A few questions on certain concepts that I never got answered

[Murcury]

Salaam (Peace) to everyone here, forgive me if this isn’t the right place to post. To give a little bit of background in my questions, I am raised in a Catholic family, but two to three years ago I started to question Catholicism and turned Atheist. From there I had a whole roller coaster ride until I ended up at Islam. I’m an open minded person who loves discussion, but when I ask my parents questions they fail. My dad holds beliefs contradictory to official doctrine (and so his answers are faulty) and my mom will not answer the question entirely. They talk about setting me up with this retired Jesuit they know since he is very knowledgeable but they never do so (they’ve been talking about it for a few months). At the same time, my mom laments the loss of her son (me) and prays the Rosary everyday for my return [to the Church]. I enjoy a good discussion and I hate to leave questions unanswered and these questions have only formed over the years.

Anyway, I have questions on so many things but I’ll stick to only certain concepts for now that I’ll ask on.

1. I disagree with the concept of the Pope. I am wondering, why would God give total power to one corruptible man? To give two of my favorite historical examples of what I mean: Pope Alexander VI (The Borgia Pope) was known for his underhanded tactics and allegedly raped his niece. The Pope during the sacking of Constantinople at first condemned the Venetian Crusaders but once he heard about all the treasure they acquired he welcomed them back.

There have been really good Popes, I personally love Pope John Paul II. I respect him immensely for all the apologies he made and the example he showed. But, my question is, why would God rest so much power in the hands of one man? To give an example of what I think is a better example, in Sunni Islam there is no centralized authority besides some scholarly councils. But, if one scholar goes astray (which I assure you, many men from every religion go astray), the whole religion doesn’t lose its way.

Also, I will admit, I am weak in early Church history, but, how come most of the other Patriarchs chugged along just fine after the Pope left? I’ve heard before that there were 5 Patriarchs and 1 one of them (the Bishop of Rome) left. What makes the Catholic Church the apostolic one instead of the Eastern Orthodox?

1. What great supporting evidence is there to show the Gospel accounts are valid? How do I know that the Gospel of Thomas isn’t valid for example? If they were divinely inspired, then how could Mark mess up the geography of Palestine (it was mentioned in my Scripture book, I go to a Catholic school)? Just to give perspective once again (I hope you don’t see this as preaching or bashing, just trying to show a comparison) in Sunni Islam we believe that the Qur’an is the direct word of God because of certain miraculous things about it.
2. Perhaps these things are just strictly to my local church and I just have a bad apple but, there are two things in the Church at the moment which look kind of weak to me. Firstly, girls come in dressed very sexually. If this was a beach church where it’s in a community that has few clothes to begin with then that’s fine, but this church is 45 minutes from the nearest beach. I won’t describe what they wear, but I assure you, it’s bad. I don’t think Sunday Suits are necessary, but, why such a lax code? I feel like I’m in a night club.

Second thing, once again, perhaps just with my local church, there seems to be no mention of Hell. If it isn’t political or some feel good message, then it’s just a short anecdote. I’m not a big fan of a “Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God” type approach, but it’s almost like the threat of Hell just magically disappeared. To give comparison, Islam emphasizes the mercy of God and effort is very important, but they do make sure to remind you that there is a Hell and it is a possibility if you don’t try.

1. The Saints make me feel a little bit uncomfortable. Okay, so these guys talk to God for you; I can sort of accept that. But when you start making them patrons of certain things, that disturbs me a bit. It makes me feel a bit too much like it’s a Pantheon and if I want more of x I just pray to a specific Saint.
2. I’m sure this is asked a lot, so please don’t slap me around for asking, just link me if you don’t mind: Why is the Church protecting the molesting priests? People can sin, I can’t hold that against an organization, especially one as big as the Church. But, based off of the news, it seems almost like the Church is shielding the accused rather than letting them by tried and getting a just punishment. Why is that?
3. How can the Church change on key doctrines like Salvation so much? I can take out my mom’s Catholic Baltimore Catechism from the 60s and read off the doctrine regarding salvation. It states clearly that in order to go to Heaven, you MUST be in the Church, no exceptions. But, I’m not quoting a newer Catechism directly but rather going off what I’ve heard from clergy, it seems the rules are a bit more bended now. How do the rules of salvation change in a few decades? How can you go from the Church hating and claiming Protestants are going to Hell centuries ago but now they embrace them?

Alright, I guess those are enough questions for now. Thanks in advance for any answers!

 

[OscarsMama]

1. Perhaps these things are just strictly to my local church and I just have a bad apple but, there are two things in the Church at the moment which look kind of weak to me. Firstly, girls come in dressed very sexually. but, why such a lax code? I feel like I’m in a night club.
2. The Saints make me feel a little bit uncomfortable. Okay, so these guys talk to God for you; I can sort of accept that. But when you start making them patrons of certain things, that disturbs me a bit. It makes me feel a bit too much like it’s a Pantheon and if I want more of x I just pray to a specific Saint.

Thanks in advance for any answers!

Wow!! Lots of good questions. Although, I am a cradle Catholic, I am not really an expert on church history, so I will leave the answers to those other questions to somebody who knows more than me.

As for the dress in church… That has nothing to do with the religion. That has to do with some basic social respect. You are right. Many women and men come into church during the summer months looking like they are on their way to the beach or to a night club. That goes on in almost every church. That is a result of the lax social rules in our society today. For example, my parents (I am 32) speak of having to dress up for Sunday dinners AT HOME!! They also had to dress up for church. They had to dress up for school, etc!! Now, people don’t have that same social respect. I think that the beach/night club dress in church is due to that.

About the saints. Perhaps, I have a “simple” view of it, but here it goes: Saints are people. We ask people to pray for us. For example, I can ask you to say a prayer for me and you can ask me to pray for you. It is the same thing. We ask saints to pray for us. I think that it helps that they are closer to God!!! As for the patron saints: We seek people out for their skills or knowledge. If I had a question about cars, for example, I would ask somebody who knows about cars. If I had a question about medicine, I would ask somebody (perhaps a doctor) who knows about medicine. So… we ask saints for assistance in the things that they did or were involved in while on Earth. For example, the patron saint of animals is St. Francis. If I want to say a prayer for my pet, I would pray to him before saying a prayer to St. Michael (the patron of police officers) or St. Augustine (the patron of beer ). But… it IS OKAY to pray to any saint for any intention. I guess, just as in life, people feel more comfortable asking people about things that they know about.

