Unity Between Catholic and Protestant Christians

GodLovesCats · Feb 9, 2020

prodromos said:
All miracles sound like magic to those who don't understand God's divine activity in the created world.

Jesus is in heaven. He can't possibly be the bread and wine. We know this because of the Ascension. Why then does anyone think the Last Supper ritual is literally eating and drinking Christ? For that to happen at all, the Ascension must have never occurred.

mrhagerty · Feb 9, 2020

GaveMeJoy said:
Well folks. We have an answer why there can’t be unity. The Orthodox won’t let anyone else in heaven. Bummer I was really hoping to get in but since you guys have an imaginary apostolic succession guess I’m out of luck.

Joy - I don't think it's hopeless. There are going to be bastions the Catholic will not compromise. But acceptance and fellowship is not off the table. Even Trads who reject Vatican II will accept that there is salvation outside the Holy Church. I know this first hand. Nor is it a case of just going through the motions socially. My Trad friends believe they will see me in Heaven without having ever taken Mass. They are reconciled that I will spend more time in Purgatory before that reunion with them can take place.

Mike

GaveMeJoy · Feb 9, 2020

mrhagerty said:
Sacred Tradition Will Always be the Key

I’m new to this forum but long a student of the Catholic-Protestant issue. I look forward to reading and contributing here, as the Lord makes possible.

I participated in a two-year long Catholic-Protestant Debate on a Catholic forum back in 2005-2007. The graciousness and patience on both sides made it possible to both learn and challenge each other in a

remarkable spirit of acceptance. There were, however, limits to any transformative outcome. Perhaps what was learned more than anything is that we must be patient and compassionate with each other.

As Protestants, we need to understand that knowledgable Catholics, especailly trads, utilize the concept of Sacred Tradition as a fait-accompli for almost every critical observation against those doctrines which can’t be substantiated in the BIble. It is so fundamental that there is truly a major roadblock to any form of real compromise.

Sacred Tradition is essentially the received tradition, verbal and unwritten conveyed to the Church from the Apostles and which justifies every precept and doctrine they have come to formulate along the centuries.

When we point out that Immaculate Conception or Purgatory are found nowhere in the Bible, their response is that “the Church has always believed” said doctrine.

We essentially have no argument because there is no way to prove a negative – that the Apostles didn’t believe it. Nor do we have access to the legacy path that preserved such doctrines down the ages.

The lack of support in the Bible is inconsequential because for Catholics, the Scripture is a by-product of the verbal Tradition, The verbal Tradition rules all affairs. That some of it came out as written down in the Scriptures is never to be a test of all the divinely blessed doctrine possessed by the Holy Church. It is merely a snap-shot of the whole Tradition.

One point I was able to make somewhat effectively was the question of how the Church can demontrate that it has not strayed from the Deposit of Faith once given by the Apostles. You would have to have a record of what the Deposit contained, so that a comparison which the Magisterium of today could be made. Their reply is that there is no such record, that it has always been verbally conveyed and represents at all times what the bishops and the pope profess as the Tradition. So no comparison can ever be made. There simply is no way to verify that today’s corpus of Catholic doctrine is identical without variance from that given by the Apostles.

To the challenge tha this is irrational, their only response is that it is a matter of faith that it has remained unaltered – the same faith that we as Protestants use to accept the books of the Bible as genuine. All the doctrines that appear to have been added beyond the Scriptures, are believed by faith to have been what the Apostles originally believed but simply never committed to writing.

This fundamental difference will make a true reconcilation or union with Protestants unlikely. We will always be seen as somehow originally Catholics who choose to live in schism.

Mike

Facts!

GodLovesCats · Feb 9, 2020

Lost4words said:
Jesus sent out His Apostles to forgive sins, in His name. Today, through Apostolic succession, our priests do exactly the same thing, as directed by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

That means Jesus Himself did not forgive us for our sins; the apostles did. This is unbiblical. Did Jesus not forgive us for our sins on the cross?

GaveMeJoy · Feb 9, 2020

mrhagerty said:
Joy - I don't think it's hopeless. There are going to be bastions the Catholic will not compromise. But acceptance and fellowship is not off the table. Even Trads who reject Vatican II will accept that there is salvation outside the Holy Church. I know this first hand. Nor is it a case of just going through the motions socially. My Trad friends believe they will see me in Heaven without having ever taken Mass. They are reconciled that I will spend more time in Purgatory before that reunion with them can take place.

Mike

Yes Catholics can concede that prots and orthodox might make it to heaven but orthodox can’t. They believe partaking in the Eucharist is salvific and no one can do so unless part of the “one true church”///hubris///.
Every time I ask my orthodox priest friend if I’m going to hell he tells me it’s mystical and he doesn’t know but in same breath says salvation is through orthodox sacraments

mrhagerty · Feb 9, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
Jesus is in heaven. He can't possibly be the bread and wine. We know this because of the Ascension. Why then does anyone think the Last Supper ritual is literally eating and drinking Christ? For that to happen at all, the Ascension must have never occurred.

For the Catholic, it's the same answer we comfort ourselves with when asking how Jesus is inhabiting our prayers or is present in a worship service, yet forever sits at the righthand of the Father. For Him to be present in the species of the Eucharist is a spiritual and mystical operation where the violation of the laws of Physics doesn't apply.

As to literally eating Christ, review the account in John 6:52-58. We take this as symbolic. But those present objected ala cannibalism and Jesus reiterated about eating Him and drinking His Blood.

Mike

mrhagerty · Feb 9, 2020

GaveMeJoy said:
Yes Catholics can concede that prots and orthodox might make it to heaven but orthodox can’t. They believe partaking in the Eucharist is salvific and no one can do so unless part of the “one true church”///hubris///.
Every time I ask my orthodox priest friend if I’m going to hell he tells me it’s mystical and he doesn’t know but in same breath says salvation is through orthodox sacraments

By orthodox, you mean the Eastern church?

Mike

GodLovesCats · Feb 9, 2020

mrhagerty said:
For the Catholic, it's the same answer we comfort ourselves with when asking how Jesus is inhabiting our prayers or is present in a worship service, yet forever sits at the righthand of the Father. For Him to be present in the species of the Eucharist is a spiritual and mystical operation where the violation of the laws of Physics doesn't apply.

As to literally eating Christ, review the account in John 6:52-58. We take this as symbolic. But those present objected ala cannibalism and Jesus reiterated about eating Him and drinking His Blood.

The Holy Spirit inhabits our prayers.

Tropical Wilds · Feb 9, 2020

Oscarr said:
I have a question:

How can Catholics and Protestants have true unity while the Catholic church believes it is the only true church and that to be fully accepted as a true Christian a Protestant must convert to Catholicism, accept the Pope as their spiritual leader, and subscribe to Catholic doctrine and theology?

This issue came up on the Catholic forum, and I felt quite limited in discussing this because that forum is protected for Catholic believers. This is why I am bringing up the question in a more appropriate forum where those who are concerned about this can have a free discussion about the issues.

In my opinion, most Protestants, Pentecostals, and Charismatics wouldn't dream in a million years to even consider converting to Catholicism, so I cannot see any possibility of any form of unity between Catholics and Protestants. They are as totally different as chalk and cheese.

King Henry VIII tackled this topic in the mid-1600s. He found a way that worked for him, though wives 1, 2, 5, and likely 6 would disagree.

prodromos · Feb 9, 2020

David Kent said:
Luther excommunicated the pope, fulfilling a prophecy of Revelation 11 to cast out the outer court.

Luther wasn't a bishop, so had no authority to excommunicate anyone.

Albion · Feb 9, 2020

Concord1968 said:
Have a talk with a Trad Catholic and you may get a different take on that

Could be, but the question was about the Church's position.

Albion · Feb 9, 2020

mrhagerty said:
So let me clarify up front, I don’t mean anywhere to convey that the justifications by Catholics for their doctrines are matters of fact or are factually correct. In fact, I assert the opposite. They may claim them to be factually valid as part of what the Apostles delivered to the Church, but this can’t be proven by them or anyone else.

Okay. I'm happy for the clarification.

As to the late arrivals of doctrines, 13th, 15th centuries etc., the Catholic is never impressed by us pointing out that these have no history before these declaration points. It’s the same argument as before – the Church has always believed them, and if you need to verify it, just ask us, we’re the only ones who know.

You are correct that this is what they would say. However, history says something else.

The written publication dates for these doctrines have nothing to do with the verbal origin of the doctrines, says the Vatican.

Again, we are not surprised that the Church has created its own version of history, not unlike the Landmarker Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and other faiths.lgh.sotyh de uare

My comment does not mean that this constitutes facticity. The fact that there’s little “written” from the Early Church Fathers to show how far back these beliefs go, is never important because all this has been verbally conveyed and maintained down the ages. This is what Tradition means to them. It’s basically a secret conveyance kept within the walls of the Vatican that only a select part of the leadership participates in.

I’m not seeing where I said this. Can you show me?

The official encyclopedia for all things Catholic – newadvent.org – has a more detailed account of what you are hinting at above. It’s not a group of locals who were curious and opened the grave. Rather, it was a request of the apostle Thomas. When the grave was opened it was found empty, hence the conclusion of the Assumption.
Link: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary

But this is not legend as far as the Holy Church is concerned. The account was supposed investigated and verified through the testimony of St. Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem and accepted at Chalcedon (451) on the query of Emperor Marcian and his wife Pulcheria.

Now, that’s hardly juridical proof that it happened or that the Apostles included it as the essential doctrines they passed along in the Deposit of Faith. And the fact that the Council had to ask the Bishop of Jerusalem for input certainly means it was not universal sacred attestation the leadership at Rome was keeping safe.

So, your point is valid that the history of the council reveals that it was not common belief (at least in 451), but it also was not a spurious legend that crept in and became sacred tradition. For Catholics, it has the imprimatur of validation by a recognized saint of the Church. What that means to us Protestants remains another thing. What I mean is that the Church was a bit more careful to investigate the truth of it than letting a local legend have full sway.

Mike[/QUOTE]

Jamdoc · Feb 9, 2020

Oscarr said:
I have a question:

How can Catholics and Protestants have true unity while the Catholic church believes it is the only true church and that to be fully accepted as a true Christian a Protestant must convert to Catholicism, accept the Pope as their spiritual leader, and subscribe to Catholic doctrine and theology?

This issue came up on the Catholic forum, and I felt quite limited in discussing this because that forum is protected for Catholic believers. This is why I am bringing up the question in a more appropriate forum where those who are concerned about this can have a free discussion about the issues.

In my opinion, most Protestants, Pentecostals, and Charismatics wouldn't dream in a million years to even consider converting to Catholicism, so I cannot see any possibility of any form of unity between Catholics and Protestants. They are as totally different as chalk and cheese.

They can't. They're almost as different as Christianity and Islam or Christianity and Judaism.

Albion · Feb 9, 2020

See the following post.

Albion · Feb 9, 2020

mrhagerty said:
So let me clarify up front, I don’t mean anywhere to convey that the justifications by Catholics for their doctrines are matters of fact or are factually correct. In fact, I assert the opposite. They may claim them to be factually valid as part of what the Apostles delivered to the Church, but this can’t be proven by them or anyone else.

Okay. I'm happy for the clarification.

As to the late arrivals of doctrines, 13th, 15th centuries etc., the Catholic is never impressed by us pointing out that these have no history before these declaration points. It’s the same argument as before – the Church has always believed them, and if you need to verify it, just ask us, we’re the only ones who know.

You are correct that this is what they would say. However, history says something else.

The written publication dates for these doctrines have nothing to do with the verbal origin of the doctrines, says the Vatican.

Again, we are not surprised that the Church has created its own version of history, not unlike the Landmarker Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and other faiths.

My comment does not mean that this constitutes facticity. The fact that there’s little “written” from the Early Church Fathers to show how far back these beliefs go, is never important because all this has been verbally conveyed and maintained down the ages.

However, there is enough of a written record to show conclusively that most of these doctrines are NOT the product of anything "verbally conveyed and maintained down the ages." We are dealing in this case with another example of "talk is cheap." It's also necessary if the institutional church is to keep its members believing that their church is the one and only true church.

That said, I'll close by saying that I know what Catholics say, what Sacred Tradition is supposed to mean, what their church tells them to believe, which catechisms etc. contain the official stances on all of this. Yes, I know.

But that has nothing to do with what I have written in response. That has dealt entirely with the fact that all of it is contrived, falsified, or merely theoretical. Sure, they believe it, but it's not true. The facts are otherwise.

NothingIsImpossible · Feb 9, 2020

I find any denomination can get along, but of course when certain issues come up, such as the birth of a baby, then that's when the arguing commences. People should just agree to disagree. My wife and I evangelical and yet the couple that we are very close to is catholic. And we both understand that we disagree on certain things. But it never gets between us as friends.

nonaeroterraqueous · Feb 9, 2020

Oscarr said:
If we are able to put denominational barriers and doctrinal differences aside....

Yes, if we put doctrinal differences aside, then we will perceive a unity among us. If you put a protestant pastor and a Catholic priest together, they appear different:

However, if your eyesight is poor and you remove your glasses, then the difference becomes a great deal less significant:

...which is why I think you nailed it with this line:

Oscarr said:
It is being absolutely blind to it ....

Unity requires blindness. It requires ignorance of doctrine and difference, and it requires us to be led by imagination that the person beside us has everything in common. It requires us to stumble along in our religious gatherings, tripping on faith, falling over doctrine and nearly coming to our fatal end. If we are blind to doctrine then we have unity: if we have nothing in common, then we have everything in common when everyone has nothing. That's not a solution to anything.

