What does everyone think of this quote?

[kalt]

(grin)

Not so much to those who lost the PR war.

I believe that God allows us to excercise our free will. So, yeah, He would. And did.

Dontcha just love begging the question and poisoning the well as debate tactics?

How does the LDS church trace its roots to Christ’s time? Does it have a timeline?

Without verifiable proof of the ancestry, it’s like an English/American claiming to have Mayflower ancestors based simply on the fact that he is English/American. Not every American with English ancestory has ancestors who came over on the Mayflower.

Being a Christian church doesn’t necessarily mean that you have a direct line to the time of Christ. The Lutheran church, the easiest example to site, can trace its roots to Luther. Before that is the Catholic Church from which the Lutheran church split. It is related to the Catholic Church, but there is no Lutheran line that goes back to Christ’s time. At it’s earliest point, it is a divergence from Catholicism, which has a direct line to the time of Christ.

I think of it like human evolution. We can trace our roots only so far back. At some point, we diverged from some other line which already existed. The fully human line begins then, not before. All of the species are related, but one is not the other. You can’t say that because you can trace your line, through divergences in reverse order, to Lucy, that you are one of her kind. You are related, but not one of–and not a true example of, while the other divergences are false, and certainly not the true example of while the unchanged direct line (other Lucys) aren’t true Lucys. Doing that, in fact, says that Lucy is not the real Lucy, but that humans are true Lucys. It makes no sense. Without the direct line, showing that something existed at the beginning, you can’t claim that it is the real thing, while the thing that existed then and now is not the real thing. It’s like saying that the real thing didn’t exist at the beginning, but has only now emerged. Emerged from what? A false thing? Either God left a church then or he didn’t. If you can’t trace your roots to that time, then your church didn’t exist then, and it’s not the church that Jesus left.

That brings us back to the church in hiding theory. Hasn’t that theory been fully refuted many times? If not, one would still have to show the line back to Christ’s time.

Does the LDS church have proof of a direct line the Christ’s time?

 

[JonNC]

How do Lutherans feel about reconciliation with the CC? Which doctrinal points are the stumbling blocks?

kalt,
I can’t speak for all Lutherans, but I truly belief that the goal of the reformation is unfulfulled
without reconciliation. We are part of the western Church, and therefore reconciliation with the CC should be the logical goal, though we shouldn’t exclude the East. I can tell you though that, just as there are some Catholics here who oppose dialogue, there are Lutherans who do as well.
The biggest stumbling blocks:

1. Always number one has been the doctrine of justification, but there has been movement in the last few decades.
2. The role of the Bishop of Rome
3. The nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass
4. The binding of the conscience of the believer regarding Marian doctrines and invocation of saints.

There are others, but I would think they are minor by comparision, like Transubstantiation, the canon of scripture, number of sacraments, etc.

Jon

 

[mary1173]

Carl,
I think it is a strong indictment against all of us. As the Catholic Catechism says about the Reformation, there was blame on all sides.
While some would say that doctrinal differences are good cause for division, I would say this can only be true in a temporary sense. We must always be seeking through dialogue the unity that Christ calls us to. I would say that being comfortable in schism is worse than schism itself.
Were we honest, we would find whose at fault for schism… when we each look in the mirror. Pray our Lord forgives us all.

Jon

I feel the same way, Jon.

 

[JonNC]

Does difference of opinion justify schism, though? Isn’t it better not to leave the Church and to correct error (which was not doctrinal) from within? How does the one who leaves the Church benefit from leaving? Can being in schism ever be better than being in unity (of belief - the meaning of catholic (small c) properly understood)?

On the doctrinal differences in Christian churches - What justifies changing doctrine?
These aren’t questions to “challenge” your position. I’m just picking your brain.

The only justification for “changing” doctrine is direct contradiction of Scripture (the sola scriptura in me, I guess). But much depends on what one means by “changing”, and I suspect it is in the eye of the beholder.
For example: the Orthodox would say the CC changed doctrine with Transubstantiation, the IC, and the Assumption. Of course, Catholics don’t see it that way. We say that Justification by Grace Alone through faith alone in Christ alone is in keeping with the early church. And again, Catholics don’t see it that way.
I guess it comes down to which doctrines are consistent with scripture, the ECF’s and the Early Church. One Orthodox poster here once suggested that we all return to doctrine as described prior to the schism, role it back so to speak, and build unity from there. Interesting idea.

Can being in schism ever be better than being in unity (of belief - the meaning of catholic (small c) properly understood)?

No, and yet, here we are. And remember, were I to convert to Catholicism, or you to Orthodoxy, we would still be in schism, just on a different side of the schism.
Pray Christ forgives us.

Jon

 

[AJTheMan]

Thanks, Carl.

First, as Carl said, check the writings of Lutherans and Anglicans. I wouldn’t even say it is uniquely Catholic, as that ignores the obvious - Orthodoxy.

There is an element of truth though, in what you say. Some Protestants don’t care about the ECF’s, and Catholics and Orthodox do view Tradition differently.

Jon

I am sorry for the misunderstanding!

Where I’m from, the saints are not well liked in protestant circles. Sacred Tradition is something that’s absent from my area and probably the rest of the bible belt.

I knew that Anglicans and Lutherans had sacred tradition. They just act more low-church down here.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with what Jon has said. The Roman Catholic Church is lacking in losing the Orthodox. Their devotion to spiritual, mystical, breath-taking worship and their insightful heritage is a loss to Catholics. Likewise, being without Peter is a loss to the Orthodox. There are devotions RC’s have that I think are a real loss for Orthodox. And the Protestant passion for Scripture and taking it seriously, keeping one’s eye on the Gospels and not letting too many of the non-essentials bog one down, focusing on Christ’s mercy through faith and grace and less on one’s own works, this is a rich tradition. Christianity is very divided, wounded, and to feel completely satisfied and thoroughly confident that any of these is complete without the other is not fullfilling to me. Would that we could have a Church that had the authority of the pope as a first among equals mated with the Orthodox and Catholic bishops and the lovely heritage of incense at worship, gregorian chant, throw in the Anglican Rite I Book of Common Prayer liturgy and a little Lutheran passion for the scriptures and grace with plenty of Bible study…tough to stop that Church!

 

[AngloCatholic1]

gurneyhalleck1 said:

I agree with what Jon has said. The Roman Catholic Church is lacking in losing the Orthodox. Their devotion to spiritual, mystical, breath-taking worship and their insightful heritage is a loss to Catholics. Likewise, being without Peter is a loss to the Orthodox. There are devotions RC’s have that I think are a real loss for Orthodox. And the Protestant passion for Scripture and taking it seriously, keeping one’s eye on the Gospels and not letting too many of the non-essentials bog one down, focusing on Christ’s mercy through faith and grace and less on one’s own works, this is a rich tradition. Christianity is very divided, wounded, and to feel completely satisfied and thoroughly confident that any of these is complete without the other is not fullfilling to me. Would that we could have a Church that had the authority of the pope as a first among equals mated with the Orthodox and Catholic bishops and the lovely heritage of incense at worship, gregorian chant, throw in the Anglican Rite I Book of Common Prayer liturgy and a little Lutheran passion for the scriptures and grace with plenty of Bible study…tough to stop that Church!

Well stated, brother! I say you get an A+ for ecumenism!!!

 

[NoWings]

Well stated, brother! I say you get an A+ for ecumenism!!!

Agreed.

 

[gcnuss]

This just popped up on the “Catholic Quotes” section:

“What rascal, what traitor, what madman would be so misled by the spirit of discord as to dare rend the Divine unity, the garment of the Lord, the Church of Jesus Christ?”
– Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, martyr, saint; in early writings (De eccl., unit., viii; circa A.D. 250), saw no legitimate reason for schism.

In light of this quote form an Early Father, how can any sort of schism, whether it be the original reformers, or Rick Warren starting his own church, be justified?

Hi Carl,

I apologize for entering this discussion so late. I haven’t been keeping up too well.

It seems to me that the quote from Cyprian, great witness that he was, pales in comparison to our Lord’s prayer “Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.” I would place greater emphasis on the latter. Of course, both were expressing in their own ways the hope that the children of God would be united, not separated.

I would venture the opinion that the schisms that have divided the Church (in both the 11th and the 16th centuries – as well as the numerous small ones since) did not begin because someone wanted to break up the Church. Rather, I suspect that divisions come about when a group of Christians perceive that something is amiss, whether in doctrine or in church polity, and the leadership of the church does not, or will not, move to correct the errors. This may be something like the filioque controversy, the abuse of indulgences, the political power of the church, the language of worship, the Real Presence, membership in fraternal lodges – the possible reasons are virtually unlimited. What is sad is such disagreements turn into power plays which almost invariably alienate Christians from one another.

What do we do about it? We pray a lot. We seek to see a connection with one another through our relationship, imperfect though it may be, as members of the body of Christ.