Am I doomed? Should I continue to go to mass and “tough it out” ? Should I attend protestant services if the effect is I may possibly become a better ambassador for Christ? Are the feelings I receive at protestant services somehow false or can somehow be attributed to vanity, etc?
If you feel that God is calling you elsewhere, the Church does not teach you are doomed if you follow what you believe is God’s path for you. Freedom of religion and free exercise of conscience in all things religious is a doctrine of Catholic faith…as you probably know from the Catechism:
The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in religious and moral matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of man.–CCC 1747.
It should be noted however that your questions are not based on actual Catholic teachings but what sound like anti-Catholic propaganda. None of the points you bring up accurately reflect Catholic doctrine. Also, all Catholics should be well versed on the basics of exercising religious freedom as clearly stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that it should not be a question. Having been lead away from the Church by Jehovah’s Witnesses at 17 and asking almost identical questions about the Church when I left makes me think you are getting these questions not from your study and practice of Catholicism but from outside anti-Catholic ones. I know I got these questions from hanging around the JWs.
To illustrate, you state…
“I cannot fully embrace the idea of transubstantiation. Consubstantiation seems more acceptable to my finite mind…The idea that clergymen can literally make Christ manifest in the Eucharist is just too much.”
Who said the idea of transubstantiation was supposed to be acceptable to the mind? In reality it isn’t. That is why it is an article of faith.
And clergymen don’t make Christ literally manifest in the species of bread and wine. Only Christ can perform this miracle. Christ does it through the hands of a priest just the way Christ brings the good news of salvation through your mouth to others.
If you are trying to get things to fit your logical mind then you may be working outside of faith. Faith is not about logic or proof. Faith steps in where no logic or proof exist. Faith is the substitute for evidence. It testifies as a witness for a truth where our logic and empirical evidence fails. “Faith is the reality of what we hope for, the proof of what we don’t see.”–Hebrews 11:1.
As a Protestant version renders Hebrew 11:1 about faith:
Faith is the reality of what we hope for, the proof of what we don’t see*.–Common English Bible.*
"The Catholic Church doesn’t have a monopoly on holiness."
The Church never claims to. Neither does it claim to be the exclusive font of all that is true. Since God’s truth can be found in mere creation, obviously holiness can too. It isn’t the Church that is wrong here, it is your incorrect concept that you mistakenly attribute to the Church.
"The necessity of infant baptism…baptism of desire applies to adults who are ignorant of Christ."
This is also incorrect. Baptism of desire requires a person to “desire” Christ, which means they cannot be ignorant of Christ. And baptism of infants is not necessary on behalf of the child to undergo as much that is necessary for the Church to do all in her power to bring the saving sacrament to all, including children. It is the Church that is under command to make disciples and baptize, not infants that are commanded to make sure they themselves undergo baptism.
"Apostolic succession."
If it isn’t from the apostles, why bother with it?
If you believe in Christ, was that not handed down from the apostles? Is not the New Testament canon decided on the basis of how well the books within match with the apostolic witness?
Why did the group of apostles exist if they were not assigned with Christ as an authority for the Church? Who do you want to have lead the Church, someone assigned by an apostle or an apostle’s successor, or someone who doesn’t have any connection to the apostles? If you accept the apostolic witness about Christ, why have you drawn the line at the successors?
“Papal authority/infallibility”
Someone has to lead, right? Jesus didn’t name all his apostles “Rock” like he did Simon, did he? He didn’t give all of them the Keys, did he?
And there’s no such thing as papal infallibility. The teaching is that a pope can make an infallible dogmatic statement on the Church’s faith. Pope’s aren’t infallible. They can’t make up new doctrine. They can only state dogmatically that issues of faith ALREADY held in the Church are unequivocally true and without question to be so.
If you feel God is calling you elsewhere, then Catholics will not stand in your way. We will not shun you for leaving us nor consider you a traitor. The Church officially recognizes that God can and does save people outside the Church. You will always be welcome among us as friend and family, even if you never officially return to the Church. You are
not doomed.
But I want to tell you the truth here. Your questions are based on you having an
inaccurate idea about what the Church really teaches. Because of this happening to me when I was a teen, I ended up in a cult for over a decade–and it was hard getting out! They taught me these same questions to ponder about the Church–none of which apply to the actual teachings of the Church.
So I would hope you would go to your Director of Religious Education in your parish and ask to learn the Catholic faith inside and out before you leave. Leave if you must, and God be with you, but don’t leave without a correct understanding of the faith, one where you know what we teach directly from the Church.
(Except for the bit about apostolic succession - if we felt as Catholics did, then we’d come running into the Catholic church)
