Why follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in 1500 and not Christ himself?

[jmcrae]

Yes, from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. From the viewpoint of the Protestant Churches, and perhaps the Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Church is clearly another denomination.

A plain reading of history shows us that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. All of the others were founded by human beings who disagreed in some way with the teachings of Christ, and wished to substitute their own interpretation, so that they can pretend to themselves and others that Jesus is okay with their ideas.

Of course, that’s all going to fall apart on the Judgement Day - another fact that people don’t consider.

 

[wcknight]

Yes, from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. From the viewpoint of the Protestant Churches, and perhaps the Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Church is clearly another denomination.

Which of course is completely bogus and wrong thinking -from a completely objective perspective…

 

[rr1213]

A plain reading of history shows us that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. All of the others were founded by human beings who disagreed in some way with the teachings of Christ, and wished to substitute their own interpretation, so that they can pretend to themselves and others that Jesus is okay with their ideas.

Of course, that’s all going to fall apart on the Judgement Day - another fact that people don’t consider.

Perhaps. Or perhaps Christ founded his Church and, when that Church strayed from the teachings of Christ and refused reformation, the true Church continued in those branches that accepted reformation. I’m afraid that this view is no more or less loaded than the viewpoint you present in the quote above. I suspect that the Orthodox might offer even a third view of the matter. As you noted, we’ll find out on Judgement day.

 

[rr1213]

Which of course is completely bogus and wrong thinking -from a completely objective perspective…

Of course!

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps. Or perhaps Christ founded his Church and, when that Church strayed from the teachings of Christ and refused reformation, the true Church continued in those branches that accepted reformation. I’m afraid that this view is no more or less loaded than the viewpoint you present in the quote above. I suspect that the Orthodox might offer even a third view of the matter. As you noted, we’ll find out on Judgement day.

Yes - but we can also look at the evidence itself.

If Christ had, in fact, transferred His protection to Luther away from the Catholic Church, then it would have been the Catholic Church that fragmented into a dozen pieces, rather than the Protestant church, which has been fragmenting and fragmenting all this time, while the Catholic Church continues to retain its unity - the reason is that Christ cannot be divided, and if Christ cannot be divided, then neither can His Body.

 

[Contarini]

A plain reading of history shows us that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

No, it does no such thing. First of all, there’s no such thing as a plain reading of history, as any historian will tell you. In the second place, even Catholics don’t say that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ *in the exact form in which it exists today. *The question is “what makes the Catholic Church the Catholic Church”? How much do the “developments” that have taken place since the time of Christ change the essence of the Church?

All of the others were founded by human beings who disagreed in some way with the teachings of Christ,

What human being founded the Orthodox Church? With which teaching of Christ did this human being disagree?

As for Protestants, your interpretation is rank caricature. I know Protestants say things about Catholicism that are equally ludicrous and equally rude, but that’s no excuse for responding in kind.

Luther didn’t disagree with teachings of Christ. He thought the Catholic Church had distorted the teachings of Christ. He may have been right or he may have been wrong, but he wasn’t simply disagreeing with the teachings of Christ.

And to head off arguments I know some folks on this board will be dying to make, of course Luther disagrees with a literal reading of some words of Jesus (seeming to offer eternal life as the result of works). But all Christians disagree with a flat-footed, literalistic reading of some passage of Scripture. (Catholics disagree with the way some Protestants read “Call no man father, for instance.”)

We can throw these silly accusations at each other for another five centuries, or we can start actually trying to understand each other. It’s your choice.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

Yes - but we can also look at the evidence itself.

If Christ had, in fact, transferred His protection to Luther away from the Catholic Church, then it would have been the Catholic Church that fragmented into a dozen pieces, rather than the Protestant church, which has been fragmenting and fragmenting all this time, while the Catholic Church continues to retain its unity - the reason is that Christ cannot be divided, and if Christ cannot be divided, then neither can His Body.

That’s actually a pretty good response…I’ll have to think about it.

 

[Image_of_God]

It is not that Lutherans are wrong. It is just that Lutheranism, does not offer every truth Jesus revealed. I am sure many Lutheranism are in good faith, and the Spirit is with them.
But I think that if they let the Spirit do his work a little more, they would actually submit to the Roman Pontiff.

I understand the Luther was did the right thing, but to a certain extent because at first, what Luther did was good. He was trying to stop corruption. However, when Luther started to get to involved in it, I believe he started to depart from the truths of the Church. One cannot consider himself a Catholic and deny some truths of the Church, can he?

…He started to change doctrine that had been in the Church 1,000 years before his birth, which means he started to move away from his original purpose, and started to state that some Church doctrines were untrue. He removed from his former position, in which, he fully agreed with the Papal Primacy, and then started to argue against it.

But for one thing, Lutheranism, was alot more Catholic, then it is today. It no longer agrees, for the most part, with the praying for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints{at least for Reformers}. The process of confession which was encouraged by Luther, is no longer encouraged by the Reformers.
And this shows something. And that is, because Protestantism, is constantly changing and growing further from Catholicism (as seen in the Anglican Church), it is very hard for Catholics to see any resemblence, although I’m sure that they will always have the basics of Christianity.

But I know and hope that God can inspire Lutherans and other Protestants to reconcile with their Mother and stop disagreeing with her compassionate authority.

 

[Doggy]

I will never understand why protestants and other shootoffs from Catholisism, want to follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in the 1500’s? JESUS did not start The Protestant religion, but The Catholic religion. We have an unbroken link dating back 2,000 years in which noone else can claim. JESUS did not start 33,000 denominations with contradictory beliefs. Bishop from bishop, pope to pope, 265 of them later, all the way to St. Peter himself. I am grateful I know the truth and The Blessed Mother. She is appearing everywhere and people are ignoring her calls. We will never be at peace because of this.
Everyone knows The King James Bible has many errors, yet they ignore that fact. King Henry was a mad man, beheaded 3 of his wives, yet he started The Church of England. Why follow it? there are many people who are coming home to Rome because they know the true religion. There are 1.5 Billion of us for a reason. I love the authority in my church, the strict doctrines, the Holy Mass, The Real Presence. It is very Holy, it isn’t cheap grace.

Actually made up…the catholic religion wasn’t made by jesus and doesn’t even go back to peter…the catholic religion was first made by Constantine to establish his political and religious empire and unite them into one…if you would read just right,there were already many congregations at that time other than the Catholics, the arians,waldenses,vadouis,orthodox chrisitianity,sabbatarians…it was just that roman catholicism became the most dominant becasue the Roman empire supported it and it had most the most in common with the pagan religion at that time,the gods replaced by saints (example the god of love,replaced by St. Valentine) in prayer and the queen of heaven was replaced by mary-mother of God and Queen of heaven

And also the fact that the “heretics” were NOT allowed to buy and sell and often were killed and tortured by the inquisitors makes us think about the book of revelation…

 

[Contarini]

But for one thing, Lutheranism, was alot more Catholic, then it is today. It no longer agrees, for the most part, with the praying for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints{at least for Reformers}.

I don’t know what you mean by “at least for Reformers.” Early Lutheranism did not encourage this practice, though it wasn’t as hostile to it as the Reformed. Luther stopped asking for the prayers of saints at a certain point (I’m not sure when, but I think in the early 1520s), and he believed that if people had a living relationship with Christ through faith they would not feel the need to go through the saints. He didn’t believe in attacking the practice, but he hardly encouraged it. He retained a great veneration for the Virgin Mary, but as far as I know he did not ask for her prayers. (BTW, the “Ave Maria” didn’t include the second half–“pray for us sinners” at this point, as far as I know.)

The process of confession which was encouraged by Luther, is no longer encouraged by the Reformers.

I don’t know what you mean by “the Reformers,” but it’s still practiced in Lutheranism. It’s not very widespread, admittedly, but it had a revival in the 19th century (if I’m not mistaken). The low point was in the 18th century.

And this shows something. And that is, because Protestantism, is constantly changing and growing further from Catholicism (as seen in the Anglican Church),

This is flatly false, particularly with regards to Anglicanism. You clearly know nothing about Anglican history or you wouldn’t say such a thing (perhaps you have been listening to old-fashioned Anglo-Catholics–or perhaps you were one yourself–who think that the Anglicanism they remember from their childhood is “traditional Anglicanism”). The point at which Anglicanism was farthest from Catholicism (at least on the traditional Protestant-Catholic issues–obviously if you take into account things like women’s ordination it’s a different story) was 1552.

Most of the Catholic practices associated with Anglicanism today were instituted/revived in the 19th century. There was also a movement toward Catholicism in the 17th century, and to some extent this was prefigured by Elizabethan figures like Hooker. It’s a complex process, but Anglicanism today is *far *more Catholic on the whole than it was in the late 16th century.

The same is true of many of the mainline Protestant traditions (again, leaving the liberal-conservative moral issues out of it). The “liturgical movement” has swept mainline Protestantism and has led to a greater practice of the liturgical year, more frequent celebration of the Eucharist, a more robust theology of sacramental grace, a growing emphasis on the saints, a great openness to Catholic spirituality. . . . This is beginning to affect the more staunchly evangelical denominations as well. Liturgy is “cool” right now in many circles. This may be shallow, but shallow or deep it completely belies your claim that Protestantism inevitably moves away from Catholicism. Quite the opposite is the case in many sectors of Protestantism.

Most folks on this board are passionately committed to the individual-conversion model of reconciliation. You ignore or deny the voluminous evidence that tells against this model. You shut your ears to your own Pope when he rejects an ecumenism of return and calls for the *corporate *reunion of Christians. And you do this because your very zeal for Catholicism is driven by the culture of individualistic Protestantism. You think of religion as an individual choice, and the only way you know to promote Catholicism is to convince individuals to embrace it. And you never stop to think how deeply Protestant all of this is.

Edwin

 

[gcnuss]

But for one thing, Lutheranism, was alot more Catholic, then it is today. It no longer agrees, for the most part, with the praying for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints{at least for Reformers}. The process of confession which was encouraged by Luther, is no longer encouraged by the Reformers.

Actually, there is a move (not rapid by any means) toward the use of individual confession. In the ELCA, there is a rite for Individual Confession and Forgiveness that is used by some. It is available to anyone if they feel the need for it. Of course, many people wouldn’t dream of using it because they have been raised to think of individual confession as a “Catholic thing,” and therefore something to be avoided. Most Lutherans consider the corporate confession and forgiveness at the beginning of worship to be all they need.

With regard to the invocation of the Saints, Lutherans tend to “go right to the top,” addressing their prayers to the Triune God and don’t see a need for any intercession by the Saints. Of course, the Saints are looked on as good examples of how one leads a Christian life.

Peace,
Gary

 

[Image_of_God]

Firstly, what I mean by reformers are those people who would use some elements of Luther’s teaching, but by disagreeing on others and adding others.

Secondly, you continue to prove my original point. Read this:
Council of Nicaea II 787 A.D:

If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, etc. (16) If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, etc. (17) If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, etc. (18) If anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and the condign retribution to everyone, endless torment and endless bliss, etc. (19) If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!

As you can see, as I said correctly before, Luther changed many beliefs that were there before him, that was the main point of my post. IT WAS NOT AN ATTACK ON LUTHERANISM, IT WAS MY OPINION!

Thirdly, I would not disagree with you on some parts of what you said about Anglicanism, but I was aiming towards the ordination of women more so. And I’d like to tell you that I don’t know everything about Anglicanism, but I do know some things. I was also saying that some of the things in the Anglican Church are making it seem as if it were less Catholic, not necessarily the Church in general. I am sorry if I wasn’t clear, but you should certainly get to know me, before bringing yourself against me and my Protestant knowledge.

Finally, as far as I’ve heard, the not converting individually, was only to be meant to the Orthodox Churches (to my knowledge). Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t think I am. Thus, I think you should read the book The Unity of Christians by Cardinal Augustin Bea who attended the Second Vatican Council:
"[Pope John] therefore insists that we should not lose courage, but 'continue to extend a loving invitation to our dear seperated brothers, who like us bear the name of Christ...' " (Cardinal Bea 153)

 

[Image_of_God]

I don’t know what you mean by “at least for Reformers.” Early Lutheranism did not encourage this practice, though it wasn’t as hostile to it as the Reformed. Luther stopped asking for the prayers of saints at a certain point (I’m not sure when, but I think in the early 1520s), and he believed that if people had a living relationship with Christ through faith they would not feel the need to go through the saints. He didn’t believe in attacking the practice, but he hardly encouraged it. He retained a great veneration for the Virgin Mary, but as far as I know he did not ask for her prayers. (BTW, the “Ave Maria” didn’t include the second half–“pray for us sinners” at this point, as far as I know.)

I don’t know what you mean by “the Reformers,” but it’s still practiced in Lutheranism. It’s not very widespread, admittedly, but it had a revival in the 19th century (if I’m not mistaken). The low point was in the 18th century.

This is flatly false, particularly with regards to Anglicanism. You clearly know nothing about Anglican history or you wouldn’t say such a thing (perhaps you have been listening to old-fashioned Anglo-Catholics–or perhaps you were one yourself–who think that the Anglicanism they remember from their childhood is “traditional Anglicanism”). The point at which Anglicanism was farthest from Catholicism (at least on the traditional Protestant-Catholic issues–obviously if you take into account things like women’s ordination it’s a different story) was 1552.

Most of the Catholic practices associated with Anglicanism today were instituted/revived in the 19th century. There was also a movement toward Catholicism in the 17th century, and to some extent this was prefigured by Elizabethan figures like Hooker. It’s a complex process, but Anglicanism today is *far *more Catholic on the whole than it was in the late 16th century.

The same is true of many of the mainline Protestant traditions (again, leaving the liberal-conservative moral issues out of it). The “liturgical movement” has swept mainline Protestantism and has led to a greater practice of the liturgical year, more frequent celebration of the Eucharist, a more robust theology of sacramental grace, a growing emphasis on the saints, a great openness to Catholic spirituality. . . . This is beginning to affect the more staunchly evangelical denominations as well. Liturgy is “cool” right now in many circles. This may be shallow, but shallow or deep it completely belies your claim that Protestantism inevitably moves away from Catholicism. Quite the opposite is the case in many sectors of Protestantism.

Most folks on this board are passionately committed to the individual-conversion model of reconciliation. You ignore or deny the voluminous evidence that tells against this model. You shut your ears to your own Pope when he rejects an ecumenism of return and calls for the *corporate *reunion of Christians. And you do this because your very zeal for Catholicism is driven by the culture of individualistic Protestantism. You think of religion as an individual choice, and the only way you know to promote Catholicism is to convince individuals to embrace it. And you never stop to think how deeply Protestant all of this is.

Edwin

I have to admit, Edwin, that I am a little discontent with your attacks. Your post seem more to poke attacks on me and poke more fun at me, than to correct me with Christian Charity when I have made a mistake. I admit, there is much I have to learn about Protestantism-I’m sure the term brings some dissatisfation, and I’m sorry-but to claim that “I no absolutely nothing about Anglican History” is a very harsh attack on someone you do not even know.

And no I am not a former Anglican, but I do have Anglican relatives. To accuse me of “closing my ears to the Pope” is to call me a heretic! Do you not know that these are very harsh statements? Do you know how many sects there are? I really suggest you read The Unity of Christians. It is a good book, that goes over the Vatican Council II.

So you are telling me, that St. Augustine thought religion as simply “individual choice” and ambitiously promoting his? Absolutely not! Evangelism and Apologetics are not solely Protestant! And I am NOT ambitiously promoting Catholicism as you seem to think it!
I am sorry, but I will you ask you to stop accusing me of being “stupid.” I am not a dummy and I’m not a heretic!

I might have stated some of my opinions on the religion of some Protestants, but I have not insulted anyone as you have just have done so. In fact, with a sadden heart, I am departing from this conversation since such as the language and harsh attacks we will start to argue, would never promote Ecumenism between Catholics and Protestants. It is for the common good!

 

[sandmountainsli]

The church I attend was NOT “made up” by some German!
The Methodists split from the Church of England at the Christmas Conference at the end of 18th Century.
The Church of England split from Catholicism during the reign of the tyrant Henry Tudor Jr.
So up until the reign of Tudor YOUR church and my church were the same and they have a shared history up until that point.
St. Augustine etc.
WP

 

[Image_of_God]

Please everyone forget everything that I have said. All it does is hinder my heart. The important thing is that we are all Christian! We are all called by God in baptism. I will never be a good person by arguing this way. All I insist is that Protestants come back to their Holy Mother Church. :nope: :crying:

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

This is flatly false, particularly with regards to Anglicanism. You clearly know nothing about Anglican history or you wouldn’t say such a thing (perhaps you have been listening to old-fashioned Anglo-Catholics–or perhaps you were one yourself–who think that the Anglicanism they remember from their childhood is “traditional Anglicanism”). The point at which Anglicanism was farthest from Catholicism (at least on the traditional Protestant-Catholic issues–obviously if you take into account things like women’s ordination it’s a different story) was 1552.

But the question of women’s ordination cannot be brushed aside that easilly.

Furthermore, you yourself must admit that there’s a wide range between the High Anglican Church ans other Anglican denominaitons.

I will admit that it’s not as easy as saying that the Anglican Church has been disintigrating since leaving Rome. Some areas of Anglicanism have remained relatively consistent since their break with Rome whereas others have indeed drifted doctrincally, rather erratically away from, back to, and away from Catholic theology more than a few times snce thier emergence.

Contarini:

Most of the Catholic practices associated with Anglicanism today were instituted/revived in the 19th century. There was also a movement toward Catholicism in the 17th century, and to some extent this was prefigured by Elizabethan figures like Hooker. It’s a complex process, but Anglicanism today is far more Catholic on the whole than it was in the late 16th century.

Some are. Some definitely aren’t.

Contarini:

The same is true of many of the mainline Protestant traditions (again, leaving the liberal-conservative moral issues out of it).

But, as with the ordination of women noted above, the liberal-moral issues do play a big factor in Anglicanism’s departure from Catholic theology. The questions regarding birth-control were virtually launched in this last century from within the schools of Anglican thought.

Contarini:

The “liturgical movement” has swept mainline Protestantism and has led to a greater practice of the liturgical year, more frequent celebration of the Eucharist, a more robust theology of sacramental grace, a growing emphasis on the saints, a great openness to Catholic spirituality. . . . This is beginning to affect the more staunchly evangelical denominations as well. Liturgy is “cool” right now in many circles. This may be shallow, but shallow or deep it completely belies your claim that Protestantism inevitably moves away from Catholicism. Quite the opposite is the case in many sectors of Protestantism.

I agree that many are re-discovering the Catholic richness again, even if they don’t embrace that which Catholicism teaches. Admittedly, it is a start.

Yet, at the same time, there most certainly is a much broader movement within Anglicanism to move away from Catholic theology than there is one to come closer to it.

In the spirit of ecumenism, I’ve seen great strides between Catholics and Anglicans in some area regarding the social Gospel so to speak. I’ve also seen some Anglican bodies strive to retain their more Catholic liturgies.

But, going beyond that, I really am seeing a trend within Anglicanism in general which really is seeking to distance itself from Catholicism too.

 

[Contarini]

Image,

I did not call you stupid. I honestly can’t see that I have insulted you personally in anything I have said. But I know that I’m more comfortable with vigorous argument than many people. Do consider the fact that you made a sweeping attack on Protestantism as a whole, and as far as I’m concerned that made your post fair game. I did not intend to attack your personal character or intelligence in any way. In my book, attacking someone’s knowledge of a particular topic is legitimate and is not the same thing as attacking their general intellectual ability. We are all ignorant on many topics, and on boards like this most of us fall into the trap of pontificating about some of those topics based on insufficient evidence. I have certainly done so many times in the past.

I admit, there is much I have to learn about Protestantism-I’m sure the term brings some dissatisfation,

I do not object to the term in the slightest.

and I’m sorry-

You don’t need to be sorry, as far as I’m concerned. The important question is whether you were right or wrong, not whether you offended me or not.

but to claim that “I no absolutely nothing about Anglican History” is a very harsh attack on someone you do not even know.

I honestly can’t see that this is harsh. You made a statement about Anglican history that couldn’t be more wrong. It’s like saying “in the sixteenth century Catholics were ecumenical and open-minded, but these days they believe that all non-Catholics are going to hell.” It’s the exact opposite of the truth.

When you post opinions on a board like this, you open your opinions to criticism. Try not to take it as a personal attack. That is not how it was intended.

And no I am not a former Anglican, but I do have Anglican relatives. To accuse me of “closing my ears to the Pope” is to call me a heretic!

No, it’s not, because the papal statements to which I allude (chiefly his ecumenical address at Cologne last year) are in no sense covered by the charism of infallibility. It is not doubt proper for Catholics to listen to non-infallible statements by the Pope, which is why I used this argument in the first place. But I was not calling you a heretic.

Do you not know that these are very harsh statements?

No, I don’t. They don’t seem harsh to me. I think you are being overly sensitive here, but of course it may be that I am insufficiently sensitive to your feelings.

Do you know how many sects there are? I really suggest you read The Unity of Christians.

How on earth is this relevant?

So you are telling me, that St. Augustine thought religion as simply “individual choice” and ambitiously promoting his?

It’s true that Augustine called for Donatists to return to the Catholic Church, but he did so on the grounds that Donatists were in a state of mortal sin and that their church had no validity whatever. Like it or not, that is not what the Catholic Church says today about Protestants. That is not the language the Pope used at Cologne. He explicitly rejected the “ecumenism of return.”

If Protestantism is utterly bogus and evil, then calling on Protestants to become Catholic is not individualistic. But if Catholicism is the fullness of the faith that is imperfectly contained in Protestantism, then the thing to do is to move Protestant churches toward that fullness of faith. And that is what the Pope has called for. Abandoning a church that can give me nothing but damnation is not the same thing as abandoning a church that has many elements of Catholic truth and participates imperfectly in the reality of the Church.

If the Pope were to make a direct and unequivocal appeal for all Protestants to convert to Catholicism, I would call the nearest RCIA program immediately. That’s how much I respect this Pope. I’m trying to follow the ecumenical program that he himself has laid out. He said–not me–that we are all (Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox) “members of the one Body of Christ” through baptism.

You go read the Pope’s speech and tell me how I’m misinterpreting it

I might have stated some of my opinions on the religion of some Protestants, but I have not insulted anyone as you have just have done so.

Essentially what you are saying is that insulting someone’s faith is less serious than insulting their knowledge of Anglican history or their awareness of the non-infallible statements of their own leader! I find that quite incredible. I have accused you of nothing worse than hasty statements about other Christians, overly influenced by American culture and insufficiently aware of the nuances of your own Church’s position.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Firstly, what I mean by reformers are those people who would use some elements of Luther’s teaching, but by disagreeing on others and adding others.

Well, that’s pretty vague. For instance, the “evangelical catholic” movement within Lutheranism (and analogs in other Protestant traditions) would fall under this category. Many of these people (such as Richard John Neuhaus) have become Catholic and would continue to claim to be faithful to many aspects of Luther’s teaching.

