What teachings would the Catholic Church have to drop for you to be a catholic

[ConfusedTim]

There seems to be so much in common across all Christians that i wondered what would need to be changed about the Catholic church before you would consider converting e.g. stop the focus on Mary as key for many but what else would need to change…

 

[mardukm]

Dear ConfusedTim,

There seems to be so much in common across all Christians that i wondered what would need to be changed about the Catholic church before you would consider converting e.g. stop the focus on Mary as key for many but what else would need to change…

Ironically, this is a very confusing question. If the Catholic Church officially drops one of her “big T” Traditions, she would no longer be “the Catholic Church” and the person who would join such a Church would no longer be joining the Catholic Church anyway.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[1ke]

There seems to be so much in common across all Christians that i wondered what would need to be changed about the Catholic church before you would consider converting e.g. stop the focus on Mary as key for many but what else would need to change…

Ah, Tim, the Church teaches what is not what other would like them to teach.

The Church cannot change her teachings. Those who do not understand them or agree with them are the ones in error, not the Church.

So, I don’t see the point of your post. These things are not up for debate, vote, discussion, etc. The Doctrines of the Church are because Christ is.

 

[promethius]

Dear ConfusedTim,

Ironically, this is a very confusing question. If the Catholic Church officially drops one of her “big T” Traditions, she would no longer be “the Catholic Church” and the person who would join such a Church would no longer be joining the Catholic Church anyway.

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm is right. If the catholic church WERE to drop one of it’s dogmatic teachings just to woo believers then I’d be signing up for another church. That’s a major selling point for me anyway: that in nearly 2000 years the church has not once changed a dogmatic teaching.

On the other hand, issues of discipline could be changed… for example, if someone said “institute married priesthood in the same manner that the orthodox church has” then I’d be okay with something like that.

 

[jesusluv]

That isn’t what he is asking. He is asking non-Catholics to answer to know what it would take.

 

[Publisher]

For me to even begin to consider becoming Catholic, the idea of a “sacrificial” priesthood that has the “power” to perform rituals on my behalf before God to obtain “grace” would need to be dispensed with.

 

[Ella]

I am what is termed a Cafeteria Catholic. Getting me out of the cafeteria line would be attained by two things:

Permitting oral sex in married couples - iow, the man does not HAVE to finish his act in the vagina of his wife.
Permitting non-abortive birth control methods i.e. condom and spermicide.

 

[1ke]

That isn’t what he is asking. He is asking non-Catholics to answer to know what it would take.

A pointless endeavor, since the Church has no power to act on any of their desires.

In fact, more than pointless, it’s harmful. You see how Ella expressed it. Ella is in the “cafeteria line” and refuses to get out. Ella’s solution is that the Church change Her teachings on X,Y, and Z. Then Ella will be satisfied because the Church has conformed to Ella’s idea of how things should be.

It is the other way around. The Church has the Truth. Ella does not. Ella should instead be striving to get out of the cafeteria line by recognizing it is not the Church that is in error and in striving to (1) obey the Church even while not understanding or agreeing and (2) understand, internalize, and embrace what the Church teaches through prayer and study.

 

[Ella]

A pointless endeavor, since the Church has no power to act on any of their desires.

In fact, more than pointless, it’s harmful. You see how Ella expressed it. Ella is in the “cafeteria line” and refuses to get out. Ella’s solution is that the Church change Her teachings on X,Y, and Z. Then Ella will be satisfied because the Church has conformed to Ella’s idea of how things should be.

It is the other way around. The Church has the Truth. Ella does not. Ella should instead be striving to get out of the cafeteria line by recognizing it is not the Church that is in error and in striving to (1) obey the Church even while not understanding or agreeing and (2) understand, internalize, and embrace what the Church teaches through prayer and study.

I hear you, 1ke. And in fact I am not sexually active, I am not married, so I am ‘obeying the Church’. But I do not agree with the Church. I’m open to being convinced. But I am not going to lie and say that I agree.

 

[gcnuss]

Since none of my fellow non-Catholics has ventured into this minefield, I’ll throw caution to the winds and venture an answer or two.

First and foremost, the basics of Christian faith as set forth in the three ecumenical creeds are not a problem. As a Lutheran, I believe them with all my heart.

Second, with regard to the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, I don’t regard them as articles of faith. Despite that, I don’t find them objectionable as pious opinions. I just don’t understand them to be essential to my faith as a Christian. Given that, I would probably be seen as a “cafeteria Catholic” were I to convert.

