some questions from a very interested person!

[zaida]

Hi everyone - Im very interested in the catholic faith. I grew up non-religious, and as an adult, Ive found Christ and become an episcopalian. Please help me with the following concerns I have:

1 (I ask this respectfully) if RC really is the True Church, how could God have allowed His Church to partake in so many evils throughout the centuries? (I know there has been wonderful work done too). But the participation in the crusades, the slow response to the holocaust, the cover up of priest abuse scandals? (and I recognize that not everyone in the Church covered up the scandals, or promoted torture in the crusades - but its clear there was some Church involvement). How can any of the abuses of power be consistent with being His Church?

1. I understand Peter was the “rock” upon which God would build this church. How, then, did all Popes after Peter become “infallible” in moral issues? I dont see the “connection”.
2. Vatical 2 (as I understand it) acknowledged that there might be salvation of “anonymous christians”, or those who followed God “through the law in their hearts”, etc. But pre Vatican 2, my understanding is that the Church taught everyone else was damned. If this is the case, how can we account for 2000 years of “wrong” (and quite painful) teaching, and then accept that “now” we have it right? (although I sure hope vatican 2 is right.
3. Can I ver be a Catholic if I really accept that there are other roots to God? (for example, I cant see ever telling my protestant friends that they are “wrong”)

I appreciate any responses. I seem to be “stuck” on these 4 issues. But I cant help being pulled back to thinking about the Church, and wanting to learn more

Zaida

 

[Berachiah]

Hi everyone - Im very interested in the catholic faith. I grew up non-religious, and as an adult, Ive found Christ and become an episcopalian. Please help me with the following concerns I have:

1 (I ask this respectfully) if RC really is the True Church, how could God have allowed His Church to partake in so many evils throughout the centuries? (I know there has been wonderful work done too). But the participation in the crusades, the slow response to the holocaust, the cover up of priest abuse scandals? (and I recognize that not everyone in the Church covered up the scandals, or promoted torture in the crusades - but its clear there was some Church involvement). How can any of the abuses of power be consistent with being His Church?

I think this question is based on a wrong premise. On the same token one can also ask why God allows sickness, tragedies and sins. If I am not wrong, the Catholic Church is run by humans.

1. I understand Peter was the “rock” upon which God would build this church. How, then, did all Popes after Peter become “infallible” in moral issues? I dont see the “connection”.

That is interesting. Probably because of the succession. If Peter was infallible then that would be handed down to his successor.

1. Vatical 2 (as I understand it) acknowledged that there might be salvation of “anonymous christians”, or those who followed God “through the law in their hearts”, etc. But pre Vatican 2, my understanding is that the Church taught everyone else was damned. If this is the case, how can we account for 2000 years of “wrong” (and quite painful) teaching, and then accept that “now” we have it right? (although I sure hope vatican 2 is right.

I am not sure about this or maybe your question is not clear enough.

1. Can I ver be a Catholic if I really accept that there are other roots to God? (for example, I cant see ever telling my protestant friends that they are “wrong”)

I think Catholics do not think that all Protestants belief is wrong. You cannot be a Catholic without accepting the Pope.

I appreciate any responses. I seem to be “stuck” on these 4 issues. But I cant help being pulled back to thinking about the Church, and wanting to learn more

A simple response from me as someone who has much to learn.

 

[zaida]

Thank you Berechaia! Your responses make sense, food for thought. Listen, I have some more questions for you, but maybe you can help me with this - my post seems to have disappeared off of the TC forum - where can it have gone?

Thanks!

 

[Berachiah]

Thank you Berechaia! Your responses make sense, food for thought. Listen, I have some more questions for you, but maybe you can help me with this - my post seems to have disappeared off of the TC forum - where can it have gone?

Thanks!

I am new to this Forum. What is TC? Probable reason would be depend on your post or if you start a thread, it can be moved to appropriate section depend on the topic. Hopefully someone can help you with that.

 

[zaida]

Hi Berechaia - The TC is the Traditional Catholic forum. I posted my questions there, thinking there would be folks with a lot of background knowledge who can help me. Your answers have helpd me already, here on the Non Catholic forum!

