Denominations. So what?

[DavidFirth]

Why do we fight amongst ourselves? We're all Christians. As long as the NT is believed and preached we ought to all get along fine. It is a horror to me that Catholics and Protestants used to kill each other and declare each other heretics.

We need to move well past that and respect each other. End of rant.

 

[pearl]

As long as the NT is believed and preached we ought to all get along fine.

If only it were that simple. Every religion claims to believe and preach the NT, some the love and others the fire and brimstone. In turn it determines ones fundamental option in perceiving the world, negatively or positively.

 

[DavidFirth]

If only it were that simple. Every religion claims to believe and preach the NT, some the love and others the fire and brimstone. In turn it determines ones fundamental option in perceiving the world, negatively or positively.

The pope is being quite open to calling Protestants brothers. Just an FYI.

 

[DavidFirth]

You spend a considerable amount of time fighting with other Christians who believe in evolution. Just saying.
I agree though, violence is completely unnecessary. Nobody is so fragile that they can't stand dissenting opinion.

Yes, Rival is correct, this isn't a debate forum. If you want to start a thread I will discuss this with you.

However, I do not think Christians who believe in macroevolution are heretics.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes, Rival is correct, this isn't a debate forum. If you want to start a thread I will discuss this with you.

However, I do not think Christians who believe in macroevolution are heretics.

Oh oops! My bad, sometimes the sections load slowly on my phone, I thought it was in religious discussion. Removing my post.

 

[DavidFirth]

Oh oops! My bad, sometimes the sections load slowly on my phone, I thought it was in religious discussion. Removing my post.

Thank you for being kind.

 

[Glaurung]

Why do we fight amongst ourselves? We're all Christians. As long as the NT is believed and preached we ought to all get along fine. It is a horror to me that Catholics and Protestants used to kill each other and declare each other heretics.

Because doctrine is important.

From a Catholic view, Protestants are (usually material) heretics. No matter how admirable the faith of a particular Protestant (even if it is a faith that puts most Catholics to shame) it is nevertheless a faith shaped and defined by a sixteenth century schism and the associated heresies thereof. It matters because the truth matters and the claim of the Catholic Church (as well as the Eastern Orthodox) is that it is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, from which no one may culpably separate and retain sanctifying grace.

Of course that doesn't change the horror of the fighting that occurred historically. (Which was often more political than purely religious). Christians of all varieties can and should cooperate especially as the faith becomes increasingly maligned by wider secular forces but such cooperation can never be used as a pretext of doctrinal relativism.

We can cooperate but for as far as the Catholic Church is concerned the faith is an all or nothing proposition. What was error in the sixteenth century remains error today. That we're no longer fighting doesn't change that.

 

[DavidFirth]

Because doctrine is important.

From a Catholic view, Protestants are (usually material) heretics. No matter how admirable the faith of a particular Protestant (even if it is a faith that puts most Catholics to shame) it is nevertheless a faith shaped and defined by a sixteenth century schism and the associated heresies thereof. It matters because the truth matters and the claim of the Catholic Church (as well as the Eastern Orthodox) is that it is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, from which no one may culpably separate and retain sanctifying grace.

Of course that doesn't change the horror of the fighting that occurred historically. (Which was often more political than purely religious). Christians of all varieties can and should cooperate especially as the faith becomes increasingly maligned by wider secular forces but such cooperation can never be used as a pretext of doctrinal relativism.

We can cooperate but for as far as the Catholic Church is concerned the faith is an all or nothing proposition. What was error in the sixteenth century remains error today. That we're no longer fighting doesn't change that.

Well, the pope recognizes Protestants as his fellow Christians so you should do the same.

 

[Glaurung]

Well, the pope recognizes Protestants as his fellow Christians so you should do the same.

A pope is entitled to his personal opinion, but that's neither here or there because I never said otherwise. I wouldn't call for cross denominational cooperation (on cultural issues) if I did not believe that Protestants aren't legitimate Christians. (Although there are iffy cases). Re-read my post. I even praise sincere Protestants as sometimes putting Catholics to shame.

I said that Protestants are schismatics and almost always heretical. They have neither valid sacraments or orders and that is binding on Catholics to accept no matter how friendly to some Protestants a Catholic may be. A faithful Catholic cannot ignore the serious differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrine. That doesn't mean I hate you, it means I'm not going to dilute my faith for the sake of facilitating fuzzy notions of ecumenicism.

 

[DavidFirth]

A pope is entitled to his personal opinion, but that's neither here or there because I never said otherwise. I wouldn't call for cross denominational cooperation (on cultural issues) if I did not believe that Protestants aren't legitimate Christians. (Although there are iffy cases). Re-read my post. I even praise sincere Protestants as sometimes putting Catholics to shame.

I said that Protestants are schismatics and almost always heretical. They have neither valid sacraments or orders and that is binding on Catholics to accept no matter how friendly to some Protestants a Catholic may be. A faithful Catholic cannot ignore the serious differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrine. That doesn't mean I hate you, it means I'm not going to dilute my faith for the sake of facilitating fuzzy notions of ecumenicism.

Opinion noted. And rejected.

 

[pearl]

The pope is being quite open to calling Protestants brothers. Just an FYI.

True. But are the Pope's statements assimilated by those in the pews? At this point the cultural influence may determine whether or not to his words have any merit with the laity. How Americanized has religion become from its oriental roots? How much is lost through culturalization? Listening to familiar prayers chanted in Aramaic one realizes the stark difference.

 

[pearl]

That doesn't mean I hate you, it means I'm not going to dilute my faith for the sake of facilitating fuzzy notions of ecumenicism.

You seem to have stated your opinion of Vatican II, which is of the highest authority of the Church and infallible, that the Council diluted your faith. Your use of the term 'fuzzy' is a tell.

 

[Glaurung]

You seem to have stated your opinion of Vatican II, which is of the highest authority of the Church and infallible, that the Council diluted your faith. Your use of the term 'fuzzy' is a tell.

There's Vatican II and there's what people with a liberal agenda have used Vatican II as a pretext for. Liturgical and architectural iconoclasm being the most devastating. I accept Vatican II; I don't accept the iconoclasm and doctrinal obscurantism that has been done in its name.

I'm all for being on good terms with the various Protestant bodies. Nonetheless there is one Church and anyone culpably outside of it (either by schism, apostasy or formal heresy) is outside of salvation. That hasn't and cannot change.

 

[DavidFirth]

There's Vatican II and there's what people with a liberal agenda have used Vatican II as a pretext for. Liturgical and architectural iconoclasm being the most devastating. I accept Vatican II; I don't accept the iconoclasm and doctrinal obscurantism that has been done in its name.

I'm all for being on good terms with the various Protestant bodies. Nonetheless there is one Church and anyone culpably outside of it (either by schism, apostasy or formal heresy) is outside of salvation. That hasn't and cannot change.

This sort of attitude is the reason for all the splits of the Church in the first place.

 

[Glaurung]

This sort of attitude is the reason for all the splits of the Church in the first place.

I do not care. Without a common faith (all of it) union is meaningless. To establish communion with any Protestant body (without that Protestant body's submission to the whole Catholic faith) would be for the Catholic Church to abdicate any claim to legitimacy. It would be to betray her very own creed of beleif in THE one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

 

[DavidFirth]

I do not care. Without a common faith (all of it) union is meaningless. To establish communion with any Protestant body (without that Protestant body's submission to the whole Catholic faith) would be for the Catholic Church to abdicate any claim to legitimacy. It would be to betray her very own creed of beleif in THE one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

You don't care. That's the problem right there. Jesus cares. Paul cared as he warned of divisions among us.

 

[Glaurung]

You don't care. That's the problem right there. Jesus cares. Paul cared as he warned of divisions among us.

Paul also said to stand firm and hold to the traditions passed down by either speech or letter. The fact is that there was a sixteenth century schism motivated principally by a rejection of tradition. And why Catholics are by no means free from blame, it wasn't the Catholic Church who tore Western Christianity in half.

It is not for the Church to accommodate those who reject her.

 

[DavidFirth]

Paul also said to stand firm and hold to the traditions passed down by either speech or letter. The fact is that there was a sixteenth century schism motivated principally by a rejection of tradition. And why Catholics are by no means free from blame, it wasn't the Catholic Church who tore Western Christianity in half.

It is not for the Church to accommodate those who reject her.

Luther made some good points, though. The Church was doing some evil things back then. Luther gave the pope the opportunity to change things.

 

[pearl]

liberal agenda

There's another 'tell'.
It is true that there was some pretty fierce debating between the progressives and the Roman Curia, with the bishops and their theological advisors. The Church does not stagnate in time but moves forward and revisits and gives fuller meaning to its doctrine. The Liturgy etc. was not always as you remember it, having gone through many changes. It is true that post the Council there were 'experiments' both liturgical and sacramental (postponing confession until the 5th grade), those that were understood to have failed were eliminated. As for outside the church no salvation there is needed much qualification.

From this mystery of unity it follows that all men and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit. Christians know this through their faith, while others remain unaware that Jesus Christ is the source of their salvation. The mystery of salvation reaches out to them, in a way known to God, through the invisible action of the Spirit of Christ. Concretely, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their saviour (cf. AG 3,9,11).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_19051991_dialogue-and-proclamatio_en.html

 

[Glaurung]

It is true that there was some pretty fierce debating between the progressives and the Roman Curia, with the bishops and their theological advisors. The Church does not stagnate in time but moves forward and revisits and gives fuller meaning to its doctrine.

No, what progressives want is not "fuller meaning" (whatever that is supposed to mean) of moral doctrine, what they want to dilute it if not to non-existence then to at least near meaninglessness. The fact is that what was almost universal Christian morality not that long ago has become inconvenient for those who have embraced the moral presuppositions of the current secular culture.

The Liturgy etc. was not always as you remember it, having gone through many changes. It is true that post the Council there were 'experiments' both liturgical and sacramental (postponing confession until the 5th grade), those that were understood to have failed were eliminated. As for outside the church no salvation there is needed much qualification.

Experiments?

They tore down the high altars and replaced them with tables, they banished Latin for a dumbed down English, they threw out chant for insipid 'folk' ditties, they built ugly modernist churches and worse of all gutted the liturgy. Why? What was gained by this iconoclasm apart from serving a short-sighted ideological impulse of the 1970's? Very little of what happened was in any way actually called for by Vatican II. It was hijacked, for almost five decades.

Meanwhile I can attend the Ordinariate liturgy and participate in a ceremony that goes back to even before the Tridentine Mass. The language is a reverent Early Modern English, the altar looks like an altar (and is faced ad orientem) and the ceremony itself is splendid. It's not watered down and there is no guitar, drum kit or tambourine in sight. Substance in worship is not an option for me. It's the very thing that converted me. Yet there are people, even in the higher clerical ranks who want to take that away because older forms of Catholic worship are 'rigid' and 'hateful' or whatever else buzzword.

I cannot and will not settle for a faith that is reduced to platitudes, 'folk' music and a minimalist, horribly dated 1970's aesthetic.

As for outside the church no salvation there is needed much qualification.

You're arguing against a position I haven't taken. I did not say all non-Catholics go to Hell, I said anyone culpably outside the Church cannot be saved.