What I need to believe to convert

[bingabinga]

Thanks everyone for your insights. I am going to respond to what some of you wrote, I"m sorry if I can’t keep names straight with who said what.

Nimz- I’ve read Rome Sweet Home and I found it lacking something…it was a heartful and good story nonetheless. Maybe I should revisit.

To everyone who suggested I do RCIA, I have been going for a time. It hasn’t worked with my current schedule but yes, sitting down with others and discussing faith was a big help to me.

Someone else has also challenged me to remember not to put my own opinions ahead of the Church. I do agree with this to an extent. That is what attracts me to Catholicism is that there is a sense that it is about more than me and my own beliefs. So I guess in a sense, my own beliefs are not a make or break deal here. Even if my own beliefs differ in some ways from Catholic teaching, that does’t make me unfit to be Catholic right?

As far as the church being THE one true church… I don’t know if I think that Jesus envisioned Roman Catholicism when he founded his church. I know that he supports the church and nurtures her and that he is always with his church. But I have difficulty believing that this founding translates into a hardened hierarchy of authority that can speak in a manner that is authoritative for all Catholics in all places and in all times.

I guess it’s sort of a double bind. On the positive side, Catholcism provides a legitmate way to be in communion wiht something larger than your own self, it requires a commitment from me to accept an external source of authority that needs to be considered.

But on the negative side, I feel like if I disagree with Humane Vitae or I think women should be priests, then, I am immediately being “disobedient” or have just crossed over into Non-catholic territory.

As far as Catholicism being THE ONE TRUE CHURCH…I can say that I see Christ operating in the Catholic church, I can say that I appreciate how the hierarchy can draw me out of my own opinions and provide a source of guidance for me that I best not ignore.

I don’t know…i’m rambling now.

 

[paul_c]

Thanks everyone for your insights. I am going to respond to what some of you wrote, I"m sorry if I can’t keep names straight with who said what.

Nimz- I’ve read Rome Sweet Home and I found it lacking something…it was a heartful and good story nonetheless. Maybe I should revisit.

There are many other books about the faith and conversion that you could find on Ignatius press for instance that might meet your needs better.

To everyone who suggested I do RCIA, I have been going for a time. It hasn’t worked with my current schedule but yes, sitting down with others and discussing faith was a big help to me.

maybe they can work out an alternative for you.

Someone else has also challenged me to remember not to put my own opinions ahead of the Church. I do agree with this to an extent. That is what attracts me to Catholicism is that there is a sense that it is about more than me and my own beliefs. So I guess in a sense, my own beliefs are not a make or break deal here. Even if my own beliefs differ in some ways from Catholic teaching, that doesn’t make me unfit to be Catholic right?

As you learn to trust the Church, you will also learn the wisdom of Her teachings… Its not necessary that you believe everything the Church teaches at first as long as you remain open to the fact that the Church teaches the truth and that your own beliefs might be founded on error or misunderstanding.

As far as the church being THE one true church… I don’t know if I think that Jesus envisioned Roman Catholicism when he founded his church. I know that he supports the church and nurtures her and that he is always with his church. But I have difficulty believing that this founding translates into a hardened hierarchy of authority that can speak in a manner that is authoritative for all Catholics in all places and in all times.

Jesus is omniscient. He knew exactly what he was establishing - a Church that would teach the Truth through all ages and to all people. The harden hierarchy of authority that you speak of is necessary to stand up to the wickedness and snares of the devil - the Church can’t change with the whims of the public either. It teaches eternal truths

I guess it’s sort of a double bind. On the positive side, Catholcism provides a legitmate way to be in communion wiht something larger than your own self, it requires a commitment from me to accept an external source of authority that needs to be considered.

In just the same way that God requires a commitment to accept a higher external source of authority. How can you submit to God if you can’t submit to His teachings that the Church passes on as God’s Church on earth.

But on the negative side, I feel like if I disagree with Humane Vitae or I think women should be priests, then, I am immediately being “disobedient” or have just crossed over into Non-catholic territory. [/wuote} You have assessed this properly. Those that disagree with the eternal truths the Church teaches have crossed over into non-Catholic territory. if you believe the Church is divinely inspired and protected, then only makes sense to believe EVERYTHING it teaches, even when inconvenient or uncomfortable. That’s the rub, really. It teaches Truth. We must bend our will to what it teaches because the truth will not bend to our wishes. These truths are as eternal as the law of gravity. and as we know, even when it is inconvenient, the law of gravity still applies.
bingabinga;9749275:

As far as Catholicism being THE ONE TRUE CHURCH…I can say that I see Christ operating in the Catholic church, I can say that I appreciate how the hierarchy can draw me out of my own opinions and provide a source of guidance for me that I best not ignore.

I don’t know…i’m rambling now.

No, actually now you are actually getting it.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

bingabinga, if I could offer a perspective from my own experience of a slow return back to the Faith after decades of agnosticism…

I also had sticking points about Church doctrine that I had trouble reconciling to my beliefs (these were not core issues of faith, but with issues of Church authority on social teachings, issues in Church history, and disciplines). Ultimately, though, I reasoned that I had accepted the core truth of Christ’s teachings, and of His creation of the Church as His mystical body. If I could accept that the Church is a repository for those core truths, and more importantly, that I have held ideas and beliefs and opinion throughout my life - often, very strongly held ideas and beliefs and opinions - that I later decided were wrong, I decided that I could accept the possibility that I could be, and probably was, wrong about the beliefs that were in conflict with the Church’s doctrine. If they were right about the big issues in which I was in complete agreement, what certainty could I have that the Church was wrong about the issues with which I was conflicted?

I decided that on those issues, I would, out of respect for both the Church that offered me a spiritual haven, and the millennia of thought and scholarship that had been devoted to these issues, agree not to contest or argue those issues (despite having a somewhat argumentative nature, as those who have read some of my posts will probably recognize as a flaw in my nature). Instead, I decided to focus on the issues in which I felt strong agreement with the Church, and to also develop further my knowledge of the Church’s reasons for holding the positions with which I felt less comfortable.

I found over time and with further research, that the Church’s positions made sense.

 

[paul_c]

bingabinga, if I could offer a perspective from my own experience of a slow return back to the Faith after decades of agnosticism…

I also had sticking points about Church doctrine that I had trouble reconciling to my beliefs (these were not core issues of faith, but with issues of Church authority on social teachings, issues in Church history, and disciplines). Ultimately, though, I reasoned that I had accepted the core truth of Christ’s teachings, and of His creation of the Church as His mystical body. If I could accept that the Church is a repository for those core truths, and more importantly, that I have held ideas and beliefs and opinion throughout my life - often, very strongly held ideas and beliefs and opinions - that I later decided were wrong, I decided that I could accept the possibility that I could be, and probably was, wrong about the beliefs that were in conflict with the Church’s doctrine. If they were right about the big issues in which I was in complete agreement, what certainty could I have that the Church was wrong about the issues with which I was conflicted?

I decided that on those issues, I would, out of respect for both the Church that offered me a spiritual haven, and the millennia of thought and scholarship that had been devoted to these issues, agree not to contest or argue those issues (despite having a somewhat argumentative nature, as those who have read some of my posts will probably recognize as a flaw in my nature). Instead, I decided to focus on the issues in which I felt strong agreement with the Church, and to also develop further my knowledge of the Church’s reasons for holding the positions with which I felt less comfortable.

I found over time and with further research, that the Church’s positions made sense.

I would bet that most devout Catholics have gone through this very same set of reasoning. I know I have. And like you, with further research on thorny questions, I have seen the wisdom behind the Church’s doctrine. After a while, you realize that no single person could ever compete with the knowledge and insight of the Catholic Church, with its millions of theologians over 2000 years including intellectual giants like Aquinas and Augustine ,and in fact, Benedict XVI. And of course, the church has the ultimate advantage of guidance and protection from the Holy Spirit

 

[William_C]

I continue to point them in the right direction because if they study enough, they will come to the full knowledge of truth

So you cannot be wrong about that? It’s impossible for you to be wrong? You are “infallible?”

 

[paul_c]

So you cannot be wrong about that? It’s impossible for you to be wrong? You are “infallible?”

What’s the point of this discussion? Of course I’m not infallible so in theory I could be wrong about anything. But I believe the Church teaches the Eternal Truths about salvation with every fiber of my being. That matters to me and to God, although it might not matter to you. You can choose to believe or not believe, but that won’t change the truth. But it will change how you act and ultimately will effect your salvation. That is something for you to consider. Are you really willing to bet your soul that your personal judgement is more sound than that of the Catholic Church…

 

[William_C]

What’s the point of this discussion? Of course I’m not infallible so in theory I could be wrong about anything. But I believe the Church teaches the Eternal Truths about salvation with every fiber of my being. That matters to me and to God, although it might not matter to you. You can choose to believe or not believe, but that won’t change the truth. But it will change how you act and ultimately will effect your salvation. That is something for you to consider. Are you really willing to bet your soul that your personal judgement is more sound than that of the Catholic Church…

You’re not infallible, and could be wrong. Thanks.

 

[bingabinga]

So you cannot be wrong about that? It’s impossible for you to be wrong? You are “infallible?”

William, you are seriously harshing my mellow. If you would like to have a conversation with Paul C then please do so somewhere else. Of course Paul doesn’t think he’s infallible. You are not contributing to the original intent of this thread and I guess I feel like you are hijacking this conversation out of malice.

Honestly its just straight up awkward the way you are so blatantly going after him. I don’t mean to be rude but i can’t understand your point.

 

[paul_c]

William, you are seriously harshing my mellow. If you would like to have a conversation with Paul C then please do so somewhere else. Of course Paul doesn’t think he’s infallible. You are not contributing to the original intent of this thread and I guess I feel like you are hijacking this conversation out of malice.

Honestly its just straight up awkward the way you are so blatantly going after him. I don’t mean to be rude but i can’t understand your point.

Thank you for that. Now, is there anything I can help you with?

 

[bingabinga]

Sure Paul, so the way you framed the discusson, the big issue is whether or not I can

“believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ to teach the Truth about faith and Morals and to administer His sacraments?” And I think that you were inferring from this that if Jesus established the Church this way then it is also “divinely inspired”. I have a friend who converted this way. He basically decided on faith that the Church was infallible, therefore all the rest of the beliefs come along for the ride.

I think that the Catholic church traces its roots back to that original founding by Jesus, just as the Eastern Orthodox do, amongst a few others. I would say though that I don’t really think that there is any biblical evidence that Jesus’s own intention was to found a hierarchical structured Church with Pope, Bishops, priests, nuns and monks,etc. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is generally fine how that has turned out, but I don’t think that Christianity has to stand or fall with an ecclesial hierarchy.

i also don’t think that this founding says anything about the church being “divinely inspired” somehow.I guess it depends what divinely inspired means. It certainly doesn’t mean complete doctrinal agreement. Church history is filled with many great saints and theologians who believed differently from one another.

And it can’t be an inspiration of morals. The church had and continues to have moral failures.

So if divinely inspired doesn’t mean a certain list of doctrines or beliefs (because there is now and has always been a diversity of opinions) and it can’t be some type of moral infallibility (avignon, Nazis, pedophillia), then where precisely does this divinely inspired piece lie and is it biblically based, or just a piece of logic used to fill in the blanks and quell our fears?

So, Paul you asked me about the Pope, " Why would you doubt what he says? Are you more learned or inspired? Granted, sometimes things the Pope says might not sound right at first. In these cases, you have two choices. You can assume you are right and the Pope is wrong. Or you could assume the Pope is right and you are wrong and search out for better understanding. I think the wisdom in the second choice is fairly obvious."

Well, I guess I would doubt him less than I would doubt an ordinary person off of the street, but he is still human, and therefore able to misjudge things, even if he is perfectly well-intentioned, and also extremely well-read and educated. I think the current pope is especially gifted with theological talent and knowledge.

I guess we should make the distinction here between interviews, encyclicals, past books, etc and the ex cathedra thing right? Because technically, I can flat out disagree with an encyclical or about birth control until the cows come home, unless he speaks *ex cathedra * am i right about that?

I guess I need things to be clearer on this front. so for example, here is something from the Council of Trent:

“If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Now, i don’t accept the vulgate as sacred. The vulgate is a great tanslation but we have since had more ancient sources come to light and these are in the original greek translations. I think I can take into account the vulgate, but its not like i want to completely accept that particular translation as sacred. so by doing that am I not fit to be Catholic? That was states in a council, so shouldn’t that be binding on me?

 

[Warandpeace]

How does the Church fail on morals?

And yes, of course you have to believe in the councils…what’s the big deal on having to believe that the compilation that the Church came up with are the books that are divinely inspired?

 

[bingabinga]

How does the Church fail on morals?

And yes, of course you have to believe in the councils…what’s the big deal on having to believe that the compilation that the Church came up with are the books that are divinely inspired?

I meant moral failure as in sin, not as in guidelines for moral action. The people who make up the church, both laity and clerical sin. The most glaring example would be the pedophilia scandals that have rocked the church.

I was trying to think through the manner in which Paul saw the church as “divinely inspired” or “without error”

 

[bingabinga]

Oh, and as far as the vulgate example goes, I think I was mistaken in how i interpreted the council. Elsewhere I read that the main point of mentioning the vulgate was to normalize the liturgical language. The way i took it was to place the latin translation of the Bible in higher esteem than original language sources that we have. Is that a correct way to read the situation?

 

[fbl9]

I meant moral failure as in sin, not as in guidelines for moral action. The people who make up the church, both laity and clerical sin. The most glaring example would be the pedophilia scandals that have rocked the church.

I was trying to think through the manner in which Paul saw the church as “divinely inspired” or "without error"

Without error means?Error in what is being taught?
No sin?

Is the church of thyself without error, as what error is defined as.?

In your op you stated to the effect that you beleived the Euchairst to be a miricle/mystery.
Do you beleive that you yourself could take an unconsecrated host hand to some one, and delclare recieve the body of Christ?
How or why not?

 

[bingabinga]

Without error means?Error in what is being taught?
No sin?

Is the church of thyself without error, as what error is defined as.?

In your op you stated to the effect that you beleived the Euchairst to be a miricle/mystery.
Do you beleive that you yourself could take an unconsecrated host hand to some one, and delclare recieve the body of Christ?
How or why not?

I don’t understand your first part, but, to the unconsecrated host part, I think I don’t know with certainty but I would hope that God would use that situation to be present through me to another. As I said, I think it is a mystery.

But that does bring up another point. why are some sacraments able to be administerd over by the laity (baptism for example) or particpated in by non-Catholics (marriage for example), but the eucharist has to be presided over by priest AND received by confirmed Catholics?

 

[Warandpeace]

I meant moral failure as in sin, not as in guidelines for moral action. The people who make up the church, both laity and clerical sin. The most glaring example would be the pedophilia scandals that have rocked the church.

I was trying to think through the manner in which Paul saw the church as “divinely inspired” or “without error”

The Holy Spirit is without error, which is the basis of the Church.

 

[fbl9]

I was trying to think through the manner in which Paul saw the church as “divinely inspired” or “without error”

fbl9; What did St.Paul mean by “without error”?

I don’t understand your first part, but, to the unconsecrated host part, I think I don’t know with certainty but I would hope that God would use that situation to be present through me to another. As I said, I think it is a mystery.

But that does bring up another point. why are some sacraments able to be administerd over by the laity (baptism for example) or particpated in by non-Catholics (marriage for example), but the eucharist has to be presided over by priest AND received by confirmed Catholics?

Could you accept the host from a priest at Mass with the same beleifs Catholics are to hold? In regards to the Eucharist only.

 

[Warandpeace]

I don’t understand your first part, but, to the unconsecrated host part, I think I don’t know with certainty but I would hope that God would use that situation to be present through me to another. As I said, I think it is a mystery.

But that does bring up another point. why are some sacraments able to be administerd over by the laity (baptism for example) or particpated in by non-Catholics (marriage for example), but the eucharist has to be presided over by priest AND received by confirmed Catholics?

Well, you don’t have to ‘recieve’ from a priest. Eucharistic ministers are used as well.
Baptism by laity is emergency only, as in the case of dying, which would clear up any sins. I think the Eucharist issue is pretty clear. You shouldn’t be receiving the Body and Blood of Christ if you think it’s just bread. And in no way are you prepared to receive him without extensive preparation.

As far as marriage, the man and woman are minsters of the sacrament.

 

[bingabinga]

Paul from this forum said “without error” , i did not mean st. paul.

Um as far as the eucharist thing, yes.

 

[Warandpeace]

Paul from this forum said “without error” , i did not mean st. paul.

Um as far as the eucharist thing, yes.

I think that if you can accept the teaching on the Eucharist then you’re probably ready.