What teachings would the Catholic Church have to drop for you to be a catholic

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Regarding Purgatory, there is really no division on the matter. The DOGMA of Purgatory as proposed by the Catholic Church is acceptable to the Orthodox…what the Catholic Church as a whole teaches DOGMATICALLY about Purgatory is not in contention at all, so that should be one less stress off your mind.

I appreciate your desire to find common ground between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I just don’t think the Orthodox would agree. Then again, perhaps I don’t understand the dogma of Purgatory properly.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception has no rational objection from the Orthodox, but are objections based on misconceptions. In fact, I know many Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) who accept it as theologoumenon.

My understanding is that the Orthodox Church does not even have the same understanding of original sin as the Catholic Church does. The Immaculate Conception only makes sense (to me, at least) if one accepts the Latin definition, which the Orthodox do not.

Here is a link to a discussion I started which I hope will be helpful (if you have not read it yet):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=299559&highlight=Immaculate+Conception

Thanks! I will look at it.

The dogma of papal infallibility, like so many other things Catholic, is rejected MOSTLY because of misconceptions and exaggerations. However, I do think that the Orthodox have a (very) few genuine and valid concerns about it. I would be glad to answer your questions on the matter.

My concern is primarily that it was defined so late. It has also led to some interesting dilemmas for the Catholic Church, as there have been popes who disagreed on matters of faith, and it is not always clear if they were speaking infallibly or not.

Regarding matters being dogmatically defined in the future, as you will notice, dogmas are never pronounced without support from the Church as a whole in the first place.

My concern here is that a theological opinion becomes popular over time, and then the Church declares it a dogma, requiring the assent of all Catholics. What will Catholics be asked, on pain of excommunication, to believe in the years to come?

I can understand the clarifications of the faith that had to occur in the days of the early councils. I think most traditional Christians would see that the doctrinal definitions of these councils were simply the clarification of orthodox belief in a time of heretical attacks. That is not so easy to say about post-Schism Catholic definitions, which seem to be the result of speculation becoming popular, rather than a legitimate response to heresy.

I suppose I am still a Protestant, but my difficulties with Catholicism are not based on Protestant theology. I can see the flaws of sola fide, sola scriptura, private interpretation, anti-sacramentalism, etc. My concern is that perhaps post-Schism Catholic definitions might also be innovations.

 

[emarc]

I would beg to differ here. Although I wouldn’t expect you to agree. The church did not teach transubstantiation nor did the concept of the mass exist in the early church. We also don’t see any teachings or devotion to Mary until the 4th - 5th century. This is where the argument will always fall off the cliff because Catholics and non-Catholics will continue to disagree.

I personally don’t feel the church should ever change its teachings to appease anyone. The real question then becomes what are the true teachings that existed 2000 years ago and can agreement ever be established on that point.

PEACE

to know what are the true teachings? the writings of the early fathers will be of great help. if those men who lived w/in generation after Jesus could not convince a skeptical Christian, nothing can. this site has many writings of the early fathers in its archives which you can access. good luck.
God bless.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

mardukm: All right, I read through the thread you mentioned. I did see some Orthodox objections to the Immaculate Conception, but I did not see anyone state right out that it was a heresy. I might have to check an Orthodox forum to see if anyone has any stronger opinions on it, as some of the more vocal Orthodox posters do not post here anymore.

Personally, I am inclined to agree with your signature and stop fighting over mere words. The Immaculate Conception does not affect how I live my life, and I do not like to see it as an obstacle to union. That, in itself, might sum up my greatest objection. It is an obstacle to union with the Orthodox, and it does not seem to serve any great purpose within the Catholic Church. I think I could say the same thing about papal infallibility.

Moral issues carry more weight with me than matters of theology, and that is probably the greatest reason why I keep being drawn to the Catholic Church instead of the Orthodox Church. There seems to be more steadfastness in the Catholic Church on these issues, and an unwillingness to compromise with the world.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That’s sort of a loaded question … I assume the OP means what would it take for me to become Roman Catholic, to which my response is nothing. I’d never leave the Presbyterian church (though I don’t really care to explain why … that’s never a kind conversation so it’s one I avoid).

