Posted on 12/25/2005 10:09:32 AM PST by churchillbuff
I appreciate you taking so much time to offer explanations. It will be interesting to see whether there will be some kind of Anglican return to the RC fold -- a reunification that would make for greater "oneness," I assume you would aree.
Then all roads lead to Hell.
I recollect the Old Testament patriarchs argued and pleaded with the Lord,but I am certainly not presumptious enough to tell Him that He is wrong.I have difficulties with some of what we are told by others that He said. Any man is an imperfect filter unless you are one of those that denies God's gift of free will.
So much to comment on, so little time. I will respond to this gem:
"There is no evidence that the early Church accepted a plurality of religious truths. THAT really IS a Protestant notion, although not a Christian one. "
I don't disagree with the former, but the latter is outrageous - Protestantism isn't Christianity? Surely you don't mean that......
The Protestant movement was started because men of conscience couldn't abide by the misdeeds of the Catholic church. (and no, good Henry was not among them....he hated Martin Luther - like good Catholics of his time had to). No, It was a failure of men, not The Word.
This bickering is pointless though, but I am appreciative that you have given me a couple of interesting lines of inquiry for next time.
Your fellow Christian/sinner thanks you for the discussion, but I'm bowing out before a jihad breaks out.
I hope to resume the discussion one day when tempers have cooled a bit. Interesting that Protestants "returning home" draws such fire though....I'd have expected the opposite.
Dear RFEngineer,
"I don't disagree with the former, but the latter is outrageous - Protestantism isn't Christianity? Surely you don't mean that...... "
Protestantism is Christianity, but certainly, as a Catholic, I don't believe that every attribute of Protestantism is Christian. Otherwise, I'd be a Protestant, right? ;-)
The idea that there is a plurality of truths is absurd from the Catholic perspective. We don't believe that it is a legitimate feature of Christianity.
"The Protestant movement was started because men of conscience couldn't abide by the misdeeds of the Catholic church."
I agree that folks like Martin Luther initially started down the path they went because of the crimes of some churchmen. However, I don't believe that where he wound up was justified by those crimes. Otherwise, I'd be a Protestant, right?
"This bickering is pointless though, but I am appreciative that you have given me a couple of interesting lines of inquiry for next time."
I don't mean to bicker, and apologize if that's what I've been doing. But I don't have a problem speaking up when I believe that another is offering a tendentious interpretation of history. That you believe that I've given you some interesting lines of inquiry leads me to believe that I've been at least partly successful in what I intended.
"Your fellow Christian/sinner thanks you for the discussion, but I'm bowing out before a jihad breaks out."
Your fellow Christian/sinner thanks you, as well, as although the exchanges between you and me haven't been without some sharp edges, I found that you've seemingly tried to reply to me with courtesy, and I've tried to do likewise.
I hope that you continue to have a blessed Christmastime.
sitetest
What would those good reasons be? The Hymn that starts: "And did those feet, in ancient times, walk upon England's mountains green?"
You're welcome.
The bickering was mutual - back and forth without moving a discussion forward - so I apologize to you as well.
Nothing wrong with a few sharp edges - corteously applied!
We'll talk again, I'm sure - and I look forward to it.
"There is no evidence that the early Church accepted a plurality of religious truths."
I guess it depends on what one means as a "truth," but Paul was quite explicit in his teaching that there would be denominational diffrences and these differences should be tolerated, if certain bare minimums were met. (The mimimum being roughly that Christ was fully God, died, and raised.)
Dear MeanWestTexan,
"I guess it depends on what one means as a 'truth,' but Paul was quite explicit in his teaching that there would be denominational diffrences and these differences should be tolerated, if certain bare minimums were met."
That's a very,..., er,... ...interesting interpretation of St. Paul. I'd be interested if you might be a bit more specific.
I'd be interested in the views of a few others as to the idea that St. Paul was "quite explicit in his teaching that there would be denominational differences and these differences should be tolerated..."
Thanks!
sitetest
"I'd be interested in the views of a few others as to the idea that St. Paul was "quite explicit in his teaching that there would be denominational differences and these differences should be tolerated..."
Must have been in one of those passages I managed to miss! I think the Fathers probably missed it too!
The Eastern Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox Church are in communion with the Catholic Church and their priests are married.
Doesn't really matter; one or one million, the truth is not dependent on belief, it is what it is.
Paul does recognize that "denominational differences" (schisms and heresies) will exist, but he hardly approves them. Here are a few pertinent passages:
"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment." (1 Cor. 1:10)"I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." (Galatians 1:6-9)
"Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth." (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
"Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.
For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was." (2 Timothy 3:1-9)
As regards the opinion of the early Church, St. Cyprian is a fair representative. His treatise on the Unity of the Church indicates, on the basis of strong arguments from Scripture, that anyone who departs from the one Church of Christ by either embracing a different faith or rejecting her system of episcopal government is alien to the promises of salvation.
It should be noted that the Protestant idea of an invisible Church exclusively composed of those elected to grace and glory in the secret judgment of God is wholly unknown to the early Fathers, and to St. Paul as well. For all of them, the Church was a visible society, known by the four marks we profess in the Nicene Symbol: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Being married wasn't my point. I was pointing out the fact that they had been Roman Catholic but had left the Roman Church to become Anglican priests.
Don't forget Galatians 5, where St. Paul condemns schisms, quarrels, enmities, etc. - everything necessary for denominationalism. And in Corinthians where he condmens the factionalism of those calling themselves of the party of Paul, Cephas, Apollo, etc.
Yeah, that St. Paul sure liked denominationalism, didn't he!
I would like to see the Orthodox church and the Coptics as well.
I think the Coptics are a lot closer than the Orthodox church, however.
"As regards the opinion of the early Church, St. Cyprian is a fair representative. His treatise on the Unity of the Church indicates, on the basis of strong arguments from Scripture, that anyone who departs from the one Church of Christ by either embracing a different faith or rejecting her system of episcopal government is alien to the promises of salvation."
Something we Orthodox have been trying to tell you Latins for the past 500 years or so. :)
"The Eastern Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox Church are in communion with the Catholic Church and their priests are married."
You've been misinformed. Orthodoxy and the Latin Church are not in communion.
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.