Is This What Protestantism Is Really About??

[GKC]

It’s “rhetoric.”

You sound like one of those dark-skinned punks who likes to excuse how he talks trash about women and about people of other races, because he has to get back at the white race for doing the same. They are an embarrassment to their folks.

Yeh, he’s in his 20s, I think, or maybe his early 30s. Not long out of University, anyway.

But long enough to earn a certain academic title, in aspects of continental reformed thought, which I wish I could claim.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

transubanation is one,which from what i can understand from what little i know of Lutherans,is not believed…but the biggest is the papacy…if you can agree to that you are no longer Lutheran but a Catholic,meaning if you agree to the pope’s authority…

Transub, in some quarters, might not be so big an issue as you might think. In others, it is, and would need some of that HS led dialogue. You are right about the primacy of the papacy. Speaking for myself , solve that with the Orthodox, and its solved for me. Not all Lutherans would agree, to be sure.
Jon

Edit: Actually, solve both of these issues with the Orthodox, and they are solved for me, speaking only for me.

 

[Lujack]

You are in error, indeed, I fear.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

You are right, I did make a mistake. But here’s something I’m still not sure of: does one have to accept papal infallibility or just papal primacy to be considered in communion with the Church?

 

[RobHom]

I have no interest in explaining basic terms to people. So let the links do it.

auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/clergy.html
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/bauer03.htm

Links that merely state the opinions of two people are nothing more than “linked opinions”…

Perhaps this might help you in your search for truth:

newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

 

[JRKH]

Transub, in some quarters, might not be so big an issue as you might think. In others, it is, and would need some of that HS led dialogue. You are right about the primacy of the papacy. Speaking for myself , solve that with the Orthodox, and its solved for me. Not all Lutherans would agree, to be sure.
Jon

Edit: Actually, solve both of these issues with the Orthodox, and they are solved for me, speaking only for me.

Indeed if the Eastern and Western arms of Catholicism can resolve their issues it would go a long way toward a general reunification. However I would not let this schism stand in the way for other groups or individuals. Of course I realize, as you say, you are expressing only your view.

The fact remains that the Protestant Churches split from Rome and not from the Orthodox. If the Protestant reformers really saw the Rome - Constantinople split as significant and important, then as least a fair portion would have gone orthodox, thus remaining within the Apostolic Church, instead of starting new sects. Thus it is important to understand that, historically, the issues between Catholics and Protestants are issues between the Protestants and Rome and deal, primarily with authority. Authority, complicated by 500 years of diverging teachings and understandings of the mysteries of God.

Let us continue to pray for greater and more Christian Dialogue and understanding leading toward the ultimate unity that Christ so fervently wishes for His followers.

Peace
James

 

[GKC]

You are right, I did make a mistake. But here’s something I’m still not sure of: does one have to accept papal infallibility or just papal primacy to be considered in communion with the Church?

The idea of a personal charism of infallibility of the Pope, when speaking to the whole Church on matters of faith and morals (ex cathedra), is de fide, required. The issue of Papal primacy, or more accurately in this case, Papal supremacy, is also de fide. No wiggle room.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Contarini]

You know Edwin, you must stop your redderick about your condescending ways of speaking to people.

Why?

I agree with adstrinity because you must be a Catholic to understand where he is coming from. And when you use the word “Balderdash”, it really shows your age.

In other words, you have nothing substantive to say to defend your indefensible posts.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Your words “vicious” and “irrational accusation” is a little bit overly dramatic.

It is vicious to claim that one’s fellow-Catholics do not love Catholicism. I am not Catholic, but I do understand something about how much Catholics love the Church. I love the Church too–I just define it a little differently. Saying that someone doesn’t love the Church is like saying you don’t love your mother, right? It’s beyond low. I do not apologize for my rhetoric. Adstrinity’s post was way out of line.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

You know Edwin, you must stop your redderick about your condescending ways of speaking to people.

Edwin’s posts have always been extremely knowledgeable, eloquent, and charitable. It is your “rhetoric” that needs to be amended.