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 9, 2020

ViaCrucis said:
Except I don't think this describes real unity. Being blind to, ignoring, or pretending as though the certain beliefs and practices we have don't actually matter isn't a path toward unity, it simply ignores those distinct things which, from where we stand as Christians, define us and our faith in Christ.

Those doctrinal differences aren't minor inconveniences. They are frequently things which are defining for us of our faith and hope in Christ. For example, as a Lutheran, I don't take the Lutheran Confessions to be simply "filler" or some kind of empty calories that don't really matter. Those Confessions are what defines being a Christian in the Lutheran tradition. When I confess "For neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe on Him, and obtain Him for our Lord, unless it were offered to us and granted to our hearts by the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the Gospel." (Large Catechism, Section II, Article III.38) that is something that I consider fundamental, essential. This isn't just a token or badge to make me feel "more Lutheran", it's my Christian faith. This is how I am a Christian, and it can't be any other way for me.

Lutheranism isn't an obstacle I need to overcome in order to achieve unity; Lutheranism is the name of what it means for me to confess Jesus Christ, and the two thousand year old faith of His Holy Catholic Church.

-CryptoLutheran

I go by the premise that anyone who believes in and confesses that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He rose from the dead should be given the benefit of the doubt and accepted as a Christian believer whether he or she is Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Protestant of any label. This is important because we can't see what God can see - into the heart of an individual. Because He is the only judge of whether a person is a genuine Christian believer or not, we have to abide by that. Although we have the right to evaluate and judge religious doctrines - whether they are consistent with Holy Scripture or not, we don't have the right to judge individuals whether they are true believers or not. The Scripture says that the foundation stands sure; God knows who are really His. And He is the only One who really knows. In the Day of the Lord when the secrets of men's hearts will be made manifest, then we will know who was and is really in the faith or not.

This means that if a Roman Catholic believer says he is a Christian because he believes that Jesus is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead, I am in no position to judge otherwise. I can question some of his doctrinal beliefs, but I cannot judge him to be reprobate because of them.

Actually, we have come a long way from the start of the Reformation under Martin Luther. In his day, to be a Lutheran would have been under the sentence of death, because it was a capital offence to deny the authority of the pope, and millions died because of it. I firmly believe that if the Roman Catholic church ever got into the place where they had total religious and political control over our western nations, we will quickly see that anyone who refuses the authority of the pope will be subject to the death sentence as it was back in Luther's time.

That's where the Roman Catholic church and Islam have in common. With Islam, one has to convert to Islam or die. That is the basis of Sharia Law.

The amusing thing about some elements in the church wanting to have unity with Islam. If they both emerged having religious and political control, they would be giving each other the death sentence!

mrhagerty · Feb 9, 2020

GaveMeJoy said:
Facts!

If that was a call to support my observations, I have the following:

McKenzie, John L., S.J. The Roman Catholic Church
McBrien, R. Catholicism
Vidmar, J The Catholic Church Through the Ages
Congar, Yves O.P The Meaning of Tradition
Q&A with celebrated Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid

My personal experience with Trads in an online forum, 2005-2007.

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 9, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
Hopefully this thread doesn’t descend into the usual polemical arguments but maintains the friendly decorum I haves seen at first glance. That said, I think the first order would be a definition of the Gospel would be paramount. I would be willing to acknowledge for example the historic position of the Bishop of Rome if the Gospel were allowed to rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered. That would have to be a starting point.

If we keep kicking the ball and not each other, I think we will continue to have a stimulating, enjoyable, respectful discussion.

The point of this thread is to discuss the many issues that go with the possibility or impossibility of unity between Protestants and the Roman Catholic church.

My view, although I have issues with many of the doctrines of the RCC, my wife has an RCC background, along with her family. She believes she is a Christian, and I don't doubt that. As I said in a previous post, I give people the benefit of the doubt. My wife and I attended a Pentecostal church at the baptism of our daughter. She came away saying that it was not her cup of tea. I respect that. She knows that I have a Pentecostal theology, but she has never criticised me for it, other than when she first met me she thought I was too "holy" for her - and I had totally calmed down from the rowdy Pentecostal I used to be!

If we accept each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, united in Him, regardless of our denomination labels and badges, then our discussions will be respectful, and we will be able to agree to disagree on many issues.

Being the OP, if I think that the thread is degenerating into a tit for tat personal sniping at individuals with "you" criticisms and attempts to discredit people posting to the thread, I will ask the moderators to close the thread down. But until then, let's continue our discussion, and I don't care what direction our discussion takes us. That's the fun of it!

Unity Between Catholic and Protestant Christians

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

Senior Veteran

Facilitator

Facilitator

Watching and Praying Always

Facilitator

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Nonexistent Member

Senior Veteran

Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads