Don’t worry Matt, you put me in my place. There will be no further discussion.
Hey auctoris,
I wanted to give my understanding of the point della and matt are making, and I hope it helps you understand their views. This is how I now understand Catholicism after a few months of struggling to get it.
Like you, I recently went through a period of discernment. I was a poorly catechized and lapsed cradle Catholic seeking anew. I had fond memories of the Church unlike some ex-Catholics. I loved the saints, I loved the Marian devotions, the sacred spaces and the liturgies. And so coming back to the Church seemed like the natural thing for me.
But that stuff is all, shall we say, the accidents of the Faith. You can think the natural law is a great piece of philosophy - that doesn’t make you Catholic. You can want to pray the rosary all the time - that doesn’t make you Catholic. You can see the appeal of Apostolic succession - that doesn’t make you Catholic.
The core of the Catholicism, I think, is summed up in the affirmation of faith
I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.
To be a Catholic is accept that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit and and whose teaching authority comes from Christ.
You ask how is that different than accepting the Quran? Well, I say, how is being Muslim different from being Christian? In the very bottom of it all, it’s faith. For a Protestant, that faith might be in the Bible directly, but for a Catholic the foundation of faith is acceptance of the Church as the Church founded by Jesus. Do you accept that proposition or not?
So, to be a Catholic isn’t a question of whether you can go down a list of the dogmas and accept them one by one. What if tomorrow the pope declares another dogma? Would you stop being Catholic until you figured out if you accepted it now? Not if you hold the position that you believe and profess what the Church teaches.
Catholicism isn’t a blind faith. Rather, it subscribes to the the idea of “faith seeking understanding”. You have faith first, then you seek to understand why the Church is right.
So the orthodox Catholic position on inquiry is more along the lines of “I know that this true because the Church has so taught me. Let me understand why it is so.” An Aquinas can try to deconstruct all the teachings to get at the reason they are true, but he does so always in the context of already trusting their veracity.
I think this is the point the posters are trying to make in calling your manner of thinking Protestant rather than Catholic. To convert to Catholicism means to accept the Church is guided by God and is right. Period. The understanding comes second, not first.
If you are at a place where you aren’t approaching the questions from the Catholic position, then you aren’t ready to be Catholic yet. Loving the trappings of Catholicism, or its accidents, aren’t what makes a Catholic.
I hope that helps.
