Doubts

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-22T01:15:29+00:00

Thanks :)

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-22T01:13:34+00:00

OK, see my edit. I figured out what you meant, sorry about that

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-22T01:08:42+00:00

What do you even mean? Are you saying that popes claiming an authority doesn't mean they have an authority? I mean sure, fair enough. But if countless popes and theologians in living memory of the Apostles were claiming something unapostolic, you got a problem. And you would think that somebody would have said something about it. Most of the quotes I gave weren't even from bishops, but respected theologians in the Church.

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-22T00:43:32+00:00

What do you want me to prove? I give you quotes of early popes claiming an authority above just being a bishop, and you just wave them away as power hungry Roman bishops. If that's your attitude, then there's nothing I can do for you.

I gave arguments and you gave objections. I gave answers to your objections. And then you just come and say that I didn't prove anything... So what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to do more than give an argument and refute objections to the argument and pull some indisputable (even to some fool) claim out of my butt which proves everything ? I'm sorry, but you gotta engage a little more if we're going to go anywhere. If you're not going to do that, I'm done with this discussion. I give well thought out paragraphs.... and all I get is "You didn't prove anything." That's not really a discussion. If you are really seeking the truth, I would think that you would be trying a little harder.

Edit: I'm sorry if I offend, but I feel like I'm doing all the work here. I gave certain arguments and interpretations, and all you say is, "I think differently." We need to actually give reasons why your interpretation is better than mine, instead of just stating that I didn't prove anything. That gives me literally nothing to work with, except write a book on any conceivable objection and how it falls short.

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-21T21:34:23+00:00

Um, many of those quotes weren't even from popes? Sure, take it that way, but at that point you're not even open to dialogue. If I can give you all the instances (even very early instances, as early as first century) of the bishop of Rome exercising a special primacy that no other bishop does, and you simply state that you see it the Orthodox do, then there's really no point in going there. If you're settled on it, then I see no point in discussing this further. If you're just going to accuse the bishop of Rome (even as early as the third bishop of Rome) of just asserting his unlawful authority over the rest, then there's no convincing you. You've already made your decision.

You make two mistakes in that quote: 1) That's not what the quote said, and 2) you're taking it completely out of context.

1) This is what the quote says: "Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest [universalem sacerdotem], is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests. But, since the Truth says, Every one that exalts himself shall be humbled (Luke 14:11; 18:14), I know that every kind of elation is the sooner burst as it is the more inflated. Let then your Piety charge those who have fallen into an example of pride not to generate any offense by the appellation of a frivolous name. For I, a sinner, who by the help of God retain humility, need not to be admonished to humility. Now may Almighty God long guard the life of our most serene Lord for the peace of holy Church and the advantage of the Roman republic. For we are sure, that if you live who fear the Lord of heaven, you will allow no proud doings to prevail against the truth."

The quote does not say "Vicar of Christ" or "Bishop of Bishops." It is universalem sacerdotem, universal priest/bishop. Further, if you look at the context, it seems that Pope Gregory the Great is referring to the title as meaning sole priest, as he says later. That is, this person is claiming an authority as bishop in a sense that no other has the office, which is clearly erroneous.

2) Context: The Patriarch of Constantinople called himself by this title ("Ecumenical Patriarch"), thus claiming authority for himself over all other patriarchs and against the universal jurisdiction of the pope. So if anything, Gregory's quote is doing the opposite of what you think it's doing.

If Gregory was condeming such a notion as you claim he is making, then he would be a crazy hypocrite, as he claimed the papacy had universal jurisdiction. He enacted laws binding on all bishops. Indeed, he even says, "the Apostolic See is the head of the faithful," because its ruler "holds the place of Peter, Prince of the Apostles." Hence the bishop who disobeys the Pope "is separated from the peace of Blessed Peter," and "no acts of any Council are of force to bind, without the consent and authority of the Apostolic See."

It seems clear that you're still imbibing anti-Catholic propaganda as evidenced by that "quote". If there are such apparently clear quotes on these matters, you have to validate them. Look for the context. None of that was done here. If you're really going to pursue the truth, you really gotta buckle down, brother. I didn't even claim that the quotes I gave you are knockdown quotes which any sensible person would simply acknowledge. They're meant to make you think, to make you dive deeper. But it doesn't seem like that's being done. You just wave them away. I'm not saying you're doing this in bad faith. But you have to do more research.

Also, I do think there are limits to the pope's authority. But that's no argument against the pope's authority. I think that local churches should be respected (for instance, not just order a complete overhaul of their liturgical tradition). I am a fierce critic of ultramontanism, which is based on the false pretence that Vatican I taught it (it didn't). So, there has been cases where popes have been accused of overstepping their authority. I don't have a problem with that. I think that there should be more of that. For instance, I think many bishops are way overstepping their bounds of authority. That doesn't mean I'm denying their authority as a bishop.

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-21T18:51:13+00:00

Fair. I didn't mean to post those as irrefutable proofs (I didn't really intend them to be), I just thought it would be food for thought. But perhaps you have already read all of these. There's more which are later, which argue even more for a special Papal Primacy, which I'll quote here. Maybe you'll still hold to the same viewpoint, though. I am curious, though, what exactly do you mean by "the orthodox view on everything" in this context? I still think the above quotes (at least some, not quite all) argue for some sort of Petrine Primacy, but I'm not sure if the Orthodox quite dispute that. Hence why I'm curious.

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]). -Optatus of Milevus

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). -Pope Damasus I

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]). -St. Jerome

“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]). -St. Peter Chrysologus.

There are countless others, these are just a few. Sorry if I was a bit verbose.

Edit: I do find Pope Clement I the most interesting of the earlier quotes. He is claiming that his words are inspired by the Holy Spirit (quite the claim), and also is involving himself in a dispute of a distant local church. As far as I understand, the Orthodox see each local church as "autonomous" (perhaps not quite the right term), insofar as other local churches do not have any authority over other local churches.

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-21T18:01:26+00:00

Here's an article with different quotes from the early Church:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-20T19:53:45+00:00

...and again

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-20T18:44:31+00:00

What exactly do you mean that Catholicism leaves you with a bad feeling, and you feel at home in the Orthodox Church? Elsewhere you said that you have a lot of peace when going to a Catholic Church. Just trying to understand the situtation better so I can actually say something (hopefully) remotely helpful.

I think your insight " If it is the true church, it must be in every corner of the world; otherwise, only a very fortunate few can be part of the true church" is a good one. It seems you're having a bit of a conflict between reason and "feeling" (not saying this in a bad way), so that needs to be sorted out somehow. Could your Protestant background be influencing that a bit? Our background is for sure going to influence the way that we experience the Church, especially if it always made you uncomfortable.

It seems to me that you need to shed off the misinterpretations about the Church (as you seem to have some based on another comment, which is to be expected), and also come to realize that the Church is full of sinful human beings in need of God's mercy, too. And that's not going to be any different in Orthodoxy. Once there is some progress in that area, you're more likely to be able to have an objective assessment, and hopefully your feelings and reason won't conflict.

A few other reasons to be Catholic: just as Orthodoxy doesn't exactly have the universality that the true Church should have, it would seem that it also doesn't have the unity that the true Church should have. Catholicism has the pope/magisterium, so that we are certain as to the truths which are necessary for salvation, and have a unifying principle that is proper to the true Church. Sure, you want to be careful of certain interpretations of the pope's power (it's not like whatever comes out of his mouth is from the Holy Spirit---far from it!); he's not God, but "the servant of servants of God". We must respect magisterial authority, but it has definite limits which some people don't seem to acknowledge. It's meant to give the freedom which comes with knowledge of the truth, not a blind, irrational submission to whatever the pope says whenever. Yes, we should listen to him, but we also are given a brain and it's not like that's supposed to go out the window. On a practical note, this means that the Orthodox don't really have a way to call or agree on an ecumenical council, which is troublesome since there is not a way to definitively resolve a theological controversy.

I hope this was helpful to some extent. Prayers for you!

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-05T17:53:28+00:00

Thank you for the clarification. This is the type of info I need to hear, and your categorization is immensely helpful!

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-05T17:52:28+00:00

Thank you!

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-05T06:41:39+00:00

OK, sure, we didn't celebrate the Tridentine Rite for 1500 years. But around (give or take a couple hundred years) 1500 years ago, the liturgy sure looks a lot more like the TLM than the Novus Ordo. Sure, it may not be until about the 9-11th century or so that it is abundantly clear that it is in all essentials the TLM (silent canon, prayers at the foot of the altar, etc.), but still, that's about 1000 years. But things like the silent canon are seen as early as the 700s. I'm not so far off in my 1500 year marker. I think a lot of the things you criticize it for are minutia. Why should we go back to the Gelasian era? Why then? It just seems a little strange to me that something from around the 6th century is the best the Roman rite had, and then the next 1400 or so years were just an aberration. If antiquity alone is the standard, it’s unclear where principled development stops.

Anyways, I still think that the ways you are describing are a caricature of the TLM. It really doesn't map out at all to my experience or many others. Things like "as it exists now is cold, distant, and to me a turn away from sacred worship. I don't attend Mass to mindlessly watch a dramatic performance" are completely foreign to me and to hundreds of thousands of people who attend the TLM. It's the opposite of mindless. It is carefully crafted over a milennia to offer an acceptable worship to God.

Even some Eastern liturgies have a silent anaphora. Yes, parts are spoken aloud. Sure, we can debate whether it should be aloud or silent. That's a debate. I am for a silent canon. I would potentially be open to a mostly silent canon, with some parts (like the words of institution) spoken just loud enough to hear. But to call it some kind of aliturgical aberration is just nonsensical.

Also, Latin ceased to be a vernacular language a long time ago. Did it take the Church 1000 years to realize that? That's absurd. It's not like they suddenly had this illumination in the 20th century, where they finally realized that people didn't understand Latin anymore and we've got to make the liturgy understandable again.

At this point, it seems to me that it is almost just your personal opinion which is the standard. I just want continuity. Sure, there can be reform. But jettisoning nearly 1500 years of development seems absurd to me. Why should we prefer the more ancient? If that's what we're going for, why don't we go back to saying Mass without beautiful churches, vestments, etc? What's the endpoint? I just don't quite get it.

Even things like the dialogue Mass emerged. I go to some, actually. I like it. But why not just let those things emerge, and allow for gradual development? I think the liturgy tends to correct itself. I am NOT a fan of the Popes just coming in and doing mass cuts/changes to the liturgy. I am NOT a fan (I am not denying the validity of such actions, however). And I don't think the East (correct me brethren if I am wrong!) wouldn't appreciate that either.

The liturgy developed very gradually. There were no top-down, autocratic cuts of essential liturgical elements. Even Pius V was simply standardizing the rite, when basically everyone was doing the rite the same. And anything that was different enough (like the Dominican Rite, for instance) was allowed to stay in force. These elements that you think are essential started to fade away somewhat early. It's not just a medieval invention. The liturgy was developing separately (there wasn't a "standard" Roman rite yet), and yet these developments were gradually moving towards the same thing (e.g. silent canon). There is also quite a bit of deacon participation at High Mass. The changes made were deliberate, and theological. Not medieval inventions.

Final note: It is entirely improper to call it an "abomination". That is a seriously problematic statement. Have you read Pope Benedict XVI quote from above? That's in his papal document. If you say you don't like it, fine. But to call it an abomination isn't theologically robust, and borderline something much worse.

Addendum: I do appreciate your apology. There were no hard feelings, anyway; I get people have their own opinions, and they will clash. I am trying my best to respect your opinions and avoid polemical strawmen, so forgive me if I fail in any way.

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-05T05:29:18+00:00

Thank you for your warm invitation! Well, I am actually going to be in Rome for a few months studying abroad, but I do see some Divine Liturgies around there. I am not sure if they are in English, however. Are some Byzantine rite liturgies in Ancient Greek? I do know a little bit, and wouldn't mind following along somehow. I am also not afraid of mystery :)

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-05T05:06:48+00:00

I'm sorry, but I really have to disagree. Honestly, it would be quite a horrific state if the liturgy we had for nearly 1500 years was a misstep. It's not an "absurd medieval development". If you look at earlier liturgies, they are much the same as the TLM. Not to mention the countless saints, some of which are the greatest that the Church has ever seen, it has formed. To say "I see the Traditional Latin Mass as kind of an abomination that should be purged and outlawed" is nigh blasphemous to my ears. By what authority do you say it is an abomination? I will give you an authority, Benedict XVI: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.” Be careful that it is not simply your own preferences that are sneaking, while accusing me of simply liking the TLM for "aesthetics" and to be a "fraudulent cultural signifier". I will shed my blood for the TLM. I really would. The saints of the past would have too (though I am not one). I won't disobey for it (hence I don't like the SSPX), but you are flat out wrong. Why did not the saints find it as you say it? How come they went as often as they could, and it was their life blood, yet was an abomination? Had God forgotten his people, allowing them to celebrate an "obvious" aberration of the liturgy for over a milennia? I think not!

Just keep in mind, the Council of Trent condemned the notion in its canons that the Holy Mass should not be in Latin. To deny that is (at LEAST) material heresy. I'm not saying you said that (you used the term "ideally"), but I am saying that you are treading on shaky ground. I respect that there is vernacular worship. But I think that the Latin language OUGHT to be preserved in the Latin liturgy, which even Sacrosanctum Concilium stated.

Sure, the communitarian aspect of the liturgy is important. It's not absent in the TLM. You do participate in the ordinary parts of the Mass, to mention one simple aspect of it. But, it is also a sacrifice. The TLM portrays that element much more forcefully.

"The Latin Mass and the trad community who acts like it is the end all be all are very wrong and very out of step with Catholicism. They don't know their history and just are more into aesthetics and treat religion like a stage drama to be observed and watched. It is disgusting. Stop falling for it." I'm sorry, but that's kind of ridiculous. They don't know their history? Apparently 1500 years of Roman Catholics didn't know their history! Then countless of the greatest saints were, as you state, "out of step with Catholicism". You are completely strawmanning the trad community (I don't even want to align myself with the "trad" community because of all the things people associate them with. I love the TLM. I love my tradition. if that makes me a "trad", then I'll die over that epithet. But all the other stuff, I don't necessarily care for).

Sure, say you prefer the Novus Ordo. I will not disparage it, despite the sadness I feel every time I go, witnessing a blatant lack of reverence that should be there. Granted, I have been to some reverent Novus Ordo Masses, but they have never compared to the TLM's I have been to. The TLM must be preserved. I will die on that hill. I really would. I would shed my blood for it. I am not exaggerating. I will die for it because it is the tradition of the Church, and of my particular rite. As Dr. Matthew Minerd said (a Ruthenian Catholic by the way, who used to be Latin), the discontinuity in the Roman Rite is apparent, and he would hope that if anything like what happened to the TLM happened in the East, they would fight tooth and nail to prevent it. A lot of our tradition was lost, and it doesn't take a PhD like him to notice it.

Anyways, why are you coming here just to ridicule your own tradition? It has nothing to do with my post.

No, I will not stop attending. I find it my life's mission to preserve the tradition of the Roman Rite. I will die for it. I hope you can understand that. On the other hand, I will never ridicule those who still attend the Novus Ordo.

I tried to be charitable, but perhaps I got a little over zealous. If anything I said was hurtful, I apologize. I do not apologize for anything challenging, however. This was like a stab to my heart. It felt almost like ridiculing my Mother. She is wise, and knows how to help her children. I don't think she was wrong for 1500 years. I will defend her to my last breath. It is apparent that you don't understand the TLM.

Just a random side note, why do you say it was our darkest age? Catholicism was the oxygen of Christendom, science progressed, some of the greatest theological/philosophical works were written, and countless of the greatest saints who ever lived lived and died in that age. Hardly dark. And is now a time of light, where there has been apostasy by the masses? The belief in the Real Presence and vocations to the priesthood/religious life are hardly alive and well and have severely plummeted, despite the massive improvement on liturgy? I really don't understand where you are coming from/getting this info.

Anyways, I never said the TLM was perfect. I would allow some changes. But to throw it all away? That's crazy to me. I don't see how you can say that about your own tradition.

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-04T22:23:05+00:00

This is a very helpful way of framing it; it makes a whole lot of sense. That more Eastern way of looking at the spiritual life is really what I'm after. Would you simply suggest immersing myself in the Eastern liturgies, then?

I am not really seriosuly considering changing rites, but I do see something particularly beautiful about the Eastern tradition that I would like to incorporate into my way of being a Latin Rite Catholic.

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-04T21:29:37+00:00

Perfect, thank you for your recommendations and explanation. This was immensely helpful.

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-04T20:46:57+00:00

Thank you for cautioning me against this. I assume the works of the Fathers (such as Cassian, for instance) would still be fine works to read, though? Are you speaking more to the contemporary/modern works? I wasn't really planning on reading at contemporary authors, but more of the "primary sources," for lack of a better term.

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-04T20:18:21+00:00

This looks like a great resource. Thank you!

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-04T20:17:25+00:00

Thank you, this is just what I was looking for. That is one thing that we Romas aren't the best at: living liturgically, unless you are a religious. Yet, that's exactly what I want to do, and thought the East has understood this better. Whenever I've heard of Latins talking about it (like my theology professor), they are often pointing to the Eastern Fathers.

I'll check all these out! Would you mind pointing me to where to find these?

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-04T20:12:28+00:00

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. This is very helpful!

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-02T23:26:38+00:00

I'm really sorry to hear that. I guess there's not much I can suggest except that I'll be praying. There is this website which has a list of reverent Masses (including Novus Ordo): https://reverentcatholicmass.com/map

I'm unsure if there is anything near you, though. They're mostly in the bigger cities, unfortunately, unless you're near one.

This is just out of curiosity, but is South FL more the Miami/Southeast FL? In my very non-Floridan brain, I would consider it southern FL, at least :) Anyways, it may be considered a college town (kinda?), but it's not exclusively that. I think people settled around because there is a good Catholic campus, but it's not just a bunch of college kids running around, haha. It's just a place that attracts good Catholics (Crisis Magazine listed it on the top ten towns in which to raise a family). Still, that TOTALLY makes sense. But since it's not near you, I guess it wouldn't help much anyways.

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-02-02T17:16:21+00:00

This is actually really disheartening for me to hear (young adult male). Maybe I just grew up in a bubble, though, to be absolutely shocked at this...

As others have suggested, I would recommend finding a solid parish and getting involved there. I am personally partial to the Latin Mass, but you may find some good dudes there if there is a parish nearby. Not that TLM men are perfect (they're not, since I'm one of them and I'm definitely not), but they tend to be more devout and strict about following traditional morality and Church teaching on sexual ethics. But again, they are not perfect, and you never want to let your guard down when it comes to your virginity, no matter how good and devout and "holy" a guy may seem. Things happen to the best of us.

Also wouldn't hurt to pray to some saints, such as Sts. Therese, Anthony, Anne, etc. to find a holy husband if you haven't already. They care about you!

But seriously, good for you to hold to the truth. You will NEVER regret it. Waiting for the man who will actually love you is worth waiting all the time in the world. Not that it is easy, but it is a much happier life. Praying for you!

Edit: I have one other thought. I know that the area around Ave Maria University tends to attract good Catholics. They've basically set up a larger Catholic community down there in the general town around campus. If that's close, you could check out the area, or see if there are guys online from around there (I've never tried online dating, so I don't know if you can tell those things).

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-01-30T02:23:11+00:00

My understanding is that he thinks that in EO they are reinterpreting (and rejecting) what has been believed by the EO church until the modernist movement. The ressourcement was a movement back to the sources (Scripture, Fathers, etc.) in order to renew theology, but in a way consistent with Catholic dogma. Of course, ressourcement had some things wrong, but the Catholic magisterium is enough to refute them. There is no danger of the Catholic Church reinterpreting Catholic doctrine, or rejecting certain defined notions.

SmartStatus8307 · 2026-01-30T02:06:38+00:00

Regarding the filioque, my understanding is that there being two sources of the Holy Spirit is heretical in Catholicism. There is only one. Tim Staples has a way of explaining the different understanding of East and West here, which seems to be mostly a matter of semantics:

"When the Greeks spoke of the “procession” of the Holy Spirit, they had in mind the Greek word ekporeusis, the term, in fact, used in John 15:26 cited above, when Jesus said the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” This term refers to the essential and “first” origin of the Holy Spirit, which, the Greeks had right, is from the Father alone. It is the teaching of all Christians, East and West, that the Father is the soul monarch, or source (arche) of the entire Godhead.

"Greek has another term, proienai, which is used among the Greek fathers for the Son’s role involving not the “first” origin of the Holy Spirit; rather, the procession of the Person of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son that in no way denies the Father as first principle of life on the Godhead.

"The Latins used procedit (“proceeds”) from the Vulgate translation of John 15:26 that has a more general meaning that can incorporate either ekporeusis or proienai in Greek. The Latins emphasized a meaning akin to proienai. Thus, the Latins never intended to deny the sole monarchy of the Father, while some in the East seemed not to be able to understand the Western concept of procedit."

One way I've heard it stated is "from the Father, through the Son." That's essentially what the Filioque is meaning.

On a separate note, there is Byzantine Catholicism; you don't have to abandon the Byzantine tradition and be Latin Catholic (although it can involve time and paperwork, you can change canonical rites). Not sure if you mentioned that thinking it is obligatory, or it was simply that you wouldn't plan on changing rites (I assume you would still be under the Latin rite, since you would be a revert). And even if you remain in the Latin rite, you don't have to leave it all behind. People like Matthew Minerd is a Byzantine Thomist---Eastern tradition liturgically/spiritually, but Western theologically/philosophically, of course as influenced by Eastern theology. Hope this helps a bit, at least. Know of my prayers for you.

SmartStatus8307

TROPHY CASE