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

[Anna_Scott]

To an extremely limited extent only. I am not interested in their writings, as it is based upon western theological concepts, which have problems at a very fundamental level even before one gets to the particulars of each faction. I simply wanted to point out that for 1,500 years the RC had no catechism, as such. It is not a defining characteristic of church. The Catholic church did eventually create a catechism during the Catholic reformation as a measure to counter the growing influence of the Protestant teachings. I could be mistaken but believe it was meant for use by priests.

Publishing a catechism is a good idea for any church that finds it difficult to correctly teach the faith through it’s liturgical practices.
I agree, I despise the anti-semitism of that age, whatever the source.

BTW, the Catholic apologist of note in that era was Father Johann Eck. He was the nemesis of Father Martin Luther and the two went at it head-to-head. This is what Wiki has to say about Father Eck’s position on anti-Semitism:
Another interesting but sad element is that through that whole Protestant reformation-Catholic reformation episode in Europe the status and safety of Jews in Europe seemed to be declining from what once was a fairly tolerated era.

For instance, this article describes the situation in the Eternal City from the time of the Council of Trent:

I appreciate your comments on Catechism, and your time in relaying an historical reference and quotations.

It is difficult to look back to times when the Jewish people suffered such persecution at the hands of those who claimed to be Christians-whatever their religious affiliations were at the time. I, too, despise antisemitism regardless of the source.

I feel such sorrow, deep within my heart, when I think about the violence in the history of Christianity.

Please view my post #585-regarding my Jewish friends.
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I appreciate the rich discussion on this thread.

I am going through each post, and replying–earliest to latest–for posts of the last 24 hours. So much information in a short period of time, which is great to see!

I’ll be back with more responses.
Anna

 

[jmcrae]

I do know the LDS do still perform Baptism for the dead.

“Still” isn’t really the right word for it, since there were no LDS around during the time of St. Paul - they are called “latter day saints” for a good reason.

The LDS base this idea solely on the passage from 1 Corinthians 15:29-30; they aren’t basing it on a custom of old times, or anything like that.

The LDS Church was started by Joseph Smith on April 6th, 1830. It was himself and some of his friends who put together its teachings. They were actually quite intentionally not following any kind of Apostolic Tradition - they were perfectly well aware that they were creating a completely new religion. They believed themselves to be inspired by God, but they certainly knew that they were breaking with accepted Christian tradition - they were doing so on purpose.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hello Anna Scott. It is a pleasure to meet you!

There is a Russian religious scholar, Sergey Antonenko, who has studied and written about what he feels are striking commonalities between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In his writings he compares the practice of baptism for the dead as practiced by LDS and the ancient Christian church. Antonenko states:

“Those who are advanced in the religious studies may conclude that vicarious baptism existed in the history of the Christian Church….” Citing 1 Corinthians 15:29, he continues, "…Direct [literal] meaning of the verse implies that ‘baptism for the dead’ for the ancient Christians was confirmation of their confession [faith] — of their belief in resurrection. It is obvious that baptism for the dead was practiced in some of early-Christian communities until it was forbidden by the rules of the Carthaginian Council.

*However, the tradition of posthumous baptisms continued to exist in the later periods. It was known also in the ancient Russia. In 1044, pious grand duke of Kiev [the capitol city of today’s Republic of Ukraine], Yaroslav, nicknamed Wise, has brought [physically] into the church two of his uncles, Oleg and Jaropolk, which have died long before that and formally were pagans [unbaptized at the time of their deaths].

To tell the truth, in this case one can hardly speak about vicarious baptism. The chronicles tell that the bones of the dukes were dug out from the tombs, baptized and then buried in the Saint Virgin of Tithes cathedral. About Oleg and Jaropolk, it is known that they have been reared and educated by their grandmother, grand duchess Olga, and that they believed in Christ and were not baptized only for “narrowness of circumstances” … killed in internecine strife.

Yaroslav the Wise was convinced that it was his duty to help his untimely gone uncles to complete their Christian choice … The given example is very significant — baptism of the dead was performed officially in the court church built by the Saint Vladimir*."

Of course this doesn’t tell us if this practice is right or wrong, but it does tell us that some, if not many, early Christians felt that this was a good and necessary practice. Furthermore, as Antonenko points out, his example is significant because it shows that at least at one point batism for the dead was officially sanctioned by the Orthodox church in Kiev.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I would have to do some research on this. Since, I have not found Baptism for the dead in any Christian Church History so far.

