Unity Between Catholic and Protestant Christians

[Albion]

I guess I'm misunderstanding which doctrines you have in mind that are not traditional. I was focusing on the major Catholic doctrines, like Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Mariology, and the Sacred Tradition itself.

These are not found in Scripture, but were neither the scattered opinions of the some of the Fathers. They are most assuredly traditional for the Holy Church.

No, they're not. The Assumption of Mary, for example, became a dogma only in the 20th century. Papal Infallibility in the 19th century. Purgatory in the 15th century. Transubstantiation in the 13th. And so on. And yet all were justified by the RCC on the basis of "Sacred Tradition."

Yet none of them was believed continuously prior to being proclaimed, there was no consensus among the churches leaders, and many in fact were literally new ideas shortly before they were dogmatized.
Nevertheless, all were said to be God's revelation via "Sacred Tradition."

So, my reference was primarily to the Catechism as established and maintained by the Magisterium.

Well, the catechism will say one thing, but I quoted you to say that what the church teaches about Sacred Tradition is not simply part of RC doctrine but factually correct.

But, I'm interested in some examples of what you are adding for focus - opinions and folklore that were hardly traditional. Can you elucidate?

Well, I did cite some example above, but take this one...the Assumption. It is based totally on a legend that derived from one place where the locals believed Mary's body had been buried. When the grave was opened it was found to be vacant. Therefore, the legend of her having been taken by God to heaven, bodily, started.

In addition, there are a number of other places that groups of Christians thought that she had been buried. And the absences of a body wouldn't prove that she had been assumed into heaven anyway! Right. This is just one example among many.

 

[Robin Mauro]

Back in the late 1970s a new Roman Catholic Church was built in my area. While their church was under construction they held their services in our Lutheran church. It was a wonderful experience. While each church had its own services, we regularly had combined services conducted by their priest and our pastor. To this day our church garden has a St. Elizabeth Ann Seton (their church) statue and theirs includes a St. Peter (our church) statue. I kept in touch with the Catholic priest for many years until his death. We would often meet for lunch and I received wonderful bakalava from him every year for Christmas.

Nice. Makes me think of a line from the movie "The Apostle" with Robert Duvall while observing a priest. He said something like "You get it done one way, and we another, but we get it done."
The unity of Christ...that's what matters.

 

[Halbhh]

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.

Those truly believing in Christ (not merely grew up in a church, or have it as their learned social identity...but the kind of faith that compels them to listen to Him and follow Him) are already One Together In Christ.

Already.

As to whether churches can merge, I think that requires putting Christ first, and in the middle and last -- everywhere. So that selfish preferences are left behind, and love takes their place.

But once that happens, then it's not even a hot issue anymore, it's only mere administration of buildings and local traditions and such, and merging isn't even important at all.

We have to trust God to be the Judge of people, instead of ourselves, of course.

But more -- we have to trust God more, about all sorts of various stuff, doctrines, etc. That He will take care of it, not us -- not our will, our strength, our judgement, our doctrines.

 

[Albion]

I believe Catholic means, to some Catholics (not sure what the official Roman Catholic view is on this these days), only the Roman Catholic church, and others believe it means universal. But the sinners creed is entirely Biblical, other than the "Catholic" word, depending on how you define it, so iit is hardly rediculous for any believer to recite it.

Yes, the creed--the Nicene Creed--is the creed of the whole church. It precedes the division of Christianity into rival denominations. And when Roman Catholics or Protestants recite it, they are affirming their belief in the church universal, not the Church of Rome. Well-educated Roman Catholics don't suppose that the word appearing in the creed is an affirmation of their particular denomination. (Some other Catholics may, I suppose).

Therefore, the Creed, if properly understood, should pose no problems for anyone who would not want to profess any loyalty to the Pope, etc.

 

[Robin Mauro]

Yes, the creed--the Nicene Creed--is the creed of the whole church. It precedes the division of Christianity into rival denominations. And when Roman Catholics or Protestants recite it, they are affirming their belief in the church universal, not the Church of Rome. Not even well-educated Roman Catholics suppose that the word appearing in the creed is an affirmation of their particular denomination. (Some others may, I suppose).

Therefore, the Creed, if properly understood, should pose no problems for anyone who would not want to profess any loyalty to the Pope, etc.

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

 

[Albion]

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

The RCC understands it just as Episcopalians, Greek Orthodox Christians, and various Protestant churches do. It is a profession of belief in the nature of the Christian church being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Incidentally, there is at least one denomination that has incorporated one or another of those four words into its legal name, and no one that I am aware of supposes that when the rest of us recite those words we are acclaiming those denominations in particular.

The Roman Catholic Church does believe itself to be the one true church founded by Christ, but not because of the wording in the Creed.

 

[Robin Mauro]

The RCC understands it just as Episcopalians, Greek Orthodox Christians, and various Protestant churches do. It is a profession of belief in the nature of the Christian church being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Incidentally, there is at least one denomination that has incorporated one or another of those four words into its legal name, and no one that I am aware of supposes that when the rest of us recite those words we are acclaiming those denominations in particular.

The Roman Catholic Church does believe itself to be the one true church founded by Christ, but not because of the wording in the Creed.

Right, but does the Roman Catholic church believe only Roman Catholics will be saved?

 

[Albion]

Right, but does the Roman Catholic church believe only Roman Catholics will be saved?

Absolutely not.

 

[Chris V++]

Well, I did cite some example above, but take this one...the Assumption. It is based totally on a legend that derived from one place where the locals believed Mary's body had been buried. When the grave was opened it was found to be vacant. Therefore, the legend of her having been taken by God to heaven, bodily, started.

The Orthodox would agree with this, since they believe they have her tomb.

 

[Concord1968]

Absolutely not.

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

 

[David Kent]

It was Cardinal Humbert who excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and all who agreed with him, and whether he had that authority or not, the excommunication was recognised by all the subsequent Popes, so it was not the Orthodox who left the Church, rather it was Rome who seperated from the rest of the Church.

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

 

[David Kent]

Please don't tell me you used Wikipedia as a source for your masters.

Like we Orthodox, they believe the liturgy unites us to the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross. We make our offering of bread and wine, and through the Holy Spirit it becomes Christ's own body and blood. Neither Catholics nor Orthodox re-sacrifice Christ. That is an abhorrent and slanderous misrepresentation of our faiths.

You obviously don't understand Catholicism. It is called the sacrifice of the mass,and the Church of England 39 Articles correctly says "The mass is a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit."

 

[Lost4words]

You obviously don't understand Catholicism. It is called the sacrifice of the mass,and the Church of England 39 Articles correctly says "The mass is a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit."

It is 'YOU' that doesnt understand Catholicism my friend.

 

[mrhagerty]

No, they're not. The Assumption of Mary, for example, became a dogma only in the 20th century. Papal Infallibility in the 19th century. Purgatory in the 15th century. Transubstantiation in the 13th. And so on. And yet all were justified by the RCC on the basis of "Sacred Tradition."

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.


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


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.

Well, the catechism will say one thing, but I quoted you to say that what the church teaches about Sacred Tradition is not simply part of RC doctrine but factually correct.

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

Well, I did cite some example above, but take this one...the Assumption. It is based totally on a legend that derived from one place where the locals believed Mary's body had been buried. When the grave was opened it was found to be vacant. Therefore, the legend of her having been taken by God to heaven, bodily, started.

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

 

[GodLovesCats]

Protestants believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was the one and only sacrifice and there is no further sacrifice for sin. Catholics believe that Christ is sacrificed in every Mass, so for them it is a continued sacrifice.

I don't know anything about that but one thing that makes no sense to me is their belief we must confess sins to a priest to be forgiven for them, which is totally unbiblical and defies the whole concept of why we needed Jesus to die on the cross (which was to forgive us for our sins).

 

[GaveMeJoy]

You really do not understand the principles of the Covenant of God (aka The New Covenant). Ray Sutton - a Protestant Calvinist - wrote a very good (albeit erroneous in some places) book regarding the Covenant. Where it is good is that it clearly defines the five working principles that make up a covenant relatioship.

