Considering Catholicism

[Ary_girl]

I grew up in a Protestant tradition. I always thought that what I had been taught was right–the catholic church had apostatized, taking on human traditions and adding onto the teaching of Christ. Martin Luther had come and brought to light the real teachings of Jesus and the Bible. The thing was, as I looked more and more at Christianity in general, people held so many different beliefs, and as far as I knew, they were all based on the Bible. I became extremely confused because I had always thought that we were supposed to teach the truth of Jesus. Yet, certainly it could not be true that communion was both only symbolic and at the same time the body and blood of Christ. Yet both sides could support these opinions from the Bible. Some believed that one was justified by faith alone and another believed that faith and works were necessary. I started to wonder whether or not we should be looking at just the Bible. To shorten the story, I came across the concept of Tradition and to take that along with the Bible and the Magesterium in order to come to a conclusion about beliefs.

Trying to sort all this stuff out has really bewildered me. The thing is, I don’t think that I could go back to being Protestant because I really don’t believe that we should look at the Bible alone and come up with the right interpretations for important doctrines such as Baptism and communion. I could believe that the Holy Spirit lead people to understand the Scriptures, except that a lot of people claim that, yet they all come up with different ideas. Plus it was, if I am not mistaken, the Catholic Church that said that the Scriptures were infallible, so if one was to say that the scriptures were right, but the church wrong, then they would have to give some reason as to why the Bible should be considered infallible, but the church not so much.

I guess the thing that is really keeping me from the Catholic Church is (besides a large amount of fear) progressive revelation. I am just really having a hard time wrapping my head around it and then there is the pope’s role throughout the history of the church. As I understand it, it was during the first Vatican Council that the concept of “ex cathedra” came into being. I was just wondering how people viewed the role of the pope before that time. Which of the pope’s statement’s were considered infallible before the First Vatican Council? Also, I keep reading that the Catholic Church never contradicts herself, yet how would one know for sure, are there books about Catholic doctrine through the ages or something? I’m also confused why it would be a sin not to attend a holy day of obligation in the US, when in Canada the holy days of obligation are on the Sundays closest to it. Also before Vatican II eating meat on Fridays was a sin, but afterwards it was not. How can this be? Sin is not subjective.

Sorry, this post is probably jumping all over the place, and perhaps I just should have posted these questions one at a time and I may in the future, but thank you to anyone who responds to this.

 

[Paul_the_seaker]

Sorry, this post is probably jumping all over the place, and perhaps I just should have posted these questions one at a time and I may in the future, but thank you to anyone who responds to this.

I know how you feel - been there. I can only share my insight from experience with the hope that it will helpful to you.

I found it really useful to stop all the details, and to focus on the big picture. If you focus mostly on the contradictions and questions, you’ll go round and round like a dog chasing its tail. Look at the Big Picture.

I looked for it and came up with this: Jesus is the Son of God. He came to give us light (the truth) and did it by picking 12 men and teaching them and training them. He also is recorded as having said to one of them, “You are Peter and upon this rock, I will build my Church.” To the apostles he also gave to the power to forgive sin.

Having grasped this, I simply found that I had to find the Church that could be traced back to the apostles. That’s how I started.

After having made “my discovery” I realized that thing began falling into place because I now knew that the Bible, important as it is, came after the Church. Paul was writing his epistles a decade or so after the death of Christ. And, before that, he, Paul was trying to destroy the Church. In fact, when he was knocked off his horse, Christ said to him, “Why are you persecuting me?” That sentence hit me between the eyes for it clearly indicates that Christ (had been killed, risen and ascended) was identifying with his followers, that is, the Church.

So look for the Church with which He identified and you will be starting at the right place.

I hope this will be helpful.

Paul the seaker

 

[Pax]

…
…
Trying to sort all this stuff out has really bewildered me.
…

I guess the thing that is really keeping me from the Catholic Church is (besides a large amount of fear) progressive revelation. I am just really having a hard time wrapping my head around it and then there is the pope’s role throughout the history of the church. As I understand it, it was during the first Vatican Council that the concept of “ex cathedra” came into being. I was just wondering how people viewed the role of the pope before that time. Which of the pope’s statement’s were considered infallible before the First Vatican Council? Also, I keep reading that the Catholic Church never contradicts herself, yet how would one know for sure, are there books about Catholic doctrine through the ages or something? I’m also confused why it would be a sin not to attend a holy day of obligation in the US, when in Canada the holy days of obligation are on the Sundays closest to it. Also before Vatican II eating meat on Fridays was a sin, but afterwards it was not. How can this be? Sin is not subjective.

Sorry, this post is probably jumping all over the place, and perhaps I just should have posted these questions one at a time and I may in the future, but thank you to anyone who responds to this.

Ary_girl,

You do have a lot of questions for one post…no problem…we will see what we can do. I want to compliment you for being thoughtful and open in exploring your beliefs and those of other Christians. Please have no fear in all of this…the Lord is guiding you. Your intellect must be prepared as well as your heart.

Please understand that revelation is not progressive. That which is to be understood as public revelation stopped with the apostles. Our understandings, however, do grow as the Church explores that which has been revealed. As times change new problems arise. The Church has had to deal with issues such as abortion and euthanasia and now cloning as these became emerging issues. The Church can and does make infallible proclamations concerning the moral aspects of these things as they emerge. This is something different from what would be considered progressive revelation.

Likewise, the Church’s understandings on matters of faith grow ever deeper as the Church ponders that which has already been revealed. This is what enabled the Church to define the Trinitarian nature of God, the hypostatic union of God and man in the person Jesus, and many other theological issues.

The Pope has always been considered infallible although the terminology was not employed immediately in the early Church. Note the authority exercised by Peter at the first Council of Jerusalem and how his proclamation on circumcision ended the controversy and established the teaching. Also note how the NT letters are considered infallible. These were written by the Church leadership that made up the Pope(Peter) and the magesterium(James, John, Paul etal). The terminology wasn’t there, but the practice was.

Church documents from the Councils have been preserved. Numerous writings by the Early Church Fathers have been preserved. All of these things are readily available for examination. The consistency of Church teaching is easily examined. Disciplines can change but the essence of doctrines never do. A discipline like not eating meat on Friday is changeable. When the Church imposes a discipline we are obliged to follow it. The disciplines are important. The change for Friday abstinence from meat has not been eliminated but has changed. The Church requires some form of sacrifice on Fridays. One can choose to follow the old discipline of abstinence from meat or one can substitute some other sacrifice or devote some special time for prayer. This is designed to help us grow closer to God through prayer and sacrifice on Fridays. This is to help us remember and focus on what Jesus did for us on Good Friday.

The teaching on the Trinity cannot change. We might get a deeper understanding of something but the doctrine cannot change. Doctrines are different from disciplines.

Some Holy days can be moved by the authority of Bishops. Bishops have quite a bit of freedom and authority as long as they do not violate something important. A bishop could not eliminate the Sunday obligation for mass. He can, however, allow a holy day of obligation to be moved to the nearest Sunday. I personally don’t like this kind of change, but there are sometimes very practical and justifiable reasons for doing so. This is allowed and is an indication of some of the freedom allowed within the Church.

I hope this helps.

 

[DustinsDad]

Greetings http://www.fisheaters.com/forumpix/tiphat2.gif

…I guess the thing that is really keeping me from the Catholic Church is (besides a large amount of fear) progressive revelation.

Actually, the Church believes that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle…you could say that there is progressive understanding, but the understanding never can contradict the previous understanding. The CA tract “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth” puts it this way: “Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.”
Pillar is really a good short little outline of the faith. Elsewhere in their library, you’ll find alot of helpful answers to many of your questions.

… I am just really having a hard time wrapping my head around it and then there is the pope’s role throughout the history of the church. As I understand it, it was during the first Vatican Council that the concept of “ex cathedra” came into being. I was just wondering how people viewed the role of the pope before that time. Which of the pope’s statement’s were considered infallible before the First Vatican Council?

Uh, about the First Vatican Council being where the concept of “ex cathedra” first appeared - not exactly. Such a concept was defined explicitly, but you can’t say it was “invented” there. Look at the writings throughout history, including the early church fathers and you’ll find the understanding throughout…for example,

Augustine wrote 397 and 411:“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (*Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *5 [A.D. 397]).
“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (*Sermons *131:10 [A.D. 411]).

And Jerome wrote in 396AD: “I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (*Letters *15:2 ).
“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

And Irenaus in 189AD"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
(continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(continued from above…)

… Also, I keep reading that the Catholic Church never contradicts herself, yet how would one know for sure, are there books about Catholic doctrine through the ages or something?

Yeah - actually there are . You won’t be in short supply of reading material that’s for sure.

…I’m also confused why it would be a sin not to attend a holy day of obligation in the US, when in Canada the holy days of obligation are on the Sundays closest to it. Also before Vatican II eating meat on Fridays was a sin, but afterwards it was not. How can this be? Sin is not subjective.

The objective sin in each of these cases would be disobediance to those in authority. They have the authority to set the disciplines for those under their care (and disciplines can change over time and geographic location according to the prudential decisions of the proper authority).

Such obedience is required of us:Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

It’s like a child disobeying a parent, whether the parent tells the child to come home before 5:00pm one day, or to be home before 7:00pm the next, the child is still required to obey and submit to the authority of the parent. It’s not that being out past 5 was a sin yesterday, but today its a sin to be out past 7 because those “times” are intrinsically evil , it’s because of the principle of humble obediance to those in authority over you - especially in spiritual matters.

Hope all that helps! Keep searching and praying and going where Our Lord is leading you. You are on the right path!

And peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Ary_girl]

Thank you. Those posts were very helpful. I think that I understand a little more. Yeah, I suppose that public revelation ended and then progressive revelation just helps us define more fully what the apostles taught. It makes sense that Christ would establish a church to help to guide people in the times to come. Yet at the same time, there have been certain theologians that have held more sway in the RCC than others. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas for example. The Summa Theologica seems to hold a fair amount of authority. Is that just because Thomas Aquinas expounded on things that had already been known through public revelation? But, anywho, the explanations of progressive revelation did help.

I wish that I could just sit back and look at the big picture, except I just want to make sure that the big picture stands up to what it says it is. The fact that the RCC can trace its roots back to the apostles, is something that is extremely attractive, but the Orthodox Church can do that, too. For me, it is a decision between those two Churches at this point and which holds the fullness of the truth. I’m stuck between those two churches because I believe in the Resurrection and so am a Christian, but really do not believe in the protestant ideal of sola scriptura, nor do I believe in Anglicanism with its scripture, tradition, and reason, because it had its roots in the sixteenth century. I think that “a dog chasing its tail” is a very good analogy to this search. haha, I keep wondering if the church could be right, and then I reason that protestant churches cannot be right, and then I am back to the idea that the Orthodox church or Catholic Church have to be the church that was founded on Pentacost. That is another reason why the issue over the pope is so important to me. Also thank you for the ECF quotes.

 

[Pax]

Keep asking questions and look up topics of interest to you on Catholic.com. The library of articles and tracts can be very helpful. You have an open mind and only need to pray and search with a heart open to God’s will. The Lord never disappoints us when seek Him in love and humility.

 

[Paul_the_seaker]

The fact that the RCC can trace its roots back to the apostles, is something that is extremely attractive, but the Orthodox Church can do that, too. For me, it is a decision between those two Churches at this point and which holds the fullness of the truth.]

Ary-girl, I will try to help you with the issues you raised. I think the first thing to understand is that the Eastern Church and the Roman Catholic Church were originally one Church. Yet, more for politics than anything else, the excommunicated each other. These excommunications have been dropped by both Church. Yet, what separates the two Churches is the issue of papal authority. The Roman Church believes and teaches that the Pope is the supreme authority in the Church. Eastern Churches do not. They are more inclined to put auathority in Councils. Yet, what has happened is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have tended to be more tied to a specific ethnic area, and have formed separate churches - Russian, Greek and several others. Now, there is a problem which we have in Protestanism - who speaks for Christ, the head of the Greek Church? Or the head of the Russian? At present, there appears to be a problem between the Eastern and Roman Church in how the conceptualize the inner life of the Trinity.This is why they object to the phrase “filioque” in the creed. What this means is somewhat complicated to deal with here, but the point is, who has the authority to decide? St. Augustine declare that “Roman has spoken, the issue is settled.”

I don’t know if this has been more confusion or help. I hope it has been helpful.

Paul

 

[Ary_girl]

I really don’t know the differences between the branches (are they called synods??) of the Orthodox church. I understand that the bishops get jurisdiction over their own but do not have any say in other bishops’ decisions. Do they have theological differences or do they all espouse the same views that were stated in the ecumenical councils? I don’t know if you can help me on this, but thank you.

I do see your point, though, if the Eastern Orthodox have different hold different opinions about doctrinal matters within their own Church, that would present a problem.

I am also wondering why Catholics cannot partake of Communion in the Orthodox Church unless they have special dispensation from their preist and vice versa. If it is the same body and blood of Christ that they receive at both Churches, why should it matter if they are or are not in communion with Rome?

 

[sthenrik]

Hello,

I’m in a similar situation, considering RCC or Orthodox church while grown up lutheran and in free churches. Like you, I don’t believe in “sola scriptura” the way it is usually presented. It causes me sorrow to see how lack of tradition - thats my interpretation - has made protestant churches submit to whatever zeitgeist prevails. And they are losing lot of members here in European countries.

There are certain things that have kept me from making decisions yet. One is papal authority. It seems to me that RCC lays too much stress on outward unity, and thats why - even having come down from the “salvation is only in the RC church”. Orthodox church conceives unity in more spiritual terms, it does not equalize it with “agreeing” with certain doctrines. Second is that RCC seems to distort early church history by giving Peter such unique authority which Christ didn’t mean. The development of RCC as leading church is to my mind better explained by historical course of events than God’s direct decree. I have nothing against hierarchical organisation of RCC but it should be seen as a human construct, not divine decree. Thus understood it would place RCC as one patriarchate among others, very big and influencal, but for historical reasons. I don’t know if I’d pass for a catholic with these views,

As to orthodox church I like there theology very much, Their views on Mary, original sin, church as a spiritual entity and eucharist are more balanced and better expressed than catholic doctrines. Why? Because they have not bought into the western aristotelian thinking where things are analysed in small pieces and then rearranged by aristotelian logic (if something IS, its opposite can NOT be). Jesus did not think that way and the orthodox, being closer to eastern culture, have retained more of the way religious things were expressed originally. Yes they took things from Plato but still. The aristotelian style of theology (St Aquinas) loses itself to pseudoproblems and misses the “big picture”. There was no Reformation in the East, there was not such doctrinal deviations as in the western church that made reformation necessary.
What is a problem with the Orthodox church at least here in Europe is natiolism and its softer versions. Orthodox churches are ethnically oriented and it is a bit difficult to feel home there if you are ethnically different. Some may not be bothered by it, I feel it as a problem. Also the icons and “kissing culture” may become an obstacle.

 

[sthenrik]

I noticed one incomplete sentence in the second paragraph:

One is papal authority. It seems to me that RCC lays too much stress on outward unity, and thats why - even having come down from the “salvation is only in the RC church”- *it tries to get other churches to return ti o the “mother church”. *

 

[twf]

sthenrik: The Eastern Catholic Churches espouse the same theology as the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but are in full communion with Rome. As far as Catholics are concerned, with a couple exceptions (such as the papacy and divorce and remarriage) Latin and Eastern theologies are two sides of the same coin. We express the same fundamental truths, which is why both theologies can co-exist within the Catholic Church. You should check out the Eastern Catholicism board here on the forums.

Ary_girl: Actually, if you are considering the Eastern Orthodox communion of churches you should also consider the Oriental Orthodox. They also have apostolic succession, the sacraments, the priesthood, devotion to Mary and the saints, etc, etc, but are totally distinct from the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Oriental Orthodox communion is the result of a 5th-century schism during the Council of Chalcedon. The Oriental Orthodox communion includes the Coptic Christians of Egypt, the Armenians, the Ethiopians, the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, and the Malankara Orthodox Church of India. I’m a former Protestant myself, and if I were to reject the papacy I could never decide between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. Both claim that the other fell into heresy/schism. Both claim to be the true church. In both cases their claims are simply based on the insistence of their respective bishops that they are “right”. In the Catholic Church the criteria for determining the true Church is simple: who is in communion with the successor of Peter? I always remember the words of St. Jerome (written long before the schism with the Eastern Orthodox, and even before the ancient schism with the Oriental Orthodox):

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

I like the last part, “the church here is split into three parts”. The ancient apostolic Church is essential split into three parts (Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy), each with tens of millions of faithful. Which one will you accept? I with St. Jerome cry out “He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!”

Why don’t you look at some of these articles: catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp or globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patbrief.htm

P.S. In the past the Oriental Orthodox were dismissed as “Monophysite heretics”, but Pope John Paul II signed common declarations of faith with various Oriental patriarchs…from a Catholic perspective they are as orthodox as any other Eastern Church. A great person to talk to would be Mardukm (who posts on the Eastern Catholicism board here at CAF) who was raised Coptic Orthodox (in the Oriental Orthodox communion) but has since entered into full communion with Rome and the Coptic Catholic Church.

 

[MariaG]

Thank you. Those posts were very helpful. I think that I understand a little more. Yeah, I suppose that public revelation ended and then progressive revelation just helps us define more fully what the apostles taught. It makes sense that Christ would establish a church to help to guide people in the times to come. Yet at the same time, there have been certain theologians that have held more sway in the RCC than others. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas for example. The Summa Theologica seems to hold a fair amount of authority. Is that just because Thomas Aquinas expounded on things that had already been known through public revelation? But, anywho, the explanations of progressive revelation did help.

I wish that I could just sit back and look at the big picture, except I just want to make sure that the big picture stands up to what it says it is. The fact that the RCC can trace its roots back to the apostles, is something that is extremely attractive, but the Orthodox Church can do that, too. For me, it is a decision between those two Churches at this point and which holds the fullness of the truth. I’m stuck between those two churches because I believe in the Resurrection and so am a Christian, but really do not believe in the protestant ideal of sola scriptura, nor do I believe in Anglicanism with its scripture, tradition, and reason, because it had its roots in the sixteenth century. I think that “a dog chasing its tail” is a very good analogy to this search. haha, I keep wondering if the church could be right, and then I reason that protestant churches cannot be right, and then I am back to the idea that the Orthodox church or Catholic Church have to be the church that was founded on Pentacost. That is another reason why the issue over the pope is so important to me. Also thank you for the ECF quotes.

I am glad I kept reading for I was going to tell you what you already figured out.

Anyone in your position, the question is exactly what you already know, Catholic or Orthodox?

I found the question interesting. I also found it interesting that the same quotes Catholics use to show that the Pope is the leader of the Church are the same ones the Orthodox use to show Primacy (as opposed to Supremacy)

One that sticks in my mind is the ECF Justin the Martyr (I believe), said something about Peter being the leader of the choir of the apostles. Apparently, the leader of the choir is only in charge until the director comes, which is exactly the teaching of the Catholic church, yet the Orthodox say that means “first among equals” but has no “leadership”.

Truly, while I have trouble understanding their point of view on this. IF one is the leader (even among equals) that means one is in charge, of those same said people, in my simple mind.

But anyway, I pray that you will be led to all truth.

May God Bless you richly on your journey

Maria

 

[Junebug999]

Dear Ary Girl – I understand a lot of the questions you have. I am the daughter of a Baptist preacher. My parents both attended protestant Baptist seminary, and I grew up attending all of their Bible Study classes they taught. I grew up hearing a lot of anti-Catholic comments. It was stuff they had heard from others – the stuff that is in those awful tracts, they did not investigate the information themselves.

About 20 years ago I attended a Mass when my best friend’s child was baptized. I was as if struck my lightning. I saw Christ in the Mass – I recognized my Protestant communion table was a mere symbol. I then spent many years searching for the theological pros and cons of joining or not joining the Catholic Church. I was making my decision intellectually, and I did quite a lot of fence sitting. I also raised a son as a Protestant because his dad chose that and I wanted our family to worship as united. My son now goes to Mass with his Catholic girlfriend, my husband does not want to go to church at all, so I basically became just a fence sitter on the whole issue of whether to become Catholic or not. I kept thinking when I resolved all of the Protestant teachings vs. Catholilc teachings I would decide.

Then a couple weeks ago I was on the highway listening to the Catholic radio channel and they were talking about coming to Christ as a little child (and other Catholic theology topics). I realized that I have spent 20 years viewing all things Catholic through a Protestant screen. That screen was like scales over my eyes that kept me from getting off the fence and joining. I said out loud in the car, “Lord, I believe, I come to your Church as a child, I will accept all teachings of your Church as what you lead me to accept and believe.” What followed has been so sweet, I contacted the local RCIA leader the next day and said, “Sign me up!” I attend the RCIA classes now even though I will officially start RCIA this next September, and Lord willing will receive my first communion next Easter (2009). I met a dear woman who took me through Mass this last Saturday night and helped me understand some of the “do this, do that” traditions. She had me go forward during Eucharist for a blessing, which was so sweet. The Eucharistic minister gave me a blessing, but I can tell you I felt quite overwhelmed to be so close to the Body and Blood of Christ. I know now I can never go back to a mere symbol.

I pray God will bless you and help you while you make your decision. I will tell you that my decision to no longer view Christ’s Church through a Protestant eyes, but view through a believer’s eyes has made all the difference for me.

Also, I do believe God led me to his church, but I believe he wanted me to step out in faith and accept the church’s teachings.

 

[Like]

WOW! Junebug999, WHAT a Beautiful post!!! You brought tears to my eyes!
Us cradle Catholic don’t realise what we have!

God bless you!

 

[hasikelee]

I’m also confused why it would be a sin not to attend a holy day of obligation in the US, when in Canada the holy days of obligation are on the Sundays closest to it. Also before Vatican II eating meat on Fridays was a sin, but afterwards it was not. How can this be? Sin is not subjective.

