Is anyone on the fence?

[mgoforth]

I don’t know about the authority of the church, the elevation of mary (veneration of saints is fine) , ‘relationship’ with jesus. Other than that I’m more catholic than the pope!

Could you clarify those points for me?

What do you mean by “authority of the church”? Authority given by Jesus? Authority vs other churches?

Mary is pretty simple. We elevate her because Jesus did. Mothers are special to human beings and Jesus is a human being as well as God. Mary loves Jesus in a way that no other person can, as her own son. Likewise, He loves Mary in a way that He doesn’t love anyone else, the love of a child for His mother. She’s not equal to God, and the Catholic Church doesn’t view her as that. But she’s certainly the most pristine example of womanhood that has ever lived.

Also not sure what you mean by “relationship” with Jesus? You have to come to know Him if you want to enter Heaven, but the most direct relationship you can have with Him now is by receiving the Eucharist, His true body and blood. Which one are you referring to?

 

[JonNC]

=mgoforth;9103922]Please expand if what I say misses the mark, but let me take a shot at speaking to this. I see the need for a strong central leader in the Catholic Church when I look around at all the other churches that don’t have such a figure.

I actually agree with this in principal. The question is to what extent.

For the first few years after Luther’s revolt he was looked to as the Protestant leader, but that didn’t last long and today there are 30,000+ denominations under the Protestant umbrella…even the Lutheran church is no longer a single body but contains multiple off-shoots and revisions. Without a single individual to look to, the Catholic Church wouldn’t have survived intact for 200 years, much less 2000. And, I realize all Protestants will say they look to Jesus as their leader…but they just can’t all be correct in their different beliefs. There aren’t 30,000+ Christs, there is only One.

The problem with this is the implication that all of the various reformers, Luther Zwingli, the Anabaptists, and later Calvin, were somehow united in a monolithic Protestant Church. This isn’t the case. Most of the protestant movements of today do not have direct roots in Lutheranism, but in the reformed and anabaptist movements. As for Lutheranism, even it was never a hierarchical communion, such as the Catholic Church (there are positive and negative effects of this). As a result, there are Lutheran Churches in apostolic succession, and some not. There are national Lutheran Churches, for example. But by-in-large, most Lutherans can travel the world and be invited to communion in other Lutheran Churches.
It can also be said that Orthodoxy has survived quite well, despite the political and cultural trials it has faced, without one patriarch claiming universal jurisdiction.

That’s not to say the Catholic Church doesn’t have it’s share of internal dissent and factions…sadly there’s been a lot of in-fighting and pettiness from “progressives” and “traditionals” since Vatican II. But whoever binds himself under the authority of the Pope in matters where he speaks infallibly, can safely call himself a true Catholic.

And here is the issue for me. Despite your following quotes, there is no evidence that the early Church viewed See of Rome as having universal jurisdiction. In fact, the evidence is contrary to this, most notably Nicea, canon 6.

This has solid support from both Sacred Scripture and writings of the earliest of the Early Church Fathers:

but it does not have any support from the early councils, and I believe it does not have support from scripture, at least not to the extent Rome claims for itself.

continued…

 

[JonNC]

Obviously there’s Matthew 16: 17-19 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

And also John 21: 15-17 where Jesus specifically gives Peter charge to care for the other Apostles: So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.

There’s also Tertulian in 208 saying: “No delay or inquest will meet Christians on the threshold… For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him, if he has been questioned and made confession [of faith].”

Cyprian in 248: “He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?”

John Chrysostom called Peter “the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ…”

Augustine of Hippo in 395: “There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church… The succession of the priests keeps me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate.”

You and I will agree that the ECF’s do not speak from a position of defining Church doctrine. Scripture and the councils do. That said, even these quotes do not speak of a universal jurisdiction. If they did, and if the early councils did, I am certain that Orthodoxy, and the Lutheran confessions, would not contend otherwise.

Nicea, canon 6;

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. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

This clearly equates the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria in his jurisdiction to that of the Bishop of Rome in his. If the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction, Nicea either would have said so, or certainly would not have claimed otherwise, as it does here.

Now, I am not disputing the unique position the Bishop of Rome held in the early Church. This is clear from the quotes you have provided, and many otherslike them. So again, the question is what is the extent of this unique role in the early Church? I see no evidence of universal jurisdiction, much less infallibility (ex cathedra).

I’ll stop there, but there are many others. The point is, Jesus promised to protect His Church from error for all time, and He gave specific authority to Peter to lead His Church. Any church that strays from that leadership, that of the Bishop of Rome, will fall into error and eventually will splinter into more and more fragments. This is just historical fact. None of the other churches have maintained the level of consistency that the true Catholic Church has. They’ve all been sub-divided and changed their teachings…some of them numerous times.

This hasn’t happened in orthodoxy, to say the least. In fact, it can be said that they have held closer to the Tradition of the early Church than we in the west, including the Bishop of Rome.

Ask yourself this: Do you want to belong to a group of believers, however sincere they might be, when that group has not been able to hold its course over a few centuries and will probably not exist in its current form within a few more? Or would you rather be a part of the true Church that Christ founded, and that has held fast to the core teachings He gave it for nearly 2000 years? Without the popes, that wouldn’t have been possible.

As you might guess, I view the question as a loaded one. It assumes facts not in evidence, as I’ve pointed out above. It assumes that the Church Christ founded exists only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which I without qualification reject. If, OTOH, the question is do I seek reconciliation with the Bishop of Rome, as well as the other patriarches, my answer is yes. As it stands now, however, I can’t do that. Why? Because they are not in communion with each other. Fix that problem, and I am in RCIA the next day.

Jon

 

[mgoforth]

I actually agree with this in principal. The question is to what extent.

The problem with this is the implication that all of the various reformers, Luther Zwingli, the Anabaptists, and later Calvin, were somehow united in a monolithic Protestant Church. This isn’t the case.

I’m sorry if that’s the implication you read, it’s not what I intended at all. I merely mentioned Luther because he was the first of the Protestants, and for a short time his church was the only one. But his example gave others the false idea that anyone could start up their own church and say it was following Jesus.

Most of the protestant movements of today do not have direct roots in Lutheranism, but in the reformed and anabaptist movements. As for Lutheranism, even it was never a hierarchical communion, such as the Catholic Church (there are positive and negative effects of this). As a result, there are Lutheran Churches in apostolic succession, and some not. There are national Lutheran Churches, for example. But by-in-large, most Lutherans can travel the world and be invited to communion in other Lutheran Churches.

Again, you’re missing my point here…it doesn’t matter whether all Protestant churches trace their origins through Luther. The critical point is that there are 30,000+ varieties with different beliefs. I notice that you didn’t respond to that point at all, so let me ask you directly. What is it that makes Lutheran beliefs a superior choice for you compared to Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, any of the evangelical denominations, etc? All these churches were founded long after the time of Christ, and all have different beliefs about what Christ taught. So why is what you believe correct? Or if you think the differences don’t really matter…why not? If and when we get to Heaven, won’t we find out that some teachings were right and some were wrong? My point is that the Catholic Church, which is by definition in communion with Rome, has by far the best “odds” of being correct because it’s the only one that has existed since the time of Christ.

Also I’m curious what you mean about some Lutheran churches having apostolic succession? That’s an impossibility because the Lutheran church doesn’t have valid Orders. Luther definitively severed the line of continuity with the Apostles when he started changing beliefs on his own authority. The whole idea of Apostolic Succession is that one generation practices what the prior generation taught them. Luther didn’t do that, he decided to make up his own rules and disregard the teachings he didn’t care for.

And here is the issue for me. Despite your following quotes, there is no evidence that the early Church viewed See of Rome as having universal jurisdiction. In fact, the evidence is contrary to this, most notably Nicea, canon 6.
…
but it does not have any support from the early councils, and I believe it does not have support from scripture, at least not to the extent Rome claims for itself.

continued…

I’ll address the Nicea claim in the next post. As for Scripture, it absolutely supports the primacy of Rome when interpreted correctly. You said “I believe it does not have support from scripture”…well of course you don’t if you’re interpreting scripture with a Protestant bias. I don’t want to get too far off track, but naturally any church that divorced itself from the Catholic Church is not going to interpret scripture in a manner favorable to Catholicism. The good news is that Scripture is only half the equation. There’s also Sacred Tradition, the oral teachings of the Catholic faith that are older than the Bible itself. Those are the key to interpreting scripture correctly.

 

[christosdavid]

I think if you research the early Church era you’re describing, you’ll find that they believe more than just the points you listed. For example, St. Justin Martyr writing around 150 AD, had this to say about the Eucharist:

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." (emphasis mine)

There are many, many other examples of the Early Church Fathers describing the same Catholic beliefs and practices we still have today. The things that separate Catholic from Protestant weren’t added by Catholics later on, as some claim. There is historical evidence that they’ve always been there, even before the Bible was assembled. Although the Bible also confirms Catholic teaching when read with a clear understanding of what came before the books were put together into their modern form.

I welcome your thoughts on this.

I believe in the real presence, but you’ll notice Justin does not try to give a metaphysical explanation of how it occurs. Transubstantiation with its emphasis on accidents and so forth appears contrived at best…

 

[christosdavid]

Looking back on this, I think maybe the apparitions and devotion to Mary might be what you were questioning more than the title Queen of Heaven? There are a few things I would say about that.

First, if you believe that Mary is in Heaven then I don’t think it’s such a stretch to believe that she might want to appear to people back on Earth if it would help them. We know several things from the story of the wedding feast in Cana: 1) we know that Mary liked to help others and 2) she was willing to ask Jesus for His divine assistance to get the job done, and 3) we also know that Christ is willing to do what His mother asks for others. So if Mary still desires to help people and she asked Jesus to allow her to appear to them, I think that explains both the “why” and the “how” of the apparitions.

**The good news is that Catholics are not required to believe in the Marian apparitions **as part of our doctrine. Some have received blessings from the Church to indicate that they find nothing wrong with the reports of the apparition or miracle and that it’s ok for the faithful to believe in them if they choose. They’re something extra, and they don’t conflict with anything else in the Faith, so you would be free to use them for inspiration or not.

As for devotion to Mary, I think again it goes back to her most intimate relationship with Jesus as His mother and the fact that she enjoys helping people. I can’t see how any of the Saints wouldn’t want to help others reach Heaven, which is why we pray to them (NOT worship them) and ask them to “forward” our prayers on to God. The Saints including Mary are in direct contact with Him, so their prayers can be more effective than ours. Mary has the closest possible connection a human could have with God, so her prayers are especially effective. Plus their lives were obviously very pleasing to God, and we have numerous verses in Scripture that tell us God gives the faithful the things they ask for.

Above all, devotion is not worship. The Church teaches that Mary and the Saints are not God. When we say prayers to them, we’re not giving them the praise that only God deserves, and we’re not asking them to help us themselves directly. What we’re asking is for them to “put in a good word for us” with God since they’re in His presence all the time. All power and glory comes from, and belongs to God alone. Respecting the Saints is simply honoring God, because anything good that they do or represent came from God.

Which is partly why I question it. It is no longer any kind of objective history, like the wedding of Cana which we can all study and learn from.

If Mary came and told us to save Russia, it should be as much doctrine as Gabriel coming to Mary and telling her she was going to have a son who would save the world’s sinners…

 

[christosdavid]

Please expand if what I say misses the mark, but let me take a shot at speaking to this. I see the need for a strong central leader in the Catholic Church when I look around at all the other churches that don’t have such a figure. For the first few years after Luther’s revolt he was looked to as the Protestant leader, but that didn’t last long and today there are 30,000+ denominations under the Protestant umbrella…even the Lutheran church is no longer a single body but contains multiple off-shoots and revisions. Without a single individual to look to, the Catholic Church wouldn’t have survived intact for 200 years, much less 2000. And, I realize all Protestants will say they look to Jesus as their leader…but they just can’t all be correct in their different beliefs. There aren’t 30,000+ Christs, there is only One.

That’s not to say the Catholic Church doesn’t have it’s share of internal dissent and factions…sadly there’s been a lot of in-fighting and pettiness from “progressives” and “traditionals” since Vatican II. But whoever binds himself under the authority of the Pope in matters where he speaks infallibly, can safely call himself a true Catholic.

This has solid support from both Sacred Scripture and writings of the earliest of the Early Church Fathers:

Obviously there’s Matthew 16: 17-19 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

And also John 21: 15-17 where Jesus specifically gives Peter charge to care for the other Apostles: So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.

There’s also Tertulian in 208 saying: “No delay or inquest will meet Christians on the threshold… For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him, if he has been questioned and made confession [of faith].”

Cyprian in 248: “He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?”

John Chrysostom called Peter “the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ…”

Augustine of Hippo in 395: “There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church… The succession of the priests keeps me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate.”

I’ll stop there, but there are many others. The point is, Jesus promised to protect His Church from error for all time, and He gave specific authority to Peter to lead His Church. Any church that strays from that leadership, that of the Bishop of Rome, will fall into error and eventually will splinter into more and more fragments. This is just historical fact. None of the other churches have maintained the level of consistency that the true Catholic Church has. They’ve all been sub-divided and changed their teachings…some of them numerous times.

Ask yourself this: Do you want to belong to a group of believers, however sincere they might be, when that group has not been able to hold its course over a few centuries and will probably not exist in its current form within a few more? Or would you rather be a part of the true Church that Christ founded, and that has held fast to the core teachings He gave it for nearly 2000 years? Without the popes, that wouldn’t have been possible.

The quotes need historical context, however, as soon as the pope was willing to aquit Pelagius, Augustine was not so willing to accept his determination but continue fighting for God’s gracious salvation…

 

[JonNC]

=mgoforth;9106120]I’m sorry if that’s the implication you read, it’s not what I intended at all. I merely mentioned Luther because he was the first of the Protestants, and for a short time his church was the only one. But his example gave others the false idea that anyone could start up their own church and say it was following Jesus.

Not exactly true. The anabaptists were already around.

Again, you’re missing my point here…it doesn’t matter whether all Protestant churches trace their origins through Luther. The critical point is that there are 30,000+ varieties with different beliefs. I notice that you didn’t respond to that point at all, so let me ask you directly. What is it that makes Lutheran beliefs a superior choice for you compared to Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, any of the evangelical denominations, etc? .

Let’s go with 30,002. What makes Rome superior to Orthodoxy?

All these churches were founded long after the time of Christ, and all have different beliefs about what Christ taught. So why is what you believe correct? Or if you think the differences don’t really matter…why not? If and when we get to Heaven, won’t we find out that some teachings were right and some were wrong? My point is that the Catholic Church, which is by definition in communion with Rome, has by far the best “odds” of being correct because it’s the only one that has existed since the time of Christ

Of course, we have a different view of Church. There is only one, and we (you and I) are a part of it. Of course error makes a big difference. As to your other comments, I think Orthodoxy would contend to the contrary. So, again, what makes Rome superior.

Also I’m curious what you mean about some Lutheran churches having apostolic succession? That’s an impossibility because the Lutheran church doesn’t have valid Orders. Luther definitively severed the line of continuity with the Apostles when he started changing beliefs on his own authority.

the Scandinavian luther communities maintained AS with valid bishops, and have continued to do so. The Catholic view of their orders is irrelevent.

The whole idea of Apostolic Succession is that one generation practices what the prior generation taught them. Luther didn’t do that, he decided to make up his own rules and disregard the teachings he didn’t care for.

I think that gets back to my original point. Today’s view of Rome’s primacy is far different from the early Church.

I’ll address the Nicea claim in the next post. As for Scripture, it absolutely supports the primacy of Rome when interpreted correctly. You said “I believe it does not have support from scripture”…well of course you don’t if you’re interpreting scripture with a Protestant bias. I don’t want to get too far off track, but naturally any church that divorced itself from the Catholic Church is not going to interpret scripture in a manner favorable to Catholicism. The good news is that Scripture is only half the equation. There’s also Sacred Tradition, the oral teachings of the Catholic faith that are older than the Bible itself. Those are the key to interpreting scripture correctly.

Same for Orthodoxy?

Jon

 

[TimothyH]

Thanks Tim. Good advice and I will keep that in mind as I keep learning how to do this. One reason I went on to related ideas is that I knew you weren’t asking this question for yourself, but rather for my benefit. I appreciate that, but I also saw an opportunity to expand on what you asked for others who might be reading this.

Two things. First, I said that the title Mother of God did not reflect Mary’s merit (she believed in God and accepted the offer to become His mother, but didn’t earn the right to do so). If the hypothetical evangelical responded with the objection you just did, “my pastor said it’s not about merit” I’m not sure how I would answer…other than saying “I never said it was about merit…you mis-heard what I said”. Secondly, the goal is to bring this person into the Catholic Church eventually, right? They’re going to have to get used to the “lingo” of the Church, and so I guess I don’t see the problem if I throw out some Catholic terms here and there. As long as I explain what I mean by them.

Yes, sort of. Could this just be a difference in style? I’m guessing that you have more experience talking with people about this than I do, so I’d be interested to hear if you’ve ever had a specific instance where my type of answer backfired in the real world.

I do see what your saying. I guess it would be different for me in a face to face situation than how it is when it’s over the internet? I tend to speak differently than I write.

Alright, first of all my latte can wait. I’d either order it quickly and turn right back around to talk while it was being prepared, or just not get one. I can’t control whether the person in line has to leave the coffee shop, but I’m certainly not going to cut off this type of conversation for anything other than a physical emergency.

As to the response, I’d say something like: "I hear you, Tim. I know those other titles sound even stranger than Mother of God. But if we’re honest with each other, there are PLENTY of things that aren’t explicitly stated in the Bible that we can both agree are true. The word “Trinity” is not in there, but we know God is three persons in one. “Sunday School” is never mentioned in the Bible, but that wouldn’t stop you from sending your kids there would it? The Gospels never say that Jesus blinked His eyes or had to use the “restroom”, but I think it’s pretty safe to assume that those things happened. If we get right down to the root argument, the Bible itself never says that everything we believe has to be found within the Bible! In fact, John says: "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

So, Tim. The most basic way to understand how Mary is Queen of Heaven is to think of a royal family here on Earth. What do you call the mother of a king, who wasn’t born into the royal family, but married into it? The Queen Mother, right? Same concept here. Mary is not the ruler of Heaven and Earth, and Catholics don’t believe that she is. But she’s the mother of the King, as well as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. In a sense, she married into the family, but definitely isn’t a goddess herself. That’s another myth about what Catholics believe. Queen of Heaven is just another way to illustrate the relationships between Mary and Jesus/The Holy Spirit, and it would have made a lot more sense to people back in the Middle Ages or in Europe than it does to a modern day American."

Assuming that the hypothetical Tim responded favorably to that, I might ask “How do you feel about praying to Mary, Tim? That’s probably a little uncomfortable too, am I right?” and move on to that topic next.

This is very good.

As an aside, a have many friends here in the deep south who are Evangelical. I did not mean to take on the role of a teacher out of pride. I have screwed up many discussions.

As to the Queen of Heaven and Earth, you are on it. You are right there. Queen mother, yes, the Gebirah.

I would say, “Do you have a few minutes? I’d love to go to my car and get my Bible and sit with you for a moment.”

Then I’d show how Bathsheba was given a throne. Only kings and queens sit on thrones. Then I would point out a few of the 27 times in 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicals where the name of the mother of the king was given with the kings name and where he reigned. Then I would point to the woman with a crown in Revelation 12. Only kings and queens wear crowns.

I would say, “I’m not trying to convince you. But just to show you that we do believe we have a basis for believing Mary to be a Queen based on what we read in the Bible.”

Also, I don’t think the goal is to convert them. I believe that’s God’s job. My goal is always to show one beautiful Catholic belief. Just one. Most of these people have never heard any Catholic belief explained to them by a Catholic, and just explaining one Catholic belief is often enough to rock their world.

If the opportunity presents itself, I might ask if they have ever been to Catholic Mass and if they would like to go.

Maybe someone else can throw some questions at you?

-Tim-

 

[mgoforth]

I started to write a detailed response to your second set of questions…but changed my mind.

I’m not saying this as a cop-out, but I think we could spend the rest of our lives doing scholarly research and debating this. I would enjoy the process, but I think I have an easier way to approach things. Let me skip down to what I see as the key statement you made.

It assumes that the Church Christ founded exists only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which I without qualification reject.

 

[mgoforth]

Not exactly true. The anabaptists were already around.

Let’s go with 30,002. What makes Rome superior to Orthodoxy?

Of course, we have a different view of Church. There is only one, and we (you and I) are a part of it. Of course error makes a big difference. As to your other comments, I think Orthodoxy would contend to the contrary. So, again, what makes Rome superior.

the Scandinavian luther communities maintained AS with valid bishops, and have continued to do so. The Catholic view of their orders is irrelevent.

I think that gets back to my original point. Today’s view of Rome’s primacy is far different from the early Church.

Same for Orthodoxy?

Jon

Alright, Jon…I’ll wait for your response to my post from a few minutes ago. After you clarify your beliefs for me, I’ll be in a better position to answer these “questions”. But you’re really leading me to believe that you didn’t carefully read my original post.

…so only serious parties need apply. IOW, I’m not looking to debate anyone who’s out to disprove Catholic beliefs.

If you’re seriously “on the fence” then we can continue…if you just came here to argue against Catholicism then I’ll pass for now. That’s not the purpose of this thread.

 

[mgoforth]

I believe in the real presence, but you’ll notice Justin does not try to give a metaphysical explanation of how it occurs. Transubstantiation with its emphasis on accidents and so forth appears contrived at best…

If you already believe in the real presence, then the quality of Justin’s explanation doesn’t really matter. I just used it to point out that there are more beliefs inherent to the early Church than you alluded to.

 

[mgoforth]

The quotes need historical context, however, as soon as the pope was willing to aquit Pelagius, Augustine was not so willing to accept his determination but continue fighting for God’s gracious salvation…

I can only show you the door, I can’t make you walk through it.

What “determination” are you referring to specifically? Pelagius wrote a letter to Innocent I (although Zosimus had succeeded him by the time it arrived) in which he disguised his true beliefs and pretended to be fully orthodox. Zosimus accepted what he thought was a recantation, and allowed Pelagius to rejoin the Church. Zosimus never said the Pelagian ideas were acceptable and in fact Pelagius denounced his own earlier theological positions.

Augustine and several others knew that Pelagius had previously changed his positions when he felt backed into a corner and they presented their case at the Council of Carthage, where Pelagianism was formally denounced as heresy.

 

[joclucsylv]

As part of my Lenten devotions, I’ve challenged myself to start evangelizing more in a number of different ways. So I wanted to ask: Are there any Catholics out there who suspect they’re not really living the Faith but have an honest problem accepting one or more Church teachings? Or any Protestants with strong Catholic leanings, but find there’s just that one sticky issue (devotion to Mary, Confession, etc) that’s hold you back from a potential conversion? If you’re in one of those group, I’d love to talk with you…not that I’m in any way superior in my Faith. I’m asking because I’m trying to improve my apologetic skills this year, and obviously want to be a help to folks hanging out on the fence if I can. It’s a potential win-win, IMO. Of course, I intend for both sides to approach this with open-mindedness and charity…so only serious parties need apply. IOW, I’m not looking to debate anyone who’s out to disprove Catholic beliefs.

Any takers? I’m also fine with talking via PM or email if necessary, but I think a public discussion would be helpful for everyone.

Here is one. I am an apostolic pentecostal Oneness believer and I don’t believe in the Trinity. Explain and defend the Trinity to me.

 

[mgoforth]

Which is partly why I question it. It is no longer any kind of objective history, like the wedding of Cana which we can all study and learn from.

If Mary came and told us to save Russia, it should be as much doctrine as Gabriel coming to Mary and telling her she was going to have a son who would save the world’s sinners…

It really depends on what you call “objective history”. Cana didn’t have a local newspaper with an account of the wedding feast and what was said to who. The story we have comes from the oral traditions of the Apostles which were later written down. I don’t know if that’s more “objective” than anything else…but it doesn’t prevent me from believing it to be true.

It’s not doctrine because it’s a personal revelation vs a public revelation. Mary said she desired for Russia to convert, but she didn’t say she desired for her apparition to be incorporated into canon. Plus your examples are not quite equal, are they? The Annunciation is important for everyone in the world. Mary’s desire to convert Russia had great significance for Russia, Portugal where the apparition took place, and for anyone who chooses to see it as significant. It doesn’t teach us anything new about Jesus, how to be saved, etc… BTW, this wasn’t the first apparition where Mary asked for devotion for a specific purpose, so even that wasn’t new.

It’s just an event that inspires us.

 

[Trebor135]

As part of my Lenten devotions, I’ve challenged myself to start evangelizing more in a number of different ways. So I wanted to ask: Are there any Catholics out there who suspect they’re not really living the Faith but have an honest problem accepting one or more Church teachings? Or any Protestants with strong Catholic leanings, but find there’s just that one sticky issue (devotion to Mary, Confession, etc) that’s hold you back from a potential conversion? If you’re in one of those group, I’d love to talk with you…not that I’m in any way superior in my Faith. I’m asking because I’m trying to improve my apologetic skills this year, and obviously want to be a help to folks hanging out on the fence if I can. It’s a potential win-win, IMO. Of course, I intend for both sides to approach this with open-mindedness and charity…so only serious parties need apply. IOW, I’m not looking to debate anyone who’s out to disprove Catholic beliefs.

Any takers? I’m also fine with talking via PM or email if necessary, but I think a public discussion would be helpful for everyone.

Well, the papacy is the main stumbling block for me. Please take a look at posts #55-60 here and respond in that thread, so the discussion will stay in one place.

 

[mgoforth]

Here is one. I am an apostolic pentecostal Oneness believer and I don’t believe in the Trinity. Explain and defend the Trinity to me.

I’m a bit confused. This is just a practice question for me right? I’m happy to practice, but hoping to talk to people who are actually on the fence as well.

The Trinity is the belief that God is three persons, all of one being or essence. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. They’re distinct persons from each other, but are all the same One God. Consider the Baptism of Jesus:

"After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he (John the Baptist) saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.” Matthew 3:16-17

If God were only one person with three different “jobs”, or “appearances” - i.e. sometimes He appears or acts as the Father, sometimes as the Son, sometimes as the Holy Spirit - then why do we see all three forms simultaneously in this passage?

Also, believing in a single person who takes on different roles implies that God changes…sometimes He’s this, other times He’s that. God doesn’t change. He’s always the One God who is permanently three persons.

 

[mgoforth]

Well, the papacy is the main stumbling block for me. Please take a look at posts #55-60 here and respond in that thread, so the discussion will stay in one place.

I think I can help you without even delving into all the details from that thread.

"Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.” He said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”
And hearing this, the ten became indignant with the two brothers. But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Matthew 20: 20-28

Is it possible for you to see the Pope not as a tyrant or dictator, but as servant of the Universal Church? He knowingly takes on himself enormous responsibility to correctly teach the Faith, with the most severe consequences if he does a bad job.

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” 2 Peter 2: 1-3

Multiply that warning by tens or hundreds of millions, since a bad teaching by the Pope could endanger the souls of any faithful Catholic, and I’d say that someone would have to be crazy, not very well acquainted with Scripture, or a very holy man indeed to agree to take on that position.

 

[JonNC]

=mgoforth;9106449]

I started to write a detailed response to your second set of questions…but changed my mind.

I’m not saying this as a cop-out, but I think we could spend the rest of our lives doing scholarly research and debating this. I would enjoy the process, but I think I have an easier way to approach things. Let me skip down to what I see as the key statement you made.

That’s fine.

Let me just ask a few questions based on that, with no dis-respect intended, Jon. Would you agree that the Catholic Church and the LCMS cannot both be correct in their beliefs? At least one (or possibly both) must be wrong…since many of the beliefs are mutually exclusive. They can’t both be true.

In that we probably agree on 85 to 90% of Christian doctrine, you would be right in saying that both cannot be right about the other 15%.

Are you really in agreement with all the other Catholic beliefs except primacy of the Pope as you originally said?

Because what I read from your latest statement is that if the LCMS and Catholic Churches merged, then you’d have no problem riding along and being Catholic…is that what you mean? That’s very different than saying, “I only question the role of the pope”.

It is more that I would accept doctrines I question, deferring to the Church. Additionally, I think I mentioned that reconciliaion and full communion between Rome and the East would move me, as well.

So please clarify for me. Do you believe in transubstantion of the Eucharist or consubstantiation? How about sola scriptura and sola fide, both of which the LCMS professes and the Catholic Church rejects? What about prayers to saints?

Since I’m Lutheran, I do not confess either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. I confess that the bread is His body, as He said. This is the Lutheran position. But as recent Lutheran/Catholic dialogue has indicated, the difference in our views should not be Church dividing. On sola fide, see the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. On sola scriptura - this is my persoanl opinion - when the patriarchates are united on what Tradition teaches, I would see no reason to be sola scripturist. On invocation of the saints, I don’t see it as an article of faith. I do not practice it, as I agree with our confessions that there is no command, example, or promise in scripture regarding it, but in the same way there is no prohibition of it. It has been practiced both east and west for centuries to the comfort of those who do. I see no cause to condemn it.

If you fall on the Catholic side in all of these beliefs like you originally said, then why in the world do you still belong to the LCMS? Aren’t any of those beliefs in themselves more important than whether the Pope is really “first among equals” as Catholics claim?

Right now, I am in division with the Bishop of Rome, and the sees of the East. If I became Catholic, I would still be in schism. If I joined the EO, I would still be in schism.
On the whole, I can honestly confess the Augsburg Confession, as a true confession of the Catholic faith.

What I suspect you’re actually saying though, is that if our two churches could somehow compromise on their beliefs, or if your church could continue to believe what it does and at the same time be in communion with Rome, you’d make the switch.

I do not believe in compromise. And as I said, the issue of the supremacy of the pope is
much bigger than the LCMS. If the East and Rome solved this, I would be in RCIA the next day, regardless of what the LCMS did. Why? Because I would see it as a clear movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

If that’s the case, then you’re nowhere near as close to crossing over as you claimed. If it’s not the case…then I ask again: Why remain part of a church that doesn’t share your beliefs just because you’re uncomfortable with the idea of the Pope?

Forgive me for answering a question with a question; would I be a good Catholic if I rejected the pope’s claims regarding unversal jurisdiction? But you asked a single question in your OP, what holds you back. More than any other, it remains this single issue.

Jon

 

[mgoforth]

That’s fine.

Thank you for your honest responses Jon.

Additionally, I think I mentioned that reconciliaion and full communion between Rome and the East would move me, as well.

It may happen one day…with God all things are possible. An East-West reconciliation is far more likely than a Protestant-Catholic one, which I don’t believe will ever happen.

Since I’m Lutheran, I do not confess either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. I confess that the bread is His body, as He said. This is the Lutheran position. But as recent Lutheran/Catholic dialogue has indicated, the difference in our views should not be Church dividing.

Your answer is confusing to me. If the bread is His body and only His body, it’s transubstantiation…if it’s bread and His body at the same time, it’s consubstantiation. I can’t tell from your response which you mean, but I can’t even think of a third option that retains the real presence…seems that it would have to be one or the other. The only other choice is to say that it’s only bread and symbolic.

I understand that you want to believe only what Jesus taught, but what is your understanding of His teaching? Did He teach that the bread becomes His body completely, or that His body exists along-side the bread? For example: I read “this is My body” to mean that it’s no longer bread.

I agree there may be room for reconciliation between the churches on this point.

On sola fide, see the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

I’ll check it out.

On sola scriptura - this is my persoanl opinion - when the patriarchates are united on what Tradition teaches, I would see no reason to be sola scripturist.

So the East/West schism is really the sticking point? What if there was a reconciliation between only some of the EO churches and Rome? Does it have to be 100%, across-the-board agreement before you’d consider Tradition valid? For you, is it that you know there is objective Truth in one of the two churches, but aren’t sure whether the EO or Catholics are correct?

On invocation of the saints, I don’t see it as an article of faith. I do not practice it, as I agree with our confessions that there is no command, example, or promise in scripture regarding it, but in the same way there is no prohibition of it. It has been practiced both east and west for centuries to the comfort of those who do. I see no cause to condemn it.

There’s no command that I know of, but there is example. I hesitate to get into interpretations of the book of Revelation…but how would you read this from Rev 5: 6-8? And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

What are those prayers of the saints?

Also similar language repeated in Rev 8: 3-4 Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand.

…continued