1. Transcendence - the greater offers covenant to the lesser
2. Hierarchy - who's in charge here?
3. Ethics - the rules (or law) of the covenant
4. O - Oaths and Sanctions (vows taken to enter the covenant with consequences for breaking those vows)
5. Succession - the covenant passes from generation to generation.

In the covenant organization called "The Church," Christ is the head of the Church. In being this, He delegates His power and authority to certain men. In the beginning, these were the Apostles. No other believer (of the thousands who came to believe on Him) had the power the Apostles had. None of them had the authority that Christ gave to them ("Whosoever's sins you remit, they are remitted).

In principle five, we see the reality of apostolic succession. The power and authority of the Apostles, given to the bishops of the Church, is passed down by the "laying on of hands" (mentioned by St. Paul in his letter to Timothy).

Thus, Protestants DO NOT HAVE a Eucharist. This is because they broke the chain of succession from the apostolic faith when they left the Church of Rome (despite Her errors, Rome is still an apostolic Church with apostolic succession)

So yes, only those who are in the line of succession (Principle Five) and who have been given authority (Principle Two) are able to pronounce the words of consecration and have the bread and wine become the Eucharist, the true Body and Blood of Christ.

And while I am at it - the Eucharist is called "Holy Communion." Communion has been called "Common Union," that is, it is a symbol that we share the same belief in the same Christ and the same one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Now if you come to the table of the Lord and you don't hold to things like baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the Seven Sacraments, etc. then are you really in common union?

NO!!!

Why then would you want to show the world that you believe in what we believe (i.e. hold to a common union of belief) by partaking of the symbol of that union, when you do not???? This is why the Orthodox do not allow anyone but Orthodox to the Lord's Table, not even Roman Catholics, who are an apostolic succession Church. There is no point of common union, and in fact, there is more disunion than union.

You want to come to the Lord's Table. Repent of the falsehoods and man-made theology of Protestantism and join the Orthodox Church. The same goes for Roman Catholics. Sorry, but until you jettison things like The Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, The Treasury of Merit, Indulgences, Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, etc, and return to the beliefs of the Early Fathers, we have very little in common other than a lineage back to the Apostles.

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.

 

[Lost4words]

I don't know anything about that but one thing that makes no sense to me is their belief we must confess sins to a priest to be forgiven for them, which is totally unbiblical and defies the whole concept of why we needed Jesus to die on the cross (which was to forgive us for our sins).

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.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

There is some historical basis for unity, baptism. In the Donatist controversy, the Church recognized that even heretics' baptism is valid, meaning that they are still recognized as Christians. That has generally been maintained, aside from problems with baptists and infant baptism.

Unfortunately, the current framework for churches, as opposed to individuals, seems to come from the Reformation. The Reformers seemed to have believed that it is not permissible to leave the Church, even if it is imperfect. So they had to establish that the Catholic Church wasn't a church at all. The church, they maintained, is defined by preaching the Gospel and properly administering the sacraments. They believed that the Catholic church had so corrupted both preaching and sacraments as to not be a valid church at all. The Catholic side, similarly, dismissed Protestants as having left the Church, using different defining marks.

The Protestant approach turned out to be a bit more flexible. Though it wasn't originally intended to do so, it allowed for the possibility of multiple churches. The Catholic definition didn't.

Today, both Protestants and Catholics accept each other as churches, from a practical point of view. But since Catholic tradition can't be changed (in theory), Catholic theory hasn't quite caught up with reality. Still, there's an official agreement between my church (PCUSA) and the RCC on baptism, and in that agreement both churches acknowledge the other as a church. It's pretty clear that aside from occasional reassertions of Catholic tradition, mainline churches (including the Catholic church) do in fact acknowledge each other as churches, based on common baptism.

That this isn't reflected in common communion seems to me to be scandalous, but so far progress on that front is slow. There are also problems among Protestants as well, since a number of our churches don't permit communion with other Protestant traditions.

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...

 

[GaveMeJoy]

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.

If Paul heard a Christian say he had the ability to forgive sins he would vomit

 

[Lost4words]

Nobody except Jesus can forgive sins. You did not read my post correctly.

Out of this thread now as its a typical Catholic bashing one as per usual.

God bless you all