What do you do if you regret converting?

[WFS5801]

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 think you’re misled. The first thing Protestants did to the Sacrament of Marriage was to claim that it was not a Sacrament, thereby lowering it to a matter of mere human law. Divorce was allowed – and even bigamy was tolerated. We see the results today.

Calvin in his “Institutions”, IV, xix, 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”.

newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

So marriage is on no higher plain than shoemaking? And Luther felt the same. And we see how Henry VIII treated the Sacrament of Marriage.

And Luther speaks in terms equally vigorous. In his German work, published at Wittenberg in 1530 under the title “Von den Ehesachen”, he writes (p. 1): “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.” In an earlier work (the original edition of “De captivitate Babylonica”) he writes: “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”; and two pages further on: “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.”

What is the Church’s attitude to marriage?

St. Augustine in his works “De bono conjugii” and “De nuptiis et concupiscentia”. In the former work (chapter 24), he says, "Among all people and all men the good that is secured by marriage consists in the offspring and in the chastity of married fidelity; but, in the case of God’s people [the Christians], it consists moreover in the holiness of the sacrament, by reason of which it is forbidden, even after a separation has taken place, to marry another as long as the first partner lives…

“Undoubtedly it belongs to the essence of this sacrament that, when man and wife are once united by marriage, this bond remains indissoluble throughout their lives. As long as both live, there remains a something attached to the marriage, which neither mutual separation nor union with a third can remove; in such cases, indeed, it remains for the aggravation of the guilt of their crime, not for the strengthening of the union. Just as the soul of an apostate, which was once similarly wedded unto Christ and now separates itself from Him, does not, in spite of its loss of faith, lose the Sacrament of Faith, which it has received in the waters of regeneration.” In these words, St. Augustine places marriage, which he names a sacrament, on the same level with Baptism and Holy Orders.

To Catholics, marriage is a Sacrament, with all the graces that come through a Sacrament. To the early Protestants, it was a mere human law. It was good, but so was shoemaking and hair-cutting.

There is no question who regarded marriage as more sacred.

 

[thequeen]

I’m not strongly convinvced that I want to leave the Church. You do have some good suggestions as to who I should talk to and what I should do.

On the other hand, I feel a little guilty, because I never did that with my Protestant pastor before I left. I should have given him a chance to explain why the doctrine of the Real Presence was demonic, rather than dismissing it.

Please read John Chapter 6 that is where Jesus tells the people that His Body Is real fodd and His Blood is real drink and some of the people walked away because they didnt like that idea and you will notice that Jesus did not say that they misunderstood his meaning which i believe that he actually meant just waht He said.The Holy Eucharist is the one thing that keeps me close to Christ because it is him that I am receiving I will be praying for you

 

[honestquestions]

Faith comes from within. It takes faith to believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It takes faith to believe that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. None of these can be “proved” to be true.

Faith is an act of the will. It is not a “feeling”.

Then how do you differentiate your faith from the faith of a Muslim, for example?

 

[thirddec]

I have moved from a very sinfull place recently ; it is similar to a conversion in ways but my old ways keep calling me back but I remember why I made the move. People don’t convert on a whim. I have great faith in The Rosary when i’m struggling. You are going through your own type of temptation and trial. You dont need to reveal your soul here but you could use the advise above ; with the spiritual help of prayer and the Eucharist and explore the issues you are having with a spiritual councillor.

I’m guessing deep down in your heart you still believe in spite of the trials you were right to convert.

 

[david_friol_1]

Hey valient Lucy
I am truly sorry to hear about your sad situation but you did not give any particular things that are giving you trouble. So I will just comment on what you said at the end; “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”- Well you should probably be told the truth so you can at least no what you are doubting. And the truth is that the Catholic Church was invented by man…“the man Jesus Christ”
I would start taking it more seriously and stop seeking fuzzy feelings. If something bothers you about the faith then seek answers from those who practice the faith.

 

[Portrait]

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.

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

Dear valient Lucy,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for submitting the above.

