Illiteracy and salvation

[Rdunbar123]

I have posted thi on several forums. We all read and try to understand what is true, but what about people who can’t read? My wife and I are trying to discern between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. My wife has macular degeneration. And even if you can read it seems from reading this and other forums that to really discern the truth, you would have to read all the documents in the original languages. Barring that, all you can do is trust someone and judge each church by it’s history and actions. I am very confused how people people of goodwill on the sites can be in such violent disagreement.

 

[Bluegoat]

You know, I think you have kind of hit the nail on the head. The fact is, many people are simply not in a position to go into great detail about the history of the Early Church and various theological controversies. Even great scholars can’t come up with slam-dunk arguments about these things.

Of course through most of history, people haven’t really had much choice either.

I would say, attend the services of both. It says you are Catholic on your profile, so I am guessing you are farmiliar with the Catholic Church. Try going to an Orthodox Church, ideally more than once. Long enough that the service isn’t totally foreign and you feel you can follow along.

Where do you see Christ being worshiped and taught most effectively? Where do you feel you are really most in Christ’s Church?

Also, if you can, it might be good to visit in more than one church, as in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy you can get a priest who is a bit of a dud or a congregation which is not very friendly.

 

[Alpine_Meadow]

Where do you see Christ being worshiped and taught most effectively? Where do you feel you are really most in Christ’s Church?

Cheers

Objective truth is beyond feelings.

The Catholic Church teaches that the “fullness” of God’s Revelation and the means of sanctification are to be found in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Catholics are called to defend this truth by God’s grace, even unto death.

At the same time, the Catholic Church recognizes the extremely close relationship it has with the Orthodox Churches in belief and worship. Many saints are common to both.

Let us continue to pray for full union…

God bless,
AM

 

[Hecares]

It’s good to see you trying to think things through. I hope you are doing so prayerfully. If you and your wife are searching together, I think it would be wonderful if you read to her on occasion. You don’t need to read all the documents mentioned on this site. I consider the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be the two most important sources. I use the catechism as a resource. If I have a question, I look there for the answer. If something interests me, I read about it there.

It’s important to remember when using this site that there are many learned people here; but there are many who are just expressing their own prejudices, or uninformed opinions. sometimes it’s hard to know what to believe. It’s a place for people to talk about their ideas and thoughts and they aren’t always accurate.

I will keep you in my prayers as you search. God bless you both

 

[Bluegoat]

Cheers

Objective truth is beyond feelings.

The Catholic Church teaches that the “fullness” of God’s Revelation and the means of sanctification are to be found in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Catholics are called to defend this truth by God’s grace, even unto death.

At the same time, the Catholic Church recognizes the extremely close relationship it has with the Orthodox Churches in belief and worship. Many saints are common to both.

Let us continue to pray for full union…

God bless,
AM

Did you read the OP?

I have no issue with people going deep into theology and history. But the OP is correct - many people do not have that option. And in the end, it won’t give you the answer anyway. It will cut out some of the possibilities, but it can’t tell you for sure if any one church is the “True” Church, or which one.

In the end, you have to experience Christ’s Church. You are right that doesn’t mean allowing personal feelings and emotion to dictate the answer, it means looking for the place where Christ is being taught and worshiped in spirit and truth.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have posted thi on several forums. We all read and try to understand what is true, but what about people who can’t read? My .

since for hundreds of years most Christians could not read, nor could those who were being evangelized, this is not a problem for anyone. They heard the message proclaimed, they were not required to read anything. That is still the case. The readings at Mass are meant to be proclaimed and heard, not read, as is the teaching and all the prayers. That is also why elements of the faith were simplified into catechisms and taught by rote almost up to the middle of the last century. It is also why parishes try to have deaf interpreters for those who need them.

I don’t know about this forum but I have worked with several blind persons–several who had highly demanding technical jobs–and they managed by using programs that translate and broadcast the computer site content. One at TRW actually designed one of the first such programs. I imagine those are much more sophisticated, widely available and cheaper than in my day. Any techies here able to help?

I will also add some of the best catechetical and apologetics resources are available on CD and the CA homepage store can give you good help there.

No Catholic is required to read scripture or anything else in its original language, we have the Church to do that and to translate and transmit that information to us. The only people who need to go that route are those studying to assist the Church in that work, or those who reject the authority of the Church and insist on knowing and interpreting the wisdom of several thousand years on their own bat.

 

[Rdunbar123]

I am a cradle catholic 61 yrs old and have felt lost although practicing since VII. most of the posters that answer my original post are operating from the basic assumption that the RC church is the “true church” and recommend reading from their sources. what I have been doing is reading chuch history(Eusebius) for example and the cannons of the first Ecumenical councils of the Undivided church, and can find no evidence to judge why the Roman church is the correct one. Good argurments are made on both sides. It really boils down to authority, does the pope have the last say and complete control over the Bishops(including the ability to dipose and select) or not. The only power granted by the canons of the first councils that I could find is that the bishop of rome is the source of appeal for a diposed bishop and the only power granted to him is the ability to order a new trial. New bishops even in the Catholic church until VI in the nineteenth century were select by other bishops, installed and the name sent to rome . The VI changed the rules to where the Pope selected(at least this is my understanding). I know that church Fathers(depending on which one you select) can go etiher way on Papal authority, besides Fathers do not carry the weight of scripture or canons. Also quotes from the minutes of councils do not count(IMO) as it would be like quoting a congressional debate as law.

I have found a Western Rite orthodox parish I am attending that uses basically the english version of the pre-VII mass. But I wish I could end my confusion simply. I am praying about it… One other thing I found strange is the Orthodox don’t allow open communion with the Roman Catholic church while we allow Orthodox to commune, but advise them to follow the discipline of their own churches. Sorry for the rambling but I am not much of a linear thinker considering I am an engineer.

 

[Bluegoat]

I have found a Western Rite orthodox parish I am attending that uses basically the english version of the pre-VII mass. But I wish I could end my confusion simply. I am praying about it… One other thing I found strange is the Orthodox don’t allow open communion with the Roman Catholic church while we allow Orthodox to commune, but advise them to follow the discipline of their own churches. Sorry for the rambling but I am not much of a linear thinker considering I am an engineer.

No worries about the rambling. I have actually found that many engineers and similar types of professions approach theology the way you are. As someone who studied classics, it is, I think, very similar to the way I would approach a kind of engineering project - I’d muddle about with the bits, do a bit of reading, get it together in a way that seemed to make sense, and then see if it fell down.

Your thoughts are similar to mine on this. The canons are pretty clear, and the Fathers unclear. However, the Fathers were writing about the papacy following the canons you describe, and some of the same ones who wrote favorably about the papacy even had occasion to disagree with it on practical issues. And then, the period where you see the papacy become more powerful is the same time that you get other innovative doctrines as well as the Protestant reformations. So personally, I find the Orthodox position much much stronger.

But it is unlikely you are going to get 100% surety on this kind of thing. It’s history, and so we can’t know it like we can know a philosophic or mathematical principle, or something we have experienced personally. I assume God did it this way on purpose, and not just to be maddening.

Some people do always feel unsure about these things, or restless where they are - I’m like that and it can be a bit of a curse. If you are worshiping in a good place though, it may be best to stay with that rather than to constantly look at other things. Doing so can prevent you from really settling in where you are now.

 

[exnihilo]

Your thoughts are similar to mine on this. The canons are pretty clear, and the Fathers unclear. However, the Fathers were writing about the papacy following the canons you describe, and some of the same ones who wrote favorably about the papacy even had occasion to disagree with it on practical issues. And then, the period where you see the papacy become more powerful is the same time that you get other innovative doctrines as well as the Protestant reformations.

I am in the same boat. What is interesting to me is that some of the biggest disagreements Protestants would have with Rome are matters defined or formalized after the Reformation. I do believe that historically many doctrines have been defined when there was great disagreement, or heresy. If I ever am convinced this is what Rome has done then I’ll know what I must do.

But it is unlikely you are going to get 100% surety on this kind of thing. It’s history, and so we can’t know it like we can know a philosophic or mathematical principle, or something we have experienced personally. I assume God did it this way on purpose, and not just to be maddening.

Some people do always feel unsure about these things, or restless where they are - I’m like that and it can be a bit of a curse. If you are worshiping in a good place though, it may be best to stay with that rather than to constantly look at other things. Doing so can prevent you from really settling in where you are now.

It is a blessing and a curse. I’ve never had an issue with the problem of evil. What I do struggle with is the problem of certainty. I know I expect too much. But it can be tormenting to expect to be so sure. I believe in good faith I want to know the truth and am making an effort to find it. But the truth and certainty are two different things. I stay where I am now because I dont want to be jumping around - especially if I cant find peace with lack of complete certainty.

 

[akasseb]

My wife and I are trying to discern between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

What do you see as the major strengths and weaknesses of the two choices before you?

Obviously, I believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Faith. Likewise, I see several major weaknesses in Orthodoxy. First of all, Christ desired the salvation of everyone, and instituted a Church that was to be universal in both space and time. What we find in Orthodoxy is a collection of churches essentially defined by political borders. Secondly, we find the problem of Caesaropapism. So while they reject the idea of the Pope as held in the West, they accepted historically the idea of secular rulers also being religious leaders (see the case of Russia). So, when Henry VIII made himself the de facto head of the Church in England he was not inventing something new. Thirdly, the major point of contention is over the authority of the Pope (I know there are doctrinal and disciplinary issues as well). But in the Early Church we find many Greek Fathers recognizing the Primacy of the See of Peter. Fourthly, huge areas of the East were in heresy for long periods of time. And fifthly, are the auxiliary considerations. For example, science developed in the West and not in the East. Science in the East hardly progressed from that of the ancient Greek philosophers. This is not a motive of credibility for the Faith.

I could go on.

 

[yablabo]

I have posted thi on several forums. We all read and try to understand what is true, but what about people who can’t read? My wife and I are trying to discern between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. My wife has macular degeneration. And even if you can read it seems from reading this and other forums that to really discern the truth, you would have to read all the documents in the original languages. Barring that, all you can do is trust someone and judge each church by it’s history and actions. I am very confused how people people of goodwill on the sites can be in such violent disagreement.

Hi, Rdunbar,

The Council of Trent teaches us most explicitly what is necessary to prepare one’s self for Justification in it’s sixth session:

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised, - and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

Faith can be conceived by hearing. One need not read the documents one’s self, as long as one has a live person in authority to give one the binding doctrine in word. One need not even read the documents in the original language unless there is some good reason to doubt the translation one has.

As far as judging each “church” by its history, one would have to take into consideration many things: martyrs, miracles, infallibility, fulfillment of prophecy, etc. This means that unless the “finger of God” is pointing toward a “church” in some sensibly perceivable way…one should run far, far away from such an organization. The “finger of God” is sensed most clearly in miracles, that is, actions both outside the ordinary laws of nature and only possible for God to do.

Best wishes for you and your wife.

– Nicole Smith

 

[Rdunbar123]

Most people on all websites start out by basing arguments on assumptions they use as proof. For instance quoting the council of Trent assumes that the person you are trying to convince accepts it as an ecumenical council. In that case they are already convinced the catholic church is the true church. Circular reasoning. What is key is did the Pope exert universal authority in the early undivied church?

 

[yablabo]

Most people on all websites start out by basing arguments on assumptions they use as proof. For instance quoting the council of Trent assumes that the person you are trying to convince accepts it as an ecumenical council. In that case they are already convinced the catholic church is the true church. Circular reasoning. What is key is did the Pope exert universal authority in the early undivied church?

The question in my eyes wasn’t regarding whether you accepted the Council of Trent as authoritative or not, it was that you wanted to know what the Catholic Church taught regarding actually having to read the doctrine yourself (or your wife’s self).

The Pope did exert universal authority right back to St. Peter, the foundation of the Church in the foundation of Christ. Whether you accept the authority of the author of the treatises or not, St. Francis de Sales lays out a wonderful exposition using history and scripture to show this fact in a book (a compilation of the treatises) you can get through either Catholic Treasures or TANBooks, probably even through a library exchange program. It is called The Catholic Controversy. It’s a very easy read, and not too awfully long. I would say that if you’re interested in the book and get ahold of it, skip through all the introductions and prefaces and read the actual work first. It’s very informative.

I hope the best for you and your wife.

– Nicole