Friend; What'[s your Roadblock?

[PJM]

Dear freinds in Christ;

Share with us please “what your personal reoadblock is.”

What’s preventing you from considering Catholism?

 

[socraticmethod]

For me, the biggest problem is that I don’t see any reason for converting to Catholicism that couldn’t also be presented for countless other faiths/belief systems. I’ve read a lot of the arguments but none of them seem to really be convincing to me.

 

[JonNC]

Dear freinds in Christ;

Share with us please “what your personal reoadblock is.”

What’s preventing you from considering Catholism?

You already know mine, Pat.
The Catholic claim regarding the supremacy of the jurisdiction of the pope.

Jon

 

[Luvtosew]

You already know mine, Pat.
The Catholic claim regarding the supremacy of the jurisdiction of the pope.

Jon

Really that is it, what can the Pope even do now that might not agree with you? Hes mainly a spokesperson now days. I guess there is the 5th Marian dogma that might happen (really doubt it tho) but I can’t imagine what other doctrines or dogmas that could happen.

 

[JonNC]

Really that is it, what can the Pope even do now that might not agree with you? Hes mainly a spokesperson now days. I guess there is the 5th Marian dogma that might happen (really doubt it tho) but I can’t imagine what other doctrines or dogmas that could happen.

It is the Catholic teaching that the pope has universal jurisdiction, which seems to contradict the early Council of Nicea. I will let Catholics here dialogue with you on the claim that he is “mainly a spokesman now days”.

And yes, that is really about it, because any other doctrinal difference can be either directly related to this, or directly reconciled through dialogue either between our communion and his, or between his and Holy Orthodoxy, leading to full communion.

Jon

 

[Luvtosew]

It is the Catholic teaching that the pope has universal jurisdiction, which seems to contradict the early Council of Nicea. I will let Catholics here dialogue with you on the claim that he is “mainly a spokesman now days”.

And yes, that is really about it, because any other doctrinal difference can be either directly related to this, or directly reconciled through dialogue either between our communion and his, or between his and Holy Orthodoxy, leading to full communion.

Jon

Oh ok, got it.

 

[Nine_Two]

Really that is it, what can the Pope even do now that might not agree with you? Hes mainly a spokesperson now days. I guess there is the 5th Marian dogma that might happen (really doubt it tho) but I can’t imagine what other doctrines or dogmas that could happen.

How about the ones that did happen.

 

[Luvtosew]

How about the ones that did happen.

I can take or leave them and people have different opinions of them,but now the 5th one
Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and as Advocate.,

that would pretty much change Chrisitanity would it not? Of course there are many RC who believe in the 5th one now.

I don’t believe the RCC will officially pass it, but I do know its being taught.

 

[JonNC]

I can take or leave them and people have different opinions of them,but now the 5th one
Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and as Advocate.,

that would pretty much change Chrisitanity would it not? Of course there are many RC who believe in the 5th one now.

I don’t believe the RCC will officially pass it, but I do know its being taught.

The problem, as I see it, is specifically related to my complaint. That being, a dogmatic declaration without the benefit of a general council of the Church. I suspect that this is at least similar to Nine_Two’s concern.

Jon

EDIT: I should have mentioned that to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not provided the option of “leaving them”. You must “take them”.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is the Catholic teaching that the pope has universal jurisdiction, which seems to contradict the early Council of Nicea. I will let Catholics here dialogue with you on the claim that he is “mainly a spokesman now days”.

And yes, that is really about it, because any other doctrinal difference can be either directly related to this, or directly reconciled through dialogue either between our communion and his, or between his and Holy Orthodoxy, leading to full communion.

Jon

Thanks, Jon, for the candor. Your objection to the Pope is an objection to the core of what a Pope really is. You either object to it or you don’t. In your case, I respect that objection as it is a matter of individual choice that is free to choose to do so.

You are objecting to a Catholic doctrine and not what some Popes had done which seems to be the basis of many Protestants’, perhaps including Luther himself, objection to the papacy.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Jon, for the candor. Your objection to the Pope is an objection to the core of what a Pope really is. You either object to it or you don’t. In your case, I respect that objection as it is a matter of individual choice that is free to choose to do so.

You are objecting to a Catholic doctrine and not what some Popes had done which seems to be the basis of many Protestants’ (not all though) perhaps including Luther himself, objection to the papacy.

Hi Reuben,
Its been a while since we’ve chatted. Hope you are well.

Indeed, and I base it on the early councils, and the fact of the mere existence of the Schism. Were that resolved, so would be my objection.

That said, I do not object to the pope as the Bishop of Rome, the western patriarch. His is a historic position, and one central in the Church Militant.

Jon

 

[Luvtosew]

The problem, as I see it, is specifically related to my complaint. That being, a dogmatic declaration without the benefit of a general council of the Church. I suspect that this is at least similar to Nine_Two’s concern.

Jon

EDIT: I should have mentioned that to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not provided the option of “leaving them”. You must “take them”.

thats exactly why I left, but tell the 70% of RC that take and pick what they choose to believe.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Reuben,
Its been a while since we’ve chatted. Hope you are well.

Indeed, and I base it on the early councils, and the fact of the mere existence of the Schism. Were that resolved, so would be my objection.

That said, I do not object to the pope as the Bishop of Rome, the western patriarch. His is a historic position, and one central in the Church Militant.

Jon

Hi Jon. I am keeping well, thanks. Not so much a regular poster for some while but I do drop in whenever time permits.

The early councils, the Schism, … fair enough. As always your objection or our differences rather is based on educated understanding rather than hearsay, as I said.

You know, thanks for acknowledging the Pope in your last paragraph. I appreciate that honest and respectful attitude to the Pope.

