non-Catholic Christian considering becoming Catholic needs help

[ocean_soul1980]

I hope this is the right forum…it seems to fit under here, but I can’t be positive, as this is my first time starting a topic. Anyway, at this point, it’s impossible for me to officially become Catholic, as the only “real” Catholic churches here are German, and I don’t speak German.
But…I’m still having trouble with a couple of the doctrines. I received the book “The Essential Catholic Survival Guide”, and a lot of the arguments make sense. I’m about halfway done with the book now…but a couple things still aren’t very clear.
Okay, the two main doctrines I’m having trouble with are transubstantiation, and infant baptism. I was raised in a Nazarene (Protestant sect) home, so I hope that’s understandable. My problems with the doctrines are:
Transubstantiation
I have no problems believing that the bread and wine maintain the appearance/taste of bread and wine, but actually become Christ’s flesh and blood. What I DO have trouble with is why Jesus would ever require that people literally eat His flesh, and drink His blood. It just seems out of character for God Incarnate to ask us to partake in cannibalism. Can someone please explain this to me?
Infant baptism
I understand infant baptism as a covenant between us and God, much as the Jews use circumcision. The problem is, I was always raised to believe that a person has to actually repent, and ask Jesus to be their Savior, in order to be a Christian. But this isn’t compatible with Catholic doctrine, is it? So I guess what I’m wondering is, how is it that parents can make a decision of faith for their children? It just makes no sense to me.

Once I’m able to receive sufficient answers to the issues I have with Catholicism (there are more, but these are the most pressing), and I’m back in the States, I will most likely become Catholic. I really feel that God is drawing me to His Church, and always has been. I hope I haven’t offended anyone with my questions.

 

[tealblue]

I’l give infant baptism a try. As far as scripture is concerned you can’t any specific instance of any baby being baptized. There is a reason for this. Most of scripture deals with adult converts not bringing up families in the christian faith.

In the old testement jews had to be circimsized either as adults upon conversion or when babies at 8 days old when bringing up in the faith. In Col. 2:11–12 Paul equates baptism as the circumcision of christ. So if paul compares baptism to circumcision and babies were circumsized then babies are baptized also.

Protestants often cite repent and be baptized as proof text for their argument. But they never read farther down this passage when its promised that baptism is for you AND YOUR CHILDREN.

This all stems from a flaw in the basic idea of salvation itself. A side not that Infant baptism was never chalenged til a few hundred years ago.

Hope this helps

 

[Wesley7]

My problems with the doctrines are:
Transubstantiation
I have no problems believing that the bread and wine maintain the appearance/taste of bread and wine, but actually become Christ’s flesh and blood. What I DO have trouble with is why Jesus would ever require that people literally eat His flesh, and drink His blood. It just seems out of character for God Incarnate to ask us to partake in cannibalism. Can someone please explain this to me?

John 3.53 Then Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves…

John 3.54 The one partaking of My flesh and drinking of My blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 3.56 The one partaking of My flesh and drinking of My blood abides in Me and I in him.

I hope I haven’t offended anyone with my questions.

Not at all.

 

[ocean_soul1980]

Thank you for your prompt replies, both of you.

As far as infant baptism goes, I understand why it’s not specifically mentioned in Scripture, and it doesn’t bother me. Since I’ve been researching Christian theology and history, I’ve started to realize that tradition is every bit as important as Scripture. I know that infant baptism wasn’t challenged and WAS used in the early Church. I’m just curious as to whether it should be considered a covenant between the parent and God only, or a conversion.

I’ve started to see infant baptism as something similar to the Protestant practice of christening. Is this wrong?

As far as transubstantiation, I know that it’s in Scripture. I’m just curious as to WHY. So that Jesus can abide in us, and we in Him? Okay. Why is that necessary? I just don’t understand.

 

[Wesley7]

As far as transubstantiation, I know that it’s in Scripture. I’m just curious as to WHY. So that Jesus can abide in us, and we in Him? Okay. Why is that necessary? I just don’t understand.

To my knowledge of what I understand, this is how the Lord insituted the Passover meal with His disciples. With specific instruction and specific teaching. This is what the Lord taught according to Sacred Scripture (John 3.53,John 3.54, John 3.56) and thus - what the Catholic Church further clarifies and explains on the subject of (holy communion) receiving His sacred Body and precious Blood.

. . .

 

[LilyM]

Why literally eat Christ’s flesh and drink Christ’s blood? Well, think about the OT prefiguring of the Eucharist - the Passover supper (where the sacrificial lamb was eaten as part of the ceremony). And of the animal sacrifices of the OT which prefigured Christ’s saving self-sacrifice, where also some portions of the sacrificed animals were usually eaten at least by the priests.

Then think of the OT prohibition on eating the blood of an animal - and why was this instituted? Because ‘the life of a creature is in the blood’. If the life is in the blood, it makes sense that we must partake of Christ’s blood in order to partake in His life.

 

[iCatholic]

I think something important to remember is the fact that the entire Catholic faith (and by Catholic, I refer to the faith of the very first Christians. Since that is what being a ‘Christian’ is after all)
shattered pre-conceived notions about God all over the place.

While the original command to consume Christ’s flesh was met with grumbling, read John chapter six. The Jews listening to the sermon grumbled amongst themselves saying “How can this man really expect us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.” (Quotes show speech, not word-for-word quoting. Im too lazy to copy and paste bible passages at this hour of the morning), and yet, the greatest shock was yet to come.

If you were an early Jew, suspicious of Christ, the command to consume his body would be a shock. But claims that Christ was the son of God would be an even greater shock, with the idea that he had no father, and was born of a Virgin even MORE improbable.

Hey, eating is a familiar concept with all of us. But being born without the aid of procreation? That seems ludicrous.

And yet the single most most difficult to understand concept of our religion, is why God, who would be just to condemn us all, would not only forgive us, but take on flesh and die.

Can we really comprehend the earth-shattering concept of the death of God? That the creator of life, actually chose to die a mortal and humiliating death for our sakes?

In fact, one could reason, how could God who sees death as a horrible result of sin, possibly allow his son and in essence, himself, to suffer as such for sins he obviously did not commit?

Once you break out of the Old Testament mentality of sacred, that being purity on the exterior. Such as consuming only prescribed foods, washing the hands, not touching graves or dead bodies, circumscion, etc. and grasp the New Testament concept of sanctity; sanctity through the blood of Christ, interior sanctity, not being witheld by the taboos of the Old Testament,
Well then the idea of eating Christ’s flesh beings to make sense.

If eating is the most basic function we have, the thing we are born experts at, then Christ delivering himself to us not just once on the Cross two thousand years ago, but everyday in a real physical form…well it doesnt get any clearer.

Christ, the Lamb of God, has handed himself completely to us as a sacrifice. Why should an innocent lamb be slain and burned in the Old Testament, why would God command a small animal’s blood be sprinkled on sinners thousands of years ago?

Quite simply, because were stupid. We are physical people, and we need a physical and real sign of God’s love. Merely thinking about it doesnt get the message across.

Jesus Christ hands himself to us in the form of bread, a symbol of the necessities of life, and he hands himself to us as true flesh and blood.

The message is clear, God doesn’t want us to be cannibals. He wants us to know that the gift of his son is as necessary to our well being as the bread we put on our tables.

It is real. It is necessary. And it is the purest form of divine love we can find.

God, for a fleeting moment, comes to us in a concept even babies grasp. He is food, the bread of life.

 

[TheDoctor]

Transubstantiation
I have no problems believing that the bread and wine maintain the appearance/taste of bread and wine, but actually become Christ’s flesh and blood. What I DO have trouble with is why Jesus would ever require that people literally eat His flesh, and drink His blood. It just seems out of character for God Incarnate to ask us to partake in cannibalism.

Welcome my brother, and may God walk with you on your faith journey. Let me give this part of your question a shot.

First things first. The Eucharist is not cannibalism. There are a plethora of threads on it and resources from Catholic Answers. Here is just one: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103sbs.asp

Once we are past that, we come to the true mystery: Why? Why would God command us to do this? For me, it boils down to two simple reasons:

We need Him. In order to face the snares of the devil and to live according to God’s word, we need His grace. The Apostles received that grace directly from Jesus. He instituted the Eucharist because He knew he would not be physically present on Earth after the ascension so He left us the greatest gift of grace ever, a gift we can use daily to strengthen us and bring us closer to Him.

He loves us, more than we can know. He desires to have us love him. When you love someone, you give them a gift. He literally gave us all of Him. Everything he had to offer, his body, blood soul and divinity. Like a gift, He does not force it on us. But he gives it freely so that we may be reminded and know for certain how much He loves us. It’s funny, but when my protestant brothers and sisters talk to me about needing to have a “personal relationship” with Jesus, I just smile. How much more personal can I get than to have him literally become a part of me?
I apologize if this does not help, but please keep asking questions and keep looking to the faith. God Bless.

 

[juliasmith]

Thank you for your prompt replies, both of you.

As far as infant baptism goes, I understand why it’s not specifically mentioned in Scripture, and it doesn’t bother me. Since I’ve been researching Christian theology and history, I’ve started to realize that tradition is every bit as important as Scripture. I know that infant baptism wasn’t challenged and WAS used in the early Church. I’m just curious as to whether it should be considered a covenant between the parent and God only, or a conversion.

I’ve started to see infant baptism as something similar to the Protestant practice of christening. Is this wrong?

As far as transubstantiation, I know that it’s in Scripture. I’m just curious as to WHY. So that Jesus can abide in us, and we in Him? Okay. Why is that necessary? I just don’t understand.

I’ll take a stab at transubstantiation.

1. The jewish passover meal is important to this concept. It is a meal in remembrance of God’s protection of Israel when the angel of death came for the firstborn of Egypt. They cooked the lambs that had been slaughtered to provide blood for the doorposts.
2. Christ became that meal for us. His flesh was sacrificed for our sins, for our protection, we eat in remembrance of the sacrifice that he made for us just as the jews eat that lamb to remember God saving them in Egypt.
3. The wine is the blood he shed, like the blood the lamb shed.
4. All this together equals a necessitiy for our protection as we go through this world.

Jesus actually became our passover meal when he went to that cross. We receive communion to help strengthen us, strengthen the protection he gives us in our physical body just as the holy spirit strengthens our spirit.
At least, that’s my understanding. But I am not a theologian. You might ask one of the bible scholars.

 

[misterbee]

Here’s my purely non-Dogmatic, surely Protestant-influenced reason why infant Baptism is not only okay, but the best way to go (if possible).

Catholics are often accused of believing you have to perform works to get into Heaven… basically that we have to ‘do’ something to be ‘Saved.’ I usually disagree and bring up infant Baptism…

We must be Baptised in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Why would God make us perform a work in order to gain entrance into Heaven (initially)? He doesn’t - hence Catholic infant Baptism.

Only the desire of the parents or the supposed desire of that child are all it takes for God to say freely, ‘You’re in. Way to go. Come see me again in 10 years when you’re ready to be Confirmed and reaffirm your Covenant with me.’

 

[Joe_5859]

Welcome!

I’m going to give some more-or-less non-scriptural, non-theological answers to your questions as it seems you already have a grasp of that part.

In general, before addressing your specific questions, it seems like what would might be most beneficial to you is a deeper look at what the Catholic Church teaches about the sacraments. The sacraments are powers that flow from the Body of Christ. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in the Church to help bring about our sanctification. I think that a greater knowledge and appreciation of the sacraments and their role in our lives will probably take care of the answers to both of your questions.

I recommend Scott Hahn’s book Swear to God: The Promise and Power of the Sacraments as a good means by which to do this.

Thank you for your prompt replies, both of you.

As far as infant baptism goes, I understand why it’s not specifically mentioned in Scripture, and it doesn’t bother me. Since I’ve been researching Christian theology and history, I’ve started to realize that tradition is every bit as important as Scripture. I know that infant baptism wasn’t challenged and WAS used in the early Church. I’m just curious as to whether it should be considered a covenant between the parent and God only, or a conversion.

I’ve started to see infant baptism as something similar to the Protestant practice of christening. Is this wrong?

If we look at Baptism as simply a outward sign by which someone says, “Yes, I want to be Christian”, then, yes, infant Baptism doesn’t make much sense. But Baptism is more than this.

Your idea of covenant is a good one, and particularly apt, especially considering the link of Baptism to circumcision. Baptism makes us part of God’s family.

Also, we must not forget that, Baptism is a sacrament. That means that, not only is it a sign of something, it also truly and really conveys what it signifies. In other words, not only does Baptism symbolize us being washed and cleansed from sin, it actually does cleanse us from sin. In this case, Original Sin.

As far as transubstantiation, I know that it’s in Scripture. I’m just curious as to WHY. So that Jesus can abide in us, and we in Him? Okay. Why is that necessary? I just don’t understand.

It seems that your issue is not with transubstantiation specifically, but with the necessity of the Eucharist in general. Is that correct?

I think if you take a closer look at your question above, the answer becomes more evident: Why is it necessary that Jesus can abide in us and we in Him? That is the whole point of the spiritual life and Christianity: to become more closely united with Christ. Why else would we want to be Christian except out of love for Jesus and a desire to be united with Him for all eternity?

The Eucharist is a powerful, tangible way for us to do that. You can’t get any closer to a person that to be literally inside them. For evidence of this, you only have to look at an expectant mother, or a married couple sharing in the marital embrace.

When we receive the Eucharist, Jesus is literally inside of us. How much closer can we be, this side of heaven? It just blows my mind everytime I think about it.

Hopefully this post brought some clarification and not more confusion (although if it did bring confusion, I sincerely apologize). These mysteries can be hard to explain sometimes!

 

[mercygate]

Thank you for your prompt replies, both of you.

As far as infant baptism goes, I understand why it’s not specifically mentioned in Scripture, and it doesn’t bother me. Since I’ve been researching Christian theology and history, I’ve started to realize that tradition is every bit as important as Scripture. I know that infant baptism wasn’t challenged and WAS used in the early Church. I’m just curious as to whether it should be considered a covenant between the parent and God only, or a conversion.

Conversion is the fundamental condition of Christian life. There is no such thing as one single repentance – Christian life is a lifelong conversion. Whether you are baptized as an infant or as an adult, you never stop converting. As for infant faith: faith is related to your maturity. An 8-year-old has “faith” but it is not the same as the faith of an octogenarian. John the Baptist “leapt for joy” when Our Lord entered the house in the womb of Mary. For me, that’s “faith.” It represents the faith appropriate to the circumstances.

I’ve started to see infant baptism as something similar to the Protestant practice of christening. Is this wrong?

As far as transubstantiation, I know that it’s in Scripture. I’m just curious as to WHY. So that Jesus can abide in us, and we in Him? Okay. Why is that necessary? I just don’t understand.

This is a good question. I trust you do not suggest that Jesus should NOT abide in us and we in Him but that you wonder why the Eucharist should be the way it happens.

The Eucharist is only ONE way that we are united in Him. Sometimes, people seem to interpret this phrase as applying only to individiuals. But the “abide in me” passage is from the Last Supper, and it is addressed to the Apostles. So we understand that “abiding” is not just a personal me-and-Jesus thing, but that it is inseparable from the Apostles and from the Passover meal. It is a sign of unity throughout the Church. It is the universal banquet of the Lamb. It is the great Passover.

Welcome to the journey, Ocean! Take your time. Take a deep breath. Let the Lord be gentle with you.

 

[ocean_soul1980]

Thank you SO much, you guys…this is really helping me a LOT! I’m so completely new to this…and I never thought I’d ever consider becoming Catholic, lol, but the more I learn, the more I see the truth of it. You guys were able to see straight to the heart of what I was trying to ask, and I can’t help but attribute that to the Holy Spirit.

I’m curious about so many other things, too. For example, I understand the concept of asking the Saints, and the Virgin Mary, to intercede on our behalf. The question is, without a Rosary, or anything else like that, and even without knowing the names of all the Saints (I know very few, lol, it just wasn’t a focus of my faith…not that I paid much attention to it anyway!), can I still ask them to intercede for me before the Father?

I’ll be adding more as people answer…I have so many questions, I just don’t want to overwhelm anyone with them, lol.

 

[mercygate]

Thank you SO much, you guys…this is really helping me a LOT! I’m so completely new to this…and I never thought I’d ever consider becoming Catholic, lol, but the more I learn, the more I see the truth of it. You guys were able to see straight to the heart of what I was trying to ask, and I can’t help but attribute that to the Holy Spirit.

I’m curious about so many other things, too. For example, I understand the concept of asking the Saints, and the Virgin Mary, to intercede on our behalf. The question is, without a Rosary, or anything else like that, and even without knowing the names of all the Saints (I know very few, lol, it just wasn’t a focus of my faith…not that I paid much attention to it anyway!), can I still ask them to intercede for me before the Father?

I’ll be adding more as people answer…I have so many questions, I just don’t want to overwhelm anyone with them, lol.

As we sing in the Litany of the Saints, when the list is getting REALLY long – “All ye holy men and women: Pray for us!”

 

[ocean_soul1980]

Oh, and sometimes I like to say that I became a Christian almost two years ago, and every day, I CONTINUE to become a Christian.
We’re supposed to “work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling,” after all.

 

[mercygate]

Oh, and sometimes I like to say that I became a Christian almost two years ago, and every day, I CONTINUE to become a Christian.
We’re supposed to “work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling,” after all.

I can feel the Holy Spirit comin’ at me through your keyboard OS!

 

[ocean_soul1980]

I can feel the Holy Spirit comin’ at me through your keyboard OS!

I like that, lol.

So…with transubstantiation, and the Sacraments…is that part of what Jesus meant when He said, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”?

He meant it literally, didn’t He? And not just with the Holy Spirit? Do I have this right? If so…WOW. My mind is blown.

 

[mercygate]

I like that, lol.

So…with transubstantiation, and the Sacraments…is that part of what Jesus meant when He said, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”?

He meant it literally, didn’t He? And not just with the Holy Spirit? Do I have this right? If so…WOW. My mind is blown.

Yes: literally. But it is never WITHOUT the Holy Spirit! The Trinity is always the Trinity.

The presence of Christ in the Eucharist IS spiritual. There is a tendency to think that “spiritual presence” is the equivalent of “symbolic”, which is not at all true. God is Spirit. God is real.

What happens is that the REALITY of the bread and wine are replaced by the REALITY of Christ. The molecules and physical forms of the bread do not change but the SUBSTANCE is changed from ‘breadness’ into Our Lord. Don’t even try to get your head around this: it will fall short and it will make you dizzy. Just appropriate His love in faith. And yes: it blows your mind!

 

[CB_Catholic]

I hope this is the right forum…it seems to fit under here, but I can’t be positive, as this is my first time starting a topic. Anyway, at this point, it’s impossible for me to officially become Catholic, as the only “real” Catholic churches here are German, and I don’t speak German.
But…I’m still having trouble with a couple of the doctrines. I received the book “The Essential Catholic Survival Guide”, and a lot of the arguments make sense. I’m about halfway done with the book now…but a couple things still aren’t very clear.
Okay, the two main doctrines I’m having trouble with are transubstantiation, and infant baptism. I was raised in a Nazarene (Protestant sect) home, so I hope that’s understandable. My problems with the doctrines are:
Transubstantiation
I have no problems believing that the bread and wine maintain the appearance/taste of bread and wine, but actually become Christ’s flesh and blood. What I DO have trouble with is why Jesus would ever require that people literally eat His flesh, and drink His blood. It just seems out of character for God Incarnate to ask us to partake in cannibalism. Can someone please explain this to me?
Infant baptism
I understand infant baptism as a covenant between us and God, much as the Jews use circumcision. The problem is, I was always raised to believe that a person has to actually repent, and ask Jesus to be their Savior, in order to be a Christian. But this isn’t compatible with Catholic doctrine, is it? So I guess what I’m wondering is, how is it that parents can make a decision of faith for their children? It just makes no sense to me.

Once I’m able to receive sufficient answers to the issues I have with Catholicism (there are more, but these are the most pressing), and I’m back in the States, I will most likely become Catholic. I really feel that God is drawing me to His Church, and always has been. I hope I haven’t offended anyone with my questions.

I don’t understand your problem with infant Baptism, as my father’s side of the family is of the church of the Nazarene and I know that they do baptize infants. They do more adult Baptisms, for sure, but they do baptize infants. My understanding is that they come from the Wesleyan Methodist tradition, and many of their practices come from that tradition. In fact, the baptism of young children is discussed in the Articles of Faith on the Nazarene website.

 

[moosears]

Dear brother ocean_soul1980, speaking as a brother convert I’d just like to say that this is a very exciting time in your spiritual journey. I converted from a plethora of protestant faiths because I couldn’t find a church that could answer all of my questions. I found that there are some questions that will never be answered until we reach eternity. Catholic teachings, however, fit perfectly together like the pieces of a puzzle and when you put them all together they display the most beautiful portrait of Christ. Jesus loves us so much that He held nothing back, but gave us himself to be our spiritual food so our souls could grow in grace and wisdom and the favor of the Lord. If we are dedicated to this with all of our hearts, how could we possibly not train up our children in the way they should go, which is to Christ. Baptism removes the original sin of Adam from the soul and restores grace within it, which sanctifies us. Grace is a sharing in the life of God. It is impossible to enter heaven without this grace. Naturally we would not want to risk our children dieing without this grace, this sharing in the life of God, and that is why it is important to baptize them as soon as possible after they are born. To put it off would be negligent. Welcome to the Catholic family! God bless you and yours and be assured of my prayers. Keep posting those questions, we are more than eager to answer them for the greater honor and glory of God! May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be always with you!