What do you do if you regret converting?

[valient_Lucy]

No sacrament hinders our progress to holiness in of itself and with Communion how could receiving the Lord Himself more offend hinder Holiness as He is the summit of Holiness which we must aspired toward.

Marriage does introduce many distractions but if both spouses are in the journey together they can **actually make it easy for each other **but if one is not on the journey then the one who is not on the journey could hinder holiness for the other and this is where marriage is more difficult in some ways because a single person would not have this hindrance but also remember a single person would also not have the support of a spouse who is also on the journey so you can see it depends on the situation.

I’m saying that the Church doesn’t really believe that marriage is a sacrament in the way that baptism is a sacrament. Or at the very least, she is engaging in double think (believing two contradictory things to be simultaneously true.)

The Church wants to teach that marriage is a sacrament that hinders a person’s growth in holiness. But this goes against the concept of a sacrament.

*So marriage, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, cannot be a sacrament. *

 

[valient_Lucy]

Given the honor marriage is given in the Catechism and the writings of Pope John Paul II, I think you are being dishonest in claiming what you did in this post.

One century out of twenty. Or does the present erase the past? One of the cornerstones of the Catholic Church is continuity, the idea that her teachings haven’t changed, just developed.

Or perhaps you care to explain how the writings of Pope John Paul II don’t contradict earlier writings.

Because if the Church has always taught that marriage is honorable and a sacrament, then much of what was written by Catholics makes no sense.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Don’t forget to factor into the equation that God created the world one way, before the Fall, and that things changed when the Fall occurred and there was Original Sin. From that point on, it’s been a bumpier road.

True. The world isn’t the way it was supposed to be.

 

[edward_george]

What does ACEGC stand for?

Haha I post what I post, and that’s the response.

Kidding.

It’s my initials.

-ACEGC

 

[davidv]

One century out of twenty. Or does the present erase the past? One of the cornerstones of the Catholic Church is continuity, the idea that her teachings haven’t changed, just developed.

A few quotes from unofficial documents do not make the Church inconsistent. Only your errant reading of it makes it seem so.

Or perhaps you care to explain how the writings of Pope John Paul II don’t contradict earlier writings.

I’ll do one better. Here is Jesus expounding on the honor of marriage in the first century.

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; and he who married a divorced woman, commits adultery.” (Matthew (RSV) 19)

Pope JPII seems to be in agreement.

 

[valient_Lucy]

A few quotes from unofficial documents do not make the Church inconsistent. Only your errant reading of it makes it seem so.

That’s no different than saying “Just because some teenagers blow themselves up in the name of Islam doesn’t mean that Islam promotes violence.”

I’ll do one better. Here is Jesus expounding on the honor of marriage in the first century.
Pope JPII seems to be in agreement.

My Protestant pastor was also in agreement, and spoke against divorce regularly. So what’s the difference between him and the pope?

 

[davidv]

That’s no different than saying “Just because some teenagers blow themselves up in the name of Islam doesn’t mean that Islam promotes violence.”

My Protestant pastor was also in agreement, and spoke against divorce regularly. So what’s the difference between him and the pope?

I have no idea how these comments address my post. Care to explain?

 

[paul_c]

Lucy,
I really don’t understand why this is such a big problem for you. Sure, some of the Saints recommended the celibate life. For them, that was the right choice and it certainly is for some others as well.

But really, has any Catholic ever thought less of you for being married or wanting to be married? I doubt it. Marriage is a full sacrament in the church and there are plenty of married Saints, going back to St. Peter himself.

You seem to be creating a problem for yourself when none exists. Are you sure there isn’t something more involved?

 

[valient_Lucy]

Lucy,
I really don’t understand why this is such a big problem for you. Sure, some of the Saints recommended the celibate life. For them, that was the right choice and it certainly is for some others as well.

But really, has any Catholic ever thought less of you for being married or wanting to be married? I doubt it. Marriage is a full sacrament in the church and there are plenty of married Saints, going back to St. Peter himself.

