I'm not a Catholic because

[asd72]

I am a former Catholic. I am not a Catholic today because many years ago I was able to see and understand that God was offering me a deeper and more personal relationship with Him than was possible through the Catholic Church. I have never regreted my decision to leave the Catholic Church, and I hold no animosity toward it.

What did you find outside of Catholism that lead to a deeper more personal relationship with God? Was it that the faith community you discovered outside of Catholism was living out the gospel and the Catholics you knew weren’t?

Jesus offers himself to the Father and to us in every Mass/Divine lithurgy, can it get more personal than that?

 

[PJM]

=dingodile;8479699]I went through a year of RCIA but declined baptism at the end of it. I struggle with agnosticism, which seems to be my spiritual center of gravity. I am miles and miles away from being able to assert with honesty that I believe the teachings of the Catholic Church as revealed by Jesus Christ.

So…no go.

So my friend are there specific issues; precise teachings that are he root of your uncertainity?

Having taught RCIA myself foe 3 years, I know that the instructions vary geatly in depth and detail. I’d be happy to discusss on the FORUM or through private messages any issues you’d care to bring to the fore

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=Agape Thom;8480191]I am a former Catholic. I am not a Catholic today because many years ago I was able to see and understand that God was offering me a deeper and more personal relationship with Him than was possible through the Catholic Church. I have never regreted my decision to leave the Catholic Church, and I hold no animosity toward it.

My friend what you suggest and choose to believe is a metaphysical impossibility. ONLY in the Catholic Church can one meet God in person face to face and then in the most intimate and glorious Mystery; receive Him: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. “The Complete Jesus.” It cannot be more personal or more intimate than that.

Then there is the issue of KNOWN [not hoped for, not guessed, but factually knoing ones sins are forgiven. Again an exclusice to the CC.

Not just my opinion by that of Jesus Himself.

Jn. 6. 55-57 “He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him.”

Mt. 26: 26-28
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

MK 14: 22-24
And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Lk 22: 19-21
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Paul 1 Cor.11: 23-29
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: [to be worthy of the privilege] and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself

** 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10:** "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

** 1John.5 Verses 16 to 17**"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. ** There is sin which is mortal**; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, ** but there is sin which is not mortal. **

** John.20 Verses 20 to 23**]" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. ** Jesus said to them ** again, “Peace be with you. ** As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ** And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

IF your interested in your salvation think and PRAY about this,

GB, Pat

 

[PJM]

=bill Karabinus;8477948]I find that all of these statements are very interesting but I have to say that “I AM CATHOLIC” and there is a good reason for this. I believe in the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. This is what the Church is centered around and everything else is secondary. I believe that Jesus gave the keys of heaven to Peter and that was indeed the start of what still stands today. I have to admit that I do not fully agree with everything the Church teaches but this does not make me a bad Catholic nor some type of heretic. We all, as children of God have the right to question certain things and that is how we grow in our faith. That is how the Church has grown over the years and if you look at the ideas and teachings of men like Aquinas you will see how thinking did in fact change. If you look at the documents of Vatican II you will see how the Church has changed. If you look at the writings of John Paul II and Benedict XVI you will see how the thinking of the Church has been shaped and subsequently changed. There have been many changes in the Church during my lifetime and I expect more before I die but no matter what I am a good Catholic and I will remain so for eternity…

WAY TO GO BILL:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[dingodile]

So my friend are there specific issues; precise teachings that are he root of your uncertainity?

Having taught RCIA myself foe 3 years, I know that the instructions vary geatly in depth and detail. I’d be happy to discusss on the FORUM or through private messages any issues you’d care to bring to the fore

God Bless you,
Pat

My uncertainty is more global, I think. I see the Bible and Sacred Tradition as fallible texts created and preserved by fallible people. The intricate web of teachings that are the CCC and Canon Law are theoretically the outworking of Christ’s teachings and his intentions for the future. I don’t think anyone knows, or is in a position to know, exactly what Christ taught or intended. We do the best with what we have, but our claims should be tentative, open to revision, and tempered with humility.

