This is compromise Itwin. You can say it is not important and therefore wave it off…but it is still compromise. Which is what I said in my original post. Isn’t the whole point of denominationalism that pastors/churches cannot agree? If something is so “not essential” why the fracture in Christ’s body? Isn’t this why Protestantism now has non-denomination churches? And home churches? Compromise goes against the very last verse in Matthew’s gospel.
Why are they not calling themselves “reformed Catholics” if they are serious about reclaiming
the word catholic is my question?
They are still Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.
Essentials…what do they do with all the “non-essentials” that don’t fit into the newly-minted description of “essentials”? Is it all disposable and ready to be discarded?
Jesus in Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 3:19 was that they might be “filled with all the fullness of God” (not reduced down to essentials).
Until they come back under the authority of Rome, nothing they do matters or has any authority.
No, it is not a compromise of your beliefs to sit down with other Christians and ask what do we agree on and then state those beliefs. It is compromise when you try to pretend that you agree when you don’t or to say that the differences do not matter. That is not what these people are doing, they make that clear.
Do you think its compromise for Catholics to sit down with Eastern Orthodox and Protestants and say what can we agree on and lets write this down on paper, even if in some areas its very general agreement? I don’t see how you can compromise your beliefs when you’re not giving anything away, you’re just stating what you hold in common with other Christians.
You’re not waving anything off as unimportant by writing a general statement of belief. You’re just not going to wade into highly specific doctrines over which different traditions do not agree.
Protestants are divided over many things, but they are also united over many things. There is broad consensus among evangelical Protestants over the basics of Christian faith, as is seen by this confession. There is no need for me to “compromise” my beliefs to acknowledge shared beliefs with Protestants, Catholics or any other Christians.
This is not true. Many Christians who explicitly reject the authority of Rome live out the gospel in their lives, and attract others to the gospel. That matters! There are not many Catholics who have attracted as many people to Christianity as C. S. Lewis.
God can minister His grace through individuals directly. It is up to us to respond to it. In terms of public revelation, I believe the Catholic Church is God’s channel the fullness of the Christian Faith. Many Protestants implicitly accept much of that Catholic Faith without recognizing the specific channel - call it Rome - through which it originally came to them.
In what sense are these people leaders? I think the main problem with Protestantism is that there aren’t real leaders. What I mean is the followers aren’t in any real way obliged to follow. If they don’t like what the leader says or teaches they can join another group.
The difference in Catholicism or Orthodoxy is that it is very clear there are leaders. You can choose not to follow them but then you are outside the Church.
This is probably true in the modern US and Britain. Lewis was instrumental to my coming back from agnosticism and religious indifference post college. But we live in a English Protestant culture. Is this true in other western cultures?
If a follower is obliged to follow then the leader does not have to be a good leader. A good leader is one who gives the follower the desire to follow him.
Virtue is found in following bad leaders. It is easy to follow good leaders.
Looking back at your post I see I misunderstood your point. You did not refer the leader to being bad or good. Your point was that Protestant leaders are not REAL leaders because their followers are not obliged to follow them. That is an interesting concept.
C. S. Lewis wrote an essay, commenting on how we have gone from having “rulers” to now having “leaders”.
A ruler teaches what is true and right. He does not check opinion polls.
A leader tries to express the will of the people, often with a flair of charisma (like JFK). He makes a balance between what is true, and what is popular; a shifting compromise depending on which way the wind is blowing.
St. John Paul II was a ruler. There are few rulers today. Some Catholic bishops and megachurch pastors would be more like leaders.
So the Pope is always a ruler since he is God’s replacement on earth?
In all honesty I was saddened to see your comment here. Do you honestly believe that if all the non-Catholics in the world suddenly came enmasse and joined the CC that it would be the best thing for your Church? I personally think that might be disastrous for the Church. Certainly there would be some baggage brought along. Oh yes, it would have to be checked at the entrance door but how long until there would be strife and resentment because of the change such an action would effect. A lack of trust amongst Catholics now obvious even in the signing of the above document presents the reality of the situation when in fact this signing might be baby steps toward an eventual unification of God’s people.
I thought so. The Anglicans already consider themselves catholic, as do the Lutheran LCMS churches. I don’t know what sort of pretzel logic they used to get the Baptists/Fundamentalists involved though, except that they all are “celebrating” their separation from the Catholic Church by saying THEY are catholic.
Yes. I am sorry they took their gifts and talents and perspectives and made a whole bunch of side churches. I would love for them to all come back and us to all be as one, as we all will be when and if we get to Heaven.
A lack of trust amongst Catholics now obvious even in the signing of the above document presents the reality of the situation when in fact this signing might be baby steps toward an eventual unification of God’s people.
If indeed it’s a step forward, then there is nothing bad about my comment. Let me know when they get closer to the goal.
There is no replacement for God, He is still here and directly active. The pope is Vicar of Christ. a vicar is not a replacement, he is a delegate.
Popes and bishops are called to be rulers. Their authority comes through the succession from Peter and the apostles (ultimately from God). A given bishop might also have good leadership skills, a powerful speaking voice, etc. But his authority comes from being a ruler, not his writing skills. Sadly, a ruler may well remain silent in situations where he should be speaking out.
An Eastern Orthodox patriarch is a ruler. Joel Osteen is a leader. Both rulers and leaders may be morally good or bad. The fact that JP II is a saint is far more important to him than whether he was pope. But for me, his role as pope is crucial, along with his sainthood.
It is risky depending only on leaders. I have no way of knowing if Joel Osteen has more wisdom than that other preacher who is not as media-savvy.
Yes, it appears they have been emboldened by this 500 year commemoration and are really celebrating their protest and separation from the church and now want to take back the name catholic.
You can laugh all you want, but your laughter just reveals, at best, a lack of understanding of what the phrase actually means.