Unity Between Catholic and Protestant Christians

[mrhagerty]

The Holy Spirit inhabits our prayers.

Actually, we were both off the mark. He inhabits the praises of His people. And the verse in Ps 22:3 refers not to the Holy Spirit but to Elohim, whom the Jews believed as the God of Israel who sits on His throne.

I think the point is still valid - that we can't apply the laws of Physics or of human limitation to be in only one place in space and time or in one form to the concept of the Eucharist or our Communion.

Mike

 

[prodromos]

The orthodox don’t believe Protestants can partake in the Eucharist and that if you don’t you go to hell. So that’s a thing...

Slanderers are mentioned a few times in the Scriptures. I would prefer you repent rather than put yourself in their company.

 

[Jeshu]

Baloney, sir!

You have no idea what the Eucharist is. You have no understanding that it is a sign and symbol of unity in dogma and doctrine, of unity in belief and practice. To partake of a Lord's Supper in a church with which you disagree is to set forth a visible lie - i.e., that you are in union with them (communion - common union) when you are actually not.

No no baloney. Just true honest fellowship without a church building or dogmatic rules just true believing people who love the Lord and each other and celebrate their freedom in Christ breaking the bread and drinking the wine. As far as your Eucharist is concerned you can keep it keep all for yourself and your kind. i much rather eat from the Heavenly bread and drink the Heavenly wine than the bread and wine of tradition and Church teaching.

Have a pleasant day.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Does the Roman Catholic church agree with this, in their doctrine?

From what I know from Vatican II, the RCC views those loyal to the pope is the same as being loyal to Christ, and therefore only those ones are true Christian believers.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Absolutely not.

Why then does Vatican II clearly state that those who depend on Christ through faith alone, without works, are anathema, or condemned to hell? And those who don't believe in the effectiveness of Indulgences (paying money to get grandma out of purgatory) are to be condemned to hell as well? Surely that would exclude from salvation all Protestants who hold to faith alone in Christ and don't believe in Indulgences.

 

[Saint Steven]

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?

Hey Oscarr, interesting topic.
I read the first two pages and the last two. (9-10) So, I didn't read the whole topic. TL/DR

Maybe the problem here is defining "unity" and "true unity".

Perhaps the best we can hope for is mutual respect, which would not require compromise on either side except in terms of putting aside any existing religious prejudice. Meaning we should accept each other as we are and let that be enough. Where common worship can occur, that's great, but it can't happen across all denominations, as has already been discussed here.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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

In actual fact, Luther wanted to remain with the RCC, but the RCC excommunicated him and condemned him to death, which would have happened if he had not be protected by a local nobleman.

 

[Robin Mauro]

From what I know from Vatican II, the RCC views those loyal to the pope is the same as being loyal to Christ, and therefore only those ones are true Christian believers.

Thanks, that's what I thought. I wonder if this Pope will take a different stance.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Actually, we were both off the mark. He inhabits the praises of His people. And the verse in Ps 22:3 refers not to the Holy Spirit but to Elohim, whom the Jews believed as the God of Israel who sits on His throne.

I think the point is still valid - that we can't apply the laws of Physics or of human limitation to be in only one place in space and time or in one form to the concept of the Eucharist or our Communion.

We certainly can apply the laws of physics because Jesus is as much human as he is God. And who would be correct to assume just because God can do something, he will do it? In English, "this is my body" and, "this is my blood" are metaphors. Flour does not change to human flesh. Grapes do not change to human blood. They are still plant material. So Communion is totally symbolic.

 

[prodromos]

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

We have repeatedly stated that God Himself is not bound by the standards He has set for the Church. The thief on the cross is proof of that.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Slanderers are mentioned a few times in the Scriptures. I would prefer you repent rather than put yourself in their company.

Correct. We can't say who is going to hell and who isn't. Only God has that right. We can say that a certain church believes such and such, but we can't say "you" are either Christian or not. Even Paul had to repent when he told the Jewish Chief Priest after being slapped by him, called him a hypocrite ("a whited wall") and that God would strike him. When someone told him that it was the Chief Priest, Paul apologised saying that he did not know it was the Chief Priest. So we have to be careful when we are tempted to kick individuals instead of "the ball".

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Baloney, sir!