The church as an organization has its own rules, which as the maker of the rules, it can change those rules.

This is not to be confused with actual doctrine on faith and morals.

The sin is not in the action, but rather in the disobedience to the rules.

Therefore, no matter how the rules change, the sin always remains the same-failing to follow the rules.

 

[Ary_girl]

sthenrik, it is the whole papal authority thing that’s getting me, too, I am not sure if the CC is looking through the ECF’s and overtime has come to a view that matches what they believe to be the right one: the pope can speak infallibly and is the head. Something that I think Tertullian wrote stuck out to me in that it seemed like the churches were held together by the fact that they had the same doctrines, it felt like a group of churches . . . I’ll have to find it. But another point, that is convincing on the side of Rome, is that the OC have not held any ecumenical councils since the time that they split from Rome. That in itself seems to say something. I think I could get used to the icons, they are very beautiful, I’ve got one up in my room that I particularly like from Jerusalem (thank you garage sales!) the kissing on the other hand, not so much, but if that is where the truth is, then so be it.

twf, I will look into the Oriental churches some more. If I do become Catholic, I really want to look into the Eastern Rites. Unfortunately, in my area there is only Latin Rite with the Norvus Ordo Mass. About once a month they have the TLM–I’ve been to that once and I must say it was very beautiful, but I suppose that has nothing to do with the Eastern Rites oh, and thank you for the links.

Maria, I did find it interesting that Orthodox and Catholics can look at the same ECF and come to two different conclusions. I mean, if you think about it, it is a lot like the Bible, where one would think that it would be self-explanatory, but at the same time people obviously can view it in two different ways. One must be right, but which one? But that is a good point about “the first among equals.” I haven’t read enough church history to know whether or not the bishop of Rome really used his power in such a way that parallels that popes power today. It reminds me of the president, over the years he has gained more and more power because of certain events that came about such as the civil war and the depression. The papacy appears very similar to a mere political development.

Junebug, I am quite happy for you. You know, it seems like more and more, God is asking me just to step out in faith as well. I was talking to a priest and asked him, “How can I know that Christianity is true, that I am not mistaken, that Hinduism or Islam is not the right one?” He just answered me, “You are trying to be in control, take your hands off the wheel and just let God be in control.” I have finally resolved just to believe that Christ was raised from the dead and that Christianity is right in that claim. Now I am going back and forth between OC and CC. Certain events in my life that seem supernatural to me have lead me on my way to the CC, but at the same time, I am very hesitant just because I wonder if it was not all in my head, but that is all I am going to say about that. I just really want to know from an intellectual point of view which one is right. However, at the same time, I don’t know if I will ever will come to a conclusion. That would take years of study and possibly learning Greek and Hebrew, although I’m up to the challenge It must be such a weight lifted off of you to finally choose to join the CC.

 

[Ary_girl]

The church as an organization has its own rules, which as the maker of the rules, it can change those rules.

This is not to be confused with actual doctrine on faith and morals.

The sin is not in the action, but rather in the disobedience to the rules.

Therefore, no matter how the rules change, the sin always remains the same-failing to follow the rules.

I am just confused why there has to be so many rules. It would seem to me that it might be easier if their were less rules and people could make up their minds. I suppose that the rules are there to help people live holier lives. It’s like procrastinating: you know you need to do something, but it sure is a lot easier to do it if there is a deadline.

 

[Unitas]

I am just confused why there has to be so many rules. It would seem to me that it might be easier if their were less rules and people could make up their minds. I suppose that the rules are there to help people live holier lives. It’s like procrastinating: you know you need to do something, but it sure is a lot easier to do it if there is a deadline.

It’s really not that much.

Go to Church on all holy days of obligation (and pray the mass, ie pay attention)
Fast on the days prescribed
Recieve the sacrament of penance and the Eucharist at least once a year (obviously you need confession to be in a state of grace for the Eucharist)
Love God with your whole mind, body, and soul and seek to do His works in all things

It’s not really all that much. Well the last part sounds simple but is very hard sometimes.

BTW, you can eat meat on fridays (I mean the change to the year=round practice) as long as you make some other form of personal sacrifice in place of it. We’re not simply let off the hook of meatless fridays. We’re still supposed to make some sacrifice on fridays because Christ made His sacrifice on a friday. Many people forget that.

 

[DustinsDad]

Beautiful story Junebug - and the awesome thing is it’s just the cover page!

Awesome!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad