P
PolliceVerso
Guest
Thank you - very helpful!
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m not (necessarily) telling you to read this, but I can’t help thinking a part of Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s book Rome Sweet Home: it’s when they were thinking about “switching” from Presbyterianism to Episcopalianism. At that point that believe that Rome, while right about many things, was still wrong … though eventually they both became Roman Catholics.
Please let me know how things go for you and God bless!
U
Usige
Guest
Thanks for posting those, Deacon Jeff. I had a similar breakout with examples of each from my last ecclesiology class, but you saved me the trouble of looking up the canons and posting them. 
R
revert_jen
Guest
Absolutely this, IMO. There are still one or two things that I’m not 100% in line with in my head. But I realize that my understanding, based on one person’s experience and thought over one lifetime, is less reliable than teachings that have been promoted by the Holy Spirit and thought through by thousands of people over 2000 years. So, I don’t always see it with my own understanding, but I believe it anyway. This level of acceptance should be completely acceptible if you want to become Catholic.
Again, this is IMO.
–Jen
B
Blessedwithfive
Guest
I agree. Other than Deacon Jeff in this posting, I have NEVER found someone who agreed with all the Church teaches…but many who try very hard to accept all the Church teaches. I really believe it is a process and one that is not done until our death when we finally are able to understand the “mysteries” of faith.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’d say we are off-topic, as the OP made it clear from the start that he/she isn’t a cradle Catholic. But I’ll answer you anyhow: according to canon law, the Pope can, in fact, excommunicate a (cradle) Catholic who rejects teachings that he/she is supposed to accept. (If memory serves, Pope John Paul II reinforced this in 1998 with Ad tuendam fidem.)
What canon law does not do (and this, hopefully goes without saying, but I’ll say it regardless) is to give you or me the power to excommunicate said person.
R
revert_jen
Guest
Fair enough, but there is a big difference between what I am describing and “Cafeteria Catholicism,” because I obey the teachings I have trouble with and never say anything against them, really anywhere, but especially not in public. Because why would I want to argue in public a position that I acknowledge to be wrong (meaning my understanding)?
If nothing else, this situation helps me with my humility.
–Jen
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Hi. Welcome to the Forum.
I am a cradle Catholic, rather active in the Church but not an expert in doctrines. I do not always come here. We cradle Catholics would usually think that there is nothing new that we need to know.
I saw this thread from the Liturgy and Sacraments sub-forum and follow it here.
I think you have been given very good answers by the posters here; there is nothing that I cannot agree with. Those who have converted perhaps would be more knowledgeable on doctrines and requirement to be a ‘good’ Catholic – they have been through that.
Referring to your post above, yes, that’s right. It is important for those who explore Catholicism to be confronted with this –a Catholic has to submit to the Church’s (Catholic Church) teachings and belief. There is no alternative to that.
Can you disagree? Nobody can prevent that but if you do, like what have been said here, you really have to endeavor to understand that particular teaching, pray about it and ask God for faith, obedience and understanding. It also means for us to obey even though we could not understand (disagree).
In all of this, it has to start with the premise that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus gave us and which has the fullness of God’s truth. Once this is clear, everything else will follow.
Yes, Scott Hann’s ‘Rome Sweet Home,’ is a beautiful piece of personal testimony on his journey to the Catholic Church. I cried when I read it. You can get yourself a copy. As a non-Catholic yourself, you may perhaps find similarity to your situation there.
God bless you in your journey.
Reuben
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not trying to turn this into an argument or anything, but I’d like to chime in that the term “Cafeteria Catholic” is difficult to pin down precisely, since it is almost always used about someone else.Fair enough, but there is a big difference between what I am describing and “Cafeteria Catholicism,” because I obey the teachings I have trouble with and never say anything against them, really anywhere, but especially not in public. Because why would I want to argue in public a position that I acknowledge to be wrong (meaning my understanding)?
If nothing else, this situation helps me with my humility.
–Jen
I mean, when you think about it, what’s to stop a so-called “traditionalist” Catholic from calling you a Cafeteria Catholic for having *trouble *with this or that?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
A candidate for Baptism (rite of initiation into the Catholic Church) has to make a decision on issue he disagrees with. He may not proceed with the Baptism if he cannot submit to the Church on the issue due to personal disagreement.
R
revert_jen
Guest
Possibly. There’s nothing actually stopping someone from calling me a cantaloupe.
Generally I have heard the phrase used about people who are actually dissenting against Church teachings, rather than people who have inner, unexpressed (and of course not acted upon) issues, and acknowledge that the Church is right about those issues. I’d be surprised if anyone would say that is cafeteria Catholicism.
And I have known a couple of people who were actually proud of their cafeteria Catholicism because “it means I’m not just a sheep.”
To the OP, and back to the original subject, the best advice anyone can give you about this is just to pray about it and talk about it with your local (Catholic!) pastor. But I have to say I had some larger difficulties when I first returned to the Church, and those larger difficulties were all solved by prayer, reading, and returning to the Sacraments. There’s only a couple of baby ones left.
–Jen
L
LoveMercyGrace
Guest
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
This is one of those matters where, more than seeking opinion of people on an Internet forum, you need to open a dialogue with a priest…either one who is an academic theologian or one who is pastor of a parish…that is specific to you and to your concerns and to what exactly are the problematic points and the authority that underlies the teaching(s) at issue.
Those who, as a priest, I received into full communion with the Catholic Church – unless they were clergy or theologians of another Christian confession – made their profession without a profound theological knowledge, and therefore obviously without profound certitude of things they did not even know, of the various issues underlying their catechetical preparation. That I can assure you unequivocally since, more than teaching those coming into full communion, I taught candidates for ordination…be it for diaconate or priesthood…who did have to know and give the explicit assent of faith concerning matters in greater depth – and who were just learning these points for the first time.
It is a great disservice to say that one exploring coming into full communion must profess every doctrine that the Church proposes…unless the person has committed Denzinger to memory. Or everything the Church teaches…since teachings are assuredly not all equal. The finer points of Christology – which everyone is obliged to profess – would be unanswerable to most Catholics who are non-theologians, as when it comes to predicating with exact correctness predications on the communicatio idiomatum.
I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.
This is a phrase that everyone who pronounces it is forever growing in…in terms of both breadth and depth.
And it has to be said, I have never known a person I received into full communion that was in the same place intellectually 10 years after being received as they were in the moment in which they were received – in terms of how they both understood and actually lived that phrase above.
Since you are well read in Catholic theology, I trust you would immediately recognise Fides Quaerens Intellectum and the implications it would have for your own faith journey.
P
Peter_J
Guest
That doesn’t sound too bad, just so long as they aren’t trying to justify cannibalism.
Hmmm. I’d also describe myself as “not a sheep” … but I’d disagree with your friend inasmuch as I don’t believe that makes me a Cafeteria Catholic.Generally I have heard the phrase used about people who are actually dissenting against Church teachings, rather than people who have inner, unexpressed (and of course not acted upon) issues, and acknowledge that the Church is right about those issues. I’d be surprised if anyone would say that is cafeteria Catholicism.
And I have known a couple of people who were actually proud of their cafeteria Catholicism because “it means I’m not just a sheep.”
B
Blessedwithfive
Guest
I always smile when I hear people don’t want to be a “sheep” I tell my kids that if you are being put into two groups, sheep and goats…be a SHEEP and follow the good shepherd!
O
o_mlly
Guest
The faithful receive with docility the teachings of the Magisterium.
If a teaching is troubling and causes intellectual difficulty then Catholics may question the expression of the teaching but may not doubt the underlying truth. “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt” (Blessed John Henry Newman).
No. The oneness of being “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” would not allow.
T
thistle
Guest
Then they are all in a state of mortal sin!
They may not fully understand a doctrine but they must accept it then make an effort to understand it.
P
PolliceVerso
Guest
Thank you for this - very helpful. I have read quite a bit, but have not interacted significantly with any clergy. I think at this point I need to talk with a pastor who is well-versed in Protestant theology, and not just in a way to refute Protestant teachings. Said another way, I’d like to talk with a Catholic pastor who understands my perspective as a “cradle Presbyterian” and why that makes some Catholic doctrine hard to accept. I say that not as a criticism of Catholic clergy - very few Protestant clergy have anything more than a cursory understanding of Catholicism. I haven’t attended seminary, but it seems most Protestant seminaries only teach Catholic doctrine so that they can train their seminarians in ways to refute Catholicism. That, or the pastors just don’t give it much thought. Either way, it is hard to find a Protestant pastor who can really interact with Catholic doctrine beyond sort of throwing out the standard, borderline cliche objections. I assume many Catholic clergy are the same way: they have a superficial understanding of Protestant theology, but may not be able to interact with my concerns on a deeper level. Reading former Protestants like Tim Staples and Scott Hahn (haven’t read Rome Sweet Home yet) is helpful for sure, but there is no substitute for personal interaction.
For example - and I don’t want to derail the thread with this specific issue - I have concerns with the dogma of transubstantiation. On the one hand most Protestant churches (with the exception of Anglicans and Episcopalians) have a borderline blasphemous view of the Sacraments - most Catholics would be appalled at the way the Baptism and Communion are treated in most Protestant churches, even the good ones. They are viewed as mere signs and symbols, with total irreverence in their practice in most cases. The Catholic high view of the Sacraments (not to mention the correct Sacraments that the Protestants don’t recognize at all) is correct and proper - there is a efficacious and supernatural reality of the Sacraments, and Catholics duly recognize this, while Protestants generally do not. On the other hand, I’m not convinced transubstantiation is correct. Catholics are closer to the truth than Protestants, but are they totally correct? At this point I would say no.
Again, I don’t want to discuss transubstantiation at this point, but just use it as an example to explain where I am: Catholicism is more correct, but not totally correct. Hence the topic of the post. Thanks for the answers so far - definitely very helpful!
U
Usige
Guest
There are members of the clergy that converted, but you are correct in that many (if not the vast majority) of Catholic clergy only have a superficial understanding of non-Catholic theology. There are some like Bishop Conley (another former Presbyterian) who converted as adults, but I don’t know that most converts “advertise” their former affiliations. I personally know of 4 or 5 clergy (deacons and priests) that converted after attending protestant seminaries, but you would only know that if you got to know them. I do find that they can have a different perspective on theology, but I also find they tend to be the most “hard core” in defending those doctrines. It was something brought up in my interview before entering formation for the Diaconate. Having been raised in a protestant community, I do not simply take for granted that certain ideas are just a given. I have already had to work through the struggle of changing perspective if you will. Struggle even at that is an over statement. For me, once I was convinced of the Church was established by Christ I can only say that I was given a supernatural gift of Faith. As Fr Ruggero pointed out with St Anselm’s motto, we must start with faith that the Church teaches truth and then seek understanding.
Without getting into specific of sacramental theology, it can be problematic if you reject (or partial reject) doctrines such as transubstantiation. Lutherans believe something similar happens (consubstantiation), but it is still enough to separate them from a Catholic understand of what happens during the consecration. How far one can deviate from the understanding of the sacramental reality I will leave to a sacramental theologian, but it is required that one understand that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. We don’t need to understand the mechanics for lack of a better term, but we do have to accept that the consecrated species is no longer bread and wine despite external appearances. Try to ask where you think something is off and then reverse the argument on why you believe your doubts are correct. I found that technique helped me to uncover unconscious biases that were logically inconsistent.
In many cases you will not need a priest or deacon that was a former Presbyterian, Baptist, Hindu, et cetera to talk to you about doubts or missing pieces that cause you pause. It can be helpful in perhaps couching a Catholic teaching in terms that are more familiar to you but it would not change the truth of the teaching. We need to be careful in thinking that truth conforms to our own understanding; in looking for “loopholes” where we are uncomfortable in certain teachings. Everyone of us will have a deficiency of understanding on some level, but there is a difference between “I don’t understand” or “I misunderstand” and “I understand, but don’t believe”.
Beyond finding a priest to talk to about areas of difficulty I can only suggest that you take a page from Mark 9:24. I often found myself praying “I do believe, help my unbelief!” during my conversion.
One final note since we are fast approaching RCIA season in the US. Many will suggest just joining RCIA to get your questions answered. While some might have RCIA teams with very knowledgeable people, most teams will be unprepared to answer some of the more in depth questions. That does not mean you cannot join RCIA inquiry sessions, but more as a heads up that I would not rely on them being able to answer more in depth theological sticking points for you.
A
auctoris
Guest
I’m in the same position right now. Well on my way to Catholicism, but still have a couple of issues I need to work out. To me, the most important issues are the dogmas. These are true Catholic non-negotiables. Then there are doctrines and theological opinions.
I can tell you that in this forum, there are a number of people who will tell you to accept it all without question or stay out of the church entirely. There are others with a slightly more open perspective.
Like you, I am still undecided. I can’t imagine going back to Protestantism, but I’m still working on a few issues with Catholicism.
- Status