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

[JonNC]

=wisdomseeker;5233006]
you have point something very important, FEAR. if protestants stops the production of the fear factor among themselves aganist the CC, i believe it would be one more step to union. but will they?

Which protestants? I have never, since my earliest childhood, was taught to fear Catholics, Catholic books, Catholic Churches.

my cousin would not even touch a Catholic book for fear of sinning. another friend would not set a foot on steps of a CC, for fearing of commiting a horrible sin. as long as there is people like that they just keep multiplying and union very far from happening

Anecdotal, at best. And I have heard Catholics here express a similar fear of going to “Protestant” worship. I guess we need to ignore those with irrational fear on both sides and listen instead to the Holy Spirit.

Jon

 

[wisdomseeker]

Or how about my teen-agers who think I don’t have a clue.

Teen:“Give me ONE good reason why I can’t stay out all night with the car.”
Mom"Because I’m your mom and I love you more than anybody else in the whole wide world."
Teen “That’s not a good enough reason!”

Then they grow up and say, “I can’t believe I was such a brat!”

yes. this is much like them. they know at all. funny.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m sorry to say but that is such a hypocritical statement coming from a person whose religion demands that they evangelize to the world.

Evangelization is outreach and spread of the Good News. Think of Mother Teresa and the missionaries. In St. Louis, nuns taught Negro slaves to read on boats in the Mississippi River because it was illegal in MO to educate them. Nobody is forcing anybody to convert. We evangelize by our actions and way of life. You can chose to accept or reject. You have chosen to reject. No problem. I find it interesting that you are here on a Catholic forum. Do you feel the need to evangelize atheism/agnosticism to us?

If we think religion is a collection of false myths and the world would be better off if we could slowly shift towards a new paradigm of thinking premised on reality – then wouldn’t it be incumbent on us to challenge religion in the marketplace of ideas? Isn’t this the same thing you guys do?

You can and have challenged what you call false myths. For me it is Truth. If you think atheism and agnosticism would make the world a far better place to live, you need only look at modern societies that tried it - The Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany. The most violent regimes in modern history.

Christianity is what saved the world from chaos when Rome fell. It was the Church who preserved civilization in her monasteries when the world went dark. I’ll admit mistakes, gross mistakes, were made by Christians claiming God was on their side. But on the whole, the world is a better place because of the Catholic Church.
Humble:

I guess Hannity is another example – but by and large Catholics have always supported labor unions and government welfare programs (notwithstanding its own contributions in social welfare and public health).

The poor and disenfranchized generally vote left.

You will never be able to suppress the Truth of God’s everlasting love for his children. It is written on our hearts and we are not complete until we rest in Him.

 

[wisdomseeker]

red herring … I never belittled the intelligence of these men nor based my own thoughts (or those of other more prominent thinkers) on an assertion that I’m smarter than them (though I’m not sure I’m not – since I’ve never compared our IQ tests ).

Intelligence itself or lack thereof is no predictor of religious adherence or inversely atheism (or the many views that lie in between). Sure atheists may have a tendency to be on average smarter than the general population (or religious folks); but that in itself certainly doesn’t mean there aren’t many religious folks or religious leaders who are at the top of the ladder intellectually speaking.

However, I think it’s probably a different sort of intelligence that makes one predisposed to religion. Being able to crunch numbers or come up with great philosophical theories is one form of intelligence. However, it’s yet another to be able to imagine how a society can function and succeed without too many extrinsic controls (as men like Adam Smith were great at – notwithstanding whatever his religious views might have been).

It seems to me many religious and secular people tend to have something in common. They can’t wrap their minds around the fact that centralized controls and a whole litany of rules governing most aspects of our lives is a bad idea (albeit each group would impose a different set of controls and rules). The religious want to impose their moral world view on society, while the secular tend to lean towards a socialist world view. Indeed many religious folks also have a socialistic world view (particularly Catholics). These folks tend to support federal intervention in education (although they obviously take different approaches to it), labor unions, over regulation of corporate governance, trade barriers, etc.

I (and some like me) have a different mode of thinking. I say centralized management and rules governing personal conduct should be the exception not the rule. It is pragmatic in select cases – but too much stifles growth and innovation and lowers quality.

America is the great marketplace of ideas … and this to me is a wonderful attribute of our country.

i dont know, humble in doubt. i think the Christians beat the non believers. Christians Catholics defeated the great Roman empire and no weapon was needed. think about this…
ask St Augustine about it.

"Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth."

 

[qui_est_ce]

Which protestants? I have never, since my earliest childhood, was taught to fear Catholics, Catholic books, Catholic Churches.
Jon

Hi Jon-
Let’s face it, there are a lot of Protestants - usually Fundamentalist that think the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, that Catholics worship Mary, etc. There are a lot of Catholics who think Luther is a monster. My sister and I went to the same Catholic grade school and high school. She swears the nuns told her our dad (LCMS) was going to Hell, and she should pray for his conversion. I don’t remember ever hearing that, but enough Catholics have. Many Catholics have false ideas about Protestantism and Catholicism!

But let’s move forward. I came to love my Catholic faith through my dad, . His reverence for the Lord and the beauty of His Creation deeply touched me. My dad would never step on an ant or pick a flower unless it was “broken.” We had a lot of flowers that were about to break in our house!

I raised my children the same way. My son loves nature and wants to go into biology. He has freed mice from traps. When other little boys would stomp on worms, he would save them for our garden. We have a bunny graveyard from saving bunnies from cats.

Sorry if I got off topic. I think this is a really good thread if we use it to dialogue rather than point fingers.

God bless.

 

[qui_est_ce]

i dont know, humble in doubt. i think the Christians beat the non believers. Christians Catholics defeated the great Roman empire and no weapon was needed. think about this…
ask St Augustine about it.

"Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth."

Good point. I like your last quote. Anybody can Google anything, but how it fits is what’s lost.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Good point. I like your last quote. Anybody can Google anything, but how it fits is what’s lost.

thanks.

:byzsoc:

 

[matahari]

Neither Calvin nor Luther ever denied perpetual virginity (to my knowledge anyway). This objection came later (albeit the objection is based on pretty solid support from scripture, which states Jesus did have siblings; and if you draw from the typology of David and the rejection of him from his siblings & the prophecy that the same would happen with the Messiah, it seems that perhaps having actual blood siblings who rejected Jesus is important for typological purposes and to fulfill prophecy

---

Jesus had no brothers or sisters. There was no word for cousin so brothers and sisters was used to mean cousins

 

[JonNC]

Let’s face it, there are a lot of Protestants - usually Fundamentalist that think the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, that Catholics worship Mary, etc. There are a lot of Catholics who think Luther is a monster. My sister and I went to the same Catholic grade school and high school. She swears the nuns told her our dad (LCMS) was going to Hell, and she should pray for his conversion. I don’t remember ever hearing that, but enough Catholics have. Many Catholics have false ideas about Protestantism and Catholicism!

 

[jmcrae]

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.

This would mean that he can never say anything that is known by the Church to be true. Is that what you meant to say?

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.

Yes, but not under his own power - this is by the power of God through the Holy Spirit, which was promised by Christ to the Church.

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.”

Jesus also behaved like this - He invites us to trust Him because He says that He is God.

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.

Do you believe that it is possible to know the teachings of Christ (that is to say, is it possible to have Christian doctrine)?

Or is it only possible for us to make our best guess, and pray that we have guessed correctly? (Or else pray that Christian doctrine is not actually essential to the Christian lifestyle … )

 

[Bob_McKissick]

like all mythological figures Mary can be whomever you want her to be. However, the idea of Mary as co-redeemer (or any other similar title) is objectionable to New Testament theology. The same goes for the office of Peter. I was Christian (technically Catholic) for long enough & studied these issues I think in depth enough to have a decent grasp of it. What I saw when I studied theology was a Catholic tendency to engage in post hoc analysis when it came to scripture.

