Friend; What'[s your Roadblock?

[Reuben_J]

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.

I really find it is strange that no apostles beside Peter that had gone through such humiliation in their apostleship. One wonder why Jesus even bothered to promise to give him the key to the Kingdom of Heaven and that he can bound or loose things on earth (Mt 16). Probably his path through the furnace of purification is what many saints would go through in their days and yet after the test, they would be as pure as gold.

What probably reported in the new Testaments about the early Church which was in its infantry probably does not measure up to Jesus’ proclamation on Peter in Matthew 16. No wonder why we cannot fully understand that passage because we would expect after Jesus’ resurrection that the head apostle would take his rightful seat. Was it to be in Jerusalem or Rome?

By hanging to the Bible alone we would lose many of the happenings in Church’s history especially in her early stage. If we throw out the window the Church Tradition which many of us mistakenly thought the tradition of man, then we probably miss much that could be really important to the life of the Church today.

 

[Mystophilus]

Dear freinds in Christ;

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

What’s preventing you from considering Catholism?

Infallibility.

Before I get the traditional response “But you just don’t understand it”, I should point out that I have studied it, I do appreciate how very rarely it has been applied to specific dogmata, and I find the very idea any group of mortals being insulated from error, in direct contradiction of the empirical evidence of human history, to require a leap of faith which I cannot make.

There are certainly subsidiary issues - Roman supremacy, the insertion of the Filioque, the refusal to open ordination to women, the refusal to countenance contraception - but all of those depend upon the idea that the Catholic Church cannot be wrong.

 

[CMatt25]

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.

Yes one can make a blanket statement. And no it’s really not that important to give examples. Keywords underlined: Pat believes and you concur in many. The Catholic Church believes She teaches the truth not only on some of Her teachings. So when someone says their roadblock is the truth, they might not believe the Catholic Church holds it as She believes She does. Even if they agree on some.

 

[CMatt25]

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?

Hi Hat, I don’t find it overly interesting only because I was already well aware of that. I recall the days when Catholics had busts of JFK in their living rooms. I agree though mostly one issue changed it. I’m curious though now why you would assume I don’t belong to any church or faith group just because I like to reason and think and pray over matters instead of being spoon fed and told what I have to believe. There are faith groups including Christian ones which allow for much more of that and which do not require everyone walking in lockstep. But as far as whether I “belong” to any church, define “belong”. As far as politics, yes I’m a registered Democrat. But that’s only because I’m a Democrat over the other alternative between the 2 major parties. I’ve considered a 3rd party but then I feel as if I am wasting my vote. I’ve voted 3rd party before but the worse of the 2 majors imo got in by a razor thin margin which might not have happened if myself and others hadn’t voted for various minor candidates. So I’m not going to repeat taking that chance again. God bless you my friend in your walk and peace be with you.

 

[JonNC]

Yes one can make a blanket statement. And no it’s really not that important to give examples. Keywords underlined: Pat believes and you concur in many. The Catholic Church believes She teaches the truth not only on some of Her teachings. So when someone says their roadblock is the truth, they might not believe the Catholic Church holds it as She believes She does. Even if they agree on some.

Then we are back to my first comment, that being - clever, but not helpful.
The post doesn’t advance dialogue on the thread, and since the poster doesn’t list a particular faith communion, one cannot extrapolate what “truth” he/she might be talking about.

So, yes. To have an insightful, charitable dialogue, giving specific examples are necessary.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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?

First, thank you for your kind words.

what if the Schism were to be resolved 10 years after you pass on?
Then I will join in the chorus of saints and angels singing, “Praise God from whom all blessings flow…”

Also why Lutheranism and not Anglicanism or Orthodox?

I was born, Baptized, and raised Lutheran in the home of a Lutheran pastor, attended a Lutheran college. As an adult, I confess the Augsburg Confession, which I believe to be a Catholic statement of faith. I believe that Lutheranism is a continuance of the Catholic faith in the western Church.
Both are in the realm of reasonable choices. Orthodoxy is not readily available to me, but I also hold the same view regarding ther authority vis a vis Rome. The schism calls into question which communion is correct. However, I will say that Orthodoxy seems more histroically consistent, less innovative than the western Church, and that has an attractiveness (I can see why when Lutheran clergy convert, they often look east).

