Intrigued by Catholicism, but just can't convert for many reasons

[CaliLobo]

The_Scott:

Because being progressive and “hip” is working for the liberal Protestants. Just ask the crumbling Episcopalian Church.

The Episcopalian problem is its hiring of gay clergy. I am in no way supporting that.

“Hip” is working just fine for the nondenominational megachurches, in terms of outreach, new converts, and being alive spiritually. And ironically, many of those megachurches are still conservative politically.

 

[cheezey]

Can anyone recommend a title on the Didache? Though I need to study what the Church IS, I would like to study what it WAS. I often think that there may be, I am not sure, some elements of what was that should be reincorporated into what is. Again, some elements. I can certainly think of some elements that should never change, and one particular one that should absolutely change…thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut…

 

[sousley]

CaliLobo,
R_C commented about works of mercy and spreading the Good News. You countered with statistics about contraception, abortion and gay rights.

Cheezy commented about judgment, condemnation, and forgiveness. You countered with political melding, secular civil rights, and homosexuality.

Findingmyself08 commented about forgiveness and love. You countered with divorce, porn, abortion, and gay rights.

In each case, these posters have offered you feedback regarding virtues that are important tenets of Catholic faith. They are important because they keep our eyes fixed on Heaven and the opportunity to see Our Lord as He really is.

Please read back through your postings, and try to realize that the focus of your assertions all maintain your strong hold on the secularized motives of this world. You profess that you are seeking Christ, and if so, the abortion clinics and immersion into human statistics of the political climate may not provide the best focus for your answers. In the end, you are the only one who can decide whether you will forsake this world for your Savior, or follow popularity and human wisdom. Our prayers go out to you on your journey.

 

[CaliLobo]

Sousley, you are taking my words way out of context. My argument is that those political issues are a distraction from the primary mission of the Church, which should be preaching the Gospel. And isn’t that why so many Catholics disagree with the Vatican on those issues, since they realize that distraction??

And isn’t this part of the reason for the Church being moribund in the West, which is statistically proven?

 

[sousley]

The political situations that you’re describing are important, not only to societal needs, but also to the Church. But the situations you’re proposing are the same as they have always been; “Why doesn’t the Church change its teachings to accommodate the demands of the public”. The simple answer is because it would no longer be the Church. The teachings of the Church come from the apostolic age, they are teachings that have been handed down from Jesus’s time. One example is that the Church was recently “kicked out” of the charity of providing for orphans through adoption because it wouldn’t place them in homosexual homes. For 2000 years, the teachings have remained, but now the world says “change your teachings or else you can’t serve the orphans”. Well, we can’t__they are not our rules to change. So we have to defend our teachings in order to continue serving society. The Magisterium will not defy God. If they did, the Church would no longer exist. Why would anyone want to be part of a Church that serves to world instead of the Word?

The statistics you present all identify the state of the world including the Church. But they do not testify to the truth of the teachings.

 

[CaliLobo]

sousley:

The teachings of the Church come from the apostolic age, they are teachings that have been handed down from Jesus’s time. One example is that the Church was recently “kicked out” of the charity of providing for orphans through adoption because it wouldn’t place them in homosexual homes. For 2000 years, the teachings have remained, but now the world says “change your teachings or else you can’t serve the orphans”. Well, we can’t__they are not our rules to change. So we have to defend our teachings in order to continue serving society. The Magisterium will not defy God. If they did, the Church would no longer exist. Why would anyone want to be part of a Church that serves to world instead of the Word?

Another common argument–the desire to maintain traditions, or teachings that supposedly originate from Jesus’ time.

But isn’t it true that today’s Catholic traditions are NOT the same as those in Jesus’ time, or the book of Acts? If that’s true (the probability is it most certainly is true), then what’s the big point of sticking to “tradition”?

Also, where does it say that we MUST continue to practice these traditions? Is it a mortal sin to make changes? What’s so wrong about changing the liturgy, or not asking for prayers from Mary or the saints, or confessing directly to Jesus, or having lay people minister, or removing statues, among many other things?

After all, Protestantism only arose because the Catholic Church was dropping the ball and abusing these traditions.

 

[Incomplete]

Can anyone recommend a title on the Didache?

Sure. Read the real thing, The Didache. Amazon has it, or most likely whoever your preferred bookseller is has it.

 

[sousley]

Can anyone recommend a title on the Didache? Though I need to study what the Church IS, I would like to study what it WAS. I often think that there may be, I am not sure, some elements of what was that should be reincorporated into what is. Again, some elements. I can certainly think of some elements that should never change, and one particular one that should absolutely change…thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut…

Not exactly sure what you’re asking for. Didache is generally translated as “teaching” of the Apostles. Written between AD 50-100 during John’s lifetime by “early fathers” (presumably Polycarp, Ignatius,Clement). You can find it online easily. Probably the most notable (referred to) is Ch 2 where it prohibits sorcery and abortion. Most scholarship understands this sorcery (Gr. pharmacia) to mean contraceptive potions. It is probably the oldest document that demonstrates this teaching but there are others too. The Church still holds to these early teachings.