I hope that somebody else can answer the other questions for you!!!

 

[adrift]

Welcome. You have put so mucdh into your post. You should try to ask only one question at a time as that is forum rules. I will answer only part

1. How can the Church change on key doctrines like Salvation so much? I

No doctrines have been changed. They can be developed but not changed The Catechism is the place to go for your answer. I am providing only a partial quote. The link will take you to read more.

Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

 

[valentino]

If there were say 1000 first christians and the romans found where they were they seek to kill them.They kill 500 and the rest scatter.they pick up 1500 more and romans find them and kill 1000.Now there is 1000.they pick up 2000.romans kill 1500.now there are 1500.Over time the christians are going to have to protect themselves even if Jesus said thou shalt not kill.So eventually these Christians form an army.I hope you’re getting the point.Even though Jesus taught a certain Way in reality it couldn’t be followed until the time came when they were free enough to put it in practice.Now I am saying the Church in its growth did many things which weren’t scriptural but out of necessity they had to do them.As regards to the bad Popes.The Church hasnot always followed the straight and narrow.These bad Popes did not follow it.One has to remember for the Church to have freedom all coutries around would have to be more peaceful and tolerant of Christianity.The Popes had to align themselves with governments(kings) to obtain this freedom.These Popes in those middle ages when they were aligned to kings often fell into serious sins.It still doesn’t mean that God deserted the Church.It still doesn’t mean that the Popes were not doing God’s will.they weren’t perfect but God was still in charge of His Church and the Popes were still the head of the Church.There is much more to discuss.Any questions?

 

[Murcury]

First off, I want to apologize for me apparently not reading the rules closely enough. I skimmed over them but I must have missed the part about only asking one question. So should I continue with this thread or break up my questions or what?

But… it IS OKAY to pray to any saint for any intention. I guess, just as in life, people feel more comfortable asking people about things that they know about.

That is a fair point you raised but I have certain questions that spring from that. If we use a Saint like that, their knowledge is useless because they’re talking to God and as the creator, God knows far more than any Saint could know. So therefore, wouldn’t it be better to just take the patron Saint of persuasion for everything or just rely on the Virgin Mary (after all, she is the best of all women that have ever lived, the holiest of all women)? A Saint can’t convince God on knowledge so they can only convince God using a plea. But then again, if God’s mind can be changed with a plea we have a whole new problem… But thanks for the answer.

“No doctrines have been changed. They can be developed but not changed The Catechism is the place to go for your answer. I am providing only a partial quote. The link will take you to read more.”

Ah, thank you. Odd, all of the teachings I’ve heard in my life aren’t like this. I always hear that good people in general will be saved, regardless of the Church. The message in the Catechism is different from what I’ve been taught.

Any questions?

Well, while sometimes you have to do what is necessary and take the lesser of the two evils, why would God allow an extremely unholy man to take the holiest title (for the living) in Catholicism? It’s one thing to be a little bit bad, it’s another thing to release massive amounts of suffering to the point where Pope John Paul II has to apologize centuries later (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologies_by_Pope_John_Paul_II). So did God cause the bloodshed of the Crusades or the abuse of the natives of the New World?

 

[adrift]

First off, I want to apologize for me apparently not reading the rules closely enough. I skimmed over them but I must have missed the part about only asking one question. So should I continue with this thread or break up my questions or what?

No problem. It just becomes difficult to discuss when there is more than one topic. I hope we can answer your questions. Sometimes we are taught wrong. Sometimes we hear wrong. The Catechism is what is taught and you can rely on it.
If I may, I have a suggestion for you.

On the home page you will find the Concierge Desk under it you will find Mini-tutorials and the sandbox. Those are tools that will teach you about how to use this sites tools. It will show you things like multi-quoting. The sandbox allows you to play with the tools.

 

[Murcury]

No problem. It just becomes difficult to discuss when there is more than one topic. I hope we can answer your questions. Sometimes we are taught wrong. Sometimes we hear wrong. The Catechism is what is taught and you can rely on it.
If I may, I have a suggestion for you.

On the home page you will find the Concierge Desk under it you will find Mini-tutorials and the sandbox. Those are tools that will teach you about how to use this sites tools. It will show you things like multi-quoting. The sandbox allows you to play with the tools.

Ah, I was wondering where the multi-quote button was, I overlooked it, I apologize. It’s hot out here and I wrote this all quickly so I can get outside soon.

 

[Hail_Linus]

1. I disagree with the concept of the Pope. I am wondering, why would God give total power to one corruptible man?

It is very sad when there is a bad Pope. However, even the bad Popes were not able to bring heresy into the Church.

The concept of the Pope comes from Judaism. The David King had a Prime Minister, a high priest, with more authority than the other high priests. Jesus is our King and the Pope is his Prime Minister. Sanhedrin also had a President.

Also, I will admit, I am weak in early Church history, but, how come most of the other Patriarchs chugged along just fine after the Pope left? I’ve heard before that there were 5 Patriarchs and 1 one of them (the Bishop of Rome) left. What makes the Catholic Church the apostolic one instead of the Eastern Orthodox?

They are both Apostolic and in reality the Catholic Church consists of both. I know right now there are about 7 Patriarch in communion with the Pope. I know the Maronite were never in schism.

1. What great supporting evidence is there to show the Gospel accounts are valid?

These are the Gospels that people were willing to die for.

How do I know that the Gospel of Thomas isn’t valid for example?

The has many of the same verses as the other Gospels. However, it does not mention the death and resurrection. Additionally, like other Gnostic Gospels it is extremely un-Jewish. Even modern day Gnostic groups like the Jesus Seminar believe that anything that sounds Jewish is fake.

If they were divinely inspired, then how could Mark mess up the geography of Palestine (it was mentioned in my Scripture book, I go to a Catholic school)?

I never heard this one. I have heard others. First, keep in mind, while the Old and New Testaments contain a lot of historical facts, they are not history books.

Tell me more about it.

Also, there used to be more than one Quran and when this was discovered one version was selected and the others destroyed. However, they did recently find one of the others and it is somewhere in Northern Europe in an undisclosed location (for obvious reasons) being analyzed.

