Choosing a Faith

[christian2112]

I was baptized Greek Orthodox as an infant and attended that church for a number of years in my childhood before switching to a few non-denominational churches for another period of my childhood. Now, I am at a period of having to choose a faith for my adult life. I am considering everything, and of course no search for a denomination can exclude the largest and most historically important denomination of all. My father grew up as a Catholic, as did my grandfather, who is the most devout Christian I have ever met and who had a vision of Jesus a few years back. Furthermore, I greatly respect more Catholics than can be named, i.e. St. Aquinas, St. Francis, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Francis who I believe is giving the papacy an insurgence of humility. Who can deny these mens’ contributions to Christianity or the Catholic Church’s work for the poor and missionary work throughout the world? For these reasons, I greatly respect this denomination of Christianity. However, I feel that I honestly identify much more with Orthodox theology, and am greatly troubled by some Catholic teachings. I feel that Purgatory is unsupported biblically and against Christ’s teaching of forgiveness and eternal life for believing in him; I feel that the Immaculate Conception of Mary goes deeply against the core of Christianity that only Jesus is perfect as she is only human; I do not agree with the classification of certain sins as “moral” or “venial” because such a classification is non-biblical; I do not believe that Catholics are right in preventing priests from marriage, as the first Pope, Saint Peter; and I do not believe that any human is infallible, including the Pope, just as I earlier mentioned that no human can be perfect. I also think that, while the Catholic Church’s history of egregious corruption (see Pope Alexander VI) is not applicable today, the Orthodox Church’s theological purity and absence of such corruption add up to make it more of a “true church” than anything else. As I read in an Orthodox pamphlet, the Catholics added to the true faith, and the Protestants subtracted from it. Having said all of this, which is truly not meant to be incendiary but only informative about my views, am I not suited for Catholicism because of these differences, or is there a way for me to overcome them? I want to make sure that I give the Catholic Church an even platform with the other denominations, and I hope that these responses will giver me a wider perspective. Thanks!

 

[bzkoss236]

Let’s try to go through this little by little.

I feel that Purgatory is unsupported biblically and against Christ’s teaching of forgiveness and eternal life for believing in him;

First, purgatory has nothing to do with forgiveness. Purgatory is a purification of any remaining uncleanliness before entering heaven. In the Book of Revelation we read that nothing unclean can enter heaven. Can you rightly say that someone who is still inclined to sin or still has some attachment to sin is clean?

Here’s more info on purgatory:
catholic.com/tracts/purgatory
scripturecatholic.com/purgatory_qa.html
catholic.com/tracts/the-roots-of-purgatory#.UG0wOE2HIhw
aboutcatholics.com/life_in_christ/explaining_purgatory/
aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/where-is-purgatory-in-the-bible/

I feel that the Immaculate Conception of Mary goes deeply against the core of Christianity that only Jesus is perfect as she is only human;

How so? Yes she is Human, and the concept of the Immaculate Conception is only possible because of Jesus. His death on the cross was applied to Mary at her conception, even though in earthly time it hadn’t happened yet, in the eternity in which God resides (outside of time), it will, it has, and will continue to happen, so He can apply the effects of the death and resurrection of Christ whenever He wants (think of Elijah being taken up to heaven in the OT; entering heaven is not possible without Jesus’ death on the cross).

More about the Immaculate Conception:
catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Immaculate_Conception
catholic.com/magazine/articles/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

I do not agree with the classification of certain sins as “moral” or “venial” because such a classification is non-biblical;

This is completely unfounded…

[BIBLEDRB]1 John 5:16-17[/BIBLEDRB]

“unto death”/“death” i.e. mortal

I do not believe that Catholics are right in preventing priests from marriage

Priests are not prevented from marrying. It is just that unmarried seminarians who have chosen to take the vow of celibacy are chosen for the priesthood. It is a discipline and can change, but, both Christ and St. Paul emphasize that those who can be celibate should do so. They both also emphasize how those who remain celibate to do God’s work are not distracted with worldly things (i.e. they can spend more time focusing on the work of God).

More on priestly celibacy:
catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

 

[josephback]

From my understanding, there aren’t really that many substantive theological differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I’d also be skeptical that orthodoxy’s past is entirely free from corrupt practices in its human element.

 

[bzkoss236]

as the first Pope, Saint Peter; and I do not believe that any human is infallible, including the Pope, just as I earlier mentioned that no human can be perfect.

Infallibility doesn’t mean perfect. This shows how you do not understand what the charism of infallibility is. Would you say that the Gospel writers, or the writers of the epistles, or the OT writers were perfect? No, they certainly weren’t. However, we do consider scripture to be infallible, correct? Just as the Holy Spirit can guide those persons in the writing of scripture, so can the Holy Spirit guide the Pope, the bishops, and the entire Church in the keeping of Sacred Tradition. Also, we don’t necessarily say the person of the Pope is infallible, but the office itself. And the Pope is very limited in his abilities to proclaim something as infallible.

What is infallibility? Does this mean they can’t do something wrong? No, that is not what it means. It simply means that what they say on a matter of faith or morals (if it fits other qualifications) is truth that is revealed by the Holy Spirit and is therefore infallible.

More on infallibility and the Pope:
catholic.com/tracts/peter-and-the-papacy
catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock
catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome
catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

I also think that, while the Catholic Church’s history of egregious corruption (see Pope Alexander VI) is not applicable today, the Orthodox Church’s theological purity and absence of such corruption add up to make it more of a “true church” than anything else. As I read in an Orthodox pamphlet, the Catholics added to the true faith, and the Protestants subtracted from it.

I’ll let someone more informed on Eastern Orthodoxy to comment on this. But I will say that since the Church is build on sinful people, controversy and corruption is bound to be seen, otherwise the Church would always have been united and never split. But since there have been splits throughout history, you have to put research into which closely matches the structure and beliefs of the early Church before the splits. Part of this can be done by looking at what the Early Church Fathers taught. Granted, the Orthodox are likely to interpret or understand some things the Church Fathers have said differently than Catholics (which is part of why there is still division between them).

I wish you good luck and my prayers for your journey.

 

[christian2112]

Bzkoss236, I appreciate your detailed response and I feel that it gave me a better understanding of the Catholic stance on these issues.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Hi christian2112,

It sounds like you are wanting to look at this objectively. Good. Your remarks reveal, however, a strong bias to “scripture alone.” Probably you picked this up from the non-denominational communities you attended, but “scripture alone” is itself “non-biblical,” and in fact anti-biblical (II Thes. 2:15).

And not to be incendiary either, but the history of the Orthodox is not as pristine as you think. I only single them out because you describe their history specifically as “pure” and “without corruption” (as opposed to the Catholic Church’s). In fact no religion has only good leaders and members. Our Church has had great sinners, true, but what Church has had so many great saints?

You will find plenty of apologists on here ready to defend and explain Tradition, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, et al., but keep the following in mind. Christianity is a revealed religion. We believe it not because we figured it out, not because the knowledge was infused, but because we were taught. “How shall they hear without a preacher…” (Rom. 10:14)

 

[bben15]

I was baptized Greek Orthodox as an infant and attended that church for a number of years in my childhood before switching to a few non-denominational churches for another period of my childhood. Now, I am at a period of having to choose a faith for my adult life. I am considering everything, and of course no search for a denomination can exclude the largest and most historically important denomination of all. My father grew up as a Catholic, as did my grandfather, who is the most devout Christian I have ever met and who had a vision of Jesus a few years back. Furthermore, I greatly respect more Catholics than can be named, i.e. St. Aquinas, St. Francis, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Francis who I believe is giving the papacy an insurgence of humility. Who can deny these mens’ contributions to Christianity or the Catholic Church’s work for the poor and missionary work throughout the world? For these reasons, I greatly respect this denomination of Christianity. However, I feel that I honestly identify much more with Orthodox theology, and am greatly troubled by some Catholic teachings. I feel that Purgatory is unsupported biblically and against Christ’s teaching of forgiveness and eternal life for believing in him; I feel that the Immaculate Conception of Mary goes deeply against the core of Christianity that only Jesus is perfect as she is only human; I do not agree with the classification of certain sins as “moral” or “venial” because such a classification is non-biblical; I do not believe that Catholics are right in preventing priests from marriage, as the first Pope, Saint Peter; and I do not believe that any human is infallible, including the Pope, just as I earlier mentioned that no human can be perfect. I also think that, while the Catholic Church’s history of egregious corruption (see Pope Alexander VI) is not applicable today, the Orthodox Church’s theological purity and absence of such corruption add up to make it more of a “true church” than anything else. As I read in an Orthodox pamphlet, the Catholics added to the true faith, and the Protestants subtracted from it. Having said all of this, which is truly not meant to be incendiary but only informative about my views, am I not suited for Catholicism because of these differences, or is there a way for me to overcome them? I want to make sure that I give the Catholic Church an even platform with the other denominations, and I hope that these responses will giver me a wider perspective. Thanks!

I feel that Purgatory is unsupported biblically and against Christ’s teaching of forgiveness and eternal life for believing in him

Purgatory is clearly supported in the Book of 2 Maccabees, Chapter 12, Verse 46. “Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from sin.” Also, how would someone enter heaven if they still have sin on their soul? They must be purified of it.

I feel that the Immaculate Conception of Mary goes deeply against the core of Christianity that only Jesus is perfect as she is only human

How could have Mary been raised into heaven if she had original sin on her?

I do not agree with the classification of certain sins as “moral” or “venial” because such a classification is non-biblical

The distinction between mortal and venial sin is supported by 1 John 5:16-17. “If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

I do not believe that Catholics are right in preventing priests from marriage, as the first Pope, Saint Peter

The Orthodox Church doesn’t allow its priests to get married. Also, the Catholic Church allows former Anglican priests that are married to be ordained. Married men are also ordained in the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

I do not believe that any human is infallible, including the Pope, just as I earlier mentioned that no human can be perfect

Our Lord made Peter the first Pope. He made him the leader of the Church and the apostles. This means that infallibility was passed onto Peter. But, how could the Church have survived if the Popes succeeding him were not infallible also? So therefore, infallibility was passed onto the office of the Papacy, not just Peter himself.

I also think that, while the Catholic Church’s history of egregious corruption (see Pope Alexander VI) is not applicable today, the Orthodox Church’s theological purity and absence of such corruption add up to make it more of a “true church” than anything else.

You shouldn’t judge the Church based on how corrupt it is or was. You should base it solely on doctrine. When you consider the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the differences aren’t great.

If you want to convert to Catholicism, you only need to make a profession of faith, since you have already received baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist. You can make this profession of faith in front of any Catholic priest. You would become a Greek Catholic.

 

[CrispSnowflake]

Well if you want to be Orthodox if it brings you closer to Jesus, go ahead. In the end, it’s your relationship with Christ that matters. :] Besides, Orthodoxy is similar to Catholicism.

 

[Canuck000]

Here is a book to read: Rome Sweet Home, by Scott Hahn.
This book is about a Presbyterian Minister and his spouse. It’s a short read, but packed with all of the answers to your questions by a couple whom had all of those questions, and how they overcame it all to finally understand the Catholicism is really the right direction. Once you understand those answers, your obstacles are totally removed.
I am a new Catholic as of this past Easter, and coming from an anglican, then presbyterian background, I totally understand why you have questions.
Read this book, then come back. I’d love to hear your replies. You’re welcome to PM me also.
God Bless you, as your journey is starting, and you are searching.

 

[jen197577]

Contact a priest from the Byzantine Catholic Church and discuss your views. I think this may a home for you.

blessings,

 

[RoseMary131]

I was baptized Greek Orthodox … switching to a few non-denominational churches …, I am at a period of having to choose a faith

How have you looked into all the areas you mention that you disagree with or basically don’t understand on the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Are you asking members on CAF to answer all your “disagreements” or lack of knowledge on the topics?

What books have you read on the subjects?

If you want to gain knowledge for your own understanding as you make your own faith journey… look for books by Scott Hahn or Patrick Madrid.

Try this series of Beginning Apologetics, catholiccompany.com/beginning-apologetics-1-how-to-explain-defend-catholic-faith-p1111251/

Try the Surprised by Truth Series.

Walking your own journey brings you more insight than listing a long litany of why you disagree with the Catholic Church.

Always pray before beginning your studies. Pray for wisdom, faith, understanding, and Truth.

Peace.

 

[runningdude]

The Catholic Church holds the teachings and traditions of the Orthodox in great regard.

Members of the Orthodox Churches who join the Catholic Church, actually do so through autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches that hold the same beliefs and teachings as the Orthodox Churches.

Being raised as a Greek Orthodox has strongly influenced how you identify and relate to God. The next step for you as you inquire into the Catholic faith is to find a Greek Catholic Church or appropriate Byzantine Rite church nearby, and ask about classes for conversion so that you may learn more about the faith. Typically, one may take these classes without obligation to convert, so that if the classes do not address your concerns, you’re not “stuck” disappointing anyone by backing out.

 

[pablope]

I was baptized Greek

For these reasons, I greatly respect this denomination of Christianity. However, I feel that I honestly identify much more with Orthodox theology, and am greatly troubled by some Catholic teachings.

Are you aware that the Greek Orthodox and the Catholic were one, united Church prior to the Great Schism of 1054?

They share many of the same beliefs.

I feel that Purgatory is unsupported biblically and against Christ’s teaching of forgiveness and eternal life for believing in him;

I suggest that you read about exactly what purgatory is…and you might change your perspective…catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0091.html

I feel that the Immaculate Conception of Mary goes deeply against the core of Christianity that only Jesus is perfect as she is only human;

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm23.htm

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION DEFINED BY PIUS IX
Pope John Paul II

I do not believe that Catholics are right in preventing priests from marriage, as the first Pope, Saint Peter;

Are you aware, there also celibate priests in the Orthodox? And Orthodox bishops come only from the celibate priests?

The Gift: A Married Priest Looks at Celibacy…holyspiritinteractive.org/library/891

And, have you read what St. paul talked about being celibate:

1cor 7:

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Having said all of this, which is truly not meant to be incendiary but only informative about my views, am I not suited for Catholicism because of these differences, or is there a way for me to overcome them? I want to make sure that I give the Catholic Church an even platform with the other denominations, and I hope that these responses will giver me a wider perspective. Thanks!

Yes, you certainly can. There are those before you who had undergone the same journey…and you can learn from them too:

chnetwork.org/2011/05/father-raymond-ryland-on-whose-authority/

On Whose Authority? – Conversion Story of Father Raymond

catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter-and-the-eastern-orthodox

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/1ORTHO.htm

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I do not believe that any human is infallible, including the Pope, just as I earlier mentioned that no human can be perfect.s!

Infallible in the Catholic sense means ‘to teach no error’. It’s not a magical trait conferred upon the Pope when he becomes Pope.

Catholics do not believe the Pope is perfect. He still sins. You may be confusing impeccability (unable to sin) with infallibility (teach no error). Jesus is the only impeccable human being in history and in the future.

So what do Catholics mean when they describe the Pope as being infallible? First of all the below circumstances MUST exist for a Pope’s statement to be declared as infallible:

1. He has to be teaching from the Seat of Peter AND;
2. He has to be teaching about Faith and Morals ONLY (i.e. Doctrine).

This is usually done publically.

Unless the above two conditions are met whatever the Pope states cannot be construed as an ‘infallible statement’. For example:

If the Pope says it will rain tomorrow, that is not an infallible statement.
If the Pope speaks to an audience at a university, that is not an infallible statement.
If the Pope predicts that Germany will win the next soccer World Cup competition, that is not an infallible statement.
If the Pope declares that all Catholics wear purple on Mondays, that is not an infallible statement.

When the Magisterium (Pope and Bishops) formulate Doctrine they are guided by the Holy Spirit when interpreting those verses that formulate those Doctrines. When the Pope declares those Doctrines publically under the two conditions noted above that is considered an ‘infallible statement’.

Protestants also consider themselves, their Pastor or church leaders as ‘infallible’ (unable to teach error) when they interpret bible verses to formulate their own doctrines. They sincerely believe the Holy Spirit is guiding their Pastor, Preacher, Vicar, Elders of their church or in some cases individuals in their interpretation of Sacred Scripture. They sincerely believe their doctrines are infallible. Otherwise there would be no point. We all believe our individual or ‘church’ interpretation of the Bible is ‘infallible’ (teaching without error)

 

[christian2112]

Seeing as how this has become quite one-sided, I will contribute the non-Catholic side to these arguments. First of all, I think that that verse from 2 Maccabees, the only semi-biblical/Apocryphal verse I’ve ever seen even come close to justifying Purgatory, is quite weak evidence. To go against the fact that Jesus repeatedly speaks of belief justifying eternal life, in other words the purification of the soul by the blood of Christ, should require more evidence than a quote about how Jesus was saving the people, like Moses and Abraham, who were to enter heaven but first needed his sacrifice. If anyone disputes that more is needed for purification than the blood of our Savior, I would dispute that. Also, what about the case of the penitent thief? Crucified next to Christ, this self-admitted thief probably committed thousands of unrepented “mortal sins” and would be first in line to go to Purgatory. Yet Christ said that he would be with him that very day in Paradise, not after a stint in Purgatory. As to marriage, I agree that the quote from St. Paul is decent justification for priests not getting married (by the way, Orthodox priests can be married and Catholic priests cannot). However, if St. Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, was married, and he is the rock on whom Christ built the church and the first “pope,” was Peter not good enough? Were his attentions too divided? As to papal infallibility, I understand the concept but was admittedly unclear in my original statement. I would point to certain popes, such as Leo X, whose “infallible” doctrines included indulgences, the deplorable practice that helped split the church again. And you might wonder why I consider the Bible more important than Church tradition. I would say that the Bible is the word of God and that the church, very unfortunately, is not perfect as the Bible is. Clearly even to consider indulgences is to see that the church can be corrupted, even doctrinally, while the Bible cannot. And as to the Immaculate Conception, the forcing of perfection upon a human, again I do not think it is necessary to have been literally made perfect, either through the Immaculate Conception or through Purgatory, to enter heaven. I only think that, as Christ repeatedly tells us, that one must believe in him to be cleansed of their sins and have eternal life.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

christian2112, your tone has changed significantly from your first post. At the beginning you wrote:

I want to make sure that I give the Catholic Church an even platform with the other denominations, and I hope that these responses will giver me a wider perspective. Thanks!

Now you say it’s one-sided, and you want to debate. Fine, but may I suggest starting a fresh thread for each of your objections (to church authority, tradition, purgatory, the immaculate conception, the papacy, the role of works in our justification, etc)? I would also suggest placing these threads in the Apologetics forum.

 

[RoseMary131]

Seeing as how this has become quite one-sided, I will contribute the non-Catholic side to these arguments.

You made me smile with this statement! One-sided - leaning towards Catholic teachings - on a Catholic Forum -

 

[pablope]

Seeing as how this has become quite one-sided, I will contribute the non-Catholic side to these arguments.

One sided? You were asking for catholic responses, what did you expect?

First of all, biblical/Apocryphal verse I’ve ever seen even come close to justifying Purgatory, is quite weak evidence.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Seeing as how this has become quite one-sided, I will contribute the non-Catholic side to these arguments. First of all, I think that that verse from 2 Maccabees, the only semi-biblical/Apocryphal verse I’ve ever seen even come close to justifying Purgatory, is quite weak evidence. To go against the fact that Jesus repeatedly speaks of belief justifying eternal life, in other words the purification of the soul by the blood of Christ, should require more evidence than a quote about how Jesus was saving the people, like Moses and Abraham, who were to enter heaven but first needed his sacrifice. If anyone disputes that more is needed for purification than the blood of our Savior, I would dispute that. Also, what about the case of the penitent thief? Crucified next to Christ, this self-admitted thief probably committed thousands of unrepented “mortal sins” and would be first in line to go to Purgatory. Yet Christ said that he would be with him that very day in Paradise, not after a stint in Purgatory. As to marriage, I agree that the quote from St. Paul is decent justification for priests not getting married (by the way, Orthodox priests can be married and Catholic priests cannot). However, if St. Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, was married, and he is the rock on whom Christ built the church and the first “pope,” was Peter not good enough? Were his attentions too divided? As to papal infallibility, I understand the concept but was admittedly unclear in my original statement. I would point to certain popes, such as Leo X, whose “infallible” doctrines included indulgences, the deplorable practice that helped split the church again. And you might wonder why I consider the Bible more important than Church tradition. I would say that the Bible is the word of God and that the church, very unfortunately, is not perfect as the Bible is. Clearly even to consider indulgences is to see that the church can be corrupted, even doctrinally, while the Bible cannot. And as to the Immaculate Conception, the forcing of perfection upon a human, again I do not think it is necessary to have been literally made perfect, either through the Immaculate Conception or through Purgatory, to enter heaven. I only think that, as Christ repeatedly tells us, that one must believe in him to be cleansed of their sins and have eternal life.

To be honest, your theology is more representative of Protestantism than Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Just sayin’

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Seeing as how this has become quite one-sided, I will contribute the non-Catholic side to these arguments. First of all, I think that that verse from 2 Maccabees, the only semi-biblical/Apocryphal verse I’ve ever seen even come close to justifying Purgatory, is quite weak evidence. To go against the fact that Jesus repeatedly speaks of belief justifying eternal life, in other words the purification of the soul by the blood of Christ, should require more evidence than a quote about how Jesus was saving the people, like Moses and Abraham, who were to enter heaven but first needed his sacrifice. If anyone disputes that more is needed for purification than the blood of our Savior, I would dispute that. Also, what about the case of the penitent thief? Crucified next to Christ, this self-admitted thief probably committed thousands of unrepented “mortal sins” and would be first in line to go to Purgatory. Yet Christ said that he would be with him that very day in Paradise, not after a stint in Purgatory. As to marriage, I agree that the quote from St. Paul is decent justification for priests not getting married (by the way, Orthodox priests can be married and Catholic priests cannot). However, if St. Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, was married, and he is the rock on whom Christ built the church and the first “pope,” was Peter not good enough? Were his attentions too divided? As to papal infallibility, I understand the concept but was admittedly unclear in my original statement. I would point to certain popes, such as Leo X, whose “infallible” doctrines included indulgences, the deplorable practice that helped split the church again. And you might wonder why I consider the Bible more important than Church tradition. I would say that the Bible is the word of God and that the church, very unfortunately, is not perfect as the Bible is. Clearly even to consider indulgences is to see that the church can be corrupted, even doctrinally, while the Bible cannot. And as to the Immaculate Conception, the forcing of perfection upon a human, again I do not think it is necessary to have been literally made perfect, either through the Immaculate Conception or through Purgatory, to enter heaven. I only think that, as Christ repeatedly tells us, that one must believe in him to be cleansed of their sins and have eternal life.

And therein lies the rub. You have issues with the Catholic Church because you have chosen to elevate your own personal interpretation of scripture above that of the Church Jesus founded 2000 years ago.

I think the following quote from this article sums it up well:

Years of prejudice and ignorance do not disappear overnight. We had to lay aside our Protestant glasses, as it were, and see things with Catholic eyes. Having lived in more than one culture, we’d had some practice at this. Still, it was difficult because we were on the verge of giving up our autonomy as determiners of Truth. We had always been in charge of what we believed. Our beliefs had always been stated, “I believe Scripture teaches,” and now, in exploring Catholicism, we realized we were heading toward a Faith that would require us to state and believe, “The Church teaches . . .” In some ways leaving Protestantism was like a death. But new life was just around the corner.