The first is that after I converted, I got heavily involved in various ministries in my parish and got a lot of criticism from a small group of long time parishioners and this, together with other matters of parish politics, encouraged me to be less involved, to give up most of my ministries, to stop attending Daily Mass and generally to dial back my spiritual life to little more than the minimum simply to avoid all the stress it was causing me. Others in my parish have taken a similar approach incidentally, its not just me.
Show me a church and I’ll show you a cliquey ingroup. I would suspect it might be even worse in Protestant churches. I know both Presbyterian and Lutheran ministers, and they both have stories. But I know what you mean–the same people are ushers, lectors, members of various committees, parish councils, etc. etc. And the assumption is that they “have” to do it because no one else wants to. That’s nonsense of course, and there’s no reason a parish couldn’t put term limits on all these positions, plus limit people to only 1 or 2 activities per person.
The second major issue for me was Amoris Laetitia. When the document came out, I was as unsure as anyone on what it was actually saying, but once various jurisdictions actually started implementing the footnote, I started to question whether the church really had the authority it claimed, whether the Pope was really infallible, whether the concept of the Magisterium might not just be an invention of man, since it is clear to me that the church (at least in some parts of the world) is leading people astray. My conclusion, as much as I can reach one, is that these concepts really have no basis in Scripture.
Well, we could go back to “What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven…” So there you go.
But of course it’s not so simple. I would highly recommend the Wikipedia article on “magisterium.” They have a little chart–there are different levels. Contrary to what a lot of people think, the Church is not authoritarian. It has always depended on consensus and councils. And, of course, ultimately you have to follow your own conscience.
Clearly opinion is divided on Amoris Laetitia. The opinion of Cardinal Muller (and me) is that you shouldn’t change the public rules, you should make private exceptions. (I always go back to the analogy of a law saying you have to stop at a red light. You might have all sorts of valid reasons for not stopping. The police on the spot or the judge later on will decide how valid your reasons were on an individual basis. But to change the law and say you don’t have to stop at the red light simply invites misunderstandings and chaos.) Notice that the final report was written in a very ambiguous way; this was not an accident. Each side can interpret certain sections in its own way. So feel free to disagree. You’re in good company.
As for infallibility, again, turn to Wikipedia. A lot of people, including Catholics, think that anything the pope says is infallible. Far from it. He has his own opinion, and since he’s the pope, we need to pay attention to it. But it’s just his own opinion. He can be wrong. And although he can infallibly decree a doctrine, he’s only done it once (Assumption of Mary) and perhaps (authorities aren’t sure!!) a couple other times throughout history prior to Vatican I. And of course even in the case of the Assumption, it wasn’t a new doctrine. It had been a consensus belief of the Church all along. He was just formalizing it.
Lastly as a result I have started to study the works of noted protestant theologians and find I agree with a lot of what they had to say. Luther for instance criticised the idea that a man can merit anything before the creator of the universe, and I have to agree with him.
I think we all agree with “a lot of what they [Protestant theologians] have to say.” I read Protestant (and Jewish!) theologians too, and they often have very good insights. If Luther tacked up his 95 theses today, I don’t think it would cause much of a stir. As for the issue of man meriting salvation, etc. this was an issue for St. Paul and has continued to be an issue. My own little analogy is that humanity was locked in a room. Christ opened the door. Whether we choose to walk through the door or not is up to us. Could mankind walk through the door without Christ having opened it? No. Just because the door is open does that mean that everyone chooses to walk through it? No.
