They are called ecclesiastical communities rather than churches because of the lack of apostolic succession, valid ordination; therefore they are not offering a sacrifice, even if they may claim that. Sacrifice is what makes something a complete worship
@@LaustibiChriste33 there's no two -- Othodox Church is the One Holy Catholic _(Universal)_ and Apostolic Church, founded by Jesus Christ and His apostles
@@lukStSerb Thanks for playing. The Roman Catholic Church says the same exact thing. Hence: Two, One True Churches. I suppose you could make that three since the non-Chalcedonian Churches say the same exact thing.
This entire argument boils down to the standard Protestant approach of "Branch Theory + True Christians in every organization" I get where he's coming from but I don't know that he understands how the Apostolic Churches approach this question. Its a fundamentally different view to put it mildly
I think the basic Protestant thesis is "The deposit of faith lacks an identifiable custodian and does not subsist in its fullness anywhere, but rather, it perpetuates via diffuse partitions fundamentally at odds with one another." Put that way, it sounds harsh, but I don't see how one gets around it. It is also the antithesis of the definition of catholicity
Not really. That statement is actually true even in Catholic theology as long as you interpret the words correctly. Certainly there is not a single Catholic alive that understands the entire deposit of faith, nor do we have any epistemic basis to claim the Church has already clarified and defined the entirety of it. No infallible definition is ever technically in error or in contradiction, but neither is any ever complete and perfect. Within actual Catholic people, there is never unanimity, always between any two Catholics fundamentally contradictory understandings (at least with regard to certain nuances in theology here and there). Hence the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is quantitative and not qualitative - we have more unity, not unity per se, and Prots don't lack unity, they just don't have it to the same degree (doctrinally) as we do.
@@taylorbarrett384 @GospelSimplicity This is why I mentioned the "identifiable custodian," and meant it as the Church, not an individual. When Christ calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth, that which will be lead into all truth, He was not talking about perfect unanimity between individual persons. And your other mistake is equating the fullness of the deposit of faith with dogmatic definitions. The deposit of faith is a way of being that leads to Life, and the Church's lack of deficiency in dispensing that Divine Life. The more doctrines get defined does not mean the fullness of the faith is ever increasing, it only means the guardrails by which the faith is protected becomes more calcified. Prior to any Council, the fullness of the faith wasn't any less.
@@taylorbarrett384 Thanks for the comment, Taylor. I think it makes two mistakes, however. The one mistake is moving the goalposts from the Church to individuals. When Christ referred to the Church as the pillar and ground of truth which would be led into all truth, He was not speaking of perfect unanimity between all of its members, but its ability to *normatively* uphold truthful Christian teaching. When I specified "lacking an identifiable custodian," I meant the Body which possesses normativity in authority. And normativity, not in a local sense like some confession (Westminster Confession or 39 Articles), but one which is binding across the universal Church (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed). The second mistake is conflating the "deposit of faith" with doctrines. The deposit of faith is rather a Way that leads to Life. It, and the fullness thereof, speaks to the Church's ability to make manifest the grace of God and establish His Kingdom in this world. Newer dogmatic definitions do not add to the Church's dispensation of this Divine Life, but rather serve to protect the faithful from pernicious things which would impede Communion. Prior to any Council, the fullness of the faith was not lacking, nor did it carry a diminished status.
The best I've seen is in Donegal Ireland. The Anglican , Catholic, Baptist & Methodist church leaders prayed together once a week in each other's homes for the town.
Wonderful discussion! All my pet issues were touched on - Vatican II, Ecumenism, JDDJ, Chemin Neuf, Augusine's Confessions. From my own perspective inside the Catholic Church under Pope Francis, there is much more optimism on the state of Ecumenism. Much of what came out of the recent Synod has the potential to spark great progress. As Dr. Radner was quoting from the New Delhi Statement, I could not help but think of the monumental "Catholic gesture" that was Vatican II, which was commencing in this same year. True, some Catholics regret that we did not get on board with the World Council of Churches right away. My understanding, however, is thet the pre-Vatican II Magisterium, while choosing to err on the side of caution, was allowing careful, quiet ecumenical explorations. The flood gates then burst open with Vatican II. We must, however, be a little concerned with the recent crop of young Catholics who view Vatican II with suspicion. I only pray that Pope Francis finishes his task of fully implementing the Council. Finally, I believe Unity will ultimately follow the model of the many Rites in full communion with Rome and will begin with Lutheran, Anglican, and (possibly) Reformed.