Anglicanism is in some ways uncomfortably non-doctrinal for me, but avoiding the more liberal wings (TEC), I see a lot we have in common.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

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

I don’t understand, friend, your reasoning. Given the above, why are you not at least Orthodox or Catholic? Why Lutheran?

EDIT: Nevermind, Jon! I just saw your above very satisfactory explanation!

 

[JonNC]

I don’t understand, friend, your reasoning. Given the above, why are you not at least Orthodox or Catholic? Why Lutheran?

First, none of those three events have happened.

As for why I am not Orthodox or Catholic. For the sake of discussion, if I start from the premise (a premise I don’t necessarily accept) that I am in schism from the true Church, and my goal is to be in the one true Church, which one do I choose? If I become Catholic, and Orthodoxy is the one True Church, I remain in schism. And the opposite is true. Therefore, since I consider Lutheranism a continuing expression of the true Church, there is no promting on my part to make a change. Bt, as I say, I am open and even pray for one of the three promptings I listed.

Jon

 

[CMatt25]

Then we are back to my first comment, that being - clever, but not helpful.
The post doesn’t advance dialogue on the thread, and since the poster doesn’t list a particular faith communion, one cannot extrapolate what “truth” he/she might be talking about.

So, yes. To have an insightful, charitable dialogue, giving specific examples are necessary.

Jon

Actually a Christ follower can be of the Christian faith united with other Christians in Him. I had no problem finding it helpful nor did I find it uncharitable.

 

[PJM]

=Luvtosew;9914363]

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.

“Then, after three years, I [Paul] went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days”

It is Historical FACT: James was the First Bishop of Jerusalem; Peter the FIRST POPE of the ENTIRE Church

God Bless,
Pat /PJM

 

[Luvtosew]

=Luvtosew;9914363]

Just because Paul went to see Peter means nothing, there were no Popes in the Roman church till centuries later. I’m sorry but this is not historical fact. God Bless.

Peter can be your first Pope if you want him to be.

Galatians 1:18-19

New International Version (NIV)

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[a] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

He called Peter an apostle and where does it say the Lord showd himself to Peter first, then the twelve. they all seen him, cept for Thomas and well Judas of course.

 

[Hat4]

Hi Hat, I don’t find it overly interesting only because I was already well aware of that. I recall the days when Catholics had busts of JFK in their living rooms. I agree though mostly one issue changed it. I’m curious though now why you would assume I don’t belong to any church or faith group just because I like to reason and think and pray over matters instead of being spoon fed and told what I have to believe. There are faith groups including Christian ones which allow for much more of that and which do not require everyone walking in lockstep. But as far as whether I “belong” to any church, define “belong”. As far as politics, yes I’m a registered Democrat. But that’s only because I’m a Democrat over the other alternative between the 2 major parties. I’ve considered a 3rd party but then I feel as if I am wasting my vote. I’ve voted 3rd party before but the worse of the 2 majors imo got in by a razor thin margin which might not have happened if myself and others hadn’t voted for various minor candidates. So I’m not going to repeat taking that chance again. God bless you my friend in your walk and peace be with you.

I know what you mean by wishing there were a viable third (or even fourth) party. The attacks on religious freedom, among other things, have pretty much solidified my move farther away from the Democratic party but I wish we had more alternatives. I’m sorry if I missed the mark on the church or faith group comment. Every church requires certain beliefs and gives guidance; two things your comments seem to suggest are undesirable to you. Thanks for the reply and peace on your journey.

 

[GaryTaylor]

PJM;9916058:

Just because Paul went to see Peter means nothing, there were no Popes in the Roman church till centuries later. I’m sorry but this is not historical fact. God Bless.

Peter can be your first Pope if you want him to be.

Galatians 1:18-19

New International Version (NIV)

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[a] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James

, the Lord’s brother.

He called Peter an apostle and where does it say the Lord showd himself to Peter first, then the twelve. they all seen him, cept for Thomas and well Judas of course.

So Luv what Church are you attending these days? So what happened at catechism which you became anti papal? Did they tell you ya couldn’t park in front of the church or something?