I see that you are a member of LDS.

I had a very disturbing experience with a LDS Temple a number of years ago. I discovered some of the beliefs of the Mormon Church: God has a wife and lives on another planet; exaltation of man-man can become a god; there are other gods in other worlds; Joseph Smith’s early writings revealed that he believed that Adam is actually god.

These beliefs were so disturbing to me, and the Mormons could not deny these beliefs-not even the wife of one of the Bishops (the couple were friends of mine.) I felt that my Mormon friends had deceived me in presenting the Mormon church as Christianity. They withheld the controversial issues in an attempt to convert me.

I hold no ill feelings toward the LDS. However, I am very cautious when it comes to the Mormon church.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

“Still” isn’t really the right word for it, since there were no LDS around during the time of St. Paul - they are called “latter day saints” for a good reason.

The LDS base this idea solely on the passage from 1 Corinthians 15:29-30; they aren’t basing it on a custom of old times, or anything like that.

The LDS Church was started by Joseph Smith on April 6th, 1830. It was himself and some of his friends who put together its teachings. They were actually quite intentionally not following any kind of Apostolic Tradition - they were perfectly well aware that they were creating a completely new religion. They believed themselves to be inspired by God, but they certainly knew that they were breaking with accepted Christian tradition - they were doing so on purpose.

jmcrae:

I agree: “Still” isn’t really the right choice of words.

See my post #591-a response to a LDS post on this forum.

 

[Dokimas]

My opinion of the OP question is that anytime a person or group think they have a corner on understanding of Scripture, that is the beginning of discord or division.

 

[jmcrae]

My opinion of the OP question is that anytime a person or group think they have a corner on understanding of Scripture, that is the beginning of discord or division.

Let me ask you this - what was the reason that God inspired certain men to write the books that we include in the Scriptures, if we are not meant to understand them?

But if we believe that we understand them, then why is it such a sin to mention that we do?

 

[Anna_Scott]

jmcrae: If you are online, would you check my post #591?

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae: If you are online, would you check my post #591?

OH, was I supposed to respond? I agree with what you said - Mormon beliefs are not like other Christian beliefs, and in my own research, I have not yet come across anything regarding baptism for the dead among the Early Fathers. At least, nothing that would support an idea that they were actually doing that, or thought it was Apostolic.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Erchomai Kyrios:

I see you have given some very interesting information.

Look forward to reading your posts in detail. Will respond later.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

OH, was I supposed to respond? I agree with what you said - Mormon beliefs are not like other Christian beliefs, and in my own research, I have not yet come across anything regarding baptism for the dead among the Early Fathers. At least, nothing that would support an idea that they were actually doing that, or thought it was Apostolic.

Wondered if you had any comments regarding Finrock’s Post #578, in which he cited Russian religious scholar, Sergey Antonenko. Finrock stated, “ Antonenko points out, his example is significant because it shows that at least at one point baptism for the dead was officially sanctioned by the Orthodox church in Kiev.”

Anna

 

[jmcrae]

Wondered if you had any comments regarding Finrock’s Post #578, in which he cited Russian religious scholar, Sergey Antonenko. Finrock stated, “ Antonenko points out, his example is significant because it shows that at least at one point baptism for the dead was officially sanctioned by the Orthodox church in Kiev.”

Anna

I’ve never heard of it, and I’m pretty sure that the Orthodox don’t consider it to be part of their tradition - I’ve never heard it mentioned in that context, anyway. You’d want to ask someone who is a member of an Orthodox Church, how they view that statement, but it seems to me that the Orthodox have very similar beliefs about baptism as we do as Catholics. (They don’t believe in Original Sin, but they believe that Baptism is the covenant sign that joins the believer to the Church and to the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, that marks the soul with an indelible mark setting the believer apart from the rest of the world.)

 

[Christalone]

Originally Posted by CAS64
Misunderstanding of each other and the Catholic church’s unwillingness to be anything other than exclusive.

The Catholic Church currently includes all Catholics, which adds up to a respectable number. Who else do you think should be included that is currently being excluded?

