What do you do if you regret converting?

[MusicforMovies]

Hi Lucy,

Okay, I finally read through all 8 pages of posts myself, and now have better idea about some of your concerns. I’ll restate them to make sure I have them right, and then very briefly reply to those points to the best of my ability.

1.) That the Catholic Church cannot be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have been founded by Christ.

From Scripture:

Mathew 16:18 - Peter is the rock upon which Christ’s church is built.

From the early Church Fathers - St. Ignatius of Antioch (martyred circa 110 AD)

The Letter of Ignatius to the Smyrneans - Chapter 8

Flee from schism as the source of mischief. You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ die the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God’s law. Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval. You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or someone he authorizes. Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the bishop’s supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted. On the other hand, whatever he approves pleases God as well. In that way everything you do will be on the safe side and valid.

2.) That the Catholic Church has viewed marriage as being an obstacle to holiness.

The Catholic Church fought against various heretical sects through out the ages that viewed marriage as an evil - such as: Manicheism (3rd Century), Albigensianism (condemned in 1179), and Catharism to name a few.

St. Paul talks about Marriage as being a mystery, a sacrament, a sign of the union between Christ and His Church. - Ephesians 5:25-33 You can’t get much holier than that.

Those that renounce the good of marriage for the gift of celibacy, aren’t renouncing something evil, but something good for the sake of the Kingdom of God. - Mathew 19:12

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

3.) That the Eucharistic may be ‘demonic’ according to one of your previous professors.

From the Scripture: 1 Corinthians 11:29-30

“For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.”

The entire discourse by Jesus in the Gospel of John Chapter 6, especially 6:53-58

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

The early Church Fathers are replete with proclamations of the Eucharist being the true Body and Bloody of our Lord. From St. Ignatius of Antioch again - Chap. 7 (same letter)

They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised [from the dead]. Consequently those who wrangle and dispute God’s gift face death. They would have done better to love and so share in the resurrection.

Those churches which can trace their origins back to the Apostles (i.e. as being a Bishop) Catholic, and Orthodox - all maintain a belief in the real presence of Christ.

4.) That the Catholic Church’s teachings are liable to change.

The Catholic Church follows Christ, the same yesterday, the same today, and the same tomorrow - that which has been handed on from Christ cannot change. Our understanding may deepen, but the essence of the teaching cannot change. There is also a different between various customs, and doctrine. Customs can change - doctrine cannot. Also - infallibility - is limited to specific instances - i.e. a Pope can err on personal matters, but not when speaking Ex Cathedra on the matter of faith and morals.

A book that helped me was: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman.

Another book that I found helpful in general is: The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales. (A series of pamphlets he wrote explaining the Faith to Calvinists in Chablais, France)

Anyway, I hope this helps - as Pope John Paul II proclaimed "Be Not Afraid!’ :hug3:

My prayers, and peace, love, and joy in Christ,
Joel :harp:

 

[Veedar]

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.

I have read through this thread now and understand your concerns. Certainly a lot of things have changed in the Church the last 2000 years and many of the fathers had some real issues when it comes to marriage and sexuality. Many Church fathers believed that experiencing pleasure during intercourse made it sinful. The pleasure stemming from the fall of man. Inside of marriage, the tainted act of sex was barely tolerable, but as Augustin put it, if there had been any way of begetting children without sex, that would have been preferable.

The penance that the Church demanded for sexual sins (such as wet dreams that demanded a year of penance) was quite insane when viewed with modern eyes. The way the sacrament of penance has been practiced throughout the centuries has also changed radically.

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.

They were influenced by culture, just like we are. I do take exception to the idea that the reformers created the positive view of marriage. You also find fathers that write beautifully of marriage,

But you may have been victim to an immature form of apologetics where the Church is portrayed as being infallible in almost everything it teaches and that these teachings have been “the constant view of Church”. It is a very attractive view when one needs to feel safe and have all the answers and it may provide great comfort to the soul. The only problem is that it doesn’t happen to be true…

Even in the last century the Church has had to to change it’s views of the bible and creation by accepting historical critical biblical research and evolution. The evidence in favor of both is simply overwhelming. The Church has assimilated this evidence quite well.

But in the US many people seem to live inside their own bubble. I am not trying to be disrespectful here, it is merely how it appears to many of us in Europe. It is almost impossible to find a book written for a popular audience by protestant or catholic from the US that does not assume a view of the bible and historicity of the old testament that simply cannot be true. Evolution is often rejected completely and pseudoscience is taught in its place so people can feel comfortable about their childhood bible stories. Church history is oversimplified and quotes from the fathers are used as proof texts in a way that completely distorts history and the development of doctrine in the life of the Church.

