Why I'm Still Not Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Iambic_Pen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Everyone keeps using the term Papal Primacy and that is not what the Orthodox object to. They object to Universal Jurisdiction and Absolute Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over all other bishops.

A primate is just the head bishop over an area like the Primate of Mexico in Mexico City or the Primate of All Spain in Toledo. But he really has no powers except an Honorific Title. The Dogma from the First Vatican Council gives the Pope Supreme Powers over all bishops in the world and the theory that all bishops only get their teaching authority from him. That is what the Orthodox claim is a novel teaching not found in the ECFs.
 
You might want to read John Henry Newman’s writings. He was on a similar journey that you were in.🙂
 
crosstimbers said:
Iambic Pen,
I am new to all this…just started learning about the RC Church last summer. I too have had a hard time with papal primacy. I have also looked at the Orthodox church. Here is the conclusion I have come to: if you want to see what happens to a church when it abandons central authority (i.e. the Pope and magesterium) just look at what is happening right now in the Episcopal church which I have just left.
Click to expand...
This seems illogical, if it’s a reason for rejecting Orthodoxy. As far as I can tell your reasoning runs as follows:
  1. The Episcopal Church has fallen into heresy
  2. The Episcopal Church lacks the Papacy
  3. Therefore, all churches lacking the papacy will fall into heresy
  4. Therefore, the Orthodox will fall into heresy
Can you see why that’s a very unconvincing chain of argument?

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
  1. The Episcopal Church has fallen into heresy
  2. The Episcopal Church lacks the Papacy
  3. Therefore, all churches lacking the papacy will fall into heresy
  4. Therefore, the Orthodox will fall into heresy
Click to expand...
Edwin,
Actually my reasoning is more like this:
  1. The Episcopal Church lacks a central authority.
  2. Without that central authority TEC has voted in heresy.
  3. Any church without the protection of a central authority is in danger of the same.
Whether or not the Orthodox church has actually done so (and I don’t believe it has), has nothing to do with it. However the fact that it COULD is the problem I have with it. If the Orthodox church existed entirely in the type of society we have in the U.S. with the constant bombardment against morality and traditional Christianity, I’d say it was in very grave danger indeed.
If you would like to discuss the situation in TEC, I would be glad to do so privately or on another thread.
Blessings,
Nancy
 
As I have discovered on another thread thanks to the poster st bernard., the Catholic understanding of Original Sin, is the correct understanding.

It was defined at the Council of Carthage.

And was accepted at two Ecumenical Councils.

Thanks to st. bernard the poster.
 
Contarini said:
This seems illogical, if it’s a reason for rejecting Orthodoxy. As far as I can tell your reasoning runs as follows:
  1. The Episcopal Church has fallen into heresy
  2. The Episcopal Church lacks the Papacy
  3. Therefore, all churches lacking the papacy will fall into heresy
  4. Therefore, the Orthodox will fall into heresy
Can you see why that’s a very unconvincing chain of argument?

Edwin
Click to expand...
Actually, it’s kind of convincing, since the Orthodox has fallen into heresy many times throughout their past, and are currently heretics and schismatics.

It’s definitely an emperical trend based on the data that when a church does not submit to the authority of an infallible pope, they will eventually believe doctrines contrary to the truth of God.
The Iambic Pen:
This clearly shows one of my greatest problems with Catholicism. I simply cannot believe that someone who has never committed even the slightest sin somehow deserves eternal torment. To suggest that our default destination is Hell is to suggest that God deliberately creates each soul in this state. I’m not even comfortable writing what I just wrote in my last sentence, because it implies that God is cruel and evil, far worse than even Satan. To say that an unborn child deserves to go to Hell is like saying that someone locked against their will in a burning building deserves to burn. The Catechism does not portray God in this way, but, as many are quick to point out, the Catechism is not infallible.
Click to expand...
If it is indeed a problem, it surely isn’t just with Catholicism. Calvinist theology aligns with Catholicism on this.

The question really comes down to, who is the clay to tell the potter what He can do? Romans 9:21-23.

“Cruelty” and “Evil” is in reference to your own limited mind. Perhaps from God’s perspective, it is the only just thing to do, and perhaps even the most merciful thing as well, considering the infant may grow up to be a huge sinner and incure more wrath in Hell after dying as an adult versus dying and suffering as an infant the minimal of punishment (loss of beautific vision) in hell.
 
