Unity Between Catholic and Protestant Christians

[mrhagerty]

Albion writes:

Except that it doesn't.

Well, then that refutes the theory of Sacred Tradition right there! If there is no continuity, it cannot be traditional. And here is a case in which there is not only no continuity with some idea of Papal Infallibility but we agree that the facts of history clearly rebut the notion.

All you are doing there is confirming the fact that there was no "tradition." Intermittent claims back and forth, pro but then con, does not show that there is anything like the hand of God keeping the "revelation" of an infallible Papacy as part of the body of faith alive from the beginning of the church until it was formalized in the late 19th century.

I think this is the result of too strict a take on Tradition and how it's transmitted in the Catholic Church. The critical line is not an unbroken chain of custody from one pope to the next or all is lost. It's an end result that restores and maintains the Deposit of Faith and includes the doctrines in question. Having an individual pope who rejects infallibility doesn't break that chain of custody for the whole Church.

The Sacred Tradition is maintained in the Magisterium of the Church, where successors are indoctrinated in the Received corpus of Tradition. New local bishops are trained in the Tradition to the extent that their local leadership will encounter and require. Doctrines outside their training or experience can be given to them from the Vatican as the situation arises.

In Henry VIII's case, local bishops could not give authoritative advice from the Tradition on the passage in Leviticus as to whether a man who takes his brother's wife will be childless. They appealed to Rome, and the Pope and Magisterium interpreted against the king's petition for a dispensation

So one man's rejection of infallibility for the Bishop of Rome did not break the chain of custody for the doctrine. Even when a season of many bad actors occurred, the principle was whether the Church returned to the tradition of St. Peter. Once it did, they could continue to say they were the One True Church and were preserving the Deposit faithfully, without change.

In this case, "flatly contradicted" is less obvious than the example of Papal Infallibility. However, that doesn't mean that any tradition has been established or ever existed! Purgatory was enunciated in the very late Middle Ages and is a complicated doctrine. Almost none of it has any basis in earlier church teachings or Scripture.

To this I would have to ask how you know this - that there's no basis in the earlier church teachings. You're on the wrong track if you say there's nothing written from them. You would have to know that the teachings you can find are all there ever was.

You're already aware that these doctrines are claimed to be verbally based in the Tradition. By it's very nature this removes any appeal to what we know in writing of the teachings of the early church. The doctrines are said to have been believed despite any written record that they were.

It's an argument of Catholics that can never be proven false. And non-falsifiability is deadly to a claim, if one looks to secular logic and reasoning. If it can't be shown to be false when it actually is false, then it is a groundless argument and contributes nothing. Catholics avoid this problem by claiming that faith is aloof from secular theorems of logic.

Now the prevailing attitude in the church is that most of that isn't really true, but having defined the place at a church council, the Catholic Church cannot just repeal it as she did with Limbo, so it's being relegated to an unofficial death.

I'm aware that individual Catholics, some bishops and priests have given up Purgatory. The Vatican has characterized all of these cases as misinformation as to what the Vatican teaches Purgatory is and why it's needed. Article after article I've read, including the more liberal posture of Vatican II, continue to support the doctrine as important for the faith.

So, I would question if the word "prevailing attitude" includes the Vatican or is referring to most Catholics in a certain area or even a country, like America.

Mike

 

[mrhagerty]

Mrhagerty wrote:

You need to consider documents that flatly contradict the doctrine that was later proclaimed. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility, for instance, was rejected by Popes themselves in earlier years, yet it was still claimed that this was a true doctrine by Sacred Tradition when it was made a dogma. It also split the Church, so contrary to tradition was this move, and that is a split which remains to this day.


I was stating the truth of the matter, and that seemed necessary after my posts were answered not with anything like a rebuttal but with a rehash of the Catholic Church's position statements. I had not been asking to know what the Catholic Church's view on any of this IS. I had been endeavoring to show you why "Sacred Tradition" is not what is claimed for it.

And I do get that. But I thought the thread was about union between Catholics and Protestants, where we might ask how we could dialog with Catholics to bring about that unity. My point is that their mode of defending their faith precludes the kind of reason you are offering - that these doctrines can't be analyzed in the conventional framework you and I work in. My point is that they don't care because their basis is in a doctrinal underpinning that will always win, even when irrational.

 

[prodromos]

This is a good one:

It didn't claim millions of Protestants killed by Catholics. Do you have a reference to back up your claim or are you going to apologise and retract?

 

[prodromos]

No. It was figurative language to express full commitment to Him personally instead of following Him just for the free lunches and healing. When His followers realised that there were going to be no more free lunches or miracle healing, most left Him because they didn't want to be identified with Him impending death.

The Scriptures do not support your claim. The only figurative use of "eat someone's flesh" in the Scriptures is to destroy that person.
Micah 3:1-3
Ecclesiastes 4:1-5
Isaiah 49:25-26
Ezekiel 39:17-18

 

[prodromos]

It reads as an obvious metaphor to me, and the obsession with transubstantiation by the RC and orthodox is morbid and comes off like cannibalism to the unbelievers...

The early Christians were accused by the pagans of being cannibals. Where do you think they might have got that idea from?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It didn't claim millions of Protestants killed by Catholics. Do you have a reference to back up your claim or are you going to apologise and retract?

I don't have to apologise or retract the truth. All you have to do is to find out what happened to the tens of thousands of believers in the south of France who refused the authority of the Pope. And what happened to the Huguenots in France who adopted the Protestant faith. Or the Waldenses who were massacred in their thousands. What about the written instruction from the Pope to exterminate all the Hussites because they did not deserve to live because they were committing the mortal sin of teaching Justification by faith alone in Christ?

I wonder how many are really prepared to study unbiased historical accounts of these events. You can use Google as well as I can.

Dave Hunt wrote an excellent book called "The Woman Who Rides the Beast" in which he presents undeniable evidence from the actual writings of the RCC itself. But I wouldn't be holding my breath that any committed RC would want to read it right through. It may be too distressing for them and might turn their theology on its head.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I think my thread has served its purpose. I will put a stop to it while we are ahead and still with a respectful attitude. Thank you to those who contributed to what has been a meaningful discussion from both sides of the issue.

 

[prodromos]

I don't have to apologise or retract the truth. All you have to do is to find out what happened to the tens of thousands of believers in the south of France who refused the authority of the Pope. And what happened to the Huguenots in France who adopted the Protestant faith. Or the Waldenses who were massacred in their thousands. What about the written instruction from the Pope to exterminate all the Hussites because they did not deserve to live because they were committing the mortal sin of teaching Justification by faith alone in Christ?

I wonder how many are really prepared to study unbiased historical accounts of these events. You can use Google as well as I can.

Dave Hunt wrote an excellent book called "The Woman Who Rides the Beast" in which he presents undeniable evidence from the actual writings of the RCC itself. But I wouldn't be holding my breath that any committed RC would want to read it right through. It may be too distressing for them and might turn their theology on its head.

Now you are referring to thousands. What happened to the millions you claimed earlier. And of course you want the thread closed so you won't have to admit to your spreading of falsehood. What kind of christian presents himself as an authority only to tell lies?
I am not Catholic nor will I ever be, but I am appalled at how ready some people are to teach false information about the Catholic Church and present it as history.
Lord have mercy

 

[Strong in Him]

You would have to be baptized in water using the Trinitarian formula then have hands laid on you by someone with the power to give to you the Holy Spirit.

GOD has the power to give his Holy Spirit; God alone.
When we ask, or others pray for us, to receive him and we do; that is simply God answering the prayers of his children, Luke 11:13 - "how much more will God give the Holy Spirit to those that ask him".
Nothing there about asking "someone with the power" to give him to us.

 

[DamianWarS]

Conversely the rules of CF would prevent anyone saying that the Catholic church is a fraud. So all we can do is to engage in for and against discussions concerning Catholic and Protestant doctrine.

So we are all at an impasse to engage this topic and we have to tip toe around it or go about it indirectly, as the OP has done just this.

 

[HTacianas]

GOD has the power to give his Holy Spirit; God alone.
When we ask, or others pray for us, to receive him and we do; that is simply God answering the prayers of his children, Luke 11:13 - "how much more will God give the Holy Spirit to those that ask him".
Nothing there about asking "someone with the power" to give him to us.

See Acts 8.

 

[Strong in Him]

It isn't a "belief", but a historical fact that no Christian Church but the Catholic Church existed for the first 1,000 years of Christianity.

The Apostles and early believers were Jewish, not Catholic.

And it is a biblical fact that Jesus Christ founded one Church,

Yes, THE church is all believers - all who confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus is the rock, the foundation and corner stone of our faith.

He wanted us to have "all truth",

Jesus is the Truth, John 14:6.
His word is truth, John 17:17.
The Holy Spirit is truth, John 16:13.

Truth cannot conflict with truth, so conflicting beliefs necessarily mean false beliefs.

Sometimes we differ in how to apply the words of Scripture; e.g baptism. That doesn't necessarily mean that those who see things differently are false.

Proud and misguided men destroyed the unity of Christianity by created their own churches,

Some may have broken away from a church because they believed that church was teaching, and practising, error. The ideal might be to stay in a church and change it, or pray for change, from within - but sometimes that's too hard, and a Christian may feel their own faith/fellowship is suffering.

The bottom line is, we all believe one Gospel.
If persecution came to our country, someone was facing us with a gun and said "are you a Christian, yes or no?", there would be no time to argue church history, sacraments, robes, translations of the Bible or anything else. Our life, or death, would depend on whether or not we confessed Jesus.

It is these renegade churches that need to address the disunity in Christianity, since they are the cause of it.

It is attitudes like "these renegade churches" - i.e mine is the right one - which are the cause of disunity.
Forget religion; proclaim Jesus.

 

[Strong in Him]

See Acts 8.

Any particular part of Acts 8?
How does that address Jesus' statement that anyone who asks may receive the Holy Spirit?

 

[HTacianas]

Any particular part of Acts 8?
How does that address Jesus' statement that anyone who asks may receive the Holy Spirit?

Begin with 8:14-17:

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,

Act 8:15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

Act 8:16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 8:17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

And then 19:1-6

Act 19:1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples

Act 19:2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Those are the "elementary principles" spoken of by the writer to the Hebrews:

Heb 6:1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

Heb 6:2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment

 

[Strong in Him]

Begin with 8:14-17:

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,

Act 8:15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

Act 8:16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 8:17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

The apostles laid hands on people and they received the Holy Spirit.
And?

And then 19:1-6

Act 19:1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples

Act 19:2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Paul laid hands on him and he received the Holy Spirit.
Again - and?

Those are the "elementary principles" spoken of by the writer to the Hebrews:

Heb 6:1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

Heb 6:2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment

The verse that you yourself have quoted makes it clear what this passage is saying.
Heb 6:1 "Therefore leaving the discussion of the elementary principles ...."
The writer has been talking about how the Hebrews seem to need someone to teach them the basic doctrines of the Christian faith - baptism, laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead etc - which he describes as "milk". They should have been ready for "solid food" by that point - i.e they should have left behind these basic doctrines and be ready to move on to deeper teaching. But they weren't.
He's not saying they have to leave them behind because they aren't important, or valid any more - if they had learned the basics, they could have moved on in their faith. In fact, the Hebrews weren't ready for the "solid food", or meat of their faith. They had not grasped the basic truths; how could they grasp more detailed teaching?

Same with anything. I've "left the alphabet behind" - meaning that when I read, I no longer have to spell out each word or ask myself what comes after 'D'? In this case, the alphabet is the basics - I am so familiar with the basics that I don't think about them.
Some of these reality cookery programmes feature people who are hoping to become a Masterchef, or Master baker. But when they are tested, some of them prove that they have not even mastered the basics.
If I wanted to drive a bus I could apply and would be trained to drive a bus - but they would expect that I could first drive a car.

The writer of the book of Hebrews wanted to leave behind the discussion of basic truths and move on to discussing other teachings.
You seem to have taken the words "left behind" and "laying on of hands" and concluded that the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit does not happen today; it has been left behind. No doubt, you would say, because the apostles have all died. Are you saying that no one can receive the Holy Spirit unless the "appropriate" person prays for them?

Again, how does this answer Jesus' words that anyone who asks will receive the Holy Spirit?

 

[HTacianas]

The apostles laid hands on people and they received the Holy Spirit.
And?



Paul laid hands on him and he received the Holy Spirit.
Again - and?



The verse that you yourself have quoted makes it clear what this passage is saying.
Heb 6:1 "Therefore leaving the discussion of the elementary principles ...."
The writer has been talking about how the Hebrews seem to need someone to teach them the basic doctrines of the Christian faith - baptism, laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead etc - which he describes as "milk". They should have been ready for "solid food" by that point - i.e they should have left behind these basic doctrines and be ready to move on to deeper teaching. But they weren't.
He's not saying they have to leave them behind because they aren't important, or valid any more - if they had learned the basics, they could have moved on in their faith. In fact, the Hebrews weren't ready for the "solid food", or meat of their faith. They had not grasped the basic truths; how could they grasp more detailed teaching?

Same with anything. I've "left the alphabet behind" - meaning that when I read, I no longer have to spell out each word or ask myself what comes after 'D'? In this case, the alphabet is the basics - I am so familiar with the basics that I don't think about them.
Some of these reality cookery programmes feature people who are hoping to become a Masterchef, or Master baker. But when they are tested, some of them prove that they have not even mastered the basics.
If I wanted to drive a bus I could apply and would be trained to drive a bus - but they would expect that I could first drive a car.

The writer of the book of Hebrews wanted to leave behind the discussion of basic truths and move on to discussing other teachings.
You seem to have taken the words "left behind" and "laying on of hands" and concluded that the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit does not happen today; it has been left behind. No doubt, you would say, because the apostles have all died. Are you saying that no one can receive the Holy Spirit unless the "appropriate" person prays for them?

Again, how does this answer Jesus' words that anyone who asks will receive the Holy Spirit?

I have no idea how on earth you got any of that from what I pointed out.

The laying on of hands is an elementary principle of the Christian faith. It is the means by which a new believer receives the Holy Spirit.

 

[Strong in Him]

I have no idea how on earth you got any of that from what I pointed out.

I'm talking about reading Scripture in context - not taking a verse here, and a verse there and putting them together to make a new doctrine.

The laying on of hands is an elementary principle of the Christian faith. It is the means by which a new believer receives the Holy Spirit.

Sometimes when we have hands laid on us, we receive the Holy Spirit; I know.
So?

 

[HTacianas]

I'm talking about reading Scripture in context - not taking a verse here, and a verse there and putting them together to make a new doctrine.



Sometimes when we have hands laid on us, we receive the Holy Spirit; I know.
So?

And I am taking a verse that is precisely on point and applying to what we are talking about. The laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit is an elementary principle of Christianity.

 

[Strong in Him]

And I am taking a verse that is precisely on point and applying to what we are talking about. The laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit is an elementary principle of Christianity.

Receiving the Holy Spirit is an elemental principal of Christianity, yes. Without the Spirit we cannot be born again, John 3:3, or be God's children, Romans 8:16.
Not everyone receives the Spirit by the laying on of hands; some of us just ask God to fill us. Incidentally, this is not a once in a lifetime experience, it can, and should, happen daily.

But originally the discussion was about having the power to "give" someone the Holy Spirit. I said that in Luke 11:13 Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will be given to anyone who asks.
Still not sure how your isolated verse from Hebrews addresses this.

 

[jannikitty]

I have a question:

How can Catholics and Protestants have true unity while the Catholic church believes it is the only true church and that to be fully accepted as a true Christian a Protestant must convert to Catholicism, accept the Pope as their spiritual leader, and subscribe to Catholic doctrine and theology?

This issue came up on the Catholic forum, and I felt quite limited in discussing this because that forum is protected for Catholic believers. This is why I am bringing up the question in a more appropriate forum where those who are concerned about this can have a free discussion about the issues.

In my opinion, most Protestants, Pentecostals, and Charismatics wouldn't dream in a million years to even consider converting to Catholicism, so I cannot see any possibility of any form of unity between Catholics and Protestants. They are as totally different as chalk and cheese.

Great question which continues to be pondered even though in recent years many efforts have been made to build bridges. Thanks for bringing it forth again.
Having experienced Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal over the last 80 years I won't try to answer this except in part. You are right about the Catholics thinking they have a market on truth even though not all Catholics think that way; but that is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church. Protestants are considered in error and the "separated brethren". Catholics have been taught since birth almost that the truth resides in the magisterium (hierarchical teaching authority ) of Roman Catholicism. The source of truth does reside in the bible but only understood in full by the Roman Catholic Church. The bible (that is, Word) and the Church are equally important in the formation of Catholics (from Baptism as infants and all of their lives).

When I was a little girl that was written in concrete. However, as a young woman something happened called the "Vatican II" council (meeting of church leaders) in which the then Pope John 23 decided to proclaim as well did that council that it was time to let "the fresh air in." Fresh air meant Protestant beliefs mainly in the validity of Holy Scriptures which prior to that (and sometimes still) Catholics were not to read on their own without the guidance of Church leaders mainly from the pulpit during the masses or specific Catholic instruction classes called "catechesis".
Since then there are many who have built bridges between Catholicism and Protestantism and some who have accept the Protestant Reformation as a good thing. And Catholics call it Ecumenism.

However, generally Catholic efforts and beliefs as to unity as I have seen it played out usually means that they simply respect Protestant Christian example and choices (free will) with no intention of changing basic Catholic beliefs about the bible or where truth lies.

To many Christians Jesus is simply, the truth. To most Catholics (with the exception of Charismatic Catholics who also see Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Catholic Church is the Way to Jesus. They do acknowledge other ways and call it unity but the truth is still they think they are the better way.
I don't agree; but then I am no longer a Catholic. It has been years since I left regular attendance at Sunday masses. I have joined a Protestant church and I am also Pentecostal. I don't think any group of Christians have a market on the truth as Catholics belief they do. The way to unity for all of Christians I see as accepting one another in love as the Lord did and while acknowledging differences also know that we all go back to the same source even though Catholics preach that Roman Catholicism is the first church and original church. Not so.
It would take too long to explain and teach the history of the "early church" on this post. Mainly it can be seen in the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles in the New Testament. I think all Christians need to spend more time building up what we all have in common and surely loving one another (Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals) as He has loved us. Question to ponder..is Jesus Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal or all three? Hope this helps.