When young people start to get an education and they are exposed to real patristic scholarship and church history, or see the evidence for evolution or yet again are taught of biblical archeology and historical critical research, it often wipes out their faith completely. This is because their faith was built on sand. It was a house of cards.

It is possible for your faith to survive. Many others have been where you are. But you might have to go through the dark night of the soul before you have peace again. And it will require the will to salvage it and the effort to study the issues in depth from sources that are more mature.

Running to protestant apologists will not help. They might be more willing to find fault with the Catholic Church in history. But often they are doing the exact same thing with the Bible that many Catholic apologists do with Church history…

The faith that is put through purgatory will end up quite robust in the end. But it is a painful, dark and frightening process. The sacraments are immensely helpful in this and so is prayer. God is there, he loves you, and there are answers.

 

[promethius]

I promis I will be careful over here!

As to your issue with marraige, church doctrinal teaching has never changed and is without error. However, one must carefully understand exactly what church teaching is and where it comes from.

Sacred Scripture is the only set of writings by the ECFs which are infallible church teaching. Outside of Sacred Scripture, no single writing of the ECFs is considered infallible truth OR church teaching (even if they may contain portions which detail infallible truth or church teachings).

Sacred Magisterial Teaching is the authority of the church to continue to define existing doctrinal understanding to clarify truth. It is not emboddied in the ECFs except in production of infallible documents by the councils or the Pope.

Sacred Tradition is emboddied in the practices and writings of the Church as a whole. No single writing by any single ECF is authoritive church teaching whatsoever. In other words, you’re confusing the writings of a few ECFs as being “Sacred Tradition” and therefore church teaching. This is simply not accurate.

As to Communion being demonic or from pagan sources, this is simply a common protestant error that the New Covenant is somehow divorced from the Old. The New Covenant, clearly and by scripture, is the fulfillment of the Old. In the Old Covenant, you had to eat the body and drink the blood of the lamb in order to participate in the passover sacrifice. If you did not, you were damned. There was no symbolic interpretation of this: it is literally eat the body and drink the blood, or suffer damnation before God. Likewise, in the New Covenant, we now must eat the Body and drink the Blood of the Lamb of God in order to participate and enjoin ourselves to Christ’s Final and Perfect Passover Sacrifice. There is nothing symbolic about this. Again, like the old covenant, it is literal: eat and drink the Body and Blood of the Lamb or you will have no life in you.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Lucy,

Okay, I finally read through all 8 pages of posts myself, and now have better idea about some of your concerns. I’ll restate them to make sure I have them right, and then very briefly reply to those points to the best of my ability.

1.) That the Catholic Church cannot be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have been founded by Christ.

From Scripture:

Mathew 16:18 - Peter is the rock upon which Christ’s church is built.

From the early Church Fathers - St. Ignatius of Antioch (martyred circa 110 AD)

The Letter of Ignatius to the Smyrneans - Chapter 8

Flee from schism as the source of mischief. You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ die the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God’s law. Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval. You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or someone he authorizes. Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the bishop’s supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted. On the other hand, whatever he approves pleases God as well. In that way everything you do will be on the safe side and valid.

2.) That the Catholic Church has viewed marriage as being an obstacle to holiness.

The Catholic Church fought against various heretical sects through out the ages that viewed marriage as an evil - such as: Manicheism (3rd Century), Albigensianism (condemned in 1179), and Catharism to name a few.

St. Paul talks about Marriage as being a mystery, a sacrament, a sign of the union between Christ and His Church. - Ephesians 5:25-33 You can’t get much holier than that.

Those that renounce the good of marriage for the gift of celibacy, aren’t renouncing something evil, but something good for the sake of the Kingdom of God. - Mathew 19:12

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

3.) That the Eucharistic may be ‘demonic’ according to one of your previous professors.

From the Scripture: 1 Corinthians 11:29-30

“For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.”

The entire discourse by Jesus in the Gospel of John Chapter 6, especially 6:53-58

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

The early Church Fathers are replete with proclamations of the Eucharist being the true Body and Bloody of our Lord. From St. Ignatius of Antioch again - Chap. 7 (same letter)

They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised [from the dead]. Consequently those who wrangle and dispute God’s gift face death. They would have done better to love and so share in the resurrection.

Those churches which can trace their origins back to the Apostles (i.e. as being a Bishop) Catholic, and Orthodox - all maintain a belief in the real presence of Christ.

4.) That the Catholic Church’s teachings are liable to change.

The Catholic Church follows Christ, the same yesterday, the same today, and the same tomorrow - that which has been handed on from Christ cannot change. Our understanding may deepen, but the essence of the teaching cannot change. There is also a different between various customs, and doctrine. Customs can change - doctrine cannot. Also - infallibility - is limited to specific instances - i.e. a Pope can err on personal matters, but not when speaking Ex Cathedra on the matter of faith and morals.

A book that helped me was: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman.

Another book that I found helpful in general is: The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales. (A series of pamphlets he wrote explaining the Faith to Calvinists in Chablais, France)

Anyway, I hope this helps - as Pope John Paul II proclaimed "Be Not Afraid!’ :hug3:

My prayers, and peace, love, and joy in Christ,
Joel :harp:

Excellent work Joel!

 

[guanophore]

I have read through this thread now and understand your concerns.

Both of you (MusicforMovies) that did this are to be commended. that is no small task!

 But you may have been victim to an immature form of apologetics where the Church is portrayed as being infallible in almost everything it teaches and that these teachings have been "the constant view of Church". It is a very attractive view when one needs to feel safe and have all the answers and it may provide great comfort to the soul. The only problem is that it doesn't happen to be true...

I think this needs some fleshing out. Your comment seems to suggest that the Teaching of the Church is not constant and infallible, but it is.

Perhaps the issue is on the levels of teaching. Lucy is suggesting that the doctrines of the Church have a bad view of marriage, which is not the case (this was very well addressed by Joel above). However, there have been writers, pastors, theologians, etc that have had a less than productive view of marriage. There are some publications also that do not appear to value the sacrament of marriage. A good example of the culturally biased view of Augustine was presented. However, one must distinguish between individual Catholics expressing their opinion, and the Teaching of the Church (which is enduring and infallible).

Even in the last century the Church has had to to change it's views of the bible and creation by accepting historical critical biblical research and evolution. The evidence in favor of both is simply overwhelming. The Church has assimilated this evidence quite well.

This is outside the scope of this thread, but it might be useful to support this assertion. I would be interested to know how the Church had to change her views.

When it comes to Teaching, the “Church” is the Magesterium, working together with the HS to instruct the faithful. I find it unlikely that the HS would change his views about anything.

Evolution is often rejected completely and pseudoscience is taught in its place so people can feel comfortable about their childhood bible stories. Church history is oversimplified and quotes from the fathers are used as proof texts in a way that completely distorts history and the development of doctrine in the life of the Church.

Are you confusing such writings with Church Teachings? Just because a book is written by a Catholic does not make it a doctrine of the faith!

When young people start to get an education and they are exposed to real patristic scholarship and church history, or see the evidence for evolution or yet again are taught of biblical archeology and historical critical research, it often wipes out their faith completely. This is because their faith was built on sand. It was a house of cards.

I can vouch for that, as it happened to me. However, this is a result of poor catechesis, not problems with the doctrine of the faith.

But you might have to go through the dark night of the soul before you have peace again. And it will require the will to salvage it and the effort to study the issues in depth from sources that are more mature.

This is very true, and good advice.

  The faith that is put through purgatory will end up quite robust in the end. But it is a painful, dark and frightening process. The sacraments are immensely helpful in this and so is prayer. God is there, he loves you, and there are answers.

Very sage observations, thanks.

 

[Veedar]

I think this needs some fleshing out. Your comment seems to suggest that the Teaching of the Church is not constant and infallible, but it is.

Many teachings of the Church are divinely revealed and as such cannot be in error. Other teachings are not divinely revealed and are subject to revision.

Perhaps the issue is on the levels of teaching. Lucy is suggesting that the doctrines of the Church have a bad view of marriage, which is not the case (this was very well addressed by Joel above). However, there have been writers, pastors, theologians, etc that have had a less than productive view of marriage. There are some publications also that do not appear to value the sacrament of marriage. A good example of the culturally biased view of Augustine was presented. However, one must distinguish between individual Catholics expressing their opinion, and the Teaching of the Church (which is enduring and infallible).

But how did people living at that time distinguish this? Where is the official infallible teaching of the Church that contradicts Augustin and the other Fathers who held negative views of marriage and sex from their own time? Even pope Gregory the great agreed with Augustin in his negative views and demanded that married spouses who had had genital pleasure while they were procreating children had to ritually wash themselves before they were allowed access to Church. Is that not official teaching? Could a Catholic in good conscience disagree with the papal teaching? I am quite sure that if the Catholic Answers forums had existed at the time, people would rush to his defense and attack the dissidents And then there is the matter of the penitentials from the middle ages. The Church manuals on what penances were prescribed for different sins. Priests used them as guides for the confessional. There is a lot of interesting stuff there: menstruating women being denied access to church, 40 days of purification before they could enter Church after childbirth. Enormous penances for things we’d hardly regard as sinful at all This stuff is mind boggling!

When it comes to Teaching, the “Church” is the Magesterium, working together with the HS to instruct the faithful. I find it unlikely that the HS would change his views about anything.

That is correct. But people change, and are susceptible only to small amounts of change in their religious views over time. Sanctifying the Church takes time, and the sanctification process is also reflected in it’s teaching and how it treats people. Compare the sacrament of penance in the early Church until now. It began as a public confession before the entire congregation, and it was once for life. Some sins could not be forgiven according to large segments of the Church, and sins were viewed as so damaging after baptism that many people postponed it to the end of their life.

Things have changed. Confession is private and secret. Huge penances where you’d live on water and bread for years after having sinned have turned into saying a couple of Hail Mary’s Frequent confession is encouraged. Sometimes weekly confession. Nobody feels the need to wait until the end of life with baptism anymore. Thankfully.

Are you confusing such writings with Church Teachings? Just because a book is written by a Catholic does not make it a doctrine of the faith!

Put yourself in the situation of a simple illiterate farmer 600 years AD. Even if he could read, this was before the internet and before the printing press. In a culture where all the great bishops of the faith think sex is dirty, even within marriage. No marriage liturgy exists because matrimony is a concession for weak sinners who cannot remain chaste and a necessary evil because of the need to procreate. Would you doubt that what you were taught was true? Based on some much, much later idea of what constitutes an infallible teaching and what does not? Should you not obey the bishop as if he were God himself? (Ignatius).

 

[guanophore]

Many teachings of the Church are divinely revealed and as such cannot be in error. Other teachings are not divinely revealed and are subject to revision.

The doctrines of the faith are not subject to revision, but must be preserved precisely as they were handed down.

I think it is also important to distinguish between pastoral decisions/instruction, and the doctrine of the faith. Disciplines and pastoral decisions can change, but the doctrine cannot.

But how did people living at that time distinguish this? Where is the official infallible teaching of the Church that contradicts Augustin and the other Fathers who held negative views of marriage and sex from their own time?

Most of the faithful never had any exposure to Augustine and other theologians. Many of the doctors of the Church worked isolated in monasteries, and only the educated clergy read their work. Many of the priests in the parishes never heard of Augustine.

Do you not find the Scriptures to represent the infallible teaching of the Church?

Even pope Gregory the great agreed with Augustin in his negative views and demanded that married spouses who had had genital pleasure while they were procreating children had to ritually wash themselves before they were allowed access to Church. Is that not official teaching?

No, this is not a doctrine of the faith. That is why I said it is important to distinguish between instruction at the pastoral level and the Teachings of the Church, which come from the Apostles. There are several layers of instruction and it is important to distinguish between them.

Could a Catholic in good conscience disagree with the papal teaching?

Sure, but it is also important to distinguish between a pastoral instruction and a doctrine of the faith. If a person obeys a bishop or a priest with regard to a pastoral instruction (such as the one you cited), it may not harm their progress to sanctity. Even if the pasotr is wrong, obedience of the faithful will be honored by God,and He will be the guardian of their souls.

I am quite sure that if the Catholic Answers forums had existed at the time, people would rush to his defense and attack the dissidents And then there is the matter of the penitentials from the middle ages.

Wouldn’t that e fun!

The Church manuals on what penances were prescribed for different sins. Priests used them as guides for the confessional. There is a lot of interesting stuff there: menstruating women being denied access to church, 40 days of purification before they could enter Church after childbirth. Enormous penances for things we’d hardly regard as sinful at all This stuff is mind boggling!

Indeed. But this is one reason it is so important to distinguish between customs of the time, and pastoral instructions that are not at the level of doctrines of the faith.

But people change, and are susceptible only to small amounts of change in their religious views over time.

This is an interesting assertion. I think those of us who have had radical conversion experiences might disagree with you.

Sanctifying the Church takes time, and the sanctification process is also reflected in it’s teaching and how it treats people.

I am not sure I am following you here. The Teaching of the Church, being divinely inspired, does not need to become “sanctified”. Are you saying that it takes time for the faithful to apprehend and integrate the Truth? If so, I agree with you. If you are saying that the better we understand God’s revelation, the better care can be provided to the flock, then I agree with this also.

Compare the sacrament of penance in the early Church until now. It began as a public confession before the entire congregation, and it was once for life. Some sins could not be forgiven according to large segments of the Church, and sins were viewed as so damaging after baptism that many people postponed it to the end of their life.

Are you saying that the practices reflect a developing understanding of the sacrament?

Things have changed. Confession is private and secret. Huge penances where you’d live on water and bread for years after having sinned have turned into saying a couple of Hail Mary’s Frequent confession is encouraged. Sometimes weekly confession. Nobody feels the need to wait until the end of life with baptism anymore. Thankfully.

But this is a practice that has changed, not a doctrine of the faith.

Put yourself in the situation of a simple illiterate farmer 600 years AD. Even if he could read, this was before the internet and before the printing press. In a culture where all the great bishops of the faith think sex is dirty, even within marriage. No marriage liturgy exists because matrimony is a concession for weak sinners who cannot remain chaste and a necessary evil because of the need to procreate. Would you doubt that what you were taught was true? Based on some much, much later idea of what constitutes an infallible teaching and what does not? Should you not obey the bishop as if he were God himself? (Ignatius).

Well, this is rather sweeping,and I do not think represents the experience of the majority of the faithful.

The infallible teachings are part of the once for all deposit of faith. These are the ones that cannot be changed.

Yes, we should obey the bishop as if he were God himself. Even giving up the pleasures of sex will not carry the soul into hell. And, as is obvious, people continued to enjoy sex, then go to confession, and procreate, which is why we are all here.

 

[Monica4316]

Lucy, I’m sorry that you are struggling.

I think about marriage, you are just misinformed about what the Church teaching is. The Church has ALWAYS taught that marriage is a Sacrament and that it should help spouses achieve holiness. The reason why so many Saints wrote that it prevents growth in holiness is because they were talking about something else here… let me explain… this is how I’ve understood it. God calls us all to holiness but not all in the same way. Most people are called to marriage and to become saints while being in the world. But some are called to leave the world, - to be Christ’s brides, like the nuns. The Saints are saying that this is a higher calling in a way - just as St Paul wrote in the Bible. It allows the person to ONLY belong to God and to devote all their time to Him and to prayer. However, this is a calling, and it’s not God’s will for everyone to be in religious orders. The Saints were encouraging people to seek this path to holiness - because it is indeed very special - but that doesn’t mean that marriage can’t lead to holiness… it’s also a way to serve God and to grow spiritually… but it doesn’t always (there are exceptions) involve this close union with God that religious life has.

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? **

yes. Like I said, the reason religious life is so emphasized by the Saints is perhaps because that was their way to holiness, and also because it’s a more ‘extreme’ way of following God (giving up all your possessions, etc). An analogy is the rich young man in the Bible, and how Jesus said he should leave everything if he wishes to be perfect. That is not because the things themselves are evil, but rather because we get attached to them too easily and begin to love God less as a result. A person could have possessions and be married and not be so attached. But they could also be religious.

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.

in which ways? I’ve researched the early Church and I can’t find anything in today’s Church teaching that contradicts it. In fact, I can find almost everything there, in the ECFs… and the things that I can’t find, are there in concept, just using different terminology (it’s the terminology that evolved)

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 wrote about marriage what the Catholic Church has always taught about it. Same with all these other things. As for Saints speaking so highly of religious life, keep in mind that St Paul did this too, - and there are many early Church martyrs who were girls who made vows of virginity for Christ - so it was present in the early Church too, not just now.

Regarding the Eucharist, I hope your pastor didn’t truly believe it is demonic… and I hope that you do not believe this. The Eucharist truly is Jesus. He said this Himself. And the Eucharist brings us to greater love for God… no demon would do this.

God bless

 

[Veedar]

The doctrines of the faith are not subject to revision, but must be preserved precisely as they were handed down.

I think it is also important to distinguish between pastoral decisions/instruction, and the doctrine of the faith. Disciplines and pastoral decisions can change, but the doctrine cannot.

Most of the faithful never had any exposure to Augustine and other theologians. Many of the doctors of the Church worked isolated in monasteries, and only the educated clergy read their work. Many of the priests in the parishes never heard of Augustine.

This is true, but these views were prevalent in the entire Church and long before Augustin or pope Gregory the great. I gave a couple of examles, that is all. The doctrine of marriage has evolved under the guidance of the holy spirit. From pure chattel slavery without consent of the woman in the OT, where the husband owned his wife, to the doctrine as it is taught today. I also think that the distinction you invoke many times in your reply between pastoral care and doctrine is quite blurry. And most of what the Church taught at that time was not infallibly defined at all. That does not mean that it was not authoritative or didn’t make any difference in the life of the Christians.

Do you not find the Scriptures to represent the infallible teaching of the Church? .

It depends by what you mean by that. Doctrines are part of larger theological systems. And we have different theological systems coexisting in the same Church. We have the eastern view of theosis and the Latin views of sanctification through cooperation with God’s grace. Now both systems do in their substance teach God’s truth, but the outward form in which it is presented is quite different. Different enough that many on both sides feel they are mutually exclusive.

Sometimes the obvious meaning of a definition must be stretched closed to the breaking point in order to salvage it. The doctrine that it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the roman pontiff is one such teaching. In order to salvage it one must use mental gymnastics such as “all Christians are objectively subject to the pontiff, whether they know this or not. Only when they knowingly and willingly break with him is there a danger of losing salvation”. Great, but I am not quite sure that this was what was intended when the definition was made… In any case, infallible definitions can then be interpreted quite differently.

This is an interesting assertion. I think those of us who have had radical conversion experiences might disagree with you. .

Many people have radical conversion experiences. That does not mean they suddenly possess a fully developed understanding of faith and morals.

I am not sure I am following you here. The Teaching of the Church, being divinely inspired, does not need to become “sanctified”. Are you saying that it takes time for the faithful to apprehend and integrate the Truth? If so, I agree with you. If you are saying that the better we understand God’s revelation, the better care can be provided to the flock, then I agree with this also. .

Yes, your way of formulating it is better than mine. But I don’t think the teaching in question is the written word. It is the uncreated grace that inspired the writing of the written word and which must also enlighten the Church when interpreting the text. The biblical authors were translators in my view. They translated the non-language mystical experience of God’s grace into a message in their own human language, using their own human concepts, ideas and sources and being fallible human beings when doing so. I deny Sola Scriptura on two levels. I deny that the Bible can be understood correctly apart from the tradition and life of the Church. But I also deny that the divine message that lies at the foundation of the scriptures is to be found in the text alone, apart from enlightenment from the Spirit. For the language alone is errant, colored by the views and culture of the author, and is unable by itself to fully express Gods inspiration. For this reason, the pefect reveltion of God is not a book that fell out of the sky, but Jesus. He is the second person of the blessed Trinity. Which is why we stand at the reading of the gospel.

Are you saying that the practices reflect a developing understanding of the sacrament?

Yes. And those developments matter.

But this is a practice that has changed, not a doctrine of the faith.

If this distinction is helpful to you, fine. It does not alter the many ways in which the Church has changed.

 

[paul_c]

A simple way to think about what is infallible and what is not:

Church doctrine, WHAT it teaches about Faith and Morals, is infallible truth and never changes. i.e, Murder is evil and it has always been evil. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, etc.

Church Practice, HOW it administers and teaches the faith, in not infallible and MUST change with time. For instance, the hierarchy that worked at Pentacost, when the church numbered 3000, all in Israel, has to be different than it is today with a worldwide population of over 1Billion. Language has changed, technology has changed, literacy has changed, all of this must be taken into account when the church decides the best way to bring the faith to the people. Expectations of the faithful are clearly different as well in times when to be a Catholic means you are being hunted down and killed and in times when everyone around you is also Catholic and enjoys priviledges for being so.

 

[phoooiee]

I’ve been reading all of this and I can’t help thinking that each time I personally have had objections or doubts like this in the past, it hasn’t had anything to do with the actual thing I’ve been focusing on.

Instead, it has been that God has been asking something of me that I thought was impossible.

It may be worth your time to do two things.

1. Consider if the Church did not exist. How would things change? Would things be better or worse? Is there a better alternative?
2. Consider in prayer whether there is something that God has been asking of you that seems too difficult or impossible. If there is, try to do it anyway, and see what happens.

You are in my prayers.

 

[gentle_atheist]

You should be part of the system you believe to be true, even if you don’t like where it takes you.

I read that even Pope Benedict encouraged his JW cousin for following her beliefs.

Now that is the change in the Catholic Church that the OP should really be concerned about.

