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

[wisdomseeker]

Greetings and Respect to all on this Forum. God bless all here!!

Anything I say is written about Organizations and never against individuals, or people within these organizations, no offence intended.

Protestants can never, even though some will, re unite with the Roman Catholic Church!

God called the Reformers out, even though they were excommunicated, of the Roman Catholic Church for a good reason…because lots of tares/weeds/error had been sown amongst the wheat/true doctrine of the Church, by the father of lies, the great deceiver, Lucifer the devil. Paganism had been married to Christianity. The work of rooting out these weeds began with the Reformers, but human beings choke if given too much information or Truth all at once, so, the process of throwing out the error was to take some years.

Most Protestants up to approx. 100 years ago, believed that the Roman Catholic Church is, to be polite, the Mother of churches, united with the state to persecute…therefore, we protestants cannot reunite with them. From the Persecution of the middle ages(Foxes Book of Martyrs…course there were many Roman Catholic martyrs too) to Revelation 13 and 14. Where once again the Roman Catholic Church will unite with the state to persecute… Which I totally agree is open to different interpretations, only in the future the right of it will be revealed.

What is the difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic Church’s now…the Mass which I have spoken about I think earlier, and I would contest, the Sabbath day…some historians have said that (making a rod for my own back) Protestants already give their alliegance to the Roman Catholic Church by worshiping on Sunday…coming from the pagan belief of the worship of the sun and the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

I have also spoken of the change of the Sabbath not being Biblical, all the evidence that Protestants use for Sunday originated from the Counter reformation wrought by Roman Catholic theologians to counteract Protestant changes.

The above is my opinion and the opinion of the Adventist Church and others too, small ‘Remnant’ though we be… so I don’t expect You All out there to agree…but tuck it away in your memory banks and when it happens be ready to CHOOSE whom you will worship…God the Creator or the beast, and the great dragon, the main antichrist, Lucifer the great deceiver and father of lies and enemy of God.

I am only stating what I believe to be scriptural, I intend no offence or harm to anyone who reads it. It is for information only…and discussion on this forum of course…

God bless all here. Michael.

when was the Son of the living God risen from the dead? what day? do you know?

is this the greatest obstacle to union?

 

[RosaryKindaGuy]

IMO it depends what kind of christian they are, if they are no offense meant Born again Christian or Pentecostal or Non denominational they generally hate the catholic church because we use more than 66 books in our bible to make 73 they view the others as prophecies not scripture, the Sola Scriptura idea of catholicism is also rejected. another obstacle is THEY HATE CATHOLICS according to them we are CORRUPT AND ARROGANT , THEY HATE US END OF STORY i met several christians on a chat room type game and the said that all sinners are going to hell. they told me catholics go to hell and i told them to put a sock in it and go home and they persisted they told me i was going to hell the pope was in hell and the entire church was doomed because we were not " saved" we believed faith and works were needed for salvation and we " worship idols" its honestly just the dumb ones who hate us though most protestants see us as too traditional for our own good remember LOVE THEY ORTHODOX BROTHERS the orthodox church are almost exactly like the catholic church so stop fighting over your differences the bishop of rome and the pope are the same person bishop is the highest rank in orthodoxy so the pope is still very high got it good

 

[Harpazo]

He was quoting from St. Augustine’s comment about the promulgation of the final canon of the Scriptures (which were in dispute for something like 200 years) - Roma locuta est; causa finita est. - Rome has spoken; the matter is settled.

He was not saying that Rome is some kind of big bad bully interfering where it isn’t wanted, but rather, that Rome finally came to the rescue of the Church and made a declaration on the Scriptures, thus settling an argument that had been going on for something like 200 years.

As has been pointed out already several times, Rome doesn’t do this whimsically, or even all that frequently.

Christ is risen!

Rome was not the only one to say anything on the canon. St. Athanasios, I believe did it long before +Pope St. Damasus did it. Councils before the Pope of Rome “settled the dispute,” namely Hippo and Carthage (there may have been others, yet I cannot recall at the moment). He gave his episcopal endorsement, not the declaration.

Would you also that the one of the chief motivating factors in St. Augustine saying that might have to do with the fact that Hippo was in the Patriarchate of Rome? After all, the case wasn’t closed in other patriarchates because others have differing numbers of books in their OT canon, with the Ethiopian Church having 80+ books in their Bibles (if I remember correctly, they even hold the Didache as canonical). What is your take on that?

Also, for others wondering why the Orthodox are not willing to accept things that have come about post-schism in the West, please look into St. Vincent of Lérins. He was a Gallican monk or priest (it escapes me, which one at the moment) who lived in the 300s.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[SSTeacher]

Have you read the writings of St. John Chrysostom? As I recall, he is considered an ancestor of the Greek Orthodox episcopate - and yet, in his Sermon for Pentecost (Book 4 of the Great Sermons of the Early Fathers series), he writes very eloquently about the primacy of Peter. I don’t have that sermon with me at the moment, but I am going to be reviewing it this week, and I’ll be able to quote from it directly, within the next few days.

But your motive in quoting from it, presumably selectively, will be to prove that you are right and that I am wrong, correct?

The First Vatican Council also quoted extensively from that same sermon, when defining the parameters of Papal infallibility.

And the motive was to give weight to the case for papal infallibility, wasn’t it?

PS: Of course, that is only an argument if one is Greek Orthodox, I realize. I don’t know who the ancestors of the American Orthodox are. You will have to enlighten me.

Click here

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Primox]

THEY HATE US END OF STORY

Untrue.

 

[jmcrae]

But your motive in quoting from it, presumably selectively, will be to prove that you are right and that I am wrong, correct?

It will not be necessary to quote “selectively” since the topic of the sermon is how Petrine authority flows from the action of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. There aren’t any qualifying statements in the sermon that would need to be removed to “make it say” that the Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of Bishops - he actually just comes right out and says that.

And the motive was to give weight to the case for papal infallibility, wasn’t it?

Which would not be possible, if the sermon did not actually contain evidence for this.

Click here

Thanks! So, it’s an outgrowth of the Russian Orthodox Church - that’s good to know.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5243558:

But your motive in quoting from it, presumably selectively, will be to prove that you are right and that I am wrong, correct?

It will not be necessary to quote “selectively” since the topic of the sermon is how Petrine authority flows from the action of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. There aren’t any qualifying statements in the sermon that would need to be removed to “make it say” that the Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of Bishops - he actually just comes right out and says that.

But what he doesn’t say is that the pope is infallible.:nope:

And the motive was to give weight to the case for papal infallibility, wasn’t it?

OK, I’ll concede that one.

Click here

Yes, it certainly is! Finally, we have reached an agreement on something!:bounce:

Is it too early to publish an Agreed Statement?

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[dzheremi]

Hahaha. Mick, you are too much sometimes.

 

[jmcrae]

But what he doesn’t say is that the pope is infallible.:nope:

I can’t remember whether he does, or not. I still have to find it again and re-read it. He doesn’t use that specific word (because he was writing in Greek) but it seems to me that what he wrote was used by Vatican I as the definition for what “infallible” means, in the case of the Pope.

Like I said, I have to look it up again.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I note that you chose to ignore my questions. They are challenging, I know, but I sense that you’re up to the task. Tell you what – allow me to cut out all the questions except the last one in order to make it less daunting and perhaps less confusing for you. I’m not trying to catch you out. There’s no trick and there’s no trap. I’m simply calling upon you to speak the truth in response to my direct question. Here’s that question again:

How do you know for certain that the Orthodox Church is not the Church that Christ founded and the one that He has been protecting from error all through the centuries?

Respectfully,
Mick

the same i can ask you. how do you know for certain that the CC is not the Church that Christ founded and the One protected from error all through the Centuries?

 

[jmcrae]

How do you know for certain that the Orthodox Church is not the Church that Christ founded and the one that He has been protecting from error all through the centuries?

Because they are not in communion with the See of Peter. Matthew 16:18-19, and John 21:15-19.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5243718:

But what he doesn’t say

is that the pope is infallible.:nope:I can’t remember whether he does, or not. I still have to find it again and re-read it. He doesn’t use that specific word (because he was writing in Greek) but it seems to me that what he wrote was used by Vatican I as the definition for what “infallible” means, in the case of the Pope.

Like I said, I have to look it up again.

I don’t think that will be necessary. I won’t argue with the assertion that what he wrote was used by Vatican I. However, even if you were able to build a solid argument on the premise that he thought the pope was infallible and actually said so you’d still have to address the obvious question: was his assertion that the pope is infallible an infallible assertion?

Let’s leave it there. We can agree, perhaps, that the doctrine of papal infallibililty is indeed a substantial obstacle to Christian unity?

