Original intention, thoughts not known, Anti-Catholic sentiment

[CopticChristian]

To suggest that being a Protestant means one is by definition anti-Catholic - in that Protestantism by its very nature is anti-Catholic - is misleading and unfair. I think that the ecumenical spirit is much more alive inside mainline Protestantism than within either Catholicism or evangelical Protestantism.

       Personally, I find that many zealous Catholics (not most) have a bitter hatred of Protestantism, Luther, Calvin, etc. They can't seem to let that drop. Certainly there is evidence of that here on CAF. It's old-style religious bigotry. Some folks need to need someone or something to despise.

 I would like to see unity (though not union). After all, we have the same God. The real battlelines today are between people of faith and those aggressive naysayers who regard all religion as hogwash. 

 God bless Catholics, Protestants and people of every creed, color, culture and country.

I understand that you do not agree with the notion that you are anti-catholic. If you ponder where you are in your beliefs then you will ponder that you are amongst those that do not agree with The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. This is acceptable. In order to be against something it is not necessarily by any act. For instance, my American Citizenship and belief in Democracy, renders me anti-communist. You may if you like view it as “guilt by association”. You may not like that word “guilt’. I do not either and perhaps it is better to say agreement with those that I participate with and by association promote their views. Let me try another example. Transcendental Meditation streamed across the country as a form of meditation to relax and gain insight. As time goes on however the TM movement subtly directs you towards Hinduism and Polytheism. This is fact.

Other faith traditions have no ability to contend that they are One Holy Catholic Apostolic as a Church. They must be open minded in consideration that the origin of Protestant thought was antithetical to the OHCAC and tolerant to some degree of their own beliefs. Now you may or may not know about Calvin and his tirades in Geneva, murder, persecution etc. You may or may not know about the persecution and labeling Baptists and Anabaptists as heretics by Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists. You may or may not know about The Synod of Dort that declared other than Calvinism, Armenianism as found in Methodism and all streams of Protestant thought that emanates forward to be heretics. There has been no Synod since to suggest otherwise.

The view of the universe is not in question. How many of these groups know that the Universe is moving away and not towards or that the Big Bang theory emanated from a Catholic Priest and that I can believe in evolution as long as I do not deny the creation of the souls of Adam and Eve. Is Christianity about the Universe, the Creation? By no means for to us have been given the utterances of Scripture, the revelation of the New Covenant, the knowledge of the Body of Christ through which Jew, Gentile, Greek and Barbarian can now be united with its creator. What then are we to say that the Fathers have been inconsistent? Now it would appear to me that what is myopic is the view that God did not establish a Church that God could not keep his bride united to the head for who ever heard of a bride reforming the head. You see we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses that speak of what I say and I dare say they are not myopic.

You may be interested to know that end time theology has been taught since the Gospel of Matthew and many and sundry beliefs have come of it. They catch the attention because they cause the person involved to believe that the end will come in their lifetime. You may be interested in this website: Presently David Curie is there. The coming home series is all about Protestants becoming Catholic. You may find this interesting.

ewtn.com/tv/live/journeyhome.asp

David Currie, author of Born Fundamentalist, Born again Catholic and Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind

He can be found at this website where you can get free Bible Studies, many by Scott Hahn, former Presbyterian minister now Catholic.

salvationhistory.com/personnel/David+Currie

You believe that there is bitter hatred of Protestants. I am not knocking on their door, they would probably have a fright if I did, they have probably not seen the likes of me, and I suggest they don’t try to evangelize me. I am not handing out tracts. I am not telling them they are a cult. I do not have to defend the notion that Catholics are Christians.

In order to prepare for battle we need to unite. What spirit is it that divides? God blesses who He blesses and curses who He curses.

How do we unite? We love Jesus, OK. We love God, OK. We believe that we are The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, OK?..OK? Oh, Oh…well we believe that to become a Christian you need to be baptized/regenerated, OK?..OK?. Oh, Oh…well then we believe that we are regenerated and infused with grace because it is by grace we have been saved, through faith, a faith not of your own, so that you can do works by grace that are pleasing to God, made children of God by the declaration of God declaring us righteous, OK, OK…We believe that the Bible/Church are unity. Our God is Trinity. Our God taught us that the Church is the Body of Christ and since there is a bride and a groom, then the Bible, the Word was birthed from the womb of the Church, The bible is the Child of God, Jesus, speaking, and how do you propose to take a child from it’s parents?

Well then what do we do now?

 

[Trebor135]

To suggest that being a Protestant means one is by definition anti-Catholic - in that Protestantism by its very nature is anti-Catholic - is misleading and unfair.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “anti-Catholic”. The term Protestant is inherently negative, even if its adherents still consider Catholics to be Christians. (The scholarly definition of the term “anti-Catholic” is to deny to orthodox Catholics the privelege of bearing the name of Christians.)

I think that the ecumenical spirit is much more alive inside mainline Protestantism than within either Catholicism or evangelical Protestantism.

I would have to disagree with that.

 Mainline Protestants, as a rule (Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, UCC, etc.) are inclined to be very tolerant and respectful of other faith traditions, even if they don't share their beliefs. Why? They don't contend that they alone comprise the 'true church', that all other forms of Christianity fall short. I find that most of them are very open-minded and are likely to say - fine, you believe that, no problem. They recognize what I have come to feel myself,

The softening of hearts among Christians is surely a phenomenon to be welcomed. But being “open-minded” has less to do with learning to accept others’ differences than succumbing to the spirit of the modern age epitomized by relativism. “You believe what you want, I believe what I want–let’s not fight over abstract ideas. Truth doesn’t matter; it just depends on your perspective.” This attitude leads ultimately to agnosticism. If “secondary” doctrines like regenerative baptism and intercession of the saints in heaven shouldn’t be vigorously debated, just so Christians can stay “open-minded”, why bother requiring them to hold the “fundamental” doctrines of the trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ?

that God and this vast universe are beyond human understanding, that much of traditional Catholicism and Protestantism developed before we knew that there are maybe a million solar systems, or before we had microscopes which have shown us that germs (and not Satan or sins) cause illness. I have read the Church Fathers and admire their brilliance for their era, but their writings are full of serious mistakes based on an incorrect understanding of the heavens and the earth. They had a myopic view of the universe - understandable for their time but often unhelpful when it comes to relevant doctrines today.

I don’t see how the existence of other solar systems and germs can have any effect on whether (1) baptism is regenerative or not, or (2) saints in heaven can hear and respond to our prayer requests.

They [evangelical Protestants] appear to do well because of the enthusiasm of their worship, and many people want to be told what to believe. It’s simpler than thinking for one’s self.

Most of the Pharisees refused to obey the Son of God when he was on earth–they took full advantage of their freedom to “think for themselves”–but look where that got them. I mean, those Pharisees rejected Christ’s claims to be the divine Messiah.

 Personally, I find that many zealous Catholics (not most) have a bitter hatred of Protestantism, Luther, Calvin, etc. They can't seem to let that drop.

Why do you expect Catholics to embrace doctrines that are in complete opposition to what they believe? Why should Catholics have to embrace as misunderstood children folks who unleashed such division within the body of Christ?

Certainly there is evidence of that here on CAF.

Where?

It’s old-style religious bigotry.

Some Lutherans still consider the papacy to be the Antichrist–this is bigotry. So is denying the status of Christian to Catholics, as is so common online among Calvinists. Where are all those Catholics calling Luther the Antichrist and lumping Calvinists in with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons?

Some folks need to need someone or something to despise.

Erroneous doctrine by its very nature deserves to be responded to. Though obviously far more serious, Arianism and monophysitism would’ve lasted a lot longer if the early Christians hadn’t reacted with the full force of the pen to refute these christological heresies.

 I would like to see unity (though not union). After all, we have the same God.

Christians and Muslims worship the same God, but should we have “unity” too?

The real battlelines today are between people of faith and those aggressive naysayers who regard all religion as hogwash.

Inexhaustible sources of fuel for the fires of skepticism is the wood of modernism and relativism…

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, it depends on what you mean by “anti-Catholic”. The term Protestant is inherently negative, even if its adherents still consider Catholics to be Christians. (The scholarly definition of the term “anti-Catholic” is to deny to orthodox Catholics the privelege of bearing the name of Christians.)

I would have to disagree with that.

The softening of hearts among Christians is surely a phenomenon to be welcomed. But being “open-minded” has less to do with learning to accept others’ differences than succumbing to the spirit of the modern age epitomized by relativism. “You believe what you want, I believe what I want–let’s not fight over abstract ideas. Truth doesn’t matter; it just depends on your perspective.” This attitude leads ultimately to agnosticism. If “secondary” doctrines like regenerative baptism and intercession of the saints in heaven shouldn’t be vigorously debated, just so Christians can stay “open-minded”, why bother requiring them to hold the “fundamental” doctrines of the trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ?

I don’t see how the existence of other solar systems and germs can have any effect on whether (1) baptism is regenerative or not, or (2) saints in heaven can hear and respond to our prayer requests.

Most of the Pharisees refused to obey the Son of God when he was on earth–they took full advantage of their freedom to “think for themselves”–but look where that got them. I mean, those Pharisees rejected Christ’s claims to be the divine Messiah.

Why do you expect Catholics to embrace doctrines that are in complete opposition to what they believe? Why should Catholics have to embrace as misunderstood children folks who unleashed such division within the body of Christ?

Where?

Some Lutherans still consider the papacy to be the Antichrist–this is bigotry. So is denying the status of Christian to Catholics, as is so common online among Calvinists. Where are all those Catholics calling Luther the Antichrist and lumping Calvinists in with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons?

Erroneous doctrine by its very nature deserves to be responded to. Though obviously far more serious, Arianism and monophysitism would’ve lasted a lot longer if the early Christians hadn’t reacted with the full force of the pen to refute these christological heresies.

Christians and Muslims worship the same God, but should we have “unity” too?

Inexhaustible sources of fuel for the fires of skepticism is the wood of modernism and relativism…

Relativism. Wow. Amen, Amen And Amen

 

[Kristin234]

That’s a big issue at my school :sad_yes: My Protestant friends just think of themselves as “Christian”.

We think of ourselves Christian because that is what we are.

You can’t be Christian and be something else. If you are Protestant then you are Christian. If you are Catholic then you are Christian. I don’t see why you think that is sad that they just think of themselves as Christian. Even if they thought themselves as Protestant they are still Christian.

I always tell people I am Christian and if they want more information I explain. Heck, if I told them I was Protestant Christian I would still have to explain what I believe in.

 

[hn160]

Well, it depends on what you mean by “anti-Catholic”. The term Protestant is inherently negative, even if its adherents still consider Catholics to be Christians. (The scholarly definition of the term “anti-Catholic” is to deny to orthodox Catholics the privelege of bearing the name of Christians.)

I would have to disagree with that.

The softening of hearts among Christians is surely a phenomenon to be welcomed. But being “open-minded” has less to do with learning to accept others’ differences than succumbing to the spirit of the modern age epitomized by relativism. “You believe what you want, I believe what I want–let’s not fight over abstract ideas. Truth doesn’t matter; it just depends on your perspective.” This attitude leads ultimately to agnosticism. If “secondary” doctrines like regenerative baptism and intercession of the saints in heaven shouldn’t be vigorously debated, just so Christians can stay “open-minded”, why bother requiring them to hold the “fundamental” doctrines of the trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ?

I don’t see how the existence of other solar systems and germs can have any effect on whether (1) baptism is regenerative or not, or (2) saints in heaven can hear and respond to our prayer requests.

Most of the Pharisees refused to obey the Son of God when he was on earth–they took full advantage of their freedom to “think for themselves”–but look where that got them. I mean, those Pharisees rejected Christ’s claims to be the divine Messiah.

Why do you expect Catholics to embrace doctrines that are in complete opposition to what they believe? Why should Catholics have to embrace as misunderstood children folks who unleashed such division within the body of Christ?

Where?

Some Lutherans still consider the papacy to be the Antichrist–this is bigotry. So is denying the status of Christian to Catholics, as is so common online among Calvinists. Where are all those Catholics calling Luther the Antichrist and lumping Calvinists in with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons?

Why is is it bigotry to call the Office of the Papacy the Antichrist? Lutherans do not consider the person of the pope or Catholics not to be Christian but mislead.

Erroneous doctrine by its very nature deserves to be responded to. Though obviously far more serious, Arianism and monophysitism would’ve lasted a lot longer if the early Christians hadn’t reacted with the full force of the pen to refute these christological heresies.

Christians and Muslims worship the same God, but should we have “unity” too?

