P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Not even a liiiiittle bit?Just for the record, even though I was quoted in the response, I am not considering Eastern Orthodoxy.
- Status
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
As far as I know the Orthodox do accept 2nd Maccabees, and in that book on Ch12:
43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
This is clearly āpurgatoryā and āindulgencesā if those are the terms you want to use.
As for the Papacy stuff, we all know the usual passages where Peter is singled out, but there is also PLENTY in the ECF writings to go by as well. One of my favorites from Pope St Gregory the Great (575AD) Book 5 Letter 20:
For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lordās voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep (John xxi. 17). To him it is said, Behold Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for thee, Peter, that they faith fail not. And thou, when thou art converted,strengthen thy brethren (Luke xxii. 31).
To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates ofhell shall not prevail against it. And I willgive unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (Matth. xvi. 18). Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!
B
BillyT92679
Guest
Two things
Itās unlikely it will be made a dogma due to ecumenical sensibilities.
You really have to look at it as something that in no way elevates Mary to some level equal to her Son. I mean if you really look at it, itās not at all what you think it is.
R
RyanL
Guest
Part of me really hopes it will be dogmatically defined, that way we can turn to the infallible statement which says that Mary is in no way Christās equal, is nowhere near Divine, cannot save us, and remains, as ever, a faithful handmaiden of the Lord.
That would sure shut up the Chicklets.
God Bless,
RyanL
A
Aaron_I
Guest
Magicsilence,
Your struggles seem very similar to the ones IambicPen has been going through in his āWhy not Orthodoxyā thread. You may try to hunt that down as several questions similar to your own have been addressed there.
As far as the atonement goes, Jesus did indeed conquer death. That is an obvious and basic principle that is held by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church also recognizes that Christ also came as expiation for our sins (1 Jn 4:10). Read what the CCC says about the crucifixion (especially paragraphs 599-623). There should be enough stuff there for you to recognize that the Catholic claim is correct. Be sure to look at the footnotes for Biblical references. Of course, if you still have difficulties with it, tell us about them.
Also, St. Augustine had some stuff about the nature of Original Sin. Notice that he spoke about the need for infant baptism to wipe away the guilt of Original Sin. Hereās the link to it. You may want to start reading at about chapter 20.
IambicPen had the problem with the atonement that it put a condition upon Godās mercy, that he would need some kind of formal recompense for our sins. If you have the same problem, I would remind you that itās the exact same situation with Confession. God isnāt bound by these formal rules, but he has put them in place. I for one am not going to argue with Him.
Your struggles seem very similar to the ones IambicPen has been going through in his āWhy not Orthodoxyā thread. You may try to hunt that down as several questions similar to your own have been addressed there.
As far as the atonement goes, Jesus did indeed conquer death. That is an obvious and basic principle that is held by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church also recognizes that Christ also came as expiation for our sins (1 Jn 4:10). Read what the CCC says about the crucifixion (especially paragraphs 599-623). There should be enough stuff there for you to recognize that the Catholic claim is correct. Be sure to look at the footnotes for Biblical references. Of course, if you still have difficulties with it, tell us about them.
Also, St. Augustine had some stuff about the nature of Original Sin. Notice that he spoke about the need for infant baptism to wipe away the guilt of Original Sin. Hereās the link to it. You may want to start reading at about chapter 20.
IambicPen had the problem with the atonement that it put a condition upon Godās mercy, that he would need some kind of formal recompense for our sins. If you have the same problem, I would remind you that itās the exact same situation with Confession. God isnāt bound by these formal rules, but he has put them in place. I for one am not going to argue with Him.
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
Aaron I.:
I sympathize with your struggles, Magicsilence, seeing as how I am going through the same ones. Catholics and Orthodox alike sometimes have trouble seeing how anyone could possibly be undecided. "We are the one true Church!!! Why canāt the ignorant masses see that??? 
"
The fact that two Churches of equal age and equal claim to apostolic succession believe different things is very troubling to someone like me. I was raised a Protestant, and my study of Catholicism pointed out many flaws in Protestant theology. However, when I first encountered Orthodoxy, I became aware that Catholicism doesnāt automatically equal true if Protestantism equals false.
