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

[Disciple96]

Hi Disciple96,

Anybody can join this forum and declare allegiance to the Catholic Church but it’s by their fruit that we will recognize them. Inelegant insults do not constitute a fruit of the Spirit so many thanks for taking the time to put forward with due attentiveness and courtesy the formal (and quite reasonable) stance adopted by the Catholic Church.

Appreciatively,
Mick

Thanks, Mick. This is a topic dear to my heart. And on this topic, a really wonderful book that more than repays reading (and re-reading with attentiveness and an open heart) is Pope Benedict’s Truth and Tolerance, Christian Belief and World Religions. I’ve read it 3 times now and I appreciate it more each time. In a word, WOW!

Btw, I have no interest in insulting any follower of any religion and I don’t think that is a helpful way to foster dialogue. I do think, however, that it is a surefire way to shut down any possibility of dialogue. Guess one has to decide what it is one wants to do. How can I help to spread the Gospel by insulting people? I’ve done that and I learned the hard way, that ain’t the way to go.

 

[jmcrae]

Our Lord founded the Christian Church, which when taken over by the bishop of Rome

It was Christ who established St. Peter as the Head Bishop of His Church; see John 21:15-19.

later and allowed so many false teachings in it needed reformed, so God raised up the Reformers,

A veritable Tower of Babel of conflicting doctrines - no, the Truth is not found there.

but rather than be reformed they excomunicated the Reformers

For heresies that had already been defined by the Church by the early 500s AD - there was nothing new in any of their “reforms” - it was just the same old heresies, except that instead of occurring one at a time, they all happened at once.

…there is still ONE Christian Church made up of many denominations…among them are true Christians who are God’s people.

One Church cannot be made up of a thousand or more conflicting doctrines - they all might share in certain truths, but only one can be fully true.

The Bible is 66 Books that agree with each other,

Actually, it’s 73 books

the Bible interprets itself as a result

,

I have never personally observed this miracle - so, the printed page stands up in the pulpit and starts giving an interpretation of itself that relates to the problems and issues of that particular congregation, or comes to the head of the class and starts answering the students’ questions?

No - the Bible does not interpret itself. It needs a human interpreter to explain it’s meaning in the context of those particular people and that particular situation.

so one should not take a few verses and build a church on it.

On this, we agree.

There are apocraphal books which are just that apocraphal interesting yet not agreeing with the rest of Scripture.

There are, indeed, some Apocryphal books - they go by names like “The Gospel According to Thomas,” and “The Shepherd of Hermas”, etc. But you should not consider the Deuterocanon of the Old Testament to be “apocryphal” - that would be a terrible error.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5490458:

Hi Disciple96,

Anybody can join this forum and declare allegiance to the Catholic Church but it’s by their fruit that we will recognize them. Inelegant insults do not constitute a fruit of the Spirit so many thanks for taking the time to put forward with due attentiveness and courtesy the formal (and quite reasonable) stance adopted by the Catholic Church.

Appreciatively,
Mick

Thanks, Mick. This is a topic dear to my heart. And on this topic, a really wonderful book that more than repays reading (and re-reading with attentiveness and an open heart) is Pope Benedict’s Truth and Tolerance, Christian Belief and World Religions. I’ve read it 3 times now and I appreciate it more each time. In a word, WOW!

I followed the link you kindly provided and read the reviews. I noticed that several reviewers seemed to think the book was a bit too “intellectual” for their taste(s). I guess it’s a challenging read, then? And I was wondering why you hadn’t reviewed it yourself? You’ve recommended this book on at least one other thread and you’ve reviewed other books on Amazon. Could you summarize the book in one paragraph? I don’t think that would derail this thread.

Btw, I have no interest in insulting any follower of any religion and I don’t think that is a helpful way to foster dialogue. I do think, however, that it is a surefire way to shut down any possibility of dialogue. Guess one has to decide what it is one wants to do. How can I help to spread the Gospel by insulting people? I’ve done that and I learned the hard way, that ain’t the way to go.

Well said.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[ferdie]

Thanks, Mick. This is a topic dear to my heart. And on this topic, a really wonderful book that more than repays reading (and re-reading with attentiveness and an open heart) is Pope Benedict’s Truth and Tolerance, Christian Belief and World Religions. I’ve read it 3 times now and I appreciate it more each time. In a word, WOW!

