Posted on 04/21/2008 2:16:12 AM PDT by markomalley
You can (and should) do that when you have the Truth of Christ on your side as the Catholic Church does. Relativism just don’t cut it.
It’s not a matter of relativity. It’s a matter of Jesus’ own words.
You would be wrong.
*sigh*
Your fellows have already tried to prove that to me, using one verse in Genesis, two verses from the beginning of the 'Wedding at Cana' scene, the 'Hail Mary full of grace' bit, and an arguable passage in the Apocalypse of John.
If you have something more definitive than those, then you are welcome to try also, but let's not keep kicking a dead horse.
No, it’s a matter of the fullness of Divine Revelation, which includes Jesus’ words, actions, instruction, and promises.
If you stop at the word, you end up with...well, a mess like protestantism.
As long as you are counting verses, rather than reading them, you will not get it.
You don't have to agree with the doctrines, but saying they're not in the Bible is just more false witness.
Good post there. I think what Pope Benedict is trying to tell Protestants of the historic Confessions to not move away from the Creedal formulas that were embraced by the main Protestant Confessions (Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed). Why does he state this? Because as long as those groups don’t deviate from those points, legitimate discussion can proceed. On the other hand, if what is going on in the Anglican Communion does not stop, dialogue with them will no longer even be possible.
So lets say the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinopile agree to re-unite. With the exception of the Primacy of the Bisop of Rome, not that Rome has such a primacy, there are no other major hurdles to overcome. Now, I will acknowledge that from The Eastern Orthodox perspective, the nature of the Primacy of the Church of Rome and how it would be excercised in a Fully Re-united Catholic and Orthodox Church, but after that point, the other issues such as the Western definition of original sin, purgatory, Immaculate conception could be reconciled and be expressed in Eastern Theological formulas since for example, the Eastern Orthodox pray for the dead in their Liturgies, a practice in the Catholic Church as well and one consistent with the notion of Purgatory.
If you notice Pope Benedict did, he greeted the Orthodox Delegation first. That is not inconsequential and reflects the priority and recognition that the Eastern Orthodox have the first place in ecumencial discussions with Rome. However, you will notice that the Lutherans were greeted next, which tells you that from Pope Benedicts perspective, the Lutherans have maintained a closer connection to the ancient Creeds and Catholic Tradition than other Protestants. I think the Methodist and Reformed were greeted next, and then note that the Baptist and the Pentecostals were greeted. The Episcopalians were greeted last, which tells you that Pope Benedict sees the ordination of Schori as the Leader of TEC as problematic, and the fact that many of the TEC doctrines with respect to Christology, Trinity, sexual morality, etc are inconsistent with orthodox Christian Doctrine.
So, given what I wrote above, I think Pope Benedict sees reapproachment with the Lutherans as a greater possibility than the Anglican communion, save maybe the Anglicans in the Global south who are basically breaking communion with Rowan Williams, the Primate of Cantebury and leader of the Anglican Communion. This is a startling turn of events because after Vatican II, the Primate of Cantebury Ramsey and Pope Paul VI agree to work for Full Corporate Re-union and there were thoughts that it was better than 50/50 it could happen. Of course, the Anglican Communions decision to ordain women, despite the protest from Rome, resulted in a downward spiral in that communion with respect to major Doctrine and as such, many Traditional orthodox Anglicans have formed break away communions from Cantebury, some have come back to Rome, and some have gone to Orthodoxy.
In summary, the Pope was telling Protestants to bind yourself to the doctrines expressed in the Creeds, so that we at least have an agreement on the core Doctrines about the Trinity and Christ.
Regards
A very honest post by you and you did point out a truth that sometimes gets lost on this forum, that historic Protestantism and Catholicism agree on way more than we disagree on. I think we all need to remember that as we combat what Pope Benedict calls the “dictatorship of relativism” and the radical Islamist who “devoid faith from reason”.
This Catholic thanks you for the charitable post, which was charitable even on the Marian dogmas you struggle with.
I would recommend the II Vatican Council decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio. I don't believe that the current pontiff's goals will diverge from that document's stated goals. As a taste, the first paragraph pretty well sums it up:
1. The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.
But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God's Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.
The Sacred Council gladly notes all this. It has already declared its teaching on the Church, and now, moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call.
Is there anything he is willing to concede?
One very important thing that this pope did was giving up the title, Patriarch of the West. That was a huge step that was greatly appreciated by the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome.
One other thing that has happened is a relaxation of the discipline of priestly celibacy...for Anglican and (IIRC) some Lutheran clergy who have felt compelled to return. Those who were exercising their ministries but were married were allowed to continue in those ministries and received ordination in the Church. That is a rather major step, as well.
The very change in language when referring to followers of Christ who were raised in communities formed out of the western schism has also changed in recent decades. The attitude of Catholics toward those of other confessions has also changed, as well (primarily as a result of that change n teachings). While some may consider it an insult to say "separated brethren" and "ecclesial communities," that is considerably better than saying "heretics" and "schismatic groups."