Beg to differ Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God regardless of what the Vatican has to say. Christians worship One God, Three in one. Muslims worship a one god.

Inexhaustible sources of fuel for the fires of skepticism is the wood of modernism and relativism…

 

[CopticChristian]

We think of ourselves Christian because that is what we are.

You can’t be Christian and be something else. If you are Protestant then you are Christian. If you are Catholic then you are Christian. I don’t see why you think that is sad that they just think of themselves as Christian. Even if they thought themselves as Protestant they are still Christian.

I always tell people I am Christian and if they want more information I explain. Heck, if I told them I was Protestant Christian I would still have to explain what I believe in.

So, to think you are a christian makes you a christian. Mormons think they are christians.

So then lets dialogue about this. You say you are Protestant, here is what I believe as a a Catholic.

I beleive you are a Christian because you are baptized, and through baptism are infused with the grace of God, which is none other than divine sonship, intrinsically justified, declared to be a child of God, and through that Baptism you are provided Faith, Hope and Charity, so that as you grow and mature you can carry out the purpose of God to be conformed to the image of His son in your spiritual journey and proclaim yourself a child of God, a Christian. Salvation in you is a work of God from beginning to end so that no man may boast, saved by grace, by Faith so that as you sojourn and can do works by grace that are truly pleasing to God.

So you say you will tell them what you believe. Tell me.

 

[JonNC]

=CopticChristian;8217148]You may have seen the post Catholic or Christian. I believe and it confirmed by this post that there is some discussion generated by this dialogue. I use quotations to differentiate my ideas as opposed to making a generality. It causes a pause, as you paused, to wonder what that means.

I could say …so called christians or those that call themselves christians

I understand you point, though capitalizing “Christian” is the correct convention.

It is my belief that there is One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and I make no bones about Protestant thought. Protestant thought if you read it as it was proposed in the 1600’s was that they were the Christian Church, The Catholic Christian Church and that as you know the alternative was apostate.

I agree that that was the thought by some, though not all. At least in Lutheranism, the Treatise I referenced above was not against the faithful, but against the office of the papacy. It is also important to point out that the condemnations were quite mutual, and something we must, in Christian love and charity, move beyond, if we are to seek the unity to which Christ calls us.

I write to cause you to ponder that I see a difference and know that I consider this something not just to be generalized. For instance some believe in an alternate lifestyle. If I write some believe in “an alternate lifestyle”, it suggests I am using the term only to identify that it exists and is said by others. Without the quotes you would not know that.

Understood.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Trebor135;8217828]Well, it depends on what you mean by “anti-Catholic”.

The term Protestant is inherently negative, even if its adherents still consider Catholics to be Christians.

(The scholarly definition of the term “anti-Catholic” is to deny to orthodox Catholics the privelege of bearing the name of Christians.)

Well, the term is, or can be, depending on its use. Protestant was coined in reference to the “protest” of the 2nd Diet of Speyer, which intended to restrict reformation activities (religius freedom, in effect), by governmental force. Certainly I would not consider that a negative usage.

The softening of hearts among Christians is surely a phenomenon to be welcomed. But being “open-minded” has less to do with learning to accept others’ differences than succumbing to the spirit of the modern age epitomized by relativism. “You believe what you want, I believe what I want–let’s not fight over abstract ideas. Truth doesn’t matter; it just depends on your perspective.” This attitude leads ultimately to agnosticism. If “secondary” doctrines like regenerative baptism and intercession of the saints in heaven shouldn’t be vigorously debated, just so Christians can stay “open-minded”, why bother requiring them to hold the “fundamental” doctrines of the trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ?

I disagree. If it were relativism, then there would be one institutional Church without doctrinal constraints. One can be quite strident regarding one’s doctrines, speak out in favor of them, and even speak out against opposing doctrines without being anti-______ (fill in the blank). For me as a Lutheran to accept the fact that Catholics, Baptists, Orthodox, etc. are indeed Christian is not relativism.

Why do you expect Catholics to embrace doctrines that are in complete opposition to what they believe? Why should Catholics have to embrace as misunderstood children folks who unleashed such division within the body of Christ?

Catholics should not have to embrace opposing doctrines. That would be a unity based on relativism that surely would fail.
As for who unleashed the division of the Body of Christ, I think it is clear historically that, as the CCC says quite rightly, there was blame on both sides. But if there is to be healing of this sad division, it seems to me it MUST start with forgiveness, charity, and a recognition that dispite our differences, we both preach Christ and Him crucified, and are rightly called and should embrace each other as Christians.

