No such thing as imperfect unity.
Catholic theology is based on love. Protestant theology is based on faith alone. But Fatih alone precludes love as a driver of salvation and pre-empts all moral teaching. Protestant theology as you described it was developed by Martin Luther, a sinful man who sought to make sin irrelevant by focusing on faith and mercy alone. However, persuasive Luther’s arguments are to you, they still don’t change the truth. You need to act out your faith with love for it to be meaningful. That message is repeated dozens of times in dozens of ways in scripture. How could you have missed it. Remember Paul’s words, if you have faith enough to move mountains but do not have love, you are nothing. (1corinthians 13).
It seems your posting is quite one sided and bias which does not help in an attempt for unity within the body of Christ. To say that Catholic theology is based on love and Protestant theology is not… is quite an arrogant position… The doctrine of justification is about God demonstrating His love for us while we were still sinners… it is the purest kind of Love that has no match too it in human form. In Protestant historic theology as compared to the Catholic understanding of justification, which theoogy really illuminates the love of God in Christ in greater depth, creating deeper worship of our Triune God?
That again is so one sided, not helping heal the division found in the body of Christ.
You keep mentioning the healing of the division found in the body, but Carlan is telling you how that division can be healed, which is re-uniting the parts who have ripped themselves away, back to His mystical body, the Church.
As has been said to you many times before, you reformers saw justification as a mere legal act by which God declares the sinner to be meriting heaven even tho’ he remains sinful, It is not a real eradication of sin, but a covering or non-imputing, It is not an inner renewal and real sanctification, only and external application of Christ’s justice.
You are right he didn’t remove six. He actually removed seven, plus he took out parts of Daniel and Esther. Furthermore he wanted to remove James, which he called “an epistle if straw”. The Old Testament Canon was agreed upon in 4 councils in the 4th century, based on what was being read in the liturgy. Though there were some dissenters before these councils, they all but disappeared until the Protestant Deformation.
I think you guys are very unrealistic in regards to all Protestants returning to the Catholic Church in full as the answer to the call for unity by Jesus. Christians from various communities are always switching between Protestant, Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox communities. It seems that with every one Protestant returning to the Catholic Church, you have 10 Catholics becoming Protestant (wild estimate- but you get my point). I am discussing real unity with the reality that the visible church will never be uniformed in our generation. Since there is much ecumenicism with the Catholic Church and Muslims, Mormons, and Judaism… it would only make sense that Catholics should push ecumenicism with Christendom in regards to Christian witness to an unbelieving world (John 17).You keep mentioning the healing of the division found in the body, but Carlan is telling you how that division can be healed, which is re-uniting the parts who have ripped themselves away, back to His mystical body, the Church.
There is only one way of healing, and that’s reunification. How do I rebuke kindly? I want to say this in the kindest most charitable way because I know that you are a child of God. I think that what you are wishing for is such a honorable thing, with best of intentions, yet you are not seeing who has to make the steps toward union.
It’s been said that protestants who come back to the Church become some of the best advocates of the Church, sorta like a shot of adrenalin. The Church awaits with open arms, and a fattened calf
Lapell said:
But doctrine cannot be sacrificed in the name of unity. When it comes down to it, it is Protestantism that left, following false prophets. We will welcome all back, but in order to come back, false doctrines must be abandoned.
There are over 1 billion Catholics and the Magisterium. Do you speak for the Magisterium or the 1 billion lay Catholics with your posting above?
I am conveying the general attitude conveyed in Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio, both from Vatican II.
You’re asking by question with another one. Still waiting. I’d encourage all the Catholic here to not answer One in Christ’s questions until he answers ours. It is only fair.
Christ is the 2nd Adam in Scripture. The first Adam was a representative of all humanity. Thus by original sin, all humanity was affected. According to Scripture, Christ must have died for all in order to be the 2nd Adam. If Christ only died for the believers, then He must be the 2nd Noah since Noah only saved a remnant, not all of humanity.
I’m not sure if I would agree with your statement in reading work by the current Pope, who appears to be extremely Protestant friendly in doctrine.
Christ is not the 2nd Adam for all humanity; for those who are not in Christ are still in the first Adam. But you have the right idea in comparing Adam and 2nd Adam, representing fallen humanity and redeemned humanity. Look at it this way: we are all born united to Adam; therefore we are called children of darkness. When we believe in Christ, we move citizenship from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light by virtue of our union with Christ. Therefore, all who have been moved to the kingdom of light by the grace of God, are citizens of the kingdom of God… thus all in Christ are One in Christ… where there is no condemnation ever again on the basis of the righteousness of Christ.
No where in Scripture is Christ’s role as the second Adam qualified. While it is true that those outside of Christ are still imputed with Adam’s, it does not follow that Christ did not represent all of humanity. Otherwise, how do you know if Christ died for you?
can you cite an example please…if you can
Just an aside: I had a Theology Professor (went to a Catholic University) who was protestant. He used to like to say if it weren’t for the Protestants, Christianity would have died a long time ago.
1. Pope Benedict XVI hardly seems all that friendly to Protestantism. He has indicated that Protestant churches should not be really called churches but 'spiritual entities' and he has claimed that Protestant ministers do not the authority to officiate at the Eucharist. It's no surprise that a Pope would believe this, but why did he make public statements that are so offensive to fellow Christians? Poor judgment?
2. The number claimed by Catholicism is - what - 1.5+ billion? Something like that. My family comes from Quebec where less than 10% now attend mass regularly. Catholic Almanac statistics for places like France (85%), Italy (97.5%) and Spain (98.5%) are totally unrealistic also. Didn't I read that Spain, once 'more Catholic than the Pope' - where Protestants were not even allowed public worship under Franco - recently voted to permit same sex-marriage? Didn't Mexico do the same even more recently? Let's face it, Christianity is in trouble - Catholicism and Protestantism, except perhaps in Africa. The pentecostal form of Protestantism seems to be thriving in Latin America, also.
But God loves people of every faith, color and nation, and we should praise the Lord for that. Christians should view one another as brothers and sisters rather than as rivals and antagonists, which seems to be the spirit of too many posters on CAF.