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

[Brother2]

Hello all this is a new forum for me, a very interest discussion I must say, some people say that the Reformation is the cause of many of the problems in the world and in Christianity…

On the surface that may seem to be true…however when one reads about the Reformation one can clearly see that is was desperately needed at the time…the Roman Catholic Church was in a terrible state, times when there were 2 popes arguing the toss and excommunicating each other…indulgences, corruption everywhere…

I must say though that as a result of the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church has really cleaned up its act and has made it appear white as snow…or is it cosmetic? and only biding its time till it tries to take control again??

No offence meant to individual Roman Catholics or even the pope, he is human too in need of God’s salvation…

Ok so the main difference I am afraid to say on a RCC Forum is the Mass, that was what kick started the Reformation…Martin Luther nailed the Thesis on the church door and I think the Mass was on the top of the list…to say that God is present in the wafer is …forgive me friends for saying this in print and I respect you all but feel it has to be said in the context of this discussion…blasphemy…God cannot be kept in a box or one church claim the monopoly of…no God is not in the sun shaped wafer…one person said God is there with you at the Communion…yes absolutely right, God is right there with you but not in a sun shaped wafer to be eaten…

I apologise profusely to those I have offended by writing the above, but this is the BIGGEST DIFFERENCE between Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches and I only mention it with ONE motive, to spell out the main difference…

Which means of course that Protestant Churches should never become united again with the Roman Catholic Church…however there is no reason why we cannot be friends and work together in Christian projects, it is only on doctrine that we disagree, as people we should be able to love and respect each other and work to help others…

Sorry to those offended…Michael.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hello all this is a new forum for me, a very interest discussion I must say, some people say that the Reformation is the cause of many of the problems in the world and in Christianity…

On the surface that may seem to be true…however when one reads about the Reformation one can clearly see that is was desperately needed at the time…the Roman Catholic Church was in a terrible state, times when there were 2 popes arguing the toss and excommunicating each other…indulgences, corruption everywhere…

I must say though that as a result of the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church has really cleaned up its act and has made it appear white as snow…or is it cosmetic? and only biding its time till it tries to take control again??

No offence meant to individual Roman Catholics or even the pope, he is human too in need of God’s salvation…

Ok so the main difference I am afraid to say on a RCC Forum is the Mass, that was what kick started the Reformation…Martin Luther nailed the Thesis on the church door and I think the Mass was on the top of the list…to say that God is present in the wafer is …forgive me friends for saying this in print and I respect you all but feel it has to be said in the context of this discussion…blasphemy…God cannot be kept in a box or one church claim the monopoly of…no God is not in the sun shaped wafer…one person said God is there with you at the Communion…yes absolutely right, God is right there with you but not in a sun shaped wafer to be eaten…

I apologise profusely to those I have offended by writing the above, but this is the BIGGEST DIFFERENCE between Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches and I only mention it with ONE motive, to spell out the main difference…

Which means of course that Protestant Churches should never become united again with the Roman Catholic Church…however there is no reason why we cannot be friends and work together in Christian projects, it is only on doctrine that we disagree, as people we should be able to love and respect each other and work to help others…

Sorry to those offended…Michael.

and who was martin luther?

there was no reformation by martin luther. he is just like so many that left the Church to create another religion. look what is happening today. the lutherans, methodist, and anglican are seeking union with the True Church. why do you think there is? because of the nonsense of what is going on. Jesus built one Church and only one. martin luther built thousands of churches…

 

[jam070406]

Hello all this is a new forum for me, a very interest discussion I must say, some people say that the Reformation is the cause of many of the problems in the world and in Christianity…

On the surface that may seem to be true…however when one reads about the Reformation one can clearly see that is was desperately needed at the time…the Roman Catholic Church was in a terrible state, times when there were 2 popes arguing the toss and excommunicating each other…indulgences, corruption everywhere…

I must say though that as a result of the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church has really cleaned up its act and has made it appear white as snow…or is it cosmetic? and only biding its time till it tries to take control again??

