A conversation about unity.

[Hentenza]

it would be hard to be further from the truth. Unity requires is truth, honesty, forthright disclosure, clear definitions, clear statements of position, clear statements of belief. Without those things, no matter how much humility one pretends to have, no matter how much uncertainty one expresses, no matter how many times you say, "I could be wrong", no progress will be made.

You are then asking for the rest of us to believe that the truth is the one that you put forward which is what your church believes. Under those circumstances unity will never happen. You will certainly will never say that you could be wrong.

 

[public hermit]

why can't a Catholic state something regarding the primacy of the Catholic Church? We're not on an even playing field.

This is precisely the sticking point. This is an obstacle to unity. Maybe not by intention, but in substance, this claim replaces Christ as the head of the Church with the Catholic church, i.e., with the human institution that goes by that name. If that seems too strong, it replaces Peter (Peter's confession) with the Catholic church. Neither of those will be acceptable to those outside the human institution that calls itself "Catholic." Can you see why?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, I agree, my being sarcastic is not helpful. I don't think I've misrepresented your position, but maybe I'm being unfair or not understanding so I'll ask. Do you think your position, the teaching of the Catholic Church, leads to unity? If so, then how so? I'm not seeing it in what you've said, but maybe there's a way to put it that helps me understand.

Yes I do think it helps to open the discussion that could lead to unity because it presents what Catholics teach and why we teach it and that allows others to prepare their responses (or not). You need only answer what I've written directly and document your own position and why you hold to it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You are then asking for the rest of us to believe that the truth is the one that you put forward which is what your church believes. Under those circumstances unity will never happen. You will certainly will never say that you could be wrong.

Clearly you DO NOT believe what I've written so NO, I am not asking you to believe it without first examining it and deciding if you want to believe it or not and why. And yes, I can be wrong, I often am wrong, but that is not the point - the point is to ask if what I've written IS WRONG and to show why it is, or not. In a discussion the argument is in the words not in the persons. My fallibility can be taken as a given. I have no idea why you would think otherwise.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This is precisely the sticking point. This is an obstacle to unity. Maybe not by intention, but in substance, this claim replaces Christ as the head of the Church with the Catholic church, i.e., with the human institution that goes by that name. If that seems too strong, it replaces Peter (Peter's confession) with the Catholic church. Neither of those will be acceptable to those outside the human institution that calls itself "Catholic." Can you see why?

But the Church is not a human institution, it is a divine institution full of human beings.

1Timothy 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

It is God's Church not a human institution and maybe that is where the quest for unity has to begin, by defining clearly what each believes the Church to be.

 

[public hermit]

But the Church is not a human institution, it is a divine institution full of human beings

I would say, yes and no. The church universal, i.e., the whole class of those in Christ, is not a human institution, but particular instantiations in time and space of Christian groups, i.e., Christian institutions, are human.

It is God's Church not a human institution and maybe that is where the quest for unity has to begin, by defining clearly what each believes the Church to be.

Maybe, but I think the more general the criteria, the more likely it will foster unity. We don't have to search for a criteria. Faith in the risen Christ and confessing Christ as Lord seems to have been the criteria from the start, and it's sufficiently general.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I would say, yes and no. The church universal, i.e., the whole class of those in Christ, is not a human institution, but particular instantiations in time and space of Christian groups, i.e., Christian institutions, are human.

your reply is problematic. there is in fact only one Church there has only ever been one Church individual parishes, instantiations, as you put it, are not the whole church. and it is that church the one church that St Paul wrote about in First Timothy 3:15. so, no, I cannot agree with you that individual congregations, individual parishes, are human institutions.

Maybe, but I think the more general the criteria, the more likely it will foster unity. We don't have to search for a criteria. Faith in the risen Christ and confessing Christ as Lord seems to have been the criteria from the start, and it's sufficiently general.

I do not think you're going to get any unity out of reducing discussion to the most general propositions you can think of. Even The Nicene Creed is a little bit specific for the kind of generality you seem to be wanting to move towards. And if we include the Athanasian Creed we run the risk of dividing Christians, so from your perspective we would need to abandon it; after all, The Athanasian Creed includes very specific phrases from the Chalcedonian statement and I do believe that The Oriental Orthodox Churches have expressed difficulty over some of those statements. Personally, I would be unwilling to give up the creed of Chalcedon.

