www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Narrow is the gate . . . . . .

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

Greetings! May the peace of the Lord be with you always!

Our Lord said that the path to heaven/eternity is narrow and the path to hell is wide. What does this mean to you?

I have a seven year old going through her first communion shortly after Easter. While the director of religious education (DRE) was talking about how we, Roman Catolics, do not have to fast a rigorously as was required in the past and do not have to go to confession like we did in the past something occurred to me: this is the narrow path?

Let me be frank, can Roman Catholicism really be a viable path to heaven? I ask this question not out of animosity or hostility but out of a genuine concern. Eastern Catholicism still requires people to keep the fast and, really, practice other forms of asceticism. These are aspects that make the path narrow. When the Roman Catholic Church became more like the Protestant denominations it did so at the expense of helping its faithful follow the narrow path.

Your thoughts?

Peace,

Rob

Rob,

I tend to agree. However, I know many many very faithful Roman Catholics both priests and lay. I would never wish to discourage their life in the Latin Church. Perhaps, I need more direction than others in order to follow the narrow path.

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

I am just lamenting the loss in the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus said, "When you fast and pray . . . . .", He did not say, "If you fast and pray . . . .". He was referring to not letting everyone around you know that you are fasting and praying. It wasn't an option. It was a given. How are Roman Catholic supposed to know how or when to fast when the Roman Catholic Church has, for all intents and purposes, given up the practice? Seriously, if you have to look Eastward to find these things out how many other things are we to look to the East for? In other words, how many things have been discontinued in the Roman Catholic Church that we have to look to the East for? And, why? If this, then what else does the East have right that the West has wrong?

Makes a person wonder.

I, too, know many faithful Roman Catholic priests and laity. For that matter, I know many faithful Protestants too. However, these faithful folks don't even know that they aren't doing what they are supposed to do. That doesn't really exempt them from doing it though.

Peace,

Rob

Rob,

Your inclinations are correct. Let us join in prayer for the American Catholic Church. Not be a Roman Catholic myself I think this is my best option. Let us also pray that the Eastern Catholics will remain faithful.

Dan Lauffer

Yet, another reason why I gave up the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church. I could add some comments that the local (Florida) Priest/Nuns have to say about the subject. I think something like "fasting is really not needed anymore" would summerize there comments. I guess that is why they are building Churches that look like this:
http://saint.stmarys-school.org/constructioncam/

I am sorry but I do not blame Rome for this or the the Roman Catholic Church. I place blame completely on the Bishops of the USA. I do Pray for them!

Yet, another sign of the 'Hippie' counter culture in are Church.

The idea of not fasting is incorrect.....
What the documents said was that the faithful were not required to fast from meat on Friday. It stated that if you were going to eat meat then it is necessary to fast in another way. The church never said that you did not have to fast. It still requires confession as much as ever. It is just the interpretaion of the people.

Go to ..... find out what youu church does teach and read the papal documents. your church is still a gate to heaven.

http://www.ewtn.com

Hi Rose,

That may be. However, what is believed and what is actually taught are two distinctly different things. Just like what is practiced in Rome is not actually what is practiced here, in the U.S.

Fasting, by the way, in Christian tradition is much more than just a friday thing. For example, the practice used to be that a Christian fasted on wednesdays and fridays, as a rule. Then, all of the great fasts as well, like Great Lent and Nativity. In all, fasting used to be, and still is for Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians, an undertaking that comprised about half of the year. That is the fasting and ascetical that results in real metanoia that I am talking about.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't expect anywhere near this level of ascetic practice and I, for one, think that it's a shame. Why become more Protestant just to appease a few people?

Peace,

Rob

While the director of religious education (DRE) was talking about how we, Roman Catolics, do not have to fast a rigorously as was required in the past and do not have to go to confession like we did in the past something occurred to me: this is the narrow path?


There is a place for moderation, a golden mean, in all this, but the bogus "renewal' indeed has meant a disparagement of fasting and Confession. Yes, one need not confess before EVERY Communion — the good Tridentine distinction between mortal and venial sin steers one clear of neurotic scrupulosity and opens the Eucharist to one, and yes, the Eucharist remits venial sins.

The flippant approach you seem describe is not the narrow path.

