Why I'm Still Not Catholic

[The_Iambic_Pen]

One more quick note, and then it’s off to bed. I read that article in the Catholic Encyclopedia about the Schism. Well, it is certainly written from a pro-Catholic point of view. So, I went and found the Orthodox version of events, which I had read some time ago. You can read it here:

orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

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.

I recommend listening to this audio. It explains it quite nicely.

God bless!

 

[Mintaka]

Re: going through the motions

Also, not being “properly disposed” to receive grace blocks one from receiving as much grace as God is trying to give. (As with the people Jesus couldn’t do miracles for.)

We are called to “active participation”, which is to say, paying attention and praying hard along with the Mass. Being mindful of what we are doing, in other words.

(Of course, there are times when a person is so spiritually dry that bothering to continue “going through the motions” is actually a great act of faith and devotion. The problem, of course, is that most people don’t have any clue when this is happening, because it’s not the sort of thing that gets talked about these days. But that’s not the kind of thing you’re talking about.)

 

[fineca]

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:

Indeed, thanks for bringing us back to the topic!

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

Good.

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.

Might well be, but that in itself doesn’t prove anything. A non-Trinitarian would say that the Apostles never anticipated such a definition of the Trinity. If the Pope has the primacy, then is it more likely that the Pope or the ones not in communion with him has the correct idea of the primacy? After all, it’s he who has the primacy so we should listen to his opinion over and against the others

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.

Ok, but we say there’s enough evidence in the Bible for the RC Papacy. Whose interpretation are we going to trust? And whose interpretation of Tradition are we going to trust? If not the Pope’s , it’s back to private interpretation as in Protestantism.

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?

Yes, as a Catholic you’d be free to insist limbo was true, but you’d also be free to insist they go to heaven (as the papal preacher does), and you’d be free to argue they suffer in hell if you so wished. But no there’s no authoritative pronouncement on the issue. The new Catechism certainly differs from the view of the catechism of Trent for example, but it doesn’t contradict official teaching from the past, since no official pronouncement has said we cannot hope for the salvation of the unbaptized infants.

How do we know what Pope Boniface meant? The Orthodox assume he meant it literally, and they are quote horrified by it.

He probably did mean it literally, but we also know he believed God to be just and merciful since this is an essential part of Catholicism. Now how could God justly punish non-culpable heretics/pagans/jews? He couldn’t, so the Pope clearly believed they were culpable. But he didn’t define all non-catholics to be culpable, it was a silent assumption, and that has been proved wrong by geography etc. And that has changed, but not the fact that it is normatively absolutetly necessary to be united with the Pope for salvation. The Orthodox don’t have it easier if they want to be faithful to the Fathers, st.Cyrpian, Augustine etc taught the same as the medieval Popes.

Did Pope Boniface have these qualifying statements in mind? Or, is the Church trying to overturn the infallible statement of a pope?

No! If he had had them in mind, then we’d be in trouble, since he would’ve said that even non-culpable non-catholics would all be damned. See the CHurch is not overturning the infallible statement, what has changed is the understanding of psychology, geography etc and those were not defined, only the dogma, which we still do believe.

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.

Don’t be, you shouldn’t assume anyone to be in hell. If they were faithful souls they repented and were saved, if they ate meat just in order to rebel they were hardened sinners anyway and didn’t love the Church and thus Christ, and if they were damned it was just. Remember God gives everyone a totally fair judgment.

 

[Alexius]

Do patriarchs write similar things about faith and morals? They may, but I’ve never heard about any of them.

Yes, they are schooled as hard as the pope! The current ecumenical patriarch attended several Catholic colleges in Rome, Catholic University, and Athens University. He speaks fluant Greek, German, Arabic, Italian, and Russian. The patriarches write many books, but they are uncommon here in the west. The patriarches are a great deal more reserved than the pope. As a matter of fact, the last ecumenical patriarch, His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras, had a funeral that was remeniscent of a lowly monk…

If you look at the EO, they actually have “denominations” (so to speak), but theirs are cultural divisions.
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.
Dominus vobiscum.

