In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christian_Unity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Christian_Unity said:
When I read the Council of Trent, it does not seem compatible with

Pope Benedict said that Martin Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone is correct if ‘faith is not opposed to charity.’ The Pope said this during a general audience in a speech on St Paul’s teaching on justification. (Vatican, November 2008)
Click to expand...
Which paragraph from the Council of Trent are you referring to?
 
Christian_Unity said:
I don’t think

You do understand that Protetstants would also say that there understanding is from divine guidance too, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit for correct undestanding of the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Well, then…how do you account for the existence of varying protestant denoms with different interpretations of Scripture…all claiming to have and believe theirs is the truth? Is the HS guiding protestants to confusion?

Or is this more plausible…that the Holy Spirit guides a Church, not the individual, to speak and teach the truth of Christ…and we, the believer, are to conform our selves to the teachings of that church (whichever it may be)…and not have the church conform to what the believer, the Christian…to what it wants the Church to teach…or what is agreeable to the individual believer or the personal interpretation of the individual?
 
Problem is that sola scriptura has no authority.

Sola scriptura brings division of faith which is not the mark of the Holy Spirit Who calls us to be one.

And applying one’s self to Sola Scriptura, you are not acting in the Church but as an individual and possible – victim to your own perceptions. You are basing your understanding on your own inclinations and those from others that you agree with. But you are not being challenged to deny yourself and your way of looking at things.

We have to renounce ourselves and to look at Christ that requires sacrifice on our part. That doesn’t require tithing, but a change of heart and a reform of the heart.

We are given our neighbor to address our blind spots. And ‘reformers’ of the Protestant denominations and sects experience criticism or challenges by simply breaking away and forming another ‘church’.

I would like to see those documents on Catholicism and Evangelism.
 
jrtrent said:
This might be it.
leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9405/articles/mission.html

And an interesting commentary on it.
tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj6a.pdf
Click to expand...
We have Catholics and Protestants who oppose it. We also have Catholics and Protestants who support it. The commentaries are just that; they are commentaries to those two ecumencial documents. Pastor John MacArthur is anti-Catholic, and anti-Protestant who disagree with him. There are two documents, ECT 1 and ECT 2. Check out this book:

amazon.com/Evangelicals-Catholics-Together-Toward-Mission/dp/0849938600/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354221891&sr=8-1&keywords=evangelicals+and+catholics+together
 
Christian_Unity said:
When I read the Council of Trent, it does not seem compatible with

Pope Benedict said that Martin Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone is correct if ‘faith is not opposed to charity.’ The Pope said this during a general audience in a speech on St Paul’s teaching on justification. (Vatican, November 2008)
Click to expand...
Have you read the Council of Trent?
 
Stephen168 said:
Have you read the Council of Trent?
Click to expand...
In the 1990’s, I was really interested in the ECT movement and wholeheartily opposed it. I read lot’s of books by Protestants who opposed the ECT movement. In those particular books, the anathemas of the Council of Trent were referenced. I know the CCC will state that the eternal curses of the Council of Trent do not apply to Protestants today. However, the intent of the Council of Trent cannot be disputed. I am also aware of the anti-Catholic statements made in historic Protestant confessionals such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the London Baptist Confession of 1689. I think I have a good handle of our differences, and they are important. However, I don’t think issues like authority and justification will be resolved on this side of glory. It’s been 500 years… so what’s the next best thing to do for the sake of Christ? It’s unrealistic that Protestants will come home to Rome as a whole because we see things quite differently, yet we both love the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Christian_Unity said:
In the 1990’s, I was really interested in the ECT movement and wholeheartily opposed it. I read lot’s of books by Protestants who opposed the ECT movement. In those particular books, the anathemas of the Council of Trent were referenced.
Click to expand...
So you have not read it. I guess that is why you can’t answer post #21.
 
You and I have very similar beliefs, Christian Unity - at least I think we do.
 