My question about Vatican II was really about sudden change in odoctirne. It sems pre vatican II the stance was one had to be a member of the RCC to be “saved”, but Vatican II acknowledged others might be saved (the anonmyous christian, etc). Im curious about what seems like sudden “leaps” in thinking.

Zaida

 

[JRKH]

Hi everyone - Im very interested in the catholic faith. I grew up non-religious, and as an adult, Ive found Christ and become an episcopalian. Please help me with the following concerns I have:

Welcome to the forums. Your questions are good ones and not at all uncommon…Let’s see if we can help.

1 (I ask this respectfully) if RC really is the True Church, how could God have allowed His Church to partake in so many evils throughout the centuries? (I know there has been wonderful work done too). But the participation in the crusades, the slow response to the holocaust, the cover up of priest abuse scandals? (and I recognize that not everyone in the Church covered up the scandals, or promoted torture in the crusades - but its clear there was some Church involvement). How can any of the abuses of power be consistent with being His Church?

Lets begins with “how could God allow”…God allows free will and with free will comes mistakes. One could just as easily ask How God could allow all of the evil things to occur in the OT. How could He allow the Sins of the people that resulted in losing ten tribes, or in the defeat of Israel and their time(s) in exile…
The answer in all cases is the same…Man’s Free Will allows sin and sin leads to all sorts of problems. But God is also Constant and True in His Love so that when we turn back to Him, He is there to forgive and receive us back.

The other thing to consider is that there is a difference between “Official teaching” and the sins of individuals - even high ranking individuals. Even if a large portion of the Church acted sinfully the Church never taught sin.
It’s like, in the protestant world of televangelists there have been scandals. Men who held up the bible and quoted from it and such…but then were found to have been involved with serious sin of some kind. One sin of the man does not detract from the Truth of the Bible.
Likewise the sin of people in the Church does not detract from the Truth of Church teaching on faith and Morals.

1. I understand Peter was the “rock” upon which God would build this church. How, then, did all Popes after Peter become “infallible” in moral issues? I dont see the “connection”.

Not sure I understand here…Peter too was Infallible when speaking on Faith and Morals. So the popes after Peter did not “become” infallible - they always were…

1. Vatican 2 (as I understand it) acknowledged that there might be salvation of “anonymous christians”, or those who followed God “through the law in their hearts”, etc. But pre Vatican 2, my understanding is that the Church taught everyone else was damned. If this is the case, how can we account for 2000 years of “wrong” (and quite painful) teaching, and then accept that “now” we have it right? (although I sure hope vatican 2 is right.

Vatican 2 expressed something that was always believed in a deeper and more positive way than before. I don’t know the precise reasons for the why’s of how the teaching was previously expressed, but I trust God and the Church to teach properly in “Every day and age”.

1. Can I ever be a Catholic if I really accept that there are other roots to God? (for example, I cant see ever telling my protestant friends that they are “wrong”)

Yes you can be Catholic and accept that God can save who He will and How He will. I have listened to many “conversion stories” and in most all cases the people have not regretted their protestant past so it is perfectly legitimate to say that you don’t want to tell your protestant friends that they are wrong. In fact I don’t think you’ll have to.
If you decide to become Catholic, they will tell you that you are wrong…

The thing to recognize is that, in discovering the Catholic faith one discovers “a most excellent way” - I believe "The most excellent way to God and to eternal life.

In my personal view there are not “other paths” or “routes” to God. All Paths to God are built on Love, but some paths have better “instruction manuals” than others…If you know what I mean.
Finding our way to God through Christ, In his Church, with the aid of Church teaching, Tradition and Scripture is far easier than trying to find the way without these things or with only one or two of them.

Am I making sense??

Peace
James

I appreciate any responses. I seem to be “stuck” on these 4 issues. But I cant help being pulled back to thinking about the Church, and wanting to learn more

Zaida

 

[JRKH]

Hi Berechaia - The TC is the Traditional Catholic forum. I posted my questions there, thinking there would be folks with a lot of background knowledge who can help me. Your answers have helpd me already, here on the Non Catholic forum!

My question about Vatican II was really about sudden change in odoctirne. It sems pre vatican II the stance was one had to be a member of the RCC to be “saved”, but Vatican II acknowledged others might be saved (the anonmyous christian, etc). Im curious about what seems like sudden “leaps” in thinking.

Zaida

I can’t say why your post disappeared from the TC forum but if you want to get a lot of good responses, I would suggest the “Apologetics” forum. You don’t need to put it in any of the subforums, (Scripture philosophy etc) you can just post in “Apologetics”. I’m sure you will get a LOT of wonderful and well informed feedback.
Not to say that you won’t here as well…

Peace
James

 

[phoooiee]

Hi everyone - Im very interested in the catholic faith. I grew up non-religious, and as an adult, Ive found Christ and become an episcopalian. Please help me with the following concerns I have:

1 (I ask this respectfully) if RC really is the True Church, how could God have allowed His Church to partake in so many evils throughout the centuries? (I know there has been wonderful work done too). But the participation in the crusades, the slow response to the holocaust, the cover up of priest abuse scandals? (and I recognize that not everyone in the Church covered up the scandals, or promoted torture in the crusades - but its clear there was some Church involvement). How can any of the abuses of power be consistent with being His Church?
The Catholic teaching on the matter is not that individual members of the Church are incapable of evils or of teaching error, but that the moral universality (the teaching agreed upon by the great mass of bishops over the world) is correct. Similarly, the Pope’s holiness as a person is not guaranteed, but rather when the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” (which he does only rarely) we can be sure that these statements are infallible.

1. I understand Peter was the “rock” upon which God would build this church. How, then, did all Popes after Peter become “infallible” in moral issues? I dont see the “connection”.
   To believe otherwise is to believe that Christ created a church that was a teaching Church for less than a century after his coming. Without a teacher, there would be no revelation- only a series of conundrums- as evidenced by the enormous variety of interpretations of the Bible found outside the Catholic Church- there are nearly as many interpretations as people interpreting. Circumstances change and as a result of this someone has to apply revealed truth to the changing circumstances- if this “someone” is each individual person, then we end up with uncountable versions of the truth- if the Pope- we have unity. (Although this answer does not really cover the “how” that you asked, it does at least touch upon the “why”- Perhaps someone else could be more helpful as to the “how”)
2. Vatical 2 (as I understand it) acknowledged that there might be salvation of “anonymous christians”, or those who followed God “through the law in their hearts”, etc. But pre Vatican 2, my understanding is that the Church taught everyone else was damned. If this is the case, how can we account for 2000 years of “wrong” (and quite painful) teaching, and then accept that “now” we have it right? (although I sure hope vatican 2 is right.
   The quote that you might be referring to is from the 3rd century “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. However, this quote simply means that the Church is the means by which the graces necessary for salvation are bestowed.
   I’ll share another quote from St. Augustine (also during the early years of Christianity), which should be useful in discerning what is really meant by this doctrine.
   “That which is now known as the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist; from the beginning of the human race until the time when Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed began to be called Christianity…For this reason, I said: ‘In our times, this is the Christian religion,’ not because it did not exist in Former times, but because it had received this name in later times”
3. Can I ver be a Catholic if I really accept that there are other roots to God? (for example, I cant see ever telling my protestant friends that they are “wrong”)
   I suggest reading “Nostra Aetate”, which should help you to see what you can or cannot accept as a Catholic. I find it to be a very beautiful thing to see how God works through other religions- although the Catholic faith contains more fullness. St Thomas taught that truth is true wherever it is found- we should affirm what truths there are in other religions, which are plentiful, if limited. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
   I appreciate any responses. I seem to be “stuck” on these 4 issues. But I cant help being pulled back to thinking about the Church, and wanting to learn more

Zaida

 

[fbl9]

Hi Berechaia - The TC is the Traditional Catholic forum. I posted my questions there, thinking there would be folks with a lot of background knowledge who can help me. Your answers have helpd me already, here on the Non Catholic forum!

My question about Vatican II was really about sudden change in odoctirne. It sems pre vatican II the stance was one had to be a member of the RCC to be “saved”, but Vatican II acknowledged others might be saved (the anonmyous christian, etc). Im curious about what seems like sudden “leaps” in thinking.

Zaida

I am just guessing : because your post had to do with V2 and that is a “hot” subject on the tradtitional forum…
And no there was no change in doctrine like others have posted just a positive way of expressing that doctrine.

 

[jmoneyideas]

Welcome to the forums. Your questions are good ones and not at all uncommon…Let’s see if we can help.

Lets begins with “how could God allow”…God allows free will and with free will comes mistakes. One could just as easily ask How God could allow all of the evil things to occur in the OT. How could He allow the Sins of the people that resulted in losing ten tribes, or in the defeat of Israel and their time(s) in exile…
The answer in all cases is the same…Man’s Free Will allows sin and sin leads to all sorts of problems. But God is also Constant and True in His Love so that when we turn back to Him, He is there to forgive and receive us back.

The other thing to consider is that there is a difference between “Official teaching” and the sins of individuals - even high ranking individuals. Even if a large portion of the Church acted sinfully the Church never taught sin.
It’s like, in the protestant world of televangelists there have been scandals. Men who held up the bible and quoted from it and such…but then were found to have been involved with serious sin of some kind. One sin of the man does not detract from the Truth of the Bible.
Likewise the sin of people in the Church does not detract from the Truth of Church teaching on faith and Morals.

Not sure I understand here…Peter too was Infallible when speaking on Faith and Morals. So the popes after Peter did not “become” infallible - they always were…

Vatican 2 expressed something that was always believed in a deeper and more positive way than before. I don’t know the precise reasons for the why’s of how the teaching was previously expressed, but I trust God and the Church to teach properly in “Every day and age”.

Yes you can be Catholic and accept that God can save who He will and How He will. I have listened to many “conversion stories” and in most all cases the people have not regretted their protestant past so it is perfectly legitimate to say that you don’t want to tell your protestant friends that they are wrong. In fact I don’t think you’ll have to.
If you decide to become Catholic, they will tell you that you are wrong…

The thing to recognize is that, in discovering the Catholic faith one discovers “a most excellent way” - I believe "The most excellent way to God and to eternal life.

In my personal view there are not “other paths” or “routes” to God. All Paths to God are built on Love, but some paths have better “instruction manuals” than others…If you know what I mean.
Finding our way to God through Christ, In his Church, with the aid of Church teaching, Tradition and Scripture is far easier than trying to find the way without these things or with only one or two of them.

Am I making sense??

Peace
James

I appreciate any responses. I seem to be “stuck” on these 4 issues. But I cant help being pulled back to thinking about the Church, and wanting to learn more

Zaida

James pretty much nailed the point across as he always does:thumbsup: Your questions are the same I had but I started to questions my own Protestant Pastors ideas and teachings and it caused me yo turn to the Catholic Church. For some really good Videos on the subject I would suggest checking out Father Barrons Site wordonfire.org or check out Gus Lloyds ebook called A Minute in the Church, its like $2.99 on Kindle. Of course you did come to the right place here. I have met so many amazing people here that have put up with my questions of faith…

 

[fhansen]

1 (I ask this respectfully) if RC really is the True Church, how could God have allowed His Church to partake in so many evils throughout the centuries? (I know there has been wonderful work done too). But the participation in the crusades, the slow response to the holocaust, the cover up of priest abuse scandals? (and I recognize that not everyone in the Church covered up the scandals, or promoted torture in the crusades - but its clear there was some Church involvement). How can any of the abuses of power be consistent with being His Church?

People behave badly-and will fail us-guaranteed by a Church doctrine known as Original Sin. That doctrine, along with other teachings, are what are guaranteed not to fail, whether or not Church leaders and members are themselves heeding them at any particular point in time. The following verses from Matt 23 speak of a principle that is relevant here:
**1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. **

And, BTW, while some were behaving badly, plenty of others have always been there, heeding Church teachings, living according to the ideal she gives us, building hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, taking care of the poor and elderly, clothing the naked, donating possessions and money and hours upon hours of time-just living their faith.

1. I understand Peter was the “rock” upon which God would build this church. How, then, did all Popes after Peter become “infallible” in moral issues? I dont see the “connection”

.
Jesus established a Church which He said the gates of hell would not prevail against. The need for a rock to ensure this kind of strength and longevity down through the centuries didn’t disappear when Peter did.

1. Vatical 2 (as I understand it) acknowledged that there might be salvation of “anonymous christians”, or those who followed God “through the law in their hearts”, etc. But pre Vatican 2, my understanding is that the Church taught everyone else was damned. If this is the case, how can we account for 2000 years of “wrong” (and quite painful) teaching, and then accept that “now” we have it right? (although I sure hope vatican 2 is right.

The Church is still the instrument God uses to correctly convey teachings on His existence, His nature, and His will for mankind for the purpose of salvation. There is no other Church established for that purpose and that principle has been laid down in the past in no uncertain terms which the Church continues to recognize in herself to this day.

1. Can I ver be a Catholic if I really accept that there are other roots to God? (for example, I cant see ever telling my protestant friends that they are “wrong”)

It doesn’t really matter who’s right or who’s wrong-we must be true to our consciences and hold to what we believe is right. Satanists think they’re right, too, so it’s a matter of where we draw the line.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi everyone - Im very interested in the catholic faith. I grew up non-religious, and as an adult, Ive found Christ and become an episcopalian. Please help me with the following concerns I have:

1 (I ask this respectfully) if RC really is the True Church, **how could God have allowed His Church to partake in so many evils throughout the centuries? **(I know there has been wonderful work done too). But the participation in the crusades, the slow response to the holocaust, the cover up of priest abuse scandals? (and I recognize that not everyone in the Church covered up the scandals, or promoted torture in the crusades - but its clear there was some Church involvement). How can any of the abuses of power be consistent with being His Church?

1. I understand Peter was the “rock” upon which God would build this church. How, then, did all Popes after Peter become “infallible” in moral issues? I dont see the “connection”.
2. Vatical 2 (as I understand it) acknowledged that there might be salvation of “anonymous christians”, or those who followed God “through the law in their hearts”, etc. But pre Vatican 2, my understanding is that the Church taught everyone else was damned. If this is the case, how can we account for 2000 years of “wrong” (and quite painful) teaching, and then accept that “now” we have it right? (although I sure hope vatican 2 is right.
3. Can I ver be a Catholic if I really accept that there are other roots to God? (for example, I cant see ever telling my protestant friends that they are "wrong")

I appreciate any responses. I seem to be “stuck” on these 4 issues. But I cant help being pulled back to thinking about the Church, and wanting to learn more

Zaida

Job was a faithful servant and God allowed evil…this is true today…judge the Church by the Faithful servants not the sinful humanity that is part of the Church as well…

PreVatican II was a time from Trent until now…if you have not noticed the Church moves slowly and proclaims slowly…prior to Trent there were no Protestants…it became clear that this heresy produced Christians that maintained Baptism and the Church recognized that and restated their position in terms of that…all Baptized Christians are Christians united imperfectly to the body of Christ…the OHCAC…

If you stay on these posts you will see that there are many that tell Protestants that they are wrong…it can be done…

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hi everyone - Im very interested in the catholic faith. I grew up non-religious, and as an adult, Ive found Christ and become an episcopalian. Please help me with the following concerns I have:

1 (I ask this respectfully) if RC really is the True Church, how could God have allowed His Church to partake in so many evils throughout the centuries? (I know there has been wonderful work done too). But the participation in the crusades, the slow response to the holocaust, the cover up of priest abuse scandals? (and I recognize that not everyone in the Church covered up the scandals, or promoted torture in the crusades - but its clear there was some Church involvement). How can any of the abuses of power be consistent with being His Church?

The Church is the Body of Christ (Col 1:15-18, 1:24, 2:19; Eph 1:22-23, 4:4-7, et al.). The Church is the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-33; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 21:9-14, 22:17), “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” The members of the Church, being human, including some of her leaders, are not without blemish or error. However, many of the criticisms of the Church are Protestant inventions without merit. Others are well deserved and acknowledged.

Recommended reading: The Crusades, by Hillaire Belloc

1. I understand Peter was the “rock” upon which God would build this church. How, then, did all Popes after Peter become “infallible” in moral issues? I dont see the “connection”.

The promises Christ made to Peter and to the other Apostles were made to all who succeeded them. To propose that they were not means that Christianity was intended to last only until the Apostles died. But the promises of Jesus were, as He said Himself, until the end of time (Mt 28:20 KJV).

1. Vatical 2 (as I understand it) acknowledged that there might be salvation of “anonymous christians”, or those who followed God “through the law in their hearts”, etc. But pre Vatican 2, my understanding is that the Church taught everyone else was damned. If this is the case, how can we account for 2000 years of “wrong” (and quite painful) teaching, and then accept that “now” we have it right? (although I sure hope vatican 2 is right.

The Church teaches that Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesiam, there is no salvation outside the Church. Jesus Christ founded only one Church – the Catholic Church – for the salvation of the world, to take His place when He returned to heaven. The Church calls all others ecclesial communities. But she also teaches that those who become Christian by virtue of their baptism with water and the trinitarian formula are imperfectly joined to her. Please read sections 830 to 856 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, available online at vatican.va and scborromeo.org, to name only two sources.

1. Can I ver be a Catholic if I really accept that there are other roots to God? (for example, I cant see ever telling my protestant friends that they are “wrong”)

Can you see yourself telling thousands of conflicting and competing denominations – or those who belong to them – that they are right? Is Christianity true? Who teaches the truth? All Protestant organizations are made by ordinary men (or women). We know the names of the founders and the dates and names of the entities they founded. None are older than the 16th century. Episcopalianism began with Henry VIII, continued under the boy king, Edward VI, and was brought to the U.S. in the 18th century. Only the Catholic Church is from the mind and hands of God.

Peace be with you.

 

[grandfather]

Hi everyone - Im very interested in the catholic faith. I grew up non-religious, and as an adult, Ive found Christ and become an episcopalian. Please help me with the following concerns I have:

 

[zaida]

Thank you all for your responses, it gives me a whole lot to think about. I especially take to the point that individuals are sinful and that scandals of the “Church” are down to sinful inividuals, not necessarily the Church. What is hard to get my head around (as Im sure is the case for all practicing Catholics, of good faith) is when scandals/sin to drive people away from the Church. I have a friend who, as a young teenager, had as affair with a priest, and it certainly had repurcussions on the “belief” system of those close to her. But Ive also had friends abised in various protestant churches. I suppose we need to continually separate the true teachings and love from sinful individuals, whichever the Church.

Im still struggling with the infallible “Pope” belief but will need to do more reading on that.

As for my question regarding protestatnts and being “wrong” - I guess Im still not at a place in my heart where I believe the RC Church really IS the “one true” Church, with other denominations just having pieces. But I know I am being “pulled” towards the RC church. Someone (sort of jokingly) mentioned that as opposed to me telling protestant friends they are “wrong”, protstants will probably tell ME Im wrong if I join the RC church. he said this with a smiley face, so I know it was mant well! But in all seriousness, I am a part of a group of extremely loving, extremely kind protestants who work very hard to put the love of God into practice, and are very ecumenical, building bridges with people of all faith.

I have a feeling I will be struggling for a while with this. I very much look forward to reading through more threads. I have posted my questions to the 2ask an apologist" as suggested, but think all of you make fine apologists!

Zaida

 

[Hokomai]

Zaida I can’t help you much with your questions because the things you list are not things I believe. I might be able to proffer a word of explanation about infallibility though. I often hear Protestants criticising the Catholic Church because of a lack of specific biblical authority for this or that. These criticisms beg the question of whether scripture is the only ultimate authority. Protestants say yes. Catholics say no: it is scripture and the teaching authority of the Church. After all, they point out, the Church taught for centuries before the Bible took its current form. So first you should argue the issue of the nature of the Church’s teaching, and the standing of scripture in relation to it. Then you should address the infallibility issue. My main interest in CAF is in understanding the nature of belief, so yours is a most interesting post to me. Am I right in thinking you want to believe these things? Or do you want to be part of the Catholic Church, and want someone to remove these as intellectual obstacles? How did you come to believe the other elements of faith you have in common with the Catholic Church?

 

[grandfather]

Zaida,

You posted saying you are attracted to Catholicism and listed several impediments, Church teaching that you are struggling to understand or are having trouble believing.

You also wrote that you are involved with a group of Protestant Christians you see as doing very positive things and with whom you seem comfortable.

What you did not say is why you are drawn to Catholicism. If you are comfortable where you are, why leave?

 

[JRKH]

Thank you all for your responses, it gives me a whole lot to think about. I especially take to the point that individuals are sinful and that scandals of the “Church” are down to sinful inividuals, not necessarily the Church. What is hard to get my head around (as Im sure is the case for all practicing Catholics, of good faith) is when scandals/sin to drive people away from the Church. I have a friend who, as a young teenager, had as affair with a priest, and it certainly had repurcussions on the “belief” system of those close to her. But Ive also had friends abised in various protestant churches. I suppose we need to continually separate the true teachings and love from sinful individuals, whichever the Church.

YES - Scripturally we can point to Mt 23:1-3…Very telling in regards to this sort of separation.
1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Look here at how neatly Jesus separates the acts of the scribes and Pharisees from the Teaching. Note how Jesus upholds their right and authority to teach even as they themselves, individually, live sinful lives. To me this speaks very powerfully to the matter of sorting “teaching” (Universal and documented) from “actions” (of individuals).

Im still struggling with the infallible “Pope” belief but will need to do more reading on that.

Yes it can be tricky to get your head around. This might help.
First of all - the Pope is not “infallible” in every move, or every statement. Only when He is speaking officially, from the “Chair of Peter” (ex Cathedra) on matters of faith and morals.
Secondly - Such pronouncement are never made “off the cuff” but only after great deliberation by the curia, the Bishops and the Church at large and deep prayer. Such pronouncements are a grave responsibility for the Holy Father - indeed for all Bishops - and great effort and prayer goes into the study and formulation of any such pronouncement.

So - When looking into this further, please recognize that the infallibility issue is one of “authority” but most definitely NOT one of “power”. Rather - it is one of very grave “responsibility” - a very, very, heavy responsibility.

As for my question regarding protestants and being “wrong” - I guess I’m still not at a place in my heart where I believe the RC Church really IS the “one true” Church, with other denominations just having pieces. But I know I am being “pulled” towards the RC church.

It takes much time to come to this - But if I may share just a bit from my own Journey, it all really comes down to the question of “authority”. Where does Real, God given Authority lie. If it is strictly with Scripture, the Holy Spirit and the Individual then why are there so many different understandings of the same Scriptural passages? What room is there for the community the “ekklesia” in such a view? Yet Scripture teaches that we are to take difficult matters to The Church and Listen to The Church (Mt 18:15-18). In Acts 15 the difficulty between the Judaizers and the Gentiles was settled universally by the authoritative council of The Church.
Could you imagine how, in the Protestant world of today how this matter would have been solved?? No council, no resolution, no unity - just the Judaizers setting up their church on one corner and the Gentile Christians setting up on the opposite corner…
Nowhere in Scripture do we find ANY support for the Protestant model of “invisible church”, “independent local communities” etc. What we DO see in Scripture is Authority.
Jesus give the Church the authority to “Bind and Loose”…Whatever". The early Church uses that authority to settle a doctrinal matter in Acts 15. There are numerous calls both by Jesus and by the Apostles for unity…to Be one…to Praise with One voice…have no dissensions…agree with one another…and so on.
As a protestant trained person then - I ask only that you look AT Scripture and see which model is more evident…the “protestant” model of independence or the “Catholic” model of authoritative Church??

Someone (sort of jokingly) mentioned that as opposed to me telling protestant friends they are “wrong”, protestants will probably tell ME I’m wrong if I join the RC church. he said this with a smiley face, so I know it was meant well! But in all seriousness, I am a part of a group of extremely loving, extremely kind protestants who work very hard to put the love of God into practice, and are very ecumenical, building bridges with people of all faith.

That was me who jokingly referred to others telling you that you are wrong…I’m glad that you are in such a group. It will make your journey that much easier. Are they aware of your draw toward the Catholic Church, or are you waiting to tell them until you have done more research?

I have a feeling I will be struggling for a while with this. I very much look forward to reading through more threads. I have posted my questions to the 2ask an apologist" as suggested, but think all of you make fine apologists!

Thank you for your kind words. In Truth we all learn a great deal from each other here. This site is a great way to build up the faith.
Bring on your questions. We will continue to do our best to help.

Peace
James

 

[CopticChristian]

Thank you all for your responses, it gives me a whole lot to think about. I especially take to the point that individuals are sinful and that scandals of the “Church” are down to sinful inividuals, not necessarily the Church. What is hard to get my head around (as Im sure is the case for all practicing Catholics, of good faith) is when scandals/sin to drive people away from the Church. I have a friend who, as a young teenager, had as affair with a priest, and it certainly had repurcussions on the “belief” system of those close to her. But Ive also had friends abised in various protestant churches. I suppose we need to continually separate the true teachings and love from sinful individuals, whichever the Church.

Im still struggling with the infallible “Pope” belief but will need to do more reading on that.

As for my question regarding protestatnts and being “wrong” - I guess Im still not at a place in my heart where I believe the RC Church really IS the “one true” Church, with other denominations just having pieces. But I know I am being “pulled” towards the RC church. Someone (sort of jokingly) mentioned that as opposed to me telling protestant friends they are “wrong”, protstants will probably tell ME Im wrong if I join the RC church. he said this with a smiley face, so I know it was mant well! But in all seriousness, I am a part of a group of extremely loving, extremely kind protestants who work very hard to put the love of God into practice, and are very ecumenical, building bridges with people of all faith.

I have a feeling I will be struggling for a while with this. I very much look forward to reading through more threads. I have posted my questions to the 2ask an apologist" as suggested, but think all of you make fine apologists!

Zaida

There is nothing new under the sun according to Ecclesiastes…you may want to spend some time looking at the writings of Paul and the problems he faced…The Church with people is not perfect, there is sin, there has been sin, and there is always a need for repentance…welcome to the Church…

Read the letter to the Corinthians and see what Paul says…

1It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. 2And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

He says people are suing one another.

7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

There were many problems in Corinth and if you read Paul’s other letters they are not necessarily filled completely with joy and praise but rather exhortation…do people listen?
Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not…

If you want to know how to see what can be true study the Protestant positions on Abortion, Homosexuality, Adultery, and other Morality…they have waxed and have never had a solid position in the last 500 years…you will find solidarity in teaching about these issues over the last 2000 years…start here.

 

[zaida]

Again, thank you all so much for your thoughtful responses. Its so wonderful, to have this much (name removed by moderator)ut. Ill answer some of your direct questions to me -

James - you asked if my friends/community are aware Im looking into the RC faith. I havent shared it with too many people yet, just a few hints here or there. But I plan on sharing with more. I find you point about authority vs independence a VERY interesting one, and my plan is to read scripture, and see where it points - towards authority or towards independence. (ofcourse as an episcopalian, I seem to straddle both!)

Grandfather - you asked me why i am considering leaving my chiurch and my broader protstant community, if Im comfortable - its funny. Thats such a good question. I am comfortable, and have amazing people of faith around me. Then I started watching EWTN! How almost “goofy” that a tv program would start me thinking! Ive become intriguied with “journey home” and people like rosalind moss, and their belief that they only had partial truth as protestants. Ive become in awe of the idea of the communion of the saints. And the role of Mary. And it just got me wondering…

Coptic Christian - You mentioned how many and multiple protestant churches have waivered/changed their minds, etc etc, about many social issues, wheres the RC church has stayed consistent. For some reason, consistency has never been a sticking point with me. At least up to now, Ive thought it a strong point that churches and individuals struggle with questions of consceince, and that we dont profess to “knowing” the whole truth, but humbly admit we dont know. I guess it comes back to this question about "authority

rbkomai - You asked me if I want to belive - if Im hoping to believe (in the RC Church and doctrine, etc) - I suppose there is a part of me that does and another part thats just not “there” yet.

All of you have been amazingly helpful -

zaida