What do you do if you regret converting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter valient_Lucy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:ehh: Do you have a source for that?
How about St. Thomas Aquinas? In his Perfection of the Spiritual Life, he states “For Abraham had arrived at such perfection that his heart never wavered. in love to God on account either of temporal possessions or of wedded life. But if another man who has not reached this height of virtue, strives to attain perfection, while retaining riches and engaging in matrimony, he will soon be made aware of his error in presuming to treat Our Lord’s words as of small account.”

Notice how he views marriage as a hinderance to achieving holiness, rather than an aide.

This view was also reinforced at the Council of Trent.

The Reformers rejected these ideas. Now, they did have flaws in their understanding of marriage. However, they rejected the idea that a person had to choose between marriage and holiness because marriage was God’s plan for humanity, and quite rightly in my opinion.
 
How is this not a holy view of marriage?
Catholic view of marriage, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

The grace of the sacrament of Matrimony

1641 "By reason of their state in life and of their order, [Christian spouses] have their own special gifts in the People of God."145 This grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the couple’s love and to strengthen their indissoluble unity. By this grace they "help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and educating their children."146

1642 Christ is the source of this grace. "Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony."147 Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another’s burdens, to "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,"148 and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love. In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb:

How can I ever express the happiness of a marriage joined by the Church, strengthened by an offering, sealed by a blessing, announced by angels, and ratified by the Father? . . . How wonderful the bond between two believers, now one in hope, one in desire, one in discipline, one in the same service! They are both children of one Father and servants of the same Master, undivided in spirit and flesh, truly two in one flesh. Where the flesh is one, one also is the spirit.149
Thanks for the post.

But I was referring to what the Church used to teach about marriage, not what it teaches now.
 
Lucy,
I can’t help but think you have been given some misinformation about the Catholic teaching on celebacy and marriage. The Church has always taught that you can be holy in either the married or celebate state. In fact, all people are called to holiness. For some, it is easier to be holy in the married state and for others, in the consecrated, celebate state. It just depends on your calling.

I’d also like to give a little different suggestion on how to approach church teachings that you have a problem with. If you start by assuming the church is wrong, you put yourself in the position of being more intelligent or more inspired than that of the combined Resources of the 2000 year old Catholic Church. A better approach is to assume that with all its resources and divine inspiration, the Church probably has it right. The question is then, what are you missing that makes it seem wrong to you. The church’s positions are all very well documented. WE can help you find the answers to questions you have. I think if you take this approach, you will find that there are considerations in the church’s positions that you just hadn’t thought of and that with the proper explanation, you will find the wisdom in the teachings.

There are no new revelations in the Catholic Church. Everything necessary for salvation was taught by Jesus to the Apostles and they have faithfully passed it on. This can be traced back through the writings of the popes and the Early church Fathers… The reason the Pope is infallible in teaching on Faith and morals is that he teaches nothing knew, but only passes on what has been passed on to him.
 
How about St. Thomas Aquinas?
There’s the problem. St Thomas Aquinas’ works do not represent church teaching in that they are not infallible. Much of what St Thomas Aquinas wrote is good, and is both in line with and proof for many church doctrines. Some of it is not. This is the point of spiritual growth: even the saints grow in understanding as they grow in faith.

The church has always taught that marraige is a calling from God.
 
Huh? The church has been an avid proponent of marraige since the first century, when it was started. I even wrote a 12 page paper in Theo 400 on why Catholic views on marraige in the first five centuries were one of the chief reasons for the rise of Christianity and the fall of Paganism.

There has never been a time in history when the church, institutionally, despised marraige as a roadblock to holiness. Anyone teaching such at an point in history would have been speaking heresy, since laypersons are CALLED BY GOD to marry.
Wow, if you have a digital copy could you send it to me?
How about St. Thomas Aquinas? In his Perfection of the Spiritual Life, he states “For Abraham had arrived at such perfection that his heart never wavered. in love to God on account either of temporal possessions or of wedded life. But if another man who has not reached this height of virtue, strives to attain perfection, while retaining riches and engaging in matrimony, he will soon be made aware of his error in presuming to treat Our Lord’s words as of small account.”

