Who or what am I?

[AveChriste11]

I feel like I’m still learning too and have no idea under what specific label to place my “beliefs”:

I believe in the Nicene, Apostles, and Athanasian Creeds. The Filioque is not a huge issue to me, as it’s just something that is meant for Latins.

I believe in the utter necessity of all of the sacraments. I believe the Eucharist is more than just a “symbol” as Zwingli would have us believe, otherwise communion wouldn’t be closed to those outside the church…

I will always believe in first 7 ecumenical councils, as those form the bed-rock of what we know today as Christianity.

I absolutely adore the Rosary, veneration to Mary as the Theotokos, and have a huge appreciation for both Western statuary and Eastern iconostasis.

As far as the issue of the Pope, I believe he held primacy. As to how far that primacy went, I’m not certain. It seems very obvious that Peter was given a special role, unique from all of the Apostles. It also seems that to have a democracy among the college of bishops would be absurd, as the notion of a democracy was never present through the revelations in Scripture or Holy Tradition.

I believe in the veneration of saints, and icons. Even kissing the icons, bowing before them, and using the sign of the Cross! I don’t believe in any form of Calvinism. Faith must be accompanied by Works, following the commandments of charity and not the Mosaic Law.

I adore the Eastern liturgy more so than the Contemporary one, as it takes me “back in time” to what things must’ve USED to have been like. I always feel transported to a different plane of existence, as if the saints themselves had come to listen to the divine liturgy.

Any insights?

Camondw, it’s good to know I’m not the only 20 something who absolutely loves finding the truth about this stuff!

 

[Camondw]

Camondw, it’s good to know I’m not the only 20 something who absolutely loves finding the truth about this stuff!

It is indeed. I learned to appreciate deep inquiry at a young age, it is to my family’s chagrin that i am applying it to church tradition instead of only to Calvinist theology.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

In part it comes from 20 years of learning that the act of divine revelation has ended.

That’s true - The Catechism says:

“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

The role of Councils isn’t to introduce new teachings, but to clarify old ones which are in dispute. But it certainly seems to me from the following passages that the work of God in the Church is one of ongoing protection:

• John 16:12-13: “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."
• **Matthew 28:20b **"And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
• Matthew 16:17-19: "Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’”
• John 14:25-26: “All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

The last passage there, from John 14:25-26 is helpful, since it identifies two functions of the Holy Spirit. One, to teach all things – we both agree that this teaching of all things is the Deposit of Faith, and is only during the Apostolic age; two, to remind the Church of everything taught – this suggests that the Holy Spirit has an ongoing role.

We see that ongoing role in Acts. In Acts 10, it is revealed to Peter that the Jewish kosher rules no longer apply, and he’s free to go to the house of Cornelius. At first glance, Peter’s vision is largely about food restrictions (see Acts 10:9-15), but when the voice says, " “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean,” Peter realizes that this doesn’t just mean pork, but Gentiles, too (Acts 10:28). He then presents this revelation in Acts 11. At this point, everything that Acts 15 decrees is already in place. Salvation is through the Jews, but is for the Gentiles as well; the Law is no longer in effect of its own right, having been fulfilled in Christ, and the ritual impurities are lifted.

So Acts 15, then, is arguably the first time we see the Church, at Council, not declaring a new teaching, but explaining what’s already been taught, and in a form directly relevant to the controversy directly at hand. And as I said before, Acts 15:28 says that the Holy Spirit is speaking through these men, not in issuing new revelation, but in protecting old ones.

Given all of this, it seems totally in keeping to suggest that He continued to do so, in proclaiming the Trinity at the First Council of Nicea, and onwards into the future. I don’t see any case from Scripture suggesting that anything else could possibly be the outcome. Instead, I hear only arguments like the ones you raise: personal experience with human frailty. But I urge you to look at the absolute continuity of Catholic teaching and see in it something above our frail humanity.

 

[Camondw]

Thank you all for your contributions to this post. I think this week I will speak with the priest of my local Catholic parish and ask about enrollment in inquiry classes.

Go with God.

C

 

[cooterhein]

I believe that I fall somewhere between Anglican and Catholic. Any advice? Is anyone else in this precarious position? I have many Catholic views, but am not (according to Rome) in communion with them so I aught not receive Eucharist in a Roman church, but I also have a different view of the sacrament than is the typical Anglican view meaning I do not feel completely secure in receiving the Eucharist there either.

Maybe Old Catholic? They split from Rome. The Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches is in full communion with the Anglican Communion.

The term “Old Catholic” was first used in 1853 with reference to members of the See of Utrecht that denied papal infallibility. There’s other essential doctrines on which they break company with Rome, but overall, I think you’ll be pretty happy with how your “agree/disagree” list compares with them. It sounds like it might be a slightly better fit for you.

 

[losh14]

I feel like I’m still learning too and have no idea under what specific label to place my “beliefs”:

You sound like you’d be comfortable in a Latin Mass or an Orthodox one. My neighbor is a convert from Catholicism to Russian Orthodox but he still attends Mass at our parish 3 to 5 days each week.

I believe in the Nicene, Apostles, and Athanasian Creeds.

As I’d hope - each is consistent with the other.

I believe in the utter necessity of all of the sacraments. I believe the Eucharist is more than just a “symbol” as Zwingli would have us believe, otherwise communion wouldn’t be closed to those outside the church.

I read once an impassioned sermon by Ian Paisley in which he argued that only baptism and the Lord’s Supper were sacraments - and I remember thinking, “Boy, is his wife gonna give it to him when he gets home and says marriage isn’t a sacrament.”

Zwingli was the bully of the Reformers. He would hold sausage feasts during Lenten fasts. He died while imposing a food blockade of the counties in Switzerland that had not yet joined the Reformation.

As far as the issue of the Pope, I believe he held primacy. As to how far that primacy went, I’m not certain.

Primacy is a careful word - often it’s considered a first among peers rather than an absolute ruler, though we have had a few rotten popes who saw it differently. And you’re right that there was no democratic tradition for the Apostles to call upon.

It seems very obvious that Peter was given a special role, unique from all of the Apostles.

Every time a Protestant friend points out that Paul rebuked Peter, I point out that Paul wasn’t even in the picture for the first 13 chapters of Acts, during which time (two years? five years?) Scripture posits Peter as the undisputed leader of the early Church.

I believe in the veneration of saints, and icons. Even kissing the icons, bowing before them,

I still have difficulty with this, though I believe solidly that the saints pray for us. I’d thought that if we must have statues in church, perhaps they should be always facing the altar, and perhaps in postures of worship, to represent their continual adoration of the Lord.

Any insights?

Why? You seem to know exactly what you like? Keep seeking and you will find Him more.

Camondw, it’s good to know I’m not the only 20 something who absolutely loves finding the truth about this stuff!

And it gives this 30-something a great deal of joy to see you whipper-snappers taking your faith seriously!

 

[LilyM]

I appreciate the comments from everyone. I enjoy the discussion.

I do not so much have problems with the doctrine or teaching of Roman Mariology, my problem is more the mandatory acceptance of a set of doctrines that presuppose the infallibility of the councils and Popes who issued the doctrine.

I can accept the current Mariology with minimal reservation, what I have the most trouble with is the claim of perfection of church tradition.

The church is made of men, and men in every case are fallible.

The Bible was composed by men, those men too, in every case must be fallible by your logice. So then in what sense is scripture trustworthy? None that I can see.

Why would you place any credence in scripture when it reports, for example, the words and deeds of Christ? Maybe He DIDN’T say ‘this is My Body’ after all, and His words at the Last Supper were recorded wrongly? Maybe one or more of the other scriptural texts upon which you base your beliefs were not reported correctly, since the writers of scripture must be fallible, either?

By the same means that the Holy Spirit used men to express His inerrant and infallible truths in scripture, so He used and uses men, in the persons of the leaders of the Church, to give us guidance on His teachings which we can and must trust. He did the same with the Apostles, after all, did He not?

 

[Camondw]

The Bible was composed by men, those men too, in every case must be fallible by your logice. So then in what sense is scripture trustworthy? None that I can see.

Why would you place any credence in scripture when it reports, for example, the words and deeds of Christ? Maybe He DIDN’T say ‘this is My Body’ after all, and His words at the Last Supper were recorded wrongly? Maybe one or more of the other scriptural texts upon which you base your beliefs were not reported correctly, since the writers of scripture must be fallible, either?

By the same means that the Holy Spirit used men to express His inerrant and infallible truths in scripture, so He used and uses men, in the persons of the leaders of the Church, to give us guidance on His teachings which we can and must trust. He did the same with the Apostles, after all, did He not?

After reading yours and other’s posts, while it may be crass to say “I am convinced, I will convert!” I will say that I have heard things here that I have not heard anywhere else. I will prayerfully consider all that you and the others have said.

Thank you all again for your care and instruction.

In Christ

 

[FightingFat]

After reading yours and other’s posts, while it may be crass to say “I am convinced, I will convert!” I will say that I have heard things here that I have not heard anywhere else. I will prayerfully consider all that you and the others have said.

Thank you all again for your care and instruction.

In Christ

Glad we can have been of some service to you

I think you might find this instructive: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Ever read it?

 

[losh14]

After reading yours and other’s posts, while it may be crass to say “I am convinced, I will convert!” I will say that I have heard things here that I have not heard anywhere else. I will prayerfully consider all that you and the others have said.

Thank you all again for your care and instruction.

In Christ

You’re welcome. Thanks for your honesty and your open-mindedness here. Come again, we love these kinds of conversations.