|
5 members (Fr. Al, theophan, 3 invisible),
107
guests, and
17
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78 |
Please help me.
I have a friend who is a United Methodist doctorate student at Asbury Seminary in Kentucky. He's been a Methodist pastor for around 15 years and is currently working on his dissertation. He used to be my pastor and then I moved on and became Catholic, which was the best thing I've ever done.
Anyway, we go rounds disagreeing on the teachings of the Church. He is set in believing the Holy Spirit used Martin Luther to bring about the Reformation and that the Protestant "churches" are a part or the continuation of the Apostolic Early Church. He says the Catholic Church is not the "only way" and we need to realize Martin Luther was right.
He also claims the Methodist tradition has preserved the teachings and practice of the Early Fathers and that he's a "catholic christian".
I tried talking to him about the "one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" passage that Scripture mentions. His analysis is that whoever believes in Christ is part of the "one faith" because it is simply talking about faith in Christ. I told him that faith in Christ is the foundation for the faith, but it's more complicated then that. So I used the Mormons who appear to have some sort of faith in Christ, to see what he would say. He said they would not be included as part of the "one faith" because they have distorted views of Christ and they do not trust in him for salvation.
It sounds like a double standard to me. Whenever we talk I get frustrated with him and his views. I think he's fooling himself and not looking at the bigger picture.
What can I say to him or what proof is there I can show him stating that Protestants have not stayed with the faith of the Early Church and there are indeed many "faiths" in Protestantism, not the "one faith" Scripture speaks that we have in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405 |
Personally, I have more or less given up discussing this kind of question with protestants, because they have such a different idea of what Christian unity actually means. Still, that doesn't mean that I want to discourage you from having these discussions with your friend! Your friend is right in a way. All the baptized belong to Christ and are part of his mystical body. That is why we talk about "separated brethren." The Mormons are an exception because their baptism is invalid [ vatican.va], so they are not in fact Christians. The late Father Richard John Neuhaus [ economist.com] has written an excellent and quite nuanced article where he discusses the question: "Is Mormonism Christian?" [ firstthings.com] Perhaps it would help you to re-read the part of the [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i] [ vatican.va] dealing with the Church, especially this part [ vatican.va]: I. THE CHURCH IS ONE
"The sacred mystery of the Church's unity" (UR 2)
813 The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."259 The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."260 The Church is one because of her "soul": "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church's unity."261 Unity is of the essence of the Church:
What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."262
814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264
815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.266
816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268
Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
Toward unity
820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279
821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:
- a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;280
- conversion of heart as the faithful "try to live holier lives according to the Gospel";281 for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ's gift which causes divisions;
- prayer in common, because "change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;"'282
- fraternal knowledge of each other;283
- ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;284
- dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;285
- collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.286 "Human service" is the idiomatic phrase.
822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize "that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts." That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288 [ vatican.va]
Last edited by Latin Catholic; 03/31/09 09:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78 |
Latin Catholic,
I agree and understand the teaching on our separated brethren. With my friend, I'm talking about One Faith in doctrines, structure, practice, etc. I know the Church is diverse and that's great, but the deposit of faith remains the same in Orthodox and Catholic Churches. My claim is that Protestants threw away or severely altered the faith when they broke away from the true Church. So if that's the case, how can they be part of the "one faith" that Scripture speaks of when they changed that "one faith" regardless if we consider them as Christians?
I know they're part of Christ's body, but they are severely off the track he set the Church on. I know, I used to be Methodist.
The problem with my friend is that he has read the Church Father's, he's familiar with most of Catholic teaching, and he thinks what he has in Methodism is the faith of the Fathers! It's like the Scripture verse in Peter that talks about distorting the truth of Scripture, only he's distorting the Father's.
