Why I'm Still Not Catholic

[jmcrae]

Are you unaware that the Catholic Church is made up of 22 “sui juris churches”?

Not at all. They are all united with and under the Pope. We all follow the same rules and the same doctrines. They have different liturgies, yes, but liturgy isn’t doctrine - and yes, they follow different disciplines in some areas, but again, discipline isn’t doctrine.

 

[Janet_S]

Janet,

Is this what the Pope is saying - that the whole world will be saved? If so, why does Hell even exist? Or, do Catholics believe that there is no eternal damnation??
Thanks in advance!

I appreciate your asking these questions, since it gave me an opportunity to read and learn about this subject.

1. You ask if the whole world will be saved. A Catholic answer, based on Biblical evidence is “we know this is God’s desire, and we hope that all will be saved.”

Acts 10:35: “Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.”
1 Timothy:3-4: “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.”
God desires all to be saved, and He judges non-Christian’s according to the light they receive and how they, in conscience, respond to it. For further explanation, see these sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC): 839-848.

1. You ask do Catholics believe in Hell and eternal damnation? Yes, we believe in Hell. See these sections of the CCC: 1033-1037.

Here is a quick summary of what the CC believes about salvation:
Acts 4:12 says “There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved."
Salvation comes through Jesus. The Church brings Jesus to the world. Therefore, there is no salvation outside the Church since the Church is the instrument that brings Jesus to the world.

Must you be an official member of the CC to be saved? The Church says no. (See CCC #847). Some people are united imperfectly to the Church, and God judges each of us by the light we are given. (Note: this is similar to the CC concept of sin. For someone to commit a mortal sin, he/she must have full knowledge the activity is sinful.) Some do not know, through no fault of their own, of the Gospel of Christ or His Church. Under certain circumstances, these people can be saved through an imperfect union with the Church. On the other hand, one cannot be saved if he/she recognizes that the Catholic Church is founded by God and refuses to enter it or to remain in it (See CCC #846).

Also, in spite of the possibility that one may be saved without knowing of Christ or His Church, we must not presume that one who doesn’t know of Christ will be saved. We cannot forget our missionary mandate: Matthew 28:19-20: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (See CCC: 849-856) We have a duty to spread the good news.

Here are a few more articles that explain the Catholic teaching about salvation:

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9111chap.asp Who Can be Saved?

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403sbs.asp Can Non-Christians be Saved?

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT No Salvation Outside the Church

 

[toothdigger]

Janet,

Wow. Thanks for the information. I will read these as soon as possible…

 

[SedesDomi]

Not at all. They are all united with and under the Pope. We all follow the same rules and the same doctrines. They have different liturgies, yes, but liturgy isn’t doctrine - and yes, they follow different disciplines in some areas, but again, discipline isn’t doctrine.

The doctrine might be the same in a basic sense, but Latin-rite Catholics and Eastern/Byzantine-rite Catholics express those doctrines in very different ways:

Is it true that the Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to have different theological expressions? If so what does it involve?

This certainly is true. The Eastern Catholic Churches are not only "allowed"      but are actively encouraged to cultivate their own distinctive theological      expressions. 

Eastern Catholics, while fully Catholic and in communion with the Pope,      differ in more ways than just liturgy. We also possess a unique spiritual      tradition, as well as a unique theological approach. While we agree with the      Latin Church on fundamental matters of doctrine, we approach doctrine in a      very different way - from the Eastern perspective. While the Western Church      has traditionally formulated doctrine in terms of scholastic Latin theology,      we rely almost exclusively on the theology of the Eastern Church Fathers.      This difference, rather than rupturing the unity of the Church, further      expresses the true UNIVERSALITY of Christ's Church.

 

[Contarini]

Not at all. They are all united with and under the Pope. We all follow the same rules and the same doctrines. They have different liturgies, yes, but liturgy isn’t doctrine - and yes, they follow different disciplines in some areas, but again, discipline isn’t doctrine.

And, as you reluctantly admitted, the Orthodox churches also teach the same doctrines. (It’s possible that, as you suggest, there’s more doctrinal difference than official statements would imply, but the same thing is true in Catholicism.)

Still not seeing a difference here, beyond the existence of the papacy. And if you want to argue that not having a pope automatically makes any church disunited, you’re not going to get very far persuading non-Catholics!

The fact that you claim that the Orthodox are disunified only demonstrates to me how warped your conception of unity (and that of many other RCs) really is. You see it in terms of a vast corporation with a clearly defined chain of command. That is not how it worked in the early Church, and the only way you can make a persuasive case to other Christians is by demonstrating your continuity with the early Church. If you start promulgating a radically different ecclesiology than that held by the Fathers, we’re just going to shrug our shoulders and say, “I guess we don’t need to worry about the possibility that Catholicism is the True Church after all.”

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[thefizzle656]

This sounds very similar to the Protestant argument that the universal church is an invisible association of Christians who are united by their beliefs.

That’s because to you, visibility is intimately linked with there being a Universal Bishop and you can’t imagine that a Church could be visible without one. Unfortunately, you automatically equate not having a Pope to being Protestant which is quite simply not true. Protestantism actually has 600 million Popes last time I checked the statistics.

It may surprise you to hear that many Eastern Catholics hold ecclesiological views quite similar to the Orthodox.

Have you read the letter of Clement I to the Corinthians? When the Church at Corinth had an internal dispute, they sought a ruling from the Bishop of Rome (Clement, third successor of Peter). He made his ruling, and asked that they obey it in deference to his authority as Bishop of Rome. He was not their local bishop, he was not an apostle (though St. John the apostle was still alive at the time of this letter, he was not the one consulted).

As for the letter of Clement I, I’m not going to rehash a topic that has been debated plenty of times over on the Eastern Christianity forum. Here’s a link to a post already explaining why the situation between Clement and Corinth doesn’t support the RC position as much as you’d like to think it does.

In Christ,

Alex

 

[jmcrae]

And, as you reluctantly admitted, the Orthodox churches also teach the same doctrines. (It’s possible that, as you suggest, there’s more doctrinal difference than official statements would imply, but the same thing is true in Catholicism.)

Perhaps. I have no idea - I’ve never studied it in depth, because it was clangingly obvious to me that they are not the Universal Church by the fact that the three in my city have absolutely nothing to do with each other - I don’t even think they are allowed to receive Holy Communion with each other.

Still not seeing a difference here, beyond the existence of the papacy. And if you want to argue that not having a pope automatically makes any church disunited, you’re not going to get very far persuading non-Catholics!

Having a Pope is what makes it not up to the opinion of my local priest of the personal qualities of the priest at the Catholic Church down the street as to whether I can receive Holy Communion there, or not. Pope says, “Yes,” end of story, even if my priest thinks the other priest is a total fluff-for-brains.

The fact that you claim that the Orthodox are disunified only demonstrates to me how warped your conception of unity (and that of many other RCs) really is. You see it in terms of a vast corporation with a clearly defined chain of command.

Yep.

That is not how it worked in the early Church, and the only way you can make a persuasive case to other Christians is by demonstrating your continuity with the early Church.

Not according to St. Ignatius, who said, “Where the Bishop is, there is the Church,” or to St Iranaeus, who gave the list of Bishops of “that most eminent Church whom all must imitate”, the Church of Rome, as being the Head Church of Christendom. And not according to St. Justin Martyr, who gave a detailed account of the heirarchy of the Church in one of his Apologies; I forget which, now.

If you start promulgating a radically different ecclesiology than that held by the Fathers, we’re just going to shrug our shoulders and say, “I guess we don’t need to worry about the possibility that Catholicism is the True Church after all.”

Fortunately, other than a few incidental details, nothing has really changed.

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps. I have no idea - I’ve never studied it in depth, because it was clangingly obvious to me that they are not the Universal Church by the fact that the three in my city have absolutely nothing to do with each other - I don’t even think they are allowed to receive Holy Communion with each other.

The Orthodox are not supposed to receive communion anonymously as Catholics do. If they attend an Orthodox Church other than their parish church, they are expected to tell the priest who they are before receiving Communion, so that he is satisfied that they are Orthodox Christians in good standing, have been to Confession recently, etc. This is not about jurisdictional division but about local church discipline. It is, again, in keeping with the discipline of the early Church, where people going from one local church to another were expected to bring letters of reference.

Having a Pope is what makes it not up to the opinion of my local priest of the personal qualities of the priest at the Catholic Church down the street as to whether I can receive Holy Communion there, or not. Pope says, “Yes,” end of story, even if my priest thinks the other priest is a total fluff-for-brains.

If you can give me evidence that any canonical Orthodox priest refuses Communion based on his personal opinion of some other canonical Orthodox priest, then I’ll–I’ll be very surprised

Yep.

God help you! I expected you to object to my polemical caricature. This is simply monstrous.

Not according to St. Ignatius, who said, “Where the Bishop is, there is the Church,”

What on earth does this have to do with it? I don’t see anything about the universal Church as a vast corporation with a chain of command here. He’s talking about the local Church. He’s expressing an ecclesiology that is indistinguishable from that of Orthodoxy, as far as I can tell.

I need to get out of this thread before you convince me to become Orthodox. If I thought your statements were representative of Catholicism as a whole I would have no choice but to do so. Everything the Orthodox say about Catholicism is true of your version of it. Fortunately I know that you are not speaking for Catholicism So I can maintain my precarious balance and stay Anglican for a little longer!

or to St Iranaeus, who gave the list of Bishops of “that most eminent Church whom all must imitate”, the Church of Rome, as being the Head Church of Christendom.

First of all, if you’re quoting the passage I think you’re quoting (Against Heresies 3.3.2), then the translation of the passage is debated–it may be referring to the city or to the church. (I’ve never seen “convenire” translated “imitate,” but that’s not really relevant, since the more usual “agree with” is stronger, and I’m not going to hold out for “come together to,” which is another possible translation.)
More important, there is nothing in this quote to support your picture of a “vast corporation.” The patristic view is always that of a fellowship of churches among which Rome holds the first place. No matter how we translate this passage, it says no more than that. Irenaeus is clearly speaking of Rome as one particular church within the worldwide Church.

Roman primacy is not under debate. The nature of Roman primacy is. When will overenthusiastic RC apologists learn this distinction?

And not according to St. Justin Martyr, who gave a detailed account of the heirarchy of the Church in one of his Apologies; I forget which, now.

Conveniently vague. I have read both Apologies, and I know that there is nothing to support your ecclesiology in either.

Fortunately, other than a few incidental details, nothing has really changed.

Sure, and other than a few incidental details, nothing has really changed in Anglicanism either. . . .

It all depends on what we mean by “incidental details.”

Episcopal collegiality is not an incidental detail. It is one of the most essential ecclesiastical principles there is.

Unfortunately for Anglicans and Orthodox, Roman primacy is also essential. That is why I am not Orthodox. I am tenuously Anglican because I cannot see that either Catholics or Orthodox make good their claim to have preserved patristic ecclesiology in its integrity. Catholics come closer than Orthodox, but only those Catholics who take the Fathers seriously (as more than convenient sources for reckless, out-of-context prooftexting) and call for a scaling down of the current overblown centralization of Catholicism. I note with joy that Pope BXVI gives every sign (as his previous theological work would indicate) of falling into this category, and I regret that you seem completely unaware of the wonderful ecclesiological work done by your own Pope and many other Catholic theologians of the past century.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[SedesDomi]

Unfortunately for Anglicans and Orthodox, Roman primacy is also essential. That is why I am not Orthodox. I am tenuously Anglican because I cannot see that either Catholics or Orthodox make good their claim to have preserved patristic ecclesiology in its integrity. Catholics come closer than Orthodox, but only those Catholics who take the Fathers seriously (as more than convenient sources for reckless, out-of-context prooftexting) and call for a scaling down of the current overblown centralization of Catholicism. I note with joy that Pope BXVI gives every sign (as his previous theological work would indicate) of falling into this category, and I regret that you seem completely unaware of the wonderful ecclesiological work done by your own Pope and many other Catholic theologians of the past century.

In Christ,

Edwin

You sound like an excellent candidate for an Eastern Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

If you can give me evidence that any canonical Orthodox priest refuses Communion based on his personal opinion of some other canonical Orthodox priest, then I’ll–I’ll be very surprised

Well, it’s either that, or they’re officially not in full communion - meaning that there is more than one Orthodox Church. Back to square one, again.

Roman primacy is not under debate.

Then why not simply get on with it, stop worrying about who’s describing it correctly, and get into the Church that actually has it.

What’s the point of the Orthodox or the Anglicans being able to describe it correctly (if indeed they do, which is no longer the issue), if in practice they exclude themselves from Rome?

 

[Imagine23]

Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Faith and Reason”

Pope Benedict XVI’s lecture “Faith, Reason, and the University”

Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

Is there a need for religion a la carte?

I cannot say that I am blown away by the profundity of your suggested readings. I see that you have read the title to readings that purport to show that “faith and reason are not mutually exclusive” but have you read some of the passages? Take for example the excerpt appearing below. It basically says that reason (philosophy was the term used at that time to refer generally to the study of logic) is based on experience and perception of events around us, while faith is based on the Spirit, etc. and things revealed through Jesus, etc. etc.

The problem I have with “faith” in the Christian sense is that everything we do is based on reason, evidence and logic. Why is it that we should abandon these principles when it comes to answering some of the most difficult questions facing us (e.g. the creation of the Universe, life, etc.).

"The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”.(7) Based upon God’s testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, faith is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone. Philosophy and the sciences function within the order of natural reason; while faith, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the “fullness of grace and truth” (cf. Jn 1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 5:9; Jn 5:31-32).

 

[jmcrae]

The problem I have with “faith” in the Christian sense is that everything we do is based on reason, evidence and logic. Why is it that we should abandon these principles when it comes to answering some of the most difficult questions facing us (e.g. the creation of the Universe, life, etc.).

We do use reason, evidence, and logic in these areas.

We deduce that there is a Creation, because it is here - we can see it. It surrounds us, and we’re part of it.

We deduce that there is an intelligent Creator, because the Creation works in a complex and yet consistent manner - it’s both reasonable and functional. Science would not even be possible if the Creation were totally random - the fact that we can analyze it logically tells us that it was created logically - the rules work pretty much the same way all of the time. Good science experiments are always repeatable because the laws of the Creation (aka the data of science) stay the same all the time.

Since this Creator could not have created Himself, we deduce that He is an uncreated being - that is, God. (Which is simply a word that means “uncreated creator.”)

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

Not true. Catholics who go to Church go there to received Jesus in Holy Communion. We received Christ literally. That is the only reason why I go to Church. I go to worship Jesus period.

Any devout Catholic can tell you that.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Well, I’m back from a week of field training. It’s been a long one, I’ll tell you that. It’s great to see all the great comments on this thread!

If you are looking for logic and consistency in the teachings of any Christian religion then you are looking in the wrong place. You will not find it.

Well, I disagree. Where do you propose I look instead?

Why do you feel the need to attach yourself to an “official” religion?

Truth is quite official, I find. What makes a religion “unofficial,” and why is that to be prefered?

I can understand wanting to understand eveyrthing before you commit 2 a (THE) Church. But even if all your questions were answered today, you’d probably still end up conjuring up more questions…But the main thing here is that no matter how much you learn/know, at some point, you virtually have to just decide to commit or not commit & leave the questions to “faith”…

Of course there will always be questions. However, as I have said, I cannot just choose a Church and then publicly say I believe all its teachings when I do not. So yes, I hope to “commit” soon, but I need to make an informed decision.

Do you know about the Real Presence (?)

Yes.

if so, have you ever spent much time there?

I assume you mean, have I spent time in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament? I confess I have not, though I can see how such a thing would be very helpful. Thanks for bringing it up!

There are several things the Catholic Church has that no other does

the Mass

The Orthodox have the same thing. They just call it the Divine Liturgy (as do the Eastern Catholics).

confession

As do the Orthodox.

transubstantiation

And again, so do the Orthodox. I believe the Catholic Church itself admits that Christ is present in the Orthodox Eucharist.

a celibate priesthood

Yes, but it also allows married priests in certain rites (and even within the Latin rite in a few rare cases). I see the value of a celibate priesthood, but I don’t see it as an obvious defining mark of the true Church.

indissoluable marriage

A strong point in the Catholic Church’s favor. However, in actual practice, the annulment system has the same apparent result as the Orthodox allowance of divorce and remarriage.

the orthodox & the RC, where they disagree, cannot both be right.

True.

You may need to make a choice based on gut feeling rather than “knowledge”… & what’s so bad about that?

I’m thinking that my gut is probably even more unreliable than my mind.

Well, let us apply the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” test to the Orthodox Church.

Are they “One?” No, there are several Orthodox churches - Russian, Greek, Ukranian, etc. While they claim to believe the same things (and probably do, for the most part) they are still distinctly separate organizations, with distinctly different people leading them - the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox is a different person from the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox, etc.

This proves nothing except that the Orthodox do not have one single human leader over the whole Church. They are still in full communion with each other and still do believe the same things. A Russian Orthodox Christian and a Greek Orthodox Christian are both in the same Church, just to give an example.

Thus, despite the fact that they are Holy and Apostolic, they are immediately disqualified from being the One True Church by the fact that there are several of them.

Nope. As I said in my example above, A Russian Orthodox Christian and a Greek Orthodox are both in the same Church. The fact that there is not a mortal man with authority over both of these Christians does not mean they are not together in the same Church.

And although in many senses, they are, indeed, Catholic, they lose out on the fact that they are nationalistic

This is a problem, yes, though I think that at least in America this will change for the better over time.

God bless!

 

[jmcrae]

Nope. As I said in my example above, A Russian Orthodox Christian and a Greek Orthodox are both in the same Church. The fact that there is not a mortal man with authority over both of these Christians does not mean they are not together in the same Church.

So they say - although in practice, they cannot receive Holy Communion in each other’s churches. Once you commit to be Russian, you can only receive in Russian Orthodox Churches, and vice versa. If you were travelling, and could only find Orthodox churches that were not of the nationality that you had been Chrismated in, you would treated like an unbeliever; you could not treat it as a “home away from home” - unlike in the Catholic Church, where you can receive Holy Communion in absolutely any Catholic Church anywhere in the world, regardless of the language of the liturgy.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Hmmh…I’m not at all sure about that, as it is contrary to everything I have heard on the matter so far. Even in the Greek Orthodox church I attend, there are many members who used to be a part of other jurisdictions in places where they used to live. It is certainly not a problem for them to receive the Eucharist.

 

[wynd]

So they say - although in practice, they cannot receive Holy Communion in each other’s churches. Once you commit to be Russian, you can only receive in Russian Orthodox Churches, and vice versa. If you were travelling, and could only find Orthodox churches that were not of the nationality that you had been Chrismated in, you would treated like an unbeliever; you could not treat it as a “home away from home” - unlike in the Catholic Church, where you can receive Holy Communion in absolutely any Catholic Church anywhere in the world, regardless of the language of the liturgy.

Do you have evidence to back up this claim? I have seen with my own eyes people of one Orthodox church receive in another church.

The reason you would most likely not be able to receive while traveling is because Orthodox priests guard the Communion much more closely than Catholics do. The priest expects to know who you are and if you are in good spiritual standing before he admits you to Communion.

 

[Ghosty]

So they say - although in practice, they cannot receive Holy Communion in each other’s churches. Once you commit to be Russian, you can only receive in Russian Orthodox Churches, and vice versa. If you were travelling, and could only find Orthodox churches that were not of the nationality that you had been Chrismated in, you would treated like an unbeliever; you could not treat it as a “home away from home” - unlike in the Catholic Church, where you can receive Holy Communion in absolutely any Catholic Church anywhere in the world, regardless of the language of the liturgy.

This is true of intercommunion between Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox, but those are totally different Communions, akin to the split between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Within those Communions themselves you could receive at any national church, so a Russian can receive from Greek Orthodox, or Antiochian Orthodox, or Serbian Orthodox, but not from Coptic Orthodox (Oriental Communion), though the Copt could receive from Ethiopian, Syriac or Armenian.

So it’s not about nationality, but Communion, just as it is between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Of course, within the Catholic Church all those traditions are united

Peace and God bless!

 

[distracted]

Hi.
Jesus said, Suffer the little children to come unto Me. I am not sure that Baptists even know of the Holy Eucharist or of the Roman Catholic Church.
I think it is the responsibility of Roman Catholics to be more gentle in their approach to those of us who have never heard the “truth” of the apostolic Church.
I have respect for the Catholic faith; it is the Catholics lack of respect (sometimes) of those who truly follow what they know of the Lord that saddens me.
I take the Holy Eucharist because I respect the Church, not because I do not. If that is egotistical (as another person posted towards me) then so be it. I humbly place my hands into the proper position, make my confession as I know to do now, and accept what is offered to me.
The Lord loves me as much as He loves you; you (Roman Catholics) I guess are just His favorite…
:tiphat:

 

[distracted]

distracted:
Its not that we are his “favorite”. As God’s word says, he shows no partiality. The reason non-Catholics (and Catholics in mortal sin, those who have not gone to confession) cannot receive Communion is because, well, i think 1 Cor. 11:22 says it best…
And if the Catholic Church says you must be a member (w/o mortal sin on your soul) in order to receive, that’s the way it is & who r we humans to defy that? You either believe that God established one Church and that that Church is the Roman Catholic Church or you don’t. You don’t seem 2 believe because if you did, you would officially join the Church.
Sometimes Catholics can seem uppity but i don’t believe that deep inside, most of them think/feel they are better than anyone else. In fact, it could be that the ones who come across that way r actually overcompensating; Its a very humbling thing to be (or become) Catholic. When i came back to the Church, through the rosary yrs ago, i felt very humbled because i finally began to know the absolute purity & holiness of God, his angels & saints… & therefore, saw all 2 clearly my own lack thereof…