Over 250 Protestant Leaders Sign 'Reforming Catholic Confession' on Essentials of Christian Faith

[Debbie_Kono]

No single group of participants got every single thing they wanted expressed in the document, which underwent multiple drafts and lengthy revisions, but they nevertheless arrived at a mutually agreed upon declaration.”

First, I must say that I respect and like you Itwin. I’ve read many of your responses on other threads and you are very gracious and kind. I want this for myself…but without compromising my beliefs as taught by The Church.

The two common definitions of compromise are: finding a happy medium and accept standards that are lower than is desirable. I don’t know how you can say the statement above is not compromise. It flat out is. I know a common complaint among my Protestant friends is their desire to not hear watered-down sermons. So they constantly church hop. This, I’m guessing does not apply to you…but it is a problem in Protestantism (and now Catholicism too…but I can’t say much on that in these boards for getting kicked off).

Do you think its compromise for Catholics to sit down with Eastern Orthodox and Protestants and say what can we agree on and lets write this down on paper, even if in some areas its very general agreement?

Yes. Yes I do. Because that “general agreement” weakens the Church and Her dogma “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” It’s the watering down of the Gospel. Where does the compromise stop? We already have cults which deny Christ’s divinity. Most all of Protestantism denies that divorce and remarriage is adultery. That contraception is a sin (keeping in mind that all Christians believed it sinful until less than 100 years ago). And then some Protestant churches say homosexuality and abortion is no big deal. Where does it stop? Listing what we agree on leads to a watered down gospel and is dangerous.

And I am very well aware that we have this problem in the Catholic Church today too…but I am not allowed to say so here.

 

[sainteriksrose]

Interesting how one of Protestantism’s doctrines contains the Latin “sola”…

 

[ltwin]

First, I must say that I respect and like you Itwin. I’ve read many of your responses on other threads and you are very gracious and kind. I want this for myself…but without compromising my beliefs as taught by The Church.

Thank you.

The two common definitions of compromise are: finding a happy medium and accept standards that are lower than is desirable. I don’t know how you can say the statement above is not compromise. It flat out is. I know a common complaint among my Protestant friends is their desire to not hear watered-down sermons. So they constantly church hop. This, I’m guessing does not apply to you…but it is a problem in Protestantism (and now Catholicism too…but I can’t say much on that in these boards for getting kicked off).

ltwin:

Is there a particular part of the confession that you identify as compromise? Just to have a better idea of what you see.

Yes. Yes I do. Because that “general agreement” weakens the Church and Her dogma “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” It’s the watering down of the Gospel. Where does the compromise stop? We already have cults which deny Christ’s divinity. Most all of Protestantism denies that divorce and remarriage is adultery. That contraception is a sin (keeping in mind that all Christians believed it sinful until less than 100 years ago). And then some Protestant churches say homosexuality and abortion is no big deal. Where does it stop? Listing what we agree on leads to a watered down gospel and is dangerous.

I believe we should not compromise. I guess I just see compromise differently than you. I don’t see different types of Protestants listing what they agree on as “compromising” their own beliefs. They aren’t saying “this is all you need.” They’re saying this is what Protestants should be able to agree on.

 

[sainteriksrose]

Like the Bible and the word “Christianity”…

Technically, they wouldn’t be taking them back. As what they’ve tried to do is take these already-determined documents and terms within authentic Christianity, and redefine them. But all they can really do is speak for whatever these things mean to them within Protestantism.

 

[sainteriksrose]

I do not agree with compromise, either…

Imo it waters down the truth which does not serve God. However, if there are points we agree 100% on, imo that’s awesome.

I don’t really see how the Church COULD compromise anything because the Holy Spirit is in charge, ergo changing our Lord’s teachings simply would not and could not happen no matter how sinful the world becomes. How can we know this? Because Jesus said hell would not prevail against HIS Church, and God doesn’t lie.

 

[BoomerangToo]

You can laugh all you want, but your laughter just reveals, at best, a lack of understanding of what the phrase actually means.

Does “sola scriptura” mean something other than “scripture alone”? As in, “sans Apostolic Tradition”? Are the protestants trying to now say that they have always believed in scripture+tradition? We know that’s not true.

 

[JonNC]

I believe we should not compromise. I guess I just see compromise differently than you. I don’t see different types of Protestants listing what they agree on as “compromising” their own beliefs. They aren’t saying “this is all you need.” They’re saying this is what Protestants should be able to agree on.

Sure. The problem is that for many, there are other essentials that aren’t agreed upon.
Baptismal regeneration
Infant baptism
Confession/ holy Absolution
The real presence
The very idea of sacraments
An ordained priesthood (some requiring apostolic succession)

 

[JonNC]

Does “sola scriptura” mean something other than “scripture alone”? As in, “sans Apostolic Tradition”? Are the protestants trying to now say that they have always believed in scripture+tradition? We know that’s not true.

