Can't Decide If I Believe In Catholic Church

[Here_For_Donuts]

Hello.

For the past decade or so, I haven’t been able to decide whether I believe in the Catholic or Orthodox Church. I’m well aware of the countless arguments from both sides (and the many, many quotes both sides have a habit of taking out of context, which I don’t want to discuss at this time).

Anyway, one of my main problems is the fact that Pope Honorius was excommunicated by an ecumenical council for being a heretic. (Well, he was actually excommunicated by three councils, and all popes until the 11th century were required to swear it on oath.) I don’t mean to offend, but it seems as if the simple fact of Honorius’ excommunication has been twisted by Catholic apologists in the modern era. Some claim he wasn’t “really” excommunicated, even though pope Leo affirmed he was, while others do admit it but try to say it was ok because he wasn’t speaking “ex cathedra.” (Even determining when in history a pope may or may not have spoken “ex cathedra” will cause a debate among Catholic apologists, it seems.) The papacy, according to Catholic theology, is the infallible head of the church. The fact that a Roman bishop was regarded as heretical and was thus excommunicated makes me doubt completely such a doctrine. If modern Catholic thought existed back then–i.e., if all bishops are subjects of the Roman pope with no autonomy–then the idea of a council excommunicating a pope is absurd. It would never happen today in the Catholic Church.

I don’t wish to discuss random quotes from various places. Just looking at things objectively and as someone with no stake in either side, I find it curious how modern Catholics view the idea of a council excommunicating a pope as shocking or impossible. It maybe even be telling that the Orthodox can point at such an event and simply say, “this is how it’s always been,” whereas a modern Catholic would need to produce page after page of apologetics to wriggle out of what seems an obvious fact to any non-Catholic observer.

What bothers me most about Catholicism is how their apologists have to jump through so many hurdles to justify doctrines that appear to be retrograde inventions at times. I’ve never seen Orthodox apologists twist in so many directions to account for events in ancient church history like the Catholics do.

Again, I don’t mean to offend anyone here. I posed questions on an Orthodox forum, so I think I’m being fair by doing it here as well. I honestly feel so tired after so many years of uncertainty.

 

[Gorgias]

The papacy, according to Catholic theology, is the infallible head of the church.

Well, this isn’t quite true; and perhaps this is what’s causing you to scratch your head.

There’s a subtle distinction between what you wrote and what the Church teaches: the pope is the head of the Church, and – when he speaks on faith and morals, in a particular circumstance – he speaks infallibly.

The subtlety is that he doesn’t always speak infallibly, such that everything he says is ‘infallible’; nor, that everything that he says on the subject of faith and morals is ‘infallible’, but only those things that he pronounces solemnly with the intent of invoking infallibility.

The fact that a Roman bishop was regarded as heretical and was thus excommunicated makes me doubt completely such a doctrine.

If he didn’t speak infallibly, then I don’t think there’s the distinction you’re making, right?

If modern Catholic thought existed back then–i.e., if all bishops are subjects of the Roman pope with no autonomy

Umm… another problem, here: this isn’t what the Catholic Church teaches today! It is not the case that “bishops… [have] no autonomy!”

What bothers me most about Catholicism is how their apologists have to jump through so many hurdles to justify doctrines that appear to be retrograde inventions at times. I’ve never seen Orthodox apologists twist in so many directions to account for events in ancient church history like the Catholics do.

I guess we can’t really answer that without knowing what, in particular, you’re talking about…

 

[frizzgrig]

So one of your main problems is Pope Honorius I (the designation the first is important because there have been more than one pope to take the name Honorius) was a human?

Have you looked into the particular incident or just stopped at the condemnation of him by a council almost 50 years after his death (and then several subsequent councils)? Unfortunately the particular writings that caused his condemnation were almost completely destroyed by the council that condemned him so modern investigation of the issue only has the council records to go by.

At the particular time in history in question, several doctrines of the church were still being developed. While the particular issue of the monophysites was settled by Chalcedon, it and the related issues were still discussed by theologians. As far as I have understood the issue Honorius I did not dogmatically define one way or the other when questioned on the issue (whether there were one or two wills in Christ) and this is what the councils later used to condemn him. Apparently his writing did refute the claim on only one will, but did not affirm two wills. Since the council acted after Honorius I was dead, he was not able to offer any additional clarification, or testimony against the excommunication.

You should also know during the various schisms of the church it was pretty much routine for each side to declare the other excommunicated and anathema.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Thanks for replying. This will be my last post here.

I have read the Catechism, so I understand Catholic teaching on the papacy. I think my real problem is more fundamental than what the Church teaches about itself. I currently sympathize with the Orthodox view that it seems as if Catholics invent new doctrines and claim that doing so is clarifying what the church has always taught.

I never understood why Emperor Constantine went through the difficulty of convening the Council of Nicaea when he could have simply had the Church of Rome proclaim the truth on Arianism, the true nature of Christ, and the other issues they discussed, then used his authority as Emperor to force the rest of Christendom within his empire to submit. He did exert his secular authority to enforce the Council’s teachings, however. The Catholics say that the idea of papal infallibility wasn’t fully understood yet, but I find this concept of “doctrinal development” to be such a convenient way to wave off any inconsistency. (I understand the concept. I just see it as absurd.) I’m sorry, but the Orthodox, Oriental, and Assyrian Church of the East find it to be incorrect and illogical, as do any secular people who consider it. Why couldn’t the pope declare it without the council? For that matter, why have councils at all? After Vatican I, some Cardinals expressed the view that ecumenical councils are unecessary and always have been.

Speaking of the Assyrian Church, they hadn’t heard of the Council of Nicea until the year 420, almost a century after it closed. According to modern Carholicism, once the bishops learned of it, they should have accepted it on Rome’s authority. Rather, they held a council of their own, and after a month of discussion, concluded that they will accept the council as legitimate because the council’s teachings were in accordance with the faith they had already received. This was their sole justification for accepting it; there was no mention of accepting it on Rome’s authority.

Another problem is what Jesus said: “You’ll know a tree by its fruit.” Now, I know bad things have happened in the Orthodox Church, but the Catholic Church has done far worse. To be fair, this can be blamed on corrupt humans within the Church and not the Church itself. Still, it clearly causes scandal among non-Catholics. And there’s never been the equivalent of a Protestant Reformation with the Orthodox Church.

At the Council of Florence, a serious attempt was made to heal the Great Schism. One of the Orthodox patriarchs present was Mark of Ephesus, who’s regarded as a Saint in Orthodoxy. He and the other Orthodox present were treated poorly, and whenever Mark tried to make his arguments, the Pope’s men would plot against him in various ways. (I won’t go into that here.) The Orthodox patriarchs (except for Mark) finally did agree to accepting Rome’s teachings, but when they returned home, the reason they gave was that they feared for their lives. Mark was seen as a hero upon his return for having been the only one brave enough to stand for Orthodoxy even at the risk of his life.

One Catholic told me recently that the Church’s various apparitions and miracles prove its legitimacy. But the Orthodox have apparitions and miracles. (For example, after Mark of Ephesus was beautified, a young girl who was ill had a vision of him and was instantly cured.)

It seems that the Great Schism occurred because the majority of Christianity (The Orthodox) disagree with the minority (Rome). Catholicism has more people today due to Western Europe’s history of colonialism and forced conversion of indigenous people, but historically the Latin Church was the minority against all the other Apostolic Sees.

Catholics take a certain passage of Irenaeus out of context, but if you read the entirety of Against Heresies, you’ll find that Irenaeus was trying to refute heresy by showing that the legitimate churches have authority because they extend back to the apostles. Rome wasn’t the only Apostolic See, but Irenaeus singled it out because of convenience. In his words, “it would be tedious to enumerate the succession of all Churches.” (It’s also worth noting that he establishes Rome’s authority on Peter AND Paul, as well as Rome’s place as imperial center, a tradition that stopped as the city of Rome faded in prestige and the Roman Church needed more theological grounds to base its authority in.)

