Ecumenism: "Why Can't We Be Friends?"

[Fidei Defensor]

2 minutes ago, Sower said:

difference and commonality.......

Having spent thirty years raised in the RCC believing all the false church dogma,
clothed in purple robes of semi-truth enough to 'appear' as biblical,
and knowing all my friends and relatives who still believe the false teachings,
 only causes me to befriend any Catholic( who will listen ) to the truth.
I have a heart for catholics, to share the gospel, to set them free, from their jailers in robes
who are eagerly leading them to the pit of hell. At one time, our small baptist church was sixty percent ex catholic.
The trouble Fidei I believe is their teachings have too much false doctrine, specifically concerning salvation, the bedrock for commonality.
In the RCC, it is a sin to believe you are saved, the sin of presumption, to presume upon God your good enough to rate heaven.
There isn't much room to have any reasonable discussion with doctrine, as you can just go to the "catholic" forum here
on Worthy and try to discuss. Just an entrenched brick wall, only/always defending all RCC doctrine, believing it equal or superseding scripture.
I can easily talk face to face with a catholic and discuss with them my life as a catholic, then leaving and getting saved, and now as a believer.
On this forum, I have never been able to put a dent into their beliefs, as they are here to defend their  holy mother church, only.
I love all catholics or any poor lost soul needing/seeking the light of truth. I have not seen a catholic here seeking answers.
I will talk to them any time, scripture, but not a man's church dogma. My experience here is it is futile.
Forums have an audience. Crowds inhibit a clear 'change of thinking', under the spotlight. 
My only reason to discuss with other denominations would be to share the light of scripture, that I have been blessed to receive.
Do you have any other purpose to have the discussion group? I respect your scriptural knowledge.

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump....
 

 

I actually had an experiance on these forums where I had dialogues with @Judas Maccabeus. He was a Catholic and as I shared Scripture and pointed out things in RCC Catechism, he said “I have a hard time refuting what you say,  the Scriptures you share and your knowledge of our (RCC) doctrines makes it hard for me to offer rebuttal.” (Paraphrase). He also said I was the only Protestant that was kind to him, and who reasoned with Scripture in a way that made him think about his beliefs without feeling shouted down or attacked. He was shocked when I revealed the RCC really is a schism out of Eastern Orthodoxy (1054 A.D. The Great Schism), like Protestantism is out of Roman Catholicism. Albeit the reforms of Protestantism out of RCC were far more reaching (Sola Scriptura and etc) compared to the RCC’s Filoque and other changes out of Eastern Orthodoxy. 

Your experiances first hand with RCC and coming out of Rome into Biblical Christianity is exactly the sort I would love to have in this thread. I have so many questions to ask you, since you were an insider. 

My aim with this thread is dialouges, Q&A, sharing experiences in different denoms, and etc. 

[David1701]

14 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Its ok, I said it could be Rome or Jerusalem. Both fit in regards to a city on seven hills. 

Back to ecumenism, another barrier is that many Protestant Churches are changing their views on issues like divorce, homosexuality, interfaith (worshipping with other religions like Universalism, Chrislam and etc), and other social issues. This has caused three schisms of The Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church, and Methodist Church. Each breaking into two halves, comservative and liberal, traditional values and modern morals. It would really be difficult to unite these churches with Fundmentalists, Sola Scripturists, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, and more. 

What do you think? 

A "church" that promotes sin and/or rejects essential Christian doctrine, is not a real church at all.  It is real Christians who should be united in the truth and in fellowship.

I remember, many years ago, in Edinburgh, I was unsure which church to attend, so I tried several and was becoming frustrated.  I prayed about it (this should have come first) and was drawn to a Scripture that said, "Do not say, "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these.".".  This is from memory, so it might not be verbatim.  I realised that the Lord was saying to me that not everything that calls itself a "church", is an authorised assembly in His sight.

On occasions, we can forget that the Christian life is a life of fellowship with the Lord, not just trying to follow biblical principles.  I knew that I should meet together with other Christians but had omitted to ask God to lead me to where He wanted me to be.

I posted the above, to lead to this: we should seek fellowship, as the Lord leads, with godly brothers and sisters in the Lord; but we should not seek to become united with what God rejects (Romanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Liberalism, "Churches" that promote sin, teach heresy (e.g. salvation by works, or name-it-and-claim-it) or deny essentials of the faith).

[Mike Mclees]

12 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

I actually had an experiance on these forums where I had dialogues with @Judas Maccabeus. He was a Catholic and as I shared Scripture and pointed out things in RCC Catechism, he said “I have a hard time refuting what you say,  the Scriptures you share and your knowledge of our (RCC) doctrines makes it hard for me to offer rebuttal.” (Paraphrase). He also said I was the only Protestant that was kind to him, and who reasoned with Scripture in a way that made him think about his beliefs without feeling shouted down or attacked. He was shocked when I revealed the RCC really is a schism out of Eastern Orthodoxy (1054 A.D. The Great Schism), like Protestantism is out of Roman Catholicism. Albeit the reforms of Protestantism out of RCC were far more reaching (Sola Scriptura and etc) compared to the RCC’s Filoque and other changes out of Eastern Orthodoxy. 

Your experiances first hand with RCC and coming out of Rome into Biblical Christianity is exactly the sort I would love to have in this thread. I have so many questions to ask you, since you were an insider. 

My aim with this thread is dialouges, Q&A, sharing experiences in different denoms, and etc. 

I myself would like to follow this thread, but do you really know what the heart of ecumenism is? To understand it you half to have some knowledge of how the Catholic church believes it is historically. All the corruptions of the dark ages in its hierarchy. They still hold to many false ideals today. 

The present papacy is off the map with biblical doctrine and worldly ambitions The rabbit whole goes deep. Jesus said be as lambs but wise as serpents. 

 

 

[Fidei Defensor]

2 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

I myself would like to follow this thread, but do you really know what the heart of ecumenism is? To understand it you half to have some knowledge of how the Catholic church believes it is historically. All the corruptions of the dark ages in its hierarchy. They still hold to many false ideals today. 

The present papacy is off the map with biblical doctrine and worldly ambitions The rabbit whole goes deep. Jesus said be as lambs but wise as serpents. 

 

 

Actually Ecumenicalism is first used in The Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) from which we recieve The Nicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as we know it tell 1054 A.D. Because it had not broke off from The Eastern Orthodox Church to become the Seat of Papal Infallibility and Supremecy; certainly the Romanite ideas were fermenting before 1054 A.D., but just like Protestantism, it cannot be considered a true seperate entity until it breaks away from the other, i.e. Protestantism was already there before 1517 A.D. via Lollards, Waldensians, Moravians and etc, but it didn’t become recognized as true seperate church until Luther. 

Ecumenism or Ecumenicalism was used by the Church before the Pope even had asserted himself as greater than “The First Among Equals [bishops].” Ecumenicalism was originally councils that gathered to decide what Christian truths are such as The Doctrine of the Trinity, The Nature or Natures of Christ, Statement of Faith or Creed, and etc. They gathered bishops from as many diverse churches to unite and define Christian life. That is the old ecumenism. 

Ecumenicalism as I shared in the OP post, has many forms. This is a place that welcomes discussion of all types of ecumenism, but as I have said, the kind of ecumenism I am promoting chiefly is “relationships and dialogues between denominations.”  

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Fidei Defensor

[Fidei Defensor]

34 minutes ago, Betha said:

We just need to know what it is ...and AVOID it ! making friends with a Lie is not the answer to our problems !

So God should not have made friends with us then, because we were liars and sinners, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (Romans 5:8-10). 

Imagine if God had decided not befriend the Disciples (John 15:15), who were sinners and had Jewish dogmas that Christ had to correct by showing them what was meant by the command of God, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40). Christ could have left the disciples in the false doctrines in which they were raised, but instead He made them his companions, students, and friends. 

Had Jesus adopted such an attitude as reject those in lies, we’d all be still without hope and bound by the lie that we can be perfect enough to go to heaven. Jesus reformed his apostles through dialouges, “who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:13-20). 

