Do Catholics and Protestants Agree on Justification Now? (w/ Dr. Michael Root, drafter of the JDDJ)

[@stampede251]

Such a beautiful and succinct answer to the Question: In a sentence or so what is the gospel ? Dr Michael Root: In Christ, God grants us eternal life with Himself.

[@augustuslc]

That was a great video on the JDDJ, and even though it shows that the Lutherans and the Catholics must iron some of the minor differences on the doctrine of justification, it gives me hope that we are starting to realize that we have much more in common with each other if we just hear each other’s perspectives with an open heart. On the other hand, I feel sad when I see comments that are always trying to look things, like the JDDJ, on the negative side, always with a judgmental view or with lack of charity. Remember Jesus words in Matt 12,36 “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”, I would be good for all of us to think before we speak and to try to express our concerns in a constructive way.

[@GospelSimplicity]

That last sentence is gold

[@traceyedson9652]

I’m Eastern Orthodox and there are significant voices within it that seem to have an all-or-nothing attitude, which, while understandable, I find discouraging. Finding that balance between reductionism & rigorism is a gift of grace!

[@artemiosruthenia7291]

@@traceyedson9652 No, it is gift of apostasy. Holy fathers of Councils were not trying to found ways to "ecumenical dialogue" or compromises with Aryans, monophisites and other heretics. They were just protecting Truth and Orthodoxy.

[@traceyedson9652]

@@artemiosruthenia7291 I disagree with the value of this approach. It may seem wise & faithful but could merely be stubborn & lazy.

[@TheTijuT]

​@@traceyedson9652 Greetings Tracey. Thank you for sharing your charitable thought. May our good Lord bless you, and may you find greater peace and unity in your communion in times to come.

[@aisthpaoitht]

This is an AMAZING talk! THANK YOU

[@DrSheri.teaches]

Excellent discussion, Austin, thank you! I became Catholic in 2020 and still felt I didn’t completely understand the differences with justification until watching this video. It will help me in conversations with my non-Catholic Christian friends. I’m always blessed by your videos and have been following you since I first entered RCIA. How was your wedding? Congratulations to both of you! 🥂🍾🎊

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it! Our wedding was beautiful, thanks for asking!

[@a.kamileon]

@@GospelSimplicity 1 Corinthians 7?

[@stampede251]

I find that as a 9 year Convert to Catholicism that few Catholics in the pews understand the Christian faith and the tennants of Catholicism. In order to consider Ecumenism correctly, one must FIRST understand both sides of an issue, a person's own faith, and the faith of the other.

[@Shevock]

Great conversation. I disagree with the guest that it doesn't happen, full fellowship, at the doctrine level, but at rite. I think the Catholic Church has like 20 different rites in full communion. There can be a variety of rites. Agreement or similarity must be found within doctrine.

[@katiebethblake]

I’ve been reading the JDDJ over the last couple of weeks. Really interesting. Seems like everyone agrees that justification is granted first and foremost by grace. A gift from God alone. After that, differences still stand. There’s a lot of flowery language but underneath it all, the difference between Catholic and Lutheran beliefs on justification remain. Can’t wait to hear this interview!!

[@betrion7]

So, did you hear it? What did you think?

[@artemiosruthenia7291]

Lutherans and other protestants have very different point on justification doctrine with Catholics. If this weren't so, there would be no reformation, lutheranism and everything else. Secession is based on doctrinal questions: when one side is promoting true doctrine, other promote heresy. Nothing else.

[@katiebethblake]

@@betrion7 I did! To be honest, the Catholic position on justification is making more sense to me. And I think it’s interesting that this man, after being so intimately involved in the translating and writing of the JDDJ, became Catholic. I currently attend an LCMS church and a Catholic parish and I love both, but the doctrines of the Catholic Church are more supported by the early church. So it seems like “all roads are pointing to Rome” as they say. 😊

[@betrion7]

@@katiebethblake Rome is pointing to Constantinople though, which is pointing to Calvary or Golgotha, but yeah.. don't get me wrong, I was born into a very good Roman Catholic family and technically I'm still Catholic but few years back as I was going trough a deathly illness nobody was there to help. Pictures of Jesus and statues of Mary were clearly dead. I prayed; God if you're real I'd like to know you. Got tongues in intense prayer before I even knew what they were. I was yet to read the Bible but was drawn to it and had some intense experiences. My health was restored from pretty much certain death sentence. Word is indeed alive in every sense. After a little "schism" between brothers in a bible group I was attending, I definitely came to appreciate more the Roman Catholics for the sense of unity. Their doctrines are all over the place though but at least now I have some understanding why. I go to Franciscan church but even before my "born again experience", I was going to ok old Catholic church that had a Latin mass. I liked that. Anyways, sorry for the long letter. May the Lord be blessed 🙏

[@aisthpaoitht]

​@@katiebethblakeWhat do you see as the differences?

[@MrPeach1]

Wow this great Dr is Catholic now. That is cool.

[@ΠροφήτηςΑββακούμ]

Could you inform us in one of your videos about the dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the pre-chalcedonian Orthodox Churches? Have they made any progress? Love your work. God bless.

[@masterchief8179]