Some Lutherans still consider the papacy to be the Antichrist–this is bigotry. So is denying the status of Christian to Catholics, as is so common online among Calvinists. Where are all those Catholics calling Luther the Antichrist and lumping Calvinists in with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons?

Would being called a heretic be less offensive? As I said, we need to move past this type of polemic, as frankly many of our leaders have. Witness the visit of Pope Benedict to the Lutheran parish in Rome, where he was greeted and his homily received with warmth and affection.

Jon

 

[Kristin234]

So, to think you are a christian makes you a christian. Mormons think they are christians.

So then lets dialogue about this. You say you are Protestant, here is what I believe as a a Catholic.

I beleive you are a Christian because you are baptized, and through baptism are infused with the grace of God, which is none other than divine sonship, intrinsically justified, declared to be a child of God, and through that Baptism you are provided Faith, Hope and Charity, so that as you grow and mature you can carry out the purpose of God to be conformed to the image of His son in your spiritual journey and proclaim yourself a child of God, a Christian. Salvation in you is a work of God from beginning to end so that no man may boast, saved by grace, by Faith so that as you sojourn and can do works by grace that are truly pleasing to God.

So you say you will tell them what you believe. Tell me.

I never said if you think you are Christian then you are Christian. Protestants as a whole are considered Christian and even Catholics consider them Christian. Now, what each denomination believes and what each individual believes is a different story.

If someone were to ask me what religion I was I would say Christian. If they said what type of Christian I would say Protestant. If they ask me to explain I would tell them that I have put my faith and my life in Jesus Christ my savior - a God who became man to be born of a virgin so that he can suffer and die for us. I have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I worship and praise the one true God. I believe Jesus Christ died for our sins and because of grace through faith we are saved. I’m not living my life for my own glory but his, and as each day passes I will try to walk his path until the day I die.

By the way, what you believe is a Christian is exactly what I believe is a Christian. Just because I am Protestant does not mean my definition of Christianity is different from that of a Catholics.

 

[Trebor135]

Why is is it bigotry to call the Office of the Papacy the Antichrist? Lutherans do not consider the person of the pope or Catholics not to be Christian but mislead.

How anyone can follow the heavenly Christ and the earthly Antichrist at the same time is beyond me.

For Lutherans to consider the papacy to be the Antichrist because of its “false doctrine” is bigotry because they don’t apply the same standards to other churches. The Coptic Orthodox in Egypt have a hierarchical leadership with Shinuda III at the top, and–to the best of my knowledge–this church agrees with Catholics on justification and the rule of faith. Do we ever hear from Lutherans how the Coptic papacy is the Antichrist because of that church’s “false doctrine”? And if Calvin had instituted a hierarchical setup akin to that of the Copts, would the office of its head be called the Antichrist for its holder propounding TULIP?

Beg to differ Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God regardless of what the Vatican has to say. Christians worship One God, Three in one. Muslims worship a one god.

Jews have the same unitarian conception of God as do Muslims. Who do they worship?

 

[CopticChristian]

I understand you point, though capitalizing “Christian” is the correct convention.

I agree that that was the thought by some, though not all. At least in Lutheranism, the Treatise I referenced above was not against the faithful, but against the office of the papacy. It is also important to point out that the condemnations were quite mutual, and something we must, in Christian love and charity, move beyond, if we are to seek the unity to which Christ calls us.

Understood.

Jon

Concerning mutual condemnations. This statement suggests that you believe that they are on equal footing. Condemnation for creating an aberration by The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church in my opinion does not equate to the, at that time, heretics sending condemnations abroad.

The prodigal son can condemn his father, the father can condemn his son for his actions. The prodigal son left the family. What did the father do to deserve condemnation?

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, the term is, or can be, depending on its use. Protestant was coined in reference to the “protest” of the 2nd Diet of Speyer, which intended to restrict reformation activities (religius freedom, in effect), by governmental force. Certainly I would not consider that a negative usage.

I disagree. If it were relativism, then there would be one institutional Church without doctrinal constraints. One can be quite strident regarding one’s doctrines, speak out in favor of them, and even speak out against opposing doctrines without being anti-______ (fill in the blank). For me as a Lutheran to accept the fact that Catholics, Baptists, Orthodox, etc. are indeed Christian is not relativism.

Catholics should not have to embrace opposing doctrines. That would be a unity based on relativism that surely would fail.
As for who unleashed the division of the Body of Christ, I think it is clear historically that, as the CCC says quite rightly, there was blame on both sides. But if there is to be healing of this sad division, it seems to me it MUST start with forgiveness, charity, and a recognition that dispite our differences, we both preach Christ and Him crucified, and are rightly called and should embrace each other as Christians.

Would being called a heretic be less offensive? As I said, we need to move past this type of polemic, as frankly many of our leaders have. Witness the visit of Pope Benedict to the Lutheran parish in Rome, where he was greeted and his homily received with warmth and affection.

Jon

For you to accept others as Christians suggests that you have some authority, some notion of historicity that inclines you to determine what and who is Christian. In my opinion those that left the bosom of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church are not in a position to define that from which they came or left.

 

[JonNC]

=Trebor135;8219315]How anyone can follow the heavenly Christ and the earthly Antichrist at the same time is beyond me.

Anti-Christ as being opposed to Christ (in doctrine - particularly ecclesiology) not the end-times beast. It is quite simple to reconcile that, even though we believe there are errors in the doctrines of the CC, that the marks of the faith - word and sacrament - are truly there, making the CC not only Christian, but arguable the center of the Christian faith on earth.

For Lutherans to consider the papacy to be the Antichrist because of its “false doctrine” is bigotry because they don’t apply the same standards to other churches. The Coptic Orthodox in Egypt have a hierarchical leadership with Shinuda III at the top, and–to the best of my knowledge–this church agrees with Catholics on justification and the rule of faith. Do we ever hear from Lutherans how the Coptic papacy is the Antichrist because of that church’s “false doctrine”? And if Calvin had instituted a hierarchical setup akin to that of the Copts, would the office of its head be called the Antichrist for its holder propounding TULIP?

We certainly can apply it, and do, if one recognizes that the term is better understood today as heterdox - errors mixed with truth. Frankly, I have far more problems with Calvin’s TULIP than anything the CC teaches.
To my knowledge, however, no other see has claimed for itself universal jurisdiction, or infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. It is that claim of universal jurisdiction that the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope was referring to.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

How anyone can follow the heavenly Christ and the earthly Antichrist at the same time is beyond me.

For Lutherans to consider the papacy to be the Antichrist because of its “false doctrine” is bigotry because they don’t apply the same standards to other churches. The Coptic Orthodox in Egypt have a hierarchical leadership with Shinuda III at the top, and–to the best of my knowledge–this church agrees with Catholics on justification and the rule of faith. Do we ever hear from Lutherans how the Coptic papacy is the Antichrist because of that church’s “false doctrine”? And if Calvin had instituted a hierarchical setup akin to that of the Copts, would the office of its head be called the Antichrist for its holder propounding TULIP?

Jews have the same unitarian conception of God as do Muslims. Who do they worship?

This dialogue is going elsewhere. In reference to the Copts. One of the things the so called reformers negected as they abandone the bossom of The Church is that the East is part of the Church. If you study what happened with the so called reformers and their attempts to get sympathy and help from the East you will see that the East did not agree to help. If you study how the East sees the Protestant of today and other issues as it regards Protestant union, their approach is quite harsh in comparison to seprated brethren.

 

[JonNC]

=CopticChristian;8219338]Concerning mutual condemnations. This statement suggests that you believe that they are on equal footing. Condemnation for creating an aberration by The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church in my opinion does not equate to the, at that time, heretics sending condemnations abroad.

I see an equality in anything that wounds the unity of the Church. One can start with the greatest wound, that of the Great Schism, but it is only first historically.

The prodigal son can condemn his father, the father can condemn his son for his actions. The prodigal son left the family. What did the father do to deserve condemnation?

Goodness. You see no abuses or offensive behavior in the pre-Reformation Church? You see no corruption during the times leading up to the Reformation? Was there no need of a counter-reformation?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

For you to accept others as Christians suggests that you have some authority, some notion of historicity that inclines you to determine what and who is Christian. In my opinion those that left the bosom of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church are not in a position to define that from which they came or left.

No. Quite the opposite. I just accept the fact that it is up to God in Heaven to determine who hears Him, who are His sheep. And based on the fact that I lack that authority, which is Christ’s alone, I leave it to His mercy, not only for others, but for myself as well.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

No. Quite the opposite. I just accept the fact that it is up to God in Heaven to determine who hears Him, who are His sheep. And based on the fact that I lack that authority, which is Christ’s alone, I leave it to His mercy, not only for others, but for myself as well.

Jon

This attitude is admirable and honored. It is a tragedy that Knox, Zwingli, Luther and Calvin did not profess this humility and leave it up to God. Since God sent his Son and His Son founded a Church then this mess would not have been created had it not been for deaf ears.

 

[JonNC]

This dialogue is going elsewhere. In reference to the Copts. One of the things the so called reformers negected as they abandone the bossom of The Church is that the East is part of the Church. If you study what happened with the so called reformers and their attempts to get sympathy and help from the East you will see that the East did not agree to help. If you study how the East sees the Protestant of today and other issues as it regards Protestant union, their approach is quite harsh in comparison to seprated brethren.

And in some quarters, that is changing, too.

helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This attitude is admirable and honored. It is a tragedy that Knox, Zwingli, Luther and Calvin did not profess this humility and leave it up to God. Since God sent his Son and His Son founded a Church then this mess would not have been created had it not been for deaf ears.

Thank you. Perhaps our best approach today is to not follow that hostility on both sides in the past, and begin to see anew the movement of the Holy Spirit in our midst, as He attempts to draw us together.

Jon

 

[Trebor135]

Well, the term is, or can be, depending on its use. Protestant was coined in reference to the “protest” of the 2nd Diet of Speyer, which intended to restrict reformation activities (religius freedom, in effect), by governmental force. Certainly I would not consider that a negative usage.

“Protestant” in the sense you give is neutral, but I was referring to the term as it’s currently used, i.e., “some fuzzy, undefined identity that isn’t Catholic (or Orthodox) but is Christian in some fashion”.

I disagree. If it were relativism, then there would be one institutional Church without doctrinal constraints. One can be quite strident regarding one’s doctrines, speak out in favor of them, and even speak out against opposing doctrines without being anti-______ (fill in the blank). For me as a Lutheran to accept the fact that Catholics, Baptists, Orthodox, etc. are indeed Christian is not relativism.

Catholics should not have to embrace opposing doctrines. That would be a unity based on relativism that surely would fail.

Definitely. I was talking about the particular worldview being propounded by the poster I was responding to. He seemed to be dismissing the doctrinal differences between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants as basically unimportant and irrelevant.

As for who unleashed the division of the Body of Christ, I think it is clear historically that, as the CCC says quite rightly, there was blame on both sides.

Well, the CCC has to be diplomatic. I’m not saying its authors were concealing their true sentiments, just noting that, because the hierarchy wants better relations with Protestants, the summary of Catholic beliefs it publishes is going to avoid ruffling feathers.

But if there is to be healing of this sad division, it seems to me it MUST start with forgiveness, charity, and a recognition that dispite our differences, we both preach Christ and Him crucified, and are rightly called and should embrace each other as Christians.

Sure. I’m all for forgiveness and charity as long as everyone is prepared, indeed eager, to set aside their misconceptions and straw-man arguments to work together to find the truth. But I will continue to debate vigorously with and refuse to pull no punches against those who allege and insinuate that Catholicism teaches “works-righteousness” and “the actual re-sacrifice of Christ at each Mass”. I have no patience for ignorance and caricature, especially when clung to as a drowning man would a sturdy rope.

Would being called a heretic be less offensive?

No, I would imagine not.

As I said, we need to move past this type of polemic, as frankly many of our leaders have. Witness the visit of Pope Benedict to the Lutheran parish in Rome, where he was greeted and his homily received with warmth and affection.

Such warmth and affection among Christians is certainly positive: we know that God’s hand is at work. But given that Catholics and Protestants are, in fact, striving to overcome feelings of mutual hostility, how do you envision unity being restored? After all, one side or the other has to yield and lose face on fundamental principles: faith alone vs. faith and works, imputed vs. infused righteousness, Scripture alone vs. Scripture, Tradition, and Church.

God bless,
T.