The church split in two, and both sides insist that theirs is the correct side and that the other side is guilty of schism. It seems to me that both sides are guilty of schism and that both sides need to work together to heal the schism rather than triumphantly declaring their ārightnessā and insisting that the other side conform to their more enlightened understanding of truth.
Perhaps what needs to happen is that both Churches need to discard all doctrines developed (or ādeveloped,ā depending on whoās talking about itā¦) after the Schism. Then, in truly ecumenical councils that contain representatives from both halves of the Church, these doctrines can be re-examined and pronounced if accepted by the whole united Church.
I love the Catholic Church, and until I discovered Orthodoxy, I had every intention of entering it. I love how united and universal it is, and I greatly admire its strong stand on moral issues. I have the highest respect for Pope Benedict XVI and for his predecessor Pope John Paul II (and the ones before, of course, but that was before I was bornā¦ ). As I am of Western European descent, there is much about Catholicism that is more familiar to my mind. I also admire the authority, and I would like to believe in papal infallibility and all that. After all, Protestantism clearly shows the result of a democratic church. I also prefer the Catholic positions on contraception and the permanence of marriage.
(continued in next post)
Ah yes, such difficulties, eh?
I sympathize with your struggles, Magicsilence, seeing as how I am going through the same ones. Catholics and Orthodox alike sometimes have trouble seeing how anyone could possibly be undecided. "We are the one true Church!!! Why canāt the ignorant masses see that??? "The fact that two Churches of equal age and equal claim to apostolic succession believe different things is very troubling to someone like me. I was raised a Protestant, and my study of Catholicism pointed out many flaws in Protestant theology. However, when I first encountered Orthodoxy, I became aware that Catholicism doesnāt automatically equal true if Protestantism equals false.
The church split in two, and both sides insist that theirs is the correct side and that the other side is guilty of schism. It seems to me that both sides are guilty of schism and that both sides need to work together to heal the schism rather than triumphantly declaring their ārightnessā and insisting that the other side conform to their more enlightened understanding of truth.
Perhaps what needs to happen is that both Churches need to discard all doctrines developed (or ādeveloped,ā depending on whoās talking about itā¦) after the Schism. Then, in truly ecumenical councils that contain representatives from both halves of the Church, these doctrines can be re-examined and pronounced if accepted by the whole united Church.
I love the Catholic Church, and until I discovered Orthodoxy, I had every intention of entering it. I love how united and universal it is, and I greatly admire its strong stand on moral issues. I have the highest respect for Pope Benedict XVI and for his predecessor Pope John Paul II (and the ones before, of course, but that was before I was bornā¦
). As I am of Western European descent, there is much about Catholicism that is more familiar to my mind. I also admire the authority, and I would like to believe in papal infallibility and all that. After all, Protestantism clearly shows the result of a democratic church. I also prefer the Catholic positions on contraception and the permanence of marriage.(continued in next post)
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
(continued from previous post)
That being said, the Orthodox Church seems to be teaching basically the same doctrines as it was before the Schism. When I set the two Churches side by side and try to decide which one has changed the most in the last thousand years, it is without question the Catholic Church. Catholics are quite comfortable with the idea of development of doctrine, but I am not (at least not yetā¦). If the Apostles wanted us to believe in the Immaculate Conception, Original Sin (as Augustine understood it), Papal Infallibility and the Atonement (as Anselm understood it), then the Apostles would have taught these doctrines, not expected us to discover them hundreds of years later.
Catholics would quite likely say that these doctrines existed all along, if only in a less understood form. I am troubled by this, however. What is to stop the Church from developing a doctrine in the next few years that says women have no souls? Then, apologists could dig up some quotes (some direct, some extremely implicit) from a few Early Church Fathers and then say this doctrine was believed all along. This is an extreme example, of course, and I definitely donāt think this will ever happen. However, I do wonder what the limits are, if any, on the development of doctrine.