How do you reach someone like him to show them that the Lord doesn't want all these different "faiths" in Protestantism (I know the Spirit works through them and they can have salvation), but that God's will is for us to all be One on a deeper level than just having faith in Christ as that's all he thinks is required to have unity. That seems to be the trend among Methodists at least. My wife's Methodist pastor has said to me that "we have unity in Christ". I think the Lord wants us to have unity in practice, doctrine, morals, structure, etc.
Last edited by IgnatiusBenedict; 03/31/09 10:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
"What can I say to him or what proof is there I can show him stating that Protestants have not stayed with the faith of the Early Church and there are indeed many 'faiths' in Protestantism, not the 'one faith' Scripture speaks that we have in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?"
The proof you say could be dismissed by qualification, especially if he is steeped in modern critical studies. He can find intellectual paths around the claim. But it could be ignored altogether from how deep he is emotionally vested in what he sees as his pastoral duties and his education.
I would like to know how he justifies his claim that "the Methodist tradition has preserved the teachings and practice of the Early Fathers." Luther pointed to Augustine when trying to give weight to his understanding of justification, but I am not sure how else the Fathers are read. I would imagine that the works of the Fathers are used more than they are approached with an open heart.
Terry
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924 Likes: 28
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924 Likes: 28 |
IB:
Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!
You're NOT going to reach him unless the Holy Spirit finds him open to what you have to say. I've been down this road and don't argue with anyone any more. We have an obligation to speak the truth as we have received it, but you have to understand that quite often the best you will achieve is the point where you agree to disagree.
The one argument that I use and that usually stops the conversation is that for Protestant claims to be true--that the Church was far off--Christ has to be a liar. Our Lord promised to be with His Church to the end of the age. And if the Church was so far off that men had to start their own versions, then Christ has to be a liar.
Now we can admit that the medieval Church did need reforming and there were plenty of abuses. But the abuses were not doctrinal; they were in the area of putting doctrine into practice. We can reform practice--orthopraxy; we cannot reform doctrine--orthodoxy.
As for arguments that Protestants have unity in Christ, they are fine when they come off the lips, but when you ask a typical group you find as many opinions about what the Bible teaches as you have people answering. So much for Luther's idea that the Scripture is so self-evident that everyone will plainly come to the same conclusions. I recently had to share a laugh with a Baptist friend who said that when you get three Baptists together you get four versions of the same Scripture.
As for Luther, there are some good books that are well-researched that get to the real Luther: he isn't the hero that many Protestants believe him to be. It might be well to find some of those. But even then, don't expect Protestants to swim the Tiber. Part of their foundation is anti-Catholicism and it usually runs deep as you well know.
In Christ,
BOB
Last edited by theophan; 04/01/09 12:52 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
"But even then, don't expect Protestants to swim the Tiber. Part of their foundation is anti-Catholicism and it usually runs deep as you well know."
Especially Protestants of the reformed tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405 |
I love this verse from the Gospel of Saint John (1:46): "And Nathanael said unto him, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see." (Just imagine the protestant saying: "Can any good thing come out of Rome?"  ) I have a friend who used to be a Lutheran, but I invited him to Pontifical High Mass for All Saints' Day. He turned up and was quite sceptical about the whole thing, but now, many years later, he is a Catholic and happily married to a Catholic girl  Sometimes it is not the intellectual argument which convices people, but the actual experience of the liturgical life of the Church... Perhaps you could ask your friend to come and see for himself?
Last edited by Latin Catholic; 03/31/09 11:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78 |
We've talked about the Father's writings. Say for instance on the Eucharist changing into Jesus' Body and Blood, I have given him a whole laundry list of Father's and their quotes speaking of the Eucharist in this way. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch's (my patron) comments on the Eucharist and my friend says it can be interpreted many different ways. He once believed in Transubstantiation, but from his experiences at seminary for his doctorate, now he's gone back to his original belief that it's just a "memorial meal" like the Passover. He knows what the Father's teach on it, he's read their quotes on the Eucharist, and he still draws from it all that it's a memorial meal and it doesn't not turn in to Christ's Flesh and Blood! How can that be! And then he has the audacity to claim Protestantism, Methodism particularly, follows the Fathers! He's bending my mind into a pretzel. When I was converting it was perfect alignment with what the Father's said and the Catholic Church teaches on it, but my friend finds any excuse to hold on to his beliefs.