Btw, I have no interest in insulting any follower of any religion and I don’t think that is a helpful way to foster dialogue. I do think, however, that it is a surefire way to shut down any possibility of dialogue. Guess one has to decide what it is one wants to do. How can I help to spread the Gospel by insulting people? I’ve done that and I learned the hard way, that ain’t the way to go.

If we are to win our Protestant brethren and non Christians, we need more knowledgeable Catholics and Orthodox with the same mentality as you do.

 

[Disciple96]

I followed the link you kindly provided and read the reviews. I noticed that several reviewers seemed to think the book was a bit too “intellectual” for their taste(s). I guess it’s a challenging read, then? And I was wondering why you hadn’t reviewed it yourself? You’ve recommended this book on at least one other thread and you’ve reviewed other books on Amazon. Could you summarize the book in one paragraph? I don’t think that would derail this thread.

Cordially,
Mick

Summarize the Pope’s very intellectual and challenging tome in one paragraph, eh? Well… it is on my to-do list, both for my blog and for my Amazon review page. I just haven’t taken the time to sit down and work on it yet. But I’ll try here. Now. For you. Since you asked so very nicely. Ahem. Here goes nothin’. I fear.

Pope Benedict has been writing about this subject for many years and noticing, too, the vast number of books, articles, what-have-you, to be found claiming the oneness of all religions. He’s also noticed, as have others, that modern man seems rather disinclined to entertain the notion that objective truth can be known or even that it exists! It goes without saying (but he says it anyway and so will I) that Christianity, with its claims to not only know the truth, but also to possess it, rubs modern man the wrong way.

How dare we make such a baseless and irritating claim?

The Pope, therefore, looks at the notion of truth, its existence and our ability to know it, and at religion and religions around the world, and at Christianity’s place among those religions.

It is a challenging read, indeed. I’ve read it three times and I’m reading it again and studying it, along with a few, okay, many other things. So the review is in the works, but so are a whole lot of other things. As for the alleged label of “too intellectual”, well, what can I say? I have to have substance in my reading and thinking. And there’s plenty of that in anything that flows from Benedict’s pen. (Translators make a big difference too. His Jesus of Nazareth is a much easier read, absolutely beautiful prose, another favorite book which I also plan to review.)

 

[Disciple96]

If we are to win our Protestant brethren and non Christians, we need more knowledgeable Catholics and Orthodox with the same mentality as you do.

Blush. Thank you, ferdie. I love to help folks understand things. When I can. When I have something to share. When they’ll listen. Which is surprisingly often. The fact that people so often do listen to me has made me take very seriously what I say and how I say it. Sometimes I do better than at other times, but I am working very hard to understand and hand on the faith which I have received as faithfully and as clearly as I can.

If I have succeeded in helping anyone understand and appreciate Catholicism, then I am overjoyed and I offer deep and heartfelt thanks to God for letting me play any role whatsoever, no matter how small, in even one person’s journey toward His Truth and His Church. Every day I wnat more and more and nothing more than to be a faithful disciple of my Lord. And to share His Light with others.

Goodness, I’m startin’ to sound more like my dear ol’ Grandmother all the time!

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5491072:

I followed the link you kindly provided and read the reviews. I noticed that several reviewers seemed to think the book was a bit too “intellectual” for their taste(s). I guess it’s a challenging read, then? And I was wondering why you hadn’t reviewed it yourself? You’ve recommended this book on at least one other thread and you’ve reviewed other books on Amazon. Could you summarize the book in one paragraph? I don’t think that would derail this thread.

Cordially,
Mick

Summarize the Pope’s very intellectual and challenging tome in one paragraph, eh? Well… it is on my to-do list, both for my blog and for my Amazon review page. I just haven’t taken the time to sit down and work on it yet. But I’ll try here. Now. For you. Since you asked so very nicely. Ahem. Here goes nothin’. I fear.

Pope Benedict has been writing about this subject for many years and noticing, too, the vast number of books, articles, what-have-you, to be found claiming the oneness of all religions. He’s also noticed, as have others, that modern man seems rather disinclined to entertain the notion that objective truth can be known or even that it exists! It goes without saying (but he says it anyway and so will I) that Christianity, with its claims to not only know the truth, but also to possess it, rubs modern man the wrong way.

How dare we make such a baseless and irritating claim?

The Pope, therefore, looks at the notion of truth, its existence and our ability to know it, and at religion and religions around the world, and at Christianity’s place among those religions.

