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

[jmcrae]

Well … can’t exactly say that’s the best argument I’ve heard.

Well, that’s where claims to thrones come from. People don’t just jump on to a throne and say “Hey I’m the king!” They have to have bona fides. For example, Queen Elizabeth II claims to be descended from King David. Whether true or false, we will never know, but we know that it’s possible because King David had many wives and many children, so we let her keep the throne, because although there are plenty of reasons to doubt it, there is no way to prove her wrong.

However, there is no one claiming the throne to the Church (nor to any Christian country) because of being descended from the brother or sister of Jesus, most likely because early on in Church history, it was well-known that He didn’t have uterine siblings - thus, no false claimants to the throne (or true ones, either) - and no one is claiming it today because there is no family line through which to establish a lineage (not even a fake one). So, the Pope gets to keep his chair because of his established link back to St. Peter, who is the one to whom Jesus gave the leadership of the Church.

 

[Disciple96]

Well, that’s where claims to thrones come from. People don’t just jump on to a throne and say “Hey I’m the king!” They have to have bona fides. For example, Queen Elizabeth II claims to be descended from King David. Whether true or false, we will never know, but we know that it’s possible because King David had many wives and many children, so we let her keep the throne, because although there are plenty of reasons to doubt it, there is no way to prove her wrong.

However, there is no one claiming the throne to the Church (nor to any Christian country) because of being descended from the brother or sister of Jesus, most likely because early on in Church history, it was well-known that He didn’t have uterine siblings - thus, no false claimants to the throne (or true ones, either) - and no one is claiming it today because there is no family line through which to establish a lineage (not even a fake one). So, the Pope gets to keep his chair because of his established link back to St. Peter, who is the one to whom Jesus gave the leadership of the Church.

Where has it been established that Christ founded a Kingdom that would have a hereditary throne? Christ Himself is the King on the Throne in Heaven.

But He did leave a Prime Minister on earth, and He gave the Keys of the Kingdom to him to govern the Church in His stead, the Church being the visible earthly part of the Kingdom.That office is not hereditary but it is handed down to successors.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, that’s where claims to thrones come from.

Yes, if you’re talking about worldly thrones. But Christ said “The kings of the Gentiles … But not so among you" (Luke 22).

Besides that, if someone wanted to claim some kind of “ecclesiastical kingship” on the basis of being descended from Mary (or, for that matter, on the basis of being descended from a sibling of Mary) he would have to contend with Mark 3, “Who is My mother, or My brothers? … whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

 

[khutcheson]

A response to the idea that the Church’s teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity should be considered as non-essential:

The teachings about Mary are something one should study before one states that they do not matter. How can one say teachings don’t matter if one doesn’t even know what they are?

A. I never said teachings about Mary don’t matter–I said they are non-essentials. Many things matter but are non-essential.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, if you’re talking about worldly thrones.

Right. And it would have been a very powerful claim to an earthly throne during the Feudal Age, to be descended from a brother or sister of Christ - to share DNA with Him.

 

[jmcrae]

A. I never said teachings about Mary don’t matter–I said they are non-essentials. Many things matter but are non-essential.

How are you defining “non-essential”? To me, it seems as if, if something is non-essential, that it doesn’t matter - you are free to decide what you want, without any consequences. But, if it matters, then it would be essential to get it right, one way or the other.

 

[Disciple96]

A. I never said teachings about Mary don’t matter–I said they are non-essentials. Many things matter but are non-essential.

Hmmm… I think it would be a mistake to think that one can have the fullness of the faith without the fullness of the teachings.

Though I take your point that not all the teachings are necessary for our salvation, taking a bare-bones approach, as it were. I guess I’m just used to considering all the teachings of the Church as what I am to embrace and have embraced, instead of choosing some and leaving others.

But if we’re talking about what non-Catholic Christians would need to accept in order to have salvation and not considering the rest of it, then I suppose I would have to agree. Is that what you meant?

 

[Peter_J]

Right. And it would have been a very powerful claim to an earthly throne during the Feudal Age, to be descended from a brother or sister of Christ - to share DNA with Him.

Oh! Have you been talking about earthly thrones? In that case, then yes what you’re saying makes sense.

How are you defining “non-essential”? To me, it seems as if, if something is non-essential, that it doesn’t matter

I can’t speak for khutcheson, but I would say that something being “non-essential” does not necessarily imply that it is unimportant/insignificant.

 

[Hesychios]

Perhaps. But the Council of Trent (which we Catholics regard as an ecumenical council) did anthematize anyone who denies Mary’s perpetual virginity. Perhaps it shouldn’t have done so, but that doesn’t nullify the anthema.

The funny thing is, I cannot figure out why at that late date they would have even cared.

 

[ready]

Is it,

a) Disagreement as to whether salvation is an event or a process?
b) Disagreement about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
c) Disagreement about praying for the dead?
d) Disagreement about the existence of purgatory?
e) Disagreement about how to understand baptism?
f) Disagreement about the doctrine of Transubstantiation?
g) Disagreement about confession of one’s sins being heard by a priest?
h) Disagreement about the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God?
i) Disagreement about the papacy and papal infallibility?
j) Some other doctrine or factor?

Curiously,
Mick

I believe the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and Non-Catholic Christians is ignorance of what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches.

 

[Disciple96]

And that’s probably the biggest obstacle to unity among Catholics too.

 

[Hesychios]

If brothers and sisters of Jesus existed, their descendants would have a unique claim to the See of Peter, since they would be the natural heirs of Christ to the Church.

James of Jerusalem was a brother of Jesus. I believe that he was a half brother, son of Joseph.