He has said that God used John Wesley to start his movement and it doesn't bother him that Wesley was more "catholic" than today's Methodists.
Another problem: he is seeing in the Catholic Church what are to him "changes". Say on Confirmation. He's doing his dissertation on it and he's using a lot of quotes from the Father's and the Catechism as well as from his own denomination. So he has said to me that the Church in the Middle Ages didn't do Confirmation and it wasn't completely defined until Trent or Florence and Confirmation wasn't first mentioned until the third century. So, he views these as changes instead of DEVELOPMENTS and I'm going to say he's probably thinking that if the Church that claims to be the only right Church can make changes, why would his denomination be wrong then? I'm sure that's his justification for it. And he thinks the Catholic Church has changed all kinds of things. I've told him the core deposit of faith has always been there, but the Holy Father can change practices to fit the needs of the Church at that particular time in history.
He's tiring to talk to sometimes. It's not like he doesn't know that Catholic Faith or what the Father's say. He does, probably better than most protestants. He just has found a way to justify his denomination and claim he's a "catholic" christian and his denomination has kept the teachings of old. He's fooling himself!
Latin Catholic: He's been to Masses. He took his son to my Confirmation Mass on Corpus Christi last year. He took his family to a Mass when they were on vacation last year. He's also tasted and saw the Lord is good because when he was a Chaplain in the Army Guard, a Roman Priest Chaplain gave him the Eucharist! He just sticks to that there's unity in believing in Christ regardless of doctrines, practice, leadership, etc. is all that's required and he's said the Pope needs to recognize they were wrong with the Protestants and need to welcome them as legitimate Christians. Then I share with him that we do view them that way if they're properly baptized, but they've thrown away the teachings, practice, etc. of the historic ancient Church. He of course disagrees and claims Protestantism has kept it. Oye, the headaches with him.
Last edited by IgnatiusBenedict; 04/01/09 12:14 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,029 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,029 Likes: 2 |
I recently had to share a laugh with a Baptist friend who said that when you get three Baptists together you get four versions of the same Scripture. I had a baptist theology professor at my Catholic college. A methodist covered class one day, and told us that when three Baptists are gathered in his name, there are four denominations present . . . I think the next day was the first time I heard the definition that a methodist was willing to turn anything into a religious doctrine . . . And I remember my secretary's relief in the early '90s when the methodists rejected "creator, redeemer, and sustainer," but that doesn't seem to have stuck . . . hawk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924 Likes: 28
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924 Likes: 28 |
IB:
Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!
You've run into one of the problems of the recent convert. What appears to be the truth for you--something new and bright and clear and so apparent that everyone should realize it as you have--is the exact opposite to the person who used to be your fellow believer, as it was to you when he knew you a short time ago. He sees you as somehow off the track. He is confident of who he is and what he believes. He is not moved one iota by your new-found faith or the insights you have derived from it. You believe that you are on a mission and that you can reach this person.
Been there. Done that. Experienced a big yawn or complete indifference or hostility--sometimes a mixture.
You may simply need to put distance between you. Or at least distance between discussions about these matters if your relationship continues.
What you have experienced in these discussions about the Eucharist is precisely why the Catholic Church--and the Orthodox Church, too--does not admit Protestants to Holy Communion except in very rare cases and why we are forbidden to participate in Protestant Communion Services. Doctrine is intimately involved in Communion participation as well as discipline and Church order. We simply don't believe that Protestants have preserved the Eucharist at all because of a lack of Apostolic Orders and, even more basic, the correct understanding of the Apostolic Faith Deposit as rightly interpreted by the Fathers. Like the Bible, anyone can take the Fathers and read into their writings whatever they wish if they come to the tomes with preconceived notions of what they are to to find.
