UPDATE: Curiosity about the Catholic/Orthodox Church

[Afra]

I still doubt that practice. I would believe that priests offer a sense of closeness while praying to God, right? I'm still in questioning about everything.

Maybe. What does "He who hears you hears me" mean?

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Maybe. What does "He who hears you hears me" mean?

Interesting.

 

[All4Christ]

You are more than welcome to stop by The Ancient Way - the Orthodox subforum - if you’d like more Orthodox Christians to answer questions about the Orthodox Church.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

You are more than welcome to stop by The Ancient Way - the Orthodox subforum - if you’d like more Orthodox Christians to answer questions about the Orthodox Church.

Will do. Have been telling Mom that my beliefs lean Orthodox now.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Praying to Mary/Saints - Still feel like that is necromancy, especially because of my strong Protestant upbringing.

By definition, necromancy is a two-way thing. If it isn't two way communication, it isn't necromancy. If somebody is still uncomfortable with the practice after that distinction is made, so be it.

But it still isn't necromancy.

The fact that the Catholics spearheaded the Inquisition

Which one?

The Assumption of Mary - ??? Don't understand that one.

Our Lord would not be allowed rot. God promised that. Modern science tells us cells from a baby stay inside the mother for decades, maybe even her whole life. The Catholic view of Our Lady's Assumption addresses that problem; the Protestant view of her dying and rotting in the grave does not.

There are a few things that I still believe in, but my foundation for such are becoming shakier with every week that passes by:
Sola Scriptura

Speaking as a convert, this was the first domino to fall for me too. I found that "sola scriptura" is a logical dead end.

Iconoclasm

Same. And honestly, icons have a lot of utility which rarely gets remarked upon. Possibly my favorite example is Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) - Wikipedia which has some amazing Christology going for it.

I don't find statues as offensive as I used to. I am starting to understand Exodus 20, e.g. The Ten Commandments, in that graven images, in context, stand for pagan idols, not mere physical representations of what's already in heaven.

Idolatry is another word which, no offense to anybody, Protestants really have mutilated beyond all recognition.

In ancient practice, an idol was (A) made in the likeness of something (B) believed to literally be that thing and (C) worshiped as though it is divine. Icons, statues and the rest cannot possibly be idols unless we change the definition of idol to something else.

It's not easy to do that in a way which doesn't also condemn photography.

Another thing is that I was taught that the Rosary was 'vain repetition' and therefore not to be used in any fashion or form. I still wrestle with the idea that repeating the same prayer could actually be worthwhile. (I write poetry as prayer to God, e.g. I asked Him to take me Home a few days ago... I've been longing for something and it's been egging at me...)

Do Catholics Pray "Vain Repetitions?" | Catholic Answers was written by a convert and you might find it helpful.

That's all I got right now. I seem to veer Orthodox or Lutheran because I have a strong belief against the Papacy, which I don't think will change.

Read my sig. A special regard for the bishop of Rome goes back a very long way.

EDIT- I want to add that clearly I'm Catholic. I like the Orthodox Church but obviously I wouldn't be Catholic if I thought somebody else had it right.

But since it sounds to me like you're already halfway out the door of Protestantism, it seems to me like I should say that if you end up landing in the Orthodox Church, trust me, you could do a lot worse. They're pretty solid.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

By definition, necromancy is a two-way thing. If it isn't two way communication, it isn't necromancy. If somebody is still uncomfortable with the practice after that distinction is made, so be it.

But it still isn't necromancy.

Which one?

Our Lord would not be allowed rot. God promised that. Modern science tells us cells from a baby stay inside the mother for decades, maybe even her whole life. The Catholic view of Our Lady's Assumption addresses that problem; the Protestant view of her dying and rotting in the grave does not.

Speaking as a convert, this was the first domino to fall for me too. I found that "sola scriptura" is a logical dead end.

Same. And honestly, icons have a lot of utility which rarely gets remarked upon. Possibly my favorite example is Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) - Wikipedia which has some amazing Christology going for it.

Idolatry is another word which, no offense to anybody, Protestant really have mutilated beyond all recognition.

In ancient practice, an idol was (A) made in the likeness of something (B) believed to literally be that thing and (C) worshiped as though it is divine. Icons, statues and the rest cannot possibly be idols unless we change the definition of idol to something else.

It's not easy to do that in a way which doesn't also condemn photography.

Do Catholics Pray "Vain Repetitions?" | Catholic Answers was written by a convert and you might find it helpful.

Read my sig. A special regard for the bishop of Rome goes back a very long way.

Much appreciated response. I will check into it.

 

[Albion]

Also, I am starting to believe that many of the Catholic practices are actually proper Christian behavior, in which I will give my current list.​

• Monks/Nuns - Nothing in the Bible forbids this.​
• Real Presence in the Eucharist - I now believe that Christ is present in Communion.​
• Priests/Bishops - The Bible even talks about this.​
• Tradition - It is very important in the Church.​
• Penance/Confession/Absolution​

​

FWIW, I have a hunch that you and the Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox churches, are not as much in synch on the above points as you may think at present. I could be wrong about that, but consider...

1. Monks/Nuns. Correct, there is nothing wrong with this. All the churches on your list have some, although there are not many Lutheran ones..

2. Real Presence. Yes, Christ is present in the Eucharist. All the churches on your list--Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutheran--believe in the RP. However, the first two believe also that the bread and wine cease to exist at the consecration of the elements as they are wholly converted over to Christs body and blood, despite what they look like. Is that (Transubstantiation) your belief also?

3. Priests (Presbyters)/Bishops. Yes, the New Testament describes the churchs ministers including these. The main issue concerns what todays churches believe they are empowered to do.

4. Tradition. Theologically speaking, this term--as used by the CC and EO--doesn't mean custom or church history. It means (to them) that God not only gave us his guidance in the Bible, but also in what the people of the church have accepted by folklore, common opinion, or the like, since early times. That is believed to be a second infallible source of divine revelation just as much as the Bible is.

Is that your belief also? I think not, since you reject the bodily Assumption of Mary, which is an ancient legend and completely without any factual or scriptural basis and is believed because of the belief in *Sacred Tradition.*

5. Penance/Confession/Absolution. All the churches are in basic agreement on this although the Lutherans do not practice private confession in the way of the Catholics or Orthodox or consider the event to be a sacrament.​

 

[ViaCrucis]

5. Penance/Confession/Absolution. All the churches are in basic agreement on this although the Lutherans do not practice private confession in the way of the Catholics or Orthodox or consider the event to be a sacrament.

Just a nitpick. We do have private confession in Lutheranism, but we don't have a confession booth like Catholicism does because the confession booth didn't really exist until after the Reformation period. Instead a person can speak with the pastor in private; private confession and absolution is practiced in our churches--but it's almost certainly much less common than in Catholicism. Also, to say that Absolution isn't a sacrament would be going too far, the Lutheran Confessions sometimes indicate that there are two Sacraments (Baptism and the Eucharist) and other times treats Absolution as a third Sacrament. As such, whether or not it is a Sacrament (properly speaking) is really more ambiguous--it might be, it probably is, and generally is treated like one even if not in name strictly speaking. But even if not a Sacrament in the proper or technical sense, it is regarded as Sacramental in character; as it is Means of Grace as the pastor speaks in persona Christi the forgiveness of sins; and it is therefore precious and life-giving Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

FWIW, I have a hunch that you and the Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox churches, are not as much in synch on the above points as you may think at present. I could be wrong about that, but consider...

1. Monks/Nuns. Correct, there is nothing wrong with this. All the churches on your list have some, although there are not many Lutheran ones..

2. Real Presence. Yes, Christ is present in the Eucharist. All the churches on your list--Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutheran--believe in the RP. However, the first two believe also that the bread and wine cease to exist at the consecration of the elements as they are wholly converted over to Christs body and blood, despite what they look like. Is that (Transubstantiation) your belief also?

3. Priests (Presbyters)/Bishops. Yes, the New Testament describes the churchs ministers including these. The main issue concerns what todays churches believe they are empowered to do.

4. Tradition. Theologically speaking, this term--as used by the CC and EO--doesn't mean custom or church history. It means (to them) that God not only gave us his guidance in the Bible, but also in what the people of the church have accepted by folklore, common opinion, or the like, since early times. That is believed to be a second infallible source of divine revelation just as much as the Bible is.

Is that your belief also? I think not, since you reject the bodily Assumption of Mary, which is an ancient legend and completely without any factual or scriptural basis and is believed because of the belief in *Sacred Tradition.*

5. Penance/Confession/Absolution. All the churches are in basic agreement on this although the Lutherans do not practice private confession in the way of the Catholics or Orthodox or consider the event to be a sacrament.​

My beliefs about No. 4 are middling. I believe some of them to be true and others not to be. And FYI, the Catholic Church is only 2 miles away while the Lutheran is 27 miles away and the Orthodox is 90 miles away. Was just thinking.

 

[Afra]

2. Real Presence. Yes, Christ is present in the Eucharist. All the churches on your list--Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutheran--believe in the RP. However, the first two believe also that the bread and wine cease to exist at the consecration of the elements as they are wholly converted over to Christs body and blood, despite what they look like. Is that (Transubstantiation) your belief also?

The substance is changed. The accidents of the bread and wine remain, and do not adhere in any subject. So what you see is not the body and blood of Christ. What you see are the remaining accidents of bread and wine. The body and blood of Christ can only be perceived by the intellect. Explained here:

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The way in which Christ is in this sacrament (Tertia Pars, Q. 76)

I answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But Christ's body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ's body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because, as stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 3; Article 3), Christ's body is substantially present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a thing is" (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.

Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For since the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely supernatural, it is visible in itself to a supernatural, i.e. the Divine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified intellect, of angel or of man, which, through the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all supernatural things in the vision of the Divine Essence. But it can be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like other supernatural things. And not even the angelic intellect of its own natural power is capable of beholding it; consequently the devils cannot by their intellect perceive Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do not pay willing assent; yet they are convinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to James 2:19: "The devils believe, and tremble."

4. Tradition. Theologically speaking, this term--as used by the CC and EO--doesn't mean custom or church history. It means (to them) that God not only gave us his guidance in the Bible, but also in what the people of the church have accepted by folklore, common opinion, or the like, since early times. That is believed to be a second infallible source of divine revelation just as much as the Bible is.

No, this is completely false. The Catholic Church has never taught Sacred Tradition as "what the people of the church have accepted by folklore, common opinion, or the like, since early times."​

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

The substance is changed. The accidents of the bread and wine remain, and do not adhere in any subject. So what you see is not the body and blood of Christ. What you see are the remaining accidents of bread and wine. The body and blood of Christ can only be perceived by the intellect. Explained here:

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The way in which Christ is in this sacrament (Tertia Pars, Q. 76)

I answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But Christ's body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ's body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because, as stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 3; Article 3), Christ's body is substantially present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a thing is" (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.

Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For since the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely supernatural, it is visible in itself to a supernatural, i.e. the Divine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified intellect, of angel or of man, which, through the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all supernatural things in the vision of the Divine Essence. But it can be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like other supernatural things. And not even the angelic intellect of its own natural power is capable of beholding it; consequently the devils cannot by their intellect perceive Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do not pay willing assent; yet they are convinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to James 2:19: "The devils believe, and tremble."

No, this is completely false. The Catholic Church has never taught Sacred Tradition as "what the people of the church have accepted by folklore, common opinion, or the like, since early times."​

Great response. I agree.

 

[dzheremi]

FWIW, I have a hunch that you and the Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox churches, are not as much in synch on the above points as you may think at present. I could be wrong about that, but consider...

1. Monks/Nuns. Correct, there is nothing wrong with this. All the churches on your list have some, although there are not many Lutheran ones..

2. Real Presence. Yes, Christ is present in the Eucharist. All the churches on your list--Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutheran--believe in the RP. However, the first two believe also that the bread and wine cease to exist at the consecration of the elements as they are wholly converted over to Christs body and blood, despite what they look like. Is that (Transubstantiation) your belief also?

3. Priests (Presbyters)/Bishops. Yes, the New Testament describes the churchs ministers including these. The main issue concerns what todays churches believe they are empowered to do.

4. Tradition. Theologically speaking, this term--as used by the CC and EO--doesn't mean custom or church history. It means (to them) that God not only gave us his guidance in the Bible, but also in what the people of the church have accepted by folklore, common opinion, or the like, since early times. That is believed to be a second infallible source of divine revelation just as much as the Bible is.

Is that your belief also? I think not, since you reject the bodily Assumption of Mary, which is an ancient legend and completely without any factual or scriptural basis and is believed because of the belief in *Sacred Tradition.*

5. Penance/Confession/Absolution. All the churches are in basic agreement on this although the Lutherans do not practice private confession in the way of the Catholics or Orthodox or consider the event to be a sacrament.​

There are some comments in this post that I imagine our EO and RC friends will rightly object to, e.g., that tradition "means (to them) that God not only gave us his guidance in the Bible, but also in what the people of the church have accepted by folklore, common opinion, or the like, since early times." I'm neither EO or RC and that still strikes me as demonstrably wrong, needlessly insulting, and very off-putting.

I really doubt that "folklore" or "common opinion" comes into it for the faithful Orthodox or Catholics, given the history of what our common fathers went through to defend the faith of Nicaea (HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic's numerous exiles, for instance). That's actual history, not folklore, and "common opinion" would be an odd thing to describe it as in the context of a situation in which HH Athanasius the Apostolic was described as contra mundum, in reference to the widespread popularity of the Arian and semi-Arian positions.

Dear ChristIsSovereign:

Please be careful what you read in a thread like this. Some have made things like tradition into a bit of a bugbear (as above, and in many other posts by this particular poster), and hence will color things negatively due to their own hangups which are not actually present in others (hence what a Lutheran thinks is the case for RCs or EO isn't to be taken in place of what RCs or EO themselves say they believe/practice and why they do so).

I pray that you will find a Catholic and Eastern Orthodox parish to attend, so that you can compare what you find at each and go from there. And if that's not possible due to distance (I know EO parishes aren't necessarily as easy to find), hopefully you can receive good guidance from the EO forum here, The Ancient Way.

 

[Albion]

The substance is changed. The accidents of the bread and wine remain, and do not adhere in any subject. So what you see is not the body and blood of Christ. What you see are the remaining accidents of bread and wine. The body and blood of Christ can only be perceived by the intellect... The Catholic Church has never taught Sacred Tradition as "what the people of the church have accepted by folklore, common opinion, or the like, since early times."

You prefer more likeable language than I used, that's all.

It is like describing Purgatory as a place of "purification" rather than purging from or being punished for sin. That makes it sound better to the average church member.

 

[Albion]

There are some comments in this post that I imagine our EO and RC friends will...object to.

No doubt.

But then again, that would happen no matter how those beliefs were described by me.

 

[Afra]

You prefer more likeable language than I used, that's all.

It is like describing Purgatory as a place of "purification" rather than purging from or being punished for sin. That makes it sound better to the average church member.

No, I prefer truth to falsity.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Amen. I have been praying more and more as of the last week... I find my connection to God to be enriching slowly but surely, and with that is coming some really weird belief changes, e.g. I started to believe in the Real Presence as of last week although everything else was still off-limits, per se.

Praying is the best thing to do. In the end it has to be a prayerful decision.

But you also could benefit from reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Maybe you have, but there are instances where you still do seem to have a view or two which you learned from anti-Catholics that isn't really what the Catholic Church teaches. It is good to see what the Catholic Church actually teaches first before coming to a conclusion. One example might be asking for intercession from saints vs necromancy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church should be available in any bookstore. If you already have it and are reading it, great. It's a good source, not the exhaustively final explanation for everything, but a true guide.

When you posted your other thread about looking for a place with worship like Catholics do, but just not Catholic, I was tempted to advise you to actually dig into Catholic belief to see if it was less objectionable than you previously thought. My opinion is that everybody could become Catholic because it is a sensible way to be Christian. The objections fall apart if one looks with an open mind and access to actual Catholic theology. This has happened to so many people.

You mentioned intimacy with God as a principle motivator in your search. Seek out a Catholic Church which does perpetual adoration. Or even regular adoration even if it isn't 24/7/365. Then go and sit for even a few minutes in an adoration chapel. Pour out your concerns to the Lord. Intimacy with God can be anywhere and anytime. But it can be in one of those chapels in the minutes you sit or kneel there. Check it out.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Praying is the best thing to do. In the end it has to be a prayerful decision.

But you also could benefit from reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Maybe you have, but there are instances where you still do seem to have a view or two which you learned from anti-Catholics that isn't really what the Catholic Church teaches. It is good to see what the Catholic Church actually teaches first before coming to a conclusion. One example might be asking for intercession from saints vs necromancy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church should be available in any bookstore. If you already have it and are reading it, great. It's a good source, not the exhaustively final explanation for everything, but a true guide.

When you posted your other thread about looking for a place with worship like Catholics do, but just not Catholic, I was tempted to advise you to actually dig into Catholic belief to see if it was less objectionable than you previously thought. My opinion is that everybody could become Catholic because it is a sensible way to be Christian. The objections fall apart if one looks with an open mind and access to actual Catholic theology. This has happened to so many people.

You mentioned intimacy with God as a principle motivator in your search. Seek out a Catholic Church which does perpetual adoration. Or even regular adoration even if it isn't 24/7/365. Then go and sit for even a few minutes in an adoration chapel. Pour out your concerns to the Lord. Intimacy with God can be anywhere and anytime. But it can be in one of those chapels in the minutes you sit or kneel there. Check it out.

Amen. I am checking out the local Catholic Church now!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Amen. I am checking out the local Catholic Church now!

Even if the nearest Catholic church does not have perpetual adoration, and you have to travel a bit farther to drop in to one of those sites, I think it would be worth your while for at least an occasional visit. My parish does have it and I have a regular hour there Monday evenings. Been there for the last 20+ years. But if I have some time between jobs I drop in at another location if I am in that area. For me it is one of the very best hours of the week. You can just drop in. But sometimes late at night you have to know a security door code, so first drop in during they day so you can find out how to gain access in the odd hours.

By the way, when I'm traveling I use a site called masstimes.org, which lists local parishes and when they meet. The thing I always do is look for a place which does have adoration, as it just seems to me that those have the best and most reverent liturgies too. Generally speaking at least.