Why are you not Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter D0UBTFIRE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
But what if they have different beliefs on gay marriage for clergy and on what is meant by Holy Communion?
Click to expand...
First of all, at that point I was not saying anything about the terms on which such union should be achieved, simply that this should be our goal. Union might be achieved by all of us submitting to Rome. That’s the second question, once we establish that union (full, visible union) is in fact the goal.

I think a case can be made that the only grounds on which one should refuse to be in communion with someone is the grounds that one does not believe the other to be a true Christian. Or, to be more precise, that one is not fully confident that the other’s profession of faith is a truly Christian one. The Catholic position that Protestants are brothers and sisters in Christ but are not orthodox enough for intercommunion may not be tenable. I’m being tentative about this, because I certainly see the case for robust doctrinal frontiers, and maybe I’m too influenced by the spirit of our inclusive age. But again, I’m not arguing against excluding people (Mormons, say) from the definition of the Church. I’m questioning whether current Catholic rhetoric about Trinitarian Protestants is coherent and defensible. Maybe you guys need to fish or cut bait on this–either we are brothers and sisters and should be admitted to communion as we are, or we aren’t you should stop pretending that we are.

So what about important issues that do not, in fact, compromise the essential content of faith in Christ? (And again, if you bristle at this Protestant “essentials” language, then I submit that you need to repudiate Vatican II’s “separated brethren” language. Obviously you think there are doctrines we believe that are essential to being called “brethren,” even as we reject or are too fuzzy about others that you believe to be essential to full orthodoxy and Catholicity.) I believe that gay marriage is, in fact, in that category, though I know some here disagree. And the same with the Real Presence, though I would make a huge distinction between people who have varying views of the Real Presence and people who deny it outright. I think that outright denial of the Real Presence is, in terms of the structure of the Faith, a more serious error than gay marriage. That is to say, given the choice between Episcopalianism and, say, a Southern Baptist congregation, I’d take the former. (My actual choice, if I don’t become Catholic, is between Episcopalianism and Methodism–a bit different both because Methodists don’t have the Baptists’ soteriological errors and because they do have some official belief in the Real Presence denominationally, although it doesn’t seem to have seeped down very well to many congregations.)

I think one of the fallacies many Catholics engage in is to think that being in communion with people who think something wrong somehow makes orthodoxy go away. (The late Fr. Neuhaus used to say, “where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will eventually be forbidden,” but as far as i can see this was something he wanted to be true rather than something there’s actual reason to believe–many people repeat it as a law, but it was just an ideological assertion.) If Rome were to allow intercommunion with all Trinitarian believers in Jesus, no matter their other errors, Rome would still be Rome. Eventually orthodoxy might filter out to the rest of us, especially since there would be people like me fighting hard to make sure that the teachings of the Magisterium got a hearing. (I do this as it is, but it’s harder to do when you’re not in communion with Rome and your fellow Episcopalians or Methodists or whatever say, “but why should we listen to them when they think we’re not really Christians and won’t give us Communion?”)

I think the Church has relied on coercion and power far too much. Maybe it’s time to trust the Holy Spirit a bit more.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
First of all, at that point I was not saying anything about the terms on which such union should be achieved, simply that this should be our goal. Union might be achieved by all of us submitting to Rome. That’s the second question, once we establish that union (full, visible union) is in fact the goal.

I think a case can be made that the only grounds on which one should refuse to be in communion with someone is the grounds that one does not believe the other to be a true Christian. Or, to be more precise, that one is not fully confident that the other’s profession of faith is a truly Christian one. The Catholic position that Protestants are brothers and sisters in Christ but are not orthodox enough for intercommunion may not be tenable. I’m being tentative about this, because I certainly see the case for robust doctrinal frontiers, and maybe I’m too influenced by the spirit of our inclusive age. But again, I’m not arguing against excluding people (Mormons, say) from the definition of the Church. I’m questioning whether current Catholic rhetoric about Trinitarian Protestants is coherent and defensible. Maybe you guys need to fish or cut bait on this–either we are brothers and sisters and should be admitted to communion as we are, or we aren’t you should stop pretending that we are.

So what about important issues that do not, in fact, compromise the essential content of faith in Christ? (And again, if you bristle at this Protestant “essentials” language, then I submit that you need to repudiate Vatican II’s “separated brethren” language. Obviously you think there are doctrines we believe that are essential to being called “brethren,” even as we reject or are too fuzzy about others that you believe to be essential to full orthodoxy and Catholicity.) I believe that gay marriage is, in fact, in that category, though I know some here disagree. And the same with the Real Presence, though I would make a huge distinction between people who have varying views of the Real Presence and people who deny it outright. I think that outright denial of the Real Presence is, in terms of the structure of the Faith, a more serious error than gay marriage. That is to say, given the choice between Episcopalianism and, say, a Southern Baptist congregation, I’d take the former. (My actual choice, if I don’t become Catholic, is between Episcopalianism and Methodism–a bit different both because Methodists don’t have the Baptists’ soteriological errors and because they do have some official belief in the Real Presence denominationally, although it doesn’t seem to have seeped down very well to many congregations.)

I think one of the fallacies many Catholics engage in is to think that being in communion with people who think something wrong somehow makes orthodoxy go away. (The late Fr. Neuhaus used to say, “where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will eventually be forbidden,” but as far as i can see this was something he wanted to be true rather than something there’s actual reason to believe–many people repeat it as a law, but it was just an ideological assertion.) If Rome were to allow intercommunion with all Trinitarian believers in Jesus, no matter their other errors, Rome would still be Rome. Eventually orthodoxy might filter out to the rest of us, especially since there would be people like me fighting hard to make sure that the teachings of the Magisterium got a hearing. (I do this as it is, but it’s harder to do when you’re not in communion with Rome and your fellow Episcopalians or Methodists or whatever say, “but why should we listen to them when they think we’re not really Christians and won’t give us Communion?”)

I think the Church has relied on coercion and power far too much. Maybe it’s time to trust the Holy Spirit a bit more.

Edwin
Click to expand...
There are different beliefs on gay marriage for clergy.
 
One reason why people might choose E. Orthodox over Roman Catholic is the marriage ceremony. In the E. Orthodox marriage rite, the couple is crowned and proclaimed husband and wife by the priest. In the Roman Catholic ceremony, there is no crowning and there is always the possibility that several years down the line, a Catholic Church tribunal will declare that there really was never any sacramental marriage. The number of marriages annulled by the Catholic Church in the US alone has been running as high as 50,000 per year, which means that in a 20 year period, in the US alone, there have been about two million people who were told by the Catholic Church that there never was any sacramental marriage in the first place, even though the marriage ceremony may have taken place in a Catholic Church.
 
Tomdstone said:
There are different beliefs on gay marriage for clergy.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you are repeating this. I already addressed it.

Suppose, for instance, that the Catholic Church accepted reunion on the grounds suggested by the Anglican “Lambeth Quadrilateral.” We might well then have a situation where a local church, now in communion with Rome, had clergy who were in gay unions. Well, the Catholic Church has had priests who did much worse than that, as we all know. I get that it’s different when it’s open and not disciplined in any way. But still, just imagine the situation for a minute. Rome could still teach, exhort, even denounce, while stopping short of excommunicating. The witness to orthodoxy wouldn’t go away. Eventually, if the “no gay sexual unions” position is indeed orthodox (as I think it is), people of good will would come around.

I guess the problem I and a lot of people have is that the Catholic Church seems selectively strict. There are all kinds of ways in which the Church has clearly failed to proclaim the Gospel, and these are treated as ecclesiologically irrelevant. But God forbid that we should have partnered gay clergy–that would make the Church cease to exist!

I don’t see it.

Edwin
 
I too am trying to find my place, however church scares me. I have a deep respect for the Catholic faith and I am still considering it. I will attend some services when I have more time and take it from there.
 
Contarini said:
I guess the problem I and a lot of people have is that the Catholic Church seems selectively strict. There are all kinds of ways in which the Church has clearly failed to proclaim the Gospel, and these are treated as ecclesiologically irrelevant. But God forbid that we should have partnered gay clergy–that would make the Church cease to exist!

I don’t see it.

Edwin
Click to expand...
You have p(name removed by moderator)ointed one the reasons why a union will not occur, at least anytime soon.
 
crai7 said:
I would say He is God. If he was Catholic then He would have to follow the Pope’s leadership!
Click to expand...
I agree, Jesus was not Catholic. During His ministry he was a Jew and the pope has to listen to Him, not the other way around.
 
truthquester said:
I too am trying to find my place, however church scares me. I have a deep respect for the Catholic faith and I am still considering it. I will attend some services when I have more time and take it from there.
Click to expand...
What about the Church scares you? I can remember the first several times I went and didn’t know what was going on, it was a little scary. One thing you can do is tell one of the greeters you are not Catholic and want to learn more about the Mass. They may be able to point out a couple of people who can explain the Mass as it’s going on.

Another option is to sign up for RCIA, which generally starts in the fall. You can attend for as long as you’d life without having to commit to converting.

This is the beauty of the Catholic Church. No matter where you are there will always be people to help if you ask.
 
crai7 said:
I would say He is God. If he was Catholic then He would have to follow the Pope’s leadership!
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, He is God. As Catholics, we have to follow the Pope’s leadership. Would it not make sense for you to submit to that leadership when Jesus Himself made Peter the Pope?
 
truthquester said:
I too am trying to find my place, however church scares me. I have a deep respect for the Catholic faith and I am still considering it. I will attend some services when I have more time and take it from there.
Click to expand...
Please continue to consider it. Why does church scare you? Is there anything I can do to help?
 
Smfm said:
Catholic means universal, so he was a Catholic, He gave Himself up for everyone who would accept Him, the Jews rejected Him. The new day of His Rising is Sunday, not Saturday !
Click to expand...
Yet, scripture never called him a Catholic, it does call him a Jew. Why no just go with what scripture says?
 
SalusaSecondus said:
Yet, scripture never called him a Catholic, it does call him a Jew. Why no just go with what scripture says?
Click to expand...
Going with what scripture says is very important, but we also have to make sure we read it in the proper context.

For example, scripture says we should confess our sins to someone, eat the body of the Lord and drink His blood (which his followers took very literally, because they said it was a “difficult doctrine” and they walked away from Him), receive Baptism for the remission of sins (“Baptism now saves you”), etc. I would be happy to provide precise scriptural support for all of these statements if you would like. It is very important for our salvation to follow the Sacramental system that Christ instituted.
 
Share_love said:
Going with what scripture says is very important, but we also have to make sure we read it in the proper context.

For example, scripture says we should confess our sins to someone, eat the body of the Lord and drink His blood (which his followers took very literally, because they said it was a “difficult doctrine” and they walked away from Him), receive Baptism for the remission of sins (“Baptism now saves you”), etc. I would be happy to provide precise scriptural support for all of these statements if you would like. It is very important for our salvation to follow the Sacramental system that Christ instituted.
Click to expand...
I agree with all those things you listed. I am a Lutheran.
 
SalusaSecondus said:
Yet, scripture never called him a Catholic, it does call him a Jew. Why no just go with what scripture says?
Click to expand...
Scripture never called Peter the Pope either, Jesus was Baptized, if being Jewish was enough then He wouldn’t have been Baptized +++
 
Contarini said:
In other words, you’re assuming that Jesus’ guidelines imply that there always will be a clearly identifiable local church in any given place, part of a clearly identified, unified, universal visible church distinct from other bodies that claim to be Christian. But I think that’s an unwarranted assumption.

One of the things that strikes me over and over again about popular Catholic apologetics is how unthinkingly you guys assume a kind of “ecclesial perfectionism” in certain selected areas while decrying it in others.

Jesus prayed that we would be one. So you assume from this that we have always been and will always be one. Non sequitur. It is quite obvious that Christians, of all traditions, fall short of what Jesus wants of us over and over. Why not in this as well?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say I assume this. I would say I conclude this based on the teaching. I just don’t see how it squares with multiple churches. It certainly seems impossible to have any meaning if all of the various churches in my community, where there are scores of denominations, are equally the church. All churches can’t equally be the church when some of those churches claim to be the one, true church.

I assume because of Christ’s prayer that there will be more than one but that this is not how it should be.
Tomdstone said:
The number of marriages annulled by the Catholic Church in the US alone has been running as high as 50,000 per year, which means that in a 20 year period, in the US alone, there have been about two million people who were told by the Catholic Church that there never was any sacramental marriage in the first place, even though the marriage ceremony may have taken place in a Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I can’t vouch for the stats but I would agree the number of annulments is disturbing. The fact is a marriage can be null. It could also be the case in a degraded culture like ours people don’t contract valid marriages with great frequency. The number of annulments shocks me, but any church that marries a person who has been previously married and not had an annulment shocks me more.
 
exnihilo said:
The number of annulments shocks me, but any church that marries a person who has been previously married and not had an annulment shocks me more.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that an “annulment” is just an approved form of “divorce” with a different name. According to Merriam-Webster, a “divorce” is “the ending of a marriage by a legal process”. An annulment is basically the same thing except it is an ecclesiastical legal process and the marriage is ended by a verdict that it never existed in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top