Protestant's own 2nd Vatican Council

[Gabriel_of_12]

Interesting I never considered the thought of such a council, this subject opens alot of different views.

I think if the Protestants were to invite leaders and representatives from all protestant denominations and evangelical non denominations into one council, It could never be the same as a Catholic Vatican council. The Vatican council consisted of the world wide body of bishops united to one head, in one faith, one lord in one baptism confirming what is already believed from scripture and the Apostolic Traditions to be revealed to new peoples and new tongues in a new age of literate, educated laity.

A protestant council with different christian traditions and belief’s may come away with another splinter group from their proceedings if? there is not one they all hold to one authority. The bible can’t be it, because they all would have different interpretations of placing one in authority. A synod of leaders could not work because they all have different practices of Christianity and a fair decision could never be reached.

Although if the agenda is agreeable to all, I percieve it as a possibility. We know protestants and non catholics are united in their seperation from the Pope and the Apostolic Catholic Church. Maybe if protestants counciled to review among themselves as one body inorder to accept or reject the CCC from Vatican II, may reveal some new outcomes. Well its a start from what unites them, and reviewing their ruling on CCC, would either bring them closer in unity to the Catholic Church, or remain in unity outside the Catholic Church?

I pray something along these lines will one day happen, Peace be with you

 

[mark_a]

Your right. However we are held to a higher standard. If we can’t do a good job evangilizing within the church how will we ever hope to evangilize out of the Church? My mission is to help catholics become better catholics. Problem is we have to many catholics who think and act like protestants. No offense guys..

I really think the answer to uniting the Catholic Church with our other christian brothers and sisters is to take a look at ourselves as catholics, admit our weaknesses and failings and do every thing we can to learn and live our faith as catholics as best we can, teaching our families and those in our parrishes how to live out their faith by our example. There is a reason why God does not like lukewarm christians, especially lukewarm catholics…

These are excellent thoughts I can apply to my own life.

 

[mark_a]

The bible can’t be it, because they all would have different interpretations of placing one in authority. A synod of leaders could not work because they all have different practices of Christianity and a fair decision could never be reached.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, not that such a council would appeal to Protestants anyway. So many of them have a devisive attitude with roots in the beginning of their denomination anyway.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

A different definition of unity exist. There is unity between the different denominations. Some Christian groups demand an overall authority figure, others don’t:shrug:

Depending on ones definition of unity one can argue that there is unity between Catholics and Protestants. And of course there is because we are, afterall, Christians.

My questions was to RD because I was curoius why he thought a Protestant gathering to work on unity would be a waste of time.

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

\To the OP: you are assuming that the differences that caused the Reformation (as it was later called) to happen in the first place, somehow have evaporated. That, unfortunately, is a mistaken notion.

Either you misunderstood the OP or I am misunderstanding you. The OP’s question is about Protestants gathering together in a sort of Vatican II council not about Protestants and Catholics gathering together therefore the differences with regards to the Reformation really don’t have anything to do with it. Or (and this is where I may be misunderstanding your position) are you saying that if the Protestants did get together that it would lead to the same types of issues that the Reformers found with Catholicism?

God bless

 

[Nicea325]

and just who would the one to call this council?

More important,who would lead it and make the final decisions?

 

[Nicea325]

Precisely. Not only that, a lot of Christian groups think that the “overall authority figure” is Jesus Christ Himself.

To the OP: you are assuming that the differences that caused the Reformation (as it was later called) to happen in the first place, somehow have evaporated. That, unfortunately, is a mistaken notion. (No, I don’t care to debate that. This site already has scores of threads treating the various aspects of that issue. I’m merely addressing your idea, and why I don’t think it’s feasible—even if your underlying desire for the “unity” is commendable.)

Well Jesus is the Head of His Church,but the problem is that many non-Catholic churches reject the belief of certain men (bishops) should be the authority. My reply:

Then why would Jesus even bother to choose to 12 men,if he did not want them to have successors?

 

[wisdomseeker]

More important,who would lead it and make the final decisions?

exactly. who? may they would run an election like the president.
i remember reading one time how protestants suggested that the pope should be elected by them voting. of course the CC said this is not even up for discussion. very good answer. they sure want to turn the Church in some kind of democracy in which people would vote to determine what should be true. of course they dont have the understanding of the Church found by Jesus. since they are the ones who build their own churches, they can run any way they want to.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am curious as to why you feel it would be a waste of time? Do you feel that ultimately nothing would get done? Or do you not wish unity with different denominations?

God bless you

Well, after we discussed salvation, women preachers, gay preachers, speaking in tongues, the role of tradition, the inerrancy of scripture, a literal resurrection, and other minor points…I believe we might have taken up the week’s agenda…
To be a little more serious, and I was before, I do not believe in denominations and I do not believe any of the fundamental Truths can be compromised. A Catholic and a Fundamentalist are on different planets…we just are…and we might agree on something more than we would a liberal Presbyterian!

 

[mark_a]

A Catholic and a Fundamentalist are on different planets…we just are…and we might agree on something more than we would a liberal Presbyterian!

I agree that we are on different faith theological planes.

Are we also on different moral theological planes?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I agree that we are on different faith theological planes.

Are we also on different moral theological planes?

Officially…no.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Well, after we discussed salvation, women preachers, gay preachers, speaking in tongues, the role of tradition, the inerrancy of scripture, a literal resurrection, and other minor points…I believe we might have taken up the week’s agenda…
To be a little more serious, and I was before, I do not believe in denominations and I do not believe any of the fundamental Truths can be compromised. A Catholic and a Fundamentalist are on different planets.…we just are…and we might agree on something more than we would a liberal Presbyterian!

Thanks RD, this thread though wasn’t about a council with Catholics and Protestants. Just a council of Protestants. Do you still think that a council of just protestants would be a waste of time?

God bless

 

[Rightlydivide]

Thanks RD, this thread though wasn’t about a council with Catholics and Protestants. Just a council of Protestants. Do you still think that a council of just protestants would be a waste of time?

God bless

Yes, I know, that is what I am talking about. My reference to a fundamentalist and a Catholic reflects that in some areas we would have more in common than a council of Protestants. Sorry for any lack of clarity on my part. All of the issues are what seperate people regardless of where they worship

 

[waxwing]

Well, after we discussed salvation, women preachers, gay preachers, speaking in tongues, the role of tradition, the inerrancy of scripture, a literal resurrection, and other minor points…I believe we might have taken up the week’s agenda…
To be a little more serious, and I was before, I do not believe in denominations and I do not believe any of the fundamental Truths can be compromised. A Catholic and a Fundamentalist are on different planets…we just are…and we might agree on something more than we would a liberal Presbyterian!

I’m a realist so I don’t think this council very likely either - if it were though it would last a lot longer than a week. The council would be made up entirely of Protestants though, with the main intent being a stronger and more stable Protestantism speaking with one voice, or maybe just less voice’s

If it were to happen in the end there would be the divide between Conservative, be it mainline or evangelical and Liberal Protestants. I thought the Solas, Faith, Scripture, etc were still commonly held Theologies held by Protestants and if so there would a foundation to build upon. I don’t think in this process Fundamental Truths can be compromised either which is why in the end you’d have at least two camps, Conservative and Liberal. Even if say the Conservative that is Theologically and/or on Social Issues can come out of this stronger with less splintering and more cohesiveness I don’t think thats necessarily a bad thing

 

[JonNC]

=waxwing;6830313]I’m a realist so I don’t think this council very likely either - if it were though it would last a lot longer than a week.

Would it last that long?

The council would be made up entirely of Protestants though, with the main intent being a stronger and more stable Protestantism speaking with one voice, or maybe just less voice’s

Better opportunities for this, I believe, are in bilateral dialogues.

If it were to happen in the end there would be the divide between Conservative, be it mainline or evangelical and Liberal Protestants. I thought the Solas, Faith, Scripture, etc were still commonly held Theologies held by Protestants and if so there would a foundation to build upon.

Not necessarily. The way a Lutheran approaches sola scriptura and sola fide can be, and often is, quite different than, say, American evangelicals. For example, the first symbols in the Lutheran Confessions are the three ecumenical creeds. This would be a non-starter for some, who are really solo-scripturist.

I don’t think in this process Fundamental Truths can be compromised either which is why in the end you’d have at least two camps, Conservative and Liberal. Even if say the Conservative that is Theologically and/or on Social Issues can come out of this stronger with less splintering and more cohesiveness I don’t think thats necessarily a bad thing.

There is a better chance of the two camps being sacramental on the one hand, and those opposed to the sacraments on the other. On social issues, like-minded individuals and groups usually work well together anyway.

Jon

 

[Izdaari]

Like herding cats, as has been observed. And there is no one we could all agree on as Protestant Pope. Probably a conservative evangelical who is tolerant and ecumenical, like Rick Warren, might be closest to universally acceptable among Protestants… but many reject him precisely because he is tolerant and ecumenical.

Personally, I’m somewhere in between Pentecostal, Anglican and Lutheran, and conservative on some issues and liberal on others. I probably have as much in common with Catholics and Orthodox as I do with Protestants, but neither will have me unless I buy their whole package, and I don’t think that’s ever going to happen.

That we are all Christians, and all part of the universal invisible church, is as much unity as we’re going to get anytime soon.

 

[waxwing]

Would it last that long?

Better opportunities for this, I believe, are in bilateral dialogues.

Not necessarily. The way a Lutheran approaches sola scriptura and sola fide can be, and often is, quite different than, say, American evangelicals. For example, the first symbols in the Lutheran Confessions are the three ecumenical creeds. This would be a non-starter for some, who are really solo-scripturist.

There is a better chance of the two camps being sacramental on the one hand, and those opposed to the sacraments on the other. On social issues, like-minded individuals and groups usually work well together anyway.

Jon

Would it last that long?..You just answered your questions with just a couple impediments following your questions…I’m sure there are many more objections, some serious some tivial. Yes it would take awhile.

The objective would be for a more unified, less splintered Protestantism thats why its comprised by Protestants. A time for dialague with Catholic would be for another time with perhaps a different objective. If my interpetation of your ‘bilateral dialogue’ was not refering to Catholic, I apoligize but if so see above.

I did say at lease two camps, I cannot see one denomination with say the ordination of homosexuals and/or sanctioning the marriage of gays and lesbiens working closely with another denomination which believe this is sinful thus the two camps. Yes I do sort of agree on the sacrament camp divisions as well…but maybe it just me I believe that division is one that could be bridged.

Are the creeds considered scriptural? If so I don’t see why this would be a problem.

On a side note this hypothitical council would be comprised on established, respected denominations - in other words those Churches that put their hands in a box full of rattlesnakes to prove faithfullness may miss the invite

 

[waxwing]

Would it last that long?..You just answered your questions with just a couple impediments following your questions…I’m sure there are many more objections, some serious some tivial. Yes it would take awhile.

The objective would be for a more unified, less splintered Protestantism thats why its comprised by Protestants. A time for dialague with Catholic would be for another time with perhaps a different objective. If my interpetation of your ‘bilateral dialogue’ was not refering to Catholic, I apoligize but if so see above.

I did say at lease two camps, I cannot see one denomination with say the ordination of homosexuals and/or sanctioning the marriage of gays and lesbiens working closely with another denomination which believe this is sinful thus the two camps. Yes I do sort of agree on the sacrament camp divisions as well…but maybe it just me I believe that division is one that could be bridged.

Are the creeds considered scriptural? If so I don’t see why this would be a problem.

On a side note this hypothitical council would be comprised on established, respected denominations - in other words those Churches that put their hands in a box full of rattlesnakes to prove faithfullness may miss the invite

Would it last that long?..You just answered your questions with just a couple impediments following your question…I’m sure there are many more objections, some serious some tivial. Yes it would take awhile.

The objective would be for a more unified, less splintered Protestantism thats why its comprised by Protestants. A time for dialague with Catholic would be for another time with perhaps a different objective. If my interpetation of your ‘bilateral dialogue’ was not refering to Catholic, I apoligize but if so see above.

I did say at least two camps, I cannot see one denomination with say the ordination of homosexuals and/or sanctioning the marriage of gays and lesbiens working closely with another denomination which believe this is sinful thus the two camps. Yes I do sort of agree on the sacrament camp divisions…but maybe it just me I believe that division is one that could be bridged.

Are the creeds considered scriptural? If so I don’t see why this would be a problem.

On a side note this council would be comprised by established, respected denominations - in other words those Churches that put their hands in a box full of rattlesnakes to prove faithfullness may miss the invite

 

[JonNC]

=waxwing;6830873]Would it last that long?..You just answered your questions with just a couple impediments following your question…I’m sure there are many more objections, some serious some tivial. Yes it would take awhile.

What I meant was it would probably break up before to long.

The objective would be for a more unified, less splintered Protestantism thats why its comprised by Protestants. A time for dialague with Catholic would be for another time with perhaps a different objective. If my interpetation of your ‘bilateral dialogue’ was not refering to Catholic, I apoligize but if so see above.

What I mean by bilateral is essentially what is going on today; Lutheran/Anglican , Catholic/Lutheran, etc. And I think it is safe to say that some of the most significant movement has been between Catholics and both Lutherans and Anglicans, as well as Orthodox.

I did say at least two camps, I cannot see one denomination with say the ordination of homosexuals and/or sanctioning the marriage of gays and lesbiens working closely with another denomination which believe this is sinful thus the two camps. Yes I do sort of agree on the sacrament camp divisions…but maybe it just me I believe that division is one that could be bridged.

Could the Catholic Church bridge the “sacrament gap” with those who do not acknowledge the salvific nature of Baptism? :nope: Neither could we.

Are the creeds considered scriptural? If so I don’t see why this would be a problem.

You’ll have to apporach those that reject creeds.

On a side note this council would be comprised by established, respected denominations - in other words those Churches that put their hands in a box full of rattlesnakes to prove faithfullness may miss the invite

Darn, I was looking forward to that.

It is really a neat idea, waxwing. I think, though, that there is a better chance of a council with Rome and Orthodoxy than a pan-Protestant one.

Jon

 

[Berean2]

Either you misunderstood the OP or I am misunderstanding you.

The former: I need to quit doing heavy-duty reading right before bedtime.

those Churches that put their hands in a box full of rattlesnakes to prove faithfullness may miss the invite

[SIGN] [/SIGN]