No offence meant to individual Roman Catholics or even the pope, he is human too in need of God’s salvation…

Ok so the main difference I am afraid to say on a RCC Forum is the Mass, that was what kick started the Reformation…Martin Luther nailed the Thesis on the church door and I think the Mass was on the top of the list…to say that God is present in the wafer is …forgive me friends for saying this in print and I respect you all but feel it has to be said in the context of this discussion…blasphemy…God cannot be kept in a box or one church claim the monopoly of…no God is not in the sun shaped wafer…one person said God is there with you at the Communion…yes absolutely right, God is right there with you but not in a sun shaped wafer to be eaten…

I apologise profusely to those I have offended by writing the above, but this is the BIGGEST DIFFERENCE between Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches and I only mention it with ONE motive, to spell out the main difference…

Which means of course that Protestant Churches should never become united again with the Roman Catholic Church…however there is no reason why we cannot be friends and work together in Christian projects, it is only on doctrine that we disagree, as people we should be able to love and respect each other and work to help others…

Sorry to those offended…Michael.

Hey Mike, none of all that really made a difference come Oct. 22 1844 though right?

OOPS!

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5198345:

The reason I asked is because there is a difference between what is sometimes termed Classic Sola Scriptura

and SOLO Scriptura. The latter is the understanding of the Bible often found among Evangelicals. When I was an Evangelical, I was definitely a SOLO Scriptura advocate. I decided what I wanted to believe by reading the Bible for myself. I accepted no judgment or understanding as to what any verse or passage in the Bible meant except my own. I always had the final word. My stance was that I could interpret the Scriptures for myself without the aid of any church or Church, any tradition, or any historical factors.

If you strongly identify with the approach I’ve described herein, it might be that you are actually a SOLO Scriptura guy and not a Sola Scriptura guy. I guess the best way to discover which you are is to ask yourself if you can define Classic Sola Scriptura. If the answer’s negative I’d have thought the chances that you’re a SOLO Scriptura guy are fairly good.

Biblically,
Mick
:thumbsup:Mick,

Hello again, Ronald.

I guess I don’t like being labeled one way or another. I simply believe that the Bible alone is the authority.

I understand. You’ve stayed on this thread so I’m assuming you’re willing to enlarge upon what you believe and why you believe it. I’ve a couple of questions.

John 5:39, Jesus stated, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life”

First question, then. To which scriptures do you believe Jesus was referring in the above statement?

The only alteration to your statement that I would make is that I interpret them*** with ***the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Second question. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[Bob_McKissick]

"Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.” Acts 17:22 “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.” Hebrews 10:11

This is what happens when we take the Sacred Scriptures and take a quote from one chapter and hook it up with a fragment of another. In this way I can make the Scriptures say anything I want it to say. bob

 

[JonNC]

=Brother2;5202905]
I must say though that as a result of the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church has really cleaned up its act and has made it appear white as snow…or is it cosmetic? and only biding its time till it tries to take control again??

It is a popemobile, not a black helicopter.

Ok so the main difference I am afraid to say on a RCC Forum is the Mass, that was what kick started the Reformation…Martin Luther nailed the Thesis on the church door and I think the Mass was on the top of the list

No, what kick-started the reformation was, in large measure, the sale of indulgences - an abuse. Luther’s complaint about the mass was, again, abuses. And even the differences regarding the sacrifice of the mass are being discussed and slowly resolved.

…to say that God is present in the wafer is …forgive me friends for saying this in print and I respect you all but feel it has to be said in the context of this discussion…blasphemy…God cannot be kept in a box or one church claim the monopoly of…no God is not in the sun shaped wafer…one person said God is there with you at the Communion…yes absolutely right, God is right there with you but not in a sun shaped wafer to be eaten.

You use Luther to support your differences with Rome, but you seem to lack knowledge of Luther’s teaching on the Eucharist. In Christ’s own words, “take eat, this is my body”, He claims to be there, in the bread and in the cup, for us to eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins. It would be the greatest irony for Christ’s own words to be blasphemy, as you claim.

I apologise profusely to those I have offended by writing the above, but this is the BIGGEST DIFFERENCE between Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches and I only mention it with ONE motive, to spell out the main difference…

Speak for yourself, as in the words of Dr. Luther, “before I would drink meer wine with the Swiss, I will drink blood with the pope.”

Which means of course that Protestant Churches should never become united again with the Roman Catholic Church…however there is no reason why we cannot be friends and work together in Christian projects, it is only on doctrine that we disagree, as people we should be able to love and respect each other and work to help others…

Again, speak for yourself. Christ calls us to unity, and I for one think we should seek it.
Frankly, I think Lutherans are much closer to Rome than to your way of thinking.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=wisdomseeker;5202972]and who was martin luther?

Well, certainly Dr. Luther was not what brother2 thinks he was.

there was no reformation by martin luther. he is just like so many that left the Church to create another religion.

History does not support that claim. The events were far more complex than that.

look what is happening today. the lutherans, methodist, and anglican are seeking union with the True Church. why do you think there is? because of the nonsense of what is going on. Jesus built one Church and only one.

And Rome is seeking union with us. In fact, Rome should be credited with starting the dialogue. It is because we (those you mentioned and Rome) believe Christ calls us to unity.

martin luther built thousands of churches

No, he didn’t.

Jon

 

[RonaldH]

Here is Catholic commentary along with that quote, from here.
39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me. (Search the scriptures… Or, You search the scriptures. Scrutamini, ereunat. It is not a command for all to read the scriptures; but a reproach to the Pharisees, that reading the scriptures as they did, and thinking to find everlasting life in them, they would not receive him to whom all those scriptures gave testimony, and through whom alone they could have that true life. )

This is why private interpretation of scriptures runs into problems.

Stated pretty well!

 

[RonaldH]

This is what happens when we take the Sacred Scriptures and take a quote from one chapter and hook it up with a fragment of another. In this way I can make the Scriptures say anything I want it to say. bob

Interesting, a good point, we can make the Scriptures say and defend, anything (practically). The point also is, what does the Scriptures, in their entirety, say and teach. I believe Mormon’s, Jehovah Witnesses, yes, the CC and the church I attend do the same. We will be accountable to Him when we do. The issue sometimes is with us, I do not find fault in His Word. We get defensive and we LOOK for a way to defend our position and the sad thing is to take God’s Holy Word to do so.

 

[RonaldH]

Hello again, Ronald.

I understand. You’ve stayed on this thread so I’m assuming you’re willing to enlarge upon what you believe and why you believe it. I’ve a couple of questions.

First question, then. To which scriptures do you believe Jesus was referring in the above statement?

Second question. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?

Curiously,
Mick

Mick, I appreciate the attitude of your questions, I have to go to a prayer meeting in 5 minutes so forgive the brevity of this reply. The 2nd question first, it seems like you are asking about the Trinity. Being raise in the CC and not now, I think I am in agreement with your church’s teaching on the Trinity. Simply said, God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity. One God, three distinct persons, all one all to be worshiped and all with their different uniquenesses. Do you want me to be more specific than that? First question, I will say this, the Bible as we have it. I do not accept the Apocrypha (sp?) as cannon and can explain why when I have more time. I accept the O.T. as the Jew’s accepted it, and the N.T. from Matthew through Revelations. I believe translations are translations. Going from one language to another produces a fallout of loss of some meaning. That said I believe the Word of God as given in the original language was inerrant and infallible. Gotta go now, God bless.

 

[khutcheson]

It sounds like you are more Catholic than most Catholics, no insult intended.

But what does your church teach about contraception? Has your church taught that contraception is ok or turned a blind eye to contraception?

My signature link has an excellent link to the historical traditional Christian (and Jewish) view of contraception.

Do you buy into FOF’s view that masturbation is not sinful?

I certainly wouldn’t call that an insult, particularly in this context.

My church doesn’t teach anything about contraception–reading Scott Hahn was probably the first time I even thought about the issue of contraception.

Masturbation is sin. The arguments to the contrary are simply rationalizations.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi Ronald,

SSTeacher;5203090:

Hello again, Ronald.

I understand. You’ve stayed on this thread so I’m assuming you’re willing to enlarge upon what you believe and why you believe it. I’ve a couple of questions.

First question, then. To which scriptures do you believe Jesus was referring in the above statement?

Second question. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?

Curiously,
Mick

Mick, I appreciate the attitude of your questions, I have to go to a prayer meeting in 5 minutes so forgive the brevity of this reply.

I hasten to forgive you.

The 2nd question first, it seems like you are asking about the Trinity.

No, not exactly. I’m asking about your view of the filioque.

Being raise in the CC and not now, I think I am in agreement with your church’s teaching on the Trinity.

But the Catholic Church and my Church are not in agreement about the filioque.

Simply said, God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity. One God, three distinct persons, all one all to be worshiped and all with their different uniquenesses. Do you want me to be more specific than that?

Yes, please. I’m interested in what you believe about the filoque and, more importantly, why you believe it and how you arrived at your view. It’s relevant to the Original Post.

First question, I will say this, the Bible as we have it. I do not accept the Apocrypha (sp?) as cannon and can explain why when I have more time.

Yes, please do so in due course.

I accept the O.T. as the Jew’s accepted it, and the N.T. from Matthew through Revelations.

Perhaps you could explain your reasoning.

I believe translations are translations. Going from one language to another produces a fallout of loss of some meaning.

In your view, is the loss anything to be concerned about?

That said I believe the Word of God as given in the original language was inerrant and infallible.

Perhaps you might explain why you believe that.

Gotta go now, God bless.

God bless you, too.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Ok so the main difference I am afraid to say on a RCC Forum is the Mass, that was what kick started the Reformation…Martin Luther nailed the Thesis on the church door and I think the Mass was on the top of the list…to say that God is present in the wafer is …forgive me friends for saying this in print and I respect you all but feel it has to be said in the context of this discussion…blasphemy…

No. I think I can safely say the belief in the Real Presence was not a problem with Luther. Have you ever read the 95 Theses? Have you taken the time to read what the man actually believed and taught about the belief? It may be worth your time.

All of that aside, I do believe that Luther would have taken issue with your beliefs on the Real Presence though. Does that change anything for you?

I apologise profusely to those I have offended by writing the above, but this is the BIGGEST DIFFERENCE between Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches and I only mention it with ONE motive, to spell out the main difference…

Generalizations are always fun. I would hazard a guess that the Real Presence is affirmed within Protestant Churches more often than it is denied. To some Protestant Churches, this is one of their biggest agreements with the Catholic Church.

God bless you

 

[JonNC]

All of that aside, I do believe that Luther would have taken issue with your beliefs on the Real Presence though.

And not in mild tones, either.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Mick, I guess I don’t like being labeled one way or another. I simply believe that the Bible alone is the authority. John 5:39, Jesus stated, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life” The only alteration to your statement that I would make is that I interpret them*** with ***the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Forgive my confusion, RonaldH, but in quoting John 5:39 you seem to be arguing against your own position.

 

[Peter_J]

Generalizations are always fun. I would hazard a guess that the Real Presence is affirmed within Protestant Churches more often than it is denied. To some Protestant Churches, this is one of their biggest agreements with the Catholic Church.

God bless you

 

[SSTeacher]

Some of all of the above, of course, but what I read the most about is magisterium and papacy (having a single infallable teaching authority for faith and morals and a single interpretation of scripture by one authoritative body).

The Catholic understanding the there was the Church first, and THEN the book, and that oral tradition is equally valid. Christianity thrived without a “New Testament” for a long time.

The Catholic understanding about Eucharist.

There’s a lot of discussion about everything you have here, but I believe all denominations will come to grips with most of the tangentials, perhaps in my own lifetime. But these big 3 really can not be reconciled accept for protestant Christians to simply relent. The Church isn’t going to, and if they did, they wouldn’t be the Catholic Church anymore, and therefore Christ’s words to Peter wouldn’t be true, and therefore Christianity itself would be invalid as a system of belief, so frankly, I’d rather see the divisions in denominations than see the Catholic Church change anything which is dogma. We’ll go ahead and take folks one and two at a time, as the Spirit guides them rather than making concessions. There are no concessions to be made really.

Hi Steven,

According to some Catholics the Second Vatican Council made a lot of concessions. With the principle lex orandi lex credendi in mind wouldn’t you concede that they have a point? A Third Vatican Council focused on Christian Unity is a possibility, don’t you think?

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[Brother2]

Hey Mike, none of all that really made a difference come Oct. 22 1844 though right?

OOPS!

Hi Jamy dodger, ha sorry for that just my wit. Thanks for that, was it Oct 22nd, Ha thanks for clarifying that for me I had forgotten the exact date.

Now jam, I have explained all that, not to many people’s satisfaction mind you, but I refer you to the ‘blog’ Questions for Adventists, because frankly I used up a lot of my ‘life force’ answering that ONE, and ha, I’m not repeating it all on this forum…

So go look see ‘Questions for Adventists’ OK brother???

Read you later when you have caught up…Michael.

 

[Cinette]

Just a side note without too much religious significance (but relevant to the OP). I’m not sure if anyone here is familiar with market theory (or has ever read Adam Smith or any notables like him) but new entrants into any market generally results in an expanded market.

In other words say I’m a widget producer, the only widget producer in my respective market. As competitors enter the market (new widget producers) the market will expand exponentially.

This is a rule of general application (with few exceptions that I know of). I doubt whether this type of study has ever been done on religion … but you have to imagine it’s applicable.

The way I see is the CC promulgated a theological scheme that is really an offspring of Roman political theory and then monarchical absolutism. It uses a few verses out of scripture (i.e. on this rock I built my church) to promulgate a regime that is really absolutist in nature (not much different, in theory, than the monopolists in our own history). This idea grew over time (it cannot reasonably be called apostolic in nature, at least it finds no support from any apostolic writing or practice, or any writing from the apostolic fathers).

Anyone with a good grasp of Christian history understands that the first adherents to the Christian religion hardly imagined a church that would eventually supplant governments (or at least stepped into the shoes of government in many areas of the lives of its constituency); beyond of course what their mythology imagined god’s ultimate kingdom would be like. Moreover, the closest thing to Catholicism you can derive from the original Christian church is either an Episcopal or Presbyterian structure (there’s reasonable disagreement over whether early church fathers used those terms interchangeably or whether a presbyter is something different than a bishop … I think the evidence supports the former idea, but again it’s arguable). Catholic historians might argue that its current structure was the natural development imagined by Christ, his apostles, and the apostolic fathers. Of course if anyone detached themselves from the emotive aspects of this argument they would easily see that this position is arguable at best.

The fact is the reformation likely resulted in far more Christians on earth than would have otherwise resulted (if Catholicism were left to try and stand alone). At this point, with the encroachment of the secular world (which is of course a far larger problem for Christianity broadly speaking then your own internal quarrels), it seems like a wasted exercise for you guys to continue this course of infighting.

Just my opinion. I frankly would rather see the world move past its need for ancient mythology (and the idea that we need to rely on a fictitious higher power to behave ourselves, act with compassion toward others, remain loyal to our spouses, and be an outstanding role model for our children). IMO the sooner it happens the better, but I also think we have to approach the transition with some level of care; and remain cognizant of the fact that shifting too suddenly can have many undesirable consequences.

Boring!

 

[Cinette]

The basic problem is, fear of authority on the Protestant side, vs. fear of chaos on the Catholic side.

From the Catholic point of view, unity will have been achieved when everyone is subject to the Pope. From the Protestant point of view, unity will have been achieved when there is no more Pope, and everyone is just following the Holy Spirit in his or her own way, without anyone telling them what to do or what to believe in.

The Protestants look at the Catholic solution to the problem and worry that the Pope will make them believe in things and do things that go against God.

The Catholics look at the Protestant solution to the problem, and worry that, with no more standard for what constitutes Christian belief, Christianity itself will die out, to be replaced with billions and billions of individualized pseudo-Christian heresies.

I do not think that this problem will be solved in our own generation.

I have never had a religious discussion with a Protestant until I came on CAF. This is great.

However, I have never looked at Protestants very critically. Sometimes I am so pleased that we share some essential beliefs.

I often feel that it would be great if we could be united because we have huge common enemies - Secularism is one and there is another ominous one which I would rather not mention.

Then I brighten up when I remember that God said “Be not afraid”. Jesus said that the gates of hell shall never prevail and that the Holy Spirit will always be with us.

Jesus’ command that we should love one another is the best thing ever. If we could only do it!