones I know off by heart) are in no particular order:

I vow to thee my country(My fav, especially the second verse, for obvious reasons, I always liked how it mentions this “another country” rather than explicitly stating heaven. It’s so beautiful.)
The Lord’s My Shepherd(the most beautiful version of Psalm 23 you’ll ever hear or sing)
Jerusalem(Also known as “And did those feet in ancient times”)
Once In Royal David’s City(my fav christmas carol)
Fight the good fight with all thy might
Oh Jesu, I have promised
Onward Christian Soldiers…

and many others.

 

[Contarini]

Why? If the Anglican Communion remained outside of that unification?

Because the only possible justification for Anglicanism (or any other form of Protestantism) as a separate body is that we are trying to correct some of the errors peculiar to Western Christianity. Insofar as we are setting ourselves over against the pre-Reformation tradition as a whole, we are obviously in rebellion and schism. (I don’t mean that there aren’t ways in which Protestantism is superior to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but these are not valid grounds for separation–rather, we should work for renewal within historic Christianity.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Actually I wasn’t sneering, I have a copy of “Hymns - Ancient and modern, School Pocket Edition” (The benefit of attending an Anglican School), I meant that I would do that too.

In fact that book was closer to me than the bible as it was my major worship tool for so long…

Heck I know quite a few of them off by heart I like them that much. My Favs(and the ones I know off by heart) are in no particular order:

I vow to thee my country(My fav, especially the second verse, for obvious reasons, I always liked how it mentions this “another country” rather than explicitly stating heaven. It’s so beautiful.)
The Lord’s My Shepherd(the most beautiful version of Psalm 23 you’ll ever hear or sing)
Jerusalem(Also known as “And did those feet in ancient times”)
Once In Royal David’s City(my fav christmas carol)
Fight the good fight with all thy might
Oh Jesu, I have promised
Onward Christian Soldiers…

and many others.

Sorry for the snippy response. Actually you like the 19th-century Anglican hymns better than I do–OiRDC and OCS are not among my favorites.

I have responded very badly to most of the Catholic hymnals I’ve seen–especially the ones that alter Protestant hymns not for doctrinal reasons (which I could forgive, though probably it’s better simply not to use the hymn) but in order to eliminate all the “thee’s” and “thou’s.” It amazes me what utter contempt Catholic liturgists appear to have for the intelligence of the average Catholic.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

Because the only possible justification for Anglicanism (or any other form of Protestantism) as a separate body is that we are trying to correct some of the errors peculiar to Western Christianity. Insofar as we are setting ourselves over against the pre-Reformation tradition as a whole, we are obviously in rebellion and schism. (I don’t mean that there aren’t ways in which Protestantism is superior to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but these are not valid grounds for separation–rather, we should work for renewal within historic Christianity.)

Edwin

I understand from your previous posts that you are pretty much Catholic in your beliefs yet also contend that unification should take place on a corporate, as opposed to an individual level. At least until the Pope says otherwise. If that is the case–and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do reunite and you believe that such an event would nullify the grounds for Protestant separation–am I correct in assuming that your only problem with Catholic doctrine is the appropriate role of the Papacy?

 

[Contarini]

I understand from your previous posts that you are pretty much Catholic in your beliefs yet also contend that unification should take place on a corporate, as opposed to an individual level. At least until the Pope says otherwise. If that is the case–and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do reunite and you believe that such an event would nullify the grounds for Protestant separation–am I correct in assuming that your only problem with Catholic doctrine is the appropriate role of the Papacy?

No. I have a lot of other problems. But I don’t think I’m infallible. If the Orthodox–the most longstanding and credible critics of Rome–decided (or even if a substantial proportion of them decided) that Rome was in fact orthodox, then I would have to accept the fact that my other objections are probably mistaken (or alternatively that my views are more compatible with Catholic teaching than currently appears).

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

No. I have a lot of other problems. But I don’t think I’m infallible. If the Orthodox–the most longstanding and credible critics of Rome–decided (or even if a substantial proportion of them decided) that Rome was in fact orthodox, then I would have to accept the fact that my other objections are probably mistaken (or alternatively that my views are more compatible with Catholic teaching than currently appears).

