Struggling with my Catholicism

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t think Noah has a problem with the bishops and Pope. I think he has a problem with the Bride of Christ. tisk tisk…

 

[bear06]

Here’s a few things you might be interested in.

newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp
catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

 

[bear06]

An Orthodox Spiritual Father may on rare occasion allow a couple to use NFP or another barrier method only in the most extreme of cases: like possible death. Otherwise, the Orthodox Church as a whole deems all forms of trying to control a couples fertility as forbidden including NFP. Just as eating when you are not physically hungry is gluttony so is having sex without being open to possible new life and waiting to only have sex when you are relatively sure you will not pro-create lust. Both are considered sins by the Orthodox Church.

Here’s a good piece on the EO and contraception:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/does-orthodoxy-allow-contraception-or.html

 

[jam070406]

I suggest people be alittle more careful in the way they address Noah. Calling him a protestant and such is uncalled for. He says he’s struggling. Some of the posts have been less then charitable and loving. Don’t be a catalyst in driving this guy out of the Church. There are MANY Catholics that are confused by the chaos in the modern Church. Cut the guy alittle slack and treat him like a brother that is hurting.

 

[Marina14]

I’m having a struggle within my soul, and you’re accusing me of being a cafeteria Catholic. When my heart screams something, and the Church fathers seem to support it, and then I see that it is not taught anymore in Rome, while it is taught in Orthodoxy, I need an explanation. And you call me a cafeteria Catholic. Thank you, sir.

I understand where you are coming from. You want to be faithful to the original deposit of Faith and remain in full union with the Church of the Early Church Fathers. You are noticing that many of the practices/beliefs of the Catholic Church seem to vary from that and that Orthodoxy has continued to remain faithful.

I converted to the Orthodox Church 4 years ago after about 7 years of prayer, study and heartache. I many, many times tried to get Catholic responses to the Orthodox’ strong positions…calling Catholic priests, Catholic Answers, the Coming HomeNetwork, etc. to no avail.

However, after nearly 4 years of being an Orthodox Christian, I have come across some new (new to me that is) Early Church Father quotes which I must investigate further. The result may be 1. Me being a stronger Orthodox Christian
2. I may end up back into the Catholic Church.

You may be interested to know that the Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, still teach and practice the same theology as the Orthodox Church does such as: Theosis, “no such thing as Purgatory”, etc. Their only difference between Orthodox and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is that they ***are *** in full union with the Church of Rome and the Pope. You may want to check out their website…www.melkite.org.

Best of wishes to you during your heartache. I call it that because that is how it felt to me. The fact that no one from the Catholic Church seemed to understand when I went through this made it even harder.

My suggestions would be:

1. Keep up and increase your prayer life.
2. Start visiting Eastern Catholic Churches.
3. Seek out a spiritual father or a spiritual mother who knows both sides.

 

[jj2011]

Eastern Orthodoxy sounds better every day…

You’re overlooking the fact that the eastern church submitted to the papal primacy at Florence, so that if the primacy is an innovation or heresy, the eastern church fell into heresy too.

In fact, however, the primacy of jurisdiction is not an innovation. The letters of Pope St. Leo show that he was prepared to exercise his jurisdiction over bishops and councils alike. He had a papal vicar in Thessalonica to exercise jurisdiction over the east.

You should read these epistles.

 

[Marina14]

Here’s a good piece on the EO and contraception:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/does-orthodoxy-allow-contraception-or.html

And I’d refer you to the Canons of St. John the Faster on this issue. Using any type of birth control is equal to having an abortion for which the penance is years of strict fasting (no more than 1 meal a day after the 9th Hour (3 pm) consisting of only bread and water) with 100 or was it 250 prostrations a day and the inablility to receive the Holy Eucharist until the years of penance has been fullfilled under the close supervisor of one’s spiritual father or spiritual mother.

Orthodox priests generally “ease” converts into Orthodoxy because it is such a difficult religion and there is no way that someone could come to grips with it all at once. Timothy Ware had just converted to Orthodoxy when he wrote that book. It may have been his own spiritual father’s discretion in lightening the load of everything specifically for Tim (now Bishop Kallistos) which may have caused him to think that this was laxness was Orthodox-wide.

I assure you the the rare occasion of laxing the Churches teaching is done on a case by case basis with the one one one guidance by one’s personal spiritual father or spiritual mother.

 

[Marina14]

You’re overlooking the fact that the eastern church submitted to the papal primacy at Florence, so that if the primacy is an innovation or heresy, the eastern church fell into heresy too.

In fact, however, the primacy of jurisdiction is not an innovation. The letters of Pope St. Leo show that he was prepared to exercise his jurisdiction over bishops and councils alike. He had a papal vicar in Thessalonica to exercise jurisdiction over the east.

You should read these epistles.

In order for a Church Council to be valid, the Orthodox Church as a whole has to accept it. The Orthodox Church rejected this Council whole heartedly. Reexamine your history. Read, “Life After Death” which was translated into English and is available at: St. Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery in AZ - this gives details of the Orthodox Fathers who were involved in that Council from their own words.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I understand where you are coming from. You want to be faithful to the original deposit of Faith and remain in full union with the Church of the Early Church Fathers. You are noticing that many of the practices/beliefs of the Catholic Church seem to vary from that and that Orthodoxy has continued to remain faithful.

I converted to the Orthodox Church 4 years ago after about 7 years of prayer, study and heartache. I many, many times tried to get Catholic responses to the Orthodox’ strong positions…calling Catholic priests, Catholic Answers, the Coming HomeNetwork, etc. to no avail.

However, after nearly 4 years of being an Orthodox Christian, I have come across some new (new to me that is) Early Church Father quotes which I must investigate further. The result may be 1. Me being a stronger Orthodox Christian
2. I may end up back into the Catholic Church.

You may be interested to know that the Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, still teach and practice the same theology as the Orthodox Church does such as: Theosis, “no such thing as Purgatory”, etc. Their only difference between Orthodox and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is that they ***are *** in full union with the Church of Rome and the Pope. You may want to check out their website…www.melkite.org.

Best of wishes to you during your heartache. I call it that because that is how it felt to me. The fact that no one from the Catholic Church seemed to understand when I went through this made it even harder.

My suggestions would be:

1. Keep up and increase your prayer life.
2. Start visiting Eastern Catholic Churches.
3. Seek out a spiritual father or a spiritual mother who knows both sides.

I suggested for him to investigate the Eastern Rite Churches…Melkite Greek Catholic Church seems to be the best option

 

[Orionthehunter]

I suggested for him to investigate the Eastern Rite Churches…Melkite Greek Catholic Church seems to be the best option

Before he starts church or rite shopping, he needs to examine the veracity of his dissents which I believe are as follows:

1. 
   *]Disagree with post-menepausal sex
   *]A celebate vocation is superior to marriage.
   *]Disagree with the Pope’s Authority to institute the Novus Ordo Mass.
   *]Justifies NO oppostion because non-Catholics were invited to the Vatican II Council.

 

[jj2011]

In order for a Church Council to be valid, the Orthodox Church as a whole has to accept it. The Orthodox Church rejected this Council whole heartedly. Reexamine your history. Read, “Life After Death” which was translated into English and is available at: St. Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery in AZ - this gives details of the Orthodox Fathers who were involved in that Council from their own words.

Not all the bishops signed the decrees of Nicea; not all the bishops signed the decrees of Chalcedon-- you think you can reexamine those?
*
In order for a Church Council to be valid, the Orthodox Church as a whole has to accept it.*

Who decides when “the Orthodox Church as a whole” has accepted a Council?

 

[ForeverAdam]

Here’s a good piece on the EO and contraception: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/does-orthodoxy-allow-contraception-or.html

With all due respect to Dave Armstrong, he hasn’t really interacted with the position of the Orthodox Church on the use of contraception. He takes some quotes by individual Orthodox in the West and statements of the OCA and GOARCH and concludes that Orthodoxy has endorsed contraception. At best, these comprise only 5% of Orthodoxy. He hasn’t ever (to my knowledge) interacted with what the Russian, Serbian, Romanian and Greek Orthodox Churches have stated on contraception. I suspect that he doesn’t do this because he knows that if he actually mentioned what 95% of Orthodoxy taught on contraception that he would find a position to the right of his own Church.

The majority of the Orthodox Church sees total abstinence as the ideal form of family planning and only allows methods of contraception when couples cannot live up to the ideal. This is a practice lost in Catholicism with the replacement of total abstinence with NFP. We also don’t see a distinction between NFP and barrier methods, because we still believe that every conjugal act has a procreative end that must never be deliberately rejected. This is a belief lost in Catholicism with the innovative idea that NFP is allowed because only conjugal acts present during the woman’s fertile time have a procreative end.

As you can see, the Orthodox position on contraception actually mirrors that of the early Church more than your Church because we still see total abstinence as the ideal form of family planning and still believe and act upon the traditional belief that every conjugal act has a procreative end that must never deliberately be avoided, thus causing us not to make a distinction between NFP and barrier methods.

God bless,

Adam

 

[bear06]

I assure you the the rare occasion of laxing the Churches teaching is done on a case by case basis with the one one one guidance by one’s personal spiritual father or spiritual mother.

And this is problematic. It quite resembles situation ethics.

 

[ForeverAdam]

And this is problematic. It quite resembles situation ethics.

It’s actually more like your Church’s concept of “double-effect.” The common denominator is that sometimes in order to do the right thing, people must commit an action of a pastoral nature that remains objectively wrong, but carries no guilt with it due to the circumstances that the action is committed under.

God bless,

Adam

 

[bear06]

He takes some quotes by individual Orthodox in the West and statements of the OCA and GOARCH and concludes that Orthodoxy has endorsed contraception. At best, these comprise only 5% of Orthodoxy. He hasn’t ever (to my knowledge) interacted with what the Russian, Serbian, Romanian and Greek Orthodox Churches have stated on contraception. I suspect that he doesn’t do this because he knows that if he actually mentioned what 95% of Orthodoxy taught on contraception that he would find a position to the right of his own Church.

Of course, all of this proves the point that they have varying truths with varying people because they really have no Magisterium. There’s a difference between the Magisterium and the Church at large.

Here’s another article that touches on their lack of Magisterium.

One of the results of the Protestant Reformation, for example, was to deprive the Church of her specific ec clesial teaching authority. For the Protestants, Chris tian truth could be found only in Scripture. Moreover, the ultimate judgment about the meaning of Scrip ture — “the authentic interpretation of the Word of God” — was held to reside primarily in the private judgment of the individual Christian. Thus, from the beginning, Christian communions stemming from the Protestant Reformation have precisely lacked a definite ecclesial teaching authority: they have lacked a Magisterium.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, by contrast, recognizes that Christ did endow his Church with a specific teaching authority; but the Orthodox have nevertheless been severely constrained by their idea that the full teaching authority received from Christ somehow became truncated or suspended after having been exercised only in the first seven general (or ecumenical) Councils of the Church recognized by both East and West. The Orthodox have admirably attempted to carry on bearing authoritative witness to the teachings of Christ, and have sometimes utilized in their teaching for this purpose statements and decisions of various synods and patriarchs subsequent to the ancient Councils. Mostly, however, the Orthodox Church now simply relies on Tradition, as the Protestant Churches rely on Scripture.

Thus, even though the Orthodox have not failed to preserve essential truths taught by the ancient Coun cils, the Orthodox Church appears to lack a defined and clear-cut on-going ecclesial Magisterium in the full sense of the word — just as the Protestants appear to lack any Magisterium at all in the sense in which the Catholic Church understands — and exercises — the Magisterium with which Christ en dowed his Church. Is it possible, for example, to imagine either the Pro testants or the Orthodox ever producing such an authoritative compendium of Christian teaching as that contained in the Cate chism of the Catholic Church — wholly faithful to both Scripture and Tra dition, yet completely contemporary and relevant, specifically addressing and answering not a few of the burning questions posed today for faith and morals?

To produce such a Catechism, a living Church Magis terium was necessary — just as a living Church Magis terium has been required to deal authoritatively with the morality of typical modern dilemmas and developments from birth control and cloning to nuclear warfare

.

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1998-03-04/magisterium.html

 

[twf]

Pope Noah:
Celibacy is a superior state to marriage. What pope or council has said otherwise? The notion that they are equal is a modern popular misconception of what Tradition has clearly taught for 2000 years. Marriage is a holy sacrament, and married persons are not by any means intrinsically “less” holy than celibate persons. The state of celibacy is, however, by its very nature a greater state than the state of marriage as it is a foretaste of the eternal state and involves total dedication to God free of earthly concerns. The Apostle Paul clearly teaches that celibacy is superior in 1 Cor. 7. Jesus also teaches that those who “can” receive celibacy should. The Church has always praised celibacy and virginity. There is a reason that all Catholic bishops and all Latin priests are celibate. Monastic life has always been especially venerated. Our Lord and Our Lady both remained in a state of perpetual virginity which celibate priests and nuns imitate.

The Church Fathers clearly believes that communion with the Chair of Rome was necessary. Pope St. Leo and Pope St. Gregory, among others, clearly and definitively proclaimed and exercised their supreme universal jurisdiction. If this is such a novelty and heresy, as the Orthodox claim, why are these great popes venerated as saints in the East? The Eastern patriarchates fell into heresy time and time again…yet Rome never did. How can you assume that Rome is suddenly wrong after all this time and the Eastern sees, with their much poorer track record, are right? Also, what makes you consider Eastern Orthodoxy over Oriental Orthodoxy? The Eastern Orthodox insist that the Latin Church introduced novelties and fell into heresy. The Oriental Orthodox insist that the Greeks and the Latins both introduced novelties at Chalcedon and thus left the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. Where is the Church? The answer to that question is really simple from a Catholic perspective, and is answered by St. Jereome:

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

The answer from an Orthodox perspective is much more complex. The communion of churches that holds to orthodox teaching is the Church. Which communion is this? How can you be so sure? Without the certainty provided by the Chair of Peter, which the early Church had, the answer is totally subjective. Perhaps the Old Believers in Russia constitute the “true” Church. They claim that mainstream Eastern Orthodoxy has departed from Tradition and introduced novelties. Again, perhaps it’s the Oriental Orthodox. The Orthodox believe that a council is valid when it is accepted by the “whole church”. Well the Oriental Orthodox could argue that Chalcedon was never accepted by the Church as Alexandria and Antioch rejected it (becoming the modern Oriental Orthodox Churches)!

 

[ForeverAdam]

You’re overlooking the fact that the eastern church submitted to the papal primacy at Florence, so that if the primacy is an innovation or heresy, the eastern church fell into heresy too.

Every Orthodox bishop didn’t agree to this Council. For example, the Russian Church rejected the Council of Florence.

In fact, however, the primacy of jurisdiction is not an innovation. The letters of Pope St. Leo show that he was prepared to exercise his jurisdiction over bishops and councils alike. He had a papal vicar in Thessalonica to exercise jurisdiction over the east.

If this is true, this papal vicar held more power than the various Patriarchs of the East. If this is correct, we should see these papal vicars acting with more authority than these Patriarchs. However, the fact remains that these Patriarchs acted with more authority than any papal vicar ever did. I find it interesting that as Papal Rome’s authority grew after the Great Schism of 1054, that the Eastern Patriarchs that Rome appointed were virtually the Pope’s legates. This is a far cry from the powerful, independent Eastern Patriarchs of the first millennium. This is a strong sign that there was a shift in your Church’s ecclesiology after the Schism. If there weren’t a shift and development in the Pope’s claims to universal jurisdiction, these patriarchal styles wouldn’t have differed so radically after 1054.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

Of course, all of this proves the point that they have varying truths with varying people because they really have no Magisterium. There’s a difference between the Magisterium and the Church at large.

I thought that the “Magisterium” was the teaching authority of all the bishops. We still have this teaching authority in our bishops. However, the Roman Catholic Church has this teaching authority only in name. In reality, the bishops of your Church have no teaching authority unless they are in union with one bishop - the Pope. Isn’t this simply the teaching authority of one that the others gather around?

God bless,

Adam

 

[jj2011]

Every Orthodox bishop didn’t agree to this Council. For example, the Russian Church rejected the Council of Florence.

If this is true, this papal vicar held more power than the various Patriarchs of the East. If this is correct, we should see these papal vicars acting with more authority than these Patriarchs. However, the fact remains that these Patriarchs acted with more authority than any papal vicar ever did. I find it interesting that as Papal Rome’s authority grew after the Great Schism of 1054, that the Eastern Patriarchs that Rome appointed were virtually his legates. This is a far cry from the powerful, independent Eastern Patriarchs of the first millennium. This is a strong sign that there was a shift in your Church’s ecclesiology after the Schism. If there weren’t a shift and development in the Pope’s claims to universal jurisdiction, these patriarchal styles wouldn’t have differed so radically after 1054.

God bless,

Adam

It’s about time that somebody made known the facts, one of which is that the popes exercised jurisdiction in the east through their vicariate at Thessalonica.

St. Leo, in epistle 6 to the bishop of Thessalonica, made him a papal vicar with authority in the east. Quote:

Now therefore, dear brother, that your request has been made known to us through our son Nicolaus the priest, that you, too, like your predecessors, might receive from us in our turn authority over Illyricum for the observance of the rules, we give our consent and earnestly exhort that no concealment and no negligence may be allowed in the management of the churches situated throughout Illyricum, which we commit to you in our stead…

 

[bear06]

I thought that the “Magisterium” was the teaching authority of all the bishops. We still have this teaching authority in our bishops. However, the Roman Catholic Church has this teaching authority only in name. In reality, the bishops of your Church have no teaching authority unless they are in union with one bishop - the Pope. Isn’t this simply the teaching authority of one that the others gather around?

God bless,

Adam

And thus lies the One. This is a pretty good article on the subject. newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm And here’s part of it:

Properly speaking, this magisterium is a teaching authority; it not only presents the truth, but it has the right to impose it, since its power is the very power given by God to Christ and by Christ to His Church. This authority is called the teaching Church. The teaching Church is essentially composed of the episcopal body, which continues here below the work and mission of the Apostolic College. It was indeed in the form of a college or social body that Christ grouped His Apostles and it is likewise as a social body that the episcopate exercises its mission to teach. Doctrinal infallibility has been guaranteed to the episcopal body and to the head of that body as it was guaranteed to the Apostles, with this difference, however, between the Apostles and the bishops that each Apostle was personally infallible (in virtue of his extraordinary mission as founder and the plenitude of the Holy Ghost received on Pentecost by the Twelve and later communicated to St. Paul as to the Twelve), whereas only the body of bishops is infallible and each bishop is not so, save in proportion as he teaches in communion and concert with the entire episcopal body.

At the head of this episcopal body is the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter in his primacy as he is his successor in his see. As supreme authority in the teaching body, which is infallible, he himself is infallible. The episcopal body is infallible also, but only in union with its head, from whom moreover it may not separate, since to do so would be to separate from the foundation on which the Church is built. The authority of the pope may be exercised without the co-operation of the bishops, and this even in infallible decisions which both bishops and faithful are bound to receive with the same submission. The authority of the bishops may be exercised in two ways; now each bishop teaches the flock confided to him, again the bishops assemble in council to draw up together and pass doctrinal or disciplinary decrees. When all the bishops of the Catholic world (this totality is to be understood as morally speaking; it suffices for the whole Church to be represented) are thus assembled in council the council is called oecumenical. The doctrinal decrees of an oecumenical council, once they are approved by the pope, are infallible as are the ex cathedra definitions of the sovereign pontiff. Although the bishops, taken individually, are not infallible their teaching participates in the infallibility of the Church according as they teach in concert and in union with the episcopal body, that is according as they express not their personal ideas, but the very thought of the Church.