Apologetics-low level scholarship

[Psalm89]

amarischuk:

I have not, nor will I likely ever, read the Bible cover to cover: that is a protestant thing to do.

I’m sure glad im a Protestant then.

Seriously, if you refuse to read God’s word because it is a Protestant thing to do that is down right silly. Surely the many, many Catholic Saints read the bible cover to cover.

My advice to you is ask youself this:

Is Jesus Lord God?

If the answer is yes, most of your other questions about the bible and church will be answered in time. If the the answer is no then the other questions you have are pointless, because you missed the whole point of Christianity. If you aren’t in agreement that Christ is risen, then everything else truly is academic and makes for some interesting historical reading, but that is all.

1 Corinthians 15

12Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I am sure you have read this before, but do you realize its true importance? You are being distracted by some very learned men writing some good books.

We can debate the duality of the soul/man/heaven until we are blue in the face, but if the resurection isn’t true then it is a waste of time.

Adam, everything that happens in this life (including your questions and crisis of faith) is for one purpose. That purpose is our salvation.

Perhaps you haven’t heard the Gospel in a while, so here it is: You are lost in your sin, but God has saved you through Christ Jesus our Lord. Christ died, for you, for all of the scholars you are reading, everyone. His death and resurrection was for you Adam, personally and out of love. His work allows us to be saved.

1 Corinthians 1
23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

Sometimes “folly” is a wonderful thing.

 

[onaquest]

amarischuk:

. I am not looking for feelings. I admit I am not looking for certainty in any Cartesian sense but I have grown very intellectually disatisfied with Conservative Catholicism, and I was one of the most conservative Catholics on earth for a while.
.

amarischuk–If you were in the seminary responding to God’s call you must be aware that you were a target for temptation.
The evil one knows where to aim-you received joy and happiness in using your intellect-perhaps he took it away.
The use of my intellect is weak-but my feelings are strong-that was where my temptations came that brought about my leaving the monastery–where I was happy. I picked at that happiness and pulled it apart and analyzed it-and doubted it.
I guess I’m just suggesting that you might want to focus on your vocation to the priesthood-exactly as you are right now-this may be a temptation.

 

[marciadietrich]

SteveG - reference Adam's comment on Matthew 7: 13-14:

Narrow is the way you are reading scripture. Do you really think that this is all Christ meant in the passage? Good Lord man! Are you a fundamentalist reading every jot and tittle of the bible in a literast way? Will you do as they do and fire off random, isolated scripture quotes, stripped from the context of the entire gospel to prove how disgusting it is. If you think that all this means to a ‘conservative’ Catholic is that very few people are going to heaven, but lots are going to hell, then you are sadly mistaken. I am not going to do any exegesis on this passage, but I’d advise you that if you do read scripture, you start reading it with some of the low-level scholars like Scott Hahn in order to understand the mind of conservative Catholics. It might also help to start learning a bit about the culture in which these things happened/were said so as not to strip it from that context as well.

Hi Steve,

This post and the one after it are spot on. You can read deep philosophy all day and if you can’t and won’t do the most basic study of scripture what does it get you? These objections to Abraham and the narrow way are very low-level objections. This is like someone who can run a marathon who can’t even walk or crawl when outside of running the race.

Marcia

 

[Stylite]

Sorry for interjecting so late in the thread.

I would recommend any of Fr. William Most’s works. His writing saved me from a similar problem I was having with predestination. His works are very scholarly, though approachable. His book “Free From All Error” deals with all those sticky points of Scripture.

You can find all his stuff on-line at :catholicculture.org/docs/most/browse.cfm

I will pray for you.

-Stylite

 

[Sherlock]

Amarischuk,

You wrote: “I have not, nor will I likely ever, read the Bible cover to cover: that is a protestant thing to do.”

I am a Catholic, and yes, I have read the Bible cover to cover. The idea of dismissing this as “a protestant thing” is such an absurd statement to make, I hardly know what to say…wow. St. Augustine (or was it St. Jerome?) said that “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of God”. And you claim you were in seminary? It’s hard to give that much credibility, given such an statement. What seminary were you in?

I’m afraid that the impression you give is of one who is far more impressed with his own perceived intellectual capabilities than is perhaps healthy. Pride has a way of distorting one’s perceptions…

 

[AaronL]

I have 3 young kids/wife/mortgage. I don’t have time to read the way that should. What is the quote, ‘Idleness is the devil’s workshop’? I may be operating at a “low level scholarship”, but I treasure these forums… I will also pray for Adam.

 

[Les_Richardson]

amarischuk:

Hello everyone,

Before I get into the titled purpose of this thread, allow me a brief introduction please. My name is Adam Marischuk, and I am a very messed up person. I recently withdrew from a seminary near Chicago where I was studying philosophy as a associate (I received a BA from a Canadian University in Medieval History and Medieval English Literature so I only required more philosophy credits).
…
Thank you for hearing my rant and I am interested in hearing other people’s opinions on the subject. Perhaps this doesn’t belong in “apologetics” but then again, perhaps apologetics itself needs an apologist.

Adam,

You could do what I did.
I have a B.A. in philosophy from U. of T. For the past almost 20 years I have been driving a truck. So I’ve had plenty of time to think… and think…and think…
Sometimes I can make ends meet, sometimes I can barely get them to wave at each other.
Eventually, with enough trying, I have had the chance to look Futility full in the face. She’s not pretty. Real ugly, in fact. So much so that about a year ago I finally talked to God, truthfully, from the heart. No pretence, no philosophy, just an absolute fear that He might not want to talk to me after all those years.
Guess what? He answered. And the Holy Spirit showed me just what I was. Not pretty either. But I found mercy, forgiveness and faith, independent of apologetics.

I wouldn’t recommend it, but you could do what I did.

---

May God grant us wisdom to go with our knowledge.

 

[amarischuk]

Sometimes dialogue and debate are enjoyable and one get’s wrapped up in them…I will pray for such.

I also enjoy debates for their own sake, and thank you for the prayers.

Apologies for starting on the wrong foot.

No need to apologize, but I had noticed that this thread was getting a little too person (on my part as well). It seems from the very beginning ad hominem attacks were the norm. I loose my faith (in a manner of speaking) and suddenly there must be something wrong with the authors I am reading or something wrong with me. I must be too self-absorbed or intellectual or proud…

Let us try to keep this cordial. Some of my best friends are atheists and agnostics and Baptists, yet we manage to remain friends, not only despite, but I like to think BECAUSE of, our differences.

For YOU to accuse me of name dropping is nothing short of ironic. … And I suppose it’s fine that you can refer me to Boadt, Brown & Senior,

My apologies, but given that I have mentioned Boadt’s book “Reading the Old Testament” in this thread, and there is a specific thread dealing with Brown (“The Jerome Biblical Commentary”) I assumed that you would have understood my reference. Ironically, the only book of the three that I have in front of me right now is Donald Senior’s “The Catholic Study Bible”, which I thought to be a very well renowned book.

Essentially my argument will borrow from these scholars along with the traditional view of Aquinas and Kierkegaard for the Lutheran perspective. But to call my reading “narrow” is useless, unless you are willing to ascribe the definition “narrow reading” to the angelic doctor of the Church.

I would love to quote you more often but please allow me to summarize your argument. A great deal of your “contextualizing” to make Abraham more sympathetic has missed the point. Whether Abraham performed the task happily or hesitantly with “Fear and Trembling” (from which Kierkegaard derives the title of his book on the subject) is irrelevant. Surely Abraham’s hesitation to execute Isaac would reduce his own culpability; however, the objective disorder of killing the innocent remains. The problem I have with the passage is the demand of God and the valuation of the faith of Abraham. Kierkegaard calls this the teleological suspension of the ethical (ethics is suspended for a purpose, an end) while Lutheranism and Ockhamism might fall back on divine command theory of ethics (an action is not wrong in itself but is wrong only according to the arbitrary will of God). This plainly contradicts Aquinas’ ethics and Aquinas struggles with the passage.

 

[amarischuk]

The argument that Abraham (and I suppose Isaac had such faith, see the Chester cycle Corpus Christi play “Abraham and Isaac”) had faith that Isaac would be raised from the dead (as stated in Hebrews) is similarly contrary to Aquinas’ moral teaching and contemporary Catholic ethics. It is never lawful to perform an evil act, regardless of the goodness of the end; the end does not justify the means. I can not go around murdering people and then claiming it is okay because they will be in heaven with God. Aquinas recognized this and that is why he attempts to make his interpretation fit with Natural Law (though he fails). My reading might be narrow, but it is the reading of Aquinas and Kierkegaard.

Furthermore, there is no mention of any resurrection so early in scripture. There is in fact no evidence that Abraham believed in any resurrection. Immortality for Abraham is to be the father of a great nation: no resurrection, no heaven. Hebrew’s reading is clearly anachronistic.

The confidence of Abraham that Isaac would be spared, or raised from the dead IMMEDIATELY was clear in his words to the servants in vs. 5

There seems to be no evidence that Abraham thought Isaac would be spared, otherwise Abraham would have essentially believed that God is a liar, (“Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him as a holocaust…” Gen. 22: 2) or that God can change his mind (a serious anthropomorphism hardly congenial to the omniscient creator of the universe, but at least consistent with other parts of the Old Testament). But this narrative is not itself consistent.

Sadly, there is a marked shift in the text at that point which negates your comment about the both of them returning. You will hopefully recall that the Pentateuch is a composition of four sources, the Yahwist, the Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic.

Aside: I might as well state that I do not hold to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch in any strict sense and even the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) dedicates a lengthy section of the article on the Pentateuch to Wellhausen’s hypothesis which has gain even more credence since 1913. Furthermore, the Pontifical Biblical Commission back in 1906 accepts the criticism of OT scholars

The question was whether in the first five books of the Old Testament we absolutely must hold that Moses either wrote each and every thing with his own hand or dictated them to scribes. The Commision’s answer, given on June 27, 1906, was no.

https://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=216&ChapNum=4

 

[amarischuk]

Anyways, you will note that in the passage, at verse one God is called God (Elohim) while later God is called Lord (Yahovah/Yahweh- translated Adonai-Lord). This has led scholars to conclude that this passage (much like the two creation narratives and the case of Noah boarding the arc with 2/7 animals) is a combination of various sources (Yahwist and Elohist in this case).

Along with this we note that in verse 19: “Abraham then returned to his servants, and they set out together for Beer-sheba, where Abraham made his home.” (notice only Abraham is said to have returned). These two factors (two sources and only Abraham returning in the Yahwist source) has led some scholars to conclude that in the Yahwist source Abraham actually does kill Isaac and offers him on the alter as burnt offering.

But whether Abraham thought God was a liar, or could change his mind or a tyrant who demands Isaac’s death only then to raise him immediately hardly helps your argument. My argument is that the God presented in the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament is not a pleasant God but one demanding blind obedience.

Essentially what we have in Genesis (especially the J source ripe with anthropomorphisms) is God behaving as a tyrant. But truly this is only one weak example. Two much more powerful examples are the ban (Deuteronomy 7) in the book of Joshua or in the book of Samuel, “This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.” (I Sam 15, 2-3) That is really nice, God ordering the murder of children and infants according to “inspired” and “infallible” scripture.

Or look at the dealings of the three kings Saul, David and Solomon. Saul looses God’s favour for sparing Agag, David murders Uriah and sleeps with his wife but its okay after a little repenting. Solomon looses God’s favour because he intermarried and his wives turned his heart to false Gods. As our theology professor at the seminary explained: there are some sins that cannot be forgiven in the Old Testament (all three men repented), it is much worse to disobey God than murder and commit adultery. Obedience is the message, and even blind obedience, especially when it comes to sparing oxen for a holocaust (I Sam 15: 19-20). I will not worship this God.

 

[amarischuk]

The old theology is quickly passing away" is an absurd statement. How do you measure that? By the Catechism? You mention some geezer theologians, but don’t quote them.

Okay, firstly let us look at the sacramental statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI

And Aquinas: (De Malo, Q. v, a. 3) and (In II Sent., dist. XXXIII, Q. ii, a. 5) States that unbaptized infants are excluded from the beatific vision.

Yet now the CCC 1261 states: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God”. The necessity of baptism, under any form (water, desire, fire), is no longer a requirement for salvation, mostly thanks to Karl Rahner’s “anonymous Christians”.

But the old theology has suffered more from an almost laughable clinging to a literal reading of the fall, including monogenism or even more conservative theologians hold that even transformism is contrary to the faith: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html

As to the theologians, I used their books on a course in Sacraments at the seminary (all but Dulles, who was quoted in Noll I think regarding the death of both the sacral model of the priesthood and the ministerial model; suggesting a ‘representational model’, perhaps check out Edward Schillebeeckx’s book on ministry http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_5/104-3337664-5324723?v=glance&s=books ).

 

[amarischuk]

Their books are:

Raymond Noll: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/104-3337664-5324723?v=glance&s=books

Keenan Osborne: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_4/104-3337664-5324723?v=glance&s=books

Bernard Cooke: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...gy_img_2/104-3337664-5324723?v=glance&s=books

William Bausch: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_7/104-3337664-5324723?v=glance&s=books

And I have heard of Archbishop Schonborn and Ratzinger (in fact, the young Ratzinger has some articles in Karl Rahner’s Sacramentum Mundi…but as Kung said, sold his head for a red hat).

You probably need to read more of the “old theology” than what appeared in the most basic manuals.

Strange, but I actually went and bought the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, along with Anton Pegis’ collection of Aquinas’ writings, Walter Farrell’s Companion to the Summa, I own Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers etc. Even the Karl Rahner and Yves Congar books I have have Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats dating to pre-VII days. I would hazard a guess that I have read more of the old theology and old philosophy than most. In fact just two days ago I bought (and read, it is only just over 100 pages) Charles Coppens SJ’s “Brief History of Philosophy” (1909). I keep my friends close and my enemies even closer.

 

[amarischuk]

Firstly, I have read that in fact his exposure to married life was quite extensive. He formed his Theology of the Body based in part on extensive dealings and friendships he had with faithful, married Catholics living in Poland during his time as both priest and Bishop.

Your list of the Popes accomplishments is impressive; however, the current pope wrote “Love and Responsibility” in 1960 and wasn’t made Bishop (Archbishop of Krakow, he was auxiliary bishop 1958) until 1964. Your numbers simply don’t add up as his “Theology of the Body” was essentially formed prior to his fortieth birthday. And I would argue that given the present Catholic Church’s emphasis on the importance of parents in formation and rearing of children, Karol Wojtyla was serious disadvantaged and isolated from married and family life as his mother died early, he was essentially an only child and his father died when he was 20.

was ordained a priest when doing so could have cost him his life,

Oh, and he was ordained in 1946, after the war and though there were restrictions on the number of priests ordained, it hardly would have “cost him his life” anymore than simply going to Mass could cost any Pole his or her life.

Your right to say that an unmarried person can give advice on such things

So you concede the point.

 

[amarischuk]

You’d have to explain how the Natural Law arguments have failed? You throw out a lot of vague comments like that out without a bit of evidence or argument.

Well, I think that all I would need to do to show that Natural Law theories concerning contraception (those espoused in Humane Vitae) are not satisfactory would be to quote the most eminent and conservative Catholic philosopher of the 20th century, the late Jacques Maritain:

“In November, Maritain wrote from Princeton concerning his notes on birth control: “It is enormous for me that you do not judge them to be heretical. I know that Casti connubii has an entirely different ring to it. But precisely, if I am right (or better, if we are right) it must be said that this question offers another of those tragic examples where the church defends a truth by blockading it with ways of thinking that simple human experience has left way behind (a l’aveuglette) [that is, like a blind man feeling his way in the dark]. The day when the church would admit such techniques as we are speaking about, nothing would have been changed in its doctrine, but those souls whom the church has completely and fundamentally mobilized against every idea of any technique whatsoever of this kind and in behalf of a philosophy of procreation without any control of reason will understand nothing about this whole question” (III, 985).

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_10_128/ai_75445694

That is why, in my opinion the Pope has altered the traditional argument from the natural law theory to Pope John Paul II’s own blend of Thomism, personalism and phenomenalism.

I have heard numerous Christopher West tapes and I have not been impressed. But his name was just mentioned in passing while my real qualm has been with Germain Grisez’s new ethical system found in his trilogy “The Way of the Lord Jesus” which attempts to replace Thomistic natural law. But what is saddest about the whole Humani Vitae thing is that the rather brilliant Paul VI wrote seven encyclicals between June 1963 and July 1968 (Humani Vitae was his last) but not another encyclical as pope until his death in August 1978. One can only wonder why poor Paul VI didn’t write after Humani Vitae.

 

[amarischuk]

And as for contraception being a teaching struggling to find justification. The slow death of Europe (due to abysmal birth rates), the breakdown of sexual mores which conincided with acceptence of contraception, and the linkage (even by our supreme court) to abortion as 'back up contraception (thanks Sandra Day O’Conner), are making the case nicely for the justification of the teaching. Again if you have something real or specific to say here, then say it, and leave the sweeping judgements aside.

As someone who has been involved in pro-life for a number of years, including getting into a published debate with the head of planned parenthood British Columbia while at University, I find those arguments ridiculously bad. To blame contraception for the low birthrates is an invalid argument. Other nations with relatively high birthrates have just as much access to contraception. And the breakdown of sexual mores coinciding with the acceptance of contraception is just that a coincidence. To quote the Simpson’s “Did you know that there has been a direct correlation between the decline of ‘spirograph’ and the rise of urban gang activity? Think about it.” The same (weak) argument could be made against industrialization and higher education.

The only way that the pro-life movement will ever affect the legislative system is if it distances itself from such weak arguments and concentrates on the one important argument, the fact that the unborn foetus is indeed a individual human being deserving all the rights and protection of other persons under the constitution (or in Canada the charter of rights and freedoms). Arguments for sustainable birthrates are a two edged sword as the same arguments can be used in favor of abortion in over-populated regions.

 

[amarischuk]

Appendix I: Georeaquinas

We still haven’t heard from you in regards to the root of the criticism that you are making.

And yet you have not provided a sound definition of faith.

My critical approach is nothing other than the evaluation of both the internal coherence and external correspondence of a philosophy with reality. If you are asking my philosophic bend, I am an Thomistic empiricist and dislike Platonist rationalist in all its forms, be they Plotinian, Augustinian, Cartesian, Hegelian, or Santayanian.

However, historical criticiam is of utmost importance as well as the importance of the physical sciences informing all philosophical and theological notions.

Appendix II: re Sacred Scripture

When I said reading the Bible cover to cover was a protestant thing to do I was joking. However, I do not think that reading the Bible cover to cover is productive us of ones time nor is it essential to being familiar with sacred scripture. I would rate reading the Bible cover to cover up with reading the dictionary cover to cover, which is definitively not essential for a knowledge of the English language. The Bible is not one consistent narrative and the decontextualized reading of scripture can in fact lead to more problems than it can resolve, which would explain the 10,000+ Protestant sects in the world.

 

[amarischuk]

Appendix III: re Fr. Most
Interesting but the seminary where I studied at (which I choose not to name out of respect for the seminary) is located very near where Fr. Most taught, Loras College Dubuque Iowa (near New Melleray Trappist Abbey). I even have a t-shirt from Loras College.

I have never read much of Most for a number of reasons. Firstly, he is definitively over-rated. The fact that his books are published by TAN (the Jack Chick of Catholic publications) is not a good indicator.

This said, he is obviously a well schooled and fairly universally educated man.

But in interest to my “narrow reading” of Abraham and Isaac, let’s look at Fr. Most and his agreement with me on the subject:

The sacrifice of Isaac: God called Abraham again, and this time ordered him to offer his dear son Isaac as a holocaust on a mountain which He would point out to him.

Human sacrifice was known among other nearby peoples, but not officially among the Jews, though some Jews especially later, did sacrifice their children. Yet Abraham without hesitation did start out. He might well have said: I know you told me and I must believe I will be the father of a great people through Isaac - but now you order me to kill him in sacrifice before the promise can begin to be realized.

Genesis gives no hint of the age of Isaac at this point. Josephus, Antiquities 1.13 says Isaac was 35. He has Isaac give a generous speech of acceptance before walking to the altar. Some later rabbis suggested rather late figures. The Epistle to the Hebrews (11.17-19) says Abraham believed God could raised up Isaac from the dead. The fact that Hebrews says this is not conclusive, for it is clear that the genre of Hebrews is homiletic, which easily includes a fanciful thought. The OT gives no mention of a resurrection so early… This is a magnificent instance of the faith of Abraham - he believed God, he had confidence in Him, He obeyed.

This was a faith that worked in the dark, that is, God put Abraham into a position where it seemed impossible to obey without giving up faith in the early promise. Many times in the Scriptures God does put people in the dark, insisting on something that is impossible. It is not that God is pleased with difficulty as such. Rather, faith given when it seems impossible to believe, to be confident, to obey- - in it the exertion of human will is at the maximum. For our only free power is the will: If we could make it match he will of God even when that seems impossible, then there is either a tremendous act of will/faith or there is a failure and refusal.

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=81

 

[amarischuk]

We can see from Abraham what faith is. It includes belief and confidence- -when told to go to a strange land. it includes especially obedience, in spite of all Abraham did obey God.

When Abraham was age 99 and his wife Sarah was 90 – and had been sterile all her lifetime God spoke again to Abraham, told him next year Sarah would have a son, Isaac, and through him would become father of a great people. Again, in spite of sterility of Sarah and his age, Abraham believed. Again he is just before God.

At that point Abraham could have reasonably reminded God that he was required to believe he would be the father of a great people through Isaac, and yet as told to kill him in sacrifice before the process started. But Abraham as it were held on in the dark, i.e., he believed when it seemed impossible. He just went ahead. At the critical moment God sent an angel to stop the sacrifice, and provided a ram in the bushes to be used in place of Isaac.

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=14

We note that Most emphasizes the faith/obedience and even what Kierkegaard might call the teleological suspension of the ethical along with a mention of Abraham having no faith in the resurrection. Essentially Most says exactly what I said and Aquinas said and Kierkegaard said; which I take issue with. The suspension of reason and the intellect in order to have faith/obey.

Which brings me back to a definition of faith which no one has provided yet.

Thank you for your time,

Adam Marischuk

 

[OseeMe]

Just remember, evil comes in various forms. Satan, being the ultimate deceiver, and eminently more intelligent than all humans past, present, and future combined, will use logic and light(truth) mixed with subtle error to confuse those of us who might not be predisposed to keeping up with utilizing the sacraments, devotional prayer for spiritual protection and solid Catholic sources to learn about the most important Truth we have an obligation as Christians to pursue the understanding of, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I suggest that you might, as an act of the will, force yourself to engage more in Mass attendance, frequent confession, and further your efforts to engage in daily devotional prayer in the presence of the Lord in the form of perpetual adoration, if you can, or just in the pews in front of the tabernacle to regain a connection again to the Lord with a plea for protection from these attacks of doubt induced by the confusion brought on by your studies of these authors who compelled you to rethink your Faith. You might want to continue that course of action on a regular basis *(as we all should)*in order to strengthen yourself to better be able to discern anymore writings that tend to question the efficacy of remaining in or considering the conversion to the Catholic Faith.

Through Him
With Him
In Him

 

[OseeMe]

Just remember, evil comes in various forms. Satan, being the ultimate deceiver, and eminently more intelligent than all humans past, present, and future combined, will use logic and light(truth) mixed with subtle error to confuse those of us who might not be predisposed to keeping up with utilizing the sacraments, devotional prayer for spiritual protection and solid Catholic sources to learn about the most important Truth we have an obligation as Christians to pursue the understanding of, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I suggest that you might, as an act of the will, force yourself to engage more in Mass attendance, frequent confession, and further your efforts to engage in daily devotional prayer in the presence of the Lord in the form of perpetual adoration, if you can, or just in the pews in front of the tabernacle to regain a connection again to the Lord with a plea for protection from these attacks of doubt induced by the confusion brought on by your studies of these authors who compelled you to rethink your Faith. You might want to continue that course of action on a regular basis *(as we all should)*in order to strengthen yourself to better be able to discern anymore writings that tend to question the efficacy of remaining in or considering the conversion to the Catholic Faith.

Through Him
With Him
In Him