Why are you not Catholic?

[exnihilo]

The Catholic Church claims that the Church is, by definition, indivisible. Its unity is not compromised by the fact that there are baptized Christians in other communities not in union with Rome. And this unity is, supposedly, a visible unity. While in principle I can see how unity, like holiness, could be both a given and something to be sought, it seems to lead to a sort of bait-and-switch in which the Church is identified with the hierarchy for purposes of authority claims and circling the wagons around accepted doctrine, but spoken of in a much more mystical, “invisible” way when discussing the obvious goof-ups of the hierarchy.

So, for instance, if the Pope and bishops teach something authoritatively, that is “the Church” acting. But if the Pope and bishops do a bad job of protecting children from abusive priests, or persecute heretics, or engage in financial scandals–none of those things are acts of “the Church.” I find the definitional games involved in this distinction to be unconvincing and maybe even less than fully honest.

Maybe the visible Church, however we define it, is broken and sinful. Period. Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, you name it.

I think I see what you are saying but I don’t see it as anything unusual. When a police officer enforces the law he is an agent of the state and entitled to take certain actions. He has authority. He in many ways represents the state. If however he does something improper it is not the state that is acting improperly but the individual. The state does not loose authority because of an individual’s wrong actions. This is so despite the individual being an agent of the state. When a police officer acts improperly most people don’t see that as a reason to think the state has no authority or power. If a person has such an attitude towards the state would the same not be true also of the Church? It seems to me that a strong theme in Christian teaching is obedience to authority even when it is imperfect or wrong (with limits).

 

[Horton]

My concerns with the Roman Catholic Church are centered with my own misgivings on whether I can get to a point where I feel I am in full agreement with everything she teaches. Your catechism is enormous - this could take years. For converts - did a time come when you just said “OK, I assent, and will trust the Holy Spirit to make this plain to my heart and mind?” Because I cannot make this so, by virtue of my own reason.

I converted from a mainstream protestant church and had to come to terms with some of the teachings of the Church. Some I was able to research and come to know the validity of the teaching and others I made a leap of faith. God has been faithful in allowing me to now have complete faith in the Catholic Church and all She teaches. I know this as firmly as I know my birth date or name. It’s really an amazing thing to get the graces that come with trusting God.

 

[IdiNaPut]

I’m leaning towards Orthodoxy for a number of reasons.

Firstly is that whilst I have a great deal of admiration for the RCC, my suspicion is that much of this is due to my family’s background (roughly 2/3 of my family are semi- or fully-practicing Catholics) and the immediate culture I was brought up in (several of my friends growing up were from catholic families). I do not want to make it the case that I blindly follow the CC simply because it is the most familiar or because it’s what everyone else does. If I follow a particular branch of Christianity, I want it to be the case that it is because I have a deep, personal connection to it and I believe it to be the truest form of faith based on my Own understanding.

Being a historian also, I have struggled to come to terms with what Christianity, and particularly Catholicism, has done throughout history and how this can be reasonably justified. Indeed I find it unbelievable that many can quite easily dismiss or make light of these events, many of them terrible. I know Orthodoxy isn’t innocent in this respect (the Balkan conflict is a prime example of politicised Orthodoxy gone bad) though.

 

[rcwitness]

I think I see what you are saying but I don’t see it as anything unusual. When a police officer enforces the law he is an agent of the state and entitled to take certain actions. He has authority. He in many ways represents the state. If however he does something improper it is not the state that is acting improperly but the individual. The state does not loose authority because of an individual’s wrong actions. This is so despite the individual being an agent of the state. When a police officer acts improperly most people don’t see that as a reason to think the state has no authority or power. If a person has such an attitude towards the state would the same not be true also of the Church? It seems to me that a strong theme in Christian teaching is obedience to authority even when it is imperfect or wrong (with limits).

Right. Or you could relate this aspect of the Church to the medical field. A doctor can practice/excercise his rights and privilege as a certified medical doctor. However, he has obligations to the law of medical practice. If he abuses his authority as a doctor, he commits medical malpractice. He has gone against the parameters of his field. He then can face disqualification and lose his license.

 

[Thorolfr]

I would have a difficult time being Catholic because I disagree with the Catholic Church on a number of issues including artificial birth control, the ordination of women and homosexuality. I was raised Southern Baptist but left that denomination because I found it too conservative. I’m much happier in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America which ordains women (one of the pastors of my congregation is a woman) and is welcoming to people in committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.

 

[PRmerger]

I would have a difficult time being Catholic because I disagree with the Catholic Church on a number of issues including artificial birth control, the ordination of women and homosexuality. I was raised Southern Baptist but left that denomination because I found it too conservative. I’m much happier in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America which ordains women (one of the pastors of my congregation is a woman) and is welcoming to people in committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.

If you are in a religion which agrees with all of your own tastes, persuasions, moral conventions, then you are in a religion of the Almighty Self.

For it stands to reason that God is going to obligate you to change your views on some moral issues.

Not find a religion that conforms to your own palates.

 

[Tomdstone]

For it stands to reason that God is going to obligate you to change your views on some moral issues.

Not so, because the natural law, written in the hearts of all men, enables us to deduce binding rules of moral behavior.

 

[PRmerger]

Not so, because the natural law, written in the hearts of all men, enables us to deduce binding rules of moral behavior.

Indeed. Very Catholic, this.

So if you can say that you have changed your moral compass because of what you know God decreed, then you are not part of those who worship at the altar of the Almighty Self.

However, if you are simply searching for a god who conforms to all your whims and fancies, then you are, sadly, part of it.

 

[somechristian]

Simply because I don’t think the papacy, understood as an office occupied by a human who is not Christ that has theological supremacy, is an office established by Jesus. It boils down to that.

Now, before we get into petty debates, I would like people to read this Wikipedia page that summarizes arguments both for and against the primacy of the papacy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Simon_Peter .

I find the Orthodox and Protestant views more persuasive because it is a historical fact that the human institution that today we call “the Roman Catholic Church” was established formally after the Edict of Milan. Debates aside about the deference the bishop of Rome had prior to the Edict of Milan, it is an indisputable historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church’s administrative structure follows that of the Roman Empire in the IV-th century AD that had its capital in Rome. I find it more likely that the Roman elite of that era who were Christians sought to organize the newly legalized religion along the lines of the Roman Empire itself. Most likely the leaders of the other churches didn’t object at first because there were ecumenical councils where all views had equal weight.

The troubles in the Roman Catholic Church, starting with the controversies that lead to the East/West schism, began when the bishop of Rome started to claim supremacy over other bishops.

It is just a bit odd that a religion that started in Jerusalem by a Jew then suddenly found its “Holy City” in the capital of pagan Rome by divine inspiration. As I said, most likely, the Roman Christians sought to organize the new religion according to their empire. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Christians matched administratively the Eastern Roman Empire and it is one of the reasons they used to split from Rome in the XI-th century.

Since this is how I see the history of the papacy, I also believe that the Roman Catholic Church has accumulated, over time, a lot of false beliefs. Martin Luther did an admirable clean up operation to the institution that was badly needed in the 1500s. Many of the reforms championed by Luther, such as the translation of the Bible and the mass to a language that the faithful could understand, were latter adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It is sad that the Roman Catholic Church decided to excommunicate Luther because he never sought to create division, but the fact that the pope Leo X excommunicated him rather than admit that reforms were needed again shows that the Roman Catholic Church, as a human institution, is not synonymous with the Christian Church, the body of Christ founded by Jesus.

 

[MaryT777]

Simply because I don’t think the papacy, understood as an office occupied by a human who is not Christ that has theological supremacy, is an office established by Jesus. It boils down to that.

Now, before we get into petty debates, I would like people to read this Wikipedia page that summarizes arguments both for and against the primacy of the papacy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Simon_Peter .

I find the Orthodox and Protestant views more persuasive because it is a historical fact that the human institution that today we call “the Roman Catholic Church” was established formally after the Edict of Milan. Debates aside about the deference the bishop of Rome had prior to the Edict of Milan, it is an indisputable historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church’s administrative structure follows that of the Roman Empire in the IV-th century AD that had its capital in Rome. I find it more likely that the Roman elite of that era who were Christians sought to organize the newly legalized religion along the lines of the Roman Empire itself. Most likely the leaders of the other churches didn’t object at first because there were ecumenical councils where all views had equal weight.

The troubles in the Roman Catholic Church, starting with the controversies that lead to the East/West schism, began when the bishop of Rome started to claim supremacy over other bishops.

It is just a bit odd that a religion that started in Jerusalem by a Jew then suddenly found its “Holy City” in the capital of pagan Rome by divine inspiration. As I said, most likely, the Roman Christians sought to organize the new religion according to their empire. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Christians matched administratively the Eastern Roman Empire and it is one of the reasons they used to split from Rome in the XI-th century.

Since this is how I see the history of the papacy, I also believe that the Roman Catholic Church has accumulated, over time, a lot of false beliefs. Martin Luther did an admirable clean up operation to the institution that was badly needed in the 1500s. Many of the reforms championed by Luther, such as the translation of the Bible and the mass to a language that the faithful could understand, were latter adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It is sad that the Roman Catholic Church decided to excommunicate Luther because he never sought to create division, but the fact that the pope Leo X excommunicated him rather than admit that reforms were needed again shows that the Roman Catholic Church, as a human institution, is not synonymous with the Christian Church, the body of Christ founded by Jesus.

Thanks for your response and welcome to the forums.

I’m curious what Synod your Church is in… I’m familiar with the LCMS and ELCA and have friends in both synods. I also know one person in the WELS.

Peace in Christ,
Mary.

 

[somechristian]

Thanks for your response.
I wanted to welcome you to the forums and ask what synod of Lutheran you profess your faith in.

Mary.

Thank you for your welcome.

My congregation is LCMS, but since not all LCMS faithful were created equal, I identify with the most “conservative/evangelical” sensitivity of the Synod and so does my congregation, which is why I think that Evangelical Lutheran does a better justice to where I stand, theology wise.

 

[somechristian]

As a complement, I would like people to read the companion Wikipedia page that deals explicitly with the papacy as established after the Edict of Milan. It clearly shows that the “alleged” primacy of the Bishop of Rome was a development pushed forward by the Roman powerful rather than something that was a given and universally accepted.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome

After the Edict of Milan

During the Civil wars of the Tetrarchy, in the 311 Edict of Toleration Galerius, the Augustus in the East, ended the Diocletian persecution of Christianity. Two years later, in 313, Constantine the Great, the Augustus in the West, expanded religious liberty for Christians and returned property confiscated from Christians in his Edict of Milan; he patronized the Church of Rome by constructing large church buildings such as the Lateran Basilica and Lateran Palace and the Old St. Peter’s Basilica, and donated endowments.[56] The First Council of Nicaea approved a church arrangement whereby the bishops of an imperial province were headed by the bishop (known as the “metropolitan”) of the principal city.[57][discuss] This added to the power of the bishops of important cities.
Decretals

The bishops of Rome sent letters which, though largely ineffectual, provided historical precedents subsequently used by supporters of papal primacy. These letters were known as decretals from at least the time of Siricius (384-399) to Leo I provided general guidelines to follow which later would become incorporated into canon law.[58]
Bishop of Rome becomes “Rector of the whole Church”

The power of the Bishop of Rome increased as the power of the Emperors gradually diminished and the imperial authorities tried to bolster their waning power with religious support. A joint edict of Byzantine Emperor Theodosius II and Roman Emperor Valentinian III proclaimed the bishop of Rome as the “rector of the whole Church”.[59][e] In 545, Byzantine Emperor Justinian I promulgated a similar civil Byzantine law, in Novellae Constitutiones novel 131, which codified that the archbishop of Constantinople “occupies the place next after the holy apostolic seat of ancient Rome”.[60]

 

[Thorolfr]

Simply because I don’t think the papacy, understood as an office occupied by a human who is not Christ that has theological supremacy, is an office established by Jesus. It boils down to that.

I have problems with claims of papal supremacy as well…

 

[MaryT777]

Thank you for your welcome.

My congregation is LCMS, but since not all LCMS faithful were created equal, I identify with the most “conservative/evangelical” sensitivity of the Synod and so does my congregation, which is why I think that Evangelical Lutheran does a better justice to where I stand, theology wise.

Thank you for the info. I have noted significant differences in the Lutheran Synods so I just wanted a reference point. I had a good friend who was a LCMS Pastor who has since retired on disability but he used to say “we may be as different as Catholic and Lutheran but we are as similar as two believing Christians.”

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

As a complement, I would like people to read the companion Wikipedia page that deals explicitly with the papacy as established after the Edict of Milan. It clearly shows that the “alleged” primacy of the Bishop of Rome was a development pushed forward by the Roman powerful rather than something that was a given and universally accepted.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome

After the Edict of Milan

During the Civil wars of the Tetrarchy, in the 311 Edict of Toleration Galerius, the Augustus in the East, ended the Diocletian persecution of Christianity. Two years later, in 313, Constantine the Great, the Augustus in the West, expanded religious liberty for Christians and returned property confiscated from Christians in his Edict of Milan; he patronized the Church of Rome by constructing large church buildings such as the Lateran Basilica and Lateran Palace and the Old St. Peter’s Basilica, and donated endowments.[56] The First Council of Nicaea approved a church arrangement whereby the bishops of an imperial province were headed by the bishop (known as the “metropolitan”) of the principal city.[57][discuss] This added to the power of the bishops of important cities.
Decretals

The bishops of Rome sent letters which, though largely ineffectual, provided historical precedents subsequently used by supporters of papal primacy. These letters were known as decretals from at least the time of Siricius (384-399) to Leo I provided general guidelines to follow which later would become incorporated into canon law.[58]
Bishop of Rome becomes “Rector of the whole Church”

The power of the Bishop of Rome increased as the power of the Emperors gradually diminished and the imperial authorities tried to bolster their waning power with religious support. A joint edict of Byzantine Emperor Theodosius II and Roman Emperor Valentinian III proclaimed the bishop of Rome as the “rector of the whole Church”.[59][e] In 545, Byzantine Emperor Justinian I promulgated a similar civil Byzantine law, in Novellae Constitutiones novel 131, which codified that the archbishop of Constantinople “occupies the place next after the holy apostolic seat of ancient Rome”.[60]

I am curious as to why you are quoting Wikipedia and not Lutheran sources such as the Concord book.

Mary.

 

[somechristian]

Thank you for the info. I have noted significant differences in the Lutheran Synods so I just wanted a reference point. I had a good friend who was a LCMS Pastor who has since retired on disability but he used to say “we may be as different as Catholic and Lutheran but we are as similar as two believing Christians.”

Mary.

The joke is that the difference between Catholics and Lutherans is that Lutherans read the bible .

Jokes aside, I think that accepting the supremacy of the pope on theological matters is an obstacle that will prevent unity, understood in the human institutional sense, for a long time. I just don’t see the Orthodox (or Protestants for that matter) doing a 180 to the arguments above -which are very persuasive- and say, never mind, Jesus indeed had a divine plan to establish Rome as a Holy City headed by Peter in his successors as chiefs of the Roman church.

What I see more likely is Christians of different denominations collaborating in areas of common interests, such as religious freedom, etc.

 

[somechristian]

I am curious as to why you are quoting Wikipedia and not Lutheran sources such as the Concord book.

Mary.

Because it is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and contains more information than just the Lutheran view as to why the papacy is not divinely inspired. Note that the question is why I am not Catholic, which is not the same as the question why I am a Lutheran. If you want, I can tell you about the latter .

 

[somechristian]

I have problems with claims of papal supremacy as well…

I think that that is the biggest obstacle for people who are convinced Protestants or Orthodox to become Catholic. The matter of faith and works and how the Lutheran teaching of Law and Gospel differs from the Catholic teaching on justification by faith that shows in “good works” is a more a high theology discussion that few people find interesting (and I will probably have several of my fellow Lutherans disagree with me ).

 

[MaryT777]

Because it is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and contains more information than just the Lutheran view as to why the papacy is not divinely inspired. Note that the question is why I am not Catholic, which is not the same as the question why I am a Lutheran. If you want, I can tell you about the latter .

Probably best to stick to the topic at hand.

Peace and blessings,
Mary.

 

[somechristian]

Probably best to stick to the topic at hand.

Peace and blessings,
Mary.

I agree, blessings to you as well, fellow follower of Christ.