What if its against my conscience to be Catholic?

[JoyToBeCatholic]

One would think that those people defending the faith they received from the Apostles would cry out all the more loudly than those coming 1,000 years who claim that the true faith was lost.

Yes, I’ve seen the problem with such a claim, but let me ask you this: Did the gates of hell prevail in the world when the Israelites went astray? If the church was teaching some errors before the “reformation”, does it mean the gates of hell prevailed?

Christ’s promise was to all the Apostles, but only four Apostles actually wrote anything down! Christ’s promise was not that the Apostles would write it all down, but that He would bring it to their memory. Be careful of reading Protestant presumptions into the text. Even Paul emphasized that both his written teachings and his verbal teachings commanded obedience: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

I can’t believe the H.S. inspired them to write but didn’t give them all that was sufficient. 2Thess was an early letter. I believe that the traditions that were (then )spoken were later written based on my point above.

But again, I have to challenge the logical consistency of the belief that the canonization process can be trusted, but not the faith of the men whom God used in this process

I trust not based on the canonization process. I trust b/c God promised He’d preserve His word. What’s illogical or inconsistent about that?

These men believed in the Real Presence, they believed in infant baptism, they believed in baptism by methods other than immersion, and this was the apostolic faith that they used to determine the canon

Do we have an account of the exact methods used for determining canon? Because you can find evidence that some men may have believed in those things doesn’t mean everyone did or that they were right.

It does, in the Bible. Otherwise how would you interpret Matthew 18? All throughout Scripture we see reference to a visible Church.

No where is the church defined except as the pillar and bulkwark of faith. I didn’t say the church wasn’t visible. It’s as visible as the good works which proceed from it are, and not limited to one denomination. What is the church going to do when someone has trespassed? Surely, they are going to reason with him from the Scriptures. The church isn’t (or shouldn’t, rather) going to say “you are trespassing b/c I said so and I have the final say”. We’ve seen this type of thing in the Catholic church before and how many were martyred as a result of it!

let’s not forget what John tells us at the end of his gospel: “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

I would have loved to have lived to see it all, but I trust that what the H.S. inspired was sufficient for us. It makes no sense if He didn’t.

Peace

 

[jemfinch]

That would imply that the Apostles were led into all truth, and the H.S. inspired them to write, but for some reason wasn’t able to inspire them to write everything that was necessary.

The Holy Spirit was promised to bring to remembrance everything that Jesus taught the Apostles. He was never promised to bring them to write everything Jesus taught them. The normative transmission medium both for the Jewish faith and the Christian faith is not written, but spoken. The faith has always been handed on in full by oral tradition and only in part by written Tradition. This is why, for instance, Paul knew the names of the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses (Jannes and Jambres) despite the fact that their names were never recorded in Scripture: he knew it because Jewish oral tradition preserved those names.

This is absurd to me.

It only appears absured because you’re approaching it with the presumption that you know the best way of preserving God’s word, and He cannot choose to preserve it however he chooses. If God chose to preserve His word solely through oral Tradition, who would you or I be to disagree? Instead, He has chosen to preserve His revelation to mankind through written Tradition in Scripture, spoken Tradition in the living Tradition of the Church, and the living voice of the Church through the Magisterium. That’s His prerogative. Who are you to complain that He must do it some other way?

If God inspired the writings, they have to be sufficient or there was no point to having inspired them to write in the first place.

A ridiculous statement! Sacred Scripture serves as a support for the Church in defending the deposit of faith received from the Apostles. It never claims to be nor is it the entirety of that deposit. It doesn’t need to be or contain the entirety of that deposit in order to serve its purpose.

Your claim seems to be, “If the Bible doesn’t completely contain the deposit of faith, it’s useless.” That’s completely wrong, and completely indefensible: I could give any number of reasons why the Bible, even if it doesn’t contain the entirety of the faith, is still exceedingly useful.