You have no idea what the Eucharist is. You have no understanding that it is a sign and symbol of unity in dogma and doctrine, of unity in belief and practice. To partake of a Lord's Supper in a church with which you disagree is to set forth a visible lie - i.e., that you are in union with them (communion - common union) when you are actually not.

Kick the ball and not the other players. Using "you" messages to discredit someone who contributes a post you don't agree with merely weakens your position.

 

[mrhagerty]

Okay. I'm happy for the clarification.

. . .
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.

. . .
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.

You've intrigued me by the above conclusions. I'm not aware of written records that would prove that doctrines at issue were not conveyed down the ages. A written document to that effect would have to state that such doctrines are officially declared false. I honestly don't think there is anything of that sort.

What we do have as written records are the declarations of certain things believed at the time of the writing or claimed to be from the apostles, but they are of course missing the doctrines we are keen to substantiate. So, from my experience it is written documents that fail to mention these doctrines. But that wouldn't be an argument as I see it.

When you say, "all of it is contrived, falsified, or merely theoretical" and
"the facts are otherwise" I must have missed where you dealt with that demonstration. (I'm not doubting you, I just haven't seen this part of the discussion)

Mike

 

[prodromos]

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.

Citation needed.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thanks, that's what I thought. I wonder if this Pope will take a different stance.

Time will tell. I wonder if Pope John Paul 1 tried and died prematurely under suspicious circumstances, and Pope Benedict tried, got spooked and resigned before the same thing happened to him? Who knows?

I don't think that the Pope has the real power to make changes. I think that the Vatican hierarchy will stick solidly to Vatican II, which ratified all the components of the Council of Trent.

 

[mrhagerty]

We certainly can apply the laws of physics because Jesus is as much human as he is God. And who would be correct to assume just because God can do something, he will do it? In English, "this is my body" and, "this is my blood" are metaphors. Flour does not change to human flesh. Grapes do not change to human blood. They are still plant material. So Communion is totally symbolic.

Jesus said. "He that eats Me shall live also." In what way could eating mere flour be eating Christ? The more we emphasize it's just a symbol, the harder it is to envision we are obeying Christ and eating Him.

How do you see Christ's command being accomplished with mere flour?

Mike

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Citation needed.

Any recognised Church History will give those details. I would assume that RCC historians would leave a lot of stuff out that would show that it might have been responsible for the killing of millions of those who would not accept the authority of the pope; and Protestant historians would emphasize the extent of the holocausts in Europe that effectively wiped out whole cities of dissenters around 1000 years ago.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Jesus said. "He that eats Me shall live also." In what way could eating mere flour be eating Christ? The more we emphasize it's just a symbol, the harder it is to envision we are obeying Christ and eating Him.

How do you see Christ's command being accomplished with mere flour?

Mike

It is basically the same as hearing a tall story and saying it is quite difficult to swallow. It is not that we literally eat and swallow the story teller, but it is figurative language to says that the story is unbelievable. This is the type of language that Jesus used. It is similar to say that my fast car "ate up" the miles.

So, what Jesus was meaning is that just lip service to Him is not enough. We must give Him our full commitment. I think we are fairly fussy about what we eat. We would not eat rotten food out of the garbage. If you are like me, if something just smells a bit off, there is no way we will eat it. Eating something takes it into our system. If it is rotten, we will get sick. So, if we eat a meal, we have to trust that it is okay and that it will not give us food poisoning. In a real sense, we have given full personal commitment to that meal in the belief that it will benefit us.

This is what Jesus meant by eating His body and drinking His blood. It is putting our full trust in Him that our sins will be forgiven and that our bodies will be resurrected on the last day to spend eternity in heaven.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Jesus said. "He that eats Me shall live also." In what way could eating mere flour be eating Christ? The more we emphasize it's just a symbol, the harder it is to envision we are obeying Christ and eating Him.

How do you see Christ's command being accomplished with mere flour?

Symbolism. Jesus also talked about everyone working together to help each other to serve Him, using the body as a metaphor: "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I don't need you.' " Once Jesus said, "If your arm causes you to sin, cut it off. If your eye causes you to sin, cast it out." He could not have been preaching self-mutilation there. So "eat" does not have to literally mean put Jesus in your mouth.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

So there will be no unity between Catholics and Protestants. Oh well.