Liberian said:
Now that you mention it (and I take the trouble actually to read the whole post) I don’t believe #7 either.
  • Liberian
Click to expand...
I don’t believe #7 either.

Iambic Pen–how did you conclude that the Church teaches #7?"I am not remotely convinced that the Catholic who attends church grudgingly and goes through the motions is more pleasing to God than the Protestant who truly loves God and desires to do His will."
*
*I really don’t think the Church teaches that. Some may speculate that God is pleased when we grudgingly obey that which is difficult, but I think the Church holds that we *should *truly love God and desire to do His will. This is part of the act of contrition I learned as a child “I detest of my sins…but most of all because they offend You, my God, Who are all good and deserving of all my love.”

This Bible verse comes to mind regarding #7: “to whom much is given, much will be required”. A Catholic who merely goes through the motions in the Catholic Church wastes many of God’s good graces. We are accountable for how we use His grace.
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
  1. I am not remotely convinced that the Catholic who attends church grudgingly and goes through the motions is more pleasing to God than the Protestant who truly loves God and desires to do His will.
Click to expand...
It comes down to what is better: a faithful heretic or a lackadasical person with true doctrine. Actually, I do not think that either is fully pleasing to God.

Do not succumb to the errors of Eastern Orthodoxy. While Eastern Rite Catholicism is great, the schismatic Eastern Orthodox are little more than Protestants in Catholic garb, IMO. Eastern Orthodoxy has no authority whatsoever to define, determine or declare what is or is not proper doctrine in opposition to the Catholic Church.
 
crosstimbers said:
Edwin,
Actually my reasoning is more like this:
  1. The Episcopal Church lacks a central authority.
  2. Without that central authority TEC has voted in heresy.
  3. Any church without the protection of a central authority is in danger of the same.
Whether or not the Orthodox church has actually done so (and I don’t believe it has), has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Yes it does, if you care about reality rather than fanciful speculation. The Orthodox have been in separation from the papacy for twice as long as Anglicans, and yet they haven’t fallen into any significant heresies. That scuttles your thesis completely. You don’t know that the problem with TEC is the lack of a central authority. You have just bought this RC claim because it seems plausible and provides an easy solution.

You say that you can’t stand the idea that your church *might *fall into heresy. Well how do you know the RCC can’t? Assuming that it hasn’t (which of course many would claim), how do you know it won’t? If the Orthodox can go 1000 years and still fall into heresy (according to you), why can’t the RCC?
If you would like to discuss the situation in TEC, I would be glad to do so privately or on another thread.
Click to expand...
Not particularly, to be honest. It’s a great weariness. I’m in a good diocese right now (Northern Indiana) but I still haven’t officially transferred my membership from North Carolina (in spite of having spent three years in NJ in between). And yet I can’t persuade myself to become Catholic (or Orthodox, but more likely Catholic though not for the reason you cite).

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Guardian said:
Actually, it’s kind of convincing, since the Orthodox has fallen into heresy many times throughout their past, and are currently heretics and schismatics.
Click to expand...
But that is not Nancy’s argument.
It’s definitely an emperical trend based on the data that when a church does not submit to the authority of an infallible pope, they will eventually believe doctrines contrary to the truth of God.
Click to expand...
Since you have accepted Catholicism, you necessarily believe that the Papacy is necessary. But if one does not start with the assumption that everything other than Catholicism is heresy, then no such “trend” is evident.

Edwin
 
SPH1 said:
While Eastern Rite Catholicism is great, the schismatic Eastern Orthodox are little more than Protestants in Catholic garb, IMO. Eastern Orthodoxy has no authority whatsoever to define, determine or declare what is or is not proper doctrine in opposition to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
This is a bizarre claim, and shows the corrosive effect of the assumption that authority is the one thing that matters. Doctrinally speaking the Orthodox are very far from Protestants and very close to you. Your own Church recognizes this explicitly–you are contradicting Lumen Gentium by what you are saying. You are authority-mad, like a lot of the so-called “conservative Catholics” on this forum.

Authority is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to preserve the Gospel pure and whole. Since your church admits that the Orthodox have come extremely close to doing so (and indeed some noted Catholic theologians would claim that they have done so), it hardly matters that they allegedly “don’t have authority.”

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
The Orthodox have been in separation from the papacy for twice as long as Anglicans, and yet they haven’t fallen into any significant heresies.
Click to expand...
Are you an authority to state what is and is not “significant” heresy?
You say that you can’t stand the idea that your church *might *fall into heresy. Well how do you know the RCC can’t?
Click to expand...
Because Jesus said.
Assuming that it hasn’t (which of course many would claim), how do you know it won’t?
Click to expand...
Because Jesus said.
If the Orthodox can go 1000 years and still fall into heresy (according to you), why can’t the RCC?
Click to expand...
Because the RCC is led by the successors of the Apostle Peter, the person that Jesus said His church would be built on and the gates of Hell could not prevail against.
Since you have accepted Catholicism, you necessarily believe that the Papacy is necessary. But if one does not start with the assumption that everything other than Catholicism is heresy, then no such “trend” is evident.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is not correct. Even assuming that the Papacy did not exist, I would still believe that everything else is most likely heresy, based off the law of contradiction alone. On top of that even, the statistical probability that a fallibly led church can produce doctrine that always aligns with the truth of God is zilch.

Granted, there couldn’t be a “trend” per se because you need a baseline for comparison. You are advocating there is no way of knowing the baseline.
 
Guardian, Jesus never said the RCC couldn’t fallen into heracy. He said the gates of hades would never prevail against the [His] church. You would have to prove that this is THE church.
 
SoonerServant said:
Guardian, Jesus never said the RCC couldn’t fallen into heracy. He said the gates of hades would never prevail against the [His] church. You would have to prove that this is THE church.
Click to expand...
The problem there is that history itself refutes your assertion.

Have you bothered to read much of the ECFs for yourself? I doubt it, or you wouldn’t have put that statement forward.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
The only ECF’s I can trust for certain, are the Apostles. I know, without doubt, that they spoke the truth. They established A [Christ’s] church, but I’m convinced it’s not the RCC. There are too many heracies.
 
SoonerServant said:
Guardian, Jesus never said the RCC couldn’t fallen into heracy. He said the gates of hades would never prevail against the [His] church. You would have to prove that this is THE church.
Click to expand...
“Prove” to what certainty? I can’t prove you’re not a pink bunny, but I have a lot of evidence to prove within a high degree of certainty you’re not.

I could write a whole book on this issue alone, but here is a brief synopsis…
  1. Christ told Peter that Peter was the rock.
  2. Peter is the rock that Christ built His Church on.
  3. The gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church founded on Peter: that church being the pillar and foundation of the truth (implying it can not contain heresy)
  4. The successors of Peter, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, continue the apostolic authority to carry on the mission of Apostle Peter in leading Christ’s Church.
  5. We have strong historical evidence that the head of the RCC is Apostle Peter’s successor.
  6. The RCC is THE Church
 
Do you even know why it’s called the ROMAN Catholic Church?
 
SoonerServant said:
The only ECF’s I can trust for certain, are the Apostles. I know, without doubt, that they spoke the truth. They established A [Christ’s] church, but I’m convinced it’s not the RCC. There are too many heracies.
Click to expand...
(You can’t even spell “heresy”.)

I challenge you to open a thread on each one of these alleged “heresies” separately and be prepared to prove your case. I can assure you that I will participate and you will be completely refuted.

I see a-Cs make these kind of allegations and statements all the time but I rarely see them “man up” and make their case when I call them on it. And the few that do I have refuted. I think you’ll prove no better and it will give me a chance to challenge you to think beyond the rhetoric, propaganda, and twisted Biblical interpretations that you base such remarks on.

You say you trust no one but the apostles huh? Well then you must not believe any of the rest of historical writings because the vast majority of history is not found in the Word of God.

So…your remark is fallacious and biased propaganda. If you really believe that then rise to my challenge and one “heresy” at a time my Catholic brothers and sisters and I will show that you are in fact the one holding to the substantial and grave heresies.

As they say on the street., "Don’t sing it…bring it!"
I don’t think you can or will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top