Not all non-Catholics are full blown Protestants

[Iowa_Mike]

It is so very sad, but also necessary for Roman Catholics to feel that they are the only real church of Chrsit. After all, this is the only way that Catholicism can work. I know, I have been on both sides of the issue. It does however take it down to another level to begin to question the Christianity of other denominations. If refusing to accept the pope as infallible and the supreme authority of the church makes one Protestant, then everyone should be Protestant because the whole premise of it is totally assinine and anti-biblical.

Traveller 1534ad

Traveller,

You should mind you tongue! This is the second or third time you have uttered unsupported crass and offensive statements denigrating the Catholic Faith. I don’t see anyone on this forum treating you in this manner. Instead of making these kind of insulting and unsupported statements why don’t you try answering the questions that have been posed to you on this forum and enter into an honest dialogue? But then name calling and insulting statements are always substituted by someone who lacks the knowledge and civil debating skills to do otherwise.

I’ll pray for you tonight Traveller…

Iowa Mike

 

[Efrain]

Many Protestants would not only admit sins and errors of individual Protestants but would also admit that we have made many mistakes on a more official, doctrinal level–something you cannot admit.

Edwin

Can you explain which teaching/s of the Magesterium is or was in error?

 

[exoflare]

Can you explain which teaching/s of the Magesterium is or was in error?

To be fair, he didn’t specifically state the Magisterium had ever been in error… Individual Catholics certainly have been in error before many times over doctrine, but I don’t see why that should pose a problem.

 

[Efrain]

For what it’s worth (not that I believe saying so will, in all actuality, make any real difference here) Jehovah’s Witnesses certainly are Christian.

Yes, although they do not follow the traditions of men nor man-made doctrines, this does not make them non-Christian.

Agape.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books

They do not believe in the Trinity therefore JW’s are non-Christians.

 

[Efrain]

If refusing to accept the pope as infallible and the supreme authority of the church makes one Protestant, then everyone should be Protestant because the whole premise of it is totally assinine and anti-biblical.

Traveller 1534ad

Not true. What about about the Eastern Orthodox Church? They are Catholics.

 

[mark_a]

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but the definition of a Protestant is “one who leaves the Catholic Church out of free will and/or convenience.”

But if they were born into another church?

 

[Efrain]

To be fair, he didn’t specifically state the Magisterium had ever been in error… Individual Catholics certainly have been in error before many times over doctrine, but I don’t see why that should pose a problem.

I understand Contarini didn’t say the Magesterium was in error. But I would like to ask in which doctrine he thinks the Church was in error, if thats what he meant. If he meant to say that any individual can err then we are in agreement. Individual Catholics can most certainly be in error but is the the entire Church to be blamed for a few bad apples?

 

[Contarini]

Can you explain which teaching/s of the Magesterium is or was in error?

There are teachings that I question, but that wasn’t my point. My point was simply that Protestants can admit error and this allows for more ecumenical flexibility.

By backing yourselves into a corner via the doctrine of infallibility, you’ve backed us all in that same corner with you. Christ commands unity and unity will have to involve the See of Peter. I can’t imagine you guys ever finding a way to back out of the doctrine of infallibility, so hopefully we can find a way to accept your official dogmas as correct, otherwise we’ll never have unity.

While I am usually suspicious of any statement beginning “God wouldn’t allow X,” I do think we can say that if God wants us to be one then He probably wouldn’t allow the Chair of Unity to put itself in a position that would permanently preclude unity. But as I said, I’m suspicious of that kind of logic, so I hesitate to change my own ecclesiastical affiliation based on such a speculation about what God would probably do.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[exoflare]

I can’t imagine you guys ever finding a way to back out of the doctrine of infallibility, so hopefully we can find a way to accept your official dogmas as correct, otherwise we’ll never have unity.

But what makes you think the Catholic Church would ever WANT to back out of the doctrine of infallibility, in the first place?

 

[jmcrae]

I can’t imagine you guys ever finding a way to back out of the doctrine of infallibility, so hopefully we can find a way to accept your official dogmas as correct, otherwise we’ll never have unity.

Surely unity should not be bought at the price of compromising the truth? Unity is important, for sure - but without the truth, there is nothing left for which to stand united.

 

[Contarini]

But what makes you think the Catholic Church would ever WANT to back out of the doctrine of infallibility, in the first place?

I didn’t say that you would. My point is that in order to reach unity, someone has to give, and when it comes to dogmas it pretty much has to be us.

To jmcrae,

Absolutely unity can’t be at the price of truth, but for Christians revealed truth comes through the Church. Since I do not believe that any Protestant church has a valid claim to be the True Church, it follows that none of us can be certain that we have the Truth. So when dealing with a church that does make such a valid claim (Catholicism and Orthodoxy), we have to put our distinctive doctrines on the table, while not expecting you to do so when it is genuinely a matter of dogma.

At the same time, I believe that Protestants do have much to offer in ecumenical discussion. We definitely have expressed and emphasized certain truths better than you have.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Absolutely unity can’t be at the price of truth, but for Christians revealed truth comes through the Church. Since I do not believe that any Protestant church has a valid claim to be the True Church, it follows that none of us can be certain that we have the Truth. So when dealing with a church that does make such a valid claim (Catholicism and Orthodoxy), we have to put our distinctive doctrines on the table, while not expecting you to do so when it is genuinely a matter of dogma.

Yes.

At the same time, I believe that Protestants do have much to offer in ecumenical discussion. We definitely have expressed and emphasized certain truths better than you have.

There is definitely enthusiasm and the right kind of attitude. Not that Catholics don’t have that, but it does tend to be rare, for whatever reason - and, yes, that’s a very valuable quality. If we are going to convert the world, we do need to learn it.

 

[Vaclav]

It is of course a basic principle for determining whether one is in any sense part of the Church. But they clearly are part of the historical tradition called Christianity. Mormons are a bit more dubious, but their religion still centers around Jesus so I’d still tend to class them as Christian heretics.

Yet, how can one even discuss ecumenism if one cannot agree to such basic precepts as the Holy Trinity? You must agree that at least some very basic tenets must be met just to have a discussion in “the same language” so to speak.

I also challenge the idea that Protestants have “gone further” (if that has any real meaning, as the comparison is odd) than Catholics towards ecumenism by allowing Catholics to take communion in their churches.

For that to be true the communion would have to have equal worth to both congregations. That simply is not the case (as you well know). How difficult is it to allow someone to partake of a symbol? Sure, in some High Church Protestant congregations this might be slightly more meaningful, especially where consubstantiation is believed. Yet, for others that do not even take communion (in its symbolic form) every Sunday, what have you really given to Catholics who are forbade to partake anyway?

It is like giving a very large, beautifully wrapped present that turns out to be an empty box and then saying, “this is a symbol of how far we’ve come to be closer to you.”

To be blunt, it is a wonderful gesture that has no real meaning for us.

 

[Keikiolu]

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif Info on Non-Christian Groups:

“Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to him.”
*“Christ was the first of God’s creations.” *
*…{snip}…*Right, but the question is whether this makes them not Christian. By some definitions it does, but I think these definitions are not useful, just as the evangelical definition of a Christian as someone who has a personal relationship with Christ is not useful. You can use it if you like, but it is misleading. It’s much better to say that they are not orthodox Christians. I understand why Catholics would need a stronger term, since Catholics think Protestants are not orthodox Christians!

Edwin

I believe in Jesus, the gardener who does the neighbor’s lawn.

That makes me a “Christian”, because Jesus (gardener) is CERTAINLY a creation of God, and the Christ was called “Jesus”, so I’m a “Christian”.

Uh,… no.

If the Jesus we’re “talking about” is not a part of the Holy Trinity, then belief in that Jesus does not make us a Christian.

Show me where, and how, Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity in the “religions” we’re discussing?

Thanks, buckeroo…

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Contarini]

I believe in Jesus, the gardener who does the neighbor’s lawn.

That makes me a “Christian”, because Jesus (gardener) is CERTAINLY a creation of God, and the Christ was called “Jesus”, so I’m a “Christian”.

Uh,… no.

If the Jesus we’re “talking about” is not a part of the Holy Trinity, then belief in that Jesus does not make us a Christian.

Show me where, and how, Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity in the “religions” we’re discussing?

Thanks, buckeroo…

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

I think that defining Jesus first and foremost as a member of the Trinity is a mistake. In the order of being, that is true. But in the order of knowing, it is not–Jesus’ disciples knew Him as a human being. Did they not know the real Jesus because they didn’t know He was a member of the Trinity? Surely you will not claim this!

The Jesus believed in by JWs is clearly the Jesus of the NT. This is more dubiously true of Mormons–I would say it’s at least partially true of them as well but I won’t fight you on that one. But the JWs certainly believe in the Jesus witnessed to in the Gospels–they simply interpret the Gospels differently.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

I believe in Jesus, the gardener who does the neighbor’s lawn.

That makes me a “Christian”, because Jesus (gardener) is CERTAINLY a creation of God, and the Christ was called “Jesus”, so I’m a “Christian”.

Uh,… no.

Well, it seems to be where a lot of “non-denominational” Protestantism is headed, especially the more simplistic versions of “Just believe in Jesus, and that’s it; you’re saved,” without any coherent plan of how to know who Jesus is, or what “believe in Jesus” really means.

If the Jesus we’re “talking about” is not a part of the Holy Trinity, then belief in that Jesus does not make us a Christian.

It doesn’t make us Catholic, for sure. But it’s still within the realm of the broader landscape of Christian thought. And if “anything goes” then anything goes, right?

 

[Contarini]

Yet, how can one even discuss ecumenism if one cannot agree to such basic precepts as the Holy Trinity? You must agree that at least some very basic tenets must be met just to have a discussion in “the same language” so to speak.

I agree. There is no room for ecumenism with regard to non-Trinitarian Christians. In that sense I will agree that they are not Christians. Or more precisely, I will say that “Christianity” embraces several different religions, of which Trinitarian Christianity is the true one.

JWs and still more Mormons are only Christians in an equivocal sense. But the word does fittingly apply to them.

I also challenge the idea that Protestants have “gone further” (if that has any real meaning, as the comparison is odd) than Catholics towards ecumenism by allowing Catholics to take communion in their churches.

For that to be true the communion would have to have equal worth to both congregations. That simply is not the case (as you well know). How difficult is it to allow someone to partake of a symbol? Sure, in some High Church Protestant congregations this might be slightly more meaningful,

Slightly???

You really haven’t hung out with high church Protestants much, have you!

The more relevant argument with regard to mainliners would be that they give communion to everyone–even non-Christians.

WRT low-church Protestants, you have a point. But most evangelicals invite to the Table only those who truly believe in Jesus. If they thought Catholics were not really Christians, they would not welcome them.

I agree that the whole comparison is odd–I did not come up with it. I was responding to someone who claimed bizarrely that Catholics have taken all sorts of ecumenical steps and Protestants haven’t responded. This is simply not true.

It is true, certainly, that since Protestantism is far more nebulous it’s harder to pin down certain things that have changed. But all you have to do is look at issues of Christianity Today from the 1950s through the present to see that a lot has changed.

Edwin

 

[EHRAM]

I was a cradle Catholic up until three years ago in which I and my wife and son converted to the Episcopal church. I would have to say that to call us Protestants and lump us together with the likes of Baptists, Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses would be illogical andmean spirited. We too consider ourselves catholic because we maintain the creeds, the eucharist and ancient tradition along with all 7 (not just 2) sacrements. We too have sacremental confession, make the sign of the cross, baptize infants and proclaim the eucharist to be the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ. I don’t believe that you would find those CATHOLIC qualities and quantities in a Pentecostal church.

Traveller 1534ad

I was Episcopalian for a number of years before joining the Roman Catholic Church. As I recall, there were two sacraments (Baptism and Eucharist) and five sacramental rites, not seven sacraments. The Anglican Church (including the Episcopal Church, which is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury), considers itself the “via media” or middle way, between the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of the Protestants. The Anglicans believe that the Bishop of Rome should not have more authority than any other bishop, so in that sense they are clearly Protestant. They have maintained much of the liturgical and devotional practices of the Roman Catholic Church, practices that were discarded by Calvinists and others in the Reformed tradition. The Anglican Church believes in the Real Presence (but does not get into how Christ is really present) and honors the saints, including the Blessed Virgin Mary. But, they leave so many decisions up to the individual believer, the local parish priest, and the local bishop, etc., that they are becoming as fragmented as the rest of the Protestant denominations. IMHO, this is not what Jesus wanted; he prayed that they would all be one, as He and the Father are One.

