My thoughts about Catholicism and the Catholic Church

[Contarini]

**I need help with this.

(I’ve already been to confession and spoke with the orthodox priest)

Ok here is how I will break it down

A couple years ago I was former Lutheran seeing as my family is Protestant. As a result of careful inquiry and study about Orthodoxy I became a catechumen and after completing instruction I was chrismated and accepted into the Eastern Orthodox Church. I understood the elements in Orthodoxy to be a authentic expression of Christianity ~ Which was the main reason why I converted.

After some more study I came to learn more and more about the Catholic Church and could not ignore some of the relevant and fundamental truths of the Catholic faith. After reading so many posts from other Catholics it cause me to think more carefully about which Church I should actually be in - the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Im “somewhat” convinced the Catholic Church is the place to be because of careful study.

So, my basic question is should I remain in the Orthodox Church or continue my studies about Catholicism and the Catholic faith?? What are some thoughts about other Orthodox and Catholics about this issue that I’ve had for quite sometime.

However, in Orthodoxy it seems like there truly is authentic Christianity while the Catholic faith seems more complete and has a better consistency when comes to Church teaching. Another important point I had was accepting the authority of the Bishop of Rome** as a principle of Unity.

So, should I remain in Orthodoxy or become truly Catholic?? I’ve considered this the past couple months.

I’d be interested in hearing your reasons. How is the Catholic faith “more complete” and more “consistent,” and how are you confident of your ability to judge these matters?

I share your attraction to the idea of the Papacy as the center of unity, and am impressed by the breadth of Catholicism and its focus on unity and communion (at times the Orthodox seem too much like the sectarian Protestantism I knew in my youth, with their focus on getting everything just right). But with regard to specific doctrinal issues I generally have the opposite impression–I find that Orthodoxy is more defensible. However, as a Western Christian, I considered that it was not my place to judge such lofty matters, and that we Protestants ought to return to the Western Catholic Church from which we separated rather than seeking a “third way.” Recently, I’ve been wondering if I was right on this, since after reading more Orthodox theology my preference for the Orthodox approach is becoming much stronger and clearer. Perhaps we really do need a “third way” after all.

One of the reasons I have not become Catholic (I have been investigating these matters for about fifteen years, though often in a very dilatory fashion) is that I find the agreement between Protestant and Orthodox critiques of Catholicism to be an impressive warning, indicating that possibly there is something genuinely wrong with the Latin Church on these points. But instead of taking this as a reason to become Orthodox, I’ve seen it as a reason to hold out until the East and West sort out these issues between them.

Anyway, I’d be interested to hear what these issues are where you find Catholicism superior. For instance, do you find the arguments for the Filioque convincing? Do you really think that the Latin doctrine of Purgatory adds anything to the position held by the Orthodox? Do you think that Western soteriology is superior? On all these points, I find the Orthodox to have a decided advantage.

Most basically, though, I think it’s a bad idea to leave either of these Churches if you belong to them. But that’s just my envious perspective as an Anglican. My wife thinks I shouldn’t continually flirt with leaving the Episcopal Church. But then, I thought she shouldn’t have left the United Methodist Church to become Episcopalian

Edwin

Edwin

 

[Wesley7]

I think you should listen to the Holy Spirit. And if the Holy Spirit doesn’t seem to be answering your question, you should pray for the Grace to understand what the Holy Spirit is communicating (because often a breakdown in communication between us and the Holy Spirit is on our side!)

When you recognize communication from the Holy Spirit, at least my experience has shown this, it is unmistakable from anything else. But sometimes the Holy Spirit can suggest things that you might not expect. And that is, perhaps, good, I suppose, since that way you know it actually does come from the Holy Spirit and not from some personal over-active imagination. Whenever you receive this sort of communication, even if it makes no sense to you, my advice is to act on it.

Whether it is about your question, or something else, whatever the Holy Spirit “says” you should do it. It reminds me of the story of the wedding at Cana where Our Lady told those serving the wine, which had run out, to follow whatever instructions Jesus gave to them. Whatever the Holy Spirit recommends to you, you should do. It doesn’t matter if the subject is very big and important (such as the question you are pondering) or something far more trivial (such as the Holy Spirit just told you to take out sandwiches to those people doing roadwork in front of your house.)

Why do I know this? Because any time I didn’t pay attention to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I have been sorry. So I have learned to follow the requests of the Holy Spirit. (They’re not demands, they’re requests!) If you make a way within yourself to listen to the Holy Spirit, you will know what to do. Pray for this and you will know.

Thank you for your thoughtful (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Javl]

**I need help with this.

(I’ve already been to confession and spoke with the orthodox priest)

Ok here is how I will break it down

A couple years ago I was former Lutheran seeing as my family is Protestant. As a result of careful inquiry and study about Orthodoxy I became a catechumen and after completing instruction I was chrismated and accepted into the Eastern Orthodox Church. I understood the elements in Orthodoxy to be a authentic expression of Christianity ~ Which was the main reason why I converted.

After some more study I came to learn more and more about the Catholic Church and could not ignore some of the relevant and fundamental truths of the Catholic faith. After reading so many posts from other Catholics it cause me to think more carefully about which Church I should actually be in - the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Im “somewhat” convinced the Catholic Church is the place to be because of careful study.

So, my basic question is should I remain in the Orthodox Church or continue my studies about Catholicism and the Catholic faith?? What are some thoughts about other Orthodox and Catholics about this issue that I’ve had for quite sometime.

However, in Orthodoxy it seems like there truly is authentic Christianity while the Catholic faith seems more complete and has a better consistency when comes to Church teaching. Another important point I had was accepting the authority of the Bishop of Rome** as a principle of Unity.

So, should I remain in Orthodoxy or become truly Catholic?? I’ve considered this the past couple months.

Open your heart and mind to the Holy Spirit and ask for His guidance. He will show/tell you you where you belong. As a Catholic, I pray that you become Catholic since the Holy Spirit led me to Catholicism. But I can only recommend, for it is He who decides. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

I’d be interested in hearing your reasons. How is the Catholic faith “more complete” and more “consistent,” and how are you confident of your ability to judge these matters?

The Catholic Church has taught the same truths that Jesus and the Apostles taught, without change, modification, or alteration, for the past 2000 years.

I share your attraction to the idea of the Papacy as the center of unity, and am impressed by the breadth of Catholicism and its focus on unity and communion (at times the Orthodox seem too much like the sectarian Protestantism I knew in my youth, with their focus on getting everything just right). But with regard to specific doctrinal issues I generally have the opposite impression–I find that Orthodoxy is more defensible. However, as a Western Christian, I considered that it was not my place to judge such lofty matters, and that we Protestants ought to return to the Western Catholic Church from which we separated rather than seeking a “third way.” Recently, I’ve been wondering if I was right on this, since after reading more Orthodox theology my preference for the Orthodox approach is becoming much stronger and clearer. Perhaps we really do need a “third way” after all.

Read Scott Hahn on the Papacy. His lecture should answer many questions and/or objections you may have regarding the Papacy.

[ http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp]( http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp)

One of the reasons I have not become Catholic (I have been investigating these matters for about fifteen years, though often in a very dilatory fashion) is that I find the agreement between Protestant and Orthodox critiques of Catholicism to be an impressive warning, indicating that possibly there is something genuinely wrong with the Latin Church on these points. But instead of taking this as a reason to become Orthodox, I’ve seen it as a reason to hold out until the East and West sort out these issues between them.

The major objection to Catholicism is the central authority of the Pope, and in descending order is the rigid morality and obedience to the Magisterium.

Anyway, I’d be interested to hear what these issues are where you find Catholicism superior. For instance, do you find the arguments for the Filioque convincing? Do you really think that the Latin doctrine of Purgatory adds anything to the position held by the Orthodox? Do you think that Western soteriology is superior? On all these points, I find the Orthodox to have a decided advantage.

The question of the "Filioque’ has been settled but someone always brings it up anew. As for Purgatory, it’s existence is real. When Jesus died and descended into “hell”, He went to preach to the souls in “prison” ( 1 Peter 3:19-20 ). Flavius Josephus in his “Writings” mentions that the Jews believed in a “holding place” where the souls of those who died went to await their reward. The majority of Jews today still hold to that belief. Also you should read “Purgatory” by Fr. F.X. Schweppe, S.J.( TAN Books).

Most basically, though, I think it’s a bad idea to leave either of these Churches if you belong to them. But that’s just my envious perspective as an Anglican. My wife thinks I shouldn’t continually flirt with leaving the Episcopal Church. But then, I thought she shouldn’t have left the United Methodist Church to become Episcopalian

Edwin

Edwin

If you are in doubt about the “truths” as taught by “your church”, a good examination of conscience and a fervent truthful prayer to the Holy Spirit for guidance should decide for you as to what to do. Don’t hang on because it’s convenient, or because it teaches what you like to hear, etc.

God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Glico]

**I need help with this.

(I’ve already been to confession and spoke with the orthodox priest)

Ok here is how I will break it down

A couple years ago I was former Lutheran seeing as my family is Protestant. As a result of careful inquiry and study about Orthodoxy I became a catechumen and after completing instruction I was chrismated and accepted into the Eastern Orthodox Church. I understood the elements in Orthodoxy to be a authentic expression of Christianity ~ Which was the main reason why I converted.

After some more study I came to learn more and more about the Catholic Church and could not ignore some of the relevant and fundamental truths of the Catholic faith. After reading so many posts from other Catholics it cause me to think more carefully about which Church I should actually be in - the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Im “somewhat” convinced the Catholic Church is the place to be because of careful study.

So, my basic question is should I remain in the Orthodox Church or continue my studies about Catholicism and the Catholic faith?? What are some thoughts about other Orthodox and Catholics about this issue that I’ve had for quite sometime.

However, in Orthodoxy it seems like there truly is authentic Christianity while the Catholic faith seems more complete and has a better consistency when comes to Church teaching. Another important point I had was accepting the authority of the Bishop of Rome** as a principle of Unity.

So, should I remain in Orthodoxy or become truly Catholic?? I’ve considered this the past couple months.

Careful study? Sure?

Okay, did you study this?

• Matthew 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven. (Do not even call your priest as father)
• Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (Do not even accomodate statues within your place of worship)
• Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. (Since He is already the beginning, God therefore has no mother)
• Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (And that includes Mary)

"I am the Truth, the Way and the Life. No man goes to the Father except through me" - Jesus.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Wesley,

I need help with this.
My journey to the Catholic Church took a little over three years. As I learned about Catholicism from Catholic sources, I became convinced that there is really nothing that should separate our two Churches (I mean the Coptic Orthodox and the Catholic Church). Now, that in itself did not convince me to join the Catholic communion, and I was fully content with being Coptic Orthodox while believing that the Catholic dogmas – rightly understood according to her own teaching, and not through the lens of non- and anti-Catholic reporting – were also orthodox. After all, the Catholic Church herself teaches that the Coptic Orthodox has the means of salvation (i.e., the Sacraments), so there was really no reason for me to leave the Coptic Orthodox Church.

But there was one thing that always scratched in the back of my mind. It had to do with the idea of the papacy. The thing that began my journey towards Catholicism was the removal of the title “heads of the Apostles” as a descriptive of Sts. Peter and Paul from the Mass. I wanted to find out the reason for the change, so I started to read the Church Fathers on the topic. Mind you, I did not even think about the Catholic Church at this point. As I read the Fathers, I noticed that this was a near-unanimous teaching of the early Church. Of course, I found nothing wrong with the revision in the liturgy itself, and agreed in my heart and mind that it was necessary to combat the Romish excesses on the matter. Nevertheless, reading so much evidence from the Fathers of the idea that Sts. Peter and Paul (and more often just St. Peter) were the heads of the Apostles – I mean seeing it from the writings of the Fathers themselves before my eyes – planted a seed in me.

Logically, I next started to investigate the idea of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, seeing as how the Catholic Church makes this claim based on St. Peter’s headship of the Apostles. Of course, when I started this endeavor, I was very confident that the Church Fathers knew nothing of a universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. I don’t have time to offer the proof right now, but let me just say that Boy, was I wrong! It all started with Scripture (since the Apostles were the teachers of the whole world, and St. Peter was their head, then the idea of universal primacy was scriptural) and was clearly expressed by all the Councils of the Church until Chalcedon — and beyond.

But, as I said earlier, that did not convince me to join the Catholic Church, since I saw it as a mere ecclesiastical matter, not a divine revealed one, as the Catholics claimed. But I did ask myself, “Why did the early Church recognize Rome to have universal primacy?” The obvious answer was that she was the standard of orthodoxy. A corollary question that naturally came to mind was, “If Rome’s universal primacy was recognized in the early Church, why is it not so now?” The obvious answer was that she had fallen from the Faith. That consideration started my investigation into the specific teachings of the Catholic Church that I had at that time considered to be heretical or erroneous. As already stated, this investigation made me realize that I had a very wrong understanding of what the Catholic Church actually taught/teaches, and that she was orthodox, after all – especially given the Christological Agreements between all the OOC’s and the CC. So, in my mind, I found no reason why the Church in Rome should not have the primacy again. In my mind, the Church in Rome already possessed de facto, if not de jure the universal primacy.

But, as I said earlier, this did not convince me to join the Catholic Church, especially as Rome herself taught that we (the CO) had the means of salvation as well. I thought I could just work and pray for unity within the Coptic Orthodox Church without joining the Catholic Church.

I would have probably stayed in the COC all my life, fully content, had it not been for a harrowing experience in which I felt my life was threatened while in Assyut. At that moment, for some reason (it was strange to me because my research into the Catholic Church was more of a hobby than something that really impressed itself in my life), one of the Catholic teachings flashed in my mind. Namely, if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God. It incited my conscience, and I was very soon received into the Catholic Church by confession and a profession of Faith – and I didn’t even have to say the filioque.

I hope that helps you out.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[YADA]

Careful study? Sure?

Okay, did you study this?

…

Welcome to the Forums … you are very new … perhaps you should spend some time reading though the various threads that have covred the passages you quoted above …

But let me just ask you a few questions: .…

• Matthew 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven. (Do not even call your priest as father)

Parens are yours as the passgae does not say anything about what to call a priest …

SO , What do you call your mothers husband who donated his sperm to create your unigue DNA? … Mr. Glico? or is that Mr. Glico, Sir? … Why did St. Paul refer to himself as a ‘father’ to the believers in the communities he evangelized? Was Paul an apostate?

• Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (Do not even accomodate statues within your place of worship)

Parens are totally yours again -

SO … Why did Moses form a snake and hang it before the people to gaze upon when they were bitten and made sick? What happened to those who gazed upon the serpent and those who did not?

What animals were sculpted and made a part of the Holy Temple in Jesusalem? Hint: you can find them on farms … Oh my … and both of those passages come after the 10 Commandments … how can that be? … Context, Context, Context

• Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. (Since He is already the beginning, God therefore has no mother)

So which heresy do you subscribe … Is Jesus solely God and appeared to be human, thus he did not really die - did not truly Incarnate … Or was Jesus merely a man whom God occupied for a time? … or some other split … Because this controversy in the ealry church is what gave rise to understanding [even if it is a mystery that is hard to comprehend] Mary’s role in relation to Jesus … Jesus is fully God and fully human - 2 Natures: Humand and Divine… One God - Three Persons [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] … God stands outside of time and yet enered into time …Jesus entered in to time as a human person, born of a woman - 100 of His human DNA He received from His Mother … Jesus was no less God at His birth then He was when He hung on the cross …

Have you ever studied the great heresies and the debates of the Early Christians as they pondered these great mysteries?

• Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (And that includes Mary)

And yet we also know that Enoch walked all His days with the Lord and was taken into heaven without dying…nothing impure or sinful can enter into heaven … Elijah and the Chariots …

Mary was redememed, saved by Jesus just as you were … it is just that she was saved at the moment of her conception and like Enoch walked all her days with the Lord … She exhibits the proper relationship with God … “Let it be done unto me according to your will” …and “Do whatever He [Jesus] tells you” …

Mary is “Full of Grace” … she was graced, is graced and will forever be graced …

"I am the Truth, the Way and the Life. No man goes to the Father except through me" - Jesus

You have that absolutely correct and every Catholic Christian knows this … We are a Christ centered people!!!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Edwin,

One of the reasons I have not become Catholic (I have been investigating these matters for about fifteen years, though often in a very dilatory fashion) is that I find the agreement between Protestant and Orthodox critiques of Catholicism to be an impressive warning, indicating that possibly there is something genuinely wrong with the Latin Church on these points.

That’s an interesting perspective. Many Catholic apologists see the common arguments used by Protestants, Orthodox, athiests and liberals, against the papacy to be a sure sign that the papacy is correct.

Anyway, I’d be interested to hear what these issues are where you find Catholicism superior. For instance, do you find the arguments for the Filioque convincing? Do you really think that the Latin doctrine of Purgatory adds anything to the position held by the Orthodox? Do you think that Western soteriology is superior? On all these points, I find the Orthodox to have a decided advantage.

Theologically, I wonder why one Tradition must have “a decided advantage” than another. Isn’t it better to find common ground and to understand each other instead of having a “I’m better than you” attitude?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Deconi]

Dear brother Wesley,

My journey to the Catholic Church took a little over three years. As I learned about Catholicism from Catholic sources, I became convinced that there is really nothing that should separate our two Churches (I mean the Coptic Orthodox and the Catholic Church). Now, that in itself did not convince me to join the Catholic communion, and I was fully content with being Coptic Orthodox while believing that the Catholic dogmas – rightly understood according to her own teaching, and not through the lens of non- and anti-Catholic reporting – were also orthodox. After all, the Catholic Church herself teaches that the Coptic Orthodox has the means of salvation (i.e., the Sacraments), so there was really no reason for me to leave the Coptic Orthodox Church.

But there was one thing that always scratched in the back of my mind. It had to do with the idea of the papacy. The thing that began my journey towards Catholicism was the removal of the title “heads of the Apostles” as a descriptive of Sts. Peter and Paul from the Mass. I wanted to find out the reason for the change, so I started to read the Church Fathers on the topic. Mind you, I did not even think about the Catholic Church at this point. As I read the Fathers, I noticed that this was a near-unanimous teaching of the early Church. Of course, I found nothing wrong with the revision in the liturgy itself, and agreed in my heart and mind that it was necessary to combat the Romish excesses on the matter. Nevertheless, reading so much evidence from the Fathers of the idea that Sts. Peter and Paul (and more often just St. Peter) were the heads of the Apostles – I mean seeing it from the writings of the Fathers themselves before my eyes – planted a seed in me.

Logically, I next started to investigate the idea of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, seeing as how the Catholic Church makes this claim based on St. Peter’s headship of the Apostles. Of course, when I started this endeavor, I was very confident that the Church Fathers knew nothing of a universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. I don’t have time to offer the proof right now, but let me just say that Boy, was I wrong! It all started with Scripture (since the Apostles were the teachers of the whole world, and St. Peter was their head, then the idea of universal primacy was scriptural) and was clearly expressed by all the Councils of the Church until Chalcedon — and beyond.

But, as I said earlier, that did not convince me to join the Catholic Church, since I saw it as a mere ecclesiastical matter, not a divine revealed one, as the Catholics claimed. But I did ask myself, “Why did the early Church recognize Rome to have universal primacy?” The obvious answer was that she was the standard of orthodoxy. A corollary question that naturally came to mind was, “If Rome’s universal primacy was recognized in the early Church, why is it not so now?” The obvious answer was that she had fallen from the Faith. That consideration started my investigation into the specific teachings of the Catholic Church that I had at that time considered to be heretical or erroneous. As already stated, this investigation made me realize that I had a very wrong understanding of what the Catholic Church actually taught/teaches, and that she was orthodox, after all – especially given the Christological Agreements between all the OOC’s and the CC. So, in my mind, I found no reason why the Church in Rome should not have the primacy again. In my mind, the Church in Rome already possessed de facto, if not de jure the universal primacy.

But, as I said earlier, this did not convince me to join the Catholic Church, especially as Rome herself taught that we (the CO) had the means of salvation as well. I thought I could just work and pray for unity within the Coptic Orthodox Church without joining the Catholic Church.

I would have probably stayed in the COC all my life, fully content, had it not been for a harrowing experience in which I felt my life was threatened while in Assyut. At that moment, for some reason (it was strange to me because my research into the Catholic Church was more of a hobby than something that really impressed itself in my life), one of the Catholic teachings flashed in my mind. Namely, if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God. It incited my conscience, and I was very soon received into the Catholic Church by confession and a profession of Faith – and I didn’t even have to say the filioque.

I hope that helps you out.

Blessings,
Marduk

Nope! I’ve searched and found that I have not said this to you before;

YOU DA MAN, Mardukm!

Loved your summary of your journey.

God Bless.

 

[Glico]

SO , What do you call your mothers husband who donated his sperm to create your unigue DNA? … Mr. Glico? or is that Mr. Glico, Sir? … Why did St. Paul refer to himself as a ‘father’ to the believers in the communities he evangelized? Was Paul an apostate?

I should think not. But at Capernaum during the miracle of the wine (John 2), Jesus called His mother as “What has this concern of yours to do with Me, WOMAN?”. He didn’t even call her mother. Even at Golgotha (John 19), He addressed her as “WOMAN…here is your son”. God is a jealous God. As His Son, I am not prepared to call anyone else Father.

SO … Why did Moses form a snake and hang it before the people to gaze upon when they were bitten and made sick? What happened to those who gazed upon the serpent and those who did not?
What animals were sculpted and made a part of the Holy Temple in Jesusalem? Hint: you can find them on farms … Oh my … and both of those passages come after the 10 Commandments … how can that be? … Context, Context, Context

I think not. God has the right and ultimate authority here. And nobody can assume that authority on behalf. Jesus trespassed the Sabbath openly saying “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”. If He had been someone else then according to the OT, He would have been stoned to death. The point is, God gave an instruction not to form any images under heaven OR earth. But it seems to you that He had ‘violated’ His own instruction previously, so you choose to dis-regard His commandment.
What does this tell you? A man tells his son not to drive the car, but the boy sees his father driving the car, and so you tell him to disregard his father’s instruction not to drive the car. Where does that put you? It puts you in direct enmity to his father.

So which heresy do you subscribe … Is Jesus solely God and appeared to be human, thus he did not really die - did not truly Incarnate … Or was Jesus merely a man whom God occupied for a time? … or some other split … Because this controversy in the ealry church is what gave rise to understanding [even if it is a mystery that is hard to comprehend] Mary’s role in relation to Jesus … Jesus is fully God and fully human - 2 Natures: Humand and Divine… One God - Three Persons [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] … God stands outside of time and yet enered into time …Jesus entered in to time as a human person, born of a woman - 100 of His human DNA He received from His Mother … Jesus was no less God at His birth then He was when He hung on the cross …

Have you ever studied the great heresies and the debates of the Early Christians as they pondered these great mysteries?

I fear not. There’s no mystery here. God is a Spirit. Right? That’s what the Bible clearly teaches us. Is the physical form of Jesus = Spirit? Absolutely not. The Bible tells us that the mortal flesh passes away. Does God pass away? So, the body that Jesus had is not God per se But the Spirit. Jesus is God because of the Spirit of God in Him.

John 10: 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Then based on Jesus’ statement above, since I am called ‘god’ by Jesus therefore my mother (earthly mother) must also be the Madonna? That’s interesting.. If you have not realised the folly of your understanding, you should now. Otherwise, there’s nothing else I can do for you.

And yet we also know that Enoch walked all His days with the Lord and was taken into heaven without dying…nothing impure or sinful can enter into heaven … Elijah and the Chariots …

Mary was redememed, saved by Jesus just as you were … it is just that she was saved at the moment of her conception and like Enoch walked all her days with the Lord … She exhibits the proper relationship with God … “Let it be done unto me according to your will” …and “Do whatever He [Jesus] tells you” …

You assumed. You assumed that she must have been redeemed at the point of her conception. But let me ask you. If Mary was made perfect at her point of redemption and God needed a perfect and sinless sacrifice to complete His Salvatiion Plan. Would there still be a need for Jesus???

Mary is “Full of Grace” … she was graced, is graced and will forever be graced …

Indeed she was. But what you’re doing certainly isn’t bring her any grace. As admitted even by Mary, she was only a humble servant of God..

Personally, if I adored and admire a character/entity so much that I call myself that character/entity’s servant. And after I pass away, a group of people claiming they adore me and find me full of grace, elevate me and make me the mother of that character/entity, I would not only be annoyed and infuriated, I would turn in my grave. Not only would they not know me at all, I have absolutely nothing to do with them.

