Topic: Traditional Catholic in Anguish

[Cavaradossi]

Even Chrysostrom doesn't reject the sacrificial atonement of Jesus. He merely expresses that the animal sacrifice of the Law was imperfect to the perfectness that was Jesus.

So... Jesus was still a sacrificial atonement.

Did you not read the several points in this thread where I said the Orthodox objection is only to satisfaction theories of the atonement, and not the concept of the atonement itself? Now you are just being dense.

What was the Old Testament sacrifice for? What was Jesus, the perfection of that sacrifice, then?

Just as in Hebrews, he fulfills the need for a blood sacrifice.

Why was there a need for a blood sacrifice? This must be where we disagree?

The sacrifices of the Old Testament were types of the one sacrifice. They need to be understood in the context of the Law, which Christ also fulfills. The Law and the sacrifices of the Old Testament were not in themselves efficacious, because man cannot save himself (as Pelagius taught), but instead man needs a savior to fulfill what the Law was meant to prepare us for, but itself could not accomplish.

I reject that sacrifices are Pelagian because a Pelagian would have no need for a sacrifice. A sacrifice is to atone for a crime, to atone for a slight of honor, to atone for straying, etc. If one could save himself (Pelagian), he wouldn't need to atone to God. He would... save himself. A pelagian would create purity within his own power and achieve sainthood.

The sacrifices weren't efficacious because they weren't enough.

I did not say that sacrifices are Pelagian, I said that teaching that sacrifices were efficacious or necessary for our salvation (outside of their place in the economy of salvation) would be Pelagian, because it would deny the need for grace. Neither did I argue that there was no need for sacrifice to be made to atone us to God, only that there was no need for us to sacrifice, because man's sacrifice could not bring life and atonement as the sacrifice on the Cross could. Again, there's no objection to the need for a sacrifice, only to idea that God's justice needs to be satisfied either by punishment or by penance.

[simplygermain]

Subscribed! My density is greater than the mass of a star.

[Cavaradossi]

Subscribed! My density is greater than the mass of a star.

That's no moon... 

[Aindriú]

Even Chrysostrom doesn't reject the sacrificial atonement of Jesus. He merely expresses that the animal sacrifice of the Law was imperfect to the perfectness that was Jesus.

So... Jesus was still a sacrificial atonement.

Did you not read the several points in this thread where I said the Orthodox objection is only to satisfaction theories of the atonement, and not the concept of the atonement itself? Now you are just being dense.

What was the Old Testament sacrifice for? What was Jesus, the perfection of that sacrifice, then?

Just as in Hebrews, he fulfills the need for a blood sacrifice.

Why was there a need for a blood sacrifice? This must be where we disagree?

The sacrifices of the Old Testament were types of the one sacrifice. They need to be understood in the context of the Law, which Christ also fulfills. The Law and the sacrifices of the Old Testament were not in themselves efficacious, because man cannot save himself (as Pelagius taught), but instead man needs a savior to fulfill what the Law was meant to prepare us for, but itself could not accomplish.

I reject that sacrifices are Pelagian because a Pelagian would have no need for a sacrifice. A sacrifice is to atone for a crime, to atone for a slight of honor, to atone for straying, etc. If one could save himself (Pelagian), he wouldn't need to atone to God. He would... save himself. A pelagian would create purity within his own power and achieve sainthood.

The sacrifices weren't efficacious because they weren't enough.

I did not say that sacrifices are Pelagian, I said that teaching that sacrifices were efficacious or necessary for our salvation (outside of their place in the economy of salvation) would be Pelagian, because it would deny the need for grace. Neither did I argue that there was no need for sacrifice to be made to atone us to God, only that there was no need for us to sacrifice, because man's sacrifice could not bring life and atonement as the sacrifice on the Cross could. Again, there's no objection to the need for a sacrifice, only to idea that God's justice needs to be satisfied either by punishment or by penance.

I was amused at the bolded part. Sacrifice was necessary because  [Heb 9:22] "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."

But I don't think that's the real issue. I think the difference is that Grace is not (objective to a generally conceptual god) necessarily 'Free'. We believe as Christians that it is, and is made possible because of Jesus Christ. However, during the Old Testament Grace is still desired, yet it must be earned. According to the Law, it is earned through atonement by blood.

When Jesus came, he atoned with his blood in the perfect sacrifice and taught that Grace is now freely given to the repentent. The Eucharist then becoming the 'eternal' sacrifice for us.


Therefore, animal sacrifice wasn't Pelagian in any means. It was an act to REgain favor, REgain Grace from God after losing it through sin. Remember, the Resurrection hadn't happened.

[Cavaradossi]

I was amused at the bolded part. Sacrifice was necessary because  [Heb 9:22] "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."

A sacrifice that could not be made with the initiative of man, but with the initiative of God by the Incarnation. It cannot be necessary that man offer up sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, because such a thing was impossible. It was necessary that a sacrifice be offered on our behalf, but not that we offer one, because our own sacrifices (unlike that of Christ God) are worthless.

