How can RCs and Protestants reconcile

[Albion]

Except, Chesterton, you have make it quite clear that to you, 'unity' means the rest of us becoming Roman Catholics. That is your stated intent. quote]

Exactly. Not only that, but I believe Christain unity is ONLY possible in the Catholic Church under the teaching authority of the Pope and the magisterium.

Without this authority, doctrinal chaos is the only possible outcome.

We must trust that Jesus is indeed leading US(all of us as one) into all Truth.

If the Truth is in dispute, then we know that this cannot be the case.

And you are perfectly entitled to believe that, just as others point to reasons for believing the opposite. The battle is joined, however, when either POV is insisted upon as the only possible approach. Let's not do that. We know where you stand, and you've explained why. Let's now consider reconciliation.

 

[archierieus]

If someone wants to share what they think is the truth, and someone wants to bring others into that truth, that is not subversive from their POV.

So-called protestant missionaries do it all the time, going into Catholic countries in Central and South America to bring the Gospel to people that are already Catholic. They call that "missionary" work. LOL

Many people choose to follow the Bible supremely rather than traditions of a particular religion. That can be a good thing. Truth will come to light, and the person can make an informed choice.

 

[Albion]

Will not happen. Other than the RC, no other church will recognize the Pope or the magisterium. I much rather see the RC return to the biblical model and demote the Pope to bishop of Rome only.

If we are attempting to walk this tightrope of speaking of doctrinal differences without bullying or berating the opposite side, how, would you say, this problem area can possibly be overcome? Or, is there any possibility at all short of the unlikely possibility of the Vatican renouncing its teachings about itself?

 

[Mikeb85]

Exactly. Not only that, but I believe Christain unity is ONLY possible in the Catholic Church under the teaching authority of the Pope and the magisterium.

Without this authority, doctrinal chaos is the only possible outcome.

We must trust that Jesus is indeed leading US(all of us as one) into all Truth.

If the Truth is in dispute, then we know that this cannot be the case.

How then, have the Orthodox been able to maintain the exact same beliefs for so long? All Orthodox, in our Roman Pope-less, 'divided' state, believe the exact same things... There's more variation of belief within the RCC (CCR, Uniates, SSPX, modernists, traditionalists, different monastic orders, etc...) than the Orthodox churches. How can this be explained?

 

[chestertonrules]

Man's authority was never intended to be substituted for that of the Holy Spirit.

Exactly. Unfortunately, that is what the Reformation did.

It made man the authority rather than the Church founded by Jesus.

Now, any man can tack up a sign, claim guidance by the Holy Spirit, and proclaim the "truth".

In Jn. 16, Jesus promised the Spirit of truth to lead His people into 'all truth.' quote]

Jesus made this promise to his disciples, not to you.


What did they do?

Pope Clement writing to the Corinthians in about 95 AD:

Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Chapter 44. The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.



Pope Clement I (called CLEMENS ROMANUS to distinguish him from the Alexandrian), is the first of the successors of St. Peter of whom anything definite is known, and he is the first of the "Apostolic Fathers". His feast is celebrated 23 November. He has left one genuine writing, a letter to the Church of Corinth, and many others have been attributed to him.

 

[archierieus]

Let's now consider reconciliation.

Yes, but coming to the table as equals, as fellow believers in Jesus, not as 'heretics,' as JPII described Protestants. Tell me, Albion, is that a realistic possibliity? Unless and until it happens, I don't see any chance of reconciliation.

 

[Albion]

Conversions happen for many reasons. New knowledge is one of these reasons.

It might take years sometimes, but that's not really the point.

I agree. Individual conversions -- in either direction -- will not touch the bigger issue, which is the reconciliation of the divisions existing in Christianity.

But what about this...?

Does reconciliation require formal, organization unity?

 

[chestertonrules]

How then, have the Orthodox been able to maintain the exact same beliefs for so long? All Orthodox, in our Roman Pope-less, 'divided' state, believe the exact same things... There's more variation of belief within the RCC (CCR, Uniates, SSPX, modernists, traditionalists, different monastic orders, etc...) than the Orthodox churches. How can this be explained?

There is only one Catholic Doctrine. It is complied in the Cathechism.

Is there a similar document for the Orthodox churches?

 

[archierieus]

Exactly. Unfortunately, that is what the Reformation did.

It made man the authority rather than the Church founded by Jesus.

Actually, the Protestant Reformation stood for exactly the opposite. It resulted from Martin Luther reading a Bible chained to the wall in the monastery, and discovering that the Church he served was not following the Bible. He appealed to that Church to reform and to follow the Bible, and as a result was excommunicated. The Reformation stood for and stands for following the Bible, what God says, rather than the traditions of man which were exalted above the Bible.

 

[Hentenza]

If we are attempting to walk this tightrope of speaking of doctrinal differences without bullying or berating the opposite side, how, would you say, this problem area can possibly be overcome? Or, is there any possibility at all short of the unlikely possibility of the Vatican renouncing its teachings about itself?

This area is the main sticky point. All present orthodox churches other than RC will not recognize the hierarchy as created by the RC. Frankly, it is one of the main sticky points that remains between the RC and the EO. Change will have to come from Rome before any semblance of a productive dialogue could occur. I am not optimistic.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but coming to the table as equals, as fellow believers in Jesus, not as 'heretics,' as JPII described Protestants. Tell me, Albion, is that a realistic possibliity? Unless and until it happens, I don't see any chance of reconciliation.

I'm thinking along those lines, and we do have some precedent for it (as others have mentioned). I don't think this will bring about any speedy reunification of the churches but if we see it as a first and achievable step in that direction, I'm interested.

 

[chestertonrules]

I agree. Individual conversions -- in either direction -- will not touch the bigger issue, which is the reconciliation of the divisions existing in Christianity.

But what about this...?

Does reconciliation require formal, organization unity?

Reconciliation is a step toward unity, in my opinion.

I think unity should the goal of all Christians.

There is only one Truth, and this truth should be our goal.

If I am wrong, I want to know it. Don't you?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Reconciliation is a step toward unity, in my opinion.

I think unity should the goal of all Christians.

There is only one Truth, and this truth should be our goal.

If I am wrong, I want to know it. Don't you?

Where do we find that Truth?

 

[archierieus]

Friends, Romans, countrymen, hear me for my cause!

Is this not an appropriate time to decide what direction things should go with these types of discussions? Which way do we want to head? To focus on proselytizing, or to focus on sharing, discussion and fellowship? To recognize each participant as a fellow believer, respectful of his or her beliefs and validating them, or intending to subvert and undermine them?

Which way?

 

[Albion]

This area is the main sticky point. All present orthodox churches other than RC will not recognize the hierarchy as created by the RC. Frankly, it is one of the main sticky points that remains between the RC and the EO. Change will have to come from Rome before any semblance of a productive dialogue could occur. I am not optimistic.

I totally agree...which is why I've tended towards a discussion of whatever is achievable in the short run--lessening areas of historic disagreement, etc.

 

[chestertonrules]

Where do we find that Truth?

I believe that it is found in Jesus, and that Jesus gave us the Church to protect the Truth.

If I am wrong about this, I want to know it.


So far, no one has come close to making a solid case against the Church.

 

[archierieus]

If I am wrong, I want to know it.

Are you open to the possibility that you may be wrong, and others may be right? I ask this generally, and as directed to all.

 

[sunlover1]

Does your current church teach this about the eucharist?

My pastor reads the account from the Bible, then we pray, then
we spend some time praying individually forgiving others and ourselves.
Then we partake. and whatever follows, as God moves. ANd when
we take communion, we normally lay hands on the sick, probably
due to the part that says for this reason many are sick (and sleep)

My pastor is very no nonsence practical astute guy even to the point
that he may offend the sensibilities of foolish prattling minds.
(NOT meaning you CR, just trying to give you a feel of how we roll)

civil discussion is unity enough for me.
And in spite of your big ears, long nose & severe underbite, we've managed not to come to death grips, hey Chez?

rofl.

So, it's an insult to uphold an RCC member promoting loving our neighbors as ourselves? lol

Aww, coy looks cute on you squint.

 

[Rick Otto]

Actually, the Protestant Reformation stood for exactly the opposite. It resulted from Martin Luther reading a Bible chained to the wall in the monastery, and discovering that the Church he served was not following the Bible. He appealed to that Church to reform and to follow the Bible, and as a result was excommunicated. The Reformation stood for and stands for following the Bible, what God says, rather than the traditions of man which were exalted above the Bible.

That's why we call it the Reformation, not The Protestation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I believe that it is found in Jesus, and that Jesus gave us the Church to protect the Truth.

If I am wrong about this, I want to know it.


So far, no one has come close to making a solid case against the Church.

And which Church may that be?