Notice how he views marriage as a hinderance to achieving holiness, rather than an aide.

This view was also reinforced at the Council of Trent.

The Reformers rejected these ideas. Now, they did have flaws in their understanding of marriage. However, they rejected the idea that a person had to choose between marriage and holiness because marriage was God’s plan for humanity, and quite rightly in my opinion.
I’m not seeing that quote in Perfection of the Spiritual Life 😊
 
Huh? The church has been an avid proponent of marraige since the first century, when it was started. I even wrote a 12 page paper in Theo 400 on why Catholic views on marraige in the first five centuries were one of the chief reasons for the rise of Christianity and the fall of Paganism.

There has never been a time in history when the church, institutionally, despised marraige as a roadblock to holiness. Anyone teaching such at an point in history would have been speaking heresy, since laypersons are CALLED BY GOD to marry.
Promethius, perhaps you could forward a copy of your paper to the OP as this seems to be a serious problem for her.
 
Huh? The church has been an avid proponent of marraige since the first century, when it was started. I even wrote a 12 page paper in Theo 400 on why Catholic views on marraige in the first five centuries were one of the chief reasons for the rise of Christianity and the fall of Paganism.

There has never been a time in history when the church, institutionally, despised marraige as a roadblock to holiness. Anyone teaching such at an point in history would have been speaking heresy, since laypersons are CALLED BY GOD to marry.
That would be an interesting paper to read. I’m curious how you can say that the Early Church promoted marriage, especially in light of what the ECF actually have to say about the subject.
 
Even if the Church needed the new ones on the block to remind them of some things, just as someone who comes new into a family business from outside can have some good ideas that the family in it’s long history with the business hadn’t thought through.

Jesus promised, “I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit comes He will lead you to the complete truth…All He tells you will be taken from what is mine.” “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but indeed…to the ends of the earth.” [John 16:8-9, 12-13, 15]

Jesus didn’t put a time frame on the Spirit’s leading.

The fact that someone from outside can highlight something to the legitimate founders of the business, doesn’t make the authentic business belong any less to the family or any more to the newcomer.

The Catholic Church was founded by the apostles, the first priests, at the direction of Jesus. And yes there were legitimate reforms needed, God’s child had some mud on its face as history clearly tells us*, but the child is still the legitimate child of God. If someone new comes in and causes the child to wipe off the mud, then no big surprise. God uses whatever means at His disposal. But this does not make the man-made churches, wonderful as they are, the original churches begun by Christ’s disciples. It just simply isn’t the case and history tells us this also.

*There may be those who object to the comment but I too have studied history…of the Church, of western civilization.
 
Well, in St. Augustine’s On the Good of Marriage (an ironically named document if ever there was one!) he says it would be better if no one married because the world would end sooner, and that there are fewer people who are living chaste lives as married couples than as singles. He also said that the desire for children is a sign of spiritual immaturity.

I don’t have time now to find the exact quotes, but I can if you insist.

St. Jerome also wrote that St. Paul allowed marriage among Christians as a concession; permitting a lesser evil (marriage) in order to prevent a larger evil (fornication.)

Obviously, all of these ideas are repugnant to the Reformers and to many modern day Catholics. The modern day Catholics who hold that marriage is a positive good (and not a necessary evil) have the Reformers to thank for that.
 
** Dear Lucy,
I believe I addressed that question in my last post…
  1. The Church owes its current image of marriage to a range of things, including emancipation of women.
  2. St Jerome cannot be blamed for citing Paul, who was one of the original Christians,
    In quoting Paul, Jerome was being true and faithful to scripture.
And as Protestants value scripture, this would be well known to them!
Is it not inconsistent, to support the Bible as authority, but to reject it at the same time?

Conversion of St Paul Acts 9:1-22; Acts 22:4-19; Acts 26:9-15; Galatians 1:13-24**

St Paul, a founding member of the Catholic Church, chosen by God, flooded with light, blinded, then cured, called personally by Jesus taught:

<< 1 Corinthians 7 >>
Code:
  25Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. 29But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.
  32But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

  36But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.
Are we blaming the Catholic Church for being true to Scripture, the Bible, in the teaching of this man Paul whom God worked a miracle to convert to Christianity in order that he teach us what the Holy Spirit taught him to teach us?

God bless, Trishie
 
Dear Lucy, 🙂
Wishing you a good 2011
I believe I addressed some of that question in my last post…however,

**Regarding marriage and the Catholic Church
  1. The Church owes its current image of marriage to a range of things, including emancipation of women.
  2. St Jerome cannot be blamed for citing Paul, who was one of the original Christians,
    In quoting Paul, Jerome was being true and faithful to scripture.
And as Protestants value scripture, this would be well known to them!
Is it not inconsistent, to support the Bible as authority, but to reject it at the same time?

Conversion of St Paul Acts 9:1-22; Acts 22:4-19; Acts 26:9-15; Galatians 1:13-24

St Paul, a founding member of the Catholic Church, chosen by God, flooded with light, blinded, then cured, called personally by Jesus taught us:**

**1 Corinthians 7 25-38

"Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.

But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better."**

**Are we blaming the Catholic Church for being true to Scripture, the Bible, in the teaching of this man Paul whom God worked a miracle to convert to Christianity in order that he teach us what the Holy Spirit taught him to teach us?

The basic fact is that you are essentially objecting to what the Holy Bible taught of marriage from the beginning of the Church!

God bless, Trishie**
 
I guess what’s really behind that comment is the fact that I feel as though I was deceived, and I allowed myself to be deceived. I don’t think I’m getting any more specific about it than that right now, because I don’t think I can have a rational discussion about it.
Lucy,

You’ve obviously thought about things long enough to get really steamed and upset and post your feelings here on this forum. Look at the question you open this thread with. Why is it you’re even here if you ask a question you don’t want to discuss? You don’t think THAT’S rational do you?
L:
It’s hard to do that when you feel as though you’ve been lied to. That’s what I mean about my comment how I used to love the Church, but I don’t think I ever will again. It’s difficult to love something (or someone) when you feel as though they lied to you.
C’mon Lucy, What’s REALLY going on? I won’t guess, based on what has been posted so far.
L:
Ok. Prove that Jesus started the Catholic Church.

You can prove that Protestant churches were started by men. They admit that. They don’t deny that.
Is that why you sought out Catholicism?

As to your first question, wherever Peter is, there is the Church Jesus promised to build…any argument there? The Church was first called Catholic in writing by Ignatius of Antioch. That doesn’t mean the name wasn’t used prior to being put into writing. Just like the NT scriptures weren’t written immediately. The teaching was oral before it was ever written down. Look the following over, then let’s talk.
catholic.com/library/pillar.asp
L:
I don’t know if I’ll ask now, because I don’t think I can do so rationally.
When you’re ready.
 
Well, in St. Augustine’s On the Good of Marriage (an ironically named document if ever there was one!) he says it would be better if no one married because the world would end sooner, and that there are fewer people who are living chaste lives as married couples than as singles. He also said that the desire for children is a sign of spiritual immaturity.

I don’t have time now to find the exact quotes, but I can if you insist.

St. Jerome also wrote that St. Paul allowed marriage among Christians as a concession; permitting a lesser evil (marriage) in order to prevent a larger evil (fornication.)

Obviously, all of these ideas are repugnant to the Reformers and to many modern day Catholics. The modern day Catholics who hold that marriage is a positive good (and not a necessary evil) have the Reformers to thank for that.
Lucy,
Catholic Marriage is a sacrament and has been since the beginning. In Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to Polycarp, dated 110AD, he says (paragraph 5):
If anyone is able to remain continent, to the honor of the flesh of the Lord, let him so remain without boasting. If he boast about it, he i slost; and if he be more esteemed than the bishop, he is ruined. It is proper for men and women who wish to marry ot be united with the consent of the bishop, so taht their marriage wil be acceptable ot the Lord and and not entered upon for the sake of lust, Let all things be done for the honor of God.