Just to give perspective once again (I hope you don’t see this as preaching or bashing, just trying to show a comparison) in Sunni Islam we believe that the Qur’an is the direct word of God because of certain miraculous things about it.

From what I have learned, Sunni Muslims consider the Qur’an to be co-eternal with God as we view the Son and Holy Spirit to be co-eternal with the Father. This is the reason Islam did not permit there to be different versions of the Qur’an.

1. Perhaps these things are just strictly to my local church and I just have a bad apple but, there are two things in the Church at the moment which look kind of weak to me. Firstly, girls come in dressed very sexually.

Second thing, once again, perhaps just with my local church, there seems to be no mention of Hell. If it isn’t political or some feel good message, then it’s just a short anecdote. I’m not a big fan of a “Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God” type approach, but it’s almost like the threat of Hell just magically disappeared.

I cannot condone this behavior. All I can do is tell you is that it is sinful behavior.

1. The Saints make me feel a little bit uncomfortable. Okay, so these guys talk to God for you; I can sort of accept that. But when you start making them patrons of certain things, that disturbs me a bit. It makes me feel a bit too much like it’s a Pantheon and if I want more of x I just pray to a specific Saint.

This is really just to give us inspiration and focus. It helps us to pray to a Saint we can relate to.

1. I’m sure this is asked a lot, so please don’t slap me around for asking, just link me if you don’t mind: Why is the Church protecting the molesting priests? People can sin, I can’t hold that against an organization, especially one as big as the Church. But, based off of the news, it seems almost like the Church is shielding the accused rather than letting them by tried and getting a just punishment. Why is that?

This is just a case of leaders doing a poor job. Additionally, it wasn’t until recently that psychology came to the conclusion that child molesters cannot be cured (absent a miracle of course). People used to think child molesters could get a little counseling and the problem would be solved.

1. How can the Church change on key doctrines like Salvation so much? I can take out my mom’s Catholic Baltimore Catechism from the 60s and read off the doctrine regarding salvation. It states clearly that in order to go to Heaven, you MUST be in the Church, no exceptions. But, I’m not quoting a newer Catechism directly but rather going off what I’ve heard from clergy, it seems the rules are a bit more bended now. How do the rules of salvation change in a few decades? How can you go from the Church hating and claiming Protestants are going to Hell centuries ago but now they embrace them?

You still Must be in the Church in the sense that this is the ordinary way of salvation. However, perhaps the Baltimore Catechism was not clear that there are different levels of culpability. You are a perfect example as it appears that through no fault of your own you lost your faith and left. It appears that Catholics teaching bad theology or engaging in bad behavior pushed you away. Additionally, while we are bound to that rule, God can save whoever he wants to save.

 

[Bezant]

Peace to you too

I’m an open minded person who loves discussion, but when I ask my parents questions they fail. My dad holds beliefs contradictory to official doctrine (and so his answers are faulty) and my mom will not answer the question entirely. They talk about setting me up with this retired Jesuit they know since he is very knowledgeable but they never do so (they’ve been talking about it for a few months).

I’m sorry you’ve had a hard time finding someone to give you sufficient responses. It’s very difficult for anyone to re-examine their faith from the outside.

1. I disagree with the concept of the Pope.

I’m not entirely sure about the Pope myself, for different reasons, but his authority is not really absolute. Papal infallibility has nothing to do with his moral life, but is a part of his job (to definitively teach right faith, right morals). There have been more infallible ecumenical councils than infallible papal pronouncements (which at times seems redundant, e.g., John Paul II’s statement on female ordination).

From all the Abrahamic viewpoints, God understands that mankind makes mistakes. His assignment of the pope may be no different. God assigned Noah and Moses as Prophets and Aaron and his descendants as priests, despite their failures, but for mysterious His purpose.

But, my question is, why would God rest so much power in the hands of one man? To give an example of what I think is a better example, in Sunni Islam there is no centralized authority besides some scholarly councils. But, if one scholar goes astray (which I assure you, many men from every religion go astray), the whole religion doesn’t lose its way.

Perhaps, given its large size, Islam could use a caliphate, for unity; it could be easier to clarify where the faith stands in opposition to renegades, for believers and for skeptical non-believers. There are many good arguments against a caliphate; after all, very, very, very few Muslims are radically astray; as you point out, Islam doesn’t have real schisms; and then, the caliphate often caused MORE problems than it solved.

I like a unified Church structure, and referring to a unified policy (the catechism). When we have problems, we’re usually able to be very clear about where we stand, and we’re somewhat less prone to schism.

1. What great supporting evidence is there to show the Gospel accounts are valid?

There isn’t. No more than there is supporting evidence of supernatural Quranic accounts.

How do I know that the Gospel of Thomas isn’t valid for example? If they were divinely inspired, then how could Mark mess up the geography of Palestine (it was mentioned in my Scripture book, I go to a Catholic school)?

We do not believe that Scripture is factually inerrant. The authors made mistakes, and they put (permissible) embellishments in the text. But in terms of faith and morality, Scripture is inerrant.

When people point out that the Biblical canon was arranged not by God, but by a council of men with a pre-set agenda, I respond, “Of course it is.”

The early bishops canonised Scripture according to the more appreciated texts out there, ones that conformed to their teachings, passed on and developed from the time of the apostles.

Just to give perspective once again (I hope you don’t see this as preaching or bashing, just trying to show a comparison) in Sunni Islam we believe that the Qur’an is the direct word of God because of certain miraculous things about it.

My gripe about Islam, from the explanations of Muslims with whom I’ve spoken: because the Qu’ran is the Word of God spoken by Muhammed, all of the scientific/historical references there must be taken factually. Whereas that need not be so in Catholicism. I don’t think that the Quran is or needs to be a textbook, but what do you think?

1. Perhaps these things are just strictly to my local church and I just have a bad apple but, there are two things in the Church at the moment which look kind of weak to me. Firstly, girls come in dressed very sexually

I think that’s in your local church. In Italy and the major churches in Israel, for example, women have to cover from shoulders to knees.

Second thing, once again, perhaps just with my local church, there seems to be no mention of Hell. If it isn’t political or some feel good message, then it’s just a short anecdote.

I think that’s a good thing, actually, since the churches that seem most paranoid about hell also seem to be the least intelligent.

It’s better frame of mind and better productivity, to focus on the good deeds/positive works that spur us on to heaven, than to merely avoid/fear what will condemn us. Hell is a reality, it’s in the catechism and Scripture, but Heaven is our goal. That’s why we spend more time on Heaven and the Kingdom of God, than hell.

To be fair, neither Christianity or Islam can do justice to describing hell. We don’t really know what it is until we get there.

 

[Murcury]

It is very sad when there is a bad Pope. However, even the bad Popes were not able to bring heresy into the Church.

I can agree with this. But, I still find the fact the Catholic Church had centuries of wrong-doing all because of some men. Although, the sale of indulgences, does that count as heresy or not entirely?

These are the Gospels that people were willing to die for.

People will die for many things. Sikhs died for their texts, Muslims for their, Christians for their, etc. Wanting to die for it is a good step but people die for cults all the time, that doesn’t make them valid.

The has many of the same verses as the other Gospels. However, it does not mention the death and resurrection. Additionally, like other Gnostic Gospels it is extremely un-Jewish. Even modern day Gnostic groups like the Jesus Seminar believe that anything that sounds Jewish is fake.

Ah, interesting, I never knew that. How do we know that the Gospel of John, for example isn’t out there and influenced by the growing (although repressed by the Romans) Christian community? According to my scripture book for school, the Gospel of John and the Catholic epistles were both written around 95-99 AD.

I never heard this one. I have heard others. First, keep in mind, while the Old and New Testaments contain a lot of historical facts, they are not history books.

Of course, but, I’ve been taught that the Church separates the Jesus of History from the Christ of Faith. If the Church claims that the Christ of Faith did x but the Jesus of History did y, how can we separate them? History is what occurred and while you can believe in certain religious principles, it has to also agree with history.

Tell me more about it.

Note, this comes from “Discovering God’s Word: An Introduction to Scripture” by Marilyn Gustin, Ph.D., published by RCL Benziger:

“Mark was written in the 60s C.E., and like all the gospel accounts, it was originally written in Greek. Mark repeatedly explains Aramaic words and Jewish customs, he seldom makes reference to the Old Testament, and he seems confused about the geography of Palestine, so it seems likely that Mark’s readers were Gentiles who lived outside of Palestine, probably in Rome.”

Our teacher who is a Deacon, explained how badly Mark got the geography since he put cities in the wrong places. I forgot the exact example but I’ll give an equivalent, “It’s basically like you want to drive from New York City to Miami so you go to San Francisco first, then to Detroit, then to Philly, then to Miami.”

Also, there used to be more than one Quran and when this was discovered one version was selected and the others destroyed. However, they did recently find one of the others and it is somewhere in Northern Europe in an undisclosed location (for obvious reasons) being analyzed.

While others were created, all the false ones were destroyed. They knew which ones were false because people had memorized the whole Qur’an (since it was only orally transmitted at first). People today still memorize the whole Qur’an, there are millions of them called “Hafiz”. Basically, the Qur’an was so easy to memorize and that was meant to be a safeguard against any falsities since people had it memorized and could correct any mistakes.

From what I have learned, Sunni Muslims consider the Qur’an to be co-eternal with God as we view the Son and Holy Spirit to be co-eternal with the Father. This is the reason Islam did not permit there to be different versions of the Qur’an.

I’m not entirely sure of your analogy. Basically, from what I’ve learned, the Qur’an is the only revelation sent by God that is guaranteed to be protected from corruption. He said that this is the final revelation. But also, since Islam claims the Qur’an is the literal words of God, there can’t be falsities or else the whole religion falls apart. But, the Qur’an is no different from past revelations (though the past revelations were corrupted), I’m pretty sure there’s a verse in the Qur’an which says that the message never changed from revelation to revelation.

This is just a case of leaders doing a poor job. Additionally, it wasn’t until recently that psychology came to the conclusion that child molesters cannot be cured (absent a miracle of course). People used to think child molesters could get a little counseling and the problem would be solved.

Fair enough. The whole social (as in the case of child molestation) and political positions of the Church gets bad marks from me. But, I won’t get into politics now.

You still Must be in the Church in the sense that this is the ordinary way of salvation. However, perhaps the Baltimore Catechism was not clear that there are different levels of culpability. You are a perfect example as it appears that through no fault of your own you lost your faith and left. It appears that Catholics teaching bad theology or engaging in bad behavior pushed you away. Additionally, while we are bound to that rule, God can save whoever he wants to save.

I’ve gone to Catholic school all my life and I was Confirmed in the Church (although by the time of my Confirmation I already had disconnected spiritually). I’ve heard from someone before that Catholic education has kind of failed in the sense that, their religion classes are too simple and can be false in their simplicity. Do I just need higher level religious discussions to get good Theology instead of the same stuff recycled over and over again?

 

[Murcury]

I’m not entirely sure about the Pope myself, for different reasons, but his authority is not really absolute. Papal infallibility has nothing to do with his moral life, but is a part of his job (to definitively teach right faith, right morals). There have been more infallible ecumenical councils than infallible papal pronouncements (which at times seems redundant, e.g., John Paul II’s statement on female ordination).

The Pope is supposed to be a moral example though. If the Pope did totally morally evil things, then how can he be an example?

From all the Abrahamic viewpoints, God understands that mankind makes mistakes. His assignment of the pope may be no different. God assigned Noah and Moses as Prophets and Aaron and his descendants as priests, despite their failures, but for mysterious His purpose.

Actually for example, in Islam, David never slept with Bathsheba. Prophets in Islam tend to be total examples. But yes, men make mistakes, so why trust a man with an entire Church?

Perhaps, given its large size, Islam could use a caliphate, for unity; it could be easier to clarify where the faith stands in opposition to renegades, for believers and for skeptical non-believers. There are many good arguments against a caliphate; after all, very, very, very few Muslims are radically astray; as you point out, Islam doesn’t have real schisms; and then, the caliphate often caused MORE problems than it solved.

The whole Caliphate thing is another issue entirely. It’s very complex and historically deep, so I would respond, but I don’t want to spark a whole new massive debate.

I like a unified Church structure, and referring to a unified policy (the catechism). When we have problems, we’re usually able to be very clear about where we stand, and we’re somewhat less prone to schism.