Of course, the key issue here is whether the Pope is supposed to have supremacy over all other bishops. If that is the case, then the Catholic Church truly is the one true Church, and all who are separated from the Popeās authority need to come back under it. However, it is not apparent that this was the case in the early days. Sure, people can produce numerous quotes in support of papal supremacy, but despite the beliefs of some, papal supremacy does not seem to have been a universally held doctrine. When the Christians in four patriarchates went one way, and the Christians in the remaining patriarchate went another, there doesnāt seem to be much crisis in the East. They went on as they always had. If papal supremacy was universally held, wouldnāt there have been a massive outcry, with numerous Eastern bishops demanding a return to papal authority?
I should close this post by saying that the more I study Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the more I see the similarities, rather than the differences. I pray for eventual reunification.
Then, this silly debate (both with people on the forum and within my own mind) would no longer be necessary.
God bless!
That being said, the Orthodox Church seems to be teaching basically the same doctrines as it was before the Schism. When I set the two Churches side by side and try to decide which one has changed the most in the last thousand years, it is without question the Catholic Church. Catholics are quite comfortable with the idea of development of doctrine, but I am not (at least not yetā¦). If the Apostles wanted us to believe in the Immaculate Conception, Original Sin (as Augustine understood it), Papal Infallibility and the Atonement (as Anselm understood it), then the Apostles would have taught these doctrines, not expected us to discover them hundreds of years later.
Catholics would quite likely say that these doctrines existed all along, if only in a less understood form. I am troubled by this, however. What is to stop the Church from developing a doctrine in the next few years that says women have no souls? Then, apologists could dig up some quotes (some direct, some extremely implicit) from a few Early Church Fathers and then say this doctrine was believed all along. This is an extreme example, of course, and I definitely donāt think this will ever happen. However, I do wonder what the limits are, if any, on the development of doctrine.
Of course, the key issue here is whether the Pope is supposed to have supremacy over all other bishops. If that is the case, then the Catholic Church truly is the one true Church, and all who are separated from the Popeās authority need to come back under it. However, it is not apparent that this was the case in the early days. Sure, people can produce numerous quotes in support of papal supremacy, but despite the beliefs of some, papal supremacy does not seem to have been a universally held doctrine. When the Christians in four patriarchates went one way, and the Christians in the remaining patriarchate went another, there doesnāt seem to be much crisis in the East. They went on as they always had. If papal supremacy was universally held, wouldnāt there have been a massive outcry, with numerous Eastern bishops demanding a return to papal authority?
And the Orthodox would likely say that, with all due respect, St. Augustine was wrong on this point. They would probably also say that the Catholic Church has a troubling tendency to turn the theories of individual theologians into binding doctrines which must be held by the whole Church.
I should close this post by saying that the more I study Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the more I see the similarities, rather than the differences. I pray for eventual reunification.
Then, this silly debate (both with people on the forum and within my own mind) would no longer be necessary.God bless!
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
And the Orthodox have recognized several instances in which Catholic posters have resorted to attacks on character, rather than engaging in civilized debate. Iām not referring to you personally, of course, but I have seen far more Catholics than Orthodox resort to personal attacks over in the Eastern Christianity forum. Attacking someone as a person is one of the greatest signs that one is unable to attack their arguments.
The odd thing is I have seen Catholics be far more civil to Protestants than to the Orthodox, even in the cases when the Protestants are extremely combative and insulting.
I personally found this blog to be very useful. However, it contains much of the same triumphalist rhetoric employed by some Catholics in the Eastern Christianity forum. It also resorts to personal attacks against Photius (St. Photius to the Orthodox) and engages in a great deal of uncharitable speculation about his motives. Itās definitely a pro-Catholic (and I would also add anti-Orthodox) piece. However, if balanced with opinions from the Orthodox side (and more charitable opinions from the Catholic side), it is still a useful source of information.You may enjoy Philip Blosserās blog. He writes a lot about the Great Schism and the papacy:
www.catholictradition.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_catholictradition_archive.html
I hope you find his blog useful and enjoyable in your search for truth.
I urge all people on this forum, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and everyone else, to be charitable when discussing contentious issues. We all love God, and we are all trying to serve Him where we believe He desires us to be. Some of us feel certain we are where we are supposed to be, while others of us (such as myself) feel called to move on from where we were into a deeper understanding of the truth. This search for truth is certainly not helped by personal attacks, suspicion and arrogance. I also urge people to be less thin-skinned. Maybe itās my Army attitude showing, but a person canāt break off dialogue with someone else just because he or she said something that made the first person feel bad.