I am not too sure that the position of the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ on earth (as in Matthew 16) that led to the Schism but rather the unilateral position taken by the then Pope on belief matter that was unsupported by the other Orthodox Patriarchs. Though of course there was much more to it that eventually resulted in the Schism.

God bless.

Reuben.

 

[hn160]

I still have a problem with the Roman Catholic view of the Doctrine of Justification, the pope’s claim of primacy, the pope speaking ex cathedra and the over emphases of Saints and the Virgin Mary.
I have no problem of the pope speaking out issues, and I have no problem in honoring Saints, the problem is in the praying to saints for certain things. When it comes to the Virgin Mary, there are Catholics that want her to be made Co-Redemptrix. Everything else about her I could accept.
If there wasn’t a confessional Lutheran church where I lived, I probably would go to *a Catholic church.

 

[benjohnson]

You are objecting to a Catholic doctrine and not what some Popes had done which seems to be the basis of many Protestants’, perhaps including Luther himself, objection to the papacy.

If I may interject - even though Leo X was a scoundrell in Luther’s eyes, it was the office that he objected to and not the particular man.

For myself, it also is the office - Pope Benedict XVI is an amazing person and a benefit to all of Christianity, but alas, I don’t see him having what I wish he did have in Papal Infallibility.

For myself, I view my own church as valid contiunation of the western church, along with the Catholic church, so moving from one church to another would benefit neither myself, my family or either Church.

Plus… We have better hymns

 

[Reuben_J]

If I may interject - even though Leo X was a scoundrell in Luther’s eyes, it was the office that he objected to and not the particular man.

For myself, it also is the office - Pope Benedict XVI is an amazing person and a benefit to all of Christianity, but alas, I don’t see him having what I wish he did have in Papal Infallibility.

For myself, I view my own church as valid contiunation of the western church, along with the Catholic church, so moving from one church to another would benefit neither myself, my family or either Church.

It would be debatable whether Luther was originally anti-papacy. I would think it was on the contrary. It was his objection to the abuse and the corruption of the Popes at his time that started his differences which of course led to his rejection of the office of the Pope and doctrines, politic notwithstanding.

In a time where ecumenical reconciliation is seemed to be the right way to go especially for all Christians, it is especially gratifying to know how close we are on many issues.

Plus… We have better hymns

I wish we have more inspired songwriters. I would tend to agree with you there though I would particularly say I like those Evangelical worship songs (eg Intergrity / Hosanna Music) many of them do find their way even in our mass.

 

[benjohnson]

It would be debatable whether Luther was originally anti-papacy. I would think it was on the contrary.

Certainly this was true in the beginning - but Luther did come to think that the office of the Pope was perilous regardless of who occupied it. From Luther’s letter to Leo X:

"Therefore, Leo, my Father, beware of listening to those sirens who make you out to be not simply a man, but partly a god, so that you can command and require whatever you will. It will not happen so, nor will you prevail. You are the servant of servants, and more than any other man, in a most pitiable and perilous position. Let not those men deceive you who pretend that you are lord of the world; who will not allow any one to be a Christian without your authority; who babble of your having power over heaven, hell, and purgatory. "

Certainly the current Pope, is a “servant of servants” but the Catholic church’s instance that it alone can “allow any one to be a Christian” is precisely where, in my opinion, it still goes too far. We Lutherans would say that is is God who allows us to be Christian.

Now, please realize that my objections are not bitter - I love my Catholic friends, and I appreciate the Catholic Church as it is a light to the world. The godparents of my third child are Catholic, and if any of my children became Catholic, I would be content.

 

[Reuben_J]

Certainly this was true in the beginning - but Luther did come to think that the office of the Pope was perilous regardless of who occupied it. From Luther’s letter to Leo X:

"Therefore, Leo, my Father, beware of listening to those sirens who make you out to be not simply a man, but partly a god, so that you can command and require whatever you will. It will not happen so, nor will you prevail. You are the servant of servants, and more than any other man, in a most pitiable and perilous position. Let not those men deceive you who pretend that you are lord of the world; who will not allow any one to be a Christian without your authority; who babble of your having power over heaven, hell, and purgatory. "

Certainly the current Pope, is a “servant of servants” but the Catholic church’s instance that it alone can “allow any one to be a Christian” is precisely where, in my opinion, it still goes too far. We Lutherans would say that is is God who allows us to be Christian.

Now, please realize that my objections are not bitter - I love my Catholic friends, and I appreciate the Catholic Church as it is a light to the world. The godparents of my third child are Catholic, and if any of my children became Catholic, I would be content.

No problem, brother, and thanks for the kind word. You don’t come to me as bitter but on the contrary and I appreciate that. May the Christ in you continue to arise in each day of your life and that in your own way, you may bring Him to the nation.

 

[Izdaari]

My objection is the same as JonNC’s: I do not accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

 

[PRmerger]

My 2 cents worth:

Find the Church that Jesus established, and then conform your views to that church.

Do not find a church that conforms to your own views. For is that not the essence of creating a god in your own image?

We know, by logic and reason, that God will not be in 100% agreement with all of our own views. We, then, are obligated** to change our views.**

So if you can’t say, "I believe, personally in , but I know that God has declared " then I propose, respectfully, that you have created a god in your own image.

For example: I personally would LOVE it if I could attend the weddings of my friends who have divorced and re-married. HOWEVER, I cannot change what God has declared.

Therefore, I conform my views to Christ’s.

I don’t say, “Well, I really don’t think God believes that if you divorce and re-marry you commit adultery, because that’s how I personally feel, and God feels the exact same way as I always do!”