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

[Publisher]

I think that’s fair to ask.those who named what they don’t agree with the following: Why don’t you accept certain teachings? Is it because of a genuine question or is it because of selfishness and pride? Is it the Church’s fault, or yours?

I realize for many Catholics the main reason many Protestants are not Catholic is because they believe we are prideful and selfish…it must make it easier to accept that others simply truly have not examined their faith against Catholic belief and so the ONLY real valid reason they would reject Catholic teaching…is pride, arrogance and selfishness…qualities which we all share…I wonder…if many Catholics are Catholic because of pride and selfishness?

I am not Catholic for many reasons…the first being I do not believe it’s teachings. I do not believe in it’s sacramental theology nor in it’s belief in a sacradotal priesthood.

I have studied church history…not only from a religious point of view…but from a secular point of view. I have taken classes on biblical criticism and how the scriptures we hold came about.

Christianity was not the homogenous whole as portrayed by many Christian churches in those first few centuries…in fact it was more fragmented and diverse in belief with one another than it is today. Almost without exception each of our respective faith traditions stem from the faction that eventually gained dominance as the “true” expression of Christian faith. This faction claimed to be…“orthodox” in it’s belief and developed it’s own religious “mythology” to bolster those claims.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD the struggle within Judaism came to a head as to which was the true expression the Jewish faith…the Pharisee tradition or the new Christian tradition…the struggle produced two separate religions, Judaism and Christianity…both having their roots in Israel’s history…yet both different…the Pharisee tradition had to “reform” Jewish belief to accommodate the lack of a temple and priesthood, which resided through the Sadducees…who…disappeared with the destruction of Jerusalem…the Pharisee/Rabbinical tradition gained prominence among the Diaspora…Christianity gained as an alternate of Jewish belief among the Gentiles…previously the Gentiles appreciated the belief in the One God…but the rite of circumcision was the deal breaker with most of the “God Fearers”…Paul’s claim that the Christian branch of Judaism was the “fullfillment” of Jewish belief and a simple ritual of water baptism supplanted the painful and dangerous rite of circumcision…Christianity became “Gentile”…Judaism remained “Jewish”.

Christianity had it’s own struggles in those first centuries sorting out who had the “authentic” message of Jesus of Nazareth…a dominant group emerged and eventually “held” it’s claim through the conversion of the Roman emperor…and all disidents and other factions all but disappeared.

Am I prideful and selfish because I am Quaker? Perhaps…but no more prideful and selfish than those who are Catholic…or Methodist…or Presbyterian…or Orthodox…or…

My faith “works” for me…it has brought meaning to my life…just as yours has to you.

 

[Veritas248]

I realize for many Catholics the main reason many Protestants are not Catholic is because they believe we are prideful and selfish…it must make it easier to accept that others simply truly have not examined their faith against Catholic belief and so the ONLY real valid reason they would reject Catholic teaching…is pride, arrogance and selfishness…qualities which we all share…I wonder…if many Catholics are Catholic because of pride and selfishness?

I am not Catholic for many reasons…the first being I do not believe it’s teachings. I do not believe in it’s sacramental theology nor in it’s belief in a sacradotal priesthood.

I have studied church history…not only from a religious point of view…but from a secular point of view. I have taken classes on biblical criticism and how the scriptures we hold came about.

Christianity was not the homogenous whole as portrayed by many Christian churches in those first few centuries…in fact it was more fragmented and diverse in belief with one another than it is today. Almost without exception each of our respective faith traditions stem from the faction that eventually gained dominance as the “true” expression of Christian faith. This faction claimed to be…“orthodox” in it’s belief and developed it’s own religious “mythology” to bolster those claims.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD the struggle within Judaism came to a head as to which was the true expression the Jewish faith…the Pharisee tradition or the new Christian tradition…the struggle produced two separate religions, Judaism and Christianity…both having their roots in Israel’s history…yet both different…the Pharisee tradition had to “reform” Jewish belief to accommodate the lack of a temple and priesthood, which resided through the Sadducees…who…disappeared with the destruction of Jerusalem…the Pharisee/Rabbinical tradition gained prominence among the Diaspora…Christianity gained as an alternate of Jewish belief among the Gentiles…previously the Gentiles appreciated the belief in the One God…but the rite of circumcision was the deal breaker with most of the “God Fearers”…Paul’s claim that the Christian branch of Judaism was the “fullfillment” of Jewish belief and a simple ritual of water baptism supplanted the painful and dangerous rite of circumcision…Christianity became “Gentile”…Judaism remained “Jewish”.

Christianity had it’s own struggles in those first centuries sorting out who had the “authentic” message of Jesus of Nazareth…a dominant group emerged and eventually “held” it’s claim through the conversion of the Roman emperor…and all disidents and other factions all but disappeared.

Am I prideful and selfish because I am Quaker? Perhaps…but no more prideful and selfish than those who are Catholic…or Methodist…or Presbyterian…or Orthodox…or…

My faith “works” for me…it has brought meaning to my life…just as yours has to you.

You should know that I wasn’t accusing anyone of selfishness.

All the things you mention about the early Church…I know all that myself. Which is why I’ve remained Catholic. I see the conflict as a maturation process, guided by the Holy Spirit in fortifying the Church against false teaching. The fact that those other “churches” faded away is for me proof that they did not have the protection of the Spirit. My faith in the Holy Spirit is stronger than my doubt in humankind. Even when extreme sinners took powerful positions in the Church, I sincerely believe that the Spirit was there, protecting the Deposit of Faith from the heresies of men. In my eyes, turning away from the Church because of an error in my understanding is equivalent to saying to God," I don’t think you have the power to protect Your Church from heresy.", which is something I will not do. Am I selfish? Yes, to an extent I am. Am I selfish in being Catholic? No. I may not understand everything about the Church, but I learned a long time ago that some things have to be taken on Faith.

 

[Publisher]

“some things must be taken on faith”…I agree…I have faith that God is in charge…“Faith” isn’t a set of beliefs in doctrine or history…Faith is something we live…not something we believe…I have faith in this God who has revealed Himself in Jesus of Nazareth…how I respond to Him by my conduct and way of life and how I treat those I meet who are made in the Image of God is what faith is about.

 

[Peter_J]

Not true. Saint Augustine maintained that all unbaptized babies went to hell. St Thomas Aquinas taught that original sin kept people from heaven and the babies would be in Limbo, a form of Hell. So don’t insinuate that the idea that original sin damned people was invented in the Reformation. The protestant conception of original sin comes directly from the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

Exactly. This exclusion from the beatific vsion (ie heaven) is the very definition of damnation. The reasoning of Aquinas was that no one who was unbaptized can go to heaven. However, the pains and punishments of hell are proportionate to the degree of a sinner (ie a murderer is more severly punished than a drunkard). But what about babies who are stained with original sin (and thus cannot go to heaven) yet have commited no actual sins. So Limbo was born. It is a state of hell that is seperated from God and heaven yet there is no other punishment. It was a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on traditional Roman catholic principles. Pity the Vatican debunked it.

I was with you there right up till that last sentence.

 

[Peter_J]

I think the Roman Catholic Church (and many Protestant denominations) have gone beyond the Bible and the beliefs of the Fathers in defining hell as a place of eternal torment, influenced I think more by Plato than Scripture. The Jewish view and that of first and second century Christians such as Clement and Ignatius was clearly different. For the early Christians, the choice facing mankind was not between eternal bliss and eternal suffering, but rather eternal life versus perishing of the soul (e.g. John 3:16). The exact nature of Hell, purgatory, judgement, and the Second Death were debateable to the Early Church Fathers, but in almost no case involved eternal torment.

Orthodoxy appears comfortable in not trying to over define Hell and purgatory.

Thank you for clarifying your meaning. I was wondering the same thing Ralphinal asked.

I actually find the Orthodox Church more attractive in terms of doctrine, since they don’t have many of the above problems: transubstantiation not defined as such, assumption not a dogma, don’t accept sinlessness of Mary or Immaculate Conception, don’t accept the Redemtrix titles, don’t have the same dogmatic view of hell or purgatory and don’t have the pope.

I think that is mostly correct about the Orthodox Church, but I would say rather that they accept the sinlessness of Mary as a non-dogmatic teaching.

 

[Cinette]

Yes I have been told my only hope is “invincible ignorance”…which I embrace happily.

My point, I have no need of a “priest” performing any ritual or sacrament on my behalf…that a “priesthood” exists other than the “priesthood of all believers” is what I cannot accept. The work of Christ as High Priest is the only Priest I need to act on my behalf.

What do you have to say of Matt 16:15-19 and what about when Jesus said to the apostles “Whose sins you retain they are retained, whose sins you forgive they are forgiven” (not in that order - am writing from memory). Do you reject the ordained priesthood? Do you reject Jesus’ intention when he established His Church? It would be a pity if you allow prejudice to influence you and ignore the scriptures. You would be doing yourself a disservice. It would be very sad indeed.

 

[Never_A_Sheep]

For me to come back to the Catholic Church, and not as a “cafeteria Catholic”, here is what would have to change. (And yes, I know, it won’t change, there’s no need to debate this.)

1. The centuries-long obsession with anything even remotely sexual being mortally sinful unless you’re married and trying to have a baby would have to go away. Aren’t there more deeply harmful things to worry about, like domestic violence and drug abuse, for instance?
2. The sheer volume of bureaucracy and red tape associated with Church policy would have to be greatly reduced. Yes, I understand and respect the idea of maintaining tradition, but cultures and traditions change, it’s part of the human condition. A system of faith that does not address this doesn’t work for me.
3. Confession. I don’t have a problem with voluntarily going to a priest to tell him things I feel I need forgiveness for, but if God is everywhere and knows all, why do I need to confess all my darkest deeds to a human being in order to be forgiven?

 

[ralphinal]

For me to come back to the Catholic Church, and not as a “cafeteria Catholic”, here is what would have to change. (And yes, I know, it won’t change, there’s no need to debate this.)

1. The centuries-long obsession with anything even remotely sexual being mortally sinful unless you’re married and trying to have a baby would have to go away. Aren’t there more deeply harmful things to worry about, like domestic violence and drug abuse, for instance?
2. The sheer volume of bureaucracy and red tape associated with Church policy would have to be greatly reduced. Yes, I understand and respect the idea of maintaining tradition, but cultures and traditions change, it’s part of the human condition. A system of faith that does not address this doesn’t work for me.
3. Confession. I don’t have a problem with voluntarily going to a priest to tell him things I feel I need forgiveness for, but if God is everywhere and knows all, why do I need to confess all my darkest deeds to a human being in order to be forgiven?

So, if human culture decides that certain things are acceptable, must the Church accept that as “part of the human condition?”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So, if human culture decides that certain things are acceptable, must the Church accept that as “part of the human condition?”

We all grow in wisdom and understanding as human beings and as cultures. That is called progress. All tradition must be examined periodically to see if it still is useful and addresses what it was originated for. Jesus taught as much to the Pharisees again and again as he questioned their form over substance approach. He basically discarded practices that no longer had meaning.

 

[Never_A_Sheep]

We all grow in wisdom and understanding as human beings and as cultures. That is called progress. All tradition must be examined periodically to see if it still is useful and addresses what it was originated for. Jesus taught as much to the Pharisees again and again as he questioned their form over substance approach. He basically discarded practices that no longer had meaning.

Thank you so much for this response.

Also, raphinal, I did preface with “Yes, I know the Church isn’t going to change, there is no need to debate this.” It seems like people are missing the point of the original question. This is asking what’s keeping us, personally, from embracing Catholicism, not a debate over what the Church should or should not change.

 

[jlhargus]

A couple of other things come to mind, concerning whether or not a non-catholic, would consider becoming a catholic; 1) most or all of us do not recognize the pope as the evangelical leader of the entire Christian world,:

JL: Accepting the pope as universal pastor was one of the easiest for me. JN 21:14-17 Jesus saith to Peter three times do you love me more than these? Peter answered yes, Christ said feed my lambs, 2nd time Christ said feed my sheep, 3rd time feed my sheep. [Peter is to feed all Christ’s lambs and sheep in the kingdom=Church. Christ said Simon, do you love me more than these=other apostles, who Peter is also to feed. The brethren Peter is to strengthen. Lk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 And the Lord said, Simon, SIMON, behold, SATAN hath DESIRED TO HAVE YOU, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 BUT I HAVE PRAYED FOR THEE, THAT THY FAITH FAIL NOT: and WHEN thou art CONVERTED, STRENGTHEN THY BRETHREN. [Chosing twelve apostles, Jesus regenerates the Davidic Kingdom=twelve tribes of Israel, the new spiritual kingdom of Israel, in the world, but not of the world, he appoints the apostles as ministers to oversee spreading of the Kingdom on earth, with Peter Prime Minister, as delegated holder of the keys, Isa 22:19-22. A firm rock of truth and unity. Jesus, the King, holder of the keys by right, prayed only for Peter in the presents of the other apostles, Satan desired to have you (all Apostles), but I have prayed for thee (singular Peter only). Peter is to strengthen his brethren in the faith, feed all the sheep and lambs. All the apostles including Peter in Mt18:18 were given authority to bind and loose, as a collective group which includes Peter, they share the authority of the keys only in union with Peter. In Mt 16:13-20. Peter alone is given the keys and authority to bind and loose individually, apart from the others. The ministers sit on thrones and are to eat and drink at the Lord’s table=mass and judge, binding and loosing.]

Let’s face it; if most of us non-catholics suddenly decided to take the plunge, we would definitely be “cafeteria catholics”.

JL: Not really most of us who make the plunge to swim the Tiber, have studied and prayed to the point we have no doubt the Catholic Church is the pillar and ground of truth. That does not mean I understood everything. But stepping out on faith trusting in God, brings down God’s great mercy of grace. I hold all that the One Apostolic Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals. I also make it my business to know and understand the reasons for those teachings.

 

[Peter_J]

Let’s face it; if most of us non-catholics suddenly decided to take the plunge, we would definitely be “cafeteria catholics”.

I think you’re misreading 1beleevr’s statement. He didn’t say “Most non-catholics who decide to take the plunge become cafeteria catholics.”

 

[Peter_J]

So, if human culture decides that certain things are acceptable, must the Church accept that as “part of the human condition?”

I think we can all agree with what you are saying, SpiritMeadow; but that doesn’t mean that the Church has to accept whatever society accepts (which I believe was Ralphinal’s point).

 

[guanophore]

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.

The Church did not teach “Trinity” either, is that your contention? Transubstantiation is a word emanating from a different culture of a different time. The concept,however, like that of th Trinity, was taught from the beginning. You are wrong, too, about the Mass. The Mass was developed from the synagogue service that all of the Apostles attended. They added the Eucharist to it.

Devotion to Mary began when the Apostles came to the wedding in Cana and Mary made sure the wine did not run out.

Go ahead and fall off the cliff if you want. I will stick with the Apostles.

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

What you are saying is that you reject the Apostolic succession, which is the only valid testimony to the teaching of Jesus.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

For me to come back to the Catholic Church, and not as a “cafeteria Catholic”, here is what would have to change. (And yes, I know, it won’t change, there’s no need to debate this.)

Gabriel of 12:
No debate just a commentary; How does humanity change what God has ordained and built? Not even the Pope can change the Apostolic teachings and Traditions; The obstacle appears to be with “Authority”, and scripture is very clear who Jesus consecrated and gave his authority to excercise in his Church. The problem here is those outside Catholicism refuse, or object to the authority of Jesus of whom he put in charge of the mission to feed, and tend his flock. I for one will follow Jesus and his apostles in the Catholic church, anything else outside of Judaism and Catholicism is man made theologies picked from the Catholic faith.

Never a sheep:

1. The centuries-long obsession with anything even remotely sexual being mortally sinful unless you’re married and trying to have a baby would have to go away. Aren’t there more deeply harmful things to worry about, like domestic violence and drug abuse, for instance?
2. The sheer volume of bureaucracy and red tape associated with Church policy would have to be greatly reduced. Yes, I understand and respect the idea of maintaining tradition, but cultures and traditions change, it’s part of the human condition. A system of faith that does not address this doesn’t work for me.

Gabriel of 12:
Small traditions and cultures have changed within the Catholic church. The Mass is now said in the “vernacular” instead of the official language of the Church which is Latin. This does not mean that Latin is outlawed, it means Mass can be said in the language of the people.

Thank God for the infallibility of the Pope when he teaches on faith and morals without error. Mortal sin within different cultures affect peoples demeaner in different ways. Some may want to immediately confess a mortal sin, others may allow the sin to grow deeper that it tends to lead itself more and more to a death.

Never a sheep;
3. Confession. I don’t have a problem with voluntarily going to a priest to tell him things I feel I need forgiveness for, but if God is everywhere and knows all, why do I need to confess all my darkest deeds to a human being in order to be forgiven?

Gabriel of 12:
Catholics too confess our “venial” sins directly to God. According to the covenant with God, when one breaks the covenant with God in mortal sin, Justice cries out for reconciliation. That is why Jesus instituted the ministry of reconciliation. Mortal sin requires a blood sacrifice, a confession, and atonement. God does not change from the his Word. Jesus just made it better, for he is the one who offers our sacrifice to God eternally in his body, blood, soul and divinity, We confess our sins to an ordained Priest of God in “persona Christi”. When we confess our sins before God with a witness because this is what the Law demands, Jesus blood removes our stain of sin as white as snow every time, for he has made atonement for our sins. Our penance helps to stop the wave of our sin from affecting the body of Jesus Christ and others, and our punishment of sin.

The ministry of reconciliation was instituted by Jesus Christ himself, the Catholic church cannot change what God has built and ordained.

Peace be with you

 

[bobzills]

Regarding Purgatory, there is really no division on the matter. The DOGMA of Purgatory as proposed by the Catholic Church is acceptable to the Orthodox.

That is not what the Catholic Encyclopedia says. The Catholic Encyclopedia correctly states:
“The modern Orthodox Church denies purgatory…”(Hanna, Edward J. Transcribed by William G. Bilton, Ph.D. Purgatory. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII. Published 1911. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

 

[JesusforMadrid]

That is not what the Catholic Encyclopedia says. The Catholic Encyclopedia correctly states:
“The modern Orthodox Church denies purgatory…”(Hanna, Edward J. Transcribed by William G. Bilton, Ph.D. Purgatory. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII. Published 1911. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Orthodoxy really is a lot easier in doctrine for a lot of evangelicals, I think. Perhaps discussions between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches will lead the Roman church to soften its stand on those post schism doctines and dogma that cause protestants a lot of difficulty as well.

Orthodoxy in practice, is however, a lot more foreign to most evangelicals than your typical low Catholic parish.

Orthodox doctrine and RC practice would be a better combination in my opinion–something similar to anglo-catholicism.

 

[ralphinal]

Spiritmeadow,
There are very few, if any, traditions of the Church that cannot be changed or at least examined. All too often, when people make a claim that the Church is behind the times in a tradition, they are not talking about a tradition at all, but a dogma that is out of fashion.
For example, some polls in the US say that within the next 20 years, a majority of Americans will be in favor of same-sex “marriage.” Now, some might say that the Church should change the “tradition” of not “marrying” homosexuals. The reality of it is that this is not a tradition but a dogmatic teaching of the Church right out of Scripture. No matter how anyone feels about it, she cannot change that.

 

[wmscott]

I love your post!

Yes, I rebelled. For some 27 years I thought that religion was for weaklings. I felt that I didn’t need God. I didn’t discount Him altogether. I did something worse - I was indifferent! There is nothing worse than indifference.

I always had a strong social conscience and hated injustice. One day I felt a strong desire to pray for peace and I went to the first Catholic Church in the area. It felt good to be there. I was surprised to note the changes of VATII. I felt I was home.

As I began to learn more about the Church because, let’s face it, had I been properly catechised I would never have left, I was surprised and excited to discover the fullness of truth. The Love!

I know we have the fullness of truth. I feel the need to obey. I know God pays attention to us always. I am grateful that the Church refused to compromise on truth. I love the priesthood - the sacrifice priests make giving up all to follow Him, to serve Him… They need our prayers and support. I love the teachings of the Church - they are so misunderstood by the Protestants. I know that the Church is solid and good and true and beautiful. I know it is home. I feel hurt and saddened by Protestants who jeer and snarl and criticise. Yet Protestants keep us on our toes. I look at the many who have converted and brought such gifts with them - what a treasure. The Catholic Church does not belong to us - it belongs to all of humanity. It is God’s precious gift to us all.

When Jesus founded His Church he said he would be with us until the end of the world. He told us the Holy Spirit woule guide us into all truth. This is exactly what happened. Heretics emerged from the very beginning and the Church has had to fight them. There were problems within the ranks (the wheat and the tares - always there) and the Church has had to overcome that too.

As I see it there has got to be tension. It is tension that generates growth - in everything. There has got to be tension always.

I am so happy to be back in the Family of God - The Church. It is my Rock! It gives me strength. It reassures me at all times - it gives me encouragement. I now look forward to Holy Week. I would like to extend a challenge to all Protestants. Do yourself a favour go to the services of Holy Week - they begin with Holy Thursday with the washing of the feet. The Stations of the Cross on Good Friday morning - the Adoration of the Cross in the afternoon. The Easter Vigil with all its splendour on Saturday! Easter Sunday with the bells, the Alleluias - Jesus is Risen! - the choirs of Angels singing with joy. Go to all these services and then tell us if you have not been to Heaven - if you have not had a glimpse of heaven.

I love the Catholic Church and I would change nothing except perhaps Catholics!!! LOL! We need more Protestants - they make the best Catholics! LOL!

God bless us all
Cinette

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I have been away for a bit. Thanks, I appreciate your openness. You state, “The Catholic Church does not belong to us - it belongs to all of humanity. It is God’s precious gift to us all.” How true and how sad that many of us do not see it that way. As you say a “GIFT”, God is handing us a gift and all we need to do is accept. How amazing is it that some will not even accept a “GIFT” from God.

 

[Publisher]

What do you have to say of Matt 16:15-19 and what about when Jesus said to the apostles “Whose sins you retain they are retained, whose sins you forgive they are forgiven” (not in that order - am writing from memory). Do you reject the ordained priesthood? Do you reject Jesus’ intention when he established His Church? It would be a pity if you allow prejudice to influence you and ignore the scriptures. You would be doing yourself a disservice. It would be very sad indeed.

I don’t reject “priesthood”…I reject the Catholic understanding of priesthood…I believe in the priesthood of all believers. I don’t reject Jesus’ intention when he established the church…I reject the Catholic definition “church”…I believe I am part of God’s assembly of believers…God’s redeemed…those baptized by His Spirit into One Body is the Church…there is only One Church.

Yes, prejudice is a pitiful thing…but I don’t ignore the scriptures…they are part of my daily spirituality. The writers of the gospels sought to put into words the emerging understanding of what this faith meant.

I have not done myself a disservice…don’t fear about that…and don’t be sad…I have found that “In Him we live and move and have our being”…that is enough for me…In him I have all that I need…“abundantly more than I could hope or ask…”

If through the ministry of the Catholic church you have found peace in Christ…I rejoice with you as we have a common faith in Christ. He is our all and in all…we may be separated in ideology and disagree on " what is what…this means this…"…but we have the same Lord.