Tertullian, who was married, wrote in letter to his wife in the year 200 " How shall we suffice for the telling of that happiness of that marriage which the church arranges, which the sacrifice strengthens, on wiht the blessing sets a seal, which the angels proclaim, and which has the Father’s approval?"

St. Clement of Alexandria, writing in his Stromateis in 202 AD, says : " If however, marriage,though commanded by the Law, were yet sinful - really, I do not see how anyone could say taht he knows god adn yet say that sin has been commanded by god. If the Law is sacred, then marriage is a holy estate:

Origen writes in the first of his books on the Gospel according to Matthew in 244 AD:
“Certainly it is God who joins two in one, so that when he marries a woman to a man, there are no longer two. And since it is God who joins them, there is in this joining a grace for those who are joined by God. Paul knew this and he said just as holy celibacy was a grace, so also was marriage accord to the Word of God a grace. He says, " I would that all men were like myslef, but each has his own grace from God, one in this way, another in that.”

(These quotes were all found in Jurgen’s Faith of the the Early Fathers, volume 1)

Don’t be mislead. Celibacy is good for those who are called to it and marriage is good for those that are called to that. The Reformers denied that some are called to celibacy for the glory of God. But they were wrong. It is best for some to commit themselves fully to God and the community… But the Catholic church has always held matrimony to be sacred as you can see from the above.
 
Well, in St. Augustine’s On the Good of Marriage (an ironically named document if ever there was one!) he says it would be better if no one married because the world would end sooner, and that there are fewer people who are living chaste lives as married couples than as singles. He also said that the desire for children is a sign of spiritual immaturity.

I don’t have time now to find the exact quotes, but I can if you insist.
No, okay, that is good enough for me. I get the gist.

Let’s actually look at it in a scriptural context, okay?

Our Lord himself weighs in on marriage in Matthew 19.
3] And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”
4] He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
5] and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
7] They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8] He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”
10] The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”
11] But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Now, look at what the disciples pick up on in verse 10 “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” and then note that Our Lord straight up affirms that, but points out that not everyone can hack it. So…in reality, Our Lord tells us that a celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom of God is a good thing.

However, notice what He does not say. He does not tell us that marriage is evil or sinful.

Now, consider what Augustine means and the fact of his own messed up non marital relationship and all the complicated grief that caused his girlfriend and son.

Certainly, according to both Our Lord and St. Paul it would be best not to marry. St. Paul covers this extensively in 1st Corinthians 7.
I would especially point out the following passage.
32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

And I think this is what both Augustine and Jerome are reiterating in their own ways.
St. Jerome also wrote that St. Paul allowed marriage among Christians as a concession; permitting a lesser evil (marriage) in order to prevent a larger evil (fornication.)
And you can see that in the above cited chapter of 1st Corinthians.
Obviously, all of these ideas are repugnant to the Reformers and to many modern day Catholics. The modern day Catholics who hold that marriage is a positive good (and not a necessary evil) have the Reformers to thank for that.
I think you give the reformers et al too much credit and too little to Augustine and Jerome and the Catholic Church because if you take all this in the context it is offered, both in scripture and in the writings of these 2 doctors of the Church, you find that the Catholic Church actually teaches the scriptural position. That it is not a sin to marry, but that celibacy for the Kingdom of God is the ideal. But both vocations are the best good for those who are called to them. No matter what we are doing…we are all called to chastity and obedience as we discern the will of God. The reformers and their modern step children tend to try to make out as if that passage in Matthew 19 doesn’t exist, hence, their general lack of celibate clergy. The honest believer doesn’t read around passages that make statements like this one does. (Another one that gets done like this is John 20:21-23 about confessing sins) 🤷
 
valient Lucy I would like to say several things but as always you must follow your conscience on this as even the CC teaches this.
  1. you said you can not prove the CC was start by Jesus but the truth is we can prove it. Read the ECF or some books about them (the pope wrote on them). You have the Apostles who you will agree Jesus picked, but you can also see Polycarp ordained (laying on of hands) by St John, Ignatius ordained by St Peter (I think), Clement Ordained by St Peter at Rome, Linus who was mentioned in the Bible ordained by St Peter or Paul as Bishop of Rome as Clement later so became. The succession mentioned by other ECFs. Succession was always important to the earl Church as proof of origin so it was recorded over time. Very early Ignatius (about 105 AD) is one but there are many others that call this church the Catholic Church.
  2. as for marriage I do agree marriage can hinder your journey in faith (I have been married once and only once to my wife of 36 years) if both are not of like mind and both are not on the journey in Christ. Read the Hahns’ account “Home Sweet Rome” on the trouble they have in their path and how they struggled on their journey. (My wife prayed for me allot I can tell you that)
  3. We all have doubt but I can tell you as I have had to tell my daughter more than once. The devil does not have to go after those he already has which is why he goes after Catholic so aggressively and continuously.
  4. I would find a book that explains the Eucharist in very detail esp on how it fulfills the Passover meal there is a webpage called the 4th cup that you might want to check on and there have been several other presentations on this too Scott Hahn has one too.
God Bless and many here will be praying for your peace of mind.
 
Just taking a shot in the dark, and I’d have to find some sources to back me up, I know, but . . .

It sounds as if the early sources that might have taken a view of marriage as less desirable were thinking about the Second Coming which they expected to occur a lot sooner. Then, as time went on, it was discerned that God did want the human race to continue and this “emergency alert” state was less necessary. Maybe I’m full of beans, but that’s the overall impression I get when I look at the writings people mentioned above and kind of let them “gel” in my mind and think about when they were written.:confused:
 
Just taking a shot in the dark, and I’d have to find some sources to back me up, I know, but . . .

It sounds as if the early sources that might have taken a view of marriage as less desirable were thinking about the Second Coming which they expected to occur a lot sooner. Then, as time went on, it was discerned that God did want the human race to continue and this “emergency alert” state was less necessary. Maybe I’m full of beans, but that’s the overall impression I get when I look at the writings people mentioned above and kind of let them “gel” in my mind and think about when they were written.:confused:
Doc I believe you are right to some extent both not sure about it all the way but I do want to show this has happened recently in the Protestant faiths for the same reason. Both the JW and the 7th Adventist early on in their start up they prophecied the 2nd coming (several time actually) but during this time they discourged marriage too because the 2nd coming they said was right around the corner so it did not make sense to marry. So I am not saying what you said is completely true but you could see how that view could stick out.
 
Even if the Church needed the new ones on the block to remind them of some things, just as someone who comes new into a family business from outside can have some good ideas that the family in it’s long history with the business hadn’t thought through.

Jesus promised, “I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit comes He will lead you to the complete truth…All He tells you will be taken from what is mine.” “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but indeed…to the ends of the earth.” [John 16:8-9, 12-13, 15]

Jesus didn’t put a time frame on the Spirit’s leading.

The fact that someone from outside can highlight something to the legitimate founders of the business, doesn’t make the authentic business belong any less to the family or any more to the newcomer.

The Catholic Church was founded by the apostles, the first priests, at the direction of Jesus. And yes there were legitimate reforms needed, God’s child had some mud on its face as history clearly tells us*, but the child is still the legitimate child of God. If someone new comes in and causes the child to wipe off the mud, then no big surprise. God uses whatever means at His disposal. But this does not make the man-made churches, wonderful as they are, the original churches begun by Christ’s disciples. It just simply isn’t the case and history tells us this also.

*There may be those who object to the comment but I too have studied history…of the Church, of western civilization.
Thanks. This post was actually very helpful. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top