In other words there is no support for the idea that the office given Peter by Christ was to live on in perpetuity (and vest in the Roman papacy), just as there is no support for the idea that the role as helper, confidant, and so on that Mary played while Christ was alive and carried out his ministry (that does find typological precedent with the mothers of David and Solomon) should live on in perpetuity (and no Rev. 12 doesn’t support this idea). The way Catholic theologians use typology and New Testament exegesis has always been problematic in my view. They start from a questionable premise i.e. the RCC is the only church Christ intended to set up, and from there they apparently feel they have license to say whatever they want (whether logical or borderline ridiculous) and stamp it with the CC seal of authority (and of course it’s hundreds of millions of adherents generally just buy into it without questioning it much).

Obviously I no longer believe in the veracity of the bible at all – so it’s not much use for me to engage in a heated debate over this issue. However, this is how I once felt even as someone who was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools, served as an alter boy, etc. I guess it’s always been my nature to question things?

It seems that you are member of the third part of Catholicism. The Three Parts are the Church Teaching, The Church Taught and the Church Unteachable. If this is all a bore to you, why don’t you go else where and find something that is of interest to you? bob

 

[humble_in_doubt]

---

Jesus had no brothers or sisters. There was no word for cousin so brothers and sisters was used to mean cousins

*Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). *

The Koine Greek word used here is: Anepsios, meaning a cousin or cousin (Strong’s number 431). Whereas the Greek word used for brother is: Adelphos (as used in verses like Matthew 13:55). Adelphos can be used in various contexts:

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   a. his brothers by blood
   b. all men
   c. apostles
   d. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

***See Strong’s No. 80

 

[khutcheson]

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.

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.

Peter,

The problem for me is knowing WHEN he’s speaking “infallibly”. I have no problem with the idea that the pope is absolutely right on doctrine most of the time (I’m even open to the idea that he could be right ALL the time–an infallible guide would be nice), however, the problem is knowing if and when he is speaking infallibly.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I think infallibility has to be officially invoked (it’s a process that from my understanding is pretty unambiguous and straight forward). Frankly I think the last time it was invoked “ex cathedra” was with the dogma of the Assumption of Mary (in 1950).

 

[Peter_J]

Peter,

The problem for me is knowing WHEN he’s speaking “infallibly”.

Yes, I think that’s the difficulty.

In the early Church, no one ever tried to define a dogma that said "A statement made by the Apostle James is infallible if it satisfies these conditions __________ ". No, they simply examined the various “books” that were in circulation, and decided that 27 of them should be considered the New Testament.

I think we’d be better off today if Vatican I had stuck with this (traditional?) approach. Instead of saying "A statement made by the Pope is infallible if it satisfies these conditions __________ ", they could have e.g. examined Ineffabilis Deus (the 1854 bull which dogmatically defined the Immaculate Conception) and said “This is an infallible document.”

Does that make sense?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

hello Jon;

None of us know who is saved and who is not.

This reminds me of a joke our priest told us last week during his homily.

A Hindu goes up to heaven, and St. Peter said, my friend I will show you around all the mansions were every one lives.

As they walked St Peter said, this is the mansion were all the Muslims live, further on he said, this is were all the agnostics live. St. Peter warned the Hindu, when we walk past the next mansion we must duck down behind the wall and keep very quiet.

Why said the Hindu?

St. Peter replied, the Catholics live in that mansion, and they think they are the only ones in heaven

 

[JonNC]

hello Jon;

This reminds me of a joke our priest told us last week during his homily.

A Hindu goes up to heaven, and St. Peter said, my friend I will show you around all the mansions were every one lives.

As they walked St Peter said, this is the mansion were all the Muslims live, further on he said, this is were all the agnostics live. St. Peter warned the Hindu, when we walk past the next mansion we must duck down behind the wall and keep very quiet.

Why said the Hindu?

