My thoughts about Catholicism and the Catholic Church

[Monica4316]

…of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is rounded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. **For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See [Rome], left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc. **
[The part which was never read to the Council at all.]

(Found in L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 117.)
We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal: but we know not whether this was written through ignorance or schism, or the heresy of the wicked. But henceforth we advise your most merciful and imperial majesty, that he be by no means called Universal in your writings, because it appears to be contrary to the institutions of the holy Canons and the decrees of the traditions of the holy Fathers. For he never could have ranked second, save for the authority of our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as is plain to all.(1) Because if he be named Universal, above the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God, it is certain that he shews himself as a rebel against the holy Councils, and a heretic. **For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the (Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever, so that if any one, which we believe not, has called him, or assents to his being called Universal, let him know that he is estranged from the orthodox Faith, and a rebel against our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. **[After the reading was ended (col. 120)]

 

[Hesychios]

Hello brother Marduk

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

Blessings

I cannot speak for Edwin, of course, but from where I sit it’s pretty clear:

Everybody has enemies. A small microcosm of that can be witnessed right here at CAF, with all the bait threads (going both ways) and sometimes necessary bannings. (I suppose we ought to be grateful to CAF for providing a place for people to blow off their frustration, anger, prejudices and angst without getting physically violent. )

And the more marginal and exotic groups can have even more intensely bad experiences.

Some, like the JW’s, play on this extensively. They cultivate the ‘martyr complex’, which just gets reinforced every time someone tells the to buzz off. They may already be experiencing cognitive dissonance, so the attacks from others allow them to retreat into the sure knowledge that they must be on the right course and to stick with it. Call it negative reinforcement.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Edwin,
Do you seriously think that the East and West will ever “sort out” their issues and even come close to reunion in your lifetime? Personally I don’t think Orthodox and Catholic Christendom will be united ever. There are too many egos, too many theological matters, too much pride at stake, and the office of the papacy is too polarizing a subject for the two. The “personalities” of the two expressions of Christianity are just too divergent. It’s one of those divorces that is just too blasted ugly to reunite. You will be holding your breath a long time I’m afraid.

After reading so many of your posts, I’m not sure why you don’t convert to Holy Orthodoxy? You seem well-suited to it, you agree with so much of it, and obviously the Episcopal Church is so screwed-up and bizarre that you can’t tell me Episcopalianism is superior to Orthodoxy? Why don’t you take the plunge and grow a long beard?

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.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Blessings to you, Brother Michael, from the Philippines! I’m your next door neighbor right now…

Hello brother Marduk I cannot speak for Edwin, of course, but from where I sit it’s pretty clear:

Everybody has enemies. A small microcosm of that can be witnessed right here at CAF, with all the bait threads (going both ways) and sometimes necessary bannings. (I suppose we ought to be grateful to CAF for providing a place for people to blow off their frustration, anger, prejudices and angst without getting physically violent. )

And the more marginal and exotic groups can have even more intensely bad experiences.

Some, like the JW’s, play on this extensively. They cultivate the ‘martyr complex’, which just gets reinforced every time someone tells the to buzz off. They may already be experiencing cognitive dissonance, so the attacks from others allow them to retreat into the sure knowledge that they must be on the right course and to stick with it. Call it negative reinforcement.

 

[Contarini]

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

Blessings

Formally, if you strip it down to its basic structure, it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Here’s an example of this fallacy:

If I were the Pope (validly and rightfully), I would be a baptized human male
I am a baptized human male
Therefore, I am the Pope.

The proposition in question clearly follows the same structure

If the Catholic Church were the true Church, it would be hated
The Catholic Church is hated
Therefore, the Catholic Church is the true Church.

From which I can derive the following proposition:

If the Catholic Church is the true Church, then I am the Pope
(Note: This is a joke!)

The problem with affirming the consequent is that the statement doesn’t run both ways.

All Popes are baptized male humans, but not all baptized male humans are Popes.
Similarly, even if being hated is a necessary mark of the true Church, it does not follow that only true churches are hated!

Of course, this isn’t really a deductive argument but an inductive one. And that’s where the question of convergent objections becomes relevant. Clearly the fact that the Catholic Church is hated is no more sufficient inductively than deductively, given how many religions are hated by people who don’t belong to them. So we have to look inductively at how objections to different religions proceed, and what is the most likely explanation of their existence. (We could just look at whether they are true, of course, but we aren’t always in a place to figure this out, so it’s helpful to think about what the mere existence of these objections may or may not tell us, and how seriously we should take a given set of objections.)

It seems to me quite clear that

1. Contradictory objections undercut each other to some extent, and if made by the same objector do so seriously. This is the point made by G. K. Chesterton when he said that people who oppose the Church accuse it of being too merciful and too cruel, degrading women and being followed mostly by women, etc. I think this is in fact a point in favor of the Catholic Church, though perhaps not quite as strong a one as Chesterton thought. When liberals tell me that the Catholic Church’s exclusive claims are arrogant and inhumane, and fundamentalists tell me that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon because it says non-Christians can go to heaven, I think it’s quite likely that the Catholic Church is in the right, at least in its approach to that particular set of issues.
2. Similar objections made by quite different objectors should be taken extremely seriously. A personal example not to my own credit: a lot of people, of different perspectives, have told me on this forum that I am arrogant and bombastic in my tone. Now I can explain this away to some extent, some of the time. But given how often I’ve been accused of this, I have to conclude that at the very least I often express myself in a manner that lends itself to that misunderstanding. I can’t say “well, that’s just what the Catholics say because I step on their toes,” because non-Catholics have said it as well. (People of different perspectives have also said nice things about me, and of course I am readier to believe that these things are true! I think that both the nice and the nasty things are probably true to some extent, in fact.)

I thus remain totally baffled how any rational person could conclude that no. 2 is actually a point in favor of the Catholic Church. Or, for that matter, of me, but the preceding sentence is probably all the evidence against me anyone needs

Edwin

 

[Mike2010]

From what I understand ~ I have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the book Catholicism, a Catholic prayerbook. Study about Vatican I and II. A complete view of the role of the Bishop of Rome, the history of the Papacy and the Chair of St. Peter as the first Pope. Various doctrines state the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. Purgatory, Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces, the Immaculate Conception,And other pertinent stuff.

. . .

Another book I recommend is “Eastern Orthodoxy and The See of Peter” by James Likoudis

 

[Hesychios]

Blessings to you, Brother Michael, from the Philippines! I’m your next door neighbor right now…

Yes! I remember reading your intention to travel.

I hope you and yours are well!

How did you handle the time change? It takes me three to five days at best, and sometimes I catch a cold!

Peace and God bless you brother.

 

[Hesychios]

Another book I recommend is “Eastern Orthodoxy and The See of Peter” by James Likoudis

A book I recommend is *The Truth:What every Roman Catholic should know about the Orthodox Church *by Clark Carlton.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

**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.

The decision is yours. However if you’re seeking Truth, then you have to go where your search takes you. There will be strong disincentives to do so eg. friends you’ve made in the orthodox church, the much more plain liturgy in the Catholic Church (as I understand it), and there will be those who will try to dissuade you.

But since you’ve already made the transition from Protestant to Catholic, then you have some experience of the hurdles already.

One thing - once you’ve gone to the Catholic Church, you won’t have to go through the whole process again, as you will have come home.

 

[rinnie]

**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 am not sure what you mean by becoming truly Catholic But I will pray for you that you get the answer from God you are looking for, and you will.

For Me it was always simple which Church I belonged in. I had to pick the RCC because they got the Keys

In order to get in to the kingdom we need the keys

 

[Contarini]

Oh? How can you prove that?

Prove that something isn’t obvious? Of course I can’t do that. When I say that something isn’t obvious, I’m making a statement about how I perceive it. That means that if you want to change my mind, you need to come up with evidence and arguments.

Are you a theologian?

First of all, every Christian is a theologian. In the second place, no I’m not precisely a theologian by training, although I have been teaching theology in the past few years. I’m a church historian with a Ph.D. in religion from Duke University.

Why even ask this? Plainly because you can’t make a reasonable argument and resort to argumentum ad auctoritatem.

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).

It’s not in *Rome Sweet Home. *He discusses Orthodoxy for a few lines and dismisses it because it looks like a bunch of quarreling brothers without a father, or something like that. It’s one of the weakest moments in the whole book. I grant you that Rome Sweet Home is by its nature a somewhat superficial book, and I’m open to reading anything else Hahn has said on the subject.

Elsewhere in RSH, Scott describes Kimberly saying to him that she wondered if he was Luther in reverse. And while Hahn isn’t a fraction of the theologian Luther was (no offense to him intended–Luther is one of the most brilliant theologians of Christian history, which is why he did so much damage), he is indeed very similar to Luther in that he started out with one fixed idea (“covenant as family”) and built his whole theology around it. Fortunately for him, this idea turned out to be compatible with Catholicism, so he didn’t tear the Church apart. But it’s easy to see why he would dismiss Orthodoxy–it doesn’t look the way his pre-existing theological assumptions led him to think the Church should look.

I’m not telling you what your objections are.

You were responding to a post by me observing the similarity between Protestant and Orthodox critiques of Catholicism. I suppose that “rigid morality” does play a role with regard to divorce, but the Orthodox position there is not that divorce is legitimate per se but that it should be allowed by “economia.” I have problems with this, but frankly the Catholic practice with regard to divorce and annulment is so thoroughly messed up that I think the Orthodox position (and maybe also the traditional Protestant position, allowing divorce for adultery or desertion) is preferable. And the real objection to the Catholic position here is not that it is “rigid” (these days, at least, it seems anything but rigid) but that it relies on legalism. And that is one of the common objections I had in mind.

To flesh out my earlier point a bit: I think what often happens is that Protestants object to something, and the Orthodox give a much deeper critique explaining why the objection is valid. Sometimes the Orthodox critique actually attacks attitudes that Protestants have taken over from Western Catholicism. So for instance, Protestants object to indulgences. The Orthodox do too, and their reason is that indulgences rely on a juridical conception of grace–but so, unfortunately, does the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. Protestants object to the Immaculate Conception because they think Mary is sinful. The Orthodox object to it because they think the whole conception of original sin is flawed. Here the point of similarity is much narrower and the differences are huge, but you still have Protestants sensing that something is wrong and the Orthodox offering an explanation of why. Protestants object to the adoration of the Host because they traditionally see it as idolatrous. The Orthodox affirm that Christ is truly present and should be adored in the Eucharist, but they agree with the Protestants that this adoration should always be connected to the Liturgy and to the reception of Christ sacramentally, criticizing the way Roman Catholics treat the Eucharist as an object.

Often the Orthodox position turns out to be a lot further away from Protestantism than the RC position. That is one of the reasons I initially took Catholicism much more seriously as an option (for one thing, I was a lot more influenced by Calvinism when I started looking into these matters).

 

[Contarini]

I guess you’re not up to date. The subject of the “Filioque” is no longer a matter of contention.

I presume you are talking about the statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation in 2003? This statement does indeed say that the theological issue of the Filioque should not be church-dividing. I agree with that. But while the statement shows that some Orthodox theologians think this, many clearly still do not. And furthermore, the real issue is the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed. David Bentley Hart, an ecumenical Orthodox theologian who has no patience with the anti-Latin wing of his own Church (even excoriating some of the greatest 20th-century Orthodox theologians on this point), has said this:

so long as the clause is used in any quarter of the Roman communion, there will not be reunion with the East.

This is from his essay “The Myth of Schism,” in Ecumenism Today: The Universal Church in the 21st Century, ed. Francesca Aran Murphy and Christopher Asprey (Ashgate, 2008), pp. 95-105, cited at 102. You can find it on Google books.
Further note that the 2003 statement itself explicitly recommends that Rome

That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.

In careful ecumenical language, this is saying the same thing Hart said. Your Communion must delete the Filioque from the Creed as used in the Liturgy and catechesis. Saying generously “we won’t make the Eastern Catholics use it” isn’t enough. The Creed is the Symbol of unity. The addition was wrong. It was an arrogant, schismatic act, and it divided the Church.

This is one reason why many eastern Churches have been coming into communion with the Catholic Church.

Oh really? What are these churches? Are you talking about the Assyrians?

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?

I am sure I could investigate it much more thoroughly than I have done, but I am tolerably familiar with the CCC. I wouldn’t use the CE as my starting point, because it routinely takes a much more hardline stance than is common today.

Am I wrong in thinking that Purgatory only applies to those who die in a state of grace? Please answer yes or no instead of suggesting vaguely that I don’t understand the issue.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

The decision is yours. However if you’re seeking Truth, then you have to go where your search takes you. There will be strong disincentives to do so eg. friends you’ve made in the orthodox church, the much more plain liturgy in the Catholic Church (as I understand it), and there will be those who will try to dissuade you.

But since you’ve already made the transition from Protestant to Catholic, then you have some experience of the hurdles already.

One thing - once you’ve gone to the Catholic Church, you won’t have to go through the whole process again, as you will have come home.

I can never read enough of these posts. I love to hear them. But you gave the best advice possible. Pray and seek the truth. The only thing I could add is study the readings of the Early Fathers of the Church. God bless you and the OP in their search.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,
Do you seriously think that the East and West will ever “sort out” their issues and even come close to reunion in your lifetime?

I think it’s possible that a significant segment of the Orthodox will reunite with Rome in my lifetime. But I agree that “holding my breath” is an unhealthy habit!

After reading so many of your posts, I’m not sure why you don’t convert to Holy Orthodoxy? You seem well-suited to it, you agree with so much of it, and obviously the Episcopal Church is so screwed-up and bizarre that you can’t tell me Episcopalianism is superior to Orthodoxy? Why don’t you take the plunge and grow a long beard?

My recent posts reflect the fact that I’ve been asking that question of myself.

I think the biggest reason is that I am committed to ecumenism (i.e., the search for unity among Christians on the basis of our common baptism and our common faith in Christ), and the Orthodox approach seems to be much more “we have the Faith in its purity and we really don’t need the rest of you.” I love Byzantine Christianity–but is it really *the *Faith or just one form thereof?

That’s the question for me.

I suppose it boils down to the fact that the popular monikers for the two Communions are quite well chosen. Catholicism does seem more catholic to me, and Orthodoxy more orthodox.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

Edwin,

I am a former lay missionary and worked with the Capuchins from SE Italy. I was set up through an international lay program based in the USA. I am in the formal process of inquiry with the Franciscans.

A few months ago, we had a comparative study done between the Dominican/Carmelite spiritualities of ascent to God. But the drawback to the Franciscans was the legalism and how this legalism drew away from the humanity of of Christ and His response in mercy and forgiveness. They instead drew on the Descent to God…by encountering Christ at the feet of their neighbor in service, and not only union with God through Christ, but also all of God’s creation, including the passing of death.

Just from a pastoral perspective and seeing the remarks of Protestants, the Church can come across as a law binding, rules oriented, mass bureaucracy. And John Paul II lamented this image as well.

What do you know of the Franciscan heritage, and is their ‘descent’ possibly be more appealing to you?

The work of the Franciscans has been to build the church. And I read a comment somewhere that the more people draw closer to God without Christ’s humanity, the more legalistic they become, and fracture from people. This inclination to be very religious, and judgmental, is attributed to anyone.

I see you being drawn to a more universal faith. But to keep people together, does require a strong central authority with its bishops representing the faith of the local people. I myself basically keep away from the legalism of the church relating faith to every day life, but every so often, I may ask my pastor a question about right or wrong, and usually the pastor’s response is that I am starting to react to the image of legalism…‘it is not an issue, don’t be concerned’ is the usual response.

 

[KathleenGee]

So I only think that can help people in regards to Catholic legalism is to just join RCIA and participate. People from the parish come in to share to give the candidates a perspective on how they live their faith.

Some times so much information can actually hinder someone from being simple and letting God carry you. I would find a local parish you feel comfortable with, and the RCIA programs start in September…put your toe in the water a few months and give it a try.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Edwin,

I’ve never really focused much on this thread. But I do see a lot of statements from you regarding Catholic teaching that requires some clarification or qualification For now, let me just comment on the following:

Am I wrong in thinking that Purgatory only applies to those who die in a state of grace? Please answer yes or no instead of suggesting vaguely that I don’t understand the issue.

The teaching that Purgatory applies to those who die in a state of grace is a Catholic dogma.

The notion that Purgatory applies to ONLY those who die in a state of grace is not. However, it is admittedly a strong Tradition within the Latin Church.

This is supported by the Liturgy of the Latin Church. Though of their 4 regular Eucharistic Prayers, EP1 and EP2 contain prayers for the righteous dead, EP3 and EP4 contain general prayers from the dead.

In fact if you look at the Council of Trent’s Decree on Purgatory, it does not even specify that Purgatory is for righteous souls ONLY.

Blessings

 

[rinnie]

Dear brother Edwin,

I’ve never really focused much on this thread. But I do see a lot of statements from you regarding Catholic teaching that requires some clarification or qualification For now, let me just comment on the following:

The teaching that Purgatory applies to those who die in a state of grace is a Catholic dogma.

The notion that Purgatory applies to ONLY those who die in a state of grace is not. However, it is admittedly a strong Tradition within the Latin Church.

This is supported by the Liturgy of the Latin Church. Though of their 4 regular Eucharistic Prayers, EP1 and EP2 contain prayers for the righteous dead, EP3 and EP4 contain general prayers from the dead.

In fact if you look at the Council of Trent’s Decree on Purgatory, it does not even specify that Purgatory is for righteous souls ONLY.

Blessings

I agree in the RCC we are taught that you cannot die in mortal sin and be worthy of purgatory. That is what the teaching is.

In the RC faith if one dies in mortal sin that person has been separated from God and refuses to repent and except Jesus Christ:shrug: If you do not accept Jesus there is no final cleansing to be done, like what for? How could you want to be cleansed from sins that you are sorry for if you don’t accept Jesus anyway?

Again if you die in mortal sin you refuse or have refused to repent that sin, and have from your own free will chosen to be separted from God:shrug:

 

[mardukm]

I agree in the RCC we are taught that you cannot die in mortal sin and be worthy of purgatory. That is what the teaching is.

In the RC faith if one dies in mortal sin that person has been separated from God and refuses to repent and except Jesus Christ:shrug: If you do not accept Jesus there is no final cleansing to be done, like what for? How could you want to be cleansed from sins that you are sorry for if you don’t accept Jesus anyway?

Again if you die in mortal sin you refuse or have refused to repent that sin, and have from your own free will chosen to be separted from God:shrug:

I can agree with your last sentence. I can’t speak for the Easterns, but Orientals understand that there is only one mortal sin - final impenitence. This one mortal sin will send one to hell.

However, there are other sins that Latins call “mortal” but are not considered so by Orientals. The stain for even such sins (not just “venial sins”) have the possibility of being cleansed through the suffrage of the Church according to the Mercy of God in Purgatory (or “Hades,” as Orientals would call it).

As in almost all things, it is a matter of terms and definitions, which should not divide us.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

We’re ok. I adjusted very very well to the time change actually. The kids did, too. It’s been quite an experience here. I’ll IM you all about it when I get a moment. Thanks for the warm wishes

Yes! I remember reading your intention to travel.

I hope you and yours are well!

How did you handle the time change? It takes me three to five days at best, and sometimes I catch a cold!

Peace and God bless you brother.