 

[someguy14]

God surely loves you. Not only that he wants you to use your time for prayer and to help others and to bring them to Christ.

However, I am not able to get a new postulant approved who has not had a good work or school history in the past two years. Unfortunately you would not qualify.

 

[PJM]

=dingodile;8481677]My uncertainty is more global, I think. I see the Bible and Sacred Tradition as fallible texts created and preserved by fallible people. The intricate web of teachings that are the CCC and Canon Law are theoretically the outworking of Christ’s teachings and his intentions for the future. I don’t think anyone knows, or is in a position to know, exactly what Christ taught or intended. We do the best with what we have, but our claims should be tentative, open to revision, and tempered with humility.

***So the OT prophisies being fulfilled, God assuming human flesh, and countless mircales mean? Surely there must be a reason for these.

Any why my friend is it that humanity alone can rationalize and love? This requires a mind, intellect, freewill an soul. Each of which, like God Himself are “spiritual things”

This is coincedience, luck, or is it a great deal more? And the Bible is at root the persoanl testimonies of a great many inspired men, backed up by historical evidence.

I’d love to enter into greater depth on which ever issue you’d lke to discuss.

God Bless you my friend,

Pat***

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by ConsciousCoward

I’m not Catholic because I cannot accept some very specific ideas. I know you don’t worship Mary or pray to the saints in place of God, I know that the Priest is supposed to represent God in Confession, and I generally know enough about church history and doctrine to know what the Church actually teaches. But with some of them, I see Roman influence, and I see so many people fall into empty ritualism or misplaced devotion, and I can’t join in. I know my weaknesses, and I’m the kind of person that could very easily allow it all to just become empty ritual.

My dear friend in Christ,

My heart aches for you. The issue it seems to me is head knowledge without heart support. We Catholics are not about rituals; even though we have many. Each in its own and unique way is an actual manifestation of God Himself and a great source of the grace we absolutely need in order to merit [not earn] our own salvation.

Take for example the Mass; the most common and also the most misunderstood example of which you speak.

The Mass has two focal points. God holy and Divine Word, and God’s sacrifice. The other focus is God; in Person; Himself. Not a mere sign, nor a symbol, but Jesus Christ Himself in His now Glorified Body; Blood, Soul and Divinity: “The entire Christ.” [Google Eucharistic Miracles] and see for yourself.

Eucharist is From God the Father; OF God the Son, By God the Holy Spirit. God chooses to have His priest participate in order to 1. Be able to testify and explain it’s wondrous merits and grace. 2. In-order to amplify the physical aspects of the Devine Mystery.

A Good and gracious God can do any good thing. And the Eucharist is the “Greatest POSSIBLE Good” because it is, IT IS, God Himself in His now Glorified and Risen Body. No greater good, and no greater source of God’s grace is possible.

This reality is biblically affirmed in Mt. 26; Mk.14; Lk. 22, Paul 1st. Cor. 11 and this from
John from Chapter 6: 47-57

Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him.

The Eucharist is a Sacrament in three continuous ways. It is 1. A Sacrifice sacrament [re-presented NOT represented] 2. A Communion sacrament for our salvation 3. A Worship sacrament.

When one understands this, accepts its truth and its significance and reality; then Mass is no longer a ritual; it is a meeting of minds, hearts and souls. The most intimate and person relationship possible between God Created humanity, and our Creator.

God Bless you,
Pat
PJM

 

[dingodile]

So the OT prophisies being fulfilled, God assuming human flesh, and countless mircales mean? Surely there must be a reason for these.

There must indeed. I’m not disputing the existence of God here, or the divine nature of Jesus. I struggle with doubts about those things, yes, but those doubts are not the reason why I’m not a Catholic. As far as I can make out, if there are miracles–and I’m inclined to think there are–they don’t occur exclusively among Catholics.

Any why my friend is it that humanity alone can rationalize and love? This requires a mind, intellect, freewill an soul. Each of which, like God Himself are “spiritual things”

 

[october_89]

I’m not a Catholic because the Easter Vigil hasn’t arrived yet

Welcome home!!! I just finished my sacraments this past easter vigil… you’re going to love it if not cry from joy =)

 

[Stephen_W]

I thought I knew what the CC taught; Mary worship, the silly superstitions (Really? My house will sell if I just turn the statue of St. Joseph upside down?), idol worship, etc… Then I started seriously studying church history, which led me to the early church fathers and thier writings. Which also led to another look at the CC. Now I don’t know. I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around some Catholic beliefs. Some I know would just have to be accepted on faith in the Magisterium. Others I can study out.

Your average, Catholic-on-the-street doesn’t help eithier when I hear them spout the same nonsense that I always thought the CC stood for (How many times do I say Hail Mary to insure it wont rain today?) How about alittle more teaching for your own people?

For now I remain a Mennonite. A Mennonite with an open mind, maybe. We’ll see where the Lord leads.

 

[Lokabrenna]

My friend your hanging around the FORUM for a reason. Be charitable but candid. I can handle it. I don’t get angry. But be clear about your issue and I’ll try to discuss them with you. If your looking for the church to change Her teachings; it’s not going to happen on matters of Faith and Morals because they are GOD"S not the property of the CC. Other issues are a maybe?

God Bless YOU:thumbsup:

Pat

I wish more people on CAF were like you. No one’s been screaming “devil worshiper!” and throwing holy water on me (please don’t, I don’t like having wet clothes and my hair just dried from washing it) but some of the comments on my two “Ask a Pagan” threads were…less than charitable, although I try to be civil in return. There’s no sense in getting angry over internet posts and I like answering questions about my faith.

I could go over the list of things areas where I disagree with Church teaching: I’m pro-choice, a lesbian (and I have absolutely no intention of remaining celibate for the rest of my life–especially now that same-sex marriage is legal in my country), I don’t believe the Bible depicts events that literally happened in history (if said events even happened at all–scholars like to argue), but I suspect you’ve heard all of this before. To borrow an analogy someone recently used: It’s like when you go away to summer camp, and you come back, and your old friends are there, but for some reason, you just don’t connect with them anymore. (Maybe a better analogy would be a school reunion.) I feel so strongly about those “unchangeable” teachings you mentioned that there’s no way I could go back, it would (in my mind) require me to adopt blind faith, and I just can’t go back to that.

 

[bill_Karabinus]

Good evening everyone. I have been watching as this thread has moved along and I am beginning to see some hostility here. This makes me wonder about the call you believe God has given you. It does not matter how you worship in this context but I assure you that hostility is not promoted in any Christian faith.

I am so very sad that it always comes to this and I am sorry for the agnostics and the protestants that cannot accept truth.

The Catholic Church has been here since the start of our faith and has remained. We have had and do have many problems as do any structure that is run by mortal man. So, the fact is that we were here at the start and we will be here at the end your choice is up to you and that is what free-will is all about…

God bless you all!

 

[geoformeo]

What an interesting and insightful thread. Thank you, PJM, for starting it, and thank you all who have sincerely stated your questions and doubts regarding Catholicism. Moreover, thank you all for being here on this forum, and actually seeking the truth for yourselves about what the Church really teaches and not taking things on hearsay. Like PJM, I am also a catechist (albeit for Confirmation, so I deal with the instruction of teens which is an adventure in and of itself), and realize that the average Joe Catholic knows and does very little with regard to understanding, explaining, and defending their faith. In my own small way, I am trying to remedy that situation.

There is no single topic that is the “clincher” that brings one to Catholicism; it is a process of discernment and I commend those of you searching here on the forums. Oftentimes, one must knock down specific wall after specific wall until there are no more walls to knock down. PJM is doing a great job at addressing individual specific issues, and I offer my humble services to do the same.

