Urgent help needed; possible RC convert

[Jy3pr6]

Hello brethren,

Before I post the quote, I ask that if you are tempted to post a pithy and/or ironic response, please restrain yourself from posting. My friends and I have been researching Orthodoxy for some time now and have grieved intensely over the schism and our possible duty of having to leave the Catholic Church, and these comments which these and other forums are rife and plagued with are the absolute most awful and insensitive remarks possible converts have to deal with in searching for the true Church of Christ. If possible, I would like to restrict this thread to those who are truly interested in helping me and others who are struggling with this painful process out.

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

As I'm sure many of you are aware already, there are numerous quotes found within the Church Fathers of this nature, but this one in particular brings out one of the more complex issues with the Matthew 16:18 debacle. He, like other Fathers, seem to refer to one Chair of Peter while ascribing to it a perpetual ministry of divine assurance in one See. I've been wrestling with the fact that my RC friend brings up frequently that the Church was founded upon ONE MAN and that the Keys were given to ONE MAN, and that this last point is given the assurance that the gates of hell would not prevail against that ONE CHURCH. With the Peter syndrome set aside, it isn't entirely ridiculous to see how the RC interpretation came about considering the central role of Peter (especially in Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21) and his death in Rome which is widely attested to, as being foundational for a LOVING GUARANTEE from God that a particular Church would never err. St. Cyprian says:

"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; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance."


There is little doubt that you have come across these passages and others like them before. For that I am sorry, but as I said previously, I am immensely grieved and the responses here, in books and in other forums are lacking regarding certain quotations and RC concepts that are not for the moment fully reconciled with my conscience. Thank you in advance for your charitable responses.

God bless you,

Jonathan

[Maria]

Dear Jonathan,

Know that I am praying for you. I left the Roman Catholic Church and joined the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church where I found a new home for 3 years. During those three years, I inquired into Eastern Orthodoxy.
With my increasing disbelief in Papal Powers, especially papal infallibility and papal supremacy, I finally left the Melkite Church and was chrismated into the Greek Orthodox Church.

I will pray for you that you may find true peace.

[Jy3pr6]

Dear Jonathan,

Know that I am praying for you. I left the Roman Catholic Church and joined the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church where I found a new home for 3 years. During those three years, I inquired into Eastern Orthodoxy.
With my increasing disbelief in Papal Powers, especially papal infallibility and papal supremacy, I finally left the Melkite Church and was chrismated into the Greek Orthodox Church.

I will pray for you that you may find true peace.

Bless you Maria. What beautiful hope you've given me. I FEEL your prayers. I cannot thank you enough for manifesting this love of God to me. Bless you friend.

[truthseeker32]

Hello Jy3pr6,
   My spiritual journey has been a difficult and confusing one, and the issue of what role the Bishop of Rome played in the early Church is one I continue to study and wrestle with. That being said, I will give some brief thoughts.

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

The first question I have regarding this passage: What does St. Jerome mean when he says "... I communicate with none but your blessedness..."? Does he mean he only sees communion with the Church of Rome as important? I would like to read this passage in its original language, since nuance can often be lost in translation.

Further, reading the Church Fathers has taught me that there seems to have been varying views of the Bishop of Rome. I don't think the reality that some ECF's may have had a view of the Pope similar to the modern Roman Catholic understanding proves anything more than the variety of views the early church had of the Bishop of Rome. For example, lets pretend that Sts. Jerome and Athanasius believed the Pope had supremacy, and Sts. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa believed no such thing. The issue would remain inconclusive, and it seems that in such cases it is better to side with conservatism (the Orthodox position) unless it can be demonstrated that the greater part of the Christian tradition has agreed with Rome.

Anyways, good questions. I look forward to seeing other responses.

[biro]

Hi, Jy3,

I am on this journey too. It has not been easy. I wish you the best.

[ialmisry]

Hello brethren,

Before I post the quote, I ask that if you are tempted to post a pithy and/or ironic response, please restrain yourself from posting. My friends and I have been researching Orthodoxy for some time now and have grieved intensely over the schism and our possible duty of having to leave the Catholic Church, and these comments which these and other forums are rife and plagued with are the absolute most awful and insensitive remarks possible converts have to deal with in searching for the true Church of Christ. If possible, I would like to restrict this thread to those who are truly interested in helping me and others who are struggling with this painful process out.

You post on an Orthodox forum about "having to leave the Catholic Church" when it fact what you are contemplating joining the Catholic Church.

As for painful, what in particularly causes you your pain?

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

IIRC, this is from his whining letter to Abp. (the title of Pope at the time was held only by the Archbishop of Alexandria) St. Damasus, on whom to commune with in the East.  Abp. Damasus settled on Paulinus as Patriarch of Antioch, who ordained St. Jerome.  Alas!  The East was in communion with Patriarch St. Meletius, who opened up the Second Ecumenical Council not in communion with the archbishop of Rome and set their seal on the Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  At that Council of Saints (it has the most canonized/glorified saints who attended any council, although it was the smallest), they elected St. Flavian to succeed him as patriarch of Antioch, when St. (and so on the Vatican's calendar as well) Meletius reposed, and did so over Old Rome's objections.  Paulinus' line died out after him.  All five lines of patriarchs that the Vatican promoted for patriarch of Antioch all claim to trace their episcopal lineage from Pat. St. Meletius, not Paulinus, who was quite forgotten.

On that:

I am seeking independent verification of information contained in an Orthodox encyclical

The encyclical in question is
"Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns""

In it they say...

"...witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be "the most venerable of all the Churches in the world." Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: "The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used."

I have looked at the cite www.ccel.org which gives documents by Church Fathers.

The 48th epistle by Basil begins...
Letter XLVIII.

To Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata.

I have had considerable difficulty in finding a messenger to convey a letter to your reverence, for our men are so afraid of the winter that they can hardly bear even to put their heads outside their houses.  We have suffered from such a very heavy fall of snow that we have been buried, houses and all, beneath it, and now for two months have been living in dens and caves.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.xlix.html

Am I missing something regarding the reference (Ep. 48 Athan.)?

Also, I can't find the letter sent by the second ecumenical council to 'the west'

My best guess is that it is this epistle which Basil wrote to Athanasius, which is being referenced: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.lxvii.html

In it he writes:

No one knows better than you do, that, like all wise physicians, you ought to begin your treatment in the most vital parts, and what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch?  Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body.  Truly the diseases of that city, which has not only been cut asunder by heretics, but is torn in pieces by men who say that they are of one mind with one another, stand in need of your wisdom and evangelic sympathy.

As I'm sure many of you are aware already, there are numerous quotes found within the Church Fathers of this nature, but this one in particular brings out one of the more complex issues with the Matthew 16:18 debacle. He, like other Fathers, seem to refer to one Chair of Peter while ascribing to it a perpetual ministry of divine assurance in one See. I've been wrestling with the fact that my RC friend brings up frequently that the Church was founded upon ONE MAN and that the Keys were given to ONE MAN, and that this last point is given the assurance that the gates of hell would not prevail against that ONE CHURCH. With the Peter syndrome set aside, it isn't entirely ridiculous to see how the RC interpretation came about considering the central role of Peter (especially in Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21) and his death in Rome which is widely attested to, as being foundational for a LOVING GUARANTEE from God that a particular Church would never err. St. Cyprian says:

"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; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance."


There is little doubt that you have come across these passages and others like them before. For that I am sorry, but as I said previously, I am immensely grieved and the responses here, in books and in other forums are lacking regarding certain quotations and RC concepts that are not for the moment fully reconciled with my conscience. Thank you in advance for your charitable responses.

God bless you,

Jonathan

On the quotes:

said that this moment in John 21, after the resurrection of Jesus , was the moment that Jesus actually gave  to St Peter the keys and the authority over His church which He had promised him in Matthew 16.

Yes, as we have seen above, Pastor Aeternus taught so in error.  On Matthew 16:

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349).
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

On this one:

This has been dealt with a lot (including on St. Chrysostom's words on St. James and St. John, in addition to St. Peter). For an example:

Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.

Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

It’s important to emphasize that the moment after the Resurrection, in John 21, was the point at which Jesus made St Peter the first pope. This is significant because some non Catholics bring up St Peter’s 3 fold denial of Christ in john 18:25 and following.  When peter denied Jesus Christ, it was before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jesus had not yet given St peter the authority as pope. The words in MT 16:18-20 promise the keys of the Kingdom to St Peter. They promise that Jesus would build His Church upon Him and make him the prime minister of His Church, but that office was not conferred upon peter until after the RESURRECTION, BY THESE WORDS IN John21:15-17. Therefore, St Peter’s  denial of Christ poses no problem at all for Catholic teaching on the papacy.

Ah, a little problem for the Vatican in that He had already conferred the Power of the Keys on ALL the Disciples (except St. Thomas, and of course, Judas) in John 20:22.

And, the problem that John 21 deals with St. Peter's denial and his repentance therefrom, to confess his love for Christ once denied:

So when they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.
1. There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requires of Peter. For when their eating was ended, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.

He says unto him, Feed My sheep.
And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

When then having been asked once and again, he called Him to witness who knows the secrets of the heart, and then was asked even a third time, he was troubled, fearing a repetition of what had happened before, (for then, having been strong in assertion, he was afterwards convicted,) and therefore he again betakes himself to Him.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

St. John the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom must have not gotten the memo, because the only thing they have to say about young and old

When you were young, you girded yourself, and walked whither you would, but when you are old, others shall gird you, and carry you whither you will not.
And yet this he did will, and desired; on which account also He has revealed it to him. For since Peter had continually said, I will lay down my life for You John 13:37, and, Though I should die with You, yet will I not deny You Matthew 26:35: He has given him back his desire. What then is the, Whither you will not? He speaks of natural feeling, and the necessity of the flesh, and that the soul is unwillingly torn away from the body. So that even though the will were firm, yet still even then nature would be found in fault. For no one lays aside the body without feeling, God, as I said before, having suitably ordained this, that violent deaths might not be many. For if, as things are, the devil has been able to effect this, and has led ten thousand to precipices and pits; had not the soul felt such a desire for the body, the many would have rushed to this under any common discouragement. The, whither you will not, is then the expression of one signifying natural feeling.

But how after having said, When you were young, does He again say, When you are old? For this is the expression of one declaring that he was not then young; (nor was he; nor yet old, but a man of middle age. ) Wherefore then did He recall to his memory his former life? Signifying, that this is the nature of what belongs to Him. In things of this life the young man is useful, the old useless; but in Mine, He says, not so; but when old age has come on, then is excellence brighter, then is manliness more illustrious, being nothing hindered by the time of life. This He said not to terrify, but to rouse Him; for He knew his love, and that he long had yearned for this blessing. At the same time He declares the kind of death. For since Peter ever desired to be in the dangers which were for His sake, Be of good cheer, He says, I will so satisfy your desire, that, what you suffered not when young, you must suffer when you are old. Then the Evangelist, to rouse the hearer, has added,

As to an alleged distinction between clergy and the Faithful:

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say. The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

When St. Paul on behalf of the Apostles turns the Church over to their successors, the bishops, Acts 20, he uses the exact word "poimane" in verse 28 "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."  So they are placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church.  Notice in all the final instructions of Acts not a word about "submit yourselves to Peter."

Traditions of ruling houses die out when the dynasty goes extinct.  You are working at cross purposes, here and elsewhere, trying to prove the necessity of your visible head when you call yourself a member of a decapitated church, with no means of sewing a head back on.  You preach the gospel of a dead god, while we are shown to hold to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Maybe you should try your luck with the Mormons or the Jehovah Witnesses.  They are founded on deus ex machina.

