The Official Website of the Willard Preacher

Bringing Willard to the Web

"None of those who have Hell before their eyes will fall into Hell. No one of those who despise Hell will escape Hell.... Nothing is so profitable as to converse concerning Hell. It renders our souls purer than any silver."  

~St. John Chrysostom~

BOOK

Roman Catholicism

Dear Aaron,

             Once again, no, I am not saying that you will go to Hell if you are not Orthodox. Although it is typical in Protestant thinking to boil everything down to Heaven and Hell, it is not so in Orthodoxy. I am simply saying that since Orthodoxy is the true expression of Christianity, then that is where your salvation will be best accomplished.

I certainly did not mean to upset you by what I wrote. I would just hope that you would keep an open mind, and be willing to look into it. It seems to me that, in general, Protestants can be very open-minded when it comes to other denominations. Conversely, when it comes to Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, their minds immediately shut down, and they won’t even look into the claims that are being made. I guess I was like that when I was Protestant so I’m not condemning you, and I do realize that the claim that we make is a pretty intimidating one. I would only ask that you don’t shut yourself off to it without first checking it out.    

The answer to your inquiry about Roman Catholicism is that, yes, I did look into it, and no, I did not reject it because of the Crusades and Inquisitions. As I mentioned last time, after the pillars of Protestantism collapsed before my eyes, I began to inquire as to whether there was a church which began with the disciples—and is still here today— which has not changed its doctrine or manner of worship. These criteria narrowed my search down to Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.  My assumption from the beginning was that any organization that had been around for 2,000 years would have had its share of evil deeds and doers in its past. So I wasn’t concerned with such things as Crusades and Inquisitions.

The place where I began my search was with the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Pope. Because of the discussions I had engaged in with the Orthodox student I mentioned in my last e-mail—and at the same time with a Roman Catholic grad student—I knew that there were differences between the two Churches. It seemed reasonable to me, that, if because of an anointing of infallibility, the Pope could not err when he made pronouncements on faith and morals, then when it came to the differences between the two Churches, the Latin Church would have to be right. On the other hand, if there was no evidence that the Early Church believed in papal infallibility, then that would be an indication that Rome had added to the faith, which would disqualify it from being the true and complete Church.

 In addition, it seemed to me that this would have been a very important doctrine and therefore should have been written about extensively by the Fathers. I already knew that the Apostles hadn’t written about it. This was disconcerting considering how important this understanding would have been for the administering of the faith. The one scripture that the Roman Catholic Church pointed to in Matthew 16, about Peter being the rock upon which the Church was built, was hardly a treatise on infallibility.

To make a long story short, I began to search the Church Fathers for evidence that they believed in this infallible anointing. What I found was that over the period of time that the Eastern and Western Churches were together as one, which was approximately 1,000 years, the Fathers wrote over and over again about every conceivable Church doctrine, but even with the best Roman Catholic sources I possessed, I could not find one reference to infallibility. I couldn’t even find a Church Father who wrote against it, which would have at least let me know that someone had written for it. I concluded from this overwhelming silence that in whatever light the Church saw Rome, it didn’t see her bishop as infallible.

This became exceedingly clear when I first heard—and then read for myself—that the Third Council of Constantinople in the year 681 condemned and anathematized a pope of Rome by the name of Honorius. This is one of the first seven councils of the Church and is agreed upon as being authoritative by both Rome and the Orthodox. To anathematize someone means to condemn and eliminate the said person from the Church. It made no sense to me at the time, and it still doesn’t, that an infallible bishop could be anathematized for heresy. My conclusion was that infallibility was an addition to the faith, and I therefore ruled out Roman Catholicism as being the true church.

At the same time I looked into one other issue, and that was the debate over the filioque. The filioque was an addition to the Nicene Creed, “the” creed of Christianity, which along with the Western claim of papal authority ultimately split the Church. In agreement with John 15:26, the Creed that was agreed upon during the first two councils of the Church read in part, “and I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father.” The Roman Catholic Church sought to unilaterally change this statement to read, “…the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Filioque translates from the Latin to “and the Son.”

This change made no sense either biblically, as shown by the scripture in John 15, or in the Church’s understanding of the Trinity. As you know, our understanding of the Trinity is that God is three persons and yet is still one God. In light of this, every characteristic we give to the Trinity must either be shared by the three—indicating one God, or specific to the one—showing separate persons. When the Roman Church claimed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, she gave a characteristic (bringing forth the Spirit) to two members of the Trinity. This was never done before, nor has it ever been done since. Again this made no sense given our understanding of the Trinity. 

Another problem with the filioque has to do with where we place the unity of the Trinity. The West, through Augustine, said that this unity was in the common essence shared by the three persons. The East answered that the unity was in the person of the Father. If the West is right, then the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Father and the Son by way of the common essence. If the East is right, then the Holy Spirit can only proceed from the Father, as the Son can only be begotten of the Father.

The problem for the Catholic Church is that the Creed, beginning with the statement “I believe in one God the Father almighty,” puts the unity of the Trinity in the person of the Father. The only way the Western understanding could work is if the Creed stated, “I believe in one God the common essence almighty,” which it clearly does not. If it did, it would remove the personhood of God. So for me at least the insertion of the filioque seemed to be a clear doctrinal error.

As I continued to look into it I discovered other differences between the two Churches, but these initial ones were enough to convince me that Rome had strayed from the faith. To this day I can find no such doctrinal changes in the Eastern Church, and that is why I am now Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.

In conclusion, it seems to me that whereas Protestant churches tend to subtract from the faith, the Roman Catholic Church tends to add to it. What they have in common is a propensity, beginning with human logic, to change the faith as they deem necessary. This makes them both man-centered institutions, and so they tend to be seen by many in the Orthodox Church as two sides of the same coin.

            I know this has been a lot to spring on you all at once. I only hope that whatever decision you end up making will be done after a thorough investigation of the facts and not be an emotional reaction one way or the other.

With much love,

Uncle Greg