Why I'm Still Not Catholic

[SoonerServant]

I absolutely accept your challenge. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t.

WHen and where

 

[dulcissima]

Why do I suddenly feel like I am standing in the middle of a school yard?

 

[joshua_b]

Do you even know why it’s called the ROMAN Catholic Church?

OH oh oh…call on me, call on me (I know the answer to this one !!!)

The first leader of the Church Christ established, Peter (our first pope) moved to Rome from Jerusalem. Therefore the seat of authority in Christs Church moved to Rome with him, and from there, the leading Bishop of the Catholic Church kept charge over the Latin (or western) rite of the Catholic Church, and all of the other bishops of the eastern rites of the Catholic Church remained in union with him.

Long about the 1500’s, when the second savior of the world (Martin Luther) came around, his followers decided they needed a way to deny credibility to the only christian Church in the western world that could reliably trace its doctrine and historical lineage to Jesus and the Apostles, so to deny credibility to this organization the reformers, in an effort to link this Church to the ancient pagan Roman empire, gave it the moniker “Roman Catholic”. The western, or Latin rite of the Catholic Church does not refer to itself in this way, and the other (all equally Catholic) EASTERN rites of the Catholic Church do not refer to it in this way either.

Any other questions ???

 

[joshua_b]

Why do I suddenly feel like I am standing in the middle of a school yard?

I feel like that too…I was just excited that I knew the answer to the question (that doesn’t happen very often)

 

[crosstimbers]

Why do I suddenly feel like I am standing in the middle of a school yard?

AMEN Dulcissima!

 

[Guardian]

Do you even know why it’s called the ROMAN Catholic Church?

The Roman Catholic Church is called the “Roman Catholic Church” because its origin is from ROME, where Peter established it.

I’m Maronite Catholic and thus I follow the practices of the Maronite Catholic Church which originated from ANTIOCH.

But since Peter was the head of the apostles, the Maronites follow the successors of Peter, and since Peter went to Rome and established the Church there…the Church of Rome defines the Faith for all Catholic Churches…hence we are all ONE CATHOLIC Church.

What’s your point?

I absolutely accept your challenge. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t.

This oughtta be good.

 

[joshua_b]

The Roman Catholic Church is called the “Roman Catholic Church” because its origin is from ROME, where Peter established it.

I’m Maronite Catholic and thus I follow the practices of the Maronite Catholic Church which originated from ANTIOCH.

But since Peter was the head of the apostles, the Maronites follow the successors of Peter, and since Peter went to Rome and established the Church there…the Church of Rome defines the Faith for all Catholic Churches…hence we are all ONE CATHOLIC Church.

What’s your point?

This oughtta be good.

I suspect his point is all about seven hills, the whore of Babylon, and maybe even about Baal. It’s probably an amalgamation of Hyslop, Boettner, and Chick, and yes CM is involved so I’m sure it will be interesting.

 

[BrianH]

I would if it really was called that…but only a-Cs use that pejorative.

It’s the Catholic Church.

romancatholicmuskoka.com/
romancatholiclichfield.co.uk/
nqcatholic.org/
catholicmissionleaflets.org/churchmn.htm
mountsaintpeter.org/
home.catholicweb.com/blesdsac/
I have hundreds more

 

[Church_Militant]

I absolutely accept your challenge. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t.

WHen and where

Anytime you post the beginning thread right here in the apologetics forum.

Remember what I said.

One topic…one thread. No “scattergun” stunts.

Pick the one you want to discuss and open the thread. This will follow debate rules, so you make your allegation and prove it and I and the other knowledgeable Catholics will refute you.

Each thread is a separate discussion/debate.

You won’t find me uncharitable, though I will show your arguments no mercy, (nor will the other Catholics who respond).

Whenever your ready. Bring it on.

 

[Church_Militant]

romancatholicmuskoka.com/

romancatholiclichfield.co.uk/
nqcatholic.org/
catholicmissionleaflets.org/churchmn.htm
mountsaintpeter.org/
home.catholicweb.com/blesdsac/
I have hundreds more So what…is the name used on the Vatican’s website? If not, then that is not the name of this church. If some Catholic somewhere chooses to wear it (I do not) that does not make it “official”. I don’t care how many use it…

 

[joshua_b]

romancatholicmuskoka.com/
romancatholiclichfield.co.uk/
nqcatholic.org/
catholicmissionleaflets.org/churchmn.htm
mountsaintpeter.org/
home.catholicweb.com/blesdsac/
I have hundreds more

Sometimes a name just sticks…if it works go with it I guess. It’s kinda like “Yankee Doodle” (if you happen to be a history fan).

 

[crosstimbers]

Okay folks, I’m confused. Sooner, just why are you on a Catholic forum?

 

[Church_Militant]

… and yes CM is involved so I’m sure it will be interesting.

 

[joshua_b]

Okay folks, I’m confused. Sooner, just why are you on a Catholic forum?

to inform us all of “just why it is called the ROMAN catholic church” of course…

As fun as I’m sure this is gonna be, I need to go spend some time with my wife…

I’ll be sure to check this forum tomorrow to see if I can’t pick up on whatever is going to result from this (after I go “resacrifice” Jesus, “worship” Mary, and worhsip some bread of course)…good night all.

 

[SlightlyMad]

It’s easy for the Catholic to say, “These doctrines were always believed; they were only defined when they were challenged,”

A couple of years ago we passed a law in this state saying that marriage is between “one man and one woman”. 500 years from now, someone will argue that before this point in time, marriage could be between anyone, but we changed the laws regarding it. For those who do not know the true history of marriage, it would seem as if this were true.

Until the sanctity of marriage between only one man and one woman was challenged on a legal level, we did not need a law to define marriage. Marriage was understood to be between a man and woman, and no other options. This is a secular/political example of what the Church does when it defines a teaching.

I will pray for your journey home.
S-

 

[Church_Militant]

to inform us all of “just why it is called the ROMAN catholic church” of course…

As fun as I’m sure this is gonna be, I need to go spend some time with my wife…

I’ll be sure to check this forum tomorrow to see if I can’t pick up on whatever is going to result from this (after I go “re-sacrifice” Jesus, “worship” Mary, and worship some bread of course)…good night all.

Yeah, me too. I figure either his threads will be waiting when I get back from Mass in the morning, or not. We’ll see.

SoonerServant…if you’ll PM me a link to the threads you open I won’t miss any of them.
Thanks!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Whew…I’m back! Just in time too, it seems, as some people seem to be trying to push this thread off the rails. You know who you are… :tsktsk:

1. Have you read the articles mentioned in this link: geocities.com/thecatholic…orthodoxy.html

Some of them, at various times in the past. I’ll save it to my favorites list and check back on it.

It seems clear that the Councils believed in Papal supremacy.

I thank you for your quotes. Of course, the Orthodox may very well say that yes, the pope did have a primacy of sorts in the Early Church. However, they believe that since then, his role and power has grown and expanded to a level far beyond what these early councils ever anticipated.

1. Of course papal infallibility as it’s defined now wasn’t universally held in the early church, but neither was the Trinity

True enough. Still, that in itself is not sufficient grounds for justifying a doctrine. Some things are true, and some things are not. The amount of believers is irrelevant. The Orthodox would probably say that there is ample support for the Trinity within the pages of Scripture itself, whereas papal infallibility is only something you’re going to find if you already believe in it. Christ said that the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. Somewhere along the line, Catholics decided that if the pope were ever to pronounce a false teaching in the matter of faith and morals, then this would mean the Church had been prevailed against. The Orthodox do not depend on any one man to uphold the Church, and they do not fear the Church’s destruction if one man should fail.

1. There has not been any official teaching on where unbaptized infants go…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…You can have your opinion but you may not teach it as authoritative dogma.

Nothing really objectionable there, if it is indeed true. During the limbo discussions on this board a while back, several people were insisting that limbo must exist and that the only alternative for the unbaptized was Hell. Does the Church really know what it teaches on this matter? Does the Catechism of today contradict official teaching from the past?

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.

How do we know what Pope Boniface meant? The Orthodox assume he meant it literally, and they are quote horrified by it. Modern Catholics try to reconcile it with modern teaching, by adding all sorts of qualifying statements, such as your explanation above. Did Pope Boniface have these qualifying statements in mind? Or, is the Church trying to overturn the infallible statement of a pope?

1. 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.

I’m not worried about myself. I’m worried about those people from days past who are in Hell because they ate meat on Fridays. Should the Church be using its power to help people get to Heaven, or should it use it to make the road just a bit narrower? In the Orthodox Church, according to my understanding, it is believed that one who disobeys the fast has missed an opportunity to grow in Christ. These people have not, however, immediately transititioned to a damned state.

To elaborate on this, if the government instituted the death penalty for jay-walking, then technically anyone who was executed would be punished for disobeying the government. This is not to say that jay-walking is inherently immoral, any more than eating meat on Fridays is (was) immoral. However, because the government has instituted this law, the citizens are bound to obey it. Now, would you aplaud the government for teaching its people self-control and looking out for their welfare, or would you be horrified at how disproportionate the punishment is to the crime? My reaction is the latter.

Continued below…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Continued from previous post…

Mary3:

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.

Ah, but all these different jurisdictions are part of one Church, and they are all in communion with each other. Catholics tend to think the Church must have a rigid, authoritarian structure in order to be a Church. The Orthodox do not believe this and are quite content to let God lead their Church. They do not need one human leader to hold everything together.

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.

Not to be picky, but there are also Eastern Catholics, who acknowledge the pope and are under his leadership.

Continuing on, this goes together with what I just said above. Jesus’ prayer that we would be one does not, in my mind, automatically mean that we need one visible leader over us for this unity to happen.

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.

I would love that as well, and I too pray for that day. Still, these things take time, and I think my earthly life will probably end before full unity is achieved. This doesn’t depress me, but it does mean that I would like to find the Church before then.

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.

Thank you very much!

corrgc:

Is there any evidence of Western Catholic Churches denouncing the primacy of Rome and re-uniting under a Patriarch of the Orthodox Church?

Not that I know of. Of course, as you know, there was the case where many Western Catholics denounced the primacy of Rome and formed their own churches.

Interestingly enough, the Lutherans did send a copy of the Augsburg Confession to the Byzantine Patriarch, but he could not accept it as being true.
Valient Lucy:

Has anyone argued that here?

If I remember right, some have said that even a nominal Catholic is better off than a Protestant, because the Catholic still has access to the sacraments. Personally, I think God is more pleased with a person who truly loves Him, than He is pleased with a person who is in the right place but with the wrong attitude.
Janet S:

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

I have it open right now.

Why would these bishops send council documents to Boniface for ratification if he did not have a recognized authority over them?

Possibly because he was one of the patriarchs, and he was not personally present at the Council? I’m really not being difficult on purpose . This is just something the Orthodox have said.

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.

Very true and very wise. Thank you.

Continued below…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Continued from previous post…
"mich2:

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?

Hmmhhh…interesting thought. I’ll have to think about that one.

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.

Perhaps I am wrong, but even with an approved apparition, aren’t people still free to believe or disbelieve them? Just a quick question.

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.

Well, I’m referring to the Eastern Catholics, those Eastern Christians who are in union with the pope.

crosstimbers:

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.

It seems to me, though, that heresy involves a change in teaching. As the Orthodox do not have an individual who has the power to pronounce new doctrines, it seems unlikely that their teachings will change. They haven’t even had an ecumenical council in over a thousand years.

Please pray for me and I will also pray for you.
Nancy

Of course! And thank you!

You might want to read John Henry Newman’s writings. He was on a similar journey that you were in.

I have a couple of his books. Right now, though, I’m kind of on a break from deep theological reading. I’m going through The Lord of the Rings again. Excellent!

Continued below…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Continued from previous post…

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

Hmmhh…well, one could make the schismatic argument, I suppose, though they could easily say the same thing about the Catholics. The charge of heresy is difficult, as they were not teaching heresy in the year 1000 or so, and they’re still teaching the same doctrines. Who changed?

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.

Unless, of course, the pope is not infallible at all and has pronounced doctrines contrary to the truth of God. I’m not saying this has happened. I’m just still not convinced of this whole infallibility bit.

If it is indeed a problem, it surely isn’t just with Catholicism. Calvinist theology aligns with Catholicism on this.

And Calvinism horrifies me. If God is how Calvinists portray Him, then, in my opinion, He is neither good, just, or merciful.

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

I can deal with this passage when it is talking about life circumstances and such. When it is talking about one’s eternal state, then I would like to think that someone who is thrown into Hell simply because God wants them there really does have the right to complain about it.

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.

Indeed.

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.

And I agree. Both of them, of course, need to improve.

While Eastern Rite Catholicism is great, the schismatic Eastern Orthodox are little more than Protestants in Catholic garb, IMO.

Sigh… There is so much more to the Orthodox than that. Aside from their refusal to acknowledge papal supremacy, they are almost exactly like Eastern Catholics, who you yourself say are great.

Eastern Orthodoxy has no authority whatsoever to define, determine or declare what is or is not proper doctrine in opposition to the Catholic Church.

And that, of course, is your opinion. As I’ve said, I’m still in the middle, and I can’t say if you are right or wrong in saying that.

SlightlyMad: I appreciate your marriage illustration, and I think I understand it. However, as I said, it is not so easy to say a teaching was always believed when a Church just as old as the Catholic Church (like the Orthodox, for example) claims to have never believed it.

Once again, I thank everyone for their participation in this thread. I really am not trying to slam Catholicism. I would like to see it come through shining and pure and true. This is why I challenge it on these forums all the time. I’m not going to give it a free pass. If it’s true, it doesn’t need one.

God bless! Have a wondrous and holy Sunday!