Cyprian the Bishop By J. Patout Burns
http://books.google.com/books?id=egbXJlUgAW8C&pg=PA158&dq=cyprian+all+bishops+successors+peter&hl=en#v=onepage&q=cyprian%20all%20bishops%20successors%20peter&f=false
As he put it

The doctrine of St. Cyprian upon the point before us is extremely full and clear from many passages of his treatises and epistles. A remarkable passage from the treatise "de Unitate Ecclesiae," has been quoted above, in which he says plainly, that "Christ gave to all the Apostles equal authority," and that "all the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal participation of honour and power."

In other places he says, "There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded by the voice of the Lord on Peter." This doctrine is thus repeated in the Epistle of Cornelius to St. Cyprian: "Nor are we ignorant that there is one God, one Christ, the Lord whom we have confessed, one Holy Ghost, that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church." This assertion, which at the first sight might seem to favour the modern claims of the Roman see, is thus interpreted in the treatise "de Unitate:" "The Episcopate is one; of which every individual (Bishop) participates possessing it entire. And again, elsewhere: "From Christ there is one Church, divided throughout the whole world into many members; and one Episcopate, diffused by the 'concordant numerosity' of many Bishops'." Thus the Episcopate is "single and indivisible," but held in equal truth and fulness by many. All alike hold under the promise made to St. Peter'. That promise was addressed to him personally, "to manifest unity;" but in him, was addressed alike to all. There are many shepherds, but the flock is one; in order that if any member of our college (Bishops) endeavour to make heresy, and tear the flock of Christ, the rest may assist, and like good shepherds, collect the Lord's sheep into the flock. All shepherds hold by no other right than that of legitimate and successive ordination. Yet St. Peter himself, whom the Lord chose first and on whom He built His Church, when afterwards Paul disputed with him about circumcision, did not claim any thing to himself so insolently or arrogantly as to say that he held a primacy, or that he ought rather to be obeyed by the present and future generation.

The sayings of the great forty days, between the resurrection and ascension ... By George Moberly
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=the+episcopate+is+one+episcopatum+unum&id=XIQrAAAAYAAJ&ots=8gPpU-mje5#v=onepage&q=the%20episcopate%20is%20one%20episcopatum%20unum&f=false

On St. Cyprian, consider his translation of the letter of Firmilian into Latin:

Ah, yes. His translation into Latin of Firmilian's letter for Rome shows that:

17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of [Arbp.] Stephen [of Old Rome], that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity...
24. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins.”For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all[/u]; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

[Jy3pr6]

Hello Jy3pr6,
   My spiritual journey has been a difficult and confusing one, and the issue of what role the Bishop of Rome played in the early Church is one I continue to study and wrestle with. That being said, I will give some brief thoughts.

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

The first question I have regarding this passage: What does St. Jerome mean when he says "... I communicate with none but your blessedness..."? Does he mean he only sees communion with the Church of Rome as important? I would like to read this passage in its original language, since nuance can often be lost in translation.

Further, reading the Church Fathers has taught me that there seems to have been varying views of the Bishop of Rome. I don't think the reality that some ECF's may have had a view of the Pope similar to the modern Roman Catholic understanding proves anything more than the variety of views the early church had of the Bishop of Rome. For example, lets pretend that Sts. Jerome and Athanasius believed the Pope had supremacy, and Sts. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa believed no such thing. The issue would remain inconclusive, and it seems that in such cases it is better to side with conservatism (the Orthodox position) unless it can be demonstrated that the greater part of the Christian tradition has agreed with Rome.

Anyways, good questions. I look forward to seeing other responses.

Thank you for your response friend. I've contemplated this approach myself but for the sake of purifying my intentions I continue to search for possible validations of the RC position. Nevertheless, thank you for your response.

[Jy3pr6]

Hi, Jy3,

I am on this journey too. It has not been easy. I wish you the best.

Thank you Biro. May God have mercy on us both.

[Jy3pr6]

Hello brethren,

Before I post the quote, I ask that if you are tempted to post a pithy and/or ironic response, please restrain yourself from posting. My friends and I have been researching Orthodoxy for some time now and have grieved intensely over the schism and our possible duty of having to leave the Catholic Church, and these comments which these and other forums are rife and plagued with are the absolute most awful and insensitive remarks possible converts have to deal with in searching for the true Church of Christ. If possible, I would like to restrict this thread to those who are truly interested in helping me and others who are struggling with this painful process out.