I’d argue that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox dialogue is not in a better state than Catholic-Oriental Orthodox dialogue currently. I guess people online, specially recent converts to EO, aren’t quite familiar with doctrinal and historical struggles Eastern Orthodoxy has to overcome when approaching Pre-Chalcedonians (and vice-versa), therefore many of the complexities can be missed here. Oriental Orthodox churches have in general a perceptible bitterness towards what they sense as the “Imperial religion” overseen in historical perspective, assimilating it with the growing influence of the See of Constantinople in detriment of Alexandria’s taxis and with Byzantine imperialism over Pre-Chalcedonian areas, specially over Coptic territories in Egypt and all Africa. When every single one of the Imperial attempts of reunification with the Miaphysites failed, many of them aiming political pretexts foremost (not really orthodoxy) - like during the crisis of Monothelitism -, and specially after Islamic Saracen invasions, the development of a distinguishable (Chalcedonian) Greek Patriarchate in Alexandria around the _Byzantine Prefect of Egypt_ could be politically drawn. For example, the infamous Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria, one of the monothelite leading proponents, was the last “Byzantine Prefect of Egypt” and the very Chalcedonian Patriarch (642 AD) in Alexandria, and he is widely known as one of the cruelest persecutors of Copts in that territory just as he is deemed as a fervent ally of Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, the monothelite heresyarch. So in that scenarium of rivalry between the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Coptic Patriarchate, it is barely a sidenote that the contemporary Pope St Martin I (of Rome) is seen both as a champion for orthodoxy (in Chalcedonian formula nevertheless) and someone who suffered himself from Byzantine Imperial persecution precisely for exercising Roman primacy in Catholic terms, which he proclaimed in the Council of Latheran (649) and was reaffirmed by Pope St Agatho in the 6th EC of Constantinople (680-681) at the very Ecumenical Council’s documents. The current EO schism between Moscow and Constantinople was extended in 2019 to Alexandria and it surely rings a bell to Coptic ears and sensibilities; the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria accuses his congener from Moscow of Russian imperialism and to steal priests from Alexandrian authority with no canonical basis, spreading Russian Orthodoxy throughout Africa in a sort of imperial enterprise and an unnatural growth of their Exarchate (a concept that was produced by the Byzantine Empire’s expansion into the Italian West by Justinian the Great and adapted to fit Eastern Orthodoxy, actually) out of its canonical boundaries. It is more or less self-evidentiary for Oriental Orthodoxy that the role of the Roman See can manifest universally as jurisdictional problems demand it on the East even if it tends to be a more “de facto” projection to get theologically formulated, just like when St Cyril of Alexandria was constituted by Pope St Celestine a Roman legate in the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) and he has used every inch of Roman authority against Nestorius, his rival and Patriarch of Constantinople. Also Oriental Orthodoxy would arguably more easily accept Roman universal Petrine leadership since it plays a guardianship role against political imperialism in the ecclesiastical order, a thing that can be said to be co-existential - or at least naturalized - in Eastern Orthodoxy due to the way the Greek Patriarchates in schism with the Catholic Church developed ecclesiological theories in relation to the centrality of the Byzantine/Roman Empire in political-ecclesiastical terms, according to which the theories of “Second Rome” or “Third Rome”, as far as the Roman Empire goes, lodge modifications in ecclesiastical canonical arrangements and even in the “de iure” taxis of the Church, which is foreign to Catholicism and surely contemptible for Oriental Orthodoxy (and the ancient Alexandrian “ethos”). Seeing it further, the Coptic and the Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox (Pre-Chalcedonian) churches have once accepted the Filioquist _doctrinal_ explanations as given in Florence, like what the Papal Bull “Cantate Domino” by Pope Eugene IV explains of it, although reunion was not feasible. Even though more recent Oriental Orthodox documents of the 20th century condemned the Filioque clause, those condemnations more or less refer to the prudential addition to the creed and they address some theological concerns in regard to arguable threats to the monarchy of the Father, a thing that the Catholic Church has sufficiently dealt with (on its magisterial documents, I’d say) and OO does not necessarily face the same dogmatic difficulty as the one produced by the “anti-Filioquist” Council of Blachernae (1285), whose purpose was to posthumously anathematize the notably brilliant Patriarch of Constantinople John IX Bekkos, deemed as “unionist” and therefore to reject the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyon (1272-1274). Since many theologians and also clergymen on the more radical side of EO defend the resolution of Blachernae (1285) as a dogmatic non-ecumenical (?) council, OO - on its part - doesn’t necessarily have the same barriers when dialoguing with the Catholic Church at the level of dogmatics, at least concerning this topic. For sure many things need to be deeply accommodated for a specific way the Roman primatial role above the primatial roles of the ancient Patriarchates by the very words of Christ to Peter (as seen and defined by theCatholic Church) to function - a theological conceptual kind of primacy named ‘supremacy’, from the Latin “supremum”, which has zero relation to dictatorship or autocracy -, and for sure it should be expressed in Eastern terms efficaciously. But until then we must notice that in 2017 Pope Francis and Pope Tawadros II, Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, signed the joint declaration named *“Baptism Recognition Agreement”* (Cairo, 2017) after a papal visit to Egypt. Recognizing a shared baptism and the absolute unity of baptism implies a belief that both churches are part of one body in a mystical sense, albeit differences still hurt the unity of the faith. That is HUGE and even more important when seen in perspective, considering Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and Archbishops up to this point haven’t come to define among themselves the application of theories on rebaptism and its consequences, a thing that - from Catholic eyes - not only refers to anarchism at canon law but can lead to doctrinal crucial errors in sacramentology. So in a sense I would say Catholic dialogues with Oriental Orthodoxy have been easier than our dialogues with Eastern Orthodoxy, just like Catholic dialogues with the Assyrian Church of the East have been surprisingly more fruitful. We are very far from unity but closer than to the closest of our brothers - our Chalcedonian brothers, Eastern Orthodox Christians.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

The LWF permits women's ordination and the ordination of homosexuals and transexuals. This tells you what you need to know about the kind of "Lutherans" were "debating" this issue with Rome in the 20th c.

[@brianfarley926]

As it stands even if there ever happens to be doctrinal agreement on justification there can be reconciliation between Lutherans and Catholics as long as they hold to those issues which you just mentioned. Those Lutheran Churches also do same sex marriages.

[@zachsmith8916]

Yeah I don’t think you’re gonna see the LCMS agree to this anytime soon.

[@brendonpremkumar8207]

Personally I think it's sad that the LCMS is often unwilling to engage in dialogue with Roman Catholics. We have more in common with each other than either of us have with the ELCA. Both of us affirm the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, reject heretical practices such as women's "ordination" and same-sex "marriage", and affirm the sanctity of life from conception to death.

[@GutsStan]

German Catholics bishops also support same sex marriage. Obviously not all though.

[@coffeeanddavid]

Looking forward to this. ILC-PCPCU conversations are more successful than the JDDJ... curious if you guys will chat about that!

[@mj6493]

Maybe an interview with a participant in the ILC-PCPCU conversations is now warranted.

[@flisom]

Protestants come from the Catholic Church so it shouldn’t be surprising if there are agreements in many areas. Luther was a Catholic priest.

[@traceyedson9652]

This a good point. Some disagreements between Orthodox & Catholicism apply also to Protestants.

[@artemiosruthenia7291]

Luther WAS a Catholic monk and priest. Until he became proud-hearted heretic who abandoned his monk vows and married on nun.

[@GutsStan]

@@artemiosruthenia7291He didn’t become a heretic. And there’s nothing wrong with marrying.

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

Not sure if you'll read this, Austin, but I've come to realize that the actual 'battle' is not justification, but instead what a person thinks and approaches God with when "they cry out to the Lord to be saved," if they do that at all. Many people believe that receiving water baptism to be saved and also church membership - in lieu of actually calling on the Name of the Lord to be saved - in that their membership and water baptism is what they're trusting in, is what damns them to hellfire forever. This is the majority of Christiandom, regardless of either Roman Catholics or 'Protestants.'

[@traceyedson9652]

Just great, as always. Orthodox here raised low-church fundy, introduced to liturgy & sacraments by Lutheranism, then apostolic teaching through Catholicism, to Orthodoxy as the summation. Boy, wouldn’t I love to see it all reconciled in Christ! I believe it has been but we must find our way to it. Thanks for both of your contributions!

[@CroElectroStile]

-Protestants: Formal cause=Grace, Instrumental Cause=Formed Faith, Objectively justified= imputed Christ righteousness, Subjective = Sanctification is strictly separated from what is means to be justified before God. -Catholics: Formal cause= grace, Instrumental Cause= Dogmatic Faith + Baptism - faith that is formed by infused, hope, trust, supernatural love of God (charity=infused habit), Objectively justified(extrinsic)= imputed Supernatural merit of Christ, Subjective(intrinsic)= salvation process includes internal anchoring which disposes the person for receiving more and more grace and therefore increases in righteousness (ongoing justification). I'ts pretty similar, we have some differences, but I would agree, it's not worthy of Church rupture.

[@Ben_G_Biegler]

Well at least not this Protestant however, we have come a long way since the reformation. Still the Confessions of the Protestant reformation and ths Council of Trent are mutually exclusive meaning they cannot both be true so one side will have to budge.

[@goyonman9655]

But the catholics have budged on many issues By you standard that means it's not God's church

[@Ben_G_Biegler]

@@goyonman9655 my definition of a Church would be where the gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered. Roman Catholics error in their preaching of the gospel, however many protestants error in their administration of the Sacraments. So their are degrees to which both sides can error and become less of a true church withought ceasing to be a true church altogether.

[@masterchief8179]

@@goyonman9655 You mean on prudential judgments, ecclesiastical governance or non-definitive teachings concerning collateral aspects. Not on doctrines and dogmas definitively proclaimed. And the Council of Trent was “per excellence” a doctrinal Ecumenical Council concerning many of the theological propositions of the Protestant Fathers.

[@jeremysmyth9955]

So cool, dudes.

[@Yallquietendown]

What’s the point of trying to agree. Just keep it how it is and the people can switch between one or the other if they want. Why do we all need to agree???

[@traceyedson9652]

Well, Jesus prayed “that they all may be one,” so our will should align with His. Also, schism is sin & of the Evil One. It might be good to repent of it!

[@toddvoss52]

One thing that I think is unfortunate is that the Catholic Church has not made clear perhaps even to protestant participants that the JDDJ was not magisterial. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t significant but it wasn’t even adopted into the ordinary magisterium of JP2. Thus although Catholics should respect it due to the positions of the Catholic officials involved , they are not obligated to give it the religious submission of intellect and will. They can criticize it and disagree . This was noted by Cardinal Dulles in 2004. He also thought that although it was a blessing and progress was made and certain misunderstandings were clarified, more work needed to be done . And that it’s optimistic conclusion was not warranted . I myself think it was a good thing but agree with Dulles there is no such agreement such that it is no longer Church dividing.

[@traceyedson9652]

This is similar to the conclusions of the Eastern - Oriental Orthodox dialogue. It was submitted to the Churches for official acceptance & ratification. Of course, the immediate goal there is to heal the schism & restore communion. As was brought out on this discussion, it’s the ground-level issues that seem to be impenetrable. Folks, schisms are damn hard to heal.

[@masterchief8179]

@@traceyedson9652 I’d argue that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox dialogue is not in a better state than Catholic-Oriental Orthodox dialogue currently. I guess people online, specially recent converts to EO, aren’t quite familiar with doctrinal and historical struggles Eastern Orthodoxy has to overcome when approaching Pre-Chalcedonians (and vice-versa), therefore many of the complexities can be missed here. Oriental Orthodox churches have in general a perceptible bitterness towards what they sense as the “Imperial religion” overseen in historical perspective, assimilating it with the growing influence of the See of Constantinople in detriment of Alexandria’s taxis and with Byzantine imperialism over Pre-Chalcedonian areas, specially over Coptic territories in Egypt and all Africa. When every single one of the Imperial attempts of reunification with the Miaphysites failed, many of them aiming political pretexts foremost (not really orthodoxy) - like during the crisis of Monothelitism -, and specially after Islamic Saracen invasions, the development of a distinguishable (Chalcedonian) Greek Patriarchate in Alexandria around the _Byzantine Prefect of Egypt_ could be politically drawn. For example, the infamous Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria, one of the monothelite leading proponents, was the last “Byzantine Prefect of Egypt” and the very Chalcedonian Patriarch (642 AD) in Alexandria, and he is widely known as one of the cruelest persecutors of Copts in that territory just as he is deemed as a fervent ally of Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, the monothelite heresyarch. So in that scenarium of rivalry between the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Coptic Patriarchate, it is barely a sidenote that the contemporary Pope St Martin I (of Rome) is seen both as a champion for orthodoxy (in Chalcedonian formula nevertheless) and someone who suffered himself from Byzantine Imperial persecution precisely for exercising Roman primacy in Catholic terms, which he proclaimed in the Council of Latheran (649) and was reaffirmed by Pope St Agatho in the 6th EC of Constantinople (680-681) at the very Ecumenical Council’s documents. The current EO schism between Moscow and Constantinople was extended in 2019 to Alexandria and it surely rings a bell to Coptic ears and sensibilities; the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria accuses his congener from Moscow of Russian imperialism and to steal priests from Alexandrian authority with no canonical basis, spreading Russian Orthodoxy throughout Africa in a sort of imperial enterprise and an unnatural growth of their Exarchate (a concept that was produced by the Byzantine Empire’s expansion into the Italian West by Justinian the Great and adapted to fit Eastern Orthodoxy, actually) out of its canonical boundaries. It is more or less self-evidentiary for Oriental Orthodoxy that the role of the Roman See can manifest universally as jurisdictional problems demand it on the East even if it tends to be a more “de facto” projection to get theologically formulated, just like when St Cyril of Alexandria was constituted by Pope St Celestine a Roman legate in the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) and he has used every inch of Roman authority against Nestorius, his rival and Patriarch of Constantinople. Also Oriental Orthodoxy would arguably more easily accept Roman universal Petrine leadership since it plays a guardianship role against political imperialism in the ecclesiastical order, a thing that can be said to be co-existential - or at least naturalized - in Eastern Orthodoxy due to the way the Greek Patriarchates in schism with the Catholic Church developed ecclesiological theories in relation to the centrality of the Byzantine/Roman Empire in political-ecclesiastical terms, according to which the theories of “Second Rome” or “Third Rome”, as far as the Roman Empire goes, lodge modifications in ecclesiastical canonical arrangements and even in the “de iure” taxis of the Church, which is foreign to Catholicism and surely contemptible for Oriental Orthodoxy (and the ancient Alexandrian “ethos”). Seeing it further, the Coptic and the Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox (Pre-Chalcedonian) churches have once accepted the Filioquist _doctrinal_ explanations as given in Florence, like what the Papal Bull “Cantate Domino” by Pope Eugene IV explains of it, although reunion was not feasible. Even though more recent Oriental Orthodox documents of the 20th century condemned the Filioque clause, those condemnations more or less refer to the prudential addition to the creed and they address some theological concerns in regard to arguable threats to the monarchy of the Father, a thing that the Catholic Church has sufficiently dealt with (on its magisterial documents, I’d say) and OO does not necessarily face the same dogmatic difficulty as the one produced by the “anti-Filioquist” Council of Blachernae (1285), whose purpose was to posthumously anathematize the notably brilliant Patriarch of Constantinople John IX Bekkos, deemed as “unionist” and therefore to reject the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyon (1272-1274). Since many theologians and also clergymen on the more radical side of EO defend the resolution of Blachernae (1285) as a dogmatic non-ecumenical (?) council, OO - on its part - doesn’t necessarily have the same barriers when dialoguing with the Catholic Church at the level of dogmatics, at least concerning this topic. For sure many things need to be deeply accommodated for a specific way the Roman primatial role above the primatial roles of the ancient Patriarchates by the very words of Christ to Peter (as seen and defined by theCatholic Church) to function - a theological conceptual kind of primacy named ‘supremacy’, from the Latin “supremum”, which has zero relation to dictatorship or autocracy -, and for sure it should be expressed in Eastern terms efficaciously. But until then we must notice that in 2017 Pope Francis and Pope Tawadros II, Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, signed the joint declaration named *“Baptism Recognition Agreement”* (Cairo, 2017) after a papal visit to Egypt. Recognizing a shared baptism and the absolute unity of baptism implies a belief that both churches are part of one body in a mystical sense, albeit differences still hurt the unity of the faith. That is HUGE and even more important when seen in perspective, considering Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and Archbishops up to this point haven’t come to define among themselves the application of theories on rebaptism and its consequences, a thing that - from Catholic eyes - not only refers to anarchism at canon law but can lead to doctrinal crucial errors in sacramentology. So in a sense I would say Catholic dialogues with Oriental Orthodoxy have been easier than our dialogues with Eastern Orthodoxy, just like Catholic dialogues with the Assyrian Church of the East have been surprisingly more fruitful. We are very far from unity but closer than to the closest of our brothers - our Chalcedonian brothers, Eastern Orthodox Christians.

[@blade7506]

they do, and always have, they just disagree on how to get there

[@paulsmallwood1484]

The Council of Trent condemns the Protestant understanding of justification. In fact it states that anyone who holds to such a view, is separated from God and is accursed. Until we see these pronouncements of the Council of Trent formally and officially revoked. Then this joint statement is meaningless. This agreement is not binding on anyone. The Council of Trent trumps anything individual Roman Catholics may have agreed to in this declaration. I am surprised the Council of Trent was never mentioned here (or in the joint declaration).

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

What is decided at these magisterial conferences doesn't get overturned, as far a I know. I'm thinking this joint effort is sort of a workaround from that.

[@aisthpaoitht]

False. Trent condemned one VERSION of "faith alone," which is intellectual faith alone. Catholics BELIEVE in "faith alone." Read the JDDJ!

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@aisthpaoitht False there is no such version of faith alone. Read Trent.

[@aisthpaoitht]

​@@paulsmallwood1484Yes, I'm sure you know more than the people who actually write this stuff 🙄

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@aisthpaoitht Apparently you do too!

[@JohnVianneyPatron]

Hey Austin, I hope you saw that a man most steeped in protestant theology crossed the Tiber..... 😉

[@sewmanyquilts8042]

Didn’t you just get married?? Congrats live yo see a photo.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I did! June 3rd

[@sewmanyquilts8042]

@@GospelSimplicity congratulations and blessings

[@marionopisso212]

I see that division is alive and well. Evil must be very pleased.

[@OrthobroLocal1]

Wonder if you would say that to Jesus when He said He did not come to bring peace but a sword to divide. Meaning false unity is not true peace. Truth divides.

[@augustuslc]

@@OrthobroLocal1 That’s a weird interpretation of the text. The division he was referring was between the ones that follow him and the ones that oppose him, and we can see that in our daily lives. When Jesus talks about the Christian community (the church) he always talks about unity. Same with St. Paul, when divisions started to arise, he always had the goal of unity.

[@marionopisso212]

@@augustuslc Exactly!

[@christianlacroix5430]

@@augustuslc There'a no such thing as "christian community" and if you think that's the Church, you're not in the Church. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

[@OrthobroLocal1]

So do you think Jesus was displeased with Paul when he called out heretics and caused “division”?

[@jimlittle7111]

No as Roman Catholics we do not agree on justification with the Protestants. Justification was one of many reasons why i converted to Catholicism.

[@GospelSimplicity]

So what's your take on the JDDJ?

[@jimlittle7111]

@@GospelSimplicity You are justified by Grace before Faith. Without Grace with is pointless without works faith is pointless.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@jimlittle7111 How does grace precede faith? Is it because the RCC believes in infant baptism, so through no choice of their own, a person is consecrated to God and grace is given, and then faith follows when they get old enough?

[@jimlittle7111]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Grace is the gift that is freely given. Faith is our response to Grace. You have no grace if you reject it. Therefore you cannot have faith at all without Grace.

[@aisthpaoitht]

@@jimlittle7111 Well then maybe you aren't a Catholic if you don't agree with the JDDJ 😄

[@Yallquietendown]

I miss the good old days when all the churches stuck to their own now we have to try to join together lol

[@j.g.4942]

The good old days when Anglicans jailed Irish Catholics for being Catholic? Or when the German Catholics exiled Lutheran parents while keeping the children? Or when the 'Great awakenings' taught against Church tradition into all the churches in the USA? Now maybe I'm being particular, but I think speaking the truth in love is something we can all aspire toward; yet in every period churches have struggled wither to 'speak' or with 'the truth' or in 'love'.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

We have to join, sooner or later, if we're going to live in Christ eternally. We are called to be ONE.

[@paladinhansen137]

Protestantism FTW. I can now follow Gods calendar in peace without being persecuted by Rome.

[@australopithecusafarensis5386]

No

[@diegobarragan4904]

Of course they do. Roman Catholics and Protestants are two sides of the same coin.

[@crisole]

Roman Catholics believe in synergism and Protestants believe that you are justified by faith alone Roman Catholics believe in on-going justification its not something that just happens after you receive it by faith not to be blunt but this is one of the stupidest comments I have ever seen in my entire life

[@MZONE991]

If you think so then you don't understand either position

[@diegobarragan4904]

@@MZONE991 Roman Catholics are the first Protestants. Roman Catholics and Protestants use the same approach to theology and same categories. The new mass is nothing more than a Lutheran service now.

[@kevinmc62]

Yes we are on the same side. Heads and not the tail.

[@marianweigh6411]

Yep let's not forget we (most of us!) all preach repentance, forgiveness of sin, grace in Christ, the paschal mystery, cross death and resurrection, and the kingdom of heaven. Beyond that lots of important differences but at a minimum we are all proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ - and that ain't nothin!

[@Jordan-1999]

Anyone, no matter where they may find themselves, if they have strayed away from the one true Church, that which the Saviour Himself gave to us, have undoubtedly strayed away from Christ who is our one true God. (🤲🏼All praise be to God 🤲🏼) Unfortunately they have become like unto lost sheep who have strayed away from the one who helps them; the keeper, the shepherd and no longer do they seek truth even if subconsciously, and no longer do they feed themselves with true spiritual food and true spiritual drink. For the Church is the ground and pillar of the truth that which was revealed to us through and by the Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life, and she will not succumb to the evil passions of this world. This is a prime example of the dangerous and evil heresy of Ecumenism.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Ah, so half the Christian world isn't really Christian then, just Catholics? Interesting. Good thing we are told to come through Jesus, not a church. Yes, the church is there to preserve the oracles of God and teach the people, but salvation is through Christ.