Sincere inquiry from an Orthodox Christian

[CarmelJerome]

Hello everyone

I can understand that the jurisdiction of the Pope could develop over time, that this was a process in the Church consolidating all local Churches under the explicit and undisputable leadership of the Pope of Rome. As a process it could be tumultuous, with dissent here and there, I can accept such a vision. However as far as I know it’s not the jurisdiction of the Pope that was dogmatized in the Catholic Church, but his infallibility. And that’s a whole another problem to me, because I can’t see this truth universally accepted in the ancient Church. Once the other Churches agreed with the Bishop of Rome without questioning (“Peter has spoken!”), the other time they were rather eager to dispute the opinion of Rome. Of course someone can say that they were just disobedient, but if it were so, someone should have appeal to them reminding them that in such matters as faith one should not question the statement of the Pope as St. Peter’s successor. Here’s were I ask for help. As I said I can imagine the development of the jurisdiction of the Pope, however I cannot believe in the development of the doctrine of his infallibility when its not clear at all in the first millennium. It’s just does not appear as an objective truth (even if not defined) in that time. How do you, dear friends, see that historical matter? I can see usefulness of infallibility of the Pope, I can perheaps see Scriptural justification for it, but the history of the Church reveals to me a great gap between the possible Scriptural justification and the dogma from Vatican I. And I’d be more than happy if I could resolve that matter in my own mind and heart with your help

  I would look more to the attempts of the secular regimes in the Latin Church to subjugate the Church to the rulers' dema nds. The example  of the Russian Church is an example of how the absence of universal authority, the patriarchs and ordinarily become helpless against the power of state - I'm thinking here of Peter the Great ' s reform and the resistance of the raskolniki. Early in the second millennium the West faced this problem; and without the clearer development then the political proceedings of the past two centuries would have reduced the Church as a whole to friends of nationalities. It's an index of this that the authoritative declaration of infallibility came when the Holy See lost her political power in Italy. Political pundits assumed that it was the end of the Catholic Church. The subsequent 150 years have demonstrate d that the State without God us the sum of apostasy & paganism: and the Church cannot have the integral spiritual coherence and power if multivalent.

The second question is a bit like the first one. I know of numerous Catholic devotions, especially connected with different visions and apparitions experienced by Catholic saints (e.g. Sacred Heart devotion). Taking into account how great role they seem to play in the spiritual lives of the Catholics, I become quite overwhelmed. All those promises of our Lord or our Lady connected with praying specific prayer specific number of times or on the specific days… :hypno: And especially since those devotions revealed to the saints have such a strong influence on the Christian’s salvation, it appears to me very unlikely that God waited whole centuries to reveal the details of the path of salvation in Christ. I could understand the gradual development of the devotions from the early times, but the ones I am speaking about were, well, revealed in an instant to a specific person long after the Apostles, let alone Jesus and His Holy Mother, walked the earth. How is it supposed to be understood? For example as far as I know Sacred Heart devotion does not have really any precedent before the second millennium, yet I hardly can find today a Catholic teaching not making reference to it. It seems to have become like one of the constitutive elements of the Catholic everyday faith. It’s quite different to my present Orthodox view where practically most of the practices or devotions can be seen as logical extensions of some precedent. In Catholicism it seems totally different, there is a lot of creation ex nihilo I humbly ask you to explain me how you see that.

I would very much appreciate any relevant help, my questions are sincere and although these are not the only ones, I think that these are ones that strike me the most.

In Christ
Neqtar

 The devotion to the Sacred Heart arose in affirmation of Our Lord's Humanity, when theologians were abandoning His Mercy for harsh theories concerning grace and mankind were beginning to sprout. Christ gave us this new icon because the significance of the Incarnation was obscured. In the same way in our time, the Sacred Heart devotion has been extended by the image of Divine Mercy

All this edges in the holy and glorious ministry of St. John Paul II. God gave Poland three saints - Maximilian Kolbe, St. Faustina and St. John Paul who dies on the vigil of the Feast of Divine Mercy. These are signs writ in dazzling light precisely for our doubtful and fearful age. Our Lord to St. Faustina that the mistrust of souls who believed in His redemption wounded Him most. I believe that this - trust in Divine Mercy and Divine providence - is what you are longing for rather than irrefutable ecclesial assertions.

 

[Neqtar]

Thank you for all your responses. It was quite a while since I have written last time (6 months!), but really my confusion receded and I had other things on my mind. However the issue has now returned to me with a new power. By now I am pretty convinced that the First Millennium Church generally ascribed to the Bishop of Rome the Petrine primacy, a certain measure of special universal jurisdiction (especially in emergency matters) and a kind of teching charisma correlated with the testimony of the whole Church. As for the matter of devotions, which troubled me earlier, unexpectedly the devotions that have raised my brow previously, became somehow attractive And so I ended up praying the Divine Mercy Chaplet and the Litany of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I have read the encyclical Haurietis Aquas and watched this talk youtube.com/watch?v=4vf1jX1rVQw and it all was very much enlightening. So first of all, if anyone of you offered even a little prayer for me, please know that the Lord listens to you attentively

I ask however the Lord for direction and further enlightenment, because even though I may be convinced about the claims of the Catholic Church in theory, I am very much afraid about practical joining the Church. I have been recently to a Mass and I came out terrified by the way the Blessed Sacrament was treated (the priest celebrated the Eucharist irreverently; there was some woman, who handed the Chalice to the communicants and who after the Communion drank on the side of the sanctuary the remaining Blood of Christ and then cleaned the Chalice immediately by herself - I thought it should be done by the priest; the people received the Body of Christ standing and on the hand). I am sure it’s not that it looks like this everywhere (now I am in the UK and I remember that in my country, there was much more reverence during the Mass). But as I try to find strength to join the Church, I become very confused when I see things like this and hear about the mess voluntarily introduced into the Church during the last decades: theological, liturgical, disciplinary etc. I read about the fears of the faithful Catholics regarding the direction in which the Church moves and start to doubt if I am sure to choose the communion with the Bishop of Rome ever threatened these times by the omnipresent chaos over Orthodox stability without the Bishop the Bishop of Rome. My faith is still so weak that I fear the state of the Catholic Church nowadays may be a stumbling block to me regardless of the past witness of unity.

Moreover I have a difficulty with seeing in Latin theology a genuine continuity with the First Millennium. I can see that most of the disputed post-Schism Catholic dogmas are understandable developments that can be explained in an “Eastern” way. However I still struggle with the Immaculate Conception founded on the premises of the different understanding of the original sin and when it comes to the specific declarations of the post-Schism Councils, sometimes they seem to be hardly explainable in terms of the Catholic theology of both East and West, rather they seem to be exclusively Latin. I don’t want to jump here into the discussion about specific Councils or canons or anathemas, but I would be grateful if anyone could provide me with some vision of how this East-West theological unity in one Church under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome should be understood.

Ok, I think that for now that’s all. Thank you in advance if you will even attempt to shed some light on my confusion

 

[Vico]

…
However I still struggle with the Immaculate Conception founded on the premises of the different understanding of the original sin …,

I would be grateful if anyone could provide me with some vision of how this East-West theological unity in one Church under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome should be understood…

Try this from The Congregation for The Doctrine of The Faith:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Et Unum Sint

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

For original sin, dmar198 has an interesting post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10843100&postcount=3

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I hear it commonly said that the Eastern Orthodox do not believe in original sin, or that the Orthodox belief is that the inherited original sin is simply the liability to suffer bodily death or other such opinions. Perhaps this is what you are referring to. However, it does not appear to me that this is really an accurate representation of traditional of Orthodox thought. While it may be true that different theologians have different understandings of what original sin is, I think there are some necessary beliefs that are not to be doubted. One is that original sin in Adam’s descendants has caused all (with the exception of Christ and the Blessed Virgin) to be conceived in a state of what can be fittingly termed, the “death of the soul,” as the fathers of the Council of Orange did. I have assembled a small set of Eastern Orthodox catechetical materials to support this.

The Confession of Dositheus:

We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.”

The Catechism of St. Philaret:

1. What came of Adam’s sin?

The curse, and death.

1. What is the curse?

The condemnation of sin by God’s just judgment, and the evil which from sin came upon the earth for the punishment of men. God said to Adam, Cursed is the ground for thy sake. Gen. iii. 17.

1. What is the death which came from the sin of Adam?

It is twofold: bodily, when the body loses the soul which quickened it; and spiritual, when the soul loses the grace of God, which quickened it with the higher and spiritual life.

The Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church by Rev. Constas H. Demetry:

Q. Did only our First Parents suffer from their disobedience?

A. Unfortunately the whole human race born since has also suffered. They
inherited the same evils, just as they would have inherited immortality
and happiness, if our First Parents had obeyed; because just as impure
water proceeds from an impure fountain so also sinful men are born of
sinful ancestors.

Q. Did the rest of creation suffer anything from the disobedience of our
First Parents?

A. Assuredly; and because of this, since then, “the whole creation groaneth
and travaileth in pain together until now.”, as the Apostle Paul writes in
the Book of Romans, Chapter 8, Verse 22.

Q. What is that sin of disobedience, with all the evils which it brought,
called?

A. The original sin.

Q. Are we responsible for the original sin?

A. Personally none; because we did not personally commit the sin of our First
Parents; but we are charged with it by inheritance because we were in Adam
and Eve when they sinned, and for this reason the Apostle Paul writes:

"…all have sinned." …Book of Romans, Chapter 5, Verse 12.
​

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The following catechism has a rather lengthy discussion of orginal sin beyond what I quote here. The Catechism of the Orthodox Church by His Eminence Panteleimon Lapadarios:

Question 165: What is the inheritance of Original Sin?

Answer:
Original Sin consists of true and real guilt, not only in the punishment imposed as
a result of Adam‟s Offence. Adam‟s sin was not committed by his descendants, and consequently for them it had nothing to do with their own will, merely being inherited as a sinful condition. Sin is not only the separate inner or external acts (“peccatum actuale”). It is especially the condition of sin (“peccatum habituale ”), due to specific sinful deeds that further strengthens and cultivates it. Original Sin is the heritage of a sinful condition for all mankind, which is imputed to us not as personal sin (direct imputation), but as the sinful condition of each person (“vitiositas”). Between Adam‟s guilt and the guilt of his descendants there “…exists a great difference: … in Adam the Offence of God‟s Law was committed by his own will whereas in his descendants it is by inheritance and unavoidable.” “The Original Sin in the first-created should be understood as their own sin as well as the sinful condition of their nature in which the Offence led them. Whereas in Adam‟s descendants it is the sinful condition of man‟s nature with which he is born into the world.” Holy Scripture does not explain how men inherit Original Sin.

So in short, all these sources affirm the reality of original sin. The last one for example does not say that the Immaculate Conception is rejected because it makes no sense in the conept of original sin. Rather, the author says that the Immaculate Conception is rejected because he believes that Mary was “conceived and born naturally in the manner of all men. However, the Holy Spirit came upon her before she conceived the Word of God, in order to cleanse her and make her a vessel worthy of hosting the Word and Son of God.” Presumably, he means to put Mary’s sanctification at the time of the Annunciation.

His formulation of the reason to reject the Immaculate Conception, gives a context to understand what Catholics mean when they say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. This does not mean that Mary did not suffer from any of the effects of Adam’s sin. She suffered physically and eventually died. Even Christ suffered the same things. However, we affirm that Mary was sanctified by the Holy Spirit “in the first instance of her conception” (per Pope Pius IX), such that she was never captive to the devil, never bore the guilt of sin before God, was always filled with the Grace of the Holy Spirit etc. Nor is this due to anything miraculous about her parentage (unlike Christ who was conceived by the Holy Spirit), or that she was not naturally subject to original sin, but that she was by a singular grace preserved from it. So there is really nothing in the good bishop’s words that are contrary to the Catholic doctrine. In the Immaculate Conception, Christ was still the Savior of his Mother, since she was preserved from the stain of original sin by God’s grace “in view of the merits of Jesus Christ.”

 

[Neqtar]

Christ is risen!

Thank you, Vico, for the links. Thank you, QNDNNDQDCE, for the quotes. All that clarifies much for me, however when I read that we inherit from Adam the “death of the soul”, I discover a new doubt. Isn’t it that it is God who creates a human soul when a man is conceived? If that’s the case, how can God create something that is sinful and dead from the outset? Or maybe we should think of this as “bare” soul, good as a finite creature, but lacking additional supernatural grace and therefore unable to achieve the goal of human nature?

Interestingly that explanation would throw a different light on the Immaculate Conception - it’s not that Mary that is the great exception, but every human being since Adam is an exception having been deprived of the necessary grace to realize the goal of being human. It’s God withholding His grace for the generations, letting humans being “mere” humans. But these are just my musings.

 

[Vico]

Christ is risen!

Thank you, Vico, for the links. Thank you, QNDNNDQDCE, for the quotes. All that clarifies much for me, however when I read that we inherit from Adam the “death of the soul”, I discover a new doubt. Isn’t it that it is God who creates a human soul when a man is conceived? If that’s the case, how can God create something that is sinful and dead from the outset? Or maybe we should think of this as “bare” soul, good as a finite creature, but lacking additional supernatural grace and therefore unable to achieve the goal of human nature?

Interestingly that explanation would throw a different light on the Immaculate Conception - it’s not that Mary that is the great exception, but every human being since Adam is an exception having been deprived of the necessary grace to realize the goal of being human. It’s God withholding His grace for the generations, letting humans being “mere” humans. But these are just my musings.

God created man good and through the sin of Adam the entire human race was modified. Adam and Eve had preternatural and supernatural gifts from God, there are not natural to a humans. Original sin does not take away anything to which we have a human right to, but only the free gifts that God would have bestowed on us if Adam had not sinned. Each human person is composed of body animated by the soul. Each person is perfect in the sense that there is the potential of eternal life in friendship with God.

 

[Neqtar]

It took over two years from the last time I was posting in this thread, but currently I came, by God’s grace, to a point in which I am convinced about the truth of the Catholic faith. I wish to return to the Church. I started attending EF Mass nearby and feel completely at home, but I am unsure about my next steps. I probably should contact some priest about this, but I don’t know if I could discuss all this simply with the priest who serves the EF Mass and who belongs to FSSP or I should contact the priest who is the regular pastor at the parish where the EF Mass is served. Also, can anyone describe how the way back to the Catholic Church looks like for a revert like me?

I should add that I am on this path together with my wife who was baptized in the Catholic Church as a child, then brought up in a Protestant home at which point we met and then together we joined the Orthodox Church after few years. Do we need to receive any sacraments on our way back (apart from the sacrament of confession, I presume)?

 

[PluniaZ]

It took over two years from the last time I was posting in this thread, but currently I came, by God’s grace, to a point in which I am convinced about the truth of the Catholic faith. I wish to return to the Church. I started attending EF Mass nearby and feel completely at home, but I am unsure about my next steps. I probably should contact some priest about this, but I don’t know if I could discuss all this simply with the priest who serves the EF Mass and who belongs to FSSP or I should contact the priest who is the regular pastor at the parish where the EF Mass is served. Also, can anyone describe how the way back to the Catholic Church looks like for a revert like me?

I should add that I am on this path together with my wife who was baptized in the Catholic Church as a child, then brought up in a Protestant home at which point we met and then together we joined the Orthodox Church after few years. Do we need to receive any sacraments on our way back (apart from the sacrament of confession, I presume)?

Thanks be to God! Alleluia! Alleluia!

I don’t actually know what the process is for you, but of course your priest will tell you exactly what you need to do.

And once more … Thanks be to God! Alleluia! Alleluia!

 

[mattp0625]

Irenaeus of Lyon prior to 200AD:

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

 

[Lucretius]

Neqtar, I’m going to tell you to do the same thing that solidified my belief in the Papacy: go to the forum advanced search page, and look up these topics regarding the Papacy for the usernames “Ghosty” and “Mardukm.” Both of them in particular have very deep and persuasive insights into the Papacy from an Eastern Catholic point of view (Mardukm in particular is Coptic; I’m not sure about Ghosty).

Christi pax.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

It took over two years from the last time I was posting in this thread, but currently I came, by God’s grace, to a point in which I am convinced about the truth of the Catholic faith. I wish to return to the Church. I started attending EF Mass nearby and feel completely at home, but I am unsure about my next steps. I probably should contact some priest about this, but I don’t know if I could discuss all this simply with the priest who serves the EF Mass and who belongs to FSSP or I should contact the priest who is the regular pastor at the parish where the EF Mass is served. Also, can anyone describe how the way back to the Catholic Church looks like for a revert like me?

I should add that I am on this path together with my wife who was baptized in the Catholic Church as a child, then brought up in a Protestant home at which point we met and then together we joined the Orthodox Church after few years. Do we need to receive any sacraments on our way back (apart from the sacrament of confession, I presume)?

Welcome back!

I would think that you could speak to either priest. Rejoining the Church should be a fairly simple matter. I don’t know what the exact steps are, but I am sure that the priests will.