I’d wager a guess God foresaw that people would insist on following the Scriptures alone and wouldn’t have made it impossible for us to do so in security

I think that’d be a bad bet. God foresaw that Korah would rebel against Moses and Aaron, and He made it very impossible for that rebellion to succeed, by making the earth open up to swallow Korah and his rebellion.

God foresaw that people would misinterpret Scripture. He gave us the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, the apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors, and evangelists to prevent us from being blown about by every wind of doctrine and carried away with the error of lawless men. To those who reject even this safety net, I do not believe, nor do I think anyone is justified (biblically or historically) in believing that God has provided an additional safety net for them. A perfect example are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who adhere strictly to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and who at the same deny our Lord Jesus Christ. What safety net has God provided for them, that they have subsequently rejected and fallen so far into error?

To Be Continued…

 

[jemfinch]

It does, in essence, say this by being silent on the issue of headcovering for instance. I know the church does not forbid it, but it doesn’t require it anymore either. It is a specific prescription given by Paul, given to the church under the inspiration of God. Paul begins the chapter **praising them for imitating him and for keeping the ordinances as he delivers them to them. He goes on, at length about the order of creation and submission and coverings for women. The reason this is no longer a requirement is b/c the church has decided that the practice was cultural. Perhaps it was, but since the H.S. inspired Paul to write this, it passed from an unnecessary cultural practice into a necessary, God-ordained one. I’m sorry, but I if the church can rightly decide it’s no longer pertinent to today, then IMO it can throw out anything else in Scripture too.

Paul’s commandment about headcoverings is not a matter of faith, but one of practice. The Church has been explicitly given the power to bind and to loose. Paul bound upon the Corinthian Church that women should cover their heads. The Church has the power to loose that command as well. The power to bind and to loose is a power to make and undo commands, but it doesn’t include the power to modify the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Before we go into a great discussion about headcoverings, perhaps we should look more deeply into another of Paul’s commands in 1 Corinthians: “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” Surely this is more important than headcoverings, and yet you still seem to be advocating an unbiblical doctrine that has been shown, in theory and in practice to result in widespread division and disagreement.

But, as I said, I don’t know if I believe these things were passed on in succession forever. I see Jesus giving that power to the Apostles. I also see Him giving them power to do things that Catholic clergy today can not do (like raise the dead, etc.). If that stopped, likely the infallibility did to (and rests solely in the writings of the Apostles).

You’re speaking in a lot of "likely"s for which I’m not sure what your evidence is. If the dead are no longer raised (a point I’m not yet conceding until I’ve seen the evidence myself) why should I likewise believe that the authority granted by Christ to the Apostles has likewise perished? Especially when Christ Himself promised to be with us until the end of the age!

That is to say, you’re making a lot of assertions, and stating your position, but you’re providing nothing to prove your claims correct.

Actually, that is what “canon” is.

“The canon” as applied to the books of Scripture isn’t a “rule of measure,” it’s a set of approved books. You’re mixing up the use of the word “canon” as in a “law” or a “rule” (the canons of the Council of Trent, for instance) and the use of the word “canon” as in “the set of books approved by the Church.”

One of the tests of the authenticity of a miracle (according to Catholic teaching) is that it must be weighed against Scripture. It cannot reveal any new revelations. It can’t contradict anything in it. It must be tested against Scripture.

It must be tested against the entirety of Catholic Tradition, not just Scripture.

That is b/c Scripture is the “rule of measure”/“canon” we are supposed to use to determine the authenticity of something (church teaching, miracles, apparitions, etc.)

Not at all. Scripture is just one part of the whole of Catholic Tradition by which we determine the truthfulness of any private revelation (which, I think, is what you mean by “miracle” above).

To Be Continued…

 

[jemfinch]

But finding its way around contradicting itself can sometimes look like it is trying to make an excuse for allowing something wrong.

Most theodicies look just like that, but I’m sure you don’t think that of them. Do you see how it’s not logic, but prejudice that leads you to hold this view of the Church?

How can the church say such a thing?

How can the Church say that a marriage never existed? Easily! To whom should we go if not the pillar and foundation of truth to answer such questions?

