Considering reverting back to Catholicism

[Peace4Him]

Hello, Peace4Him,

The most essential thing about coming back in to the practice of the Catholic Faith is your belief in the Sacraments of Holy Eucharist and Reconciliation.

The questions you are asking are excellent, but they are like blades of grass compared to a giant Redwood Tree in importance.

**Luke 22: 19-20 **Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

John 20: 19-23 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

If you accept the Truth of the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion and the Truth that your sins are indeed truly forgiven in Reconciliation, then, in good conscience, you must practice your Catholic Faith.

But it is the blades of grass that separate the Orthodox and the Catholic

 

[Peace4Him]

Peace4Him,

First off, praise be to God that you are answering this call from the Lord. Many people in this day and age do not want to put in the legwork and intellectual effort like you are doing.

I would recommend you peruse this website:

James Likoudis’ Page

Scroll down to “Catholic – Eastern Orthodox Issues”

The owner of the page is a convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism, and he wrestled with many of the theological issues that divide EO from Catholicism. You may find some things helpful, others you may not. But why seek half-baked answers from people that may not know as much as Mr. Likoudis.

Thank you

 

[gravity]

I would recommend looking for a group called “Landings” it is set for people looking to return to the Catholic Church. RCIA, as I’m sure you know wouldn’t be required but if the Landings program isn’t in your area your RCIA team may be happy to work with you.

I looked up the web site for Landings

landingsintl.org/

I pray for Gods will with your journey.
M

 

[tdgesq]

Do the Orthodox agree that the Pope can veto a council? Also, why didn’t the Pope call a council about the filioque then?

I doubt that most Orthodox would agree that the Pope has the authority to veto a council. It doesn’t change the fact that though that at the time of the undivided Church Popes have vetoed portions of a council. See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11817052&postcount=62

There have been councils that dealt with the filioque, most notably the Council of Florence.

 

[waxwings]

I was born and raised Catholic, but was not properly catechized, and as a result left the Roman Catholic Church for evangelicalism. Now, I have become aware of my error and am considering reverting back to Catholicism. However, I am still caught up on a few doctrines that I wish I could overcome:

Papal supremacy → It seems to me that the Orthodox have the historically accurate doctrine on this one, that is “primacy of honor” rather than “primacy of authority”. And even if primacy of authority was true, is papal infallibility really a logical extension of that?

Purgatory → I get that nothing unclean will enter Heaven, but doesn’t Christ grant us forgiveness in this life?

Salvation outside of the Church → What will happen to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church, Anglicans? And what about evangelicals?

The atonement → is the Catholic view of the atonement purely Anselmian? Is the Christus Victor/ransom theory also there?

You will find all your answers on this website.Listen to the Videos and read the Quick Answers

Faith Of Our Fathers Living Still ,In Spite Of Dungeon Fire And Sword

St John Ogilvie,Pray For Us

 

[ahs]

This is all true, but the Pope being infallible doesn’t seem to extend from that

I think it does, logically. Here is an article by Catholics Answers staff on Papal Infallibility:
catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

I don’t see what you’re referring to in Hebrews 12, but otherwise yea that makes sense

The Hebrews 12 reference is about “spirits of just men”. This implies that these men were 1) “just” and therefore saved, and 2) deceased (“spirits”). That’s not my infallible interpretation, but it is a sensible and well reasoned one when taking in the totality of the Scriptures, especially the other passages I mentioned. It goes on to say they “will be saved, but only as through fire”. Do you suffer as though fire while being saved in hell? No…you don’t get out of hell. Do you suffer as through fire in Heaven? No…you don’t suffer in Heaven. Logic tells us there must be some state, then, before entering into Heaven.

I know that, my question was: will they be?

