Why I'm Still Not Catholic

[Imagine23]

Greetings to you all.

I came to this board in the summer of 2005, as part of my desire to satisfy my curiosity about Catholicism, as well as get the Catholic answer to some of my questions. Over the next few months, I battled in my mind and soul over the apparent conclusion I had reached. I would have to become Catholic. This horrified me for a time, but eventually I looked forward to it with joy.

However, then I discovered Eastern Orthodoxy, heard new, more authoritative, objections to Catholicism, and found that my old certainty was significantly lessened. I moved away from my old Evangelical Protestant way of thinking–the combined Catholic-Orthodox witness and history was enough to show me the errors of Protestantism–but I found that I could not choose between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It ultimately came down to personal interpretation of the Early Church Fathers, preconceived biases for or against a certain Church, and limited education. Both sides argued their case, and neither side came close to convincing the other. And, in the end, neither side could convince me.

So, here I am today, hoping and believing that the true Church does exist and can be found, yet still being unable to know where it is. Having two different people point at two different Churches and shout out how obvious the answer is has, oddly enough, not been very helpful.

To get to the title, then, what still keeps me from becoming Catholic? For the sake of ease, and because I’m getting tired , I’ll simply make a list:

1. I am still not convinced that the Catholic view of papal primacy is the correct one, or that it was the view truly held by the united Church.
2. I am not convinced that the post-Schism doctrinal developments were truly greater understandings of previous doctrines. It’s easy for the Catholic to say, “These doctrines were always believed; they were only defined when they were challenged,” when speaking with a Protestant who has not studied Church history. However, when the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox raise a hand and say, “No, they weren’t always believed by us,” that complicates matters.
3. I am not convinced of the Catholic understanding of original sin, and its attendant teachings. Namely, that unbaptized infants may possibly be damned, or go to some alternate “in-between” state. The more positive phrasing of the new Catechism does not help much, as new teachings cannot contradict old teachings.
4. To continue from number 3, I am concerned that some newer teachings actually do contradict older teachings. It is interesting to see the verbal gymnastics people go through to make contradictory statements agree, but I am not convinced. When one teaching says that those who die with original sin only go to Hell, and one teaching says that we may hope for the salvation of the unbaptized (who, therefore, have not been cleansed of original sin), there is a contradiction I have not been able to resolve. When one teaching says that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every person to be subject to the Roman pontiff, and another teaching speaks of “baptism of desire” and “belonging to the Church without realizing it,” I see a contradiction.
5. I am deeply concerned by the Catholic practice of making eternal damnation the punishment for violating man-made disciplines.
6. I am concerned by the apparent contradiction in beliefs between Eastern and Western Catholics.
7. I am not remotely convinced that the Catholic who attends church grudgingly and goes through the motions is more pleasing to God than the Protestant who truly loves God and desires to do His will.

That’s all for now. Lest people take offense, let me assure you all that I would really like to be Catholic. I just have to be honest with myself. And, that being said, I cannot join the Church unless I am convinced of all its teachings. At this time, I am not.

Thanks! God bless!

Iambic,

If you are looking for logic and consistency in the teachings of any Christian religion then you are looking in the wrong place. You will not find it.

Why do you feel the need to attach yourself to an “official” religion?

 

[Unitas]

If you are looking for logic and consistency in the teachings of any Christian religion then you are looking in the wrong place. You will not find it.

Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Faith and Reason”

Pope Benedict XVI’s lecture “Faith, Reason, and the University”

Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

Why do you feel the need to attach yourself to an “official” religion?

Is there a need for religion a la carte?

 

[Janet_S]

Iambic,

If you are looking for logic and consistency in the teachings of any Christian religion then you are looking in the wrong place. You will not find it.

Why do you feel the need to attach yourself to an “official” religion?

I am interested why you say this, and have you studied Catholicism? Have you read anything by John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or any Catholic philosophers? (Note: going to Catholic elementary and high school doesn’t count, you don’t study philosophy there.)

 

[Janet_S]

False dichotomy based on the ambiguity of the phrase “Catholic Church.” The question for Protestants is precisely whether the Roman Communion is to be identified with the “Catholic Church.” The Eucharist is the Church’s Eucharist, not the Eucharist of the See of Rome. If the See of Rome is mistaken (not necessarily a liar because that implies deliberate deceit), that has nothing to do with our desire for Eucharistic communion with the churches who acknowledge the authority of Rome. Communion, in our view, is not based on being right on every point, but on a common faith in Christ.

Edwin

Protestants may disagree with Catholics about what “Catholic Church” means as they disagree with many other things we believe. However, following is the guideline given by the CC for the reception of Communion (for our fellow Christians). You can find this guideline in Catholic missals. I copied the relevant sections from the Code of Canon Law as well.

"We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one.” (John 17:21)

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (these are the “exceptional circumstances” listed in canon law: 844§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.)

Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.)"

So there are the guidelines for non-Catholic Christians for the reception of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

Out of respect, non-Catholic Christians should obey the guidelines of the Church regardless of their private opinions.

 

[toothdigger]

I didn’t have any trouble with theological issues about Mary, or salvation, or anything else since I never was a Protestant. The only experience I had with religion was Catholicism, even though I now know I didn’t know much about it. So I was familiar with most of the Church’s theological teachings…

Janet,

I ran out yesterday to purchase the LUMEN GENTIUM, have read most of it. The only portion that has me totally confused is the section on salvation (15. and 16.) in which Pope Paul VI states or appears to state that the whole world will eventually be saved… including followers of Mohamed - now, this is about as foreign a concept to me as I can imagine… Am I missing something here? He even implies that persons who do not know Christ but “live good lives” will be saved eventually. I was taught that “there is no one who does good.” Even Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? Only My Father in Heaven is good.”

Is this what the Pope is saying - that the whole world will be saved? If so, why does Hell even exist? Or, do Catholics believe that there is no eternal damnation??

Thanks in advance!

 

[Contarini]

Iambic,

If you are looking for logic and consistency in the teachings of any Christian religion then you are looking in the wrong place. You will not find it.

Why do you feel the need to attach yourself to an “official” religion?

Because religion is something we receive, not something we invent. “Official religions” open us up to others. “Spirituality” encloses us in a comfortable, self-made, egotistical world.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Protestants may disagree with Catholics about what “Catholic Church” means as they disagree with many other things we believe. However, following is the guideline given by the CC for the reception of Communion (for our fellow Christians). You can find this guideline in Catholic missals. I copied the relevant sections from the Code of Canon Law as well.

You’re changing the subject. Your previous post questioned why we would *want *to receive communion in your churches. I have answered that. I am quite aware of the reasons for the Catholic Church’s position and I agree that Protestants should respect the rules of the local church where they wish to receive communion. (The only point where we would disagree would concern a situation in which the local Catholic parish had different views than the Roman Communion as a whole, but we don’t need to get into that here.)

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[toothdigger]

Thanks; I will take a look at it.

Janet,

This passage touched me deeply; thanks for sharing the link.

From Mark Shea’s article on Marian Doctrine:

"The first question that arises, of course, is, “Why Marian dogma at all?”

…Because, once again, Mary points to Jesus. The dogma of the Theotokos is a commentary on Jesus, a sort of “hedge” around the truth about Jesus articulated by the Church…

…the Church, like the Gospels, has always called Mary our Mother: because Mom is the best model for training children. The command to call her “Mother” comes, of course, from Jesus Himself. John doesn’t record the words “Behold your mother” (John 19:27) because he thought his readers might be curious about domestic arrangements for childless Jewish widows. Rather, as with everything else John writes, “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). In other words, he doesn’t record everything about Jesus, only those things that have a significant theological meaning. This includes Christ’s words to the Beloved Disciple. For the Beloved Disciple is you and not merely John. Mary is your mother and you are her child. And so we are to look to her as mother and imitate her as she imitates Christ."

 

[contramundum7]

Greetings to you all.

I came to this board in the summer of 2005, as part of my desire to satisfy my curiosity about Catholicism, as well as get the Catholic answer to some of my questions. Over the next few months, I battled in my mind and soul over the apparent conclusion I had reached. I would have to become Catholic. This horrified me for a time, but eventually I looked forward to it with joy.

However, then I discovered Eastern Orthodoxy, heard new, more authoritative, objections to Catholicism, and found that my old certainty was significantly lessened. I moved away from my old Evangelical Protestant way of thinking–the combined Catholic-Orthodox witness and history was enough to show me the errors of Protestantism–but I found that I could not choose between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It ultimately came down to personal interpretation of the Early Church Fathers, preconceived biases for or against a certain Church, and limited education. Both sides argued their case, and neither side came close to convincing the other. And, in the end, neither side could convince me.

So, here I am today, hoping and believing that the true Church does exist and can be found, yet still being unable to know where it is. Having two different people point at two different Churches and shout out how obvious the answer is has, oddly enough, not been very helpful.

To get to the title, then, what still keeps me from becoming Catholic? For the sake of ease, and because I’m getting tired , I’ll simply make a list:

1. I am still not convinced that the Catholic view of papal primacy is the correct one, or that it was the view truly held by the united Church.
2. I am not convinced that the post-Schism doctrinal developments were truly greater understandings of previous doctrines. It’s easy for the Catholic to say, “These doctrines were always believed; they were only defined when they were challenged,” when speaking with a Protestant who has not studied Church history. However, when the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox raise a hand and say, “No, they weren’t always believed by us,” that complicates matters.
3. I am not convinced of the Catholic understanding of original sin, and its attendant teachings. Namely, that unbaptized infants may possibly be damned, or go to some alternate “in-between” state. The more positive phrasing of the new Catechism does not help much, as new teachings cannot contradict old teachings.
4. To continue from number 3, I am concerned that some newer teachings actually do contradict older teachings. It is interesting to see the verbal gymnastics people go through to make contradictory statements agree, but I am not convinced. When one teaching says that those who die with original sin only go to Hell, and one teaching says that we may hope for the salvation of the unbaptized (who, therefore, have not been cleansed of original sin), there is a contradiction I have not been able to resolve. When one teaching says that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every person to be subject to the Roman pontiff, and another teaching speaks of “baptism of desire” and “belonging to the Church without realizing it,” I see a contradiction.
5. I am deeply concerned by the Catholic practice of making eternal damnation the punishment for violating man-made disciplines.
6. I am concerned by the apparent contradiction in beliefs between Eastern and Western Catholics.
7. I am not remotely convinced that the Catholic who attends church grudgingly and goes through the motions is more pleasing to God than the Protestant who truly loves God and desires to do His will.

That’s all for now. Lest people take offense, let me assure you all that I would really like to be Catholic. I just have to be honest with myself. And, that being said, I cannot join the Church unless I am convinced of all its teachings. At this time, I am not.

Thanks! God bless!

 

[contramundum7]

contramundum7:
I can understand wanting to understand eveyrthing before you commit 2 a (THE) Church. But even if all your questions were answered today, you’d probably still end up conjuring up more questions… / I’ve been Catholic all my life - i’ve only been FULLY Catholic for about 9 years, however, because i wasn’t taught my faith in my younger years…I got lost… I had to do some searching… but i never seriously doubted that the Catholic Church was the one Christ established. Even so, i had to learn things, check w/scripture, etc. before i accepted things like Purgatory, the focus on Mary, etc. / But the main thing here is that no matter how much you learn/know, at some point, you virtually have to just decide to commit or not commit & leave the questions to “faith”… / I have been very unhappy about some of the things going on in the Church (un-Christ-like priests, etc.) and have sometimes felt like getting away from it… (long story), but i can never go far from it - or if i do, not 4 long because Jesus is there. Do you know about the Real Presence (?) & if so, have you ever spent much time there? There are several things the Catholic Church has that no other does: the Mass, confession, transubstantiation, a celibate priesthood, indissoluable marriage, etc. Also, the teachings of the Church about the sanctity of life is unique in all the world - & the only one that’s totally right (from God). I know the orthodox church shares some/most of these things. But the orthodox & the RC, where they disagree, cannot both be right. You may need to make a choice based on gut feeling rather than “knowledge”… & what’s so bad about that? Throughout my spiritual journey, I have felt like distancing myself from the RC Church several times (out of anger toward certain individuals…), but I would never leave the Blessed Sacrament (especially the Exposed Sacrament)… i won’t let mere humans drive me away from HIm… Plus, I know the RC Church is the one Christ established. I may not b able 2 PROVE it, but i do know… “in my gut”… (if nothing else…).

 

[jmcrae]

Well, let us apply the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” test to the Orthodox Church.

Are they “One?” No, there are several Orthodox churches - Russian, Greek, Ukranian, etc. While they claim to believe the same things (and probably do, for the most part) they are still distinctly separate organizations, with distinctly different people leading them - the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox is a different person from the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox, etc.

Thus, despite the fact that they are Holy and Apostolic, they are immediately disqualified from being the One True Church by the fact that there are several of them.

And although in many senses, they are, indeed, Catholic, they lose out on the fact that they are nationalistic - a friend of mine entered the Russian Orthodox Church, and he is now as much Russian as he is Orthodox; conversion entails not only a change of belief system, but also a change of national identity - liking Russian food and Russian politics is just as essential as believing the tenets set out in their Catechism.

The Catholic Church, by contrast, is not nationalistic - it is “Roman” in the sense of having its headquarters in Rome, but Catholics outside of Italy don’t have to like or even know anything about Italy in order to function successfully as Catholics. It’s truly an international Church, unified under the Pope. (Today at Mass, we had a priest from India and a priest from Africa, presiding over a Mass that was attended by Filipinos, Scots, English, Irish, American, Native North American, and many others - something we simply don’t see anywhere else.)

 

[contramundum7]

Well, let us apply the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” test to the Orthodox Church.

Are they “One?” No, there are several Orthodox churches - Russian, Greek, Ukranian, etc. While they claim to believe the same things (and probably do, for the most part) they are still distinctly separate organizations, with distinctly different people leading them - the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox is a different person from the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox, etc.

Thus, despite the fact that they are Holy and Apostolic, they are immediately disqualified from being the One True Church by the fact that there are several of them.

And although in many senses, they are, indeed, Catholic, they lose out on the fact that they are nationalistic - a friend of mine entered the Russian Orthodox Church, and he is now as much Russian as he is Orthodox; conversion entails not only a change of belief system, but also a change of national identity - liking Russian food and Russian politics is just as essential as believing the tenets set out in their Catechism.

The Catholic Church, by contrast, is not nationalistic - it is “Roman” in the sense of having its headquarters in Rome, but Catholics outside of Italy don’t have to like or even know anything about Italy in order to function successfully as Catholics. It’s truly an international Church, unified under the Pope. (Today at Mass, we had a priest from India and a priest from Africa, presiding over a Mass that was attended by Filipinos, Scots, English, Irish, American, Native North American, and many others - something we simply don’t see anywhere else.)

 

[contramundum7]

contramundum7:
VERY GOOD POINT -one i had momentarily forgotten.

 

[Contarini]

Well, let us apply the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” test to the Orthodox Church.

Are they “One?” No, there are several Orthodox churches - Russian, Greek, Ukranian, etc. While they claim to believe the same things (and probably do, for the most part) they are still distinctly separate organizations, with distinctly different people leading them - the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox is a different person from the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox, etc.

Thus, despite the fact that they are Holy and Apostolic, they are immediately disqualified from being the One True Church by the fact that there are several of them.

Are you unaware that the Catholic Church is made up of 22 “sui juris churches”? You are in the same boat here. The only differences are that one of your churches is much bigger (and has historically tyrannized over the others to a degree of which its current leaders are heartily ashamed), and that you do have one figure as a rallying point for all your component churches. It all boils down to “we must be unified because we have the Pope.” That’s an assumption, not an argument. There is no coherent, plausible way for you to show that the Orthodox are qualitatively less unified than you are. Certainly they are less centralized and more fractious, but they are unquestionably one Communion (leaving out the traditionalist schismatics and the temporary political schisms, both of which occur among you as well).

This is one of the most bogus arguments Catholics make.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[SedesDomi]

To Toothdigger:

If the CC truly speaks with the authority she says she has (the voice of Christ in the world today), you cannot dismiss any of her teachings by saying “I understand what the CC is teaching, I just don’t agree with it.” That would be the same as saying to Christ: “I know what you are saying, Jesus, I just don’t happen to agree with you.”

I’m sure Jesus would forgive you for being ignorant.

 

[SedesDomi]

The Catholic Church, by contrast, is not nationalistic - it is “Roman” in the sense of having its headquarters in Rome, but Catholics outside of Italy don’t have to like or even know anything about Italy in order to function successfully as Catholics. It’s truly an international Church, unified under the Pope. (Today at Mass, we had a priest from India and a priest from Africa, presiding over a Mass that was attended by Filipinos, Scots, English, Irish, American, Native North American, and many others - something we simply don’t see anywhere else.)

A lot of the “non-nationalistic” aspect of the CC originates from the fact that in the East, you had several Patriarchates, whereas in Western Europe, you only had one (Rome), so Rome was able to gather all of Western Europe (and, eventually, via colonialism and migration, the Americas and much of Africa and Asia) into one Patriarchate.

Latin was basically the only written language in Western Europe, so Rome could enforce Latin on all its subjects, creating a sense of unity. But in the East, written languages had a much longer history, and the Armenians and the Copts and the Syrians and the Greeks are understandably not gonna give up their written heritages.

 

[Janet_S]

You’re changing the subject. Your previous post questioned why we would *want *to receive communion in your churches. I have answered that. I am quite aware of the reasons for the Catholic Church’s position and I agree that Protestants should respect the rules of the local church where they wish to receive communion. (The only point where we would disagree would concern a situation in which the local Catholic parish had different views than the Roman Communion as a whole, but we don’t need to get into that here.)

In Christ,

Edwin

I wasn’t trying to change the subject–I thought you were defending non-Catholic Christians who received the Eucharist in the Catholic Church even though they knew it went against what the Church teaches.

I am glad, though, that you respect the guidelines of our Church for receiving the Eucharist.

 

[thefizzle656]

Well, let us apply the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” test to the Orthodox Church.

Are they “One?” No, there are several Orthodox churches - Russian, Greek, Ukranian, etc. While they claim to believe the same things (and probably do, for the most part) they are still distinctly separate organizations, with distinctly different people leading them - the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox is a different person from the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox, etc.

Thus, despite the fact that they are Holy and Apostolic, they are immediately disqualified from being the One True Church by the fact that there are several of them.

And although in many senses, they are, indeed, Catholic, they lose out on the fact that they are nationalistic - a friend of mine entered the Russian Orthodox Church, and he is now as much Russian as he is Orthodox; conversion entails not only a change of belief system, but also a change of national identity - liking Russian food and Russian politics is just as essential as believing the tenets set out in their Catechism.

The Catholic Church, by contrast, is not nationalistic - it is “Roman” in the sense of having its headquarters in Rome, but Catholics outside of Italy don’t have to like or even know anything about Italy in order to function successfully as Catholics. It’s truly an international Church, unified under the Pope. (Today at Mass, we had a priest from India and a priest from Africa, presiding over a Mass that was attended by Filipinos, Scots, English, Irish, American, Native North American, and many others - something we simply don’t see anywhere else.)

What you have done is projected your idea of Oneness onto the Creed. When did the Fathers say that the Church had to be under one Universal bishop? In fact, Pope St. Gregory spoke against having a Universal Bishop! The Orthodox would say that this is not what it means for the Church to be One. The Church is One because the entire Church professes the same faith. The Russian Church professes the same faith as the Greek Church, which professes the same faith as the Alexandrian jurisdiction. Each autocephalous Church holds the same faith and thus is in full communion with the others, and in this way the Church is One. You can walk into both a Serbian parish and an Antiochian parish and you will find that they teach EXACTLY the same thing. The Oneness of the Church can never be thought of in a juridical way.

Prior to the schism the Church did not operate in the way that the Roman Church does today. Each Patriarchate was a seperate jurisdiction that elected its own bishops and took care of itself, and was in full communion with the other 4 Patriarchates and autocephalous Churches.

I would also add that conversion never entails assimilation into a different culture and leaving behind your own. However, conversion usually entails exposing yourself to new cultures that you may have been unfamiliar with before. It can mean trying new foods, learning more about other peoples and cultures, and broadening your perspective. Do you really see that as a bad thing? If one went to an Eastern Catholic parish they would encounter the very same thing, just as one might encounter it should they choose to go to a Polish Catholic Church.

Maybe the problem with your friend is that he has convert-itis and wishes that he was Russian.

In Christ,

Alex

 

[Mary3]

Mary3 -

Thanks! I am excited to be making this journey. I am reading the Lumen Gentium right now (per Janet S.'s suggestion) and finding it beautiful.

In Christ,
:yup:

Some years ago when I was in RCIA, our deacon said something important that I’ll share with you now. “RCIA is not about recruiting people to be Catholics. No one here is going to ask you to be a Catholic. We are here to share our joy with you. If you decide to become a Catholic, that is an invitation issued by the Holy Spirit alone.” Congratulations! Your invitation is in the mail.

 

[Mary3]

When did the Fathers say that the Church had to be under one Universal bishop? In fact, Pope St. Gregory spoke against having a Universal Bishop! The Orthodox would say that this is not what it means for the Church to be One. The Church is One because the entire Church professes the same faith.

This sounds very similar to the Protestant argument that the universal church is an invisible association of Christians who are united by their beliefs.

Prior to the schism the Church did not operate in the way that the Roman Church does today. Each Patriarchate was a seperate jurisdiction that elected its own bishops and took care of itself, and was in full communion with the other 4 Patriarchates and autocephalous Churches.

Have you read the letter of Clement I to the Corinthians? When the Church at Corinth had an internal dispute, they sought a ruling from the Bishop of Rome (Clement, third successor of Peter). He made his ruling, and asked that they obey it in deference to his authority as Bishop of Rome. He was not their local bishop, he was not an apostle (though St. John the apostle was still alive at the time of this letter, he was not the one consulted).