Pope Says There is Only One True Church

[estesbob]

Our oneness isn’t in the Catholic church, but in the universal Church of Jesus Christ. You seem to think they are identical, and I don’t and we could argue that question forever I suppose. But I don’t know that it would accomplish anything. So, rather than pointing accusing fingers (“you done wrong”) at one another, let us find those places that we can offer one another the right hand of fellowship.

r.

Which is without a doubt the Catholic Church-the Church founded by Jesues. If that is not true then God is a very inept God for he allowed a false Church with false Doctines to exist as sole Church for 1,500 years before he allowed a few enlightened men to point out the error of his ways. He lied to Peter and allowed fools like Augusirne and Aquinas and Clement et al to perpetuate this lie.

I am not pointing fingers and saying you did wrong. You simply do not know any better.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Are you, is the Catholic church, really interested in doing this? Then love me as Hosea loved Gomer, as God has loved humanity, as Christ loves us. You do recognize that I am imperfect, in fact you (refer to the Catholic church, not you personally) make dogma about how we are imperfectly connected to your one true church. Well recognize both things, that we are imperfect and that we are connected. In other words there actually is unity. Guanophore says that there is unity, but it is imperfect, that we Protestants acts as if we have had a stroke. Well, my wife has had two strokes. Guess what, when I married her I promised to love her not just in health, but in sickness as well. And loving her in sickness doesn’t mean I spend my time pointing out her imperfectness. Rather, I try to emphasize what we can do together. Personally, I think you (the Catholic church) have made a bad call in arriving at any theology that will not share the Eucharistic meal of Christ with all who you recognize as belonging to Christ (in your case that would be all baptized Christians), but the Catholic church is not the only church to be in such error. I suppose that is one of the things I have to learn to live with about you, just as there are things about me that you have to learn to live with. But if you are going to love me, then take the time to say so, and not an “I love you, but…” type of statement. I need to hear “I love you no matter what.” After all we are family. We joined to one another whether either of us likes it or not because we have the same Father, the same brother, the same Lord, and yes even the same faith, though we seem to speak about it in different dialects.

We call you home and await your arrival just as Hosea did for Gomer. We continue to do that even though you are the ones who broke away and are acting faithlessly. So come on home. We await you.

CDL

 

[Man]

Are you, is the Catholic church, really interested in doing this? Then love me as Hosea loved Gomer, as God has loved humanity, as Christ loves us. You do recognize that I am imperfect, in fact you (refer to the Catholic church, not you personally) make dogma about how we are imperfectly connected to your one true church. Well recognize both things, that we are imperfect and that we are connected. In other words there actually is unity.

We are not called to accept and tolerate everything. We are called to be like unto our Lord Jesus Christ. Who said to Peter “Satan, get behind me!”
Who said, that those who are remarried are amidst the sin of adultery.
This unity is remote to a great extent. The teaching, even the moral theology is different. The sacraments absent.

Guanophore says that there is unity, but it is imperfect, that we Protestants acts as if we have had a stroke. Well, my wife has had two strokes. Guess what, when I married her I promised to love her not just in health, but in sickness as well. And loving her in sickness doesn’t mean I spend my time pointing out her imperfectness. Rather, I try to emphasize what we can do together. Personally, I think you (the Catholic church) have made a bad call in arriving at any theology that will not share the Eucharistic meal of Christ with all who you recognize as belonging to Christ (in your case that would be all baptized Christians), but the Catholic church is not the only church to be in such error. I suppose that is one of the things I have to learn to live with about you, just as there are things about me that you have to learn to live with. But if you are going to love me, then take the time to say so, and not an “I love you, but…” type of statement. I need to hear “I love you no matter what.” After all we are family. We joined to one another whether either of us likes it or not because we have the same Father, the same brother, the same Lord, and yes even the same faith, though we seem to speak about it in different dialects.

The Eucharist as I understand simply cannot be given to those who knowingly live in a state of sin.
But, even as they enter this fast, they become for us, those who suffer. With these we also suffer. In an almost contradictory way, they become like Christ Himself. And, you must remember, by their will they have done this.
And others, they would come and partake of the Lord, but not believe in it. Or they would recite the Creed, but not believe it, or even understand it.
And thus, though they are called to unity (clearly), yet they separate themselves.
There have been, throughout time, scoundrel Popes, and yet, the humble priest remained faithful for the unity of the Church. Refusing to proudly separate the faithful.