You post on an Orthodox forum about "having to leave the Catholic Church" when it fact what you are contemplating joining the Catholic Church.

As for painful, what in particularly causes you your pain?

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

IIRC, this is from his whining letter to Abp. (the title of Pope at the time was held only by the Archbishop of Alexandria) St. Damasus, on whom to commune with in the East.  Abp. Damasus settled on Paulinus as Patriarch of Antioch, who ordained St. Jerome.  Alas!  The East was in communion with Patriarch St. Meletius, who opened up the Second Ecumenical Council not in communion with the archbishop of Rome and set their seal on the Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  At that Council of Saints (it has the most canonized/glorified saints who attended any council, although it was the smallest), they elected St. Flavian to succeed him as patriarch of Antioch, when St. (and so on the Vatican's calendar as well) Meletius reposed, and did so over Old Rome's objections.  Paulinus' line died out after him.  All five lines of patriarchs that the Vatican promoted for patriarch of Antioch all claim to trace their episcopal lineage from Pat. St. Meletius, not Paulinus, who was quite forgotten.

On that:

I am seeking independent verification of information contained in an Orthodox encyclical

The encyclical in question is
"Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns""

In it they say...

"...witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be "the most venerable of all the Churches in the world." Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: "The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used."

I have looked at the cite www.ccel.org which gives documents by Church Fathers.

The 48th epistle by Basil begins...
Letter XLVIII.

To Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata.

I have had considerable difficulty in finding a messenger to convey a letter to your reverence, for our men are so afraid of the winter that they can hardly bear even to put their heads outside their houses.  We have suffered from such a very heavy fall of snow that we have been buried, houses and all, beneath it, and now for two months have been living in dens and caves.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.xlix.html

Am I missing something regarding the reference (Ep. 48 Athan.)?

Also, I can't find the letter sent by the second ecumenical council to 'the west'

My best guess is that it is this epistle which Basil wrote to Athanasius, which is being referenced: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.lxvii.html

In it he writes:

No one knows better than you do, that, like all wise physicians, you ought to begin your treatment in the most vital parts, and what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch?  Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body.  Truly the diseases of that city, which has not only been cut asunder by heretics, but is torn in pieces by men who say that they are of one mind with one another, stand in need of your wisdom and evangelic sympathy.

As I'm sure many of you are aware already, there are numerous quotes found within the Church Fathers of this nature, but this one in particular brings out one of the more complex issues with the Matthew 16:18 debacle. He, like other Fathers, seem to refer to one Chair of Peter while ascribing to it a perpetual ministry of divine assurance in one See. I've been wrestling with the fact that my RC friend brings up frequently that the Church was founded upon ONE MAN and that the Keys were given to ONE MAN, and that this last point is given the assurance that the gates of hell would not prevail against that ONE CHURCH. With the Peter syndrome set aside, it isn't entirely ridiculous to see how the RC interpretation came about considering the central role of Peter (especially in Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21) and his death in Rome which is widely attested to, as being foundational for a LOVING GUARANTEE from God that a particular Church would never err. St. Cyprian says:

"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; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance."


There is little doubt that you have come across these passages and others like them before. For that I am sorry, but as I said previously, I am immensely grieved and the responses here, in books and in other forums are lacking regarding certain quotations and RC concepts that are not for the moment fully reconciled with my conscience. Thank you in advance for your charitable responses.

God bless you,

Jonathan

On the quotes:

said that this moment in John 21, after the resurrection of Jesus , was the moment that Jesus actually gave  to St Peter the keys and the authority over His church which He had promised him in Matthew 16.

Yes, as we have seen above, Pastor Aeternus taught so in error.  On Matthew 16:

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349).
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

On this one:

This has been dealt with a lot (including on St. Chrysostom's words on St. James and St. John, in addition to St. Peter). For an example:

Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.

Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

It’s important to emphasize that the moment after the Resurrection, in John 21, was the point at which Jesus made St Peter the first pope. This is significant because some non Catholics bring up St Peter’s 3 fold denial of Christ in john 18:25 and following.  When peter denied Jesus Christ, it was before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jesus had not yet given St peter the authority as pope. The words in MT 16:18-20 promise the keys of the Kingdom to St Peter. They promise that Jesus would build His Church upon Him and make him the prime minister of His Church, but that office was not conferred upon peter until after the RESURRECTION, BY THESE WORDS IN John21:15-17. Therefore, St Peter’s  denial of Christ poses no problem at all for Catholic teaching on the papacy.

Ah, a little problem for the Vatican in that He had already conferred the Power of the Keys on ALL the Disciples (except St. Thomas, and of course, Judas) in John 20:22.

And, the problem that John 21 deals with St. Peter's denial and his repentance therefrom, to confess his love for Christ once denied:

So when they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.
1. There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requires of Peter. For when their eating was ended, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.

He says unto him, Feed My sheep.
And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

When then having been asked once and again, he called Him to witness who knows the secrets of the heart, and then was asked even a third time, he was troubled, fearing a repetition of what had happened before, (for then, having been strong in assertion, he was afterwards convicted,) and therefore he again betakes himself to Him.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

St. John the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom must have not gotten the memo, because the only thing they have to say about young and old

When you were young, you girded yourself, and walked whither you would, but when you are old, others shall gird you, and carry you whither you will not.
And yet this he did will, and desired; on which account also He has revealed it to him. For since Peter had continually said, I will lay down my life for You John 13:37, and, Though I should die with You, yet will I not deny You Matthew 26:35: He has given him back his desire. What then is the, Whither you will not? He speaks of natural feeling, and the necessity of the flesh, and that the soul is unwillingly torn away from the body. So that even though the will were firm, yet still even then nature would be found in fault. For no one lays aside the body without feeling, God, as I said before, having suitably ordained this, that violent deaths might not be many. For if, as things are, the devil has been able to effect this, and has led ten thousand to precipices and pits; had not the soul felt such a desire for the body, the many would have rushed to this under any common discouragement. The, whither you will not, is then the expression of one signifying natural feeling.

But how after having said, When you were young, does He again say, When you are old? For this is the expression of one declaring that he was not then young; (nor was he; nor yet old, but a man of middle age. ) Wherefore then did He recall to his memory his former life? Signifying, that this is the nature of what belongs to Him. In things of this life the young man is useful, the old useless; but in Mine, He says, not so; but when old age has come on, then is excellence brighter, then is manliness more illustrious, being nothing hindered by the time of life. This He said not to terrify, but to rouse Him; for He knew his love, and that he long had yearned for this blessing. At the same time He declares the kind of death. For since Peter ever desired to be in the dangers which were for His sake, Be of good cheer, He says, I will so satisfy your desire, that, what you suffered not when young, you must suffer when you are old. Then the Evangelist, to rouse the hearer, has added,

As to an alleged distinction between clergy and the Faithful:

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say. The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

When St. Paul on behalf of the Apostles turns the Church over to their successors, the bishops, Acts 20, he uses the exact word "poimane" in verse 28 "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."  So they are placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church.  Notice in all the final instructions of Acts not a word about "submit yourselves to Peter."

Traditions of ruling houses die out when the dynasty goes extinct.  You are working at cross purposes, here and elsewhere, trying to prove the necessity of your visible head when you call yourself a member of a decapitated church, with no means of sewing a head back on.  You preach the gospel of a dead god, while we are shown to hold to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Maybe you should try your luck with the Mormons or the Jehovah Witnesses.  They are founded on deus ex machina.

Cyprian the Bishop By J. Patout Burns
http://books.google.com/books?id=egbXJlUgAW8C&pg=PA158&dq=cyprian+all+bishops+successors+peter&hl=en#v=onepage&q=cyprian%20all%20bishops%20successors%20peter&f=false
As he put it

The doctrine of St. Cyprian upon the point before us is extremely full and clear from many passages of his treatises and epistles. A remarkable passage from the treatise "de Unitate Ecclesiae," has been quoted above, in which he says plainly, that "Christ gave to all the Apostles equal authority," and that "all the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal participation of honour and power."

