Drawn to Catholicism...but have reservations.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thepeug
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m a person in a somewhat similar position - I left the Roman Church based on some of these same questions - attended the Episcopal Church (a great experience) but have now moved to the Anglican Mission in America. You might seek out a AMIA (conservative/ scriptural Episcopal) church in your area.

I can understand the trauma of trying to sort out what to do. Keep praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit. Remember the The Church is not bound by any denomination - This is a position held in papal encyclicals.

Remember - an omnipotent God that became Man to redeem us - shares His Flesh and Blood with us to give us eternal life - cannot be bound by a so-called unbroken chain of apostolic succession or by a change in works of ordination (considering we have no knowledge of the words Jesus used).

As an ex-Roman Catholic I can say that you will find that many so called Catholics have the same questions you do (and think nothing of it). They are at odds with church doctrine but still consider themselves Roman Catholics. My wife has not been to church in 30 years but still insists she is a Roman Catholic.

I doubt if 10% of the average parishoners even know what the Immaculate Conception or Assumption is or the issue of papal infallibility. Consider that many of the Catholic apologists are converts who gained this knowledge by struggling with these same issues. Most come to acceptance by deferring to the infallible teaching authority of the church.

If you can make this committment - then there is no problem. I am not suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church is not a proper destination. If you are comfortable there - God bless! Myself, I had to seek elsewhere. I believe that The Church is not bound by denominations or labels.

God grant us (you and me) strength, wisdom, and someday peace in our search.
 
Anglo-Catholic,

Thank for your thoughtful comments. I always appreciate an opposing perspective. May God bless you in your search for Him.

In Christ,

Chris

P.S. Check your PM’s!
 
Serafin,

Honorius was surely condemned. Why? For the reasons clearly stated by the Pope who confirmed the decree condemning him. All other assertions are opinions without consequence.

God bless,

Dave
 
Serafin,
People are the church Dave …
Click to expand...
Errrrrrrrr…no. Some people are. Some people are heretics. Some infidels, and some schismatics.

I’ve read enough from the Protestant “Jesus Seminar” to know that some people who claim to teach orthodox Christianity are really wolves in sheeps clothing.

St. Ignatius (50-110) affirmed that the Church in Rome is that Church which “presides.” St. Ireneaus (AD 189) asserted that “all the faithful of the world” must agree with the Church in Rome. This is the historic apostolic faith that Catholicism continues to uphold.

God bless,

Dave
 
Serafin,

Regarding Pope Boniface’s Bull Unam Sanctum, you said:
A little scary…Huh? Maybe “unclear”, “harmless”, “private opinion” in retrospect, but during his reign I wonder if any questioned wether this literary beauty was ex-cathedra or an optional belief for RC’s?
Click to expand...
It is neither unclear, harmless, or private opinion. It was and is ex cathedra.

Fr. Leonard Feeny did indeed teach, in the 1940s, a scary interpretation of this dogma. He was excommunicated in the 1950s after failing to cease and desist in his erroneous assertions.

From the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, 1949:
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
Click to expand...
 
Serafin,

Regarding Pope Boniface’s Bull Unam Sanctum, you said:
A little scary…Huh? Maybe “unclear”, “harmless”, “private opinion” in retrospect, but during his reign I wonder if any questioned wether this literary beauty was ex-cathedra or an optional belief for RC’s?
Click to expand...
It is neither unclear, harmless, or private opinion. It was and is ex cathedra.

Fr. Leonard Feeny did indeed teach, in the 1940s, a scary interpretation of this dogma. After being told to cease and desist in his errors, he was excommunicated in the 1950s for his disobedience.

From the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, 1949:
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. …

… one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
Click to expand...
God bless,

Dave
 
Chris,
I thought that the IC was Catholic dogma and that it was proclaimed infallibly at Vatican I. Is this not the case?
Click to expand...
The doctrine regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary is de fide (infallible) Catholic dogma. It was defined by Pope Pius IX in the Bull Ineffabilis in 1854. I was referring to the perpetual sinlessness of Mary. They are not the same. The former only refers to Mary being born without stain of original sin. It says nothing of her being free from personal sin throughout her lifetime.

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (pg. 203), the doctrine of the perpetual sinlessness of Mary is not de fide (infallible) dogma, but is described as a Teaching Proximate to Faith (Sententia Fidei Proxima). It is a doctrine regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.

God bless,

Dave
 
Anglo-Catholic,

I agree that God is not bound by a denomination. However, I believe Protestantism has self-ordained virtually all it’s ministers. This is the sin of Korah’s rebellion. I don’t believe it’s Scriptural. Neither do I believe Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide are Scriptural. Therefore, I had to rule out Protestantism as Christianity’s “ancient path” for my soul.

“This is what the Lord says: 'Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Jeremiah 6:16)

God bless,

Dave
 
40.png
Serafin:
People are the church Dave…not just old bishops and theologians in Rome! To us all Christians are the Church, not just the Pope and his bishops! People, even well meaning ones can and have been wrong on a number of issues!
Click to expand...
It is incorrect to say that “people are the church.” It is very similar to the phrase “we are (the) Church” which has led to much confusion and error.

It is true that we are corporately the mystical body of Christ, but, as Dave (itsjustdave1988) pointed out, the Church is much more than just its members because we, the members, have failings that the Church does not. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Church is protected from proclaiming error in matters of the Faith and morals but “we” are not. Only one member of the Church has this protection and that is the pope. The Church is completely holy but “we” are not. The Church is Apostolic (its authority is derived and inherited from the Apostles in direct succession) but that only applies to the bishops.
 
Mutant,

Your mention of Apostolic succession brings up a question I’ve been meaning to ask. Concerning Petrine succsession and Peter as the first Pope, Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill writes in his book The New Testament: a Historical Introduction:

“One ancient tradition states that the apostle Peter established the church in Rome some fifteen years earlier and became its first bishop (i.e., the Pope). The earliest books known to be written by members of the Roman church, however, I Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas, say nothing about Peter starting the church there or being its first bishop. Moreover, Paul’s letter to the Romans, itself the earliest record of a Christian presence in the capital, greets twenty-eight different people in the community by name (chap. 16) but says nothing about Peter’s presence among them” (350).

If it is determined that Peter was indeed not the first bishop of Rome, then the whole matrix of authority upon which the Papacy is based would be invalid. Any thoughts on the matter? Can you think of any early documents that support the idea of Peter as the first bishop of Rome?

God bless,

Chris
 
40.png
Thepeug:
Mutant,

Your mention of Apostolic succession brings up a question I’ve been meaning to ask. Concerning Petrine succsession and Peter as the first Pope, Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill writes in his book The New Testament: a Historical Introduction:

“One ancient tradition states that the apostle Peter established the church in Rome some fifteen years earlier and became its first bishop (i.e., the Pope). The earliest books known to be written by members of the Roman church, however, I Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas, say nothing about Peter starting the church there or being its first bishop. Moreover, Paul’s letter to the Romans, itself the earliest record of a Christian presence in the capital, greets twenty-eight different people in the community by name (chap. 16) but says nothing about Peter’s presence among them” (350).

If it is determined that Peter was indeed not the first bishop of Rome, then the whole matrix of authority upon which the Papacy is based would be invalid. Any thoughts on the matter? Can you think of any early documents that support the idea of Peter as the first bishop of Rome?

God bless,

Chris
Click to expand...
Can Professor Ehrman explain what St. Peter’s bones are doing buried in a first-century tomb under the high altar at the Vatican? 😉

I believe there’s a book detailing the rigorous research which has established almost beyond doubt that these are St. Peter’s bones. It’scalled The Bones of St. Peter by somebody-Walsh.

Peter himself indicates that he is writing from Rome when he identifies the site of the composition of his epistle as “Babylon”–code for Rome. I was under the impression that virtually all reputable scholars concurred re this…but perhaps Professor Ehrman represents an older, more polemical, and less rigorously scholarly tradition? I dunno…just guessing here…I know nothing about him…

St. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) says “the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” founded the Church at Rome–Paul presumably as preacher and martyr there, Peter as bishop and leader.

So…why didn’t Paul mention Peter when he wrote his epistle to the Romans? Probably because Peter wasn’t at Rome at the time; very likely he was still at Antioch, his base of operations before he came to Rome…

ZT
 
Hi Dave:

Let me get this clear! You actually believe that “every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff” and that it is “altogether necesary for salvation”?

Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners…

Blessings

Serafin+
 
ZT,

Your explanation definitely makes sense. I’ve heard before that Peter was in Antioch for years before he came to Rome, so it’s likely that at the time Paul was writing Romans, Peter hadn’t made the move yet. From what I understand, Ehrman’s work is fairly recent and at the forefront of Biblical scholarship, but he lost his faith in Christianity because of his work, so he tends to be a bit cynical at times. I plan on taking a class from him next semester (while keeping certain fundamental truths in perspective), so I’ll let you know how it goes!

In Christ,

Chris
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Serafin,

Honorius was surely condemned. Why? For the reasons clearly stated by the Pope who confirmed the decree condemning him. All other assertions are opinions without consequence.

God bless,

Dave
Click to expand...
Hi Dave:

If you are okay with that…so am I. Seeing how the issue of papal infallibility is one of the major issues keeping the Christians apart, it is just not true that “other assertions are just opinion without consequence…” . My opinion about it is part of he reason I am an Anglican.

Blessings

Serafin
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Serafin,
Errrrrrrrr…no. Some people are. Some people are heretics. Some infidels, and some schismatics.

I’ve read enough from the Protestant “Jesus Seminar” to know that some people who claim to teach orthodox Christianity are really wolves in sheeps clothing.

St. Ignatius (50-110) affirmed that the Church in Rome is that Church which “presides.” St. Ireneaus (AD 189) asserted that “all the faithful of the world” must agree with the Church in Rome. This is the historic apostolic faith that Catholicism continues to uphold.

God bless,

Dave
Click to expand...
The problem at this juncture is identifying just who the heretic and schismatics are? Us poor Protestants are so confused with the competing claims between you and the Orthodox! Its kind of like a divorced couple each claiming an intact home and custody of the kids.

I do not agree with Ireneus…in this and other things, for example when he taught that Christ lived to be over 50 years old in “Adversus Heresies”. You should note that the reasons given by both Ignatius and Ireneus for their statements did not include any mention of an infallible pope!

Blessings

Serafin
 
Chris,

See also the following article …
catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

In my opinion, to deny that the Roman Pontiff was the successor
of Peter either lacks scholastic rigor, or scholastic integrity.

The matter was undisputed in Christian history until the middle ages. Doesn’t this reveal perhaps a less than objective motive?

From the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus:
Council of Ephesus
**"**Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Click to expand...
If this were not true, why was there no dispute over the matter? Why did EVERYBODY accept such a novel claim if it were not universally understood as being a matter of “no doubt … known in all ages?” See also the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, where they explicitly state that Pope Leo I was “charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior.”

Alternative opinions as to who the successor of Peter is will have to satisfactorily answer the following: Why did the Eastern and Western Bishops at Ephesus (and Chalcedon) accept that the Roman Pontiff was the successor of Peter, if that was not the case? What alternative theories satisfactorily account for the overwhelming evidence of history?

God bless,

Dave
 
Serafin,
Let me get this clear! You actually believe that “every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff” and that it is “altogether necesary for salvation”?
Click to expand...
If a person fully understood that the Roman Pontiff was the Vicar of Christ and intentionally and willfully disobeyed what he binds on earth (which will indeed be bound in heaven), then he commits mortal sin just as surely if he disobeyed Christ himself.

In OT times, the keeper of the keys of the kingdom was the Steward of the house of the Lord. He was the chief minister over all the other ministers. If one disobeyed him, it was equivalent to disobedience to the King. That’s what the keys of the kingdom represented in the OT. That’s was it still represented in the NT. If you realized that the successorship of St. Peter is a fact of Christian history, even to this day, you too would pledge your obedience to him. Not because he is impeccable or brilliant. Peter certainly shows us that this is not a prerequiste for being the keeper of the keys. But because, as was asserted by the early Church, the successor to Peter is given "custody of the vine by the Savior."

Opinions contrary to Chalcedon’s on this matter are a heterdox novelty, born of polemics, not from the orthodox deposit of faith.

God bless,

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top