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

[SSTeacher]

Peter,

I don’t think we’re getting anywhere. Perhaps we can simply agree that papal infallibility is certainly an obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians and leave it at that?

In Christ,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

Peter,

I don’t think we’re getting anywhere. Perhaps we can simply agree that papal infallibility is certainly an obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians and leave it at that?

In Christ,
Mick

I honestly don’t know why you’re being so difficult, but certainly I’m not going keep talking to you if you prefer that I leave you alone. So, sure, we can “leave it at that”. (Please disregard post #308, in which I quoted information that you had asked for.)

But let me ask you one final, simple, question: Do you believe it’s logically possible for someone to disagree with the Catholic claim that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, without believing that the pope can never speak infallibly?

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Peter!

…Do you believe it’s logically possible for someone to disagree with the Catholic claim that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, without believing that the pope can never speak infallibly?

This is an intriguing question. You almost seem to suggest that a person who does not accept Papal Infallibility as a dogma believes the Pope will always be wrong. Can anyone be wrong all of the time? Even guessing should give one an even break (supposing it was a zero-sum kind of question).

I think that whether or not an utterance of a bishop is correct is due to his training, if he is reaffirming received teaching.

If it is something new, such as the resolution of a dispute where two possible theories are debated in the church, there is an element of chance involved. If he is correct, his utterance will be true, infallibly true. But not because of some special ability on his part.

If he is incorrect, his decision will be false, infallibly false. But not because of some inability on his part. The problem is we can never really know. This goes for the bishop of Rome as much as any other.

He’s just human.

That’s how I see it.

 

[jblake]

wisdomseeker;:

he is just like so many that left the Church to create another religion.

Luther didn’t want to start a new denomination. His intent was that the Church preach the Gospel, and act according to the theology of Scripture and Tradition. The Pope continued to reject Christianity, and excommunicated Luther.

jonathon

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Hesychios,

If he is correct, his utterance will be true, infallibly true.

I guess we have a different view of “infallibility”. My view is that St. Paul was sometimes right and sometimes wrong, and that the times he was right could be sub-classified into “infallible” and “fallible” – in other words, some times he was divinely guaranteed to be right (i.e. protected from error), and others he just “happened” to be right.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hello Peter,

I honestly don’t know why you’re being so difficult, but certainly I’m not going keep talking to you if you prefer that I leave you alone.

I daresay that if I were to agree with everything you say (even before you say it, as you would apparently like me to do in the case of a pope who speaks ex cathedra ) that would in your mind solve the problem of my being so difficult. Since you seem to be unable to concede that somebody who does not posses a Catholic mindset necessarily perceives difficulties with the doctrine of papal infallibility I see little point in continuing to discuss it with you. You will simply get frustrated and irritated with me, which will possibly lead you to accuse me of being even more difficult and sin in your thoughts and written words. I don’t want to cause you to stumble in such a way.

So, sure, we can “leave it at that”.

OK.

(Please disregard post #308, in which I quoted information that you had asked for.)

No problem, since that post failed to provide an adequate endorsement of your previous assertion that I might have got the teaching wrong.

But let me ask you one final, simple, question: Do you believe it’s logically possible for someone to disagree with the Catholic claim that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, without believing that the pope can never speak infallibly?

You are insisting upon interpolating the concept of “infallibility” into your argument, which is probably why you perceive me as being so difficult. Since the doctrine of papal infallibility was promulgated in 1870, only one pope has formally applied it – Pope Pius XII in 1950, when he defined the Assumption as a doctrine to be believed by all Catholics. Did he provide proof that the Assumption actually happened? No, he didn’t. It follows that some non–Catholics might well have difficulty in accepting that’s it’s true. Your response to them would apparently be to wonder why they are being so difficult. They in turn would conclude that your Catholic presuppositions restricted you from seeing that they weren’t being difficult at all. They were merely building upon an entirely different set of presuppositions and that was what led them to question the doctrine.

Far from being “simple,” I see your question as loaded. But if you are asking me if I believe a pope might sometimes make a true statement then my answer is that I do. That puts the pope in the same position as everybody else – sometimes people get it right, as I’m doing in my arguments to you as evidenced by your admission that that I’m causing you so much difficulty and sometimes people get it wrong, as you’re doing in your failure to understand that each person’s line of thinking flows naturally from the presuppositions he or she has chosen to adopt.

I’ll let you have the last word unless my comments above have made it so difficult for you that you’re lost for an answer in which case your silence will be understood.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter! This is an intriguing question. You almost seem to suggest that a person who does not accept Papal Infallibility as a dogma believes the Pope will always be wrong. Can anyone be wrong all of the time? Even guessing should give one an even break (supposing it was a zero-sum kind of question).

My intention was more to point out that it’s possible for someone to shall-we-say partially agree with what Vatican I said.

In particular, Vatican I said that a papal statement is infallible if A, B, and C. (See post #308.) I would imagine there are a lot of people out there who say “I don’t agree that every statement that satisfies A, B, and C is infallible; but I believe that every statement that satisfies A, B, C and D is infallible.”

 

[Bob_McKissick]

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.

If I may, the co-pilot is co-pilot only as long as the pilot is present. Christ is present eternally, therefore, Mary is Co-redemptrix eternally. Without her “be it done unto me” God would have had to go to plan B. With God there is no plan B. He bestowed honor on Mary that we can never equal. bob

 

[humble_in_doubt]

If I may, the co-pilot is co-pilot only as long as the pilot is present. Christ is present eternally, therefore, Mary is Co-redemptrix eternally. Without her “be it done unto me” God would have had to go to plan B. With God there is no plan B. He bestowed honor on Mary that we can never equal. bob

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?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I have just come on this thread and read a few postings in the beginning but intend to continue reading.

However, I have a question for everyone. It is a fact that there have been scores if not hundreds of anti-Catholic books written. I was convent educated and drifted away from the Church for 27 years and when I returned I realised that had I known more about my Catholic faith I would never have left.

There was a period of rebellion against the status quo and it was cool to be a revolutionary - it was progressive! I experienced a marxist/Leninist revolution (not in South Africa which was very different) and this was also an eye opener in many ways.

As I got to know more about my Catholic faith I became acquainted with the anti-Catholic “movement” and it hurt and surprised me. I find the Catholic Church so non-threatening, so good, so beautiful and so true. It has sustance and offers such hope and great love.

I had bought into some of those lies. Recently I purchased a book written by a Rabbi called “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope”. I have since ordered “The Icon of Evil” by the same author which reveals who Hitler’s “clergy” really was. I have also seen documentaries where certain people and newspapers were quoted in support of Pius XII (NewYork Times, Times of London, Einstein, Golda Meir among others). They alll acknowledge Pius’s role in saving hundreds of thousands of Jews. Much is explained.

If I could have bought into some of the lies then I can only imagine that Protestants and Fundamentalists have for generations bought into lies propagated by all the anti-Catholics.

I firmly believe that it is the lies that are at the core of anti-Catholicism. For anyone to break the anti Mould requires bold effort and courage in many cases.

Christian unity is so essential to combat evil and it my daily prayer that this will happen. Jesus prayed that we may be one and his prayers are powerful. However, although we have been given free will Jesus will not intervene - he wants us to make the choice! If we raise thinking children who learn to discern and who are encouraged to pursue truth energetically then we can expect that they will encounter truth. Much prayer is required.

Do you agree? Or is there much more to it than that? Have I missed something?

Cinette

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?

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.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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?

"What I’m saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job." --Carl Sagan

i must say this, i like your quote. i like the fact that Carl consider himself above the One we know as God, and try to advise God on how to address His creation. oh ye, the creation telling the Creator: you need to do a better job with this for i know a better way. should we all follow Carl? like humble in doubt? you know this reminds of my son when he was 4 years old. he said: mom this is not the way to raise me. he tried to tell me how to raise him. i confess it was kind of cute coming from him. but of course my way prevailed. it would be fair to say that i know more than my son?

 

[Hesychios]

…the comparison loses me, because a copilot is as capable of flying the plane, unaided, as the pilot.

I agree with your concerns.

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/images/icons08.jpg

 

[qui_est_ce]

"What I’m saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job." --Carl Sagan

i must say this, i like your quote. i like the fact that Carl consider himself above the One we know as God, and try to advise God on how to address His creation. oh ye, the creation telling the Creator: you need to do a better job with this for i know a better way. should we all follow Carl? like humble in doubt? you know this reminds of my son when he was 4 years old. he said: mom this is not the way to raise me. he tried to tell me how to raise him. i confess it was kind of cute coming from him. but of course my way prevailed. it would be fair to say that i know more than my son?

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!”

 

[humble_in_doubt]

"What I’m saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job." --Carl Sagan

i must say this, i like your quote. i like the fact that Carl consider himself above the One we know as God, and try to advise God on how to address His creation. oh ye, the creation telling the Creator: you need to do a better job with this for i know a better way. should we all follow Carl? like humble in doubt? you know this reminds of my son when he was 4 years old. he said: mom this is not the way to raise me. he tried to tell me how to raise him. i confess it was kind of cute coming from him. but of course my way prevailed. it would be fair to say that i know more than my son?

well no … Sagan was merely pointing to the logical peculiarity of believing that this collection of ancient writings represents the works of any god (particularly one who is said to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient). In other words he’s saying none of the god’s depicted by the various man-made world religions exist – and here’s a little more evidence illustrating the fact.

How could he be judging the mode of communication selected by a god he didn’t believe exists?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

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!”

if it makes you feel better and justifies your view you can try to sum up all the objections to religion as a childhood spat. Of course given the fact that men like Winston Churchill (and many other great men) were agnostic or atheist your assertion hardly enjoys any basis in fact!

 

[qui_est_ce]

if it makes you feel better and justifies your view you can try to sum up all the objections to religion as a childhood spat. Of course given the fact that men like Winston Churchill (and many other great men) were agnostic or atheist your assertion hardly enjoys any basis in fact!

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Moore, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, yes serious intellectual lightweights.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Moore, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, yes serious intellectual lightweights.

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.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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 ).

Then what was the point of your post?
"humble:

Of course given the fact that men like Winston Churchill (and many other great men) were agnostic or atheist your assertion hardly enjoys any basis in fact!

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).

I think it’s quite the reverse. The number crunchers (of which I am once) generally can only envision the tangible here and now.

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.

Why are deeply religious people generally conservative? Catholics in particular have set up their own network of social services, schools, hospitals, helping the poor, missionary work. You will find most orthodox Catholics do not believe the government should involve itself in these areas (Bill O’Reilly is a good example).

Also, I, and probably most Catholics don’t view Church doctrine as a “litany of rules.” We think of it as a framework which empowers us to live the holy life.

I don’t think the religious (Catholics anyway) want to impose their moral world view on society as much as they want to be free from the secular intolerance of their freeom to excercize their religious beliefs.

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.

 

[qui_est_ce]

if it makes you feel better and justifies your view you can try to sum up all the objections to religion as a childhood spat. Of course given the fact that men like Winston Churchill (and many other great men) were agnostic or atheist your assertion hardly enjoys any basis in fact!

The awesome love the Father has for his children cannot be reduced to childish spats. The point is not to make ME feel better, the point is to open myself to our loving Father who created us and loves us with a love we can hardly fathom with our puny little minds. Try to wrap your mind around Infinity.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I think it’s quite the reverse. The number crunchers (of which I am once) generally can only envision the tangible here and now.

wasn’t saying number crunchers are more predisposed to religion (was merely providing a point of reference illustrating different types of intelligence).

Why are deeply religious people generally conservative? Catholics in particular have set up their own network of social services, schools, hospitals, helping the poor, missionary work. You will find most orthodox Catholics do not believe the government should involve itself in these areas (Bill O’Reilly is a good example).

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).

Also, I, and probably most Catholics don’t view Church doctrine as a “litany of rules.” We think of it as a framework which empowers us to live the holy life.

that’s your subjective point of view – objectively it is a litany of rules.

I don’t think the religious (Catholics anyway) want to impose their moral world view on society as much as they want to be free from the secular intolerance of their freeom to excercize their religious beliefs.

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. 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?