There's something else. A man who is about to be granted a doctorate in Protestant theology is not about to suddenly become a Catholic. Chances are if he did his committee wouldn't grant his degree; they'd toss him out of his program.
In Christ,
BOB
Last edited by theophan; 04/01/09 11:01 PM. Reason: spelling
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405 |
He's bending my mind into a pretzel. This is wonderful! It's exactly what it feels like when I speak to protestants Latin Catholic: He's been to Masses. He took his son to my Confirmation Mass on Corpus Christi last year. He took his family to a Mass when they were on vacation last year. He's also tasted and saw the Lord is good because when he was a Chaplain in the Army Guard, a Roman Priest Chaplain gave him the Eucharist! He just sticks to that there's unity in believing in Christ regardless of doctrines, practice, leadership, etc. is all that's required and he's said the Pope needs to recognize they were wrong with the Protestants and need to welcome them as legitimate Christians. Then I share with him that we do view them that way if they're properly baptized, but they've thrown away the teachings, practice, etc. of the historic ancient Church. He of course disagrees and claims Protestantism has kept it. Oye, the headaches with him. Don't worry. Some people just need more time. They take a lifetime to realize where to find Christ's true Church. In this case a doctorate is no help, on the contrary! Don't be intimidated by the fact that he is a learned man! I'm really quite tired of protestants who want to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, but who don't bother to learn what Holy Communion really means according to Catholic teaching. Dear Ignatius Benedict, I think perhaps God has sent your friend to test your patience. You can still be friends, even if you don't agree
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299 |
The reformed are the toughest since they think they know the Fathers. I should know I used to be Orthodox Presbyterian. They are one of the toughest!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 |
I suggest the novels of Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson, God rest him. You'll find some delightful lines that one might hesitate to quote on the Forum!
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78 |
My friend also likes to say that the Father's themselves disagreed with one another on different issues/doctrines/practices.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
My friend also likes to say that the Father's themselves disagreed with one another on different issues/doctrines/practices. Your friend is right. Sometimes, there were substantial disagreements among the fathers on a variety of issues. I believe Peter Abelard brought much of this together in his work, Sic et Non, which unfortunately is not translated into English. As someone who was raised an Evangelial Southern Baptist, converted to the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, studied patristics and scholastic philosophy & theology; eventually converted to Orthodoxy; almost became a victim of "Internet Orthodoxy," and is now trying to pull all of this together; let me share a few thoughts. A priest-friend of mine once said that to read Church history is to cease being a Protestant. The assumption, of course, was that Church history self-evidently points to the truth of Catholicism. There was a time (before Graduate Studies) when I would have agreed. A first read of Church history might lead to that conclusion. But it becomes more complicated on a second or third or fourth read. Indeed, I've come to the point where I do believe that the most plausible view of things is that Orthodoxy (the Orthodox Church) has preserved the faith and tradition of the ancient Church to a degree that no other Church has. However, I can't say that I'm certain of this. I can see how one can make arguments for Roman Catholicism and for some versions of Protestantism. I also want to say that there is a substantial difference between the teachings of contemporary confessional protestant churches and between the ancient heresies. Most of the ancient heresies involved a deficient view of the Trinity and the nature of Christ. Modern protestant denominations (at least officially) hold to the ancient Trinitarian faith and hold a correct doctrine of the nature of Christ. Granted, many individual protestants do not have a correct doctrine of Christ; but many Catholics and Orthodox don't either. So we have to look at the official confessional statements and not the private beliefs of individuals. Now, I think that this distinction between Trinitarian/Christological heresy and the "heretical" teachings of modern protestants is important and it shows that our protestant brothers and sisters (for the most part) worship the same God and the same Christ as we do. In fact, I'm reluctant to use the word "heretic" to describe a traditional, confessional protestant. For my own purposes I distinguish between heresy and heterodoxy (I understand that I'm stipulating this distinction) and I see the "heterodox" as still being fundamentally Christian. And I have to say that I think that all arguments rely on a certain amount of question-begging and that very sincere and holy people can disagree over a number of these issues. Also, I'm really not interested in converting people to Orthodoxy. I am interested in being a good Christian brother to my neighbors and enemies (love thy neighbor; love thy enemy), and my hope for people is that they grow closer to God and to Christ within their own religious traditions. And I think that it is not for me to say where grace does not exist in the churches of our protestant brothers and sisters. I don't have a problem with the notion that Christ can make himself fully present in the Eucharist of our brothers and sisters if He wills to do so. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405 |
My friend also likes to say that the Father's themselves disagreed with one another on different issues/doctrines/practices. Of course they did, they were only human! Just look at us here on this forum. We disagree all the time Still, if your friend says this, perhaps you should ask him what exactly he wants to prove. Does he want to prove they were all wrong? Or does he want to prove that you can just pick and chose between their opinions? Just like the Holy Scriptures, the Fathers do not exist in a vacuum. The Bible and the Fathers all exist as part of a living tradition. In the end, it is the Church which decides which beliefs are Catholic and which are not. And that's exactly where protestants disagree with us, because they do not recognize the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. That's why they end up endlessly dividing and subdividing into new confessions and communities...
Last edited by Latin Catholic; 04/01/09 03:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 38 |
My friend also likes to say that the Father's themselves disagreed with one another on different issues/doctrines/practices. Quite so. This is exactly why the Ecumenical Councils were convened. Their explicitly intended purpose was to define correct Doctrines of Christian Faith and proper modes of worship in the original Undivided Church. Although it is an admittedly daunting task, most incorrect assumptions and misunderstandings regarding the theological issues of debate, and the Christian doctrines and practices officially sanctioned by the Early Church can be easily dispelled by simply reading the documents which were prepared and published by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, with their Canons and Dogmatic Decrees. Here's a link to free online translations for those who wish to review them: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.titlepage.htmlLet us love one another, that with one accord we may confess: Father, Son and Holy Spirit: the Trinity, One in Essence and Undivided. +Cosmos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78 |
Ok, I understand the Father's didn't agree on every issue, however, they must have agreed on something or else we wouldn't have a defined faith as Catholics and Orthodox. Our Churches have far more in common than we do with them. We would be like the protestants with all these different view points on the Eucharist for example. Some say it's consubstantiation, a memorial, or simply don't do it at all. That's not the Truth of Christ. That's confusion and we all know from whom confusion comes from, Satan and his minions. I find protestantism to be simply that, confusing and uncertain. It's "you can believe this if you want because we're not even sure".
All the Father's agreed that Christ is truly, fully, and wholly present and the Elements transform into his Precious Body and Blood. And the Catholic and Orthodox proclaim that truth to this very day. That's not confusion, that's continuity and Apostolic Tradition. We read it in the Bible in John 6. A protestant reads that verse and they scrap for any excuse to make that verse mean something else. They seem to do that with all the "controversial" passages (whoever sins you forgive...baptism now saves you...you are Peter and upon this rock...the church the pillar and foundation of truth..etc). It's frustrating. When I was a Methodist, I had no clue how those verses could be applied. Now as a Catholic, those "hard" verses make so much sense and I see those verses lived out in the faith and life of the Church. Then you have the Father's backing up our view and they still say we're wrong! Such ignorance.
I don't deny that Christ doesn't reach the protestants. I obviously agree with everything the Church teaches. I see them as separated brethren. However, I also see how they have severely distorted everything Christ wanted us to have as his Body. They've let women come into the pastoral ministry, they've watered down the liturgy to be entertainment to the likes of a rock concert, they have weak theological views regarding sacraments which some call ordinances, Sola Scriptura says it all, no sense of a communal salvation they just focus on individuals, loss of Holy art and music, the physical is almost viewed as evil so the water or bread has no power everything is just spiritual or invisible to them, I could go on and on.
