Tempted to leave the Church...

[Della]

I understand what you mean.
One gets the impression these days from the Church that it matters not what you believe or if, for that matter, you believe in anything. All are saved. God is Mercy. We are told we do not know for a fact if anyone at all is in Hell other than Lucifer and some of his minions. If it doesn’t matter whether a person is Catholic or not, and all can and will get to Heaven no matter what they are, why bother being Catholic?

Some people will misstate Church teaching for their own reasons–they do it with every teaching/issue there is. That in no way means the Church teaches anything like indifferentism. All the Church is saying is that it is God’s alone to judge who is saved and who isn’t. She encourages evangelization today just as much as she did in the first century. Please check the scriptural references I cited in my last post (I think it was my last post). Please don’t go by impressions but by what the Church actually teaches, for goodness sake.

 

[Lormar]

Some people will misstate Church teaching for their own reasons–they do it with every teaching/issue there is. That in no way means the Church teaches anything like indifferentism. All the Church is saying is that it is God’s alone to judge who is saved and who isn’t. She encourages evangelization today just as much as she did in the first century. Please check the scriptural references I cited in my last post (I think it was my last post). Please don’t go by impressions but by what the Church actually teaches, for goodness sake.

I know what the Church teaches. I was merely saying the impression it gives to others who do not know.

 

[Lormar]

Regarding Mother Teresa, I once brought this very subject up to one of her MCs. I was told that they ask those in their care who are dying if they want a “ticket to Heaven.” If they say yes, they baptize them.

 

[mattp0625]

A few thoughts:

I think it is important for someone in your position to separate dogma from doctrine from canon law from practices from devotions. These concepts can be easily confused from a Protestant perspective.

While the Church as grown over time, the dogma and doctrine have been the same from the beginning. The words of the Roman sacrifice of the Eucharist at mass are the oldest in existence and have existed since the beginning. So, it might be helpful to separate dogma and doctrine (e.g. official beliefs) from canon law, practices, and devotions which have grown.

While church fathers are important to read because they provide historical perspective on the Catholic faith, they do not necessarily result in doctrine and dogma. I suggest Ignatius of Antioch. Find out who he was, when and where he lived as bishop, and what he wrote. In him, you’ll find the Catholic Church from the very beginning.

I’ve read one of Mother Theresa’s books. She wanted to help the poorest of the poor and show them the compassion of Jesus. She literally picked up people off the streets as they were being eaten by rats. She did so in a non-Catholic country. She understood that sometimes she needed to reach out to people where they are in life. Sometimes, you cannot convert everyone, especially the suffering, even if you want to from the bottom of your heart. This practice of reaching out to people where they are is not an indication of promoting false Gods or paganism. That sounds like a Protestant sentiment against Catholics that is still ingrained in you.

The Church does want everyone to believe in Jesus. What the Church does teach, however, is that when a person is completely ignorant through no fault of his/her own, God can reach out with grace to such a person. However, the fullness of truth is in the Church. To have this knowledge, and yet willingly pull away from Christianity, is another matter.

The Church teaches that non-Catholic Christians *could *be saved, but outside the Catholic Church there is partial truth at best. Partial truth is not the BEST path to salvation and could lead to grave matters.

 

[Della]

I know what the Church teaches. I was merely saying the impression it gives to others who do not know.

Then their impression is not based on actual knowledge but on faulty information–not in the least uncommon even among Mass going Catholics, sad to say. Most people don’t take the time/effort to learn the truth, especially when believing what they want is so much easier to live with.

 

[PRmerger]

My brother left the catholic church, my mum once in a while expresses her wish to leave the church, so I am quite exposed to the idea of questioning the Church. the one question I usually ask my self is “where do I go to?” the other protestant churches around me are not that better than the catholic Church.
Also, St Francis de sales pointed out in his book, ‘introduction to the devout life’, that (i am paraphrasing, i don’t remember it well):
when attempting to begin a devout life, it’s good to know the what exactly that means, not it’s little attributes but what a devout life really means, perfectly, so that one doesn’t go about pursuing one small thing and leave the others and thinks he is living a devout life.
The point is the church has the models to imitate, (the saints) and deep teachings, such that, to put it plainly, there is always room for improvement.
Also with all the crisis in the Christian world today, the Catholic church is the one with the highest ideals.
.
For me it’s just like a student applying for college, under normal circumstances he applies for one with the highest standard within his reach.

And I think the paradigm of “church shopping”, where one shops for a church that matches one’s theology, is exactly BACKWARDS.

Rather than finding a church that conforms to one’s own palate, shouldn’t one find the Church that Christ established, and then conform one’s views to His?

Worship at the Church of the Almighty. Not the Church of the Almighty Self, which is what one does when one church shops.

 

[mattp0625]

A few thoughts about performing works of mercy with a busy schedule:

Here is an idea - on your way home, stop at the Dollar Store, buy soap, toothpaste, etc, and drop them off at a local shelter. Quick and easy.

Many churches also take donations to shelters.

Then, refer to Matthew 25 - talents or sheep and goats - to see what Jesus had to say about it. That should provide sufficient motivation

 

[Thorolfr]

And I think the paradigm of “church shopping”, where one shops for a church that matches one’s theology, is exactly BACKWARDS.

Rather than finding a church that conforms to one’s own palate, shouldn’t one find the Church that Christ established, and then conform one’s views to His?

Worship at the Church of the Almighty. Not the Church of the Almighty Self, which is what one does when one church shops.

The problem for me with this is that I’m not at all convinced that the Catholic Church is the church that Christ established. Solid evidence that most professional historians would find conclusive which directly links an ecclesiastical organization that existed continuously and without interruption from the time of the first generation of Christians until the appearance of what unmistakably became the Catholic Church seems rather thin to me.

Just to give an example of how much uncertainty there is in early church history, people often quote Papias to prove who the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Mark were (and the work of Papias only exists in scattered quotations in other works since the full original has been lost). Papias claims that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew. But it cannot be confirmed conclusively that the gospel that Papias was talking about is the same one which we now call the Gospel of Matthew, especially since it does not show any traces of having been translated from Hebrew (and experts can usually tell if something is a translation).

A lot of our evidence from early Christian history is like this in that there just isn’t enough information left to completely tell what was happening in the first few centuries among Christians. We know almost nothing about many of the men whom the Catholic Church claims were some of its earliest popes such as Linus or Evaristus or Anacletus, etc.

 

[mattp0625]

The problem for me with this is that I’m not at all convinced that the Catholic Church is the church that Christ established. Solid evidence that most professional historians would find conclusive which directly links an ecclesiastical organization that existed continuously and without interruption from the time of the first generation of Christians until the appearance of what unmistakably became the Catholic Church seems rather thin to me.

Just to give an example of how much uncertainty there is in early church history, people often quote Papias to prove who the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Mark were (and the work of Papias only exists in scattered quotations in other works since the full original has been lost). Papias claims that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew. But it cannot be confirmed conclusively that the gospel that Papias was talking about is the same one which we now call the Gospel of Matthew, especially since it does not show any traces of having been translated from Hebrew (and experts can usually tell if something is a translation).

A lot of our evidence from early Christian history is like this in that there just isn’t enough information left to completely tell what was happening in the first few centuries among Christians. We know almost nothing about many of the men whom the Catholic Church claims were some of its earliest popes such as Linus or Evaristus or Anacletus, etc.

The Didache, as well as the first century letters of Ignatius of Antioch, and the second century letters of Irenaeus of Lyons show direct evidence of the authority of bishops, the evil of schisms (for lack of better words), and the handing of the office of the episcopate from Peter to Linus.

Doctrine and dogma are the same, as well as the Eucharistic sacrifice. Canon law, devotions, and practices have grown but are not in conflict.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem for me with this is that I’m not at all convinced that the Catholic Church is the church that Christ established.

This is fair.

But are we agreed that shopping around on Sundays for a church that meets our theological, ecclesiological, moral and musical appetites is NOT the way to find a church?

Solid evidence that most professional historians would find conclusive which directly links an ecclesiastical organization that existed continuously and without interruption from the time of the first generation of Christians until the appearance of what unmistakably became the Catholic Church seems rather thin to me.

So do you believe that the Church that Christ established doesn’t exist in 2016?