God bless all of us as we approach Palm Sunday! Remember the joy of those who welcomed Christ. Let us all welcome Him, and when trial comes, let us not turn away from Him!
M
Matt16_18
Guest
The Iambic Pen:
But the church founded by Jesus has not fallen into schism. There are indeed twenty-three Ecumenical Councils not just seven. The Catholic Church has no problem at all in telling you how the faithful can know when an Ecumenical Council is valid, but both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church is utterly incapable of giving the criteria for determining how the faithful can know when an Ecumenical Council is valid. And since the EO and the OO are utterly incapable of explaining how the faithful can know when an Ecumenical Council is valid, it is all the proof any rational person needs to understand that the EO and the OO are the churches in schism with the true church.
Then the powers of hell have prevailed against the church founded by Christ, and everything is moot. There is no point in believing in Jesus, because if his church can fall into schism, then no one knows what is to be believed. We are all in the same boat as the Protestants, and each person must stumble around in the darkness with no reliable guide on earth to the truth.
But the church founded by Jesus has not fallen into schism. There are indeed twenty-three Ecumenical Councils not just seven. The Catholic Church has no problem at all in telling you how the faithful can know when an Ecumenical Council is valid, but both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church is utterly incapable of giving the criteria for determining how the faithful can know when an Ecumenical Council is valid. And since the EO and the OO are utterly incapable of explaining how the faithful can know when an Ecumenical Council is valid, it is all the proof any rational person needs to understand that the EO and the OO are the churches in schism with the true church.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The Iambic Pen said:(continued from previous post)
That being said, the Orthodox Church seems to be teaching basically the same doctrines as it was before the Schism. When I set the two Churches side by side and try to decide which one has changed the most in the last thousand years, it is without question the Catholic Church. Catholics are quite comfortable with the idea of development of doctrine, but I am not (at least not yetā¦). If the Apostles wanted us to believe in the Immaculate Conception, Original Sin (as Augustine understood it), Papal Infallibility and the Atonement (as Anselm understood it), then the Apostles would have taught these doctrines, not expected us to discover them hundreds of years later.
Catholics would quite likely say that these doctrines existed all along, if only in a less understood form. I am troubled by this, however. What is to stop the Church from developing a doctrine in the next few years that says women have no souls? Then, apologists could dig up some quotes (some direct, some extremely implicit) from a few Early Church Fathers and then say this doctrine was believed all along. This is an extreme example, of course, and I definitely donāt think this will ever happen. However, I do wonder what the limits are, if any, on the development of doctrine.
Of course, the key issue here is whether the Pope is supposed to have supremacy over all other bishops. If that is the case, then the Catholic Church truly is the one true Church, and all who are separated from the Popeās authority need to come back under it. However, it is not apparent that this was the case in the early days. Sure, people can produce numerous quotes in support of papal supremacy, but despite the beliefs of some, papal supremacy does not seem to have been a universally held doctrine. When the Christians in four patriarchates went one way, and the Christians in the remaining patriarchate went another, there doesnāt seem to be much crisis in the East. They went on as they always had. If papal supremacy was universally held, wouldnāt there have been a massive outcry, with numerous Eastern bishops demanding a return to papal authority?
And the Orthodox would likely say that, with all due respect, St. Augustine was wrong on this point. They would probably also say that the Catholic Church has a troubling tendency to turn the theories of individual theologians into binding doctrines which must be held by the whole Church.
I should close this post by saying that the more I study Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the more I see the similarities, rather than the differences. I pray for eventual reunification.
God bless!
Which Church does satan fear most.
Which Church has satan tried to bring down, by way of heresies and such, thru time and continues to attack.
L
Leon_Miguel
Guest
There are some good comparisons between the āwrath of Godā atonement and the ārestoration of fallen Manā atonement at catholic-legate.com/ (apologetics ā salvation). The wrath type analogies have some merit in that Godās infinite justice is not compromised but it becomes easy to forget Godās infinite love if you only know this aspect of Christās atonement.This is the second time Iāve heard of someone assigning this modern Protestant spin to Catholic theology.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
The Iambic Pen:
Think just for a second what āwhole church approvalā implies. The laity NEVER have a vote at an Ecumenical Council - even the EO acknowledge that truth. Voting at Ecumenical Councils is reserved to bishops ALONE. Always has been that way, and always will be that way. Thus, if the āwhole churchā must āapproveā the decrees of an Ecumenical Council, then that means that the EO must believe that laity have primacy, since the laity is ultimately going to approve or disapprove what their bishops teach. The laity have the final say as to the validity of the decrees promulgated at an Ecumenical Council, and that inescapably means that the laity, not the bishops, have primacy in the EO Church.
The EO doctrine about the necessity of the laity giving their āapprovalā to the teachings of bishops at an Ecumenical Council is utter nonsense, but the EO will never admit it, since they had to make up this incoherent doctrine on the fly to justify their rebellion and rejection of Petrine Primacy. In this respect, the EO are no different than any other Protestant sect.
No, that would be foolish ā throwing away a thousand years of infallible teaching just because the EO and the OO have fallen into schism. Ever since the EO fell into schism, their bishops have never held an Ecumenical Council. How can they? The EO have been planning the āeighthā Ecumenical Council for ages, and if they hold such a Council it will expose the rebellious nature of the Orthodox. The EO vehemently insist that after an Ecumenical Council is held, the decrees promulgated by the Ecumenical Council must by āapprovedā by the āwhole churchā. But no one in the EO knows what that means, or how such āwhole churchā approval is given. Nor is there any shred of evidence that the Church Fathers of the first seven Ecumenical Councils ever believed that decrees of Ecumenical Councils needed to be āapprovedā by the āwhole churchā.
Think just for a second what āwhole church approvalā implies. The laity NEVER have a vote at an Ecumenical Council - even the EO acknowledge that truth. Voting at Ecumenical Councils is reserved to bishops ALONE. Always has been that way, and always will be that way. Thus, if the āwhole churchā must āapproveā the decrees of an Ecumenical Council, then that means that the EO must believe that laity have primacy, since the laity is ultimately going to approve or disapprove what their bishops teach. The laity have the final say as to the validity of the decrees promulgated at an Ecumenical Council, and that inescapably means that the laity, not the bishops, have primacy in the EO Church.
The EO doctrine about the necessity of the laity giving their āapprovalā to the teachings of bishops at an Ecumenical Council is utter nonsense, but the EO will never admit it, since they had to make up this incoherent doctrine on the fly to justify their rebellion and rejection of Petrine Primacy. In this respect, the EO are no different than any other Protestant sect.
J
jimmy
Guest
I admit that I have been having a similar problem lately. I have been thinking about it for a while and trying to solve things in my mind. I have to get my problems off my chest to someone, I have been afraid to write them or mention them to anyone ever since they occured to me. I will give you guys my problems and maybe you can help me solve them.
I see problems with the current situation with the liturgy, the way the Church has completely secularized itself, the lack of belief from the laity, and etc.
I am also having some problems with the pope(not this one particularly). I look at the whole office of the pope and I canāt help but think, 'did Christ want one man in that position? The pope is just a man, he sins, and consequently he should be living a simple life. Instead he is put on a pedastal and he lives in a palace. He has all these titles that elevate him even more." It seems contrary to Christianity.
I also have a couple problems with doctrinal things. I really donāt like the atonement. I find it to not have an ounce of love in it on Gods part. The idea that mankind must pay a price or debt seems to contradict the unity and nature of God. I also dislike things like indulgences because they seem to go against all that the Catholic Church teaches. It also seems rather legalistic. If I do this one thing, say pray to Mary on a certain day - as the pope prescribed for the Immaculate Conception - I will recieve an indulgence for so many days.
I am also having problems with the fasting. I have problems with the idea that the Catholic Church called it a mortal sin for someone to not fast on a Friday without a good reason before Vatican II. This is still the case, but it is not talked about. It seems to me to be pharisaic, sinners puting burdens on other people and calling them sinners if they donāt fullfull it. It also seems to go blatantly against what Paul said, that you should not judge another person whether he fasts or not.
On the other hand I also have a problem with the complete destruction of the fasts. They have gradually completely destroyed the fasts. It used to be that all of Christendom would fast every Wednesday and Friday. That was changed in the west. In the 1950ās Pope Pius XII changed the Sunday fast from midnight to 3 hours before recieving communion. Vatican II further destroyed that and said that it is now only 1 hour. I am also pretty sure that fasting used to include be from fish as well. This destruction has destroyed the fasting of all the rites within Catholicism. If you go to a Maronite church website you will see priests suggesting people fast during lent just on Friday from meet. THey donāt mention anything about the traditional Maronite fast. Same thing happens with Byzantine churches. The traditional fast for these rites is from all meat and meat products for all of lent, every single day of the week.
I also see a problem with the modern Catholic Church preaching a social gospel. Instead of focusing on heaven they focus on making this world perfect. Every ounce of energy is spent speaking about the problems with Europe and the United States secularization. Those are problems but why not deal with the problems of Christians? Like getting them to seperate themselves from this world rather than make them a part of it.
The liturgy is the center of Christian life. It is the source which spreads to the rest of our lives and nurishes us. The Catholic Church has completely destroyed the liturgy. They have removed all awe from it. You go to Mass and you are not inspired to show reverence, you show reverence because of what you know the Mass is supposed to be. It used to be more of God bringing man up to Him, now it is centered around God coming down to man.
[Continued]
I see problems with the current situation with the liturgy, the way the Church has completely secularized itself, the lack of belief from the laity, and etc.
I am also having some problems with the pope(not this one particularly). I look at the whole office of the pope and I canāt help but think, 'did Christ want one man in that position? The pope is just a man, he sins, and consequently he should be living a simple life. Instead he is put on a pedastal and he lives in a palace. He has all these titles that elevate him even more." It seems contrary to Christianity.
I also have a couple problems with doctrinal things. I really donāt like the atonement. I find it to not have an ounce of love in it on Gods part. The idea that mankind must pay a price or debt seems to contradict the unity and nature of God. I also dislike things like indulgences because they seem to go against all that the Catholic Church teaches. It also seems rather legalistic. If I do this one thing, say pray to Mary on a certain day - as the pope prescribed for the Immaculate Conception - I will recieve an indulgence for so many days.
I am also having problems with the fasting. I have problems with the idea that the Catholic Church called it a mortal sin for someone to not fast on a Friday without a good reason before Vatican II. This is still the case, but it is not talked about. It seems to me to be pharisaic, sinners puting burdens on other people and calling them sinners if they donāt fullfull it. It also seems to go blatantly against what Paul said, that you should not judge another person whether he fasts or not.
On the other hand I also have a problem with the complete destruction of the fasts. They have gradually completely destroyed the fasts. It used to be that all of Christendom would fast every Wednesday and Friday. That was changed in the west. In the 1950ās Pope Pius XII changed the Sunday fast from midnight to 3 hours before recieving communion. Vatican II further destroyed that and said that it is now only 1 hour. I am also pretty sure that fasting used to include be from fish as well. This destruction has destroyed the fasting of all the rites within Catholicism. If you go to a Maronite church website you will see priests suggesting people fast during lent just on Friday from meet. THey donāt mention anything about the traditional Maronite fast. Same thing happens with Byzantine churches. The traditional fast for these rites is from all meat and meat products for all of lent, every single day of the week.
I also see a problem with the modern Catholic Church preaching a social gospel. Instead of focusing on heaven they focus on making this world perfect. Every ounce of energy is spent speaking about the problems with Europe and the United States secularization. Those are problems but why not deal with the problems of Christians? Like getting them to seperate themselves from this world rather than make them a part of it.
The liturgy is the center of Christian life. It is the source which spreads to the rest of our lives and nurishes us. The Catholic Church has completely destroyed the liturgy. They have removed all awe from it. You go to Mass and you are not inspired to show reverence, you show reverence because of what you know the Mass is supposed to be. It used to be more of God bringing man up to Him, now it is centered around God coming down to man.
[Continued]
J
jimmy
Guest
I am strugling with the development of doctrine. It is almost like the Church has a right to develop its doctrine. Theologians think and try to solve problems and add to what they have. It is taken by other theologians and it eventually becomes official doctrine. There is almost a necessity to define new doctrines. In the 1850ās the pope defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption in the 1950ās. Why was it necessary to define this? How does it affect our faith. Not all the saints believed it. It is almost like the past Christians like Aquinas and Augustine and Ignatius had an insufficient faith. We declare what they had as insufficient and not fully Catholic. Things just keep building and building and there is no stoping.
I have a problem with the way they use logic sometimes to say it must be this way and it can be no other way. For example, they define purgatory based on the fact that the early Christians taught prayer for those who have died. But it does not automatically follow that since they prayed for the dead they believed in purgatory. Maybe it is as the Eastern Orthodox St. Mark of Ephesus said.
Just as a clarification; I have no problem with the idea that Mary was sinless and assumed into heaven, I believe it. I do have a problem with it being defined though because it limited the theology. Mary was granted a special grace where she did not have Original Sin. What is so meritorious about her not sinning if she was granted a special grace(at conception so there was no thought of free will in the matter) that no one else recieved? Why honor her in a special way? I think honoring Mary is a good thing so donāt jump on me and try to teach me about honoring Mary. I also have no problem with purgatory, I have a problem with them defining it because they completely limited the theology and consequently may have led to error on an issue that they have no idea about because it has not been revealed in scripture and God did not reveal it to man.
I also have a problem with the western view of sin. It is so much focused on one point in time. If I sin this once I am damned to hell if I donāt repent. I think the east views it more as a way of life; you are either living in sin or you are living according to God. We are all living in sin to a relative degree but our job is to seperate ourselves from our sinfull actions and live according to God. In the west with the mortal vs. venal sin distinction you have this idea that it is about a single point in time. If I commit a sin, I am no longer in the state of grace. I once read a short quote from Cardinal Hussar in which he contrasted the eastern view of confession versus the western view of confession. He said that when a person walks into the confessional in the west they start out by saying, ābless me father, for I have sinnedā. In the east they say, ābless me father for I am a sinner.ā In this statement by the Cardinal you can see what I am trying to say. The eastern view of confession is more an element of healing(forgiveness is still probably an element of it as well) for the way you are living. In the west it is simply you go and confess each thing you have done and your sins are forgiven.
My whole theology has been drifting more towards an eastern Christian viewpoint.
Those are the problems I have, hopefully you guys can help me solve them. There might be others but that is what I see right now. I have been strugling with them for the last 4 or 5 months. I was struggling with the Eastern Orthodox before that but it was off and on; I would see a problem and I would solve it in my mind. I donāt know all the issues perfectly though. To tell the truth, I need to do a lot of studying on both sides before I can come to a conclusion.
I have a problem with the way they use logic sometimes to say it must be this way and it can be no other way. For example, they define purgatory based on the fact that the early Christians taught prayer for those who have died. But it does not automatically follow that since they prayed for the dead they believed in purgatory. Maybe it is as the Eastern Orthodox St. Mark of Ephesus said.
Just as a clarification; I have no problem with the idea that Mary was sinless and assumed into heaven, I believe it. I do have a problem with it being defined though because it limited the theology. Mary was granted a special grace where she did not have Original Sin. What is so meritorious about her not sinning if she was granted a special grace(at conception so there was no thought of free will in the matter) that no one else recieved? Why honor her in a special way? I think honoring Mary is a good thing so donāt jump on me and try to teach me about honoring Mary. I also have no problem with purgatory, I have a problem with them defining it because they completely limited the theology and consequently may have led to error on an issue that they have no idea about because it has not been revealed in scripture and God did not reveal it to man.
I also have a problem with the western view of sin. It is so much focused on one point in time. If I sin this once I am damned to hell if I donāt repent. I think the east views it more as a way of life; you are either living in sin or you are living according to God. We are all living in sin to a relative degree but our job is to seperate ourselves from our sinfull actions and live according to God. In the west with the mortal vs. venal sin distinction you have this idea that it is about a single point in time. If I commit a sin, I am no longer in the state of grace. I once read a short quote from Cardinal Hussar in which he contrasted the eastern view of confession versus the western view of confession. He said that when a person walks into the confessional in the west they start out by saying, ābless me father, for I have sinnedā. In the east they say, ābless me father for I am a sinner.ā In this statement by the Cardinal you can see what I am trying to say. The eastern view of confession is more an element of healing(forgiveness is still probably an element of it as well) for the way you are living. In the west it is simply you go and confess each thing you have done and your sins are forgiven.
My whole theology has been drifting more towards an eastern Christian viewpoint.
Those are the problems I have, hopefully you guys can help me solve them. There might be others but that is what I see right now. I have been strugling with them for the last 4 or 5 months. I was struggling with the Eastern Orthodox before that but it was off and on; I would see a problem and I would solve it in my mind. I donāt know all the issues perfectly though. To tell the truth, I need to do a lot of studying on both sides before I can come to a conclusion.
J
jimmy
Guest
I know exactly how you feel. I have been struggling with it for a couple months now. I have spent a lot of nights just lying in bed just thinking about what if I am in the wrong church, what if the east is correct.
J
jimmy
Guest
I am a maronite Catholic. Its nothing to do with the spirituality, liturgy or prayers.
I am maronite as well. I follow the latin rite though/
I guess im stuck on; purgatory, pope being who he is now, mortal/venial sin, immaculate conception, indulgences, and the theology of Jesus appeasing the fathers anger as opposed to the Orthodox view of Christ conquering death once and for all.
:bigyikes: :bigyikes: Brother, I honestly am having the same exact problems you are having, as you can read from my previous posts. You have described me so far with you being a maronite and having pretty much the same problems as me.
J
jimmy
Guest
Read Robert Sungenisā(There is no way he can be accused of being a protestant, he is a pretty conservative Catholic) description of the atonement on his website. I read it and I couldnāt help but think :bigyikes:. I read that article and that was the beginning of my problems. If that is the Catholic teaching I canāt just invent my own theological viewpoint in opposition to it. I believe this is the link.This is the second time Iāve heard of someone assigning this modern Protestant spin to Catholic theology.
Where are you getting this misinformation?
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/christiology/gibson-atonement1.htm
I have been over there. I have noticed what you notice. They usually misunderstand Catholic teaching and it seems they donāt care if they misrepresent it but I have to look past that. Most of my problems stem from problems that I see within the Catholic Church, not what they point out to me. Granted, they have had great influence on how my views have developed. I have constantly been trying to examine and evaluate what I believe and it has drifted somewhat toward an eastern perspective.Have you been reading the Eastern Christianity forums? I used to read those too. The posters over there can be persuasive, but after interacting enough, I recognized several instances in which an Orthodox poster was deliberately misrepresenting the Church to cast our teachings in a negative light and on other occasions deliberately misrepresenting an Orthodox position which would have cast the Orthodox in a negative light. I thought, if they need to resort to deception, are they really teaching truth?
You may enjoy Philip Blosserās blog. He writes a lot about the Great Schism and the papacy:
www.catholictradition.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_catholictradition_archive.htm l
I hope you find his blog useful and enjoyable in your search for truth.
J
jimmy
Guest
:bigyikes: Brother, are you my other personality?
It seems like I am discussing this with myself. Maybe I donāt want to read anymore because this is getting quite strange. Sungenis has given me some problems.
J
jimmy
Guest
His book on the Eucharist is considered to be a great book of Catholic apologetics. It does emphasize a view like what magic mentions.
L
Leon_Miguel
Guest
Remember that the church is much bigger than a single author or theologian, no matter how skilled they may be - even Aquinas and Augustine held opinions that were later corrected.
Do you think that some of your issues may be spiritual overload - you have written a lot and have obviously read a lot but sometimes there is a need to take a step back and let God work in you rather than trying to solve and understand everything at once. Perhaps a spiritual director may be able to settle some of your concerns.
As for your comments about the laxity of the church, I think you will find this useful catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0133.html
- Status