If a woman is drugged by a man and involved in a wedding ceremony under the influence of some drug, is she thereby married? Of course not. But the Church must officially rule that she is not married in that case. If a man and a woman get drunk in Las Vegas and get married while unThis is what I mean. der the influence of alcohol, did they genuinely enter into a lifelong covenant with each other at Joe Schmoe’s House of Matrimony? Absolutely not! But again, the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth as well as the final court of appeal for disputes between members (Matthew 18) must investigate this issue and make a ruling.

And certainly, the church cannot judge such a thing in the first place!

Why not? What defense do you have for such a claim?

It looks like it wanted to find a way around allowing people to divorce,

A large number of people who desired an annulment but did not receive one would beg to differ with your claim.

and the church gets a hefty sum in return for its service.

Now you’re entering the realm of not only unsubstantiated, but offensive accusation.

To Be Continued…

 

[jemfinch]

The church cannot admit its errors and this is a prime example.

What is the Church’s “error” in this case? Its doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage?

You can apply this logic to the “indelible mark of the priesthood” and corrupt priests too, but the Catholic simply cannot do so b/c of the implications of such a pronouncement. The idea of a priesthood that cannot be revoked by the church in matters of disobedience and blatant, heinous corruption. If you say He was never a priest in the first place, you are opening a huge can of worms. Either marriage is forever and the priesthood is too, or either can be said to have never happened.

I honestly can’t follow your argument here.

Yes, I’ve seen the problem with such a claim, but let me ask you this: Did the gates of hell prevail in the world when the Israelites went astray?

I would say it did. That’s why there was a need for the New Covenant.

If the church was teaching some errors before the “reformation”, does it mean the gates of hell prevailed?

Yes, if the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, taught error in matters of faith and morals and mislead the very people God has commanded through the Scriptures to obey, then I would say that the gates of hell prevailed quite successfully against that Church.

I can’t believe the H.S. inspired them to write but didn’t give them all that was sufficient.

I can’t believe that you continue to hold to a belief unsubstantiated by Scripture or history or logic.

2Thess was an early letter. I believe that the traditions that were (then )spoken were later written based on my point above.

And, again, you have no reason to believe this either. What’s your evidence? Is it biblical? Cite chapter and verse. Is it historical? Then explain how the people from A.D. 110 to the advent of the printing press were to operate on the basis of Sola Scirptura without being able either to read or to have the Bible in order to read it. Explain why the councils were necessary to decide matters of doctrine and to tell people like Arius, “No, you’re twisting the Scriptures when you make claims contrary to the Tradition we received from the Apostles.”

If you indeed hold this view, you’re more credulous than I would’ve expected, because I see no evidence whatsoever for this view. In fact, that’s in large part why I converted to Catholicism: Sola Scriptura is simply untenable on a logical, historical, and especially biblical level.

I trust not based on the canonization process. I trust b/c God promised He’d preserve His word. What’s illogical or inconsistent about that?

But He preserved His written word through men who had a faith by which they, exercising their intellectual faculties, determine which books belonged to the canon of Scripture and which did not. How can you trust the end of God’s work without trusting the means by which He worked?

Do we have an account of the exact methods used for determining canon? Because you can find evidence that some men may have believed in those things doesn’t mean everyone did or that they were right.

You can look at the records of the councils themselves. But let me ask you: if they did not measure the corpus they investigated by its consistency with the faith they’d received from the Apostles, how else did they determine the canon? Are you claiming that they drew straws, or rolled dice?

No where is the church defined except as the pillar and bulkwark of faith.

Huh? The Church is referred to all throughout Scripture.

I didn’t say the church wasn’t visible. It’s as visible as the good works which proceed from it are,

It’s visible even when we don’t do good works. That’s one of the reasons we’re told multiple times in Scripture not to have anything to do with people who don’t live according the Apostolic Tradition, and why we’re told to cast out the immoral brother: because they people reflect poorly on the Church, the very visible city on a hill that cannot be hidden.

What is the church going to do when someone has trespassed? Surely, they are going to reason with him from the Scriptures. The church isn’t (or shouldn’t, rather) going to say “you are trespassing b/c I said so and I have the final say”.

That seems to be exactly what Peter did with Ananias and Saphira. I don’t see him reasoning from the Scriptures: I see him pronouncing a swift judgment. The Church by all means should reason from the Scripture and from the Apostolic Tradition to convince sinners to repent, just as Paul taught Timothy to do, but it does have genuine authority even when sinners refuse to listen to it.

To Be Continued…

 

[jemfinch]

I would have loved to have lived to see it all, but I trust that what the H.S. inspired was sufficient for us. It makes no sense if He didn’t.

“What the Holy Spirit inspired” was not all written down. It was most definitely sufficient for us, but we know for a fact that it wasn’t all written down, because Christ promised that the Apostles would speak words inspired by the Holy Spirit: When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you."

Jeremy

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Wow, between this and the other threads, I’m overwhelved right now. I’ve read everything posted at this point but I’ve put hours today into this already and am going to have to call it quits - at least for a while.

I just want to say that I realize I have nothing to substantiate the theory I’m presenting about what happened in the early church. I am only trying to present a possibility. Because the Devil is deceptive, I can’t so easily just accept the church’s claims no matter how historical and persuasive they may seem. I realize that the Devil likewise can deceive me in my own understanding of Scripture. In the end I have to make a choice. I will probably never be fully convinced that either choice is right. God will have to forgive my error b/c in His justice and mercy, He has to excuse my ignorance.

That is why, in the end I may just have to go with the good fruit I see in the church, b/c I need to do more than just belong to THE ONE TRUE CHURCH - I need to live as a Christian ought to. Perhaps seeking those who can best lead me to do that is the best course of action. And it needs to be more than blind faith in the eucharist, and it needs to be more than following the writings of long-gone saints… Community IS important. I’m not talking about community that make you feel good about yourself. I’m talking about the kind that believe in the crucified life; who “walk in love,avoid all uncleanness or covetousness…neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting… walk as children of light…walk circumspectly…redeeming the time, b/c the days are evil…not drunk with wine…speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in (their) hearts to the Lord…” I’ve met these people. I’ve never in my life met them anywhere else. I’d have to live in a convent to come close to what I’ve met in this community!

I know there are people like this in the CAtholic church. I’m not saying there aren’t. I just don’t know of any personally. And in light of the possibility that things may not be as they seem, and the church may not be all it claims to be, I may have to make a choice based on good fruit.

 

[ltravis]

I am following this thread with great interest. JTBC, if you are being truly candid with us, you appear to be someone really special whose being led on a special journey - as long as you continue to put your feelings and presumptions aside and let the Spirit lead you in totality. And Jeremy, I am truly amazed and inspired by the amount of faithful wisdom you are sharing. You really have a gift, and it is helping more than just JTBC, believe me.

If I can add my own thoughts to this, can I ask you JTBC: if scripture alone is sufficient then why, to put it bluntly, isn’t it working? I mean, Catholics and Protestants alike rely on the inerrancy and truth of scripture and study and pray over it faithfully, honestly, and seriously. Why then, are there so many fundamental disagreements among us on matters as serious as the real presence of Christ, the workings of salvation, etc? Fundamental disagreements are present even among various protestant faiths. It would seem the Holy Spirit isn’t doing a very good job, wouldn’t it?

IAlso, when reading and living out scripture, how do you know for sure you are being led by the Holy Spirit and not succumbing to your own feelings, presuppositions, desires, etc.? By virtue of my reasoning above, and by your inner conflict now, it doesn’t seem you can confidently say the Holy Spirit will lead you through scripture alone and give you complete and sufficient truth. Given that, where do you turn? Who can you trust completely to give you the truth, the truth whether you can understand it or not?

Finally, the lifestyle you like from the Mennonites is not against Catholic teaching. You can apply it to your life as a Catholic. You can try to find other like minded Catholics, or start a group yourself. As I stated at the beginning, you are on a special journey; you may be hearing a call to something big, something amazing. Stay humble and open-minded.

-LT

 

[ltravis]

I will probably never be fully convinced that either choice is right. God will have to forgive my error b/c in His justice and mercy, He has to excuse my ignorance.

One afterthought I am sure you are aware of but anyway, either way you go you are going to feel conflicted, torn, and under trial. Our Catholic faith holds that such trials are often the workings God in us, they are gifts, and are good.

Finally, if you choose to leave the Church, promise to do one thing. Come back for old times sake to Church when it is quiet and you are alone. Look towards the tabernacle and the red candle that you don’t approach anymore. Don’t rationalize or try to understand. Now, you may not want to think He is there. You may be 99.9% sure He isn’t there. But, just but, …what if He is? JoyToBeCatholic, what if He is?

-LT

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Since it will prolly take a while for me to respond to everything Jeremy posted, I’m going to start easy here:

It would seem the Holy Spirit isn’t doing a very good job, wouldn’t it?

I can’t exactly answer with certainty, now can I? I would have to guess it’s the same reason my Catholic friend disbelieves many of the CC teachings. It’s almost impossible to go against one’s conscience (hence the thread title ). I didn’t always believe everything the CC taught either, but I believed the authority of the church and so submitted to its teachings regardless. NFP/contraception was a HUGE issue for my husband and I. Insisting upon trusting the church has never gone over well between my husband and I. Over time I came to understand why ABC is wrong and now I have that conviction regarless of the church’s teaching. Anyway, now that my trust in the authority of the church is shaken, my convictions (some I had repressed, others I’ve gained in my individual reading of Scripture) are weighing very heavily upon me.

LT, I don’t think it matters what authority people follow - there will always be those who aren’t completely open to seeing the truth. And those who truly do seek?..Try as we may, our nature always gets in the way. As I’ve said, my imperfections are just as likely to cause me to err in my judgement of the church as they are to cause me to err in my interpretation of scripture. I think this is why there are so many denominations, and I believe, like St. Therese of Lisieux, that b/c God is just and merciful, he will take into account all our imperfections, life experiences, etc. that hinder us from making wise decisions. It is b/c God is just that He is merciful. Perhaps it is necessary, b/c of human nature, that we have a smorgasborg of denominations (?)

Who can you trust completely to give you the truth, the truth whether you can understand it or not?

Right now, no one. But with God all things are possible I can only be as honest with myself and before God as humanly possible, and pray for His guidance. If I’m anxious that I’m going to get it wrong, then I’m not trusting in God’s providence.

I’ve had equally disturbing doubts in the past about my prayer life (as a Catholic). Today I still can’t accept that the things I perceived then as answers and signs from God were indeed so. I know if I were to leave the CC I would still be plagued with doubt. I know this for sure.

There is no end to the doubt either. Last night I had a dream I was looking at a stained-glass window and voices were telling me to look at the fruits of the church (art, sacramentals, etc…). I woke up a bit perplexed. At first I thought: Hmmm… message from heaven? But I immediately had doubts and wrote this big thing about idolatry and how these things are the product of man and not God - God has given us His creation to lift our hearts to Him and it is idolatry when man goes about his own way of creating things in that attempt, blah blah blah… I don’t know which of these two things is from God (if either is). I prayed fervently before I went to sleep that God would stop letting the Devil torment me and yet I still awoke with this dilemma. I’d be inclined to believe the thing about the idolatry b/c I know how careful the early church was in trying to avoid even the appearance of evil - and very careful to avoid idolatry. But I know the church’s teaching about the incarnation etc. and now its ok to have these things… Do I believe it? Or is it just an excuse to pardon the practice? I really have no idea.

So, where does that leave me? Completely dependent on God. It makes one humble to recognize their own insufficiency. I believe this is why God has allowed me to be so plagued with doubt the past several years. I could use a good dose of humility .

Stay humble and open-minded.

