What if its against my conscience to be Catholic?

[tomch]

I used to be Baptist, and just last week I downloaded this WONDERFUL series from Ken Hensley about the “Radical Reformers” - the AnaBaptists (from whom came the Baptists, Mennonites, Amish, etc…). This series is AMAZING and I urge you to listen to it.

This series gives a history of the AnaBaptist movement, and some of their doctrinal problems. Ken Hensley is very easy to understand. My wife (who is still a Baptist, but beginning to move toward Catholicism) also listened to him, and was amazed to find out the history of her own church. The information is presented in a non-confrontive, historical context. On par with Scott Hahn, in my opinion.

Ken Hensley used to be a Baptist Pastor - converted to Catholicism. I also highly recommend his series on Luther - It would also apply somewhat to your situation.

saintjoemp3.com/servlet/Categories?category=Ken+Hensley

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Our evaluations of any facts, whether a church’s teachings or Scripture itself, is always fallible. This is the human condition and will never go away until we know as we have been known.

Yes, its like saying “you can’t judge for yourself” and then showing you texts throughout history and certain scripture and saying “here, judge for yourself”. I agree (obviously) that there seems to be evidence to support the historical nature of the Catholic church, I do see, to some extent, scriptural support for it as well, but I just as easily see some JW beliefs, relativism, and all sorts of things people support with scripture (albeit, not to the extent that I see validity in the Catholic church’s claims). I also realise that not everything is what it seems. History and the way it is interpreted and presented is not flawless either. Everything is not always what it is presented as. Thats why, 2000 years later, I can only accept that it is more a matter of conscience and intention than intelligence. Thats also why if I cannot wholeheartedly embrace at least most if not all of a particular church’s beliefs it would be impossible for me to just blindly accept it on faith. Faith has to be based on something. If my conscience tells me its wrong, I cannot choose to exercise faith in it anyway.

Meats offered to idols were not considered unclean (in truth), yet it was deemed sin for someone who considered it unclean to consume it anyway. Whatever we do must be done in faith. Choosing to go against what one perceives to be right would be sinful if we look at it in the light of this scripture.

I’m not saying I think the Catholic church is wrong about anything it teaches, just that I cannot yet in good conscience practice it or accept it all as truth and I don’t know if I ever will. I am trying to be a Catholic by will and not by faith. This seems wrong to me.

It isn’t just Scripture that has made me question this either (although it was originally b/c I didn’t actually know any Mennonites) Experience has taught me that the Mennonite faith works and Catholicism has not. This is not a blanket statement - I’m talking strictly about my own experience and witness of this particular church (not all Mennonites are conservative either. I do not accept the practices of the liberal, boston congress for instance). Of course, no one knows the heart of another person so I cannot exactly judge entirely, but what I’ve witnessed and experienced is all I have to go by. As a Catholic, baptism and confirmation were only rituals for me; something I was told I had to do and then I would be left to make my own decision. I know this is wrong. I also know its not Catholic teaching, but nonetheless it was this way, not just for me, but for many of my peers as well. Confirmation was like graduation. Most of us never intended to commit to being Catholic and most of us didn’t return to church after confirmation. Instead of making it routine to confirm teens, it should have been our choice in the first place. Kind of like a “believers baptism” if you will. Since, as infants, we cannot make the choice to be Catholic or even Christian, it is Confirmation when this choice should be made. But how can you expect a person to make that choice at a prescribed time? Perhaps a person should be allowed to request Confirmation instead of routinely having teens make it when they are 15 or 16 (or whenever it is).

I see Mennonites (and like groups) being raised in the love of and fear of the Lord and go on to commit their lives to the gospel as they’ve matured. I’m not saying Catholics don’t, but I myself have never experienced it, nor have I witnessed it. I have, however, witnessed it in the Mennonite community. I see their lives of faith in action and I see that their beliefs and practices work. Is it perfect? I am not that naive. Again, I cannot know the heart of another. Perhaps there are many hypocrites. I’ve no doubt there may be some.

So, I’m not saying the Catholic church is wrong, or that the Mennonites are right, but since I cannot say for certain exactly what the truth is, I wonder if I should just follow my conscience and go with what I believe the Bible teaches and go with the church that best represents that and lives it out.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Continue to mediate and pray to the Blessed Sacrament. Jesus is there. If you consider leaving, you will be missing out Jesus’ Real Presence.

He loves you and there are only two churches that has real presence. Catholic and Orthodox.

Protestant service lack real presence of the Lord because they turn Blessed Sacrament as symbolic not real.

One thing that prompts me to continue to try to understand Catholicism is the mass itself. Because if the mass truly is what the Catholic church teaches it is, then there is no higher form of worship. I’ve read the Lambs Supper and similar commentaries on the mass. It is thought provoking, and definately mind-boggling.

 

[I_Leatherman]

The CC is like an Ark that travels through time.
Was nobody getting into heaven before 1500 AD?
If people *did *get into heaven before 1500 AD then it was only through the CC.
And since the CC worked all through history then it still works today - yes?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

The CC is like an Ark that travels through time.
Was nobody getting into heaven before 1500 AD?
If people *did *get into heaven before 1500 AD then it was only through the CC.
And since the CC worked all through history then it still works today - yes?

I don’t know that the CC was the only church until 1500 AD. I’m certain there were other Christians. I like to think (don’t know if its true of course though) that there were other Christians whose beliefs also “worked”.

I think what I have done, throughout these doubts in all these years (the doubting started long, long before I actually left the CC last year) is come to believe that there is salvation outside the CC. This is something I never believed before (as a Catholic of course). I truly believed it was much more difficult to attain (if not impossible) salvation without the CC.

I think I have moved from that extreme to an understanding of why it is possible to obtain salvation outside the CC: faith (in God, not a church), and the fruit of ones faith. Originally, the doubting was a result of my reading Scripture and seeing (what I perceive to be) different teachings. It still is that, but also my negative experience of the CC that has caused me to doubt its claims. Looking at Scripture I have come to believe things contrary to the teachings of the CC and happened to find a church that believes the same things as I. The best part though is that I see real fruit in that church. My choice to worship with Mennonites wasn’t based on a willed faith. I had what I believed was Scriptural basis as well as the witness that these beliefs and practices really work!

I don’t know if anyone can claim to have the corner market on truth. Mennonites certainly don’t make this claim. As one of my friends from the Mennonite church (a convert from Catholicism in fact) says: “in the end, its all about the shoe leather”. If being Catholic is going against my conscience and not helping me in my Christian walk, then how can I stay?

I already know the answer, and that was why I returned. It’s about Jesus. Period. It’s not about what I personally want to believe or about what I believe is best. It’s not about what other people do or don’t do. Its about my relationship with Christ.

This is the only thing holding me back from returning to the Mennonite church. If the mass is what the CC says it is, I’d be throwing away Christ to follow an ideal and a group of people.

I’ll tell you what though, this Jesus and me thing requires more faith than I think I could ever possess. I don’t think I have enough faith in it to remain Catholic, and I wonder if I ever will have that kind of faith. I have a relationship with Christ through prayer, the lives of those I encounter, and the Scriptures. Don’t know if I can believe there is a different relationship other than this to be had. If there is, then why aren’t there more people falling on their faces when they enter a CC? Why do people pop the host in their mouths like its popcorn? If Jesus is trying to communicate with us via the Eucharist, is everyone deaf??? If the mass is what the CC claims it is, then it ought to be changing people. There should be more people living radical lives of faith and love. I see so much indifference, disobedience and disbelief in the CC. Again, not a blanket statement, just my experience. And again I admit I cannot know the heart of another…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Yours is the rare case where “conscience” isn’t some transparent excuse for self-indulgence.
The Catholic Church teaches that if your conscience tells you to leave, you should leave. After a brief sojurn with the Mennonites you are beginning to see that there are some deep problems with Sola Scriptura. However there are also some very real problems and open questions in relation to Catholicism.
I am not telling you what to do. I think that in end you will realise that every serious philosophical claim has its difficulties, but the Church’s claims much less than most. But that time isn’t yet.

I can’t believe I didn’t respond to this yet. Just wanted to acknowledge that I saw it. A good, direct reponse, thank you.

I appreciate everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut on this, thank you.

 

[I_Leatherman]

You are not responsible for what other people think - it should have no influence on you. I would’nt even bother thinking about it. What was it Christ said, ‘How does it concern you…’. You have to forge ahead and make your own path - the CC gives the Christian the structure and the strength.