What does Jesus say? He said to enter the Kingdom, “obey the commandments” (Mt 19:16-17) and DO (action verb) “the will of my Father” (Mt 7:21). This fits right in with the OT where God says we will be judged by our deeds in Jer 17:5-10 (see also Rom 2:5-8; 2Cor 5:10, 11:15; 1Pet 1:17; Rev 20:12-13, Col 3:24-25…). So, WILL they be saved? I don’t know…looks like it kinda depends on whether they do God’s will or not. “I have been saved. I am saved. I will be saved.” These are 3 distinct statements.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_theory_of_atonement

Thanks. When I have time to read these, I will. In the meantime, look here:
catholic.com/search/content/atonement

I am GUESSING that one of the “quick questions” will talk about this from the angle you are looking at it. But just in case, I left it broad. At the left side you will see “Filter by” and then “Quick Questions”, “Magazine Articles”, etc… See if any of those gets you the answer you are seeking.

 

[pablope]

I’m a thinker

Eh, honestly I’m not sure whether it’s that or Peter’s confession of faith.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by ahs View Post
That’s not what the Scriptures show us. Read Is 22 and compare to Mt 16. Peter, and Peter alone was given the keys to the Kingdom. Find out what that signified. Peter and Peter alone was given the commission to lead his brothers back to faith just before Christ was hadned over. Peter, and Peter alone was commissioned to shepherd Christ’s flock on earth at the end of John’s Gospel.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

No problem, that was my fault

All your fault

 

[Paul_Edwards]

The authority in the church is the power to bind and loose.

Orthodoxy only accepts Matthew 18:18 power.

Catholicism accepts both

1. Matthew 16:18-19 and
2. Matthew 18:18 power.

Orthodoxy just accepts the authority of the College of Bishops.

But the Catholic Church accepts both the authority of the College of Bishops AND that ONE MAN who is the unity of them.

In number 2 Jesus gives Bishops (the 12 originally) the power to bind and loose, but in 1 he gives ONE MAN not only that power but also the keys which are required to exercise that power.

Does this look more like Catholicism of Orthodoxy?

The Vatican flag is of the keys given to Peter showing our belief about the keys being in Rome.

 

[robwar]

I was born and raised Catholic, but was not properly catechized, and as a result left the Roman Catholic Church for evangelicalism. Now, I have become aware of my error and am considering reverting back to Catholicism. However, I am still caught up on a few doctrines that I wish I could overcome:

Papal supremacy → It seems to me that the Orthodox have the historically accurate doctrine on this one, that is “primacy of honor” rather than “primacy of authority”. And even if primacy of authority was true, is papal infallibility really a logical extension of that?

Purgatory → I get that nothing unclean will enter Heaven, but doesn’t Christ grant us forgiveness in this life?

Salvation outside of the Church → What will happen to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church, Anglicans? And what about evangelicals?

The atonement → is the Catholic view of the atonement purely Anselmian? Is the Christus Victor/ransom theory also there?

each of these could be a thread in it of itself. There is a very good book by Patrick Madrid about the Papacy “Pope Fiction”. It is an easy read and delves into some of the issues you are dealing with. Likewise, there is another good book by Jimmy Aiken “Fathers know best” which goes into what the early Church Fathers taught for the first 800 years. I think both with cover a number of things you are questioning. Purgatory does not mean that Christ didn’t grant us forgiveness for our sins, Purgatory is like the final shower by fire to clean us up before we enter into the fullness of heaven. It is not a hell but a final clean up. It should be viewed that way and not as some hell.

 

[ckutac]

Peace4Him, I can understand where you are coming from. I was in your exact shoes… And I am also very much a thinking and logic based person myself, so a few things that helped me. As most of these same issues I had questions about:

The Pope - Keep in mind, that in the Old Testament God made Moses the judge for the peoples issue. And what does a judge do, but interpret the Law? We also know from Matthew 23:2-3 - That the Seat of Moses still existed when Jesus was around and while not specifically outright stating it, it implies that God protected the scribes and the Pharisees from teaching in error, as the people are told to listen to them, just don’t do what they do. We also see from John 11:50-51, that even though the position of High Priest had been thoroughly corrupted, as the position of High Priest had by this time just gone to the highest bidder that year, instead of being a lifetime appointment, that God could and did keep the High Priest from teaching in error. While this doesn’t prove the Pope to be infallible in his teachings, it brings up the logic question. If God realized the need for this in the Old Testament, would he not realize the need for this and setup a similar position in the New Testament.