Are we not responsible to have the same attitude as Christ? 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Fidei Defensor

[Mike Mclees]

3 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Actually Ecumenicalism is first used in The Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) from which we recieve The Nicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as we know it tell 1054 A.D. Because it had not broke off from The Eastern Orthodox Church to become the Seat of Papal Infallibility and Supremecy; certainly the Romanite ideas were fermenting before 1054 A.D., but just like Protestantism, it cannot be considered a true seperate entity until it breaks away from the other, i.e. Protestantism was already there before 1517 A.D. via Lollards, Waldensians, Moravians and etc, but it didn’t become recognized as true seperate church until Luther. 

Ecumenism or Ecumenicalism was used by the Church before the Pope even had asserted himself as greater than “The First Among Equals [bishops].” Ecumenicalism was originally councils that gathered to decide what Christian truths are such as The Doctrine of the Trinity, The Nature or Natures of Christ, Statement of Faith or Creed, and etc. They gathered bishops from as many diverse churches to unite and define Christian life. That is the old ecumenism. 

Ecumenicalism as I shared in the OP post, has many forms. This is a place that welcomes discussion of all types of ecumenism, but as I have said, the kind of ecumenism I am promoting chiefly is “relationships and dialogues between denominations.”  

 

		ecumenism - (Christianity) the doctrine of the ecumenical movement that promotes cooperation and better understanding among different religious denominations: aimed at universal Christian unity 3 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said: Actually Ecumenicalism is first used in The Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) from which we recieve The Nicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as we know it tell 1054 A.D. Because it had not broke off from The Eastern Orthodox Church to become the Seat of Papal Infallibility and Supremecy; certainly the Romanite ideas were fermenting before 1054 A.D., but just like Protestantism, it cannot be considered a true seperate entity until it breaks away from the other, i.e. Protestantism was already there before 1517 A.D. via Lollards, Waldensians, Moravians and etc, but it didn’t become recognized as true seperate church until Luther.  Ecumenism or Ecumenicalism was used by the Church before the Pope even had asserted himself as greater than “The First Among Equals [bishops].” Ecumenicalism was originally councils that gathered to decide what Christian truths are such as The Doctrine of the Trinity, The Nature or Natures of Christ, Statement of Faith or Creed, and etc. They gathered bishops from as many diverse churches to unite and define Christian life. That is the old ecumenism.  Ecumenicalism as I shared in the OP post, has many forms. This is a place that welcomes discussion of all types of ecumenism, but as I have said, the kind of ecumenism I am promoting chiefly is “relationships and dialogues between denominations.”

your  Definition  . sounds like dialog between different denominations  Does this include Catholicism   as well. Also for what purpose?. Ecumenism for me is mostly about unity or reuniting as one church heading. As in the ecumenical movement.in go

have I got that right?

1.	ecumenism - a movement promoting union between religions (especially between Christian churches) ecumenism social movement, movement, front - a group of people with a common ideology who try to come together to achieve certain  goals.
	1. ecumenism - a movement promoting union between religions (especially between Christian churches) oecumenism social movement, movement, front - a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals; "he was a charter member of the movement"; "politicians have to respect a mass movement"; "he led the national liberation front"   2.	umenism - (Christianity) the doctrine of the ecumenical movement that promotes cooperation and better understanding among different religious denominations: aimed at universal Christian unity

Edited July 8, 2020 by Mike Mclees

[Fidei Defensor]

11 minutes ago, Mike Mclees said:

1.	ecumenism - a movement promoting union between religions (especially between Christian churches) oecumenism social movement, movement, front - a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals; "he was a charter member of the movement"; "politicians have to respect a mass movement"; "he led the national liberation front"
	2.	ecumenism - (Christianity) the doctrine of the ecumenical movement that promotes cooperation and better understanding among different religious denominations: aimed at universal Christian unity

your  Definition  . sounds like dialog between different denominations  Does this include Catholicism   as well. Also for what purpose?. Ecumenism for me is mostly about unity or reuniting as one church heading. As in the ecumenical movement.in go

have I got that right?

1.	ecumenism - a movement promoting union between religions (especially between Christian churches) ecumenism social movement, movement, front - a group of people with a common ideology who try to come together to achieve certain  goals.
		umenism - (Christianity) the doctrine of the ecumenical movement that promotes cooperation and better understanding among different religious denominations: aimed at universal Christian unity

“Types of Ecumenisms: 

In the present day, a number of different understandings of ecumenical unity in Christianity exist, including different expectations of what the resulting Christian unity would look like, how it would be brought about, and what ecumenical methods could be employed to create this unity.

1. The terms ecumenism and ecumenical come from the Greekοἰκουμένη (oikoumene), which means "the whole inhabited world", and was historically used with specific reference to the Roman Empire. The ecumenical vision comprises both the search for the visible unity of the Church (Ephesians 4:3) and the "whole inhabited earth" (Matthew 24:14) as the concern of all Christians

2. In Christianity, the qualification ecumenical was originally and still is used in terms such as "Ecumenical council" and "Ecumenical Patriarch", in the meaning of pertaining to the totality of the larger Church (such as the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church) rather than being restricted to one of its constituent local churches or dioceses. Used in this sense, the term carries no connotation of re-uniting the historically separated Christian denominations but presumes a unity of local congregations in a worldwide communion.

3. Historically, the term "ecumenism" was originally used in the context of the larger ecumenical councils organised with the support of the Roman Emperor. The aim of these councils was to clarify matters of Christian theology and doctrine, leading to the meaning of unity behind the term "ecumenical". The Ecumenical councils brought together bishops from across the Roman Empire, with a total of seven ecumenical councils accepted to have been held by both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches before the Great Schismdividing the two churches.

For some Protestants, spiritual unity, and often unity on the church's teachings on central issues, suffices. According to Lutheran theologian Edmund Schlink, most important in Christian ecumenism is that people focus primarily on Christ, not on separate church organizations. In Schlink's book Ökumenische Dogmatik (1983), he says Christians who see the risen Christ at work in the lives of various Christians or in diverse churches realize that the unity of Christ's church has never been lost,^[20] but has instead been distorted and obscured by different historical experiences and by spiritual myopia.

Both are overcome in renewed faith in Christ. Included in that is responding to his admonition (John 17; Philippians 2) to be one in him and love one another as a witness to the world. The result of mutual recognition would be a discernible worldwide fellowship, organized in a historically new way.^[21]

For a significant part of the Christian world, one of the highest goals to be sought is the reconciliation of the various denominations by overcoming the historical divisions within Christianity. Even where there is broad agreement upon this goal, approaches to ecumenism vary. Generally, Protestants see fulfillment of the goal of ecumenism as consisting in general agreements on teachings about central issues of faith, with mutual pastoral accountability between the diverse churches regarding the teachings of salvation.

For Catholics and Orthodox on the other hand, the true unity of Christendom is treated in accordance with their more sacramental understanding of the Body of Christ; this ecclesiastical matter for them is closely linked to key theological issues (e.g. regarding the Eucharistand the historical Episcopate), and requires full dogmatic assent to the pastoral authority of the Church for full communion to be considered viable and valid. Thus, there are different answers even to the question of the church, which finally is the goal of the ecumenist movement itself. However, the desire of unity is expressed by many denominations, generally that all who profess faith in Christ in sincerity, would be more fully cooperative and supportive of one another.

For the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the process of approaching one another can be described as formally split in two successive stages: the "dialogue of love" and the "dialogue of truth".^[22] Examples of acts belonging to the former include the mutual revocation in 1965 of the anathemas of 1054 (see below Contemporary developments), returning the relics of Sabbas the Sanctified (a common saint) to Mar Saba in the same year, and the first visit of a Pope to an Orthodox country in a millennium (Pope John Paul IIaccepting the invitation of the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Teoctist, in 1999), among others. The later one, involving effective theological engagement on matters of dogma, is only just commencing.

Christian ecumenism can be described in terms of the three largest divisions of Christianity: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. While this underemphasizes the complexity of these divisions, it is a useful model.” (Ecumenism, Wikipedia). 

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Fidei Defensor

[Mike Mclees]

4 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

“Types of Ecumenisms: 

In the present day, a number of different understandings of ecumenical unity in Christianity exist, including different expectations of what the resulting Christian unity would look like, how it would be brought about, and what ecumenical methods could be employed to create this unity.

1. The terms ecumenism and ecumenical come from the Greekοἰκουμένη (oikoumene), which means "the whole inhabited world", and was historically used with specific reference to the Roman Empire. The ecumenical vision comprises both the search for the visible unity of the Church (Ephesians 4:3) and the "whole inhabited earth" (Matthew 24:14) as the concern of all Christians

2. In Christianity, the qualification ecumenical was originally and still is used in terms such as "Ecumenical council" and "Ecumenical Patriarch", in the meaning of pertaining to the totality of the larger Church (such as the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church) rather than being restricted to one of its constituent local churches or dioceses. Used in this sense, the term carries no connotation of re-uniting the historically separated Christian denominations but presumes a unity of local congregations in a worldwide communion.

3. Historically, the term "ecumenism" was originally used in the context of the larger ecumenical councils organised with the support of the Roman Emperor. The aim of these councils was to clarify matters of Christian theology and doctrine, leading to the meaning of unity behind the term "ecumenical". The Ecumenical councils brought together bishops from across the Roman Empire, with a total of seven ecumenical councils accepted to have been held by both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches before the Great Schismdividing the two churches.

For some Protestants, spiritual unity, and often unity on the church's teachings on central issues, suffices. According to Lutheran theologian Edmund Schlink, most important in Christian ecumenism is that people focus primarily on Christ, not on separate church organizations. In Schlink's book Ökumenische Dogmatik (1983), he says Christians who see the risen Christ at work in the lives of various Christians or in diverse churches realize that the unity of Christ's church has never been lost,^[20] but has instead been distorted and obscured by different historical experiences and by spiritual myopia.

Both are overcome in renewed faith in Christ. Included in that is responding to his admonition (John 17; Philippians 2) to be one in him and love one another as a witness to the world. The result of mutual recognition would be a discernible worldwide fellowship, organized in a historically new way.^[21]

For a significant part of the Christian world, one of the highest goals to be sought is the reconciliation of the various denominations by overcoming the historical divisions within Christianity. Even where there is broad agreement upon this goal, approaches to ecumenism vary. Generally, Protestants see fulfillment of the goal of ecumenism as consisting in general agreements on teachings about central issues of faith, with mutual pastoral accountability between the diverse churches regarding the teachings of salvation.

For Catholics and Orthodox on the other hand, the true unity of Christendom is treated in accordance with their more sacramental understanding of the Body of Christ; this ecclesiastical matter for them is closely linked to key theological issues (e.g. regarding the Eucharistand the historical Episcopate), and requires full dogmatic assent to the pastoral authority of the Church for full communion to be considered viable and valid. Thus, there are different answers even to the question of the church, which finally is the goal of the ecumenist movement itself. However, the desire of unity is expressed by many denominations, generally that all who profess faith in Christ in sincerity, would be more fully cooperative and supportive of one another.

For the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the process of approaching one another can be described as formally split in two successive stages: the "dialogue of love" and the "dialogue of truth".^[22] Examples of acts belonging to the former include the mutual revocation in 1965 of the anathemas of 1054 (see below Contemporary developments), returning the relics of Sabbas the Sanctified (a common saint) to Mar Saba in the same year, and the first visit of a Pope to an Orthodox country in a millennium (Pope John Paul IIaccepting the invitation of the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Teoctist, in 1999), among others. The later one, involving effective theological engagement on matters of dogma, is only just commencing.

Christian ecumenism can be described in terms of the three largest divisions of Christianity: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. While this underemphasizes the complexity of these divisions, it is a useful model.” (Ecumenism, Wikipedia). 

 

I look at ecumenism in respect to the present. It is a movement for the purpose of having dialog to reunify  Protestant denominations with the Catholic church or papal headship.  You want something on a social  basis. Perhaps you want world unity of Christianity. This would be a huge mistake. Neither do i see any possibility.

You see the church is not denominations but a people who have come to Christ. Denominations have built walls between them. Like Lutheran Methodist Baptist are names which have become walls that divide the church. Secondly there cannot be any union with the Catholic order. This is what they want. We cannot be ecumenical with them. My Son in-law is Catholic but we cannot chat about our differences. 

I have also been in other protestant Catholic chats for several years. I am not in that anymore.   

[Fidei Defensor]

18 minutes ago, Mike Mclees said:

I look at ecumenism in respect to the present. It is a movement for the purpose of having dialog to reunify  Protestant denominations with the Catholic church or papal headship.  You want something on a social  basis. Perhaps you want world unity of Christianity. This would be a huge mistake. Neither do i see any possibility.

You see the church is not denominations but a people who have come to Christ. Denominations have built walls between them. Like Lutheran Methodist Baptist are names which have become walls that divide the church. Secondly there cannot be any union with the Catholic order. This is what they want. We cannot be ecumenical with them. My Son in-law is Catholic but we cannot chat about our differences. 

I have also been in other protestant Catholic chats for several years. I am not in that anymore.   

I am sorry you feel that way. We all are indeed The Body of Christ, Communion of Saints, and Church (Kyrios Ecclesia: Called out of the World and Called to God). But denominations are a reality, and I chose to build bridges between us, which is dialouges and relationships. I have Catholic friends who believe radically differently from me, but I love them and would like them to have the security I have of salvation (Romans 10;9-10, John 6:40, John 3:16, Acts 4:10-12, Acts 15:1-11), and yet I would like to have their sense of community and charity; Protestant Churches tend to be teaching based rather than works, that is works of charity (love in action), while Catholics tend to be more charity based, look at all the hospitals they built before secular ones existed, in fact hospital comes from hospitaller, an order of Monastic Knights Hospitaller during the Crusades whose mission was “to take care of the infirmed as if each of them was Jesus Christ.”  (Thomas Asbridge, Jonathan-Riley Smith, William Tyerman, Regina Parnoud). 

We Sola Scriptura, Biblical Christians wouldn’t be here if Catholics hadn’t miraculously defeated the Ottoman Turks at Lepanto (Oct 7th, 1571), Rhodes and Malta (May 18th-Sept 11th, 1565), and The Ottoman-Habsburg Wars (1526-1791). We’d in the West would be speaking Arabic, and forced to a) be Muslim or b) pay dhimmi tax and be second class citzens (if the radicals disn’t force option a). 

So I believe we owe Catholics a debt of gratitude for keeping the West untouched by Radical Islam (Jihad Akbar) and so that right we can have these discussions and this forum exists. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Fidei Defensor

[Mike Mclees]

12 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

I am sorry you feel that way. We all are indeed The Body of Christ, Communion of Saints, and Church (Kyrios Ecclesia: Called out of the World and Called to God). But denominations are a reality, and I chose to build bridges between us, which is dialouges and relationships. I have Catholic friends who believe radically differently from me, but I love them and would like them to have the security I have of salvation (Romans 10;9-10, John 6:40, John 3:16, Acts 4:10-12, Acts 15:1-11), and yet I would like to have their sense of community and charity; Protestant Churches tend to be teaching based rather than works, that is works of charity (love in action), while Catholics tend to be more charity based, look at all the hospitals they built before secular ones existed, in fact hospital comes from hospitaller, an order of Monastic Knights Hospitaller during the Crusades whose mission was “to take care of the infirmed as if each of them was Jesus Christ.”  (Thomas Asbridge, Jonathan-Riley Smith, William Tyerman, Regina Parnoud). 

We Sola Scriptura, Biblical Christians wouldn’t be here if Catholics hadn’t miraculously defeated the Ottoman Turks at Lepanto (Oct 7th, 1571), Rhodes and Malta (May 18th-Sept 11th, 1565), and The Ottoman-Habsburg Wars (1526-1791). We’d in the West would be speaking Arabic, and forced to a) be Muslim or b) pay dhimmi tax and be second class citzens (if the radicals disn’t force option a). 

So I believe we owe Catholics a debt of gratitude for keeping the West untouched by Radical Islam (Jihad Akbar) and so that right we can have these discussions and this forum exists. 

I have nothing against Catholics just like I have nothing against those of other denominations. You say you want to build bridges between the denominations, but For what purpose. what are you wanting to achieve or create by doing so. 

 about holding off Radical Islam sound like the blind that held of the blind. Do You  think the the church of Rome is the true church. Do You know that the Roman church is corrupt and of the world today the same as it was since Constantine.