In need of a POPE?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gryskull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gryskull

Guest
The article of D. Stephen Long linked on the St. Paul Centre website was a little bit fascinating for me. I enjoyed reading it and I’d like to know what our protestant brothers and sisters think about it. He lays down his reasons why the Protestant church needs a Pope.

ENJOY!!!

(Moderator note: Changed thread title to reflect the name of the article being cited as per forum rules.)
 
40.png
gryskull:
The article of D. Stephen Long linked on the St. Paul Centre website was a little bit fascinating for me. I enjoyed reading it and I’d like to know what our protestant brothers and sisters think about it. He lays down his reasons why the Protestant church needs a Pope.

ENJOY!!!

(Moderator note: Changed thread title to reflect the name of the article being cited as per forum rules.)
Wait a minute! I thought that each individual Protestant was essentially his own pope.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
What is so sad is that he sees the reason, need, and authenticity of the papacy, but he is unwilling to come home to the Church.

The reasons he give for staying in his church, “The hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy of that tradition gave me faith and taught me to love God.” are unexcusable.
 
From the article:

The final logic of this version of Protestantism can only be that each individual makes up his or her own religion, which will then be defined over and against every other individual’s religion…I for one cannot leave my separated Wesleyan communion behind. The hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy of that tradition gave me faith and taught me to love God.

ummm, ok. For someone to see to need for the papacy and then in the next breath refuse to submit to its authority because you like your church’s traditions is baffling.
 
It is hard to leave the home that one is raised in, especially if the home was a happy one. The Methodist church is his home, his family and his employer…that is a lot to walk away from.
He says he won’t leave…the number of converts to the Catholic Church who have said the same thing is beyond number. He is on a journey, and has yet to reach the crossroad…pray for him, he is just beginning to see the light.
 
Exactly, he looks to be on the journey. If he sees the need of the Papacy, it is only logical that the next steps will include enlightenment on the Eucharist and the rest of the Sacraments.

That a protestant takes that risky of a step to declare even an unsatisfactory (to us) need for the Papacy is a big step to finding Truth. Seek and ye shall find. 👍
 
40.png
Catilieth:
It is hard to leave the home that one is raised in, especially if the home was a happy one. The Methodist church is his home, his family and his employer…that is a lot to walk away from.
He says he won’t leave…the number of converts to the Catholic Church who have said the same thing is beyond number. He is on a journey, and has yet to reach the crossroad…pray for him, he is just beginning to see the light.
Catilieth:

Well said.

Please remember that most Prostestants don’t have the benefit of being born into the Church or of having the faith explained to them accurately (they’re usually taught distortions). At the same time, when they decide to make the move, they have to accept all the doctrines and dogmas that most Catholics haven’t been taught for the past 40 years.

It’s not easy, and I don’t think it’s going to be any easier for our writer.

Thank you and Goodnight.

In Christ, Michael
 
40.png
RCCDefender:
The reasons he give for staying in his church, “The hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy of that tradition gave me faith and taught me to love God,” are unexcusable.
Absolutely: everyone who loves God but does not conform to the ideology sanctioned by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church deserves to suffer perpetual torment in Hell.

Unfortunately, the fact that God has never seen fit to abdicate in favour of anyone means that this utter heretic may well be allowed into Heaven.

I am just shocked.

:rolleyes:
 
40.png
gryskull:
The article of D. Stephen Long linked on the St. Paul Centre website was a little bit fascinating for me. I enjoyed reading it and I’d like to know what our protestant brothers and sisters think about it. He lays down his reasons why the Protestant church needs a Pope.
“Either we try to find a place for our separated communities from within the Catholic Church or we find a place for Catholic unity from within our separated communities.”

This is quite a good summary, in my heretical opinion: unity will only come through tolerance, not through enforced conformity.
 
40.png
RCCDefender:
What is so sad is that he sees the reason, need, and authenticity of the papacy, but he is unwilling to come home to the Church.

The reasons he give for staying in his church, “The hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy of that tradition gave me faith and taught me to love God.” are unexcusable.
I hear what you’re saying but here is my take on his very words

This stance does not require abandoning what is good in Protestant traditions. I for one cannot leave my separated Wesleyan communion behind. The hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy of that tradition gave me faith and taught me to love God. But neither can I will an end to the unity the papacy clearly produces throughout the world.”

I think what he is trying to say is that acknowledging the beauty of the papacy even to the extend of joining the RCC doesn’t mean abandoning everything and that’s why I highlighted his statement. All the good things that they have come to love in their church is something that they can bring into the RCC, such as the love for scripture, liturgy, hymns, etc. These things will definitely blend well within the Church but at the same time they have to recognize they authority of the magesterium and the Pope. They have to recognize all of the revealed truth that the Church has declared and not pick and choose whatever they want. As I usually tell my family “You’re better off a good protestant than a bad catholic.”

I think think that this is what he was trying to say in that paragraph. We have to remember that their journey into the RCC is not quite easy. We all have to pray for them and give them the support that they need and appreciate whatever good thing they bring with them into the RCC.
 
As someone else said above, I agree…I think he’s on the journey home 🙂
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Wait a minute! I thought that each individual Protestant was essentially his own pope.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
Well, now you know better:D

Edwin
 
40.png
RCCDefender:
What is so sad is that he sees the reason, need, and authenticity of the papacy, but he is unwilling to come home to the Church.

The reasons he give for staying in his church, “The hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy of that tradition gave me faith and taught me to love God.” are unexcusable.
No, what is inexcusable is your apparent adherence to liberal individualism.

If you reject liberal individualism–if you have any conception of traditional religious thinking at all–then you must necessarily sympathize with Dr. Long’s argument. That you don’t shows how radically un-traditional a Christian you are.

I’m not suggesting that faithfulness to the tradition in which one was raised is an absolute. Obviously if one becomes convinced that one’s tradition is radically and irredeemably wrong then one must leave it. But if Methodism was radically and irredeemably wrong, then it could not be said to have taught Dr. Long the true faith.

In other words, I propose that post-Vatican-II Catholics are caught in a bind. Vatican II will not allow you to maintain the traditional Augustinian position (or the more radical Cyprianic position, but fortunately you rejected that long ago) that separated communities have no claim on the baptism they transmit and that formation in them undoes the grace given by baptism. Vatican II clearly recognizes not simply that valid baptism is present in schismatic/heretical communities but that many other graces are present as well. And having said that, it is hard for you to mount a strong argument for the necessity of individual conversion on the part of non-Catholic Christians.

If, as the Catholic Church recognizes, we have received real grace from our separated communities, then to leave those communities behind is (in the absence of special circumstances) to turn our back on God’s grace. This is “inexcusable” to you only because its logic is uncomfortably powerful and you are determined not to recognize it.

Edwin
 
40.png
arieh0310:
From the article:

The final logic of this version of Protestantism can only be that each individual makes up his or her own religion, which will then be defined over and against every other individual’s religion…I for one cannot leave my separated Wesleyan communion behind. The hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy of that tradition gave me faith and taught me to love God.

ummm, ok. For someone to see to need for the papacy and then in the next breath refuse to submit to its authority because you like your church’s traditions is baffling.
Who says he doesn’t submit to its authority? But he doesn’t submit completely or unconditionally.

This should not be an odd idea to you. It’s how we treat every other human authority in our lives (our parents, for instance).

Edwin
 
40.png
gryskull:
I hear what you’re saying but here is my take on his very words

This stance does not require abandoning what is good in Protestant traditions. I for one cannot leave my separated Wesleyan communion behind. The hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy of that tradition gave me faith and taught me to love God. But neither can I will an end to the unity the papacy clearly produces throughout the world.”

I think what he is trying to say is that acknowledging the beauty of the papacy even to the extend of joining the RCC doesn’t mean abandoning everything and that’s why I highlighted his statement. All the good things that they have come to love in their church is something that they can bring into the RCC, such as the love for scripture, liturgy, hymns, etc. These things will definitely blend well within the Church but at the same time they have to recognize they authority of the magesterium and the Pope.
I think what many of you are not picking up on is that one can recognize the authority of the Pope without granting the Pope all the authority he claims. (This is, BTW, the position of the Old Catholics, as I understand it. It’s also what many Anglo-Catholics would say.) In particular, one can view the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism as differences to be dealt with communally rather than individually.

The great irony in all Catholic calls for Protestants to convert is that you are really asking us to live by the principles of private judgment that you attribute to us. But those of us who consider ourselves Catholic-minded Protestants (I’m avoiding the lowercase “catholic” although it would be more usual here) don’t hold to private judgment. We reject the idea that one has to choose between the absolute primacy of the individual and the absolute authority of the Pope.

Obviously I do not speak for Dr. Long here. Although his remarks quoted on this thread *do *speak for me. I agree with them 100%.

Edwin
 
40.png
Catilieth:
It is hard to leave the home that one is raised in, especially if the home was a happy one. The Methodist church is his home, his family and his employer…that is a lot to walk away from.
He says he won’t leave…the number of converts to the Catholic Church who have said the same thing is beyond number. He is on a journey, and has yet to reach the crossroad…pray for him, he is just beginning to see the light.
You said it! Only someone who has walked that road and paid that price can know the struggle, the grief. Only someone who has crossed the threshold of the Church, leaving behind friends, employment, one’s professional identity . . . only such a person can know that cost – or experience the peace on this side of the door.

Give him time. It often takes a lot of time to go from the rational understanding of Catholic truth to accepting it.
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
Absolutely: everyone who loves God but does not conform to the ideology sanctioned by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church deserves to suffer perpetual torment in Hell.

Unfortunately, the fact that God has never seen fit to abdicate in favour of anyone means that this utter heretic may well be allowed into Heaven.

I am just shocked.

:rolleyes:
“…everyone who loves God but [X Y Z]…deserves to suffer perpetual torment in Hell” ?

If the Church taught that, I would leave at once. That we should love God is the only justification for the Church. To put the Church above loving God, as though loving God could be a damnable sin, or compatible with it, is to get things back to front with a vengeance.
 
40.png
Contarini:
No, what is inexcusable is your apparent adherence to liberal individualism.

If you reject liberal individualism–if you have any conception of traditional religious thinking at all–then you must necessarily sympathize with Dr. Long’s argument. That you don’t shows how radically un-traditional a Christian you are.

I’m not suggesting that faithfulness to the tradition in which one was raised is an absolute. Obviously if one becomes convinced that one’s tradition is radically and irredeemably wrong then one must leave it. But if Methodism was radically and irredeemably wrong, then it could not be said to have taught Dr. Long the true faith.

In other words, I propose that post-Vatican-II Catholics are caught in a bind. Vatican II will not allow you to maintain the traditional Augustinian position (or the more radical Cyprianic position, but fortunately you rejected that long ago) that separated communities have no claim on the baptism they transmit and that formation in them undoes the grace given by baptism. Vatican II clearly recognizes not simply that valid baptism is present in schismatic/heretical communities but that many other graces are present as well. And having said that, it is hard for you to mount a strong argument for the necessity of individual conversion on the part of non-Catholic Christians.

If, as the Catholic Church recognizes, we have received real grace from our separated communities, then to leave those communities behind is (in the absence of special circumstances) to turn our back on God’s grace. This is “inexcusable” to you only because its logic is uncomfortably powerful and you are determined not to recognize it.

Edwin
In fact, to convert from Methodism (or any other form of Christianity) could be a mortal sin. Because the Church is Christ’s; and if Christ’s Providence has set us elsewhere there than Church X, to convert to Church X could well be an act, not of obedience to the promptings of grace, but of desertion from the post to which God has assigned us: neither alternative is an impossibility.

So the mere fact of the CC, the EOC, or whichever it may be, being the Church, is not by itself a sufficient reason for conversion. We might be certain that we are in the Church of Christ; but our own certainty, is not a rule of conduct for others to follow: because it is not we, collectively or as individuals, who are the Lord of the Church. People should never change Churches, unless they sense that it is God’s Will for them; ISTM anyway
 
How could converting from a schismatic/heretical church to the Catholic Church possibly be a mortal sin? Even if a person in “convinced” that they are in the True Church of Christ while in protestantism, that would not mean that they are actually in it. At best it would have to be a form of invincible ignorance or something similar to believe that they are in accordance with Christ but in reality they are only imperfectly so at best.

Just because the protestants have an imperfect unity with the Catholic Church through baptism and some graces-all these graces flow from the Church. To visibly join the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church would be to be following God’s Word-That They All Become One. Not imperfectly one, perfectly One.
In other words, I propose that post-Vatican-II Catholics are caught in a bind. Vatican II will not allow you to maintain the traditional Augustinian position (or the more radical Cyprianic position, but fortunately you rejected that long ago) that separated communities have no claim on the baptism they transmit and that formation in them undoes the grace given by baptism. Vatican II clearly recognizes not simply that valid baptism is present in schismatic/heretical communities but that many other graces are present as well. And having said that, it is hard for you to mount a strong argument for the necessity of individual conversion on the part of non-Catholic Christians.
However, the groups talked about by St. Augustine and St. Cyprian are those like the Manicheans, Gnostics etc. whoever. At these early stages, many of the heretics were fallen away Catholics-after all, that is what a heretic is. Many practiced re-baptism etc. With protestantism, most of the protestants today were born into protestantism from generation to generation-thus they are not guilty of the sin of heresy. The original protestants that actually broke away from the Church did, however, commit the sin of heresy.

The Church still holds that anyone who leaves the Catholic Church for a heretical/schismatic/apostate group is committing grave sin. Those born into them (and thus not chosing to go) don’t commit this sin.

Why should non-Catholics join the Catholic Church? Short answer-because it is the True Church. Longer answer, it is Christ’s Church, built on St. Peter, with the fullness of Truth and the Sacraments (namely the Eucharist). Those who are not Catholics may be saved-however-without recourse to the Sacraments it is not at all easy. It is not a cake-walk with recourse to the Sacraments!

Vatican II is definately not saying that all Christian (or even non-Christian) religions are equal to the Catholic Church. The Council merely states what is true-protestants are imperfectly united to Holy Mother Church by the efficacy of Baptism in the Trinitarian Form and thus are redeemed and salvation is possible. Salvation is possible to natives who’ve never even seen missionaries or have any idea what the Gospel is. That doesn’t mean that that sort of situation is good to be in. Who would not want the fullness of Truth? If presented with the fullness of Truth, to reject it is to reject Christ. The Church (and certainly not I) cannot know if a person is sincere or not about this. Only the individual knows if he sincerely, without reserve, believes that his church is the “true” Church or that in reality he just has too much pride to admit error and seek the True Church. No one knows, save our Redeemer and Judge, Jesus Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top