As for transient christians groups before 1500AD. There were also Catholics, the main Christian group by far don’t forget, before 1500AD. In fact only the CC has survived the intervening 2000 years. This Church alone fulfills Christs prophetic discription of His Church as one which would survive everything that could be thrown at it.
Certainly there were groups splintering off from the CC through time, even in Apostolic times, but none of them has survived the course. The heresies the Apostle mentions to avoid are occasionally resuscitated by some protestant churches but never by the CC. It alone has a guarantee of protection.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

You are not responsible for what other people think - it should have no influence on you. I would’nt even bother thinking about it.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. My question is what does the CC teach about conscience. I don’t mind hearing what other people think, but ultimately I am interested in what the church teaches.

Thanks

 

[fix]

I’m not sure what you mean by this. My question is what does the CC teach about conscience. I don’t mind hearing what other people think, but ultimately I am interested in what the church teaches.

Thanks

She teaches we are to follow a properly formed conscience. No one can judge your culpability.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

She teaches we are to follow a properly formed conscience. No one can judge your culpability.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

I see now. Thank you. I realised there must be a distinction between 2 types of ignorance, but I was unaware that that was what was being referred to. I know no one can judge culpability. I’m certainly not asking anyone to do that.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Admittedly, I can see from my posts why someone would think I am looking for judgment on my culpability. I’m trying to justify leaving based on my convictions and experiences.

 

[VociMike]

JTBC, how would you answer a person (a Jew or Muslim or Hindu or atheist) who said “it’s against my conscience to be Christian”?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

JTBC, how would you answer a person (a Jew or Muslim or Hindu or atheist) who said “it’s against my conscience to be Christian”?

Well, I guess I’d just urge them to study Christ’s claims and pray… I certainly wouldn’t expect them to be Christian if they didn’t understand why they ought to be. That wasn’t how the Apostles when about instructing the Jews or Gentiles either. They reasoned with them from the scriptures.

 

[VociMike]

Well, I guess I’d just urge them to study Christ’s claims and pray… I certainly wouldn’t expect them to be Christian if they didn’t understand why they ought to be.

Are you saying that ultimately it doesn’t matter what one believes? If one starts from that premise, then using the “makes the most sense to me” rule is as good as any. But if it does matter what one believes, then “makes the most sense to me” is simply not the standard by which to judge belief systems.

That wasn’t how the Apostles when about instructing the Jews or Gentiles either. They reasoned with them from the scriptures.

The Jews, yes. But the Gentiles? They would accord the Jewish scriptures no authority whatsoever.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Are you saying that ultimately it doesn’t matter what one believes?

No. That is not what I’m saying. If I were saying that, I would have left out the part about advising them to study Christ’s claims and pray… IOW, not understanding is not grounds to dismiss something. Just like, even though I am not able to fully embrace the claims of the CC, I have not ceased to study it in case it does have validity. I have often studied Buddhism throughout my life also and continue to do so (although I doubt I will ever abandon Christianity to become Buddhist). But it seems very wrong to expect someone to practice something they don’t have faith in.

The Jews, yes. But the Gentiles? They would accord the Jewish scriptures no authority whatsoever.

Right. Not sure why I included Gentiles there. I was thinking of Samaritans for some reason… I’m sure they still had to show Gentiles that Jesus was the fulfillment of Judaism though, and hence had recourse to the Scriptures…

 

[VociMike]

No. That is not what I’m saying. If I were saying that, I would have left out the part about advising them to study Christ’s claims and pray… IOW, not understanding is not grounds to dismiss something. Just like, even though I am not able to fully embrace the claims of the CC, I have not ceased to study it in case it does have validity. I have often studied Buddhism throughout my life also and continue to do so (although I doubt I will ever abandon Christianity to become Buddhist). But it seems very wrong to expect someone to practice something they don’t have faith in.

Yes, but nobody is suggesting that anybody be compelled to be Catholic. The question is, how does one make a decision regarding what they will believe in the realm of faith and religion? In your particular version of the question, which I understand is Catholicism vs. Anabaptism, how will you make that decision? By opening up the bible and deciding what it means? Is that the purpose for which the bible was written (hint, see Luke 1:4 for a gospel-author’s explicit reasoning)?

BTW, do you find many Anabaptists among the Early Church Fathers? And how does your answer affect your decision-making? Do you think you understand the bible and the faith better than they did?

Also, remember the principle of the dog that did not bark. If within the Church (which undeniably fought against heresies from the beginning) a particular belief or practice is said to have first been discovered in some century X, if the dog did not at that point bark (that is, if the Church did not at that point object), then this “new” belief or practice must not have been particularly new or unique after all, but rather just a flowering of something that already existed in the faith. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t know that the CC was the only church until 1500 AD. I’m certain there were other Christians. I like to think (don’t know if its true of course though) that there were other Christians whose beliefs also “worked”. .

Prior to 1517. There were only two groups of Christians, Catholic and Orthodox.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Prior to 1517. There were only two groups of Christians, Catholic and Orthodox.

Prior to 1517, there were Catholics, Schismatics and Heretics. There were many groups of Schismatics which existed before 1517 which still exist today. These groups are the Oriental Orthodox (though they claim they are not Schismatics) centered around the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Eastern Orthodox centered around Constantinople, the Assyrians, the Indian Thomas Christians and then you have the Syriac Christians. Then on the Heretic side you have the Cathars, the Gnostics, the Arians, the Waldensians, etc.

 

[lak611]

Prior to 1517, there were Catholics, Schismatics and Heretics. There were many groups of Schismatics which existed before 1517 which still exist today. These groups are the Oriental Orthodox (though they claim they are not Schismatics) centered around the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Eastern Orthodox centered around Constantinople, the Assyrians, the Indian Thomas Christians and then you have the Syriac Christians. Then on the Heretic side you have the Cathars, the Gnostics, the Arians, the Waldensians, etc.

But there were no Protestants.

 

[Bishopite]

Well, I guess I’d just urge them to study Christ’s claims and pray… I certainly wouldn’t expect them to be Christian if they didn’t understand why they ought to be. That wasn’t how the Apostles when about instructing the Jews or Gentiles either. They reasoned with them from the scriptures.

I’m not sure what draws you toward the Mennonite/Annabaptist faith but it is my prayer that you don’t leave the Catholic Church (most especially the Eucharist). Also, you might be interested in knowing that since the Mennonites began as a movement they have broken apart a number of times and have differing theological beliefs; which if it were me, would lead to the obvious question…Which one of the Mennonites does one join? And if you join one then perhaps another Mennonite Church is interpreting Scripture correctly? These are vexing questions that need to be worked through.

I’m NOT trying infer that Mennonites aren’t good Christians, nor intentionally shed bad light on them, for they are good moral people in general (save contraception), however, the reality is they simply follow schismaticism as was created from the reformation and which is a practice of Protestantism.
And, if I were you I’d know their history before jumping ship and again understand that the only Church that has stay constant throughout Christian history is the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

"Mennonite schisms

Prior to migration to America, Anabaptists in Europe were divided between those of Dutch and Swiss background. However, both Dutch and Swiss groups took their name from Menno Simons who led the Dutch group. A trickle of Dutch Mennonites began the migration to America in 1683, followed by a much larger migration of Swiss-related Mennonites beginning in 1707. Two centuries later in the 1870s, significant numbers of Dutch Mennonites who had settled in Prussia and then Russia moved to the United States and Canada where they are now known as Russian Mennonites.
After immigration to America, many of the early Mennonites split from the main body of North American Mennonites and formed their own separate and distinct churches, a process that began in 1785 with the formation of the orthodox Reformed Mennonite Church and is ongoing today. **Many of these churches were formed as a response to deep disagreements about theology, doctrine, and church discipline as evolution both inside and outside the Mennonite faith occurred. **Many of the ‘modern’ churches descended from those groups that abandoned traditional Mennonite practices. Today, the groups that have held to the traditional interpretations of Mennonite doctrine are increasing at a more rapid rate than those groups that have rejected these standards. However, the moderate denominations are still by far the largest and continue to grow at a steady rate.
These historical schisms have had an influence on creating the distinct Mennonite denominations that exist today. Such divisions continue to go on today as one group claims its version of the Mennonite faith and splits from the parent denomination or church, sometimes using mild or severe shunning to show its disapproval of other Mennonite groups. One recent and widely reported example of this is the expulsion of the Germantown Mennonite Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from the Franconia Conference and later the Mennonite Church USA denomination for welcoming LGBT people as church members."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite