I
IHSpetros
Guest
If you actually know your history, you wouldn’t have said that
. In fact, Orthodox Christians broke off from the catholic faith. If you think otherwise, PLEASE prove it!!! Have fun researching:thumbsup: !!!
Why follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in 1500 and not Christ himself?
- Status
. In fact, Orthodox Christians broke off from the catholic faith. If you think otherwise, PLEASE prove it!!! Have fun researching:thumbsup: !!!
R
rr1213
Guest
They excomunicated each other…what does it matter.If you actually know your history, you wouldn’t have said that
I
Image_of_God
Guest
“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.”
I have brought your rash judgement to your eye so you can see what might be rash about it. The rash judgement I see is not in the statement itself, it is in your attempt to say assume that I am zealously trying to convert Protestants to the Catholic faith, not being thoughtful enough to see that it is actually a Protestant belief.
What you have stated and what I have stated are not even close to the same thing. One is based on opinion and the one you have compared it to is based on complete falsation. The statement I made is certainly no more wrong than your opinions. You and I know that their are to many forms of Anglicanism to conclude by sincere fact that their is a movement towards Catholicism. My belief in the opposite is no more false than yours.
Then you do not understand how big it is for Catholic to follow the Pope. If I am in fact going against the Pope, I cannot in fact say I am an orthodox Catholic.
There is more to the harshness than the statement itself. I am saying that you are assuming that I am trying to convert Protestants with misdirected zeal, which you could do not know. It is like saying “you are going to steal that cookie” at a bakery when I really have no clue what your intentions are what so ever.
If you are unsure of the harshness of your intentions, then I suggest you heed the words of Our Lord, “Judge not and you will no be judged.” So rather condemning my intentions, as to say you know what they are, please ask me first.
Who is saying that Protestantism is bogus and evil? I am certainly not and I would never say something like never. I suggest you read my 2 post because I would never say anything has horrific as this. You do not understand me at all. I have clearly stated my opinons and you should see it. If this was not intended for me, then you have brought this up without relevance.
Have you assumed I am involved in American culture or was it I that revealed it to you?
I hope you know that people from all over the world post here and has it ever reached your heart that I might be somewhere else other than America? . I suggest you reread my original position on this. I am certain that there is scarcely any thing in it that is unCatholic. Show me where I have rashly made hasty statements that are not Catholic and I will apologize for them.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Listen Edwin, all that I am trying to make clear is that you might have been right about the Ecumenism of Return information, but you are not right when you assume that I believe Protestantism is an evil religion. For one thing it is not. If you read my original post at the top of this page, you would know that this is a false charge. I have clearly stated that they are in good faith and that the Spirit is with them, while also pointing out some of the form’s errors. It is not an insult to the Protestant faith to say that it has some errors, for one thing as I have read the Council of Nicaea II, I have noticed this.
I have made no attempt to convert you, as I only simply stated that it Luther made errors, and that to my opinion, Anglicanism has moved away from Catholicism in some areas. This is does in fact prove some of your former statements false. All you need to do is see that you are wrong about something, as I have done the same. I would rather have you Protestant than non-Christian, because through baptism, you become my brother, maybe not in a complete way, but in a new way, different from the unbaptized, although they are still my brothers and sisters.
You might not understand why I am offended, but I will tell you why. From my original post you typed your response, and then you added things and started to say I was trying to convert you when I was absolutely not trying to. You also assume that I think that Protestantism is evil, but I don’t. You also assume that I do not take the Pope’s words seriously when I am only trying to understand what he said. I would like to tell you that I was not around before Vatican II so I only asked for a definition of what it was about.
I would love to have Ecumenical dialogue with you, but only if you are willing to admit your fault with humility, as I have done.
I have a friend who is Lutheran and I would never tell him that he came from an heretical religion and that his soul was in horrible danger. However, I would tell him that his form of Christianity that he believes is not the compelete Christianity as is Catholicism.
I have made no attempt to convert you, as I only simply stated that it Luther made errors, and that to my opinion, Anglicanism has moved away from Catholicism in some areas. This is does in fact prove some of your former statements false. All you need to do is see that you are wrong about something, as I have done the same. I would rather have you Protestant than non-Christian, because through baptism, you become my brother, maybe not in a complete way, but in a new way, different from the unbaptized, although they are still my brothers and sisters.
You might not understand why I am offended, but I will tell you why. From my original post you typed your response, and then you added things and started to say I was trying to convert you when I was absolutely not trying to. You also assume that I think that Protestantism is evil, but I don’t. You also assume that I do not take the Pope’s words seriously when I am only trying to understand what he said. I would like to tell you that I was not around before Vatican II so I only asked for a definition of what it was about.
I would love to have Ecumenical dialogue with you, but only if you are willing to admit your fault with humility, as I have done.
I have a friend who is Lutheran and I would never tell him that he came from an heretical religion and that his soul was in horrible danger. However, I would tell him that his form of Christianity that he believes is not the compelete Christianity as is Catholicism.
C
Contarini
Guest
I charitably assumed that you were zealous, and certainly owe you no apology for doing so. If you do not think that individual Protestants ought (as a general rule) to convert to Catholicism, then you could simply have said so several posts ago and saved us both a lot of trouble. And calling for people to abandon as individuals a Christian tradition that is not wholly bankrupt and apostate *is *a modern Protestant oddity.
So no, I can’t see that anything I have said is particularly rash, except perhaps my assumption that you are a zealous Catholic. And surely you have no reason to complain of this.
Yes, they are. I think, with all due respect, that I know more about sixteenth-century Anglicanism than you do. I’m not claiming the two statements are exactly equivalent, but the comparison is a fair one. Anglicans in the 16th century would be horrified at how Catholic the average Anglican parish is today.
Yes, it is. The overall framework of Anglican thought and practice is far more Catholic now than it was in the sixteenth century. The movement “away from Catholicism” has to do with Anglicanism following cultural trends of the modern world–it isn’t a Protestant-Catholic thing per se.
If you had said “Anglicanism has moved away from Catholicism on certain moral issues,” I wouldn’t have quarreled with you. And if *I *had said simply “Anglicanism is far more Catholic today than it was at the time of the Reformation” then you’d have a legitimate bone to pick, and we could argue over which set of issues (Real Presence, liturgy, soteriology, general attitude to tradition on the one hand, and women’s ordination, birth control, and divorce on the other) is more significant. But I didn’t say that. I was careful to say that issues like women’s ordination were counterexamples to my claim.
The most low-church Anglican today would be a pro-Papist wimp by the standards of the low-church Anglicans of the sixteenth century. Richard Hooker, who is usually seen as high-church, thought that it was just barely possible for Catholics to be saved even though they were wrong on justification by faith–and he was attacked fiercely for saying this. I don’t think any Anglican would disagree on this today, and vast numbers would say that you are not substantially wrong on that subject.
I repeat–if you focus on the standard issues that originally divided Catholics and Protestants, Anglicans are far more Catholic today than they were 400 years ago. That is what I originally said, and that is what I am saying now. It was not rash and it was not inaccurate. I’ve said plenty of foolish things and had to retract them, but this is not one of them.
C
Contarini
Guest
Ask your fellow Catholics about this. I am confident that they will tell you that this is a serious misunderstanding of your faith. I know it’s impertinent of me to try to tell you what your own faith is all about, so don’t take my word for it. Write to one of the CA apologists whose business it is to answer questions, and ask them if you are obliged to agree with every statement made by the Pope, even when he makes no claim to be issuing a binding doctrinal decree.
If this were true, then Catholicism would be utterly incoherent and indefensible, because at this level Popes have contradicted each other many times over.
If you do not think that individual Protestants should (as a general rule) convert to Catholicism, then say so and this debate is over. If you do think this, then you can’t fairly criticize me for rightly inferring your opinions from your posts. Your posts seem to me to imply that you believe that Protestants should convert to Catholicism. If I am wrong on this, I’m happy to apologize.
Not you anyway. But St. Augustine (whom you invoked earlier) said that Donatism was bogus and evil. My point is that of course traditional Catholics believed Protestants and other heretics should convert, because otherwise they would be damned. But you think we should convert as individuals simply so we can be part of the fullness of the truth. The Pope thinks that we should become part of the fullness of the truth through a process of dialogue and mutual conversion to Christ.
I wasn’t accusing you of thinking Protestantism was bogus and evil. I was saying that only on that premise is individual conversion (rather than corporate reunion) the right way to go.
We as Protestants claim to be fellow Christians with you, united to you in one church through baptism. If we are right on this–even if our union is currently imperfect–then we should not convert. If we are wrong–if we are not really Christians at all–then we should. That’s my argument.
This was a hasty assumption, based on the general tone of these boards. But again, you don’t say that you are not in America. If you are not, then I will apologize. If you are, then my assumption was justified. I do believe that the attitude you are expressing is characteristic of American Protestantism, and by extension of the American Catholics who dominate this board. It is of course possible for someone who is not an American to hold these views. But it was a reasonable (if a bit hasty) inference to make, and again I’m under no obligation to take it back or apologize for it unless it was in fact inaccurate.
In my experience British Christians (for instance–I won’t speak so confidently of Australians, New Zealanders, etc.) do not in fact approach the faith in quite as individualistic a way as Americans. But modern culture as a whole is deeply influenced by these assumptions, unfortunately. . . .
Edwin
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I think the question of conversion is conditional on a point which you have not included in the formula so far.
I’ll talk about it below.
I think that many Catholics today, while deeply respecting the multiple contributions this great doctor has made to Christian theology on many levels, would still noentheless agree that St. Augustine was overly harsh in some key areas.
Pope Benedict XVI is certainly inviting many to engage in ecumencial dialogue with Catholicism in order to understand her better-- and conversely for us to understand these other denominations better as well. And while ecumenism’s goal is to reduce misunderstanding between denominations, the ultimate goal is indeed to reduce these misunderstandings on both sides so that the non-Catholic may approch Catholicism with a clear conscience before God when doing so.
Maybe so. But the question really comes to one of conscience-- the conscience of the person being invited to participate.
continued…
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
…continued.
Contarini:
It is not only Protestants that claim to be fellow Christians with Catholics, united to us in one church through baptism. Catholics say this too-- it’s taught in our catechism.
What this means is that even if other denominations are imperfectly united with the Catholic Church through various valid Christian elements, they still hold validly Catholic beliefs. And to the extent that they are authentically not able to properly discern their own distinctions for rejecting the Catholic faith, they are not held responsible for failing to convert.
So, to the extent that they validly believe their own denomination to be correct, they are not expected to join the Catholic faith. If they did, in a sense they would be lying against their own conscience when joining the Catholic faith-- because they would be living in a lie that they did not actually fully believe.
However; they are still held responsible for clearly examining there own denomination’s claims in light of the Catholic revelation. And only God can determine for sure exactly what he has enabled us to accept and whether the reason for rejecting his message was sufficienctly blocked by invincible conditions outside our own ability to discern.
So if the person from the other denomination truly believes the Catholic faith to be the true faith, and they instead fall back on the default position that their own denomination contains enough truth to ‘get by’ so to speak, then they are making a mistake in doing so-- because this is not the Catholic position.
You as a protestant claim to be a fellow Christians with us, united to us in one church through baptism. And you are are right on this – even if your union is currently imperfect.
But this condition isn’t the pivot upon which one decides whether to convert or not. It’s your conscience in relation to God’s revelation which ultimately sets the prerequistie for conversion
If you truly in your conscience believe that the Catholic faith is not not the true Church, then you should not convert. And, in this sense, the valid Christian elements within your denomination will allow Christ to work within you in order for him to bring you to salvation.
If you truly in your conscience believe that the Catholic faith is the true Church, then you should convert. And, in this sense, although the valid Christian elements within your denomination can still allow Christ to work within you in order for him to bring you to salvation, it also remains true that the things that are missing from your denomination may in fact be the things that Christ has fore-ordained and necessary for your salvation.
In other words, if you believe that Catholic faith to be true, and you refuse to enter the Catholic faith for whatever reason, then the denomination you remain in can actually work against you.
That’s the Catholic position as far as I understand
But this either/or argument ignores the question of conscience in regards to ecumenism.
It is not only Protestants that claim to be fellow Christians with Catholics, united to us in one church through baptism. Catholics say this too-- it’s taught in our catechism.
What this means is that even if other denominations are imperfectly united with the Catholic Church through various valid Christian elements, they still hold validly Catholic beliefs. And to the extent that they are authentically not able to properly discern their own distinctions for rejecting the Catholic faith, they are not held responsible for failing to convert.
So, to the extent that they validly believe their own denomination to be correct, they are not expected to join the Catholic faith. If they did, in a sense they would be lying against their own conscience when joining the Catholic faith-- because they would be living in a lie that they did not actually fully believe.
However; they are still held responsible for clearly examining there own denomination’s claims in light of the Catholic revelation. And only God can determine for sure exactly what he has enabled us to accept and whether the reason for rejecting his message was sufficienctly blocked by invincible conditions outside our own ability to discern.
So if the person from the other denomination truly believes the Catholic faith to be the true faith, and they instead fall back on the default position that their own denomination contains enough truth to ‘get by’ so to speak, then they are making a mistake in doing so-- because this is not the Catholic position.
You as a protestant claim to be a fellow Christians with us, united to us in one church through baptism. And you are are right on this – even if your union is currently imperfect.
But this condition isn’t the pivot upon which one decides whether to convert or not. It’s your conscience in relation to God’s revelation which ultimately sets the prerequistie for conversion
If you truly in your conscience believe that the Catholic faith is not not the true Church, then you should not convert. And, in this sense, the valid Christian elements within your denomination will allow Christ to work within you in order for him to bring you to salvation.
If you truly in your conscience believe that the Catholic faith is the true Church, then you should convert. And, in this sense, although the valid Christian elements within your denomination can still allow Christ to work within you in order for him to bring you to salvation, it also remains true that the things that are missing from your denomination may in fact be the things that Christ has fore-ordained and necessary for your salvation.
In other words, if you believe that Catholic faith to be true, and you refuse to enter the Catholic faith for whatever reason, then the denomination you remain in can actually work against you.
That’s the Catholic position as far as I understand
I
Image_of_God
Guest
I am zealous about the Christian Faith, but my zeal is not misguided as to consider the Protestant Faith completely unChristian as you claim. Because of this statement, it is almost similar to me calling all Protestants pagans. This is in fact what some Protestants think of Catholics, so they feel they must convert them because they are not Catholic. To consider me as in league with Anti-Catholic Protestants (except vise versa) who view the other religion as pagan(evil in other words) is offending to the the faith. And if proved wrong, it is horrible accusation to make.
That you called me a “zealous Catholic” is not the only offense you made. Just look at what some call zealous Protestants, some of whom look at Catholicism as evil, not seeing the truth in it. If you call me a Catholic with misguided zeal you also say that I view Protestantism as a bad religion that must be converted from.
I never said that Anglicanism was completely unCatholic, what I did say was that Anglicanism in some aspects is moving away from Catholicism. It would not be fact to say that every Anglican doctrine is moving Catholicwards.
Not necessarily, for we do not know how many forms of Anglicansim their are total. Although one Church, it is not all following the same policies, for example, it would be wrong for me to say that all forms of Anglicanism follow woman’s ordination, but it would also be wrong to say that overall all Anglicanism does not agree with it.