Catholics cite Matthew 16:18 in support of the Papacy. I don’t wish to discuss that here, but one part of the passage often overlooked is when Jesus describes “the gates” of hell as being unable to “prevail” against the church. Catholics interpret this analogy as depicting hell being on the offensive and the church on the defensive, but “gates” implies a city; in other words, Jesus is metaphorically describing hell as being a city behind gates and the church as attacking and destroying the gates. Realizing that the church is on the offensive against hell sort of flies in the face of the idea of a papacy “defending against the heresies of hell.”

The Orthodox Church hadn’t been in communion with Rome for 1,000 years and seems fine. The Catholic Church seems like a mess over the last 1,000 years. When I consider the Inquisition, the Protestant Reformation, the Crusades, the pedophile priest problem, the post-Vatican II attempts at becoming friendly with the world and pagan religions, and various minor problems, I can’t bring myself to fully believe in the Catholic Church at times. Has anyone seen the recent video of Pope Francis saying heretical things in Spanish? He even starts off by saying something along the lines of “I know this considered heretical, but…” He seems to cause a lot of scandal and confusion among traditional Catholics. He confuses me a lot and makes me hesitant to become Catholic. (Can anyone imagine St. Peter praying in a pagan temple alongside pagans? Why do modern Popes pray in Buddhist and Muslim temples?)

 

[Genesis315]

You need to delve more into EO history if you think it’s all rosy after 1054 AD. They’ve had their own doctrinal developments as well, and in some case, went back on it. For example, various pan-patriarchate synods approved of things like indulgences, mortal sin/venial sin distinctions, the term transubstantion, purgatory, satisfaction, etc. which are now usually rejected as Latin corruptions, not to mention the reunion Councils where they agreed with the Catholic doctrines, only to later repudiate them.

They have also had severe and violent punishments and persecutions of heretics, including Latins. Unfortunately, they have also been untouched by the pedophile scandal as well–it just doesn’t get the headlines. As for the post Vatican II things you find problematic, there seems to always be an EO clergyman at almost all the interreligious and ecumenical events I have heard of. In fact, most of the EO Churches are members of the World Council of Churches, while the Catholic Church is not.

Anyway, the point is not to trash the EO Church for these things–since we both have our problems, many of which are the same–but merely to say you need to look into both sides principles and see whose are right.

With regards to why a Council is a good idea even if the Pope could decide unilaterally, here’s what St. Leo said about Chalcedon, even though he had already judged the matter:
St. Leo the Great:

On the return of our brothers and fellow priests, whom the See of the blessed Peter sent to the holy council, we ascertained, beloved, the victory you and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy of Nestorius, as well as over the madness of Eutyches. Wherefore we make our boast in the Lord, singing with the prophet: “our help is in the name of the Lord, who has made heaven and earth :” who has suffered us to sustain no harm in the person of our brethren, but has corroborated by the irrevocable assent of the whole brotherhood what He had already laid down through our ministry: to show that, what had been first formulated by the foremost See of Christendom, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, had truly proceeded from Himself: that in this, too, the members may be at one with the Head. And herein our cause for rejoicing grows greater when we see that the more fiercely the foe assailed Christ’s servants, the more did he afflict himself. For lest the assent of other Sees to that which the Lord of all has appointed to take precedence of the rest might seem mere complaisance, or lest any other evil suspicion might creep in, some were found to dispute our decisions before they were finally accepted. And while some, instigated by the author of the disagreement, rush forward into a warfare of contradictions, a greater good results through his fall under the guiding hand of the Author of all goodness. For the gifts of God’s grace are sweeter to us when they are gained with mighty efforts: and uninterrupted peace is wont to seem a lesser good than one that is restored by labours. Moreover, the Truth itself shines more brightly, and is more bravely maintained when what the Faith had already taught is afterwards confirmed by further inquiry. And still further, the good name of the priestly office gains much in lustre where the authority of the highest is preserved without it being thought that the liberty of the lower ranks has been at all infringed. And the result of a discussion contributes to the greater glory of God when the debaters exert themselves with confidence in overcoming the gainsayers: that what of itself is shown wrong may not seem to be passed over in prejudicial silence.

newadvent.org/fathers/3604120.htm