Stumbling Block for Protestants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contarini said:
This is a really good question, and it’s actually one of the factors that make it impossible for me to remain a non-Catholic Christian in good conscience. I am, if anything, more certain of the proposition “if Christianity is true, Catholicism is true” than I am of the proposition “Christianity is true.” The more initial assumptions one grants, the surer the following conclusions. So it’s often crossed my mind that if I were an agnostic considering Christianity, and acting as hesitantly (given the evidence presented to me) as I’ve done with regard to Catholicism, I would never become Christian.

The basic problem with answering your question is that I can’t put myself into circumstances radically other than my own. I can’t say what I would think if I were not brought up as a Christian. My very doubts about my faith are the doubts of someone who has tried since earliest memory to live as a Christian, to love God and neighbor, to believe in the Bible, etc. I can, however, look at other people who have become Christians. For instance, Bernard Nathanson seems to have become convinced that abortion was wrong on purely secular grounds, but this conviction eventually led him to Catholicism (this is the kind of thing I was talking about above when I spoke of explanatory power). Lewis (who admittedly was brought up Christian but then abandoned the Faith) was led back to Christianity by, among other things, his love of mythology, his experience trying to follow his conscience, his prior conversion to a form of Neo-Platonism, and the fact that he generally liked theistic books better than atheistic ones. (Lewis’s conversion story is, in my opinion, the classic case of an attempt to make a soft-rationalist process sound like something that fits hard rationalist criteria.) Conscience and Neo-Platonism were also important factors for St. Augustine, as of course was the influence of his mother. Dorothy Day experienced overwhelming gratitude at the birth of her daughter, and felt the need of someone to Whom she could offer that gratitude. A. N. Wilson returned to the faith because he found it hard to believe that Richard Dawkins had a more profound understanding of the universe than Bach (well, that’s my paraphrase–he might not put it that way).

I can read all of these accounts of folks who converted or reverted to Christian faith and say, “Yes, these are all factors that play a role for me too.” That’s as far as I can go, I think.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I understand. But is it not true to say that although men and women may enter the faith for various reasons, they are not always objective?

By objective, I mean things that can be communicated to others as reasons or premises for their faith and what others can challenge and discuss in order to accept. Things of the purely experience kind in this sense is difficult unless we are speaking of a private revelation like that of St. Paul. At that point one will be reasonable to believe and those who trust the testimony of that individual can also believe.

So would it not be reasonable to say that we first decide to believe in Christianity if we have a personal experience of Christ ourselves or through accepting someone else? After all, the resurrection belief itself is of similar kind.

But after this acceptance of the resurrection, would you not have to follow a reasonable path to conclude what is Christianity (what Christ taught?).

Maybe I am biased as a Catholic but it seems very reasonable to me to accept the idea of a succession as one man authorizing another man to be the guide. So Christ the first guide authorizing twelve guides who in turn did the same and so forth? Then it also would seem reasonable to accept their definition of the office of successor, its validity and other aspects of the office?
 
Infallibility of doctrine is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Only one Church claims infallibility of doctrine.
Only one Church is infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
All of this is a moot issue since both Provoo and the full communion of Lutherans and Anglicans/ Episcopalians in north America. Both are now under episcopacy and apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
(Just curious, this is not a criticism.)

Do you believe that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop and Primate) is a valid bishop in apostolic succession?
 
PaulfromIowa said:
(Just curious, this is not a criticism.)

Do you believe that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop and Primate) is a valid bishop in apostolic succession?
Click to expand...
She had a “beautiful” sermon on St. Paul that echoes in my recent memory 😃
 
I think the main “stumbling blocks” are a) very large Churches and conregations b) birth control c) various doctrines related to the Blessed Virgin d) The authority of the Pope
e) the role of women in the Church

In our Church one can request private confession but of course we have general confession -I don’t feel confession per se is a main stumbling block

:cool:
 
PaulfromIowa said:
(Just curious, this is not a criticism.)

Do you believe that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop and Primate) is a valid bishop in apostolic succession?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do believe the Bishop Jefferts Schori has apostolic succession just like the Rt. Rev. Irja Askola who was consecrated Bishop of Helsinki for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland in 2010. geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/finland-consecrates-first-woman-bishop-the-church-of-england-newspaper-sept-17-2010-p-8/
 
Do you believe that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop and Primate) is a valid bishop in apostolic succession

the answer would be straightforward but of course moot in Catholic eyes-the laying on of hands is unbroken in the Episcopal Church-so yes from my view
Of course from the RC view not valid as a) Episcopal Orders are null and void b) she is a woman

:cool:
 
cmodrmac said:
I think the main “stumbling blocks” are a) very large Churches and conregations b) birth control c) various doctrines related to the Blessed Virgin d) The authority of the Pope
e) the role of women in the Church

In our Church one can request private confession but of course we have general confession -I don’t feel confession per se is a main stumbling block

:cool:
Click to expand...
Hmm. The problem is, you can either choose to resolve each of these blocks one by one or ask the greater question

How should TRUE Christianity be? Am I in the right group?

Usually many approach the discussion as “This is what I believe” and how do I now reconcile it with what you are saying. I think that is probably a very unfruitful way of going about things.

It is probably better to first ask if there is any reason to actually think that what you hold as Christianity is true. Most Christians today confuse this certainty with their certainty in Christ. If pressed for reasons to think their form of Christianity is true, there is ample evidence given of their personal experience of Christ. But that personal experience doesn’t translate to “what I believe as Christianity is true and that Christ is pro-women’s ordination, birth control” etc.

The purpose of these threads can only
  1. Explain or show why your belief in the form of Christianity you hold has no actual basis and therefore open your mind to objectively considering the reason given by Catholics as a basis
  2. For you to discuss the Catholic reasons
This is my opinion but I thought worth mentioning it.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
(Just curious, this is not a criticism.)

Do you believe that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop and Primate) is a valid bishop in apostolic succession?
Click to expand...
This is a subject you will find Anglicans differing on. Motley bunch, those Anglicans.

GKC
 
cmodrmac said:
Do you believe that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop and Primate) is a valid bishop in apostolic succession

the answer would be straightforward but of course moot in Catholic eyes-the laying on of hands is unbroken in the Episcopal Church-so yes from my view
Of course from the RC view not valid as a) Episcopal Orders are null and void b) she is a woman

:cool:
Click to expand...
I think you are yet to discover punctuation 😃
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Yes, I do believe the Bishop Jefferts Schori has apostolic succession just like the Rt. Rev. Irja Askola who was consecrated Bishop of Helsinki for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland in 2010. geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/finland-consecrates-first-woman-bishop-the-church-of-england-newspaper-sept-17-2010-p-8/
Click to expand...
And now, after a good nights rest, I would say that your claim of valid apostolic succession is so deeply flawed that this claim is not only invalid on its face, but it would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. You have been promoting unity among Catholics and Lutherans for some time now which is laudable. And then you proclaim to hold as valid the ordination of a female bishop who in turn promotes same sex relationships and ordinations of gay bishops openly living with their gay partners. Do you really have any expectation of unity with the Catholic Church when your ecclesial community behaves in this way?

Lord Jesus, help us.
 
**jaberwocky

She had a “beautiful” sermon on St. Paul that echoes in my recent memory.**

I wonder if her sermon touched on this part of St. Paul:

1 Cor 14:34

“Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.”
 
SteveVH said:
And now, after a good nights rest, I would say that your claim of valid apostolic succession is so deeply flawed that this claim is not only invalid on its face, but it would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. You have been promoting unity among Catholics and Lutherans for some time now which is laudable. And then you proclaim to hold as valid the ordination of a female bishop who in turn promotes same sex relationships and ordinations of gay bishops openly living with their gay partners. Do you really have any expectation of unity with the Catholic Church when your ecclesial community behaves in this way?

Lord Jesus, help us.
Click to expand...
Someone recently posted the difference between how the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox churches view apostolic succession. If I am not mistaken, the validity of the laying on of hands in apostolic succession going back to the holy Apostles is not a matter of fitness but rather, the sacramental action of the bishops in succession per Roman Catholics. One can not judge the character of the bishop-to-be. Is this correct?

The bishops of Scandinavia were Catholic and merely switched to Lutheran in the 1500’s; they kept on consecrating new bishops with slightly modified ceremonies per Lutheran sensibilities.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Someone recently posted the difference between how the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox churches view apostolic succession. If I am not mistaken, the validity of the laying on of hands in apostolic succession going back to the holy Apostles is not a matter of fitness but rather, the sacramental action of the bishops in succession per Roman Catholics. One can not judge the character of the bishop-to-be. Is this correct?

The bishops of Scandinavia were Catholic and merely switched to Lutheran in the 1500’s; they kept on consecrating new bishops with slightly modified ceremonies per Lutheran sensibilities.
Click to expand...
Succession is invalid if the teachings are not held. Lutheran Bishops, by definition reject the teachings of the Church in full or in part. Therefore the Succession is Null. At least that is what has been decided by the Catholic Church.
 
Jaberwocky said:
Succession is invalid if the teachings are not held. Lutheran Bishops, by definition reject the teachings of the Church in full or in part. Therefore the Succession is Null. At least that is what has been decided by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Why is there not an official Catholic position on the apostolic succession of Lutherans?
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Why is there not an official Catholic position on the apostolic succession of Lutherans?
Click to expand...
There is a Catholic position on Apostolic Succession. A definition of its scope, its method of transmission etc. You cannot just construct a concept of succession from history. You can only construct a reason to listen to the successors. The Lutheran’s face a problem here in that they listen to a group of successors who defied what the Church had taught through her successors at one stage. So that should make a Lutheran pause before accepting their teaching as well as their succession.

What you are asking is the equivalent of asking what is the official Catholic position on Protestant view of contraception. The Church, when it declares that contraception is immoral implies it is immoral for everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top