Friend; What'[s your Roadblock?

[CMatt25]

What many Catholics miss when they speak of the Church Jesus established, is that many non Catholic Christians actually believe they ARE part of the Church Jesus established. They simply have a different view or belief on how that Church is defined than you do. Or some may believe Jesus has had to reform His Church to keep the gates of hell from prevailing. Some believe straying has occured. Or that by their fruits we shall know them. Some like the UCC believe God is still speaking and that humans with finite minds have much yet to understand as to interpreting and truly knowing His true will. It just all comes down to a matter of faith anyway when you get right down to it.

As far as my roadblocks, many have arisen. I like to think and to reason for myself with my own God given mind and abilities, rather than being told what I have to believe. I cherish being able to disagree, yet still being welcomed in a Christ - worshiping family. United in the One most important of all. Jesus Christ Lord and Savior Who breaks down walls. Being given the incorrect “answer” that a person baptized/confirmed in your church is not to call themselves a Catholic (with or without QMs btw) was a huge detriment to my interest in your faith. People who give that answer are “cafeteria” too. I also totally reject the idea that I have to somehow subscribe more towards Republican politics in order to be a good Christian. I see the Catholic Church becoming more of an arm of the Republican Party than ever before. Things like spending a few minutes on this site’s World News subform and seeing Dolan praise his longtime friend, Paul Ryan, as a great/good public servant, and Catholic opposition to the nuns on the bus all show me that.

God bless us all as we walk in faith. Not by sight. Peace.

 

[Nine_Two]

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!”

I did that.

Still not a Catholic.

 

[Jack_726]

Hang all the flummery about papal infallibility and doctrinal or canonical gnats. I became a Catholic 60 years ago at the age of 26 . . . a"backslid Baptist" . . . because Notre Dame had a great football team and the Catholic Church is the most charitable institution in the history of the world. My wife who passed away 27 years ago was never baptized a Catholic but she devoted most of her free time to Catholic causes such as soup kitchens and homeless shelters. The priest who gave her last rites . . . for which he caught a lot of flack from blue-blood Catholics . . . said she was a better Catholic than most Catholics he knew.

 

[PRmerger]

I did that.

Still not a Catholic.

Then why does your profile say you are one?

 

[JonNC]

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!”

I actually agree with what you are saying, so I am willing to change my views. I leave myself open to that change of views in the following ways.

1. I believe that the Bishop of Rome is the western Patriarch, and the default for western Christians is to be in communion with him. Division is never the default.
2. I believe that I, as a Lutheran, must wake up every morning and justify (sorry for the pun) not being in communion with him.
3. I believe that one must look at the history of the Church to understand where the Church is at now. In that light, I read the Council of Nicea and realize that no where does it place universal jurisdiction in the hands of the western Patriarch. This is confirmed by the stance of the other patriarchs. This particular disagreement calls into question, more than my personal reasoning and logic or opinion, the authority that the Catholic Church claims for the Bishop of Rome. The same in reverse. Orthodoxy’s claim is in question because of Rome’s.

Solutions:

1. Reconciliation and complete communion between Rome and Orthodoxy. This would leave me no choice, regardless of the choice of my Lutheran communion, to convert.
2. Reconciliation of Rome and my communion.
3. Rome’s acceptance of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a truly Catholic document. essentially, if can bring the UAC with me, I will convert.

Jon

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;9910282]You already know mine, Pat.
The Catholic claim regarding the supremacy of the jurisdiction of the pope.

Jon

Hi Jon,

SO NICE TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN

My friend, either the bible is completely true, or it’s worthless.

God alway used men: Abram, Noah, Moses, David, Joshua, the Prophets, so why not Peter.

Both the historical evidence and the biblical evidence is “ROCK SOLID”

You know well Jon that one can’t pick and choose ones beliefs; WHAT IS:…IS

God Bless you Jon,

Pat

 

[JonNC]

=PJM;9913818]Hi Jon,

SO NICE TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN

It is always good, Pat, to chat with you.

My friend, either the bible is completely true, or it’s worthless.

God alway used men: Abram, Noah, Moses, David, Joshua, the Prophets, so why not Peter.

Both the historical evidence and the biblical evidence is “ROCK SOLID”

Indeed. And yet, the early council and the other patriarchs do not ascribe the meaning of “Rock” to Peter in the same way we see Rome doing it? Not Rome, Orthodoxy, nor Lutheranism questions the complete truth of scripture.

You know well Jon that one can’t pick and choose ones beliefs; WHAT IS:…IS

Agreed.

God Bless you Jon,

His blessings also with you, my friend.

Jon

 

[PJM]

=Izdaari;9911678]My objection is the same as JonNC’s: I do not accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

OK,

But on what solid basis:shrug:

Such a position denies both the Bible [there ar at least 50 “Peter First” in the Bible. Far more than any other including Paul.

***The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church. *
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10** [A.D. 220]).**

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14** [A.D. 252]).**

I can understand why you CHOOSE not too; but NOT “how you logically can?”

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;9913843]It is always good, Pat, to chat with you.

Indeed. And yet, the early council and the other patriarchs do not ascribe the meaning of “Rock” to Peter in the same way we see Rome doing it? Not Rome, Orthodoxy, nor Lutheranism questions the complete truth of scripture.

Agreed.

His blessings also with you, my friend.

Jon

Hi Jon,

Please look carefully at the next post.

The Eastern seperation[THE GREAT EASTERN SCHISM OF 1010… [in theory at least] was about the Theology of the Trinity; but FAR more likely actually was just about POWER

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;9910346]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

Hey Jon, its been A LONG WHILE since I read that Council, but nothing sticks out in my old memory that would indicate this. Could you please be more specific?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon, its been A LONG WHILE since I read that Council, but nothing sticks out in my old memory that would indicate this. Could you please be more specific?

Sure, Pat.

Nicea, canon 6 says:
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

This appears an equal footing for the various Bishops, and makes no mention of a supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. This is a very important point, it seems to me, and one the great Christian participants at the council surely would not have neglected.

Jon

 

[Arizona_Samson]

What’s preventing you from considering Catholism?

The Truth.

 

[JonNC]

The Truth.

Clever, but not helpful. How about some examples.

Jon

EDIT: Let me elaborate, lest I sound flippant.
Pat believes with certainty that the Catholic Church teaches the truth. I concur in many of its teachings, but not all. As examples:

1. Baptsim
2. The Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Holy Communion, the Eucharist)
3. The scriptural support for confession/ Holy Absolution to a pastor/priest

So, I can’t make a blanket statement, “The Truth”. I suspect, neither can you. You probably believe in the virgin birth and physical resurrection. Etc. If you make the uncategorical statement, “The truth”, then you are excluding all of the things Catholics teach with which youhappen to agree.

So, this is why examples are important.

 

[JonNC]

Clever, but not helpful. How about some examples.

Jon

EDIT: Let me elaborate, lest I sound flippant.
Pat believes with certainty that the Catholic Church teaches the truth. I concur in many of its teachings, but not all. As examples:

1. Baptsim
2. The Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Holy Communion, the Eucharist)
3. The scriptural support for confession/ Holy Absolution to a pastor/priest

To clarify, these three are things which which I agree with the Catholic Church essentially, though with differences.

Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

Nicea, canon 6 says:
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

This appears an equal footing for the various Bishops, and makes no mention of a supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. This is a very important point, it seems to me, and one the great Christian participants at the council surely would not have neglected.

Jon

I hope not to sound too trivial and argumentative but surely even with this extract, this hardly addresses the issue of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as higher among equals. It just did not talk about this. Perhaps in other documents.

What that says apparently is for the local provinces or dioceses, as they are now called, is to keep their (Bishops) autonomous jurisdiction in their respective areas which is exactly what’s happening today. The Bishop of Rome, even if he is the Pope, does not have any authority on what the Bishops do locally.

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;9914015]

Hey Jon, its been A LONG WHILE since I read that Council, but nothing sticks out in my old memory that would indicate this. Could you please be more specific?

Sure, Pat.

 

[Luvtosew]

=JonNC;9914015]

 

[Hat4]

As far as my roadblocks, many have arisen. I like to think and to reason for myself with my own God given mind and abilities, rather than being told what I have to believe. I cherish being able to disagree, yet still being welcomed in a Christ - worshiping family. United in the One most important of all. Jesus Christ Lord and Savior Who breaks down walls. Being given the incorrect “answer” that a person baptized/confirmed in your church is not to call themselves a Catholic (with or without QMs btw) was a huge detriment to my interest in your faith. People who give that answer are “cafeteria” too. I also totally reject the idea that I have to somehow subscribe more towards Republican politics in order to be a good Christian. I see the Catholic Church becoming more of an arm of the Republican Party than ever before. Things like spending a few minutes on this site’s World News subform and seeing Dolan praise his longtime friend, Paul Ryan, as a great/good public servant, and Catholic opposition to the nuns on the bus all show me that.

God bless us all as we walk in faith. Not by sight. Peace.

Hi CMatt,
You may find it interesting that most Catholics were Democrats not that long ago, probably why many still are. It was mostly the abortion issue that changed that. If you don’t mind I’m interested in your statement that you don’t like being told what to believe. I assume you don’t belong to any particular church or faith group then but is the problem more because you’re a Democrat or with feeling pushed toward either or any political party?

 

[Reuben_J]

Very nice list, but why doesn’t Paul mention Peter in Romans when he mentions over 20 names. all those things you listed sound good but are no indication Peter was head of the church or even in Rome. the head of the Council of Jerusalem was James the Just, not Peter.

Beat me too. Not to mention Paul really socked it to him in Galatians 2, “However, when Cephas came to Antioch, then I did oppose him to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong”. (2:11)

Then there was the case when Jesus asks Satan to get behind him as he spoke to Peter. There too was Peter denying Jesus three times, a scandal not assigned to any of the apostles. Also Jesus could not really trust him when he repeated to Peter three times if he really loved him. One can find many scriptural verses where Peter was opposed, reprimanded, looked like a fool and even referred to as Satan.

 

[Hat4]

the fact of the mere existence of the Schism. Were that resolved, so would be my objection.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I would like to start by saying I always appreciate your posts. They are always charitable and insightful. I’ve seen you state the above a few times and I always wonder, what if the Schism were to be resolved 10 years after you pass on? Also why Lutheranism and not Anglicanism or Orthodox?