Our oneness isn’t in the Catholic church, but in the universal Church of Jesus Christ. You seem to think they are identical, and I don’t and we could argue that question forever I suppose. But I don’t know that it would accomplish anything. So, rather than pointing accusing fingers (“you done wrong”) at one another, let us find those places that we can offer one another the right hand of fellowship.

We are not servants of tolerance, but “servants of the Truth.”

For one, we in the UMC at least, don’t practice “sola Scriptura” any more than you do. So, you can just leave that baggage outside.

Where then, did the dogmatic beliefs about the Holy Family arise?

 

[Man]

Also, I have to laugh at the idea that we don’t have centuries old traditions. True the United Methodist Church has only been around since 1968. But our history is much longer. Part of it goes back to and through Jacob Albright and Philip Otterbein. Persons who came out of Germanic protestantism were founders of groups that later became incorporated into United Methodism. But the name most closely identified with the Methodist movement is John Wesley, an Anglican priest from the 1700s. That gives us at least 300 years of history, which I think qualifies as centuries.

A far cry from tracing one’s roots, its Traditions, back to Jesus and St. Peter and St. Paul. To the beginning of the Church.

Of course, as I laughingly told my parents once, when they were trying to quibble over which side of the family had more interesting history, it didn’t really matter to me which one of them won the argument, I could claim everything that either one of them could and then some. So, when you say that we United Methodists don’t have any history, I laugh. For the most part, my history and your history are exactly the same history, at least from King Henry VIII and back. So, you can leave that baggage at the door too.

Another man came in, and determined for you what history was important, and that which could be thrown aside.

In short, I don’t see anything that you got in the Catholic church that we ain’t got in the United Methodist Church, unless you want to count arrogance about your own self-importance, but sometimes we are plenty arrogant too. So, I can’t hold that against you.

I too have protested against the Church, but I submit to it. It has more rightful claim than any other. More interest in and adherence to its past, and it is lead, by those who sought only to discuss a calling with a priest.

It is humble, then, even to itself. It asserts not in perfection, but with knowledge of its historical and current inadequacies. It is Holy, in part, because of its adherence to itself, to the Traditions of Jesus.

I agree with your Pope Benedict, there is just one true Church, and all Christians belong to it whether they recognize they do or not. And it is indeed a catholic Church in the sense that catholic means universal. I dispute that there is an earthly intermediary for Christ seated in Rome, but every institution needs an earthly government and if your particular ecclesiastical community desires to see that in your earthly leader, I guess that is your business. My ecclesiatical community does not, and I guess that is our business. But the key is that both of our ecclesiastical communitiies are nonetheless part of Christ’s one true Church with Christ as head of its body and we each as its members. I would hope that we can recognize each other as members of this one Church without trying to separate members from that body. I would not separate you from it, and knowing now that you want unity in the body and not division, I am sure you will not wish to declare me separated when Christ himself says that I am a member.

The humble man seated in Rome, called anti-Christ, hated among nations. Powerless in submission to the Church Traditions. You seek to a definitive answer as to how the Catholic Church see the situation and it was given.

You have a Bishop, to create unity. But, there are those who pelt the Pope, because the Church has a Bishop.

The Church has never judged that anyone is in Hell.

Please, excuse my impetuous youth.

And this,

This is love,

David

 

[truthnlight]

1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church
“For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.” Pg. 215, #816

 

[guanophore]

You do recognize that I am imperfect,

I don’t think the lack of perfect communion is in any way related to personal holiness ( or lack thereof) on either side. It is doctrinal. There are saintly persons all through the Body.

in fact you (refer to the Catholic church, not you personally) make dogma about how we are imperfectly connected to your one true church. Well recognize both things, that we are imperfect and that we are connected.

This is what the church teaches, with the exception that it is not related to personal imperfection, but doctrinal.

In other words there actually is unity.

There is certainly unity of some things. There is more unity present in some communities than others. We have nore unity with the Orthodox, for example, than all the others. For those who embrace the Apostles creed, there is more unity. It is not an all or nothing, but more like a bridge that is missing some slats.

Guanophore says that there is unity, but it is imperfect, that we Protestants acts as if we have had a stroke.

AHA! Caught you making assumptions! I NEVER said WHICH persons were acting like they had a stroke! I said that the body was not functioning well and healthy, had paralysis, and disease, and the parts did not work as a unified whole. This is not belonging just to Protestants!

Well, my wife has had two strokes. Guess what, when I married her I promised to love her not just in health, but in sickness as well. And loving her in sickness doesn’t mean I spend my time pointing out her imperfectness.

Well said! I have also had a number of loved ones with strokes and can relate to this.

Rather, I try to emphasize what we can do together.

You will find much more of this, I am sure, in another venue. In this place, I am more rabidly “Catholic” than anywhere else. But, that is why I am here, to learn. I do my fellowship elsewhere.

Personally, I think you (the Catholic church) have made a bad call in arriving at any theology that will not share the Eucharistic meal of Christ with all who you recognize as belonging to Christ (in your case that would be all baptized Christians), but the Catholic church is not the only church to be in such error.

This is an arguement that you will have to take up with Our Lord. It is His words upon which we base our experience of the Eucharist. It is not a decision that was made by theologists, but you must understand that it is the teaching we have received from Jesus and the Apostles, and that we are strongly convinced that we are not allowed to do otherwise by the sacred commandment.

(continued)

 

[guanophore]

I suppose that is one of the things I have to learn to live with about you, just as there are things about me that you have to learn to live with. But if you are going to love me, then take the time to say so, and not an “I love you, but…” type of statement. I need to hear “I love you no matter what.” After all we are family. We joined to one another whether either of us likes it or not because we have the same Father, the same brother, the same Lord, and yes even the same faith, though we seem to speak about it in different dialects.

warts and all!

Our oneness isn’t in the Catholic church, but in the universal Church of Jesus Christ. You seem to think they are identical, and I don’t and we could argue that question forever I suppose. But I don’t know that it would accomplish anything. So, rather than pointing accusing fingers (“you done wrong”) at one another, let us find those places that we can offer one another the right hand of fellowship.

They are not “identical”. When it is said that the fullness of Christ “subsists” in Catholicism it means that all the essential elements given by Christ are present. It does not mean that every Catholic (especially the nominal and rebellious) actually are part of that subsistance, or that those not named Catholics do not. We do believe that Jesus intended to found a visible church, but also that the members of it are not always immediately visible (not externally Catholic).

Also, I have to laugh at the idea that we don’t have centuries old traditions. True the United Methodist Church has only been around since 1968. But our history is much longer. Part of it goes back to and through Jacob Albright and Philip Otterbein. Persons who came out of Germanic protestantism were founders of groups that later became incorporated into United Methodism. But the name most closely identified with the Methodist movement is John Wesley, an Anglican priest from the 1700s. That gives us at least 300 years of history, which I think qualifies as centuries.

Yes, of course. the problem is the break from which that tradition emerged.

So, when you say that we United Methodists don’t have any history, I laugh. For the most part, my history and your history are exactly the same history, at least from King Henry VIII and back. So, you can leave that baggage at the door too.

I think, given my sojourn among the Methodists, that most would not consider “shared” history from King Henry VIII back. I think that Catholic teachings as far back as the second century are rejected.

In short, I don’t see anything that you got in the Catholic church that we ain’t got in the United Methodist Church,

I understand this, but also realize that, just because you can’t see the differences, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

I agree with your Pope Benedict, there is just one true Church, and all Christians belong to it whether they recognize they do or not.

Well there 'ya go!

I dispute that there is an earthly intermediary for Christ seated in Rome,

He is not an “intermediary” but a vicar.

desires to see that in your earthly leader, I guess that is your business. My ecclesiatical community does not, and I guess that is our business.

See how the “us” and “them” come out?

I would hope that we can recognize each other as members of this one Church without trying to separate members from that body. I would not separate you from it, and knowing now that you want unity in the body and not division, I am sure you will not wish to declare me separated when Christ himself says that I am a member.

Still, the Body is fractured, broken, paralyzed, diseased, whatever metaphor is most suitable. All of us agree that this is not what Christ wants for us.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

This unity is remote to a great extent.

This is of your choosing, not ours.

The teaching, even the moral theology is different.

You may thing that the teaching of moral theology is uniform through the Catholic church, but it isn’t. Maybe it is supposed to be, but it most certainly isn’t.

The sacraments absent.

Yet even the Catholic church recognizes the legitimacy of our sacrament of baptism. So, how can you say that the sacraments are absent from the United Methodist Church? In addition we also celebrate the Eucharist, that you do not recognize it does not make it any less of a sacrament in either my eyes of the eyes of God.

The Eucharist as I understand simply cannot be given to those who knowingly live in a state of sin.

Really? And yet it is at mass after mass. In addition, I think we have already clarified that you see me in a state of sin, but I don’t acknowledge what you see to be reality. So, I actually don’t knowingly live in a state of sin. If you are right and I am wrong, the best you can say is that I live in a state of sin, but don’t know it.

But, even as they enter this fast, they become for us, those who suffer. With these we also suffer. In an almost contradictory way, they become like Christ Himself. And, you must remember, by their will they have done this.
And others, they would come and partake of the Lord, but not believe in it. Or they would recite the Creed, but not believe it, or even understand it.
And thus, though they are called to unity (clearly), yet they separate themselves.
There have been, throughout time, scoundrel Popes, and yet, the humble priest remained faithful for the unity of the Church.

Yet you lift up as a hero one of your scoundrel Popes, and condemn as a heretic one of your faithful priests who sought to bring the Church he loved back to the truth revealed by God.

Refusing to proudly separate the faithful.

Yet you do now to many Christians that you call Protestants what you would not do with those called Donatists.

Where then, did the dogmatic beliefs about the Holy Family arise?

I have no idea what you speak of here. The United Methodist Church has no dogmatic beliefs with respect to the Holy Family.

A far cry from tracing one’s roots, its Traditions, back to Jesus and St. Peter and St. Paul. To the beginning of the Church.

You clearly did not read all of what I wrote before you posted this. My roots go as far back as yours, for they go through yours. First Methodist, then Anglican, then Catholic and finally all the way back to when the Church was both orthodox and catholic without division.

Another man came in, and determined for you what history was important, and that which could be thrown aside.

No. That did not happen.

The humble man seated in Rome, called anti-Christ, hated among nations.

You are now creating a strawman. Where have I called anyone anti-Christ. Or where have I declared hate. If you are seeing hate in this conversation, you must look somewhere else for its origins for it is not coming from me.

You have a Bishop, to create unity. But, there are those who pelt the Pope, because the Church has a Bishop.

The Church has never judged that anyone is in Hell.

Now you are just rambling, and I can no longer tell for what purpose.

And this, This is love,

David

You have a strange way of either defining or showing it.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I think, given my sojourn among the Methodists, that most would not consider “shared” history from King Henry VIII back. I think that Catholic teachings as far back as the second century are rejected.

Well, maybe your sojourn wasn’t long enough to pick up on this.

First, subsequent to my ordination, my bishop provided me with a chart tracing the line of the laying on of hands all the way back to Peter. I know that no Catholic would recognize it to have conferred any authority, but I believe it does speak to the issue of whether or not we United Methodists would consider it “shared” history.

Second, in our Book of Disciples, the governing rules for United Methodism, Section 1 of our Doctrinal Standards begins:

Our Common Heritage as Christians
United Methodists share a common heritage with Christians of every age and nation. This heritage is grounded in the apostolic witness of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, which is the source and measure of all valid Christian teaching.

Faced with diverse interpreations of the apostolic message, leaders of the early church sought to specify the core of Christian belief in order ot ensure the soundness of Christian teaching.

The determination of the canon of Christian Scripture and the adoption of ecumenical creeds, such as the formulations of Nicaea and Chalcedon, were of central importance to this consensual process. Such creeds helped preserve the integrity of the Church’s witness, set boundaries for acceptable Christian doctrine, and proclaimed the basic elements of the enduring Christian message. These statements of faith, along with the Apostles’ Creed, contain the most prominent features of our ecumenical heritage.

…the basic measure of authenticity in doctrinal standards, whetehr formally established or received by tradition, has been their fidelity to the apostolic faith grounded in Scripture and evidenced in the life of the Church through the centuries.

Third, books that I use to teach confirmation to our church’s children declare that

[we] rejoice in God’s presence in the long history of the Christian tradition: in affirming ancient creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, we unite our voices with the voices of our Christian forebears from whom we inherited this Christian faith. Our worhsip bears the marks of ancient and medieval liturgy including texts and tunes taken from Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions from which our own tradition has grown.

Fourth, while the historic Articles of Religion of our denomination contain items that are decidedly anti-Catholic in nature, I ask you to remember the climate they were originally written in and consider our more recent response to them. One, we do not hold them to be part of our doctrinal statement, but historical documents. And two, at a special called General Conference (ouor highest governmental body of the United Methodist Church) in 1970, the UMC adopted a resolution (which it reaffirmed in 1996) clarifying that the anti-Catholic statements in our Articles are not directed toward contemporary Catholicism or the whole of the Catholic inheritance of faith, but rather against medieval corruptions of Christian tradition, some of which were misunderstood by the Reformers. The UM statement of “Our Theological Task” affirms the critical use of Christian traditions as a source and criterion of Christian teaching.

So, I submit to you that we United Methodist do understand ourselves as being the beneficiaries of receiving a “Catholic inheritance of faith”, and that there were cases where the Reformers were actually wrong in their criticism of the Catholic church.

Even if you don’t fully buy that, you can see that there are “Catholic” teachings from not just the 2nd century, but even the 4th and 5th centuries that we hold very dear.

 

[Man]

This is of your choosing, not ours.

To have unity we must accept changes in:
contraception
woman priests
removal of transubstantiation
confession
liturgy
and the list goes on and on.

What type of unity are you talking about? Don’t we already have that?

You may thing that the teaching of moral theology is uniform through the Catholic church, but it isn’t. Maybe it is supposed to be, but it most certainly isn’t.

Refer to the above. Surely not all instructors are as orthodox as they should be.

Yet even the Catholic church recognizes the legitimacy of our sacrament of baptism. So, how can you say that the sacraments are absent from the United Methodist Church? In addition we also celebrate the Eucharist, that you do not recognize it does not make it any less of a sacrament in either my eyes of the eyes of God.

One sacrament nearly the same. A far cry from seven.

Really? And yet it is at mass after mass. In addition, I think we have already clarified that you see me in a state of sin, but I don’t acknowledge what you see to be reality. So, I actually don’t knowingly live in a state of sin. If you are right and I am wrong, the best you can say is that I live in a state of sin, but don’t know it.

Should I say mortal sin (Adultery)? Of course, the Church lets you off the hook by declaring Methodist marriage non-sacramental when it is challenged, but otherwise accepting it…

Yet you lift up as a hero one of your scoundrel Popes, and condemn as a heretic one of your faithful priests who sought to bring the Church he loved back to the truth revealed by God.

I do not believe that Martin Luther meant to have such a long lasting separation. And, I did not lift up, to my knowledge any scoundrel Pope. Which Pope is a scoundrel?

Yet you do now to many Christians that you call Protestants what you would not do with those called Donatists.

“Those” are far closer to the Church founded by Jesus and the Apostles than that which you call a church.

I have no idea what you speak of here. The United Methodist Church has no dogmatic beliefs with respect to the Holy Family.

Was Mary Holy or was she just a nice lady? You realize that Mary had/has always been considered Holy until Protestants decided that she must just be nice…

You clearly did not read all of what I wrote before you posted this. My roots go as far back as yours, for they go through yours. First Methodist, then Anglican, then Catholic and finally all the way back to when the Church was both orthodox and catholic without division.

and

No. That did not happen.

Someone, decided that Holy Orders need not be Apostolic. Who did that? Someone decided that “Communion” was merely a symbol of grace. Who did that?

You are now creating a strawman. Where have I called anyone anti-Christ. Or where have I declared hate. If you are seeing hate in this conversation, you must look somewhere else for its origins for it is not coming from me.

Now you are just rambling, and I can no longer tell for what purpose.

The Pope is regularly tortured by his position. This is no doubt part of why he is so commonly regarded as Vicar of the Church.

You have a strange way of either defining or showing it.

Charity (love) is, in part, expressing the truth. I have spent a good deal of time with you here, also a display of love. It is most torturous to love someone and not be loved in return. And for that I am grateful that you have entered into a dialog with me.

Maybe, I should point out, that through understanding the similarities between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church you can understand just how different you are than they. They have not been been properly joined in centuries more than the Methodist church has existed, and yet their Doctrine and morality are so similar…

We are servants of the Truth, and I understand much of your perspective. Certain things are facts. Tracing your roots hardly amounts having the same Traditions… It is like you ignored me because you were angry… Am I not a lost sheep to you? Or am I a wolf?

David

 

[guanophore]

You may thing that the teaching of moral theology is uniform through the Catholic church, but it isn’t. Maybe it is supposed to be, but it most certainly isn’t.

No reasonable Catholic will try to defend that the actual instruction is uniform. No way! But one must distinguish between the genuine teaching (divine deposit of faith) from Jesus and the purveyers thereof.

So, how can you say that the sacraments are absent from the United Methodist Church?

I think this is an overgeneralization in reaction against some antisacramentalist Protestants on this Board.

In addition we also celebrate the Eucharist, that you do not recognize it does not make it any less of a sacrament in either my eyes of the eyes of God.

God is the judge, certainly. We can only cling to what was given to us by Jesus, and the Apostles. When you read the ECF, it is clear that the faith handed on from Jesus and His Apostles was that of the Real Presence.

Really? And yet it is at mass after mass.

I think that many Catholics take the Body and Blood of the Lord in a profane manner, in a state of mortal sin. Protestants, on the other hand (speaking more generally and not of yourself) generally have no clue what Catholics belief and teach, and have been taught errors about our doctrine. In order for a sin to be mortal, one has to know what one is doing, so they don’t qualify as “living in sin” for the most part.

Yet you lift up as a hero one of your scoundrel Popes

I think I missed something on this point. Who was calling the scoundrel a hero?

and condemn as a heretic one of your faithful priests who sought to bring the Church he loved back to the truth revealed by God.

Are you speaking of Luther?

Yet you do now to many Christians that you call Protestants what you would not do with those called Donatists.

Why do you say that?

I have no idea what you speak of here. The United Methodist Church has no dogmatic beliefs with respect to the Holy Family.

This is probably also an overreaction to fundamentalists. Recently there was one here who accused us of trying to make Mary divine, and equal to the trinity.

You clearly did not read all of what I wrote before you posted this. My roots go as far back as yours, for they go through yours. First Methodist, then Anglican, then Catholic and finally all the way back to when the Church was both orthodox and catholic without division.

What would have to happen to get back there?

No. That did not happen.

Do you believe, then, that Luther and Wesley, and Calvin were all on the same level as the Apostles?

You are now creating a strawman. Where have I called anyone anti-Christ. Or where have I declared hate. If you are seeing hate in this conversation, you must look somewhere else for its origins for it is not coming from me.

Now you are just rambling, and I can no longer tell for what purpose.

You have a strange way of either defining or showing it.

In addition, I think we have already clarified that you see me in a state of sin, but I don’t acknowledge what you see to be reality. So, I actually don’t knowingly live in a state of sin. If you are right and I am wrong, the best you can say is that I live in a state of sin, but don’t know it.

Yet you lift up as a hero one of your scoundrel Popes, and condemn as a heretic one of your faithful priests who sought to bring the Church he loved back to the truth revealed by God.

Yet you do now to many Christians that you call Protestants what you would not do with those called Donatists.

I have no idea what you speak of here. The United Methodist Church has no dogmatic beliefs with respect to the Holy Family.

You clearly did not read all of what I wrote before you posted this. My roots go as far back as yours, for they go through yours. First Methodist, then Anglican, then Catholic and finally all the way back to when the Church was both orthodox and catholic without division.=

No. That did not happen.

You are now creating a strawman. Where have I called anyone anti-Christ. Or where have I declared hate. If you are seeing hate in this conversation, you must look somewhere else for its origins for it is not coming from me.

I think, indeed, the origins are elsewhere. However, it has been accused on another thread that the Pope is the antichrist, and the Roman Church the whore of Babylon. It carries over, I am afraid.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Am I not a lost sheep to you? Or am I a wolf?

No. I do not consider you a lost sheep. It seems to me that you are securely in the fold of our Lord the Great Shepherd of the sheep. Though there are times, I feel as if you have a ravenous hunger to consumne me.

But I will not label you at all. I only tell you of my experience, for my labels mean nothing. The only label that counts is whether or not Christ calls you brother. If he does, then you are a brother, a full-blooded brother of mine. If you tell me that this is true, I will not doubt it.

 

[guanophore]

Well, maybe your sojourn wasn’t long enough to pick up on this.

