Questioning the Catholic Church and its Teachings

[AlanFromWichita]

CatholicCrusade:

It is a mortal sin to doubt, a mortal sin against the First Commandment and the virtue of Faith. Modernists claim that doubt is good, but the Church has constantly taught that this is not only a weakness but also a mortal sin.

We’re not talking about doubting God here; we’re talking about doubting whether the Church is, in fact, God’s infallible representative and His only institution. It seems only self-serving that a Church which makes that claim would also teach that it is a sin to doubt her. What if the Church were not obeying God infallibly in her teachings? Convinced she is infallible, would she not continue to proclaim her infallibility in such a case? That lays people who have questions about the Church, her teachings, or her practices with quite the guilt trip, and motivates those who would defend her – whether she is right or wrong – to do so.

Alan

 

[Madaglan]

Thank you everyone for your answers. I do believe in the Church, but I often wonder which group that claims to be the Church really is the Church. I mean, for a long time I thought that only the Catholic Church claimed to be the Church. However, now that I’m a bit older, I have come across the Orthodox Church and some other more recent groups–all claiming to be the one and holy Catholic Church.

Now the Catholic Church to which we belong is by far the largest in terms of coverage and the number of people in it. But does this necessarily mean that it is THE Church founded by Christ? That I’m not so sure about, even though the Catholic Church claims that it is valid. However, for all I know, the Orthodox Church may be the real Catholic Church, and we may just be schismatics. We may all be heretics, and a small group of maybe only 2 or 3 million might be part of the real Catholic Church. I just really don’t know at this point. I am beginning to wonder about certain problems in the Catholic Church and why these are happening. Bad fruits of a false church, or the struggles of the one true Church? I just don’t understand why people are continuing to dress down in attending church; why the confession lines are much shorter than they used to be (certainly not because people are sinning less); why there is a vocation problem, etc. Actually, I think I’m going to make a thread on this, since I promised to do so earlier

 

[jbuttrey]

Could you explain where you think protestant churches are ahead of us in theology.

As a convert from baptist-mennonite pentacostal faiths I find the Catholic faith both broader deeper and more theologically sound than my past.

My son says he loves Catholic theology, why do we love it, because it is so fundamentally true and thus answers our questions and enlightens our minds.

Theology is here only used to describe the fundamental core beliefs of the FAITH. I use this in capitals not to suggest that protestants don’t have the possibility of salvation but that we in the sacraments have all the aids or fullness of faith in order to walk our saint called life.
John

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by jbuttrey:

Could you explain where you think protestant churches are ahead of us in theology.

As a convert from baptist-mennonite pentacostal faiths I find the Catholic faith both broader deeper and more theologically sound than my past.

My son says he loves Catholic theology, why do we love it, because it is so fundamentally true and thus answers our questions and enlightens our minds.

Theology is here only used to describe the fundamental core beliefs of the FAITH. I use this in capitals not to suggest that protestants don’t have the possibility of salvation but that we in the sacraments have all the aids or fullness of faith in order to walk our saint called life.
John

Thank you for your post

Maybe I should have clarified a little better what I meant in my last post. I did not use specific names because I did not want to have the topic banned. I was not referring to Protestant churches–but only those churches that claim to have apostolic roots, and therefore also claim to be the Church.

 

[jimmy]

There is nothing wrong with questioning the beliefs, it actually helps us to learn what the teachings of the church are. I question things all the time and there are some things I am still not sure about, but the more questions I have, the more I learn about the teachings of the church and the more I get of the correct view.

 

[Sherlock]

Madaglan,

Perhaps it would help if you specified just what arguments you have seen that contest, in your eyes, the validity of the Catholic Church being the Catholic Church.

In answer to your intitial question: I went through a period of examination of the Church myself, through a number of phases (I’ve been posting for a while, so I won’t bore anyone with a recitation of my journey Home). Questioning beliefs is good when conducted with a sincere desire to know the truth. Questioning my faith brought me back to it, more strong in my Catholic beliefs than ever. This is a personal, quiet quest that many Catholics probably go through.

You wrote: “However, for all I know, the Orthodox Church may be the real Catholic Church, and we may just be schismatics.”

The marks of the Catholic Church are that it is one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic. I don’t see the Orthodox Church fitting this description: they have no Pope; they are largely ethnic and nationalistic in origin and in practice; and have had no Councils or any other sign of life for centuries. They are apostolic, yes; they are as holy as any church can be that is peopled with people; but they are not one.

 

[jimmy]

I don’t think he has any specific doctrines that are bugging him. The idea that the other churches like the Eastern Othodox actually being somewhat orthodox and claiming that they are the true church may bug him.

Just what I think.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by Sherlock:

Madaglan,

Perhaps it would help if you specified just what arguments you have seen that contest, in your eyes, the validity of the Catholic Church being the Catholic Church.

Yeah, that would be good. Right now I’m at the stage when I have lots of questions but haven’t really been able to answer them yet. The greatest problem I’m having right now with the validity of the Catholic Church really concerns several times of great division in the history of the Church. I am especially concerned with the division of 1054 that resulted in the Western and Eastern churches. I’ve read some artcles from both sides; but I still want to look at the split more. I just don’t know where the best places are to find a well-balanced study of this period. I am also to a degree concerned about the vast changes in the Catholic Church made in the past fifty years. There are many teachings of the Catholic Church today which seem to contradict or at least play around with previous decisions of the Church. For example, the idea of Christ’s Church as subsisting inside the Catholic Church seems really foreign idea to me, and I am, admittedly, worried that it may be a change with the intent of furthering ecumenical ends.

The Papacy is probably the second biggest issue of concern for me. I just want to make sure that the authority attached to pope is in conformation with Scripture and with what the Fathers have written. I have read the Apostolic Fathers, as well as much of Eusebius’ history, and I don’t see the Bishop of Rome as having the authority he has now. People in the Early Church did not constantly look to the Bishop of Rome for direction; it seems that this was only a later development. I want to make sure that this development conforms to what is written of Peter and his seat by the early Church.

In any case, I’m getting a ten-volume set of the Pre-Nicaean Fathers for Christmas. Hopefully, after reading through the ten volumes (in perhaps a few months) I will get a clearer image of early Christianity.

Last, admittedly I am not sure because most of my friends are non-Catholics–many Baptists, Evangelical Free and a few Orthodox. While I don’t accept everything they say, I get along with them better than with the Catholic people I know on campus. I reallly have zero good Catholic friends of my age, much less any Catholic friends who are really interested in learning more finding truth. Most of my friends who seem ablaze with Christian truth are non-Catholic. My sister (at 18) recently left the Catholic Church. She tried several different Catholic parishes, but in the end determined that she was not having a close relationship with God. She joined an evangelical free church and now is much happier about her relationship with God. I want to know why this is.

 

[Sherlock]

Madaglan,

You wrote: “I am especially concerned with the division of 1054 that resulted in the Western and Eastern churches. I’ve read some artcles from both sides; but I still want to look at the split more. I just don’t know where the best places are to find a well-balanced study of this period.”

I don’t have any recommendations for you regarding books, etc. right off the top of my head, but I will do some research and see what I can come up with that may be of some help.

You wrote: “I am also to a degree concerned about the vast changes in the Catholic Church made in the past fifty years.”

So are all orthodox Catholics, but it helps to realize that the Church has been through periods of change before. I have heard that it takes a while for the effects of a Council to be “shaken out”, so to speak, and so even though there has been heterodoxy, I am actually pleased to see some of the beneficial fruit of Vatican ll beginning to show. I always remind myself: if everything was so fine and dandy before 50 years ago, how come we had the assault on the Church in the Spanish Civil War and in Mexico; the carnage of WWl in Christian countries, and Christian countries like Italy embracing fascism in WWll? Germany was Christian (if rather Protestant), wasn’t it? How come the faith of my parents was so poorly passed on to my generation? Can you lay that ALL on the effects of Vatican ll? I would not let these sorts of things shake your faith: if you believe that Jesus founded the Catholic Church, then you believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. It is our job to understand our faith, and I don’t think that any serious, pious inquiry on your part is going to lead you away from her.

You wrote: “There are many teachings of the Catholic Church today which seem to contradict or at least play around with previous decisions of the Church.”

“Many”? Please elaborate.

You wrote: "For example, the idea of Christ’s Church as subsisting inside the Catholic Church seems really foreign idea to me, and I am, admittedly, worried that it may be a change with the intent of furthering ecumenical ends. "

I’m not sure what you mean by “the idea of Christ’s Church as subsisting inside the Catholic Church”—could you please explain? If you are referring to “no salvation outside the Church”, the be aware that the Church Fathers understood “invincible ignorance”, though they may not have used that term. Here’s a short article on the topic: catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.a

And a quick quote from that article: "The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847). "

to be continued…

 

[Sherlock]

continued…

You wrote: " I have read the Apostolic Fathers, as well as much of Eusebius’ history, and I don’t see the Bishop of Rome as having the authority he has now."

Again, I would recommend Stephen Ray’s book, “Upon This Rock”, for an in-depth look at this. I disagree, but I need more specifics from you in order to answer more effectively. (Read the book and save me the typing!)

You wrote: “People in the Early Church did not constantly look to the Bishop of Rome for direction; it seems that this was only a later development.”

I take issue with your implication that people constantly look to the pope today for direction. Obviously, it depends on what needs to be clarified, and some time periods have different requirements than others in that regard. If people look to the Magisterium more in one period than another, it probably has nore to do with the particular challenges of that period. An acorn is very different than the oak tree that springs from it, but it is still the same entity—if you are looking for an exact replica of the early Church as depicted in Acts, then you are going to have to explain to me how an acorn can keep from growing into an oak. And I just don’t see the discrepancy that you see when I read the Early Church Fathers. And, despite what you claim, I do see the Church being consulted in early times (Council of Jerusalem).

You wrote: “Last, admittedly I am not sure because most of my friends are non-Catholics–many Baptists, Evangelical Free and a few Orthodox.”

Most of my friends are Protestants (and one atheist). Obviously that hasn’t kept me from reaching different conclusions than you have, so maybe that’s not the most effective explanation of your current doubts. Truth is truth, regardless of externals.

You wrote: “I reallly have zero good Catholic friends of my age, much less any Catholic friends who are really interested in learning more finding truth. Most of my friends who seem ablaze with Christian truth are non-Catholic.”

I can sympathize with your plight, because I was once where you are and saw the same thing. However, as I mentioned earlier, faith is an assent to truth, regardless of externals. If you base your faith on the perceived holiness (or lack) of your friends, you will be sorely disappointed when they turn out to be humans.

You wrote: “She joined an evangelical free church and now is much happier about her relationship with God. I want to know why this is.”

Probably because she is wrapped up in subjective feelings. Feelings are good and wonderful and necessary, but faith has to involve the mind as well. Think of it as a marriage: love is more than happy, excited feelings. When the feelings wax and wane (as they will—I have been married for almost 19 years and so can attest to this), it is non-emotional concepts such as “duty” and “will” and “charity” that tide a person through the dry periods. My best friend is an Evangelical whose fires have cooled, and she no longer goes to any services, and couldn’t tell you why she believes what she believes if her life depended on it. So much for running on emotion…