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

[SSTeacher]

Hi Dane,

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.

I hasten to expunge your minor faux pas from my memory.

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.

When I was in my Evangelical phase I understood salvation as being simply a matter of belief. Once I believed, I was justified before God and therefore assured of my place in heaven. Since I was saved, the notion of sanctification was a somewhat nebulous one. However, I was recently received into the Orthodox Church as a catechumen and so I’ve adopted the Orthodox understanding of salvation. In Orthodoxy, it has a name – theosis. The concept is more than a little frightening because it basically means that we human beings, created by God in the image of God, fulfill our destiny by becoming partakers of the divine nature. We become by God’s grace what God is by nature. Of course, the pivotal point is that we must cooperate with God’s grace. I guess you could say we become gods. Clearly, this is a gradual process.

I think protestants view the Catholic position on this point poorly, and to clarify this I think is important.

You’re probably right.

It may seem tangential to this thread, but I think it’s an underlying reason Protestants and Catholics do not come to a meeting of the minds.

Thanks
Dane

Well stated. I hope you stay on this forum and continue to contribute.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Hello curiously Mick

Hello CJ,

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.

Which pulpit – Catholic or non–Catholic?

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

Entertaining is definitely the word American Evangelicals have embraced. There are soloists, duets, trios, quartets, groups, bands, mime artists, actors, actresses, comedians, comediennes – you name it – all prefixing their act with the word “Christian” and all wanting to come to a church near you and perform, not to mention give you the opportunity to purchase their CDs and DVDs (which you’re free to do without restraint so may you indeed be blessed as you purchase these amazing bargains and don’t forget to write your checks for huge amounts because that’s a blessing, too, brothers and sisters).

Did I hear somebody say, Amen?:bounce:

Just my opinion, of course

To which everybody is entitled.

Peace,
Catholicly
CJ

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5219261:

Eric Hyom;5219132:

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.

EricThe 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.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

Eric,

I don’t agree with your approach but I think you’re a good man.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[CJ_Nick]

Hello CJ,

Which pulpit – Catholic or non–Catholic?

Entertaining is definitely the word American Evangelicals have embraced. There are soloists, duets, trios, quartets, groups, bands, mime artists, actors, actresses, comedians, comediennes – you name it – all prefixing their act with the word “Christian” and all wanting to come to a church near you and perform, not to mention give you the opportunity to purchase their CDs and DVDs (which you’re free to do without restraint so may you indeed be blessed as you purchase these amazing bargains and don’t forget to write your checks for huge amounts because that’s a blessing, too, brothers and sisters).

Did I hear somebody say, Amen?:bounce:

To which everybody is entitled.

Grace and peace,
Mick

Hello again Mick

First, sorry I am not the sharpest Catholic in the pew and as such have no idea how you professional posters respond in " quote " breaks ??? So, I hope you can follow my responses to you.

I was speaking of the non-Catholic pulpit with enormous weight given to the individual’s stances, opinions, and free reign of what is and is not taught to the audience.

I would completly agree ( imagine that ) with your contribution concerning many of our " home-grown" American preachers and would add that it is my humble opinion that this " human stardome" of a mere man is not only a dangerous road but indeed can and does diminish and over-shadow, in great measure, the celebration and thanks we are to give to our Lord Jesus in partaking in the Blessed Eucharist.

Peace to you as well

CJ

 

[SSTeacher]

Hello again Mick

First, sorry I am not the sharpest Catholic in the pew and as such have no idea how you professional posters respond in " quote " breaks ??? So, I hope you can follow my responses to you.

I was speaking of the non-Catholic pulpit with enormous weight given to the individual’s stances, opinions, and free reign of what is and is not taught to the audience.

I would completely agree (imagine that ) with your contribution concerning many of our " home-grown" American preachers and would add that it is my humble opinion that this " human stardome" of a mere man is not only a dangerous road but indeed can and does diminish and over-shadow, in great measure, the celebration and thanks we are to give to our Lord Jesus in partaking in the Blessed Eucharist.

Peace to you as well

CJ

CJ,

I followed easily. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Apropos quote breaks, click on this link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6675

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Hesychios]

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

None of the other Apostolic churches needed to make an explanation like Transubstantiation, and yet fully understand the Real Presence. Neither did the RC need such an explanation until much later in it’s own history. It’s just a theory.

Probably no explanation that makes sense to humans is adequate. All that’s necessary is that the condemnations over it cease, and acknowledge that Mysteries of this sort are always an open book.

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.

Me neither. In fact, I would prefer that the RC deals with the Lutherans and Methodists first, and then the Orthodox can see what they are really up against!

I also have a problem with the term “reunification”, no one knows what that means really, it is a loaded term and each group probably loads it with something different. We have to define what unification meant over the first centuries of the church before we can RE-do it! That is something that hasn’t been agreed upon to anyone’s satisfaction.

I decided I prefer the term, “Reconciliation”.

 

[SSTeacher]

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).

That’s a thoughtful question.

I suppose the answer would be that there is no trace in any of Saint Paul’s letters (that were subsequently included in the Canon of Scripture) of a claim of infallibility. Saint Paul simply wrote his letters in response to the prompting and guidance of the Holy Spirit acknowledging as he did so that he was the worst of sinners.

Biblically,
Mick

 

[traillius]

faith without works, or if you prefer justification without sanctification, is like buying a banana and never peeling it or eating it, It turns brown, becomes wasted, and is thrown out.Faith without works may very well get you where those who " believe and tremble, " yet do not obey, dwell forever.

 

[Peter_J]

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

Well then logically, wouldn’t you have to say that “all bets are off” already, since e.g. the Immaculate Conception was dogmatically defined without an ecumenical council? Would there be something different about dogmatically defining “co-redemptrix”?

 

[Peter_J]

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).

Well thanks, SSTeacher.

Quite honestly, I can understand how Protestants might take issue with the specifics about when the pope is infallible (in particular, it’s no surprise at all that Protestants are uncomfortable with the idea that every ex cathedra statement is infallible); but I have a hard time understanding how Protestant can say that the Pope can never speak infallibly.

I suspect it’s largely a matter of fear: they know that we Catholics believe that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, so they go as far as they can in the opposite direction, i.e. saying that the pope can never speak infallibly.

I suppose the answer would be that there is no trace in any of Saint Paul’s letters (that were subsequently included in the Canon of Scripture) of a claim of infallibility. Saint Paul simply wrote his letters in response to the prompting and guidance of the Holy Spirit acknowledging as he did so that he was the worst of sinners.

Biblically,
Mick

There’s a lot of diversity among Protestants, but I believe most (many, at any rate) do believe the Bible to be infallible. So the Paul-didn’t-claim-infallibility (while true) really doesn’t answers my question, I don’t think.

 

[gcnuss]

Well then logically, wouldn’t you have to say that “all bets are off” already, since e.g. the Immaculate Conception was dogmatically defined without an ecumenical council? Would there be something different about dogmatically defining “co-redemptrix”?

Jumping in with a few thoughts, I would say that it is difficult – at least in my mind – to equate the Immaculate Conception with a possible dogmatic definition of Mary as “co-redemptrix.” The Immaculate Conception, while not a necessary part of my understanding of our Lord, is not objectionable. If God wanted to have a sinless vessel to carry our Lord, it is not far-fetched to think that he would provide one.

On the other hand, the idea of a co-redemptrix seems, to my admittedly limited understanding of the concept, to give Mary virtually equal status to her son. I’ve heard the argument that the relation of “co-redemptrix” to “redeemer” is like the relationship of “copilot” to “pilot,” i.e., that the copilot is subordinate to the pilot. This is where the comparison loses me, because a copilot is as capable of flying the plane, unaided, as the pilot.

I don’t want to turn this into another “anti- vs. pro-Marian” discussion. I hasten to add that I consider Mary to be the perfect model of faith and obedience and one whom all should hope to emulate in that respect. But, I do have difficulties moving beyond that point.

 

[jmcrae]

Jumping in with a few thoughts, I would say that it is difficult – at least in my mind – to equate the Immaculate Conception with a possible dogmatic definition of Mary as “co-redemptrix.” The Immaculate Conception, while not a necessary part of my understanding of our Lord, is not objectionable. If God wanted to have a sinless vessel to carry our Lord, it is not far-fetched to think that he would provide one.

On the other hand, the idea of a co-redemptrix seems, to my admittedly limited understanding of the concept, to give Mary virtually equal status to her son. I’ve heard the argument that the relation of “co-redemptrix” to “redeemer” is like the relationship of “copilot” to “pilot,” i.e., that the copilot is subordinate to the pilot. This is where the comparison loses me, because a copilot is as capable of flying the plane, unaided, as the pilot.

I am sure you have seen the bumper sticker “God is my co-pilot” - a wonderful friend of mine points out, “If God is your co-pilot, you are sitting in the wrong chair.” Reason being, it’s the pilot who sets the course of the plane.

The pilot is the one in command; the co-pilot simply assists him in carrying out the mission that he has chosen. God’s role (pilot) is to command; our role, and Mary’s role (co-pilot) is to obey. Mary obeys God perfectly (unlike us); hence, “coredemptrix.”

It’s a flawed metaphor, because as you point out, another role of the co-pilot is to take over as pilot, if something happens to the pilot. However, we know that Mary isn’t going to take over from God - she cannot (and nor would she ever need to, since nothing bad is ever going to happen to God).

 

[JonNC]

=Hesychios;5226960]None of the other Apostolic churches needed to make an explanation like Transubstantiation, and yet fully understand the Real Presence. Neither did the RC need such an explanation until much later in it’s own history. It’s just a theory.

I’m not sure they needed one later in their (our) history, either.

EDIT: Guess the same could be said for “sacramental union”

Probably no explanation that makes sense to humans is adequate. All that’s necessary is that the condemnations over it cease, and acknowledge that Mysteries of this sort are always an open book.

In fact, I would prefer that the RC deals with the Lutherans and Methodists first, and then the Orthodox can see what they are really up against!

Oh, so now we’re cannon fodder?

I decided I prefer the term, “Reconciliation”.

Good decision.

JOn

 

[JonNC]

Well then logically, wouldn’t you have to say that “all bets are off” already, since e.g. the Immaculate Conception was dogmatically defined without an ecumenical council? Would there be something different about dogmatically defining “co-redemptrix”?

While I agree with Pastor Gary, I also think the relationships between the communions are different now. Maybe, for some, that shouldn’t make a difference. But I think for many, particularly for those in leadership, it does.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

While I agree with Pastor Gary, I also think the relationships between the communions are different now. Maybe, for some, that shouldn’t make a difference. But I think for many, particularly for those in leadership, it does.

Jon

Actually, that’s very much how I see it too.

I might illustrate with two 19th century figures: Pope Pius IX and Cardinal Newman.

Both of them agreed concerning the truth of “Papal Infallibility”.

Both of them were also strongly opinionated concerning the question of dogmatically defining it, but in opposite directions: Pope Pius IX strongly in favor, Cardinal Newman strongly opposed.

At the time of Vatican I, Pope Pius’ attitude was clearly dominant in the RCC; but I think that since Vatican II, Newman’s attitude has become dominant – not with regard to PI specifically, but I mean a generally less gung-ho attitude toward issuing dogmatic definitions.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5227853:

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).That’s a thoughtful question.Well thanks, SSTeacher.

Quite honestly, I can understand how Protestants might take issue with the specifics about when the pope is infallible (in particular, it’s no surprise at all that Protestants are uncomfortable with the idea that every ex cathedra statement is infallible); but I have a hard time understanding how Protestant can say that the Pope can never speak infallibly.

I daresay that for somebody who has a Catholic mindset it’s very hard to understand. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way – I’m reflecting upon the fact that our thinking, our judgments and our decisions are to a great extent all fairly predictable once our presuppositions are in place. As I do not have a Catholic mindset, I have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding how somebody can say that the Pope can never speak infallibly.

I suspect it’s largely a matter of fear: they know that we Catholics believe that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, so they go as far as they can in the opposite direction, i.e. saying that the pope can never speak infallibly.

You might have hit the nail on the head in the case of some but I don’t think your assertion necessarily applies to me. I decided in favor of Orthodoxy over the Catholic Church and the question of papal infallibility was one I had to consider in coming to my decision. My thinking went like this.

I first made sure I had the teaching correct. The teaching is that when the pope “speaks from the chair on a matter of faith and morals“ there can be no mistake i.e. the pope’s teaching is infallible in that instance. I reasoned that since the Catholic Church itself had proclaimed this doctrine, it was like somebody saying, “You can trust me because, in my own estimation, I’m trustworthy.” Then I reflected that the Catholic Church has often taught wrongly by example and by omission. The actions and inactions of Catholics past and present, both laity and clergy (Father Jenkins?), can be cited to endorse the point. So I concluded that if the Catholic Church had made errors in matters of behavior and in matters of administration and in matters of judgment and in matters of discipline, there seemed to be no objective reason for supposing that freedom from error in matters of doctrine was a realistic proposition, either.

SSTeacher;5227853:

I suppose the answer would be that there is no trace in any of Saint Paul’s letters (that were subsequently included in the Canon of Scripture) of a claim

of infallibility. Saint Paul simply wrote his letters in response to the prompting and guidance of the Holy Spirit acknowledging as he did so that he was the worst of sinners.

Biblically,
Mick
:thumbsup:There’s a lot of diversity among Protestants, but I believe most (many, at any rate) do believe the Bible to be infallible. So the Paul-didn’t-claim-infallibility (while true) really doesn’t answers my question, I don’t think.

I think your point carries much weight and as I’ve defected from Biblical Christianity I think I’ll defer to any current member of the Protestant movement who wishes to address it.

Pusillanimously,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

I first made sure I had the teaching correct. The teaching is that when the pope “speaks from the chair on a matter of faith and morals“ there can be no mistake i.e. the pope’s teaching is infallible in that instance.

It’s possible that you haven’t got the teaching correct.

The phrase: *when the Pope speaks ex cathedra *(literally “from the chair”) on a matter of faith and morals is redundant.

“on a matter of faith and morals” is one of the 3 parts of the definition of ex cathedra.

I reasoned that since the Catholic Church itself had proclaimed this doctrine, it was like somebody saying, “You can trust me because, in my own estimation, I’m trustworthy.” Then I reflected that the Catholic Church has often taught wrongly by example and by omission. The actions and inactions of Catholics past and present, both laity and clergy (Father Jenkins?), can be cited to endorse the point. So I concluded that if the Catholic Church had made errors in matters of behavior and in matters of administration and in matters of judgment and in matters of discipline, there seemed to be no objective reason for supposing that freedom from error in matters of doctrine was a realistic proposition, either.

I don’t think I have the strength to go into all that tonight, but in any case I think the point I was making applies to you as well: specifically, you not only reject the Catholic claim that every papal ex cathedra statement is infallible, but you also claim that the pope can never speak infallibly. Well then, why not also claim that St. Paul could never speak infallibly, in which case you’d have to conclude that Romans isn’t infallible?

 

[SSTeacher]

It’s possible that you haven’t got the teaching correct.

Please explain.

The phrase: *when the Pope speaks ex cathedra *(literally “from the chair”) on a matter of faith and morals is redundant.

Please explain.

“on a matter of faith and morals” is one of the 3 parts of the definition of ex cathedra.

Please enlarge.

I don’t think I have the strength to go into all that tonight, but in any case I think the point I was making applies to you as well: specifically, you not only reject the Catholic claim that every papal ex cathedra statement is infallible, but you also claim that the pope can never speak infallibly.

Indeed I do.

Well then, why not also claim that St. Paul could never speak infallibly, in which case you’d have to conclude that Romans isn’t infallible?

Saint Paul’s writings were raised in the early days to the status they now hold and that action had the endorsement of the entire Church. The doctrine of papal infallibility is a latter–day and singularly Catholic notion that is not endorsed by the entire Church. The writings of Saint Paul are universally known and cannot possibly be changed. The ex cathedra utterances of future popes are not yet known to anybody.

Perhaps you might be prepared to concede that somebody who does not have a Catholic mindset would naturally perceive substantial differences, herein?

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

Saint Paul’s writings were raised in the early days to the status they now hold and that action had the endorsement of the entire Church. The doctrine of papal infallibility is a latter–day and singularly Catholic notion that is not endorsed by the entire Church. The writings of Saint Paul are universally known and cannot possibly be changed. The ex cathedra utterances of future popes are not yet known to anybody.

Perhaps you might be prepared to concede that somebody who does not have a Catholic mindset would naturally perceive substantial differences, herein?

Respectfully,
Mick

It’s really pretty difficult to hold a conversation when you make responses like the above.

I said (and you agreed I believe) that you not only reject the Catholic claim that every papal ex cathedra statement is infallible, but you also claim that the pope can never speak infallibly. You can’t justify that by pointing out the wrongness of the Catholic position (even assuming that the Catholic position is in fact wrong). That would be like rejecting the Bible, and then trying to justify that rejection by pointing to the erroneous nature of “sola scriptura”.

 

[Peter_J]

Please explain.

Please explain.

Please enlarge.

Vatican I said:

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”