First, subsequent to my ordination, my bishop provided me with a chart tracing the line of the laying on of hands all the way back to Peter. I know that no Catholic would recognize it to have conferred any authority, but I believe it does speak to the issue of whether or not we United Methodists would consider it “shared” history.

Oh, I was not speaking about the ordinal succession, but of the doctrines. Such as the Marian doctrines and the Real Presence.

Fourth, while the historic Articles of Religion of our denomination contain items that are decidedly anti-Catholic in nature, I ask you to remember the climate they were originally written in and consider our more recent response to them.

Unfortunately, I think there is still a substantial suspiciousness of the papacy, even though we have had holy popes for the better part of a century.

One, we do not hold them to be part of our doctrinal statement, but historical documents. And two, at a special called General Conference (ouor highest governmental body of the United Methodist Church) in 1970, the UMC adopted a resolution (which it reaffirmed in 1996) clarifying that the anti-Catholic statements in our Articles are not directed toward contemporary Catholicism or the whole of the Catholic inheritance of faith, but rather against medieval corruptions of Christian tradition, some of which were misunderstood by the Reformers.

Perhaps we are all making progress
Maybe the lip I got from my peers was from folks who did not study them, just like you are getting lip here from some who did not read and understand the papal documents.

The UM statement of “Our Theological Task” affirms the critical use of Christian traditions as a source and criterion of Christian teaching.

How are these to be known and followed?

So, I submit to you that we United Methodist do understand ourselves as being the beneficiaries of receiving a “Catholic inheritance of faith”, and that there were cases where the Reformers were actually wrong in their criticism of the Catholic church.

Even if you don’t fully buy that, you can see that there are “Catholic” teachings from not just the 2nd century, but even the 4th and 5th centuries that we hold very dear.

This is good to see.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Do you believe, then, that Luther and Wesley, and Calvin were all on the same level as the Apostles?

No. There are different categories of service. Some are called to be apostles, others pastors and teachers.

Yes. All are equally members of the body of Christ. All are gifted by the Holy Spirit for the purpose to which they were called.

Do you believe that the Popes and priests of the Catholic church are on the same level as the Apostles?

At one level I consider J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis on par with the Apostles because I sense that their writing was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. On another, none can take the place of one who actually spent time with Jesus. But, of course, the Holy Spirit can allow for any of us to have that very same experience if he so chooses, just as it was accomplished for Paul.

 

[guanophore]

No. There are different categories of service. Some are called to be apostles, others pastors and teachers.

Yes. All are equally members of the body of Christ. All are gifted by the Holy Spirit for the purpose to which they were called.

Do you believe that the Popes and priests of the Catholic church are on the same level as the Apostles?

No, I asked you that because someone stated that men came along and changed the Apostolic teaching, and you responded “that didn’t happen”. I was not sure if you mean you thought they were inspired at the same level as the Apostles, or if you thought they did not change the teachings.

At one level I consider J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis on par with the Apostles because I sense that their writing was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. On another, none can take the place of one who actually spent time with Jesus. But, of course, the Holy Spirit can allow for any of us to have that very same experience if he so chooses, just as it was accomplished for Paul.

I can’t argue with that, being a lifelong fan of both. I play their works when I am not listening to my Bible.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Perhaps we are all making progress
Maybe the lip I got from my peers was from folks who did not study them, just like you are getting lip here from some who did not read and understand the papal documents.

We need to stomp out our own internal heretics. I know I use a strong word, but I do so intentionally. Those that stir up trouble by creating strawmen to attack positions not actually held by others are teaching something not actually taught by the Church, neither yours nor mine. They are just as much in error in doing so as if they were to teach that Jesus was only human or only divine and not both.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The UM statement of “Our Theological Task” affirms the critical use of Christian traditions as a source and criterion of Christian teaching.

I’ll copy only one line that I would like to highlight here: “The Wesleyan heritage, reflecting its origins in the catholic and reformed ethos of English Christianity, directs us to a self-conscious use of these three sources [tradition, reason, and experience] in interpreting Scripture and in formulating faith statements based on the biblical witness. These sources are, along with Scripture, indispensable to our theological task.”

For the larger text, I’ll just give you the link: Our Theological Task. This comes from our 1992 Book of Discipline, but this section remains unchanged.

The idea is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral – Scripture is primary, but always informed by tradition, reason, and experience.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

No, I asked you that because someone stated that men came along and changed the Apostolic teaching, and you responded “that didn’t happen”. I was not sure if you mean you thought they were inspired at the same level as the Apostles, or if you thought they did not change the teachings.