You seem to be creating a problem for yourself when none exists. Are you sure there isn’t something more involved?

The problem is that the Catholic Church likes to say that their doctrines haven’t changed in 2000 years, or that they’ve just developed. The Church says that there is a harmony and continuity between what the Church taught in the first century, the fifth century, the tenth century, and so on. But this doesn’t seem to be the case.

And if the Chruch Fathers were wrong about marriage, maybe they were wrong about a lot of things. Maybe they were wrong about the Real Presence, or the intercession of the saints, or the divine maternity of Mary.

 

[panner]

I converted to the Catholic Church almost five years ago, and unfortuantely I’ve spent the last six months or so regretting it. Maybe regretting is too strong a word. But I look back on my conversion, and I realize that I believed the Church was true because I **wanted **it to be true. I ignored what my professors and my pastor said about the Catholic Church, because I wanted to believe that the Church was true, and converted in spite of what they taught.

I still think it’s possible that the Church is true, maybe even probable. But I don’t think that it’s something that we can know with any kind of certainty. It’s sad in a way, because I used to really love the Church, but I don’t think I’ll ever feel that way again. On the other hand, it might have saved me from doing something really extreme, like dying for the Church. The Catholic Church may be the greatest thing ever invented by man, but if it’s invented by man, than it’s not worth dying for

And yet, I still wish that I could believe, the way I used to believe.

You are not alone. I have been a Catholic who converted 15 or so years ago and since about the 10 year anniversary of my conversion I had doubts galore. They got so bad that I converted back to being a protestant but there was a problem too I doubted then too. I almost went out of my mind the doubts got so bad and even wondered if all this religion stuff was just a complete invention by man to better cope with our world and the mysteries therein.

I finally prayed that things would be the way they use to be and I can honestly say the doubts have gotten much less now. When I feel the doubts coming on many times I will distract myself or pray a Hail Mary or an Our Father. Compared to last year the doubts are much less but I find it a fight, your not alone

 

[paul_c]

The problem is that the Catholic Church likes to say that their doctrines haven’t changed in 2000 years, or that they’ve just developed. The Church says that there is a harmony and continuity between what the Church taught in the first century, the fifth century, the tenth century, and so on. But this doesn’t seem to be the case.

And if the Chruch Fathers were wrong about marriage, maybe they were wrong about a lot of things. Maybe they were wrong about the Real Presence, or the intercession of the saints, or the divine maternity of Mary.

The Church Fathers you quoted were not wrong about marriage, nor were they saying anything different than what is said today or what was said in the Apostolic age as documented in scripture. For some, marriage is better; for others, the consecrated celibate state is better. That one Father emphasized one station over the other is not a problem of consistency, but only a matter of their personal experience and the audiences they were addressing. I am quite confident than the official church position has never changed.

 

[guanophore]

Of course I believe that marriage doesn’t necessarily interfere with spiritual growth, and that God is able to perfect us no matter what. **The question is, does the Church believe that? **

The Church’s teaching begins with the Apostolic instruction. St. Paul is quite clear in I Cor chap. 7 that each person can, and should seek holiness in whatever state they find themselves. He further indicates that the husband and wife are capable of “saving” one another (in sanctity lead the spouse to heaven). Peter writes about how holiness can convert and unbelieving spouse.

I agree with you that the Church could, and should, do more to help married couples to learn how to “save” one another through the pursuit of holiness in their relationships. In this day and age of desecration of marriage, it should not be assumed that people getting married have any idea how to do this.

There is so much scripture about how to live a good married life, it seems like that in itself should be sufficient. Yet, most Catholics do not read their bibles, and even those that do need encouragement and prayer to do the difficult work of maintaining the marriage in the bonds of love.

  The point is many saints and theologians write about how marriage interferes with spiritual growth and make it very difficult to follow God.  St. Alphonsus Ligouri is his writings about the spiritual life contrasts the death of a nun with the death of a wife.  The nun dies peacefully because she knows she is going to heaven; the wife dies fearfully, because in all likelihood, she is going to Hell (or perhaps Purgatory.)

One must consider the source. If one wants guidance on how to live a sanctified marriage, then it will most likely come from a saint who was married.

**I'm saying that the Church is being dishonest by saying that she believes that marriage is a sacrament.**

I guess you lost me there. I can’t find anything in the Catechism that shows this kind of dishonesty. The examples you have given of Acquinas and Ligouri are not equivalent with the teaching of the Church. Their writings will not interfere with faithful Catholic life, but they are considered private revelations, and not binding on the faithful.

If marriage is a sacrament, then it helps the married couple achieve holiness.  If marriage does not help a married couple acheive holiness, then it is not a sacrament.

Well, I am glad we are in agreement on these points.

Maybe you can help me understand why the scriptures on this subject are not helpful?

 

[guanophore]

The Lord specifically asked Peter to start the church. It is just as human as it is non-human.

You are right that the church is human as well as divine. I don’t know about the “just as much” part. I say that because

The Lord never asked anyone to start a church, though. It is Jesus who builds the Church. He TOLD Peter He was building it upon him, but it is not the job of the Apostles or any of us to build His church. We are the stones that get put into the building. It is our job to stay put.

 

[guanophore]

I’m saying that the Church doesn’t really believe that marriage is a sacrament in the way that baptism is a sacrament. Or at the very least, she is engaging in double think (believing two contradictory things to be simultaneously true.)

The Church wants to teach that marriage is a sacrament that hinders a person’s growth in holiness. But this goes against the concept of a sacrament.

So marriage, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, cannot be a sacrament.

This is a fallacy that is in your head, not in the church teaching Lucy. You were right, a true sacrament cannot hinder spiritual growth. Marriage is a sacrament whereby two people consecrate themselves to enter the Kingdom of God through love and service to one another.

I don’t know where you get this “double think”, but it is not coming from the Church.

 

[guanophore]

That's no different than saying "Just because some teenagers blow themselves up in the name of Islam doesn't mean that Islam promotes violence."

In a way, I think you are right. People’s perceptions (or misperceptions, in your case) do not create an error in the source document.

If you don’t believe the Scriptures about marriage, then that does not make the Scriptures wrong.

My Protestant pastor was also in agreement, and spoke against divorce regularly. So what’s the difference between him and the pope?

Why does there have to be a difference? It sounds like both of them are espousing the Apostolic faith on this matter…

 

[guanophore]

The problem is that the Catholic Church likes to say that their doctrines haven't changed in 2000 years, or that they've just developed.  The Church says that there is a harmony and continuity between what the Church taught in the first century, the fifth century, the tenth century, and so on.  But this doesn't seem to be the case.

How is this not the case? Can you explain how any of the Scripture on marriage should not be applied to every married person today?

And if the Chruch Fathers were wrong about marriage, maybe they were wrong about a lot of things.  Maybe they were wrong about the Real Presence, or the intercession of the saints, or the divine maternity of Mary.

You seem to be very confused about what is Church teaching, and what is pious writing of faithful servants of God. Not every opinion and expression of the saints an doctors of the Church is part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. If you wish to complain about what the Catholic church believes and teaches, maybe a good start would be to distinguish what is teaching, and what is not?

You are right, some of the theologians and doctors of the church were wrong about some things. No one ever claimed that their writings were infallible. That is why it is best to start with scripture, then move to the catechism.

 

[MusicforMovies]

I converted to the Catholic Church almost five years ago, and unfortuantely I’ve spent the last six months or so regretting it. Maybe regretting is too strong a word. But I look back on my conversion, and I realize that I believed the Church was true because I **wanted **it to be true. I ignored what my professors and my pastor said about the Catholic Church, because I wanted to believe that the Church was true, and converted in spite of what they taught.

I still think it’s possible that the Church is true, maybe even probable. But I don’t think that it’s something that we can know with any kind of certainty. It’s sad in a way, because I used to really love the Church, but I don’t think I’ll ever feel that way again. On the other hand, it might have saved me from doing something really extreme, like dying for the Church. The Catholic Church may be the greatest thing ever invented by man, but if it’s invented by man, than it’s not worth dying for

And yet, I still wish that I could believe, the way I used to believe.

Hi Lucy,

Is there any particular reason, or reasons, that you are having doubts?

I myself converted about 8 years ago - not because I had all the answers or didn’t struggle, but because I felt God leading me to the Catholic Church, and I trusted that He would continue to help me even as I might struggle with certain doctrines or teachings.

You mention ‘feeling’. Sometimes we don’t always ‘feel’ the love that we once did, but it’s still there - even when the cloud covers up the sun - the sun is still there - still shining.

I’ll pray that God will lead you, and grant that which you need. Please let us know if there is anything we can do, or any questions that we can try to answer.

Peace in Christ,
Joel

 

[Des]

Well, for one thing, the Reformers recovered a more positive view of marriage. This is not to say that their view wasn’t perfect, but it was an improvement of over the status quo.

Calvin

“Institutions”, IV (4), xix (19), 34, says:

“Lastly, there is matrimony, which all admit was instituted by God, though no one before the time of Gregory regarded it as a sacrament. What man in his sober senses could so regard it? God’s ordinance is good and holy; so also are agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, hair-cutting legitimate ordinances of God, but they are not sacraments”.

Now Luthor:

No one indeed can deny that marriage is an external worldly thing, like clothes and food, house and home, subject to worldly authority, as shown by so many imperial laws governing it." – “Von den Ehesachen” (p. 1)

“Not only is the sacramental character of matrimony without foundation in Scripture; but the very traditions, which claim such sacredness for it, are a mere jest”; the original edition of “De captivitate Babylonica”

Marriage may therefore be a figure of Christ and the Church; it is, however, no Divinely instituted sacrament, but the invention of men in the Church, arising from ignorance of the subject." – the original edition of “De captivitate Babylonica”

Now The Council of Trent’s Response:

“If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema.”

Also understand that since this precious reformation has taken place, the use of birth control, and acceptance of divorce have become acceptable among most protestant circles giving way to any false idea that they recovered and held onto a ‘more positive’ outlook on Marriage itself than the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

Calvin

“Institutions”, IV (4), xix (19), 34, says:

“Lastly, there is matrimony, which all admit was instituted by God, though no one before the time of Gregory regarded it as a sacrament. What man in his sober senses could so regard it? God’s ordinance is good and holy; so also are agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, hair-cutting legitimate ordinances of God, but they are not sacraments”.

Now Luthor:

No one indeed can deny that marriage is an external worldly thing, like clothes and food, house and home, subject to worldly authority, as shown by so many imperial laws governing it." – “Von den Ehesachen” (p. 1)

“Not only is the sacramental character of matrimony without foundation in Scripture; but the very traditions, which claim such sacredness for it, are a mere jest”; the original edition of “De captivitate Babylonica”

Marriage may therefore be a figure of Christ and the Church; it is, however, no Divinely instituted sacrament, but the invention of men in the Church, arising from ignorance of the subject." – the original edition of “De captivitate Babylonica”

Now The Council of Trent’s Response:

“If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema.”

Also understand that since this precious reformation has taken place, the use of birth control, and acceptance of divorce have become acceptable among most protestant circles giving way to any false idea that they recovered and held onto a ‘more positive’ outlook on Marriage itself than the Catholic Church.

Great Job Des!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Luther was insane and racist, don’t make me quote chapter 15 :tsktsk: he has also been disowned by many Protestants
words about the Peasant rebellion “They should be knocked to pieces, strangled and stabbed, secretly and openly, by everybody who can do it, just as one must kill a mad dog!”

Calvin was a brutal iron fisted tyrant, think Stalin in charge of one city with his own religion.

not fair to compare Protestants to these savages