Also, many Protestants, including Anglicans, consider themselves catholic (small “c”), meaning part of the universal church with Christ as its head. Some consider themselves “reformed” catholic. They consider Catholic to mean the members of the universal church who are under the Bishop of Rome who is also under Christ. So, in their view, all Christians are catholic but not all are Catholic.

 

[GKC]

I was Episcopalian for a number of years before joining the Roman Catholic Church. As I recall, there were two sacraments (Baptism and Eucharist) and five sacramental rites, not seven sacraments. The Anglican Church (including the Episcopal Church, which is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury), considers itself the “via media” or middle way, between the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of the Protestants. The Anglicans believe that the Bishop of Rome should not have more authority than any other bishop, so in that sense they are clearly Protestant. They have maintained much of the liturgical and devotional practices of the Roman Catholic Church, practices that were discarded by Calvinists and others in the Reformed tradition. The Anglican Church believes in the Real Presence (but does not get into how Christ is really present) and honors the saints, including the Blessed Virgin Mary. But, they leave so many decisions up to the individual believer, the local parish priest, and the local bishop, etc., that they are becoming as fragmented as the rest of the Protestant denominations. IMHO, this is not what Jesus wanted; he prayed that they would all be one, as He and the Father are One.

Also, many Protestants, including Anglicans, consider themselves catholic (small “c”), meaning part of the universal church with Christ as its head. Some consider themselves “reformed” catholic. They consider Catholic to mean the members of the universal church who are under the Bishop of Rome who is also under Christ. So, in their view, all Christians are catholic but not all are Catholic.

Not much to differ with here, but, as your last paragraph suggests, how many sacraments you get, or whether the Pope is equal, or primus inter pares, depends on which Anglican you ask.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus, capital “C”

 

[Vaclav]

Slightly???

You really haven’t hung out with high church Protestants much, have you!

The more relevant argument with regard to mainliners would be that they give communion to everyone–even non-Christians.

WRT low-church Protestants, you have a point. But most evangelicals invite to the Table only those who truly believe in Jesus. If they thought Catholics were not really Christians, they would not welcome them.

On the contrary, I was a High Church Lutheran before converting. I agree that the word “slightly” was unfair. Yet, you can understand the difference that exists even there.

I’d like to make an analogy on your comment about Evangelicals inviting Catholics to the table and considering us Christians. I agree with you that in some respects that does represent them coming a long way. But, look at it from our point of view for a minute and I’m going to be rather blunt:

Imagine going to a meeting of older African Americans. You stand up at the meeting and tell them that whites have come a long way, especially in the South. In fact, whites have come a longer way than blacks. “How do you figure that?”, you are asked. “Well, you are now permitted to use the same bathrooms, sit at any table in white-owned restaurants, and ride at the front of the buses. Therefore, they must consider you humans now.”

In some respects that would represent quite a long way for those whites to have gone. Should African Americans thank them for it, or even respect that? I wouldn’t think so.

I agree that the whole comparison is odd–I did not come up with it. I was responding to someone who claimed bizarrely that Catholics have taken all sorts of ecumenical steps and Protestants haven’t responded. This is simply not true.

That is true and fair.

It is true, certainly, that since Protestantism is far more nebulous it’s harder to pin down certain things that have changed. But all you have to do is look at issues of Christianity Today from the 1950s through the present to see that a lot has changed.

Edwin

Indeed. Honestly, it is far too difficult to keep up with all of Protestantism and where they stand on the Church. Honestly, it is difficult enough for me to try and grasp Anglo-Catholics and Lutherans, who on their own seem to range from very Protestant near Calvinists to so near Catholic that ecumenism seems a very real possibility to me.