I guess that's progress.
but can they understand it the same as the Church for unity of faith? Let's see what the Magisterium has given us in the Catholic Church... unity.
Agreement with what the RCC teaches is not a definition of unity. "If you agree with me, we're unified" doesn't cut it. I am seeking the truth, you cannot have unity without truth.
Let's see what has been wrought in Protestant congregations since the split from the Church... disunity and division. Why? ... The fractalization that has occurred over the last five centuries speaks loudly of the folly of private interpretation.
I disagree, it speaks loudly of the folly of FAULTY interpretation.
Certainly, you're not going to argue that we are all One in the faith as Christ prayed we would be?
No, I wouldn't do that ... I am not blind to the impasse that exists that will not be bridged between our faiths.
The Doctrines and Dogma of the Catholic Church have been held firm back to their foundations in Christ ...
Again, we are talking about truth. Your subtle equivalence; that somehow "length of time" lends credibility to the truthfulness of a doctrine is particularly troubling for me. What's the difference whether something has been held for a long time or not ... its the truth of the claim that matters ... if it is not truth ... its nothing but a lie with alot of dust on it.
There is no such continuity in the Protestant congregations.
I'll give you that one ... but, again, truth before unity. Those who would worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. If a person is not worshiping in truth, they are not worshiping God at all! They are merely worshiping a facsimile of a god they have created.
It is our guide and ground but not our sole authority for self-interpretation.
Thus the basis for the reformation.
On this we agree. From experience I will also say that you can't have unity with those who begin from the proposition that what the Catholic Church believes must be wrong... let's go find another answer. I have friends who attended Dallas Theological Seminar and I know this to be an indirect, but clear, directive. It is palpable even here on this forum. As you say, truth is truth, regardless of the source. The Church has listened to many throughout history who have expanded Her understanding of issues. Doctrines were not changed, mind you... but understandings can evolve with revelation.
I disagree, it speaks loudly of the folly of FAULTY interpretation.
Aye, there's the rub. So, whose interpretation is faulty? Who has the authority in Protestant circles to decide? Without authority, there is no unity.
No, I wouldn't do that ... I am not blind to the impasse that exists that will not be bridged between our faiths.
Sounds like you're just agreeing to disagree already.
Again, we are talking about truth. Your subtle equivalence; that somehow "length of time" lends credibility to the truthfulness of a doctrine is particularly troubling for me.
It isn't the length of time that is significant. It is the source of the doctrine... Christ Himself. No other Church (besides the Eastern Orthodox and we're still talking with them on our disagreements) traces their orthodoxy back to the Source of Christianity Who is Christ the Lord. That is the lesson of time... not its length.
Thus the basis for the reformation.
And has this reformation led to unity as Christ desired for His Church? Or will you, in honesty, acknowledge that this split has led to tens of thousands of further divisions?
We are to walk by faith and not by sight. There are doctrines of the Church that the Church acknowledges are mysteries... even the Magisterium doesn't fully understand them. But we trust in Our Lord's providence and in the Holy Spirit promised to us as our guide and comforter for all time.
May God bless you.