Drawn to Catholicism...but have reservations.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thepeug
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, Dave. Very interesting verses. Though God loves and values all believers, these verses warn in pretty explicit terms against those who “seek the priesthood as well.” I also noticed in Numbers 18 that Moses confers the rights of the priesthood upon Aaron and his sons, declaring, “You and your sons with you shall diligently perform your priestly duites in all that concerns the altar and the area behind the curtain. I give you the priesthood as a gift; any outsider who approaches shall be put to death” ( 18:7). Pretty clear that the priesthood (at least in an official, temporal sense) is the exclusive province of the ordained. Thanks for the verses!
Code:
                             God bless,
                                    Chris
 
40.png
Thepeug:
Also, you use the Isaiah 22:20-23 passage to justify the existence of a Papal authority figure. While this passage certainly seems to suggest a figure of that nature, I’m still puzzled by the next two verses, 24-25, in which the Lord says, “the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish, for the Lord has spoken.” If the Pope is the figure mentioned in 20-23, do 24 and 25 not imply that the he will be cut down, and all of his adherents “perish?” A bit disturbing, I must admit. Any ideas? Again, I think this verse is something best addressed to a priest, but I welcome any thoughts that you or anyone else have on the matter
I don’t think the Isaiah passage is referring to the pope. What it is doing is providing an understanding of the symbolism of being given the key of authority.

Just curious, what do you think 24-25 mean in their OT context?
 
I agree with the notion that the passage is commonly used to explain the significance of ‘authoritative keys.’ I originally misread one of twf’s responses to mean that Catholics use this passage to justify the existence of a Pope, and in that regard, I was confused, considering that the figure mentioned in this passage is destroyed.

Honestly, I don’t know what 24-25 mean in the OT context. It seems to suggest that Eliakim, upon whom the “whole weight of his ancestral house” is hung by his subjects, cannot bear the weight of authority, and so the “peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way.” Needless to say, the passage is a bit ominous; this man upon whom God confers authority over His people is destroyed, either by the Lord or by his own incompotence as a ruler. If anyone has access to an official interpretation about this passage, I’d love to hear another opinion! Mine is obviously pure speculation.
God bless,
Chris
 
Hi:

As a former Roman Catholic who is now an Anglican I will also keep you in my prayers. Your reservations in entering the RCC are valid and part of the reason many leave it and stay away!

Some thoughts:
  1. I understand primacy but do not see how any text of Scripture or the Church fathers can justify “infalibility” for any bishop!
  2. Universal jurisdiction for the Bishop of Rome??? The Orthodox raise valid points about the Church as conciliar in nature with a primacy of honor for the Bishop of Rome.
  3. Honorious and the Borgia Popes, Theodora and Marozia Theophylact were not mythical figures!
  4. Popular catholicism is a different breed from the catechism kind. … talk with an average Hispanic catholic about their faith and pious practices…try to keep a straight face!
  5. It just is not true that any fragment of the Church can prove …it is “The One”…just ask the Orthodox who are the true Catholics!
  6. The Pope , the Magisterium, Tradition and Scripture sound great for converts to the RCC…a little overated if you ask me. The Orthodox have managed to stay Christian without the fist two as have many Anglicans and a myriad of others. "
  7. There are no infalible Anglicans of any sort.“Scripture, Tradition and Reason” something many Episcopalians take for granted is something I have come to appreciate and value…despite ECUSA and New Westminster.
  8. Before you join, ask some former Roman Catholics why they left(and are still leaving at a rate of 20,000 a month in Latin America).
Blessings

Serafin +
 
Serafin,
You raise many of the points with which, as one trying to understand Catholicism, I often struggle. I always enjoy opposing viewpoints because they help maintain a balanced perspective on the matter. By gathering information from both ends of the spectrum, any decision I eventually make will (I hope) be an informed one. Thank you for your thoughts and prayers!
Code:
                        God bless,
                                 Chris
 
Universal jurisdiction for the Bishop of Rome??? The Orthodox raise valid points about the Church as conciliar in nature with a primacy of honor for the Bishop of Rome.
Let me share with you an excerpt from Eastern Orthodox scholarship. Keep in mind, these scholars are not Roman Catholic and so are not likely to be biased toward Catholicism…
“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century.” (THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, page 124)
the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority…Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument." (ibid, page 125-126)
Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius [AD 110] uses the phrase ‘which presides’ in two passages. … The term ‘which presides’ [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the ‘first place’ at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church…[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the ‘first place.’ So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord…In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome." (page 126-127)

"…Irenaeus [AD 189] insists that anyone looking for the truth can find it in the Tradition of the Apostles, which every local church has preserved. So we must suppose he thought that the Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind were preserved in the Roman Church more fully than in others, or, at least, in a more manifest way. "

“…according to [Cyprian’s] doctrine **there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church…**According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter’s throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter’s throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian’s insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian’s passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise].” (ibid, page 98-99)
 
As for “primacy of honor” theories. If it were only ‘honor’ and not jurisdiction, then why did the Council of Chalcedon in the 5ht century submit thier agreed upon canons to be ratified by Pope Leo I? It seems to me the Eastern and Western Bishops at Chalcedon in the 5th century understood the Pope in Rome to have JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY!!! The claim to “honor only” does not square with the evidence of history, in my view.

