Potential Convert Seeking Help

  • Thread starter Thread starter MomentsNotice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MomentsNotice

Guest
Greetings all!

For the past two years or so, I have been on a faith journey to identify the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. At this point, it is abundantly clear that this Church must either be the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. It seems to me that the theological differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are often more accidental than substantial. Parties on both sides like to deny the doctrines of the other, only to concede that their given tradition teaches something substantially similar to that of their supposed opponents’.

However, this is not to say that there are no substantial differences. It seems to me that the truly substantial differences are papal supremacy and possibly filioque.

Papal supremacy, honestly, makes a lot of sense to me, and I consider it to be perhaps the most compelling argument in favor of Catholicism against Orthodoxy.

However, this compelling argument is immediately called into question for me by some of the confusing words and actions of Pope Francis. The most common defense I hear from mainstream apologists on these instances are usually along the lines of “oh, well, he wasn’t speaking ex cathedra,” or “it’s not a matter of faith or morals - only discipline,” etc. etc.

But when Pope Francis changed the catechism’s teaching on capital punishment, that really hit me hard. How can something so widely attested to by Scripture and Tradition be turned 180 degrees in the opposite direction? I often hear the defense, “oh, well, Pope Francis didn’t declare capital punishment inherently evil, just unfit for our current socio-historical context,” etc. etc. But, when you actually look at the language, it describes capital punishment as an “attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” - if that isn’t the equivalent of “intrinsically evil”, then I don’t know what is! And, if the faithful can’t count on the Catechism to be a “sure norm for teaching the faith,” then what can they count on?

In Orthodoxy, I see many advantages. The liturgical tradition has been preserved in all of its reverence and solemnity; the filioque is absent from the Creed; doctrinal development is relatively stagnant (albeit due to the absence of an Emperor to convene Ecumenical Councils) etc. etc.

Perhaps most attractive is the Orthodox atonement theology. While I don’t necessarily think that the satisfaction model is “wrong” or opposed to the traditional doctrine, I do also acknowledge that the Christus Victor model is much more widely expounded upon by the pre-scholastic Fathers of the Church.

Of course, there’s the whole Russia/Constantinople schism currently rending the Orthodox Church asunder; I don’t see how such a conflict can be amicably and canonically solved without a papacy, nor do I see how Orthodox ecclesiology precludes such schism from ever recurring in the future.

If anybody has any sound words of charity to extend in response to this post, I would be most grateful. If anything I wrote is uncharitable or ill-informed, please accept my humble apologies. By the grace of God I am learning to grow in faith.

God bless you all!
 
I’m not much for all those differences between the Roman and Eastern Church, but what I do know is that both are Apostolic, and it ultimately doesn’t matter. I suppose you don’t want to hear this though.
 
I know of no official or ex-cathedra change to the catechism. The Holy Father’s words are not law. We mist listen to him, but the catechism is not re-written each time he speaks.

As to Orthodoxy, they are far from unified. Look into the various branches and you will see that they are actually more fractured than the Catholic Church.
 
This may help, When John arrived he waited for Peter to catch up and Peter entered, so John is showing that it is not right for him to go before the leader, Peter the rock whom Christ found his church on. So that means Roman Catholicism easy peasy lemon squeezy.
 
MomentsNotice said:
But when Pope Francis changed the catechism’s teaching on capital punishment, that really hit me hard.
Click to expand...
Don’t worry about this. Pope Francis cannot change the teaching on the death penalty. There has already been a strong backlash against any attempted change. At least one book has been written about it. Remember, this Pope, any Pope, can make mistakes. History demonstrates that Popes often make mistakes. However, the Holy Spirit always sorts things out in the end.

However, (I risk being flagged for saying this), I feel duty bound to give you some advice. The world, and the Church, is going through a grave crisis. Just read a newspaper or watch a news broadcast and you’ll see that the morality of the world is going downhill. The Church’s human element is in the world and is influenced by the world. For this reason, the human institution is going through an unprecedented crisis; a crisis that includes doctrinal fuzziness, sexual abuse, cover ups etc. Humanly speaking, things are bad at the moment - especially in the USA. You should be aware of this if you choose to become a Catholic. You shouldn’t be afraid of this crisis or allow it to disturb your peace; in reality, it’s a great opportunity for you to witness to your faith and love for Christ. You must be prepared to remain faithful in the the face of a hostile world and sinful members of the Church. It won’t be easy for you but your reward in heaven will be great. Follow the example set by Sts John Fisher and Thomas More. They sacrificed their lives for the truths of the Faith. That is what we are called to do in our day, but our opponents wear purple hats and red hats instead of crowns.
 
Last edited:
Could you clarify for me, was Pope Francis unable to change the catechism?

I know pope’s throughout history have said the death penalty is justified in certain circumstances. If Pope Francis changed the catechism, he would be contradicting the teachings of many pope’s throughout history.
 
Scott84 said:
Could you clarify for me, was Pope Francis unable to change the catechism?
Click to expand...
I’m not prepared to say anything negative about Pope Francis. My only comment is that the death penalty is permissible under limited circumstances. This has always been - and always will be - the teaching of the Church.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t ask you to say anything negative, I simply asked you to state the facts to me. It’s a simple yes or no question.
 
Last edited:
Scott84 said:
I didn’t ask you to say anything negative, I simply asked you to state the facts to me.
Click to expand...
Past experience has taught me that any comment I make about Pope Francis will be flagged and I will be suspended. As for facts, they are one google search away. As for my opinion, I maintain that the death penalty is permissible but undesirable in most cases.
 
@MomentsNotice

I thought I’d reply and offer a few thoughts from the Orthodox perspective, though this being a Catholic forum, I’m not just going to say you should be Orthodox. Rather, I would say I agree both churches are indeed worthy of consideration as being valid, having the sacraments, priesthood, etc. My suggestion ultimately is to make your decision based on which is going to best help you be saved; which is going to help you be drawn most closely to and conformed to our Lord and Savior, and not just in the big picture, but very concretely in your life, where you live, today.

I suspect there are plenty of both Orthodox and Catholics who disagree with me, perhaps even vehemently, but how you work out your salvation in the context of your life in your parish isn’t directly impacted whether you are under either the Pope or a Patriarch. I’m not saying it’s not an important question to consider, but I don’t believe it should be the defining question.

On a side note, I find the whole fight between Moscow & Constantinople to be rather embarrassing. Each seems to be angling for worldly power rather than in humility seeking what will best help the faith and salvation of Ukrainians. Despite all this, though, the dispute is over matters of jurisdiction and not our faith. For all the fractiousness that seems to come up between the various Orthodox churches, we are still remarkably united in faith and dogma.
 
Now, I’m a Catholic convert who never asked this question. Probably because the Catholic Church is about 1% of my country’s population, whereas Orthodox celebrating in the vernacular are less than .1% (both are guesstimates). Of course that renders me quite biased. For me, besides being attracted to the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church, it is another part of the Creed that shows what’s up: “one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.” Of course it depends of what you define “catholicam” to mean. In the national Lutheran church here it’s translated to mean “regular, normal, basic” where we Catholics see it as closer to “Universal”. One thing all other churches have in common, is that after splitting from Rome (which I’m arguing they did) they divided amongst themselves. How many different protestant churches are there? No one interested in theology or dogma would ask themselves “protestant or Catholic”, but perhaps “Baptist or Catholic” would be a more relevant question? While the Orthodox churches appear uniform in dogma and theology, they certainly aren’t “universal” or “comprehensive” in a worldly sense. They’re also divided amongst themselves, similar to the protestants.
Another example of this would be the SSPX. While they’re not quite as separate from the Catholic Church as either the Orthodox or the protestants (they’re Catholic priests in an irregular situation), as soon as they rejected teachings from Rome they too started dividing among themselves (like the SSPV and SSPX Resistance groups).
This little thesis leads me to believe (though, again I admit I am biased) the Catholic Church is the most solid bet for a true Christian Church without distortions.
 
The thing for me is that Papal a primacy makes the most sense and without it there’s almost no way for me to trust scripture because the Pope has compiled and canonized the Bible and so if I can’t trust the Pope how can I trust scripture and the catechism isn’t an infallible document as to my knowledge and even various archbishops can write their own catechisms if they wanted and they’re are different versions of it.What I look too is what is magesterial and which are binding and which teachings are binding.Catholic answers on YouTube is very helpful and cover the Francis catechism dilema.
 
The SSPX gave no canonical status in the church and all of their priests are suspended and I believe the four bishops consecrated by their founder are excommunicated and their masses are valid but illicit and you could cause scandal by going to them.They are in schism according to Cardinal Burke as to my knowledge.
 
Yes, they’re “canonically irregular”. Their bishops aren’t excommunicated anymore though. Since 2009 I believe. Their masses and sacraments are valid (real) even though they are illicit (illegal, performed without the mandate of the Church).
Also, I just used the SSPX as one of three examples I could think of. Of groups that split form the Catholic Church and splintered further afterwards.
 
They are in facts in schism and Benedict said they have no canonical status not irregular and when they are ordained they are automatically suspended and when they exercise their priestly ministry they commit a mortal sin.

 
You might be right. It’s a good thing you care about the souls of your fellow Catholics. You’re still veering off topic. 😉
 
Thanks for the reply, Saxum - your words are edifying!

I have certainly gathered that the Catholic Church is currently undergoing a very grave crisis. However, the moral failings of the Church’s shepherds - as horrifying as those moral failings are - don’t in and of themselves touch upon the Church’s claims to infallibility.

You mention “doctrinal fuzziness” - this is really what concerns me, given the decision that I am presently discerning. I am aware that there are many loud and dissident voices within the church hierarchy and laity speaking out about this doctrinal fuzziness; this gives me hope.

And yet, what this doctrinal ambiguity inevitably does is create rupture within the Church. Even where formal schism (e.g. sedevacantism, SSPV, etc.) does not occur, it creates functional rupture between those who say that newly emergent doctrinal novelty/ambiguity represents a break with Tradition and those who come to the defense of this doctrinal novelty/ambiguity. Practically speaking, you now have some bishops teaching one thing and others another.

What is the laity to do? Do we respect authority and simply side with the bishop of our diocese? Or are we - each and every one of us - responsible for poring over the Tradition of the Church as preserved in her canons, councils, encyclicals, bulls, catechisms, etc in order to discern the truth?

Perhaps the latter option is the best, and I understand that each layperson is, indeed, responsible for knowing his/her faith to the best of his/her ability. But, when taken to its logical extreme, this approach exhibits a distrust in the visibility of the Church; visibility must pertain to both institutions and faith. What good is an infallible teaching Magisterium if the living Tradition (i.e. the priests and prelates currently occupying positions of authority within the Church) cannot be completely trusted? All of this seems to devolve into the kind of cavalier flaunting of private judgment that rests at the heart of Protestantism.

I guess I’m afraid that if I enter into full communion with the Catholic Church, I won’t feel completely safe and secure until I end up in a traditionalist parish. This makes fulfilling the great commission somewhat problematic. For instance, if I try to evangelize my exclusively Protestant family, how in the world am I going to explain all of this? “Yeah, you know, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the Church of Rome, but you have to spend years sifting through Church documents, and you have to find a traditional parish in order to be sure that you’ve got the real McCoy.” Seems like a tough sell to me (obviously, this problem is less consequential - the truth is the truth, no matter how difficult it may be to tell).

Again, I thank you for your words of encouragement - I don’t mean to give the impression that I am ungrateful. These are just difficult times for the Church today…
 
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Isaac!

I hear what you’re saying about being more concerned with growing in faith and love for our Lord and our fellow men than in issues of episcopal authority. I do try to guard against falling into a vortex of despair while failing in my vocation as a Christian.

That being said, it seems to me that formal schism that bars one body of faithful from concelebrating the Eucharist with another body is deeply problematic.

If we believe that the Holy Apostles were granted the authority to bind and loose, to forgive and retain sins, to resolve disputes between Christians, to consecrate bishops and priests etc., then whenever a schism arises within the ranks of those who inherit their episcopal authority by direct apostolic succession, there must be one party who truly embodies this authority and one party who, by default, severs themselves from this authority until reconciliation has been effected. “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.” - 1 John 2:19 RSV

Also, St. Paul writes, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” - 1 Corinthians 10:17

So, it seems to me that wherever there is a severance of Eucharistic communion, there is a severance from Christ’s Mystical Body. Even if this severance is due to matters not pertaining to the faith, nonetheless, the severance itself becomes the theological conundrum. But, this touches on something that goes beyond the present Russia/Constantinople schism - let’s go back to an earlier schism: that which ensued from the Council of Chalcedon.

How do we know that the so-called Oriental Orthodox are erroneous in their expression of the faith? The Oriental Orthodox can provide all sorts of reasons as to why the Chalcedonian Definition represents a departure from the Apostolic Faith and why Leo’s Tome violates St. Cyril’s formula, etc. etc. Is this merely a matter of each individual Christian weighing the arguments for his/herself and picking a side? Whose authority can we trust? Who, in the reality of Christian history, represent the “us” and the “they” in St. John’s epistle?

To me, this all touches on something inherently problematic in Orthodox ecclesiology - am I missing something?

Again, thanks for your time and (name removed by moderator)ut, Isaac. These questions are difficult for me, and I am genuinely seeking God’s truth.
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected. An odd change, given the terrorism, instability and general decline in control of violence. Does he not normally speak in concert with the college of Cardinals? If this is an exception, it would seem to admit the possibility of modification in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top