Not understanding Catholicism

[PJM]

This is confusing, because a Catholic may choose to leave **either **the Catholic Faith, **or **the Catholic Church, without leaving the other.

Most people who leave the Catholic Church, or Faith, or both, switch to secular. It usually is a gradual process. I have known persons, including some nuns, who had essentially left the Catholic Faith, but remained within their convent, or position in the Church. Rosemary Reuther was asked why she, who had rejected not only Christianity but even monotheism, had not left. She said “because the Church has the Xerox machine”.

I knew a few other people who very loudly left the Catholic Church. In fact they left it every year or so. But even though they proclaimed themselves Protestant they still had mostly Catholic mindset. These were my charismatic friends.

James Joyce understood Catholicism, but either he or his novel’s character felt he had to step outside the Church to be objective, as a writer.

Some people understand Catholicism, but have something in their lifestyle that that contradicts Catholicism, and refuse to give it up. So they join a church that accepts that practice, so they can get a benefit of Christianity in some degree, but still have their cake and eat it too.

Some people may understand Catholicism, but on philosophical grounds they reason to different logical conclusions, at least for themselves. This is rare, nowadays, because so few people have any idea what is meant by philosophy, logic, and reason. The era of philosophers like Will Durant is long gone, let alone Voltaire, etc.

The problem with this post, besides the ambiguity between Catholic Church and Catholic Faith, is what is meant by “understanding” Catholicism: intellectual understanding, or some other?

The crucial difference in those who convert out, is between the minority who switch to some other Christian group, and those who switch, or slide, into secularism. I think many who leave the Church **because **its teaching interferes with its lifestyle will later **after the fact ** come up with logical reasons, such as “I believe in a more biblical religion, or I believe in a more socially just, equality based religion,” etc. So it really is lifestyle.

Thank you for your thoughtful, reflective POST.

I’m in agreement with MichelP that no INFORMED Catholics could willingly leave the RCC… I can think of no other affront to the very Sovereignty of our God … To choose to leave Catholicism ad Jesus Personally and REALLY present in the Most Holy Eucharist [GOD with us literally and physically] AND to walk away from Christ Institution of KNOWN sin forgiveness HIS WAY. … Can be nothing less than the denial of GOD Himself.

I certainly agree with your signature line and would add the Washington Post to that list.

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[commenter]

earlier post, from another poster: “If you claim to have understood Catholicism and decided to be a druid, then either you did not find the truth in Catholicism or you are not seeking it.”

Or you found what Catholicism sees as being truth… and rejected it as incorrect, incomplete or just wrong.

I can see your point. It is exasperating dealing with orthodox Catholics like me, who believe all right-thinking people become Catholic, and as for those who don’t, well that **proves **they aren’t right thinking, so their position is thereby untenable, and their argument refuted.


Ok. But as your fellow Christian, consider this point. Catholicism claims to be a total package. The Assumption is not just true for me, but true for everyone. The NT canon is not just an inspired selection for me - **these **27 books and no others - but for everyone. Contraception is not only harmful for me, but for all.

I could see how someone could intelligently reject Catholicism and become a Druid, or Buddhist, or some other system that is lock, stock, and barrel independent - what you say, finding Catholicism “just wrong”.

It is much harder to accept an argument that Catholicism is incorrect or incomplete. Against what standard? Any standard I have seen used, relies on Catholicism. Without Catholicism, you can’t show your denomination to be any more “complete” or “correct” in any larger sense of “truth” in general.

It’s just a personal preference…“chocolate may be more pleasing for you, but for me, vanilla is best”. Same with the Trinity. Religion based on personal taste may last for awhile, even for decades, but in the long run personal taste is an unreliable standard, leading to relativism. It may lead to one’s grandchildren becoming Druids.

It won’t happen all at once. Remove an important pillar from a building, and it may stand for awhile, and be sort of functional. For awhile.

 

[PJM]

earlier post, from another poster: “If you claim to have understood Catholicism and decided to be a druid, then either you did not find the truth in Catholicism or you are not seeking it.”

I can see your point. It is exasperating dealing with orthodox Catholics like me, who believe all right-thinking people become Catholic, and as for those who don’t, well that **proves **they aren’t right thinking, so their position is thereby untenable, and their argument refuted.


Ok. But as your fellow Christian, consider this point. Catholicism claims to be a total package. The Assumption is not just true for me, but true for everyone. The NT canon is not just an inspired selection for me - **these **27 books and no others - but for everyone. Contraception is not only harmful for me, but for all.

I could see how someone could intelligently reject Catholicism and become a Druid, or Buddhist, or some other system that is lock, stock, and barrel independent - what you say, finding Catholicism “just wrong”.

It is much harder to accept an argument that Catholicism is incorrect or incomplete. Against what standard? Any standard I have seen used, relies on Catholicism. Without Catholicism, you can’t show your denomination to be any more “complete” or “correct” in any larger sense of “truth” in general.

It’s just a personal preference…“chocolate may be more pleasing for you, but for me, vanilla is best”. Same with the Trinity. Religion based on personal taste may last for awhile, even for decades, but in the long run personal taste is an unreliable standard, leading to relativism. It may lead to one’s grandchildren becoming Druids.

It won’t happen all at once. Remove an important pillar from a building, and it may stand for awhile, and be sort of functional. For awhile.

Perhaps you can then explain to me HOW “TRUTH” can be anything but singular per defined issue?

Logically
Morally
Biblically

There can be but ONE True God

God can have only One set of Faith beliefs [which the RCC has had for 2,000 years now] Even GOD can do no more

And In and through just one Church: OT “My people” Exo 6:7 & NT “MY Church” Mt 16:18

Blessings

Patrick