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

[ProdglArchitect]

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.

Honestly, I think the root of this issue is that you are confusing maintaining out beliefs with being unwilling to work with Christians. We can work with other Christians while still supporting the whole Doctrine of the Catholic Church, just as I can have atheist friends and still maintain my identity as a Catholic. Your concept of unity seems to be similar to the relativistic secularism of today : “If it works for me then it’s fine and you shouldn’t say anything to the contrary.”

We can work with you while still believing you to be misinformed. I really don’t understand what you’re trying to prove with all these posts.

Also, you still haven’t addressed my point yet, so I guess I get my answer and win my own bet XD

 

[Christian_Unity]

No, that is a link to a page about the document, not the document itself… and even that link says absolutely nothing about justification.

We are called to share common witness with fellow Christians in the name of Christ; but that common witness is not an invitation to abandon Catholic teaching in order to play nice.

I will stand with Baptists outside of a Planned Parenthood to pray for the souls being lost there, but I will not say that the Baptists’s beliefs represent the Truth.

Also, you completely ignored the other point I made, about how Protestants -CAN’T- be being guided by the Holy spirit to their individual interpretations. Are you going to say anything about it, or take your usual approach of ignoring any well made point against your arguemnt? I’d bet strong odds I know your answer.

When you study the Evangelical and Catholics Together Documents, nobody is asking for the other side to abandon their theological distinctive that separate us theologically. Historical Protestants as defined by historic creeds and historic confessionals are very similar to what Catholics believe. There are two essential issues that divide us: authority and justification. I would go back to the CCC to get some perspective on how the Catholic Magestrium views Protestants and Orthodox Christians.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Honestly, I think the root of this issue is that you are confusing maintaining out beliefs with being unwilling to work with Christians. We can work with other Christians while still supporting the whole Doctrine of the Catholic Church, just as I can have atheist friends and still maintain my identity as a Catholic. Your concept of unity seems to be similar to the relativistic secularism of today : “If it works for me then it’s fine and you shouldn’t say anything to the contrary.”

We can work with you while still believing you to be misinformed. I really don’t understand what you’re trying to prove with all these posts.

Also, you still haven’t addressed my point yet, so I guess I get my answer and win my own bet XD

Please go back to the CCC on the issue of Protestants and Orthodox Christians.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Please go back to the CCC on the issue of Protestants and Orthodox Christians.

We are to treat them with respect, but recognize that their views are lacking in the fullness of the Truth. If there is a single passage in the Catechism that contradicts this I welcome you to show it to me.

When you study the Evangelical and Catholics Together Documents, nobody is asking for the other side to abandon their theological distinctive that separate us theologically. Historical Protestants as defined by historic creeds and historic confessionals are very similar to what Catholics believe. There are two essential issues that divide us: authority and justification. I would go back to the CCC to get some perspective on how the Catholic Magestrium views Protestants and Orthodox Christians.

I don’t think you understand how debate works… to win a debate you do not say I don’t know what I’m talking about and tell me to go read more. To win a debate… or even engage in one period really, you offer an opposing viewpoint backed by information. You have made simple claims with no information to back them, I how offered an opposing view backed by logic. In response, you’ve said I need to study my Catechism more on the Church’s views of protestants and Orthodox Christians. This is not a discussion, and doesn’t even pertain to the point I made, which was in reference to the illogical nature of the entire Protestant belief structure. If you wish to continue discussing, then I welcome you to actually offer a point to refute, rather than a blind assertion as to my knowledge.

Also, as to your point, there are far, far more difference between Catholicism and the protestants than who’s authority we recognize and the issue of justification. The importance of Mary and the Saints is another big one; who has the authority to interpret Scripture has already come up a few times in the thread; The nature of the afterlife is another, as is the existence of Purgatory; just to name a few more.

I enjoy debate. This is not a debate. This is exactly what you did last time to, claiming that I needed to study the Catechism more and not actually point out any place I was in error.

If you can’t find any actual errors with my argument, other than that they go against your perceptions, then you cannot refute them, and must concede that I have made a good point.

Incidentally, this is the fourth time you have said I need to study my Catechism more. For the love of all that is Holy, tell me what to study?! What segments of the Catechism refuteanyhting I have said?

 

[Christian_Unity]

What Separates the Christian Faiths

“Holy Father, keep them in thy name… that they may be one, even as
we are one” (Jn 17:11).

Reflecting on a great wound in Christianity, the Second Vatican Council declared:
“Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many
Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus
Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but they differ in mind and
go their different ways, as if Christ himself were divided.1 Certainly, such division
openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages that
most holy cause, the preaching of the Good New of salvation to every creature.”2

The distressing reality is that this rupture in Christianity continues today. Nevertheless,
Catholic and Protestant Christians share important common beliefs. Hopefully, they will
provide a starting point to draw us together.