So I, for one, see that there has been a whole lot of change.
But Scripture comes first.
I am really glad to hear that. Really.
As authentic Sacred Tradition cannot contradict Sacred Scripture. Just as an accurate understanding of Sacred Scripture will not contradict Sacred Tradition.
As St. Paul said, So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Th 2:15)
I have always enjoyed the spirited scriptural discussions with you over the years.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shuaMany of your fellow communicants are less well versed in either CCC or scriptures
and begin to call names and post cartoons of dogs urinating on the reader.I pray you stay rested in the Love of Yah'shua.
chuck
Depends on what you call "winning." When well educated Catholics defend the Faith with reason and charity, while being attacked in the most brutal fashion, we provide a witness. Even online.
And slowly those who recognize the fallacies of their own confession realize where the truth lies and come home. Not all. But enough.
The dichotomy that I find interesting is that Catholics who leave are usually those who are poorly catechized and are thus vulnerable. Those who return (and I will include those returning to our brethren in the East in this), do so because they have studied to a point where they can no longer resist the truth.
Win here on FR? Naw. Win in terms of saving souls…That's another story altogether.
FRiend, it wasn't Ratzinger who made that declaration. That declaration has been around for a long, long time. Say about 5-600 years. See the Decree on Ecumenism that I cited a couple of posts up from here. (The distinction is if a valid apostolic succession is maintained or not whether a group is considered a "church" or an "ecclesial community")
But we've had this discussion a few hundred times already, haven't we?
Thank you for that!
It’s too bad that in all the hatred and desire to be right and have the last word, no one seems to even acknowledge the truth you wrote here.
So-called followers of Jesus ought to be ashamed of themselves, arguing like a bunch of Pharises! I pray to God in Heaven to help them see themselves in others, even across keyboards on this forum.
You are welcome. With so much of the world wanting our heads on a platter why do we sharpen our knives against each other?
By the way Alas Babylon is a great book, or at least this Florida gal thinks so.
In my heart, I would love to see Christian unity. I recognize much authenticity in the Catholic Church. I am not a dishonest Protestant. I believe the Church does have a claim (though shared with the Eastern and Coptic Churches) to true apostolic succession. I believe the Church contains much truth, and that the Church preserves much essential tradition. I think that Peter is "the rock" that Jesus says he will build his Church upon (though many Protestants twist this statement to ridiculous lengths in attempting to deny it). I love the Mass, the liturgy, the confessional and orthodox aspect of it all.
I respect this Pope immensely (his book Jesus of Nazareth is, in my opinion, one of the great theological books ever written) and I have great affection for the Church.
However, I have to follow my conscience, as I said, and where I feel the Holy Spirit leads me. In this sense, I have found a home in the Lutheran Church because within it I have found the closest middle-ground between the things in Protestantism that I hold true, and the things in Catholicism and its tradition that I hold true. But if my church ever goes the way of some of the more liberal denominations, then I will leap into the Catholic Church head first.
My own personal feelings are that if the Catholic Church could ever bring itself to the point where it did not jettison all Marain doctrine, but realigned itself to a position where all Marian doctrine is optional - or at least back away from the damnation and hellfire aspect of it for those who cannot accept it...well, if ever some accommodation like that could be reached, they might reclaim 50% of Protestants. I'm serious about that too. There are other issues, to be sure, when it comes to the Church, but the Marian doctrines are the biggest divide between us. Anyway, please don't take my debating and sometimes argumentative stance as hostility. Sometimes what I'm writing is my own way of "thinking out loud", if you will. But I have tremendous affection for Catholicism and its orthodoxy too.
I would definitely agree with much of that ecumenical statement from Vatican II. Especially the last sentence in the first paragraph.
Ecumenicalism. The Roman Church never tires of brandishing about this word.
They are like the democrats. Nonpartisanship to a democrat is when the pubbies lay down or bend over and say, “OK we’ll do it your way.”
I hate the word ecumenical. It is a farce. I’ll agree with Roman Catholics the day they accept the Protestant Reformation.
Remember that Catholics are Christians, first and foremost, and as such we all owe each other the love and respect that Christ would expect of us. I sometimes fall down too, get a tad testy, even angry, when discussing things with Catholics, but keep Christ in mind - first and foremost. Think about how he'd want you to respond.
I have a question, whose version of the Protesant Reformation? It it the Anglican 39 articles as expoused by Thomas Cranmer, is it the Lutheran Confessions or the Calvinist_Westminster COnfessions, is it the form of Protestantism articulated by Zwingli?
What seems simple is not so simple when you start seriously looking into it.
I’m not all that picky. Luther seemed pretty straight but for his wanting to toss the Book of James. Just take out the maryolatry and the idea of a pope in general and I’ll party with em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.