Purgatory - I would stick with phil10943’s explanation. I believe it is the best way to understand it. And keep in mind, that despite what you MIGHT have heard from Protestant Circles the Catholic Church has no definite teaching on who or how many people do need to go to Purgatory. Just that it does exist if it is needed… Just keep Hebrew 12 in mind, and ask your self, what happens if you die before the discipline that God gives that brings your to holiness is complete. That is purgatory…

Salvation outside of the Church - The Catholic Church does believe that others can enter heaven outside of the Catholic Church. The whole reason that the Catholic Church accepts any baptism done by another “denomination” as long as it is in the name of the triune God (in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) is because we believe that anyone who is baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church whether they realize it or not. The Church also doesn’t say that a poor farmer in China that has never been told anything about Christianity for example, but does his best the live a good life and does believe in God is condemned to Hell either. We believe that even he has a chance at Salvation threw the Mercy of Jesus…

The atonement - OK, I have no idea what the “Anselmian” and the “Christus Victor/ransom theory” are, and it seems no one on here really knows either, that is probably best left to a priest.

Hope this helps some…

 

[JohnR77]

…a few doctrines that I wish I could overcome:

Papal supremacy → It seems to me that the Orthodox have the historically accurate doctrine on this one, that is “primacy of honor” rather than “primacy of authority”. And even if primacy of authority was true, is papal infallibility really a logical extension of that?

Greetings Peace4Him,

Good question. Here are some quotes I find helpful.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

Schisms Prior to 1054

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

The Arian schisms (343-98);
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415);
The Acacian schism (484-519);
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681);
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43).

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy. …

 

[JohnR77]

Continued …

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

**Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy**

Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite

 

[JohnR77]

Continued 3 …

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.

At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

 

[JohnR77]

Continued 4 .
Ray Ryland explains how the Eastern Orthodox Churches looked to Rome to solve their heretical disputes

By Ray Ryland

…
The central truth of Christianity is the Incarnation, the perfect union of the human and the divine in Christ. The historical expression of that union is “Christian humanity, in which *the divine is represented by the Church, centred in the supreme pontiff, *and the human by the State.” In relationships between Church and state, the Church has primacy because the divine is superior to the human.

All of the heresies of the early centuries were attacks on the perfect unity of the human and divine in Christ. Their ultimate aim (not always consciously realized) was to undermine the bond between Church and state. They sought to establish the state’s independence of the Church and her truth. The Byzantine emperors were determined to uphold the absolutism of the pagan state within Christendom, and so they favored and even helped spread those heresies. …

The Iconoclastic heresy especially was a mortal enemy of the papacy. Its denial of the sacramentality of the material world was “a direct attack on the raison d’etre of the Chair of Peter as *the real objective centre of the visible Church. *” To put it more bluntly, "The pseudo-Christian Empire of Byzantium was bound to engage in decisive combat with the orthodox Papacy; for the latter was not only the infallible guardian of Christian truth but also the first realization of that truth in the collective life of the human race." As one reads the eloquent letters of Pope Gregory II to the barbarous Byzantine emperor, one realizes that “the very existence of Christianity was at stake.”

Because the papacy stood firm, truth prevailed. Iconoclasm was the last of the Eastern imperial heresies by which Constantine’s successors had tried to reconcile Christian truth with the paganism of the state. After the defeat of Iconclasm, the period of Byzantine “orthodoxy” began. Soloviev calls this period “a fresh phase of the anti-Christian spirit.” We can understand it only in the light of its origins during the struggle with the heresies we have enumerated. …

When heresy reigned in the East, the orthodox anti-Catholic could turn only to the papacy to rescue them. Once the heresy was vanquished, however, they wanted nothing to do with the pope. Thus, “each triumph of orthodoxy, which was always the triumph of the Papacy, was invariably followed at Byzantium by an anti-Catholic reaction.” That reaction would persist until a new heresy arose, reminding them of “the advantage of *a genuine ecclesiastical authority, *” the papacy, which would then rescue them. …

Repeatedly Soloviev stresses the decisive role played by the papacy in overcoming the major heresies of the fourth to ninth centuries. …
Soloviev explains his indictment this way. The central truth of Christianity is the Incarnation. The divine and the human have been brought into an “intimate and complete union” yet “without confusion or division.” In the realm of human existence, this truth logically requires that society and the state be evangelized and converted. According to Soloviev, this process of conversion never occurred in Byzantium. In Byzantine orthodoxy, the two elements, human and divine, were divided or confused, or one was suppressed or absorbed by the other.

A prime example was the Eastern attitude toward the emperor. In the confused minds of the Arians, Christ was a hybrid between man and God, neither fully human nor fully divine. In Eastern life, " *Caesaropapism, which was simply political Arianism, *confused the temporal and spiritual powers without uniting them." The emperor was regarded as something more than mere head of the state, but he was never seen as true head of the Church. …

The imperial heresies of the seventh and eighth centuries had prepared the way for the Moslem religion. The heresy of the Monothelites indirectly denied human freedom. Iconoclasm rejected the portrayal of the divine in any sensible form. These two errors constitute the essence of the religion of Islam, according to Soloviev.

The Moslem view “sees in man a finite form without freedom, and in God an infinite freedom without form.” God and man stand at opposite poles with no possibility of a filial relationship. Therefore in Moslem thought there is no possibility of the Incarnation or of persons becoming partakers of the divine nature. The Moslem religion posits “a mere external relation between the all-powerful Creator and the creature which is deprived of all freedom and owes its master nothing but a bare act of ‘blind surrender’ (for this is what the Arabic word Islam signifies).”

The Moslem religion has the advantage of simplicity. On the personal level, the act of surrender, repeated invariably each day at fixed hours, sums up “the religious background of the Eastern mind, which spoke its last word by the mouth of Mohammed.”

The Moslem perception of social and political concerns is equally simple. There is no real progress for the human race: “there is no moral regeneration for the individual and therefore a fortiori none for society; everything is brought down to the level of a purely natural existence.”

The only goal a Moslem society can have is to expand its material power and enjoy the good things of the earth. Its task is to spread Islam by force, if necessary, and to govern the faithful with absolute authority guided by the rules of justice set forth in the Koran.
.

 

[Abu]

Ckutac #31
Salvation outside of the Church - The Catholic Church does believe that others can enter heaven outside of the Catholic Church.

The reality is that “Those who follow the Spirit of Christ, the logos who writes the law on their hearts, are Christians, are members of Christ, are members of His Church. The may lack indeed external adherence, they may never have heard of the Church. But yet, in the substantial sense,** without formal adherence, they do belong to Christ, to His Church**.”
[See *Our Father’s Plan, Fr William G Most, Trinity Communications, 1988, p 268 – Appendix: Is There Salvation Outside the Church?].

The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].

John Paul II explicitly states here that salvation is granted even to those who do not explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Rather, he makes the argument that since salvation is something universal, it must be offered to all. But not everyone is able to explicitly believe in Christ or enter the Church. Hence “salvation in Christ” is accessible to these people by a grace which does not make them formally part of the Church.
(Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; *L’Osservatore Romano *English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).
[John Paul II General Audience, Wednesday 9 September 1998]
[See: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: Salvation]

 

[Randy_Carson]

Papal supremacy → It seems to me that the Orthodox have the historically accurate doctrine on this one, that is “primacy of honor” rather than “primacy of authority”. And even if primacy of authority was true, is papal infallibility really a logical extension of that?

The Orthodox reject papal primacy because they cannot find it rolleyes in the Early Church Fathers. However, they also have a hard time with the development of doctrine.

John Cardinal Newman, himself a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism, addressed the matter brilliantly.

The following excerpt is taken from John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine written just prior to his conversion to the Catholic Church from Anglicanism. In this passage, Newman considers the development of the modern papacy and explains why an explicit understanding of Papal Supremacy by the early Church Fathers is not necessary and the lack thereof not fatal to the Catholic claims defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870.

Let us see how, on the principles which I have been laying down and defending, the evidence lies for the Pope’s supremacy.

As to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century are the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.

. . . While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope . . .

. . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were “of one heart and soul,” it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws . . .

When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . .

Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the power of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be the necessary consequence . . . as St. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him: so Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not establish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that Polycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian should both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it went beyond its province . . .

On the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the first instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out more probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course of the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal supremacy.

It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-Nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .

Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.

(Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878 ed., Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989, pp. 148-155; Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3.)

 

[steve_b]

I am still caught up on a few doctrines that I wish I could overcome:

Papal supremacy → It seems to me that the Orthodox have the historically accurate doctrine on this one, that is “primacy of honor” rather than “primacy of authority”. And even if primacy of authority was true, is papal infallibility really a logical extension of that?

• For some history, Here’s 55 quotes from the 1st 5 centuries from the ECF to look over. Use full screen and text enhancement tools available on that site to read the texts easily. toolsarchive.org/details/DocumentsIllustratingPapalAuthorityAd96-454Giles
• The office of Peter was established by Jesus. His office will only end when Jesus calls an end to it.
• The Orthodox left the chair of Peter. Just like the protestants did. Jesus is absolutely opposed to that. John 17:20-23. Not to mention that division is condemned in scripture. Scripture to follow

P:

Purgatory → I get that nothing unclean will enter Heaven, but doesn’t Christ grant us forgiveness in this life?

Yes. But ask yourself, If a person is saved, (no mortal sins on their soul at death) why do they have to go through THIS (Catholics call this purgatory) on “the Day”? [1 Corinthians 3:14-16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+3:14-16&version=RSVCE) , “the Day” = day one dies and is judged.

Then there is the matter of mortal sin. If one dies in mortal sin one won’t be going to purgatory. They go to hell. That’s all scriptural as well.
P:

Salvation outside of the Church → What will happen to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church, Anglicans? And what about evangelicals?

We Pray for them.

Q: Who is it that came up with, “outside the Church there is no salvation”?

taking it in steps

1. • the warning DO NOT DIVIDE Romans 16:17-20 divide from what? The Catholic Church
   • the consequences for one dividing and remaining so Galatians 5:19-21 (will not inherit heaven)
   • btw, depending on the particular translation of the bible one uses, the following Greek word διχοστασίας dichostasia is translated as division, or dissension, or sedition, but it’s the same Greek word in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19…
   Therefore we see in scripture, that there is a serious consequence for one’s soul if they divide and/or remain divided from the Catholic Church… they are now outside and remain outside the Church until they return / come home. Some might say, oh that’s just Paul talking, Jesus never said anything like that or put that consequence on division from His Church. I would suggest they demonstrate they don’t know scripture.
   • Jesus said He would send the HS to cause the apostles to remember all that he taught John 14:25-26 .
   • And where did the HS get the teaching He passes on to the apostles? It’s from Jesus John 16:12-15 .
   • Therefore those warnings and consequences spoken of by Paul ultimately came from Jesus, the one who will judge the living and the dead. So Jesus is telling us in advance, that outside His Church there is no salvation and that’s what He taught, and now He teaches us that, through the HS through Paul through the Catholic Church.
   P:
   

   The atonement → is the Catholic view of the atonement purely Anselmian? Is the Christus Victor/ransom theory also there?

   You can always try this web site catholic.com/ and use the search line for any question you have.

 

[steve_b]

Continued …

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy

Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite

And they taught the heresy as well.