Catholic and Protestant Relations.

[Juan]

I have some very strong opinions about the unity of Christiandom. I believe it should be united above doctrinal inconsistency.

The current Pope and his likely successor are both of this view. What do you think are the major roadblocks to seeing the Catholic and the Protestant church... make up?

I think I may see us unite in this lifetime. (50 - 70) years.

[worthily]

Juan said:

I have some very strong opinions about the unity of Christiandom. I believe it should be united above doctrinal inconsistency.

The current Pope and his likely successor are both of this view. What do you think are the major roadblocks to seeing the Catholic and the Protestant church... make up?

I think I may see us unite in this lifetime. (50 - 70) years.

how would they unify doctrinal inconsistency?
by using the Hebrew term used in genesis: Elohim, that word wraps everything together into one word. Genesis 1:1-2 cant be broken any more than John 1:1-2

i believe that the term Elohim has been poorly defined to date and in all actuality John 1:1-2 seems to be defining Elohim to the true root, better than any modern definition.around. Anyone disagree?

[rgrove]

Juan said:

I have some very strong opinions about the unity of Christiandom.

So do I.

I believe it should be united above doctrinal inconsistency.

Absolutely not. When you arrive at this issue you have stepped into the realm of what it is to be a Christian. The only way to decide this is by testing doctrine.

What do you think are the major roadblocks to seeing the Catholic and the Protestant church... make up?

The apostate Roman Catholic Church disintegrating and all of it's followers converting to Christianity would help for starters. While I believe there are genuine Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, Romes teachings in many areas are so apostate it is no longer Christian. Rome's doctrine makes the disagreement between Paul and the Judaizers in Galatians look like a minor spat. Rome has arrogantly commanded the curse of God, the anathema, down upon all those that disagree about a myriad of issues that have nothing to do with salvation. It then proceeds to do the same with dogmas regarding salvation. Since the Councils (such as Trent) and the papal encyclicals are considered the infallibal in the same way that the Bible is by Rome it cannot just say "Oh, we changed our minds and rescind Unam Sanctum and Vatican I as well as the encyclicals regarding the Marian dogmas etc. so that we can sit down with the various Proestant groups out there and discuss healing."

I think before you get too excited by the potential for these groups coming together serious consideration must be given as to why they split in the first place. We can start with the Burning of John Huss at the Council of Constance, the condemning of Wycliffe, and all of the associate anathemas. We must then deal with all of the papal encyclicals such as Unam Sanctum, the Marian Dogmas, etc and their associated anathemas. Then we must deal with the other councils and their anathemas. In particular the council of Trent.

I think I may see us unite in this lifetime. (50 - 70) years.

I would be overjoyed to see the Catholic church disintegrate and disapear from existance in the next 50-70 years. You will find me very willing to work across denominational lines with genuine Christian churches. but apostate churches are missionary fields and not to be considered fellow Christians. I feel the same way with so called "protestant" churches that have forsaken their Christian roots and are only Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcapalian, etc in name only, but are nothing more than synagogues of Satan.

In Christ,
Ron

[Soulfyre]

Well, having not come out of the Roman Catholic church myself, I am not perhaps quite as...blunt...as rgrove (although I believe his observations to be largely correct). I, like you, have some very strong opinions about the unity of Christendom (so did Jesus Christ, as a matter of fact, if you look at his prayer in John 17), and I grieve that the Body of Christ is so fragmented. Nevertheless, I think we must be careful of a "lowest common denominator" approach to unity. I have often been drawn to the history, majesty, and beauty in liturgy of the Roman Catholic church. I also have many friends who are Roman Catholic, whose Christianity has never been in doubt to me. But the fact remains that there are, in fact, serious doctrinal differences between the biblical Prostestant positions of Martin Luther, Melancthon, Knox, and Calvin and the Roman Catholic Church, as there are between the Orthodox faith and the Roman Catholic Church. And Biblical unity is not achieved through "winking at" these very real, fundamental differences. I do not, however, believe that what many people consider the major differences are, in fact, the real and important issues. And rgrove makes an important point about the Roman Catholic Church anathematizing Christians with differences of belief (the Unum Sanctum encyclical is but one).

I would like to see a much more extended discussion take place here, for I believe that not many Roman Catholics are aware of some of these issues.

God bless and keep you, Juan. This is an excellent topic of discussion. And while rgrove speaks with the fire of John Knox, his analysis can be very penetrating.

Matthew (soulfyre)

[melinky]

Soulfyre said:

I would like to see a much more extended discussion take place here, for I believe that not many Roman Catholics are aware of some of these issues.

I say this strictly tongue-in-cheek, not necessarily with a wink, I think that a Roman Catholic would also tell the Protestants that there are many issues that we are not aware of.

My best friend and faith-partner, Julie, is Catholic and we spend a lot of time discussing some of the differences in our beliefs. Fortunately, we are able to discuss these things in a peaceful manner and though there are things we will never agree on, there are many of the more important, basic core beliefs that we do agree on. I've learned a lot from Julie and if it weren't for her, I would probably never sought a personal relationship with Christ.

I would like to see acceptance between all of the faiths of the world, but I just don't think it's in our future; human beings are too self-righteous to permit such a thing. Considering that so much of the tumult in the world is due to religious differences, I don't believe that the ensuing peace of a religiously harmonious world will be ours until the return of Christ:

“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.”
(Matt. 24:6, NIV)

I know that what I'm saying is very simplistic, but I'm a simple person.

Peace,

Melinda

[rgrove]

I know I am blunt at times on the issue, but there is a reason. I take the salvation of souls and the victory of Christ's kingdom very seriously. Please note two important things in my post.

1) My issue is with Catholicism, not individual Catholics. This is sometimes very hard to get past, especially when you're a Catholic. I went through hard times when I was a Catholic. I had a very low opinion of Protestants. I grew up in the 80's and graduated from high school in 1989. I was raised Catholic. Which non-catholic public individuals of those days formed my ideas of what a Protestant was? When I proposed to my wife eleven years ago, her mother oposed the marraige because I was Catholic. We eventually got married, but it began a long walk for me. Protestants had NO IDEA how to talk to me because they took something their parents told them, which was a blatant misrepresentation, and threw it at me. Only when I began looking at actual church doctrine did I realize that I was already outside the Roman Catholic Church. Effectively anathematized and I had no idea. This is important and why I say my beef is with Catholicism and not with Catholics. How many Catholics do you know that have actually read all of the declarations of the "infallible" councils of the church? Or the "infallible" Papal Encyclicals? Not many. A protestant can't judge the salvation of a Catholic based soley on their going to a Catholic church.

2) I'm as hard on protestants as I am on any other group. And I never just presume someone to be in Christ. This upset some people in a Bible study I used to run. I left the church some time ago, but since then one person came back after having been gone for a while and said he was going to a different "denomination" because his wife felt led to return to the church of her roots. She was Mormon, so that's where they had been going. Broke my heart to hear this. I also remember hearing R.C. Sproul tell of when he went before the presbytery for ordination. The person before him was very nervous. It turned out he didn't actually believe that Christ rose from the dead and was nervous they'd ask him about this. They didn't and he was very relieved. This is how you get apostate churches with "Presbyterian" (or whatever other Protestant label you want) on the sign, but nothing but the unsaved inside seeking to sooth their consciouses with a little ethical instruction from a "great teacher" on Sunday.

Unity has to be built on a foundation and that foundation must be on Christ and Him crucified. If a church manages to put itself outside the fold this should be recognized and we should seek to be obediant to Christ and share the faith with it's members. Love demands we do so. To me, there is no greater hatred to show a person than to let them pass without pointing out the perilous position their eternal soul may be in.

In Christ,
Ron

[melinky]

rgrove said:

I know I am blunt at times on the issue, but there is a reason. I take the salvation of souls and the victory of Christ's kingdom very seriously. Please note two important things in my post.

1) My issue is with Catholicism, not individual Catholics. This is sometimes very hard to get past, especially when you're a Catholic. I went through hard times when I was a Catholic. I had a very low opinion of Protestants. I grew up in the 80's and graduated from high school in 1989. I was raised Catholic. Which non-catholic public individuals of those days formed my ideas of what a Protestant was? When I proposed to my wife eleven years ago, her mother oposed the marraige because I was Catholic. We eventually got married, but it began a long walk for me. Protestants had NO IDEA how to talk to me because they took something their parents told them, which was a blatant misrepresentation, and threw it at me. Only when I began looking at actual church doctrine did I realize that I was already outside the Roman Catholic Church. Effectively anathematized and I had no idea. This is important and why I say my beef is with Catholicism and not with Catholics. How many Catholics do you know that have actually read all of the declarations of the "infallible" councils of the church? Or the "infallible" Papal Encyclicals? Not many. A protestant can't judge the salvation of a Catholic based soley on their going to a Catholic church.

2) I'm as hard on protestants as I am on any other group. And I never just presume someone to be in Christ. This upset some people in a Bible study I used to run. I left the church some time ago, but since then one person came back after having been gone for a while and said he was going to a different "denomination" because his wife felt led to return to the church of her roots. She was Mormon, so that's where they had been going. Broke my heart to hear this. I also remember hearing R.C. Sproul tell of when he went before the presbytery for ordination. The person before him was very nervous. It turned out he didn't actually believe that Christ rose from the dead and was nervous they'd ask him about this. They didn't and he was very relieved. This is how you get apostate churches with "Presbyterian" (or whatever other Protestant label you want) on the sign, but nothing but the unsaved inside seeking to sooth their consciouses with a little ethical instruction from a "great teacher" on Sunday.

Unity has to be built on a foundation and that foundation must be on Christ and Him crucified. If a church manages to put itself outside the fold this should be recognized and we should seek to be obediant to Christ and share the faith with it's members. Love demands we do so. To me, there is no greater hatred to show a person than to let them pass without pointing out the perilous position their eternal soul may be in.

In Christ,
Ron

I do think I understand your feelings about Catholicism, I felt the same way about the church of my youth. I also take the salvation of souls and the victory of Christ's kingdom very seriously. However, I don't feel that pointing out the iniquities of churches, or individuals, is the way to go about bringing souls to Christ; that was the kind of thing that kept me from Christ for 25 years. (I have to remind myself of this every now and then when I start thinking that I understand the mystery of life.)

Please don't misunderstand, I don't believe the Catholic church has all the answers. But I also don't believe any church or individual on this Earth has the answers either.

Yours in Christ,

Melinda

[rgrove]

melinky said:

I do think I understand your feelings about Catholicism, I felt the same way about the church of my youth. I also take the salvation of souls and the victory of Christ's kingdom very seriously. However, I don't feel that pointing out the iniquities of churches, or individuals, is the way to go about bringing souls to Christ; that was the kind of thing that kept me from Christ for 25 years. (I have to remind myself of this every now and then when I start thinking that I understand the mystery of life.)

The original thread was about rebuilding Catholic and Protestant relations. My answers were in regards to that. Not evangelistic methodology.

Please don't misunderstand, I don't believe the Catholic church has all the answers.

My point about rebuilding relations is that the Catholic church says it IS the answer and you are curseded to hell for all eternity if you don't accept it. Again, I point to Unam Sanctum, Council of Trent, Vatical I, etc. Vatican II has muddied the situation (many Catholics I know won't even recognize it as an general council because of the contradictions it contains), but I certainly don't qualify. If you know the churches position on a dogma, or you are a former Catholic, you don't qualify for their newly created loopholes that contradict their past declarations in any case.

But I also don't believe any church or individual on this Earth has the answers either.

Don't believe I made this claim.

Perhaps I will post some of the encyclicals and canons that are permanently divisive in another thread.

**added later** I went ahead and posted a series of threads regarding just a handful of the serious issues that divide Protestants and Rome. Please note that many also apply to the Eastern Orthodox churches as well, even though many, such as Trent, are directed primarily at protestants. Please note that if you read this information you can't claim the loopholes in Vatican II because you now know the "truth"... **end addition**

In Christ,
Ron

[melinky]

rgrove said:

My point about rebuilding relations is that the Catholic church says it IS the answer and you are curseded to hell for all eternity if you don't accept it.

But aren't you saying that the Catholic church is "cursed to hell for all eternity" because they don't accept the things you have found to be true? Please don't feel that I'm being antagonistic, I really don't mean to be. I truly respect the strength of your faith and your ability to express that faith through your words.

I also didn't mean to insinuate that you believed you had all the answers, my comment was directed more toward church doctrines that tend to be "our-way-or-the-highway". This is one of the things I dislike about written opposed to verbal communication.

Melinda

[rgrove]

melinky said:

But aren't you saying that the Catholic church is "cursed to hell for all eternity" because they don't accept the things you have found to be true?

I don't have to do any such thing. The apostle Paul already did it.

Gal 1:3-10 - "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ."