In comparison with the Protestant Churches, yes. But what about the Orthodox? How often do the Eastern Orthodox schism?

There isn’t. No more than there is supporting evidence of supernatural Quranic accounts.

The whole thing behind the Qur’an is another story and I would link this one lecture about the literary miracles of it but it’s very long and so it derails from my purpose of being here: to get my questions answered. But if you want me to respond to that on why I think the Qur’an could be miraculous, feel free to PM me.

We do not believe that Scripture is factually inerrant. The authors made mistakes, and they put (permissible) embellishments in the text. But in terms of faith and morality, Scripture is inerrant.

Define scripture? Is it all of the Bible? The Gospels alone? The New Testament alone? Which parts are inerrant? Also, when you have things such as Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount vs Luke’s Sermon on the Plain, who do you believe?

When people point out that the Biblical canon was arranged not by God, but by a council of men with a pre-set agenda, I respond, “Of course it is.” The early bishops canonised Scripture according to the more appreciated texts out there, ones that conformed to their teachings, passed on and developed from the time of the apostles.

So is it possible we are missing a book or two? Or, what if, Arius ended up winning and choosing the canon?

My gripe about Islam, from the explanations of Muslims with whom I’ve spoken: because the Qu’ran is the Word of God spoken by Muhammed, all of the scientific/historical references there must be taken factually. Whereas that need not be so in Catholicism. I don’t think that the Quran is or needs to be a textbook, but what do you think?

Well first off, Islam makes a massive claim and if they’re proven wrong on even the smallest thing shown in the Qur’an then they’re done. The whole science in the Qur’an thing has different spectrums. Some Muslims say it’s a miracle while others look at it a bit more realistically. You lose a lot in the Arabic-English translation, but basically, there is no information in the Qur’an which contradicts science. Any contradictions I’ve seen have been shot down by a good explanation. Basically, in my opinion, if the Qur’an can pull off the whole literal word of God, then it’s a major boon and I can support it. The Qur’an is not the Muslim version of the Bible, it has very interesting tweaks.

I think that’s a good thing, actually, since the churches that seem most paranoid about hell also seem to be the least intelligent.

It’s better frame of mind and better productivity, to focus on the good deeds/positive works that spur us on to heaven, than to merely avoid/fear what will condemn us. Hell is a reality, it’s in the catechism and Scripture, but Heaven is our goal. That’s why we spend more time on Heaven and the Kingdom of God, than hell.

I would say that’s true in terms of Christian churches who focus on Hell. But, I’m complaining because it feels like we’ve deleted the concept of Hell. Honestly, Islam has spurred me more towards doing good than any other religion has, because it mentions all of these rewards for good deeds and suffering, etc and on the Day of Judgement, your good will be compared with your bad. So, it makes sense for me to be the best person I am, also because it says if you are better your reward will be much better. But, what I always got from my Catholic learnings was you’re going to Heaven if you’re a Good Catholic, period.

To be fair, neither Christianity or Islam can do justice to describing hell. We don’t really know what it is until we get there.

I don’t want to know what Hell is like. So, here’s hoping neither of us go there.

 

[adrift]

I can agree with this. But, I still find the fact the Catholic Church had centuries of wrong-doing all because of some men. Although, the sale of indulgences, does that count as heresy or not entirely?

The Catholic Church has done no wrong. The Church whose head is Jesus cannot do any wrong. The men who belong to it do. Indulgences were not sold. That is a spin from those who hate the Church. Indulgences are granted for doing acts of Charity. Donating money to the Church was considered an act of Charity. You may believe this is splitting hairs but there is a difference. It wasn’t like you pay x amount and you get out of purgatory. Indulgences don’t work that way. Try this link for an explanation on indulgences I have yet to see this taught in the public school truthfully.

Ah, interesting, I never knew that. How do we know that the Gospel of John, for example isn’t out there and influenced by the growing (although repressed by the Romans) Christian community? According to my scripture book for school, the Gospel of John and the Catholic epistles were both written around 95-99 AD.

I do not believe even the modern “experts” date the Epistles this late They are usually dated between 48-57. I however, do not put much stock in the current “experts” I stick to the traditional dating. I donot accept that Mark was written first. The reasoning that is put forth for this is weak and often does not even try to refute traditional sources.

Of course, but, I’ve been taught that the Church separates the Jesus of History from the Christ of Faith. If the Church claims that the Christ of Faith did x but the Jesus of History did y, how can we separate them? History is what occurred and while you can believe in certain religious principles, it has to also agree with history.

This is very confusing. I have never heard that there was difference between history and faith. Do you have a Church document that supports this difference. Can you give an example of what you are writting about. It really makes no sense to me.:nope:

 

[adrift]

The Pope is supposed to be a moral example though. If the Pope did totally morally evil things, then how can he be an example?

It is my belief that Jesus chose Judas to show us that we would have other traitors and not to become concerned about it. Who says he is? We can hope he would be. Why just one man? You have to ask Jesus because that is what He did. He established the leader of the Church. The gates of hell will not prevail against His Church that is Jesus promise. That is why we can be confident of what the Bible is. That is why we can be sure of the teachings.

 

[Murcury]

This is very confusing. I have never heard that there was difference between history and faith. Do you have a Church document that supports this difference. Can you give an example of what you are writting about. It really makes no sense to me.:nope:

To be honest, I found it odd and confusing myself. It’s from my scripture book. Basically it says we have to separate the Christ of Faith from the Jesus of History and look at them separately. I’m beginning to think the Scripture book does more harm than good.

It is my belief that Jesus chose Judas to show us that we would have other traitors and not to become concerned about it. Who says he is? We can hope he would be. Why just one man? You have to ask Jesus because that is what He did. He established the leader of the Church. The gates of hell will not prevail against His Church that is Jesus promise. That is why we can be confident of what the Bible is. That is why we can be sure of the teachings.

What is considered the Gates of Hell? How do we know if they are prevailing?

 

[adrift]

To be honest, I found it odd and confusing myself. It’s from my scripture book. Basically it says we have to separate the Christ of Faith from the Jesus of History and look at them separately. I’m beginning to think the Scripture book does more harm than good.

I think your right.

What is considered the Gates of Hell? How do we know if they are prevailing?

This is an expression Jesus used to express that the Church would never fall into error.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Salaam (Peace) <…>

1. I disagree with the concept of the Pope. I am wondering, why would God give total power to one corruptible man?

The Pope does not have all the power. The Church is governed by the Magisterium which is headed by the Pope. We hold that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. We do not believe that the Pope is personally impeccable, that is, incapable of sinning. The personal sins of a pope do not negate the office nor prevent the Holy Spirit from protecting God’s Church from ever teaching error.

If there is a doctrinal dispute in Islam, to whom does one go for a final determination?

1. What great supporting evidence is there to show the Gospel accounts are valid?<…>

The Church has held several councils and through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit determined the canon of Scripture. They compared what was in the particular writings with the Oral Teachings. The Gospel of Thomas has Gnostic or heretical teachings in it therefore, it was rejected.

As for why we regard it as Scripture, it is because the Catholic Church has declared it to be the written Word of God. As St. Augustine put it, (paraphrased), “I would not believe the Holy Bible itself, but that the Catholic Church has declared it to be the Word of God.” We have faith in the Church, that the Holy Spirit is guiding Her as promised.

1. <…> I don’t think Sunday Suits are necessary, but, why such a lax code? I feel like I’m in a night club.

Second thing, once again, perhaps just with my local church, there seems to be no mention of Hell. <…>

I’m not very happy about the lax dress code either. We have people rock up like they are going on a bush picnic, singlet, shorts, thongs (that’s ‘flip flops’ for those of you who don’t speak Strine)

I think it is cultural or something that Hell or the eternal consequence of sin has been de-emphasised, or just not mentioned in case someone might get upset. I think it does everyone a terrible disservice to gloss over the fact that sin has consequences and some of them have eternal consequences - eternal separation from God. This is something very serious and should not be glossed over.

1. The Saints make me feel a little bit uncomfortable. <…> It makes me feel a bit too much like it’s a Pantheon and if I want more of x I just pray to a specific Saint.

We didn’t make them patrons of any particular thing. It is usually a matter which they were particularly good at during their lives, and now carries through to their eternal life. We still do not ask the Saint for the miracle, but for their intercession with God who grants the miracle. The Saints have no power of their own.

You do not have to pray to saints if you do not want to. All Catholicism requires you to believe is that they are alive with God. The Church is the Church Militant (that’s us), the Church Suffering (those in Purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (those in heaven). Both the saints in heaven and those in purgatory can pray for us still on earth but you are not required to avail yourself of their assistance.

1. Why is the Church protecting the molesting priests?

The Church is not protecting molesting priests. There was a period when the response was not what it should have been, but things have changed.

This is something that I had problems with when I converted but I trust God in His promise to protect the Church from ever teaching error. Priests are human too and sin, just like the rest of us. There might be sinful priests, but that does not change that the Church is the Church founded by Christ on Peter and the Apostles, and is protected by the Holy Spirit.

1. How can the Church change on key doctrines like Salvation so much? I can take out my mom’s Catholic Baltimore Catechism from the 60s and read off the doctrine regarding salvation. It states clearly that in order to go to Heaven, you MUST be in the Church, no exceptions. But, I’m not quoting a newer Catechism directly but rather going off what I’ve heard from clergy, it seems the rules are a bit more bended now. How do the rules of salvation change in a few decades? How can you go from the Church hating and claiming Protestants are going to Hell centuries ago but now they embrace them?

Alright, I guess those are enough questions for now. Thanks in advance for any answers!

As others have said, doctrines do not change. They may develop as we understand more, but not change.

In your example about Protestants and Salvation, what has changed is our understanding that while we are bound by what God has told us, God is not. While the only sure way we know of is to be in the Church, God may have mercy on anyone He chooses. We still teach that the only sure way is to be in the Church. What Protestants have of the Truth, they have from us. There is only one Baptism in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which anyone may perform. We cannot read their hearts to know if they are saved or not. While we are limited by what God has revealed to us, God is not limited and may save whom He chooses.

We are a Church of Love and hating Protestants is very counter-productive, as well as against our teachings. Maybe it was before my time, but I don’t think the Church has ever taught us to hate Protestants. We are not called to hate people, but to love them. What we hate are the errors which have led them astray.

 

[Murcury]

The Pope does not have all the power. The Church is governed by the Magisterium which is headed by the Pope. We hold that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. We do not believe that the Pope is personally impeccable, that is, incapable of sinning. The personal sins of a pope do not negate the office nor prevent the Holy Spirit from protecting God’s Church from ever teaching error.

If there is a doctrinal dispute in Islam, to whom does one go for a final determination?

Well, in the current day and age, there is no head authority. Scholars get together and discuss it and they share findings and there are different rulings. Sunni Islam is broken up into 4 Madhabs (basically schools of thought), all 4 are valid in Sunni Islam and are basically “different roads to the same destination”. It’s sort of like the Latin Churches and the Coptic (or any other adjective you want to throw in here) Churches both in Communion with the Pope. While the Latin and Coptic are different in their execution, the end result is the same. Scholars give their own interpretation and so you have different rulings for different things, though most issues have already been covered and so the Madhabs have their own position on them. Then you have scholars who say Madhabs are false and an invention, most of these guys are known as the Salafi (ultra-ultra-conservatives, Saudi Arabia is ruled by Salafi scholars). You can also not belong to any school of thought and just go to your local Imam for his own ruling on certain issues. Decisions as a whole religion are usually based off of ijma (scholarly consensus) but on some complex issues, there are different perspectives.

So to put it simple: there is no simple answer. Islam is very scholar based.

The Church has held several councils and through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit determined the canon of Scripture. They compared what was in the particular writings with the Oral Teachings. The Gospel of Thomas has Gnostic or heretical teachings in it therefore, it was rejected.

As for why we regard it as Scripture, it is because the Catholic Church has declared it to be the written Word of God. As St. Augustine put it, (paraphrased), “I would not believe the Holy Bible itself, but that the Catholic Church has declared it to be the Word of God.” We have faith in the Church, that the Holy Spirit is guiding Her as promised.

If I’m not mistaken, the New Testament was first compiled at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD right? That is over 300 years since Jesus’s Ministry. How do we know that oral teachings didn’t change? Which parts of the Bible must I believe and put my faith behind?