I know they have good qualities as well. I'm not denying that. But they are severely missing out and confused.
Last edited by IgnatiusBenedict; 04/01/09 04:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
I have to confess that if I were a Protestant reading this thread, I'd probably feel quite offended. It seems to me that there is too much hasty generalization going on here as well the building up of "straw men." It is true that it would be more accurate to speak of Protestantisms than protestantism, but I think that one could also argue that one should speak of Catholicisms and Orthodoxies rather than just Catholicism and Orthodoxy. All one has to do is hang around long enough on this forum to see that even within the Catholic and Orthodox communions there are significant disagreements over important matters.
For myself, I've decided to give up the "us vs. them" mentality and instead, I accept as my brother anyone who confesses that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 04/01/09 04:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
Joe, you are probably right and, to make matters worse, I would argue that there are those on this website on the RCC and EOC side(including myself) who are infected to a greater or lesser degree with that horrible disease triumphalism! All one has to do is see how many threads are closed down due to a lack of charity. I can think of one conservative Anglican site run by a fellow named David Virtue that makes this site look good in comparison. Zonaras
Last edited by johnzonaras; 04/01/09 05:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78 |
It's not my intention to be uncharitable in speaking of protestant denominationalism. I was one of those adherents. But, in all respect, there had to have been a reason for me to leave all of protestantism, and it was the truth of the Catholic faith. If this truth is no different from protestant churches, why even convert? Why put my marriage in trouble and strain relations with family and friends? For the worship service? For the music? If so, then I'm no different and should have just hopped around different protestant denominations until I found a church that fit my needs. No, I found (and I'm assuming others here who have converted to Catholicism and Orthodoxy) the pearl of great price.
I think there's a difference from triumphalism and being confident that the Catholic and Orthodox have faithfully and truthfully preserved the Apostolic faith. I acknowledge I'm not better than other Christians of the protestant/evangelical traditions. I know there are millions in those faith traditions who are better at being Christian than I am sometimes. However, I believe I'm in the Church Jesus Christ founded and I left what I believe to be a man-made church in Methodism. Isn't that historically correct? And please no offense, but if you don't believe that, then why be Catholic? Why be Orthodox?
My concern on this thread with my friend is that he has read the Fathers and yet twists what they say. That's what I need help. How can I show him in a loving way, that Protestantism/Evangelicalism, has not held the beliefs of the ancient Church? If you find that defensive or dividing, then I ask you, if they have, then why did I become Catholic? I mean no disrespect towards anyone of any faith tradition. My claim is if a person is in that faith tradition, they must believe it's the way.
Last edited by IgnatiusBenedict; 04/01/09 06:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
My friend, I'm not offended. And I believe that Orthodoxy has best preserved the spirit of the early fathers and the apostolic teaching. I will point out, however, that we can't really team up Catholicism and Orthodoxy against Protestantism. If there really is only one, true, visible, Church, then it can't be both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.
I must confess that I am coming to the conclusion that the different Churches approximate in different degrees what Christ intended for the Church, and that the Church is visible in the sense that the Church exists wherever the Gospel is preached and the sacraments rightly administered (borrowing this from Lutheranism). I believe that the episcopal and hierarchical structure of the Church's authority was a necessary development and without it we would not have a standard rule of faith, nor would we have had a canon of Scripture, nor ecumenical councils. But I do believe in the primacy of Scripture in the life of the Christian and I do believe that the Word of God stands in judgment of the Church as well as judgment of the world and that if we get too smug in our being the "one, true Church," we risk losing our prophetic voice and our ability to properly reform the Church when it goes in the wrong direction. At least in this point, protestantism got something right; even if it went much too far in the wrong direction.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78 |
The Catholic and Orthodox have very very similar faiths which are reconcilable, hence the Eastern Catholic rites. All we have to do is come to an agreement on the Pope, and there are probably a few other minor things. Then unity will happen. The Eastern Rites who came into full communion with Rome did it, why can't Constantinople, Ukraine, Russia, and Greece? I believe it can be done and it will eventually be.
The major difference between us is that the protestant denoms will have to basically change their whole faith around unlike what's required for our unity. They will have to remove women and openly gay members from pastoral roles, recognize all 7 sacraments, possibly get re-ordained/confirmed/possibly even baptized depending on denomination, accept Church authority rather than their own, so on and so on. There's a whole laundry list of practices and doctrines they would have to accept for full union. And we know Rome and Constantinople will not compromise the Apostolic faith just for the sake of reunion. So, in my opinion, I think it is a case of Orthodox and Catholic against Protestantism. Lets not kid ourselves. We are 90% majority of Christendom.
Last edited by IgnatiusBenedict; 04/01/09 08:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
I'm not so optimistic about the reunion of the eastern and western Churches. And I do think that there are some substantial differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but since this is a thread about Protestantism, I will save the Catholic-Orthodox discussion for another time.
All traditional Christians believe in the following:
1) There is one God who created all that exists. This one God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (three Persons in one Substance).
2) The Only Begotten Son of God (co-equal and co-eternal with the Father) became man, taking his human nature from the blessed Virgin Mary. He is true God and true man; two natures in one person.
3) Jesus Christ lived a sinless life and died on the cross to defeat the powers of death and sin. He rose bodily from the grave as the firstfruits of those who trust in Him.
4). We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ; a faith which, according to St. Paul, "works through love."
5). There are at least 2 sacred rites of the Church, baptism and the Lord's Supper; though individual Christians differ on whether there are more and on the meanings of these rites.
6). Christ founded the Church as His body and His Church is made up of all of the saints, those on earth and those in heaven; who have received Him and are baptized into Christ. There are differences, however, concerning where this Church is to be found "visibly" in the world.
7). The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of God, inspired by God, and infallible in a way that no other texts are.
Now I happen to think that this is quite substantial. What we have here, of course, is basically C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity." And I think that it is enough for us to recognize all who share this faith as being united in Christ, even though we are not in full communion with one another.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
I think there is an invisible Body of Christ which consists of all those who love God (however they understand Him) and the neighbor as themselves. They are going to get a wonderful surprise on the Day of Judgement when they realize that it was Jesus whom they were serving all along.
As for the many different denominations of Christianity, who could have imagined there would be so many different ways of being completely correct . . . ;-0
Teasing aside, BOB addressed the original post well. A person studying for his doctorate at a Protestant university is not going to suddenly convert to Catholicism. All we can hope is that he will serve Christ as best he is able. Indeed, that's all that any of us can hope for.
The only evangelization that matters and that is effective is selfless compassion. As St. Francis of Assisi said, "Preach the Gospel always; use words when necessary." After that, the words are commentary and sometimes explanation of how that selfless of love of Christ is received, lived and given.
Just my two cents' worth.
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
I'm not so optimistic about the reunion of the eastern and western Churches. And I do think that there are some substantial differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but since this is a thread about Protestantism, I will save the Catholic-Orthodox discussion for another time. Well said. What we have here, of course, is basically C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity." And I think that it is enough for us to recognize all who share this faith as being united in Christ, even though we are not in full communion with one another. Also well said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Teasing aside, BOB addressed the original post well. A person studying for his doctorate at a Protestant university is not going to suddenly convert to Catholicism. When I was a student at Duke University Divinity School (a Protestant institution), a number of students (including me) who were in the various master's programs in the Divinity School, as well as some doctoral students in theology/Christian ethics did convert either to Orthodoxy or to Catholicism. Furthermore, one of my professors of theology left the Lutheran Church and became Roman Catholic while I was a student there. Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424 |
IgnatiusBenedict, you shuld be careful. Not all Protestants ordain women, or allow Openly gay pastors. (Ironiclaly Secular Humanists tend to think none do.)
Some, such as the Anglicans still use the Seven Sacraments, though officially only tewo are Binding, Baptism and Communion. The Senior Leader of the Anglican Church, Dr. Rowan WIlliams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, even holds to Transubstantiation, along with the Anglo-Catholics. (And a few Luthernas now subscribe to it, or hold to the seven sacraments, or both.)
Many actually do teach Church authority, just not infallability. (Indeed, some Evangelical circles and Pentecostals now look to the Church as having a role in "accountability" the members owe it.)
So you should't lumo all Protestants intot he same basket and think all share the same problems with unity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78 |
Zarove,
My apologies. I did not mean to lump them all together. It's hard though to speak of a specific Protestant denomination when there are multiple Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist groups even within all those denominations. Indeed, each denomination has different practices and beliefs from their counterparts. To my knowledge, all Protestant denominations besides Baptists ordain women. And all mainline denominations allow openly gay pastors aside from a few groups within that denomination that allows it. For instance, the majority of Presbyterians and Lutherans allow it while there are some groups within those denominations that do not allow it. And the Methodist denomination does not allow it at all. It's all very confusing to keep track! I find it hard to be to accurate when there's so much going on there.
Dr. Williams is in a long line of Archbishops of Canterbury who rejected Transubstantiation. Thomas Cranmer, the first ABC of King Henry VIII's church, fiercely rejected this belief, as well as other Catholic practices labeling them as "superstitious and idolatrous". That's the thing with the Anglican Communion, there are no set beliefs, to my knowledge. There's a wide range of options for Anglicans to believe in. Though the church may have a set doctrine, nothing is required to believe. As you stated, if he does truly believe in Transub, he's the first ABC since Cranmer and he's going against his Anglican confession. I applaud him if he has realized this truth, though he's in the minority there.
Well, those who do teach church authority need to think about infallibility. The effect can not be greater than the cause. If the Catholic Church defined the canon of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures are infallible, shouldn't the Church that exercised that authority be infallible as well? Yes, I believe so.
I think the Lutherans who subscribe to seven sacraments are a minority. Do you know exactly what they call themselves as there are hundreds of Lutheran confessions each claiming different beliefs.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to put them all in a single basket, though shouldn't we all be in a single basket? Isn't that what Jesus wants? For us "to all be one, as he and the Father are one?". It's just hard to name all of them, so I use the word "protestant" which seems to be fairly accurate considering they share less in common with us than among themselves.
Last edited by IgnatiusBenedict; 04/02/09 02:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424 |
Baptists arne't alone in not ordainign women, and, also, some Baptists do ordain women.
Many Presbyterian Churches donot permit it, especiallythose who follow the Institutes strictky.
Also, many non-denominaitonal, and FUndamentalist Chruches don't. (Fundamentalists get a bad name but most aren't that bad.)
The Missuri Synod of the Lutheran Church in America also refuses to Ordain women.
I could list several others who aren't Baptist and who woudl not Ordain women.
As for the spaciifc name it eludesme for the Lutheans whoa dhere ot the Seven, though I know many Anglicans who do.
As for the Most Reverend Archbishop Williams, (And yes I know the orders are invalid...) he has expressed beleif int he real preasence of CHrist in the Eucharist if I am not mistaken, and I also know numerous Anglican Priests and Bishops of the Anglo-Cahtolci variety who also adhere ot this.
I may as welladmit though that I may be in error. its been a whole since I've read Williams, and I'd best hedg emy bests as recently I flubbed on Calvins beelifs, thinkign he followed consubstantiation when he follwoed symbolism.
So Ill chekc on Williams and be back to you.
|
|
|
|
|
