Is Protestantism a good thing? (Or “Why I Kissed Ecumenism Goodbye”)

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As I’ve said many many times, “Roman” is a rite within the Catholic Church. It happens to be ~98% of the total Catholics in the world, but all rites within the Catholic Church are 100% Catholic. ALL are Catholic because all are completely united with the chair of Peter, the pope of Rome, AND they are in complete union with all those in union with him…

Ok geez. I can never remember who on this site gets mad when I just say “Catholic” and not “Roman Catholic”, and vice versa. With you, it’ll always be “Catholic”. Apologies.

I say it the way I do, because there are other Catholics here that aren’t of the “Roman Rite”.

 

[steve-b]

concerning “Protestants turning the Catholic Church into a cartoon of itself“, you asked for an example. Chic Tracks is a good start.

Ahhh got it

Candlefish66:

Concerning the Reformation and beyond, I cited conduct of the Religious, and not any specific teaching.

Are they validly baptized into Christ? The answer is yes. Again, they are brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yes

AND

baptism is a beginning. It’s not a be all to end all action.

That’s why I posted previously

From:
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
DECREE ON ECUMENISM

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

two quotes from that doc show it’s intended purpose

1. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church , which is “the all-embracing means of salvation ,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.
2. Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.

 

[steve-b]

and those in obedience to HIM in this command, defines who a person loves most. .

TULIPed:

Yep. And the Man said where your treasure goes, there you’ll find your heart, no? (Matt 6:21) You can preach unity and heresy all you want brother - but the rubber meets the road with personal sacrifice.

Saying it the way I did, was meant to draw attention to Paul’s instruction to Bp Titus
Tit 3:10-11
10 As for a man who is factious Divisive, schism, Heresy αἱρετικὸν , after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

AND

Paul’s warning to the Galatians Re: σχίσματα = schism,
Division / dissension , That same Greek word is used also in Rom 16:17 .

The consequences for one remaining in that sin? (Gal 5:21] “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

What about THAT?

TULIPed:

Showing up on Sunday costs you and me NOTHING, except maybe some coffee and bagel time. Show me somebody making hard choices for Christ, and I’ll show you somebody who really loves Him.

(Surely you find it a bit ironic that a Protestant is preaching good works, no?)

okay okay,

Q:​

What about people who meet on Sunday but have no valid Eucharist?

 

[Gorgias]

No it isn’t. The Reformation did not reject authority, it was a reaction to what the Reformers saw as the abuse of authority.

…and therefore, they rejected the authority which was identified by Christ. You can claim “abuse of authority”, but there’s no way to escape “rejection of authority given by Christ”.

Ecumenism… is a bad thing when it is used to arrive at a lowest common denominator for supposed unity at the expense of the truth as revealed in scripture.

That’s what’s known as a “false ecumenism”. From Unitatis redintegratio:

The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.

At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility.

The reformers didn’t set out to start a new church, nor did I suggest such a thing.
Protestantism was started and bankrolled for secular reasons against the authority of the Church.

I’d generally agree with that – the Reformation had as much to do with secular leaders who wanted to make a grab on behalf of their nation of the power and resources controlled by “Rome”. Yet, that means that the Reformers, in a sense, got ‘played’ as patsies by calculating politicians.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok geez. I can never remember who on this site gets mad when I just say “Catholic” and not “Roman Catholic”, and vice versa. With you, it’ll always be “Catholic”. Apologies.

LOL!

We’ve kinda assimilated the name “Roman Catholic”, and in a sense, it’s lost its oomph as a perjorative. However, when people today continue to say Romish or Papist, I have to admit that it makes me see red. (And tempts me to reply, “ok, Calvish! Gotcha, Luthist! Thanks for your comments, Genevish! Nice to talk to you, Eislebist!” )

 

[TULIPed]

I seriously had no idea that Roman Catholic was pejorative - a thousand apologies. I swear I’ve written on here and somebody called me out for NOT saying “Roman” Catholic. I grew up saying just “Catholic”, as in “My best friend is Catholic” (he actually is). It wasn’t till I got to CAF that I thought it was correct to say “Roman Catholic” and I though I had been insulting people my whole life!

 

[TULIPed]

What about people who meet on Sunday but have no valid Eucharist?

I know this is a gating item for you Steve. I get it. John 6:53. Roger that. But one of the key purposes of the Eucharist is to equip us to SERVE - our God and other people. From catholicexchange.com:

“Then, here is the clincher: the Eucharist is not to give us strength to do what we want to do but through the Eucharist, God strengthens us to do what He wants us to do and to do so just like Jesus Christ did i.e. with love, generosity and sacrifice.”

It’s not some kind of secret handshake for goodness sake.

The hard part of being a Christian is “you first, me second”. My money is not my money - it’s His money that He’s made me a steward of. Loving Jesus translates to caring for the least of these, especially when they’re hard to care for. It’s sacrificing our time, talent and treasure till it hurts.

So great - a Catholic shows up on Sunday (maybe every day of the week) and celebrates the valid Eucharist. Well done. How does it translate to his or her every day life? Is the Holy Spirit pushing a believer to tithe (at least)? How are we spending our time? Are we taking risk by sharing the gospel - even when it’s not convenient? Are we taking care of widows and orphans (adopted anybody lately?). Are we taking care - financially and spiritually - of those with special needs?

The Eucharist is only “valid” if it moves us to serve our God and others created in His image. If all we do is show up - well, I don’t think it’s very valid - no matter who’s blessing it.

 

[MNathaniel]

My view… I think it’s safe to say that

in one sense, Protestantism isn’t a good thing…

• Because Jesus Christ founded one Church, and prayed to the Father that we would be one, as he and the Father are one. To ‘protest’ out of this one Church is a bad thing. Reform is good; rebellion is bad. I’m finger-wagging at you, Martin Luther.

But in another sense, Protestantism may be a good thing…

• Because in His great glory and providence, God can turn everything broken into a better good than if it hadn’t gone wrong. And I think He may yet use Protestantism (though it shouldn’t have happened in the first place) to effect some greater good in the world: for example, perhaps by rejuvenating the Catholic Church in this time period, e.g. by strengthening the Church through discipline and valid debate from those who critique her fallible human elements, and with the enthusiasm and Bible studies and missionary zeal of evangelicals (etc.). I have hope that there are particular goods that God plans to achieve, through people who happen to be Protestants, that will redeem this whole sad chapter of Protestantism, and turn it ultimately into a story for glory.

(Ultimately involving Christ’s Church being reconciled back into one, and Protestants returning home to the fold, of course. But a fold that God will make even better, in His superabundant mercy and grace, for their having left in the first place. I see Protestants as the prodigal son, and I can’t WAIT for them to come home so we can throw the mother of all feasts for them!)

 

[Gorgias]

I seriously had no idea that Roman Catholic was pejorative

Very few would see it as such, these days. It’s all good.

The Eucharist is only “valid” if it moves us to serve our God and others created in His image. If all we do is show up - well, I don’t think it’s very valid - no matter who’s blessing it.

Ooh… close! Not quite, though.

The Church would teach that the Eucharist is valid on its own merits and its efficacy follows from its very nature. “Ex opere operato” is the phrase the Church uses – it means that the sacraments are efficacious because they’re valid sacraments (and not because a particularly nice or holy priest celebrated them, or because a saintly person received them). The sacrament is the sacrament, and it is a vessel through which Christ’s grace may be transmitted to the faithful.

How is the grace received, though? That’s a different story: it depends on the disposition of the recipient. The Church uses the term “ex opere operantis” to describe this reality.

From the catechism:

1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation49 that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God."50 From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What about people who meet on Sunday but have no valid Eucharist?

I know this is a gating item for you Steve. I get it. John 6:53. Roger that. But one of the key purposes of the Eucharist is to equip us to SERVE - our God and other people. From catholicexchange.com:

“Then, here is the clincher: the Eucharist is not to give us strength to do what we want to do but through the Eucharist, God strengthens us to do what He wants us to do and to do so just like Jesus Christ did i.e. with love, generosity and sacrifice.”