Much agreed. Broaden the Anglican Ordinariate, and initiate an Augsburg Ordinariate for the Lutherans and a Geneva Ordinariate for the Reformed. It would do wonders for Church Unity.
"pre-Vatican II Magisterium." That is a new term. Did not exist prior to Pope Francis. Pope Benedict even tried to hold it together by claiming a “hermeneutic of continuity” versus that of rupture. Your term "pre-Vatican II Magisterium" indicates no, it is not a “hermeneutic of continuity” : it is a rupture. I think you're right. This is a different magisterium. What you are saying is that the pre-Vatican Catholic church taught error. And the current one is righting the error. Unfortunately... In that case, that nullifies the original Catholic claim of a magisterial church ordained by Christ to "teach all that I have taught you" and to which He said, "he who hears you hears me." If the old Catholic church erred and was not protected from error by God as it had claimed, so can the present one - the "post Vatican ll Magisterium" - be just as capable of teaching error. So even this present "magisterium" can be taken with a grain of salt. That is no magisterium at all! "Making things up as they go along" is another way of putting it. The Catholic church is in a bind.
@@aly8380 I am merely using this phrase to specify a time-frame. I have indeed read about the pre-Vatican II Popes allowing a limited Catholic-Protestant dialogue. It had to be done outside of the public eye so as not to create confusion among the Laity. This was also the time when only the ordained could be proper theologians. As for Vatican II, I see it more as a "corrective" than a "rupture". Ratzinger is right to read this "corrective" through the lens of a hermeneutic of continuity.
Ive seen protestant churches divide but many protestants think that the divisions taking place is all God's will to grow God's churches round the world, but the reason of divisions r always pride, ego, selfishness, greed and corruption within the churches and between fellow believers. So i think it is not from God.
Before we developed terms like "Ecclesial Communities" we used other terms like "Separated Brethren" which of course was a great improvement from "heretical schismatic bastards" which we might have employed during the wars of religion after the reformation. Both of these terms suggest an impaired communion, but need not connote heresy or even schism.
Perhaps one way to answer this is to look to the foundation of The Church. If there is a common foundation among believers, then there is unity there. If we understand St Peters answer (and his heart) to The Lords question "who do you say that I am?" to be the rock upon which Christ said He would build His Church; then we can say that it is in that inspired acknowledgement that the foundation of The Church exists. The Church could then be understood as populated and unified by those who are decendents and fellow givers of that answer - not in the sense of mere words at one moment in time, but rather those who have it written upon their hearts and live out their lives in its reality. There's much more to say on this ofcourse. But perhaps this is a start.
Starting with Luther, Protestantism is the cause of the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, caused by personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17:11-23
Confused & devided. I think I agree with that with regard to every Theological detail outside the fundamental Gospel expressed in the Apostles & Nicceian Creeds. What do you mean by Scandal? Tragically there has been a lot of scandal within every tradition... Hypocrites who shame the name of Jesus in Rome, East & Prodistants. The abuses of Rome lead to the Reformation.
@@richardmcgarvey6919 By scandal I mean the 000’s of sects which reflects Christianity in disunity to non Christians, a disunity for which Protestantism is solely to blame!
The true Church cannot be divided because they are 1 and united in Christ in 1 spirit which is the Holy Spirit , so it’s not that we are a united church because we go to the same building to worship or even because we agree on everything! We are 1 united church if we are in Christ! It’s being in Christ that makes as united “In Christ” all filled and united in the 1 Holy Spirit (John 17:21-23)
As a Catholic, I've got a mixed reaction. He certainly has a good grasp of the biblical foundations of the oneness of the Church, almost going so far as to indicate a common governance/institutionalism. He hit the nail on the head about the requirement of death and resurrection as parts of true ecumenism and efforts toward unity because they are parts of every conversion. I bet every serious convert to Catholicism from serious Protestantism would admit that something imperfect in their belief and practice had to die first, which may be why some never cross the Tiber. His conjecture about a worldwide crisis creating more unity is interesting an plausible. But then he said some very scandalous things like JP2 allegedly telling Brother Roger not to be Catholic, for which I have found ZERO evidence. And then some French Catholic-Protestant ecumenical organization where women had authority over men that was supposedly approved by a Catholic bishop?? No, all that is just wrong and wildly off target. Just because a French bishop approved it does not make it right. He diagnoses the problem pretty well, but his supposed "solutions" are just scandalous and unworkable. No wonder the cynicism late in life. Cordial Catholic also had a recent video on ecumenism that is worth checking out and has its own strengths and weaknesses.
