Catholic View toward Protestants

[gkoomen]

Originally Posted by JRKH

Nita,

Thanks - Couldn't have said it better myself....

One thing I would add though...At least two of the Protestant Churches do worship through "The mass" and both of these do hold to the "real presence". These are the Lutheran and Anglican Churches. In fact the Anglican views (high Anglican) are so near to the Catholic view that the Church has made provision for them to enter the Catholic Church while retaining most of their practices. This is the "Anglican Ordinate"

I believe that Lutherans have defined the real presence as "Consubstantiation" but I don't believe that the Anglican Church has attempted a definition.
The EO likewise has not attempted to define or explain the mystery of the real presence.

Peace
James

I was an Anglican for most of my adult life. (a long time!) The Book of Common Prayer states that, "The Body and Blood of Christ are received only in a spiritual and heavenly manner." The Articles of Religion condemn trans substantiation. Some High Anglicans believe it because the Church claims no teaching authority - the authority is in "God's Word written". I always believed I was receiving Jesus; but since becoming Catholic the experience of the Eucharist has become so much more rich and powerful. I feel sorry for those who don't enjoy it. Yet, God didn't call me into the Catholic Church until 4 years ago. And I knew Protestant pastors who were definitely called by God. I guess we just have to leave Him to run things His Way.

[Chuck Finley]

Originally Posted by dnar

if a man says "God has called me to be a preacher and spread his word." If this man is protestant, this cannot be true can it?

If he means "God has given me extra-Biblical revelation and revealed to me that he wants me to be a preacher", then, no. But if he means that God has called me to be preachers through His word and that he met the criteria for that call, sure.

1) Paul wrote to us under the inspiration of God.

2) Under the inspiration of God, Paul said if anyone preach another gospel let that one be accursed.

3) Therefore, Paul under the inspiration of God said 'Protestants are accursed."

Is this not logical?

No, because you haven't defined what is another gospel" or demonstrated that Protestants teach a Gospel different than the one Paul talked about.

[jpelham]

Originally Posted by Chuck Finley

...But if he means that God has called me to be preachers through His word and that he met the criteria for that call, sure.

...you haven't defined what is another gospel" or demonstrated that Protestants teach a Gospel different than the one Paul talked about.

That Protestants teach a gospel different from that of the Catholic Church, which is built upon 'the one Paul talked about,' is clear.

The one who perceives a call to be a Protestant preacher surely may be hearing something that originates in a true calling, but if he has not yet questioned whether the 'still small voice' has been distorted by a trusted chorus of protestations against the apostolic priesthood, then he could honestly join their refrains, and still be part of a Christian community with salvific benefits. But that is not the Church. The Church teaches just this.

In other words, certainly God never calls one to be a Protestant preacher, because one cannot be called to preach an erroneous or incomplete gospel. But if one mistakes a call to the altar for a call to the pulpit, and he has done the best he can do, then even if he has chosen spiritual life in a pitched tent instead of the castle, God’s grace is sufficient.

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by jpelham

That Protestants teach a gospel different from that of the Catholic Church, which is built upon 'the one Paul talked about,' is clear.

The one who perceives a call to be a Protestant preacher surely may be hearing something that originates in a true calling, but if he has not yet questioned whether the 'still small voice' has been distorted by a trusted chorus of protestations against the apostolic priesthood, then he could honestly join their refrains, and still be part of a Christian community with salvific benefits. But that is not the Church. The Church teaches just this.

In other words, certainly God never calls one to be a Protestant preacher, because one cannot be called to preach an erroneous or incomplete gospel. But if one mistakes a call to the altar for a call to the pulpit, and he has done the best he can do, then even if he has chosen spiritual life in a pitched tent instead of the castle, God’s grace is sufficient.

On this point, from the USCCB

107. Catholic judgment on the authenticity of Lutheran ministry need not be of an all-or-nothing nature. The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II distinguished between relationships of full ecclesiastical communion and those of imperfect communion to reflect the varying degrees of differences with the Catholic Church.(164) The communion of these separated communities with the Catholic Church is real, even though it is imperfect. Furthermore, the decree positively affirmed:

Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, and must be held capable of giving access to that communion in which is salvation.(165)

Commenting on this point, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of 'validity.' Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord's Supper.(166)

If the actions of Lutheran pastors can be described by Catholics as "sacred actions" that "can truly engender a life of grace," if communities served by such ministers give "access to that communion in which is salvation," and if at a eucharist at which a Lutheran pastor presides is to be found "the salvation-granting presence of the Lord," then Lutheran churches cannot be said simply to lack the ministry given to the church by Christ and the Spirit. In acknowledging the imperfect koinonia between our communities and the access to grace through the ministries of these communities, we also acknowledge a real although imperfect koinonia between our ministries.

108. Ecumenical understanding would be furthered if in official Roman Catholic documents Vatican II's reference to defectus in the sacrament of Order among "ecclesial communities" were translated by such words as "defect" or "deficiency."(167) As Walter Cardinal Kasper has stated: "On material grounds [aus der Sachlogik], and not merely on the basis of the word usage of the Council, it becomes clear that defectus ordinis does not signify a complete absence, but rather a deficiency [Mangel] in the full form of the office."(168) Translations of defectus as "lack" misleadingly imply the simple absence of the reality of ordination. Translation as "defect" or "deficiency" would be consistent with the sort of real but imperfect recognition of ministries proposed above. While short of full recognition, such partial recognition would provide the basis for first steps toward a reconciliation of ministries as envisioned, e.g., in the international Roman Catholic-Lutheran statement Facing Unity.(169)

109. We recommend that Roman Catholic criteria for assessing authentic ministry include attention to a ministry's faithfulness to the gospel and its service to the communion of the church, and that defectus ordinis as applied to Lutheran ministries be translated as "deficiency" rather than "lack."

http://nccbuscc.org/seia/koinonia.shtml#9


Seems Catholic clergy - Bishops! - hold a different view than the ones you express in your post.
Jon

[jpelham]

Originally Posted by JonNC

On this point, from the USCCB

Seems Catholic clergy - Bishops! - hold a different view than the ones you express in your post.
Jon

How? Granting that my post was too abbreviated. Does God call one to anything but the truth? And can the truth be, in any respect, "deficient"?

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by jpelham

How? Granting that my post was too abbreviated. Does God call one to anything but the truth? And can the truth be, in any respect, "deficient"?

I would encourage you to ask your Bishop, if you are in the US. I believe there are things in Catholic teaching that are wrong (very few, mind you) , but Ihave no question of the calling and indeed valid ordination of, for example, the local Catholic priest who is a very good friend.

Jon

[SPH1]

I agree that it must be made clear exactly what St. Paul meant about "another gospel." Probably most Protestants would think that means "faith alone." But I don't know that that is what St. Paul meant, especially since St. Paul didn't explicitly say those words. The Gospel could also mean the birth, death, resurrection, etc. of Christ. Or perhaps St. Paul meant the whole of the orthodox Christian experience.

We can get into whether God is calling people to be ministers/followers of Islam, Hinduism, etc. And these may also have some truth, to varying degrees.

There is one other thing from St. Paul: God is not the author of confusion. 1 Cor. 14:33. So it's not possible that God is calling Protestant clergy, at least in the sense he is calling Catholic clergy. (Nor did God "found" Protestantism.)

In my mind, the issue not only involves how close one is to Catholic truth, but their attitude toward the Holy Catholic Church. Those actively hostile, trying to bring Catholics out at every opportunity, are - at best - in the same position of St. Paul BEFORE his conversion: persecuting Christ's Church. IMO, they are in the worst position with God.

[jpelham]

Originally Posted by JonNC

I believe there are things in Catholic teaching that are wrong (very few, mind you), but I have no question of the calling and indeed valid ordination of, for example, the local Catholic priest who is a very good friend.

The you are a very unusual Protestant. And I encourage you to charitably study Catholic teaching, and discuss it with your friend.

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by jpelham

The you are a very unusual Protestant. And I encourage you to charitably study Catholic teaching, and discuss it with your friend.

I would surely hope not. I've never heard any Lutheran question the validity of Catholic orders, and I think that would apply to Anglicans as well. But you are right; there are many who don't, and referring to SPH1's comment, I see only an advancement of division, against Christ's call, in being actively hostile to the clergy who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

I'm having dinner with him next week, notfor theological purposes, though it could easily come up.

Jon

[jpelham]

Originally Posted by JonNC

I would surely hope not. I've never heard any Lutheran question the validity of Catholic orders, and I think that would apply to Anglicans as well. But you are right; there are many who don't, and referring to SPH1's comment, I see only an advancement of division, against Christ's call, in being actively hostile to the clergy who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

I'm having dinner with him next week, not for theological purposes, though it could easily come up.

Jon

In fact I have seldom had the pleasure of discussing faith with any but Calvinists since I became Catholic 9 years ago. I wish I were joining you for lunch.

Joe

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by jpelham

In fact I have seldom had the pleasure of discussing faith with any but Calvinists since I became Catholic 9 years ago. I wish I were joining you for lunch.

Joe

The pleasure would be ours, Joe.

Jon

[SPH1]

Originally Posted by JonNC

I would surely hope not. I've never heard any Lutheran question the validity of Catholic orders,
Jon

But as I recall, the LCMS still officially views the Papacy as the antichrist? Which is a matter of faith.

I guess the LCMS's distinction is an "historical identification" of the papacy as the antichrist. Whereas the more "conservative?" WELS pretty much calls the Pope the antichrist, thinking they hold to the original Lutheran articles.

My site has been down for sometime, but I had a page with proof links for various Protestant groups that considered the Pope the antichrist, the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon, or Catholics not Christians or saved. Had one for the LCMS (and possibly an email from them confirming). Can't find the link right now.

Caused a little stir some years ago when I brought this up with the Free Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) and their strick adherence to the WCF and it's declaration of the Pope being the antichrist. A few couldn't believe it were still so. It was.

Unfortunately for some, they virtually built that belief into their confessions as a matter of faith, and would be difficult to back down. They are way out on a limb.

[JonNC]

=SPH1;9416712]But as I recall, the LCMS still officially views the Papacy as the antichrist? Which is a matter of faith.

I guess the LCMS's distinction is an "historical identification" of the papacy as the antichrist. Whereas the more "conservative?" WELS pretty much calls the Pope the antichrist, thinking they hold to the original Lutheran articles.

My site has been down for sometime, but I had a page with proof links for various Protestant groups that considered the Pope the antichrist, the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon, or Catholics not Christians or saved. Had one for the LCMS (and possibly an email from them confirming). Can't find the link right now.

And the problem with the term "anti-Christ" isd the more modern and perahps radical groups who mean "end-times beast". If one sees the term anti-Christ simply as opposed to Christ or His teachings, I think that is more in line with, at least, what was meant. But you are right that it also has a dated, historical application. I can't imagine any reason to describe Pope John Paul II, for example, as being anti-Christ.
I would esteem him as being the greatest Christian leader of my lifetime. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm ready to call him the Vicar of Christ either.

Finally, none of that is reason to claim that the ordination of Catholic clergy is invalid. And if a Lutheran claims that it is, then I would ask him/her why Father Martin was not re-ordained.


Jon

[Wretched Man]

Originally Posted by dnar

Can you please list a 'protestant' denomination that is not in error? If truth resides in the Catholic Church along with a protestant church at the same time, how do we even begin to know what truth is? One teaching transubstantiation, confession of mortal sins to priest, etc, and the other saying that neither of those are true?
How could God lead a protestant 'pastor' who calls people not into his one true Church? As far as I know there would be no protestant leaders who encourage people to worship him the way God intended, as in the Mass.

God has a universal church but it is not a catholic church or a baptist church or a pentecostal church....it is is his church and his ..one body...........btw the bible does teach contrary to much of the catholic teaching....as I attended a cathaolic church for many years in my former days.
You are not saved and your name written in heaven becuse your association to catholicism or traditions sent down by your parents or because you say a prayer and do certain rites.

It is by grace your saved through faith this not of yourselves it is a gift from God not of works so no man cn boast...Eph 2:8

There is only one mediator between man and God , the man christ Jesus 1 Tim 2:5

..just a few verses to show the contradiction to catholic teaching...

[Walden Pond]

The CCC explains it this way (818): "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such a separation] and in them brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts with respect and affection as brothers...All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."