Here’s the basic question–can we take the positive insights of the Reformers and follow them back toward the unity of the Faith rather than in the opposite direction? If we can, then individual conversion is not the best way to go, though it may be necessary if our tradition is obviously moving in the wrong direction in ways that make remaining within it impossible (which is the decision many Lutherans and Anglicans have made recently–a decision I respect and with which I have wrestled seriously myself).

Secondly, you continue to prove my original point

As far as I’m concerned, that’s not the point I disagree with. Obviously Protestantism did reject some aspects of the previous tradition.

Thirdly, I would not disagree with you on some parts of what you said about Anglicanism, but I was aiming towards the ordination of women more so. And I’d like to tell you that I don’t know everything about Anglicanism, but I do know some things. I was also saying that some of the things in the Anglican Church are making it seem as if it were less Catholic, not necessarily the Church in general. I am sorry if I wasn’t clear, but you should certainly get to know me, before bringing yourself against me and my Protestant knowledge.

I can’t see why. This is a discussion board. You profess opinions, I respond to the opinions. That isn’t a judgment on you. If you make statements that are inaccurate, I’ll point this out. That’s how a discussion board works. If we waited to “get to know” everyone before responding to their opinions, there would be no discussion.

Of course there are some elements within Anglicanism that are moving away from Catholicism. And if you had said “in the last few decades” I wouldn’t have disagreed. But you made a statement comparing modern Protestantism with the time of the Reformers, and you made no qualifications whatsoever. In order to have meaningful discussion on a board like this, you need to take responsibility for what you actually say. You can’t expect people to read your mind and provide all the nuances that you fail to provide. You said “Protestantism is constantly changing, and growing further from the Catholic Church,” and you provided Anglicanism as an example, when in fact it’s the most dramatic possible counterexample. Even someone like Richard Hooker would be utterly horrified at how Catholic Anglicanism is today in many ways.

Finally, as far as I’ve heard, the not converting individually, was only to be meant to the Orthodox Churches (to my knowledge).

The current Vatican policy toward Protestants seems to be that individual conversions are welcomed when personal conviction leads people to that conclusion, but they are not to be promoted as the primary means of reconciling Protestants with the Catholic Church. I base this on a number of statements by *both *Ratzinger (before his election) and Kasper, *and *on Pope Benedict’s WYD ecumenical address to which I’ve provided a link in my previous post. This is something I take very seriously, because I have no doubt whatever that the Pope has a lawful primacy within the Universal Church and that Catholicism (for all its obvious flaws) is central to any hope of Christian unity–which in turn must be the goal of all Christians who care about following the wishes of our Lord. I have yet to see anything from post-Vatican-II Catholicism that authoritatively contradicts this. This is not something that a few liberals are promoting. It appears to be a consistent position (though obviously not a matter of doctrine or dogma).

You are right that this does differ from the attitude toward Orthodoxy, which seems to be that individual conversions should actually be discouraged.

Thus, I think you should read the book The Unity of Christians by Cardinal Augustin Bea who attended the Second Vatican Council:

That sounds like a very good idea. Thanks for the recommendation.

Edwin

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

cough

 

[StMarkEofE]

Is this what your pastors teach you?? Of course Jesus started the Catholic Church. Only The Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian Church is an offshoot of The Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church broke off from unity with The Pope in 1054. The protestant Churches were established during The Reformation, which began in 1517. Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching THE DOCTRINES GIVEN BY CHRIST TO THE APOSTLES, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, IN UNBROKEN SUCCESSION, TO PETER HIMSELF. THIS IS UNEQUALED BY ANY INSTITUTION IN HISTORY. Read (2Tim2:2).
You are being misled. Constantine was a Catholic convert. He built the Church of The Holy Seplechure in Israel.

No, the Roman church chose to leave the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church by its own volition in 1054. Eastern Catholic Orthodoxy is the same as it was and never left the Catholic church, but the Roman west did.