protestants. why are you the odd one out?

[Radical]

Which Synod?

Don’t know, their website is presently under construction…

If it was the Canadian version of the ELCA, they don’t require much of anything to participate with them. A pulse is usually sufficient.

Given the pace of their hymns, I am not sure that a pulse is even required

 

[TriuneUnity]

Given the pace of their hymns, I am not sure that a pulse is even required

LoL…reminds of the joke about the pastor who tells the congregation organist that he would like to introduce guitars and drums into worship and move it to contemporary and the organist says “You can have my organ when you pry it from my cold, dead church!”

 

[JRKH]

A good source…unless you ask, I won’t plague you with my reasons for thinking that it fails to validate Catholic claims.

I figured as much but since you feel that, as a protestant, you have the right to accept or reject things on an individual basis, it would hardly be worth my time to try and convince you otherwise. There are others on this board who are infinitely better qualified to take on that task.
I will say though that you have spurred an interest in me, at some future time, God willing,
to put together the verses/passages that point to the Catholic view.

The problem with your explanation is that the big barbeque doesn’t involve everyone…in fact it doesn’t involve anywhere near everyone. For example, Christians from the 5th century through to the 21st century (The Later Christians) were given no chance to offer an opinion at Nicea. Nevertheless, the Later Christians are supposedly forever bound by the decisions of the early councils…made with the prejudices of those ancient cultures.
It is virtually impossible for prideful men to avoid imposing “Top Down” rules, and I don’t think the Catholic Church has succeeded. In any event, what you have is “Time Down” rules…whatever has been declared previously cannot be undone or reviewed, only “developed” and although a development or two has managed something close a 180 degree switch, there is only so much hope one can have for “developments”. This “Time Down” situation results in the ECFs (being the top) and making Top Down rules for those who follow later in time.

And the problem with your explanation is that it makes a mockery out of Christ’s Promise to the Apostles to send the comfortor to lead them (and their successors) into “All Truth”. Yes we are bound by dogmatic decisions made by earlier councils. That is the nature of our belief that The Church is, as Christ Promised, being led by the Holy Spirit into All Truth. the fact that we are thus bound is not a negative thing, but rather a positive one. It provides a solid foundation and “trail of development” to build on for furture doctrinal issues like stem cell research and other things issues. It takes away the need to rehash the same issues every 30 to 50 to 100 years.
We can see the result of your method of everyone reevaluating everything in the many different denominations in existance today. We as Catholics believe in One God who Teaches One Truth through One Holy Spirit. We do not believe that the same One God can tell different groups diffirent “truths”, nor can God teach different Truthes at different times in History.
You evidently do not believe in a "Spirit Guided and protected Church teaching one Truth. You evidently believe that we should re-evaluate anything that becomes troublesome or inconveneint for “today’s” Church.
We do not.

Agreed and when one prayerfully considers the matter one should not take those verses in isolation and should note:

a) in verses 16-22 of that same chapter Jesus corrects a teaching of theirs wrt swearing…JRKH, do you really think that by verses 2 and 3 Christ expected his audience to continue to obey the teaching of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (in regard to swearing) and to disregard his own correction?

Consider the audience in these two places. In vs 2-3 He is talking to the “lay people” the average Jew. In vs 16-22 He is talking to the teachers themselves. That is a very big difference.

b) in Mark 2:23-3:3 Christ and his disciples did two unlawful things ( according to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees) by picking some heads of grain and by healing on the Sabbath. JRKH, do you really think that by Matt 23: 2 and 3 Christ expected his disciples to continue to obey the teaching of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (wrt the Sabbath) and disregard his own example?

Again - In these verses, Jesus is using the opportunity to try and reach the “Teachers”.

c) look at an apostle’s recognition of the respect due to a high priest (at Acts 23:5) and the apostles utter disobedience to the command of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees given at Acts 4:21-22. There is both recognition of authority and disregard for it.

By this time though it was too late for the Old Covenent Leadership. their outright rejection of Christ in His resurection had caused the kingdome to be taken away from them just as foretold by Jesus. The chair had now passed from Moses to the New fellow with the Keys - Peter.

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

I could give other examples, but the examples of Christ and of the apostles given in scripture do not support always obeying the command from Moses’s seat and never weighing the command to see if it is in error. Just as God in the body of Christ could correct and override an erroneous teaching from the chair of Moses, so too, God’s Spirit could correct and override an erroneous teaching from the chair of Peter (if such a chair existed). By and large we are to obey those in authority…but it is hardly an absolute.

I would modify your statement only to this extent. We should not obey “mindlessly”. However we should obey while at the same time educating ourselves as to why the Church teaches as she does. It has been my experience that when I don’t understand a teaching to the extent that it bothers me, and I begin looking into it, I always find good sound reasoning behind the teaching.

Unfortunately, with the Vatican’s present mindset, I doubt that the delegation would participate…for to do so would be to treat the Protestants as equals. The Catholic Church isn’t interested in a unity that results from a mutual recognition of equal standing before God. The Catholic Church is only interested in a unity that results from others recognizing the Catholic Church’s claim to a superior standing before God.

That is your opinion. The Church is currently in talks with the Orthodox, the Lutherans, and the Anglicans and the talks are all being conducted in mutual respect and Chrisitan Love.

As between Protestants, Protestant churches have already undone much of the divisions between them and have acheived a great amount of unity. In this small corner of the world, evangelical Protestants have largely realized that what matters is how one answers the question, “Who do you say Christ is?” and how one responds when one sees a neighbour lying injured beside the road. It has been understood that how one answers that question and how one responds to that situation should be exactly the same whether one is Calvinist or Arminian, whether one is a Charismatic or a cessationist, or whether one is a dispensationalist or an amillennialist etc. It is about circumcism of the heart and not about precise doctrine. You made a claim of Protestant “chaos”, but here conflict between Protestant denominations has largely disappeared and an attitude of liberty and charity with respect to non-essentials prevails. It is about what is essential for a circumcism of the heart and that realization makes a lot of stuff not so essential.

Well - When all of the protestants at your barbeque can agree to the same list of doctrinal beliefs and agree on what is essential and non-essential, AND when that list, formulated in your, “small corner of the world”, is agreed to by all the protestant denominations at all the barbeques, in ALL the small corners of the world, then you can bet the Catholic Church will be more than happy to enter into discussions with that “United” Protestant group. Just as she is already in discussions with the groups I mentioned above.

Of course such a “United” statement, by the time it got through all of the groups, would list probably one thing as agreed on as essential - Jesus is Lord. Everything else would be relegated to lesser status because of the chaos in Doctrinal beliefs among the groups.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I feel like the Vatican has dialogued with Lutherans in a decent and respectful manner.

I would be interested in knowing which Protestants you are speaking of. I know, my froend, what your position on th real presence is. That, to Lutherans, is a critical essential, as is a sacremental view of Baptism.
I don’t buy what James says about Protestant chaos, because that would presume that Protestant is/was a single Church. For me, Augsburg is, for the most part, essential.

Jon

Sorry Jon if I was not clear (not unusual for me I guess:shrug By Chaos I am refering to the fact that Protestantism is NOT a single church. Instead it split early on into different groups and has not really stopped splitting since then. And it all stems from the rejection of authority. This is less evident in the Lutherans and Anglicans and other “heirarchial” Churches but even in these we see splits.

Peace
James

 

[Radical]

And the problem with your explanation is that it makes a mockery out of Christ’s Promise to the Apostles to send the comfortor to lead them (and their successors) into “All Truth”.

To be precise it doesn’t make a mockery out of the promise, rather it denies your particular understanding of that promise…from this side of the fence the mockery is achieved by that disingenuous explanation that “God promised infallibility and not impeccability” so as to account for the existence of all sorts of gross sin.

You evidently do not believe in a "Spirit Guided and protected Church teaching one Truth.

sure I do…I just don’t believe that it enjoys a level of guidance that ensures infallibility

You evidently believe that we should re-evaluate anything that becomes troublesome or inconveneint for “today’s” Church.
We do not.

“troublesome” is not the criterion for re-evaluation. “Being not true to the original teaching” is the criterion.

Consider the audience in these two places. In vs 2-3 He is talking to the “lay people” the average Jew. In vs 16-22 He is talking to the teachers themselves. That is a very big difference.

The audience remained the same…first they heard the command wrt teaching and then they heard the correction wrt teaching…Tis like saying that: Jesus was talking to his disciples when he said that the little children should be brought to him. Therefore, the little children shouldn’t rely on that statement so as to approach Jesus on their own accord.

Again - In these verses, Jesus is using the opportunity to try and reach the “Teachers”.

really? Christ’s teaching has that selective an application and purpose in your mind?

 

[Radical]

That is your opinion. The Church is currently in talks with the Orthodox, the Lutherans, and the Anglicans and the talks are all being conducted in mutual respect and Chrisitan Love.

I am not saying that the CC can’t dialogue in mutual respect and Christian love. That is something that the CC has learnt to do sometime after the Reformation. Before then, not so much. What I am saying is that the CC has boxed itself into a corner. It claims that it can not make a mistake in its official teaching. It also claims that it is THE Church and that it is essential. As such, it can not compromise. The CC can not say any differing view is acceptable.

Well - When all of the protestants at your barbeque can agree to the same list of doctrinal beliefs and agree on what is essential and non-essential,…

Sorry, that list isn’t on the agenda…we have moved on to more important matters.

AND when that list, formulated in your, “small corner of the world”, is agreed to by all the protestant denominations at all the barbeques, in ALL the small corners of the world, then you can bet the Catholic Church will be more than happy to enter into discussions with that “United” Protestant group. Just as she is already in discussions with the groups I mentioned above.

You and I both know that those discussions won’t achieve unity unless the organizations on the other side of the table bow to Catholic claims or if the Catholics acknowledge the full equality of the other organizations.

Of course such a “United” statement, by the time it got through all of the groups, would list probably one thing as agreed on as essential - Jesus is Lord.

That is ridiculously inaccurate. We agree with Catholics on many, many things and with each other on even more.

 

[benidict]

hi radical. your responses are very helpful in understanding the protestant view point. and for that i am thankful. maybe you can answer a question for me. you state that protestants agree with Catholics on many many things. what things might those be? and you also state that you agree with eachother even more. how? if this is the case, how come there are so many fractures within protestantism? im a former baptist myself. and when i talk to my baptist friends about this, they have to admit its not a good thing. trust me, if the protestants were in agreement with Rome on so many things, i still may have been a baptist. Peace

 

[JRKH]

I am not saying that the CC can’t dialogue in mutual respect and Christian love. That is something that the CC has learnt to do sometime after the Reformation. Before then, not so much. What I am saying is that the CC has boxed itself into a corner. It claims that it can not make a mistake in its official teaching. It also claims that it is THE Church and that it is essential. As such, it can not compromise. The CC can not say any differing view is acceptable.

What you see as “boxed into a corner” we see as “firmly set in Truth”.

Sorry, that list isn’t on the agenda…we have moved on to more important matters.

You and I both know that those discussions won’t achieve unity unless the organizations on the other side of the table bow to Catholic claims or if the Catholics acknowledge the full equality of the other organizations.

Posted by James:
Of course such a “United” statement, by the time it got through all of the groups, would list probably one thing as agreed on as essential - Jesus is Lord.

That is ridiculously inaccurate. We agree with Catholics on many, many things and with each other on even more.

Now - Lets see. My statement is “ridiculously inaccurate” and ALL protestants (not just a majority but ALL) “agree with Catholics on many, many things and with each other on even more”

If this is true - universally now, and not just in your “small corner of the world”, please provide the lists.
First, the list of ALL the Protestant denominations you are representing as being in full communion with each other.
Second, the official and documented List of ALL of the doctrinal teachings these Protestant communites agree on - universally.
Third, the list of ALL the doctrinal teachings that they agree on that also agree with the official and documented teachings of the Catholic Church.
You may be brief, I wouldn’t expect that you provide detailed documentation. A brief listing/summary of each belief will do.
However, I do expect the listing of denominations to be more comprehensive.

I don’t ask the above in any snide way or condescending way. I will admit to these requests being a bit “tongue in cheek” since I really don’t think you can provide any kind of Documented, Unified listing of agreed on Doctrinal beliefs that will encompass ALL Protestant denominations. I will explain why…
Say 5 different and independant protestant groups get together and make a listing of All their doctrinal teachings. They find that they agree on 20 points as being “essential”.
This list is then submitted to 5 more independant protestant groups who agree on 17 of the 20 points but disagree with 3 either because they don’t see them as “essential” or because they firmly believe in a different view of the teaching (real presence or baptism of infants for example).
The revised list of 17 Essentials is submitted to 5 more independant protestant groups who agree with all but 2. Now the “Essential Agreements” list become 15 instead of 20.
Continue this for a while and the list is bound to get shorter. Not only that, but certain groups are going to have to either, renounce what they originally declared as “Essential”, or declare that the other groups who disagree with them on this essential truth are wrong.

I agree with benedict that your posts have been enlightening. I look forward to your response.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

Amen to that. The only ones who compromised in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was the, for lack of a better term, goofy Lutheran World Federation.

Funny thing is, Matthew, the traditionalist Catholics say that it was Rome sold the farm on the JDDJ. But I can’t deny that the LWF certainly contains some goofiness. :whacky:

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

Funny thing is, Matthew, the traditionalist Catholics say that it was Rome sold the farm on the JDDJ. But I can’t deny that the LWF certainly contains some goofiness. :whacky:

Jon

That’s true. However, the Catholic participants in the JDDJ, most notably Neuhaus, did state that they fully affirm everything in the canons on justification from the Council of Trent.

 

[JonNC]

That’s true. However, the Catholic participants in the JDDJ, most notably Neuhaus, did state that they fully affirm everything in the canons on justification from the Council of Trent.

Yes, and there are some who also say that the Trent condemnations do not apply to our expression of sola fide.

The jddj is not perfect, nor is it comprehensive. That is true. And it is even true that (some) the Lutheran participants are, at times, suspect in there confessional adherence.
Admitting all of that, I still think the document is a striking breakthrough, and there is much in it I find sound.

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

Yes, and there are some who also say that the Trent condemnations do not apply to our expression of sola fide.

While Rome may say that the anathema’s do not apply to modern Protestants, only to the Reformers themselves, I do not think Rome would maintain that its stance toward justification as Lutherans adhere to it, is not applicable. Trent misunderstood the Reformers on a couple of points, but they knew exactly what the Lutherans believed on justification.

 

[JonNC]

While Rome may say that the anathema’s do not apply to modern Protestants, only to the Reformers themselves, I do not think Rome would maintain that its stance toward justification as Lutherans adhere to it, is not applicable. Trent misunderstood the Reformers on a couple of points, but they knew exactly what the Lutherans believed on justification.

Have you read the article on here by James Akin about this issue? It’s an interesting read, even though I know that he doesn’t speak for Rome.

Jon

PS: I think Rome *would * say the anathemas apply to Calvinists, etc.

 

[Radical]

Hi benidict

maybe you can answer a question for me. you state that protestants agree with Catholics on many many things. what things might those be?

Here are two snippets from a typical statement of belief from a local evangelical church (probably the biggest in town):

Re: Jesus Christ

We believe in Jesus Christ, who is truly God and truly man and in whom the divine and human natures are inseparably united. He is the eternal Son of God who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary as Jesus of Nazareth. He came to reveal God to people and announce the coming of God’s Kingdom. Having lived a sinless life of perfect obedience to the Father, He died on the cross to pay the penalty for people’s sin, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. In doing so, He provided the only way for people to be rescued from sin and to experience forgiveness and fullness of life, both now and for eternity. He is the only Mediator between people and God.

Re: People

All people are created in the image of God, being like Him in character, and are made for truthful and loving relationship with Him and one another. People are the supreme object of God’s creation and the ones to whom He has given the stewardship of all He has made. All people are marred by a sinful nature which is expressed as an attitude of self-centeredness and disobedience toward the will of God. Sin creates a barrier between people and God and causes much destructiveness and pain in the world, and so reveals people’s desperate need for God and inability to change and become all that God originally created them to be. God love’s all people and has made provision for their restoration.

You can look at the full statement here

I would expect that upon your review of those beliefs you would note that there is much with which you can fully agree. For example one sentence reads: * “He died on the cross to pay the penalty for people’s sin, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven” * I would count that as 4 things with which a Catholic could agree. Right? Out of curiosity, what percentage of the above two quotes could you agree with?

…and you also state that you agree with each other even more. how?

well, add to the beliefs that we share with Catholics, the idea of Scripture being the final authority etc.

…if this is the case, how come there are so many fractures within protestantism?

stupidity, pride, immaturity…all the same reasons that we see unfortunate deeds and words coming from officials from the CC. I do believe that evangelical Protestants have made great strides in putting aside their differences and unifying spiritually.

 

[benidict]

Hi benidict Here are two snippets from a typical statement of belief from a local evangelical church (probably the biggest in town):

Re: Jesus Christ

We believe in Jesus Christ, who is truly God and truly man and in whom the divine and human natures are inseparably united. He is the eternal Son of God who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary as Jesus of Nazareth. He came to reveal God to people and announce the coming of God’s Kingdom. Having lived a sinless life of perfect obedience to the Father, He died on the cross to pay the penalty for people’s sin, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. In doing so, He provided the only way for people to be rescued from sin and to experience forgiveness and fullness of life, both now and for eternity. He is the only Mediator between people and God.

Re: People

All people are created in the image of God, being like Him in character, and are made for truthful and loving relationship with Him and one another. People are the supreme object of God’s creation and the ones to whom He has given the stewardship of all He has made. All people are marred by a sinful nature which is expressed as an attitude of self-centeredness and disobedience toward the will of God. Sin creates a barrier between people and God and causes much destructiveness and pain in the world, and so reveals people’s desperate need for God and inability to change and become all that God originally created them to be. God love’s all people and has made provision for their restoration.

You can look at the full statement here

I would expect that upon your review of those beliefs you would note that there is much with which you can fully agree. For example one sentence reads: * “He died on the cross to pay the penalty for people’s sin, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven” * I would count that as 4 things with which a Catholic could agree. Right? Out of curiosity, what percentage of the above two quotes could you agree with?

well, add to the beliefs that we share with Catholics, the idea of Scripture being the final authority etc.

stupidity, pride, immaturity…all the same reasons that we see unfortunate deeds and words coming from officials from the CC. I do believe that evangelical Protestants have made great strides in putting aside their differences and unifying spiritually.

hi radical, thank you for your response. many of those issues we would agree with. but, when it says born of the Virgin Mary, what does that mean to you? also we have somewhat of a differing view in interpretation with this statement. on the surface, id say you were right. we agree. but its when we did further down, it get very complex. as far evangelical protestants putting aside their differences, i just got denied entrance onto a fundamentalist forum because i wont lie and claim a non Catholic affiliation. but reviewing the postings, was an eye opening experience. they were eating eachother alive! i can send you the forum pm if you like. i wont lump you into the fundamentalist catagory tho. you have to much intelligence. but even if the evangelicals, come to some sort of concensus, they are still a long long way off from reconciling with the rest of their protestant bretheren. you are right, it is sad. as always, your comments are always enlightning and help me better understand your side. Peace

 

[Radical]

hi radical, thank you for your response. many of those issues we would agree with. but, when it says born of the Virgin Mary, what does that mean to you?

Mary was a virgin when she conceived and before she gave birth

…as far evangelical protestants putting aside their differences, i just got denied entrance onto a fundamentalist forum because i wont lie and claim a non Catholic affiliation.

keep in mind that I am speaking of evangelicals and not fundamentalists (or liberals for that matter) Here (I believe) the liberals are losing members fast b/c they don’t stand for much anything and the fundamentalists are hard pressed to keep their numbers

Peace

 

[benidict]

Mary was a virgin when she conceived and before she gave birth

keep in mind that I am speaking of evangelicals and not fundamentalists (or liberals for that matter) Here (I believe) the liberals are losing members fast b/c they don’t stand for much anything and the fundamentalists are hard pressed to keep their numbers

Peace

yep, that would be one difference it is doubtful we could ever reconcile. the immaculate conception, and the perpetual virginity of Mary. but i believe your rightl, the liberals and fundamentalist are really 2 sides of the same coin. we have the same thing in Catholocism. we have the ultra right wing, and the ultra left. both leave me more than unimpressed. but… they are still Catholic, and members of the one universal Church. Peace

 

[Radical]

What you see as “boxed into a corner” we see as “firmly set in Truth”.

understood

Now - Lets see. My statement is “ridiculously inaccurate” and ALL protestants (not just a majority but ALL) “agree with Catholics on many, many things and with each other on even more”

If this is true - universally now, and not just in your “small corner of the world”, please provide the lists.

I suspect that we have been talking past each other to a degree. I specified to Jon that I was talking about evangelical Protestants and not all Protestants. Please see my response to Benidict and see if that clarifies everything…you are right that there is no hope for full agreement amongst all Protestants, the liberal group, for example would not necessarily agree that Jesus is Lord.

First, the list of ALL the Protestant denominations you are representing as being in full communion with each other.

if you go to the websites of various evangelical churches you will note little difference in their statement of beliefs…and often what differences do exist don’t come into play (ie pacificism) or are viewed as non-essential (ie eschatology).

Third, the list of ALL the doctrinal teachings that they agree on that also agree with the official and documented teachings of the Catholic Church.

Check out the link I gave Benidict…I trust you can agree with a good percentage of what is stated

I don’t ask the above in any snide way or condescending way. I will admit to these requests being a bit “tongue in cheek” since I really don’t think you can provide any kind of Documented, Unified listing of agreed on Doctrinal beliefs that will encompass ALL Protestant denominations. I will explain why…
Say 5 different and independant protestant groups get together and make a listing of All their doctrinal teachings. They find that they agree on 20 points as being “essential”.
This list is then submitted to 5 more independant protestant groups who agree on 17 of the 20 points but disagree with 3 either because they don’t see them as “essential” or because they firmly believe in a different view of the teaching (real presence or baptism of infants for example).
The revised list of 17 Essentials is submitted to 5 more independant protestant groups who agree with all but 2. Now the “Essential Agreements” list become 15 instead of 20.
Continue this for a while and the list is bound to get shorter. Not only that, but certain groups are going to have to either, renounce what they originally declared as “Essential”, or declare that the other groups who disagree with them on this essential truth are wrong.

You are approaching from the wrong angle…You should start with something like the Apostles’ or Nicaean Creed and see how many are prepared to sign on…I don’t know an evangelical church that doesn’t endorse both. (though “catholic” is often translated “universal” to avoid the sour taste in one’s mouth )…it would be a much more efficient approach.

Peace

 

[JRKH]

I suspect that we have been talking past each other to a degree. I specified to Jon that I was talking about evangelical Protestants and not all Protestants. Please see my response to Benidict and see if that clarifies everything…

I suspected that this would be the case, but I wanted you to see it and bring it to me. Yes, your statement to Benedict does clear up some things.

you are right that there is no hope for full agreement amongst all Protestants, the liberal group, for example would not necessarily agree that Jesus is Lord.

So now perhaps you will understand my point about the ever expanding “barbeque” and also the diminishing list of “essentials” that are agreed on.

if you go to the websites of various evangelical churches you will note little difference in their statement of beliefs…and often what differences do exist don’t come into play (ie pacificism) or are viewed as non-essential (ie eschatology).

Check out the link I gave Benidict…I trust you can agree with a good percentage of what is stated

I have no doubt about this. This is why the Catholic Church recognizes that many other ecclesial communities are used by God for salvation. From the Catachism:
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

You are approaching from the wrong angle…You should start with something like the Apostles’ or Nicaean Creed and see how many are prepared to sign on…I don’t know an evangelical church that doesn’t endorse both. (though “catholic” is often translated “universal” to avoid the sour taste in one’s mouth )…it would be a much more efficient approach.

Yes, and the church does take that approach. Those who belong to other Christian ecclesial communities are to be regarded as brothers by Catholics.
From the Catachism
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

• but can we stop there? No. At least not if we wish to fulfill Christ’s desire and prayer for us:
  “that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John17:21)
  This desire is why the Catholic Church, messy as she is sometimes, works hard and prayerfully at doctrinal issues until a resolution is found and a single teaching developed that is in keeping with the Will of God. This unified teaching is then promulgated “universally” (catholic-ly) and accepted universally by the faithful. Those who still harbor reservations about the teaching accept it as the Will of God in His Church at large. They submit their “fallible” opinion to that of the “Church in council” (whether formal or informal) for the sake of Christian unity, for which Christ prayed in John.

This is something that I hope you understand - When the Church is struggling with a teaching, whether it is formulating a new one, or trying to clarify an existing one or whatever, the prayer of the faithful, whether they be Cardinal or Layman, is always that The Church get the teaching right to the Will of God, and not that the Church “agree with me”.
Not that there are not prideful men in the Church, but the bigger hope and desire is that the decisions be right, not convient or “popular”.
Consider if you will the number of decisions in the Church that would have been different if they were determined by “popular vote”. Ye the Church does not look at “popularity” but rather the Will of God as dicerned through all that He has revealed to His people The Church in the last - what - 3500 years or so -

I think that this is the essential difference between the Catholic Church and the Prtoestant Churches as a whole. Catholic Church members consider “Unity in Christ” as a paramount goal. For this reason we will argue and thrash out issues, even over years and decades, rather than split up. Protestant, in general, have demonstrated that they will choose schism much more easily than Catholics will. Unity, complete unity as Christ prayed for, is not as high on their list.

Perhaps, as some have said, this is changing and more protestants are seeing the differences as bad. This is a good thing. Perhaps the future will see more “reunifications” and perhaps, eventually, Christ’s Church will become fully healed.
Something to pray for.

Peace

And Peace to you as well

James