It’s not some kind of secret handshake for goodness sake.

TULIPed,

To your points

Grace given doesn’t mean the receiver of the grace chooses to follow that grace.
Grace given doesn’t force one to follow that grace

All true.

YET

As Jesus said so directly and plainly, in a do this or else statement,

Jn 6:53
*“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Catholic Church who is THERE, receiving this message, clarifies

If one receives the Eucharist in a state of grace, (no mortal sin on their soul) then they have received worthily.

THEN

Promises made are promises kept.

However

the Eucharist must be valid in the first place. It is NOT valid because of one’'s imagination, that it is valid.

AND

One must receive in the state of grace (no mortal sin on their soul)

If that doesn’t happen, and that remains till their death, then the negative promises God made are applied for THEM

TULIPed:

So great - a Catholic shows up on Sunday (maybe every day of the week) and celebrates the valid Eucharist. Well done. How does it translate to his or her every day life? Is the Holy Spirit pushing a believer to tithe (at least)? How are we spending our time? Are we taking risk by sharing the gospel - even when it’s not convenient? Are we taking care of widows and orphans (adopted anybody lately?). Are we taking care - financially and spiritually - of those with special needs?

Do you see what you just argued?

Good works do NOT override disobedience to Jn 6 above. I’ll just add, even the OT teaches, one’s good works won’t be remembered. when someone is in big sin.

From:

Ez 3:17-21

gives 4 scenarios. This is the 3rd scenario mentioned

“if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.” .

 

[TULIPed]

Good works do NOT override disobedience to Jn 6 above

Agreed. That wasn’t my argument. My argument was exactly the same as the Catholic priest I quoted earlier. And your argument works in reverse - if I take communion and don’t love Jesus - it does me no good whatsoever.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Good works do NOT override disobedience to Jn 6 above

if I take communion

BUT

If There is no valid consecration, because the one doing the consecration isn’t validly ordained, Then

TULIPed:

and don’t love Jesus - it does me no good whatsoever.

Re: Loving Jesus

To THAT Point

Without valid ordination, there is no valid consecration. No valid consecration, there is no Eucharist. There is no good in THAT

Because

Jesus command isn’t met.

 

[TULIPed]

Is it possible to partake in a valid Eucharist and not have saving faith Steve?

 

[steve-b]

Is it possible to partake in a valid Eucharist and not have saving faith Steve?

Re: saving faith,

being a practicing faithful Catholic, & free of mortal sin, & receiving the Eucharist faithfully, are signs of saving faith.

The CCC would say

The opposite of that, without reconciliation first, would hinder one from taking the Eucharist

 

[TULIPed]

being a practicing faithful Catholic, & free of mortal sin, & receiving the Eucharist faithfully, are signs of saving faith.

And what separates a “practicing faithful Catholic” from one who isn’t?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

being a practicing faithful Catholic, & free of mortal sin, & receiving the Eucharist faithfully, are signs of saving faith.

And what separates a “practicing faithful Catholic” from one who isn’t?

Giving a short answer

being free of mortal sin, & receiving the Eucharist faithfully,

Those realities have lots of details.

 

[TULIPed]

I think Practicing Catholics (and Protestants) have to do this too, no?

"34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

 

[steve-b]

I think Practicing Catholics (and Protestants) have to do this too, no?

"34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Did Jesus end it there? NO

 

[TULIPed]

I am literally laughing out loud right now Steve. I must say it’s always entertaining going round and round with you. One of these days, I’m going to get you to just agree with me straight up on something. It’s a personal goal of mine. Stretch goal - but attainable I think.

 

[steve-b]

I am literally laughing out loud right now Steve. I must say it’s always entertaining going round and round with you. One of these days, I’m going to get you to just agree with me straight up on something.

Now I’m laughing,

What about post 131? I agreed, I just had a few comments to make about your point(s)… right?.

TULIPed:

It’s a personal goal of mine. Stretch goal - but attainable I think.

​

I guess when it happens, I need to highlight it when we agree, so that it’s more obvious.