As a former member of the church of England I had spent some 20 years examining the claims of the Catholic Church before finally crossing the Tiber in December 2009, along with my dear wife. This involved a great deal of diligent study and painstaking research and not a little resistance along the way, due mostly, I think, to a romantic attachment to Victorian Anglicanism, which was very far removed from the Church of England of the present day in terms of both doctrine and piety. However, as a loyal Anglican High-Churchman, I firmly believed that the Church of England approximated more to the teaching of Jesus than any other communion upon earth. How mistaken I was.

As a Catholic it is possible to have a sure intellectual basis for one’s faith and weighty grounds for believing in the Divine origin of the Church. If we can but establish the Divine origin of the Catholic Church, then clearly we have a very cogent reason indeed for not departing from her bosom and throwing in our lot with any of the multitude of Protestant groupings. This argument was, for myself, both unanswerable and unanswered and I never encountered a Protestant scholar who even seriously grappled with the issue, let alone offered a convincing rebuttal.

Can the Catholic Church, then, prove against sceptics her Divine origin and mission? She most assuredly can. Please suffer the following brief summary of the Catholic line of reasoning, as I think it will be of great help to you at the present time, Lucy.

Our Church makes its appeal, in the first instance, to the documents of the New Testament, using them, not as inspired books for the moment, but as authentic works of contemporary writers, in the same manner as she appeals to Tacitus, Seneca, or any other generally accepted trustworthy authorities. In this way it is established, on purely historical evidence, that there was such a person as Jesus Christ; that He founded a Society, which received the names of the Christian and the Catholic Church; that that Society has continued to exist through successive generations to our own present day and that the Church is that Society.

Secondly, still using the N.T. writings only as historical records, the Church establishes the fact of the miracles of Christ and especially the miracle par excellence, the fact of the Resurrection. From this the Church infers that Christ is God. By way of verification of His Divinity and the truth of His mission, she appeals to the manner in which His prophecies regarding the Church and the Jewish nation have been fulfilled; to the wonderful dissemination of the Gospel; to the constancy of the holy martyrs; to the great change for good that the proclamation of the Gospel has wrought among mankind; and to the testimony which the Church herself has borne, through so many generations, to the belief which has been held as to the truth of His miracles.

Thirdly, having proved that Christ is God - we can eliminate the view that he was bad or mad, for no mad man ever spoke as He did (neither did any sane man for that matter) - His words must surely be Divine and hence infallibly true. However, it is on record in the Gospel that He uttered the words, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will bulid my Church…” (S. Matt. 16: 18); “As the Father has sent me, even so send I you” (S. John 20: 21); “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (S. Matt. 28: 19, 20). Now these being God’s words, the Church, to whom they relate, is a Divine institution and thus has authority from God.

Finally, this “Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, founded by God, with a mission from God to teach all nations, and equiped with a divine promise that God will be with her to the consummation of the world, cannot err in her teaching; she is, by God’s own very appointment, infallible. If the Church is of Divine origin then it is inconceivable that God should have left this Church without a visible guide. Only the Catholic Church provides such an infallible leader in the person of the Holy Father.

No other ecclesial communion, apart from the Catholic Church, fits the above criteria and that is because it is the one true Church established by Christ upon St. Peter. The grim alternative is the uncertainties of fallible private judgment. The fragmented condition of Protestantism and the unbroken unity of Rome are obvious to even the casual onlooker. The whole history of Protestantism witnesses to the fact that individual judgment leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions, whilst the Catholic Church leads men to a common conviction as they share in the life of the one fold.

Lucy, please do not depart from Holy Mother Church - ponder carefully and prayerfully what I have written above. You will be in my prayers this Holy Week. God bless you.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[valient_Lucy]

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?

That is, without a doubt, the most unhelpful thing I have ever read on this forum.

 

[valient_Lucy]

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?

Henry VIII did not apply for an annulment because of lust and gluttony.

Henry VIII wanted a son to continue the dynastic line, and Catherine of Aragon’s children kept dying. Only Mary, a girl, survived.

Was he wrong to do what he did? Of course! But sexual frustration had nothing to do with it.

Louis XIV and Louis XV both had several mistresses each, and yet neither one of them tried to divorce their wives. Why? Because their wives had given birth to a son.

Saying that Henry VIII divorced Catherine out of sexual frustration is no different than saying that Richard Nixon covered up the Watergate break in because he was afraid his wife would be mad at him if she found out about it.

 

[Irish_Kathleen]

I am a cradle Catholic and will be Catholic until the end. That being said, and I tell this to everyone, it is hard to be a Catholic. It is hard if you truly follow the faith. If you do, however, you will have a special strength that helps you continue with the vicissitudes of life. It is not easy to commit sin and merely ask God to forgive you. We as Catholics must confess. This takes time and faith. However, faith is a muscle, you have to practice it and live it to get the rewards from it. God bless you. It is not wrong that you questions your faith. All of the really great saints did. I will be praying for you. Good luck Lucy!

 

[valient_Lucy]

In case anyone is curious I have not left the Church. That was never an option. I made a commitment, and I stand by that commitment.

I was upset because I didn’t take much time, before joining the Church, to study something other than Catholic Answers, EWTN, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I never really read much by the ECF or the saints. If I had, I would never have joined.

But I’ve come to understand that it’s impossible to know everything before making a decision. I made the best decision I could based on the evidence I had. Was it the right decision? Who knows? But at the same time, who really cares? I made a decision, and I’m sticking to it. I’ll find out if it was the right decision when I’m dead.

And as for the Church’s teachings on marriage, I can work around that. All that really means for me is I need to be a little more open to marrying a Protestant, and a little more cautious about marrying a Catholic. It also means using Protestant resources for marriage, rather than Catholic resources for marriage. I can do both things very easily.

So, all in all, I made a commitment, and I’m sticking to that commitment, even if it was the wrong choice.

 

[GKC]

Henry VIII did not apply for an annulment because of lust and gluttony.

Henry VIII wanted a son to continue the dynastic line, and Catherine of Aragon’s children kept dying. Only Mary, a girl, survived.

Was he wrong to do what he did? Of course! But sexual frustration had nothing to do with it.

Louis XIV and Louis XV both had several mistresses each, and yet neither one of them tried to divorce their wives. Why? Because their wives had given birth to a son.

Saying that Henry VIII divorced Catherine out of sexual frustration is no different than saying that Richard Nixon covered up the Watergate break in because he was afraid his wife would be mad at him if she found out about it.

Overall, you are right. But Henry’s infatuation with Anne was a part of it. It settled his mind as to how he would approach the dynastic issue, which he had been working on for years. He would use the approach of seeking a decree of nullity. Commonplace in his day.

And he could get Anne in addition.

GKC

 

[valient_Lucy]

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.

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.

This was very honest and helpful. Thanks.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Overall, you are right. But Henry’s infatuation with Anne was a part of it. It settled his mind as to how he would approach the dynastic issue, which he had been working on for years. He would use the approach of seeking a decree of nullity. Commonplace in his day.

And he could get Anne in addition.

GKC

That’s true, but so many people just gloss over the dynastic issues, because we’re living in a society that doesn’t appreciate children, and people don’t admit to valuing sons over daughters.

I often imagine, just for fun, that Henry VIII met Prince Charles as he and Diana were applying for divorce.

“Let me get this straight. You married this woman, and 11 months later, she gives birth to a son. Two years later, she gives birth to a second son. And you’re divorcing this woman?!:”

 

[GKC]

That’s true, but so many people just gloss over the dynastic issues, because we’re living in a society that doesn’t appreciate children, and people don’t admit to valuing sons over daughters.

I often imagine, just for fun, that Henry VIII met Prince Charles as he and Diana were applying for divorce.

“Let me get this straight. You married this woman, and 11 months later, she gives birth to a son. Two years later, she gives birth to a second son. And you’re divorcing this woman?!:”

Good point.

GKC

 

[valient_Lucy]

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?

I’m not talking about the Scriptures, I’m talking about the writings of the Fathers and the saints. The Catholic Church asks Protestants to read the writings of the ECF and the saints to learn what the early Church used to teach. But the Catholic Church uses these writings selectively, just as the Protestants do.

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.

I’ve made an effort to do this, but I think it’s funny that Catholics want Protestants to read the ECF and saints to learn what the Early Church taught. What they really want is for Protestants to read them selectively, the way Catholics do. Protestants ignore what the ECF said about marriage, the Eucharist, and the intercession of saints. Catholics want Protestants to ignore what the ECF said about marriage, but take them seriously about the Eucharist and the intercession of the saints.

 

[tdgesq]

valient Lucy (of Narnia),

Jesus was a man.

No great revelation on my part I suppose, but there did come a time when the apostles had to decide whether the words that He spoke and what He taught really came from God, including the words that He was God incarnate. Some of them accepted. Others (at least one, Judas) rejected. I sometimes meditate on this passage when I have doubts:

John 6 (New American Standard Bible)

51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will givefor the life of the world is My flesh." 52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
. . .
66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”
68(DG)Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69"We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God."

Since Jesus is no longer physically with us we have to decide if the Catholic Church acts on his behalf, despite individual teachings that are difficult for us to accept. For what it’s worth, I think you are doing the most sensible thing by remaining in the Church and trying to resolve your questions within it. For the time being, the only thing you may be able to do is cry the confession of St. Peter, “Lord, to whom shall we go?”

May God bless you and your family.

 

[IrishRush]

I can’t remember where I read this or heard this but it had a profound impact on me during a time of doubts of my own. The basic message is, embrace your doubts. Even wallow in them. Because the process of working through your doubts will strengthen your faith. God WILL lead you to the answer.
God bless you and fill your heart with the Holy Spirit, to lead and guide you through this time.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I think you’re misled. The first thing Protestants did to the Sacrament of Marriage was to claim that it was not a Sacrament, thereby lowering it to a matter of mere human law. Divorce was allowed – and even bigamy was tolerated. We see the results today.

newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

So marriage is on no higher plain than shoemaking? And Luther felt the same. And we see how Henry VIII treated the Sacrament of Marriage.

What is the Church’s attitude to marriage?

To Catholics, marriage is a Sacrament, with all the graces that come through a Sacrament. To the early Protestants, it was a mere human law. It was good, but so was shoemaking and hair-cutting.

There is no question who regarded marriage as more sacred.

You’re right. Protestant churches don’t believe that marriage is a sacrament.

So what?

I’m tired of Catholics using the fact that Catholics believe that marriage is a sacrament ( of sorts) to whitewash everything else that Catholics have said about marriage. It’s as if a Catholic could say, “Marriage was created by the devil, the most supreme form of evil on the planet, and will send all of its participants straight to the deepest level of hell. All the angels wail aloud when two souls are joined in that abominable state and God is filled with unquenchable wrath for their unforgivable sin! But it’s a sacrament,” and the fact that the Catholic called marriage a sacrament makes up for everything else that was said.

This is what Martin Luther called “snow on a dung heap.” Yes, the snow looks pretty at a distance, but when you get close enough, you start to notice the smell.

Now it’s true, Protestants got rid of the snow (the idea that marriage is a sacrament.) But they also got rid of the dung heap (the idea that marriage interferes with a person’s growth in holiness.)

 

[valient_Lucy]

I can’t remember where I read this or heard this but it had a profound impact on me during a time of doubts of my own. The basic message is, embrace your doubts. Even wallow in them. Because the process of working through your doubts will strengthen your faith. God WILL lead you to the answer.
God bless you and fill your heart with the Holy Spirit, to lead and guide you through this time.

That’s what I’ve been doing. I don’t expect to find it, but I keep looking anyway.

“Faith is believing in things that common sense tells you not to.” Miracle on 34th Street.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I realized there’s another thing that bothers me about the idea of marriage being incompatible with holiness. If marriage is a sacrament and impedes holiness, and religious life is not a sacrament, but it promotes holiness, then this implies that God’s grace is impotent, or counterproductive. If that’s the case, we’d all be better off without the sacraments, and just try to be good on our own.