 

[Incomplete]

Another common argument–the desire to maintain traditions, or teachings that supposedly originate from Jesus’ time.

But isn’t it true that today’s Catholic traditions are NOT the same as those in Jesus’ time, or the book of Acts? If that’s true (the probability is it most certainly is true), then what’s the big point of sticking to “tradition”?

Also, where does it say that we MUST continue to practice these traditions? Is it a mortal sin to make changes? What’s so wrong about changing the liturgy, or not asking for prayers from Mary or the saints, or confessing directly to Jesus, or having lay people minister, or removing statues, among many other things?

I don’t think you understand how we use the word “tradition.” It’s not the same as, say, family traditions or holiday traditions. Or at least, not the unchanging Traditions.

When we use the word lowercase, we refer to man-made traditions. Protestants have them, too, such as the altar call in some churches. For us, that means things like a celibate priesthood. That can change; it’s man-made. It’s a discipline.

When we use it in uppercase (Tradition), we are talking about God-given teachings. An example would be Scripture.

We could, I suppose, get rid of statues, as you suggest, just as you could get rid of family pictures…but why should we? They are as helpful to us as family pictures. They are part of the family. Liturgy…we have the prayer, praise, the Word of God, Eucharist. You may not like worship that way, but the point of being Catholic is about God, not about the style of worship an individual prefers. Having said that, many find liturgical worship to be beautiful, and Catholics are not the only one with liturgical worship.

We are not required to ask for the help of the members of the Body of Christ in heaven, but why not ask? In the same vein, we could also stop asking our friends on earth for help and for prayers, but why would we?

Confession is a whole other issue. We can, and do, go directly to Jesus. But for serious stuff, we ask the help of a priest. Even for less serious sin, it can be very helpful to go to a priest. After all, Jesus gave the authority to the apostles to forgive sins, and they passed it on through laying on of hands. In fact, Scripture also talks about confessing sins to one another (and I have a close friend who I confess sin to all the time…it keeps me honest, and helps me prepare for confession to a priest as well!) Jesus never said to limit confessing just to Him.

 

[sousley]

Another common argument–the desire to maintain traditions, or teachings that supposedly originate from Jesus’ time.

But isn’t it true that today’s Catholic traditions are NOT the same as those in Jesus’ time, or the book of Acts? If that’s true (the probability is it most certainly is true), then what’s the big point of sticking to “tradition”?

Also, where does it say that we MUST continue to practice these traditions? Is it a mortal sin to make changes? What’s so wrong about changing the liturgy, or not asking for prayers from Mary or the saints, or confessing directly to Jesus, or having lay people minister, or removing statues, among many other things?

After all, Protestantism only arose because the Catholic Church was dropping the ball and abusing these traditions.

I’m sure that you’ve asked all of these questions before and you are well aware of the response so I’ll not bore you with repeating what you already know. As to you’re last question, which of the over 26,000 forms of protestantism are you referring? How many cases has a new denomination been formed, featuring a new manner of worship, where it’s founder has not posited him or herself as the “pope” of their new faith? How many formed their new faith with God in agreement with all of their thoughts? In my small town, there are 55 churches; 1 Catholic (that worships the same as all other Catholic churches in my diocese) and 54 protestant ones. Let’s not blame all protestantism on Catholics. The reality is they can’t get along with each other, either. The fruit of protestantism is division.

 

[cheezey]

Another common argument–the desire to maintain traditions, or teachings that supposedly originate from Jesus’ time.

But isn’t it true that today’s Catholic traditions are NOT the same as those in Jesus’ time, or the book of Acts? If that’s true (the probability is it most certainly is true), then what’s the big point of sticking to “tradition”?

Also, where does it say that we MUST continue to practice these traditions? Is it a mortal sin to make changes? What’s so wrong about changing the liturgy, or not asking for prayers from Mary or the saints, or confessing directly to Jesus, or having lay people minister, or removing statues, among many other things?

After all, Protestantism only arose because the Catholic Church was dropping the ball and abusing these traditions.