I’m trying to. Heck, sometimes I wonder if the Buddha was right. (thankfully, that thought doesn’t come about very often.)(no offense to Buddhists )

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

One afterthought I am sure you are aware of but anyway, either way you go you are going to feel conflicted, torn, and under trial. Our Catholic faith holds that such trials are often the workings God in us, they are gifts, and are good.

Finally, if you choose to leave the Church, promise to do one thing. Come back for old times sake to Church when it is quiet and you are alone. Look towards the tabernacle and the red candle that you don’t approach anymore. Don’t rationalize or try to understand. Now, you may not want to think He is there. You may be 99.9% sure He isn’t there. But, just but, …what if He is? JoyToBeCatholic, what if He is?

HA! You seem to know me… The night I decided to leave the Catholic church (it was almost exactly one year ago today in fact) I happened to be at my parish that night b/c there was a parent meeting for 1st communicants (my son was making his 1st comm. last year). I went up to the tabernacle for a visit (with very little faith) and was actually bothered as I knelt there to notice that NO ONE else had come up to visit there too. All those people, in a CAtholic church, and not one would pay Jesus a visit! I don’t know why, but I was so appauled that I went to the franciscan monastery (where there is perpetual adoration, but they aren’t so close to me, and actually, the doors lock really early at night) to visit there when i was done at the parish. When I got there, of course the doors were locked. I tried the bell but no one came. Outside the door there was what looked like human excrement on the ground (this is in the middle of a big city). I thought “even today people continue to abuse Him…”. As I walked to my car, disappointed, I prayed that someone would come along and unlock the door - an adorer perhaps… and soon along came a woman with a key. She wasn’t too happy about letting me in b/c I wasn’t a scheduled adorer, but let me in anyway. I just prayed “I don’t know if I believe you are really here or not, but if you are, I’m sorry you are so abused.” and then in my head was “and are you going to abandon me too?”. Ouch.

Would you believe I went to mass this Saturday evening (didn’t receive communion of course) and actually had a desire to receive communion? I was a little surprised, but maybe being Palm Sunday and all… an association thing. On the other hand, maybe it was genuine. I don’t know. Yet that very night all my doubt was there again.

I’m not giving up. Maybe I’m just looking for a door to lead me out of this darkness. Until then, I can’t help but argue in the hope that I will find my way out - even if it’s back to the CC.

Jeremy, I’ve read it all, but I can’t now respond. I’m bushed and my daughter isn’t feeling so great. I’ll try again tomorrow…

Bless You

 

[Mannyfit75]

Joy,

Keep this in mind, if you leave the Catholic Church. You will NEVER RECEIVED the Real Presence of Jesus Christ again unless you remain Catholic.

Protestant don’t have Real Presence because most of them don’t have valid Sacraments. While some claim to have Real Presence they are not valid since they broke from Rome.

Jesus Christ desires you to received him. You need to go to Confession ask for advise from your spiritual advisor. I also have one question. Do you not believe that Jesus is truly Present in the Blessed Sacrament?

 

[ltravis]

JoyTBC, its heartening to hear you are still drawn to the Eucharist in some manner. It sounds like you really believe, or want to believe, that He is really present there. That is what you have to hang on to right now. Community is good. Witness and fruitful works are most helpful. Authority - from somewhere - is necessary. But in the end its Christ. He is our bridegroom and his gift of himself in the Eucharist is our marriage embrace, the closest we can come to him. Do you focus on him first and let him lead you to his mystical body, the community? Or do you look to the community first and try to let it lead you to him? It is not out of obligation or comfort or reassurance that we partake of his body. It is purely love love of him, not instead of anyone else of course, but above anyone else. Finally, I will be selfish. I can tell you have a lot to offer. I and the rest of the church are most definitely better off with you as a part of it.

LT

 

[lak611]

I and the rest of the church are most definitely better off with you as a part of it.

LT

:bible1:

 

[WynCatholic]

Dear ‘Joy to be Catholic’, I was a baptist/anabaptist for 47 yrs. I was part of a wonderful MennoniteBrethren church until God opened my eyes to the scriptures. AntiCatholic was my mothers milk and it filled the air of our very theological home.

I think you are not reading the scriptures enough.

Listening constantly to the NASB and NIV (delightfully biased against Catholic Teaching in their translation choices, BTW) led me into the catholic church. I admit, my remembered training in Greek, Hebrew and exegesis helped somewhat, because I remembered the choices in translation that I would make, and the constant avoiding the shoals of Catholicism.
Here’s my journey in a nutshell or two. It took, looking back on it, about a year. Mind you, for 9-10 months of that journey I was just studying God, his Word, and discovering ways to reach out to those in ‘dead religious structures’. It was only in the last 2 months of that year that I realized that the truths I discovered implicit within the Scriptures were best expressed in Catholic teaching. I was angry, horrified, afraid, sad, dismayed. It was only my desire to do whatever Jesus would lead me to do that allowed me to follow Him into the Catholic church.
bedtime beckons, so a quick summary:

1. The infinite Creator God, who made this varied universe with personalities, joys, beauties, and goodnesses always revealed Himself incarnationally -through people, through people’s art, song, pictures, through Liturgy, through a people -Israel. Look at how the NT reflects on that. Realize that the NT continues that, and reflects that. realize that the NT and the OT continually need to be read in context with the community that created it. Important information essential to understanding the scriptures is not included within the scriptures. Not merely archeology and the grammar and lexicons and commentaries, but also the history of the community of faith (incl. theology)
2. That Incarnational pattern is especially manifest in the Word made flesh. Mediate upon the person of Jesus, that He, the Word, never wrote one 'cept in the sand], that He, the Word, did not merely do the act of redemption through the cross and grave and resurrection, the NT records and the OT anticipates that He established His church, He taught His apostles.
3. that incarnational pattern is manifest in you and me. We are in union with Christ. Listen to all the NT writers describe us as with, in Christ. This is not merely a theological construct, but a saving reality… that demand the church and its sacraments … also incarnational manifestations of the Infinite creator God.
   Consider how the NT describes baptism and the Lord’s Table.

4.that incarnational pattern continues within the church, its Liturgies and prayers and its sacramentals [statues, rosaries, relics, and Holy Saints [who live in Union with Christ with us who also live in union with Christ]

5.The incarnational pattern continues also within the teaching of the church especially most controversally nowdays with Mary, with chastity and openness to life [non contraceptive mentality and practice], with the value of celebacy, the the value of human sexuality and marriage between man and women, the value of children, of social justice, the value of suffering.
When you read and listen to the NT and the OT you cannot escape how catholic it all is. It also makes it easier to interpret and understand also.

Be blessed in His peace
as you humble yourself in His love,
and rejoice in His truth,
and walk in His way.

Wayne

 

[jemfinch]

Wow, between this and the other threads, I’m overwhelved right now. I’ve read everything posted at this point but I’ve put hours today into this already and am going to have to call it quits - at least for a while.

Good! I need the rest Let me note, though, that I post so voluminously because you seem authentic in your search for truth. The fact that I’m spending my time to post so much is a positive statement about you, even while it might be very negative toward some of the ideas you’re entertaining.

I can’t so easily just accept the church’s claims no matter how historical and persuasive they may seem.

I liked an approach I saw in another thread (by “AlmostCatholic”: even looking at history as interpreted by Protestants, a few things become very clear:

1. The early Church fought what it believed to be heresy wherever it found it.
2. Many of the leaders and members of the early Church died for the faith.
3. For many Catholic doctrinal distinctives there is no dissent recorded within the first several centuries of the Church’s existence.

These facts alone should confirm much of the Catholic Church’s claims, and you can get these facts even from Protestant historians. You don’t have to approach history from a Catholic perspective to see its defense of the Catholic Church: you can approach from a markedly adversarial perspective. Investigating the historical claims of Catholics doesn’t require any more than investigating any other historical claims.

I know there are people like this in the CAtholic church. I’m not saying there aren’t. I just don’t know of any personally. And in light of the possibility that things may not be as they seem, and the church may not be all it claims to be, I may have to make a choice based on good fruit.

When it came to leadership, Jesus didn’t tell the Jews to make the decision based on fruit. He told them to make the decision based on authority, genuine, God-derived authority. He said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you–but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” He continued in Matthew 23 to describe their bad fruit, but He did not command the Jews to disobey their God-given authority, genuinely derived from the authority given Moses by God. Fruit is not always indicative of genuine authority, unfortunately. That’s why James said, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” That’s why the author of Hebrews, when emphasizing that we should obey our genuine leaders, says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.”

Jeremy

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Joy,

Keep this in mind, if you leave the Catholic Church. You will NEVER RECEIVED the Real Presence of Jesus Christ again unless you remain Catholic.

Protestant don’t have Real Presence because most of them don’t have valid Sacraments. While some claim to have Real Presence they are not valid since they broke from Rome.

Jesus Christ desires you to received him. You need to go to Confession ask for advise from your spiritual advisor. I also have one question. Do you not believe that Jesus is truly Present in the Blessed Sacrament?

I cannot say with certainty that I do, but I also cannot completely deny the possibility that He is.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

JoyTBC, its heartening to hear you are still drawn to the Eucharist in some manner. It sounds like you really believe, or want to believe, that He is really present there. That is what you have to hang on to right now. Community is good. Witness and fruitful works are most helpful. Authority - from somewhere - is necessary. But in the end its Christ. He is our bridegroom and his gift of himself in the Eucharist is our marriage embrace, the closest we can come to him. Do you focus on him first and let him lead you to his mystical body, the community?

Yes, I do. I wouldn’t be here if not. I would much prefer to be a Mennonite, not b/c of the community, but b/c of my doubts about the Catholic faith in light of Scripture

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I and the rest of the church are most definitely better off with you as a part of it.

Some things look much better written than they do in real life

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Good! I need the rest Let me note, though, that I post so voluminously because you seem authentic in your search for truth. The fact that I’m spending my time to post so much is a positive statement about you, even while it might be very negative toward some of the ideas you’re entertaining.

I realize that, and I do appreciate it. I’m just too overwhelmed and time-restrained to answer right away sometimes. I will attempt to go back now and look at it again.

I liked an approach I saw in another thread (by “AlmostCatholic”:

I just made a contribution on that thread about history. It’s a good thread - I haven’t had time to look at all the responses yet though…

even looking at history as interpreted by Protestants, a few things become very clear:

1. The early Church fought what it believed to be heresy wherever it found it.
2. Many of the leaders and members of the early Church died for the faith.
3. For many Catholic doctrinal distinctives there is no dissent recorded within the first several centuries of the Church’s existence.

Considering that, I also don’t see positive voluminous proof that what the church later pronounced as true (via councils and such) was what the early christians believed. I mean, overall, we don’t really have that much written from the early church. I do see seeds of those beliefs in some of the ECF writings, but I have no way of knowing for sure that it was orthodox without looking to THE most historical record (the Bible)

When it came to leadership, Jesus didn’t tell the Jews to make the decision based on fruit. He told them to make the decision based on authority, genuine, God-derived authority. He said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you–but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” He continued in Matthew 23 to describe their bad fruit, but He did not command the Jews to disobey their God-given authority, genuinely derived from the authority given Moses by God. Fruit is not always indicative of genuine authority, unfortunately. That’s why James said, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” That’s why the author of Hebrews, when emphasizing that we should obey our genuine leaders, says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.”

There is a huge difference in how I see the NT model of the new covenant/kingdom/church/priesthood, etc… and how the CC sees it. I do see your/the CC, p.o.v., however, I also see a more spiritual view of it. In fact, yesterday I called the pastor at the Mennonite church and asked if we could discuss the diffrences. I’m going to review some of the Scott Hahn stuff on covenants, and also (can’t remember her name - the Jewish convert from “hosehold of faith”) before we start. To be fair, I want to refresh my Catholic perspective, play the devil’s advocate with the non-Catholic perspective, and see if I can make a better evaluation. (see, i don’t just argue with Catholics )