Convince Me to Stay Catholic!

[jinc1019]

To whom would you go? The Church of Christ is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Anglicans are none of these and the EO are neither one nor catholic. It is useful to note that only one church bears all these marks, and this is it.

Do you believe in the authority of the ecumenical councils?

That is a complicated question because the later ones especially were driven largely by papal authority, which I reject. But I do believe generally that bishops should be making the decisions. I agree, somewhat, with your point about unity. Unity is a major reason I am considering staying.

 

[jinc1019]

You are welcome.
there is something else that has come to me that I want to put to you.

The last supper took place 2000 years ago. That was Jesus’ last meal before he suffered. That’s before our lifetime. Jesus is our greatest friend. Had we have had the opportunity to be at the last supper with him, would we join him in his last meal on his invitation to be there? I think you would say yes to that. Wouldn’t you?
So would you just be there or would you accept the bread he offered and the wine he offered? Would you join in with the apostles? Or would you go away and break bread and drink wine somewhere else? The mass presents our chance at Jesus invitation to be there at the last supper with him. “This is my body.” “This is my blood…” Jesus said it. So he is present.

I can appreciate the point you are attempting to make here, but because I don’t believe that the Church is acting as Christ in the Mass, this analogy really doesn’t apply.

 

[jinc1019]

jinc 1019 in Christ,

You are in my prayers.

God bless.

Thank you very much for your prayers. It is always appreciated.

 

[Steve_Jay]

I can appreciate the point you are attempting to make here, but because I don’t believe that the Church is acting as Christ in the Mass, this analogy really doesn’t apply.

Doesn’t it?
Colossians 1:27
27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory

Christ in you the hope of glory. In you! So would you like to be the one instead of the priest? Would you like to lead the mass instead? Christ in you?

 

[inomcoke]

Are there things you ‘can not’ believe in within the orthodox churches or Anglicanism? If so, you would be leaving the Catholic church for ‘churches’ which are at least equally flawed.

If there is no church that perfectly matches what you believe the one true Church should look like, yet you believe that Jesus founded a church than you must look for error in your thinking.

From your posts it appears you do believe that there should be unity within the church and that Jesus founded a single church in which he wanted ALL followers to be a part of. If that is accurate then logically you MUST do one of the following two things.

A) Search until you’ve found a church that meets 100% of what you believe the Church should be.
B) Acknowledge that since there is no church in the world which meets your vision of what the church is supposed to be that the fault MUST be in your vision, NOT in any single church.

I believe the answer here is B. From there you need to understand and accept that it is you that needs to change, and not the church. Wrestle your intellect and your heart into submission to the One True Church, which I believe to be the Catholic Church. If you find that it is more likely that an Orthodox or Anglican church is the one true church, then you must wrestle your heart and intellect in line with their beliefs. From my studies, however, I believe it is overwhelmingly apparent that the Catholic church is where we all belong.

I hope this has helped in some small way. I will be attending adoration tomorrow morning and will pray for you specifically asking Jesus to guide you in this area. I can feel the torment in your words and can’t imagine the difficulty this would cause me if I were in your shoes. Don’t lose hope, seek always Jesus Christ!

 

[cargau]

I have done this a great deal…and the more I have studied after praying, the more convinced I am of my position.

Studying is great, but relying too much on human reason may not be the perfect approach. In fact, it could be a sign of pride.

You need teachings such as the Eucharist (and other truths) to be understandable rationally. That would be ideal for everyone as we all struggle with imperfect faith. Please understand, we are not dealing with natural truths but rather supernatural realities. St. Augustine, when discussing the Eucharist said, “Believe and you will understand”. Perhaps, this would be a more useful approach. We humans have to see the evidence of a principle before we accept it. But suppose we believed it first. Could and will the understanding come later?

I, too will pray for your understanding and hope that you will persevere in Christ. As Sister Faustina said, “Jesus, I trust in you!”

 

[PennyinCanada]

I appreciate the blessings and kindness.
But, to address your point, you could easily make the same argument about numerous parts of Church history. For instance, why would God give us His one true Church but allow it to burn people alive, to torture and murder people, to endorse war, etc.? I am NOT one of those Catholic bashers. I recognize that as an organization it has done more for the world than any other organization, but let’s face it…it has done a lot of inexplicably bad things. Why would God let the Church do that?

My reply was posted in #14 and you deflected my question with another question.
I have to repeat, be still in the presence of God and ask why He wouldn’t give us those things. Of course He would. Because He is generous and compassionate and wishes our salvation. Sometimes meditating on Christ hanging on the Holy and Life giving Cross will help this penetrate our hearts. Don’t wrestle so much. “Be still and know that I am God”.

The Eucharist should be a source of joy. Let it be that for you.

 

[Goya]

Studying is great, but relying too much on human reason may not be the perfect approach. In fact, it could be a sign of pride.

You need teachings such as the Eucharist (and other truths) to be understandable rationally. That would be ideal for everyone as we all struggle with imperfect faith. Please understand, we are not dealing with natural truths but rather supernatural realities. ***St. Augustine, when discussing the Eucharist said, “Believe and you will understand”. *** Perhaps, this would be a more useful approach. We humans have to see the evidence of a principle before we accept it. But suppose we believed it first. Could and will the understanding come later?

I, too will pray for your understanding and hope that you will persevere in Christ. As Sister Faustina said, “Jesus, I trust in you!”

Outstaning post!

 

[R_C]

Your assumption is that the Church’s teachings on everything is the same as those the apostle taught. Yet, all of the evidence suggests that bishops and priests are of one order, not two as the Catholic Church teaches (just one example). The Catholic Church has completely rejected its own tradition in numerous instances, this being just one. Last I checked, the Bishop of Rome was not initially chosen by “cardinals.” Did the Church hold true to its tradition in this instance? No. And you don’t care.

If I did not care, I would not spend my time replying to your post. I would act in fact like you do, and I would probably have never returned into the Church. But since to some degree I discovered that I did care about my salvation and this Catholic Church that everyone hated so much, I started learning more and more about it, until I fell in love with her beauty, the beauty of the legitimate Bride of Christ.

Yes, the Church teaches what the apostles teach, and no evidence suggests anything contrary to that, for the Church does not and has never contradicted herself in matters of faith and morals.

Then again, a serious understanding of Sacred Tradition and theology requires us to understand the different degrees of fallibility that the teachings have, and how the Church grows and evolves as a seed on fertile soul.

Sure, the Bishop of Rome was not initially chosen by “cardinals”. Then again, you did not have over 5000 bishops and 400,000 priests spread throughout the known world. The necessity of appointing what we term “cardinals”, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, cannot be described as a complete rejection of tradition, but as a most sensible and rational growth of the hierarchical structure of the Church in accordance with the divine will.

While we are at it, I submit a few quotes on the Church, for your consideration.

Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church. From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions. (Clement, third bishop of Rome, A.D. 88-97)

It is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the Faith, this is the temple of God; into which if anyone shall not enter, or from which if anyone shall go out, he is a stranger to the hope of life and eternal salvation. (Lactantius, AD 310)

We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor. (St. Augustine of Hippo, AD 393)

 

[R_C]

Following up on my previous reply.

Your assumption is that the Church’s teachings on everything is the same as those the apostle taught. Yet, all of the evidence suggests that bishops and priests are of one order, not two as the Catholic Church teaches (just one example).

I’ll just mention the teaching as I have received it:

• The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.
• Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
• Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).
• Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church.

By the beginning of the second century these terms had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.

Ignatius of Antioch writes:

Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ…] let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church.

Clement of Alexandria writes:

Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles

Hippolytus writes:

When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful …]

On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains.

John Chrysostom writes:

It is the presbyters that [Paul] calls by this title; for these titles were then interchangeable, and the bishop is even called a deacon. That is why, when writing to Timothy, he says, ‘Fulfill your diaconate’ [2 Tim. 4:5], although Timothy was then a bishop. That he was in fact a bishop is clear when Paul says to him, ‘Lay hands on no man lightly’ [1 Tim. 5:22], and again, ‘Which was given you with the laying on of hands of the presbytery’ [1 Tim. 4:14], and presbyters would not have ordained a bishop"

Clearly the evidence suggests that bishops and priests are of two orders, not one.

So it makes me wonder where did you initially find the teaching that “the bishops and priests are of one order”. Did you develop the idea yourself, or did you find it somewhere? Because it seems to me like it is factually and historically inaccurate.

 

[grannymh]

Excellent post. I appreciate the thoughts. However, the Church does not allow Christians to receive the Eucharist who do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

True.

Please be patient with me. It is hard to express what I feel when I have been unknowing like the Samaritan woman. A long time ago, I heard a description of a tired thirsty Jesus whose hands were big, yet scarred from carpentry. The fact that Jesus recognized the foreigner as a person as He was a person (as well as God) has remained with me. My halo is not only tarnished but chipped in places, yet Jesus recognizes me as a person He loves. What I tried to say is that even when someone is not allowed to receive the Eucharist for valid reasons.-- within the environment of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus is present (like He was at the well) and He can minister to us.

It sounded to me like you want to be a Catholic, somewhat like the Samaritan woman who wanted water. The fact that she was not Jewish did not distract Jesus from His mission to all people. At the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus is present – Where two or more are gathered… Coming to Mass with the desire for the water of truth is a good way to meet Jesus toe to toe. Perhaps, the truth is in this prayer. Jesus I believe you exist; heal my doubts about Your existence in the Eucharist.

We are people who are complex to the max. The meeting between Jesus and the woman at the well is the opposite in its simplicity. Perhaps, it is time to set aside rational thoughts. Regardless, it is perfectly possible for you to go to the well with your empty bucket. Stay at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as long or as short as you wish. Jesus will not check His watch.

 

[Lancer]

I commend you in your sincerity/desire to follow your conscience. I recommend that the following five paragraphs from a Catholic classic:

THE SPIRIT OF CATHOLICISM
(Father) Karl Adam

… background on the author.

Karl Adam, one of the greatest of living theologians, was born in Bavaria in 1876, one of a family of ten. He received his education at the Classical Gymnasium at Amburg; the Philosophical and Theological Seminary at Regensburg; and received his Doctorate at the University of Munich in 1904. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1900 and spent the following two years doing parish work.

In 1934 his integrity compelled him to deliver an outspoken denunciation of the so-called German religion in an address on “The Eternal Christ” which led him into difficulties with the Nazi government. He was threatened with physical harm, his house was riddled with bullets, his life was threatened and his right to lecture was denied him. So strong were the feelings that he aroused that he was forced to flee to the Bishop of Rottenburg for protection. Despite all such threats and attempts at intimidation he steadfastly clung to his position, refusing to compromise what he believed were basic truths.

"The Spirit Of Catholicism" was written to provide a calm, dispassionate, clearly written consideration of the fundamental concepts of the Catholic faith which would explain to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, exactly what the Catholic Church is.

From **Chapter XII: The Educative Action of the Church
** and here is online link to the complete book from EWTN’s Library (I have a copy of the book…and it can still be purchase through Amazon…maybe Ignatius Press…or Roman Catholics Books…should you desire to read it/have a copy.

Prayers for you and best wishes
Pax Christi

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/SPIRCATH.HTM

May a Catholic ever be justified in refusing to obey the church? Let us treat this question more fully, for it illustrates in a unique way the decisive importance which the Church assigns to conscience, and the relation of the subjective dictates of conscience to the objective ordinances of law.

Being conscious that she is the infallible teacher of revealed truth and the sole effective institute for salvation, the Church can never admit that Catholics are in the same condition as those who have not yet come to the faith, so that they can have just cause for regarding the faith which they have already received by the authoritative teaching of the Church as doubtful, and for withholding their assent until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith.[1]

Therefore, according to the Vatican Council, the spiritual relation of the Catholic to the great kingdom of supernatural reality and its problems is profoundly different from that of the non-Catholic. The Council lays it down that the divine evidences, to which the Church and the Church only can appeal, are too many (multa) and too wonderful (mira), for a Catholic’s faith to be disturbed by a serious and objective doubt. The Church’s claim to the truth is so deeply set in the hard granite of historical facts and of logical consistency, and is so intimately bound-up with the ultimate and profoundest requirements of conscience, with its reverence before that which is holy and divine, that it can stand fast and prevail over any possible inquiry, whether past, present or future. Moreover the Catholic cannot become the prey of any merely subjective doubt, resting upon false presuppositions or erroneous deductions, so long as he does not proudly and arrogantly exclude that light of grace which is refused to no man of good will.

This light will always be clear and strong enough to reveal the sources of any misunderstanding and to prevent him sinking into invincible error (error invincibilis). The Catholic is therefore generally protected from that radical attitude which deliberately detaches a man inwardly from the professed faith of Catholic Christianity and, reveling in a purely negative criticism, embarks upon research about Christ and the Church as though neither existed. On the other hand the Church does not compel the Catholic to shut his eyes to the religious problems which arise, nor conviction of conscience. Even though the judgment of his conscience be objectively false and even though it be not in its genesis ethically irreproachable, yet he is bound to follow conscience and conscience alone.

In the light of this fact it is an unfair and untenable charge—which does not become more tenable by constant repetition—to say that the Church enslaves conscience by requiring an unqualified obedience in matters of faith and by claiming divine authority. As the authorized preacher of the truth, the Church will never cease to give her authoritative witness to it and to oblige all consciences to accept it. Yet she does not seek to overpower conscience, but to convince it. She seeks internal, not merely external assent. And when a man cannot give this internal assent, she leaves his conscience to the mercy of God and sets him free. That is not fanaticism or severity, but a service to truth and sincerity. For the Church cannot and may not endure that there should be some among her members who are Catholics only in name. She requires that all such men should draw the logical consequence from their new state of conscience and leave her communion. And in this she protects the sincerity of their consciences as much as she guards the sincerity of her own being. The Church does no injury to “liberal” laymen or theologians when she excludes them from communion with her children. On the contrary such people do an injury to the Church if they remain in her communion when they have lost her faith.

 

[grannymh]

I can appreciate the point you are attempting to make here, but because I don’t believe that the Church is acting as Christ in the Mass, this analogy really doesn’t apply.

You are correct in this manner. It is the priest, through the grace of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, who “acts” in the person of Christ. The “Church” is the recipient of what happens at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As Christ willingly and freely gave His life on the cross for us, the priest, through the words of Consecration, re-presents Christ’s sacrifice in an unbloody manner. This is why we can say that the priest is, in a sense, taking the place of Christ, Who died once for all, when he offers to God the bread and wine. We can see in the separation of bread from wine, the separation of body and soul which is death. Yet, both the bread and the wine is each the whole presence of Jesus Christ. However, it is not the human power of the priest which transforms the substance of bread and wine into the Divine Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Please read the Eucharistic prayers below.

I agree that this mystery is hard to wrap one’s brain around. But it is not necessary to fully understand the mystery of the Eucharist in order to love Jesus.

From Eucharistic Prayer I: “Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering (bread and wine) in every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”

From Eucharist Prayer II: “Make holy (addressed to God the Father), therefore, these gifts (bread and wine), we pray, by sending down Your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ”

Eucharistic Prayer III: “Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore You: by the same Spirit graciously make holy these gifts (bread and wine) we have brought to You for consecration, that they may become the Body and Blood of Your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, at Whose command we celebrate these mysteries.”

Eucharistic Prayer IV: “Therefore, O Lord, we pray: may this same Holy Spirit graciously sanctify these offerings, (bread and wine) that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the celebration of this great mystery, which He Himself left us as an eternal covenant.”

The words of Consecration follow each of the above.

 

[hank3fan]

The question for me is this- what would happen to the Church if we all went on our merry way and believed only what we wanted to believe or what was palatable to us? We would not be united and the message of Christ would never have survived. Your doubts do you credit and I am jealous- I wish I could be a deep thinker like you are, but I am not. Instead I am just some guy who is desperately trying to reconnect with my Lord. But this I know from experience- faith is a burden and faith is never easy. There is not one person amongst us, except for the Lord, who has not at one point asked himself if he was nuts for believing in what can’t be seen.

Let me put your doubts in context. You have trouble with various theological issues, but you have no problem accepting that the Creator of all things became a Jewish carpenter, turned water into wine, fed the masses, healed the sick, was nailed up to a cross willingly so that we would have eternal life, was thrown into the ground, then rose from the dead, hung around for a while, and then literally flew up to heaven? If you can believe all of the above (which I do) then why would you not believe the rest; or at the very least, if you can believe all of the above, then what would the big deal about accepting that there are some things you cannot yet fully accept, while at the same time recognizing that faith is a hard road to walk and trusting that in the end, the Lord will reward your patience with grace and with mercy, and with peace?

Are your doubts so grave and your need to feel good so heavy that it justifies walking away from the Church that for all its faults was directly created by Jesus Himself? Fight the good fight, my friend; endure your doubts patiently; accept that your faith and your knowledge as a finite human being will never be perfect; and know that at all times the Lord loves you and has loved you always. If you know these things, then how important are your doubts?

Maybe there are some things in the Church you cannot fully believe and some roles that you cannot fully play, but aren’t there still so many things that you can do? Don’t the poor still need feeding, don’t the sick still need comforting, don’t those who suffer still need mercy? There is no one who will condemn you for having doubts and the Church always welcomes back even the worst sinner, so why walk away? Stay close to the Church and pray for faith- reclassify the things you reject as being things you do not understand, things that your human intellect has not fully grasped; and focus on the things you do believe and the actions that bring you closer to God, knowing that every positive Christian thing that you do will incrementally reduce either your doubt or the spiritual blockage that your doubts can create.

And pray, always pray.

 

[jinc1019]

Doesn’t it?
Colossians 1:27
27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory

Christ in you the hope of glory. In you! So would you like to be the one instead of the priest? Would you like to lead the mass instead? Christ in you?

It’s not that I want to conduct the mass, or that I even reject apostolic succession…The problem is I don’t believe the earliest Christians believed the Eucharistic meal was literally the body and blood of Jesus being sacrificed. I believe there is ample evidence to show this, so again, no this has nothing to do with elevating myself.

 

[sousley]

I greatly appreciate your “two cents,” and I am glad you can, to some extent, understand where I am coming from. I understand what you mean about obedience, and it’s not obedience that is the problem. It’s determining whether obedience is warranted, whether it is true that I should be obedient, that this obedience is what Jesus commanded. I don’t know about that. There are very good historical reasons to question papal authority, as many Orthodox Christians on this forum can explain with great passion, and I happen to believe very firmly, based on the evidence, that they are right on that issue. I appreciate your comments, but this idea that this is somehow about rebelling against authority for rebellion’s sake is just not true.

I didn’t mean to suggest rebellion. No, I’m sure that this is more honest and thoughtful than that. I mean that what we see doctrinally is a snapshot of result, not necessarily the sometimes decades of commentary, discussion, or rationale that lead up to it. Have you ever had a conversation with someone that was clearly not as knowledgeable as you on a subject and perhaps biased and thought, “if you actually understood the entirety of this topic, you wouldn’t make such statements”, and know this to be a legitimate thought? All I’m saying is that I would allow room that a pope or cardinal might think that way of me about a particular doctrinal decision. You have to be able to say conclusively that: 1) You possess all public and private information for an issue, 2) I have greater political, theological, spiritual insight than the powers-that-be, 3) I have authority make standard of faith changes, and 4) I accept penitential reprimand to my proposed changes for myself and all others that I may influence. Dissension (like faith) is never just about you, your life influences others, especially since you’ve mentioned ministry.

 

[jinc1019]

Are there things you ‘can not’ believe in within the orthodox churches or Anglicanism? If so, you would be leaving the Catholic church for ‘churches’ which are at least equally flawed.

If there is no church that perfectly matches what you believe the one true Church should look like, yet you believe that Jesus founded a church than you must look for error in your thinking.

From your posts it appears you do believe that there should be unity within the church and that Jesus founded a single church in which he wanted ALL followers to be a part of. If that is accurate then logically you MUST do one of the following two things.

A) Search until you’ve found a church that meets 100% of what you believe the Church should be.
B) Acknowledge that since there is no church in the world which meets your vision of what the church is supposed to be that the fault MUST be in your vision, NOT in any single church.

I believe the answer here is B. From there you need to understand and accept that it is you that needs to change, and not the church. Wrestle your intellect and your heart into submission to the One True Church, which I believe to be the Catholic Church. If you find that it is more likely that an Orthodox or Anglican church is the one true church, then you must wrestle your heart and intellect in line with their beliefs. From my studies, however, I believe it is overwhelmingly apparent that the Catholic church is where we all belong.

I hope this has helped in some small way. I will be attending adoration tomorrow morning and will pray for you specifically asking Jesus to guide you in this area. I can feel the torment in your words and can’t imagine the difficulty this would cause me if I were in your shoes. Don’t lose hope, seek always Jesus Christ!

Very good points. However, I think you are misunderstanding. I am not suggesting leaving the Church because I don’t believe certain doctrine. I want to stay. The Catholic Church, however, won’t let me stay as a practicing Catholic believing the things I do. That’s the end of the story. I would have to lie to stay in the Church. Yes, I could spend the next fifty years coming to mass, sitting at the back of the Church, unable to be involved with any intimacy at all in a Christian community, but what kind of life is that?

I can certainly understand your position…But honestly, I wish the Church was not as strict as it is when it comes to the beliefs of the laity. If anything, they only push people like me away for honestly believing the Gospel is slightly different than the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[jinc1019]

Studying is great, but relying too much on human reason may not be the perfect approach. In fact, it could be a sign of pride.

You need teachings such as the Eucharist (and other truths) to be understandable rationally. That would be ideal for everyone as we all struggle with imperfect faith. Please understand, we are not dealing with natural truths but rather supernatural realities. St. Augustine, when discussing the Eucharist said, “Believe and you will understand”. Perhaps, this would be a more useful approach. We humans have to see the evidence of a principle before we accept it. But suppose we believed it first. Could and will the understanding come later?

I, too will pray for your understanding and hope that you will persevere in Christ. As Sister Faustina said, “Jesus, I trust in you!”

Good advice, thank you!

 

[jinc1019]

If I did not care, I would not spend my time replying to your post. I would act in fact like you do, and I would probably have never returned into the Church. But since to some degree I discovered that I did care about my salvation and this Catholic Church that everyone hated so much, I started learning more and more about it, until I fell in love with her beauty, the beauty of the legitimate Bride of Christ.

Yes, the Church teaches what the apostles teach, and no evidence suggests anything contrary to that, for the Church does not and has never contradicted herself in matters of faith and morals.

Then again, a serious understanding of Sacred Tradition and theology requires us to understand the different degrees of fallibility that the teachings have, and how the Church grows and evolves as a seed on fertile soul.

Sure, the Bishop of Rome was not initially chosen by “cardinals”. Then again, you did not have over 5000 bishops and 400,000 priests spread throughout the known world. The necessity of appointing what we term “cardinals”, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, cannot be described as a complete rejection of tradition, but as a most sensible and rational growth of the hierarchical structure of the Church in accordance with the divine will.

While we are at it, I submit a few quotes on the Church, for your consideration.

I am sorry, but no. The Catholic Church does NOT teach what the apostles taught in every instance. In many, yes. In all? No. I gave you an example. How were popes chosen in the early church? By cardinals in Italy? No. What about bishops and priests? They were one order in the early church as St. Jerome himself confirms. This was also a teaching the Catholic Church has changed on.

 

[jinc1019]

Following up on my previous reply.

I’ll just mention the teaching as I have received it:

• The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.
• Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
• Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).
• Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church.

By the beginning of the second century these terms had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.

Ignatius of Antioch writes:

Clement of Alexandria writes:

Hippolytus writes:

John Chrysostom writes:

Clearly the evidence suggests that bishops and priests are of two orders, not one.

So it makes me wonder where did you initially find the teaching that “the bishops and priests are of one order”. Did you develop the idea yourself, or did you find it somewhere? Because it seems to me like it is factually and historically inaccurate.

I didn’t see this post before I replied to your last post…

It would take a VERY long time to address all of your points completely and I simply don’t have it right now. I urge you to read St. Jerome’s Epistle 146: voskrese.info/spl/jerome146.html. I also urge you to read the New Testament carefully. In numerous instances the same group of people, as you have already admitted, were confirmed bishops and presbyters. Further, history is full of proof of this as well. In Egypt, for instance, presbyters ordained bishops for centuries, especially when bishops were not nearby. Numerous writers have argued this in great detail and a search online will show the proof of that as well.