As others have said, doctrines do not change. They may develop as we understand more, but not change.

In your example about Protestants and Salvation, what has changed is our understanding that while we are bound by what God has told us, God is not. While the only sure way we know of is to be in the Church, God may have mercy on anyone He chooses. We still teach that the only sure way is to be in the Church. What Protestants have of the Truth, they have from us. There is only one Baptism in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which anyone may perform. We cannot read their hearts to know if they are saved or not. While we are limited by what God has revealed to us, God is not limited and may save whom He chooses.

We are a Church of Love and hating Protestants is very counter-productive, as well as against our teachings. Maybe it was before my time, but I don’t think the Church has ever taught us to hate Protestants. We are not called to hate people, but to love them. What we hate are the errors which have led them astray.

It was far before your time, namely 17th centuryish. But my question is if we are guided by the Spirit, how can we have such a horrible doctrine exist? It’s one thing to have a few mistakes in a doctrine, but the amount of animosity from the Catholics in the 17th century was very big and divisive and probably helped make the rift we’re trying to heal now.

Btw, reading this forum has preempted a question of mine. I was reading the “Eastern Orthodox” thread and thinking about the mentioned New Mass vs Old Mass and I have to say, I’m one of the people who like the New Mass (though I’ve never been to an Old Mass). I was in Church on Holy Thursday and they have a Mass filled with incense and “imperial” splendor and such. I felt like someone was about to be crowned Emperor. In my opinion, those things only take away from the Mass. The Mass is a celebration of Jesus’s sacrifice. The more upbeat music is better because it makes you focus less on the ceremony but instead on the meaning. I can never imagine Jesus ever being into the whole incense and ceremony.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

]Salaam (Peace) to everyone here, forgive me if this isn’t the right place to post. To give a little bit of background in my questions, I am raised in a Catholic family, but two to three years ago I started to question Catholicism and turned Atheist. From there I had a whole roller coaster ride until I ended up at Islam. I’m an open minded person who loves discussion, but when I ask my parents questions they fail. My dad holds beliefs contradictory to official doctrine (and so his answers are faulty) and my mom will not answer the question entirely. They talk about setting me up with this retired Jesuit they know since he is very knowledgeable but they never do so (they’ve been talking about it for a few months). At the same time, my mom laments the loss of her son (me) and prays the Rosary everyday for my return [to the Church]. I enjoy a good discussion and I hate to leave questions unanswered and these questions have only formed over the years.

Anyway, I have questions on so many things but I’ll stick to only certain concepts for now that I’ll ask on.

Welcome, I would like to start by saying that although you may not be going to Mass and are following the teaching of mohammad, if you were batized into the church you are still and always will be Catholic. Keep this in mind as it appears you are somewhat young and have already been a quite a journey in faith. You can come Home at any time the doors are always open.

1. I disagree with the concept of the Pope. I am wondering, why would God give total power to one corruptible man? To give two of my favorite historical examples of what I mean: Pope Alexander VI (The Borgia Pope) was known for his underhanded tactics and allegedly raped his niece. The Pope during the sacking of Constantinople at first condemned the Venetian Crusaders but once he heard about all the treasure they acquired he welcomed them back.

There have been really good Popes, I personally love Pope John Paul II. I respect him immensely for all the apologies he made and the example he showed. But, my question is, why would God rest so much power in the hands of one man? To give an example of what I think is a better example, in Sunni Islam there is no centralized authority besides some scholarly councils. But, if one scholar goes astray (which I assure you, many men from every religion go astray), the whole religion doesn’t lose its way.

Also, I will admit, I am weak in early Church history, but, how come most of the other Patriarchs chugged along just fine after the Pope left? I’ve heard before that there were 5 Patriarchs and 1 one of them (the Bishop of Rome) left. What makes the Catholic Church the apostolic one instead of the Eastern Orthodox?

To start both the Catholic and the Orthodox are apostolic. both have a continuing line of bishops back to the Apostles, both have not broken with that line.
I think you (and a lot of others ) miss understand the Power of the Pope. Through the Holy Spirit he is protected from Defining any herecy as docturine or dogma in the church. That does not mean that a bad man can not be pope, as history shows there have been a few. Just that the church as a whole is protected from them when it happens. becoming pope does not tranform the man into a prefect being. Also just because he is pope does not mean he does not have enemies. I am not saying that everything written showing bad things done in the past is a lie, but that you do have to keep in mind that there was a lot of political power tied to the Papacy and if you were in a rival politcal camp it would suite your interest to have the Popes charactor questioned.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

1. What great supporting evidence is there to show the Gospel accounts are valid? How do I know that the Gospel of Thomas isn’t valid for example? If they were divinely inspired, then how could Mark mess up the geography of Palestine (it was mentioned in my Scripture book, I go to a Catholic school)? Just to give perspective once again (I hope you don’t see this as preaching or bashing, just trying to show a comparison) in Sunni Islam we believe that the Qur’an is the direct word of God because of certain miraculous things about it.

You can not read the Gospels or really any book in the Bible like you would read a modern history book. That is not the purpose. also the Holy spirit did not come and sit the writers down and dictate to them what to write word for word. We know that the Gospels are ture because the apostles Choose death to denial of them. To to the geography I have lived my home town my whole life (46 years) and can take you anywhere in it, but don’t ask my to write out the geography because there will be errors. check this site for some answer to that questionas what may be errors then agian may not be

wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_there_geographic_errors_in_the_Gospel_of_Mark

1. Perhaps these things are just strictly to my local church and I just have a bad apple but, there are two things in the Church at the moment which look kind of weak to me. Firstly, girls come in dressed very sexually. If this was a beach church where it’s in a community that has few clothes to begin with then that’s fine, but this church is 45 minutes from the nearest beach. I won’t describe what they wear, but I assure you, it’s bad. I don’t think Sunday Suits are necessary, but, why such a lax code? I feel like I’m in a night club.

Second thing, once again, perhaps just with my local church, there seems to be no mention of Hell. If it isn’t political or some feel good message, then it’s just a short anecdote. I’m not a big fan of a “Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God” type approach, but it’s almost like the threat of Hell just magically disappeared. To give comparison, Islam emphasizes the mercy of God and effort is very important, but they do make sure to remind you that there is a Hell and it is a possibility if you don’t try.

I to do not approve of what some ( men and women) choose to were not only to church, but every day. However, I am glad to they are in church and hopefully they can be lead to dress more appropreately not only in church, but everywhere.

As to Hell, its talked about in my parish. And the reality of going there if you die in a state of mortal sin.

1. The Saints make me feel a little bit uncomfortable. Okay, so these guys talk to God for you; I can sort of accept that. But when you start making them patrons of certain things, that disturbs me a bit. It makes me feel a bit too much like it’s a Pantheon and if I want more of x I just pray to a specific Saint.

A saint being the Patron of certain things is because in life they showed an strong passion in that area. ST Patrick and his love for Irland. St. Francise and his love for nature. Thomas Aquinas because of his accademic works is the patron for students. Just as Christ said that God is the God of the Living not the dead. We believe that those that have gone on to heaven and are alive and as such just as we see on St John’s Revelation they take our prayer before the throne. It is not so much that we pray to the saint for things as we ask the saint to join us in prayer to God.

1. I’m sure this is asked a lot, so please don’t slap me around for asking, just link me if you don’t mind: Why is the Church protecting the molesting priests? People can sin, I can’t hold that against an organization, especially one as big as the Church. But, based off of the news, it seems almost like the Church is shielding the accused rather than letting them by tried and getting a just punishment. Why is that?

Don’t believe everything you read in newpapers and hear on TV. Yes there was a effort in the past to handle the cases that came about with in the church. This has not been the case for going on over 10 years. Also as much as the church is bond to protect the children it is more correct to say that the Church is bond to proect the innocent. Be that innocent a child from abuse, or a Priest for false accusations (and there are false accussation)

1. How can the Church change on key doctrines like Salvation so much? I can take out my mom’s Catholic Baltimore Catechism from the 60s and read off the doctrine regarding salvation. It states clearly that in order to go to Heaven, you MUST be in the Church, no exceptions. But, I’m not quoting a newer Catechism directly but rather going off what I’ve heard from clergy, it seems the rules are a bit more bended now. How do the rules of salvation change in a few decades? How can you go from the Church hating and claiming Protestants are going to Hell centuries ago but now they embrace them?

The church still teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, that has never and will never change. What the church has done is define what being in the church is. there is perfect union and imperfect union.

Alright, I guess those are enough questions for now. Thanks in advance for any answers

your welcome God Bless

 

[Hail_Linus]

I can agree with this. But, I still find the fact the Catholic Church had centuries of wrong-doing all because of some men. Although, the sale of indulgences, does that count as heresy or not entirely?

I used to think this too. When I researched further I found this to be very untrue. The Catholic Church invented Hospitals, the University system, education for Children, and much more.

As for the sale of indulgences, this is always wrong. It may have happened a little but I am not even convinced it really happened for the simple reason that no serious Catholic would consider sinful and the non-serious Catholic would consider it nonsense and would not even spend the money. Additionally, the only accusations of sales of Indulgences were the ones for the benefit of the dead in purgatory. There never was an accusation of a person buying an indulgence for themselves.

People will die for many things. Sikhs died for their texts, Muslims for their, Christians for their, etc. Wanting to die for it is a good step but people die for cults all the time, that doesn’t make them valid.

The morality of Christianity is in a way very stupid. There is an absurdity to loving everyone as God loves them not mention doing it for selfless reasons and out of love for God and not just submission.

The truth is Christianity spread out of non-violence. Islam did spread the war. Christianity conquered the Roman Empire.
Christians were martyred for a religion that was in a very real sense foolish.

It is also interesting to me that the Catholic Church never asked for legal status. They could have made a deal with the Empire and practiced their religion without persecution as did the Jews.

Ah, interesting, I never knew that. How do we know that the Gospel of John, for example isn’t out there and influenced by the growing (although repressed by the Romans) Christian community? According to my scripture book for school, the Gospel of John and the Catholic epistles were both written around 95-99 AD.

No body really knows when they were written. St. Ireneus, a student of St. Polycarp, who was in turn was a student of St. John considered it authentic. Furthermore, Ireneaus despised Gnostics.

“Mark was written in the 60s C.E., and like all the gospel accounts, it was originally written in Greek. Mark repeatedly explains Aramaic words and Jewish customs, he seldom makes reference to the Old Testament, and he seems confused about the geography of Palestine, so it seems likely that Mark’s readers were Gentiles who lived outside of Palestine, probably in Rome.”

I’ll have to look into this further. BTW, the Gospel of Matthew was probably written in Aramaic or Hebrew and for a Jewish audience. You can tell because unlike the other Gospels it does very little explaining of Aramaic words. In other words, unlike the other Gospels, it does not have many phrases lke “they called him Rabbi, this means teacher.” It has a lot of Old testament references that would have only made sense to a Jew. There is also an early writing that makes reference to a Gospel of Matthew around 45 AD written in the language of the Jews.

While others were created, all the false ones were destroyed. They knew which ones were false because people had memorized the whole Qur’an (since it was only orally transmitted at first). People today still memorize the whole Qur’an, there are millions of them called “Hafiz”. Basically, the Qur’an was so easy to memorize and that was meant to be a safeguard against any falsities since people had it memorized and could correct any mistakes.

This is not an unreasonable argument. If I were a Muslim I would make that argument too. However, the argument I gave is also reasonable and there were many Muslims annoyed because they had also memorized the Qu’ran and they were now accused of having an invalid Qu’ran.

I’ve gone to Catholic school all my life and I was Confirmed in the Church (although by the time of my Confirmation I already had disconnected spiritually). I’ve heard from someone before that Catholic education has kind of failed in the sense that, their religion classes are too simple and can be false in their simplicity. Do I just need higher level religious discussions to get good Theology instead of the same stuff recycled over and over again?

I was away from the Catholic Church for many years myself. In fact, I was quite surprised I returned. It turns out Catholicism wasn’t not what I thought.

For me falling away turned out to be good. If I had never left I would have been I lousy Catholic.

My only advice is to keep an open mind and keep searching. Even now I play a game with myself where I try to convince myself Catholicism is wrong. I read everybody’s point of view. I even study Church history from a secular point of view. However, I cannot seem to get away.