I don't think JP2 told Brother Roger not to become Catholic, but JP2 and Benedict both gave Brother Roger communion while he was a Protestant, knowing he was a Protestant, and at Brother Roger's funeral Mass the Cardinal presiding over it gave Communion to all the Protestants present. Traditionalists will hate it, but the Church already invites Orthodox to come receive the Eucharist, and Protestants already have the justifying grace of baptism dwelling inside them. As long as they believe in the Real Presence and are willing to go to Confession, they should be allowed to come forward the same as the Orthodox are. And JP2 and Benedict's public actions with regards Brother Roger give that more than enough credence.
@@taylorbarrett384 Receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin, which could be possible as the Protestants would not have been to confession, is to receive unworthily 1 Cor 11:23-27
One thing Dr. Ephraim did not mention was that both Pope John Paul 2 and Pope Benedict XVI gave Communion to brother Roger while he was a Protestant, knowing that he was a Protestant. Brother Roger actually received the Catholic Eucharist, as a Protestant, without ever becoming Catholic, every day in his community, and the Catholic authorities knew and approved of it.
According to Cardinal Walter Kasper, this was accomplished as though there was a tacit understanding between Brother Roger and the Catholic Church "crossing certain confessional" and canonical barriers through what Brother Roger called a gradual enrichment of his faith with the foundations of the Catholic Church including "the ministry of unity exercised by the bishop of Rome."[9] Brother Roger thus appeared to have undertaken a step without precedent since the Protestant Reformation: entering progressively into full communion with the faith of the Catholic Church possibly without a formal "conversion" that would imply a break with his origins
"Whence neither did he suffer the death of John, his head being severed, nor, as Esaias, wa.s he sawn in sunder ; in order that even in death he might still keep his body undivided and in perfect sound ness, and no pretext be afforded to those that would divide the Church."
Might this issue be best understood as one in the Faith (catholic orthadox belief with the Gospel expressed in the Apostles & Nicceian Creeds) Yet regards to all the Religious details outside of this there is diversity of Belief - the church hasn't & won't arrive at an Orthadoxy Orthapaxi Concenious. Is there any other way to make sense of this ?
I mean, the New Testament describes significant divisions in the Church, but it also describes unity and provides a model for attaining it when it suffers. Sort of a both/and here. Even in the most low Church ecclesiology, there has to be some unity, some principle of non-division. Even in the highest Church, there will never be absolute unanimity, always will be human misunderstandings and disagreements.
As to protestants vs Buddhists ... this has all been worked out in catholicism with the concentric rings of ecclessiology. The only confusion is on the protestants part as they still confused as to how to figure out who is Christian and who is not i.e. some protestants will say catholics are not.
Yes and no. Our Lord prayed that we would be one, but the New Testament witnesses to significant divisions in the Church, and even in Catholicism today, we have plenty of our own regrettable disagreements and controversies. And Protestantism, more diverse and with less doctrinal and visible ecclesial unity than we have, nevertheless have a real ontological and doctrinal unity in their shared faith in the Trinity, in their shared faith in the Bible, and in Jesus, and in their Baptism. So really whereever you go, you cannot interpret the words of our Lord to mean unity is all or nothing, that no division at all can exist within the true Church. There certainly is division, and there certainly is unity.
@ Catholicism has disagreements but they are united under the Pope with claims that they all profess. This isn’t the same as with Protestants, Reformation churches or even Orthodoxy How do you get the “yes and no” from what Jesus said in the Scriptures? If we take what he said to be accurate (which I do) it’s pretty clear his wish was for us to be united in a single Church. We are much less so today than for example during the period of the Holy Roman Empire on Christianity. And I’m not saying it’s all peaches and cream in the CC, far from it however there are clear boundaries and essential doctrines that all are united on as a whole. We can all point to the dogmas of the faith and ex cathedra teachings. There as I am sure you know multiple levels of teaching authority in the church of which the church teaches at which allow room for debate on and so forth outside of the dogmas for example. Protestants can’t list essential doctrines regarding salvation that they can all agree on. Some accept the Trinity some do not, some accept baptismal regeneration some do not, some accept the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist some do not, some have women priests and bishops, most do not. There’s fragmentation there far more pronounced than you would find in either Catholicism or Orthodoxy even. Yes it’s a human problem and yes we should work towards unity under one Church not multiple.