I just have to say, “orange man” is the best name yet.

 

[1beleevr]

After 42 years as a follower of Christ, I can’t imagine it would make any difference if they dropped any teachings or not; I still would not feel the need to be a catholic! But, if I were to speculate, I would say, let us eat meat on Fridays, do away with transsubstantiation, and the obligation to go to confession with a priest! Is it true that the catholic church does not condone oral sex between married couples?

 

[1beleevr]

A couple of other things come to mind, concerning whether or not a non-catholic, would consider becoming a catholic; 1) most or all of us do not recognize the pope as the evangelical leader of the entire Christian world, 2) we don’t believe in praying through Mary and the saints,3)no need for the rosary or prayer beads! Let’s face it; if most of us non-catholics suddenly decided to take the plunge, we would definitely be “cafeteria catholics”.

 

[ConfusedTim]

I just have to say, “orange man” is the best name yet.

Try living in Norther Ireland or Scotland and you will realise that this name has all sorts of extreme protestant connotations. The oarange men are the most anti Catholic organisation you can get - a bit like the KKK is to blacks

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Iambic Pen,

I appreciate your desire to find common ground between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I just don’t think the Orthodox would agree. Then again, perhaps I don’t understand the dogma of Purgatory properly.

I would suggest you ask any Orthodox poster these two questions:

1. Do you believe that there is a state in the afterlife that is not heaven or hell where souls might experience theosis?
2. Do you believe that the prayers and suffrages of the Faithful on earth, especially the Sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy, helps those in this state in the afterlife?

If they answer “yes” to both of these questions (and they will), then they have expressed their belief in the dogma of Purgatory as expressed by the Catholic Church. They won’t call it “Purgatory” of course, but why quibble over terminology (as my signature line below suggests ), correct?

My understanding is that the Orthodox Church does not even have the same understanding of original sin as the Catholic Church does. The Immaculate Conception only makes sense (to me, at least) if one accepts the Latin definition, which the Orthodox do not.

Thanks! I will look at it.

I hope the link I gave you helped you understand that there is not much difference between the Orthodox understanding of original sin and the Catholic understanding. What most Orthodox reject about the doctrine of original sin is the PROTESTANT understanding of it, yet they confuse it with the Catholic understanding.

My concern is primarily that it was defined so late. It has also led to some interesting dilemmas for the Catholic Church, as there have been popes who disagreed on matters of faith, and it is not always clear if they were speaking infallibly or not.

I would, of course, like to see what matters these were. I think the standards of Vatican 1 on when a Pope speaks ex cathedra is clear enough, and we should be able to apply them to these instances of which you speak.

My concern here is that a theological opinion becomes popular over time, and then the Church declares it a dogma, requiring the assent of all Catholics. What will Catholics be asked, on pain of excommunication, to believe in the years to come?

Actually, this is something that is much more likely to occur in the Eastern Orthodox Church, given that their ecclesiology is more bottom-up than top-down. But we would be digressing from this thread if we began to discuss the several problematic beliefs within the EOC that have become standard doctrine over the centuries since the Schism because of this bottom-up ecclesiology.

I can understand the clarifications of the faith that had to occur in the days of the early councils. I think most traditional Christians would see that the doctrinal definitions of these councils were simply the clarification of orthodox belief in a time of heretical attacks. That is not so easy to say about post-Schism Catholic definitions, which seem to be the result of speculation becoming popular, rather than a legitimate response to heresy.

I would agree with you, not with regard to your statement that these beliefs were the result of speculation that became popular, but with regard to your implication that these beliefs were not a result of a response to attacks from outside the Church. This agreement would only extend to the Marian dogmas, of course. I believe the dogma of papal infallibility was indeed a legitimate response to the liberal and modernist attacks from outside the Church.

My concern is that perhaps post-Schism Catholic definitions might also be innovations.

Fair enough, and if you have time, I would be more than happy and willing to answer your questions (I went through a three-year process myself before becoming a Coptic Orthodox IN communion with Rome).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

mardukm: All right, I read through the thread you mentioned. I did see some Orthodox objections to the Immaculate Conception, but I did not see anyone state right out that it was a heresy. I might have to check an Orthodox forum to see if anyone has any stronger opinions on it, as some of the more vocal Orthodox posters do not post here anymore.

I certainly hope you do. And I hope you remember the contents of my thread to help you discern the matter for yourself (and always feel free to PM or e-mail me if you have a question - mm7267@yahoo.com)

Personally, I am inclined to agree with your signature and stop fighting over mere words.

Thank you. I always try to discern whether arguments against the Catholic Church are merely over terminology - a lot of them are - and I try to point that out to my separated brethren in hopes of healing the rift.

The Immaculate Conception does not affect how I live my life, and I do not like to see it as an obstacle to union.

Do you really think that is a good criterion to judge doctrine - i.e., how it affects your every day life? I think there are several Christian dogmas that generally do not ever come into the consciousness of our daily lives - the dogmas on the Trinity, for example, or the dogma of Two Wills in Christ. Are you really sure about this criterion? I would suggest that the Truth of a matter is a better criterion for acceptability - though certainly not an easier one. What do you think?

That, in itself, might sum up my greatest objection. It is an obstacle to union with the Orthodox, and it does not seem to serve any great purpose within the Catholic Church. I think I could say the same thing about papal infallibility.

What if the obstacle to union is not the belief, but because of misconceptions or misunderstandings about the belief? What would be the more noble course of action - to promote understanding, or to simply deny the belief?

Moral issues carry more weight with me than matters of theology, and that is probably the greatest reason why I keep being drawn to the Catholic Church instead of the Orthodox Church. There seems to be more steadfastness in the Catholic Church on these issues, and an unwillingness to compromise with the world.

I know what you mean.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t think the Catholic Church should change anything, on my account. If, in an alternate universe, the Catholic Church had never defined Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility, it would be much easier for me to become Catholic. It is difficult for me to accept the concept that these were always believed, just not yet defined, when they are not and were not believed by the Orthodox. I am also a little concerned about what teachings might be dogmatically defined in the future.

That is a great insight, and needs to be addressed more often than not; I too struggled with this as a Roman Catholic. After much research I discovered that these dogmas became dogmas because the apostolic teachings came under attack. The Catholic church after much scrutiny (from Councils, Synods, Saints, and Popes) to these belief’s concludes that any Catholic from this day foward who denounces these belief’s which have now been defended and defined as Apostolic and can never change will be excommunicated.

In other words upon studying the early church fathers and sacred scripture along with apostolic “Tradition” these belief’s are taught and believed in since the Old and New testament periods. To aquire this full deposit of faith, one need not look at the New Testament “Only”, but at all of God’s Word, Jesus teachings from the Septuagint which Protestants reject as Inspired of God, along with Apostolic Oral and Sacred Tradition in order to grasp these full deposits of faith and revelation.

If you hold to the New testament as or just the bible as your only source of revelation and your interpretation of scripture, one will always fall short of the full deposit of faith. Besides the Catholic church has been divinely instituted by Jesus Christ himself through the Chair of Peter to protect these teachings, feed, and teach his sheepfold, that is why Jesus built his Church upon “Rock” because she will not bend to every wind of doctrine, and she cannot change for the whims of man, and she will not move for no one, except God.

Peace be with you

 

[Cinette]

Ah, Tim, the Church teaches what is not what other would like them to teach.

The Church cannot change her teachings. Those who do not understand them or agree with them are the ones in error, not the Church.

So, I don’t see the point of your post. These things are not up for debate, vote, discussion, etc. The Doctrines of the Church are because Christ is.

*Absolutely!!
*

You can never compromise truth. It is not negotiable.

So Tim - from a Catholic perspective this is a non issue. Let’s see what Protestant’s think.

 

[Cinette]

For me to even begin to consider becoming Catholic, the idea of a “sacrificial” priesthood that has the “power” to perform rituals on my behalf before God to obtain “grace” would need to be dispensed with.

Your comment shows ignorance my friend. What you describe doesn’t sound remotely like the Catholic Church!

You would be “surprised by truth”!!

 

[ConfusedTim]

to go to confession with a priest! :

How do you do your confessing - in front of everybody in the church?