If you really do want to limit the Creed to Confessing Christ as Lord and Faith in the risen Christ then you could not exclude Jehovah's witnesses Mormons or a number of others sects that Christians generally have rejected. You would need to at least add The holy trinity and the incarnation and the hope of resurrection for Christians and The final judgement and The communion of Christians to your creed. And how could you avoid adding the existence of the church to your creed? In order to be faithful to scripture there would be a whole lot more you would need to add to your creed, baptism, the Lord's supper, marriage, ordination, church governance, in fact, you would need to add nearly all the dogmas of the Catholic church before you would be close to finished. in which case I think that you might want to go back and formulate a clear statement of your own fundamental beliefs, to compare and contrast with those the Catholics hold, or that the orthodox hold, or Lutherans, or any other group with which you wished to conduct a discussion leading to unity.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I remember years back a shared meal bringing the denominations together of bread and fish.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You wrote flippantly of damnation, yet the Catholic Church teaches that Hell is no rhetorical flourish. It is eternal separation from God, freely chosen by obstinate rejection of divine truth. The Council of Florence (1439) solemnly defined: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into Hell immediately after death and there suffer eternal punishments” (DS 1306). If you knowingly reject the truths revealed by God and taught by His Church, and persist in mortal sin without repentance, then yes—by that measure, you condemn yourself.

You claim to place critical reasoning above faith, as though reason were sovereign and revelation subordinate. That is a grave error. The First Vatican Council (1870) defined that “faith is a supernatural virtue by which we believe that what God has revealed is true, not because its intrinsic truth is seen by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God who reveals it” (Dei Filius, ch. 3; DS 3008). Reason is not abolished by faith, but perfected by it. To exalt reason above faith is to enthrone pride and dethrone God.

You dismiss all sources—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant—as irrelevant to your judgements. That is intellectual arrogance masquerading as independence. The Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of truth, as affirmed by Dominus Iesus (2000): “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” (§4). To reject this is not merely to differ in opinion; it is to reject Christ’s own authority, for He said to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18).

You may speak “unabashedly and unapologetically,” but truth is not subject to your bravado. The Church does not bend to your rhetorical flair. She proclaims what God has revealed, whether you accept it or not. If you persist in rebellion, you will face the consequences—not because the Church condemns you, but because you condemn yourself by refusing the grace offered to you. “He who believes and is baptised will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

You are not beyond redemption. But you must humble yourself before the truth, not wield reason as a weapon against it. The Church calls you to repentance, not applause. One may walk away now—but no one will not walk away from judgement.

First of all, you seem to be aiming blindfolded at me, who remains an unknown target. You know neither where I stand on any topic regarding the Christian faith, nor do you ask pertinent questions beforehand for the sake of ascertaining the qualities of your target (i.e. again, those specific to me) that to my mind should be a characteristic of the supposed "irenic" use of reason that you've stated you are promoting.

What is it that I need to repent of? Do I need to repent of the fact that I think some of the claims of the Roman Catholic Church have been multiplied and inflated beyond what the primitive 1st century Christian tradition has supplied? (Notice here that I acknowledge the role of tradition in addition to that of canonized Scripture----I fully realize that the Church, such as it was in the 4th to 10th decades of the 1st century, existed before the letters and books comprising the New Testament were drawn up through social circumstance and necessity, so there was a verbal/oral tradition also existing before the eventuating situations of need for written letters and books.

However, our UNITY as a single Christian body in Christ in the 21st century isn't, and has never been, conditioned or defined utterly and completely by what has come through the Roman Church and its various councils. I also think there are philosophical limits to the extent to which ongoing innovations in Christian doctrine can, or ever could have been, derived from what was the 'original position(s)' of those in the 1st century Church.

What does this mean when I say this? It means that I also don't think the Church can speak infallibly, even if it can speak authoritatively within limits. It also means I can't take to heart all that I find in John Henry Cardinal Newman's work, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Not all truth can be further inferred from previous conditions or axioms.

So, what specific doctrinal hoops do I have to jump through again in order for me to consider more fully that I should be able to have the fellowship of Christian UNITY that was earlier posited----allegedly by Paul----in the letter to the Ephesians? Do I have to enter the RCC communion in order to have UNITY?

 

[ARBITER01]

Is any Christian really concerned about unity ?

 

[Hentenza]

Clearly you DO NOT believe what I've written so NO, I am not asking you to believe it without first examining it and deciding if you want to believe it or not and why. And yes, I can be wrong, I often am wrong, but that is not the point - the point is to ask if what I've written IS WRONG and to show why it is, or not. In a discussion the argument is in the words not in the persons. My fallibility can be taken as a given. I have no idea why you would think otherwise.

Brother, again this thread is your defense of Catholic teachings. I grew up a Catholic and rejected Catholic teachings. I have nothing to prove to myself. I thought that you had a genuine desire for unity but I was wrong.

 

[Hentenza]

Is any Christian really concerned about unity ?

I am but maybe is just a fantasy.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Mark 9
33 They came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house, He began to question them, “What were you discussing on the way?”
34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest.
35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and *said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”
36 Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them,
37 “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”
38 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.”
39 But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.
40 For he who is not against us is for us.
41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.

 

[Hentenza]

Mark 9
33 They came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house, He began to question them, “What were you discussing on the way?”
34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest.
35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and *said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”
36 Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them,
37 “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”
38 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.”
39 But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.
40 For he who is not against us is for us.
41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.

Thanks for posting this but am afraid is going to fly over some folks head.

 

[public hermit]

your reply is problematic. there is in fact only one Church there has only ever been one Church individual parishes, instantiations, as you put it, are not the whole church. and it is that church the one church that St Paul wrote about in First Timothy 3:15. so, no, I cannot agree with you that individual congregations, individual parishes, are human institutions.

That's partly what I'm saying. I'm not saying just particular (local) congregations are human institutions; I'm saying the institutions behind those congregations are human (not completely sans divine, but nowhere near wholly divine, either). That means Catholics (and their variations), Orthodox (and their variations), Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian, Southern Baptist, Free Baptist, Nazarene, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, PCA and PCUSA, on and on- all of those are human institutions. They all can share in the generous grace and love of God in Jesus Christ, but none of them has the claim to primacy.

Correct me perhaps, but I think Catholic's use that distinction between universal and particular (local) within the institution of the Catholic Church. I am extending that distinction beyond the Catholic Church.

I do not think you're going to get any unity out of reducing discussion to the most general propositions you can think of. Even The Nicene Creed is a little bit specific for the kind of generality you seem to be wanting to move towards. And if we include the Athanasian Creed we run the risk of dividing Christians, so from your perspective we would need to abandon it; after all, The Athanasian Creed includes very specific phrases from the Chalcedonian statement and I do believe that The Oriental Orthodox Churches have expressed difficulty over some of those statements. Personally, I would be unwilling to give up the creed of Chalcedon.

If you really do want to limit the Creed to Confessing Christ as Lord and Faith in the risen Christ then you could not exclude Jehovah's witnesses Mormons or a number of others sects that Christians generally have rejected. You would need to at least add The holy trinity and the incarnation and the hope of resurrection for Christians and The final judgement and The communion of Christians to your creed. And how could you avoid adding the existence of the church to your creed? In order to be faithful to scripture there would be a whole lot more you would need to add to your creed, baptism, the Lord's supper, marriage, ordination, church governance, in fact, you would need to add nearly all the dogmas of the Catholic church before you would be close to finished. in which case I think that you might want to go back and formulate a clear statement of your own fundamental beliefs, to compare and contrast with those the Catholics hold, or that the orthodox hold, or Lutherans, or any other group with which you wished to conduct a discussion leading to unity.

Actually, I will concede a more particular criterion than what I offered. I think what I offered is sufficient for the universal Church, but when dealing with human institutions, and trying to bring about unity, what you're saying does make sense. So many Christians would affirm the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Even those who claim to not confess to creeds would probably agree with most of the claims in the creeds. That is a big umbrella. It's not as big as what I suggested, but it is more practical if our goal is unity among existing institutions.

I think the reality is that many Christian already do agree on large parts of traditional doctrine. That's probably sufficient. We disagree a lot on worship and practice. I don't think that's a deal-breaker. Politics should never be part of criteria. What I think would be most important is if we could unite in terms of good works. That alone would could change the world. A unified church, i.e., a unified group of human institutions abiding in God's grace and love, could do so much. As Jesus said, they will know you are my disciples by your love, and so on.

 

[Carl Emerson]

My mum was RC my dad was Salvation Army. Both families refused to attend the wedding - only 5 friends attended and they had to ask the taxi driver to be the witness. They married in an Anglican church.

My uncle threw a priest over the front fence.

I know a bit about disunity.

I know a bit about unity.

I am not sure that this thread is helping.

 

[Strong in Him]

your reply is problematic. there is in fact only one Church there has only ever been one Church

Yes - i's ALL Christian believers.
All who confess Jesus, trust Jesus, serve Jesus and believe that he is the only way to the Father.

The church can be found where Christians gather - in coffee shops, Bible study groups, Bible college, school or university Christian unions.
It can be found at Greenbelt, Spring Harvest or New Wine (UK Christian festivals) where thousands of people from all denominations gather to worship God, read his word and pray together. It can be found in the quiet of an abbey, monastery or convent.

individual parishes, instantiations, as you put it, are not the whole church.

They are local congregations and part of the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic church.

and it is that church the one church that St Paul wrote about in First Timothy 3:15.

Paul founded several churches - local congregations - at Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica and so on.

I do not think you're going to get any unity out of reducing discussion to the most general propositions you can think of.

It's about finding what we have in common and all agree on - also, those things that are the most important.
Differing church practices are not the Christian Gospel.

Even The Nicene Creed is a little bit specific for the kind of generality you seem to be wanting to move towards.

The Nicean Creed was written to counter the false teaching that was going around at the time and which centred on who Jesus was. Some said that he was only human and not divine, some said that he was only divine and not human.

The question that Jesus asked his disciples - "who do you say that I am?" - is still the most important one that anyone will have to answer
Salvation is by him alone.

If you really do want to limit the Creed to Confessing Christ as Lord and Faith in the risen Christ then you could not exclude Jehovah's witnesses Mormons or a number of others sects that Christians generally have rejected.

"Lord" is not a human title of respect. And if we believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, that necessarily means that all that Jesus claimed about himself - being one with God, able to forgive sins, entitled to use the name that God revealed to Moses, the one who came from heaven and has seen God, the only way to the Father etc, etc - is true, Romans 1:4. Why would God raise a blasphemous, deluded/sinful man from the dead? JWs etc do not believe that Jesus was God.

You would need to at least add The holy trinity and the incarnation and the hope of resurrection for Christians and The final judgement and The communion of Christians to your creed.

Accepting Jesus = accepting his teachings and all that he claimed about himself.
He said that he was one with the Father and that the Spirit is God's Spirit. He forgave sins, etc. The Jews believed he was claiming to be God, which is why they tried to stone him, John 8:58-59 and then had him crucified for blasphemy.
Jesus said that he had shared God's glory before the creation of the world, John 17:5, and had obviously been born as a human - God in the flesh; incarnation.
Jesus told his disciples that there were many mansions in his Father's house, that he was going to prepare one for them and that he would return and take them to be with him, John 14:3.
Jesus spoke of final judgement - eg Matthew 25; sheep and goats.

In order to be faithful to scripture there would be a whole lot more you would need to add to your creed, baptism, the Lord's supper, marriage, ordination, church governance,

Jesus taught baptism and the Lord's supper. He did not teach about ordination.

in which case I think that you might want to go back and formulate a clear statement of your own fundamental beliefs, to compare and contrast with those the Catholics hold, or that the orthodox hold, or Lutherans, or any other group with which you wished to conduct a discussion leading to unity.

All Christians accept Jesus, therefore, should accept who he was, what he did and the words he taught.
There are many different ways of putting his words into practice - e.g. what is baptism? What is worship? But what we have in common is that we accept, have received and trust in the One who said them.

What we should be doing is encouraging one another in the faith and into a deeper relationship with Jesus and not focusing on church practice.
The very words "church which Jesus founded" - which you believe to be synonymous with the Catholic church - are a sign of disunity. It suggests that any Christian who goes to "another church" is in one that is not founded/recognised by Jesus. The "we're right, you're not" attitude is how wars start.

 

[Carl Emerson]

1 Cor 1
10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.

12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”
13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

 

[concretecamper]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm still waiting for @2PhiloVoid to lead us down his rabbit hole.

My guess, it's all talk.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm still waiting for @2PhiloVoid to lead us down his rabbit hole.

My guess, it's all talk.

I don't know about you, but I just got back from the grocery store.