St. Peter replied, the Catholics live in that mansion, and they think they are the only ones in heaven

lol. I’ve heard that with other mansions as well: Ex. The Baptist mansions they are dancing and enjoying adult beverages, as they find out its ok. The Lutheran mansion, they’re not drinking and dancing because it isn’t any fun to do it in front of the Baptists anymore.

Jon

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5230661:

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.This would mean that he can never say anything that is known by the Church to be true. Is that what you meant to say?

What I actually said is what I meant to say i.e. that I have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding how somebody can say that the pope can never speak infallibly. I did not mean to say what you said i.e. that this would mean that he can never say anything that is known by the Church to be true. And, as the record shows, I did not say it.

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 do not argue with your assertion. I simply note that it flows from a Catholic mindset and that somebody who does not have a Catholic mindset will not necessarily agree with it.

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.”

Your comparison appears to be one that a Catholic would naturally adduce. I daresay a Secularist would likely point out that salespersons characteristically take a similar line. For example:

Trust me that I’m telling the truth. You really do need this gadget because it will change your life.

But how many people argue that such assertions suggest and signify infallibility?

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 believe that it is possible for any person to know the teachings of Christ because His teachings are easily accessible in the four Gospels.

Or is it only possible for us to make our best guess, and pray that we have guessed correctly? (Or else pray that Christian doctrine is not actually essential to the Christian lifestyle … )

I’m speaking only for myself so I’ll respectfully refrain from commenting upon the options that might or might not be available to groups categorized as “us” and/or “we.” I do however think that ideas have consequences and that sound doctrines ought to form the base upon which a Christian should proceed to build his or her lifestyle. I also believe that a Christian should beware of embracing false doctrines by avoiding teachers who teach such doctrines. Saint Paul’s caution to Saint Timothy is perhaps one that all Christians would do well to keep in mind, scil:

If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[ferdie]

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.

When I was bouncing back and forth between born again fundamentalist churches, baptist church and the Iglesia Ni Kristo, I noticed one particular thing that was common to these churches I attended, they all have some kind of hatred against the Catholic Church, but you know what, I NEVER heard any member or leaders spoke against the Orthodox Church. So I put this in consideration when I was researching the Church History.
I too had a problem with Infallibility when I was reading Church History, it seems arrogant for the Church to claim that. It took me a while to accept it, but I was able to accept it. I reasoned this way:

1.Jesus sent His Apostles with full power to preach the gospel.

“As the Father has sent me, so I send you”.

“Make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

Jesus taught without error and He commanded the Apostles to teach until the end of the age. The only way they can teach all truth until the end of time is if they pass the same authority they received. It was physically impossible for the Apostles to preach to the whole world, so Jesus must have intended the authority to be passed down to the successors of the Apostles to the end of time.
The authority given to the Apostles and their successors came from Jesus whom he receive from the Father. That authority to teach all truth is guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by our Lord.

1. Jesus Christ said, " He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned."

“If he refuse to hear even to the Church, let hem be you as the heathen and the publican.”

“He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you ejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

“And whoever does not receive you, or listen to your words- go forth outside and of the house or town, and shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that town”.

These are strong words for those who do not believe in the authority of people sent by Jesus. Our God is a just God who could not command men under penalty of damnation to believe what is not true. So the teaching of the Church must be infallibly true to lead men to salvation.

Saint John told us ‘not to trust any and every spirit but to test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for amongst those who have gone out into world there are many prophets, falsely inspire’.

He even told us how to test the spirits: ‘We (the early church bishops) belong to God and a man who knows God listens to us, while he who does not belong to God refuses us (the early church bishops) a hearing. That is how we distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of error’.

 

[jmcrae]

He even told us how to test the spirits: ‘We (the early church bishops) belong to God and a man who knows God listens to us, while he who does not belong to God refuses us (the early church bishops) a hearing. That is how we distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of error’.

Right, and St. Irenaeus of Lyons reiterated this most clearly when he commanded his own followers to hear their Bishops - and, when their own Bishops disagree with each other, to hear the Bishop of Rome, which is the pre-eminent See. (Against the Heresies, written in 180 AD)