It is a challenging read, indeed. I’ve read it three times and I’m reading it again and studying it, along with a few, okay, many other things. So the review is in the works, but so are a whole lot of other things. As for the alleged label of “too intellectual”, well, what can I say? I have to have substance in my reading and thinking. And there’s plenty of that in anything that flows from Benedict’s pen. (Translators make a big difference too. His Jesus of Nazareth is a much easier read, absolutely beautiful prose, another favorite book which I also plan to review.)

A very nice job at such short notice – thanks for being so accommodating. God bless you as you continue on your spiritual journey.

Sincerely,
Mick

 

[atg2]

Hypocrisy

 

[ferdie]

Hypocrisy

And pride!!!

 

[rinnie]

I think every non-catholic religion is stubborn and close minded.

God bless everyone.

I disagree totally. I think that anyone who takes the time to go to Church, study scripture and try to learn the word of God is very open minded. I do not think that anyone can be close minded and say they believe in God. Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior has already opened up their minds and eyes to the truth of the Gospel.

There is just many people who don’t always see the truth the same as others. And that is where trouble starts. Because there is only one God, so there can only be one truth. What we all have to do is love eachother and try to do our best in a kind, and way pleasing to God is help eachother to see it. And unfortunately for all of us we are human, and as being human we have pride, and can let that clear our judgement sometimes. But with the help of the HS he can guide us all. The first step is to pray for grace, God will do the rest.

 

[Roy5]

ANNULMENT AND/OR DIVORCE?

  Just a follow-up on my contested assertion that a church-granted annulment is in reality a church-sanctioned divorce.

   Let me give a concrete illustration from my own experience. One of my close friends had a very special marriage ceremony and reception 25-or-so years ago, The couple had several children and everything seemed to go fine. Then, about five years ago the wife became disinterested in him, would no longer share his bed, etc., and he eventually fell in love with another woman he met in his academic circle. (He was a college professor.) They decided to seek a church annulment, as both were Catholic and wanted a wedding in their local parish.

   He had to provide evidence that the original marriage was somehow invalid from the beginning, which was absolutely silly. They had been a happy couple for many years. They had four children together. They were even amicable when he sought the annulment as she was no longer in love, etc. So, he had to, in effect, invent evidence (he told me) to support the annulment request. The priest who married him the first time was contacted as to such evidence. Etc., etc.  

  After a wait and many dollars, the annnulment court, or whatever it is called, granted the annulment. He remarried in the Catholic Church! Now, tell me honestly, how is that not comparable to a church-sanctioned divorce??? This whole business of "an invalid marriage" becomes an excuse to grant such a 'divorce' without the church seeming to alter its position. Personally, it all seems rather suspect to me.

  That new;y married couple, incidentally, have recently left the Catholic Church and attend an Episcopal Church. As they looked back on this whole annulment situation, they became convinced that it was one of several problems with Catholic theology and/or policy.

 

[jargon631]

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

it depends on which christian faith you are referring to…the sda would say “all of the above”…fd

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5150912:

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

it depends on which christian faith you are referring to…the sda would say “all of the above”…fd

Am I right in thinking the Seventh–day Adventist Church teaches that salvation is an event and that an assurance of salvation is the norm for a born–again Christian?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[jmcrae]

Am I right in thinking the Seventh–day Adventist Church teaches that salvation is an event and that an assurance of salvation is the norm for a born–again Christian?

Cordially,
Mick

I’m actually not sure about that. The Seventh Day Adventists were founded by Ellen White in the late 1800s as an off-shoot of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (who do not, as far as I know, subscribe to the idea of “once saved, always saved”.)

In my own library (and I haven’t researched elsewhere, due to lack of time and sufficient interest) the first appearance of the concept of “once saved always saved” (salvation as event, rather than process) is in a book by Leighton Ford that was written in the mid-1950s. The next-earliest book I have is by evangelist Roy Hession, written in the 1930s, and the concept of “once saved always saved” does not appear there, neither to promote it nor to refute it - he assumes the traditional belief that we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling, as “given” and doesn’t question it at all - indeed, he goes to great lengths to describe the Christian lifestyle, and the benefits to the soul of each aspect of it. The book is called The Calvary Road, and it’s still a favourite of mine - it’s actually very Catholic, in a lot of ways.

So, the doctrine of “once saved always saved” must have appeared at some point between the late 1930s and the mid-1950s.

Since the SDA appeared earlier than that, it seems safe to assume that they don’t believe in OSAS, unless they added it in later on - although given their roots, it doesn’t seem very likely that they would have.

 

[Spiritoftruth]

Pride!

 

[Roy5]

Whose pride? Protestants like me who try to respect all faiths and do not claim to belong to the one true church? Or, those traditional Catholic who say that they alone belong to the one true church?

 Fortunately, few Catholics I know believe that any longer. Like me, they feel that God will examine our hearts and not our theology. Did we love God and our neighbor will be the question asked, and not what church did we attend, which doctrines did we believe, and were we loyal to the Pope, the vicar of Christ on earth?

  God bless Catholics, Protestants and all people who sincerely try to love God and our neighbors, as Christ commanded. And may religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Disciple96]

ANNULMENT AND/OR DIVORCE?

  Just a follow-up on my contested assertion that a church-granted annulment is in reality a church-sanctioned divorce.

   Let me give a concrete illustration from my own experience. One of my close friends had a very special marriage ceremony and reception 25-or-so years ago, The couple had several children and everything seemed to go fine. Then, about five years ago the wife became disinterested in him, would no longer share his bed, etc., and he eventually fell in love with another woman he met in his academic circle. (He was a college professor.) They decided to seek a church annulment, as both were Catholic and wanted a wedding in their local parish.

   He had to provide evidence that the original marriage was somehow invalid from the beginning, which was absolutely silly. They had been a happy couple for many years. They had four children together. They were even amicable when he sought the annulment as she was no longer in love, etc. So, he had to, in effect, invent evidence (he told me) to support the annulment request. The priest who married him the first time was contacted as to such evidence. Etc., etc.  

  After a wait and many dollars, the annnulment court, or whatever it is called, granted the annulment. He remarried in the Catholic Church! Now, tell me honestly, how is that not comparable to a church-sanctioned divorce??? This whole business of "an invalid marriage" becomes an excuse to grant such a 'divorce' without the church seeming to alter its position. Personally, it all seems rather suspect to me.

  That new;y married couple, incidentally, have recently left the Catholic Church and attend an Episcopal Church. As they looked back on this whole annulment situation, they became convinced that it was one of several problems with Catholic theology and/or policy.

I’m wondering if you actually read what I wrote explaining the vast difference between annulment and divorce. The granting of an annulment means no marriage had originally taken place and therefore no re-marriage takes place now, as it is a marriage, not a re-marriage. A ceremony may have taken place but no marriage. Words were said, a valid covenant was not established.

For example, imagine this: You and I are present in the sanctuary. I read and “perform” the entire Mass. At the proper moment, I take a communion wafer and some wine and utter the official words over them, carefully pronouncing the words from the proper ritual in the proper book. But I can not confect the Eucharist, because I am not a priest, and even though I could hand the wafer and the chalice to you, and you take and eat and drink, I would not be giving you Holy Communion and you would not be receiving it. It would not fulfill the necessary requirements for validity. Correct ceremony, correct words said, correct actions done, still no valid sacrament.

To enter into marriage without understanding or intending to enter into a covenant and to keep the stipulations of the covenant (for better or worse, in sickness and in health, til death do us part, etc) renders the marriage null, as in no marriage has taken place, therefore a annulment is granted and the parties are free to marry as they have not been married and are not married now. The civil authorities generally don’t recognize this because they generally refuse to recognize the authority, any authority, of the Church. We are not talking about divorce for reasons that develop after marriage, but about annulment which has to do with the original conditions and intentions obtaining before and at the time of the sacramental wedding.

I really don’t know how much plainer I can make it. Annulment is not Catholic divorce. Annulment is not silly. The sanctity of marriage is not silly. The unbreakable covenant of marriage is not silly. The guarding and protecting of the sanctity of marriage is not silly. Annulment has nothing to do with what happened after the wedding. It has nothing to do with happiness. It has to do with entering into covenant with God, with Christ, with His Church, with each other, and taking the time and trouble to understand that covenant and having the seriousness of mind and heart to keep and honor that covenant. You can break a simple contract. You cannot break a covenant. They are not interchangeable terms but two very very different things. To misunderstand the notion of covenant is to misunderstand our entire religion.

That people insist on misrepresenting, misinterpreting and mis-stating Catholic teaching is more than silly. It also does harm to those who hear and read and make decisions based upon misinformation they have received from others.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5494134:

Am I right in thinking the Seventh–day Adventist Church teaches that salvation is an event and that an assurance of salvation is the norm for a born–again Christian?

Cordially,
Mick

I’m actually not sure about that. The Seventh Day Adventists were founded by Ellen White in the late 1800s as an off-shoot of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (who do not, as far as I know, subscribe to the idea of “once saved, always saved”.)