Edwin

Ok, I follow you. But considering the similarity in doctrine of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, wouldn’t you also have to conclude right now, unification or not, that any doctrine on which the Catholics and Orthodox agree must be true and any contrary Protestant doctrine false? What you state above makes sense for areas where the Orthodox and the Catholics disagree, namely the Papacy, but not to make quite as much sense on matters on which they are united.

 

[Contarini]

Ok, I follow you. But considering the similarity in doctrine of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, wouldn’t you also have to conclude right now, unification or not, that any doctrine on which the Catholics and Orthodox agree must be true and any contrary Protestant doctrine false?

I think it’s very likely. But less than certain, because the mutual disagreement between the two of them casts doubt on the claims of both.

Here’s an example. The Orthodox brag about the fact that they have never handed out indulgences. But in practice I’ve seen practices very similar in Orthodoxy–giving food to the poor in the name of a dead person, for instance. In many ways Orthodoxy (at least in places like Romania) looks a lot more like late medieval Catholicism than modern Catholicism does (though I may think this because I haven’t spent time in traditional Catholic countries). So given the disagreement between the two traditions and the Orthodox critique of some aspects of late medieval Catholicism (while maintaining what look like very similar practices) it’s hard for a poor Protestant to know exactly what parts of Doctor Martin Luther’s critique were orthodox and what parts weren’t.

Edwin

 

[colliric]

Why? If the Anglican Communion remained outside of that unification?

A good portion of Anglicans call themselves “Anglo-Catholics”, Surely this particular group would react to the reunification and would certainly be affected if they saw Rome and Constantinople stand as one church again. That particular group of Anglican would certainly want the entire church of england to consider at least a partial rejoining with Rome, which a few of them already push for.

Ultimately this would probably at least require the defender of the Anglican faith, which is the queen, and will be Charles next, to “make peace” with Rome. I think in this case the archbishop would not have the support to keep the church of england separate as this would also sway anglo-catholics. It very nearly happened before under the reign of Queen Mary who was catholic.

 

[Contarini]

A good portion of Anglicans call themselves “Anglo-Catholics”, Surely this particular group would react to the reunification and would certainly be affected if they saw Rome and Constantinople stand as one church again. That particular group of Anglican would certainly want the entire church of england to consider at least a partial rejoining with Rome, which a few of them already push for.

Ultimately this would probably at least require the defender of the Anglican faith, which is the queen, and will be Charles next, to “make peace” with Rome.

No. You badly misread the role of the monarch in modern Anglicanism, which is practically nonexistent. The monarch’s views only have relevance within England (maybe Canada, etc., but I don’t think so)–certainly not in the U.S.

I think in this case the archbishop would not have the support to keep the church of england separate as this would also sway anglo-catholics. It very nearly happened before under the reign of Queen Mary who was catholic.

That was the 16th century. Things were quite different back then. Remember that at that point the CofE had only been separate from Rome for less than 20 years. You can’t possibly draw an analogy.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

I think it’s very likely. But less than certain, because the mutual disagreement between the two of them casts doubt on the claims of both.

Here’s an example. The Orthodox brag about the fact that they have never handed out indulgences. But in practice I’ve seen practices very similar in Orthodoxy–giving food to the poor in the name of a dead person, for instance. In many ways Orthodoxy (at least in places like Romania) looks a lot more like late medieval Catholicism than modern Catholicism does (though I may think this because I haven’t spent time in traditional Catholic countries). So given the disagreement between the two traditions and the Orthodox critique of some aspects of late medieval Catholicism (while maintaining what look like very similar practices) it’s hard for a poor Protestant to know exactly what parts of Doctor Martin Luther’s critique were orthodox and what parts weren’t.

Edwin

It seems to be a matter of authority then. When the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can’t agree themselves on authority, it not only places the matter in dispute for Protestants but also calls into question the doctrinal judgment of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches on other matters, matters where perhaps the Protestant judgment is actually the correct one.

Nonetheless, consider this analogy. You are a child visiting your spinster twin Aunts’ house for the weekend. Naturally, your parents said to obey your Aunts while you are staying with them. The Aunts get into a disagreement, Aunt Twee tells you to take out the garbage. Aunt Dee says no, that telling you take out the garbage is rude since you are their guest. It gets heated. You’re standing there, not sure who to obey because you are unsure as to who has the authority. So you obey neither. Then, however, both of them look over angrily at you and say in unison “go to your room”. They agree on that instruction. Do you obey it since the two possible sources of authority are in agreement, or do you say “well, since you two can’t agree on whether I should take out the trash or not…”

 

[Contarini]

It seems to be a matter of authority then. When the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can’t agree themselves on authority, it not only places the matter in dispute for Protestants but also calls into question the doctrinal judgment of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches on other matters, matters where perhaps the Protestant judgment is actually the correct one.

Nonetheless, consider this analogy. You are a child visiting your spinster twin Aunts’ house for the weekend. Naturally, your parents said to obey your Aunts while you are staying with them. The Aunts get into a disagreement, Aunt Twee tells you to take out the garbage. Aunt Dee says no, that telling you take out the garbage is rude since you are their guest. It gets heated. You’re standing there, not sure who to obey because you are unsure as to who has the authority. So you obey neither. Then, however, both of them look over angrily at you and say in unison “go to your room”. They agree on that instruction. Do you obey it since the two possible sources of authority are in agreement, or do you say “well, since you two can’t agree on whether I should take out the trash or not…”

Well, the only point on which I’m currently disobeying my “aunts” as far as I know is my willingness to receive communion in non-episcopal churches.

However, I think you missed the point of my example. Catholics and Orthodox are not agreed on the issues surrounding indulgences, penance, grace, faith and works, etc.–at least many Orthodox would say that they are not. The Orthodox are critical of Catholicism precisely on the point that is popularly regarded as the flashpoint for the Reformation. And it’s not even clear which tradition is more similar to Protestantism. Catholicism is more Augustinian and in that sense more sympathetic with the Protestant understanding of salvation by grace; but Orthodoxy rejects the legal framework in which late medieval Catholicism (and hence Protestantism) put these issues. Catholics say, “You have misappropriated our common Augustinian heritage”; Orthodox say, “Augustine is part of the problem.” This is a significant difference on one of the major traditional points at issue between Protestants and Catholics.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

Well, the only point on which I’m currently disobeying my “aunts” as far as I know is my willingness to receive communion in non-episcopal churches.

However, I think you missed the point of my example. Catholics and Orthodox are not agreed on the issues surrounding indulgences, penance, grace, faith and works, etc.–at least many Orthodox would say that they are not. The Orthodox are critical of Catholicism precisely on the point that is popularly regarded as the flashpoint for the Reformation. And it’s not even clear which tradition is more similar to Protestantism. Catholicism is more Augustinian and in that sense more sympathetic with the Protestant understanding of salvation by grace; but Orthodoxy rejects the legal framework in which late medieval Catholicism (and hence Protestantism) put these issues. Catholics say, “You have misappropriated our common Augustinian heritage”; Orthodox say, “Augustine is part of the problem.” This is a significant difference on one of the major traditional points at issue between Protestants and Catholics.

Edwin

I probably did miss you point then. How do the Catholics and Orthodox differ in the matter of faith and works?

 

[cazayoux]

The idea of being left behind, as per the series, is being left after those in Christ rise up to be with Him. I am not accepting nor denying this theology, we’ll see whether or not Christ’s people are here during the tribulation or not when it arrives, if it hasn’t already arrived.

Does that mean the 2nd coming of Christ is for the rapture and the 3rd coming of Christ is after the tribulation?
Don’t remember reading about a 3rd coming.
I think it’s just a second coming we are looking for.

I don’t think the self-proclaimed experts crack was really neccesary, I mean, you said yourself you read the books, so I assume you understand the research that was required for them to be able to mesh fiction with theory and teach it in the form of a novel.

The description “self-proclaimed” is accurate. They have no authority. Popularity of a book does not mean it was properly researched. I don’t believe in these guys’ interpretation of scripture. Mix holy scripture with bad theology to create fiction and you’ll sound very credible as you lead people astray.

I didn’t intend to sound nasty, but I just don’t like it when people read fiction and think they are reading truth.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Speed the day!

I think the more mainline Protestants would probably be ok with the renunion, but many Protestants would be very disturbed.

 

[mrs_abbott]

They’d be scratching their heads for days wondering what happened.

 

[Contarini]

I probably did miss you point then. How do the Catholics and Orthodox differ in the matter of faith and works?

I thought I just said this.

On the one hand, many Orthodox theologians are unhappy with the concept of “merit” and the legal terminology Western Christians use in discussing salvation. On the other, Catholicism is historically deeply influenced by Augustine and his theories of original sin, predestination, and the helplessness of human beings to save themselves. You can certainly find Catholic and Orthodox theologians who say basically the same things. But take the two communions as a whole and there are significant differences. A reunion between the two churches would help clear up the question of the status of Augustinianism on the one hand and would hopefully lead to some clarity on the role of legal language in soteriology on the other. Both of these issues are central to resolving the Protestant-Catholic division, IMHO.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It’s not going to happen, partly because both are highly dogmatic Churches & each holds dogmas which are anathema to the other.

Besides, the differences, hatreds, resentments & unwillingness to put aside convenient illusions are too wide & too great & too old. There is too much pride, too much corporate egotism, too much worship of Church tradition. Both are Ecclesiae incurvatae in se, - “Churches bent over upon themselves” gazing in self-adoration at their navels This is the very reverse of what they should be doing

God Himself could not & cannot make it happen, because both Churches are fully armour-plated against each other & against God; they are beyond conversion, if their past records are any guide.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Because the only possible justification for Anglicanism (or any other form of Protestantism) as a separate body is that we are trying to correct some of the errors peculiar to Western Christianity. Insofar as we are setting ourselves over against the pre-Reformation tradition as a whole, we are obviously in rebellion and schism. (I don’t mean that there aren’t ways in which Protestantism is superior to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but these are not valid grounds for separation–rather, we should work for renewal within historic Christianity.)

Edwin

1. This seems to imply the pre-Reformation tradition is beyond criticism, merely because it is anterior to the Reformation. There is in principle no reason why it cannot be treated as corrupt & rotten all through, & why the Reformers, for all their flaws, cannot be regarded as restorers of the Gospel after X years of darkness, corruption, apostasy, & error.​

1. The Church was as truly Protestant as it was Catholic or Orthodox. The Apostles did not explicitly teach salvation sola fide - but neither did any of them say one word about the Immaculate Conception. The objections against & types of argument for either, are the same. Christianity was a plenum, not a thing differentiated as Catholicism rather than as some other presently-existing form of Christianity.
2. As for rebellion - only rebellion against Christ counts: unless of course the Church is an earthly kingdom. Those who resist evil shepherds - such as the Borja & Medici popes - are not rebels, but restorers of the rights of Christ. To use an (admittedly insufficient) political analogy - neither were the French Resistance rebels; for those who ruled them were wicked and tyrannical enemies of God, whom God utterly destroyed. To oppose evil & negligent & ruinous shepherds is to protect the Church - which is God’s, & not the Pope’s - from those who oppress the flock of Christ. Evil Popes are rebels against Christ, & deserving of no more reverence than the religious leaders who crucified Christ.

 

[Jeanette_L]

It’s not going to happen, partly because both are highly dogmatic Churches & each holds dogmas which are anathema to the other.

Besides, the differences, hatreds, resentments & unwillingness to put aside convenient illusions are too wide & too great & too old. There is too much pride, too much corporate egotism, too much worship of Church tradition. Both are Ecclesiae incurvatae in se, - “Churches bent over upon themselves” gazing in self-adoration at their navels This is the very reverse of what they should be doing

God Himself could not & cannot make it happen, because both Churches are fully armour-plated against each other & against God; they are beyond conversion, if their past records are any guide.

WOW! Don’t be so soft on everyone, tell us how you really feel.