Third, and last for now, as a Lutheran pastor I do not believe, and cannot accept, the Catholic position that the Eucharist, as celebrated in the Lutheran Church, is invalid. By the same token, I do not believe that my ordination is equally invalid because it does not fall within the Catholic Church’s definition of validity. I don’t expect the Catholic Church to change its teachings on these subjects, but they remain an obstacle to my possible conversion.

Having said that, there is much about the Catholic Church that I admire – even a few things that I envy. And, I certainly wouldn’t hang around this forum if I didn’t find much to challenge and to support my faith.

 

[NDfan]

Mardukm is right. If the catholic church WERE to drop one of it’s dogmatic teachings just to woo believers then I’d be signing up for another church. That’s a major selling point for me anyway: that in nearly 2000 years the church has not once changed a dogmatic teaching.

On the other hand, issues of discipline could be changed… for example, if someone said “institute married priesthood in the same manner that the orthodox church has” then I’d be okay with something like that.

I would beg to differ here. Although I wouldn’t expect you to agree. The church did not teach transubstantiation nor did the concept of the mass exist in the early church. We also don’t see any teachings or devotion to Mary until the 4th - 5th century. This is where the argument will always fall off the cliff because Catholics and non-Catholics will continue to disagree.

I personally don’t feel the church should ever change its teachings to appease anyone. The real question then becomes what are the true teachings that existed 2000 years ago and can agreement ever be established on that point.

PEACE

 

[Protestant101]

There seems to be so much in common across all Christians that i wondered what would need to be changed about the Catholic church before you would consider converting e.g. stop the focus on Mary as key for many but what else would need to change…

Personally; I would not want to become a Catholic for any reason. There is not so much in common with Catholics and the rest of the Christian world as some would have us believe. They would have to change so much that indeed, they would not even seem Catholic anymore, if they would do what it takes to get more to join their denomination.

 

[adelore]

Since none of my fellow non-Catholics has ventured into this minefield, I’ll throw caution to the winds and venture an answer or two.

First and foremost, the basics of Christian faith as set forth in the three ecumenical creeds are not a problem. As a Lutheran, I believe them with all my heart.

Second, with regard to the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, I don’t regard them as articles of faith. Despite that, I don’t find them objectionable as pious opinions. I just don’t understand them to be essential to my faith as a Christian. Given that, I would probably be seen as a “cafeteria Catholic” were I to convert.

Third, and last for now, as a Lutheran pastor I do not believe, and cannot accept, the Catholic position that the Eucharist, as celebrated in the Lutheran Church, is invalid. By the same token, I do not believe that my ordination is equally invalid because it does not fall within the Catholic Church’s definition of validity. I don’t expect the Catholic Church to change its teachings on these subjects, but they remain an obstacle to my possible conversion.

Having said that, there is much about the Catholic Church that I admire – even a few things that I envy. And, I certainly wouldn’t hang around this forum if I didn’t find much to challenge and to support my faith.

Pastor Gary,

I hope you don’t mind my asking, but since I’m not Lutheran and I visited the Lutheran Church back when I was in High School, (many many moons ago) I noticed (back then anyway) that the Lutherans and Catholics “Church Service” or as we say “The Mass” had a lot in common.

My questions to you are not to start a “debate” but truely I am interested in learning what Lutherans believe.

1. How do the Lutherans see the “Eucharist”? Do they view or believe this is just in Memory (as some other Christian Churchs do) or do they believe that God truely does turn it into the body and blood of Jesus as the Catholic Church believes. (granted we can’t see the mystical change that takes place, but we do believe it.)
2. How often does the Lutheran Church have Communion?
3. How do Lutherans “view” or “believe” the story about Mary? Her birth, the Holy Spirit upon her, and do they believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus?

Again my questions are not to cause a “debate”, I’m just wondering how the Lutheran Church believes. I like to try and understand how others believe, although I may not always believe the same thing, it still helps to “listen to” and “respect” how others believe.

I truely believe that if more “Christian Religons” took the time to “understand and listen” to each other, truely we could make bring more “souls” to our Heavenly Father. Instead today many Christians Religions are too busy “bashing” each other and not taking the time to truely “Learn” from each other.

 

[gcnuss]

Pastor Gary,

1. How do the Lutherans see the “Eucharist”? Do they view or believe this is just in Memory (as some other Christian Churchs do) or do they believe that God truely does turn it into the body and blood of Jesus as the Catholic Church believes. (granted we can’t see the mystical change that takes place, but we do believe it.)

We believe that in the Eucharist we receive the true Body and Blood of our Lord. How the bread and wine become the Body and Blood is a mystery to us but we have no doubt that Christ comes to us under the forms of bread and wine.

1. How often does the Lutheran Church have Communion?

That depends on individual congregations although the teaching of the church is that weekly communion is the norm. However, for a variety of reasons, this is not universally observed.

1. How do Lutherans “view” or “believe” the story about Mary? Her birth, the Holy Spirit upon her, and do they believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus?

Mary’s birth is not really an issue. Certainly, we believe that the Holy Spirit came upon her and she conceived and gave birth to Jesus while being a virgin.

I truely believe that if more “Christian Religons” took the time to “understand and listen” to each other, truely we could make bring more “souls” to our Heavenly Father. Instead today many Christians Religions are too busy “bashing” each other and not taking the time to truely “Learn” from each other.

Amen to that.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I don’t think the Catholic Church should change anything, on my account. If, in an alternate universe, the Catholic Church had never defined Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility, it would be much easier for me to become Catholic. It is difficult for me to accept the concept that these were always believed, just not yet defined, when they are not and were not believed by the Orthodox. I am also a little concerned about what teachings might be dogmatically defined in the future.

 

[PJM]

Personally; I would not want to become a Catholic for any reason. There is not so much in common with Catholics and the rest of the Christian world as some would have us believe. They would have to change so much that indeed, they would not even seem Catholic anymore, if they would do what it takes to get more to join their denomination.

I find your responce very candid and from my Catholic perspective a bit confusing.

Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have found it prudent to address the issue of “truth.” Behind this need to define “truth” is the reality that not only seems to oppose truth itself, but even common logic.

We live in a time when personal choice regularly trumps both reason and truth. It’s only wrong if I say that it’s wrong is prevelant thought and teaching in todays society.

But can it be? (Putting asside for the moment, should it be?)

Pope Benedict in his acceptace talk itmediately after being installed as our 264th Consecitive Pope, in an unbroaken span of 2000 years, shared these words.

"There cannot be you truth and my truth, for this would mean that their is NO TRUTH."

So are we to understand that TRUTH is but a myth? 1 + 1 does not equal 2… always and everytime? The law of “gravity” can be controlled and altered. The sun does not have to rise and set?

So if truth does exist, where should one seek it? and why must one seek it? Or is that a subjective truth too?

Why was their only One Church for 1500 years? What has the Catholic Church been in existance from the time that Jesus lived on earth? Why after 2000 years on continual existence, is the Catholic Church, even after about 500 years of other Christian denominations (much easier to belong to, and to get along with) why is the Catholic Church still the largest Chrsitian Church on Planet earth?

Does truth matter? can their be your truth and my truth?

Love and prayers:heart:

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Why was their only One Church for 1500 years?

People bring this up quite a bit, but it simply isn’t true. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had split approximately 500 years before the Protestant Reformation. Even before that split, there had been others, divisions which remain to this day.

It is convenient for Catholic apologists to say that before Martin Luther, there was one united Church, free from dissent and division. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

I am not saying anything against the Catholic Church in this post. It may very well be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I just think people should refrain from claiming that Christianity was one united communion before 1517.

 

[ConfusedTim]

Dear ConfusedTim,

Ironically, this is a very confusing question. If the Catholic Church officially drops one of her “big T” Traditions, she would no longer be “the Catholic Church” and the person who would join such a Church would no longer be joining the Catholic Church anyway.

Blessings,
Marduk

I am not very good with words so apologies for the way i asked this if it confused people. I am not saying that i think the Catholic Church should change any core teachings, but there must be some things about the church that if they were not there would lead more people to think about it. For example, the infallability of the Pope,

 

[ConfusedTim]

Personally; I would not want to become a Catholic for any reason. There is not so much in common with Catholics and the rest of the Christian world as some would have us believe. They would have to change so much that indeed, they would not even seem Catholic anymore, if they would do what it takes to get more to join their denomination.

I was working under the impression that Jesus was the central figure in all christian churches and so therefore we must have 95 % at least in common with one another.

I also belive the Jesus is disappointed that his church is split into different groups each of which seems to try to identify its own version of the truth.

Do you belive that Jesus would want us to remain apart forever and not even try to find common ground?

 

[ralphinal]

I would bet that if Protestant 101 examined most other Protestant Denominations, he would find that the majority of them are more like Catholics than his denomination.

This is actually an interesting thread. At least to me it is.