Let me be frank, can Roman Catholicism really be a viable path to heaven?

Let me be frank (or Tom, or Dick, or Harry): this seems like a provocative "troll' question, "flame bait'. This is a Catholic-hosted forum and you know it.

In my opinion, in my heart of hearts, the answer regarding Roman Catholicism as such is yes. As for distortions of same, like the bogus "renewal' sometimes called AmChurch, it's a valid question. And in those situations the answer isn't clear. Can one be sure it is a viable path? No.

Eastern Catholicism still requires people to keep the fast and, really, practice other forms of asceticism.

As far as requirements go, Byzantine Catholics (I can't speak about non-Byzantine Eastern Catholics) in the US keep something similar to Roman Catholics. Actually, the addition of Wednesday abstinence during Great Lent is a good thing and similar to what I do. See my new page on fasting.

When the Roman Catholic Church became more like the Protestant denominations it did so at the expense of helping its faithful follow the narrow path.

True, and it will lose people for the same reason mainline Protestantism has been hemorrhaging members for the past few decades (right, Dan?). Why settle for a half-a**ed copy of the secular world's humanism when you can simply be a secular person?

Yet, another sign of the 'Hippie' counter culture in are Church.

Actually the hippie movement at its best had a point — a romantic reaction to the sterile secular culture of the time.

I would place its root cause in that sterile secular culture, based on Protestantism, and not in the hippie counterculture, some of whose members embraced very demanding, ancient non-Christian religions (Buddhism, Hinduism) or variants thereof (Hare Krishnas are strict vegetarians and ban sex except only for procreation).

With the mistakes in prudential judgement that ensued after Vatican II, US Catholic everyman and -woman decided they could be like secular nominal Protestant Mr and Mrs Cleaver down the street and dropped Friday abstinence and Confession, and adopted artificial birth control (even though the Pope repeated that ban — Fr Smith at St Suburbia's told them it was now OK).

http://oldworldrus.com

Poster Serge,

You seem to be very knowledgeable about "AmChurch." I also notice you have your own web site.

Maybe you can assist me in finding those web sites that express the ideology of "AmChurch?"

Also, would you happen to know if certain priests, such as Leonardo Boff, Matthew Fox, or Ernesto Cardenal (of "The Gospel of Solentiname" fame) are still active priests?

I would appreciate your assistance.

Thanks,

Ephraim

Serge,

"Actually the hippie movement at its best had a point — a romantic reaction to the sterile secular culture of the time."

You are right! I should now better because my parents were Hippies (No Meat Kind) and they were probably more Holy than I am now... I really don't know How or Why the 'AmChurch' got it's theology. I just assumed blaming the 60's and 70's was the thing to do. I really need to read more on the subject before I open my mouth. You know what they say about people who Assume

Ephraim,

I can't in good conscience recommend anything AmChurch but visit my "Field Guide to the Roman Catholic Civil War in North America' page, linked to the Faith page, for a list of organizations whose names you can paste into any good search engine (IMO Google is No. 1).

Also, would you happen to know if certain priests, such as Leonardo Boff, Matthew Fox, or Ernesto Cardenal (of "The Gospel of Solentiname" fame) are still active priests?

I had no idea about Boff till I looked him up on Google. Today he is being honest — he is no longer an active priest. Likewise Matthew Fox — he left the Catholic Church and is now functioning as an Episcopal minister* in northern California. I don't know about Fr Cardenal. I know he was suspended from functioning as a priest while he was a minister in the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

aRC@W, thanks for confirming I "got' the hippies right.

*Fox was not reordained. Anglicans/Episcopalians, who claim apostolic succession, recognize Catholic and Orthodox (and I imagine Oriental too) orders even though apostolic Churches don't recognize Anglican orders as they presently are.

http://oldworldrus.com

Rob,

You raise some interesting questions. Let me suggest that the Roman Catholic Church has not changed in its teachings about the need for fasting. In the years since Vatican II the RCC has loosened the regulations in an attempt to treat Roman Catholics as adults who can each bear the responsibility of determining how best to incorporate fasting into their daily walk with Christ. This makes sense when one realizes that many who refrain from meat on Fridays have lobster instead. They keep the law but forget the reason behind it. To question whether a Church can be a “viable path to heaven” based solely upon its fasting regulations seems quite a stretch. To question whether the Eastern Christian way is a narrower path than the Roman Catholic way is evidence of a lack of understanding of both.

Many Christians (Eastern and Western) fast only because there is a Church law that says they should. To fast without understanding is to miss the possible spiritual benefits one might derive from fasting. To fast only because the Church has legislated it is akin to not fasting at all.

As the Administrator of this forum I find myself confused with the description of a horrible Roman Catholic Church that many people post about. I travel a good deal with my work and have visited hundreds of Churches, Byzantine Catholic, Orthodox and Roman Catholic. I have found lackluster parishes in all three Churches but never have I found a Roman Catholic parish to fit the descriptions many here present as the norm. On Sunday I had the privilege of worshipping with a Roman Catholic parish in Oklahoma (the Byzantine mission was not meeting that weekend and unfortunately the 3 small Orthodox communities do not have answering machines that provide information on the times of their Divine Services). The RC liturgy was well planned, well celebrated with excellent preaching and homily. The music and singing was fantastic. Just where is this horrible Roman Catholic Church people talk about? I am sure it is exists somewhere but it is the exception and not the rule. Most of us could find an equal percentage of Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox parishes that also fail to be what they should. There is certainly a lack of education among Christians of all traditions. But is attacking the Roman Church the best way to spread its wonderful traditions to its people?

A specific request: “AmChurch” is a pejorative used by those with a beef against the Roman Catholic Church. Please do not use it on this forum. Please remember that these discussions are to help one another grow in Christ and to share information about our different Churches.

Administrator

Thank You Dear Administrator,

I wouldn't trade the Eastern Churches for anything, but I love the Roman Church as well. If a Roman really studies and practices what the Church teaches, they will be as busy as we are.

Those Romans that I know and are close with have a tremendous faith in our Lord. Here in Alabama we are only 2% Catholic, so the Church has been very persecuted. Because of that they are strong, but at the same time you have the liberal theology lying in the outskirts. So there is always a struggle.

I have always thought that as 'elegant' as our worship is, the Latin Church has it's beauty in its simplicity.

Rose

In regard to Rob's initial post, I for one am interested in what's being said in this thread, specifically because I am a Roman Catholic who has been taught (forgive the term) squat about what my religion actually is. I can understand that as long as one is knowledgable about why they are confessing, fasting, etc., and don't just do these things because the Church is telling them to, that a person with a pure heart as such will not be denied by the Lord. Recently after learning more about the practices in the Eastern Churches, I have also wondered as well where Roman Catholicism "went wrong," and how the differences in practice or worship can all lead to doing God's will. It's still a hazy thing to understand for me (I'm still a youngon' :rolleyes: ) but if it involves something to tell a 7 year old, all I could be sure of is not to omit a part about having the narrow path include honest love for God and true repentance as a sinner, as we all are. I know I must be missing things, but that's because I've not a great short-term memory.
God Bless All
MsGuided

Dear Administrator,

Thank you for your reply.

I am Roman Catholic. I love the Catholic Church, the entire Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, particularly the Latin Church, is not terrible. Though, due to an incorrect implementation of Vatican II has had no small problem in attnepting to become modern and, in many cases, particular parishes do resemble Episcopal Church parishes.

Perhaps some of my current disatisfaction with the Latin Church, and remember that I am a Roman Catholic, is that I have seen the beauty of the Eastern liturgy and eclessiology. There is something to be said for going against the tide when it comes to embracing the secular mindset. Of course, not every parish or diocese has fallen into this trap but enough have so that Rome has had to step in and correct certain things, one of which is the liturgical translation currently being used. The liturgical texts were so badly translated from the original Latin that it has quite literally taken 35+ years to get them fixed. Finally, I think, from what I have read, the translation will be faithful to the Latin translation preceding Vatican II.

I am a convert to Catholicism. I am not an anti-Vatican II Catholic. In fact, I applaud Vatican II. I just want a good and pious liturgy/Mass. And, I wish that the Fathers of Vatican II hadn't thrown out so much of the baby with the bathwater.

Peace,

Rob