Stephen168 said:
So you have not read it. I guess that is why you can’t answer post #21.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I think it appears that some people just want to argue for argument sake, maybe because I am a non-Catholic on a Catholic Forum site. I know true ecumenism is challenging to all of us. If you don’t have a heart for an attempt for Christian Unity, then that’s okay too. It seems the CCC and the Pope encourages ecumenism and honest discussions between Protestants and Catholics. Believe me, I know the Pope’s positive statement on Luther ‘s faith alone rocked Catholics and Protestants… and both groups had to discern what the Pope really meant by it.
 
Christian_Unity said:
Sometimes I think it appears that some people just want to argue for argument sake, maybe because I am a non-Catholic on a Catholic Forum site. I know true ecumenism is challenging to all of us. If you don’t have a heart for an attempt for Christian Unity, then that’s okay too. It seems the CCC and the Pope encourages ecumenism and honest discussions between Protestants and Catholics. Believe me, I know the Pope’s positive statement on Luther ‘s faith alone rocked Catholics and Protestants… and both groups had to discern what the Pope really meant by it.
Click to expand...
It didn’t rock me at all.
You made a claim in post #7 which doesn’t seem true to me, so I asked for more information.

You are not able to provide that information, so I will just have to assume you are confused.
 
Christian_Unity said:
In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity - Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius
Click to expand...
Actually, he was quoting Saint Augustine: this was a popular maxim or summation among the Fathers I think, but I know for sure that Saint Augustine had said this.
 
Christian_Unity said:
I say live and let live, and unite as Christians within orthodoxy for the bigger cause of Christ.

I’m open to discuss all kinds of things. I personally believe in sola scriptura over apostolic succession. I also believe in a forensic justification (justification by faith alone) in comparison to a Catholic understanding of justification. However, our differences should never divide the body of Christ. Christian unity requires some compromise.
Click to expand...
How do you propose that “uniting as Christians” work out in actual practice? And how do you propose determining which beliefs are orthodox and which are heterodox?

From Disunity on Essentials:
Catholic apologists commonly point out the extreme diversity in belief among Protestant denominations and theological schools of thought. 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.

For example, for non-Lutherans, a good test would be: Could Martin Luther pastor your church, given his beliefs in things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, high predestination, and the Real Presence? The problem is much more general than Luther, however. Pastors from one Protestant tradition typically are not allowed to serve as pastors in Protestant churches of other traditions. A Lutheran’s belief in baptismal regeneration will prevent him from pastoring a Calvinist church, a Calvinist’s belief in high predestination will prevent him from pastoring a Methodist church, a Methodist’s belief in infant baptism will prevent him from pastoring a Baptist church, and so on.

Perhaps the most fundamental problem for users of the “unity in essentials” argument is the fact that they disagree on the meaning of the distinctively Protestant essentials on which they claim to be united: the slogans “faith alone” and “Scripture alone” (sola fide and sola scriptura).

…
 
Stephen168 said:
It has nothing to do with
-What I thought
-Your post #7
-Your inability to provide a reference to Trent

So I will just have to assume you are confused.
Click to expand...
Council of Trent:
  1. CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
  2. CANON 12: “If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed”
3.Canon 14: “If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.”
  1. Canon 23: “lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,- except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.”
  2. Canon 24: “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”
  3. Canon 30: “If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.”
  4. Canon 33: "If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
 
Erich said:
How do you propose that “uniting as Christians” work out in actual practice? And how do you propose determining which beliefs are orthodox and which are heterodox?
…
[/INDENT]
Click to expand...
I find it ironic that Catholics can unite with Mormons on social issues which they agree on. Yet, when we are trying to unite on the very nature of the One True God and the One True religion of Christianity, it appears Catholics are opposed to any such unity. 🤷

Don’t worry, Fundamentialist right wing Christians did the very same thing, uniting with Mormons on social issues. Are you familar what Dr Billy Graham’s ministry did regarding Mormonism just before the election? I find that an attack on orthodox Christianity.

bing.com/search?q=billy+graham+says+mormonism+is+not+a+cult&q=billy+graham+says+mormonism+is+not+a+cult&src=IE-SearchBox&Form=IE8SRC

We can unite over the historic ecumenical creeds such as the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed. The historic Protestant confessionals are orthodox on the very essentials of the faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top