I think that a lot of it you disagreed with with me at least, and that’s the point I suppose, like #1 and #2 above, and some of it was in reference to your own statements, which I did not intend to mirror, only to draw from. You know that I was not trying to represent you, but to represent to hypothetical viewpoints (one being my own).

What you say in #3 I think is very sound, and it seems true that such nonchalance seems to not reflect a fear of God but a personal autonomy that is dangerous to a Christian (and especially is cultivated in the Protestant tradition).

#4, again, this goes with what I was just saying, I’m only stating that Power over an individual equals inequality of freedom. It’s based on consent and understanding, not power. Some people approach the Church in the way of the latter, which I think hinders the former, which is the desired striving.

#5. You raise a great point, and I thank you for doing so. We actually talked about this in my bible study on tuesday. Jesus with the Samaritan woman in John 4. He says how in times coming (now) people will neither worship God on that mountain or in Jerusalem but in SPIRIT and TRUTH. Now what is this? Jesus has just said to Nicodemus that the spirit blows where is will and no one can understand it really (at least not in a simple sense). But is this spirit of truth, is it not also the spirit of peace? Are we not all different? In Christ, we are the same, but we are different parts of the body. You and I, Jared, are different. You worship God in a certain way, I do in a certain way. But are we worshiping in SPIRIT and TRUTH? What I was saying in the dialog in that in Christ, submission to one another (Eph 4) is what is Christian. So when we submit to God, we do to one another, and we seek understanding and not disagreement. The beauty is, we can disagree, but we can still be both true. Is this possible? I think it is. One another thing I’ve thought about is just our different understandings of God and how we are all on a separate path but each of us is pointed towards Christ. Now we may be farther along than some, or less, and our paths may all be very different, but they all are paths with, for, and to Jesus, the only path. And so I say to you, can we both be in Spirit and Truth and disagree? I believe that the fact that we are not the same person necessitates plurality in unity.

7. Yeah man, you’re right on. The point I was trying to make, (I don’t even know if I just said this in the dialog or not) is that that authority is vested in those who call Christ Lord. Christ gives authority through himself, not through peter. I pointed you to the passage in Matt. 23, I hope you read that. That’s my main thesis. I just think that authority comes from Christ alone based exactly on what he says there in Matt. Peter was given authority, and so was Paul, he rebukes people in letters and calls upon this authority. But was Paul’s intention to pass that authority along to another Paul who would then have authority over others? No, I do not think he did (neither with Peter). I believe that God wishes all to come to understanding of him and AUTHORITY in him because of him. Read 1st Cor. 3 about how Paul says he planted and others helped, but God made it grow. God is the center piece everyone is vassals. That’s my view point. Thanks so much for your thoughts, Jared.

shalohm

tim

This is an interesting work, which seems to be trying to get to the roots of the disagreements between Protestants and Catholics. Your intents to represent the opposing viewpoint appears honest and I don’t find anything offensive here. I appreciate you including me in this, and I hope that I can both serve as an adequate representative for the Catholic Church as well as a representative for Christ, our savior. It is my desire to built up all people in this discussion, and I do not intend to insult nor belittle anyone’s beliefs or convictions.

That being said, I would disagree with the “Catholic” in this piece on a couple of points, and I think that the “Protestant” perspective is missing a couple of points as well. Here are my thoughts (please forgive the length):

1. I personally dislike the term “confused” to refer to my Protestant brothers and their beliefs. This may simply be my interpretation, but I find the term “confused” to be a patronizing one, particularly in the realm of religious dialogue. I don’t recall if I used the word confused, and if I did so then I apologize. I avoid judging people and thus labeling them when possible, but if pressed I think I would find it more accurate to say that I think that on the whole Protestants were being honest in their efforts to understand God, etc., but that I feel that their conclusions are incorrect.

2. “There’s no Tradition in the Protestant schisms…” I don’t know if I said this or not, but at first I found this somewhat misleading. I do believe that my Protestant brothers have traditions (which are probably very dear and close to them), many of which originate from Orthodox Catholic tradition. It is not my, nor, if I understand it correctly, that of the Catholic Church, intent to belittle their traditions. I was attempting to refer to the history of breaking away, and “reforming” churches in the manner that Martin Luther embraced. I’m not certain if that is what you meant to convey, but I wished to be clear on this point.

3. On a practical level, the way the “Catholic” describes being able to leave strikes me as a little too accepting of the idea of leaving Catholicism from what I have witnessed by experience. Many Catholics I have talked to have very big problems leaving the Church because it is a huge part of their identity. This is even true of many Catholics I know that dislike many of the teachings of the church (celibate priesthood, boring music, contraception, etc.). I may have said that because I am not quite as attached to it yet as they are, but most Catholics would not undertake such a project lightly.

4. Personal study is also allowed, and in fact encouraged. Again, so long as one does not contradict those large doctrines and does not divide the community one is allowed a fair amount of theological leeway, to the best that I can understand. For example, the right to fight a just war is not decided, but there is a theory of just war that the Church does allow. One can fight in such a war, or remain completely pacifist. Both are welcomed with open arms in the Church. Denying the Trinity, the communion of saints, the Ressurection, papal authority, etc., however, are not things the Church will likely tolerate.
Personal study, yes. Personal interpretation: if the Church is not completely sure on the topic. Individual control over every aspect of doctrine: no, to my knowledge the Church does not support that.

5. The Protestant says that two people who submit completely to God will not disagree on anything. If that is true, then which Protestant denomination is correct? There are over 10,000 just in North America. Are 9,999 of them wrong and one correct? Individual people are different, and two honest seekers can come to very different conclusions. That is why the Church has authority-to unite individuals under one head, one body. Even the greatest Catholic fathers, such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, did not get everything right. As a Church, however, we believe that what is sound doctrine is correct in every sense of the word.

7. The Protestant side here opposes the Catholic’s claim that the pope and Church hierarchy have authority, in the Catholic sense at least; however, I see little biblical evidence to support this argument. The philosophy of how Jesus worked is correct, as well as the way that power works in this world is accurate.
But that does not disprove, from my perspective, what Jesus said, that Peter had authority over the Church. How that authority should be used can (and frequently is) debated within the Church, and the relationship of power and the Church has changed over time. But the argument’s existence does not eliminate the scriptural evidence that the authority does exist. Catholics have varying views of how papal authority should work and to what degree he should have influence. This debate is not, in my view, inherently bad. But Jesus said it was there. Like it or not, that is what He built, and the potential drawbacks to the system cannot, in my view, outweigh scriptural commands.
Popes have made horrible mistakes, and some were outright sinful. That was bad, and there are not many Catholics to my knowledge that would justify those actions. But the papacy’s power has not been revoked by God, because God does not abandon those who let him down. He stays with them, works with them, and builds them up again. He did this with Israel in days past and present, and He does that with the Church as well.

Those are my thoughts. I hope that they are helpful to you, and that they were only written with the utmost goodwill and respect.

God bless,

Jared