 

[excubitor]

Sometimes a picture or event paints a thousand words.
I saw this story before I became Catholic. It shows Orthodox priests and monks fighting over a Holy Site.
youtube.com/watch?v=5REvrKaDQB8&feature=fvw

No doubt these are holy men every other day of the week but really this is distressing thing to see and a shameful example of Christianity to the rest of the world. To this day the account of this event drags at me and gives me great grief. Sadly, these kinds of events have been repeated too many times in history.

It occurred to me at the time I first saw this that they should give the site to the Pope to manage as he would bring harmony and unity to the Holy Site.

For me this was a significant light bulb moment in my search for truth and the true church, and this realisation was only further cemented when I studied into the doctrinal issues of Apostolic succession and the Primacy of Peter. To me this was a powerful demonstration in my mind of how the Pope is a unifying force in Christianity. Even protestants grudgingly regard that the Pope is the best they have as a single representative of Christianity to the world.

The creed of course speaks of one holy apostolic catholic Church. But what visible unifying principle can show the world that the church is one? Is fighting in the Church of the Nativity showing it? Is the never-ending quibbles between the various orthodox metropolitans demonstrating unity? Are doctrines which the world does not understand demonstrate visible unity? No. Love for the Pope and one another demonstrates unity. Jesus said “By this shall all men know that you are my people, that you have love for one another”. And how is love demonstrated visibly to the world. Does it meant that we sing songs to one another or have luvvy duvvy feelings for one another? Does it mean that we send food aid to one another? Even the pagans do this. No it means that we are in communion with one another and share one bread together at one table. So how do I know that I am in communion with someone who is on the other side of the world? If he shares the heavenly bread with the Sovereign Pontiff and I also share heavenly bread with the Sovereign Pontiff. So you see there has to be one person on earth by which evidence of communion must be present. How else can we demonstrate that we are in communion with each other.

This kind of logic is learned from Augustine who stated long before the Great Schism

Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.

The Catholic Church is not without significant problems but what the world notices is that every Catholic recognises the supremacy of the Sovereign Pontiff. When a dispute crops up between bishops of neighbouring dioceses or nations, the pope steps in to adjudicate and the bishops obey. Having said that, disobedience is an increasing issue in modern times which is seriously threatening the unity of the church, but I believe the principle is still adequately demonstrated in the Catholic church to show how obedience and even fealty to the Sovereign Pontiff is the mechanism which Christ provided to bring unity to the church in his absence. The Orthodox churches are sufficiently united within their borders but none of them are universal. They follow after their nations. For example, the Greek Orthodox or the Russian Orthodox. Whereas the universal (catholic) church is one and united throughout the world universally through the Pope in a way which transcends national boundaries.

 

[excubitor]

youtube.com/watch?v=5REvrKaDQB8&feature=fvw

Have a look at the guy in red at 1:03

Judging by the number of Israeli police and soldiers present there was obviously a clear expectation of violence. How shameful that the Jewish nation must police the church, in this case the armenian and greek orthodox church. I would have thought that appeals to the Pope for help in settling disagreements and tensions would be better than having the local law enforcement brought in to control the mob. Apparently this was the church of the Holy sepulcher and they were parading relics of the Holy Cross when the turf war broke out.

After the event In what would appear to be the antithesis of Christian charity, neither side admitted any fault in the brawl and accused the monks of the other side of violating their rights. Nobody seemed to be concerned about what our Lord must be thinking looking down seeing Holy icons being smashed to the ground in the fray.

 

[Contarini]

Dear brother Edwin,

That’s an interesting perspective. Many Catholic apologists see the common arguments used by Protestants, Orthodox, athiests and liberals, against the papacy to be a sure sign that the papacy is correct.

I know they do, and it baffles me. They seem to base it on Jesus’ words that the world will hate believers. But of course if you put this in a syllogism you can see how illogical it is:

Jesus said that the true Church would be hated:

Many different groups have a bad opinion of the Catholic Church, and support this with the same arguments;

Therefore, the Catholic Church is the true Church.

Theologically, I wonder why one Tradition must have “a decided advantage” than another. Isn’t it better to find common ground and to understand each other instead of having a “I’m better than you” attitude?

Indeed. But from the perspective of a seeker for truth, clearly two mutually incompatible claims can’t both be correct. Or even if they are correct on some level beyond my understanding, I still have to decide which set of claims to accept.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic Church has taught the same truths that Jesus and the Apostles taught, without change, modification, or alteration, for the past 2000 years.

This is, to say the least, not obvious.

Read Scott Hahn on the Papacy. His lecture should answer many questions and/or objections you may have regarding the Papacy.

Hahn’s arguments for the Papacy amount to “as a Calvinist I came up with this theology and it turned out to match the Papacy.” But of course that doesn’t prove that his theology was good in the first place. Maybe he made the same basic flawed assumptions that lie behind the Catholic theology of the Papacy (chiefly, that the Universal Church Militant is supposed to mirror the structure of the patriarchal family). Since I think that the Calvinist Reconstructionism that Hahn held to before his conversion is a particularly vicious heresy, the fact that his assumptions led him to Rome doesn’t count in Rome’s favor, in my judgment.

Furthermore, Hahn’s glib dismissal of the claims of Orthodoxy in Rome Sweet Home gives me no confidence that he has anything worthwhile to say about the issues separating Rome from Constantinople.

The major objection to Catholicism is the central authority of the Pope, and in descending order is the rigid morality and obedience to the Magisterium.

Don’t tell me what my objections are. Catholic moral teaching is one of the major reasons I would become Catholic.

The question of the "Filioque’ has been settled but someone always brings it up anew.

It may have been settled to your satisfaction. But a discussion board is not the kind of place where you can declare an issue settled unilaterally. You actually have to convince people, and indeed you have to convince each new person who comes onto the board. (If you have convinced a bunch of Orthodox people in the past, or even seekers like myself who have some inclinations toward Orthodoxy, that your Church is right about the Filioque, I would certainly like to see those threads. Generally I believe that the history on this board has been that people engaging in these discussions have been more likely to wind up deciding for Orthodoxy.)

As for Purgatory, it’s existence is real. When Jesus died and descended into “hell”, He went to preach to the souls in “prison” ( 1 Peter 3:19-20 ).

Who according to St. Peter were the people who rejected Noah’s preaching. This fits the Orthodox view much, much better than it does the traditional Catholic view of Purgatory. Purgatory is for people who died in a state of grace. Why would we think that the people who rejected Noah’s preaching died in a state of grace?

Flavius Josephus in his “Writings” mentions that the Jews believed in a “holding place” where the souls of those who died went to await their reward. The majority of Jews today still hold to that belief.

That’s more like the “limbus patrum” than it is like purgatory.

If you are in doubt about the “truths” as taught by “your church”, a good examination of conscience and a fervent truthful prayer to the Holy Spirit for guidance should decide for you as to what to do. Don’t hang on because it’s convenient, or because it teaches what you like to hear, etc.

Again with the insulting assumptions. These aren’t helpful.

Edwin

 

[Wesley7]

Doesn’t the Eastern Church already have its own Bishop and Patriarch??

 

[mardukm]

I know they do, and it baffles me. They seem to base it on Jesus’ words that the world will hate believers. But of course if you put this in a syllogism you can see how illogical it is:

Jesus said that the true Church would be hated:

Many different groups have a bad opinion of the Catholic Church, and support this with the same arguments;

Therefore, the Catholic Church is the true Church.

How is that illogical (not that I am a fan of that argument)?

Blessings

 

[Javl]

This is, to say the least, not obvious.

Oh? How can you prove that?

Hahn’s arguments for the Papacy amount to “as a Calvinist I came up with this theology and it turned out to match the Papacy.” But of course that doesn’t prove that his theology was good in the first place. Maybe he made the same basic flawed assumptions that lie behind the Catholic theology of the Papacy (chiefly, that the Universal Church Militant is supposed to mirror the structure of the patriarchal family). Since I think that the Calvinist Reconstructionism that Hahn held to before his conversion is a particularly vicious heresy, the fact that his assumptions led him to Rome doesn’t count in Rome’s favor, in my judgment.

Furthermore, Hahn’s glib dismissal of the claims of Orthodoxy in Rome Sweet Home gives me no confidence that he has anything worthwhile to say about the issues separating Rome from Constantinople.

Are you a theologian? If you read “Rome Sweet Rome” then you should know that Hahn, as a theologian, scrutinized every thing about Catholicism and Othodoxy before making any comment or decision. I assure you that he did not skim over, or dismiss anything without serious or deep investigation. It’s all in his book(s).

Don’t tell me what my objections are. Catholic moral teaching is one of the major reasons I would become Catholic.

I’m not telling you what your objections are. I’m stating known facts.

It may have been settled to your satisfaction. But a discussion board is not the kind of place where you can declare an issue settled unilaterally. You actually have to convince people, and indeed you have to convince each new person who comes onto the board. (If you have convinced a bunch of Orthodox people in the past, or even seekers like myself who have some inclinations toward Orthodoxy, that your Church is right about the Filioque, I would certainly like to see those threads. Generally I believe that the history on this board has been that people engaging in these discussions have been more likely to wind up deciding for Orthodoxy.)

I guess you’re not up to date. The subject of the “Filioque” is no longer a matter of contention. This is one reason why many eastern Churches have been coming into communion with the Catholic Church.

Who according to St. Peter were the people who rejected Noah’s preaching. This fits the Orthodox view much, much better than it does the traditional Catholic view of Purgatory. Purgatory is for people who died in a state of grace. Why would we think that the people who rejected Noah’s preaching died in a state of grace?

Have you investigated thoroughly the CC doctrine of Purgatory? I don’t mean only what’s in the Catholic encyclopedia, but in the CCC and the CC teaching?

That’s more like the “limbus patrum” than it is like purgatory.

Again with the insulting assumptions. These aren’t helpful.

Edwin

What insulting assumptions? I try to respond to the lies, myths, and mis-conceptions about Catholicism. I try to put and keep the record straight, and I always make sure that I do it with Christian charity. I do admit, though, that sometimes I do get a bit angry and frustrated when some does not listen and insists that I’m lying.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Monica4316]

**I need help with this.

(I’ve already been to confession and spoke with the orthodox priest)

Ok here is how I will break it down

A couple years ago I was former Lutheran seeing as my family is Protestant. As a result of careful inquiry and study about Orthodoxy I became a catechumen and after completing instruction I was chrismated and accepted into the Eastern Orthodox Church. I understood the elements in Orthodoxy to be a authentic expression of Christianity ~ Which was the main reason why I converted.

After some more study I came to learn more and more about the Catholic Church and could not ignore some of the relevant and fundamental truths of the Catholic faith. After reading so many posts from other Catholics it cause me to think more carefully about which Church I should actually be in - the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Im “somewhat” convinced the Catholic Church is the place to be because of careful study.

So, my basic question is should I remain in the Orthodox Church or continue my studies about Catholicism and the Catholic faith?? What are some thoughts about other Orthodox and Catholics about this issue that I’ve had for quite sometime.

However, in Orthodoxy it seems like there truly is authentic Christianity while the Catholic faith seems more complete and has a better consistency when comes to Church teaching. Another important point I had was accepting the authority of the Bishop of Rome** as a principle of Unity.

So, should I remain in Orthodoxy or become truly Catholic?? I’ve considered this the past couple months.

I converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism…

but I’m not going to push you in any direction.

it all comes down to doctrine and the authority of the Pope.

Pray and pray about this… I suggest fasting too! remember that if you’ll decide that you believe in the Papacy but you like Eastern liturgy and spirituality, - you can be Eastern Catholic, and keep your spiritual heritage:thumbsup: it’s exactly the same liturgy, theology, devotions, etc, but there is also the Pope and the dogmas defined by the Catholic Church.

I mostly suggest lots of prayer. Even if you research a lot, ultimately - both sides have good arguments. Sometimes it’s a good idea to do a novena - a nine day prayer - and really seek the truth with an open heart.

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

Here’s a letter the Pope sent to the 2nd council of Nicea, which was accepted by the Council when I read this it really made an impression on me. But try researching the issue from both sides, Catholic and Orthodox, to get a fuller picture. I also recommend talking to priests ,and lots of prayer. However, I do have to say…there are many quotes by the ECFs that support the Papacy. Even about the Filioque - it’s significant that it sounds heretical in Greek but NOT in Latin… in Latin it has a different meaning. And the Church Fathers didn’t see it as heretical, and didn’t have any problem with it until Charlemagne tried to impose it on the East… but even if that was a bad decision, it still doesn’t make it heresy. What I’m saying is… history is very complex, unfortunately, especially the Schism. So make sure you pray lots as you study:thumbsup:

I’ll post the letter and some other information in the next post

 

[Monica4316]

Leo died in 740, but his ban on icons was confirmed and established as dogma under his son Constantine V (741-775), who summoned a council in Hieria in 754 (“the Iconoclast Council”) in which some 330 to 340 bishops participated. This council became known as a robber council, i.e. as uncanonical. Edward J. Martin writes, [17] “On the ecumenical character of the Council there are graver doubts. Its president was Theodosius, archbishop of Ephesus, son of the Emperor Apsimar. He was supported by Sisinnius, bishop of Perga, also known as Pastillas, and by Basil of Antioch in Pisidia, styled Tricaccabus. Not a single Patriarch was present. The see of Constantinople was vacant. Whether the Pope and the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were invited or not is unknown. They were not present either in person or by deputy.** The Council of Nicaea [II] considered this was a serious flaw in the legitimacy of the Council. ‘It had not the co-operation of the Roman Pope of the period nor of his clergy, either by representative or by encyclical letter, as the law of Councils requires.’ **18] The Life of Stephen borrows this objection from the Acts and embroiders it to suit the spirit of the age of Theodore. It had not the approval of the Pope of Rome, although there is a canon that no ecclesiastical measures may be passed without the Pope.’ [19] The absence of the other Patriarchs is then noticed.” [18]

Byzantine Iconoclasm

and here’s a letter from the Pope that was read during the Council of Nicea (II), which was approved by the others there. The Council was to condemn iconoclasm as heretical.

SESSION II.

[The Papal Letters were presented by the Legates. First was read that to Constantine and Irene, but not in its entirety, if we may trust Anastasius the Librarian, who gives what he says is the original latin text. Here follows a translation of this and of the Greek, also a translation of the Latin passage altogether omitted, (as we are told) with the consent of the Roman Legates.]

PART OF POPE HADRIAN’S LETTER.
[As written by the Pope.]
(Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. XCVI., col. 1217.)

If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world.

But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors. For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shewn to his,** the highest See**, by all the faithful in the world.

If the ancient orthodoxy be perfected and restored by your means in those regions, and the venerable icons be placed in their original state, you will be partakers with the Lord Constantine, Emperor of old, now in the Divine keeping, and the Empress Helena, who made conspicuous and confirmed the orthodox Faith, and exalted still more your holy mother, the Catholic and Roman and spiritual Church, and with the orthodox Emperors who ruled after them, and so your most pious and heaven-protected name likewise will be set forth as that of another Constantine and another Helena, being renowned and praised through the whole world, by whom the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is restored. And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.