G
- Status
K
Knowtheledge
Guest
Hello, happilycatholic.
You make it sound like different denominations are all different religions. Now, I did say that some of the splits are ridiculous and unchristian. For example, Islam and Mormonism both claim to be the true religion of the God of Abraham. But I certainly don’t think they’re correct. But I don’t think all denominations are worshiping different Gods. But if people make an unbiblical “’version’ of Chrisianity”, then, yes, I think that is wrong.
Well, yes, like I said there are ridiculous denominations (or maybe I should say cults). And, hopefully, all true Christians agree on divorce and abortion. Yes, I guess most denominations disagree a good bit. But I don’t think some Catholics understand how much some of them agree. At least from my experience it seems that way. For most of my childhood I went to a different denomination than the church I attend now. And I really can’t see any difference, except that my church now is a bit louder and focused on conversion than my old church.
Is that really that bad? Romans 14:5-6, Colossians 2:14-17.
I can certainly see what you mean. I agree that people shouldn’t switch churches just because they feel like it. Yes, it would be great if we were all one denomination(unless it was the wrong one, heh heh). But I don’t think any two people fully agree on everything. Even Israel was pretty divided. Now, like I said, if a denomination is unbiblical and unchristlike, then that is bad. But, if they believe in one body and one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all,(Eph. 4:4-6) then do you think they aren’t Christians? Although that chapter did also say to “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”
B
Bookworm88
Guest
What about Mark 9:38-41?
38 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is on our side. 41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.
This certainly seems to speak of some individuals who were trusting in Christ but who were not following the apostles. But my supposition does not even have to do with the true church being started by individuals such as these rather than by the apostles. My supposition would assert that the concept of Peter being a Pope arose in a later century (or perhaps even just decades) than when the apostles were alive, and the Catholic denomination at that time would then falsely assert that Peter was the first “Pope”.
I didn’t say that the true church was identified by the persecution. I was saying that the people who comprised God’s one true church were all believers on earth who believed in Christ, no matter what denomination they belonged too. Even some Catholics would belong to God’s true universal church even if the Catholic denomination that they had joined with was teaching false interpretations. So would some Baptists and Lutherans and others. Some denominations would teach the entire Bible better than others, so one would have to look to the Scriptures to see whether a denomination was teaching falsehood or not.
Also, I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church had dissenters at various times before the 16th century. The Catholics just weren’t able to nip it in the bud at the time of Luther as they had been able to do previously.
This “imperfection among human beings” is my point precisely. The Catholic Church seems to deny that, however, by it’s teaching that the Pope has infallibility. By teaching the Pope’s infallibility they can thus deny that any errors could possibly creep into their denomination. Thus they establish their own authority by a false sort of circular reasoning. At least that’s my take on it.
Actually, I’m of the opinion that if Rome could settle the authority issue (by this I mean the role of the papacy) with the East, movement toward reconciliation between some protestant communions and a then-reunited East and Rome would accelerate. For example, in the Book of Concord, The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope:
I think your off the ledge.
I think there is a better chance for Lutherans and Anglicans to reconcile with Rome independently, than for either to necessarily reconcile with, for example Baptists. If nothing else, the differences on the sacraments are too profound.I agree.
You are right. Not everyone would be content. You could even see divisions within Lutheranism at any kind of agreement. But it certainly would be a start.
I enjoyed it. His peace also be with you,
Jon
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
The authority of the Church was not established by the Church, it was established by Jesus. There is no claim that the Pope is or will be a perfect man, he sins and goes to confession just like the rest of us (albeit far more frequently than most of us!
) Everyone is imperfect which is why the sacrament of reconciliation is such a gift.The infallibility of the Pope pertains only to spiritual matters by which Jesus has promised he will be guided by the Holy Spirit. It is not a form of circular reasoning, it is entirely logical that Jesus would protect His Church in this way, as He promised to do.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
And also with you.
Yes, I mean the universal church, and our respective communions have discussed this issue here: usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
But I agree with you that is it also a wound against God, and I too believe that, in spite of our sin of separation and schism, the gates of Hell cannot prevail against His Church.
It is important to understand that SS only applies to the post-apostolic era.
This is the one that I can’t wrap my mind around. I do understand it is post-apostolic, but how is that? Why not while Christ himself was walking the earth and teaching God’s Word? Why was it never said from the moment we are introduced to Scripture, that Scripture is all there is to God’s will for us? Why would God leave something so important to interpretation? There had to be some solid Traditions that were meant to be passed down to us from Holy men such as the Apostles.
Please don’t get angry with me. I’m not the smartest person, but I truly believe that SS was used as a tool to break people away from the Church. Not the only tool, but nontheless a tool. You have to admit, the timing is a little more than telling.
Goodness, I’ve never thought of this as manipulation. I’ve never thought of the reformers in that way. When one reads the Augsburg Confession, the idea comes across that they were trying hard not to divide, not to manipulate. Perhaps you can expand your thinking on this for me.
Take this definition of SS:
Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God.
**This sounds like a direct slant against papal primasy. **
If I limit you, then the chances are I can control you better. And I’m also not saying that manipulation was particularly bad in this instance, just outside the Church’s teaching. Afterall, it was a Christian based ideal and not necessarily bad, except that…wait for it…it took people away from the Church. Hence manipulation.
**I would think one would be concerned with the division of what they are trying to bring together. The question is, who were they trying to bring together? Those in the Church or those outside the Church? Obviously if you have a profession of faith that is outside Church doctrine, you are not trying to bring the Church community together, you are trying to bring your own community of believers together. **
So, do you believe that the issue at the reformation was more Luther than sola fide? Do you think that fits what I’ve said about Augsburg?
**I hate to say it, but yes. For better or worse, Luther divided the Church. Do we rely on prayer and ride out the hard times or do we cut and run and form our own unions? Luther had vaild concerns, but it was a marriage. There is a reason the Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ. We are not supposed to set asunder that marriage. Like in our own marriages, we are called to bear the storm and pray and fast and deal with it. **
One last thing that maybe you can explain to me? How do you reconcile so many different denominations with Sola Scriptura? That is what my OP is about. If we are to believe that the sum of our faith is in Scripture and those doctrines not found in Scripture are not to be held in the same regard as Scripture, then how do you reconcile the non-committal practice of Protestantism? That is based somehow on Sola Scriptura? If I get tired of being a Methodist because they are too much like catholics I can just go be a Baptist and if I don’t believe in Sunday worship anymore I can go be an SDA.
Where is that practice found in the Scriptures? Where does it say that Paul told the Corinthians or any other community that when they don’t like something they can go form a new church? They are actually told to take it to “the” Church. And he may have meant the local body of believers but it never gives recourse outside of “the church” so my guess is that there was one body with one set of doctrines for dealing with such matters who could decide their problems for them and that decision was final. This is an honest question I have yet to get any kind of answer to. Seriously. No insult or dig intended. I just really have a deep concern in my heart about that.
I’ve written this quickly so I hope it makes sense and doesn’t offend. Gotta go wash my car before it actually turns into dirt.
Peace,
HC
The feelings are mutual, and indeed you have. I share your prayers.
Jon
O
orange_man
Guest
the authority of the church was established by Christ … but Christ never gave an exclusive provision to Rome as the supreme governing center of the church. Moreover, the idea that the faithful need further reconciliation (or that sin can divide us from the love of God) seems specifically rebuked by Paul in many of his epistles (i.e. Rom. 7 & 8). This is a topic Luther dealt with quite well.The authority of the Church was not established by the Church, it was established by Jesus. There is no claim that the Pope is or will be a perfect man, he sins and goes to confession just like the rest of us (albeit far more frequently than most of us!
Angry with you? Why?
SS is post-apostolic because there was no need during the time of the apostles or their immediate followers. As time goes along, though, the need for written scripture is critical. In the same way, early councils felt the need to meet and write down the teachings of the church, to defend against misunderstanding or heresy. Why do you (or I) have a Catechism? So the faith is taught rightly.
Remember, they sincerely believed it was not outside the doctrine of the Church.
They believed that they were trying to correct errors that had been allowed to be taught, contrary to the ECF’s and councils. It was not an effort to divide, but to unite. If Luther is to be blamed for separating, it must be remembered that Pope Leo X sent him out, instead of listening to what he had to say. Blame goes both ways.
Luther did not act alone, Leo helped. But more importantly, without the selling of indulgences and other abuses (and some other historical events), Luther is just some forgotten German monk. And btw, I believe that Luther and Leo divided the church, not for better but for worse.
Ouch!! SDA?? I don’t reconcile so many denominations. As I said earlier, our separation is a wound to Christ’s Church and minstry. Of course, I could leave Lutheranism for the Catholic Church because I think Lutheranism is not Catholic enough. Is that the same thing? And is that related to SS?
No offense taken. btw, got time to do my car?
Jon
J
JRKH
Guest
The above quote is handy to demonstrate inclusion however there are other quotes that are not so “inclusive” Note Matthew 12:30:
"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
Also Matthew 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to Me,
Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’I’m not saying that these prove the Catholic view, but only that it isn’t as clear cut as your quote from Mark makes it seem. Especially in light of the fact that the Mark quote refers to casting out demons and so does Matthew 7:22
In addition there is the “Tell it to the Church” statement in Matthew 18:17
17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector.
Note that this is saying to take it to the Church AFTER discussing it amond several believers. Thus is Jesus declaring that His Church will have authority on Earth - and we are expected to conform to what the Church teaches.
But if you assert this occuring so early in the Church and the teaching being false then you necessarily call into question the validity of ALL of the teaching of the Church AND subsequently the ENTIRE canon of the Bible. I do not mean to be shouting, but rather making a firm point here.
If one surmises that the Church got the oral teachings wrong and established a false authority, then every subsequent decision becomes suspect - And that includes the canon of scripture.
Now - While I am aware that a protestant response is that we could trust God to Protect His Word, that argument does not hold up when one considers that God’s Word is not something but someone - Jesus Christ - And He entrusted His teaching to men whom He taught orally and upon whom He founded, not a book, but a Church. These then also taught orally. Only later were many of the teachings written down primarily to preserve and protect the ORAL teachings of the Apostles
So then before the canonization of the Bible-
Were those who taught orally guided and protected by the Holy Spirit?
Were those who wrote the various letters and books protected by the Holy Spirit?
Were those who taught orally from texts protected by the Holy Spirit?
If they were not then the canon cannot be trusted. Because these same people (Bishops) assembled the canon.
On the other hand, if they were protected then, not only can the canon be trusted, but also the teachings of the Church that assembled the canon.
(cont)
J
JRKH
Guest
(from above)
As to your assertion about looking to the scriptures to determine if a denomination is teaching falshood, how would you determine that other than by personal interpretation which could just as likely be “false”.
In my estimation, if one is really serious about looking for the truth, one needs to ask the question, “How can so many different denominations have different theologies from the same Holy Spirit?”
Then one must answer the question of authority. Where did the Bible canon come from? Who has the Authority to make the final determination of what is right or wrong in interpreting scripture etc.? When did various denominations start and why? Are the reasons they started still valid?
Secondly I would ask why you think Papal infallibility is wrong when you are perfectly content with personal infallibility. I don’t mean to be rude or condescending here, but you reject the Church’s Authority to teach the Gospel handed down for 2 millenia while a the same time being perfectly content to personally interpret (correctly in your own mind) a book you recieved through the graces and good offices of the Church that you deny.
Above you had made the supposition about the Church falsely claiming Peter the first Pope. OK - Let’s make a more likely supposition -
That is that Jesus Actually DID create a Church which He intended to have temproral Authority. He did this because He knew He wouldn’t be back in the lifetimes of the Apostles. Therefore He Inspired and Protected the Teachers, Bishops, and others in authority over the various congregations who then passed on these Holy and Sacred Traditions on to the next generation.
These Inspired and Protected individuals wrote and communicated with each other about various problems and doctrinal questions that arose. They were also guided by the spirit to look to the Bishop of Rome as the final Authority on sticky questions. The Bishop in Rome, also protected by the Holy Spirit, is careful not to make any rash or radical decisions but rather communicates with the other Bishops and Prays fervently for guidance. Thereby protecting the core deposit of faith for future generations.
As the centuries pass, and the Church gains acceptance in the Roman Empire, it is decided to compile the most realiable of the early Church writings into a single volume to provide a touchstone for all of the Bishops (what today we call the magisterium) to use in guiding their teaching. After this, the Church continues to teach orally, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, but now using the Bible in addition to Sacred tradition.
Of course this supposes that Christ Protects His Word - That is, Protects Himself and His message which He gave to His Church.
Peace
James
Actually the Catholic Church teaches that anyone baptized in the name of the trinity has obtained a valid baptism and is, therefore, a member of the one church. So in that sense most of us already are in the same christian church, and members of Christ’s one body.
As to your assertion about looking to the scriptures to determine if a denomination is teaching falshood, how would you determine that other than by personal interpretation which could just as likely be “false”.
In my estimation, if one is really serious about looking for the truth, one needs to ask the question, “How can so many different denominations have different theologies from the same Holy Spirit?”
Then one must answer the question of authority. Where did the Bible canon come from? Who has the Authority to make the final determination of what is right or wrong in interpreting scripture etc.? When did various denominations start and why? Are the reasons they started still valid?
You are absolutely right. The Church did and still does have dissenters. Mostly she is able to keep the issues within the Church. One of the issues with the “Reformation” era, was that it became a political tool among the various rulers in Europe. It is my belief that if it had not become politicized, if it had remained purely a church issue it would have resolved itself long ago.
First of all I hope you understand that Papal Infallibility is very limited.
Secondly I would ask why you think Papal infallibility is wrong when you are perfectly content with personal infallibility. I don’t mean to be rude or condescending here, but you reject the Church’s Authority to teach the Gospel handed down for 2 millenia while a the same time being perfectly content to personally interpret (correctly in your own mind) a book you recieved through the graces and good offices of the Church that you deny.
Above you had made the supposition about the Church falsely claiming Peter the first Pope. OK - Let’s make a more likely supposition -
That is that Jesus Actually DID create a Church which He intended to have temproral Authority. He did this because He knew He wouldn’t be back in the lifetimes of the Apostles. Therefore He Inspired and Protected the Teachers, Bishops, and others in authority over the various congregations who then passed on these Holy and Sacred Traditions on to the next generation.
These Inspired and Protected individuals wrote and communicated with each other about various problems and doctrinal questions that arose. They were also guided by the spirit to look to the Bishop of Rome as the final Authority on sticky questions. The Bishop in Rome, also protected by the Holy Spirit, is careful not to make any rash or radical decisions but rather communicates with the other Bishops and Prays fervently for guidance. Thereby protecting the core deposit of faith for future generations.
As the centuries pass, and the Church gains acceptance in the Roman Empire, it is decided to compile the most realiable of the early Church writings into a single volume to provide a touchstone for all of the Bishops (what today we call the magisterium) to use in guiding their teaching. After this, the Church continues to teach orally, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, but now using the Bible in addition to Sacred tradition.
Of course this supposes that Christ Protects His Word - That is, Protects Himself and His message which He gave to His Church.
Peace
James
H
happilycatholic
Guest
I personally think only God in His infinite wisdom can bring us altogether again!
What I really want to know is have we made this mess or is it supposed to be this way?Division among religions baffles me.
HC
H
happilycatholic
Guest
I don’t recall ever having read that the Church would never make a mistake. I don’t recall ever having read that the Pope was excluded from sin or error in daily matters. The Pope only enjoys infallibility in matters of faith and morals and ONLY when he speaks ex cathedra. The Church enjoys infallibility on matters of faith and morals. That does not mean that the Pope or the Church will not socially blunder or that individuals will not sin, it only means that you can place your salvation in the hands of the Pope and the Church and they will teach you correctly on matters of faith and morals. They may not always practice what they preach (sins of individuals) but they will teach you correctly.
I find that rather comforting.
HC
H
happilycatholic
Guest
I just want to thank everyone who has posted here for being so charitable, especially during Lent!
I knew it could be done.
We may be taking different paths, but we will all end up in God’s arms as long as we practice the two most important commandments:
The Bible, Mark chapter 12 verses 28-31
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” Jesus answered, “is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”
God is great!
HC
I knew it could be done.
We may be taking different paths, but we will all end up in God’s arms as long as we practice the two most important commandments:
The Bible, Mark chapter 12 verses 28-31
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” Jesus answered, “is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”
God is great!
HC
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Happily, of course this is just my opinion, but I’m very confident that WE made this mess, that it is not SUPPOSED to be this way. Jesus founded one church, not thousands or tens of thousands, and said that it would stand forever, and it has done so, despite assaults from inside and outside the church.I personally think only God in His infinite wisdom can bring us altogether again!
Division among religions baffles me.
HC
I also believe you are correct in believing that only God can achieve reconciliation. But He also gave us free will and all the disparate groups involved can and will make their own choice.
R
rchapm77
Guest
I am an evangelical protestant, there is nothing in scripture that says the church should be divided. Though I don’t worship the same as catholics, I don’t see myself as being part of a seperate church. I believe there is only one church, though we don’t always agree. These divisions are just titles we give ourselves; baptist, free evangelicals, and catholics. But one church, One God and Father.
J
JRKH
Guest
And yet it is
If you are baptized in the trinitarian form then you are indeed part of the universal church militant, but still you are seperated from the fullness of Faith in the Church and seperated from Christ’s Holy Eucharist by choosing to remain outside of His Holy Catholic Church.
So you see these divisions as not offensive to God?? How can that be??
How do you see these divisions and disagreements on such fundamentals as the Real Presence, fitting with Christ’s prayer that we be one as He and the Father are one?
How do such disagreements square with St Pauls exhortation that the Brethren be “of One Mind”?
Peace
James
R
rchapm77
Guest
I don’t see these divisions as being offensive to God because I hope that both protesants and catholics can experience the unity that Christ prayed for even though there are disagreements between catholism and protestants. Though I don’t accept the doctrine of Real Presence, I still respect the chatholic who does, and desire fellowship and unity with that person.
As for St Pauls exhortation that we be “of One Mind”, I don’t think thats going to be an all or nothing experience. Though it would be wonderful to achieve that, I think instead it will be a question of to what degree will we be of One mind. For the most part protestants are in total agreement with the chatholic church on all most all of the apostles creed.
I don’t mean to belittle the differances and divisions, and I will give more thought to how God views these things. I have to admit I just assumed He saw us as one inspite of signifigantly differing beliefs.
yours in Christ
reggie
J
JRKH
Guest
First of all I would like to thank you for your kind response. It is most loving and Christian in heart and I am glad that you will give more thought to this issue.
I note that you address St Paul’s exhortations but you did not mention Jesus prayer From John 17:
20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. **22 "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. **
This prayer of Jesus is so pregnant with the desire for the unity, not of a loose confederation of individual groups, but of a body so singular and strong as to constitute a single person. I cannot even try to express His desire any better than Christ Himself did.
As an aside, You might be interested to know that the person who is considered the father of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, did believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is one of the Greatest Gifts given to us from our Dear Lord. I cannot think but that he is offended when people reject that gift by denying He is really there.
Just somethings to consider. I look forward to corrosponding with you further.
Peace
James
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I personally don’t think Luther left the Church out of malice and a desire to split Christ in two. I don’t look at him with the “cut and run” outlook. But what I don’t like about Luther’s approach, aside from his really hardcore anti-semitism, was his contention on one hand that the Papacy and Rome had departed from the ECF’s and yet on the other hand Luther’s own departure from the ECF’s was even greater?
Where in the ECF’s was it stated that there is a priesthood of all believers clergy-wise? Luther professed that all Christians are priests and, if approved by the congregation, anyone can celebrate the Eucharist. He taught that there is no difference between lay folks and clergy. That’s far from what the ECF’s taught, especially Ignatius and Polycarp!
Luther’s consubstantiation theory isn’t really in line with the ECF’s either to my knowledge.
Luther’s belief that only Scripture can provide the truth and solutions theologically and that apostolic succession isn’t necessary, those aren’t ECF ideals either. He taught that wherever the Scriptures are being taught, preached rightly, and wherever folks hold the truths of the Church, there is a Church, no succession necessary. That most definitely strays far from Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, and company.
Sola scriptura and sola gratia, etc. are not in line with the ECF’s.
I understand Luther’s disgust with indulgences. Honestly, as a Catholic, I have a problem with the notion (perhaps that makes me a bad Catholic!). Luther was also repulsed by the lax clerical disciplines of his time, the corruption, the lack of a really Biblically-learned clergy, a lack of good preaching, and a heavy emphasis on personal works and holiness at the expense of grace and a loving God.
I think Luther was sincere and villifying him is a waste of time.
But as far as all churches coming back into unity as ONE Church again, that’s mostly going to happen thanks to sin, IMO. Many Episcopalians, at least the conservative ones, are coming to Rome in droves as they watch that denomination melt down into a malaise of sin and openness to the world embracing divorce, abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ gay clergy, and saying things like “Jesus is not THE way, but A way to the truth.”
Likewise, I talk to Lutherans even in the LCMS, Missouri Synod Lutherans, who are usually the conservative ones, and they are expressing doubts about the future as their denomination is becoming more “tolerant.” They are watching more liberal, ‘progressive’-minded folks in their ranks.
Each denomination is so open to the world now and are combining Christ with the World that sin is entering like a flood.
Think about it, if you were a Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, or Catholic in 1910, there was little difference morally between these groups. Abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, gay ordinations, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, divorce and remarriage, all of these or most of these either weren’t technologically present or accepted due to cultural norms of the day.
Now that we are in this brave new world where the only “evils” we have are murder, rape, and kidnapping, anything goes. Imagine cohabitating with a girl in the 1800’s and telling your parents about it. It didn’t matter if you were Presbyterian or Catholic, Lutheran or Orthodox. Your parents would’ve kicked your butt. This new world we live in has entered many of these denominations and is influencing their teaching. Women’s ordination is one good example. The Catholic Church has had the world enter it through individuals like in the pedophile scandals, but as far as the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, not one of these issues has entered nor will it enter the Faith. Catholicism is totally free of these sinful, worldly teachings and I believe it will be the clear choice of Catholicism vs. all the rest morally that will bring folks home. Fifty years from now or maybe seventy-five years from now, or even more, all the denominations will be ok with cohabitation, gay marriage, women ministers, stem cells, etc. etc.
Lost sheep will come home to Rome when they see the rampant and evil sins of the world permeate their denominations. The folks who are ok with these sins will stay in those denominations and continue to fester. There will never be total ecumenism and oneness, sadly, but many will come home. That’s just my take.
Where in the ECF’s was it stated that there is a priesthood of all believers clergy-wise? Luther professed that all Christians are priests and, if approved by the congregation, anyone can celebrate the Eucharist. He taught that there is no difference between lay folks and clergy. That’s far from what the ECF’s taught, especially Ignatius and Polycarp!
Luther’s consubstantiation theory isn’t really in line with the ECF’s either to my knowledge.
Luther’s belief that only Scripture can provide the truth and solutions theologically and that apostolic succession isn’t necessary, those aren’t ECF ideals either. He taught that wherever the Scriptures are being taught, preached rightly, and wherever folks hold the truths of the Church, there is a Church, no succession necessary. That most definitely strays far from Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, and company.
Sola scriptura and sola gratia, etc. are not in line with the ECF’s.
I understand Luther’s disgust with indulgences. Honestly, as a Catholic, I have a problem with the notion (perhaps that makes me a bad Catholic!). Luther was also repulsed by the lax clerical disciplines of his time, the corruption, the lack of a really Biblically-learned clergy, a lack of good preaching, and a heavy emphasis on personal works and holiness at the expense of grace and a loving God.
I think Luther was sincere and villifying him is a waste of time.
But as far as all churches coming back into unity as ONE Church again, that’s mostly going to happen thanks to sin, IMO. Many Episcopalians, at least the conservative ones, are coming to Rome in droves as they watch that denomination melt down into a malaise of sin and openness to the world embracing divorce, abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ gay clergy, and saying things like “Jesus is not THE way, but A way to the truth.”
Likewise, I talk to Lutherans even in the LCMS, Missouri Synod Lutherans, who are usually the conservative ones, and they are expressing doubts about the future as their denomination is becoming more “tolerant.” They are watching more liberal, ‘progressive’-minded folks in their ranks.
Each denomination is so open to the world now and are combining Christ with the World that sin is entering like a flood.
Think about it, if you were a Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, or Catholic in 1910, there was little difference morally between these groups. Abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, gay ordinations, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, divorce and remarriage, all of these or most of these either weren’t technologically present or accepted due to cultural norms of the day.
Now that we are in this brave new world where the only “evils” we have are murder, rape, and kidnapping, anything goes. Imagine cohabitating with a girl in the 1800’s and telling your parents about it. It didn’t matter if you were Presbyterian or Catholic, Lutheran or Orthodox. Your parents would’ve kicked your butt. This new world we live in has entered many of these denominations and is influencing their teaching. Women’s ordination is one good example. The Catholic Church has had the world enter it through individuals like in the pedophile scandals, but as far as the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, not one of these issues has entered nor will it enter the Faith. Catholicism is totally free of these sinful, worldly teachings and I believe it will be the clear choice of Catholicism vs. all the rest morally that will bring folks home. Fifty years from now or maybe seventy-five years from now, or even more, all the denominations will be ok with cohabitation, gay marriage, women ministers, stem cells, etc. etc.
Lost sheep will come home to Rome when they see the rampant and evil sins of the world permeate their denominations. The folks who are ok with these sins will stay in those denominations and continue to fester. There will never be total ecumenism and oneness, sadly, but many will come home. That’s just my take.
Scott,
I would like to reply to a couple of points here, not as a challenge, but simply as a different viewpoint. I know you are openminded, and will at least listen.
More later. Let me know what you think.
Jon
I would like to reply to a couple of points here, not as a challenge, but simply as a different viewpoint. I know you are openminded, and will at least listen.
I think that everything you say here, can be a valid criticism, which in the area of the ECF’s can lead to dialogue. On the point of Luther’s anti-Judaism, I will not defend the statements he made, just put into perspective. 1st, I say anti-judaism as I don’t want he (and many others of his time) held to be confused with the anti-semitism of, say the 20th century in Europe. His was a dislike of their religion, as opposed to a racial bigotry. It can also be said that, in this area, he was very much a product (and sadly contributer) of his time. In a word, anti-judaism was commonplace even in the Church.
He also professed a strong adherance to a ministerial priesthood, called and ordained. The two are connected, but should not be confused. I cannot absolve sin on the authority of Christ in my Church anymore than you can in yours (if you’re not a priest).
More later. Let me know what you think.
Jon
- Status