It is more than abundantly clear to me that I am considered by Roman Catholics as heretic. I do not contradict, from your standpoint you are right.

iginally Posted by Attejohannes

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.

Yes. I think the error the Church leaders made was this: in trying to eliminate heresy, the Church leaders attacked heretics.

Now the modern Christian world is making the opposite error: in trying to love heretics, it has embraced heresy.

__________________
--PRmerger

25 Random Things About Me

Visit my blog: 3 Minute Apologetics

#608   Jan 29, '13, 8:41 pm

Attejohannes Banned   Join Date: January 24, 2013 Posts: 132 Religion: Lutheran

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   Jan 29, '13, 8:48 pm

guanophore Forum Elder Prayer Warrior Radio Club Member Forum Supporter   Join Date: February 14, 2007 Posts: 25,842 Religion: Obl. OSB

Re: Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants? Welcome to CAF Atte. Quote: Originally Posted by Attejohannes I have tried to go through this thread. Yeah, once they get this long, it is hard. Quote: Originally Posted by Attejohannes I amd Lutheran. This does not mean that I consider Luther infallible or sinless or even particularly well-mannered and tolerant person. I simply think that he shifted again the focus of faith from Church to Christ. This is a bit of a simplification, but I see your point. In reality, there should be no separation between Christ and His Holy Bride, the Church. Quote: Originally Posted by Attejohannes And I honestly think that this focus was lost from Catholics in his days and to some extent even now. That is my standpoint. Now I have said it and I do not come back to it again. At least in this thread. Actually this is such an interesting topic, we should start another thread! Quote: Originally Posted by Attejohannes It is more than abundantly clear to me that I am considered by Roman Catholics as heretic. I do not contradict, from your standpoint you are right. I am curious how this became "abundantly clear" to you. 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: Originally Posted by Attejohannes And I myself would rather like to be called a heretic by the Pope himself, instead of the rather condescending and vague reference of "limited sacramental unity with the Church, which however is not a full communion". The Pope will not disobey the teaching of the Church to do such a thing. 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: Originally Posted by Attejohannes For the apostles there were no persons or groups with "limited sacramental unity", it was all or nothing. Yes. But they could never have anticipated the Reformation. Now, people are born into a truncated version of the Gospel and raised completely apart from the Sacred Tradition and the Aposotlic Succession that was entrusted by them to the Church. Quote: Originally Posted by Attejohannes If the price of unity is to claim to believe what you do not believe (like the latest Catholic dogmas of Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Virgin), then this pretended faith does not have any value, would be dishonest, and would not save me even if these dogmas (to much of my surprise) would be true. You are right. It is better to hold on to whatever fraction of the truth you have with integrity. Quote: Originally Posted by Attejohannes If I am reminded that these things are true because the Church says they are true, and we know that the Church is right, because the Church knows what is right, because the Church, according to the Church, is the Guardian of Truth, of course, according to the Church... ad infinitum. Then to me this is just similar circular deduction of which we Bible-toting protestants are so well known. Yes. Fortunately, this is not the case. Quote: Originally Posted by Attejohannes I have written rather rudely, it is partially because English is not my first language and I am not able to formulate my phrases in a more diplomatic way. Suffice to say that my intention is not to offend, and I am not questioning the salvation of Catholics. One has to wonder what your motive might be.... Quote: Originally Posted by Attejohannes Regarding myself, I know that I will be judged by One, who knows everything, who is All Merciful and Perfectly Just. Whatever is going to be His final word of me and my eternal destiny I know that the decision will be indusputably right, merciful and just. Here I stand... It is good to know that you are clinging to many falsehoods and misconceptions. I say that because your attitude might improve when you are better educated. __________________ "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).