www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Is there "one faith" in Protestantism??

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...

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.html

Let us love one another, that with one accord we may confess: Father, Son and Holy Spirit: the Trinity, One in Essence and Undivided.

+Cosmos

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

Well said.



Also well said.

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

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.

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.

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.