The exclusive remark means that catholics claim that they are they only ones who know the truth, are the only true church, pushing all others to the way side.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Ἐπεὶ τί ποιή|σ|ουσιν οἱ βαπτιζ|όμεν|οι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρ|ῶν; εἰ ὅλως νεκρ|οὶ οὐκ ἐγείρ|ονται, τί καὶ βαπτίζ|ονται ὑπὲρ αὐτ|ῶν;

Hi Anna, Peter
Yes, Tichendorf’s Greek version has “for the dead” so Peter is right.
Epei ti poiēsousin ohi baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn; ei holōs nekroi ouk egeirontai, ti kai baptizontai huper autōn;
(epei 1893)Since otherwise (tis 5100) what (poiesousain 4160) do these effect (ho 3588) those (baptizomenoi 907) being baptized **(huper 5228) for **(ho 3588) the (nekros 3498) dead (ei 1487) if (holos 3654) wholly altogether (nekros 3498) dead (ouk 3756) not (egeiro 1453) are aroused (tis 5100) at all (kai 2532) and/also (baptizontai 907) they adminstering baptism (huper 5228) for (auton 846) them
The english has to be finessed a bit, and though my translation below is somewhat course and rough, essentially I think the meaning is similar, with the possible exception that I’m not quite sure how they ended up with, "why are people baptized on their behalf? as I see Paul ending more aligned with a statement of inclusion - “of both the dead and those acting on their behalf not arising”. It would appear, at least to me, that’s a little bit of translational gymnastics. Then again I certainly don’t profess to be any Greek scholar - their may be nuances and idioms I’m unaware of./QUOTE]

Erchomai Kyrios: I appreciate your translation. At least, it confirms that Paul was referring to Baptism on behalf of the dead.

So the only church father I could find quoting and commenting on this obscure passage was Tertullian, whose commentary in the ECF 3.449-450 says.

So if you are confused & bewildered by these rather 2 contradictory statements made by Tertullian, only 150 years after Paul documented the practice, then you are not alone. I suspect that his body of evidence was lacking and he interpolated the verse according to where his theology landed him at that particular moment in time. Did he think better of it later? Perhaps? But clearly he shows us no body of evidence other than his own thoughts - and gives us no apology as to why he did a 180. Don’t mean to be critical of Tertullian that’s just how I read him on this one.
That said it doesn’t appear at first glance that the earlier comment of Tertullian is correct - I don’t think he was talking about 'being dead in sins and trespasses (which we were) otherwise why would he say neither the dead nor those acting on their behalf - I think the Greek strongly implies that but you may want a 2nd opinion.
Maybe someone has another early extrabiblical quote of 1 Cor 15:29 that’s all I could find

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

humble_in_doubt:

Many negative things have been written about who did what during the Holocaust. At the same time, there were indeed Christians who risked their lives to help the Jewish people.

This is a copy/paste of one of my previous posts.

From what I have read, there were Christians who helped the Jews, and Christians who “sold them out.”

However, if this Jewish couple can see past all that was wrong, perhaps we can stop accusing one another.
Anna

Yes, rent the movie, “The Hiding Place”
the true story of the Ten Boom family who helped many Jews escape the horrors of the concentration camp by the simple and uncompromising faith in Christ. They all wound up in concentration camps where all dies except Corrie - who went on to be a missionary after the war.
youtube.com/watch?v=YWg47sLwlHk
May God Bless you Anna, Erchomai Kyrios.

 

[ScottishColleen]

Only answering for myself:

Is it,

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

No, because I believe we are close, yet different, on this point. I believe in election. I believe that we are chosen from before the foundations of the earth, that Salvation is a process, but that He who began this work in me WILL finish it (it will not go incomplete).

b) Disagreement about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

MOST Protestants and Catholics agree on this…unless you are referring to Mary instead of Christ?

c) Disagreement about praying for the dead?

No and yes. Some Protestants understand where the Catholic are coming from on this matter, just disagree due to “conversing with the dead” and whether the saints in heaven can hear us or just continuously pray for us on earth in general. Others haven’t grasped the difference between “conversation” and “worship” For a portion of those in the former category, this isn’t a deal breaker (I even know a hard core Cradle Catholic that will tell you she doesn’t pray to anyone but God).

d) Disagreement about the existence of purgatory?

Yes.

e) Disagreement about how to understand baptism?

For some yes, for others no. (for me, no)

f) Disagreement about the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Yes. Some protestants totally yes…some Reformed, though not holding to transubstantiation, do hold that there is particular Grace passed through the taken of communion.

g) Disagreement about confession of one’s sins being heard by a priest?

Ha! Not here. If I had something that I needed to confess, I’m certain I could trust a priest over nearly any pastor. A priest is bound by confidence (from my understanding), a pastor is not.

h) Disagreement about the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God?

Yes for some protestants…no for some Reformed. I’m on the fence with this one…there is plausibility on both sides, but not enough evidence to firmly state either way.

i) Disagreement about the papacy and papal infallibility?

Yes and no. Reformed believe strongly in a chain of authority, but we don’t consider ANY man to be infallible, EVER!

j) Some other doctrine or factor?

Of course. Certain issues dealing with holy days is conflicting for me. Ditto images of Christ and the Cross. Various issues dealing with Mariology (but not the respect of her role). Issue “a”. And the lack of discipline of blatant heretical teaching in certain dioceses.

Curiously,
Mick

 

[diggit03]

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.

In support of the Catholic view: we need one strong guide to which we must follow- hence the need for Catholic doctrines. It’s not possible for everyone to seek out the answers whole heartedly with all the everyday things we must do. The Pope is sort of a father figure- the Bible itself can be easily misunderstood by us, sinners!

Look at the concept of confession- it is beneficial in many psychological ways if it’s practiced the way it is supposed to be. We individually will not magically just know to do this. There are many unexplained reasons that are have deep meanings we sometimes cannot hope to understand, or are too blind to see right away. Hence the Pope’s teachings. This does not mean that we shouldn’t be on our guard.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Quote Erchomai Kyrios. As we know many who followed Jesus up to this point departed. So I believe this is a very important point for all Christians to understand, whether Catholic or Protestant. We don’t want to be in the number departing from Christ because we do not understand what He is saying to us.I see Jesus really expounding what He had said in this whole paragraph in John 6:63. He is speaking of both the Spirit and the Word. Just as he has with the woman in the well.

Erchomai Kyrios:
I agree that we do not want to be “in the number departing from Christ, because we do not understand what He is saying to us.” So, I really do want to get this right.

Quote Erchomai Kyrios. He is both the Son of Man and the Word of God and specifically states He is not talking about the flesh but the substance of God. He, the Word made flesh, is the true bread from heaven - while the manna from heaven was only a foreshadowing of our true bread - Jesus Christ. We thirst for the Living God and as the Scriptures say He provides us with the Living waters to quench the thirst of our souls to the full. We immerse ourselves in the Living water and we are not only filled but the waters of God burst the levees of our hearts and overflow with His love. This is the Lord’s doing and not our own. We in our broken human nature have all misplaced our faith; faith in money, power; fame; intelligence but placing our faith in the Lord is never misplaced for Jehovah Jireh is our provision. In Him we blossom and grow and God yields His fruit in us.

Well written; and I have no disagreements with what you have said.

I do have two questions regarding the Catholic perspective:

1. In Holy Communion, does the bread and wine turn into the real flesh and blood of Christ/does a physical transformation of the bread and wine take place?
2. How does Holy Communion affect purgatorial punishment (this was mentioned briefly on another Catholic site)? Well, I suppose it is actually three questions, since I need to know the definition of purgatory.

These questions do reflect differences between Catholics and Protestants that can be an obstacle to unity. So, I do want to understand the Catholic viewpoint.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Erchomai Kyrios:
Great quotes from the church fathers. When do you have time to sleep? You are like a “spiritual library.”

There is no end to the depth of God! We could soak ourselves in these waters our whole earthly life and only skim the surface of the depth and knowledge of God.

But my sense is He is not only speaking of holy communion but communion in Him with each passing breath. He desires us to know Him even as He knows us, that those living waters would not only fill our hearts but spill over to the hearts of others - Grace upon grace and freely given, all for the glory of the Name above all names.

I believe we are created for Him to partake of Him on every level and praise God for holy communion because I do believe and sense His presence and I think of His body shattered for me and blood as love poured out that I may live in Him.
I believe this with all my heart -

Nothing is truer than Love
And O how deep runs the river which is the Love of Christ.
As deep calls unto deep so too He calls us
ever deeper to Himself, Jesus lover of our souls.

This is such a deep expression of your faith and relationship with Christ. I love what you have written.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Originally Posted by Matthew - Mark & Luke