Why I'm Still Not Catholic

[RNRobert]

I think another thing that plays a part in the differences between the CC and EO is language. I think somebody aid semantics has alot do with it, but I believe it is influenced by language. The primary language of the EO is Greek (or at least it was during the Middle Ages) while the primary language is Latin, and this is what influenced thinking in each church. The EO tend to be more mystical, whereas the Latin Church gave birth to Scholastics like St Thomas Aquinas. At least that’s my understanding of it.

 

[twf]

1. I am deeply concerned by the Catholic practice of making eternal damnation the punishment for violating man-made disciplines.

Remember the story of Korah in the OT? He rebelled against Moses’ authority. Moses governed the Israelites by divine mandate: he was God’s prophet and spoke/ruled with God’s authority. What was the penalty for Korah’s disobedience? Death! In the New Covenant to knowingly disobey the Church, which has been entrusted with the keys and the power of binding and loosing, is a grave offense against God. Many sins that carried the physical death penalty in the OT (murder, adultery, etc) are considered mortal sins by the Catholic Church; sins that carried the physical death penalty in the OT often carry the spiritual death penalty in the NT.
I assume you are thinking, for one, of the prohibition of meat-eating on Fridays. Yes this was binding for Catholics under pain of mortal sin. Why? Because to knowingly disobey a discipline that the Church had justly put in place for the good of the faithful is to disobey and defy Christ Himself. Christ established the Church. Christ entrusted the power of binding and loosing to His vicars on earth the bishops (and in particular to the Bishop of Rome).
“…he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” (Matt 10:1, 40) and “he who hears you, hears Me” (Lk 10:16). Is it not a grave offense to ignore the words of the Saviour Himself speaking through his vicars?
Take a look at these verses: scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html#apostolic-III.

God bless you in your journey! May the Holy Spirit, through the intercession of Mary Immaculate and all the Angels and Saints, enlighten your mind and soul! Amen.

 

[Cairisti]

Hi IP!
Long time no see! : I can understand being between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Do pray that the HS will lead you in the right direction. I also was very attracted to the Orthodox Churches. (The DL is heaven sent is it not? )

The one thing that pointed me to Rome was Peter and the Primacy of Rome.

I pray that you’ll find your way Home. (And thankfully not back to the mess that some of us left. )

 

[Bwavenit]

.

1. I am concerned by the apparent contradiction in beliefs between Eastern and Western Catholics.

If you have the time check out this radio program, they explain the eastern half of the church, to the latin side.
it plays on our local catholic radio station, but you can also listen on the web.

byzantinecatholic.com/radio.htm

keep searching God will lead you.

 

[Janet_S]

Here is an article by Fr Ray Ryland that you might be interested in reading:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/1ORTHO.htm

The difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches does come down to the role of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Here is an excerpt from Fr Ryland’s article:

"From his newly-gained Eastern perspective, Gillquist made this comment about the Protestant churches. Though they were deeply divided, “All seemed to share a dislike for the Bishop of Rome and the practice of his Church.” The observation is true, but its scope is far wider than Gillquist realizes. Dislike for the Bishop of Rome unites non-Catholic Christians.

Writing in the last century, the French scholar Joseph de Maistre declared that “every non-Catholic church is `Protestant.’” The distinction often made between heretical groups (Protestants) and schismatic groups (Eastern Churches) is only verbal: “Every Christian who rejects with the Holy Father is a Protestant or soon will be.”

De Maistre asks, why do Protestants never bother to write books attacking the Greek or the Russian or the Nestorian or the Syrian Churches, all of which hold many doctrines which Protestants despise? The Russian Church, for example, believes in the Real Presence, all seven Catholic sacraments, intercession of the saints, veneration of images, and so forth.

Though Protestantism abhors these doctrines, “if it encounters any of these in a church separated from Rome, it takes no offense at them. . . . Russia is separated from the Holy See—that is sufficient for it to be seen as a brother, a fellow Protestant.” More succinctly, “All enemies of Rome are friends” (quoted by Hans Urs von Balthasar, [Ignatius Press, 1986], 80-81)."

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Wow, thanks for all the replies! I posted this on Thursday night before I went to bed, and then I had a pretty long day today (Friday). So, I’m just now getting to this thread again. I’ll try to address at least some of what was said before I get some much-needed sleep…

I think, though, that rather than personally reply to everyone (which I’m a little too tired to do… ), I will list numbers 1-7 again, and clarify my thoughts.

1. Papal supremacy still seems to be a matter of interpretation. It seems to me that it was accepted early on in the West, but never fully in the East. Even if some Eastern Fathers seemed to speak in favor of it, it did not seem to ever “stick.” Thus, I don’t think the Eastern Church ever really rebelled against a previously accepted authority. And, for all the quotes supporting papal supremacy, there are also many that seem to attack it. Does anyone know of any official pronouncements from pre-Schism councils, declaring that the pope had supremacy (beyond a primacy of honor)? In my mind, the private opinions of theologians are not sufficient basis for doctrine. Councils speak with far more authority.
2. On the issue of the development of doctrine, it seems to me that doctrines should be pronounced to defend what was always believed, that which was passed down from the Apostles. Councils should be held to combat heresies, not to come up with new teachings. Papal Infallibility, in particular, is suspect, as the Schism itself shows that the doctrine was not universally held by the Church in the early days. If a Christian from the year AD 500 were to come to our time and learn the doctrines of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, where would this Christian feel most at home?
3. On the issue of original sin, I would like to first quote this passage from Guardian’s post:

I think this problem arises from your wrong mindset. Humans don’t deserve Heaven but deserve Hell. Humans are not worthy of Heaven, and only get there by God’s grace. So why would an unbaptized infant be able to go to Heaven if the default end location is hell…where the infant (and all humans) deserve to be?

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.

Continued below…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Continued from previous post…

1. In regard to the apparently contradictory teachings and the “verbal gymnastics” people go through to resolve them, I already mentioned some examples in my initial post. I could also add the teaching, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” which has since been clarified to mean that just about anyone can qualify as being “in the Church.” Is this really a deeper understanding of a previous teaching, or is it an attempt to get around the plain meaning of the text? In regard to the “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of everyone be subject to the Roman pontiff” quote, did the Pope in question (whose name escapes me) really mean it like modern apologists say, or is this an attempt to sugar-coat a teaching which does not sit well in this more ecumenical world?
2. In the “man-made rules leading to damnation” issue, the “no meat on Fridays” teaching did come to mind. I am troubled by this, because if disciplines are for our good, then those who fail to uphold them should be gently corrected and helped, not sent to Hell. If you want your children to stay in the yard, put up a fence, don’t surround the yard with a ditch of burning coals. Christ came to Earth to save the world, not to condemn it. The Church should follow His holy example.
3. The apparent contradictions between Eastern and Western Catholics are often the subject of discussion over on the Eastern Christianity forum. It seems that when the Eastern Catholics re-united with Rome, they essentially kept all their Orthodox teachings, without accepting the post-Schism teachings of the Western Church. While they cannot, of course, outright deny these teachings, they don’t seem to be comfortable with them.
4. My reference to Protestantism was partly a result of my frustration with the Catholic-Orthodox debate (on these forums, in the outside world, and in my own mind). My Protestant friends love God and want to do His will. They praise Him and serve Him, and do not spend their time agonizing over whether or not Mary was actually alive at the time of her Assumption, or spend their time debating on whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used for Communion. They would see these disputes as being over rules taught by men, which detract from our mission to save the world for Christ. While I really don’t think I can go back to being Protestant, I often find their perspective on these issues to be a tempting one.

I don’t know if I’ll make a seven issues with Orthodoxy thread. I ask the Catholic Church harder questions, because it claims so much more for itself. Plus, my only real objection to Orthodoxy is that sometimes I’m inclined to believe in Papal Primacy, and I think they may be wrong in rejecting it. Even the whole cultural argument is become less relevant, as Orthodoxy grows in the West.

I thank you all for your answers and your prayers!

God bless!

 

[fineca]

+Praised be Jesus Christ!

Thanks man for this thread! Your reasons are good ones, and I’m glad you’re honest. At the same time I agree with the one that said that becoming Catholic gives the light and grace to understand and believe, you’ll see it better from the inside.

Let’s have a look at your points:

1. Have you read the articles mentioned in this link:
   geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/easternorthodoxy.html

It seems clear that the Councils believed in Papal supremacy. As to pre-schism council statements:
“*f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment” (canon 4, council of Sardica).
"“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [Council of Ephesus A.D. 431]).
“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, session 1 [A.D. 451]). “After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).

1. Of course papal infallibility as it’s defined now wasn’t universally held in the early church, but neither was the Trinity in the first 3 centuries, many if not most fathers I’ve read were subordinationists. The first Christians hadn’t probably thought about such a thing as a definition of the Trinity or papal infallibility, but if you met with them and asked them (eg Ireneus) if God would let the Bishop of Rome publish an official teaching letter to all Christians teaching as dogma to be believed by all Christians something that is untrue, I’d say Ireneus would say no.
2. There has not been any official teaching on where unbaptized infants go. Pre-schism local councils (at least one) believed they are damned, so the same problem should go for the orthodox. But never did an ecumenical council settle the issue. The council of Florence defined that all who die in original sin only go to hell but it didn’t define that unbaptized children die with original sin, saints before and after that have believed they can be saved by the grace of baptism in an extraordinary way. Many people believed they went to hell but not to suffer torment, only to be excluded from heaven, calling this limbo. So there are three options, hell, libmo, heaven, all suggested both in the middle ages and nowadays, but there is no official teaching. You can have your opinion but you may not teach it as authoritative dogma.

To be continued…*

 

[fineca]

1. The Pope you referred to lived in the 13th century (Boniface VIII I think) and believed that all who die with mortal sin, original sin, with the grave sin of schism or heresy, can’t be saved. This is what he meant and this is what the Church believes, and I still believe. I admit this is a hard point and I wish the Church had given an official explanation to harmonize the modern teaching with this, but yet it isn’t an insurmountable problem. Actually the Church has said that things including human knowledge etc contributes to how a truth of faith is expressed in different times. Now there is the fact that the Medieval Christians thought that the Gospel had been preached to the whole world and verified by miracles and the Church’s growth etc, so that anyone refusing to enter the Church and anyone leaving it would unquestionably be guilty of the sin of unbelief/schism/heresy/apostasy. But then the New World was discovered and people woke up saying oops actually not everyone has had the chance to become Catholic. Soon after theologians started to speculate how the Native Americans could have been saved, and many of them thought they could, still very very long before Vatican 2.
   Also, a greater understanding of psychology made people question if it was possible that a Jew/Moslem/Schismatic perhaps wasn’t intentionally evil and guilty of the sin of unbelief/schism etc but raised to it and invincibly ignorant. Now it seems that it has always been and still is the faith of the Church that one cannot be saved if one is guilty of the sin of unbelief, heresy, schism etc, and this is what the Medieval Popes meant and thought when they declared what they did. So we’re not changing the meaning. What has changed however is our knowledge of geography and psychology - now we see that it’s possible that not all nominal Lutherans are necessarily formal heretics, not all nominal Orthodox formal schismatics.
   Another point: during the Western schism the anti-pope canonised a saint from “his church” and after the schism the true Pope recognised this saint as saint. So even though technically he was a schismatic, the Medieval Pope still admitted he was saved. So it wasn’t that black and white.
2. Well you wouldn’t have to worry since that disciplinary rule isn’t any more such that you should have mortal sin on you if you ate meat on Fridays. However the point in mortal sin is willful disobedience to the Church. If someone forgot the rule or something that wouldn’t be a mortal sin. What you bind on earth etc… If someone knew the Church bound a certain rule and willfully disobeyed, he’d be disobeying Christ and thus despising God and that of course is a mortal sin and unrepented mortal sin of course leads to hell. But remember - unrepented only. Despite all the rules and sins the Church is always merciful and there is always the confessional Not saying that confession means you can sin!
3. You’ve got a point there. I totally agree and think the same and also find the Protestant way “tempting” in that sense. But well, then I think of Protestant doctrine (whatever it is, the confusion rather) , and I remind myself that I also love Catholic apologetics

Hope this helped even a tiny bit.

 

[TylerAlex]

This is a really intriguing post… and I appreciate your honesty and candor.

Like others, I think it will also come down to your ability to understand and accept Papal Primacy with Catholocism.

From there on… it will be a lifetime of learning and understanding. The way we even look at life, and our views on political and social issues, tends to weather and change over the seasons as we get older and understand more. As the Holy Spirit works through you… more will become clearer I am sure. There may be obstacles in your life, or in your mind, that are holding the Holy Spirit back or working against you- I know there are many that I struggle with daily.

My advice is to lovingly cling to the parts of Catholicism that bring you immense joy and satisfaction… and allow that to nourish you and keep your faith steady through the parts you either do not understand… or have not been adequately (for a better word) revealed to you in a way that you are at peace.

It will all come to you in time through faith and devotion.

Blessings!

 

[LindaS]

Faith — believing that which we can’t understand. Therefore, in Heaven, we will not need Faith, because we will no longer see through a “glass darkly”. So long as we are here on earth, we can never fully understand all the Church teaches.

Peace,
Linda

 

[Mary3]

Wow, I’m humbled by your faithful study of the issues, and feel something of your painful dilemma. I am a former Presbyterian who wrestled with EO vs CC before finally recognizing CC as my proper home. I did not do the in-depth study you have apparently done, but skimmed many of the same issues. In the end, I feel I was given the grace to understand, similar to what RNRobert described above. It went something like this:

If you look at the EO, they actually have “denominations” (so to speak), but theirs are cultural divisions. Those divisions were brought about by geography and the difficulties of maintaining physical contact with each other in the formative years of Christianity. What has developed now is that the Russian, Greek, etc. Orthodox Churches operate as autonomous entities, though they surely have striven to protect the deposit of faith passed on to them.

All through my journey to Catholicism, I was “haunted” by John chapter 17. Jesus’ priestly prayer in which he prayed that we would be one as He and the Father are one. I could not get that statement out of my mind. I concluded that the Latin (Roman) Church had followed this instruction to “be one” more fully than the Eastern Churches. The Western Church is the only one that maintains a visible unity under a single head which is the successor of Peter.

Though I love the beauty of the Eastern expression of the faith, and recognize their historic claim of 2,000 years of practicing the faith, there is a disunity among them. As another poster said, I pray that you would not have this choice to make because the two lungs of the Church would be reunited.

Unity and Peter, in a nutshell. Blessings to you on this journey. I am praying that God will make His desire for you very clear, and that you dilemma will be resolved in a way that gives you complete confidence in the decision. Dominus vobiscum.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: 4.

It’s not just the psychology and such. There’s also a lot of reluctance to commit the sin of presumption. While it is obviously better if everyone were visibly one, and if everyone was visibly saved through the Church, it’s fairly clear that’s not true for everyone.

Adam and Eve were saved by Jesus personally, as the Church has understood since the beginning. He “descended into hell”, and in some way went and got all the patriarchs. Since they were saved by Jesus, and the Church is Jesus’ Bride and Body, clearly Adam and Eve were in the Church. And if they were in the Church and became part of the Communion of Saints, they clearly are in communion with Peter and the Pope. But not through the usual RCIA process, that’s for sure!

So we fear to say that people are definitely damned because they are not following the usual procedure – because God is not bound by the sacraments He instituted. But since Jesus did institute the Church and the Sacraments for our salvation, and since He commanded us to go to all the nations, He clearly wants to make that normal and more sure procedure visibly available to everyone. Whether or not they take up that invitation, and whether or not they get saved, is above our paygrade.

 

[corrgc]

Continued from previous post…

1. The apparent contradictions between Eastern and Western Catholics are often the subject of discussion over on the Eastern Christianity forum. It seems that when the Eastern Catholics re-united with Rome, they essentially kept all their Orthodox teachings, without accepting the post-Schism teachings of the Western Church. While they cannot, of course, outright deny these teachings, they don’t seem to be comfortable with them.

Greetings IP!

I am certainly not a theologian or an apologist, even on an amateur level, and really have no business in this discussion, but I understand your deep longing for the truth!

I was very intrigued that historically there have been individual Orthodox Churches that have re-united with the Catholic Church and are now Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Is there any evidence of Western Catholic Churches denouncing the primacy of Rome and re-uniting under a Patriarch of the Orthodox Church?

I’ve also read of entire Anglican/Episcopal and Pentecostal congregations recently becoming or joining the Catholic Church, but I’ve not heard of Catholic Congregations going the opposite direction.

Can anyone help me with this?

Thanks for your opinions and information!
Sincerely in Christ,
Corrgc

 

[valient_Lucy]

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.

Thanks! God bless!

Has anyone argued that here?

 

[Janet_S]

To Iambic Pen:

Did you ever read this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia? It is a good summary of the disputes that caused the schism between the East and the West.

“The Eastern Schism”

newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

Also, when you look for evidence about whether the early Church accepted papal primacy, don’t look only at the quotes themselves for evidence, look at what the Church actually did. For example, this is from the Council of Carthage, a local council of African bishops, in AD 419:

“Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” (from canon 24)

The Boniface they are referring to is Boniface I, the Bishop of Rome. Later these council documents were sent to him, and he ratified them. Why would these bishops send council documents to Boniface for ratification if he did not have a recognized authority over them?

Another example, look at St Clement of Rome’s “Letter to the Corinthians.” Clement was the Bishop of Rome from AD 88 to 97.

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us.”

newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

The fact that the Corinthians consulted the Bishop of Rome and that he wrote this letter back to them is evidence of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Maybe you already approach the study of historical evidence this way, but I thought I would mention it because it is helpful for me when I study the writings of the ECF’s. It is deceiving to show a few ECF quotes here and there to support a given position. Quotes can be taken out of context to support nearly any position. Look, instead, for evidence outside the writings, evidence that gives clarity to the historical writings in the proper historical context.

 

[mich2]

1. I am still not convinced that the Catholic view of papal primacy is the correct one…

The Isrealites as well have a list of all of their high priests who presided over the Qahal since the time of Moses (certainly there will be some gaps).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Priests_of_Israel
Since the Hebrew Qahal is a governing religious structure brought forth by God Himself, it seems logical the New Testament Church will also have the same characteristics.It seems that there ought to be only one High Priest presiding over all the Church. In the second century, Tertullian uses the term Pontifex Maximus (High Priest) to indicate a title identifying the bishop of Rome.

1. I am not convinced that the post-Schism doctrinal developments were truly greater understandings of previous doctrines…

I believe this is due to us constantly asking questions in order to ask for further enlightment on the issues involved…it is our human nature. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity must have been introduced by questions which asked in what way can we say that God is One, while, at the same time, refer to the Father, the Sone and the Holy Spirit as being God as well?
Mary, in the ECF, is refered as being pure, spotless and the antitype of Eve. Many questions can come forth from such an image. Here, I do believe in the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truths.

1. I am not convinced of the Catholic understanding of original sin, and its attendant teachings. Namely, that unbaptized infants may possibly be damned…

We believe that the fall of Adam and Eve has left us with a nature unable to grow in the absence of sin. Such a nature is not fit to enter Heaven, since, obviously, sin cannot exist in Heaven.To be born again is not only to be forgiven of the sins committed, but also to recieve a nature capable of growing while remaining in a state of purity.

1. … I am concerned that some newer teachings actually do contradict older teachings…

Damnation caused by simply possessing a sinful nature is different from damnation caused by wilfully committing sins. In the Old Testamnent the soul of everyone descended into Hadies, due to their sinful nature. However, only those who committed sins were suffering, where as those, either without having commited any sins (infants), or those who had been loosed from their sins, were reposing within the Bosom of Abraham. At the last Judgement, Hadies will be destroyed, and so, anyone residing within it will be judge to go either into
Heaven or Hell. Therefore, the souls of unbaptized babies, we believe, go into Hadies, a place of rest, since they cannot suffer from sins uncommitted. On Judgement Day, we then can** hope ** for their salvation; however, since we do not know God’s judgment, we cannot assume they will enter into Heaven anymore than we can assume those who we believe to have lived evil lives (Hitler, Stalin ) will enter into Hell. In other words, would it be fair for those who will be judge into the fires of Hell to see all of those who have not have had any opportunity to commit sins going into Heaven?

1. I am deeply concerned by the Catholic practice of making eternal damnation the punishment for violating man-made disciplines.

Sins capable of leading one into Hell does not have be serious in essence. What leads us into Hell is not the sin as such, but our lack of seriousness towards sin. We need to fight against our temptations to sin. If the Church asked for a day of sacrificial abstenance from certain human needs, such as food, at the very least the abstinence from meat, and one disobeys the Church, one commits a sin.If the Lady of Fatima asked for fasting, and we do disregard the message, yes, I believe we are sinning. We will not be judge by the sin itself, but our attitude towards sin.

1. I am concerned by the apparent contradiction in beliefs between Eastern and Western Catholics.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is a very pious spiritual body, and I understand how one can be attracted to it. I just personally believe that they due lack in unity with the whole body due to the break with Rome.

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.

The Catholic Church is **the **Church that will actually teach that anyone outside the Church will be judged by the Church and through it’s judgment, can enter into Heaven. Most protestants I have spoken with believe that non-christians will, by necessity of their unbeliefs in the gosple, be judged into the fires of Hell. Some actually believe that most christians will go to Hell because of what they sincerely believe within their hearts.

That’s all for now.

Thanks! God bless!

Your questions are indeed valid and We hope that some of our answers will somehow help you.

Andre

 

[crosstimbers]

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. When a church is run by council or democratic vote in the case of TEC, eventually, fallible people are able to vote in heresy. Its taken 400 years, give or take, but it has happened and was probably inevitble from the beginning.
Hope this helps. The other thing that has kept me from the Eastern Church is simple availability. There are no Orthodox churchs within reasonable driving distance. Since I know for a fact that God has placed me in the community where I now live (another story) where there are 2 RC churches close by and more in commuting distance, it stands to reason that this is where He wants me.
Please pray for me and I will also pray for you.
Nancy

 

[Fuerza]

Iambic,

If you haven’t already, I would suggest checking out fineca’s posts (numbers 28 and 29). Although there are some things that I would have explained slightly differently, these posts hit the nail on the head.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Iambic Pen, I appreciate reading the update of where you currently stand in your faith journey. I remember reading your posts back when you first came here, and it’s nice to read the follow up as the Author of Life writes such interesting stories.

1. My reference to Protestantism was partly a result of my frustration with the Catholic-Orthodox debate (on these forums, in the outside world, and in my own mind). My Protestant friends love God and want to do His will. They praise Him and serve Him, and do not spend their time agonizing over …

It seems to me that your Protestant friends may be like the widow in the Gospel who gave two coins; they give everything they have to God. We in the Catholic Church, (both Roman and Orthodox), have a rich abundance of theology; sometimes these discussion might compared to rich misers counting their treasure and bragging about how much they put in the collection basket. Yes, when compared to those who give everything to God, the Roman-Orthodox debates might seem rather pointless and distracting from the Gospel message. You are rather blessed to know devout Protestants who love Jesus with all their hearts–not all Protestants are like that, just as not all Catholics agonize over details. In any case, I presume that God loves best those who give Him their all, whether that’s an abundance of theology or merely two mites.