Long one

[booyakasha]

Ok,

So I haven’t been to mass in a long time, and here is why:

There are a lot of confusing issues to me, lets start with the first one:

The role of the pope. 2 of these things that fall into this category are the college of cardinals and papal infallibility.

The first question being, when did the pope before the schism ever use papal infallibility, and when if at anytime did the whole church acknowledge the Pope as the father of the entire church? (I was going to an orthodox church for a while, but have stopped going there as well). From the way that I have been taught, the Bishop of Rome was considered the first among equals, and the holy spirit was used by the holy synod, not just the pope alone.

Without the schism happening, would there be a college of Cardinals, as that also seems to be another fairly modern invention within the church of Rome as well.

Another one would have to be original sin. I understand the negative effects caused by original sin, but I don’t understand how the entire human race would be present the entire time, thus causing everyone to have a “stain” of sin, thus causing unbaptized children to be subject to hell or what not. How can one man be responsible for the sin of another?

Then there is the question of Purgatory. From what I understand, the Jews never really believed in Purgatory either, and their view of Hell wasn’t really full of flames and what not until they mixed their beliefs with people in the Hellenic region.

Finally, in the West, how is God perceived? is he just some guy in the sky with a beard? Is he viewed in the light of a hesychasts teaching? or??

Well these are some of my questions, please don’t ask me to read a book.

Thank you,

J

 

[judechild]

I’m just going to address the “how is God percieved” bit; not that the others aren’t important too. In the Catholic Church, as in the the Orthodox Church, we see God as a Trinity of Persons. Basically, this means that God is three individual persons Who are united by one divine nature in such a profound way that there is still only one God. What exactly this unifying property is, is not perfectly understood, but it has been speculated that God the Father’s Love for God the Son, and the return of that Love, is so strong that that Love is another Person - God the Holy Spirit. God is, literally, Love.

 

[1ke]

Let me suggest the book Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed. This book will help you with these questions.

 

[JRKH]

Ok,

So I haven’t been to mass in a long time, and here is why:

There are a lot of confusing issues to me, lets start with the first one:

The role of the pope. 2 of these things that fall into this category are the college of cardinals and papal infallibility.

The first question being, when did the pope before the schism ever use papal infallibility, and when if at anytime did the whole church acknowledge the Pope as the father of the entire church? (I was going to an orthodox church for a while, but have stopped going there as well). From the way that I have been taught, the Bishop of Rome was considered the first among equals, and the holy spirit was used by the holy synod, not just the pope alone.

Without the schism happening, would there be a college of Cardinals, as that also seems to be another fairly modern invention within the church of Rome as well.

Another one would have to be original sin. I understand the negative effects caused by original sin, but I don’t understand how the entire human race would be present the entire time, thus causing everyone to have a “stain” of sin, thus causing unbaptized children to be subject to hell or what not. How can one man be responsible for the sin of another?

Then there is the question of Purgatory. From what I understand, the Jews never really believed in Purgatory either, and their view of Hell wasn’t really full of flames and what not until they mixed their beliefs with people in the Hellenic region.

Finally, in the West, how is God perceived? is he just some guy in the sky with a beard? Is he viewed in the light of a hesychasts teaching? or??

Well these are some of my questions, please don’t ask me to read a book.

Thank you,

J

First of all I would like some clarification.

1. Why would any of these “technical” questions" keep you from going to mass?
2. Why are you opposed to reading a book if recommended?

There ar many wonderful people here who likely can help you but the best way to learn is to read offical Church documents such as the Catechism etc.

Peace
James

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ok,

So I haven’t been to mass in a long time, and here is why:

There are a lot of confusing issues to me, lets start with the first one:

The role of the pope. 2 of these things that fall into this category are the college of cardinals and papal infallibility.

The first question being, when did the pope before the schism ever use papal infallibility, and when if at anytime did the whole church acknowledge the Pope as the father of the entire church? (I was going to an orthodox church for a while, but have stopped going there as well). From the way that I have been taught, the Bishop of Rome was considered the first among equals, and the holy spirit was used by the holy synod, not just the pope alone.

Without the schism happening, would there be a college of Cardinals, as that also seems to be another fairly modern invention within the church of Rome as well.

Another one would have to be original sin. I understand the negative effects caused by original sin, but I don’t understand how the entire human race would be present the entire time, thus causing everyone to have a “stain” of sin, thus causing unbaptized children to be subject to hell or what not. How can one man be responsible for the sin of another?

An illustration:​

• A woman has a drug habit
• woman conceives
• foetus is harmed by drugs taken by the mother
• foetus is born without arms
• the foetus, by being “in” its cause, the mother
• is affected by what its mother does while it was still unborn
• even though it did not take the drugs

The dogma of OS uses more or less the same kind of argument as that used by the writer to the Hebrews when this writer sets out to prove that the priesthood of Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood.

• Levi was the ancestor of the priests
• Levi was “in the loins of Abraham”
• Abraham paid tithes to the priest-king Melchizedek (who is a figure of Christ)
• This shows that Abraham acknowledged Melchizedek as his superior
• therefore his great-grandson Levi, who was yet to be born & was thus “in the loins of Abraham”, paid tithes to Melchizedek
• therefore Levi is inferior to Melchizedek
• therefore Levi is inferior to Jesus whom Melchizedek typified
• therefore Levi’s priesthood was inferior to that whichChristians were claiming for Jesus
• therefore Jesus is eternally high priest.

So, thinking in rather similar fashion:

• OS is the personal act of Adam alone
• But his descendants (= the entire human race) were “in Adam”
• so the** guilt of his act** is passed on to all of them
• so they come into the world
• not in the state that they should have
• but maimed, poisoned by the “drug” of his sin.

When a man drowns because he can’t swim, the whole man drowns, not just the parts of him that would be used for swimming. Adam drowned totally - so we, who were “in” him, drowned totally. If a man is shot in the head and dies, all of him, not his head alone, dies. Adam was our head in sin - so we die too.

OS reflects the very strong tendency in Biblical thought that sees individuals as members of a larger whole - this is why the entire family suffers in Joshua 7, for example. Biblical thought does not think of man as a totally private individual - but that is very often how people think today. The dogma of OS is based on an idea that is often alien in Western society, so we have to recapture not only a dogma, but a way of thinking as well.

Others will tell you more. Hope that helps.

Then there is the question of Purgatory. From what I understand, the Jews never really believed in Purgatory either, and their view of Hell wasn’t really full of flames and what not until they mixed their beliefs with people in the Hellenic region.

Finally, in the West, how is God perceived? is he just some guy in the sky with a beard? Is he viewed in the light of a hesychasts teaching? or??

I’ll assume that second question is meant as a joke ​

Well these are some of my questions, please don’t ask me to read a book.

Thank you,

J

What’s wrong with books ?​

 

[FCEGM]

. . .Well these are some of my questions, please don’t ask me to read a book.

Thank you,

J

What’s wrong with books?

J, here are some online articles that may be helpful to you:

catholic-legate.com/articles/councilchalcedon.html

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm

 

[Mark77]

Your first question; "The role of the pope. 2 of these things that fall into this category are the college of cardinals and papal infallibility.

The first question being, when did the pope before the schism ever use papal infallibility, and when if at anytime did the whole church acknowledge the Pope as the father of the entire church? (I was going to an orthodox church for a while, but have stopped going there as well). From the way that I have been taught, the Bishop of Rome was considered the first among equals, and the holy spirit was used by the holy synod, not just the pope alone.

Without the schism happening, would there be a college of Cardinals, as that also seems to be another fairly modern invention within the church of Rome as well."

Many of the teachings of the Church were the result of “Schisms” or “Heresies”. These challenges resulted in clearly defining Truths, like the canon of the Bible, the Trinity, etc.

These things were always true, but not clearly defined or understood until the Church declared them as Truths in order to clarify theses issues.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[booyakasha]

What is wrong with books? Nothing is wrong with books. I would just rather have a discussion than read a book. Every time I’ve tried to talk about how I’ve felt with all of this, everyone has just asked me to read a book on something I’ve read about before. That’s all really lol.

Yes the white beard thing was really meant as a joke.

The main reason I stopped going to mass is because of all of these questions I had. I feel like I couldn’t consciously participate in something that I am not that sure of, as far as teaching goes. It’d be like a Louis Farrakhan at a Klan rally or something lol.
My family are pretty traditional. I started going to mass with them. I decided to leave my communion with their church because I didn’t believe the pope was a masonic communist jew who wanted to destroy the church. I then started going to a parish in communion with Rome, and thought I was at a Baptist youth concert. Things were very strange to me, and I really didn’t know how to take any of it. So I did more research and decided to give Orthodoxy a shot.

I got cold feet right before I was about to get Christmated. I started going again to mass, and thought that I had found a decent enough parish, until they tell me things like “oh don’t check out books before 1968, because that was before Vatican 2” blah blah blah. I get so tired of that.

I’ve read a little about Islam and Judaism to make sure that I was even in the right belief system. Sometimes I don’t even think there is a God. This has been going on for years for me, and at one point, I got really sick because of all of this. I’d really just like to know that I would be making the right decision if I started going back to mass, that’s all.

 

[losh14]

The role of the pope. 2 of these things that fall into this category are the college of cardinals and papal infallibility.

The first question being, when did the pope before the schism ever use papal infallibility,

Papal infallibility - that the Pope speaks without flaw when he speaks on a matter of faith in his capacity as successor to Peter and representative of Christ on earth - was not defined until the 19th century, but we do see from the early days of the Church where the Pope has annunciated the position of the Church.

When we say a doctrine is “defined” we mean that we put a mental construct around it and declared what it was. That doesn’t mean the doctrine didn’t exist - note that God was believed to be Trinitarian in form from the 1st century, even though the doctrine of the Trinity was never actually defined in Scripture.

Papal infallibility, as a mental construct, became defined following centuries of back and forth between the Pope and the College of Cardinals. Prior to the Council of Trent, the Cardinals and Pope were seen as peers, and it was inconceivable that the Pope could proclaim doctrine without the Cardinals’ support.

It should be noted that Papal Infallibility has very rarely been used. While Benedict has issued a number of encyclicals, he has yet to speak Infallibly on a matter - meaning that it is not wrong for a Cardinal or theologian to challenge him on his arguments.

It is my personal opinion (probably unpopular here) that we’ll see changes to Papal Infallibility the first time there’s abuse of the power - ie the Pope does something off like declare Mary to be part of the Trinity.

and when if at anytime did the whole church acknowledge the Pope as the father of the entire church?

The Bishop of Rome was held in high esteem by other bishops by virtue of his office (not his person) since the earliest days -something that Irenaus attests to in the 2nd century, as have others.

When the college of cardinals was developed, all cardinals were ordained by the Pope. Cardinals ordained bishops, bishops ordained priests and deacons, etc. So by that point, all clergy within the Catholic Church saw the Pope as the earthly authority of the Church (not to be confused with Christ, the Head of the Church).

From the way that I have been taught, the Bishop of Rome was considered the first among equals, and the holy spirit was used by the holy synod, not just the pope alone.

Correct - the Holy Spirit is a gift from Christ to all believers.
So why isn’t the Catholic Church structured like synod or participative democracy? Remember that the Catholic Church - the earthly institution of Christ’s Divine Ministry - has always been run by humans, who can only look to what they know in administering it.

For the first 1700 years of the Church’s existence, Europe knew only monarchy. It should be no surprise that Church governance reflected a monarchic arrangement.

Likewise, it should not be a surprise that denominations that developed in 19th century America reflected a democratic governance. This difference indeed was one source of antagonism between Catholics and Protestants in the U.S.

Without the schism happening, would there be a college of Cardinals, as that also seems to be another fairly modern invention within the church of Rome as well.

Remember that the Church’s form of governance had to change as it grew, and as the world grew as well. The college of Cardinals is not a bad thing - yes, it’s another layer of bureaucracy, but you’re talking about an organization that administers to more than one billion people across the world. You can’t do that with 12 Apostles anymore - even in Scripture, there is mention of the need to ordain deacons to help, elders (priests) to minister, and overseers to take charge over entire territories (such as Crete in the epistle to Titus). None of this organizing was pre-planned when it was just the 12 in the Upper Room on the day before Pentecost. The Church grew to meet the needs it embraced.

Think about the famous pastors of evangelical megachurches. Most of them started as home churches or small congregations. They grew. As they added members they added facilities - new locations, new ministers, new technologies for their ministries. Would you decry Billy Graham’s television ministry as a “fairly modern invention”? It was a growth seen necessary to continue the mission.

Likewise, every development in the history of the Church has been to meet a need - Ecclesial Councils (once the Church expanded beyond Jerusalem), dioceses, judiciaries and hospidium (after the fall of Imperial Rome), Universities, etc.

 

[losh14]

I think Original Sin has been broached well-enough here.
I’ll only add that the alternative is that one could, through sheer force of effort, make it into Heaven without faith in Christ by virtue of never sinning.

The Protestant perspective on this is called “Total Depravity” - it’s not that different from Original Sin, except that man will eventually and inevitably sin individually, while in Original Sin we’re all sinners from birth. The doctrinal difference is that “Total Depravity” does not support infant baptism, while Original Sin requires it.

Then there is the question of Purgatory. From what I understand, the Jews never really believed in Purgatory either, and their view of Hell wasn’t really full of flames and what not until they mixed their beliefs with people in the Hellenic region.

You misunderstand Purgatory. Purgatory is the antechamber to Heaven - the shower before the swimming pool. All who enter Purgatory will enter Heaven.

Purgatory is the resolution of an otherwise contradictory line of thought:

• Christ says you must be perfect to get into Heaven
• If you have faith in Christ you will be saved
• You must confess sins committed after baptism

So what do you do when someone has confessed belief in Christ, sinned, not confessed those sins and so is not perfect?

Purgatory is the place where you receive the blessings that make you ready to enter Heaven. It is the destination for most Christians (other than those who die in perfect friendship with Christ), but is more a waystation than the final destination.

Put it another way - if you believe there is no Purgatory and you find yourself there, is that a problem? If you believe there is a Purgatory and you find there is none, is that a problem? Both involve trusting in God’s Mercy, the difference of opinion is only how we will receive that Mercy.

Finally, in the West, how is God perceived?

That’s more of a personal question. Most Americans can talk about God without problem, but mention Jesus or the Divine Trinity and you’ll get some different answers.

Catholics see God as the Divine Trinity. Some view Him more familiarly (hopefully not quite “Buddy Christ”), some more reverently. God’s not monolithic, even in Scripture, so I wouldn’t expect everyone to have the same point of view of Him.

I personally prefer Dante’s depiction at the end of il paraiso - three pure sources of light, and in the middle “a face not unlike my own.”

So what else is bugging you? Please, ask and you’ll get honest answers as Grace permits.

 

[losh14]

The main reason I stopped going to mass is because of all of these questions I had. I feel like I couldn’t consciously participate in something that I am not that sure of, as far as teaching goes. It’d be like a Louis Farrakhan at a Klan rally or something lol.

I hope it isn’t that far off! Listen, all of us have our doubts about some things. I’ve been a Catholic three decades and I still don’t grasp all about the Marian dogmas. What appeals most to me have (ironically) been the evangelical Bible studies I’ve attended that forced me to explain and defend the Church - in reality, I found when defended Scripture I was defending the Church, and couldn’t defend Scripture in such a way as to be in affront to the Church. I also found a great deal of encouragement in the Early Fathers.

I started going again to mass, and thought that I had found a decent enough parish, until they tell me things like “oh don’t check out books before 1968, because that was before Vatican 2” blah blah blah.

There’s too much made of what was essentially an ecclesial (how we do it, not what we do or why) divide.

I’ve read a little about Islam and Judaism to make sure that I was even in the right belief system.

It’s not wrong to search and seek - Jesus says “Seek and ye shall find.”
You may have trouble finding “the right belief system” because choosing faith is not so much like choosing a college but rather like taking a wife. It is an intimate decision that is based first on relationship and second on other factors. As such, if you’re looking for comforting certainty that you made the right decision, you may not find it, but rather should look for evidence of growth as a person and growth in Holiness.

I’d really just like to know that I would be making the right decision if I started going back to mass, that’s all.

Start by asking “Would it be wrong? Would it be injurious? Is it bad for me to worship God this way?”

 

[booyakasha]

Thank you for the replies Losh.

Perhaps when I move to San Francisco next week, I’ll start inquiring more about going back to church, you really did put things into perspective.

Thank you.

 

[losh14]

So how do you enjoy Frisco? Have you been able to settle in over the past three months.

Do keep the conversation going. And a Merry Christmas to you and yours.