Again Taylor, you’re bringing up disagreements among individual opinions. The Church only has 1 Catechism and 1 set of teachings on which Catholics are united to. In Protestantism, you have differences in churches/ecclesial communities themselves, not just opinion, and is constantly dividing.
@ THE WORD CATHOLIC IS GREEK AND YOU CAN FIND IT OF COURSE IN GREEK NEW TESTAMENT BECAUSE IT IS THE ORIGINAL BIBLE AND WE ARE THE ORIGINAL CHURCH: LUKE 4:14 ” .. Ho Galalaia kai pheme exerchatomai KATH’OLES“ LUKE 8:39 ”Apelthen KATH’OLES ten polin…” LUKE 23:5 ”Anaseis ton laos didasko KATH’OLES“ ACTS 9:41 ”Gnotos de egeneto KATH’OLES“ ACTS 10:32 ”Hemeis oidate ho genomenon rhema KATH’OLES“ ACTS 4:18 ”Kai kelasantes autos pareggeilan to KATH’OLOU…” and the most significant is, ACTS 9:31 “He men oun EKKLESIA KATH’OLES …” - the Church is called “CHURCH THROUGH OUT” in greek, “EKKLESIA KATH’OLES” (KATA + HOLOS = KATHOLIKOS). In English Catholic translates as Universal or Throughout for that is the meaning of Catholic.
Austin, stop asking your guests if your questions make sense. You do it frequently. It is a poor interview technique. If you don't have confidence in the clarity of your question, then don't ask it. Your guest can ask for clarity if they need it.
In short, Dr. Radner says there is one undivided invisible (or divine) Church. But the visible (or human) is divided. It's the standard Protestant solution. I find it problematic because Jesus is God incarnated. So we should expect a visible Church, not only invisible. It's unfair for most people to identify what an invisible Church teaches and where she is.
I think unity is what Christians aspire for, but whether it is achievable is another matter! We know even at the point of inception, the Church was somewhat divided; firstly there was problem between the Greek speaking Jews and the Hebrew speaking (Acts 6:1-6) and we also know that there was never full integration between the Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians, but the Apostle Paul was really working hard to break the division and even collected money from the Gentile Churches to send relief to Jerusalem. The interviewee has highlighted other points of fracture, Donatism, I will add the Novatian controversy between Cyprian and Popoe Stephen, Orthodox vs Roman Church, before the Reformers vs the Catholic Church. Most RC would say the Protestant should quit being proudful and humble themselves and rejoin the RC! Well it is not that simple, how can I join the Church when it grossly transgresses the gospel and impose on believers things that the Apostles never taught? Having said that, we can also serve the Lord separately as the Lord cautioned John, " He who is not against us, is for us" (Mark 9:40)
They are called ecclesiastical communities rather than churches because of the lack of apostolic succession, valid ordination; therefore they are not offering a sacrifice, even if they may claim that. Sacrifice is what makes something a complete worship
The Church is undivided. There are para churches and pseudo churches and false churches but the True Church is still here
Exactly!
You had already wrote what I was thinking
Which one of the Two, One True Churches are you a member of?
@@LaustibiChriste33 there's no two -- Othodox Church is the One Holy Catholic _(Universal)_ and Apostolic Church, founded by Jesus Christ and His apostles
@@lukStSerbsays you without proof
@@lukStSerb
Thanks for playing. The Roman Catholic Church says the same exact thing. Hence: Two, One True Churches. I suppose you could make that three since the non-Chalcedonian Churches say the same exact thing.
This entire argument boils down to the standard Protestant approach of "Branch Theory + True Christians in every organization" I get where he's coming from but I don't know that he understands how the Apostolic Churches approach this question. Its a fundamentally different view to put it mildly
I love it when the title asks a question that can be answered with one word.