• The Blessed Trinity – God is one in nature, but there are three distinct Persons
Father, Son and Holy Spirit who equally share in that one nature.
• Jesus is the divine Son of the Father made man.
• Jesus is the Redeemer of all men and all grace comes through him.
• The necessity of grace and faith, without which no one enters heaven.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead.
• The existence of a place of eternal happiness called heaven, and the existence of
a place of eternal punishment called hell.
• The Bible is the inspired word of God.

The Reformation that severed Western Christianity did not happen in a vacuum. The
sins of churchmen were, perhaps, the chief culprit. By the time Martin Luther came on
the scene the Catholic Church was in dire need of reform. The Great Western Schism
(1378-1417) lowered the prestige of the Papacy when two men, and then three, each
claimed to be the legitimate Pope. Tragically the Popes that followed from Sixtus IV
(1471-1484) to Leo X (1513-1521) delivered hammer blows to the moral authority of the
Church. They were only distinguished by their worldliness, ambition and avarice. This
calamity led to a general moral collapse among many of the clergy and religious, and
brought about strong anti-papal feelings in Germany.

This scandalous behavior of clergymen at the highest-level prompted Pope Adrian VI to
publically acknowledge its significant contribution to the fracturing of Christianity.
“We freely acknowledge that God has allowed this chastisement to come upon His
Church because of the sins of men and especially because of the sins of priests and
1 Referencing 1 Cor 1:13.
2 Unitatis Redintegratio, The Decree on Ecumenism, # 1

scborromeo.org/papers/What%20Separates%20the%20Christian%20Faiths.pdf#xml=http://scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/mysite.txt?q=protestant&sufs=0&order=r&id=c010f2ca2ca41ef8&cmd=xml

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

Now I get it. So forensic justification = justification by faith alone. Sorry for taking so long to figure that out.

Well, I do not believe in it. I do not think that faith alone brings salvation because it would be a dead faith.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

What Separates the Christian Faiths

“Holy Father, keep them in thy name… that they may be one, even as
we are one” (Jn 17:11).

Reflecting on a great wound in Christianity, the Second Vatican Council declared:
“Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many
Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus
Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but they differ in mind and
go their different ways, as if Christ himself were divided.1 Certainly, such division
openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages that
most holy cause, the preaching of the Good New of salvation to every creature.”2

The distressing reality is that this rupture in Christianity continues today. Nevertheless,
Catholic and Protestant Christians share important common beliefs. Hopefully, they will
provide a starting point to draw us together.

• The Blessed Trinity – God is one in nature, but there are three distinct Persons
Father, Son and Holy Spirit who equally share in that one nature.
• Jesus is the divine Son of the Father made man.
• Jesus is the Redeemer of all men and all grace comes through him.
• The necessity of grace and faith, without which no one enters heaven.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead.
• The existence of a place of eternal happiness called heaven, and the existence of
a place of eternal punishment called hell.
• The Bible is the inspired word of God.

The Reformation that severed Western Christianity did not happen in a vacuum. The
sins of churchmen were, perhaps, the chief culprit. By the time Martin Luther came on
the scene the Catholic Church was in dire need of reform. The Great Western Schism
(1378-1417) lowered the prestige of the Papacy when two men, and then three, each
claimed to be the legitimate Pope. Tragically the Popes that followed from Sixtus IV
(1471-1484) to Leo X (1513-1521) delivered hammer blows to the moral authority of the
Church. They were only distinguished by their worldliness, ambition and avarice. This
calamity led to a general moral collapse among many of the clergy and religious, and
brought about strong anti-papal feelings in Germany.

This scandalous behavior of clergymen at the highest-level prompted Pope Adrian VI to
publically acknowledge its significant contribution to the fracturing of Christianity.
“We freely acknowledge that God has allowed this chastisement to come upon His
Church because of the sins of men and especially because of the sins of priests and
1 Referencing 1 Cor 1:13.
2 Unitatis Redintegratio, The Decree on Ecumenism, # 1

scborromeo.org/papers/What%20Separates%20the%20Christian%20Faiths.pdf#xml=http://scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/mysite.txt?q=protestant&sufs=0&order=r&id=c010f2ca2ca41ef8&cmd=xml

And? So the Church needed some internal cleanup. That has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of her teachings, and did not give protestant reformers free range to start picking and choosing which doctrines they want to follow. All this says is that we have similarities. These similarities do not erase our difference, nor do they mean that we have stop preaching the full Truth of the ONLY Church on Earth that Christ himself deemed fit to start.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, JR for the references that Christian Unity was referring to. I am the type that has come across ideas, etc., years ago and always come up short with references.

 

[Erich]

I also believe in a forensic justification (justification by faith alone) in comparison to a Catholic understanding of justification.

Please answer the following questions, then:

1. Is a dead body really a body?
2. If a man says he has faith, and has no works, can his faith save him?
3. How are we justified…is it by faith alone? // you’ve already answered affirmatively
4. Can an incomplete faith save us?
5. Can someone, through well doing (good works), receive eternal life?

 

[KathleenGee]

Well by the remark at the bottom…have you read the entire thread???

 

[Christian_Unity]

Please answer the following questions, then:

1. Is a dead body really a body?
2. If a man says he has faith, and has no works, can his faith save him?
3. How are we justified…is it by faith alone? // you’ve already answered affirmatively
4. Can an incomplete faith save us?
5. Can someone, through well doing (good works), receive eternal life?

Can you please go to this thread to continue the discussion above? Hopefully the thread below answers those great questions.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=729467&page=28

 

[Erich]

Can you please go to this thread to continue the discussion above?

Done.

Hopefully the thread below answers those great questions.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=729467&page=28

I doubt it. They are all questions that Catholics should have no problems answering, but justification-by-faith-alone “forensic justificationists” can’t answer – at least, not without contradicting one of their beliefs, or answering in a way that is patently absurd.

 

[JonNC]

Late to the thread. Sorry.

=Christian Unity;10075314]In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity - Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius

One must define the essentials. I would suspect, assuming your reference is correct, that any Lutheran theologian would say that the essentials include the real presence, baptismal regeneration in baptism, and confession/Holy Absolution.
These are without question essentials.

If you go to a Catholic Forum site, members will have a Catholic slant on things. If you go to a Protestant Forum site, members will have a non-Catholic slant on things. I say live and let live, and unite as Christians within orthodoxy for the bigger cause of Christ.

Unite how?

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.

I know that there is an obvious link between soeriology and ecclesiology, but I’m not sure I see these two as in opposition. After all, the Lutheran confessions support both.

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)

the if is important, for both Lutherans and Catholics, and the reference is to Luther, not protestantism. What I have read of Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger, leads me to believe he understands Luther/ Lutheranism in different terms than the Reformed, and moreso the radical reformation groups.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

I doubt it. They are all questions that Catholics should have no problems answering, but justification-by-faith-alone “forensic justificationists” can’t answer – at least, not without contradicting one of their beliefs, or answering in a way that is patently absurd.

Would you please demonstrate exactly what you are talking about? We cannot answer questions about justification-by-faith-alone without contradicting one of our beliefs or giving an absurd answer? Please give me an example of this. Us Catholics, ya know, are kind of slow at times.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Erich
I doubt it. They are all questions that Catholics should have no problems answering, but justification-by-faith-alone “forensic justificationists” can’t answer – at least, not without contradicting one of their beliefs, or answering in a way that is patently absurd.

Would you please demonstrate exactly what you are talking about? We cannot answer questions about justification-by-faith-alone without contradicting one of our beliefs or giving an absurd answer? Please give me an example of this. Us Catholics, ya know, are kind of slow at times.

I think Erich’s wording is confusing, but it seems he means that those of us who believe in sola fide and forensic justification can’t answer some questions without contradicting one of our beliefs. I don’t think he means Catholics can’t answer questions.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

I think Erich’s wording is confusing, but it seems he means that those of us who believe in sola fide and forensic justification can’t answer some questions without contradicting one of our beliefs. I don’t think he means Catholics can’t answer questions.

Jon

I would never have arrived at that meaning from his words. Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

I would never have arrived at that meaning from his words. Thanks.

Well, he used the term “forensic justificationists”, so that;s why I came to that conclusion. I’m sure Erich will clarify.

Jon

 

[Christian_Unity]

Late to the thread. Sorry.

One must define the essentials. I would suspect, assuming your reference is correct, that any Lutheran theologian would say that the essentials include the real presence, baptismal regeneration in baptism, and confession/Holy Absolution.
These are without question essentials.

Are you familar with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals in which there are Lutherans who belong to it too?

alliancenet.org/CC_Content_Page/0,PTID307086_CHID798774_CIID,00.html

 

[exnihilo]

One must define the essentials. I would suspect, assuming your reference is correct, that any Lutheran theologian would say that the essentials include the real presence, baptismal regeneration in baptism, and confession/Holy Absolution. These are without question essentials.

Indeed. The statement suggests we must have some way of knowing what are the essentials. It assumes the essentials are knowable. It assumes objective truth. If one can’t even agree on the methods for obtaining truth in Christian doctrine then the idea expressed is really not helpful. If the truth of Christian faith is determined by each individual then quot capita tot sensus (there are as many opinions as there are heads). When this phrase is encountered my first question is not what are the essentials but how does one know or discover them? The second question is far more important than the first.

 

[SteveVH]

Well, he used the term “forensic justificationists”, so that;s why I came to that conclusion. I’m sure Erich will clarify.

Jon

I missed that completely. Apologies.