I think it might be helpful to remember what Jesus said about the Law, which I think is applicable here... i.e. that it is made for man and not man for the law. Tradition, and you can throw scripture in with it, is supposed to be a help to us, not a hammer to beat each other over the head with. While it's important to maintain a repository of revealed truth, it's not tradition, or scripture, for that matter, that convert people or drive them to greater faith.

quote:

I will say more later...but first I will say this now. When I spoke before about church history in relation to converting to Catholicism, Phil used the analogy that my attitude was like trying to drive a car while looking backward.

LOL! I'd forgotten about that. Seems it made an impression. What I recall, too, is that in your studying of church history, it seemed you'd latched on to mostly the negative aspects. Can you also see that Catholicism has been a tremendous force for good in this world for many centuries? We have countless Saints and mystics in our tradition, plus hundreds of millions whose lives have been given meaning through the teaching and the Sacraments. We have religious orders who have ministered to the sick, have taught the uneducated, and are still doing so. We have prophets who have stood up against the brutes of the world, and often paid the price with their lives. To evaluate Catholicism in terms of a few bad popes from a dark time in human history seems very unbalanced, especially since we've had many many more good and holy popes, some of whom have been canonized as Saints.

I don't think you're a Catholic-basher, Ariel; far from it. But whenever this topic has come up, you have tended to focus on the negative. You look into any organization comprised of human beings and you'll find plenty of negative stuff to comment on. To fairly evaluate, one needs to see the positive aspects as well, and there's a great deal more of that in Catholic history, imo.

Phil---

I wouldn't be here at SP if I was focused on the negative parts of Catholicism. I've tried to be clear, recently and a good number of times previously, in saying that I've always had an appreciation for the RCC, and I do mean that.

At the same time, history plays a part in why I'm not RC. I admit I have had some fear that if I express my genuine reservations here in that regard, I'm going to judged negatively myself for doing that...so as Pop-pop has noted, I've brought it up tentatively several times without really going through with saying what's on my mind.

Hi Phil, been around, lurking quietly in the background

I’m a little hesitant to jump in here since I really don’t want to argue about orthodoxy. I’ve been studying Christian doctrine and dogma for the last 10 years and have no desire to fight about it. Having said that, I in no way consider myself an expert, I’m just an interested Christian.

Phil, I’m afraid I can’t agree with your somewhat linear thinking regarding Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation. What about Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and the various smaller schisms that have occurred in the churches history. From a RC perspective these are simply “apostates” or “schismatics” and the church has always remained One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But from the perspective of the “schismatics” it appears that the church is more than the physical institution of the Roman Catholic Church.

Even though I grew up and received Christ as a Protestant, I’ve been deeply attracted to the spirituality of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox mystics. I agonized over whether that meant I should be converted to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. I did intense research on both churches. The thing is that for all their similarities and claims to be the One True Church, they are different in significant areas. Personally I happen to agree more with the Orthodox regarding their claims. For about a year I genuinely considered converting, but in the end I simply couldn’t reconcile their claims to supreme truth with similar claims from R.C. and other Christian groups.

We can’t all be the One True Church. I’m okay with you thinking that the Roman Catholic Church really is. But I just don’t see it for myself. The evidence is used by both sides of the Great Schism and by multitudes of others also. If the historical evidence doesn’t help, then spiritual experience is all that is left. If I as a protestant experience the love and grace of God, and you as a Catholic experience the same, and so do countless Christians from hundreds of institutions, then perhaps this relationship with God is more important than who is Right doctrinally.

Again, I’m not saying anything goes. I happen to agree with Pop Pop regarding the importance of being vigilant of false teachers and occultism and all the rest. I just don’t think that any Christian group can legitimately claim to be the One True Church. Christ himself refers to the Christian communities in the book of Revelation as separate bodies individually linked to Christ himself. Any one of those bodies could lose their lamp light and cease being Christian witnesses.

I’m tired of trying to find the True Church…now I just want to be the Church as I seek to Love God and my Neighbor as myself. I still believe the foundational creeds of Christianity, I still believe that the Bible is good and useful for understanding God and living in relationship with Him, I just don’t believe it gives all the details. Looking at church tradition doesn’t supply the answers either since not even the major Historical Christian Traditions can agree on the meaning of the historical tradition. If all these people don’t know what the truth is regarding doctrinal details, why should I think I do? Restore Unity

Much Love in the Lord Jesus.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:

quote:

I will say more later...but first I will say this now. When I spoke before about church history in relation to converting to Catholicism, Phil used the analogy that my attitude was like trying to drive a car while looking backward.

LOL! I'd forgotten about that. Seems it made an impression. What I recall, too, is that in your studying of church history, it seemed you'd latched on to mostly the negative aspects. Can you also see that Catholicism has been a tremendous force for good in this world for many centuries?

Phil --

I do see that--the good, I mean. And I do see Christianity, Catholicism included, as having been a decidedly good force in the world. I know I said something to Pop-pop about often choosing St. Francis or Michelangelo as my subject if I was assigned a history paper, and a Catholic poet, Gerard Manley Hopkins, is one of my favorites. My pastor introduced me to the writings of RC mystics many years ago, as well as other RC writers like a Kempis and Aquinas and the early church fathers.

I guess I couild have expressed that better, but mainly, I took it for granted that people would understand I wouldn't be here if I had a mostly negative view of Catholicism.

At the same time, I have some really big reservations, and, yeah, I've been kind of squirrelly about wondering if I should bring them up.

Jacques,

Wonderful to 'see' you again! How's the family? Are you up to two children now? Boys?

Ariel,

Please, do share what is bothering you about the RC Church. I doubt there's anything you could say that would cause us to negatively judge you. I doubt you'd say anything I and other Catholics here have not also considered as a problematic "issue" with our Church.

Jacques, I'm basically where you are, it seems to me.

The writings of the Early Church Fathers look more like the Orthodox Church, to me, to be the model of what Christ had in mind. I say that not as an expert, but as someone who has read them trying to keep an open mind. And at the same time I can see where the RC gets its position. And then from the way God consistently judged and reformed corruption in His leaders in the OT, such as Isaiah 5, I can see precedent for the Reformation.

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:

Ariel,

Please, do share what is bothering you about the RC Church. I doubt there's anything you could say that would cause us to negatively judge you. I doubt you'd say anything I and other Catholics here have not also considered as a problematic "issue" with our Church.

Thanks, Shasha.

Yes, I have felt confident that other people here have considered probably most, if not all, of the things causing my reservations.

A little while back Christine said something about loving people "with no agenda". That made a big impression on me, too. Its unlikely I'm going to convert to any other kind of Christian church--I have a good Protestant church I'm part of, and I have good Protestant conditioning that I'm thankful for, such as when I hear old hymns played on the bells of a Lutheran church two miles away--the music floats over the hills and echoes back off the valleys near my house. It's beautiful. And almost 300 years ago my maternal relatives were baptised in a church a few miles away from here...I think that's kind of cool that I accidently ended up so close to where they emigrated to. Sort of like Christine expressed about Catholic worship for her, I value my own roots in Christianity--not in a stubborn prideful way, but just as something to be thankful for and to use as a means to recall my mind to God's faithfulness.

Hi Shasha,

Family is really good. We've been in South Korea the last two years. I've been and still am teaching English here for another 2 months and then we're heading back to South Africa. Our two boys are growing beautifully, Joshua is almost 6 and Elijah is nearly 4.

Good to hear the family's doing well, Jacques. And South Korea? That's quite a cultural change! How do you like it there?

- - -

Although I am a Catholic, I have never taken the position that everyone ought to be nor that God is only active in the Catholic or even Christian tradition. You should all know that by now, I hope. I'm not particularly interested in "true Church" discussions, either. My Catholic "colors" tend to come out most when I hear people criticizing the Catholic tradition unfairly, or else outright bashing, which I don't think has been going on here. And . . . that's still sort of happening. Like this from Ariel:

quote:

The writings of the Early Church Fathers look more like the Orthodox Church, to me, to be the model of what Christ had in mind. I say that not as an expert, but as someone who has read them trying to keep an open mind. And at the same time I can see where the RC gets its position. And then from the way God consistently judged and reformed corruption in His leaders in the OT, such as Isaiah 5, I can see precedent for the Reformation.

But, Ariel, the "Orthodox Church" came 5 - 7 centuries after the writings of the early Fathers. There really aren't many differences between the teachings of the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholicism, anyway. I expect the two to be re-united during this century sometime.

Think, too, about what you imply with "the model of what Christ had in mind." You do have presuppositions against which you evaluate different Christian traditions and even the early Fathers! In the Catholic tradition, we turn that around by emphasizing Church teaching over our own presuppositions. See what I mean? We answer the question, "what did Christ have in mind (about anything)?" by giving priority to Church teaching on this topic. There are reasons why we do this, which I can elaborate on if you'd like, as this is a very important point. The whole spirit of modernity and post-modernity has been in conflict with this principle, assuming that "I know what Christ meant, so let's see which church agrees with me and I'll join that one . . . until I have a conflict with them and then I'll go somewhere else or start my own." Is that not the spirit of these times?

quote:

I guess I couild have expressed that better, but mainly, I took it for granted that people would understand I wouldn't be here if I had a mostly negative view of Catholicism.

At the same time, I have some really big reservations, and, yeah, I've been kind of squirrelly about wondering if I should bring them up.

Like Shasha encouraged, go ahead and share them, if you'd like. And I don't think your view is mostly negative, though whenever this topic comes up, you do tend to bring up "bad popes" and stuff like that. We know about all that and can certainly acknowledge that mistakes have been made.

And, now, Jacques: Very good post, and I respect your opinions. There is one response I'd like to venture, however. You wrote:

quote:

Phil, I’m afraid I can’t agree with your somewhat linear thinking regarding Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation. What about Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and the various smaller schisms that have occurred in the churches history. From a RC perspective these are simply “apostates” or “schismatics” and the church has always remained One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But from the perspective of the “schismatics” it appears that the church is more than the physical institution of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Protestant Reformation is in the same linear, historical framework as Roman Catholicism. It is a protest against RC, not one of the Orthodox traditions (though Protestants have similar issues with them as well). So I'm not sure why you bring up the Orthodox, here, as Ariel and I were discussing Catholicism and Protestantism. But, yes, the RCC does view the Orthodox as schismatics, for that is what they are. Once there was only one Christian church in union with the Pope in Rome, then, gradually, the Orthodox drifted away. It's a complicated story with many unfortunate twists and turns, but the Orthodox idea of a Christianity not in union with the Pope is, historically, a much later development than we find in early Christianity (the gnostic Christians being an exception, here, of course). "Schismatics" means "division" or "separation" and that's what happened, though not all at once, as noted above. But let's be clear that, historically, the schism is by the Orthodox away from the RC tradition. As for whether "the church is more than the physical institution of the Roman Catholic Church" -- that's a whole different point. The documents of Vatican II make it very clear that the Protestant and Orthodox Churches are Christian and share with the RCC in that salvation brought by Christ. We do not view the Orthodox or Protestant traditions as simply "apostates" or "schismatics".

So, again, good friends, it doesn't matter to me if you are Protestant or even agnostic. Really, it doesn't! When/if you want to bring up points about Catholic teaching and Church history, however, you do open the door to a different kind of discussion. I don't always have the time or energy for it, but I do think it's important to hash some of this out, at times. In doing so, it is good to remember that we are entitled to our opinions, but not our facts.

Peace, Phil

Phil--

I don't think I have the communication skills to be express myself clearly enough on such a difficult topic. Right off the bat, here, I can see I could have said what I had in mind in a better way than using "Orthodox Church" with capital letters.

I do feel that you might be presupposing a number of things about how I've approached these questions in my own mind; and so I feel I'd have to get past some obstacles to clear communication right from the start. And I don't feel up to that. Time and energy are precious for us all.

Phil, I feel from your last sentence that you might be dismissing my own efforts over the years to study the writings we have available to us from all the ages of the church. I've tried to let go, as far as possible, of my own opinions to gather the facts...as I believe you have as well. And I respect that. We can agree to disagree.

quote:

Phil, I feel from your last sentence that you might be dismissing my own efforts over the years to study the writings we have available to us from all the ages of the church.

I wasn't meaning to criticize you, Ariel, but to express a general principle for all of us to remember when it comes to discussions.

What, exactly, are you agreeing to disagree with me about?

quote:

Originally posted by faustina:
i don't know.. maybe i am odd, but i do not see much difference within religious organizations.. i suppose that is pretty clear from my posts...

i love the catholic mass.. i also love the divine Liturgy.. and Protestant churches.. wherever there is heart felt worship....

for me and the tendencies within my personality, it is best for me to go to the Catholic church.or an Eastern Orthodox church but i do not see Protestant churches as inferior in any way...equally, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ..

the one true church i sincerely believe lives within the hearts of all men who Love God and live for Him and His Divine purposes......

it is not God who creates the divisions within His Body.. it is.. man.

Christina, you actually carry the Holy Spirit with you where ever you go. Any Christian church that you walk into is blessed and I suspect that anyone who is around you is also blessed.

You are loved!

tuck

quote:

Christina, you actually carry the Holy Spirit with you where ever you go. Any Christian church that you walk into is blessed and I suspect that anyone who is around you is also blessed.

why tuck, what a lovely thing to say.. you made my day! blessings on you too !

love christine

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:

quote:

Phil, I feel from your last sentence that you might be dismissing my own efforts over the years to study the writings we have available to us from all the ages of the church.

I wasn't meaning to criticize you, Ariel, but to express a general principle for all of us to remember when it comes to discussions.

What, exactly, are you agreeing to disagree with me about?

Okay, Phil--I wasn't sure how to take what you said about facts vs. opinion...for example, in a best case scenario, I figured you were meaning what you stated now--it's a general principle of discussion. In a worst case scenario, I wondered if your unspoken basis was "Ariel, I have the facts, and you have a mixture of facts plus erroneous assumptions, presuppositions, and opinions because you've been influenced by post-modernist thinking, and therefore I have to dismiss your ability to think critically."

What are we agreeing to disagree about? I was thinking we can disagree about how to interpret ancient history because we may not have enough information available to make a firm judgment. Maybe we do--it just doesn't look that way to me at this point to say I can definitely believe either the RC version of what happened in the early church compared to what I'm hearing from the Orthodox; so I'm still leaving to open.

I think in pictures, Phil...it's great for me as an artist, but it can kind of suck when I want to communicate my thoughts in words. That's my problem to deal with, so I try not to blame others if I'm communicating unclearly.

quote:

Originally posted by Ariel Jaffe:

Okay, Phil--I wasn't sure how to take what you said about facts vs. opinion...for example, in a best case scenario, I figured you were meaning what you stated now--it's a general principle of discussion. In a worst case scenario, I wondered if your unspoken basis was "Ariel, I have the facts, and you have a mixture of facts plus erroneous assumptions, presuppositions, and opinions because you've been influenced by post-modernist thinking, and therefore I have to dismiss your ability to think critically."

Phil--i'm sorry if that sounds snarky. I didn't mean it sarcastically.

Jacques--

Thanks for the "Restore Unity" link.

quote:

Phil--i'm sorry if that sounds snarky. I didn't mean it sarcastically.

No problem, Ariel.

Ariel--

You’re welcome

Phil--

History is written by the victors – Winston Churchill.

I think it’s great that you have so much faith in your tradition’s view of history – no sarcasm intended. It would have saved me a lot of time and effort if I simply took the Protestant accounts as gospel and accepted it. Now I’m not suggesting that you don’t consider your tradition critically, but I do think you have far more faith in it than I have in mine.

Roman Catholic history works great if you’re Roman Catholic, but there are quite a few million Eastern Orthodox Christians who would strongly disagree that your facts are above reproach – not to mention the Protestants. Don’t you think it is telling that 4 out of the 5 Chief patriarchates fell on the Eastern Side of the argument and only 1 on the Western? But even this is an oversimplification and makes it seem like the Eastern Orthodox position is therefore true. I don’t think a strong enough case can be made for either. That doesn’t mean people aren’t going to decide anyway, they are and continue to do so daily. But if it were really that clear I think the largest majority of honest sincere scholars and theologians would have come to some kind of agreement a long time ago.

As a result I’ve come to an existentialist type of approach to my Faith. I have as little faith in the Protestant Reformation and its’ institutional children as I do in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox institutions. I love the church as the living reality birthed in Christ’s life, death and resurrection – but cannot see it as existing most purely in any of the traditional models. Rather I believe the church exists above and beyond our institutions but does not exclude the physical structures that form the skeleton around which the body of Christ can grow.

On my better days God grants me the grace to see all sincere expressions of church as the parable of the Wheat and Tares in which none is without Tare and all contain Wheat. God forbid that I try to weed out and separate that which Christ has commanded to let grow until the end.

Much Love in the Lord Jesus.

By the way Phil, I hear your commitment to Christian unity and that the R.C. church officially recognizes the Orthodox and Protestant churches as Christians. I've never felt unwelcome here as a Protestant

My struggles are rather with church history and that is where I have issues. Over the years I've even extended my study of this issue to Messianic Judaism and its' own claims to the "true history" of early Christianity. Another debate and more difficult questions...again, I don't agree with their arguments, but they certainly make many claims and have plenty of historical content to back them up. But for the sake of narrowing this discussion rather than opening it up even further let's forget that one for now

Oh, and South Korea has been great, but I can't wait to be in an English environment again. I'm not very good at language learning and it has been difficult not feeling able to communicate freely. The country itself is amazing and in many ways more advanced and efficient than South Africa not to mention safer. But home is home and I'm missing it

quote:

Roman Catholic history works great if you’re Roman Catholic, but there are quite a few million Eastern Orthodox Christians who would strongly disagree that your facts are above reproach – not to mention the Protestants. Don’t you think it is telling that 4 out of the 5 Chief patriarchates fell on the Eastern Side of the argument and only 1 on the Western?

I don't follow your reasoning, Jacques. Are you suggesting that the Orthodox tradition predates the RCC or that the early Fathers of the Church were Orthodox? It sounds like you think historicity, here, is merely a matter of opinion? The Anglicans, too, trace their history to the Apostles, but Henry VIII had a little to do with it, no?. The Protestants, too, claim to have their origins in early Christianity, but without Luther's protest, there would be no Protestantism. As the Catholic encyclopedia notes:

quote:

The Orthodox, then, are the Christians in the East of Europe, in Egypt and Asia, who accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (are therefore neither Nestorians nor Monophysites), but who, as the result of the schisms of Photius (ninth cent.) and Cerularius (eleventh cent.), are not in communion with the Catholic Church. There is no common authority obeyed by all, or rather it is only the authority of "Christ and the seven Ecumenical Synods" (from Nicæa I in 325, to Nicæa II in 787).

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism which explains how and when the Eastern church arose and what led to the schism. Christianity in union with the bishop of Rome pre-dated the rise of the Eastern Church and its leadership under the various Patriarchs. There is plenty of blame on both sides for the schism.

Btw, what church do you belong to these days? As I recall, evangelical Christianity is very strong out there.

Tuck,

You had written: (10 May 12:40 PM)

**************************
“So Pop-pop, where in the Christian Bible does it say that one can be prayed out of purgatory? Just for fun.”

**************************

Just for fun – here >>: 2 Maccabees 12: 38-46

Pop-pop

quote:

The East–West Schism of 1054, sometimes known as the Great Schism, formally divided the State church of the Roman Empire into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches, which later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, respectively

This opening paragraph puts it well. Before 1054 (though an exact date is again an oversimplification) there was only one official Christian church in the Roman Empire. After the events culminating in the dual excommunication the East and West was split. Both bodies claiming to be the True Church.

As a Roman Catholic you see the split being away from union with the bishop of Rome. But the Orthodox see it the other way around, it was the bishop of Rome breaking communion with the other bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch, who all remained in communion - it is a matter of perspective. The Orthodox argue that the bishop of Rome was given an honorary position of 'first among equals' which Rome, over time, sought to make first above all. As time progressed the split was entrenched and the bodies moved further apart theologically (though I'm the first to admit that the differences are far less than the Protestant Reformation).

Similar, though even more obscured through time is the schism which produced the Oriental Orthodox Church . As in the former case and predating it by 500 years, One united church became Two bodies each believing itself to be the True Church maintaining the faith of the Apostles.

I completely agree that in terms of continuity, as in Apostolic succession, Protestants have no direct link to the Christianity of the Roman Empire. But theologically they don't attempt to make such claims (except for some Anglicans).

Protestants argue that by the time Constantine established Christianity as the state religion it had already begun to "mutate" and that the marriage of state and church significantly increased the move away from the simple organic bodies of believers evangelized by the Apostles.

Different Protestant traditions disagree on whether the changes that occurred were unfortunate and unintentional or whether they constitute an apostasy of the church. Thus most of Protestantism exists on the belief that their structures are closer to the original biblical model than the latter politically infused system of the Roman Empire - which produced both traditions of Orthodoxy and the R.C.C. and thus gives a basis for the close relationship between the three and their considerable distance ecclesiologically and theologically from the churches of the Reformation.

Over the years I've genuinely tried to put myself in the minds of the different traditions. Hearing their arguments as though they were my own and sometimes arguing their very points with my Protestant friends. As I said, in the end they can't all be right and I've reached the end of my rope in terms of trying to figure out who actually is.

I'm happy to agree that at no point in time, since the establishment of the Roman See has the Western church failed to have various bodies of believers committed to Rome and the Pope and considering themselves to be the True Historical Church under the leadership of Rome.

But in the same way, one could argue that the 4 Sees of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople have been in communion since their establishment as Chief Sees of the Christian Church - Jerusalem being the oldest, even predating Rome, and that they have always been the Christian church in those areas.

quote:

Btw, what church do you belong to these days? As I recall, evangelical Christianity is very strong out there.

Yes, Evangelical Christianity if rather strong out here, but so is Roman Catholicism. Combined Protestant and Roman Catholicism make Christianity the largest religion followed closely by Buddhism.

As can be inferred from my musings on the various traditions I've struggled immensely with Church. Part of the reason I've been so quiet on Shalomplace is that I've been documenting some of my struggles on a blog I started to wrestle with the issues - feel free to check it out at jacobsstruggle .

We live in a rural village near the North Korea border and have no immediate access to English Churches. We attend a little Protestant church in the area, though I have no idea what kind it is. The whole service is in Korean but we get to worship in English since we have a parallel bible and hymnal and the hymns are all set to the same tune as the English Equivalent. It has been an interesting experience since in reality we can do no more than worship together and take communion together since all the rest is lost in translation. My wife teaches an English Sunday school for the kids twice a month which also at least gives our own children some English content to their church experience.

Apart from that I receive much of my ministry online from various sources, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, though the later is mainly from those identified/identifying with Emergent Christianity. These postmodern Christians draw deeply from the well of R.C and E.O and seem to be transcending the traditional boundaries that have separated the three historical traditions - though of course I know that they are not perfect and have various shortcoming themselves.

In summary I'm a disciple of Jesus and part of the mystical body of Christ, trying my best to be part of the physical institution of church as well