What the sola in sola scriptura has always meant is that scripture is the final norm in determining doctrine, that all doctrine and dogma, all teachings and teachers are held accountable to scripture. Tradition plays a very important role, but it is second to scripture.
That doesn’t exclude Tradition or the Church, which has the teaching role according to scripture. The Church determines doctrine, under the practice of sola scriptura.

 

[ltwin]

Sure. The problem is that for many, there are other essentials that aren’t agreed upon.

Baptismal regeneration

Infant baptism

Confession/ holy Absolution

The real presence

The very idea of sacraments

An ordained priesthood (some requiring apostolic succession)

OK. These people don’t have to agree with the statement then.

My point is that to assume that these contributors “compromised” their own beliefs to arrive at this statement is (without actual evidence) a leap and, in my opinion, not really fair.

 

[BoomerangToo]

In the old protestant chuches, they do have much of the tradition, but the modern evangelical, non-denominational churches, in practice, have rejected almost every bit of tradition. They truly are scripture alone. Actually, they do have one tradition: “If it’s not spelled out in the Bible, I don’t believe it.”

 

[JonNC]

In the old protestant chuches, they do have much of the tradition, but the modern evangelical, non-denominational churches, in practice, have rejected almost every bit of tradition. They truly are scripture alone. Actually, they do have one tradition: “If it’s not spelled out in the Bible, I don’t believe it.”

Absolutely. So, this is a great reason for care in using the term, Protestant.
I’m one who finds the idea of "essentials " to be dubious at best. If these communions agree on essentials, there seems little reason for not being unified.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Is there a particular part of the confession that you identify as compromise? Just to have a better idea of what you see.

I have to go to work now, but no I don’t know what they’ve left out. I don’t believe the article listed what those “who didn’t get everything they wanted” wanted. Do you? I just know that when we reduce beliefs to the least common denominator…that’s compromise. And again…goes against what our Lord said in the very last verse of St. Matthew’s gospel. Who, especially in Protestantism, decides what is essential/important and what is not? Don’t know when I’ll be back, as I’m hosting Thanksgiving tomorrow. It’s been a pleasure Itwin. God bless and happy Thanksgiving.

Know that I pray for conversion to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for all those non-Catholics I encounter…so if you’re bombarded by much more knowledgeable Catholics than me…it’s in answer to my prayers.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Sure. The problem is that for many, there are other essentials that aren’t agreed upon.

Baptismal regeneration

Infant baptism

Confession/ holy Absolution

The real presence

The very idea of sacraments

An ordained priesthood (some requiring apostolic succession)

OK. These people don’t have to agree with the statement then.

My point is that to assume that these contributors “compromised” their own beliefs to arrive at this statement is (without actual evidence) a leap and, in my opinion, not really fair.

I get that. The fact is they endeavors to document those things they did agree on. That’s laudable.

 

[simspt]

Their confession is no more authoritative than Marcion’s canon was almost 1900 years ago.

 

[JonNC]

Their confession is no more authoritative than Marcion’s canon was almost 1900 years ago.

Did they claim it was somehow authoritative? I hadn’t noticed.

 

[JonNC]

Interesting how one of Protestantism’s doctrines contains the Latin “sola”…

Actually, there are a number of solas, depending on the communion. Of those, sola gracia, sola fide, and sola christus could be said to be doctrine. Sola scriptura is a practice.

 

[sainteriksrose]

It every non-Catholic in the world joined the Church, it would be the best thing for THEM…

Because this is where we receive our Lord’s life-giving Body and Blood, as He said we must do to have life in us. (John 6)

 

[ericc]

A gathering of people who agree to agree on their common beliefs but say nothing about what they don’t agree. When they don’t agree, they are supposed to take it to the Church for decision. That is not going to happen because underlying RT is the “right” to decide for oneself what one feels “right”. Pretty much a low value PR exercise. When everyone has common agreement, that has never been a problem.

 

[rcwitness]

Keep meeting until there are no disagreements, and cease from calling one another separate denominations.

We know that there is common faith, even with the Catholic faith, among the denominations.

His Eucharist will always be the source and summit of Christian unity and faith. No one can build a tower of theology that produces His Eucharist. He already descended and gave us His body and blood. That is Who Christians ought to gather unto.

 

[rcwitness]

I have to disagree with this, Jon.

Yes Sola Scriptura is practiced (by men with conflicting conclusions mind you) but there is an underlying doctrine to support it.

From the article:

The phrase “Scripture alone,” he said, does not mean that it is the singular voice people ought to consult but that the Word of God does have supreme authority

This implies that God’s Word is reduced to Scripture alone. When actually there are Traditions from God which are not written down, and His judgment about matters which are not explicitly addressed are decreed through the Magisterium of His Church.

Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium cannot contradict one another. They all spring from the Word of God.

The Word of God DOES have Supreme authority! Catholics do not necessarily disagree with this.