In other places he says, "There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded by the voice of the Lord on Peter." This doctrine is thus repeated in the Epistle of Cornelius to St. Cyprian: "Nor are we ignorant that there is one God, one Christ, the Lord whom we have confessed, one Holy Ghost, that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church." This assertion, which at the first sight might seem to favour the modern claims of the Roman see, is thus interpreted in the treatise "de Unitate:" "The Episcopate is one; of which every individual (Bishop) participates possessing it entire. And again, elsewhere: "From Christ there is one Church, divided throughout the whole world into many members; and one Episcopate, diffused by the 'concordant numerosity' of many Bishops'." Thus the Episcopate is "single and indivisible," but held in equal truth and fulness by many. All alike hold under the promise made to St. Peter'. That promise was addressed to him personally, "to manifest unity;" but in him, was addressed alike to all. There are many shepherds, but the flock is one; in order that if any member of our college (Bishops) endeavour to make heresy, and tear the flock of Christ, the rest may assist, and like good shepherds, collect the Lord's sheep into the flock. All shepherds hold by no other right than that of legitimate and successive ordination. Yet St. Peter himself, whom the Lord chose first and on whom He built His Church, when afterwards Paul disputed with him about circumcision, did not claim any thing to himself so insolently or arrogantly as to say that he held a primacy, or that he ought rather to be obeyed by the present and future generation.

The sayings of the great forty days, between the resurrection and ascension ... By George Moberly
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=the+episcopate+is+one+episcopatum+unum&id=XIQrAAAAYAAJ&ots=8gPpU-mje5#v=onepage&q=the%20episcopate%20is%20one%20episcopatum%20unum&f=false

On St. Cyprian, consider his translation of the letter of Firmilian into Latin:

Ah, yes. His translation into Latin of Firmilian's letter for Rome shows that:

17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of [Arbp.] Stephen [of Old Rome], that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity...
24. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins.”For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all[/u]; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

What causes me pain Ialm is the confusion and the doubt. There seem to be some major points in favor of both sides, and I cannot help but be overwhelmed at times when I consider how limited I am. I've even come to the point of considering gnosticism because of all of this (a phenomenon which has manifested itself not only to me but to 3 other RC friends of mine who were/are investigating the EOC). The people of God were not meant to be put through this unnecessary struggle, and it further pains me that this is the state of Christendom. The thought of throwing even more of my friends and family into that same doubt and confusion should I discover the truth of Orthodoxy is yet another painful burden to bear. But our Lord said that "anyone who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." I have no other choice but to attempt perseverance with the help of our Lord. May He have mercy on me.

And thank you very much for the quotes and information you posted, I will look into them when I have more time on my hands.

God bless you.

[Wyatt]

What causes me pain Ialm is the confusion and the doubt. There seem to be some major points in favor of both sides, and I cannot help but be overwhelmed at times when I consider how limited I am. I've even come to the point of considering gnosticism because of all of this (a phenomenon which has manifested itself not only to me but to 3 other RC friends of mine who were/are investigating the EOC). The people of God were not meant to be put through this unnecessary struggle, and it further pains me that this is the state of Christendom. The thought of throwing even more of my friends and family into that same doubt and confusion should I discover the truth of Orthodoxy is yet another painful burden to bear. But our Lord said that "anyone who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." I have no other choice but to attempt perseverance with the help of our Lord. May He have mercy on me.

And thank you very much for the quotes and information you posted, I will look into them when I have more time on my hands.

God bless you.

The confusion and doubt troubles me as well. I was a lot more at peace when I thought there were essentially two choices: Protestantism and the Church (RCC), but the fact that it is actually Protestantism and the Churches that all claim to be the Church and trace their roots back to the Apostles (Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church of the East) is more complicated and makes the true path less clear. I envy the people who have chosen one of those Churches and are absolutely sure that their Church is THE Church. Frankly, I'm not sure I will ever have that confidence again.

[Cyrillic]

"As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

This might shed some light upon this quote. In Antiquity, when you requested something, you showered him with superlative compliments. St. Jerome was especially fond of Cicero. You shouldn't take this quote too seriously

[Milliardo]

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

As I have always said, that was true then; it cannot be said to be true now. Regarding Matthew 16, Jesus' promise was to the Church, not to Peter alone. If one would read the passage, Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church; He did not say it will not prevail against Peter. We must read St. Jerome's quote here in the context of how it was during his time--that is, Rome being Orthodox then. Such a greeting would make sense during his time as it was true back then. Today that is not so.

[mabsoota]

God is working in all the churches.
if you want the depths of God's love, go to the orthodox or catholic churches.
if you want correct theology, go to the orthodox church.
but if you think God wants you to stay in the catholic church until he fixes our mistakes and brings us into communion (don't hold your breath!) then you can stay there.

i know some very fine catholics who don't go around spreading dodgy teaching (eg. they are the only true church, they can change the creed when they want without asking the other apostolic churches for their opinion) and who live a Godly life and are great examples to us all. but your church is having some trouble at the moment, so i think you should only stay there if you truly believe it is part of your spiritual journey to remain there.

there is only one God, and Christianity is true. but there are some in non orthodox churches who have not yet found the right moment to join an orthodox church because of their family, friends, church members etc.

so i think the answer to your questions is different for different people at different times.
the main thing is to love God and to keep searching until you are in the right place.
and then when you get there, don't be too shocked to find it is not perfect, as none of us are in heaven yet, and the church is imperfect because of the people in it.

may God guide you and give you peace, and have a look in the other orthodox - catholic threads for more information.
God bless u,
mabsoota (former protestant who also seriously considered the catholic church)

[Peter J]

Hello brethren,

Before I post the quote, I ask that if you are tempted to post a pithy and/or ironic response, please restrain yourself from posting. My friends and I have been researching Orthodoxy for some time now and have grieved intensely over the schism and our possible duty of having to leave the Catholic Church, and these comments which these and other forums are rife and plagued with are the absolute most awful and insensitive remarks possible converts have to deal with in searching for the true Church of Christ. If possible, I would like to restrict this thread to those who are truly interested in helping me and others who are struggling with this painful process out.

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

As I'm sure many of you are aware already, there are numerous quotes found within the Church Fathers of this nature, but this one in particular brings out one of the more complex issues with the Matthew 16:18 debacle. He, like other Fathers, seem to refer to one Chair of Peter while ascribing to it a perpetual ministry of divine assurance in one See. I've been wrestling with the fact that my RC friend brings up frequently that the Church was founded upon ONE MAN and that the Keys were given to ONE MAN, and that this last point is given the assurance that the gates of hell would not prevail against that ONE CHURCH. With the Peter syndrome set aside, it isn't entirely ridiculous to see how the RC interpretation came about considering the central role of Peter (especially in Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21) and his death in Rome which is widely attested to, as being foundational for a LOVING GUARANTEE from God that a particular Church would never err. St. Cyprian says:

"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; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance."


There is little doubt that you have come across these passages and others like them before. For that I am sorry, but as I said previously, I am immensely grieved and the responses here, in books and in other forums are lacking regarding certain quotations and RC concepts that are not for the moment fully reconciled with my conscience. Thank you in advance for your charitable responses.

God bless you,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan. I can relate to a lot of what you're going through. (For quite a while my profile said "Melkite (inquirer into Orthodoxy)" -- and in some sense that describes me still.)

I see you've already gotten a lot of good responses. I just want to mention something that no one has mentioned yet (I don't think). Namely, it strikes me that you have such a sense of urgency to act ... given that you are unsure, don't you think that God wants you take your time, and convert if/when you're confident that you should?

[Alveus Lacuna]

No rush. Slow down.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Urgent help needed; possible RC convert