"No."
In her essence, no. In her human element? Yes.
@@LaustibiChriste33you mean in sinful, fallen humanity?
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
I think the basic Protestant thesis is "The deposit of faith lacks an identifiable custodian and does not subsist in its fullness anywhere, but rather, it perpetuates via diffuse partitions fundamentally at odds with one another." Put that way, it sounds harsh, but I don't see how one gets around it. It is also the antithesis of the definition of catholicity
Not really. That statement is actually true even in Catholic theology as long as you interpret the words correctly. Certainly there is not a single Catholic alive that understands the entire deposit of faith, nor do we have any epistemic basis to claim the Church has already clarified and defined the entirety of it. No infallible definition is ever technically in error or in contradiction, but neither is any ever complete and perfect. Within actual Catholic people, there is never unanimity, always between any two Catholics fundamentally contradictory understandings (at least with regard to certain nuances in theology here and there). Hence the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is quantitative and not qualitative - we have more unity, not unity per se, and Prots don't lack unity, they just don't have it to the same degree (doctrinally) as we do.
Well said, Taylor.
@@taylorbarrett384 @GospelSimplicity This is why I mentioned the "identifiable custodian," and meant it as the Church, not an individual. When Christ calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth, that which will be lead into all truth, He was not talking about perfect unanimity between individual persons. And your other mistake is equating the fullness of the deposit of faith with dogmatic definitions. The deposit of faith is a way of being that leads to Life, and the Church's lack of deficiency in dispensing that Divine Life. The more doctrines get defined does not mean the fullness of the faith is ever increasing, it only means the guardrails by which the faith is protected becomes more calcified. Prior to any Council, the fullness of the faith wasn't any less.
@@taylorbarrett384 Thanks for the comment, Taylor. I think it makes two mistakes, however. The one mistake is moving the goalposts from the Church to individuals. When Christ referred to the Church as the pillar and ground of truth which would be led into all truth, He was not speaking of perfect unanimity between all of its members, but its ability to *normatively* uphold truthful Christian teaching. When I specified "lacking an identifiable custodian," I meant the Body which possesses normativity in authority. And normativity, not in a local sense like some confession (Westminster Confession or 39 Articles), but one which is binding across the universal Church (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed).
The second mistake is conflating the "deposit of faith" with doctrines. The deposit of faith is rather a Way that leads to Life. It, and the fullness thereof, speaks to the Church's ability to make manifest the grace of God and establish His Kingdom in this world. Newer dogmatic definitions do not add to the Church's dispensation of this Divine Life, but rather serve to protect the faithful from pernicious things which would impede Communion. Prior to any Council, the fullness of the faith was not lacking, nor did it carry a diminished status.
I'm Orthodox, btw
The obedience of Faith is needed by all members of the Church...including bishops and priests
The best I've seen is in Donegal Ireland. The Anglican , Catholic, Baptist & Methodist church leaders prayed together once a week in each other's homes for the town.
Wonderful discussion! All my pet issues were touched on - Vatican II, Ecumenism, JDDJ, Chemin Neuf, Augusine's Confessions. From my own perspective inside the Catholic Church under Pope Francis, there is much more optimism on the state of Ecumenism. Much of what came out of the recent Synod has the potential to spark great progress. As Dr. Radner was quoting from the New Delhi Statement, I could not help but think of the monumental "Catholic gesture" that was Vatican II, which was commencing in this same year. True, some Catholics regret that we did not get on board with the World Council of Churches right away. My understanding, however, is thet the pre-Vatican II Magisterium, while choosing to err on the side of caution, was allowing careful, quiet ecumenical explorations. The flood gates then burst open with Vatican II. We must, however, be a little concerned with the recent crop of young Catholics who view Vatican II with suspicion. I only pray that Pope Francis finishes his task of fully implementing the Council. Finally, I believe Unity will ultimately follow the model of the many Rites in full communion with Rome and will begin with Lutheran, Anglican, and (possibly) Reformed.
Much agreed. Broaden the Anglican Ordinariate, and initiate an Augsburg Ordinariate for the Lutherans and a Geneva Ordinariate for the Reformed. It would do wonders for Church Unity.
"pre-Vatican II Magisterium."
That is a new term.
Did not exist prior to Pope Francis.
Pope Benedict even tried to hold it together by claiming a “hermeneutic of continuity” versus that of rupture.
Your term "pre-Vatican II Magisterium" indicates no, it is not a “hermeneutic of continuity” : it is a rupture.
I think you're right.
This is a different magisterium.
What you are saying is that the pre-Vatican Catholic church taught error.
And the current one is righting the error.
Unfortunately...
In that case, that nullifies the original Catholic claim of a magisterial church ordained by Christ to "teach all that I have taught you" and to which He said, "he who hears you hears me."
If the old Catholic church erred and was not protected from error by God as it had claimed, so can the present one - the "post Vatican ll Magisterium" - be just as capable of teaching error. So even this present "magisterium" can be taken with a grain of salt.
That is no magisterium at all!
"Making things up as they go along" is another way of putting it.
The Catholic church is in a bind.
@@carlosjennings7707 Exactly!
@@aly8380 I am merely using this phrase to specify a time-frame. I have indeed read about the pre-Vatican II Popes allowing a limited Catholic-Protestant dialogue. It had to be done outside of the public eye so as not to create confusion among the Laity. This was also the time when only the ordained could be proper theologians. As for Vatican II, I see it more as a "corrective" than a "rupture". Ratzinger is right to read this "corrective" through the lens of a hermeneutic of continuity.
@quayscenes I’m afraid that if that were ever to happen, there would be a surge in Sedevacantism.
Ive seen protestant churches divide but many protestants think that the divisions taking place is all God's will to grow God's churches round the world, but the reason of divisions r always pride, ego, selfishness, greed and corruption within the churches and between fellow believers.
So i think it is not from God.
Before we developed terms like "Ecclesial Communities" we used other terms like "Separated Brethren" which of course was a great improvement from "heretical schismatic bastards" which we might have employed during the wars of religion after the reformation. Both of these terms suggest an impaired communion, but need not connote heresy or even schism.
This guest, more than any other guest, reminded me of an older version of Austin.
@@pigetstuck I’ll take that as a great compliment.
@@GospelSimplicity It certainly is. He was very thoughtful and honest. And he mentioned a poet!
NO. That is the answer. The curch is the early church. This church is still existing.
This man is so lovely ❤
Perhaps one way to answer this is to look to the foundation of The Church. If there is a common foundation among believers, then there is unity there.
If we understand St Peters answer (and his heart) to The Lords question "who do you say that I am?" to be the rock upon which Christ said He would build His Church; then we can say that it is in that inspired acknowledgement that the foundation of The Church exists.
The Church could then be understood as populated and unified by those who are decendents and fellow givers of that answer - not in the sense of mere words at one moment in time, but rather those who have it written upon their hearts and live out their lives in its reality.
There's much more to say on this ofcourse. But perhaps this is a start.
Starting with Luther, Protestantism is the cause of the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, caused by personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17:11-23
Confused & devided. I think I agree with that with regard to every Theological detail outside the fundamental Gospel expressed in the Apostles & Nicceian Creeds. What do you mean by Scandal? Tragically there has been a lot of scandal within every tradition... Hypocrites who shame the name of Jesus in Rome, East & Prodistants. The abuses of Rome lead to the Reformation.
@@richardmcgarvey6919 By scandal I mean the 000’s of sects which reflects Christianity in disunity to non Christians, a disunity for which Protestantism is solely to blame!
I'd say way before that you had the Arians.
@ YeS, but the Arian heresy was quelled, but not Protestantism!
The true Church cannot be divided because they are 1 and united in Christ in 1 spirit which is the Holy Spirit , so it’s not that we are a united church because we go to the same building to worship or even because we agree on everything! We are 1 united church if we are in Christ! It’s being in Christ that makes as united “In Christ” all filled and united in the 1 Holy Spirit (John 17:21-23)
As a Catholic, I've got a mixed reaction. He certainly has a good grasp of the biblical foundations of the oneness of the Church, almost going so far as to indicate a common governance/institutionalism. He hit the nail on the head about the requirement of death and resurrection as parts of true ecumenism and efforts toward unity because they are parts of every conversion. I bet every serious convert to Catholicism from serious Protestantism would admit that something imperfect in their belief and practice had to die first, which may be why some never cross the Tiber. His conjecture about a worldwide crisis creating more unity is interesting an plausible.
But then he said some very scandalous things like JP2 allegedly telling Brother Roger not to be Catholic, for which I have found ZERO evidence. And then some French Catholic-Protestant ecumenical organization where women had authority over men that was supposedly approved by a Catholic bishop?? No, all that is just wrong and wildly off target. Just because a French bishop approved it does not make it right.
He diagnoses the problem pretty well, but his supposed "solutions" are just scandalous and unworkable. No wonder the cynicism late in life. Cordial Catholic also had a recent video on ecumenism that is worth checking out and has its own strengths and weaknesses.
I don't think JP2 told Brother Roger not to become Catholic, but JP2 and Benedict both gave Brother Roger communion while he was a Protestant, knowing he was a Protestant, and at Brother Roger's funeral Mass the Cardinal presiding over it gave Communion to all the Protestants present. Traditionalists will hate it, but the Church already invites Orthodox to come receive the Eucharist, and Protestants already have the justifying grace of baptism dwelling inside them. As long as they believe in the Real Presence and are willing to go to Confession, they should be allowed to come forward the same as the Orthodox are. And JP2 and Benedict's public actions with regards Brother Roger give that more than enough credence.
@@taylorbarrett384 Receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin, which could be possible as the Protestants would not have been to confession, is to receive unworthily 1 Cor 11:23-27
One thing Dr. Ephraim did not mention was that both Pope John Paul 2 and Pope Benedict XVI gave Communion to brother Roger while he was a Protestant, knowing that he was a Protestant. Brother Roger actually received the Catholic Eucharist, as a Protestant, without ever becoming Catholic, every day in his community, and the Catholic authorities knew and approved of it.
It happens a lot
According to Cardinal Walter Kasper, this was accomplished as though there was a tacit understanding between Brother Roger and the Catholic Church "crossing certain confessional" and canonical barriers through what Brother Roger called a gradual enrichment of his faith with the foundations of the Catholic Church including "the ministry of unity exercised by the bishop of Rome."[9] Brother Roger thus appeared to have undertaken a step without precedent since the Protestant Reformation: entering progressively into full communion with the faith of the Catholic Church possibly without a formal "conversion" that would imply a break with his origins
Dying to self and living in Christ is too difficult. It's way easier to fight about doctrine and claim the high ground.
It's really not there would be no debates if people followed the same doctrine instead of adding tradition to it
@@NonWorldlyAl3Xthat assumes sola scriptura historically was ever actually a thing when it never was.
"Whence neither did he suffer the death of John, his head being severed, nor, as Esaias,
wa.s he sawn in sunder ; in order that even in death he
might still keep his body undivided and in perfect sound
ness, and no pretext be afforded to those that would
divide the Church."
Might this issue be best understood as one in the Faith (catholic orthadox belief with the Gospel expressed in the Apostles & Nicceian Creeds) Yet regards to all the Religious details outside of this there is diversity of Belief - the church hasn't & won't arrive at an Orthadoxy Orthapaxi Concenious. Is there any other way to make sense of this ?
Is the bride of Christ divided?
The Catholic Brothers video on Marcion says Marcionites set up separate "churches," I believe. And they came before the Montanists and Donatists.
Please share this video!
How is this a question to anyone who's ever read the bible?
I mean, the New Testament describes significant divisions in the Church, but it also describes unity and provides a model for attaining it when it suffers. Sort of a both/and here. Even in the most low Church ecclesiology, there has to be some unity, some principle of non-division. Even in the highest Church, there will never be absolute unanimity, always will be human misunderstandings and disagreements.
@taylorbarrett384 What is that model for unity and what evidence in the present time that it worked?
As to protestants vs Buddhists ... this has all been worked out in catholicism with the concentric rings of ecclessiology.
The only confusion is on the protestants part as they still confused as to how to figure out who is Christian and who is not i.e. some protestants will say catholics are not.
Kind of goes against Scripture when Jesus prayed we that we would all be one. But I know u know that.
Yes and no. Our Lord prayed that we would be one, but the New Testament witnesses to significant divisions in the Church, and even in Catholicism today, we have plenty of our own regrettable disagreements and controversies. And Protestantism, more diverse and with less doctrinal and visible ecclesial unity than we have, nevertheless have a real ontological and doctrinal unity in their shared faith in the Trinity, in their shared faith in the Bible, and in Jesus, and in their Baptism. So really whereever you go, you cannot interpret the words of our Lord to mean unity is all or nothing, that no division at all can exist within the true Church. There certainly is division, and there certainly is unity.
