Anyone considering conversion to Catholicism

[Saint_Michael]

Is this really the case? Very interesting.

Saint Pius the V, and Saint Pius X, Pius XII is venerable (will be a Saint but not yet), and John Paul II will most likely be a Saint but isn’t yet, I think it may be longer than 400 years actually. Out of the past 100 Popes you have 2 Saints, 1 venerable, and a few that will probably be canonized, kind of puts the kibosh on the addage that Catholics think the Pope is perfect, if that were true every one of them would be a Saint automatically.

 

[elg26]

Don’t confuse infallibility with impeccability, think of this although the office of the Pope is infallible only 2 Popes in 400 years have been canonized Saints. That right there should show you Catholics do not believe their Pope is impeccable or perfect or every one of them would be a Saint. Plus if you believe the scriptures to be infallible somewhere along the way humans wrote them and translated them, so you do believe in infallibility from human hands if guided by the Holy Spirit.

I guess that the whole idea that the church cannot be wrong is what keeps me skeptical. From what I’ve read, the church is the authority on what the bible means. And, to be Catholic, you must believe what the church tells you.

As far as the scriptures being infallible…I’ve been told that the people who wrote the bible had some sort of supernatural guidance in writing down SPECIFIC QUOTES that people made…sometimes CENTURIES later.

I can’t buy that…they were not there…and could not have know the specific words that people said then.

So, that’s a problem…Infallible=Arrogant…as I see it.

As for the Marian apparitions you are not required to believe one of them, they are private revelations.

OK…but there are many “supernatural” things one must believe to be Catholic, and I’ve been told that the answer to this is:

     "You have to have faith that this can be true"

Grandpa said to believe half of what you see and nothing you hear. I need to see it to believe it…I can’t just blindly believe it…

As for the Eucharist, thousands of Jesus disciples walked away saying they could not believe the teaching too (read John 6:66). For 1500 years all Christians believe in the Eucharist, not just believed in it, but it was a center of faith for all Chrsitians.

I’m not saying that it’s not an important and integral part of a Catholics belief…but I just don’t see or feel any diety or presence in a piece of bread or some wine either. This is another part of having belief in supernatural things, I guess.

Marriage is tricky I’ve had a hard time with teachings on contraception and certain acts in the marital bed too. But I will say that since praying and asking for the Grace needed to overcome problems, I have not masturbated and my lustful desires for say women on the street has diminished greatly, that’s something I thought nearly impossible so maybe there’s something to it.

Well, Saint_Michael…congrats to you…but, this is specifically why I think that religion has no part in marriage or sexual issues…

If someone wants to masturbate, or cast desiring looks at females (or males!) on the street, or to engage in agreed upon sexual activities with your consenting partner…that is the choice of that person or people involved…NOT the church.

Using the church to help you stop doing the things that you don;t want to partake in, well, if that helps you out, that is wonderful…but, when the church legislates your “salvation” by intruding into a marriage, or into a consenting realtionship, or even making you feel guilty over watching a pretty girl or handsome guy walk by…

My feelings are that they have become intrusive, not constructive.

Thanks for your response!

 

[Orionthehunter]

Well, I’m beginning RCIA in December, but there are still issues that (pardon my channeling the spirit of Joe Lieberman) make me uncomfortable. Contraception is a biggie. So are many of the Marian doctrines–not so much her assumption (if it’s good enough for Enoch & Elijah…) , but notions like her putatively immaculate conception and perpetual virginity, and her precise status in heaven.

Unlike my fellow posters above, those issues haven’t made more sense the closer I’ve looked at them: I’ve heard the Church’s arguments, thought hard about them, and have simply failed to find them remotely persuasive. Nevertheless, I’ve heard and seen enough to have begun believing that the Church is precisely what she says she is. And accepting that, a fellow concedes that she has a right to speak truly and authoritatively on the issues above. So, if I haven’t answered my objections by Eastertime, I’ll have to pray that obedience and assent can serve as a stand-in for understanding and approval, and that the former can eventually lead to the latter.

What a great attitude! Being Catholic often times requires us to accept in faith that which we don’t understand and to obey in charity that which we don’t agree. We do it not out of some attitude of being a robot but out of the confidence in that we know God loves us perfectly and wants nothing of us that isn’t in our best interest.

But if you aren’t ready at Easter, don’t despair. My brother-in-law went through RCIA three times over 7 years before he could finally make the step. The first two times he backed out on Holy Saturday. (I don’t recall but I think he even went through Confession both times. Once I’m pretty sure). We don’t know if it was cold feet or what. He never talked about it and my sister never pressed him on it. But, the blessing that came from it was that when he finally made it through, he was truly ready.

 

[exiled]

A new discovery for me in reading Scripture, that points quite clearly to Mary’s Immaculate Conception is in Gal. 4:22
Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman (a sin committed to conceive the child) and one by the freeborn woman (his wife, Sarah, in the covenant of marriage). We know that slavery is sin, and freeborn must then be free from sin. Paul even tells us that there is more to this than the historical facts presented,it is an allegory for us to understand. Only the children of the freeborn woman in the New Covenant (who must be Mary, with all of the other Scripture passages to support the conclusion) are children of the promise.
Abraham represents God the Father. Jacob represents Jesus Christ. And the role of the women, Sarah and Hagar, parallel the roles of Eve and Mary.
She is our freeborn mother.

 

[ladylinguist]

Well, I’ve been dancing around the concept of converting for about a year now. I think the two biggest issues for me are the Marian doctrines and whether or not Jesus intended to institute Peter as a Pope and thus Papal Infallability. Sometimes it just seems like too much emphasis is placed on Mary, and it makes my Protestant sensibilities a little uncomfortable. When it comes down to it, all I really need to have proved is that Jesus really intended for there to be a visible church (the Catholic church) as opposed to the idea that the whole body of believers makes up Jesus’ church. I’d just need to be sure that Jesus really set up the position of Pope, and that there is Papal Infallability. Once you establish the Church’s authority, then the rest really must be taken on faith, as opposed to whether or not you really understand a certain teaching (although, that certainly helps). I don’t say that it’s impossible that the Catholic Church is the one true church, only that I’m still on sure yet. And, to make a commitment like joining the Catholic church, I want to be pretty darned sure.

 

[ReflectiveDove]

I am another who is in the process of studying, researching, and getting my hands on whatever I can about the Catholic Church.

Right now a few of my fears are:

• Rejection of my family who are all Protestants.
• The Marian doctrine
• The linkage of my Protestant upbringing

There’s some more but they slip my head right now.

However, I know that in my heart I LONG to be Catholic…

After attending my first (and surely not my last) Mass this past Sunday, it became even more obvious that I desire to convert to Catholicism.

Peace be with you,
Brian

 

[jmcrae]

It was a great argument with my JW friend; “She can’t be without sin!” “But the church says she is!” “What does the Bible say?” “that the church can say she is!” LoL.

That’s brilliant - I hope you don’t mind my quoting you on that, one of these days.

 

[bankerdavid]

Well, I’m beginning RCIA in December, but there are still issues that (pardon my channeling the spirit of Joe Lieberman) make me uncomfortable. Contraception is a biggie. So are many of the Marian doctrines–not so much her assumption (if it’s good enough for Enoch & Elijah…) , but notions like her putatively immaculate conception and perpetual virginity, and her precise status in heaven.

Unlike my fellow posters above, those issues haven’t made more sense the closer I’ve looked at them: I’ve heard the Church’s arguments, thought hard about them, and have simply failed to find them remotely persuasive. Nevertheless, I’ve heard and seen enough to have begun believing that the Church is precisely what she says she is. And accepting that, a fellow concedes that she has a right to speak truly and authoritatively on the issues above. So, if I haven’t answered my objections by Eastertime, I’ll have to pray that obedience and assent can serve as a stand-in for understanding and approval, and that the former can eventually lead to the latter.

Right on. I believe we have the right to question (in fact most adult catechisms are in question/answer form), but we have an obligation to accept. It is sorta mysterious. I could accept that Mary was born without sin (why would Jesus, the son of God be born of a sinner?), and assumed into heaven (ditto on Elijah and Enoch), but had a tough time accepting her perpetual virginity. I do accept it, but do still want to question it and explore it.

 

[Andruschak]

For those who are considering conversion, or any Catholics who would like to comment, I have a question: What keeps you from converting? Is there a specific doctrine, teaching, theological understanding, practice, moral position, etc. that you have a particularly difficult time with? I’m interested to know what goes on in the minds, hearts, and souls of others in my shoes.

As an RCIA Candidate, I have been told by some of my friends that they cannot understand or accept the Doctrine of Purgatory.

My biggest isssue is the Church’s stand on artificial birth control when the world population is way out of hand already and getting worse. But I suppose I can give it lip service, being non-sexual myself

 

[jmcrae]

I am another who is in the process of studying, researching, and getting my hands on whatever I can about the Catholic Church.

Right now a few of my fears are:

• Rejection of my family who are all Protestants.

Jesus says, “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” - Matthew 19:29

• The Marian doctrine

The bottom line with Mary is that Mary always brings us Jesus. Everything she has ever said to us boils down to one thing: “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.” John 2:5b

• The linkage of my Protestant upbringing

You will always have that. Your real friends will always be your friends.

 

[Mystophilus]

A few years ago, rejecting the Sola Scriptura attitude of many Protestants and seeking the unity of the whole Church, I thought that I should look into Catholicism largely because it represents the majority, which makes it the easiest route to unity.

I questioned, I researched, and I found that I cannot become a Catholic.

The primary reason is the doctrine of Infallibility, in the forms of both Ecclesiastical Infallibility and Papal Infallibility. This contradicts humanity’s historically-demonstrated capacity for error, and ultimately depends upon the unproven assumption that God ‘would not allow the Catholic Church to remain in error’. I cannot disprove this claim, but I see no reason to believe it.

Under this, there are other issues, which include the Infallibility of the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the absolute ban on contraception, the refusal to ordain women, the belief in the perpetual torment of the unsaved, etc. While I am ready to accept that some of these, e.g., the Marian doctrines, might be true, I cannot claim to believe something which lacks sufficient historical support: one text written a hundred years after the event is not proof. Others I find peculiar and unnecessary, e.g., refusing to ordain women for no better reason than ecclesiological habit. Still others I would describe as ‘wrong’, including the ban on contraception, a ban which directly contributes to suffering, as millions of children are orphaned by a disease whose spread is retarded by the use of condoms (if anyone wants to disagree with this last clause, please first read the medical studies used by the CDC and by UNAIDS).

The critical issue with such doctrines, however, is not that they exist, but that the Roman Catholic Church believes that it can declare them infallible, thus removing them from any possibility of debate or reconsideration, merely because it has persisted in these beliefs for a given length of time, and with no other consideration for the justice of such beliefs.

I cannot accept such a thing.

Finally, there is the fact that, thus far, the Roman Catholic Church does not seem to be moving towards inclusive unity, but only demanding the submission of other churches to its own creed: they only want unity on their own terms, which is a guaranteed deal-breaker in any such negotiation. Frankly, I prefer cooperative unity to domination.

I do not think that the Catholic Church is evil, nor that it is wrong in all that it does or all that it teaches. I do disagree with more than enough of what it does and what it teaches to be unable to be part of it.

 

[Mystophilus]

 

[LilyM]

Saint Pius the V, and Saint Pius X, Pius XII is venerable (will be a Saint but not yet), and John Paul II will most likely be a Saint but isn’t yet, I think it may be longer than 400 years actually. Out of the past 100 Popes you have 2 Saints, 1 venerable, and a few that will probably be canonized, kind of puts the kibosh on the addage that Catholics think the Pope is perfect, if that were true every one of them would be a Saint automatically.

Don’t forget John XXIII, who is also a Blessed now

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Considered? Well, it depends on the definition…

…But, here are the biggies that keep me away from Catholicism:

-Infallibility.

I find it incredulous that ANY type of organization that has Humans involved can claim to be infallible.

-Eucharist.

It is a nice and moving ceremonial gesture, sometimes beautiful…but a supernatural experience? I can’t believe it.

-Supernatural events

I don’t believe in ghosts.

-Marriage

I don’t believe that religion or government has any right to stick it’s nose into my home…or my bedroom.

-Original sin

I’m a grandfather 3 times…and a fourth coming soon. There is no way that I can see ANY “sin” in any of my grandkids as I hold them. Sin is a learned environmental behaviour.
Elg

Ok, it sounds like you are still in that sort of agnosticism I was in for 21 years (afterwards, 5 years mainline Protestant before I “reverted”)
–You FIRST have to really take the plunge in belief–God exists, He is a person (NOT an impersonal “force”), and He cares about you–and that God has the ability to make things (reality) other than you would have them, prefer them. That reality CAN include things we cannot perceive with our senses (even artificially aided senses).

Someone else has already address the common confusion of infallibility vs immpecability. The Pope is ONLY “infallible” in matters of procliaming on matters of faith and morals–and that ONLY when he ratifies the decision of an ecumenical council of bishops OR a very defined “ex cathedra” pronouncement (the latter been done TWICE in near 2000 years)

The Eucharist: We believe Jesus was and is Eternal God. Jesus said "this IS my body…this IS my blood. Go to the Catholic Answer/This Rock articles on the Eucharist. for why its not just a symbol.

Reminds me of Flannery O’Conner attending a dinner with the alienated, ex-catholic author Mary McCarthy (The Group) MM was taking various snipes at the CC, and O"Conner mostly suffered it in silence–until MM condescendingly stated "well the Eucharist is a nice symbol’

To which O’Conner smapped back “If it’s just a symbol, the Hell with it!”

Supernatural Events–He’s God, it’s his opinion that counts, not ours.

Marriage–He created it, including it’s intent and purpose. Our fallen nature, we want it to be other than He intended, which brings me to…

Original Sin: PLEASE look up what Original Sin means–it is NOT the same as “personal sin”–a very common misunderstanding, And regarding kids and OS–as my wife, who worked Pre-school in the 3-year room for two years would say, “if she didn’ t believe in Original Sin when she began, she certainly did when she left”

 

[dch1983]

The primary reason is the doctrine of Infallibility, in the forms of both Ecclesiastical Infallibility and Papal Infallibility. This contradicts humanity’s historically-demonstrated capacity for error, and ultimately depends upon the unproven assumption that God ‘would not allow the Catholic Church to remain in error’. I cannot disprove this claim, but I see no reason to believe it.

Unlike many other Protestants here, I am not having difficulty with Marian doctrine or purgatory or the Church’s position on ABC… actually, one of the draws of the Catholic Church is that it actually takes a firm stance on the moral issues. My father is a Lutheran minister and refuses to be covered under the ELCA’s insurance policy. Guess why: it covers abortion!!! What does that say about the the Lutheran church? Frankly, I’m ashamed. At any rate, the remainder of Christian denominations essentially leave it up to the laity to determine what’s right or what to do with many issues.

I don’t know that this is “keeping me from converting” per se, but it is something I struggle with. I guess it falls under infallability. The Church has been wrong in the past but has refused to admit it until it has been absolutely forced to. There are two main instances that come to mind. The first is the selling of indulgences, which of course, was one of the chief reasons for the Reformation in the 16th century. The Church was clearly wrong in this practice but refused to change until well after the damage had been done. The second is more recent: the priest abuses/scandals. For YEARS, bishops were aware of these sexual abuses and instead of removing the abusive priests, they shuffled priests around and concealed the truth about the evil that was being done. It took years of pressure and countless cases being brought to the forefront for the Church to FINALLY do something. It’s so very troubling that the abuses took place. But what’s even MORE troubling is that the Catholic Church, Christ’s Church, knowlingly covered up these actions to prevent exposure of their priests.

 

[chris_molter]

I don’t know that this is “keeping me from converting” per se, but it is something I struggle with. I guess it falls under infallability. The Church has been wrong in the past but has refused to admit it until it has been absolutely forced to. There are two main instances that come to mind. The first is the selling of indulgences, which of course, was one of the chief reasons for the Reformation in the 16th century. The Church was clearly wrong in this practice but refused to change until well after the damage had been done. The second is more recent: the priest abuses/scandals. For YEARS, bishops were aware of these sexual abuses and instead of removing the abusive priests, they shuffled priests around and concealed the truth about the evil that was being done. It took years of pressure and countless cases being brought to the forefront for the Church to FINALLY do something. It’s so very troubling that the abuses took place. But what’s even MORE troubling is that the Catholic Church, Christ’s Church, knowlingly covered up these actions to prevent exposure of their priests.

Lemme help you with this one. Neither the sale of indulgences which fueled the fires of the Reformation, nor the abuse of minors by clergy which is abhorrent, nor any other abusive or sinful act by Priests, Deacons, Laity, Monks, Nuns, Bishops, or Popes, touches on the Infallibility of the Church. Infallibility means that the Holy Spirit guards the Church from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. Papal Infallibility is related and even more limited in its scope. Infallibility does NOT mean that some or even MOST of the people in the Church (including the leadership!) cannot commit evil or sinful acts (individually or collectively). One need only look at the example of some Renaissance era Popes and Bishops to see that the idea of clerical impeccability is untenable.

I didn’t convert because I thought Catholics were “better” or “holier” people than my protestant brothers and sisters. I converted because I know if I follow what the Church teaches, I won’t be led astray. This is because of Jesus’ promise to Peter and the guardianship of the third person of the Trinity.

 

[dch1983]

Lemme help you with this one. Neither the sale of indulgences which fueled the fires of the Reformation, nor the abuse of minors by clergy which is abhorrent, nor any other abusive or sinful act by Priests, Deacons, Laity, Monks, Nuns, Bishops, or Popes, touches on the Infallibility of the Church. Infallibility means that the Holy Spirit guards the Church from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. Papal Infallibility is related and even more limited in its scope. Infallibility does NOT mean that some or even MOST of the people in the Church (including the leadership!) cannot commit evil or sinful acts (individually or collectively). One need only look at the example of some Renaissance era Popes and Bishops to see that the idea of clerical impeccability is untenable.

Thanks for your response. I wasn’t exactly sure which “category” this fell in, and obviously infallability was not the right one. Maybe it doesn’t fit anywhere specifically, except that it seems to be a problem with the institution that is the Catholic Church. I completely understand that the people in the Church are fallable and make mistakes. But to deliberately HIDE those injustices for whatever reason - the shortage of priests, not wanting to expose wrongdoings of the Church, the holiness of priests - is an enormous concern and speaks volumes about the mentality of the institution. This isn’t “keeping me” from converting, but it is something I continue to think about.

I think I’ll start another thread on this because I really need to hear what can be said about these practices…

 

[rr1213]

Considering that Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, the body of Christ, the only place where the fullness of faith exists, I’d think that heads would have rolled when we saw Bishops hiding the sins of pedophile priests. Afterall, it would be better to be tossed in the lake with a millstone around your neck than to cause one of these little ones to sin. Here, the actions and response by sinful individuals within the Church has stood as an obstacle to many people in accepting the teachings of the Church. Should it have acted as such an obstacle? Theologically, no. In real life, among real people, the answer is different. Unfortunately, the Church has allowed its ministry and teachings to be severely compromised by these people. How many Bishops are sitting in jail today because of their actions or inactions in these matters?

Let me add that I know the problem is not limited to the Catholic Church. Other faiths have had pedophile ministers as well. However, the problem, for whatever reason, seems to be larger in the Catholic Church.

 

[wifrost]

Greetings all,

For the past two years (or so) I have been debating joining the Catholic Church. I was brought up Methodist, but wasn’t confirmed because I didn’t attend enough church services. Then I was an atheist/agnostic until about 3 yrs ago. I moved from one side of my state to the other and knew no one. During that time, for one reason or another, I began to give an ear to God. I ended up finding a website that was from an “undenominational church of christ.” ( I don’t know if any of you are familiar with these churches, but a quick look at www.bible.ca will show you just how “fundamentalist” they are) So I was re-baptized (by immersion) and joined, and was quite happy there for the first few months. Then it began to fall apart when I started reading the history of the church and the church fathers. I tried talking with some friends and the preacher about them, but they wouldn’t hear it. So I ended up leaving after the sola scriptura was easily proven wrong…and also the Real Presence vs Symbolism.

I had been reading on the Eastern Orthodox Church and found one near to me. Actually there were two of them, one was Greek and the other OCA. I wen’t to a few liturgies and very much was moved by the eastern rite, but again, something was missing it seemed.

THEN came Islam. I came across a couple books that tried to prove from the Tradition of the Church (including the Bible) that Islam was right and that all modern Christianity was wrong. I was as close as I think one can be to converting to Islam…really close! I’m thankful that I didn’t, but I don’t regret looking at it…I was and have been after the truth, not just what I want.

As for why I’m not in RCIA right now (which I suppose I should’ve wrote right away instead of my “religious history”), I’m basically doing a review of everything to “make sure” I’m comfortable with making that choice. It’s taken a while, and may still, mostly because of the relativism that seems so spread within the Church. But after being on here and also listening to Relevant Radio, I’ve realized there are plenty of people who are not so passive and do firmly believe they have the fullness of the Christian Faith…no matter what that might mean about other groups. Actually another thing, and this really isn’t a good reason not to join, but I’ve gone to Mass at a local church, and spoke with deacons from other ones, and the “protestant” feel of the Mass at the one I went to, as well as the way the deacons from the other churches spoke about their’s had made me shy away from joining. But I’m moving to a smaller town soon and will go to Mass there and see if it’s full of the same, if it is, then I guess I take a 30 min drive to a small chapel where the Tridentine is celebrated!

So I guess that’s that

 

[Orionthehunter]

Considering that Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, the body of Christ, the only place where the fullness of faith exists, I’d think that heads would have rolled when we saw Bishops hiding the sins of pedophile priests. Afterall, it would be better to be tossed in the lake with a millstone around your neck than to cause one of these little ones to sin. Here, the actions and response by sinful individuals within the Church has stood as an obstacle to many people in accepting the teachings of the Church. Should it have acted as such an obstacle? Theologically, no. In real life, among real people, the answer is different. Unfortunately, the Church has allowed its ministry and teachings to be severely compromised by these people. How many Bishops are sitting in jail today because of their actions or inactions in these matters?

Let me add that I know the problem is not limited to the Catholic Church. Other faiths have had pedophile ministers as well. However, the problem, for whatever reason, **seems to be **larger in the Catholic Church.

But we really don’t know do we? Here is what I know: In my state, there are five clergy in the state pen for a sex crime against a minor. Not one of them is a Catholic Priest.

I don’t want to minimize this scandal. The perpetrators committed evil that “cries to Heaven” and the Bishops who didn’t properly deal with it are do be proportionately admonished and if they did so with intent even punished. But we also need to realize with charity that some of the Bishop’s may not have known enough about pedophilia to take the correct action. Only recently has it become known about the pathology of this depraved sickness.