 

[PJM]

In response to my friend Jon and others who believe that “Canon #6 “ of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD proves that Peter ALONE was not the head of the New Catholic church,

At the time of this Council the New Catholic Church has consecutively chosen it’s 33td. Pope. Each responsible for the ENTIRE Universal Church. Pope Saint Sylvester I was sitting on the Throne of Peter as the 33rd successor of Christ’s appointed Apostle, for this First World-wide Council”

One cannot put aside the following historical facts found outside the multitude of Biblical evidence proving the primacy of Peter; some of which I have shared in previous POST.

This was in the Reign of the latest “Caesar”. The ruler and Conquer of the entire know world at that time; “Constantine. “

The “Edit of Milan” issued in 313 and gave religious freedom to Christians [as well as other pagan faiths], and ended the Severe Persecution of the Catholic Church. Now Christians could come up out of the caves and begin to practice their faith openly.

The MOTIVE for this new “right” was not simply focused on “doing good” or the “right thing to do.” Constantine’s Mother was a devout Catholic and had some influence on him.

Constantine saw as a politically astute World leader; a structure of wide-spread governance all ready in place within “the church’ and sought to advantage it to maintain control of the new territories he had conquered.

The Council of Nicaea could be described accurately as “Constantine’s Council” given his degree of influence on it. He would have encouraged Pagan religious tolerance; being at the time a pagan himself. It is very likely that he was not so involved with the inner-workings of “the Church” that he did not discern the significance of the Roman Papacy. The Council took place is Asia Minor; primarily a GREEK territory. Therefore the Eastern Influence which even then sought equality of Governance seems quite evident. This usurpation of POWER, reached a political “head” with the GREAT Eastern Schism of 1010 AD. And YES, I know the Easter Claim was the difference in Theology of the “Trinity.” But either God is in charge or He is NOT!

Constantine did fight on behalf of the Church, to quell the Arian Heresy which he saw as being able to weaken the “Church” and it’s governance-structure which he saw as extremely beneficial to His maintaining Control of this large territory.

There simply is no solid evidence that Peter was not seen as the Supreme Pontiff of the New Church. And very much evidence that he was as He remains some 2,000 years later.

I repeat: I can understand why this is a thorn in the side of non-Catholics; but see the arguments FAR MORE as hopeful thinking that either Historical or BIBLICAL FACT.

God’s continued blessings,
Pat /PJm

 

[Luvtosew]

Luvtosew;9916121:

So Luv what Church are you attending these days? So what happened at catechism which you became anti papal? Did they tell you ya couldn’t park in front of the church or something?

Ha Ha, no I wasn’t driving at catechism, I was raised RC and haven’t considered myself RC for the last few years. No I haven’t joined any other church, don’t plan to really. I’m not anti papal per say, although there have been some bad Popes. I’m not anti Rc either, I just do not believe in transubstantiation , the re- presentation of the sacrifice of the Mass,protecting pedophiles, (not that some Prists are pedophiles as they are everywhere) and the Marian dogmas are getting to be overboard.

I will attend wathever Christian church I’m invited to for a wedding or whatever and will engage in their communion (non RC), but I can’t in all honesty engage in communion in the RCC as I don’t believe in transub. I believe in the Real Presence in such that Jesus is present and we commune with him and fellow Christians during Communion, spiritually, but the wine and bread are symbolic.

I watch some shows on Ewtn, so I guess instead of being a Cafeteria Catholic I’m just not one anymore.

 

[PRmerger]

I will attend wathever Christian church I’m invited to for a wedding or whatever and will engage in their communion (non RC), but I can’t in all honesty engage in communion in the RCC as I don’t believe in transub. I believe in the Real Presence in such that Jesus is present and we commune with him and fellow Christians during Communion, spiritually, but the wine and bread are symbolic.

And this is very honest and noble of you, Luv.

Compared to the multitude of Catholics who really don’t care about what it is they are saying when they receive the Blessed Sacrament. These folks, like you, may not believe in the Real Presence (Body/Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ), but, unlike you, don’t even really think about it or care that they have divorced themselves from the teachings of the Church.

 

[JonNC]

=CMatt25;9916009] Actually a Christ follower can be of the Christian faith united with other Christians in Him.

That’s fine. I agree.

I had no problem finding it helpful nor did I find it uncharitable

.

Matt,
I never said his post was uncharitable. I didn’t find it helpful, and offered an opinion on how an elaboration of his views would help the dialogue. I stand by my post as a reasonable request. But then, it’s Pat’s thread.

Jon

 

[CMatt25]

I know what you mean by wishing there were a viable third (or even fourth) party. The attacks on religious freedom, among other things, have pretty much solidified my move farther away from the Democratic party but I wish we had more alternatives. I’m sorry if I missed the mark on the church or faith group comment. Every church requires certain beliefs and gives guidance; two things your comments seem to suggest are undesirable to you. Thanks for the reply and peace on your journey.

I find the religious freedom thing a bit more complicated than I know many do here. I know Catholics for instance are crying foul over their religious liberty in regard to contraception health care coverage. The thing I find they miss though is that there could be other Christians in those more liberal traditions who are not opposing the HHS mandate, who believe there should be some uniformity in employer healthcare benefits so people don’t have to quit their jobs due to less benefits. And that health care should not be determined by what state one resides in. And those Christians might believe contraception coverage should be included in healthcare. So if Catholics get their way on everything, then someone else’s religious liberty is affected. I suppose a single payer system would avoid the whole Catholic employer matter. But then there is no doubt people would object to that and object to their tax dollars being spent. Navigating rights so everyone is pleased I don’t find is always so cut and dry fitting into a nice, little, neat box. The abortion issue is an example. It’s pretty difficult to please everyone when you’re trying to balance the rights of the unborn with the rights of women in a pluralistic society of many faiths and beliefs such as ours. That’s just my take on it. I know Catholics and others of conservative traditions disagree. And with regard to my comments, I didn’t mean to imply I can not for instance accept certain beliefs of any kind. I have no problem for instance being required to believe in Christ as my Lord and Savior. As it is He Whom I believe is the One most important of all Who breaks down walls and with Whom all Christians are united in. On some things though I just need to breath or else I will suffocate. In any case thank you as well for what I found to be your charitable replies. I pray mine were as well. And again His blessings and peace be with you always.

 

[CMatt25]

That’s fine. I agree.

.

Matt,
I never said his post was uncharitable. I didn’t find it helpful, and offered an opinion on how an elaboration of his views would help the dialogue. I stand by my post as a reasonable request. But then, it’s Pat’s thread.

Jon

Well I’m glad we agree on something. I find that refreshing.

Oh ok. You had said “to have an insightful, charitable dialogue, giving specific examples are necessary”. And since you didn’t seen to care for not giving specifics, I thought you meant by not doing so, the dialogue was uncharitable. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[CMatt25]

Ha Ha, no I wasn’t driving at catechism, I was raised RC and haven’t considered myself RC for the last few years. No I haven’t joined any other church, don’t plan to really. I’m not anti papal per say, although there have been some bad Popes. I’m not anti Rc either, I just do not believe in transubstantiation , the re- presentation of the sacrifice of the Mass,protecting pedophiles, (not that some Prists are pedophiles as they are everywhere) and the Marian dogmas are getting to be overboard.

I will attend wathever Christian church I’m invited to for a wedding or whatever and will engage in their communion (non RC), but I can’t in all honesty engage in communion in the RCC as I don’t believe in transub. I believe in the Real Presence in such that Jesus is present and we commune with him and fellow Christians during Communion, spiritually, but the wine and bread are symbolic.

I watch some shows on Ewtn, so I guess instead of being a Cafeteria Catholic I’m just not one anymore.

Luvtosew, well I fully get where you are coming from. Technically though according to Catholic Church teaching, if those who profess to follow all the teachings are giving the correct Catholic answer, you are one. You’re just not fully faithful as they might be or are non practicing or dissenting. In any case you certainly have the right to not consider yourself one or according to the Catholic Church’s answer at least, to consider yourself one as the case may be. God bless you. I often find your posts a breath of fresh air. And may Christ’s peace remain with you always my friend.