That being said, I have to throw out a blanket generalization that in my experience applies to both teens and non-Catholics: a resistance to submission to an authority. In both situations, it often appears to be “my will, not Thy will, be done”. In short, everyone wants to be their own pope. Which, of course, is the sin of pride and the result of our fallen nature. But ultimately, the buck has to stop somewhere, and Christ Himself said that somewhere is the Church (Mt 18:16-19). Christ instituted a leader of His Church (Peter, Mt 16:16-19; Lk 22:31-32; Jn 21:15-19), a Church with apostolic succession (Acts 1:15-26, 2 Tim 1:6), and who Christ identified Himself with (Acts 9:4-5) and is His body, with Him being the ultimate head (Eph 5:29-32).

And there’s the rub. Catholics are so into being “Catholic” because to be fully Catholic means to be fully immersed in the fullness of Christ Himself. Christ makes no distinction between Himself and the Church: they are married, and “the two have become one”. Therefore, to follow and trust the Church is to follow and trust Christ, and not just on an abstract or esoteric level. It is truly the aligning all of oneself, body and soul, with the will of Christ.

One final thought: I hope everyone reads and contemplates all of John 17, Jesus’ prayer for unity in His Church. “That they may be one, as You and I are one.” Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit do not disagree on infant baptism, faith alone, once-saved always saved, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex “marriage”, contraception, or anything. As far as I know, only one Church (the Catholic Church) makes the audacious claim to infallibly teach in alignment with God, as only one has the ability to back up that claim. And if your church does not or cannot make that claim, why are you there? If it can offer you only some but not the fullness of Truth (which is Christ Himself), ask yourself if you are okay with knowing your belief structure is incomplete and is at least in some ways away from the will of the God you claim to worship.

God’s blessing and peace to all.

 

[dingodile]

That being said, I have to throw out a blanket generalization that in my experience applies to both teens and non-Catholics: a resistance to submission to an authority. In both situations, it often appears to be “my will, not Thy will, be done”. In short, everyone wants to be their own pope.

Sometimes resisting submission to authority is a good thing.

You don’t question whether the Catholic Church, or anyone else, actually knows the will of God in detail. I and many others do question. For those who are not confident that the Church is all that it says it is, it’s more than reasonable to decline to submit to its authority.

 

[Ahimsa]

Sometimes resisting submission to authority is a good thing.

You don’t question whether the Catholic Church, or anyone else, actually knows the will of God in detail. I and many others do question. For those who are not confident that the Church is all that it says it is, it’s more than reasonable to decline to submit to its authority.

Everybody resists authority of some kind. Christians resist Islamic authority. Muslims resist secular humanist authority.

 

[geoformeo]

Sometimes resisting submission to authority is a good thing.

Absolutely I agree with you that sometimes resisting submission to an authority is a good thing, but oftentimes it is not. If you disobey your parents, you will get disciplined. If you disobey your boss, you may get fired. If you break the law, you go to jail. If you live an evil life, you go to hell. And in all those instances, one is resisting submission to an outside authority and submitting oneself to their own authority.

You don’t question whether the Catholic Church, or anyone else, actually knows the will of God in detail. I and many others do question. For those who are not confident that the Church is all that it says it is, it’s more than reasonable to decline to submit to its authority.

No I don’t question the authority of the Church anymore, but I most certainly did. I am a scientist by profession, and it is my job to examine physical evidence in scrupulous detail. Having studied the claims of the Church in detail, I have concluded that the Catholic Church is the true Church Christ founded, and has exhaustive support from the scientific, historical, and biblical realms.

I agree that if you’re not confident in her claims, it is more reasonable to not submit to her authority. But I guess I would have to ask if you really are investigating the Church’s claims thoroughly? In my experience, many people in your shoes would rather play the “invincible ignorance” card, because they’re scared of what they might find should they actually do the research. Seeking the truth and accepting the truth are their own animals, and it takes a great deal of courage to do both.

Personally, I find it refreshing that I have an infallible guide in the Church. Lord knows where I’d be if I were left to my own devices and could pick and choose my morality and faith.

May God bless your quest for truth!

 

[dingodile]

No I don’t question the authority of the Church anymore, but I most certainly did. I am a scientist by profession, and it is my job to examine physical evidence in scrupulous detail. Having studied the claims of the Church in detail, I have concluded that the Catholic Church is the true Church Christ founded, and has exhaustive support from the scientific, historical, and biblical realms.

I agree that if you’re not confident in her claims, it is more reasonable to not submit to her authority. But I guess I would have to ask if you really are investigating the Church’s claims thoroughly? In my experience, many people in your shoes would rather play the “invincible ignorance” card, because they’re scared of what they might find should they actually do the research. Seeking the truth and accepting the truth are their own animals, and it takes a great deal of courage to do both.

Well…I have read many works of general Christian and Catholic apologetics. The works of Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, and Mark Shea come to mind. I’ve also recently read Newman’s Love and Gain: The Story of a Convert. I’ve studied sections of the CCC and have attended Mass with my family for years (my wife is Catholic and my kids were raised Catholic). I’ve read the entire Bible once, and studied various parts of it many times. I’ve tried various Catholic devotions, such as a Rosary Novena, all in the spirit of spiritual self-experimentation. And, as I mentioned above, I attended RCIA.

But in the end I find it impossible to suspend disbelief in the claims of the Church, and in some generic doctrines such as atonement. The Church’s case for its authority always seems to come down to: We are the Church Jesus founded. We know this from scripture. We know the scripture is correct because the Holy Spirit protected the Church from error in compiling it. We know this from scripture too. We know that we are interpreting scripture correctly because the Holy Spirit also protects the Church from error in interpreting it. This too we know from scripture. It’s a large circle that, in its totality, I don’t find believable.

Personally, I find it refreshing that I have an infallible guide in the Church. Lord knows where I’d be if I were left to my own devices and could pick and choose my morality and faith.

But you do. You’ve picked and chosen the Church’s version of morality and faith. Would you have done so if you found them unbelievable?

May God bless your quest for truth!

Thanks. In your own quest, was there a particular “turning point”?

 

[geoformeo]

Well…I have read many works of general Christian and Catholic apologetics. The works of Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, and Mark Shea come to mind. I’ve also recently read Newman’s Love and Gain: The Story of a Convert. I’ve studied sections of the CCC and have attended Mass with my family for years (my wife is Catholic and my kids were raised Catholic). I’ve read the entire Bible once, and studied various parts of it many times. I’ve tried various Catholic devotions, such as a Rosary Novena, all in the spirit of spiritual self-experimentation. And, as I mentioned above, I attended RCIA.

Excellent work! Well done, I would definitely not put you in the class of those who have not done their homework.

But in the end I find it impossible to suspend disbelief in the claims of the Church, and in some generic doctrines such as atonement. The Church’s case for its authority always seems to come down to: We are the Church Jesus founded. We know this from scripture. We know the scripture is correct because the Holy Spirit protected the Church from error in compiling it. We know this from scripture too. We know that we are interpreting scripture correctly because the Holy Spirit also protects the Church from error in interpreting it. This too we know from scripture. It’s a large circle that, in its totality, I don’t find believable.

No, I think this is where you may be mistaken. Yes, the Church can and does point to the Bible to confirm its claims to authority, but that is not the argument in totality. It is a historical fact. There was no Bible, only a Church, for the first 350 years of Christianity (first canon of scripture officially defined by the Council of Carthage in 382 AD). There was no Gospel of John or Book of Revelation for the first 60-70 years of Christianity. These are verifiable historical and archaeological facts.

And, frankly, this is where Protestantism falls flat on its face, because like you said, if you only have the Bible as evidence, then you are only capable of arguing in a circle. The Church has history, as well as the Bible, on its side.

As far as atonement is concerned, have you read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity? Yes, it is not a Catholic work, but it lays out the need and reality of the atonement very well.

But you do. You’ve picked and chosen the Church’s version of morality and faith. Would you have done so if you found them unbelievable?

Though a scientist, I am humble enough to know my own limitations as well as the limitations of the scientific method. The human mind can only take us so far, the next step is truly a leap of faith. If God and His relationship with humanity and the Church could be fully comprehensible, then that is not a God worthy of the name.

There is a distinct difference between something nonsensical and something incomprehensible. Some of the Church’s claims (the Trinity, transubstantiation, etc.) are the latter, not the former. There is a humility involved in submitting one’s will with the will of God. But with the CC, one does not have to suspend one’s rationality with one’s faith; they go hand in hand. Paragraphs 158-160 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church come to mind.

Thanks. In your own quest, was there a particular “turning point”?

History. History. History. Reading apologetics works are great, but have you read the Early Church Fathers? Read Augustine, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, the Didache. You will find that they are thoroughly Catholic in doctrine; and bear in mind they were all writing (with the exception of Augustine, who played a role in the Council of Hippo also confirming the canon of Scripture) before there existed a Bible as we know it.

Keep searching, keep questioning. I don’t not question the Church’s teaching, because I believe a faith without question is a weak faith. I question, but then I seek answers, knowing that the answers are there and that they come from a reliable Source. The final step is often the toughest, the aligning of my thinking with that of the Church.

It is great discussing this with you.

 

[dingodile]

No, I think this is where you may be mistaken. Yes, the Church can and does point to the Bible to confirm its claims to authority, but that is not the argument in totality. It is a historical fact. There was no Bible, only a Church, for the first 350 years of Christianity (first canon of scripture officially defined by the Council of Carthage in 382 AD). There was no Gospel of John or Book of Revelation for the first 60-70 years of Christianity. These are verifiable historical and archaeological facts.

Yes, I actually thought about this as I wrote, but was too lazy to go back and edit. Of course you’re right. The claims of the Church rest on Tradition, upon which the authority of scripture itself rests. But that doesn’t really change anything for me. Tradition itself is, from the vantage point of the present, a collection of texts. And as you know, there are many, many texts from that period, expressing a vast diversity of opinions on the details and meaning of the life of Jesus and the apostles. Which ones are authoritative?

The early centuries of the Church were a period of contention and “strife of interpretations”, if you will. Eventually consensus was reached on many points, including the canon of scripture. But what does that mean. Again, from “inside the circle” we may say that the Holy Spirit guided the process to the right outcome. That is a key principle, in fact. But what is the evidence for that? Certainly not history.

As far as atonement is concerned, have you read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity? Yes, it is not a Catholic work, but it lays out the need and reality of the atonement very well.

I have, although it’s been a few years now. I should look at it again. My recollection is that Lewis’s comments on atonement were the weakest point of the book. In fact, I had the impression that he wasn’t all that confident of the doctrine himself, although that could be a trick of my memory.

Though a scientist, I am humble enough to know my own limitations as well as the limitations of the scientific method. The human mind can only take us so far, the next step is truly a leap of faith. If God and His relationship with humanity and the Church could be fully comprehensible, then that is not a God worthy of the name.

That’s fair enough. It has been a struggle of decades for me to get to the point of “mere theism”, and I feel like I’m hanging on by a thread! If it takes as long for me to find my way into Christianity, well, I probably won’t get there.

There is a distinct difference between something nonsensical and something incomprehensible. Some of the Church’s claims (the Trinity, transubstantiation, etc.) are the latter, not the former. There is a humility involved in submitting one’s will with the will of God. But with the CC, one does not have to suspend one’s rationality with one’s faith; they go hand in hand. Paragraphs 158-160 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church come to mind.

Yes, this is one of the things I admire about the Church.

Thank you for your answers!