Observe,

From the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon …

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith,
hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." (Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3)

The Pope had the power to excommunicate the Bishop of Alexandria.

The Bishops of Chalcedon state EXPLICITLY that the Pope’s authority was given to him by the Savior.

Read how they describe the authority given to Pope Leo…

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. … (Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98)

Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. … (ibid)

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. (ibid)

The Bishops of the Eastern (and Western) Churches in the 5th century clearly understood Pope Leo’s authority to have come directly from the Savior. It is not Leo that was infallible, but HIS AUTHORITY WAS infallible. Why? Because his authority comes from the Savior, whose authority cannot be fallible.

Notice too that the Bishops insist the Pope Leo is the HEAD and they are like CHILDREN, whereas, Pope Leo is the PARENT of the UNIVERSAL Church represented at Chalcedon by bishops from the EAST and West.

The Bishops sent the canons THEY OVERWHELMING DECIDED UPON to Pope Leo for his ratification. What if Pope Leo rejected a canon they overwhelmingly decided upon? Well, that’s what happened… (to be continued)
 
The Council of Chalcedon attempted to elevate Constantinople in Canon 28. This was rejected by Pope Leo. The Bishop of Constantinople wrote to Pope Leo AFTER Leo rejected canon 28, and apologetically stated,

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. (Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132, on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon)

Ask yourself this question: Did Bishop Anatolius, the Patricarch of Constantinople believe Pope Leo had merely a “primacy of honor,” or did he clearly asser that he had a primacy of jurisdiction? It seems to me the latter is certain, as the canons of Chalcedon had no authority unless the Pope ratified them.

After Pope Leo rejected canon 28, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon, the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Pope Leo. This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.

I assert that the “primacy of honor” theory does not square with the Ecumenical Council’s tesitmony. Ironically, the Eastern Orthodox accept this Council as an authentic and orthodox witness of the faith.

God bless,

Dave
 
… talk with an average Hispanic catholic about their faith and pious practices…try to keep a straight face!
This was rather insulting. I’m hispanic. Feel free to ask me anything about my beliefs. Judge for yourself if they are in line with what the Catholic magisterium asserts.

God bless,

Dave
 
Perhaps when he’s done grilling you, he might like to take on some other laughably ignorant Hispanics, like St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross? :rotfl:
 
Perhaps when he’s done grilling you, he might like to take on some other laughably ignorant Hispanics, like St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross?
These are hardly “average” Hispanics…or even average Christians to merit the name “doctors of the Church”. Try the guys at your local Mexican restaurant ask them if they are RC, or better yet a local RC Spanish language mass! It may be funnier then.

Blessings

Serafin
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
This was rather insulting. I’m hispanic. Feel free to ask me anything about my beliefs. Judge for yourself if they are in line with what the Catholic magisterium asserts.

God bless,

Dave
Hola hermano!

Si eres hispano no debe insultarte lo que dije, sabes bien que nuestro pueblo hispano tiene gran necesidad de conocer mejor su fe catolica. El sincretismo religioso es un gran problema en nuestros pueblos y el estudio de la Biblia muy descuidado.

More power to you brother if you know Christ and are informed about your faith. You however would do well to admit such is not the case with many Hispanic RC’s …popular piety in particular is very problematic in many places, syncretistic, and the study of the Bible has among our people been largely neglected. This may be why many leave the RCC for other Christian communities. It is only fair that the “seeking Episcopalian” be aware that the “grass is not always greener” on the RC side of the fence.

Bendiciones a ti

Serafin +
 
I assert that the “primacy of honor” theory does not square with the Ecumenical Council’s tesitmony. Ironically, the Eastern Orthodox accept this Council as an authentic and orthodox witness of the faith.
Pray tell Dave after your selected quotes from Orthodox scholarship why if this is so “cut and dry” the Eastern patriachates continue to regard Rome as schismatic and reject papal claims?

Blessings

Serafin +
 
40.png
arnulf:
Hi, and welcome! As a former Episcopalian who joined the catholic church 8 years ago, I can sympathize with your concerns. My advice is to discard everything non-catholics have told you about the catholic church and see for yourself what is the truth. And fortunately, this is easy to do - get a copy of “The Catechism of the Catholic Church” and read it slowly and prayerfully. It is also available for free on the internet.
I haven’t read down this entire thread, so this may be covered below, if so I apologize. I would also recommend some other sources of material that may be of interest. I am a cradle Catholic and recently became an invert to the faith following a Christ Renews His Parish (CRHP ‘Chirp’) retreat. Our men’s group is studying apologetics as a group to increase our knowledge of the faith. Apologetic materials are a great source to anwer some of your questions. Specifcally the Beginning Apologetics series by Jim Burnham. I second the motion of prayerfully and slowly reading the Catechism. I would also add that the three volume (paperback) set titled Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens is also an excellent resource. I purchased mine at our local Pauline Media store in St. Louis, but I’m certain Catholic Answers carries it as well.
 
:talk with an average Hispanic catholic about their faith and pious practices…try to keep a straight face!:

Actually, I think there’s a lot of wisdom in “popular religion.” Perhaps the fact that you can’t keep a straight face says more about your own bondage to Enlightenment superstition than to the flaws of Hispanic Catholicism (of which, from what I have heard and read, I’m sure there are many)?

In Christ,

Edwin
 
cnelms,

What exactly is the CRHP? What is the purpose of it, and how does it work? You’re the second person to mention that program, so I was just wondering. Thanks!
Code:
                            In Christ,
                                   Chris
 
Contarini said:
:talk with an average Hispanic catholic about their faith and pious practices…try to keep a straight face!:

Actually, I think there’s a lot of wisdom in “popular religion.” Perhaps the fact that you can’t keep a straight face says more about your own bondage to Enlightenment superstition than to the flaws of Hispanic Catholicism (of which, from what I have heard and read, I’m sure there are many)?

In Christ,

Edwin

There is a lot of wisdom in properly informed popular piety. There is a lot of superstition and syncretism when it fluorishes apart from the Scriptures. Popular piety in ancient Israel included at a time the veneration of the bronce serpent Moses had used. …clearly not very wise. There are many such examples in “popular” Hispanic RC .

Blessings

Serafin
 
40.png
Serafin:
As a former Roman Catholic who is now an Anglican…

…talk with an average Hispanic catholic about their faith and pious practices…try to keep a straight face!
Of course, it can be equally difficult to keep a straight face when reading of some of the goings-on in the Anglican world. But clearly you have a different standard in that case.
 
Of course, it can be equally difficult to keep a straight face when reading of some of the goings-on in the Anglican world. But clearly you have a different standard in that case.
I do not disagree with you about the goings on in the “Anglican World”, neither would the Episcopalian who started this thread.

To judge by the recent news, Christianity is a three ring circus…Episcopalians elect a practicing homosexual as a bishop, Rc Bishops and priests implicated in the largest sex abuse scandal in recent history. We do not have “infalible popes”, “real apostolic sucession”, are not “the church that Christ founded” and lack a “Magisterium”. What is your excuse?

Everyone has issues, and that is something we seem to be much more honest about than many here. Thankfully Anglicans come in many flavors, not all are in communion with Canterbury, are never considered infalible, and the laity actually have (name removed by moderator)ut in Church affairs for good or evil. The Church of Rome survived the Borgias I am sure Anglicanism can survive New Hampshire if God so wills, as I am sure you will survive the present crises.

Blessings

Serafin +
 
Serafin,
More power to you brother if you know Christ and are informed about your faith. You however would do well to admit such is not the case with many Hispanic RC’s
I would do well to admit that much of Christianity is not informed about their faith. But I’m not the kind to make bigoted remarks about one ethnic group or another, as I content you have done.

Have you done a study to compare how informed the Irish are? The English? Joe Sixpack American? I lived in Japan for three years, and it seems the Christians there are no more or less informed than anywhere else I’ve lived. Are you defending the view that judging an entire ethnic group merely superficially is valid?

I am an average Catholic hispanic. I’m no ‘doctor.’ Your bigoted remarks are unappreciated.

As for Chalcedon? Can you honestly assert that Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the 5th century asserted merely a ‘primacy of honor’ or is it clear that he understood Pope Leo I to have jurisdictional authority unique to the Bishop of Rome? Didn’t ALL THE BISHOPS at Chalcedon, in their letter to the Pope admit that he was charged with the CUSTODY OF THE VINE by the Savior? Didn’t they send the canons for Pope Leo’s ratification? If he was just another Bishop among many Bishops, why didn’t they send the canons to EVERY Bishop for ratification? Or is it that they understood that Pope Leo PRESIDES, just like St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 50-110) asserted?

If the latter, why do the Orthodox and Anglicans assert “primacy of honor” only? Have they not studied patristics? Or is there some bias affecting the objectivity of their conclusions? I’m thinking a bit of bias and stubbornness is at work.

God bless,

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top