Devout Catholics: Do you lack understanding and/or acceptance of some Church teaching?

[distracted]

I want to ask this question of those who follow the Church teachings diligently… but find themselves not understanding and/or disagreeing with some aspect of it or another…

thanks…

 

[Howard_Roark]

That depends…according to my own best understanding of the teachings of the Church, I accept them all as far as I am able to understand the.

According to other people, I dissent mightily from the teachings of the Church.

I’d say it depends on whose understanding you’re using on the more nebulous teachings.

Like, there’s a debate going on in a different forum about the exact status of Protestants, whether they are “Christians” or not. If forced to choose a yes or no answer, I have to choose no, but really it’s a semantical issue.

 

[SD_Catholic]

If I don’t understand them I do some research to try and help myself understand them better… if I still don’t understand them, I just accept them as part of my faith.

The Catholic Church is not here to lead people to hell so I trust her teachings are there to help guide me into a life that will eventually lead to the fullness of God’s grace. The ECFs and history of the Church are just too much to argue with… these were much better men then myself… so if I might doubt a teaching, I realize either the Church is wrong or I’m wrong…

SD

 

[NicPais83]

I think that a lack of understanding or disagreement should not necessarily equate to rejection of Church teaching, but should be motivation for study. I make an attempt in my life to follow strictly what Holy Mother Church says, not blindly, but with the understanding that, regardless of my opinions, I do not nearly have the level of wisdom that 2000+ years of Tradition contain. To use mathematics, you can argue 2 + 2 (in the decimal system ) does not equal 0, but that doesn’t make you right.

 

[KestrelRose]

Yes, certainly. For me growing in the Catholic Faith has been an ongoing journey.

When I first converted to Catholism there were many things that I did not understand.

For instance, the Eucharist, I loved Mass but still had a more or less Protestant view point of just what Communion was. The true meaning of the Eucharist has been a slow and beautiful dawning for me.

The more I study, the more I begin to understand and accept. That is the beauty of this wonderful Church. You think you have explored one room completely then you find another door that opens into another beautiful vista.

It has been a journey of discovery.

 

[tradconvert]

Conversion to the Catholic church was for me primarily about realising that it is the one true Church which one must belong and adhere to in order to gain salvation. Once that bridge is crossed (and of course it is never simple) I have found like so many other converts before me that the more one practises the faith the more one learns about the wonderful depth of the teachings of the Church which may not have been fully clear or comprehensible in the course of taking instructions before converting.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

One thing I don’t quite understand is why non-Catholics are not allowed to share communion with Catholics.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

One thing I don’t quite understand is why non-Catholics are not allowed to share communion with Catholics.

Because belief comes before reasons.

One must believe the host is what it is, and profess that belief within the context of believing ALL of what the Church requires one to believe, before receiving the reason for one’s belief, which is the Body and Blood of Christ within the context of the Church.

 

[CapaxDei]

One thing I don’t quite understand is why non-Catholics are not allowed to share communion with Catholics.

To receive the Eucharist is to profess the faith of the Church, belief in the Incarnation, belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That’s why, when the priest says “The Body of Christ,” we say “amen.”

If one does not believe that, then why would it be so important to receive?

“For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” (1 Corinthians 11:29)

 

[redrosetea]

I understand why the church has the last say in what is considered sinful

I understand why we need and have a Pope…I understand that faith is a journey…

I am complete agreement with all of the things Holy Mother Chruch teaches

 

[MikeDunphy]

CHRISTINE77;3821986:

One thing I don’t quite understand is why non-Catholics are not allowed to share communion with Catholics.

Because belief comes before reasons.

One must believe the host is what it is, and profess that belief within the context of believing ALL of what the Church requires one to believe, before receiving the reason for one’s belief, which is the Body and Blood of Christ within the context of the Church.

Another issue is that without the sacrament of confession available to them, any protestants or non-Christians that came forward for Holy Communion might be in a state of mortal sin.

 

[DeusEratVerbum]

YES!

While I accept that man is affected by original sin, I struggle with accepting that he receives the guilt of original sins.

I struggle with accepting the literalness and eternalness of Satan and Hell.

I struggle with the purpose of communion, ie I find the receiving of our Lord and Savior in communion to be beneficial and an outpouring of grace, but I struggle with not finding Eucharistic Adoration either idolatry or improper use of a sacrament.

And lastly, I struggle with the idea that Native Americans who practice Native American rituals (or Indians practicing Hindu rituals, and any indigenous person practicing any indigenous ritual) is somehow worshiping demons, and that if they continue some of their practices when they become Catholic, they aren’t really Catholic, but somehow when the Catholic Church adopted Pagan Roman customs, this was okay. Sorry, this last thing just really “grinds my gears.” Thankfully, the people who say “Native Americans worship demons” et al are just spouting theological opinion and not doctrine.

Of course, though, with these theological struggles, I have faith in Jesus Christ that His Church is teaching the Truth, and I constantly pray “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.”

 

[MikeDunphy]

That depends…according to my own best understanding of the teachings of the Church, I accept them all as far as I am able to understand

That is my exactly own status, too.

 

[Nickkname]

I want to ask this question of those who follow the Church teachings diligently… but find themselves not understanding and/or disagreeing with some aspect of it or another…

thanks…

A devout or othrodox Catholic always accepts the teachings of Holy Mother Church, even if he dosen’t understand them. For example, I don’t understand why God exists, but I accept the Church’s teaching that God dose exist.

I accept her teachings because Mother Church is infallible; she is guided by the Spirit of Truth, who protects his Spouse from error and leads her to all truths.

 

[TheDoctor]

Accept, yes.
Understand, no.

I am Catholic, which means I fully accept all that the Church teaches.

I do not fully agree with all that the Church teaches, but this is due to:
a) My lack of fully understanding various Church teachings (I’m working on it, God, I’m working on it)
b) My sinful pride and arrogance in listening to the Church but not really hearing Her (Yeah, that’s a work in progress also)
c) My lack of faith (Lord, I believe - help me in my unbelief)

 

[CatsAndDogs]

YES!

While I accept that man is affected by original sin, I struggle with accepting that he receives the guilt of original sins.

There was only ONE original sin. It’s not a plural “happening”.

What we receive from that original sin is:
*) our fallen nature (what are nature is today versus that of Adam/Eve)
*) concupiscence, which is our attraction TO sin

What is this “guilt” with which you thik we “receive” in your statement above?

I struggle with accepting the literalness and eternalness of Satan and Hell.

Satan was created good, and chose to disobey God. Since angelic nature is such that all choices they make are eternal (final and irrevocable) Satan, and those with him, can do nothing but evil deeds, as for an angel to do evil once is to forever to do evil until God says otherwise.

Hell is the condition of of men whose final choice is not-God, and that final and irrevocable choice is torment because we are eternally separated from God. God does not send us to hell. We choose it of our own free will.

I struggle with the purpose of communion, ie I find the receiving of our Lord and Savior in communion to be beneficial and an outpouring of grace, but I struggle with not finding Eucharistic Adoration either idolatry or improper use of a sacrament.

Is Jesus REALLY there in the consecrated host? If so, why is that any more “idolatrous” than worshiping Him in “imaginitive prayer” (where we “see” Him in our mind’s eye)?

And lastly, I struggle with the idea that Native Americans who practice Native American rituals (or Indians practicing Hindu rituals, and any indigenous person practicing any indigenous ritual) is somehow worshiping demons, and that if they continue some of their practices when they become Catholic, they aren’t really Catholic, but somehow when the Catholic Church adopted Pagan Roman customs, this was okay. Sorry, this last thing just really “grinds my gears.” Thankfully, the people who say “Native Americans worship demons” et al are just spouting theological opinion and not doctrine.

Personifications of aspects of “natural law” (which are what most “spirits” are in most “native” religions) are making principles into persons. Once one knows that, one mustn’t “idolize” those “non-persons” as “spirit persons”.

Tell me of these pagan Roman customs which violate the commandment to not worship idols?

Of course, though, with these theological struggles, I have faith in Jesus Christ that His Church is teaching the Truth, and I constantly pray “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.”

Looking forward to hearing from you!

 

[EasterJoy]

YES!

While I accept that man is affected by original sin, I struggle with accepting that he receives the guilt of original sins.

I like to think of God’s justice not as some arbitrary tit-for-tat system of “violate-the-law-pay-the-fine”, but simply as the ultimate law of reality, as is the lesser but better-understood law, “what goes up must come down.”

It’s easier if you think of original sin not as an action, but as a state. Original sin is the state of preferring one’s own will to the Will of God. We are born like that; I guess because your parents cannot pass on what they themselves no longer have. That state is incompatible with life in God. The guilt of original sin is the state of preferring poverty (that is, the “wisdom” of one’s own will) over admission of the truth that one is utterly in need. All the compassion in the world won’t make someone like that rich, if they are closed to accepting the possiblity that their poverty is real.

I struggle with accepting the literalness and eternalness of Satan and Hell.

Again, I think it helps to consider this in light of the fact that we don’t understand what eternity is.

For instance, the Church teaches that God has the power to extend salvation to suicides, by means we do not know. We are not to despair of the possibility of eternal salvation of those who take their own lives.

So although at death, when we enter into eternity, we will receive a final judgement, we cannot assume that we will not have had the opportunity to make our choices from the standpoint of eternity. We can trust that our fate, whatever it is, will be wholly just.

What the Church also wants us to be certain of, however, is that our opportunity to make these eternal decisions is now. Thinking that we may put them off is the height of folly, like heading one’s plane into a mountain, because one knows in theory that one will not crash unless one fails to pull up at the very last moment. Although we know in theory that we might be saved at the very last moment by some incursion of Divine Providence, we also know what the conditions are, and take every precaution to remain on the safest flightpath.

In other words, the Church must give comfort to those who would despair, but must not give any permission for those who might presume.

I struggle with the purpose of communion, ie I find the receiving of our Lord and Savior in communion to be beneficial and an outpouring of grace, but I struggle with not finding Eucharistic Adoration either idolatry or improper use of a sacrament.

Improper use of the sacrament, I disagree with but can imagine. Idoltry, I don’t get. Whatever Eucharistic Adoration is, it is worship of no one other than the same Christ Jesus Whom you receive in Holy Communion.

Of course, it is a stretch to imagine in what way the Sacrament is being misused during adoration, unless the time of adoration is preferred to the Mass itself. This much, the Church already teaches.

And lastly, I struggle with the idea that Native Americans who practice Native American rituals (or Indians practicing Hindu rituals, and any indigenous person practicing any indigenous ritual) is somehow worshiping demons, and that if they continue some of their practices when they become Catholic, they aren’t really Catholic, but somehow when the Catholic Church adopted Pagan Roman customs, this was okay. Sorry, this last thing just really “grinds my gears.” Thankfully, the people who say “Native Americans worship demons” et al are just spouting theological opinion and not doctrine.

It is possible to sit in a Catholic church and worship a demon, if you twist the faith grotesquely enough.

Likewise, the CCC does teach that elements of the truth exist in non-Catholic religions.

Having said that, I don’t think it is fair to say that the Catholic Church adopted Roman worship. Rather, she *adapted *Roman worship. It is not impossible, in theory, for the Catholic Church to adapt Native customs in a similar way. The Days of the Dead are an example. A similar celebration used to be celebrated in Mexico in August. It was moved to the time of year for All Saints’ and All Souls’ Days.

Of course, though, with these theological struggles, I have faith in Jesus Christ that His Church is teaching the Truth, and I constantly pray “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.”

Me, too.

 

[Miserissima]

It took me a long time to get on board again with the Faith because I was seduced for a time by the bunny foo-foo type of Evangelical movement.

Laugh to think of me singing along to power pop Christian anthems with a live band – there was actually a power point screen behind them on the dais with a cobbled together presentation of sappy pictures and lyrics. A lot of singing and a sermon became the Sunday staple – until they did their monthly “communion” service. I just knew this “communion” service was wrong – although people took it seriously, it was like kids playing “Mass,” but with adults who knew enough to know better. I felt it was just a dangerous thing to do: be Catholic and mock the Eucharist like that. :tsktsk: I got myself enrolled in a parish a week after that “communion” service.

The biggest hurdle for me was about Mary, although I grew up in Catholic school to love her very much. When I went with my friends to their church, I turned my back on Mary for a while. After I came back to the Church, I started listening to CAL. It helped me to understand the power the mother of a King held in Jesus’ era, and why Mary is kecharitomene, or “full of grace,” and how the saints are alive in a way to intercede for me.

Although I still don’t have a grasp of the apotheosis of, or the Assumption of, Mary, that doesn’t mean I have to stop going to Mass. I study. I pray. I study to learn an apologetic standpoint to defend my faith, and I pray for understanding and/or faith in the Magesterium.

I don’t deny what I don’t understand – don’t get me wrong – but neither am I easily one to say that I am guided by blind faith. I believe that the Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, but that its people (from the top to the bottom) are still fallible. We must always be cautious - “Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves” (Matt. 10:16, Douay).

I guess we all, at times, have to pray like mentioned above: “Lord, I believe: help me in my unbelief.”

 

[PrayforMallory]

Hell is the condition of of men whose final choice is not-God, and that final and irrevocable choice is torment because we are eternally separated from God. God does not send us to hell. We choose it of our own free will.

I understand what you mean, and I’m not looking for an argument, just to have this explained.

When you say, “We choose if of our own free will,” you mean that we choose it while we are alive, i.e. we choose not to sin, or not to repent, etc. So am I right in thinking that we don’t have a choice once we are dead? When we die and stand before him, we aren’t able to reverse or affect anything, right? He does judge us at the end, so he does in one sense send us to hell? I’m not really well-versed in this. I was understood that once we die, that’s it, as far as repentance goes, and after that, the judgment. Am I correct?

 

[DeusEratVerbum]

Thanks for the responses to my own dilemmas.

I’m coming around more and more to the Catholic teaching on original sin - just give it time.

I guess I just struggle with the whole idea of, um, being actually sinful without actually committing sin. It’s easy to accept that we suffer from the effects of original sin such as death, an inclination to sin, wearing clothes, corruption, etc. but it’s hard for me to think that somehow we are born in a very real sinful state and having water poured on us somehow gets rid of that. But! as I heard on Catholic radio the other day and someone else here I think alluded to, we inherit other things as well - such as the wealth and poverty of our parents - through no fault of our own, so that analogy is really helpful to me.

With the eternalness and literalness of hell, I was born Catholic, converted to the Baha’i faith, and recently reverted to Catholicism. One of the Baha’i teachings is that Satan is allegorical and that hell is separation from God, but not eternal - the soul continues to work for holiness after death. I guess I’ve just still held on to that belief. But I guess, even with the whole “hell is a free choice” type argument, I know that there are quite a few times in my life where I probably would have chosen hell if I had died then and there. But in those times in my life, I really was not capable of making such a huge decision. So I would have been in eternal fire for making a decision that was not really my full choice because it was influenced by false teaching, clinical depression, and corrupt society. So I guess I struggle with this teaching because it’s personal for me maybe?

And lastly, me thinking Eucharistic Adoration is idolatry. Of course, I know that it isn’t really idolatry because the Catholic Church promotes it, and it is the charism of many saints, so therefore it cannot be idolatry. But I guess I have this opinion because I come from a more Catholic Charismatic background in my faith, so I’ve seen (and been one of the) people who see the Eucharist in adoration, and start raising their hands, crying, speaking in tongues, laughing, and screaming, “I’m sorry Jesus!” And somewhere along the way, I just said, “This is ridiculous!” and I guess I transfered that fed-upness of the charismatic movement towards Eucharistic adoration in general.

Thanks again for the responses, and pray for me please!