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

[Peter_J]

Ok emarc I’ve seen all the writings of the ECFs. So here’s a question. Which ones do you use? Do you take Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement given they may have had contact with the Apostles? If their writings are of such great help then why are they not considered official canon?

If I may “butt-in” here, I would say that the third question illustrates one of the big problems I have with Protestantism (although, granted, that’s exactly the opposite of what this thread is about ): namely, the “all or nothing” kind of mentality; whereby something is either part of the official canon, or else it can’t be “of such great help”.

 

[JonNC]

If I may “butt-in” here, I would say that the third question illustrates one of the big problems I have with Protestantism (although, granted, that’s exactly the opposite of what this thread is about ): namely, the “all or nothing” kind of mentality; whereby something is either part of the official canon, or else it can’t be “of such great help”.

Not all of us, Peter.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry to interrupt this post with Lambic but I wanted to ask a few questions. If we look back at the first councils and the representation they had we find that many of the churches who considered themselves to be Christian were not represented. So we really can’t claim that many of these councils were truly ecumenical. Look at the council of Nicaea which was called by Constantine. We had Bishops right within what became known as the Catholic church that held different views on the nature of Christ. This all was taken by their interpretation of scripture. And we find that the councils mostly appealed to scripture to try to define their dogmas. Now the councils usually made their final decisions by majority vote. Is it really fair to say that because the majority voted one way that this now is absolute truth??

Certainly, the vote count is important, but it isn’t all-important. I strongly recommend that you read the quotation here.

 

[Cinette]

I have been coming off and on to this thread to see what would be said. I have been thinking about what the best answer would be. The only thing I can say is that it is not easy being a Catholic, there are many forces working against us both from within as well as from the outside. I would not want the CC to drop anything to please those of us here on earth. That is not what the Church Christ instituted here on earth is about. With the CC there is the Truth, some of it hard to swallow when we take a good look at ourselves. Are we going to be able to live up to every truth and standard? NO, we are humans, we are imperfect, and we are sinners. As was stated by someone that I can’t remember, the CC is not a home for saints but a hospital for sinners, we have our religious as our doctors and nurses and our Sacraments as our medicine. The only thing I can do is to do my best to be the best Catholic I can be and then let the Lord judge me when it is time.

I love your post!

Yes, I rebelled. For some 27 years I thought that religion was for weaklings. I felt that I didn’t need God. I didn’t discount Him altogether. I did something worse - I was indifferent! There is nothing worse than indifference.

I always had a strong social conscience and hated injustice. One day I felt a strong desire to pray for peace and I went to the first Catholic Church in the area. It felt good to be there. I was surprised to note the changes of VATII. I felt I was home.

As I began to learn more about the Church because, let’s face it, had I been properly catechised I would never have left, I was surprised and excited to discover the fullness of truth. The Love!

I know we have the fullness of truth. I feel the need to obey. I know God pays attention to us always. I am grateful that the Church refused to compromise on truth. I love the priesthood - the sacrifice priests make giving up all to follow Him, to serve Him… They need our prayers and support. I love the teachings of the Church - they are so misunderstood by the Protestants. I know that the Church is solid and good and true and beautiful. I know it is home. I feel hurt and saddened by Protestants who jeer and snarl and criticise. Yet Protestants keep us on our toes. I look at the many who have converted and brought such gifts with them - what a treasure. The Catholic Church does not belong to us - it belongs to all of humanity. It is God’s precious gift to us all.

When Jesus founded His Church he said he would be with us until the end of the world. He told us the Holy Spirit woule guide us into all truth. This is exactly what happened. Heretics emerged from the very beginning and the Church has had to fight them. There were problems within the ranks (the wheat and the tares - always there) and the Church has had to overcome that too.

As I see it there has got to be tension. It is tension that generates growth - in everything. There has got to be tension always.

I am so happy to be back in the Family of God - The Church. It is my Rock! It gives me strength. It reassures me at all times - it gives me encouragement. I now look forward to Holy Week. I would like to extend a challenge to all Protestants. Do yourself a favour go to the services of Holy Week - they begin with Holy Thursday with the washing of the feet. The Stations of the Cross on Good Friday morning - the Adoration of the Cross in the afternoon. The Easter Vigil with all its splendour on Saturday! Easter Sunday with the bells, the Alleluias - Jesus is Risen! - the choirs of Angels singing with joy. Go to all these services and then tell us if you have not been to Heaven - if you have not had a glimpse of heaven.

I love the Catholic Church and I would change nothing except perhaps Catholics!!! LOL! We need more Protestants - they make the best Catholics! LOL!

God bless us all
Cinette

 

[adelore]

We believe that in the Eucharist we receive the true Body and Blood of our Lord. How the bread and wine become the Body and Blood is a mystery to us but we have no doubt that Christ comes to us under the forms of bread and wine.

That depends on individual congregations although the teaching of the church is that weekly communion is the norm. However, for a variety of reasons, this is not universally observed.

Mary’s birth is not really an issue. Certainly, we believe that the Holy Spirit came upon her and she conceived and gave birth to Jesus while being a virgin.

Amen to that.

Pastor Gary,

Thank you so much for your answers.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel peace to you too brother. Technically Nicea was considered to be the first of seven ecumenical councils given the scope of churches in attendance. Ecumenical simply meaning world wide. And yes they were resolving the conflicting nature of Christ but also decided on when to celebrate Easter or the Resurrection. Constantine invited all 1800 Bishops but only 250 to 300 showed as counted by Eusebius. I don’t disagree with the findings of the council per se just showing that the church as a whole was not well represented.

Gabriel of 12:

I was addressing specifically Nicea I council before there were any others. Your definition of Ecumenical as compared to the attendence of the Nicea Council does not equate the true reality of what took place.

For one, at this time period there is only one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church in all the world. The heresy “Arianism” from the East infected the Catholic Church. Your ecumenical definition introduces something that is non existence at this council. So whether all Bishops who are in agreement or against the Heretical views may not need to be present among other reasons. You make as if an injustice has occurred when there was only one Christianity in all Christendom and all were Catholic. So a 20th century ecumenical mindset does not enter this time period yet. Whether or not the Catholic church was world wide or not. The Apostolic belief’s were defended by the Catholic church. Not all Bishops on either side need be present, but all were represented who were Catholic when Pope Sylvester I ratified the decrees and resolutions. And declared Arianism a heresy. Remember Jesus did not build a democracy, Jesus built his fathers kingdom on earth in his Catholic church, where we have a King of King and Lord of Lords with his Vicar “Peter” ever present in the present day Pope Benedict XVI.

NDfan"
Gabriel I completely understand the importance of these councils. I’m certainly not downplaying their role or importance, just citing again that the participation is not reflective of the entire Christian church. So the majority rulings were not really the majority rulings.

Gabriel of 12:

Why not there were no other Christians around but Catholics who were in full communion with the Pope. There were no Protestants existing just Heretics and excommunicated Apostates. Again your “ruling” objection is out of order or out of date here. We are dealing with an Emperor and a ratification of a Pope. Apparently the reality of what Jesus built has not set in yet in your 20th century mindset, Because you cannot apply your ecumencial, majority rulings to define “Truth”, what we have here is a conflict within the only One Catholic church Christian community that defeated the “Arian” heresy, although it continued to surface for the next 100 years.

NDfan;
Gabriel I’m in complete agreement with you here and not at all trying to criticize the church for their role. Again I’m just looking at council participation as not being reflective of the entire church.

Gabriel of 12:
The Arian heresy was represented at this council, and all of Christendom was represented at this council in the Catholic church and the last to speak is “Peter” Pope Sylvester I. Besides are you aware that it was the “Arian” priests and Bishops who kept many Catholic Bishops from attending this council from the threat of death and other schemes to keep these Catholic Bishops from attending?

NDfan:
No that’s not true Gabriel. That argument gets used a lot but it certainly is not the case. The canon of the OT was considered closed by 400BC. These works appear after that with the oldest being the book of Enoch. Jews certainly recognize that their people continued writing after this time frame but that does not imply these works would be defined as canonical. If you use that argument then you could say everything written in Greek after Christ should be canonical in the NT. The Jews flat out admitted that no Prophets existed between 400BC and the time of Christ. The Apocryphal works show that.

Gabriel of 12:

You pose a different argument here which is debatable. I trust your aware of Martin Luther’s reason for rejecting these books and other new testament books as well. Why then did the Jews accept some of the Septuagint as canon, and others not? And do you know of the Jewish council that rejected these apocryphal books? as did the Protestants Becareful this can be a trick question, so be forwarned.

