Do you believe everything the Catholic Church teaches?

[patg]

adnauseum:

I genuinely and honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.
I sense you are implying that human nature has improved in the last 200 years, making it necessary to alter Church doctrine. Or maybe that people are becoming smarter or something.

Human nature change ? - are you kidding? I would never said that!

I’ll try to “dumb it down” for you! What I am saying is that the knowledge gained in the last few hundred years requires that we rethink the reasoning behind many traditional beliefs. We know that God isn’t “up there” above the sky, that germs and genetics cause disease, that weather is the result of such things as El Nino winds and low pressure systems, and that the victory or defeat of a nation in military conflict is explained not on the basis of divine intervention, but rather on which nation had the larger army and the greater military capability.

My observation is that people are becoming very dumb as time passes. The golden era of the Church Fathers was one in which educated people understood Greek, were familiar with logic and rhetoric, history and philosophy, even advanced mathematics.

There were almost no educated people during that time and the earliest “Church Fathers” were certainly not among them. None of the knowledge I mentioned above was factored into the beliefs and teachings from that “golden age” and now people worship the traditions so much they are incapable of letting them grow and adapt to reality even though they no longer cohere to the worldview that is their living frame of reference. There is a name for the time when the Church pretty much ruled the world - its called the Dark Ages.

Any alterations to Church Doctrine would have to be to dumb it down…
This is what liberals are trying to do to the Church. They want to magnify the parts they understand, or find easy to do, and ignore the rest. While I can understand the desire to do this, I also know it is the wrong way to go.

So you reject the use of knowledge to increase understanding and improve our vision of God? The next time you have a medical problem, I’m sure you’ll tell your doctor to treat you as you would have been treated 2000 years ago - why use modern insight and knowledge? - that would just be taking the easy way out, wouldn’t it? You also sound like the composer who, several hundred years ago, said that all the music we’d ever need had already been written.

Like children, the leaders from the Golden Age and many of us want to know who is in charge of the universe. We want someone to establish the rules of belief and behavior. That is what opens the door to tyrants and God. We like to think of God as* in loco parentis* – a surrogate parent. But God steadily refuses to interfere in human affairs.

Most of us also long for an external redeemer; one who comes from another world and does for us what we are unable or unwilling to do for ourselves. We want a superman, or a wonder woman, or a King Arthur, etc. But that messiah hasn’t come and won’t come. While we wait, rehearsing apocalyptic scenarios, the crisis deepens.

 

[Catholic_Mike]

rlg94086:

Bravo! :clapping:

As a convert, I struggled with certain Truths, and I was initially given some poor guidance regarding Church teaching. I learned to take the same attitude as you, and now I am constantly growing in my understanding of the Church.

God bless you in your journey,
RLG

P.S. Try “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1569552142/qid=1102527794/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-3509091-0254534

As a matter of fact… I believe Love and Responsibility, and the Pope’s later addresses on the subject, is what Christopher West based at least one of his books on the subject of marriage and sexuality on. First term of this informal class I’m taking at my church was “Love and Responsibilty” and second is called “Theology of the Body” - I believe Fr. Matt’s notes for both semesters make use of Mr. West’s insights. And since the Pope’s writings are headpoundingly dense, I am planning on picking up some of West’s books.

 

[sherilo]

I am struggling with this very issue right now, as can be seen on the “Stuck” thread in this forum. I don’t believe in everything the Catholic church teaches. I still have a little trouble with the assumption of Mary. I don’t see what that has to do with my salvation. And while I am beginning to understand the reason for the anti birth control stance, I am not sure that I completely agree with the church’s position. I can accept it, but not agree with it. I also cannot believe in every apparition.
I have been studying and reading for about 6 months, and I found that most everything that I thought was wrong in the Catholic church WRT the biggies like confession, transubstantiation, perpetual virginity is right. Also, I have read a lot of the early church Fathers, and it is so beautiful and true. So, I thought that I was ready to enter RCIA. Now, I feel like if I did so, I would be a fraud. I would not be able to honestly profess to agree with everything that the church teaches. I don’t see myself praying the Rosary, for instance. I would never try to convince anyone that held differing opinions that they were wrong, I would just feel like a liar as I silently harbored my doubts. The Eucharist is what continues to drive me. I was baptized Catholic as a baby, but not raised that way. In my hit and miss Protestant church experience, I have never taken communion (even symbolically) even once. And now that I have come to know that it is Jesus in the flesh, I want to so badly. But now, if I can’t honestly tell the church that I believe in everything it teaches, the church will not have me. And I can’t lie. And I can’t have the Eucharist. Was Christ’s early church this complicated?

Sherilo

 

[Catholic_Mike]

sherilo:

I am struggling with this very issue right now, as can be seen on the “Stuck” thread in this forum. I don’t believe in everything the Catholic church teaches. I still have a little trouble with the assumption of Mary. I don’t see what that has to do with my salvation. And while I am beginning to understand the reason for the anti birth control stance, I am not sure that I completely agree with the church’s position. I can accept it, but not agree with it. I also cannot believe in every apparition.
I have been studying and reading for about 6 months, and I found that most everything that I thought was wrong in the Catholic church WRT the biggies like confession, transubstantiation, perpetual virginity is right. Also, I have read a lot of the early church Fathers, and it is so beautiful and true. So, I thought that I was ready to enter RCIA. Now, I feel like if I did so, I would be a fraud. I would not be able to honestly profess to agree with everything that the church teaches. I don’t see myself praying the Rosary, for instance. I would never try to convince anyone that held differing opinions that they were wrong, I would just feel like a liar as I silently harbored my doubts. The Eucharist is what continues to drive me. I was baptized Catholic as a baby, but not raised that way. In my hit and miss Protestant church experience, I have never taken communion (even symbolically) even once. And now that I have come to know that it is Jesus in the flesh, I want to so badly. But now, if I can’t honestly tell the church that I believe in everything it teaches, the church will not have me. And I can’t lie. And I can’t have the Eucharist. Was Christ’s early church this complicated?

Sherilo

I kind of know how you feel. There are some points of Catholic theology that so far don’t make sense to me. But I believe in the Church’s infallability more than I believe in my own wisdom (left to my own opinions, there are even things in the Bible that I ‘disagree’ with). So I say that I believe, I just don’t understand.

And I’ve found that most often, when Iook into issues, I see that the Catholic position is right. Transubstantiation was kind of a happy suprise for me - I’d started to wonder if it could really be defended, and then I found that it makes sense.

I’m not sure what the best way to deal with situations like the one you are in and that I occasionally find myself in. On the one hand, demanding that the Church explain every matter of docterine satisfactorally to me - that it all be in line with my personal intrepretation of Scripture - seems like a Protestant approach. On the other, if the Church is wrong I want to know it.

In any case, the infallability docterine makes sense to me. Unless I change my mind on that, the Church would have to teach something blatently illogical for me to leave it.

As for the assumption of Mary… what’s your issue there? I’ve never seen any proof of it, but I can think of no reason to doubt it. And the rosary? Are those the only issues?

 

[rlg94086]

sherilo:

I thought that I was ready to enter RCIA. Now, I feel like if I did so, I would be a fraud. I would not be able to honestly profess to agree with everything that the church teaches. I don’t see myself praying the Rosary, for instance…

Sherilo,

Peace be with you. I would recommend you enter RCIA. A good RCIA group will help you in your search for understanding. If you can’t reconcile your current doubts, you don’t have to continue through to confirmation. I know of people who went through RCIA multiple times without participating in baptism, confession, etc. until they were ready.

In the process, you may find things you can’t fully embrace, even though you accept the doctrine. If, for example, you understand and accept the Church’s teachings on Mary and the Communion of Saints, that doesn’t mean you have to pray the rosary or pray for intercessions. It took me almost ten years after I converted before I started praying the rosary.

Also, read the Catechism. The explanations of doctrine are very clear and include references from scripture.

Oh yeah, and pray…a lot.

God bless you on your journey,

Robert.

 

[redeemed1]

You forgot the other option: Is the RCC wrong and false?

Yes.

 

[FightingFat]

I think quite a few people here would disagree redeemed1.

I think that Robert’s advice is sound. These issues are best dealt with within an RCIA course.

Good luck & God bless!

 

[sherilo]

Catholic_Mike:

As for the assumption of Mary… what’s your issue there? I’ve never seen any proof of it, but I can think of no reason to doubt it. And the rosary? Are those the only issues?

Thanks for the words of wisdom. And yes, those are about the only two issues. At this point, as you said, I have read nothing that proves the assumption of Mary. To me, it seems just that, an assumption. And while I have learned that Mary was much more than Protestants allow her to be, I can’t quite talk to her, yet. I did not ever think that I would believe that she had no more children, but I see now that she remained a virgin. And Rosalind Moss said something on the radio the other day that cleared up the problem of the immaculate conception for me. So, the rest may come.
I talked to my sister-in-law this weekend about my problem. She is a crade Catholic, and a very devout one, at that. She also gave me some good advice. She said that as long as I am not competely refusing to accept these things, that I am not a fraud. She also said that I can’t do it all by myself, as is my human nature to try. She said that I should let God help me to understand some things. She said that no human can understand all the mysteries of God, and that if I was at least open to teaching that I could admit to God that I was struggling with these issues, and let Him know that I needed His help. If He wants me to believe them, then He will help me to.

So, thanks to her and the good people on this forum, I feel much better, now.

God bless,
Sherilo

 

[sherilo]

rlg94086:

Sherilo,

Peace be with you. I would recommend you enter RCIA. A good RCIA group will help you in your search for understanding. If you can’t reconcile your current doubts, you don’t have to continue through to confirmation. I know of people who went through RCIA multiple times without participating in baptism, confession, etc. until they were ready.

In the process, you may find things you can’t fully embrace, even though you accept the doctrine. If, for example, you understand and accept the Church’s teachings on Mary and the Communion of Saints, that doesn’t mean you have to pray the rosary or pray for intercessions. It took me almost ten years after I converted before I started praying the rosary.

Also, read the Catechism. The explanations of doctrine are very clear and include references from scripture.

Oh yeah, and pray…a lot.

God bless you on your journey,

Robert.

Thank you, Robert.
Yes, I agree that it is probably time for me to get in an RCIA class. I was baptized Catholic, but not raised as such. That is probably why I have such an aversion to praying to Mary and the saints. I love talking directly to God through Jesus, and don’t feel the need to go through anyone else. I am thrilled to find that praying to Mary and the saints is not a requirement. And in time, I may be able to, but it is wonderful to know that I can continue my journey with a clear conscience. My sister-in-law was going to lend me her copy of the Catechism, but I think that I will buy my own so as to be able to refer to it as needed.

God bless,
Sherilo

 

[Steve_Girone]

You bet I do! Never did like cafeteria food anyway

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

redeemed1:

You forgot the other option: Is the RCC wrong and false?

Yes.

According to pope redeemed1 God Bless

 

[PaulDupre]

I believe everything that has been pronounced as binding on the faithful.

The only thing I disagree with the Holy father about (and it’s only his opinion, not dogma) is the death penalty - I’m all in favor of it. I think it is logically inconsistent to be pro-life and anti-death penalty.

When we fail to execute murderers, we trivialize their crimes and devalue the lives of those they murdered.

God bless you,
Paul

 

[ICXCNIKA]

StephiePea:

I’m a new convert, and I have met many Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe. What do you struggle with in the Church?

I struggle most with my own self. My selfish motives that lead me away from solid Church teaching.

Before I returned to the Church I had a Catholic friend who had gone through a divorce. The annulment process took a couple years for her. I remember her telling me about the process and I saw that what the Church was most concerned with was her salvation. Church teaching is the teaching of Jesus Christ who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of Truth.

 

[JamesD]

Bob Baran:

Are you a theologian? I don’t understand what your are trying to say…you either believe or you don’t…it is not a gray area!

I think it can be a gray area for folks who are not sure that they should be catholic.
In my opinion cafeteria catholics think they should be catholic but don’t have to believe all of the required dogma. This is not catholic! These people do not know what it means to be catholic!
I also think that for those who truly understand what it means to be catholic but are not sure that catholic is true and correct then they need to search for the grace and/or reason to know the truth. I personally think that this is a respectable and honerable position to be in as long as they are truely openly desiring and searching for the truth.
This is also a whole lot different than those who suddenly “discover” that they have trouble beliving in the truth of the catholic church because of something like wanting to be divorced and remarried.

 

[marineoc17]

i am a non-denominational christian. meaning, i dont belong to a group like, lutherans, catholics, protestants, baptists, ect. i believe what the bible teaches.
i dont believe you have to be baptized to be saved. Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26; Ez. 44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12). The circumcision of the heart is signified by the circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12).
One last thought: If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ? If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved. If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary?

 

[FightingFat]

marineoc17:

i am a non-denominational christian. meaning, i dont belong to a group like, lutherans, catholics, protestants, baptists, ect. i believe what the bible teaches.

The Bible teaches us to be Catholics.

marineoc17:

i dont believe you have to be baptized to be saved. Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26; Ez. 44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12). The circumcision of the heart is signified by the circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12).

Have you read this?

marineoc17:

One last thought: If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ? If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved. If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary?

I think the argument mirrors that of Aurelius Augustine of Hippo and the British Monk, Pelagius. How do we achieve salvation? Through God’s grace or our own?

More here.

 

[matt_cauthorn]

as G.K Chesterton said “I don’t need a church that is right when I am right I need a church that is right when I am wrong”
God bless all

 

[John_Colean]

I have read numerous posts in this thread and it seems that many people are concerned that they believe this issue or not believe in another issue. While I do not want to minimize the importance of knowing what you believe is truthful, I also have to wonder if Christ is really going to be impressed with us if when we meet Him face to face, we can tell Him that we “believed” all that the Church had to teach. Christ did not tell us to “Go out and be right”, but rather go out and love our neighbors. Perhaps I have a basic problem with authority, but I am annoyed and saddened by those who are quick to quote the chapter and verse of dogma or canon law to someone who may have an honest doubt or even a disbelief in a specific issue. It is my opinion that this is the height of arrogance. I am not sure that being a good Catholic means that we believe and do all that the Church has declared. Christ was not impressed with the Jewish leaders who purported to follow all of the law. Surely our spiritual walk and our relationship with the Father is more than just believing what someone has told us to believe. I believe our daily meditation and quite time with the Father can show us the truth for our life.

Blessings to all,

John

 

[rlg94086]

Peace John,
John Colean:

I also have to wonder if Christ is really going to be impressed with us if when we meet Him face to face, we can tell Him that we “believed” all that the Church had to teach.

I agree! I don’t think Christ would be impressed with someone who just “believes” all the Church teaches, if they don’t actually follow the teaching. However, in order to believe and follow the teachings, you have to know what they are…thus the Catechism.

Christ did not tell us to “Go out and be right”, but rather go out and love our neighbors.

But how do we “love our neighbors”? See Romans 13:8-10. Paul teaches that loving your neighbors=fulfillment of the laws.

I am annoyed and saddened by those who are quick to quote the chapter and verse of dogma or canon law to someone who may have an honest doubt or even a disbelief in a specific issue. It is my opinion that this is the height of arrogance.

I guess it depends on how it is done. If done in a strong judmental way, I agree it can do more harm than good. If it is done as a gentle explanation of doctrine, then it is very necessary. All should be done with love. I’ve seen a lot of people blown out of the water by someone well versed in dogma. Is that the goal, to blow someone out of the water? I don’t think so. However, keep in mind that on forums like this, it is often hard to discern someone’s intent or tone.

Perhaps I have a basic problem with authority…but I am not sure that being a good Catholic means that we believe and do all that the Church has declared.

Perhaps . You might be thinking of “the Church” as seperate from the Body of Christ (i.e. just a group of old men who are making the rules.) Jesus was pretty clear that he wanted people to follow his teachings.

I believe our daily meditation and quite time with the Father can show us the truth for our life.

I agree. Hopefully, daily prayer and devotion will lead us all to a better understanding of Covenant Faithfulness. Try meditating on this passage:

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but don’t do what I command?” - Luke 6:46.

What does Jesus mean? Is doing what he commands equivalent to doing what the Church he founded teaches?

God bless you John,

Robert.

 

[rlg94086]

Peace John,
John Colean:

I also have to wonder if Christ is really going to be impressed with us if when we meet Him face to face, we can tell Him that we “believed” all that the Church had to teach.

I agree! I don’t think Christ would be impressed with someone who just “believes” all the Church teaches, if they don’t actually follow the teaching. However, you can’t act on those beliefs until you know what Christ’s commands are, thus the Catechism.

Christ did not tell us to “Go out and be right”, but rather go out and love our neighbors.

And how do we “love our neighbors”? Is it just a feeling, or are there works involved? If works, what works?

I am annoyed and saddened by those who are quick to quote the chapter and verse of dogma or canon law to someone who may have an honest doubt or even a disbelief in a specific issue. It is my opinion that this is the height of arrogance.

I guess it depends on how it is done. If done in a strong judmental way, I agree it can do more harm than good. If it is done as a gentle explanation of doctrine, then it is very necessary. All should be done with love. I’ve seen a lot of people blown out of the water by someone well versed in dogma. Is that the goal, to blow someone out of the water? I don’t think so.

Perhaps I have a basic problem with authority…but I am not sure that being a good Catholic means that we believe and do all that the Church has declared.

Perhaps . You might be thinking of “the Church” as seperate from the Body of Christ (i.e. just a group of old men who are making the rules.) Jesus was pretty clear that he wanted people to follow his teachings.

I believe our daily meditation and quite time with the Father can show us the truth for our life.

I agree. Hopefully, it will lead us all to a better understanding of Covenant Faithfulness. Try meditating on this passage:

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but don’t do what I command?” - Luke 6:46.

God bless you John,

Robert.