All these people were requiring was circumcision to be saved. Rome has added many, many layers to salvation. You must accept the Pope as he defines himself or you are not saved. You must accept all of the Marian dogmas, such as the assumption, or you are not saved. You must accept the mass as a propitiatory, real sacrifice of Christ or you are not saved. You must accept worshipping the bread of the Eucharist or you are not saved. You must accept all seven of the sacraments as they define them or you are not saved.

What was the gospel that Paul was so zealous to protect?

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world,[g] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Or if you prefer one of Paul's many declarations of the Gospel:

Ephesians 2:4-9 - God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Rome has added more requirements to the Gospel than the Judaizers of his day could have dreamt. The list of requirements for salvation that have nothing at all to do with faith in Christ as Savior I've given elsewhere is not even close to complete. You bear the responsibility of demonstrating that Rome does not fall under Paul's anathema. Not me. I steadfastly hold to this gospel and no other. If we can't understand the apostles words to us here then we can't properly understand any words in scripture, period.

Please understand this Melinky. I can look at a Catholic and say I believe their confession to be true and that they are saved. They cannot say the same thing of me or they have violated the infallible teachings of Rome. Rome is not a democracy and no lay person has the right to disagree with official dogma of the church without falling under anathema themselves. This is what made me leave Rome and so long as she stands under Paul's anathema I will not return. These are infallible dogmas of the RCC. They have not and will not change them or renounce them. So long as that's the case there is no reconciliation between protestants and Rome.

In Christ,
Ron

[melinky]

rgrove said:

I don't have to do any such thing. The apostle Paul already did it.

Gal 1:3-10 - "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ."

All these people were requiring was circumcision to be saved. Rome has added many, many layers to salvation. You must accept the Pope as he defines himself or you are not saved. You must accept all of the Marian dogmas, such as the assumption, or you are not saved. You must accept the mass as a propitiatory, real sacrifice of Christ or you are not saved. You must accept worshipping the bread of the Eucharist or you are not saved. You must accept all seven of the sacraments as they define them or you are not saved.

What was the gospel that Paul was so zealous to protect?

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world,[g] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Or if you prefer one of Paul's many declarations of the Gospel:

Ephesians 2:4-9 - God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Rome has added more requirements to the Gospel than the Judaizers of his day could have dreamt. The list of requirements for salvation that have nothing at all to do with faith in Christ as Savior I've given elsewhere is not even close to complete. You bear the responsibility of demonstrating that Rome does not fall under Paul's anathema. Not me. I steadfastly hold to this gospel and no other. If we can't understand the apostles words to us here then we can't properly understand any words in scripture, period.

Please understand this Melinky. I can look at a Catholic and say I believe their confession to be true and that they are saved. They cannot say the same thing of me or they have violated the infallible teachings of Rome. Rome is not a democracy and no lay person has the right to disagree with official dogma of the church without falling under anathema themselves. This is what made me leave Rome and so long as she stands under Paul's anathema I will not return. These are infallible dogmas of the RCC. They have not and will not change them or renounce them. So long as that's the case there is no reconciliation between protestants and Rome.

In Christ,
Ron

Okay Ron, I think I can pretty much agree with what you've written here. Sometimes you just have to beat me over the head with a stick to get it through my thick skull.

Yours in Christ,

Melinda

[rgrove]

melinky said:

Okay Ron, I think I can pretty much agree with what you've written here. Sometimes you just have to beat me over the head with a stick to get it through my thick skull.

Yours in Christ,

Melinda

I wish I could do it less heavy handed, but here's an email I once sent to a brother that may help you understand why I do show passion on this topic. I don't really like getting too personal, but sometimes it's necessary to communicate proper understanding. I have heard this sort of stuff helps more with the fairer gender. It goes much deeper than a just what I consider a false gospel:

My grandfather died earlier this year. We were never able to have a real conversation because my not being Catholic was enough for him to never speak to me again. He had done this with brothers of his for politics, so I always had to tread lightly... As he was going downhill, however, I was able to talk to him in the hospital a little. His defenses were down quite a bit. I went through a tract that I had with him. He understood he was a sinner. He believed in God. He believed that Jesus was raised from the dead for sinners. But he didn't know if Jesus died for *his* sins or not, though. I asked him at one point what he was thinking about since he had gotten quiet. He said heaven. I said that was a wonderful thing to think about and asked him what he was thinking about it. He said that was "on the outside looking in". Despite all of the religiosity in his life, he still doubted his salvation. There was no peace, only anguish in his eyes. We already knew he was petrified of dying. I gave him as much encouragement to look to the cross as I could. I pointed him to the cross. I pleaded with him to consider what a mighty work Christ had done. I then asked him if Christ died for his sins on that cross. He didn't answer. He never did answer and he died a week later. I don't know if I'll see him again or not and that breaks my heart. While I absolutely believe we are condemned for our own sin, I still hold Rome responsible for much of this tragedy. If he did go to heaven, he was robbed of any comfort in his last days that the gospel could have afforded him. Even the "last rites", the last ritual he wanted to do, couldn't give him peace with God. Rituals can never bring us the peace only Jesus can provide. Rome's doctrine was directly responsible for this and I will never forget it. It robbed him of the most important thing any man, woman or child could have. Peace with God through his Christ at the hour of their death. :-(

In Christ,
Ron

[melinky]

Thanks Ron. I understood before, but your story really made it gel.

Unfortunately, this also happens within the Protestant faiths. I believe my father is a prime example. He attends the small church that he grew up in and abides by the church's doctrine, yet he totally fears death. I honestly think this fear is due to the fact that he doubts his own salvation. Quite honestly, after hearing some of his church's doctrine, I fear for his salvation too. I attended a Sunday service once and quite honestly didn't see anything wrong with the preaching or anything said or done in the service. What worries me is the attitude of the members. I feel sure that my dad attends services out of duty, not out of a desire to learn or worship. Most Sunday's when he leaves church he immediately begins complaining about the sermon and what an awful preacher they have; as I said, I didn't think he was bad the Sunday I was there.

According to my dad, most of the church members believe that their preacher can't preach his way out of a brown paper bag. When I asked if anyone has talked to the preacher, he says no, that sooner or later the guy will go away. I've told him he needs to address the pastor or find a new church because the one he attends isn't uplifting him and helping him to grow closer to God. Instead he's turning into a scared and bitter old man. It also breaks my heart because my mother goes to this church with him even though the church's doctrine goes against what she believes, because she see's it as her duty as my father's wife to do so.

So yes, I do understand better your passion on this subject. I am fortunate that I believe in my heart that my Catholic friend Julie is saved. We have talked about it many times and she knows that her salvation is through Jesus.

Yours in Christ,

Melinda

[fairbank]

Ron and Melinda,

About a decade ago, I was introduced to a prominant Cardinal in the Catholic church. He knew that I was a Baptist and he commented that he was told that he often preached like a Baptist. I pressed him for clarification on that and this was his response.

"Because my sermons always include a call to the unconverted to repent of their sins, and receive the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

No mention of works, sacraments, etc. Maybe there is hope! Like Ron, I favor the 1689 London Confession (with the same exclusion). Like Melinda, I am optimistic as long as we can engage Catholics in discussion about Jesus, and not "the church."

Bless you both.

Eric

[Soulfyre]

fairbank said:

Ron and Melinda,

About a decade ago, I was introduced to a prominant Cardinal in the Catholic church. He knew that I was a Baptist and he commented that he was told that he often preached like a Baptist. I pressed him for clarification on that and this was his response.

"Because my sermons always include a call to the unconverted to repent of their sins, and receive the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

No mention of works, sacraments, etc. Maybe there is hope! Like Ron, I favor the 1689 London Confession (with the same exclusion). Like Melinda, I am optimistic as long as we can engage Catholics in discussion about Jesus, and not "the church."

Bless you both.

Eric

I also wish to remain hopeful. One must remember, however, that in general, when speaking to a traditional Roman Catholic, the primary way to "receive the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" is by means of participation in the Sacraments, through which grace is imparted. This is especially true in their view of the Eucharist, in which, as the bread and the wine are "transubstantiated" to become the very "body and blood" of Jesus Christ (Ave Verum Corpus) at the time of the words of institution are pronounced by the priest "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood", the Roman Catholic "receives Christ".

One of the greatest hurdles we must overcome in sharing our faith with our Roman Catholic friends is that we are "divided by a common language".

God bless and keep you, brother...and thanks for dropping in while you are enjoying a time away with your family! I pray that God will bless your time together, and protect you on your journeys.

Matthew (soulfyre)