What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?

[Bill_Pick]

Oneheartway,

I would also suggest asking your Protestant friends whether they believe that St. Paul was infallible at times (e.g. when he wrote Romans), and if so why can’t they also believe that the Pope is infallible at times (when he makes an ex cathedra statement).

I think a lot of the problem are like people like always–gr8ful that know nothing about the Church and keep bashing and not know any thing about the Church or what it teach

 

[Augie1530]

The biggest obstacle I have seen since I joined CAF is the attitude of some of its members who were very forward in their opinions stating that THE RCC is the ONLY recognised church of Jesus Christ and that Anglican , Episcopal and Lutheran Churches are in their opinion heresy, Ipolitely tried to state my understanding of all three of them when I was confronted by other CAF members who were just as obstinate in their opinions to the point that it was close to insulting. I think the other thing that is detramental in Christian unity is the fact that ROME has refused to recognise the validity of Anglican and Lutheran Doctrine in the areas of Real Presence, Validity of Ordinations, Sacramental confession , etc I think its beyond time for Rome to meet with Lutheran and Anglican Prelates and come to some agreement and understanding and remove obsticles which have kept the Church separate since Oct 31 1517 when Luther told Pope Leo X Its time to clean the house and this is what we need to do ( Being a descendant of both Leo X , Charles V and Duke Frederick of Saxony this has been a big interest in my family )

 

[barbaranne423]

In my honest opinion, the largest obstace is our love for Our Blessed Mother.
I think other religions are deeply offended by the place of honor we give her because they do not understand or perhaps they understand but in part.

 

[JonNC]

The biggest obstacle I have seen since I joined CAF is the attitude of some of its members who were very forward in their opinions stating that THE RCC is the ONLY recognised church of Jesus Christ and that Anglican , Episcopal and Lutheran Churches are in their opinion heresy, Ipolitely tried to state my understanding of all three of them when I was confronted by other CAF members who were just as obstinate in their opinions to the point that it was close to insulting. I think the other thing that is detramental in Christian unity is the fact that ROME has refused to recognise the validity of Anglican and Lutheran Doctrine in the areas of Real Presence, Validity of Ordinations, Sacramental confession , etc I think its beyond time for Rome to meet with Lutheran and Anglican Prelates and come to some agreement and understanding and remove obsticles which have kept the Church separate since Oct 31 1517 when Luther told Pope Leo X Its time to clean the house and this is what we need to do ( Being a descendant of both Leo X , Charles V and Duke Frederick of Saxony this has been a big interest in my family )

Coming from a Catholic, Augie, I really appreciate what you’ve said here, and I agree. Let me just say, however, that there has been significant progress in this area.
usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
And much of the credit belongs to Rome for opening the door for this dialogue.
My synod, the LCMS, needs to do a better job of walking through that door.
Lutherans, generally, need to do a better job of reverence when it comes to the Eucharist, and show better respect for Catholic reverence and piety. IOW, unity requires the effort, paryers, and trust in the Holy Spirit of both sides. While much has been done, more can be.

Thanks again,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Brother,
I would pick “f”. It seems that the issue of real-presence is a mile-high mountain for non-catholics to climb. This mental block might explain why non-catholics may feel uncomfortable with John 6 (of which significant part deals with the Eucharist). However the antagonism to the “eating of flesh” predates Protestanism. I have read that the Romans, during the era of martyrdom, were horrified by the fact that Christians believed they were eating the body of Christ. They were therefore viewed as being cannibalistic. Shows you that the Eucharist is an ancient believe and not a “papist” dogma. The believe was therefore a “given” for the early Christians.
Kind regards
Austine

Hi Austine,
For Lutherans, most Anglicans, Methodists, and I’ll include Orthodox, the issue is not the real presence, but Transubstantiation. From a joint statement of Lutherans and Orthodox:helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html#euch

1. Lutherans and Orthodox take the Lord’s words “this is my body; this is my blood” (Mt 26,27f, par.) literally. They believe that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood to be consumed by the communicants. How this happens is regarded by both as a profound and real mystery. In order to approach that mystery, Orthodox and Lutherans have drawn on their respective theological traditions and developed different insights on what takes place.

---

c. Orthodox and Lutherans agree, whether they use the language of “metabole” or of “real presence”, that the bread and wine do not lose their essence (physis) when becoming sacramentally Christ’s body and blood. The medieval doctrine of transsubstantiation is rejected by both Orthodox and Lutherans.

Our effort together, therefore, must be to find a common way to express the real presence that we can agree upon.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

In my honest opinion, the largest obstace is our love for Our Blessed Mother.
I think other religions are deeply offended by the place of honor we give her because they do not understand or perhaps they understand but in part.

I think we must all do a better job of listening to and respecting each other’s Marion beliefs, with the knowledge that for all of us, The Blessed Virgin Mary and her love, obedience, and actions in this life clearly point us to the risen Christ.
Jon

 

[austine50]

Thanks for all that brother, we use those texts all the time in our Communion Service. Still I am not convinced that it actually happens as Roman Catholic Church says, it was one of the issues in the Reformation. (though not by Martin Luther:blush

It is symbolic you don’t actually ‘eat’ the Flesh and Blood of Lord Jesus…its blasphemy to say that it is. (no offence meant brother

I understand what you are saying in quoting those texts of course I do…but Protestant view is that what our Lord meant is that we accept His death on our behalf, accept that His body was broken for us, that His Blood was shed for us, and then allow Him to live His perfect life in us…that it all becomes part our being AS IF we were eating It. The Bible is called the same, the Bread of Life, we have to EAT the Bread of Life every day to remain true to Lord Jesus!! And of course we Drink the Water of Life also, the Samaritan women at the well, ‘Drink this Water and you will never Thirst again’…it is all symbolic of making IT All part of us, PART OF OUR SOUL if you like.

Now I am very aware that I am a Visitor on a Roman Catholic Website and as such I understand that you are convinced of what you say…ha ha, as convinced as I am of what I say…but I STILL LIKE YOU…

Its nothing between friends eh Michael.

My brother Michael,
Greetings. Our belief in the Eucharist is anchored mostly on John 6. When the Jews complained about the “hard teaching” Jesus did not try to reverse what He said about eating His flesh but rather emphasised His teaching. This is perhaps one single teaching that occupied a significant part of a whole chapter! I always find it strange that some of our separated brothers who take the Bible literally bulk when it come to John 6.
“Blessed are those who have not seen but believed”.
Kind regards
Austine

 

[SSTeacher]

j) some other factor

I think it’s sin.

Whose sin – theirs or ours?

Judgmentally,
Mick

 

[JonNC]

Whose sin – theirs or ours?

Judgmentally,
Mick

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Mick, even though I’m not Shaken, I was, em, stirred to respond to your question.

Jon

 

[SSTeacher]

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Mick, even though I’m not Shaken, I was, em, stirred to respond to your question.

Jon

I’m glad you did, Jon. It made me feel as if there is a bond between us.

Fraternally,
Mick

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hello Mick

Originally Posted by Eric Hyom %between%
Sadly this thread highlights for me all the doctrines that get in the way of loving each other as we love ourselves.*

In the spirit of praying to ONE God.

Eric*

The idea that doctrines “get in the way” is one I sometimes encountered during my sojourn inside the Evangelical world. I’ve never heard an informed Catholic declare it or endorse it. It seems to me that if we throw out our doctrines we have no reason for our beliefs and certainly no reason to love anybody other than ourselves. All we’ll have left is emotionalism and sentimentality. I urge you to rethink your stance. Not only does it make little sense it’s extremely dangerous.

I feel that when we use beliefs, doctrines, dogma, the authority of the pope and the church to try and change ourselves and move away from sin, then we are on the right path.

Some years ago I experienced a profound evangelising experience. I was given about a days notice to say I was going out door knocking in the style of the Jehovah Witnesses. I tried to think of all the excuses not to turn up, but went with a certain amount of trepidation.

About a dozen of us met together in prayer over lunch, then we went out in pairs door knocking. I am a Catholic, my partner was an Anglican I had never met before. We had about ten minutes together walking from the church to the first house to try and get to know each other and form an approach.

We simply introduced ourselves at the door, he said hello I am John from the Anglican Church, and I said I am Eric from the Catholic Church. This seemed to surprise and confuse many people and they engaged us in meaningful conversations.

John and I had to put the love of Christ at the centre, and somehow support each other whilst talking to people who seemed mostly agnostic in beliefs. I came away feeling deeply moved after this experience.

I can only try and break down the barriers that exist in my own heart, when it comes to unity in Christ.

In the spirit of praying to one God

Eric

 

[Cinette]

Hello Mick

I feel that when we use beliefs, doctrines, dogma, the authority of the pope and the church to try and change ourselves and move away from sin, then we are on the right path.

Some years ago I experienced a profound evangelising experience. I was given about a days notice to say I was going out door knocking in the style of the Jehovah Witnesses. I tried to think of all the excuses not to turn up, but went with a certain amount of trepidation.

About a dozen of us met together in prayer over lunch, then we went out in pairs door knocking. I am a Catholic, my partner was an Anglican I had never met before. We had about ten minutes together walking from the church to the first house to try and get to know each other and form an approach.

We simply introduced ourselves at the door, he said hello I am John from the Anglican Church, and I said I am Eric from the Catholic Church. This seemed to surprise and confuse many people and they engaged us in meaningful conversations.

John and I had to put the love of Christ at the centre, and somehow support each other whilst talking to people who seemed mostly agnostic in beliefs. I came away feeling deeply moved after this experience.

I can only try and break down the barriers that exist in my own heart, when it comes to unity in Christ.

In the spirit of praying to one God

Eric

I hope you repeated this and experienced more “meaningful” experiences.

Sometimes all people need is to be asked “Do you believe? If not why not?”

 

[twohumble]

Hi twohumble,

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forum.

Your first post, which is #255 on this thread, appeared to contain a question addressed to me. I’m assuming you meant your post to look something like this (if you didn’t, ignore everything after my first sentence above):

If the above is what you intended, this is my reply.

I wasn’t using the word salvation in any particular way. I was taking into account the fact that that Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians have different understandings of salvation. I wasn’t necessarily advocating any particular position, official or unofficial.

Respectfully,
Mick

Mick
You are SOO right about my post…sorry for my ‘posting ignorance’, as I did do it in an almost unintelligible way. I say ‘almost’ since you clearly got it despite my lack of posting form.

Ok, now to your response: If you weren’t using ‘salvation’ in any particular way, then this is a difficult question. Do you (and others here) agree that:

• Justification is ‘immediate’ and not a process, its a legal term denoting right with the Law.
• Sanctification is a life long process where the Holy Spirit guides us and molds us into the image of the Son.

If you disagree with the above definitions, please tell me how you differ and what you suggest the proper definitions and explanations should be.

I think protestants view the Catholic position on this point poorly, and to clarify this I think is important. It may seem tangential to this thread, but I think its an underlying reason protestants and Catholics do not come to a meeting of the minds.

Thanks
Dane

 

[Bob_McKissick]

a) Disagreement as to whether salvation is an event or a process?
b) Disagreement about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
c) Disagreement about praying for the dead?
d) Disagreement about the existence of purgatory?
e) Disagreement about how to understand baptism?
f) Disagreement about the doctrine of Transubstantiation?
g) Disagreement about confession of one’s sins being heard by a priest?
h) Disagreement about the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God?
i) Disagreement about the papacy and papal infallibility?
j) Some other doctrine or factor?

I believe the problem is I. In particular, Infallibility.

in·fal·li·ble (ĭn-fāl’ə-bəl) adj.

1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
3. Roman Catholic Church Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

I grew up amongst many christian religions, and the infallibility of the pope was most often brought up - they never declared the pope was not a good man, but they questioned that he would be infallible. In fact, the statement was often made that only christ was perfect when discussing this topic. I would also add that most protestants do not understand that infallible is currently interpreted as only in interpretation of doctrine and not that the pope is actually infallible. Communicating that point is necessary if you are trying to discuss this with a protestant as they can quote many historical references where a particular pope was not infallible outside from a pure sense (ie, Incapable of erring)

The other issue was the saints. Many protestant groups saw this as a form of idolatry.

You might add the distinction of impeccability, the inabllity to sin, which is NOT claimed for the Popes. Only Christ is impeccable. Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin, was held impeccable by the enmity place between her and Satan found in Genesis at the fall. bob

 

[Bob_Crowley]

As a former Protestant, and now Catholic, I’m pretty sure the final hurdle to be cleared before there is unity between Catholics and Protestants is the role of the Pope. I don’t find the “infallibility” doctrine to be particularly helpful in this regard. After all the most bitter denunciations on both sides in the Reformation centred on his position, and they’ll be the last.

As far as Mary is concerneded, I think she’s going to hit the news before too much longer, when we start to realise the warnings she gave at Fatima, Akita etc. are coming home to roost. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Protestant objections to Marianism began to dwindle.

Most of the other differences are of degree. What’s the big deal about the term “Transubstantiation” anyway when nobody can really explain it anyway? The sacraments simply need to be explained better, and a lof the of the other differences are in actuality minor.

I can’t comment on Orthodox reunification since I don’t have any experience in their tradition. It would be a good deal easier to reunify the Orthodox and Catholic churches however than the Protestants.

 

[traillius]

Two of the biggest doctrinal differences are the nature of salvation and the concept of transsubstantiation.
Other non-doctrinal issues also arise as barriers.

 

[twohumble]

Two of the biggest doctrinal differences are the nature of salvation and the concept of transsubstantiation.
Other non-doctrinal issues also arise as barriers.

How do you describe salvation traillius? See my post above to Eric.
I am confused about the exact Catholic position here. Above I post my definitions of Justification and Sanctification, but I am interested to know what you all say the substantial Catholic postion is on this. Growing up Catholic, reading the Catechism (heck, I even taught 8th grade CCD) I am still confused about what the Vatican says is the method of salvation and its definitions for Justification and Sanctification.

 

[traillius]

The giver : God the father
the gift : salvation
the container: Jesus
the recipient: You
Grace: the willingness of God to give the gift
Faith: welcoming and accepting the gift
works: Opening the gift and using/enjoying it.
salvation: grace+faith+works
That is my view of Salvation, in a proverbial nutshell.

 

[CJ_Nick]

Is it,

a) Disagreement as to whether salvation is an event or a process?
b) Disagreement about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
c) Disagreement about praying for the dead?
d) Disagreement about the existence of purgatory?
e) Disagreement about how to understand baptism?
f) Disagreement about the doctrine of Transubstantiation?
g) Disagreement about confession of one’s sins being heard by a priest?
h) Disagreement about the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God?
i) Disagreement about the papacy and papal infallibility?
j) Some other doctrine or factor?

Curiously,
Mick

Hello curiously Mick

It is my humble opinion that the BIGGEST obstacle to the unity is the wide variety of different flavors and self interpreting of Sacred Scripture that is and has been taught from the Pulpit.

It is also my humble opinion that we broken sinners ( myself certainly included ) tend to be drawn to the flavor of Christainity that conveniently fits best to our liking and or to the place of worship that is most entertaining.

Just my opinion, of course

Peace,
Catholicly
CJ

 

[JonNC]

=Bob Crowley;5224342]As a former Protestant, and now Catholic, I’m pretty sure the final hurdle to be cleared before there is unity between Catholics and Protestants is the role of the Pope. I don’t find the “infallibility” doctrine to be particularly helpful in this regard. After all the most bitter denunciations on both sides in the Reformation centred on his position, and they’ll be the last.

This is insightful, I think, because you correctly draw some distinction between the pope’s role, and the infaalibility question. And the amount his position (not infallibility for a moment) will matter depends greatly on the protestant communion you talk about.
The Lutheran confessions, for example, leave open the possibility of the traditional role of the pope - western patriarch - with the understanding that his role comes from human tradition. The issue of infallibility, on the other hand, is dicier for all protestants and the Orthodox.

As far as Mary is concerneded, I think she’s going to hit the news before too much longer, when we start to realise the warnings she gave at Fatima, Akita etc. are coming home to roost. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Protestant objections to Marianism began to dwindle.

Though a dogmatic statement without a truly ecumenical council regarding “co-redemptrix” means all bets are off.

Most of the other differences are of degree. What’s the big deal about the term “Transubstantiation” anyway when nobody can really explain it anyway? The sacraments simply need to be explained better, and a lof the of the other differences are in actuality minor.

With those who believe in the real presence in the sacrament, I think the differences over Transub. can be resolved.

I can’t comment on Orthodox reunification since I don’t have any experience in their tradition. It would be a good deal easier to reunify the Orthodox and Catholic churches however than the Protestants.

I’m not necessarily convinced of that.

Jon