 

[Lujack]

The idea of a personal charism of infallibility of the Pope, when speaking to the whole Church on matters of faith and morals (ex cathedra), is de fide, required. The issue of Papal primacy, or more accurately in this case, Papal supremacy, is also de fide. No wiggle room.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Interesting. I wasn’t aware of that. That would make the resumption of full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church quite difficult, correct?

 

[GKC]

Interesting. I wasn’t aware of that. That would make the resumption of full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church quite difficult, correct?

Indeed, yes. And makes other things difficult, too.

But so it is.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

Edwin’s posts have always been extremely knowledgeable, eloquent, and charitable. It is your “rhetoric” that needs to be amended.

A modicum of historical depth would help, too.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Edwin’s posts have always been extremely knowledgeable, eloquent, and charitable.

Well, I certainly wouldn’t go that far in my own defense (I often fall short in all these areas)! But thanks.

Edwin

 

[adstrinity]

I am female and I will respond to this thread more when I have access to a computer.

 

[jmcrae]

I always thought, though, that you didn’t have to accept papal authority to be in Communion with the Church.

How does this compute?

You simply had to be in agreement with Church doctrine on the key issues. (I might be in error here, though).

One of the key doctrinal issues that you have to be in agreement with is that Peter was given the Keys (Matthew 16:18-19), was made Chief Shepherd of the Church (John 21:15-19), and that his successors (ie: the Popes) continue to exercise his authority until today.

 

[jmcrae]

What in heaven’s name does my post saying thanks to adstrinity have to do with what you said? So I sound like a dark-skinned punk who talks trash about women because I have to get back at the white race? you make no sense whatsoever.

Your attitude toward Protestantism is analogous to the attitude of certain people toward the white race. A “getting back at” attitude, and “giving them their own medicine,” rather than working towards harmony.

 

[jblake]

OneTrueCathApos;:

WERE NO MISTAKES WITH THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH. DOCTRINES WERE NEVER CHANGED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. LUTHER CHANGED THE WORD OF GOD TO FIT HIS MINDSET IN THAT DAY.

You realize that the Roman Catholic Church —which is what Luther attacked, changed both its doctrines, and theology, after Luther’s death, don’t you.

Oddly enough, probably the most significant theological change, is one that Luther didn’t write about. And one which the catholic church currently denies ever accepting, much less being performed by the Bishop of Rome, with his blessings and sanctification.

jonathon

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Oddly enough, probably the most significant theological change, is one that Luther didn’t write about. And one which the catholic church currently denies ever accepting, much less being performed by the Bishop of Rome, with his blessings and sanctification.

jonathon

Okay, I’ll bite - what is the most significant theological change?

 

[Soutane]

You realize that the Roman Catholic Church —which is what Luther attacked, changed both its doctrines, and theology, after Luther’s death, don’t you.

Oddly enough, probably the most significant theological change, is one that Luther didn’t write about. And one which the catholic church currently denies ever accepting, much less being performed by the Bishop of Rome, with his blessings and sanctification.

jonathon

Nonsense.Prove it-which you most certainly cannot.

 

[JonNC]

Indeed if the Eastern and Western arms of Catholicism can resolve their issues it would go a long way toward a general reunification. However I would not let this schism stand in the way for other groups or individuals. Of course I realize, as you say, you are expressing only your view.

The fact remains that the Protestant Churches split from Rome and not from the Orthodox. If the Protestant reformers really saw the Rome - Constantinople split as significant and important, then as least a fair portion would have gone orthodox, thus remaining within the Apostolic Church, instead of starting new sects. Thus it is important to understand that, historically, the issues between Catholics and Protestants are issues between the Protestants and Rome and deal, primarily with authority. Authority, complicated by 500 years of diverging teachings and understandings of the mysteries of God.

Let us continue to pray for greater and more Christian Dialogue and understanding leading toward the ultimate unity that Christ so fervently wishes for His followers.

Peace
James

James,
I didn’t mean to imply that Lutherans and other protestants and the Anglicans should stand back and wait for Orthodox/Rome unity. Of course, we should also be participating in a quest for western unity in the meantime. I was only saying, as you said above, that a Rome/Orthodox unity would certainly change the dymanics here in western Christendom.

Thanks,
JOn