I Can't Be Evangelical Anymore...

[sdenko]

I joined Phatmass about 5 months ago and have been more of a lurker around here, but I'm coming out of "hiding" so to speak because I need some help.

About 4 months ago, I posted a topic which stated the reasons why I wouldn't be able to be Catholic.

Well...that has changed. Now I just realize I can't stay an evangelical given what I now believe about Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (many thanks to Mark P. Shea's book for that!)

But now my thing is, I know I can't be an evangelical anymore, so where do I go now? I can just be my own type of Christian, picking and choosing from the three branches of Christianity, or I can learn more about the two churches (Catholic and Orthodox) who I once thought of as totally off base with what Christ really wanted.

So now I come to a fork in the road.

I can take the Catholic road, the Orthodox road, or I can just blaze my own trail. I'd rather not blaze my own trail.

But that means I have to figure out whether or not the Orthodox or Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established. I'm hoping to begin RCIA in October to get a little more formal instruction on Catholic doctrines but that doesn't mean I'm ruling out the Orthodox church either.

In fact, from my understanding, both recognize each other's valid priesthood and thus apostolic authority and valid sacraments...so in a sense, its almost like, I have two choices and either one is a better choice than where I am now. If they both have valid sacraments and valid priesthoods and thus apostolic authority, then it's like...okay...just have to decide which one I like better.

But I feel like there's more to that decision, so I'm not just settling.

Any guidance?

[Era Might]

[quote name='sdenko' post='1634267' date='Aug 22 2008, 12:43 AM']If they both have valid sacraments and valid priesthoods and thus apostolic authority, then it's like...okay...just have to decide which one I like better.[/quote]
You should not make a decision based on which one you "like" better. Your decision should be based on which one is the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" Church that we profess in the Nicene creed. Probably the biggest issue you will have to resolve is whether you agree with the Catholic understanding of the role of the Pope in the Church.

There are many books and websites which could be recommended from the Catholic perspective. If you are researching a specific topic, just ask and I'm sure other Phatmassers will have recommendations.

[Selah]

Check out Catholic Answers. [url="http://www.catholic.com"]http://www.catholic.com[/url]. You can even join the forums if you like

[url="http://www.shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0246.html?L+scstore+szsx1027ffe9a7e9+1288674004"]http://www.shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/Sof...a7e9+1288674004[/url] <------- This book is awesome. Check this one out if you can.

[url="http://shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0121.html?E+scstore"]http://shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCar....html?E+scstore[/url] This was written by Karl Keating. If you ever had any questions about the Catholic faith, he answers them very well

[url="http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=33571&event=ECF"]http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Boo...1&event=ECF[/url] This book records the writings of the early church fathers. It's a very handy book to have!

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Journeys-Home-Marcus-Grodi/dp/1579180019"]http://www.amazon.com/Journeys-Home-Marcus...i/dp/1579180019[/url] This book records stories of protestants who have come to the Catholic church, just as you are considering!

[thessalonian]

Let Jesus guide you. There have been many who have gone their own road. Started their own denomination and all it has done is divided Christianity in to thousands or tens of thousands of denominations depending on how you count them. 99%+ of them started after the deformation, I mean reformation. Division is not of God as we are told in 1 Cor 1. I will most certainly pray for you on your journey. Yes the CC recognizes the legitmate succession of the Orthodox and their sacraments are valid but Matt 16:18 and the many evidences that Peter was the head of the Church and that headship was passed on through 2000 years of Popes is abundantly clear. The Schism in 1054 was a separation of Orthodoxy from Catholicism, not vice versa as they claim.

[sdenko]

I know I shouldn't choose a church based upon which one I like better...I don't want to choose based upon that either. But it seems like that's where its come to. Because both claim to be One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic church and both claim to be that Church that Christ established.

I know one of them is not the one true Church, but which one? Both of them seem to have pretty good arguments to back up their claims.

Thank you for the resources. That's exactly what I was looking for. Hopefully I can squeeze in a bit of reading before I start school in two weeks!

I have to say that at this point, I'm leaning Catholic because of the evidence of Petrine primacy of authority (and not just honour) yet at the same time, I'm still vacillating between what the Orthodox say about the pope and about how the Catholic CHurch has become more "protestantized" since V2.

Thanks!

Edited August 22, 2008 by sdenko

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='sdenko' post='1634564' date='Aug 22 2008, 11:01 AM']I know I shouldn't choose a church based upon which one I like better...I don't want to choose based upon that either. But it seems like that's where its come to. Because both claim to be One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic church and both claim to be that Church that Christ established.

I know one of them is not the one true Church, but which one? Both of them seem to have pretty good arguments to back up their claims.[/quote]

They can't be "one" if bishops can and do disagree with each other. Since there is no one unifying authority on faith and morals -- like the authority given to Peter and his descendants -- Orthodox (lay and bishops) can choose which Church Fathers' teachings are relevant to their personal beliefs and which are not. This resembles Protestantism a little too much for me.

The Eastern Orthodox Church believes in the possibility of a "change of situation" for the souls of the dead through the prayers of the living and the offering of the Divine Liturgy -- yet they don't believe in Purgatory.

In other words, man can save man and oppose another man's free will of rejecting God. The earliest church, well before the schism, taught that once a man is dead, he is immediately judged.

I wonder how they interpret "cleansing fire" from the Bible?

The two different wordings of the Holy Spirit (the Catholic wording and the Orthodox wording) were both used in very early Christianity. I've seen ours used even more, personally. I think Eastern Orthodox may misunderstand how we view the Trinity and not realize just how similar it is, despite the different wording, yet they use it as a big reason why they cannot unify.

[Autumn Dusk]

Both have the Eucharist and therefore the full presance of Christ.

Christ instituted a church with a physical head.

Let that lead you to the answer.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Autumn Dusk

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='sdenko' post='1634564' date='Aug 22 2008, 12:01 PM']I have to say that at this point, I'm leaning Catholic because of the evidence of Petrine primacy of authority (and not just honour) yet at the same time, I'm still vacillating between what the Orthodox say about the pope and about how the Catholic CHurch has become more "protestantized" since V2.

Thanks![/quote]

By the way, we certainly aren't "Protestantized" at all. Our teachings on faith and morals haven't changed, neither have our dogmas. That's the definition of Protestantism. Liturgical ways of celebrating the Mass are allowed to change throughout time (it's tradition with a small 't', not large). Some prefer Latin now, and Benedict is pushing for more Latinization. However, there is nothing wrong with celebrating in our own language. Liturgy is liturgy, as long as it contains the Eucharist. Sure, there will be some people within the church who feel that "modernizing" the celebration of the Mass will benefit the faithful. But I've only come across a few churches that had a more "Protestant" feel, due to lack of much artwork, a less visible crucifix, etc. Doesn't prove that we aren't the correct church; just proves that there are less than ideal people in charge of churches sometimes.

Some emporers have had influence on the discernment of dogma in the Orthodox Church around the 14th century, while the Catholic Church has not let the government influence its dogma.

Edited August 24, 2008 by lilac_angel

[sdenko]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1636081' date='Aug 23 2008, 10:03 PM']By the way, we certainly aren't "Protestantized" at all. Our teachings on faith and morals haven't changed, neither have our dogmas. That's the definition of Protestantism. Liturgical ways of celebrating the Mass are allowed to change throughout time (it's tradition with a small 't', not large). Some prefer Latin now, and Benedict is pushing for more Latinization. However, there is nothing wrong with celebrating in our own language. Liturgy is liturgy, as long as it contains the Eucharist. Sure, there will be some people within the church who feel that "modernizing" the celebration of the Mass will benefit the faithful. But I've only come across a few churches that had a more "Protestant" feel, due to lack of much artwork, a less visible crucifix, etc. Doesn't prove that we aren't the correct church; just proves that there are less than ideal people in charge of churches sometimes.

Some emporers have had influence on the discernment of dogma in the Orthodox Church around the 14th century, while the Catholic Church has not let the government influence its dogma.[/quote]

Good thoughts. Thank you for sharing them.

About the emperors, I've heard the exact claim coming from the Orthodox about the RC being influenced by government. Anyone having and specifics on this in history?

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='sdenko' post='1636581' date='Aug 24 2008, 10:54 AM']Good thoughts. Thank you for sharing them.

About the emperors, I've heard the exact claim coming from the Orthodox about the RC being influenced by government. Anyone having and specifics on this in history?[/quote]

The church may have been influenced in smaller matters, but our dogmas - the core teachings of the faith - were not influenced. Just to point that out. If I learn the specifics, I'll let you know.

[jeffpugh]

I don't know how much this helps or hinders your situation, but if you're looking at the Orthodox liturgy vs the (Western) Catholic liturgy, consider that we have the Eastern liturgies within the Catholic Church as well, for there are "Orthodox" who re-united with Rome, thus they kept their tradition handed onto them. Heck, there was one Eastern "rite" that did not break from Rome during the Orthodox schism. Maybe, though, figuring out why we have Eastern Catholics today will guide you on your quest for The Truth.

Best of Blessings,

SMM

[abercius24]

I hope you would consider being Eastern Catholic before you consider being Eastern Orthodox. I would think you would want to maintain unity with the Successor of Peter as the Orthodox originally held before the schism -- and which Eastern Catholics have returned to for the sake of Christ's command for Christian unity.

Congratulations on taking your next step in your faith journey. And thank you for blessing us with your fellowship, presence and prayers.

Edited August 31, 2008 by abercius24

[qfnol31]

One of the major questions that you'll encounter will be on the authority of the Holy Father.

I want to let you know that there are many different apologetic tracts on this issue. I actually find them quite dangerous because they create an eisegetical approach of sorts (that is, they are forcing the biases of the author upon certain ancient texts).

I would suggest that you look to the Ancient Fathers of the Church regarding the role of the Papacy because they are the least biased (even if they were extremely political).

1) St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who talks about the primacy of Rome. He says in his treatise against the Gnostics that the test of orthodoxy is being in union with the Bishop of Rome because that See was founded by both Peter and Paul. Historically, this is one of the earliest points in which the Bishop of Rome is held in a more central role than all of the other Bishops. From this original understanding flows the theology of the Catholic Church today, even if this theology was very slow in developing.

2) The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in AD 381. One of the canons said that the Bishop of Rome has primacy that no one equals, though the See of Constantinople comes second. The Orthodox argue that this is because of the political role of both cities, but in reality the Fathers recognized that Rome had primacy because of Peter AND Paul. Only later do we (the Catholic Church) really develop this doctrine to show its roots in the Bible.

3) St. Cyril of Alexandria. He appealed to the Pope following the venerable traditions of the Church before his time, though in the end, due to the pride of the patriarch of Constantinople (Nestorius), a general council was eventually necessary. Fr. John Anthony McGuckin has a great story on Cyril of Alexandria, though I think he goes out of his way to downplay the role of the Pope at that time. Nestorius (along with the patriarchs before him) was in a power struggle trying to usurp the authority of Rome. Eventually in Orthodoxy they succeed, but now Orthodox theology uses the same arguments as Catholic theology (to a certain extent) to support Bartholomew's role as "ecumenical patriarch."


These are just a couple sources, and I'm sure I can dig out quite a few more references. I just wanted to give you a heads-up about what you'll find when you research the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Also, always read the Sacred Scriptures, especially the Gospels of Matthew AND John. St. John goes out of his way to include Peter in three or four major narratives, including the scene at the tomb.

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1644931' date='Sep 1 2008, 09:01 PM']One of the major questions that you'll encounter will be on the authority of the Holy Father.

I want to let you know that there are many different apologetic tracts on this issue. I actually find them quite dangerous because they create an eisegetical approach of sorts (that is, they are forcing the biases of the author upon certain ancient texts).

I would suggest that you look to the Ancient Fathers of the Church regarding the role of the Papacy because they are the least biased (even if they were extremely political).

1) St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who talks about the primacy of Rome. He says in his treatise against the Gnostics that the test of orthodoxy is being in union with the Bishop of Rome because that See was founded by both Peter and Paul. Historically, this is one of the earliest points in which the Bishop of Rome is held in a more central role than all of the other Bishops. From this original understanding flows the theology of the Catholic Church today, even if this theology was very slow in developing.

2) The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in AD 381. One of the canons said that the Bishop of Rome has primacy that no one equals, though the See of Constantinople comes second. The Orthodox argue that this is because of the political role of both cities, but in reality the Fathers recognized that Rome had primacy because of Peter AND Paul. Only later do we (the Catholic Church) really develop this doctrine to show its roots in the Bible.

3) St. Cyril of Alexandria. He appealed to the Pope following the venerable traditions of the Church before his time, though in the end, due to the pride of the patriarch of Constantinople (Nestorius), a general council was eventually necessary. Fr. John Anthony McGuckin has a great story on Cyril of Alexandria, though I think he goes out of his way to downplay the role of the Pope at that time. Nestorius (along with the patriarchs before him) was in a power struggle trying to usurp the authority of Rome. Eventually in Orthodoxy they succeed, but now Orthodox theology uses the same arguments as Catholic theology (to a certain extent) to support Bartholomew's role as "ecumenical patriarch."


These are just a couple sources, and I'm sure I can dig out quite a few more references. I just wanted to give you a heads-up about what you'll find when you research the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Also, always read the Sacred Scriptures, especially the Gospels of Matthew AND John. St. John goes out of his way to include Peter in three or four major narratives, including the scene at the tomb.[/quote]

Here's a few more early ones.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Iraneus, Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

Cyprian of Carthage: "With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

[Fidei Defensor]

You could also try Eastern Catholicism, if you like the beauty and style of the Orthodox Church but want to be in communion with Rome.