Frustration & Stagnation -from Catholic.com Thread

[Ziggamafu]

A baptized Evangelical Non-Denominationalist, I've spent the past six months studying up on Church history and theology. I discovered the allure of Coptic, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Christianity. After checking out some good Catholic apologetics I began to feel “drawn home to Rome”. I pursued that feeling and engaged into deep conversations with both Catholic and Non-Denominationalist friends, as well as a few Protestants. I kept the studies up. I got a chance to chat with Karl Keating and Tim Staples a few times via EWTN radio, which was pretty cool. BUT!

Here are my problems and from them, my hesitation:

1) Although I see the need for the primacy and supremacy of one bishopric above all others, as well as the focus on the Petrine doctrine for leadership, I have trouble accepting that this was authoritively revealed to be the church at Rome. I don't really have problems with it being Rome. It just seems to me that Rome didn't have primacy immediately as part of the Deposit of Sacred Revelation, but rather acquired that honor eventually (albeit relatively quickly) through both necessity and association with Peter and Paul. And after all, wasn't Jerusalem the first great leader-church? Was it more so that wherever PETER was, THERE was the supremacy? I.E. When he was in Antioch, the church there was the one that had primacy.

2) A nifty way of defending transubstantiation was demonstrated to me by comparing the Eucharist to the Incarnation; if we examined Christ's body, would we be able to identify a divine kidney? Of course not. In a similar manner, so the defense goes, though we cannot directly perceive the bread and wine as being Christ's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, it doesn't change what we must nonetheless believe by the simple faith of a child. Ok. Makes sense to me. However...was not the very purpose of the Incarnation partly tied up into being fully God [i]and[/i] fully man? It would seem then, that this powerful illustration used to aide my transition from a view of consubstantiation to transubstantiation would naturally lead me to question whether this Eucharist can be at once fully the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord while at the same time being fully bread and wine. This would make more sense to me, as it relates to the Incarnation more perfectly. The fullness of the one nature does not negate from the fullness of the other nature. Could the Eucharist be fully Jesus and fully the “accidents” (bread and wine)? Is there room for such interpretation?

3) Is the Catechism considered to be part of the written Word of God? I know it is officially called a "teaching tool" and is not part of the canon of Sacred Scripture, but if it is Magisterially produced and authenticated by the Pope as a collection of dogmas that clarify the Deposit, would that not make it infallible and thus, the very Word of God that was always there - just not clarified or committed to paper?

4) Is the Catechism, like the Bible, subject to interpretation and thus capable of some leeway regarding the particulars or arguably figurative matters of the Faith?

5) Could all of Sacred Tradition actually be seen as already having been committed to paper in the GIRM, the Code of Canon Law, and the Catechism? If not, how do we even know what Sacred Tradition is?

6) It seems that problems of Sola Scriptora could easily be applied to Sola Ecclesia given the many divisions existing amongst Catholics over differing interpretations of the GIRM, Code of Canon Law, and the Catechism (not to mention politics LOL). How then does is it function any better? It would seem that the same points played against advocates of S.S. by Catholics could be played right back against S.E.

7) Understanding and believing in the necessity of the Magisterium's existence, I find it hard to understand why more Catholics are not reprimanded for certain moral or ethical stances - especially those in the public eye. Why is the bureaucratic process so slow going? How come church authority is not exercised more often in these cases?

8) This is the most important; when I am confirmed, I have to say something along the lines of "I believe and profess everything the Catholic Church teaches". This is my biggest dilemma. Since I view this as a marriage vow, I'm afraid that I'll say this without truly believing everything expressed in the Catechism. This is where a positive answer to my question #4 could come in handy! Also, may I take this to mean that, though I believe that the Catholic Church is God's authoritive and true Church, I may not necessarily believe what she's teaching at the moment or the way in which She is teaching it? Or that perhaps I believe in the intentions of what She teaches at all times and surrender to them, but may happen to disagree with or voice my opinion against them? I got this idea from Chesterton.

9) Karl Keating suggested that I may have already catechized myself. Well. I know I want to be become Catholic. However, I am held back because of the aforementioned issues - mostly out of the desire to go about this honestly and whole-heartedly. Nevertheless, would this place me outside the "impenetrable ignorance" factor and confirm I am in a state of mortal sin for rejecting the Church, according to Catholic theology?

10) Finally, at the Council of Trent an anathema was placed on anyone who professed a belief in salvation by faith alone. As far as I know, this anathema was not ever (and could not ever be) revoked. Yet in Vatican II, Protestants (the majority of which adhere to Sola Fide) were upgraded to the status of "separated brethren". Could you explain this apparent contradiction to me? Also, along those lines, I must admit there is a little fear involved with my impending conversion. I know it sounds silly, but I still have the paranoia of losing my salvation or what not by becoming part of Rome's Church. I was raised Fundamentalist Baptist. So it would have been more acceptable to become Orthodox or Coptic or whatever than [i]Roman[/i] Catholic. And even after my massive re-dedication to Christ as a Non-Denominationalist, certain unspoken paranoias remain. Any suggestions?

I hope I'll find the peace I'm looking for. I would honestly like to come into the Church as soon as possible. I just need satisfactory explanations for these 10 issues so I can feel comfortable with the Bride I might spend the rest of my life with. It’s like wanting desperately to marry a girl you don’t know if you can trust – or even if you really love her like you should.

A brother in Christ,

Ziggamafu

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='May 27 2004, 07:08 AM'] I know it sounds silly, but I still have the paranoia of losing my salvation or what not by becoming part of Rome's Church. I was raised Fundamentalist Baptist. So it would have been more acceptable to become Orthodox or Coptic or whatever than [i]Roman[/i] Catholic. And even after my massive re-dedication to Christ as a Non-Denominationalist, certain unspoken paranoias remain. Any suggestions?
[/quote]
I don't have the answers you are looking for (I'm not that great at explaining stuff yet), but you are in the right place. Someone will answer your concerns... Pedro? Adam? Ellenita? Sojourner? Where are you guys? Many of us felt exactly this ^ way... It's not silly. Feel free to express your frustrations and questions here. We've probably asked them all ourselves... and welcome to PhatMass...

[Brother Adam]

Welcome to Phatmass. Be sure to check out the reference section.

My wife and I are in the process of crossing the Tiber from an evangelical Baptist position also (GARBC).

I have to get to a job interview, but here are a couple of pages to start with (which you are already WAY past ), but I'll chat at you more later today if someone else hasn't already written you a book on your questions (yes that is how indepth some of these guys get).

[url="http://www.flyfreeministries.org/first.htm"]http://www.flyfreeministries.org/first.htm[/url] (the home page to the next link)
[url="http://www.flyfreeministries.org/Discussion-power.htm"]http://www.flyfreeministries.org/Discussion-power.htm[/url]

Edited May 27, 2004 by Brother Adam

[DojoGrant]

I will attempt to answer your questions!

1) The primacy of Rome is because of Peter, yes. When the Papacy spent, what, 70 years (?) in Avignon, the Bishop was still the Pope even though he did not reside in Rome during this period. So wherever Peter was, the primacy was. Wherever the Bishop of Rome is, there is the primacy.

2) The incarnation is an analogy, but not an example, of transubstantiation. You are right; in transubstantiation, there is only one substance, not two. In the incarnation, we have BOTH God and man. In the Eucharist, there is no longer bread and wine. That I am aware of, there is no other example of transubstantiation than in the Eucharist.

3) The Catechism is not the Word of God, although it espouses the Truths of God and salvation history.

4) I suppose you would need to provide an example of an unclear passage in the Catechism where there is not a full explanation.

5) Sacred Tradition is not the written Word of God, but simply the Truth of God in knowledge. If it was written as such, it would be more Sacred Scripture. It's role is interpretation.

6) Where confusion and varied interpretation arrises in the Catholic Church:
a) If there is a set doctrine and someone says something different than it, this is simple a false interpretation. The Church has primacy of interpretation.
b) If something is left open, one is free to interpret, but if the Church ever declared an interpretation as true, this view must be heeded.

7) Good question. I would like to know, too.

8) You can believe all without understanding all. If you find disagreement, you can still put the Church's teaching first and work always towards agreeing. You can believe something is true and disagree, but you should form yourself to agree.

9) You are seeking the Truth, and the Truth is often hard. I think what I said in #8 applies here.

10) My understanding is that there is a difference in those actively leaving the Church (what occured during Trent's time period) and those who are brought up in a non-Catholic faith and are given no knowledge of the Truth of the Catholic Church. They are separated through no fault of their own.

WELCOME TO THE BOARD AND I WILL PRAY FOR YOU ON YOUR JOURNEY!

Edited May 27, 2004 by DojoGrant

[Mickey's_Girl]

Ziggamafu--

Welcome to Phatmass! I'm (currently) Protestant, too, and I thought your questions were GREAT! I wonder about 8 and 9 quite a bit, myself.

I'll be praying for you.

Mickey's_Girl

[Brother Adam]

I got your email Zigg and will respond this evening after work.

[theculturewarrior]

I'm in way over my head here, Ziggamafu, but I think in the early Church Peter was recognized as have been given the keys to the Kingdom, and this authority was recognized as having been transfered to Rome. I have a book on this very thing. It is kind of "light reading" but it is very good and also a fun read. It is called "Pope Fiction," by Patrick Madrid. Of course, the doctrine of papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc developed and were clarified throughout the centuries, but that does not mean they do not belong to the deposit of faith. Look at confession, a sacrament that has gone through many deepenings of understanding.

I'll keep you in my prayers.

[PedroX]

Zig,

Hold tight. I'm at work, and can respond better at home. I converted when I was 30 years old from a lifetime of fundementalism/evangelicalism. My prayers are with you, and we do know where you're coming from.

peace...

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Ziggamafu,

First off, welcome to phatmass. It's always good to ask questions when you don't understand something, or if you're having a hard time understanding something. I read your post, and I'll respond to your first concern. (I'd like to get to the others soon, but this is all I have time for tonight.)

You said:

[quote] Although I see the need for the primacy and supremacy of one bishopric above all others, as well as the focus on the Petrine doctrine for leadership, I have trouble accepting that this was authoritively revealed to be the church at Rome. I don't really have problems with it being Rome. It just seems to me that Rome didn't have primacy immediately as part of the Deposit of Sacred Revelation, but rather acquired that honor eventually (albeit relatively quickly) through both necessity and association with Peter and Paul. And after all, wasn't Jerusalem the first great leader-church? Was it more so that wherever PETER was, THERE was the supremacy? I.E. When he was in Antioch, the church there was the one that had primacy.[/quote]

You seem to acknowledge the primacy of St. Peter as the first pope. It is true that Peter was in Jerusalem and Antioch before he went to Rome. The papacy is wherever the true pope is. That being said, though, Peter passed on his authority at Rome (being that he died there), so the Bishops of Rome have henceforth held the authority of St. Peter over the other Apostolic Sees. St. Peter was also at Alexandria, but we also know that St. Mark was the patriarch of that See. St. Mark could not have assumed the authority of Peter while Peter, the first pope, was still alive, as the papacy was based on the office of steward in the Davidic Kingdom (see Isaiah 22, for example, cross-referenced with Matthew 16. As a matter of fact, one of phatmass' scholars, Carson Weber, had an interesting dialogue about this point, which you can read [url="http://www.catholicboard.com/conversation.html"]here[/url]). Ergo, the successors of St. Mark at Alexandria did not receive the special authority of St. Peter with their successions simply because they receieved their succession directly from St. Mark, who did not have the same authority as St. Peter. Likewise, it was the same with Antioch and Jerusalem, with the latter head by St. James. Only one man could succeed as the successor of St. Peter, as there was only one steward in the Davidic Kingdom on which Jesus based the office of the papacy, and all the historical evidence points to the Bishops of Rome as holding this authority.

The Apostolic Sees of Antioch and Alexandria, however, were always held in high regard (after Rome, that is). James Likoudis, a former Orthodox Christian who is now Catholic, quoted Pope Damasus regarding this in a letter to a polemical Orthodox Christian. Pope Damasus' quote, written in 382 A.D., follows:

"..Though all the Catholic churches diffused throughout the world are but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, [b]yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the Primacy by the voice of Our Lord and Savior in the Gospel:[/b] 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock...shall be loosed in heaven.' ...The first See of the Apostle Peter is therefore the Roman Church, 'not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.' But the second See was consecrated in Alexandria, in the name of blessed Peter, by his disciple Mark the evangelist... And the third See of the most blessed Peter is at Antioch..."

You can read the rest of Mr. Likoudis' letter, which deals with the issue of the primacy of the Bishops of Rome in many parts, [url="http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm"]here[/url].

Furthermore, St. Maximus the Confessor in various writings (c. 650 A.D.) wrote:

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Another good quote is from St. Nicephorus (758 - 828 A.D.)

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles." (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

There are numerous other quotes pointing to the supremacy of Rome. You can read some of them at [url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/primacy.htm"]here[/url] and [url="http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm"]here[/url], for starters. If you have any more questions regarding this, or if you wish you discuss this further, let me know. I hope this helps!

God bless,

Jennifer