In my own library (and I haven’t researched elsewhere, due to lack of time and sufficient interest) the first appearance of the concept of “once saved always saved” (salvation as event, rather than process) is in a book by Leighton Ford that was written in the mid-1950s. The next-earliest book I have is by evangelist Roy Hession, written in the 1930s, and the concept of “once saved always saved” does not appear there, neither to promote it nor to refute it - he assumes the traditional belief that we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling, as “given” and doesn’t question it at all - indeed, he goes to great lengths to describe the Christian lifestyle, and the benefits to the soul of each aspect of it. The book is called The Calvary Road, and it’s still a favourite of mine - it’s actually very Catholic, in a lot of ways.

So, the doctrine of “once saved always saved” must have appeared at some point between the late 1930s and the mid-1950s.

Since the SDA appeared earlier than that, it seems safe to assume that they don’t believe in OSAS, unless they added it in later on - although given their roots, it doesn’t seem very likely that they would have.

When I referred to an assurance of salvation, I wasn’t thinking about the notion of the Perseverance of the Saints but rather the idea that salvation is an event rather than a process. An “assurance of salvation” isn’t quite the same thing as the doctrine of Eternal Security. Since I posted I’ve googled the subject and eventually discovered this sentence on the Seventh–day Adventist website wherein their beliefs are outlined:

The resurrection of Christ proclaims God’s triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death.

The use of word “assures” suggests that Seventh–day Adventists believe they have an assurance of salvation but it by no means follows that Seventh–day Adventists believe in what Catholics who post on this forum like to refer to as “OSAS” – which notion, by the way, I think you’ll find has been around a little longer than you seem to be supposing.

But, in any case, I’m not exactly desperate to find out the answer – I was just curious. Thanks for taking the time to respond and you have my assurance that I appreciate your contribution.

Peace,
Mick

 

[jmcrae]

When I referred to an assurance of salvation, I wasn’t thinking about the notion of the Perseverance of the Saints but rather the idea that salvation is an event rather than a process. An “assurance of salvation” isn’t quite the same thing as the doctrine of Eternal Security. Since I posted I’ve googled the subject and eventually discovered this sentence on the Seventh–day Adventist website wherein their beliefs are outlined:

The resurrection of Christ proclaims God’s triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death.

Without a context, I would be hesitant to take this at face value, since it seems to me that they would say that someone who breaks the Sabbath has revoked his salvation, and must seek the forgiveness of God through a process of reconversion in order to restore his place in the Kingdom - and in the SDA Church.

T

he use of word “assures” suggests that Seventh–day Adventists believe they have an assurance of salvation but it by no means follows that Seventh–day Adventists believe in what Catholics who post on this forum like to refer to as “OSAS” – which notion, by the way, I think you’ll find has been around a little longer than you seem to be supposing.

Well, as I mentioned above, what I know is that the great Southern Baptist revivalist Roy Hession didn’t mention it at all in his book on how to become (and remain) a Christian, and Evangelical Presbyterian Leighton Ford (co-founder of the Billy Graham Foundation) writes about it as something newly-discovered (though he doesn’t mention specifically when or by whom).

But, in any case, I’m not exactly desperate to find out the answer – I was just curious. Thanks for taking the time to respond and you have my assurance that I appreciate your contribution.

 

[distracted]

Whose pride? Protestants like me who try to respect all faiths and do not claim to belong to the one true church? Or, those traditional Catholic who say that they alone belong to the one true church?

it is not prideful to merely speak the truth…

 Fortunately, few Catholics I know believe that any longer.

i know of NO Catholic who disbelieve this. And the Church doesn’t teach taht only Catholics are saved anyway… unlike some protestant churches that do teach only members of their chuch are going to make it. …

There IS only one true Church because God is NOT the author of confusion… The other churches are right only insofar as they do not disagree w/ Catholic teaching…

Like me, they feel that God will examine our hearts and not our theology. Did we love God and our neighbor will be the question asked, and not what church did we attend, which doctrines did we believe, and were we loyal to the Pope, the vicar of Christ on earth?

true to a point. There are Catholics who won’t make it and there are those who never go to any Church who will (i can safely presume, i think). but that doesn’t take away from the fact that God established, through Christ ONE Church and only ONE.

i will agree that it is more what one DOES with taht Church that makes the difference…

just warming a pew eveyr Sunday isn’t going to get a person to heaven…*** its more what you do when NOT at Chruch that matters… ***

hmmm… didn’t people try to impart this kind of message to “Dr.” Tiller??