Oh, I most certainly believe that men have come along and changed the apostolic teaching. I don’t know of any that have done it intentionally. But I think that there is not a generation of the church that has not had to deal with this threat. And sometimes that changes, sadly, have not been stopped, but actually made it into the life and teaching of the church, at least for a season. Sometimes, like the teachings of Arius, that season was relatively short-lived. Sometimes, like the view that Peter’s authority was intended to be passed down from one successor to another, that view has become the accepted view of billions for centuries. And I imagine that Wesley (and me for that matter) have some things wrong that were thought to be right by not only him but many others. But on the whole, I don’t think that apart from people like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, and Charles Russell, that even when this has happened that it has produced a corruption of Christ’s Church. The Church of Jesus Christ stands firm, it appears to be divided on the surface, but in reality it is still one, because despite our many (minor) differences, there exists still one (common) faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We might disagree on everything beyond that, but because of that one major agreement, we are still one in faith, in baptism, and in our Lord.

I don’t think I actually answered your question, but then again, if you can read between the lines, maybe I did.

 

[guanophore]

We need to stomp out our own internal heretics. I know I use a strong word, but I do so intentionally. Those that stir up trouble by creating strawmen to attack positions not actually held by others are teaching something not actually taught by the Church, neither yours nor mine. They are just as much in error in doing so as if they were to teach that Jesus was only human or only divine and not both.

Given the Catholic history of this practice (stomping “heretics”) I could not personally recommend such a course. Jesus does not call us to this either, but teaches us that when there is a dispute between us, we should “take it to the church”.

He taught us to let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest.

Rather, I think we need to have clarity about right doctrine, and hold to it firmly, and God will do the rest. For Catholics, this means holding fast to the traditions that were passed down to us.

… directs us to a self-conscious use of these three sources [tradition, reason, and experience] in interpreting Scripture and in formulating faith statements based on the biblical witness. These sources are, along with Scripture, indispensable to our theological task."

For the larger text, I’ll just give you the link: Our Theological Task. This comes from our 1992 Book of Discipline, but this section remains unchanged.

The idea is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral – Scripture is primary, but always informed by tradition, reason, and experience.

Do you believe such a course will restore the Body of Christ to healthy functioning?

 

[guanophore]

Oh, I most certainly believe that men have come along and changed the apostolic teaching. I don’t know of any that have done it intentionally. But I think that there is not a generation of the church that has not had to deal with this threat. And sometimes that changes, sadly, have not been stopped, but actually made it into the life and teaching of the church, at least for a season. Sometimes, like the teachings of Arius, that season was relatively short-lived. Sometimes, like the view that Peter’s authority was intended to bew passed down from one successor to another, that view has become the accepted view of billions for centuries. I don’t think whe this happened that it has produced a corruption of Christ’s Church.

Who is to to distinguish the difference between the Joseph Smiths, Charles Weseleys, and Joseph Ratzingers?

The of Jesus Christ stands firm, it appears to be divided on the surface, but in reality it is still one, because despite our many (minor) differences, there exists still one (common) faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Yes, I agree that by virtue of all being connected to the One Head we are in unity, and that there is unity in reality (invisibly). however, some of our differences are not minor.

We might disagree on everything beyond that, but because of that one major agreement, we are still one in faith, in baptism, and in our Lord.

I don’t think I actually answered your question, but then again, if you can read between the lines, maybe I did.

The Petrine gift is not one of “authority” in the worldly sense of the word. He was given charge of the feeding of the lambs, which requires pure food, so his charge is to safeguard right doctrine.

 

[estesbob]

Well, maybe your sojourn wasn’t long enough to pick up on this.

First, subsequent to my ordination, my bishop provided me with a chart tracing the line of the laying on of hands all the way back to Peter. I know that no Catholic would recognize it to have conferred any authority, but I believe it does speak to the issue of whether or not we United Methodists would consider it “shared” history.

.

Did you notice that over 75% of those on the chart were CATHOLICS? That the sucession for the first 1,500 years was all contained in one Church? The problem is that the Methodist Church broke the sucession when they broke from the Church Jesus founded.

Their is no shared history per se in that the Mehtodist “church” has no histroy prior to the "reformation.