After his death none others stepped forward.

Since no one has ever made such a claim, I think it’s safe to assume that they don’t exist.

We cannot prove a negative.

I don’t believe church offices were considered hereditary fiefs. It is a fact that Saint Peter was married, and the odds are excellent that he had children but it never mattered.

Most of the Apostles were married. I find it hard to believe that they were all childless.

In any case, these were people who fervently believed the end was near. It was a race against time to save as many as they could. The church was very apocalyptic. No See of “anything” was seriously contemplated to last out the generation. There was no blueprint for that sort of thing. The Apostles were on the move…the End Times were at hand!

 

[Hesychios]

A response to the idea that the Church’s teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity should be considered as non-essential:

Nothing you have quoted here shows me that this is knowledge that saves.

In other words, if someone believes in the Holy Trinity…and that Jesus Christ is both God and Man…

And this person knows the Gospel and observes the fasts and takes the sacraments…

And this person sincerely and contritely confesses his or her sins and leads an upstanding moral Christian life…

But does not know about this idea that Saint Mary Mother of God was a perpetual Virgin, never heard of it or does not believe it…he cannot be saved?

THIS IS NOT A SAVING DOGMA…IT CAN ONLY DAMN PEOPLE.

Michael

 

[Peter_J]

The funny thing is, I cannot figure out why at that late date they would have even cared.

I can’t really explain why they felt it necessary to issue that anathema; but it’s at least worth noting that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a very traditional Christian belief – indeed the fifth ecumenical council (553) said:

“If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God … let him be anathema.”

 

[Peter_J]

Nothing you have quoted here shows me that this is knowledge that saves.

In other words, if someone believes in the Holy Trinity…and that Jesus Christ is both God and Man…

And this person knows the Gospel and observes the fasts and takes the sacraments…

And this person sincerely and contritely confesses his or her sins and leads an upstanding moral Christian life…

But does not know about this idea that Saint Mary Mother of God was a perpetual Virgin, never heard of it or does not believe it…he cannot be saved?

THIS IS NOT A SAVING DOGMA…IT CAN ONLY DAMN PEOPLE.

Michael

I think it’s more complicated than that.

Rather than repeating a lot of stuff that’s already been said, I would refer you to the conversation I had with SyCarl on When dogma is defined

 

[ready]

And that’s probably the biggest obstacle to unity among Catholics too.

Yes. And I just read another person’s response that I agree with. The person said sin is probably the biggest obstacle to unity. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

 

[Stouts989]

The biggest difference I find is the view of salvation between reform theology and catholic theology. There are many differences among what I would call the non-essential doctrines of faith (those not directly condemned by scripture) but how someone is saved IS an essential doctrine. Reform theology clearly teaches that salvation is by faith alone and not of any works. RCC theology teaches that salvation is be faith and works. Also in reform theology one can’t lose his/her salvation. We cant’ earn it by our good works…and we can’t lose it if we “screw up” or commit a sin (we all still sin, saved or not). RCC doctrine teaches that we must maintain our salvation with what we do and if we stop doing certain things then we are subjected to losing our salvation.

When I read the Bible it seems very clear to me that salvation (made right before God, no longer under judgment) is a free gift granted by God. Not a gift earn by man (otherwise its no longer a gift, grace is no longer grace as Paul writes). I also find when I read scripture that salvation is an eternal state. All who have been called by God and are really truly saved will remained saved. In reformed theology its referred to as the perseverance of the saints.

So in short…how one is saved seems to be the biggest difference to me.

 

[khutcheson]

Hmmm… I think it would be a mistake to think that one can have the fullness of the faith without the fullness of the teachings.

Though I take your point that not all the teachings are necessary for our salvation, taking a bare-bones approach, as it were. I guess I’m just used to considering all the teachings of the Church as what I am to embrace and have embraced, instead of choosing some and leaving others.

But if we’re talking about what non-Catholic Christians would need to accept in order to have salvation and not considering the rest of it, then I suppose I would have to agree. Is that what you meant?

That is precisely what I meant (and I am a non Catholic Christian)

 

[Hesychios]

I can’t really explain why they felt it necessary to issue that anathema; but it’s at least worth noting that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a very traditional Christian belief – indeed the fifth ecumenical council (553) said:“If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God … let him be anathema.”

Yes, I know.

The point of that clause was the Incarnation of Christ: fully human and fully divine.

The notion of perpetual virginity is traditional, and I believe it because I think it is more than likely correct. But the Fathers of the church emphasized her perpetual virginity because critics (or opponents) of the Incarnation were abusing her reputation for debate points. In other words, she was being accused (long after her death) as a strumpet, which would explain to some people why there were stories and questions about Jesus’ parentage.

But that problem has been settled, the church understands completely that Jesus was pre-existing as God and fully divine from conception (conceived of the Holy Ghost) as man. So, she bore God: Theotokos. The issue was never really about Saint Mary as such…it was always about the Incarnation. If we focus too much now on this side issue it just becomes divisive. In a sense, we really don’t even have to teach it anymore since the issue about Jesus as God is settled (even fundamentalist Protestants agree Jesus is God) and the various arguments behind that decision are not as important as the resolution.

So I have to repeat my contention: If an otherwise goodly and redeemed human person knew nothing either way about Saint Mary’s supposed (or not) virginity it should not matter a bit. It’s all about Christ Our God, fully human and fully divine.

Michael

 

[Bob_McKissick]

I’ve been thinking of the original question and come to the conclusion that the biggest obstacle to unity is the almost total lack of knowledge of the history of the Church, especially the Church Fathers, among those outside the Church! What say you? bob