 

[Chesterton18]

Lucy,

I’m a non-Catholic thinking seriously about becoming a Catholic. So mine is a seriously limited perspective, relative to the rest of the folks here. That said…I think you’re overemphasizing the kind of supremacy the Catholic Church claims to have…The One True Church, an Unbroken Line From Peter, all the stuff that sounds romantic and mystical and stately and divine to a certain sort of Protestant (me, and maybe you pre-conversion) and horrifying and diabolical to another sort of Protestant, kind of shades the fact that for all the pomp and circumstance the Catholic Church makes quite narrow claims. It doesn’t claim that saintliness is perfection or that its saints infallible; it doesn’t claim that its priests or nuns or friars are perfect or infallible; it doesn’t even claim that the Pope is perfect or infallible. It claims that he is infallible when making official decrees, speaking on essential doctrine, etc. And it claims that the Church as an institution has never taught heresy on essential doctrine.

This leaves quite a lot of leeway for individuals within the Church, even important, revered individuals, to be wrong or to phrase things inaptly or to place emphasis in the wrong place or to be vile and on down the list. I sense that this is a problem for a lot of Catholics and that a lot of Catholics ultimately end up leaving the church because the sense of mystery and weightiness, the ritual and the language, which the Church cultivates as a sign of her prerogative, give the impression that the church (small c) does no wrong and when it does, as in the sexual abuse scandals and individual members musing on disputatious doctrine, they conclude that the Church can’t be True after all. But while it’s no doubt less romantic to realize that only .00000001% of what has ever come out of the church (small c) is even claimed as absolutely and innerantly true, this does seem to be the actual Church’s position. Some Protestants, who expect that the “Papists” claim much more, are surprised at this- many Catholics are dismayed and disappointed but, again, looking at this (for now) from the outside in, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the Church as a human edifice because its prerogative is rather narrower than you thought. A divine edifice nonetheless needs humans as clay.

 

[paul_c]

Lucy,

I’m a non-Catholic thinking seriously about becoming a Catholic. So mine is a seriously limited perspective, relative to the rest of the folks here. That said…I think you’re overemphasizing the kind of supremacy the Catholic Church claims to have…The One True Church, an Unbroken Line From Peter, all the stuff that sounds romantic and mystical and stately and divine to a certain sort of Protestant (me, and maybe you pre-conversion) and horrifying and diabolical to another sort of Protestant, kind of shades the fact that for all the pomp and circumstance the Catholic Church makes quite narrow claims. It doesn’t claim that saintliness is perfection or that its saints infallible; it doesn’t claim that its priests or nuns or friars are perfect or infallible; it doesn’t even claim that the Pope is perfect or infallible. It claims that he is infallible when making official decrees, speaking on essential doctrine, etc. And it claims that the Church as an institution has never taught heresy on essential doctrine.

This leaves quite a lot of leeway for individuals within the Church, even important, revered individuals, to be wrong or to phrase things inaptly or to place emphasis in the wrong place or to be vile and on down the list. I sense that this is a problem for a lot of Catholics and that a lot of Catholics ultimately end up leaving the church because the sense of mystery and weightiness, the ritual and the language, which the Church cultivates as a sign of her prerogative, give the impression that the church (small c) does no wrong and when it does, as in the sexual abuse scandals and individual members musing on disputatious doctrine, they conclude that the Church can’t be True after all. But while it’s no doubt less romantic to realize that only .00000001% of what has ever come out of the church (small c) is even claimed as absolutely and innerantly true, this does seem to be the actual Church’s position. Some Protestants, who expect that the “Papists” claim much more, are surprised at this- many Catholics are dismayed and disappointed but, again, looking at this (for now) from the outside in, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the Church as a human edifice because its prerogative is rather narrower than you thought. A divine edifice nonetheless needs humans as clay.

This was a good and insightful post. I like to remember that the church is infallible when it teaches what it has been taught by the Apostles, who were of course taught by Jesus. It makes no other claims than being the repository of the truth.

 

[guanophore]

I’m a non-Catholic thinking seriously about becoming a Catholic. So mine is a seriously limited perspective, relative to the rest of the folks here. That said…I think you’re overemphasizing the kind of supremacy the Catholic Church claims to have…The One True Church, an Unbroken Line From Peter, all the stuff that sounds romantic and mystical and stately and divine to a certain sort of Protestant (me, and maybe you pre-conversion) and horrifying and diabolical to another sort of Protestant,

First of all, the Church does not “claim supremacy” for herself. Jesus is the one who build the Church, and it is He who has only One Church, and it is He who has ensured the Apostolic succession.

Yes, it is romantic (she is the Bride of Christ) mystical, stately, and divine. And yes, it does sound horrifiying to some. We are the odor of death to those who are perishing.

kind of shades the fact that for all the pomp and circumstance the Catholic Church makes quite narrow claims. It doesn’t claim that saintliness is perfection or that its saints infallible;

I think you are wrong about this, Chesterton18. The Church does indeed claim that saintliness is perfection, and the saints, those who have already been united to their heavenly reward, are indeed infallible. He preserves them in that state eternally.

it doesn’t claim that its priests or nuns or friars are perfect or infallible; it doesn’t even claim that the Pope is perfect or infallible. It claims that he is infallible when making official decrees, speaking on essential doctrine, etc. And it claims that the Church as an institution has never taught heresy on essential doctrine.

You find that a “narrow” claim? Maybe you are mixing your narrow with your broad?

This leaves quite a lot of leeway for individuals within the Church, even important, revered individuals, to be wrong or to phrase things inaptly or to place emphasis in the wrong place or to be vile and on down the list.

I am not sure what you mean by “leeway” here. Are you suggesting that the Church approves such behavior?

I sense that this is a problem for a lot of Catholics and that a lot of Catholics ultimately end up leaving the church because the sense of mystery and weightiness, the ritual and the language, which the Church cultivates as a sign of her prerogative,

I don’t think this is why people leave the Church.

give the impression that the church (small c) does no wrong and when it does, as in the sexual abuse scandals and individual members musing on disputatious doctrine, they conclude that the Church can’t be True after all.

I am having trouble following your train of thought here. It seems to me that, if people leave the church because of the sins of others, then they never understood what the church is in the first place.

But while it’s no doubt less romantic to realize that only .00000001% of what has ever come out of the church (small c) is even claimed as absolutely and innerantly true, this does seem to be the actual Church’s position.

No, I don’t think the “church with the small c” has any such claim. You have not defined what that means, but it is a false statement regardless.

Some Protestants, who expect that the "Papists" claim much more, are surprised at this- many Catholics are dismayed and disappointed but, again, looking at this (for now) from the outside in, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Church as a human edifice because its prerogative is rather narrower than you thought.  A divine edifice nonetheless needs humans as clay.

I can’t make any sense out of this paragraph either. The Divine does not “need” anything human, or clay. He chooses to do so.

 

[zmb007]

Hi, I don’t mean to hijack this thread but wanted to let you all know a lot of the advice and information given in this thread has been greatly helpful to me (I will become a full member of the Church in 4 days). Thank you all and God Bless!

BTW, valient Lucy, have you found any of the advice or answers helpful. Where do you stand now? Best wishes and God bless you.

Z

 

[WFS5801]

Correction: Henry VIII did not start a new church because of his sexual “needs,” but because of his political needs. He needed (or thought he needed) a son. As an aside, the real tragedy of Henry VIII was that he married Charles V’s neice. If he had married anyone else, then he would have gotten his annulment, and the English Reformation never would have happened.

There’s no real defense for what Henry VIII did. His lust and gluttony drove him. Do you really think there was a valid reason for his requested annulment?

Also, the Reformation wasn’t all bad. There were good things that came out of it.

For example?

Other than that, you’re right to focus on the basics, and not to get lost in the finer points of things. Perhaps that’s what got me into trouble in the first place.

There’s nothing wrong with details, you just have to realize that those “giving the details” aren’t always doing it honestly. It’s altogether possible that they have an agenda. Verify facts with several sources from varying views.

I’m a convert from Protestantism. Although I know there are good men and women in Protestant churches, I would say they’re good despite their religion, not because of it.

 

[WFS5801]

Protestant churches have no difficulty saying that they were invented by men. They don’t pretend to be otherwise.

I don’t know about that. The one I went to claimed they were “restoring the Biblical Church.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

This is an old post, so I suspect my response will not be read by the OP; however, I can’t help but wonder what would happen if she had married some guy and then discovered a few years later that some of the newness had worn off.

Marriage is work. So is faith.

You expected being Catholic to be easy?

 

[Tomb54]

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.

Marriage is a sacrament and the church has always taught to be so as is Holy Orders but let me say this, Holy Orders can be a hinderance to a persons growth in holiness if a person does not discern what he is being called to before he does it. I think this of marriage too. I dated my wife 3 1/2 years to make sure this is what the Lord wanted and we didn’t even kiss for over 6 months after we started dating, too many people rush into marriage. If people marry for the right reason then it can’t help but bring you to holiness. If you truly love someone then you will want the best for them and you will help them acheive it and what is better than heaven itself and being with God.