Peace be with you;

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph my brother how are you? With regard to meet on Fridays I was always taught in Catholic school that it was because Christ was the sacrificial lamb that died on a Friday. That’s why we don’t eat meat on Fridays. Was that your teaching? What used to upset me was the constant changing from you can to you can’t to you can back to you can’t. Then it was you can’t unless you’re pregnant or are elderly then it was Ok. I remember a very funny story. Our church had a bullroast during Lent on of all days Good Friday. The Priest literally stood up and offered special dispensation that it was Ok to eat meat.

Peace Brother

I am doing quite well, and I hope you are as well.

Yes, that is part of it, but it is the simple part. The harder part to comprehend is that for most of the history world, meat is a luxury or the main part of most diets. To choose not to eat it is to give up that which is either most desired or the largest part. It is easier to frame it in the context of Jesus was the Lamb of God then it is to tell someone not to do it as a sacrifice. For most of the world, it is still in effect year round. In America, it is only on Lent. However, all Fridays are supposed to be special days of introspection and sacrifice.

Here is the problem. A priest CAN give a dispensation from it under some conditions. However, it is abused often times. Last year, I got married the Satuerday before Palm Sunday. Our rehersal dinner had meat and non-meat dishes. Because of that, I did not ask for a dispensation.

Either way, not eating meat is not on the level of Transubstantiation. Many people on this thread seem to think it is.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I certainly don’t expect them to come out in my own personal interpretation. As far as Mary being revealed in Genesis that simply is not true. If you are referring to the use of the term woman we both know GOD was speaking strictly to Eve. If you are referring to the she will bruise your head, that was a mistake made by a copyist as the proper rendering of the Hebrew text is HE will bruise your head, referring to Christ. JPII recognized and admitted this mistake and made a general statement that the church saw this as an allusion to the birth of Christ. But that has nothing to do with Mary’s sinless nature of perpetual virginity. If you try to dig into the Prophets then you run into trouble there as well since we both know the Prophets foretold that even the family of the Messiah would reject HIM, brothers and sisters.

Gabriel of12:

I must reject your interpretation of Genesis, even though I was not using it in my previous post to define a doctrine, only to reference the Virgin Mary and Jesus. And no you are incorrect when God when spoke the first Protoevangelium, he was speaking to the “Serpent” not Eve. Please read Genesis 3:14-15. God does not speak to Eve until vese 16. I question your context of the quote from John Paul the Great. To understand his writings you better be right with the Lord, to grasp the understanding, for his insights have depth. I have to reread them 3 to 5 times before coming away content with understanding. Many Popes and Saints referenced this Scripture as having spiritual connections to the blessed Mother and Jesus.

NDfan:
Gabriel I have done that brother ad nauseum. I’ve studied it extensively in the Greek which is how it should be done. The bottom line is this. Matthew did not start by saying, I will build my Church on this massive rock, this petra (feminine). He first designated Simon using the masculine petros, and then made the distinction between him and the foundation by employing the feminine petra. It confirms a contrast, and not an identity.

Gabriel of 12:

I am not going to refute your education of Greek. Your findings of the Greek conflict with St. Paul who called “Peter” by the Aramaic name Jesus gave Peter “Cephas” which means “Rock” to designate this title given to Peter alone by Jesus, not to his faith, remember it wont be long after Jesus named Peter “Rock” “Cephas” in Aramaic of the name St. Paul called Peter. I find you in the late century minority of your Greek interpretation of Peter. First century St. Paul conflicts with your interpretation of faith being attached to “rock”, you are unable to get pass the first century eyewitness. Do we need to go on any further?

NDfan:
The church defined Mary as Theotokos to refute heretical claims that Jesus was not divine. I don’t have a problem with using some teachings about Mary to defend Christ. But Mary being sinless or a perpetual virgin doesn’t do anything to defend HIM. Again if you study the Greek in Matthew 1 you will see Mary was not a perpetual Virgin. Matthew fully expected Mary to have marital relations with Joseph which is why he uses the Greek word Synerchomai in verse 18 for come together. Synerchomai means conjugal cohabitation or living together having sex. If you also study 1:25 and that famous until word which in Greek is written Heos Hou you will see Joseph absolutely knew Mary after Jesus was born. This is what opened my eyes to Rome’s errors. And as you say it is a fascinating study.

Gabriel of 12:
Come on NDfan, these late arguments against the dogmas of the Virgin Mary have already been refuted and settled. Your a Johny come lately here. What you have is a difference of opinion of Greek. What the Church uses to help understand these texts, she uses the orginal language, mind set when spoken along with the idiums, this you get with apostolic Tradition. Let me ask you? Do you not know that the Catholic Bishops, biblical scholars and theologians themselves have dealt with these issues when these dogmas were defined? That is one aspect of the Catholic Councils every issue gets scrutinized.

Maybe we can take one of these dogmas of the Blessed Virgin Mary one at a time, that hinders your Catholic faith and make sense of it all from a faithful perspective and a biblical perspective?

Enjoy your company; Peace be with you

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

It occurs to me that if the Catholic Church was to change to accomodate Protestant theology, then there would be no need for Protestants to join it. If the Catholic Church becomes Lutheran or Baptist, etc., then the Protestants might as well stay in their current local churches. Just a thought.

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?

Fair enough. I read *The Divine Comedy *recently, so perhaps that affects my view of Purgatory.

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.

I think I’m still confused about original sin. Does the Catholic Church believe that, because of Adam and Eve’s sin, we are all conceived in a state worthy of damnation? If so, I think the Orthodox disagree.

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.

I’m thinking specifically of “it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman pontiff,” contrasted with more affirming statements of later popes and the CCC. People can’t seem to agree on whether or not the former statement is infallible, and they can’t seem to agree on what later statements and attitudes mean if it is.

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?

I am reading Cardinal Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua, and there is a collection of additional notes in the back. I randomly turned to a page, and it was from his note on Liberalism. What he said applied almost perfectly to what I had said in this thread. The section is a bit lengthy, but I would like to quote the tenets of Liberalism he mentioned. Basically, it makes sense to me, and I believe I was in error, and you and Cardinal Newman are correct:

1. No religious tenet is important, unless reason shows it to be so.

Therefore, e.g. the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed is not to be insisted on, unless it tends to convert the soul; and the doctrine of the Atonement is to be insisted on, if it does convert the soul.

1. No one can believe what he does not understand.

Therefore, e.g. there are no mysteries in true religion.

1. No theological doctrine is any thing more than an opinion which happens to be held by bodies of men.

Therefore, e.g. no creed, as such, is necessary for salvation.

1. It is dishonest in a man to make an act of faith in what he has not had brought home to him by actual proof.

Therefore, e.g. the mass of men ought not absolutely to believe in the divine authority of the Bible.

1. It is immoral in a man to believe more than he can spontaneously receive as being congenial to his moral and mental nature.

Therefore, e.g. a given individual is not bound to believe in eternal punishment.

1. No revealed doctrines or precepts may reasonably stand in the way of scientific conclusions.

Therefore, e.g. Political Economy may reverse our Lord’s declarations about poverty and riches, or a system of Ethics may teach that the highest condition of body is ordinarily essential to the highest state of mind.

1. Christianity is necessarily modified by the growth of civilization and the exigencies of times.

Therefore, e.g. the Catholic priesthood, though necessary in the Middle Ages, may be superseded now.

Continued…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Continued from previous post:

1. There is a system of religion more simply true than Christianity as it has ever been received.

Therefore, e.g. we may advance that Christianity is the ‘corn of weaht’ which has been dead for 1800 years, but at length it will bear fruit; and that Mahometanism is the manly religion, and existing Christianity the womanish.

1. There is a right of Private Judgment: that is, there is no existing authority on earth competent to interfere with the liberty of individuals in reasoning and judging for themselves about the Bible and its contents, as they severally please.

Therefore, e.g. religious establishments requiring subscription are Anti-christian.

1. There are rights of conscience such, that every one may lawfully advance a claim to profess and teach what is false and wrong in matters, religious, social, and moral, provided that to his private conscience it seems absolutely true and right.

Therefore, e.g. individuals have a right to preach and practice fornication and polygamy.

1. There is no such thing as a national or state conscience.

Therefore, e.g. no judgments can fall upon a sinful or infidel nation.

1. The civil power has no positive duty, in a moral state of things, to maintain religious truth.

Therefore, e.g. blasphemy and sabbath-breaking are not rightly punishable by law.

1. Utility and expedience are the measure of political duty.

Therefore, e.g. no punishment may be enacted, on the ground that God commands it: e.g. on the text, ’ Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.’

1. The Civil Power may dispose of Church property without sacrilege.

Therefore, e.g. Henry VIII committed no sin in his spoliations.

1. The Civil Power has the right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and administration.

Therefore, e.g. Parliament may impose articles of faith on the Church or suppress Dioceses.

1. It is lawful to rise in arms against legitimate princes.

Therefore, e.g. the Puritans in the 17th century, and the French in the 18th, were justifiable in their Rebellion and Revolution respectively.

1. The people are the legitimate source of power.

Therefore, e.g. Universal Suffrage is among the natural rights of man.

1. Virtue is the child of knowledge, and vice of ignorance.

Therefore, e.g. education, periodical literature, railroad travelling, ventilation, drainage, and the arts of life, when fully carried out, serve to make a population moral and happy.

Back to the words of The Iambic Pen, that is to say, me. In the case of those divisive doctrines, I was guilty of principle 1. Now, this list is not some infallible proclamation of what to avoid. Personally, however, I find it extremely insightful. I think that attempts by Protestants, myself included, to pick and choose which Catholic elements we are willing to accept and which we are not, are the result of these attitudes. Either the Catholic Church is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church, or it is not. If the former, then we must accept all of its teachings, rather than pick and choose, based on what appeals to us, or what we personally think to be necessary.

 

[1beleevr]

So far, it seems like the consensus among us non-catholics, is that we would eliminate confession to a priest, and praying through Mary and the saints! And, at least speaking for myself, it is no disrespect to Mary; who was a H-U-G-E part of the plan of salvation, but like all the rest of us was born into a sinful world(Romans 5:12, Romans 3:23)! At best we can only speculate(I can already hear the posts being written in opposition) as to whether she was born of an immaculate conception herself, or her womb was sanctified by the Holy Spirit, to ensure that Jesus would be born sinless! As to confession to a priest; is this an obligatory act,mandatory for catholics, or just strongly encouraged? I, myself, would feel so uncomfortable, sharing my deepest darkest sins with a stranger! It doesn’t mean that I have not shared my sins, with a pastor; it;s just that I had already confessed them to God, through Jesus, and then shared it with others afterwards! One more thing; would it be possible to mix up the music at the catholic church, you know old hymns, along with some praise-inducing cotemporary Christian music, with guitars, drums, and electric piano?

 

[1beleevr]

W-O-W!!! Someone did some serious homework and research on the perpetual virginity of Mary! I also interpreted scripture to indicate that Joseph had relations with Mary, after their marriage was finalized! Joseph was more than just a pawn in God’s plan, and Mary was born into a sinful world(Romans5:12, 3:23) Good job on that post(even if the catholics think you are wrong)

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

So far, it seems like the consensus among us non-catholics, is that we would eliminate…praying through Mary and the saints!

Are you opposed to the Church teaching that this is okay, or are you just uncomfortable doing it personally? My understanding is that the Catholic Church would not require you to pray through anyone, if you did not wish to do so. In the same way, you are not required to ask others who are still living to pray for you.

At best we can only speculate(I can already hear the posts being written in opposition) as to whether she was born of an immaculate conception herself, or her womb was sanctified by the Holy Spirit, to ensure that Jesus would be born sinless!

Personally, I think Mary’s womb could have been identical to the womb of any other woman in history, and Jesus could still have been born sinless. This doctrine, in my view, is a matter of Church authority. If one accepts the authority, one accepts the doctrine. Without the authority, it is just speculation. Then again, without the authority, a great deal of Christian teaching becomes speculation…

One more thing; would it be possible to mix up the music at the catholic church, you know old hymns, along with some praise-inducing cotemporary Christian music, with guitars, drums, and electric piano?

Personal opinion follows: NOOOOOOO!!! Sorry about that… A huge part of what draws me to the Catholic Church is the reverence, beauty and tradition of the liturgy. If I want to hear guitars, drums, and electric piano, I’ll go to a rock concert, not to church.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

My two cents:

As an evangelical married to a Catholic, I have a personal interest in this matter. Would that my family could be one!

For me, the key question is one of authority. Do I accept the authority of the Roman Catholic church? I do not, because I think in too many instances, the Roman Catholic has proclaimed dogma and doctrine that cannot be supported by good hermenuetics of the Bible or an understanding of the Early Church fathers. Indeed, on many issues, the Roman Catholic church has violated its own standards for proclaiming doctrine, established at Trent, that there should be unanimous consent of the Fathers.

Many posters here at Catholic Answers are apologists for Catholic doctrine simply because the Catholic church established that doctrine, clinging to a dubious authority granted by Jesus to Peter, which Orthodox and Protestant Christians do not accept. The logic is basically B is true, because A says B is true, not because the evidence for B is convincing. Catholics are not really free to question the magisterium, even when it seems patently wrong, for fear of losing their salvation!

So, for me a number of difficulties (forgive my broad brush sweeps here):

1. Eucharist as transubstantiation (not supported by the Early Church Fathers, in my opinion). I could support the Othodox and Anglican concept of Real Presence, and the Lutheran concept of Co-substantiation
2. Roman Catholic concept of baptismal regeration for infants (not supported by the early Church Fathers). The earliest evidence we have from the Fathers, which occurs in the Didache (c. 100), only contemplates the baptism of adults and I think this would be healthy.
3. Mariology: particulaly the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary. These are post Reformation dogma and doctrines that cannot be supported by the Early Church Fathers, in my opinion.
4. Need for confession to a priest (although I would accept the freedom to do so)
5. Catholic view of hell as eternal torment and purgatory
6. Infalibility of the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra
7. General confusion in the Roman Church’s teaching regarding justification by faith alone (now the Pope says “Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true” vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html. I think most Catholic Answers posters a priori wouldn’t agree with the Pope.

I actually find the Orthodox Church more attractive in terms of doctrine, since they don’t have many of the above problems: transubstantiation not defined as such, assumption not a dogma, don’t accept sinlessness of Mary or Immaculate Conception, don’t accept the Redemtrix titles, don’t have the same dogmatic view of hell or purgatory and don’t have the pope. In practice, however, I think the Orthodox Church has a number of problems, witnessed by the church’s dwindling influence in Europe and Mid East and insignificance in North America and the rest of the world (sadly).

Just my two cents.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Iambic Pen,

I think I’m still confused about original sin. Does the Catholic Church believe that, because of Adam and Eve’s sin, we are all conceived in a state worthy of damnation? If so, I think the Orthodox disagree.

The official Catholic teaching is, and always has been, that original sin weakens or damages us, but does not damn us. The damnation theory is a Protestant understanding. Often, Orthodox confuse Catholics and Protestants simply because most Catholics are from the Latin Tradition, as are Protestants. This is proven by the First Vatican Council’s teaching on the difference in the state of those who die in mortal sin versus those who die in original sin alone. As early as 1201, Pope Innocent III taught that those who die in mortal sin suffer eternal torment of hell, while those who die in original sin alone will simply not experience the beatific vision. This teaching was confirmed at Vatican I.

I’m thinking specifically of “it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman pontiff,” contrasted with more affirming statements of later popes and the CCC. People can’t seem to agree on whether or not the former statement is infallible, and they can’t seem to agree on what later statements and attitudes mean if it is.

I think there was a time when Catholics in communion with Rome were pretty unanimous on the mitigated meaning of that text, the only question being whether it was infallible or not. Those who accepted the hardline interpretation of the text were almost exclusively in schism from the Church in the SSPX. Now that the excommunication against the SSPX has been lifted, I think the concern you express is legitimate. But perhaps the reunion will soften them up.

I am reading Cardinal Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua, and there is a collection of additional notes in the back. I randomly turned to a page, and it was from his note on Liberalism. What he said applied almost perfectly to what I had said in this thread. The section is a bit lengthy, but I would like to quote the tenets of Liberalism he mentioned. Basically, it makes sense to me, and I believe I was in error, and you and Cardinal Newman are correct:

Cardinal Newman is a better PR man from heaven, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ralphinal]

My two cents:

As an evangelical married to a Catholic, I have a personal interest in this matter. Would that my family could be one!

For me, the key question is one of authority. Do I accept the authority of the Roman Catholic church? I do not, because I think in too many instances, the Roman Catholic has proclaimed dogma and doctrine that cannot be supported by good hermenuetics of the Bible or an understanding of the Early Church fathers. Indeed, on many issues, the Roman Catholic church has violated its own standards for proclaiming doctrine, established at Trent, that there should be unanimous consent of the Fathers.

Many posters here at Catholic Answers are apologists for Catholic doctrine simply because the Catholic church established that doctrine, clinging to a dubious authority granted by Jesus to Peter, which Orthodox and Protestant Christians do not accept. The logic is basically B is true, because A says B is true, not because the evidence for B is convincing. Catholics are not really free to question the magisterium, even when it seems patently wrong, for fear of losing their salvation!

So, for me a number of difficulties (forgive my broad brush sweeps here):

1. Eucharist as transubstantiation (not supported by the Early Church Fathers, in my opinion). I could support the Othodox and Anglican concept of Real Presence, and the Lutheran concept of Co-substantiation
2. Roman Catholic concept of baptismal regeration for infants (not supported by the early Church Fathers). The earliest evidence we have from the Fathers, which occurs in the Didache (c. 100), only contemplates the baptism of adults and I think this would be healthy.
3. Mariology: particulaly the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary. These are post Reformation dogma and doctrines that cannot be supported by the Early Church Fathers, in my opinion.
4. Need for confession to a priest (although I would accept the freedom to do so)
5. Catholic view of hell as eternal torment and purgatory
6. Infalibility of the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra
7. General confusion in the Roman Church’s teaching regarding justification by faith alone (now the Pope says “Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true” vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html. I think most Catholic Answers posters a priori wouldn’t agree with the Pope.

I actually find the Orthodox Church more attractive in terms of doctrine, since they don’t have many of the above problems: transubstantiation not defined as such, assumption not a dogma, don’t accept sinlessness of Mary or Immaculate Conception, don’t accept the Redemtrix titles, don’t have the same dogmatic view of hell or purgatory and don’t have the pope. In practice, however, I think the Orthodox Church has a number of problems, witnessed by the church’s dwindling influence in Europe and Mid East and insignificance in North America and the rest of the world (sadly).

Just my two cents.

I am not interested in discussing most of this, as it has been beaten to death. I would like to ask you to explain what you mean about the Catholic view on Hell being problematic

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I am not interested in discussing most of this, as it has been beaten to death. I would like to ask you to explain what you mean about the Catholic view on Hell being problematic

I think the Roman Catholic Church (and many Protestant denominations) have gone beyond the Bible and the beliefs of the Fathers in defining hell as a place of eternal torment, influenced I think more by Plato than Scripture. The Jewish view and that of first and second century Christians such as Clement and Ignatius was clearly different. For the early Christians, the choice facing mankind was not between eternal bliss and eternal suffering, but rather eternal life versus perishing of the soul (e.g. John 3:16). The exact nature of Hell, purgatory, judgement, and the Second Death were debateable to the Early Church Fathers, but in almost no case involved eternal torment.

Orthodoxy appears comfortable in not trying to over define Hell and purgatory.

 

[ralphinal]

I think the Roman Catholic Church (and many Protestant denominations) have gone beyond the Bible and the beliefs of the Fathers in defining hell as a place of eternal torment, influenced I think more by Plato than Scripture. The Jewish view and that of first and second century Christians such as Clement and Ignatius was clearly different. For the early Christians, the choice facing mankind was not between eternal bliss and eternal suffering, but rather eternal life versus perishing of the soul (e.g. John 3:16). The exact nature of Hell, purgatory, judgement, and the Second Death were debateable to the Early Church Fathers, but in almost no case involved eternal torment.

Orthodoxy appears comfortable in not trying to over define Hell and purgatory.

Ok. I was making sure that you did not think hell was temporary

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Ok. I was making sure that you did not think hell was temporary

The punishment of hell is most certainly permanent, as is the unquenchable fire. To doubt that would be universalism.

 

[VARC]

The official Catholic teaching is, and always has been, that original sin weakens or damages us, but does not damn us. The damnation theory is a Protestant understanding.

Not true. Saint Augustine maintained that all unbaptized babies went to hell. St Thomas Aquinas taught that original sin kept people from heaven and the babies would be in Limbo, a form of Hell. So don’t insinuate that the idea that original sin damned people was invented in the Reformation. The protestant conception of original sin comes directly from the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

As early as 1201, Pope Innocent III taught that those who die in mortal sin suffer eternal torment of hell, while those who die in original sin alone will simply not experience the beatific vision. This teaching was confirmed at Vatican I.

Exactly. This exclusion from the beatific vsion (ie heaven) is the very definition of damnation. The reasoning of Aquinas was that no one who was unbaptized can go to heaven. However, the pains and punishments of hell are proportionate to the degree of a sinner (ie a murderer is more severly punished than a drunkard). But what about babies who are stained with original sin (and thus cannot go to heaven) yet have commited no actual sins. So Limbo was born. It is a state of hell that is seperated from God and heaven yet there is no other punishment. It was a perfevtly reasonable conclusion based on traditional Roman catholic principles. Pity the Vatican debunked it.