I repeat–if you focus on the standard issues that originally divided Catholics and Protestants, Anglicans are far more Catholic today than they were 400 years ago. That is what I originally said, and that is what I am saying now. It was not rash and it was not inaccurate. I’ve said plenty of foolish things and had to retract them, but this is not one of them.
Now I would not argue on this one completely, except for the fact that I am talking about certain issues. Since morality is a center of the Church a rejection of moral issues is in a way heresy, which is what was committed in the Protestant Reformation.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Maybe I was a bit unspecific when I said that, so pardon me. What I was meaning to say is that even though Ecumenism is not an infallible teaching it is still mandatory of all Catholics. And since Benedict’s speech was based upon the infallible council of Vatican II, I would of course have to listen to it.
They seemed to imply that, but your assumptions are wrong. Finding truth in Catholicism, will certainly entail some Protestants to individual Protestants to convert to it. Certainly, Benedict was not saying against this. He did say that their Faith is certainly salvific and that they, do not, in some sense, need to convert.
But you did accuse me of agreeing with individual conversion in the sense that you mean it so obviously you it is only logical to think that you also accuse me of thinking Protestantism as bogus of evil.
So do Catholics. However, it could mean that Protestants that are not satisfied with this partial imperfection, currently, can convert to Catholicism for perfect union. Benedict, did not mean that Protestants should not at all convert, if that is what their heart leads them to do. It is that becuase Protestantism is Christian, it could not be considered pagan, because we are united by Baptism.
I am American, but the end does not justify the means. Because you were right in the end, does not mean the means in which you became right are correct. You consider me to be warped up in American Culture, yet you do not consider for one moment that I might be an American that is not warped up in your definiton of American Culture. Their is no reasonablility to your assumptions. If it was a story, I would say different, but this is a real live person to whom you are talking. Just as you would not like me to make generalizations of Protestant beliefs, since their beliefs are varying, while not considering differences, likewise you should not make such generalizations about American people or the people on this forum for that matter.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s not the point–or rather it supports what I’m saying. Image cited Augustine as someone who did expect non-Catholics to convert to Catholicism as individuals (at least that appeared to be what Image was saying, though the connection wasn’t entirely clear).
But Benedict is addressing Protestants in the plural, not the singular. This I think is the real question. Do you deal with us as a group, or as individuals? Do you recognize that our “ecclesial communities” have some sort of reality and validity (even if gravely deficient)? Benedict seems to do so. Most folks on this board don’t. That’s the issue at hand, and it’s the major issue for me considering Catholicism.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I know that. That’s what I’m building on.
I don’t understand that phrase
But I don’t think that’s what I do, of course. And once you start using language about our having validly Catholic elements–in contrast to the Augustinian position that these elements are dead and worthless until reunited with the living body of Catholicism–you can’t simply say that we are “rejecting the Catholic faith.”
It seems to me that you and Image and many other conservative post-V2 Catholics are trying to maintain a conversionist rhetoric for which you no longer have a theological basis. You can’t speak any longer–as Augustine or Aquinas would have done–of our rejecting the Catholic Faith in toto because we question papal infallibility or something like that.
But you agree that I am already imperfectly joined to the Catholic faith. So this language is unwarranted–it doesn’t fit the current teaching of your own Church.
What claims? We claim to be part of the one universal Church through baptism–you grant this claim. We don’t claim to be infallible, or to be the one true Church. We admit that there may be points on which our doctrines need correction. So I don’t see what controversial “claims” we are making that need to be examined, except perhaps that we have valid Eucharist and valid bishops.
Again, I don’t think the question presents itself as “whether the Catholic faith is the true faith,” because I don’t think there are two different “faiths” in competition here. The question is whether the Roman Communion has always defined this faith correctly, and whether it has the authority to do so in the future, so that one can submit unconditionally not only to the past and present teaching of this communion but also to its future correctness. And this, it seems to me, is not a matter that an individual layperson can decide for himself or herself. It seems to my private judgment that the Roman Communion is more consistently orthodox than any of the Protestant bodies, but I do have some serious questions, primarily having to do with disturbing trends and overall attitudes within your Communion. These questions need to be addressed through corporate dialogue–I do not consider myself competent to decide them on my own.
But this presupposes that we are isolated, autonomous individuals. I don’t believe this. You can’t separate the “question of conscience” from the question of the validity of non-Catholic “ecclesial communities.” If the Christian communities that have shaped me have some kind of validity (however imperfect), then I cannot simply act in isolation from them.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not claiming any such thing. I don’t know how many times I have to tell you this until you believe me. I have never in any way claimed that you believe this. I have said that Protestants should only convert to Catholicism *if *Protestantism is completely un-Christian. In other words, our disagreement is not over whether Protestantism is genuinely Christian and contains many elements of truth and goodness (we both agree that it is and does), but over what the implications of that are for proper ecumenical method. I’m suggesting that focusing on individual conversion is inappropriate if we are as Christian as you think we are. I’m also claiming that Protestantism has many elements that are moving *toward *Catholicism, and that you should be trying to encourage those trends rather than dismissing Protestantism as a whole (and no, I don’t mean that you think we are completely apostate–I’m referring to your original post which argued–without qualification–that Protestantism is continually moving further away from Catholicism).
I didn’t make it. I never said that you thought Protestantism is evil or pagan. But you did say, without qualification, that Protestantism was moving away from Catholicism. You seemed to think that the original Catholic elements in Protestantism are steadily and uniformly diminishing. And this simply isn’t true. In making this claim, you are in fact promoting the same sort of tactic as the anti-Catholics do (when, for instance, they claim that Vatican II is a big hoax). You’re doing it much more politely and charitably. But you are in fact saying that Protestantism as a whole–as a corporate body–is moving in the wrong direction and thus cannot be salvaged, even though it still retains much that is good and true. This disparages the value of ecumenism and corporate reunion just as effectively as the more savage and patently absurd tactics of anti-Catholic Protestants.
I see no logic there whatever. I do not think that you think Protestantism is bad. But you said that Protestantism is moving in the wrong direction. Thus, while you don’t think we are entirely bad, you think we are getting worse. If you didn’t mean this, then you shouldn’t have said it.
But you did not use the phrase “in some aspects.” If you had, this argument would not be taking place.
And I did not say that it was. I explicitly inserted a caveat referring to certain moral and gender-related issues.
You’re going to have to speak for yourself here. Of course I don’t claim to have some sort of exhaustive taxonomy of Anglicanism, but I do know the overall scene pretty well, and I am confident making statements about it.
Very true.
And if you had said this in the original post then you would have been right. But you didn’t. You were speaking of Lutheranism and referring to traditional Catholic/Protestant issues such as confession. Then you made a leap to a general statement about Protestantism, and offered Anglicanism as an example. How was I to know that you were only speaking of certain moral issues which you had not been talking about up to that point?
Edwin
M
Mickey
Guest
If you agree that you are imperfectly joined to the Catholic Church, why do you not take the plunge for perfect adhesion?
C
Contarini
Guest
Benedict did not claim to be authoritatively interpreting Vatican II. I didn’t claim this either.
Just take my word for it that I wasn’t accusing you of being a heretic. If you think that BXVI’s statement was some sort of authoritative summary of V2’s teaching, then you are welcome to believe that, and in fact I’m glad that you do. But I had no way of knowing that you believed that.
And it seems a bit back-to-front to try to shut me down with the accusation that I’m calling you a heretic instead of simply showing that you do agree with B16’s speech. You seem to be claiming that a Protestant must always trust any Catholic’s interpretation of any papal statement, because otherwise the Protestant is being rude to the Catholic.
Well, I’m sorry, but I’m going to try to have substantive discussion with Catholics about their own Church’s teachings, and if in our PC-obsessed culture that means that I’m being “offensive,” that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
In that case I apologize.
The next question I would ask is whether your statement about Protestantism continually moving away from Catholicism doesn’t imply that Protestantism is hopeless and should be abandoned. If I believed what you are saying, I would certainly convert to Catholicism.
I see all sorts of signs for hope–the revival of interest in the Church Fathers and the Middle Ages among evangelicals; the “emergent church’s” interest in Catholic spirituality; the growth of an orthodox high-church Protestantism in the United Methodist Church, especially at Duke Divinity School. . . .
Then we don’t disagree. In fact I’m not sure I’d put it as strongly as you have! Ironic, isn’t it?
It doesn’t seem logical to me. I accused you of holding a view that would only be justified if you thought Protestantism was bogus/evil. But we all hold unjustified beliefs all the time. That’s what debate is all about. One standard method of argument is to show that the other person’s position entails conclusions that the other person doesn’t want to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood this tactic. Have you never encountered this kind of argument before? I hardly made it up–in fact I think it would be hard to have a meaningful theological discussion without it. Theology is a matter of teasing out the implications of the things we hold by faith, and figuring out how they relate to each other. It’s necessary to discuss sometimes the possibility that our ideas may not fit together very well–that if one of our beliefs is true, then some other belief may need to be altered or abandoned. And in response, defending the coherence of your beliefs may cause me to question my presuppositions, or perhaps my understanding of your presuppositions. Claiming to be offended only hinders this process. That is my only quarrel with you.
I completely agree here.
I apologize again for assuming that you were calling on all Protestants to convert as individuals. I still don’t understand why you would jump to the generalization that Protestantism as a whole is moving away from Catholicism, since you now say that this is only true in certain respects. However, I think you are right that I made too many assumptions about you (that you were American was not particularly one of them IMHO, but that’s a side issue), and I’m sorry.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I am not sure that simply being in communion with the bishop of Rome makes one perfectly joined to the Catholic Church. I would be giving up many valid and orthodox expressions of the Christian faith if I were to abandon Protestantism, and I would be submitting to certain points (papal infallibility, for instance) whose full orthodoxy and catholicity is in doubt.If you agree that you are imperfectly joined to the Catholic Church, why do you not take the plunge for perfect adhesion?
I have no doubt that the bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter in a unique sense, and that we ought to be in union with him. But I also believe, for instance, that the ministerial priesthood ought to be understood as an expression of the one baptismal priesthood rather than as something completely different, and when the current Pope issues a decree saying that laypeople can’t even wash the sacred vessels of the Eucharist, that is a warning sign–it seems to indicate that your Communion is not fully embracing the implications of the Book of Hebrews, but retains some of the more unfortunate aspects of the medieval Church’s understanding of the relationship between Old and New Covenants (in this case, a Christianization of the OT separation of holy things from the touch of the laity).
I’m not claiming that this is the major issue for me, but it’s a recent example of the sort of thing I find deeply troubling. I am not sure that this is a matter of dogma–I don’t have a problem with the view that presbyteral ordination confers a special priestly character, because this can be understood in a number of ways. As an ecumenical Protestant, I can say “let’s have a dialogue about how the universal and ministerial priesthoods are related,” meanwhile living out a practice that more fully embraces the unity of the two priesthoods. If I were to convert to Catholicism, I would have to live under the Roman Communion’s current understanding of this matter.
Edwin
M
Mickey
Guest
If this is how you feel, then you must follow your conscience.
W
Will_Pick
Guest
Ask the some questions to a non-catholic and you will get more arguments ,until you get blue in the face and they will be still be looking for more
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
A lot of Catholics would find (for example) the notion that Catholics and Protestants are both members of the Body of Christ completely unacceptable - and the same would apply to the point implied here: that other Churches than the CC can be means of salvation. Unless one can put the Holy Ghost on a leash or in a box or a bottle, there is no way of stopping Him blow “where He will”.
- Status