S
- Status
R
ralphinal
Guest
I think that the question is: why do many protestants see personal relationship with Christ instead of corporate? We are not in this alone, the Bible is clear about this. Christ came to save the world. The “Me and Jesus” thing is an American concept, perhaps born of our individualism, perhaps of our lack of concern for others.
The Bible is clear that we are called to fellowship with eachother, and it is there that we are united with Christ. It is no more me and Jesus alone and that is all that matters than the man in the moon and I got it all together.
The Bible is clear that we are called to fellowship with eachother, and it is there that we are united with Christ. It is no more me and Jesus alone and that is all that matters than the man in the moon and I got it all together.
V
VWcrazy
Guest
Oops. My bad.
They have left the Church which Christ established. They are members of the Body of Christ - but not members of His Church. They don’t have the fullness of faith.
O
ontologysue
Guest
@Mannyfit and others from Catholic perspective:
Are any of you making a distinction between the institutional church and the mystical body or do you propose they are synonymous? If you argue that they are synonymous, then, you may run into some problems, ie., the somewhat jaded historical moments of the “organized church”.
Also, whoever said, sorry I forgot, that the Holy Spirit is not working in the Protestant Church, rather an arrogant answer, wouldn’t you say? Who are we to assume God isn’t working in the souls of Protestants? The Catholic church doesn’t teach that.
Are any of you making a distinction between the institutional church and the mystical body or do you propose they are synonymous? If you argue that they are synonymous, then, you may run into some problems, ie., the somewhat jaded historical moments of the “organized church”.
Also, whoever said, sorry I forgot, that the Holy Spirit is not working in the Protestant Church, rather an arrogant answer, wouldn’t you say? Who are we to assume God isn’t working in the souls of Protestants? The Catholic church doesn’t teach that.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Well, the most obvious answer here is that Jesus Christ and the church of Jesus Christ are separate entities.
Of course if I wanted to be provocative I could ask why you insist that only your denomination is the church of Jesus Christ? Or why you insist that there is no salvation outside of your denomination? But I guess I will refrain from arguing over the internet on this one. So carry on.
And before someone questions the use of the word denomination, I use the standard dictionary definition of the word.
V
VWcrazy
Guest
Jesus identifies himself with His Church.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
"DrewC:
The answer below by a Protestant might help clear up why Catholics “try to say” we separate the Church when we are all one Body of Christ. Protestants (just to clarify, not all Protestants) themselves claim that the two are separate:
The Catholic Church sees the bride (The Church) as inseparable from the spouse (Jesus Christ). This analogy should make sense to the Catholic where matrimony is a bond that does not break, nor can it be. Once it is bonded, it remains forever. It is a Sacramental reality between a man and a woman. It is also a reality when it comes to Jesus Christ and the Church.
S
stmaria
Guest
O
ontologysue
Guest
I’m not sure you’re thinking through what you’re saying. Was the Holy Spirit instructing the Catholic Church when the Bishops condemned Joan of Arc? Was the Holy Spirit instructing the Church during the Spanish Inquisition? The Church is made up of people. Are you saying the Holy Spirit is not working in the souls of Protestants making them holy? Are you saying the Holy Spirit was working in the Church when the Pope and Bishops were accepting bribes for indulgences before Luther broke with Rome?
I believe Our Lord said, not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom.” He highly commended the Centurian who had more faith than He had found in Israel. He chastised the Pharasees, who were church members in such good standing, while he promised salvation to the prostitute who washed His feet with oil.
All in all, He works in the souls of the pure of heart, and I don’t think the Roman institutional church has a monopoly on purity of heart.
No, it would be ideal if all the institutional churches were one, but given the sin of man, on all side of the equation, I doubt that will ever happen. However, there is NO division in Christ’s mystical Body…membership there involves honestly loving the Beloved, the Spouse of the soul, and keeping His commandments.
Do you think only Roman Catholics are eligible for the unitive life?
M
MrStain
Guest
In my Baptist days I would say the Church was made up of born-again believers in Christ. Believers meaning anyone who believed in their heart that Jesus Christ was their Lord and Saviour and confessed it with their mouths. Those were the basic actions of the born-again experience. That of course left out a lot of other belief requirements, but that was all it took to become part of Christ’s Church. So once you said the “sinner’s prayer” you became part of Christ’s Body - the “Church”. Also, most Baptists I knew considered the other Protestant Churches to be part of the Body of Christ as well, despite having dissimilar belief systems. As long as someone believed in Jesus they were part of the Body of Christ. This means a member of the Methodists church – which “was a founding member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in 1973” (LINK). and “supports the right of all persons to have access to a wide range of reproductive health services including sexuality education, family planning services, contraception, abortion services, affordable and quality health and child care” – could still claim to be a Christian and be part of the Body of Christ.
I can’t speak for the other Protestant churches i.e. Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian/Anglican, Church of Christ, etc., but my guess is they would have slightly different flavors of teaching when it come to ecclesiology.
The Baptist teaching I was raised with, which allowed so many different beliefs within the Body of Christ, just stopped making sense to me and by the Grace of God I’ve become part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as Jesus intended.
ETA: In my Baptist days there was also no human authority in the Church. As long as I was a believer in Christ (using the formula I mentioned above), me and my own biblical interpretations were good enough. Guided by my own understanding of the Bible I was my own authority. ok. That is probably how I would have explained the Church as a Southern Baptist.
V
VWcrazy
Guest
I think someone needs to review his history a little more carefully…
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
I am still pondering the OP. I have never heard of this. Been a Protestant all of my life, too.
S
Syele
Guest
Then you disagree with the Catholic Church? Because last I checked the Catholic Church does not teach it is impossible to get to heaven if one is not Catholic.
CCC said:
You know what the visible Church is, the invisible Church consists of SOME of those in the visible church and some of those NOT in the visible Church but who are right with God.
ALL those in the Visible Church will not be in heaven and all those not in the visible church are not damned to hell. Therefore there is an “invisible” Church as well as a visible one. Just because you do not use the term, doesn’t make it non-existent.
S
Syele
Guest
I have heard Catholics say that protestants say that…I am still pondering the OP. I have never heard of this. Been a Protestant all of my life, too.
O
ontologysue
Guest
D
DrewC
Guest
I disagree 100% and I cant believe you would say something like this, It makes a bad name for Catholics and makes them seem like they are the only ones going to Heaven and that couldnt be farther from the truth. How could a loving God like we have send people to hell for loving HIM and following HIM just because they werent in the Catholic Church?
Answer: He wouldnt!
H
holy_wood
Guest
You misunderstand what VWcrazy means.
He never said every single Protestant was danmed, he merely stated that by their own will Protestants have seperated themselves from the Church Jesus Christ founded.
Quoting the Catechism only partially helped your case.
Every person baptized in the Triune formula is in partial communion with Christ. They become Christians, so that destroys VWcrazy’s argument about not having an invisible Church (as long as you restrict the definition to a mystical and spiritual union) but a spiritual and mystical union cannot be seen by the world to who we endeavor to save.
The second quote merely reiterates the fact that those who are seeking full communion in the Church but fail to recieve baptism can attain Salvation either by baptism of dersire (wanting to be baptized because they know it was a requirement for salvation) or by baptism by blood (dying in defence of some aspect of the faith).
The third is simply stating that those who never knew Christ can still attain salvation but this is do to their ignorance of the truth.
If one who claims to be a christian but willingly refuse to embrace Christ’s Church they can be found guilty of sin.
One has a responsibility to seek the truth. 33,000 denominations is intolerable. We all hope that everyone finds their way to the Father, however you go to him under his conditions and not your own.
If you are a Protestant you have to ask yourself does my church really have all the revelation given to man by God?
Does it believe what 1st century Christians can be historically shown to believe?
If the Church Christ founded had Bishops, Priest and Deacons what valid reason does my Church have to do away with them and who said it could?
S
Stevenson
Guest
For the record, in most cases it wasn’t the Reformers who “left”.
They were booted out.
This is important.
The Reformation can be seen as a grass roots effort to reform a church that had been promising a general council to reform itself but appeared to have no real intention of doing so under the late medieval papacy.
The worst that can be said initially is that they were guilty of impatience…
I tend to agree with them that were it not for the Protestant Reformation, Trent and the whole “Counter-Reformation” would probably not have happened at least in anything like the way that it did.
It is just possible that the German Princes would have revolted against the constant raking of their territories for cash by the Vatican which would have initiated some reform but the likelihood that a general moral reform would have come about because the laity and certain folk movements were annoyed is less probable.
They were booted out.
This is important.
The Reformation can be seen as a grass roots effort to reform a church that had been promising a general council to reform itself but appeared to have no real intention of doing so under the late medieval papacy.
The worst that can be said initially is that they were guilty of impatience…
I tend to agree with them that were it not for the Protestant Reformation, Trent and the whole “Counter-Reformation” would probably not have happened at least in anything like the way that it did.
It is just possible that the German Princes would have revolted against the constant raking of their territories for cash by the Vatican which would have initiated some reform but the likelihood that a general moral reform would have come about because the laity and certain folk movements were annoyed is less probable.
O
ontologysue
Guest
When I became a member of the Russian Orthodox Church in America, the first thing they said to me was, “welcome home, your’e now in the “true” Church, the ancient church of the first Christians, and the church fathers.”
Their view is that Rome excommunicated them illegally among other things, like changing the Creed (filoque) without the consent of the Eastern Church. They also teach the Pope is first among equals and that Rome took inordinate power in allowing more than that as the western church’s bishop.
Bottom line, Rome thinks they have the whole faith, Constantinople thinks they do. The Protestant break started because of the corruption in the Roman church, Rome will always bare responsibility for that so no one is free of sin here. Protestants did not separate themselves without Rome participating in the whole sinful process that now gives us 33,000 denominations!
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
As a Catholic, it would be a fair statement to disagree with the statement taken at face value, but I could also agree with the statement at face value. In other words, I disagree with the statement, but not 100%.
The first Protestants separated themselves from the Catholic Church. They left the Body of Christ and went on their own. The Catholic Church however does not condemn those Protestants from subsequent generations, through no fault of their own, are not a part of the Catholic Church. This does not mean that it is ok to remain outside of the Catholic Church. Once they have heard the Truth of the Catholic Church and are not invincibly ignorant of that Truth, it would seem to me to be in the best interest of their souls to become members of the Catholic faith.
- Status