Peace,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5243451:

I note that you chose to ignore my questions. They are challenging, I know, but I sense that you’re up to the task. Tell you what – allow me to cut out all the questions except the last one in order to make it less daunting and perhaps less confusing for you. I’m not trying to catch you out. There’s no trick and there’s no trap. I’m simply calling upon you to speak the truth in response to my direct question. Here’s that question again:

How do you

know for certain that the Orthodox Church is not the Church that Christ founded and the one that He has been protecting from error all through the centuries?

Respectfully,
Mick
:thumbsup:the same i can ask you. how do you know for certain that the CC is not the Church that Christ founded and the One protected from error all through the Centuries?

I guess that’s the route one would be tempted take if one was the sort of person who was floored by a direct question and had no idea how to proceed.

Sympathetically,
Mick

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think that will be necessary. I won’t argue with the assertion that what he wrote was used by Vatican I. However, even if you were able to build a solid argument on the premise that he thought the pope was infallible and actually said so you’d still have to address the obvious question: was his assertion that the pope is infallible an infallible assertion?

I think that the fathers of Vatican I were convinced that it was both Magisterial and Sensus Fidelium - so in those two senses, yes, it could have been considered “infallible” with the right kind of documented support - obviously, however, it is not of the same character as Papal infallibility.

Let’s leave it there. We can agree, perhaps, that the doctrine of papal infallibililty is indeed a substantial obstacle to Christian unity?

I would rather call it a difficulty, rather than an obstacle (since an “obstacle” is something you want to remove, and I think removing it would be a bad idea.)

 

[SSTeacher]

I would rather call it a difficulty, rather than an obstacle (since an “obstacle” is something you want to remove, and I think removing it would be a bad idea.)

OK. We’ll call it a difficulty.

Agreeably,
Mick

 

[wisdomseeker]

I guess that’s the route one would be tempted take if one was the sort of person who was floored by a direct question and had no idea how to proceed.

Sympathetically,
Mick

not so. i notice you like to ask a lot of questions. what is the problem? you cant answer the question you yourself have asked? if i gave you the answer, you would not believe it anyway, if you did, you would be in the CC and not in the Orthodox Church. obviously you follow your understanding that OE is the True Church. how many times have you read here in these forum the arguments why the CC is the True? have you believed? no, you havent. i tend to believe that you are not sure if where you are is the right place to be. may be you will some day entered the CC. why not? GKC although a defender of the CC, he did not come into the Church until his old old age.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5243451:

How do you

know for certain that the Orthodox Church is not the Church that Christ founded and the one that He has been protecting from error all through the centuries?Because they are not in communion with the See of Peter. Matthew 16:18-19, and John 21:15-19.

Well done. It’s the standard answer and it’s an adequate one. But perhaps we’ve arrived at the biggest difficulty of all. Would you be prepared to explain what you mean by “not in communion with the See of Peter”?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

not so. i notice you like to ask a lot of questions. what is the problem? you cant answer the question you yourself have asked? if i gave you the answer, you would not believe it anyway, if you did, you would be in the CC and not in the Orthodox Church. obviously you follow your understanding that OE is the True Church. how many times have read in here in these forum the arguments why the CC is the True? have you believed? no, you havent. i tend to believe that you are not sure if where you are is the right place to be. may be you will some day entered the CC. why not? GKC although a defender of the CC, he did not come into the Church until his old old age.

Please go away.

Hopefully,
Mick

 

[wisdomseeker]

Please go away.

Hopefully,
Mick

i see. a little edgy huhnn… not what you wanted to hear?

 

[dzheremi]

Under what stretch of the imagination could this be considered “charitable”? Isn’t it each individual’s business to sort out their own faith with the guidance of whatever Church they have come to? Isn’t that the very same way that Catholics also are received into the Church? That’s how I was, not so long ago. Why should it be any different among the Orthodox, or those striving to become Orthodox?

Maybe you are so immediately convinced of your own powers of judgment, Wisdomseeker, that you think you can even see into other people’s hearts and tell where they are in their spiritual lives, but the rest of us are not nearly so lucky. Could I have told anyone a decade ago that I would be Catholic? Certainly not. Reading some of the posts here, I start to wonder if I could even explain why I am now. For what it’s worth, I joined a Church that welcomed the very sorts of questions that Mick is asking you now. Though I personally did not know to ask such questions from an Orthodox view point, as I wasn’t then and have never been Orthodox, I did ask plenty about the Pope and his role in the Church, and many other similar things. I never got the sort of reception Mick is getting now from you.