Struggling with Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter CompSciGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Finally, read some Scott Hahn. He is so on fire too. Focus on the common ground between you and your Brother and don’t focus on the differences. Over time you will see that the Catholic church contains ALL that is in the protestant faiths, and adds more.
Yeah I try to do this as much as I can. In the past four years I have long moved on beyond the “I’m right you’re wrong” stage of being a Catholic convert and so we have a lot of good discussions. Since he is in Covenant seminary he is being exposed to many early/medieval Christian writings and so is developing a more thorough understanding of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in light of history. He recently wrote a paper on St. Francis of Assisi, whom he admires tremendously. Over Christmas break we were talking about papal infallibility and also the eastern-western schism. I was surprised as he seems to have a more positive view and deeper understanding of the Catholic Church than he did before.
 
I struggle with giving solid answers about Catholic Christianity all the time. I am constantly learning how to defend our faith. Because the Catholic Church is 2000 years old, we have a long history of issues thrown in our face.

Remember Protestants have a lot of difficult issues to defend also. Sometimes it is good to have rebuttal questions to put them on defense. Here are some taken from Steve Ray:

Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?”

Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?

Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?

On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?

Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?

Is your personal interpretation of scripture infallible?

God bless.
 
I am a convert and I feel like I am struggling with my Catholicism.

I know why I converted, I know all about the Church being one, holy, Catholic and apostolic and being passed down from the apostles and all that jazz, and why I don’t believe in Bible alone, etc.

The thing I struggle with is inconsistency in the Catholic Church.

I feel like when I have to answer people’s objections to what the Catholic Church has done in history I am having to nitpick, backflip, and reason around reality rather than face it. The whole argument that the pope is only infallible on matters of faith and morals seems to kind of be a way of excusing everything that the church has ever done wrong. I start to feel like I am making excuses for the Church instead of actually defending it.

One example is the issue of slavery. I remember hearing someone argue that the Catholic Church once permitted human slavery. I turned to the apologists who vehemently disagreed and proudly declared that the Catholic Church had always opposed slavery. When I did actual research, I found that in fact while there were individual Catholics who did indeed oppose slavery all the way throughout history, the actual Holy See was very wishy washy on the subject, and it was only with great reluctance that the Church gradually began to accept teachings that were somewhat in line with the modern view of slavery, all the while making sure to make moral provisions for those who still wanted to own slaves, saying for example that it’s OK to own slaves as long as you treat them well, and even going so far as to excommunicate abolitionists. Only when abolitionism was common belief did the Holy See actually come out and condemn slavery altogether. I guess my point on this matter is that it is not impressive to hear a Catholic to say that the Holy See has the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit when really it seems to change its teachings all the time and generally go with the flow of whatever happens to be popular at the time and whoever happens to have the most power. And it’s equally unimpressive to point out the fervor of the abolitionist Catholics such as Bartolomeo de las Casas, and argue that the work of the holy spirit is in the Catholic faithful as much as the Holy See, as this might as well be the argument of a Protestant against having a Holy See in the first place.

Inconsistency seems to be rampant in Catholic teaching. When I read what the Catholic Church taught in the year 1300, versus what it teaches in the year 2015, it’s like comparing two different religions. For example, just take the “extra ecclasium nulla salus” thing. In 1302 Pope Boniface’s papal bull Unam Sanctam declares the following:

Then in 1962 Vatican II writes this:

The intellectual backflips I have to do to reconcile this to people who have trouble understanding it…
The list goes on. There are so many inconsistencies. Not to mention legalisms. The Catholic Church is against birth control, I get that. I can understand that. But it supports NFP, which in all honesty is a form of birth control. It really seems sometimes like there is moral nitpicking involved in this.

Now at the same time my younger brother is an evangelical Protestant. He is in seminary. I know that his faith tradition is not rooted in history or tradition. But the difference between him and me is that his faith has actually made a difference in his life. He has a passion that I have never seen before. He really tries to live out the gospel. I strive to be a faithful Catholic and frequent the sacraments and follow the teaching authority of the Church. And I feel that I am lukewarm at best. Some days it is hard even to pray. I feel bogged down.

What are your thoughts?
Did Jesus say ANYWHERE that the Church He builds is going to be perfect in terms of behavior of it’s members? **No. **

Satan was NOT prevented from sifting Our Lord’s Church. Jesus even warned His apostles up front, and in advance that Satan would be allowed to sift THEM. #153 And what happened? They all left Him…even the apostles Matthew 26:56. And in extension looking ahead, the entire Church, had problems with all kinds of sin. #30

Everyone of those verses listed, is written to people IN THE CHURCH about their activity. Hardly a “perfect” bunch. They are committing these sins and Paul is not just warning THEM about the activity but the consequences to their soul if they don’t quit the activity. And there is no expiration date to those warnings. The point being, we are called to perfection, and when we fall short we have the sacraments to repair the damage.

Jesus promised that not even the gates of hell will prevail against His Church. Therefore ALL the promises He gave the Church are in force to make that happen. But He never promised people’s behavior would be perfect. FAR FROM IT. Or He wouldn’t have needed to give us His sacraments. The Catholic Church has great saints and great sinners. It’s probably part of human nature to want to focus on the latter.

As an aside, Protestantism (as in every stripe) is one of the Great Heresies in history.
 
Sorry to hear of your struggles my friend.

Slavery. Sometimes historically slavery permitted a person to have a better life than if they had been a beggar struggling to find a means to sustain a source of basic provisions for their family. There was never any social security, and the quality of slave treatment could often be reasonable. Even today, most people in employment feel in bondage at times to their work. I work Monday to Friday 40 hours a week. And get some cash for a basic lifestyle. I think where the Catholic Church took exception to slavery is when a human being is treated like an animal.

extra ecclasium nulla salus. I don’t see those two statements as contradictory. The quote from Vatican II, as has always been the case for Catholic teaching, is simply pondering the question of ignorance of Truth. Invincible ignorance of the Catholic Church Doctrine is obviously not the same as knowing Catholic Church Doctrine, having a conviction to it, and then turning around and starting up one’s own plan of salvation.
 
A few thoughts:

Show me a church without sinners. Hint - it doesn’t exist.

That said, much of the information you read about the history of the RCC, especially from Protestants or atheists, is biased and misrepresented. Were there wrongs? Yes, but it’s best to get the full story as history is often very complex.

The bible, especially the Old Testament, shows the existence of slavery throughout time because that was the cultural norm. However, you’ll note that Jesus encourages servants to be treated fairly. That said, I have seen no evidence of promotion of slavery in modern times.

In fact, the RCC was doing alot behind the scenes during WWII in Europe. The RCC also does more for the poor than any organization on earth.

Lastly, while there have been changes to doctrine, there has NOT been a change in dogma. The RCC has the same dogma it did in the first century. I would also argue that any updates to doctrine have not been contradictory to dogma.

In the Protestant Church as a whole, there is very little authoritative dogma outside Christ being the Savior. There is also no authority there to begin with.
 
I think the early church can be compared to a little child who knew some things, but in a limited child’s way. But as this child grew, it needed to know more for it’s own age level. So the knowledge grew. As so Jesus said that he would send the Holy Spirit for this … to teach us what we needed to know and as we needed it. He knew we couldn’t bear all of this from the very beginning.

But this isn’t really the problem. The problem is to try and convince someone else of it when they have a negative feeling about the church. To overcome their suspicions so they will accept the truth as well. That is the strain because we want them to know Jesus and really make him their personal Lord and Saviour in a way they have never before experienced.

I think you would be fine if you weren’t into apologetics. It just sounds as tho you’ve worn out your britches. This wouldn’t have happened in the 40’s 50’s and 60’s, because we lived in a castle with walls and were protected. Now the bullets of electronical engeneering does not make that possible and we have to defend ourselves. And we have 2000 years of history to defend which we know is impossible to know everything we need to know.

It is a cruel cruel world and much more so looking at the cracks and holes in our church.

But … we have Jesus … the Eucharist … our love with us. How many people in other denoms would die to have this if they knew it. And our joy in this alone should well cover our pain level.

Just bury yourself in his heart. He understands.
 
Paradoxically, these kinds of issues brought up in the OP can be evidence of why Catholicism is true. Cardinal Manning, a 19th century English bishop, was a convert from Anglicanism who encountered this same issue. In his book “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Spirit” he notes how doctrinal questions can be complex and nuanced, especially when interwoven with history, including changes in vocabulary and culture over time, leading to apparent contradictions and other anomalies. Different people today can look back at the past and come to different conclusions just like we can look at Scripture and see apparent contradictions and different interpretations.

The only way these issues could ever be resolved is if we could rely on the continuity of the Church herself as guarantor of the faith, since it is the same Church in each era.

As such, Manning stated that “No critic except the living and lineal judge and discerner of truth, the only Church of God, can solve these inequalities and anomalies in the history of doctrine. To the Church the facts of antiquity are transparent in the light of its perpetual consciousness of the original revelation.” He was finally content that since it is the same Church in all times, “The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour, is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation.”
 
Entering the drama of Scripture is a good way to deal with these issues. For instance, Peter publicly proclaiming the divinity of Christ among the Twelve, and then pulling Him aside to speak privately and being called Satan. “Faith and morals” vs. “private opinion.”

There is nothing new under the sun.
 
Thank the Lord for your conversion!

One thing to do is just remind yourself you’re on the ark. The unsinkable ship. If the ship hits rough water or you struggle to explain exactly how it stays afloat, or if you peak in the window and see that the men steering the unsinkable ark are drunk lunatics, you still should not think of jumping overboard!

Start with prayer, say 3 Hail Marys first thing in the morning and at night before bed, pray your rosary everyday and stay in the state of grace. Do penance on Friday, get to Mass on Sunday. You’ll have so much grace coming your way that you’ll be able to calmly move through church doctrine and history.

I’ll be praying for you!
 
…The Catholic Church is against birth control, I get that. I can understand that. But it supports NFP, which in all honesty is a form of birth control. It really seems sometimes like there is moral nitpicking involved in this.
Clearly you don’t “get it”. The Church is NOT against birth control. It’s ok to take steps to limit the number of births. The Church’s objection is to breaking the connection between the aspects of sex - contraception does that (by removing the procreative aspect); limiting the occasions when one has sex does not. The end objective of limiting children is NOT contrary to Church teaching. It is specific means to that end that are contrary to Church teaching.
 
CompSciGuy #1
When I did actual research, I found that in fact while there were individual Catholics who did indeed oppose slavery all the way throughout history, the actual Holy See was very wishy washy on the subject, and it was only with great reluctance that the Church gradually began to accept teachings that were somewhat in line with the modern view of slavery, all the while making sure to make moral provisions for those who still wanted to own slaves, saying for example that it’s OK to own slaves as long as you treat them well, and even going so far as to excommunicate abolitionists. Only when abolitionism was common belief did the Holy See actually come out and condemn slavery altogether. I guess my point on this matter is that it is not impressive to hear a Catholic to say that the Holy See has the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit when really it seems to change its teachings all the time and generally go with the flow of whatever happens to be popular at the time and whoever happens to have the most power.
False.
Sir Arnold Lunn in his debate with Professor G G Coulton also attests to this fact:
“Christ had not condemned slavery, and St Paul had said, ‘Slaves obey your masters,’ and it was therefore inevitable that only experience could convince Christians that slavery was wholly incompatible with Christianity.” Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social, Burns Oates, 1946, p 187].

In Ephesians 6:9 St Paul says:“Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no, partiality with Him.” This equality before God encouraged the early Church to convert slaves – Pope Callistus (d. 236) had been a slave. With the demise of the Roman empire, the embrace of those in slavery continued and only ordination to the priesthood was denied.

“Priests urged owners to free their slaves, and by the seventh century there was considerable evidence of unions of free men and female slaves. In 649 Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Clotilda. After his death, Clotilda campaigned to halt the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery. On her death she was declared a saint by the Church.

“By the ninth century Charlemagne opposed slavery and the pope and many influential clerics strove for the freedom of slaves. During the eleventh century both St Wulfstan and St Anselm campaigned to remove the last vestiges of slavery from most of Christendom.” As the facts reveal slavery has always been condemned by the Popes, and with St Paul, the Church revolutionised the status of the slave from the first: (re Onesimus) “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” (Philemon 1:16).

How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West
RODNEY STARK

As the non-Catholic Rodney Stark attests from the beginning that St Paul explained: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor fee, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Through all prior recorded history, slavery was universal — Christianity began in a world where as much as half the population was in bondage. But by the seventh century, Christianity had become the only major world religion to formulate specific theological opposition to slavery, and, by no later than the 11th century, the church had expelled the dreadful institution from Europe. [My emphasis].

While the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone embraced reason and logic as the primary guides to religious truth. Christian faith in reason was influenced by Greek philosophy. But the more important fact is that Greek philosophy had little impact on Greek religions. Those remained typical mystery cults, in which ambiguity and logical contradictions were taken as hallmarks of sacred origins. Similar assumptions concerning the fundamental inexplicability of the gods and the intellectual superiority of introspection dominated all of the other major world religions.
 
CompSciGuy #1
Inconsistency seems to be rampant in Catholic teaching. When I read what the Catholic Church taught in the year 1300, versus what it teaches in the year 2015, it’s like comparing two different religions. For example, just take the “extra ecclasium nulla salus” thing. In 1302 Pope Boniface’s papal bull Unam Sanctam
In *Unam Sanctam (1302), Pope Boniface VIII was not addressing the world; nor was he even addressing the subject of non-Christians or non-Catholics. He was addressing European Catholics. “Every creature” means a bunch of Catholics in Europe. And it is necessary for salvation for Catholics to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Otherwise, they have knowingly and deliberately exited the Catholic Church. Doing so is a mortal sin.

Pope Boniface VIII valiantly sought to restore the role of the papacy in the Christian world. Unfortunately, the civil powers proved too great. He sought to bring peace to England and France by banning taxation of clergy to pay for wars. However, economic forces and French commerce forced him to back off. An exception was made in cases of national emergency and defence. He issued *UNAM SANCTAM *on November 18, 1302, emphasizing the superior status of his spiritual power over that of temporal rulers. King Philip IV rejected his claims. His councillor, the Colonna family, and various other enemies seized the Pope and abused him. Outraged citizens of Rome freed the Pope but shocked that such humiliation might be perpetrated against his person, the poor Pope died on October 12.”
From: Andrew Apologetic Ministries
apologetics.scriptmania.com/2900.htm

Take note of the reality:
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. **Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. **Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.).[My emphasis].
The Catholic Church is against birth control, I get that. I can understand that. But it supports NFP, which in all honesty is a form of birth control. It really seems sometimes like there is moral nitpicking involved in this.
False

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
I feel bogged down.
What are your thoughts?
Feel free to explore and embrace the truths of Catholic dogma and doctrine in the one and only Catholic Church founded by God the Son – “he who hears you hears Me”. [See: Luke 10:16].
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LK1016.TXT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top