But I don't think that's the real issue. I think the difference is that Grace is not (objective to a generally conceptual god) necessarily 'Free'. We believe as Christians that it is, and is made possible because of Jesus Christ. However, during the Old Testament Grace is still desired, yet it must be earned. According to the Law, it is earned through atonement by blood.

Grace cannot be earned. That is a serious misunderstanding of the doctrine of synergy.

When Jesus came, he atoned with his blood in the perfect sacrifice and taught that Grace is now freely given to the repentent. The Eucharist then becoming the 'eternal' sacrifice for us.

Grace was not given under the Law. Paul makes it clear that the Law leads only to death and sin.

Therefore, animal sacrifice wasn't Pelagian in any means. It was an act to REgain favor, REgain Grace from God after losing it through sin. Remember, the Resurrection hadn't happened.

Surely you jest. I never said animal sacrifice was Pelagian. I said teaching that animal sacrifice was efficacious (beyond its being a type of the crucifixion) would be Pelagian, because it would be tantamount to teaching that a Savior was not necessary, and that man could work his way to salvation, absent of grace.

[simplygermain]

Subscribed! My density is greater than the mass of a star.

That's no moon... 

Forgive my insensitivity.

[gueranger]

I finally had a long talk with my parish priests. I'm so thankful I did, and very sorry I didn't sooner. I have decided that I am still a Roman Catholic. I'm thankful for the doubts though, because I learned quite a bit, and ultimately my faith is stronger for it. I'm going to continue studying the Church Fathers and the early Councils, which I neglected before this little faith crisis. I did myself a great disservice by only becoming acquainted with them in a superficial way. I have learned a lot about Orthodoxy in the past weeks, and I respect it tremendously. I see a strong patristic argument for both the Catholic and the Orthodox perspective on the papacy. For now I have concluded that the infallibility/supremacy of the Pope are a legitimate development of doctrine, with a strong foundation scripturally and in the writings of (some) of the Fathers. I think there is a need for an immovable source of Catholic unity, and that the Primal See of Rome is that source.

My original reasons for doubting Catholicism in the first place have been mostly cleared up. All the things that I found to be problematic with the Second Vatican Council are not matters of dogma, but ultimately matters of non-infallible discipline. As for Venerable or even a Saint Pope Paul VI, well, that's a big pill for me to swallow. I disagree with a lot of his decisions, but I won't venture to judge his personal holiness.

I would offer this word of advice to Catholics of a traditional persuasion who may be considering converting to Orthodoxy. When I was discerning a vocation to the priesthood I was told to make sure that I was considering a vocation in order to run to embrace Christ, not just to flee the world and its problems. I think this can be applied in this situation as well. If you convert to Orthodoxy, make sure you're doing it because you really and truly believe it is the true Church. You would do yourself and the Orthodox Church a great disservice if you convert merely to escape the problems and scandals of the modern Roman Catholic Church. I would ask you to pray to Our Lady of Guadalupe and St. Peter for the guidance of the Holy Spirit before making any definitive moves. 

I would like to thank everyone in this forum for being charitable and informative in their responses to my inquiries. I don't think I'll be posting here regularly, as my normal schedule won't allow for it, but I may drop in from time to time. It has been a truly edifying experience participating in this forum, which is more than I can say for some others which will go unnamed. 

Please pray for me, a sinner.

[ErmyCath]

Be assured of my prayers for you. Please pray for me.

[Peter J]

Hi gueranger. I'm a late-comer to this thread.

Oddly enough, I've done the reverse of what you described: that is, I first had a great appreciation for Eastern Orthodoxy, and that led me to better appreciation of traditionalist Catholicism. (Even now, I wouldn't exactly call myself a traditionalist Catholic. Although I do believe that traditionalist Catholicism is very good at pointing out certain problem with "neo-conservative Catholicism".)

[Peter J]

I intend to speak with an Eastern Rite priest friend before talking to an Orthodox priest.

Since you brought that up, are there any Eastern Catholic parishes near you? (Apologies if you have already answered that question.)

[Alpo]

"neo-conservative Catholicism"

What's that?

Btw, don't you get tired with all that kind of labels? Why it is necessary to be something else than just "Catholic"?

[Peter J]

Btw, don't you get tired with all that kind of labels?

No. At least, I wouldn't it would say that in such a generalized fashion. Yes, sometimes it is tiresome, but there are also times when having a 'handle' for something actually makes it less tiresome.

(Just think how it would be if we didn't use the label "protestants", and how tiresome it would be to always say instead "Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc." Although I guess after a while you could just say ALMPBPs.)

"neo-conservative Catholicism"

What's that?

Good question. Let me give you my standard answer:

Father Ambrose, if you're unhappy with your dialogue with neo-conservative Catholics, perhaps you should give a thought to us traditional Catholics.

What's the difference between neo-conservative Catholics and traditional Catholics?

To my mind, the different is enormous.

As I told someone else recently ...

Peter W. Miller calls them "'conservative' Catholics". Here's his definition:

As the heretics of yesterday have become the liberals of today, the liberals of yesterday now lay claim to the title "conservative". Consequentially the conservatives came to be known as "traditionalists". Unfortunately, these terms are no longer completely accurate descriptions. So for the purposes of this essay, I will use the following general definitions to delineate the differences between traditionalists and "conservatives":

TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges the novel practices and teachings of Catholics (including bishops and priests) which appear to contradict the prior teaching of the Church. A traditionalist questions the prudence of new pastoral approaches and holds the belief that those things generally deemed objectively good or evil several decades ago remain so today.

"CONSERVATIVE": One who upholds and defends the current policies and positions of the Church hierarchy regardless of their novelty. A "conservative" extends the definitions of "infallibility" and "Magisterium" to include most every action and speech of the Pope and those Cardinals around him, but may exclude those Cardinals and bishops outside of Rome. A "conservative's" opinion is also subject to change depending on the current actions of the Holy Father. "Conservative" will be used it in quotation marks to avoid the misleading connotation of being diametrically opposed to liberalism or on the far right of the spectrum. Also since there only exists a desire to "conserve" only those traditions and practices of the past deemed appropriate at any given time by the present Pope. The quotation marks will also ensure a proper dissociation between the actual conservatives active prior to and during Vatican II (Ottaviani, Lefebvre, Fenton, etc.).

Both traditionalists and "conservatives" acknowledge the existence of problems in the Church but disagree as to their nature, extent, causes and remedies.

"Conservatives" see it as an "illness" — an incidental problem like a gangrene limb. In the English-speaking world, this problem may be limited to the actions of certain American bishops. "Conservatives" see the novelties of Vatican II and the New Mass as natural and acceptable developments in the course of the Church, but take issue with those seeking to expand upon those novelties, or take them to their next logical progression. They see the crisis in the Church as a societal issue that would have happened regardless of what actions the Church leadership had taken. Their solution is to return to Vatican II and embark on another attempt to "renew" the Church.

Traditionalists see the illness as a widespread cancer affecting the whole body put most particularly and critically the heart. They question the prudence of making significant changes in the Mass and the Church's pastoral orientation. They attribute the destruction to liberal and Modernist ideals given a certain degree of acceptability once the Church decided to stop fighting them with extreme vigilance. They see the Church leadership as sharing in the responsibility for the crisis due to its governance (or lack thereof). Their solution is not another attempt at a reform that may be "more in line with the 'spirit' of Vatican II" (shudder), but a return to the practices and beliefs of the Church that sustained it for hundreds of years prior.

- A Brief Defense of Traditionalism
Peter W. Miller

[Peter J]

Well, it is not as bad.  A Metropolitan is a bishop.  What is bad is if he is referred to as "Father".

Especially if it's in earshot of a fundamentalist protestant.

 

[lubeltri]

I finally had a long talk with my parish priests. I'm so thankful I did, and very sorry I didn't sooner. I have decided that I am still a Roman Catholic. I'm thankful for the doubts though, because I learned quite a bit, and ultimately my faith is stronger for it. I'm going to continue studying the Church Fathers and the early Councils, which I neglected before this little faith crisis. I did myself a great disservice by only becoming acquainted with them in a superficial way. I have learned a lot about Orthodoxy in the past weeks, and I respect it tremendously. I see a strong patristic argument for both the Catholic and the Orthodox perspective on the papacy. For now I have concluded that the infallibility/supremacy of the Pope are a legitimate development of doctrine, with a strong foundation scripturally and in the writings of (some) of the Fathers. I think there is a need for an immovable source of Catholic unity, and that the Primal See of Rome is that source.

My original reasons for doubting Catholicism in the first place have been mostly cleared up. All the things that I found to be problematic with the Second Vatican Council are not matters of dogma, but ultimately matters of non-infallible discipline. As for Venerable or even a Saint Pope Paul VI, well, that's a big pill for me to swallow. I disagree with a lot of his decisions, but I won't venture to judge his personal holiness.

I would offer this word of advice to Catholics of a traditional persuasion who may be considering converting to Orthodoxy. When I was discerning a vocation to the priesthood I was told to make sure that I was considering a vocation in order to run to embrace Christ, not just to flee the world and its problems. I think this can be applied in this situation as well. If you convert to Orthodoxy, make sure you're doing it because you really and truly believe it is the true Church. You would do yourself and the Orthodox Church a great disservice if you convert merely to escape the problems and scandals of the modern Roman Catholic Church. I would ask you to pray to Our Lady of Guadalupe and St. Peter for the guidance of the Holy Spirit before making any definitive moves. 

I would like to thank everyone in this forum for being charitable and informative in their responses to my inquiries. I don't think I'll be posting here regularly, as my normal schedule won't allow for it, but I may drop in from time to time. It has been a truly edifying experience participating in this forum, which is more than I can say for some others which will go unnamed. 

Please pray for me, a sinner.

Just don't be an Ultramontanist and you'll be fine. One of the few good results (I suppose I'd call it a silver lining) of Vatican II is that it brought that facade all crashing down. Papolatry is not traditionalist.

Slowly but steadily, God through His imperfect instruments is straightening the Mothership out.

[Alpo]

Slowly but steadily, God through His imperfect instruments is straightening the Mothership out.

LOL. I'm going to steal that.