 

[PJM]

Well, the “you” word can’t refer to me personally, as I am not Orthodox. I am in schism from the Catholic Church, I admit, as a Protestant, but that isn’t a state of affairs I find ideal.

Personally, when I use the word “Catholic,” I use it specifically to refer to that Church which is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It does limit confusion, I find. I would actually like very much to be Catholic myself. It’s a process, however, and one not simply completed.

I will say that the Protestant Reformation was a separation of a far different kind than the previous schisms. It involved the definite rejection of previously held belief and the invention of new doctrines. The splits between the Catholics and the Orthodox were more, I think, a case of the East and West growing apart in their theology over time.

My dear friend in Christ,

You have a better, fuller and more correct understanding, than a great many Roman Catholics:clapping::tiphat:

As an FYI, when I refer to the Reformation, I call it by it’s real name, Revolutation

Love and prayers,

I’ll pray that your journey is swift and peaceful!

 

[ConfusedTim]

A couple of other things come to mind, concerning whether or not a non-catholic, would consider becoming a catholic; 1) most or all of us do not recognize the pope as the evangelical leader of the entire Christian world, 2) we don’t believe in praying through Mary and the saints,3)no need for the rosary or prayer beads! Let’s face it; if most of us non-catholics suddenly decided to take the plunge, we would definitely be “cafeteria catholics”.

Jesus obviously listens to Mary his mother e.g wedding feast of Cana. John 2:1-11

Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding. When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” (And) Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Are you saying that Mary is just a distant figure in history who servered her purpose and now has no influence at all on Jesus?

 

[Ella]

The issue here is OBEDIENCE, not birth control methods. However, as to the sexual issue, I believe I am correct in saying that oral sex IS allowed as long as it is a form of foreplay so that it does not become an end in itself.

Indeed, it is a* **mortal sin **for a man to finish outside his wife’s vagina. * I find this belief ridiculous.

But if that stops you from being a “fully Catholic” person, then even if they changed it some other issue would inevitably arise to keep you from leaving the cafeteria anyway.

You can certainly have that opinion, but I do not share it.

Yours is a heart issue. Are you WILLING to obey–that is the real issue in my opinion. This is coming from a same sex attracted male who didnt bargain on the Church stopping me from the gay lifestyle but at some point I had to make that choice. And the Eucharist is worth every minute of it. God bless!

I am glad for you. As far as obeying, I am single and celibate, so I am not dis-obeying anything. But I am not going to lie and say I believe something which I do not believe.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi TIP,

A couple people have already responded to this, but I’d nevertheless like to “jump on the bandwagon”:

I don’t think the Catholic Church should change anything, on my account. If, in an alternate universe, the Catholic Church had never defined Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility, it would be much easier for me to become Catholic. It is difficult for me to accept the concept that these were always believed, just not yet defined, when they are not and were not believed by the Orthodox. I am also a little concerned about what teachings might be dogmatically defined in the future.

I think I sympathize with what you are saying. In particular, I do worry about what dogmatic definitions might be proclaimed in the future. (Not during Benedict’s pontificate, but in the more distant future.) For example, I think it would be very unwise to dogmatically define “Co-redemptrix”.

Still, if it happens, we’ll get through it alright, just like we got through Vatican I dogmatically defining Papal Infallibility.

God bless,

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

For me to even begin to consider becoming Catholic, the idea of a “sacrificial” priesthood that has the “power” to perform rituals on my behalf before God to obtain “grace” would need to be dispensed with.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

 

[1beleevr]

Believe it or don’t, because you are afforded the opportunity to have a personal:thumbsup:relationship, with the very same God who spoke the universe into existence, you can also confess your sins to Him, and repent, thanking Him for His forgiveness! I for one believe, that Jesus’s death on the Cross forgave all sins, past present and future!!! Psalms 103:10-12, 1John 1:9

 

[Cinette]

A couple of other things come to mind, concerning whether or not a non-catholic, would consider becoming a catholic; 1) most or all of us do not recognize the pope as the evangelical leader of the entire Christian world, 2) we don’t believe in praying through Mary and the saints,3)no need for the rosary or prayer beads! Let’s face it; if most of us non-catholics suddenly decided to take the plunge, we would definitely be “cafeteria catholics”.

Best remain where you are.