Really? The Orthodox are truly one in the faith. All teach the same doctrines! Cultural divisions began with the fact that bishops were established territorially in certain cultures. A good example of this is the fact that in places like Russia, the country formed around Orthodox Christianity. The written language itself is derived from that of St. Cyril (hence its name: Cyrillic). These cultural differences cannot be conquered because the people of Orthodox Christianity are so diverse. You seem to forget that there are Orthodox within your own church.

There is no good excuses for rejecting the beauty and truth of Orthodoxy…

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

The Orthodox Church has survived the worst catastrophes - I doubt America will destroy the orthodoxy and catholicity of the Church…

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

Really, they have? I don’t think so…If anything, they have held up against heresy - hence their name…

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.

If they are in opposition to the Catholic Church, then they can declare whatever they like, but they aren’t. They have not known heresy, so your statements about “faithful heretics” is invalid and unfounded. Eastern Catholics are great, but Eastern Orthodox are schismatics? It’s great you like Eastern Catholicism, but its not much different than Orthodoxy. I find myself defending Orthodox against Roman Catholics often. Orthodox are little more than Protestants in Catholic garb? That’s one of the most offensive statements I’ve read on this forum ! There is no need for uncharitable and unkind statements like that. I’m sure you will offend many Orthodox and certainly a few Eastern Catholics. I guess the parallel to that statement is that Eastern Catholics are little more than Orthodox in Catholic garb? Surely you must realize that your church does not think the same. The Orthodox Church is our sister church; Protestants are separated brethren. Maybe you would like to re-think your statements…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius****

 

[Volodymyr_988]

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.

Continued below…

You obviously have not read what the Orthodox have written on those who do not fast. In some cases certain Startsi even go so far as to claim that he who does not fast is not even a Christian. (Fast meaning no flesh from any animal that has a backbone, [including fish!] no oil, no wine, no dairy, no sex; at least every Wednesday and Friday and during the 4 extended Fasts throughout the year.)

 

[Image_of_God]

Continued from previous post…

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.

This sounds extremely Protestant thinking. Even the Orthodox Church believes, as we do: a visible Church. But, the question goes, how can you have a visible Church without a visible head? Now that there is no Emperor to bring together Councils, how does it happen? Since this is the only voice of Infallibilty in the Orthodox Church.

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.

But, Jesus, in his great wisdom created one leader so that people in the Church would have a sense of direction, and they would know his teachings. Suppose that heresy spread throughout the Church, and each Bishop had equal power [God forbid]. Where would one go? How do you know who is right? Since no one has infalliblity, there is no assurance that one is right if the whole place went into chaos.

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.

Thank you very much!

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.

They did not denounce the Primacy of Rome, but they denounced his Infallliblity. I believe you are referring to the Old Catholic Churches?

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.

Very true and very wise. Thank you.

Continued below…

.
Catholics are told to overcome all grudginess and serve God freely. To learn to do things freely, it can take time. It reminds me of the words: The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
In this case, if the Catholic is going to Mass…I assume by his own free choice, God will give him the grace to overcome his grudginess. If the Catholic chooses to go to Mass, even though he is doing grudgingly, then this is somewhat of a contradiction. He is freely choosing to go to Church. However, I think that God knows how he judges, so I refuse to give an absolute answer on the scenerio. But, even the Protestant that loves him, God delights in him.

 

[Image_of_God]

Continued from previous post…

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?

But, the question is, has God limited the Churches growth in understanding to one millenium, or is she living and constantly able define her doctrines better? I am not trying to imply that the Orthodox are a dead Church, but that it seems that some things have stopped.

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.

I am somewhat sad that you mentioned that, that seems to claim that the Pope is an Antichrist!

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

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.

Paul also taught that to defy authority, is to defy God.

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.

Do not listen to him. There are many Orthodox in good faith. We pray for them compassionately, hoping that they will rejoin the See of Peter; who is the Guardian of Orthodoxy. This is simply proven by history. When Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, fell into heresy, Rome always defended the truth. Are you saying that this is a coincidence, or Divine Providence? It seems to me that Papal Infalliblity is true. Rome always defended the truth. In the Acadian Schism, all the eastern Sees had to return to the See of Rome.
I hope I don’t sound arrogant.

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!

I might have taken you previous statement with anger, because it seemed that you were equating the Pope with the Antichrist. Which means that all the Popes from the time of the Schism are evil! But, now that I see your positive heart, I am sorry.

 

[gardenswithkids]

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

Quick answer, you are correct.
Here’s an old “Ask the Apoligist” thread with a catechism reference. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10048&highlight=apparitions

 

[berniedehler]

That’s all for now. Lest people take offense, let me assure you all that I would really like to be Catholic. I just have to be honest with myself. And, that being said, I cannot join the Church unless I am convinced of all its teachings. At this time, I am not.

Thanks! God bless!

To be Catholic, you’ll have to stop reading the Bible so you no longer see the contradictions with the Bible and the Catholic catechsim… just my opinion.

…Bernie

 

[Scottgun]

Just out of curiosity, why do we always see manifestos of why people are not Catholics? It has never entered my mind for a second to go to a Lutheran or Protestant forum and write a “Why am no longer Lutheran.” or a Buddhist forum with “Why I am not a Buddhist”. While I have not surfed such forums I don’t think other Catholics do this as well.

SCott

 

[Scottgun]

To be Catholic, you’ll have to stop reading the Bible so you no longer see the contradictions with the Bible and the Catholic catechsim… just my opinion.

…Bernie

Right back at ya:

*Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by epistle.

*The protestant dilemma is to come up with a citation from Scripture where an Apostle changes this command to limit our acceptance to written tradition only.

 

[gardenswithkids]

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.

Regarding point #7 again, I do think you can safely put that objection to rest. I think that may be some people’s opinion, but I really don’t think it’s actual Church teachings.

I don’t want to debate an old thread, but merely having access to the Sacraments does not benefit a Catholic: *using *the Sacraments does, but failing to use does not benefit Catholics and *misusing *the Sacraments causes grave concern. (St. Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 11:27 those who partake of Communion unworthily having to answer for the body and blood of our Lord.)

Unless you have more proof that the Church teaches this beyond some people’s opinion, I hope #7 doesn’t keep you out of the Catholic Church.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Just out of curiosity, why do we always see manifestos of why people are not Catholics?

Scott, the original poster is updating us on his search for the Church that Jesus Christ established. He did not start this thread as a Protestant-Catholic debate, but rather just letting people on this forum where he is at the present time and why he hasn’t yet become Catholic. Check his post history and you’ll see.

edit: okay, so he has a long post history, maybe it’s not so easy to see, but I believe he sincerely wishes he could join the Church if only some of these questions were put to rest.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Iambic,

Your second post makes it still clearer that there are things you don’ t like about the Church. There are lots of things** I** don’t like either. For example, I don’t think Canon Law should per se oblige under pain of sin, and this should be explicitely stated. There is enough sin in the world without creating more. But Christ did give his Church the power to bind, knowing full well that, being filled with humans, it would sometimes use that power in a more or less abusive manner. Still it is His Church, the one He founded that, doctrinally at least, could not go wrong.

If you wait until you’re totally satisfied with the Church, you will never join. The Church is the incarnation of Christ in the world – a human world, subject to human weaknesses.

He laid everything at His feet and made Him the Head over the whole Church, which is His body. (Eph.1,22)

Youre either with Christ or against Him.

Verbum

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

To be Catholic, you’ll have to stop reading the Bible so you no longer see the contradictions with the Bible and the Catholic catechsim… just my opinion.

…Bernie

And your opinion it is. The reason for just reading the Bible and seeing contradictions is that we humans are mostly simply not able to understand the Bible fully without the guide of the Church. Personally I think it is easy to fall for the Protestant arguments if you do not look deeper into Catholicism. Read the Bible, Catechism and Apologetics (that will explain the ‘why’ questions) and I’m sure the old ‘contradictions’ will be there no more.

 

[Pax]

Hellooo…Pen.

My prayers are with you:thumbsup:

 

[Janet_S]

To Iambic Pen:

Good luck with you on your search for the true Church.

Your journey reminds me of what Scott Hahn said on his tape “The Conversion of Scott Hahn.” He divides his journey to the Catholic Church into three stages: 1) it started as a detective story, 2) soon became a horror story, and 3) ended as a love story. It seems that now you are in either the detective or the horror story. And who knows, you may never make it to the love story.

Still, what Scott said is insightful for this reason–your mind can carry you to a certain point, then your heart will take you the rest of the way.

I have another suggestion for you, but this is an exercise for your heart, not your mind. If you haven’t done this already, you should make a pilgrimage to Rome. While you are there, go to St Peter’s Square on Wednesday for a papal audience. I did this, and now I know what is meant by the universal Church. When you go there, you can see these words from (Rev 5:9-10) come to life: “Worthy are you to receive the scroll and to break open its seals, for you were slain and with your blood you purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue, people and nation. You made them a kingdom and priests for our God, and they will reign on earth.” (Rev 5:9-10)

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I’m back again! Mass was wonderful today. I had forgotten how much I love it. The Divine Liturgy is beautiful, but the Catholic Mass can be just as beautiful if there is a reverent attitude. Just for fun, here’s a link to a video of the Cathedral, where I attend. I filmed it this afternoon.

GandalfTheWhite:

I recommend listening to this audio. It explains it quite nicely.

Ah yes, I listened to all of those presentations a while back, and I still have them saved on my computer. Perhaps I should re-visit some of them.

Great user name, by the way.

fineca:

Might well be, but that in itself doesn’t prove anything. A non-Trinitarian would say that the Apostles never anticipated such a definition of the Trinity.

Point taken.

If the Pope has the primacy, then is it more likely that the Pope or the ones not in communion with him has the correct idea of the primacy? After all, it’s he who has the primacy so we should listen to his opinion over and against the others

True, if the Pope has the primacy.

Ok, but we say there’s enough evidence in the Bible for the RC Papacy. Whose interpretation are we going to trust? And whose interpretation of Tradition are we going to trust? If not the Pope’s , it’s back to private interpretation as in Protestantism.

That could happen, but we need not rely on private interpretation. We could look at what the Councils have said.

Yes, as a Catholic you’d be free to insist limbo was true, but you’d also be free to insist they go to heaven (as the papal preacher does), and you’d be free to argue they suffer in hell if you so wished. But no there’s no authoritative pronouncement on the issue. The new Catechism certainly differs from the view of the catechism of Trent for example, but it doesn’t contradict official teaching from the past, since no official pronouncement has said we cannot hope for the salvation of the unbaptized infants.

If your statement is an accurate portrayal of Catholic teaching, I see nothing objectionable about it. We really don’t know what happens to the unbaptized, after all.

He probably did mean it literally, but we also know he believed God to be just and merciful since this is an essential part of Catholicism. Now how could God justly punish non-culpable heretics/pagans/jews? He couldn’t, so the Pope clearly believed they were culpable.

But his belief in their culpability did not automatically make it so, I trust? After all, there could be any number of factors which would make a heretic/pagan/Jew not accept the Catholic Church. I don’t know if any person is fully culpable. I think it’s safe to say that all of our decisions are influenced (though not completely determined, of course) by external factors.

The Orthodox don’t have it easier if they want to be faithful to the Fathers, st.Cyrpian, Augustine etc taught the same as the medieval Popes.

Hmmhh…perhaps the Orthodox have minimized some of these teachings in recent years, out of an effort to be more ecumenical. I would be interested to know what the monks on Mount Athos have to say about “Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus” from the Orthodox point of view (of course, you’d have to say it in Greek…).

See the CHurch is not overturning the infallible statement, what has changed is the understanding of psychology, geography etc and those were not defined, only the dogma, which we still do believe.

Hmmhh…I hope this is the case. This coming to a greater understanding of doctrines issue does concern me slightly. How much of what the Church believes now may someday be “more greatly understood?”

Don’t be, you shouldn’t assume anyone to be in hell. If they were faithful souls they repented and were saved, if they ate meat just in order to rebel they were hardened sinners anyway and didn’t love the Church and thus Christ, and if they were damned it was just. Remember God gives everyone a totally fair judgment.

Yes, I think that’s a fair way of looking at it.
Volodymyr 988:

You obviously have not read what the Orthodox have written on those who do not fast. In some cases certain Startsi even go so far as to claim that he who does not fast is not even a Christian. (Fast meaning no flesh from any animal that has a backbone, [including fish!] no oil, no wine, no dairy, no sex; at least every Wednesday and Friday and during the 4 extended Fasts throughout the year.)

Yes, the Orthodox fasts are rather rigorous. I must confess it kind of prejudices me against Orthodoxy, though I know this should never be the basis for a decision. So, there is some debate within Orthodoxy over what breaking a fast really means?

Continued in next post…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Continued from previous post…
Image of God:

This sounds extremely Protestant thinking. Even the Orthodox Church believes, as we do: a visible Church. But, the question goes, how can you have a visible Church without a visible head?

A group of believers, in communion with each other, teaching the same doctrines, and holding to the truths passed down to them can be quite visible, with or without a head. The Orthodox do not have a visible head, but they do have visible communion. If the Orthodox Church is a visible Church, and yet possesses no visible head, one could say that such a Church is possible.

Now that there is no Emperor to bring together Councils, how does it happen? Since this is the only voice of Infallibilty in the Orthodox Church.

Perhaps no ecumenical councils have been necessary? Granted, it is interesting that the Orthodox stopped having ecumenical councils after the Schism. Of course, perhaps it is because they have not had to deal with a flood of heresies since then. The Catholic Church has had to deal with them.

But, Jesus, in his great wisdom created one leader so that people in the Church would have a sense of direction, and they would know his teachings. Suppose that heresy spread throughout the Church, and each Bishop had equal power [God forbid]. Where would one go? How do you know who is right? Since no one has infalliblity, there is no assurance that one is right if the whole place went into chaos.

Okay, I see what you’re saying. Still, I think it’s safe to say that Orthodoxy has not gone into chaos, despite lacking a visible head for the last thousand years.

They did not denounce the Primacy of Rome, but they denounced his Infallliblity. I believe you are referring to the Old Catholic Churches?

I am speaking, of course, of the Protestant Reformation. Large groups of Western Catholics broke away from the Church and formed their own churches.

But, the question is, has God limited the Churches growth in understanding to one millenium, or is she living and constantly able define her doctrines better? I am not trying to imply that the Orthodox are a dead Church, but that it seems that some things have stopped.

I can see how greater understanding can be beneficial. I am wary of defining new doctrines, however. Is every doctrine pronounced by the Catholic Church (even fairly new ones like the Immaculate Conception) a greater understanding of a previous doctrine? Or, have the private speculations of theologians been dogmatized?

And, to use an illustration, if a couple married for fifty years still has the same understanding of their marriage vows as they had when they made them, is this the sign of a “dead marriage?” Should their vows have undergone “development” over the years?

I am somewhat sad that you mentioned that, that seems to claim that the Pope is an Antichrist!

Not so! However, if infallibility is false (and I am not convinced it is not), it would be possible for the pope to pronounce false doctrine. In a way, of course, this is actually an argument for papal infallibility…

Paul also taught that to defy authority, is to defy God.

If the authority is a rightful authority, at any rate. The Christians often defied the Roman government, after all. And, I still don’t like Calvin’s understanding of God…

When Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, fell into heresy, Rome always defended the truth. Are you saying that this is a coincidence, or Divine Providence? It seems to me that Papal Infalliblity is true. Rome always defended the truth. In the Acadian Schism, all the eastern Sees had to return to the See of Rome.

Yes, this has often been mentioned… Something to think about, at any rate.

I hope I don’t sound arrogant.

Nah, just very Catholic. Don’t worry, it’s quite endearing.

I might have taken you previous statement with anger, because it seemed that you were equating the Pope with the Antichrist. Which means that all the Popes from the time of the Schism are evil! But, now that I see your positive heart, I am sorry.

No worries! I understand your concern, and I assure you that I have the highest respect for the pope and for his office.

Continued in next post…