If all Christians were Catholic

[rcwitness]

It would be the most ideal because that is how Jesus wanted his Church to be. The unity would be amazing under the headship of Peter.

Ideal, and most successful in voicing the Gospel to the world.

But that is not meant to be because Jesus never guarantee singularity; moreover there will be false prophets but he only made sure that the Gate of Hell would not prevail over his true Church.

True. I think the closest we have been to pure unity, is the most early days of the Church. Maybe the first 9, or so, chapters of Acts. And Peter had a definite prominence.

 

[Wannano]

If all Christians suddenly became Catholic, it would only cause more divisions. Divisions over doctrine, over moral issues, over the specifics of the liturgy. Even if you take a group that has a quite a lot in common with the Catholic Church which is the Anglican Communion as an example, you would have disagreements on the nature of the Eucharist, the nature of the priesthood, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, the deutro-canonical books, the necessity of sacramental confession and of course the primacy and infallibility of the pope. You would also have a lot more people clamoring for women’s ordination. And this is a group that has a lot in common with the RC. Now let’s consider the divisions that would be caused by say an evangelical group. Sure, we’d agree on most issues of morality. But otherwise, once you get beyond the fundamentals (e.g. the contents of the Nicene Creed) we’d disagree on just about everything, including having very radically opposed views on what the liturgy should look like. Bottom line is, while there will always be individuals who convert, the idea of Christian unity is a pipe dream because it relies on everyone else conforming to what we believe. And guess what? Every other group also believes in Christian unity. And they also want everyone else to conform to what they believe.

This article to me is very insightful. God is an awesome God and He has made us all different. Look at all the different races, stature and personalities, like and dislikes etc. Etc. Same with our spiritual lives, not all are the same. Not all are nuns or priests or monks, some are actually called to use their gifts of making money for instance to support those who do not produce monetary gain.

I like the analogy of a bouquet of flowers in relation to differing understandings of a relationship with the same God. A bouquet of roses only is beautiful and they all smell the same, however keep adding all the different flowers available and the bouquet becomes dazzling with the array of colors, shapes and sizes and the smell when combined together is overwhelming in its presentation. They are all flowers, each inserted into the main package of water and nutrient to feed them and keep them fresh and yet all are completely different.

 

[Wannano]

Ideal, and most successful in voicing the Gospel to the world.

True. I think the closest we have been to pure unity, is the most early days of the Church. Maybe the first 9, or so, chapters of Acts. And Peter had a definite prominence.

Ooooh rc, you are so insightful and also a comical testimony to the fickelness of mere man!
You come out with your first sentence that is absolutely accurate and undisputable. Then you start your second sentence with a popular human qualifier of “maybe!” Then the third is an attachement and observation of a truth that starts to fragment and fray the centrally of Christ.

 

[rcwitness]

Ooooh rc, you are so insightful and also a comical testimony to the fickelness of mere man!
You come out with your first sentence that is absolutely accurate and undisputable. Then you start your second sentence with a popular human qualifier of “maybe!” Then the third is an attachement and observation of a truth that starts to fragment and fray the centrally of Christ.

I’m not sure how you conclude these things. The things I said don’t necessarily have a See of Rome ‘only’ perspective. The prominence of Peter, among the 12 and infant Church, does not take away from the centrality of Christ. That is actually evidence of the purity of the “first converts”.

Neither am I implying that Peter’s prominence took away from the unity of all Apostles (the broader number, such as including the 70 and Paul and Barnabas) in general.

Things began to frey when members were pitting certain leaders against one another, leaders acted against their authorities, and false apostles arose. None of these were caused by Peter’s prominence among them all.

How can honoring Peter’s Apostolate as “feeding and strengthening” the whole Church fragment the centrality of Christ? He is the one who commissioned it!

 

[wmscott]

If all Christians suddenly became Catholic, it would only cause more divisions. Divisions over doctrine, over moral issues, over the specifics of the liturgy. Even if you take a group that has a quite a lot in common with the Catholic Church which is the Anglican Communion as an example, you would have disagreements on the nature of the Eucharist, the nature of the priesthood, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, the deutro-canonical books, the necessity of sacramental confession and of course the primacy and infallibility of the pope. You would also have a lot more people clamoring for women’s ordination. And this is a group that has a lot in common with the RC. Now let’s consider the divisions that would be caused by say an evangelical group. Sure, we’d agree on most issues of morality. But otherwise, once you get beyond the fundamentals (e.g. the contents of the Nicene Creed) we’d disagree on just about everything, including having very radically opposed views on what the liturgy should look like. Bottom line is, while there will always be individuals who convert, the idea of Christian unity is a pipe dream because it relies on everyone else conforming to what we believe. And guess what? Every other group also believes in Christian unity. And they also want everyone else to conform to what they believe.

I do not intend for this to be offensive in any way, you are thinking as a Protestant/non-Catholic does and the above is the personification of Protestant/non-Catholic reasoning. I fully understand the rational as I used to be a Protestant, and shamefully attacked Catholicism, which I know you are ” NOT” doing.

Everything listed above is on the Protestant/non-Catholic hit list as to what they think is wrong with Catholicism based on 500 plus years of separation and the education from within these faith traditions. That coupled with what and how secular society tries to overshadow our reasoning, it is our prideful and sinful nature that has lead us to think that we know how to better establish multiple faith traditions, each picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe, rather than trusting in the one Church that Christ established and which Christ promised would be always guided by the Holy Spirit.

It is not the Catholic Church and Her beliefs that are somehow wrong, inferior, or misguided, it is the result of the great deceiver that has sowed seeds of doubt, deception, and discourse that has caused disunity. The Catholic Church, the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which Christ established is the one under constant attack by Satan, and why not since it is the one that has the items you listed and much, much more.

Peace

 

[Tommy999]

If all Christians suddenly became Catholic, it would only cause more divisions. Divisions over doctrine, over moral issues, over the specifics of the liturgy. Even if you take a group that has a quite a lot in common with the Catholic Church which is the Anglican Communion as an example, you would have disagreements on the nature of the Eucharist, the nature of the priesthood, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, the deutro-canonical books, the necessity of sacramental confession and of course the primacy and infallibility of the pope. You would also have a lot more people clamoring for women’s ordination. And this is a group that has a lot in common with the RC. Now let’s consider the divisions that would be caused by say an evangelical group. Sure, we’d agree on most issues of morality. But otherwise, once you get beyond the fundamentals (e.g. the contents of the Nicene Creed) we’d disagree on just about everything, including having very radically opposed views on what the liturgy should look like. Bottom line is, while there will always be individuals who convert, the idea of Christian unity is a pipe dream because it relies on everyone else conforming to what we believe. And guess what? Every other group also believes in Christian unity. And they also want everyone else to conform to what they believe.

Hello peter26,
I realize this whole thread is a hypothetical, but I definitely did not mean or intend for it to be a “sensational hypothetical”, as you put it in an earlier response of yours (post #35).

If you look at post #1, I was trying to visualize what Christendom would look, act, and smell like (so to speak) in terms of effectiveness, unity, and relevance in the world if all Christians became Catholic and obeyed and followed Catholic Church teaching and the leading of the Pope. That was my main intent.

My hypothetical premise assumed that all Christians became “good Catholics” in terms of doing all the things that would put them in good standing with God and the Catholic Church and did not do the things you listed above that would cause division. Yes, I realize this is not realistic, but that is why it was presented as a hypothetical scenario.

In a way, I was trying to get people’s differing opinions on how Christianity as a whole would be better off or not if all Christianity was united under Catholicism. In other words, would the witness of Christ be stronger or weaker in the world?

For Example:
Would Catholicism/Christianity receive a shot in the arm and be infused with the enthusiasm and zeal that many Protestants have?

Would the benefit of receiving the fullness of the Catholic sacraments make the Protestant converts to Catholicism even more well-rounded and zealous in the faith and able to witness more effectively to the world? For example, Tim Staples, Scott Hahn, and Jimmy Akin, among others seem to be thriving under Catholicism.

Or would Christianity under Catholicism be more like it was in the days leading up to the Reformation? These are the things I wanted to get your take on.

I appreciate those who replied thoughtfully and respectfully to this post, such as post #31 by exnihilo, which I thought answered the question very well and in the spirit I asked it.

 

[Wannano]

I’m not sure how you conclude these things. The things I said don’t necessarily have a See of Rome ‘only’ perspective. The prominence of Peter, among the 12 and infant Church, does not take away from the centrality of Christ. That is actually evidence of the purity of the “first converts”.

Neither am I implying that Peter’s prominence took away from the unity of all Apostles (the broader number, such as including the 70 and Paul and Barnabas) in general.

Things began to frey when members were pitting certain leaders against one another, leaders acted against their authorities, and false apostles arose. None of these were caused by Peter’s prominence among them all.

How can honoring Peter’s Apostolate as “feeding and strengthening” the whole Church fragment the centrality of Christ? He is the one who commissioned it!

I wasn’t debating g your content…it just struck me as humorous that the first sent. Is right on and the following start to show human weakness. Probably a bad attempt at humor.

 

[rcwitness]

I wasn’t debating g your content…it just struck me as humorous that the first sent. Is right on and the following start to show human weakness. Probably a bad attempt at humor.

Ok. Btw, I don’t think the “purity” of the first converts, or any converts, is due to Peter or his See. It is due to Christ, and His Spirit working in them. But the result of Christ working in the first converts produced an honor and submission to Peter’s authority. It seems that it was accomplished by both an organic disposition and a fear of the power given to the Apostles.

I think the latter is a major reason why authority is not given to the Catholic leaders by many Christians today; they do not accompany miraculous signs with their ministry. But who does? That was a gift provided the early Church, because of the daunting task it had.

 

[peter26]

Hello peter26,
I realize this whole thread is a hypothetical, but I definitely did not mean or intend for it to be a “sensational hypothetical”, as you put it in an earlier response of yours (post #35).

Not me, that was PeterJ.