@ Catholicism has disagreements but they are united under the Pope with claims that they all profess. This isn’t the same as with Protestants, Reformation churches or even Orthodoxy
How do you get the “yes and no” from what Jesus said in the Scriptures? If we take what he said to be accurate (which I do) it’s pretty clear his wish was for us to be united in a single Church. We are much less so today than for example during the period of the Holy Roman Empire on Christianity.
And I’m not saying it’s all peaches and cream in the CC, far from it however there are clear boundaries and essential doctrines that all are united on as a whole. We can all point to the dogmas of the faith and ex cathedra teachings. There as I am sure you know multiple levels of teaching authority in the church of which the church teaches at which allow room for debate on and so forth outside of the dogmas for example.
Protestants can’t list essential doctrines regarding salvation that they can all agree on. Some accept the Trinity some do not, some accept baptismal regeneration some do not, some accept the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist some do not, some have women priests and bishops, most do not. There’s fragmentation there far more pronounced than you would find in either Catholicism or Orthodoxy even.
Yes it’s a human problem and yes we should work towards unity under one Church not multiple.
Again Taylor, you’re bringing up disagreements among individual opinions. The Church only has 1 Catechism and 1 set of teachings on which Catholics are united to. In Protestantism, you have differences in churches/ecclesial communities themselves, not just opinion, and is constantly dividing.
Where is the Catholic church in the bible? 😂
@ THE WORD CATHOLIC IS GREEK AND YOU CAN FIND IT OF COURSE IN GREEK NEW TESTAMENT BECAUSE IT IS THE ORIGINAL BIBLE AND WE ARE THE ORIGINAL CHURCH:
LUKE 4:14 ” .. Ho Galalaia kai pheme exerchatomai KATH’OLES“
LUKE 8:39 ”Apelthen KATH’OLES ten polin…”
LUKE 23:5 ”Anaseis ton laos didasko KATH’OLES“
ACTS 9:41 ”Gnotos de egeneto KATH’OLES“
ACTS 10:32 ”Hemeis oidate ho genomenon rhema KATH’OLES“
ACTS 4:18 ”Kai kelasantes autos pareggeilan to KATH’OLOU…”
and the most significant is,
ACTS 9:31 “He men oun EKKLESIA KATH’OLES …” - the Church is called “CHURCH THROUGH OUT” in greek, “EKKLESIA KATH’OLES” (KATA + HOLOS = KATHOLIKOS).
In English Catholic translates as Universal or Throughout for that is the meaning of Catholic.
Austin, stop asking your guests if your questions make sense. You do it frequently. It is a poor interview technique. If you don't have confidence in the clarity of your question, then don't ask it. Your guest can ask for clarity if they need it.
In short, Dr. Radner says there is one undivided invisible (or divine) Church. But the visible (or human) is divided. It's the standard Protestant solution. I find it problematic because Jesus is God incarnated. So we should expect a visible Church, not only invisible. It's unfair for most people to identify what an invisible Church teaches and where she is.
I think unity is what Christians aspire for, but whether it is achievable is another matter! We know even at the point of inception, the Church was somewhat divided; firstly there was problem between the Greek speaking Jews and the Hebrew speaking (Acts 6:1-6) and we also know that there was never full integration between the Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians, but the Apostle Paul was really working hard to break the division and even collected money from the Gentile Churches to send relief to Jerusalem. The interviewee has highlighted other points of fracture, Donatism, I will add the Novatian controversy between Cyprian and Popoe Stephen, Orthodox vs Roman Church, before the Reformers vs the Catholic Church.
Most RC would say the Protestant should quit being proudful and humble themselves and rejoin the RC! Well it is not that simple, how can I join the Church when it grossly transgresses the gospel and impose on believers things that the Apostles never taught?
Having said that, we can also serve the Lord separately as the Lord cautioned John, " He who is not against us, is for us" (Mark 9:40)
Or.. can you protest the one true church?
The thesis here is rather schizophrenic, I'm afraid.
No.
Grown-ups shouldnt have imaginary friends.....