I won’t say what of this can or cannot change.
I am no expert, but it seems both have dropped some balls. I AM a Protestant by way of upbringing and I cannot FATHOM why in the world there is NO crucifix in their churches. I actually read a basic Christian reference book, written in question and answer form, that stated, and I am paraphrasing here, that the Protestants don’t like to ruminate too much on His brutal sacrificial death by way of a crucifix or observance of Good Friday. When I read that as the reason -and remember this is what I obliviously grew up with- I thought,”YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!!!”
How could this amazingly HUGE part of all Christendom be so discarded as such??
I am torn. Based in part of that discovery, and in bigger part the Vatican’s televised observance of Good Friday in 2010 that I happened to catch on EWTN (I was moved as I have never been, though I grew up remembering the day without formally observing it), I have come to appreciate more traditions of the Catholic faith. Yet I still feel that some traditions just seem possibly dated, maybe even wrong. To be fair, I think the same way about other Protestant traditions. In all this confusion, and as mentioned previously, I am anxious to read as much as I possibly can of the Didache, to hopefully understand more of what the original intent, traditions and Traditions, of the original Christian Church had in mind long before the break between the two. Yet as Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Matthew 12:1-13; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-11. Where there is Human need, the laws must bend. I would think this would apply to some traditions or Traditions as well.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CaliLobo,

I was in the Land of Enchantment for 4 years - graduated from the College of Santa Fe - at the time a Christian Brother’s school. So, let me get down to your first two items and see if this is any help.

A lot of confusion can quickly develop if you are aking those who are confused themselves, are not practicing Catholics or are not even Catholics at all. The only way to get valid answers is to go to authorities in the field, read the histories on how things developed and stay current with on-going developents. This way you can maintain both knowledge and perspective.

You inquired about why the Church holds to a position that many do not hold. Get your Bible and go to Matthew 16 (or, if you wish, you can use this link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_16 ) Read it and let me know when you come to the part that says, “And Christ nominated Peter to be the leader, and after a second was given, the matter passed unaminously!” Couldn’t find that part, eh?.. Have you noticed that Christ did not start out with a democracy - He is in charge - He is God - and His Spirit governs and directs the Catholic Church - not a group of ‘voters’.

This is really an important concept for it sets the stage for everything else. If the Spirit of all Truth is leading the Church as promised by Christ (notice He did not come back, revoke the authority of the pope and give it to Luther, or Calvin or Knox or Henry VIII or anyone else in revolt from His Church. Even though popes have given public scandal - they never changed any doctrine, taught heresy or cast any doubt on the official teaching of previous popes. Now, getting a bunch of saintly people to agree on goodness is probably not that big a deal - but, try getting a bunch of genuinely sinful men together and try the same thing! Right. Right from the beginning, Peter was a weak, vain and sinful man - but, the Power of God is all the more obvious when He can make a brick like Peter shine like a diamond!

So, let’s hit the next item:

“- The Vatican says we should vote against gay marriage and abortion rights. The Vatican says one cannot be pro-choice and Catholic. But I can always find another liberal parish that disagrees.”

Christ loved children. Check out Matthew 18:10 veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_18 And, you do recall that Christ rebuked the Apostles for stopping the women bringing their children to Him. Now, put that in the context of abortion - and see just how badly it does not fit.

Here you have two humans with a power that God did not give to the angels - to pro-Create - and a totally new human being - made in the image of God is now alive! And then, after money changes hands - this new life is boiled in salt water, torn limb from limb as its skull is crushed and then sucked out of what should have been his mother’s protective womb! The bloody parts gathered up and pitched into a dumpster. And, you are telling me that we have a right to snuff out this innocent life in the most horrible death imaginable because it is inconvenient. We do not execute harden criminals this way - it would be surely considered cruel and unusual!!

Do you think that pedophiles should parade downtown, have small children with them, throw condoms and candy from decorated floats and tell people over a loud-speaker that “All you need is love!”? How about those who engage in beastiality - same idea but they have a flock of sheep on the float. Oh, and those who claim that they way they have sex not only sets them apart - but, should be recognized as a genuine way of self-expression. After all, just like the other groups in this parade - how one has sex is none of society’s business! Right? If you want some really scarry stuff go to the CDC: those guys not only tell you that stuffing a penis into a rectum is dangerous - it shortens the average life expectancy by 20 years. Not only is this activity dangerous - it is deadly! And, you are advocating for this type of ‘intrinsically disordered’ behavior? Hey, don’t take my word for it - go right to the top: the official teaching of the Catholic Church: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm (#2357-9). I would suggest you read the entire section to get the context and flavor of what is being discussed - and not just those three entries.

Finally, from the earliest history of the Catholic Church, there were always those who preached their own ‘gospel’ and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. St. Paul is constantly going after these false teachers. The heresies of the early Church were all started by clerics and Bishops - each teaching their own distorted ‘gospel’ and each developing their own heresies. So, there is an excellent chance that you can find anything you want to find… except the Gospel of Christ being taught by His Church founded on Peter.

Honest, if you think finding a ‘gospel’ that conforms to whatever it is you want - well… I can see why you are complaining of confusion. You see, left unchecked, humans are never satisfied with earthly pleasures - they want more and different types. Holding to the Truth takes the Grace of God and the discipline to freely abide in God’s Holy Will. No confusion there - but there is a lot of hard work - and work not meant for th faint of heart. But, you know that does present a problem with choice. We either chose to work with the Grace of God - and if we persevere to the end in that state of Grace - will be with God in Heaven forever … or … chose to ignore the Grace of God, freely chose to serve the devil and then serve him in the firely pit for all eternity. Your choice! And, in this high stakes adventure - you have one chance to get it right. Good luck!

God bless

 

[cheezey]

Because being progressive and “hip” is working for the liberal Protestants. Just ask the crumbling Episcopalian Church.

Just how ‘crumbling’ is crumbling? Asked genuinely, not accusingly. Not that it is indicative of that statement or any scientific data, but for two months, I have been alternating between an Episcopalian Church and Catholic Church. The former has been filled to capacity, the latter but a smattering of people. Who, by the way, would not sit too closely together. I don’t get that kind of ‘communion.’

 

[cheezey]

No disrespect meant for either Church, by the way…

 

[Incomplete]

Just how ‘crumbling’ is crumbling? Asked genuinely, not accusingly. Not that it is indicative of that statement or any scientific data, but for two months, I have been alternating between an Episcopalian Church and Catholic Church. The former has been filled to capacity, the latter but a smattering of people. Who, by the way, would not sit too closely together. I don’t get that kind of ‘communion.’

How crumbling? See what American Anglican has to say:

americananglican.org/the-episcopal-church-in-decline/

Between 2002 and 2007, TEC's average Sunday attendance dropped 118,818, or 14 percent-the equivalent of 381 people leaving every week. This would be the same as 5 average sized congregations (73 people) leaving every week for 6 years.
Between 1997 and 2007, the average Sunday attendance of TEC declined by 13.5 percent.
The Episcopal Church lost more than 250 parishes during 2002-2007.
The Episcopal Church comprises less than three percent of the membership of the 78 million-member worldwide Anglican Communion.

Here’s a link with 2010 information: virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15087#.UMwQKLajfvM

Maybe the particular Catholic church you go to is not full, and maybe they don’t seem too personal. Some, however, are full to overflowing. I’ve been vacationing and in a couple of different cities ended up at a parish that was built just to accommodate the tourists in the area. One of those was standing room only…and that was for people who were on vacation. Many non-Catholics don’t attend when on vacation. (Yes, I know, neither do a lot of Catholics, but obviously an awful lot of us do.)

As far as the rest…it depends an awful lot on the parish. But in most Catholic churches, people who come early come to pray and prepare for hearing the Word and receiving Christ. You’re right; often you won’t get to know the people of the parish unless you’re involved in it in some way other than worship. That does not mean we are a dying Church, nor that we don’t have caring people. The parish I attend is full of truly good people, who are out in the world serving others all the time. I went there for several years before getting involved, and I didn’t realize any of that until I did get involved.

The thing in a Catholic church is that we don’t always know that the person sitting next to us wants to be greeted and welcomed, and often those who DO want that don’t tell us. Some like it this way; other Catholics see it as a way we need to improve. But in neither case does it tell you that we are not worshiping together.

You can not judge a denomination worldwide by your local experience.

 

[cheezey]

You can not judge a denomination worldwide by your local experience.

I wasn’t. As I said, “Asked genuinely, not accusingly…Not that it is indicative of that statement or any scientific data…”
Thank you for the information. Somehow, not surprising…But while I am transition, they are not making it conditional for me to receive the Eucharist, something I need to do now.

 

[cheezey]

That does not mean we are a dying Church, nor that we don’t have caring people.

But in neither case does it tell you that we are not worshiping together

I didn’t say or imply otherwise. It was one observation of one time. I hope it isn’t the norm for this one particular church or any other. I want them filled!!!

 

[Incomplete]

I wasn’t. As I said, “Asked genuinely, not accusingly…Not that it is indicative of that statement or any scientific data…”

My apologies if I sounded harsh. That was never my intent. I was just making observations. Lots of folks judge the entire Church (or a particular denomination) based on their local situation.

 

[jmcrae]

Just how ‘crumbling’ is crumbling?

I think he is referring to their acceptance of openly gay co-habiting Bishops, female “priests” and allowing non-Christians to partake of Holy Communion. Numbers aren’t the point - faithfulness is the point.

 

[cheezey]

I think he is referring to their acceptance of openly gay co-habiting Bishops, female “priests” and allowing non-Christians to partake of Holy Communion. Numbers aren’t the point - faithfulness is the point.

Wow, I didn’t know that. But, I must admit, I think, a professed Christian should be able to partake in Communion. Though there might be some differences in the how for different people/churches, the intent is the same for all Christians: “Do this in remembrance of me.” Churches are not meant to be exclusionary. They are not clubs whereby the sentiment is " ha ha, we can, you can’t." And I am open to being enlightened in understanding why there is not community communion among Christians. At the center for all of us is God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit.