Converts to Catholicsm -- Did you assent to anything you didn't fully believe in?

[Pulvis]

Thanks, Pulvis. I like your signature, by the way. Isn’t it taken from Genesis 3:19?

“…for dust you are and to dust you will return” (or something to that effect).

Yes it is, and used to be used during the Ash Wednesday distribution of the Ashes. Very powerful reminder of how great a gift we have been given.

 

[adf417]

REMIND YOURSELF, that this is a process not to be rushed, continue praying for humility and understanding in Gods truths, and it will all work out.

^ best advice ever!
Peace!!!

 

[wmscott]

Background:
I am an evangelical protestant who is considering Catholicism after I stumbled onto a Catholic radio station on my way to and from work several months ago and have been listening to it ever since, which led me to CAF.

I’ve asked a number of questions on CAF which the Catholic faithful have patiently and charitably answered for me. I’ve called in to a few radio shows (local and national) and asked questions there too, which definitely took me out of my comfort zone because it is not like me to do that normally. However, they are honest and sincere questions asked out of respect.

After considerable contemplation, research, soul-searching and prayer, I have come to believe in many of the truths of Catholicism but there are still a few points of doctrine with which I still struggle
Question for Protestant converts to Catholicism:
In order to become Catholic, did you assent to at least one Catholic belief that you had issues with at the time of conversion only to later grow to believe in it or did you wait until you were able to believe in everything completely before converting?

If so, can you elaborate how you were able to overcome your obstacle and come to believe in the belief that had caused you to struggle earlier on?

Much obliged. :tiphat:

Hi Tommy, I converted 32 years ago. I met and fell in love with a great catholic lady who lead me out of a spiritual wasteland. My general and lukewarm church upbringing was of the Southern Baptist persuasion. When I decided to convert I had to overcome a lot of anti-Catholic falsehoods that I had learned. Leading up to deciding to convert I learned a lot of the Catholic faith and over came a lot of the falsehoods I had been taught.

Going through RCIA was rather smooth, but there was falsehood that kept me from moving forward. Because the Catholic Church is rich in icons and use art, including sculptures, to provide a visual focal point and image of the Church and it’s history I had mistaken that to worshiping graven images.

The Priests, my wife, and the RCIA team tried their best to explain it to me but nothing sank in. It was actual in prayer that the Holy Spirit revealed the answer to me. Now two things here, first to be so humbled and honored that God spoke to me and I heard, second was being able to experience an epiphany. Once my eyes were opened and i was enlightened, it was full steam ahead. No regrets. As a note the Marion doctrines, Sacraments, and the Eucharist were the easiest to accept and understand.

I don’t know why the graven images thing was so entrenched in me.

 

[thistle]

Background:
I am an evangelical protestant who is considering Catholicism after I stumbled onto a Catholic radio station on my way to and from work several months ago and have been listening to it ever since, which led me to CAF.

I’ve asked a number of questions on CAF which the Catholic faithful have patiently and charitably answered for me. I’ve called in to a few radio shows (local and national) and asked questions there too, which definitely took me out of my comfort zone because it is not like me to do that normally. However, they are honest and sincere questions asked out of respect.

After considerable contemplation, research, soul-searching and prayer, I have come to believe in many of the truths of Catholicism but there are still a few points of doctrine with which I still struggle
Question for Protestant converts to Catholicism:
In order to become Catholic, did you assent to at least one Catholic belief that you had issues with at the time of conversion only to later grow to believe in it or did you wait until you were able to believe in everything completely before converting?

If so, can you elaborate how you were able to overcome your obstacle and come to believe in the belief that had caused you to struggle earlier on?

Much obliged. :tiphat:

No.

In fact I woke up one morning and knew the Catholic Church was the true Church and even though I had little idea about the teachings of the Church I knew they would be correct. Once I got to know what the Church actually taught I still had no doubts on any teaching.

 

[Duane1966]

Re: the questions on infant baptism.

The Church teaches us that baptism opens the door to salvation through Christ.

Some scriptures to think about. In Colossians St. Paul compares baptism to circumcision, which was done by the eighth day. It was how a Jew entered the old covenant with God. Baptism is how we enter the new covenant.

*11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.

12 You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.i

13 And even when you were dead [in] transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions; **

From Luke ch. 18

15 People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.g

16 Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

17 Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”h**

How do we bring infants to Jesus?

 

[Tommy999]

Thanks for all the useful advice, personal experiences, links, and other encouraging words. I appreciate all of you very much.

I wish I could be like Thistle and be able to wake up one day and just accept it all at once, but unfortunately that is not the case with me, although I am envious of that type of faith. After all, my name is Thomas so it would be appropriate for me to have a few doubts here and there, right?

However, I have found that once the question of which Church was given the authority from Christ and the apostles down through history was settled in my mind once and for all, the rest of Catholicism seems to be easier to accept on faith.

InHIMITRUST85 said:
*“REMIND YOURSELF, that this is a process not to be rushed, continue praying for humility and understanding in Gods truths, and it will all work out”. *

I agree and will pursue it accordingly.

Sometimes I wonder why God would want someone of my age (just turned 57) to leave the comfort zone of my faith tradition to convert to Catholicism. I don’t know the answer to that but I will continue to trust Him on the journey. I’ve relied on Him most of my life and there is no reason for me to stop now.

Thanks again,everyone! May God richly bless all of you.

 

[TimothyH]

Belief is a choice.

*Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24)
*

We choose to believe. God helps the docile when belief becomes difficult.

Moses is a perfect example, arguing with God about how he was to free the Hebrews from Egypt. Moses was the meekest man. Meek in the Bible means teachable. God was able to teach him. We have to be docile and trusting like the man in the quote above.

Choosing to believe comes first. Understanding comes only after. .

-Tim-

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thanks for all the useful advice, personal experiences, links, and other encouraging words. I appreciate all of you very much.

I wish I could be like Thistle and be able to wake up one day and just accept it all at once, but unfortunately that is not the case with me, although I am envious of that type of faith. After all, my name is Thomas so it would be appropriate for me to have a few doubts here and there, right?

However, I have found that once the question of which Church was given the authority from Christ and the apostles down through history was settled in my mind once and for all, the rest of Catholicism seems to be easier to accept on faith.

InHIMITRUST85 said:
*“REMIND YOURSELF, that this is a process not to be rushed, continue praying for humility and understanding in Gods truths, and it will all work out”. *

I agree and will pursue it accordingly.

Sometimes I wonder why God would want someone of my age (just turned 57) to leave the comfort zone of my faith tradition to convert to Catholicism. I don’t know the answer to that but I will continue to trust Him on the journey. I’ve relied on Him most of my life and there is no reason for me to stop now.

Thanks again,everyone! May God richly bless all of you.

Why do you think God favors the young? Here’s a story I was told today. There was an elderly man who lived by himself, and was visited by the Legion of Mary (a lay Catholic organization devoted to the spiritual works of mercy) every week for five years. He was not Catholic and he told them that he did not intend to convert to Catholicism, but he enjoyed their visits and he would converse with the legionaries about ordinary subjects, not necessarily religious, and he would also pray with them. He considered himself a Christian though he was not active in any church at the time. But one day, over five years after they first visited him, he indicated that he would like to come into the Church and receive the sacraments. He died two weeks later.

Everything happens for a reason. God does not only predestine things to happen. He also predestines the means by which they happen. So even if God ultimately wants you to come into the Catholic Church, there was a reason he allowed you to be where you were, maybe for the good of someone else. On the other hand, I am sure that in all cases before any kind of conversion, God was calling a long time beforehand, only most of the time, it takes us a long time to hear him.

I didn’t hear God calling to me until I was in college, and I didn’t immediately realize it was to the Catholic Church. But I can look back on those years now and see how God had planned things out. He worked at his own pace, but I know he was always there.

 

[Nixbits]

When I was only a few months old, when I was baptised, I ‘converted’ from atheism to Catholicism. At that time I didn’t assent to anything that I didn’t agree with, because I didn’t assent to anything. At the age of ten or eleven, at my Confirmation, I assented to things that I didn’t agree with because at that age I simply didn’t understand Church teaching.

Now, in my mid-forties, I look back on my Confirmation in particular as being a mistake. At that age I was incapable of making an informed profession of faith. Having now spent some time studying Church doctrine as an adult, I realise that it’s much more complicated and challenging than I ever realised.

 

[Techno2000]

– Marian dogmas: To me, Catholics run the risk of ascribing Mary divine qualities through titles like "Queen of Heaven’ and “Mother of God”. I believe she is a special and blessed woman for giving birth to Christ, but I can never venerate her to the point where I adore her like she is on a par with God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. I would have to learn where to draw the line better before I could feel comfortable praying to Mary.

themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city.htm

 

[sariejack]

I am halfway through RCIA, converting to Catholicism from Methodism.

I understand almost all the teachings but I still struggle with the Eucharist. As a Methodist I was raised to regard communion as symbolic. It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around it being anything but symbolic.

It’s not that I disagree, I just don’t get it.

 

[slh3016]

I am halfway through RCIA, converting to Catholicism from Methodism.

I understand almost all the teachings but I still struggle with the Eucharist. As a Methodist I was raised to regard communion as symbolic. It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around it being anything but symbolic.

It’s not that I disagree, I just don’t get it.

Scott Hahn’s “The Fourth Cup” youtube presentation is a great resource as is “The Lamb’s Supper” by Hahn and Brant Pitre also has some wonderful presentations.

Ironically, this is the BIG issue drawing us to the Catholic Church because we are thoroughly convinced of the real presence in the Eucharist. Believing this knocks out 99% of all other Protestant denominations. Authority and history knock out the other 2% as well as Orthodoxy, leaving the Catholic Church as the only viable alternative

 

[dee_burk]

I made the the Great Tiber swim last year but i feel the Lord had been calling me to the Catholic Church for a while. When i moved to a new area the calls became stronger and i knew there would be difficult obstacles due to my marriage and hubby’s past marriage. I tried to appease God by asking about other churches in the area that were closer.

One day, as i drove past a Lutheran Church i asked God “What about there, i can be accepted there as i am”.

A voice as clear as day (it totally rattled me when i heard it) said “I want you in Truth.”

I found the nearest Catholic Church and if the priest had told me the sun was purple I would have accepted it, no questions asked. So, whatever i read in the Catechism became what i believed from the moment i read it. I had and have no problems professing the faith statement.

 

[Techno2000]

I am halfway through RCIA, converting to Catholicism from Methodism.

I understand almost all the teachings but I still struggle with the Eucharist. As a Methodist I was raised to regard communion as symbolic. It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around it being anything but symbolic.

It’s not that I disagree, I just don’t get it.

You can’t get it… because its Supernatural… Human reasoning won’t work.

It’s the Spirit who gives life; the flesh accomplishes nothing. The words that I’ve spoken to you are spirit and life. John 6:63

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano

 

[Della]

I began looking into Catholicism to “prove” it wrong. After reading some Catholic books I was surprised to find that I couldn’t prove any of my ideas. Rather, the answers I found were cogent, reasonable and spiritual. Still, I had deep reservations, especially about Mary who I thought Catholics worshiped. In my desire to learn the truth, I took her on first. I have to laugh at myself now because I hardly realized at the time that in such encounters, Mary always wins.

I read “The Song of Bernadette” because I’d seen the film as a girl. Mary spoke to me afterwards, but I wasn’t ready to accept such a Catholic idea. But, I was intrigued, just the same by Bernadette’s story and the holiness I saw in her life. So, I bought a rosary and timidly began to pray with it–just to see if it was okay. I was testing Mary to see if she met my shibboleth. I can’t believe my hubris, but that’s what I did Well, instead of being affronted, she treated me with the utmost courtesy. As I held that rosary in my hands and prayed in my own way–I didn’t know the Hail Mary nor what other prayers went with praying a rosary–peace of a kind I’d never known before came over me. I sensed Jesus present through the Holy Spirit in the midst of that peace.

Other encounters with Marian theology led me to ask the very sensible question: “If the Church is right about Mary, is it right about everything else?” and “Does the Church have that authority?” I wrestled with these questions for some time, but in the end had to admit that a Church which Christ founded would have to have all his promises, as well, and be right in matters of faith and morals. I started RCIA where many of my misconceptions were erased. I didn’t fully understand everything the Easter Vigil I was received into the Church, but like marrying my husband, about whom I didn’t know everything, I took it on faith that as I grew in my faith fuller understanding would come–and it has. I don’t pretend to understand everything even after 25 years of being a Catholic, but I do know I made the right decision in submitting my heart and will to Christ’s Church in which I have the fullness of the faith available to me.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Continued Areas of Struggle:
– Marian dogmas: To me, Catholics run the risk of ascribing Mary divine qualities through titles like "Queen of Heaven’ and “Mother of God”. I believe she is a special and blessed woman for giving birth to Christ, but I can never venerate her to the point where I adore her like she is on a par with God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. I would have to learn where to draw the line better before I could feel comfortable praying to Mary.

Hi, Tommy. Regarding the above concern, many of the titles ascribed to Mary are given to reflect who her Son is. That is, the title is more meant to say something about Jesus than something about Mary. For example, the title “Mother of God” is not meant to suggest that Mary in any way comes before God or is the source of divinity, rather it is meant to reflect the reality that Jesus was both fully God and fully man hypostatically united from the moment of his conception. As explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 495:
CCC para. 495:

Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus”, Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord”. In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).

As the parenthetical at the end of the quote indicates, the title “Mother of God” comes from the Greek Theotokos, which literally means “God-bearer.” This was the original title given to Mary to reflect that she bore God in her womb in the person of Jesus. That is to say that Jesus was God from the moment of his conception. He did not “acquire” his divinity at some later point, such as his baptism. So, “Mother of God” is a correct, although less technically nuanced, translation of the Greek phrase. The title arose to combat heresies that denied one or more aspects of the hypostatic union, such as Arianism and Nestorianism.

As Tim Staples explains:
Tim Staples:

Mary is the Mother of God precisely because Jesus Christ, her Son, is God. And when Mary gave birth, she did not give birth to a nature, or even two natures; she gave birth to one, divine person. To deny this essential truth of the faith, as the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) declared in its first of many “anathemas” of St. Cyril which would be accepted by the Council, is heresy:

If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.

The real problem with denying Mary to be Mother of God and affirming her to be merely the mother of the man Christ Jesus is in doing so one invariably either denies the divinity of Christ (as the 4th century Arians did), or one creates two persons with regard to Jesus Christ (as the 5th century Nestorians did). Either error results in heresy. The Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381) dealt decisively with the Arian heresy. The Council of Ephesus (AD 431), as mentioned above, dealt with this latter heresy as it was being taught by the followers of Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople. Rather than teaching the truth that Christ is one divine person with two natures—one human, and one divine—hypostatically unified, or joined together without admixture in the one divine person of Christ, they were teaching Christ to be two persons with a mere moral union. The Council fathers understood this could never be affirmed by Christians. The Bible declares to us: “… in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). And, “… in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…” (Colossians 1:16) No where do we read in them…

Tim concludes his discussion with a good analogy that I think is helpful:
Tim Staples:

By saying Mary is the Mother of God, the Catholic Church is not saying that Mary is the source of the divine nature among the three persons of the Blessed Trinity, nor is she the source of the divine nature of the second person of the Blessed Trinity. She doesn’t have to be in order to be the mother of the second person of the Blessed Trinity incarnate.

Perhaps an analogy using normal human reproduction will help clarify the Catholic and biblical position. My wife is the mother of my son, Timmy (and four other little human tornadoes). But this in no way implies that she is the source of Timmy’s immortal soul. God directly and immediately created his soul as he does with every human being (see Eccl. 12:7). However, we do not conclude from this that my wife, Valerie, is merely “the mother of Timmy’s body.” She is Timmy’s mother… period. This is so because she did not give birth to a body. She gave birth to a human person who is a body/soul composite… Timmy.

Analogously, though Mary did not provide Jesus with either his divine nature or his immortal human soul, she is still his mother because she did not give birth to a body, a soul, a nature, or even two natures—she gave birth to a person. And that one person is God. The conclusion to the whole matter is inescapable: If Jesus Christ is one, eternal and unchangeable divine person—God—and Mary is his mother—then Mary is the Mother of that one, eternal and unchangeable person—God.

I hope that helps.

cont. below

 

[SoMissCatholic]

– When does salvation occur/Infant baptism?
My understanding is that Catholics believe in baptizing babies and believe the act of baptism removes the sins of the person/brings salvation.

I believe salvation comes from true faith and repentance in Jesus Christ and a profound spiritual awakening in which a person’s spirit is “born again”, which precedes baptism.

My view infers that the person must be of appropriate age and reason to be able to make this decision freely on their own. In other words, I can’t drag someone else into heaven who doesn’t want to go. Baptizing an infant who obviously doesn’t know what is taking place does not fit what I believe salvation is. I consider it more of a dedication of the parents to raise their child in the Christian faith.

For example, I work with a guy who was born into a Catholic family and was baptized as an infant. He is an atheist now. He doesn’t believe in God at all and thinks Christianity is a fairy tale. Does Catholic doctrine still consider him to be saved? If so, on what basis, since he has obviously forsaken the Christian faith.

That, in a nutshell is where I am at currently. I realize that my views aren’t necessarily always right, because I’ve come to realize there is a God and I’m not Him. So please help me with my struggles if you feel led to do so.

Regarding infant baptism, as others have pointed out the above is not an accurate reflection of the Catholic belief. The following tracts may be helpful to you:

Infant Baptism
Baptismal Grace
Born Again in Baptism
Early Teachings on Infant Baptism
The Forgiveness of Sins

Also, I think a crucial point that may help in your journey is understanding the Catholic view of salvation. Catholics do not view salvation as something that happens at some specific moment in time. Rather, we believe that salvation is a lifelong process. As the following from this CA tract succinctly puts it:

“Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”

As such, as others in this thread have pointed out, in the Catholic understanding baptism is the beginning of the journey of salvation. We believe that baptism washes away the stain of original sin (and all actual sins in the case of someone receiving baptism after he or she has reached the age of reason), and places the recipient in what we refer to as a state of sanctifying grace (also sometimes referred to as being in friendship with God). As long as one remains in a state of grace, he can be morally assured that he is going to heaven. However, one can lose his state of grace by the commission of a mortal sin (i.e. something that is gravely wrong, the person knows that it is gravely wrong, and freely chooses to do it anyway). Such an act destroys the friendship between God and man, resulting in the loss of the sanctifying grace that was conferred at baptism. As the above quoted tract puts it:

Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.

This is why there is a distinction between sins as being “venial” or “mortal” in Catholic theology. All sin is wrong; however, in the Catholic understanding, venial sin simply wounds one’s friendship with God, while mortal sin destroys it completely. A supernatural act of grace is required to restore a person who has committed a mortal sin to a state of grace. The normative way that Jesus established for this to occur is through the sacrament of reconciliation.

In that sacrament the penitent, after making an examination of his or her conscience, confesses all remembered mortal sins (and may confess venial sins as well) and recites a prayer known as an “act of contrition.” This prayer takes different forms, but usually goes something like this: “O my God, I am sorry for my sins with all of my heart. In choosing to do wrong and failing to do good, I have sinned against you whom I should love above all things. I firmly intend, with your help, to do penance, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin. Our Savior, Jesus Christ, suffered and died for us. In his name, my God, have mercy. Amen.” After this, the priest–acting in persona christi (“in the person of Christ”) (cf. 2 Cor. 2:10 “For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.”)–speaks the words of absolution, forgiving the sins confessed (as well as any unconfessed sins that were forgotten by the penitent) and restoring the penitent to a state of grace.

cont’d below.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

–cont’d from above–

So, Tommy, for the example you gave above about the friend who was baptized Catholic but is now an athiest, objectively speaking (for only God can judge the state of someone’s soul), the moment he rejected God by turning his back on Him and denying His existence (thereby refusing to give God the proper honor and glory that is due to Him as creator of the universe) he would have lost the state of grace conferred at baptism and destroyed his friendship with God. As long as he remains unrepentant, he is in grave danger of needing an eternal supply of SPF 10,000 sun block, so to speak.

I know that was a lot, but hopefully it sheds some light for you on the Catholic understanding of salvation. May God bless you on your journey, Tommy, and thank you for always being respectful and open in your posts here on CAF.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

I realize that there are those who subscribe to the “once saved always saved” philosophy regarding salvation, especially faith traditions like Southern Baptists. I want to clarify that I do not believe in this (OSAS) and never have. I also believe that our actions and free will allow us to walk away from it.

However, I believe in what some people refer to as a “believer’s baptism” in which someone who puts his faith and trust in Christ and who truly repents of his sins with a contrite heart can get baptized and profess publicly that he is a Christ follower. Is that sort of what the Catholic rite of Confirmation is? I realize I may be comparing apples and oranges here and still may be confused. Please forgive me if that is the case.

My apologizes. I should not have painted all protestants with the broad brush of OSAS. I was really trying to point out that Catholics do not subscribe to a concept that baptism is a guarantee of heaven. Catholic belief that heaven involved both faith and action is one of the things many protestants call the Church out on.

Confirmation is not the same as a “believer’s baptism”. Some still erroneous teach that Confirmation is about publicly accepting to become a full member of the Church, but that is not what it is meant to be. Baptism and Confirmation are actually a double sacrament that are intimately related. Confirmation is a outpouring of the Holy Spirit as happened at Pentecost and completes what was begun in Baptism. Remember that Confirmation can occur before the age of reason when a child is in danger of death (CCC 1307). Delaying confirmation until after the age of reason is merely discipline of the Latin Church, but is not an absolute requirement. Our eastern brothers still validly perform infant Baptism, Confirmation (aka Chrismation), and Eucharist all at the same time.

The closest you really have to a “beleiver’s baptism” in Catholocism is when were profess the creed each week during Mass and when we affirm our baptismal promises each year at Easter. Obviously it’s not the same thing.

In retrospect, I guess the thing that would be closer is when one consecrates themselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus:

I think that the act of contrition we recite at the end of each confession (such as the one I quoted at the end of post #56) is somewhat similar in that we repent of sin with a contrite heart and ask for God’s help in avoiding sin in the future.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I assented to Immaculate Conception and (to a lesser extent) Assumption when I converted from Anglicanism.

I have since fully reconciled myself to these doctrines.