...."imperfect communion with the Catholic church"?......"attain the fulness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist?" It certainly doesn't sound like full acceptance to me. It sounds conditional upon recognizing the Catholic church as the "one true church." It still seems to mask the real issue of whether or not non-Catholics who reject the church will be saved.
Many of the Protestant churches come from the tradition of the great Reformers who condemned the Catholic church as the "antichrist" and the "whore of Babylon." While they have tempered the tone of their message in modern times, they still hold to the general theme that the Catholic church is not the one true church and that the Protestant reformation restored primitive Christianity. Orthodox churches have never recognized the primacy of the Pope. As long as the Pope claims this, I don't see them in union with the church. As long as these views hold, do you think they will still be saved? Is salvation contigent upon recognizing the Catholic church as the "one true church"?
What is the source of your information. And doesn't this view alter the viewpoint that was held by the Catholic church for centuries?
My source information is the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, quite available on the web...would you like the link? Just go to the United States Council of Catholic Bishops website...it's available there.
Does it contradict centuries of church doctrine? No...it does contradict what a lot of well meaning...and not so well meaning...clergy have taught and do teach.
You're worried about how the Catholic Church accepts other christians? Seems to me that after viewing the JW stance the Catholic view would seem enlightened.
The Eucharist...when shared...represents community...unity...agreement...to allow those not fully of the Catholic Communion to partake would be a lie...as that unity doesn't fully exist. For one...most protestant groups do not accept the Catholic belief about the Eucharist as being Jesus real flesh and blood soul and divinity...that doesn't make them any less Christian...it just means they miss out on some of the benefits.
I won't go around the mulberry bush with a Witness on the trinity doctrine. Like the blind wise men examining an elephant, we each can only perceive a part of the whole. But if you are interested, there are about a quadrillion links on the web, helping Christians explain the trinity to JW's. Here are some I found.
Wasn't the King of Israel also called the "son of God"? Certainly he was not the same nature as God.
Also: Jesus and the NT writers often refferred to God as humanity's "Father." How are you so absolutely, positively, 100% sure that the term "Son of God" is refferring to the metaphysical makeup of Jesus? You must at least see that there is some serious human interpretation going on here (the same would be said of the JWs).
My main reason for posting the Athanasian creed here is to give an authoritative explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't think that a person has to be able to quote the Athanasian creed for salvation, however one does need to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. One component of the gospel is the deity (having the nature of God and thus being God) of Jesus Christ.
Hooberus, as you allow for disagreement on the Holy Spirit (as described by the Athanasian Creed) and you disagree with the statement "whoever would be saved, let him thus think concerning the Trinity", just how much of the Athanasian Creed is authoritative? Is there any definition of the trinity which it is necessary to believe in order to be saved?
A lot depends on where and how certain phrases are used in the bible. John 1:1 is still the best "proof text" for the divinity of Jesus, but there are other.
