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

[KingAlfred]

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

The role and purpose of the Bible in Christian worship and living.

 

[Peter_J]

Isn’t it true, that like Latin Rite Permanent Deaconate, you can’t marry once you’ve been ordained, even if your wife dies?

That’s correct. If someone has been ordained – either to the diaconate or the presbyterate – he is not permitted to marry afterwards.

 

[Peter_J]

Plenty of Catholics in here and that is fine as it is a Roman Catholic Forum.

However, why Priest who come from the Anglican communion can be married why not the ‘home grown’ Priests?? Ok I know you cannot ask them to give up their wives! But Paul says it is better not to marry if you can avoid the ‘burn’…would have saved a lot of ‘child abuse’ if those who could not go without the ‘burn’ had been allowed to Marry!!

Not taking a pot shot either! But it makes sense that if those priests had been married it would at least have reduced the crime?

The gospel and Word of God is the Living Bread and the Water of Life, once taken you will never thirst again, obviously figurative language, well the same with with the Body and Blood of Lord Jesus Christ…I still cannot agree with the lighted box where the Body and Blood of Christ lives…quite blasphemous actually. No offence meant by the way.

Although it may not be your intention to cause offense or to take pot shots, I do find your statements a bit inflammatory. (I wonder what would happen to a Catholic poster on a Protestant forum, if he/she made comparable statements about Protestants?)

Regarding your question, “However, why Priest who come from the Anglican communion can be married why not the ‘home grown’ Priests??” I would suggest this analogy: suppose you have a dam holding back a large quantity of water, and suppose you want to let a small amount of that water through … this would have to be done in a very carefully controlled way, right? Otherwise, the dam will be severely damage, and a whole lot of water will go through.

Same with making exceptions to the celibacy rule for priests (in the Latin Church, I mean; the Eastern Catholic Churches already have married priests). In particular, making an exception for married-clergy converts is a pretty natural way to go – there’s a fairly small number of them (relative to the total number of Catholic priests), and they are already used to serving as ordained ministers (even if there first ordination may not have been sacramentally valid). It’s the sort of exception that doesn’t “challenge” the general rule very much.

 

[Peter_J]

I wanted to weigh in on this topic, but first a little house keeping. “wisedomseeker” in post 91 makes the following mis-statement and I don’t think anyone else caught it, although I’m not 100% sure.

Here is “wisedomseeker”:

From the Douay-Rheims, Matthew 16:18-19 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Please note wisedomseeker, The Jesus of the Bible did not say "“whosoever sins…” Hard to believe that given all of the chit chat regarding this passage on this forum that this went unchallanged (at least to my knowledge).

Anyway, the question “What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians”? I view this from the prespective of one who studies church history and theology. What were the conditions that prevailed before the split? First and most important was the absence of the Bible to the common man and second was the political leadership vacuum in western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. If these two conditions can be re-created, then I think there could be unity between Christians.

It is interesting to note that the Roman Catholics on this forum don’t see anything in the RCC that needs to be reformed. The only problem is that the protestants will not accept RCC doctrine as is.

Hi Jon Hus,

I think jmcrae dealt with the “whose sins” etc issue pretty nicely.

With regard to your last two sentences I would ask, have you ever read Unitatis Redintegratio?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Hi Jon Hus,

I think jmcrae dealt with the “whose sins” etc issue pretty nicely.

With regard to your last two sentences I would ask, have you ever read Unitatis Redintegratio?

Sadly, we seem to have chased Jon Hus away. It would have been interesting to learn his insight on these matters.

 

[Hesychios]

So the Catholic church does routinely ordain married men at present. One would have to be a member of an Eastern church, like the Ruthenians or Melkites.

Isn’t it true, that like Latin Rite Permanent Deaconate, you can’t marry once you’ve been ordained, even if your wife dies?

True.

 

[SacredHeart1987]

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

Non Catholic Christians are the ones who decided to leave thee faith of the blessed Peter and the apostles. They no longer have the fullness of the truth because they’ve decided to leave the Church that Christ had left us so they could believe in the unbiblical doctrines of a drunkard named Martin Luther who hated the Jews and who even accused Christ of committing adultery with the woman at the well. Definitely sounds like someone I’d wanna follow

 

[Bob_McKissick]

Speaking of the importance of studying our history, might I suggest that the myth of “Hitler’s Pope” is exactly that, a myth. There are those who call Pope Pius XII by that exceedingly offensive and undeserved name. But that is not history. That’s anti-catholic bigotry. (Not saying that it’s bigotry on your part, but on the part of those who started this vicious fiction.)

If you want to learn more about it, here are some links. At the very least, please research it some more before making such a slanderous statement.

catholicleague.org/pius.php
piusxiipope.info/
users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html

When Pius XII was Pope I was not Catholic but I well remember that after WWII Mussolini was hung up naked by his heels with his mistress and the Italians beat his corpse with heavy sticks. If Pius had helped the Nazis, he would have received the same treatment. The Chief Rabbi of Rome became Catholic after seeing what Pius XII did for the Jews. The only ones who have called Pius XII Hitler’s Pope started long after the war was over and Pius was dead. Golda Meier said that Pius was a great man as did many other Jews who received help from him. Bob McK

 

[Disciple96]

When Pius XII was Pope I was not Catholic but I well remember that after WWII Mussolini was hung up naked by his heels with his mistress and the Italians beat his corpse with heavy sticks. If Pius had helped the Nazis, he would have received the same treatment. The Chief Rabbi of Rome became Catholic after seeing what Pius XII did for the Jews. The only ones who have called Pius XII Hitler’s Pope started long after the war was over and Pius was dead. Golda Meier said that Pius was a great man as did many other Jews who received help from him. Bob McK

Good point, Bob. I’ve never thought of that. I didn’t realize that about the Chief Rabbi of Rome either. But I had heard the Golda Meier quote. Thanks for mentioning all that.

 

[thecross]

Although it may not be your intention to cause offense or to take pot shots, I do find your statements a bit inflammatory. (I wonder what would happen to a Catholic poster on a Protestant forum, if he/she made comparable statements about Protestants?)

Regarding your question, “However, why Priest who come from the Anglican communion can be married why not the ‘home grown’ Priests??” I would suggest this analogy:

suppose you have a dam holding back a large quantity of water, and suppose you want to let a small amount of that water through … this would have to be done in a very carefully controlled way, right? Otherwise, the dam will be severely damage, and a whole lot of water will go through.

Same with making exceptions to the celibacy rule for priests (in the Latin Church, I mean; the Eastern Catholic Churches already have married priests). In particular, making an exception for married-clergy converts is a pretty natural way to go – there’s a fairly small number of them (relative to the total number of Catholic priests), and they are already used to serving as ordained ministers (even if there first ordination may not have been sacramentally valid). It’s the sort of exception that doesn’t “challenge” the general rule very much.

the only thing that I can think of is that the angelican priest isn’t a priest, he isn’t ordained, he is not apostolic

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am a Protestant Christian. I’ve looked at the debate here. I can see obstacles to unity between Catholics and Protestants. Probably the biggest obstacle for me would be that Catholics have Catechism and Protestants do not. Since, I haven’t read any part of Catechism, I cannot make comments of agreement or disagreement. I have realized through these Forums, that Catechism is crucial to the Catholic Faith.

However, how can Catholics and Protestants find unity, when there is such a lack of unity among the many Protestant religions. If we, as Protestants, cannot agree with one another: how can we hope to overcome the obstacle to unity between Protestants and Catholics?

I must say that there are 3 passages of Scripture that have not been adequately addressed in the Protestant sector-at least not to my satisfaction.

John 5:54-56 in the Protestant sector, would apply to the “Lord’s Supper.” Christ does say, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” So, I can see hints of how the RCC derives some beliefs of Holy Communion.

John 6:54-56 (ESV): 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my** flesh is true food**, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

John 20:19 does clearly demonstrate Christ giving the Disciples the authority to forgive or not to forgive sins.

John 20:19-23 (ESV): 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

1 Corinthians 15:29-30 clearly speaks of baptism of the dead. I have never heard this verse quoted in a Protestant Church. (I know the LDS have their own answer to this-but that is another issue entirely.) I really would like to know what baptism of the dead means and how it is accomplished.

1 Corinthians 15:29-30 (ESV): 29Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 30Why are we in danger every hour?

I am hoping for comments, both Catholic and Protestant, that would shed some light on these Scriptures.

Still Searching,
Anna

 

[humble_in_doubt]

When Pius XII was Pope I was not Catholic but I well remember that after WWII Mussolini was hung up naked by his heels with his mistress and the Italians beat his corpse with heavy sticks. If Pius had helped the Nazis, he would have received the same treatment. The Chief Rabbi of Rome became Catholic after seeing what Pius XII did for the Jews. The only ones who have called Pius XII Hitler’s Pope started long after the war was over and Pius was dead. Golda Meier said that Pius was a great man as did many other Jews who received help from him. Bob McK

IMO it’s absurd to say the RCC facilitated the Nazi’s in any way … obviously the church secretly did many things for the Jews (hiding tens of thousands who would have almost certainly been otherwise killed). Some point to the silence and public capitulation of the church; and this is I guess a fair critique. However, it goes without saying that had the church taken a hard stance against Hitler the gates of hell might have prevailed against her (since I can’t think of a better nominee for devil than Hitler)

 

[Peter_J]

1 Corinthians 15:29-30 clearly speaks of baptism of the dead. I have never heard this verse quoted in a Protestant Church. (I know the LDS have their own answer to this-but that is another issue entirely.) I really would like to know what baptism of the dead means and how it is accomplished.

1 Corinthians 15:29-30 (ESV): 29Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 30Why are we in danger every hour?

I am hoping for comments, both Catholic and Protestant, that would shed some light on these Scriptures.

Still Searching,
Anna

Hi Anna. I’m afraid I don’t have much of an answer to give, except to point out that it doesn’t say “baptism of the dead”. It says that people are baptized “for the dead” or “on behalf of the dead”, depending which translation you use. But I couldn’t really tell you what exactly that means.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna. I’m afraid I don’t have much of an answer to give, except to point out that it doesn’t say “baptism of the dead”. It says that people are baptized “for the dead” or “on behalf of the dead”, depending which translation you use. But I couldn’t really tell you what exactly that means.

Peter, thanks for correcting my quote. It does say “for” or “on behalf of the dead.”

I’m hoping someone can shed some light on this.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Anna Scott,

Probably the biggest obstacle for me would be that Catholics have Catechism and Protestants do not…

As a matter of fact, the first catechism was written by Father Martin Luther in 1530AD.

This was followed by a catechism released by John Calvin in 1545AD. The idea caught on.

 

[Peter_J]

^^ Indeed I’ve heard (although I never read the exact statements) that when the CCC came out in the 1990s, one of the criticisms brought against it was: If it’s a catechism why isn’t it in question-and-answer form? In his response, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger pointed out that Luther’s Large Catechism wasn’t in question-and-answer form.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

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

All of the above.

In addition, of course, to your church’s declaring us anathema, there are also the issues of sola fide, imputed righteousness, and the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hello Anna Scott, As a matter of fact, the first catechism was written by Father Martin Luther in 1530AD.

This was followed by a catechism released by John Calvin in 1545AD. The idea caught on.

Hesychios:

Are you in agreement with the writings of Martin Luther and John Calvin?

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios:

Are you in agreement with the writings of Martin Luther and John Calvin?

I don’t read them, I am Orthodox.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Is it,

a) Disagreement as to whether salvation is an event or a process?

it’s funny … the reformers never depicted salvation as “an event” in the way contemporary evangelicals do. Catholic apologists misconstrued their doctrines & accused them of framing salvation as an event (inferring there is no requirement to live your faith, live in holiness, perform good works, etc); and I guess it became a self-fulfilling prophecy (since it caught on & today many if not most evangelicals have taken the view that a one time profession for Christ guarantees ones salvation regardless of their future behavior or beliefs).

For the record (even though I don’t really care much) this is not something any reformer ever taught … not even close. I would suggest all protestants who are interested in their faith should take the time to read Calvin and Luther (along with St. Augustine). Then I would suggest any Christian should read a little Nietzsche (for some perspective ).