#602
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
Quote:
He did not leave us orphans, to disagree with each other about what His Word means, but rather established a pillar and foundation of truth to guide us when we are going in differing directions. |
#603
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
Quote:
The practices that Luther criticized and which the present day Catholics agree as scandalous (or am I mistaken?) were in Luther's days sanctioned by the highest authority of the infallible Church. You may then ask, what I have to offer instead, my own infallibility perhaps? My answer is that schisms and fragmentation of Chrisianity have been allowed by God, and in the end they must serve His purposes. Any formal submission to an authority, if you do not deep in your heart believe in what your mouth is confessing, is not a faith that would help you in the face of judgement, particularly if you force yourself to do what your conscience condemns. If you ask, what we Lutherans mean when we say our creed and confess our belief in one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, we answer that until the end of days there will be people on earth who believe in Christ and place their trust on Him, although the rites and ceremonies may differ. There is an anecdote of a Lutheran who was asked by a Catholic: "Where was your "Church" before the 16th Century". The Lutheran answered: "Did you wash your face this morning". "Yes, naturally", answered the Catholic. "Where was your face before you washed it?" reorted the Lutheran. |
#604
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
Quote:
Do you not defer to her authority each and every time you quote from the New Testament, yes? For the ONLY way you know that Hebrews, Philemon, 3 John, the Gospel of Mark is inspired, and the letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache are not inspired... is through the infallible authority of the CC. |
#605
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
Quote:
The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility. Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder? Matthew 28:20 And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”? John 14:15-16 15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”? John 14:18 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time? John 14:26 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles? John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise? Now, consider the following three verses: 1 John 4:4 4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 1 Timothy 3:13 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Mark 3:27 27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way? In light of the above, is it possible for the Church to fall into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history or that the Church is fallible. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”--originally posted by Randy Carson |
#606
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
Well, I feel that I have to explain a bit what I meant when I said
that the dissensions and split serve in the end the purposes of God.
The unity that was upheld in the (western) Christendom in the 16th century was a forced unity. People were not Catholic Christians by choice but because neither the Church or State gave them any other possiblity. Jail and stake were the only alternatives for dissenters. And I do not think that these were the means that Christ intended His church to be maintained in the world. I believe that this was a capital institutional SIN of the Church, much worse that the human fallibility and lapses of the individual members in the hierarchy. The freedom of religion was one (not immediate) fruits of the Reformation. After all the religious wars and mutual oppression, the European states, one after the other, came to accept that people differing in their Confession live as their good citizens. Now the churches cannot impose thmselves on people. People become and stay Christians out of conviction. And that is a blessing. If an unity can be achieved (which I doubt, at least by human means alone), then it is unity by conviction, not by inquisition. |
#607
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
Quote:
Now the modern Christian world is making the opposite error: in trying to love heretics, it has embraced heresy. |
#608
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
I try to respond to several answers addressed to me. Thank you for sending them.
Regarding my accepting the infallibility of the Catholic Church because of my acceptance the Scriptures as my authority: Luther did not come out of nothing. He was a learned Augustinian friar and a Professor of theology, and felt that he never dissented from the ancient traditions. He thought that he upheld them, when the Church had neglected them. He considered himself a conservative and not a radical. His maxim that "Church should be continuously reformed" is followed by the often forgotten continuation "according to the instructions of the Word of God". He always maintained that Catholic Church has valid Baptism, valid Eucharist (although he critizised certain practices) and valid Reconciliation. And of course he believed that the Scriptures contained the essentials of the doctrin and everything that was necessary for salvation. In that sense he believed the continuity of the doctrin and that a necessary element of truth will alvays prevail despite all human errors and fallibility. As in one of my previous postings I explained what we Lutherans believe when we say the creed and confess our belief in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To us it means that until the end of days there will be people, however few at times, who believe in Christ and put their hope of Salvation on him, while the rites and ceremonies may differ. |
#609
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
Welcome to CAF Atte.
Yeah, once they get this long, it is hard.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Any Catholic who considers you as such is not acting according to the Faith of the Church. They are either ignorant of what the Church teaches, or defiantly disobedient. This is not the standpoint of the CC.
Quote:
And the reference to not having full communion is a simple statement of the Truth, not any effort to be condescending. It would be condescending to pretend that a unity exists where it does not.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"The tradition of the Apostles has been made manifest throughout the world, and can be found in every Church by those who wish to know the truth." -- Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 189, on how the unity of the Church was based on the Apostolic Tradition everywhere handed down (paradosis). |
#610
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
I’m sure we’ve all heard the saying “do not take the law into your own hands”.
Martin Luther had every right to point out the abuses of Church leaders e.g. selling of indulgences. But Luther had no right to cross the line if forming new doctrines and reject doctrines preached by the Church, the same Church that Christ himself established. Protestants rebel against the Church and a very similar way Korah and his followers rebelled against Moses and we all know what happen to these rebels in Numbers 16. Jesus said “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.” – Matthew 23:2-3 |
#611
|
||||||
|
||||||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
Quote:
Quote:
Men are always in need of reform. The doctrines of Christ do not require any reform.
Quote:
Gal 5:18-21 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. These are works of the flesh. Sin never serves the purpose of God. He can work His purpose despite the sins of man. The Apostles taught the reason for the factions: 1 Cor 11:19-20 9 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. And how will it become clear? That the genuine is known by four marks taught by the Apostles.
Quote:
Matt 23:2-4 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. So long as we practice the teachings of Jesus, even corrupt authorities need not concern us. The Apostles did not understand Jesus, either, but they submitted to him in spite of their doubts because they knew He had the words of eternal life. Can you not do the same?
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"The tradition of the Apostles has been made manifest throughout the world, and can be found in every Church by those who wish to know the truth." -- Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 189, on how the unity of the Church was based on the Apostolic Tradition everywhere handed down (paradosis). |
#612
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
Quote:
My intention was not to proselytise, evangelize or convince catholics. I would think this kind of behaviour insulting towards other Christians. This does not mean, of course, that I try to express my Lutheran viewpoint and its internal logic for you to understand why I think as I think and belive as I believe. I do not expect that you agree. The point that we both agree is that we are separated, and no reformulation of phraseology or equivocal expressions can heal that. And that is going to last, I am afraid until the Second Coming. I have not answered the many points you have raised, When we go to the doctrinal level, I think the discussion deteriorates very easily to argumentation. I could dig from my arsenal quite a lot of protestant viewpoints, and you understandably Catholic counterarguments. That kind of discussion seldom leads to a better undesrtanding of truth, but rather to both sides sticking even deeper into their doctrinal premises and the discussion becoming, intentionally or not, more hurtful than constructive. We have to live with the situation and leave its solution to God's hands. In the end He prevails |
#613
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
Quote:
So what you are saying here is that when considering every Bishop, every Theologian, every Scholar in the Catholic Church and the sum total of belief and knowledge that was transmitted in time in the Church, one Monk knew better, understood better, than all that came before, is this what you are saying here? |
#614
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
Quote:
|
#615
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
To Guanophore
Sorry, I noticed that my English (again) was faulty in my previous message to you. The paragraph should read: "My intention was not to proselytise, evangelize or convince catholics. I would think this kind of behaviour insulting towards other Christians. This does not mean, of course, that would not try to express my Lutheran viewpoint and its internal logic for you to understand why I think as I think and belive as I believe. I do not expect that you agree." I hope that it is now more understandable (regarding the meaning, not necessarily the doctrinal standpoint) |
No comments:
Post a Comment