Why I'm Still Not Catholic

[The_Iambic_Pen]

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!

 

[Alexius]

Greetings to you all.

I came to this board in the summer of 2005, as part of my…

Thanks! God bless!

I see you have found a few of the issues that many struggle with (myself included). For me, the inerrant disagreement between Eastern and Roman Catholics on many issues makes me scratch my head. Different emphasis? Not really. When it comes to “different emphasis,” this more or less tells that one group teaches it and the other doesn’t. If Orthodoxy weren’t so strong in the Spirit, I’m sure they would join the Pope. Are the east and west united? No, and I don’t know that they will ever be. Why is the Catholic Church setting up new jurisdictions in the east and Orthodox in the west? Because its about power. I wish they would work together to save souls around the world, without the politics of numbers.

Don’t give up. Pray and let the Spirit guide you. Continue to ask questions. I am doing the same, as I am currently a Catholic, but long for the steadiness and meekness of Orthodoxy. I want the faith that my ancestors, my great grandchildren, and I can share; that if it were possible for us to sit and talk, we would teach the same things. I could never say this with evangelicalism, might be able to say this with Catholicism, but would definitely be able to say this with Orthodoxy. Choices, choices, choices…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Liberian]

Iambic Pen,

Thank you for your post. I appreciate your honesty in sharing your struggle, and quite frankly my first reaction is to pray for the day that you won’t have to (or be able to) choose between Catholicism and Orthodoxy because “the two lungs of Christianity” will have reunited.

I certainly understand your hesitancy. When I joined the Catholic Church, I stood up in front of a congregation and declared publicly, “I hold that all the teachings of the Catholic Church are true and correct.” If you cannot say that honestly, then you probably should not be joining the Catholic Church.

Keep praying and keep studying, and I will pray for you as well.

• Liberian

 

[carol_marie]

I don’t believe your # 7 either.

 

[BlestOne]

Wow Iambic… I still remember when you were brand new to the forums. I have to say, I was right about you!!! I knew you would really do your homework on this, and so you have. Instead of giving you complete peace though, you are torn between what I would call the twin churches. Obvious sisters, very similar but with their own personalities and expressions. We all long for the reunification but it transcends us. Those who have the authority to reunite haven’t… partially because they believe they are right and can’t compromise their faith, but partially because they are humans with egos and are too stubborn to compromise on the things they could. It is sad, very sad indeed. What an awesome church we could be together!

I am sorry that you feel torn between them. I will pray that you find your answer and with it peace. You may have to choose based on what is available locally to you, for the sake of your family and your sanity. Don’t feel like you are “settling” either way, keep praying for unification and if it is the will of God that we see it in our lifetime… then it’s great, but even if it doesn’t, you have to believe that the unification will happen someday. Christ established one church, in the end it will be one whole church, so I trust there will be a unification, possibly in our lifetime.

As for your list…

1. That one is a biggie for sure. Papal primacy is central to Catholicism. One thing you probably know and understand already is that Christ did appoint Peter as his earthy vicar. Both Orthodoxy and Catholic believe that. The problem comes in with the expanding church… and how it was to be structured. That is a man made decision, and we believe guided by the Holy Spirit. So how did this go wrong? I am not an expert but I think if you look back way before the split, you might just see it more clearly… remember peoples national pride and local traditions.
2. Agreed, it doesn’t help. But, come on… human understanding is always lacking. Pride is a big stumbling block. It always reminds me of kids disagreements… when you are mad at someone you love you tend to go overboard saying hurtful things. No, I never liked you! Funny yesterday we were best friends…and today you have never liked me? It is hurt that is speaking here.
3. I think the key here is that we don’t know. It is up to God not us.
4. Let me ask you a question… When you were a Protestant, didn’t you face scripture that seemed to contradict scripture? Yet, same Bible passages when understood do not contradict each other do they?
5. I will have to discuss this one separately… it would be too long right now.

6.Physical separation from each other and political pressure in some cases can skew a persons ideology quite a bit. Don’t hold too much stock at first glimpses.

1. Totally agree! Remember that Catholics believe that we have the fullness of the faith, that doesn’t mean we all embrace the fullness as we should. God blesses those who love him without all the advantages of having the “fullness” advantage.

 

[dulcissima]

Forgive me, because I have not read all of your posts since you have joined the forums. I am in awe of all of the research and studying that you have done in trying to find the one true church, but I wonder…do you go to Mass?

I think really this might be kind of like learning to swim. Before you learn to swim, I guess you could study anatomy and physics to understand everything there is to know about swimming. That really isn’t necessary though. If you just jump in and abandon your fear, you will find that you’ve already been equipped with the essential knowledge.

I will be honest with you, when I joined the Catholic Church, I wasn’t convinced of all its teachings, I just wished that I was and trusted that eventually I would be. I joined the Church about six years ago, but really I have learned more about theology and spirituality in the last two years than I have for all the rest of my years combined. NOW, I really am convinced of all its teachings. I’ve had so many lightbulb-going-off moments in the last two years that I know that I never would have had if I had just stayed on the sidelines in limbo. I just can’t believe that God would make it so tough that you would need an advanced degree to know his will. Realize that you are and will continue to be a work in progress, and your work is to get closer and closer to God. The surest way that I know of to do that is through the Church, the sacraments, and the communion of saints.

 

[Mot_Juste]

I pray not only for these,
but for those also
who through their words will believe in me.
May they all be one.
Father, may they be one in us,
as you are in me and I am in you,
so that the world may believe it was you who sent me.
– John 17:20-21

Iambic,

I remember well some of your early posts when you were beginning this exploration. I thank God that you have come so far. Your present dilemma illustrates the tragedy of the division of Christianity and exemplifies why Jesus prayed so fervently for unity. Without it, our competing claims for truth seem like so much noise to the outsider.

I will continue to pray for you.

–Bill

 

[Guardian]

Hi Pen! Those who seek WILL find!

However, then I discovered Eastern Orthodoxy, heard new, more authoritative, objections to Catholicism, and found that my old certainty was significantly lessened.

The Orthodox were a huge part in my conversion to Catholicism from Protestantism. I saw these other churches that had valid apostolic authority that have been separated from Rome for over 1,000 years, and they aligned with a lot of the Catholic faith, so that was important to me. Of course, there are some major differences as well, which one should take note.

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.

This is the crutch of the issue. All other arguments against Catholicism by the Orthodox have no merit if Papal primacy is indeed correct. This is where I would focus all my energy and research if I were you.

I was convinced of Petrine Primacy and the primacy of his successors by careful study of Scripture and history.

1. I am not convinced that the post-Schism doctrinal developments were truly greater understandings of previous doctrines.

I think a lot of post-Schism doctrines were definitely believed prior to the schism, but some probably were not. I don’t believe anyone says (correctly) that doctrinal developments are strictly greater understandings of previous doctrines, but greater understandings of the Deposit of Faith. Doctrinal developments may be completely new ideas or may be a more clarified view of older views, but they all are derived from the Deposit of Faith, which is what is important. Sort of like how I can come to a new realization about the truth of God, although I have been reading the same Bible for 20 years. The Bible never has changed, just my understanding of it.

1. 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.

I think this problem arises from your wrong mindset. Humans don’t deserve Heaven but deserve Hell. Humans are not worthy of Heaven, and only get there by God’s grace. So why would an unbaptized infant be able to go to Heaven if the default end location is hell…where the infant (and all humans) deserve to be?

1. To continue from number 3, I am concerned that some newer teachings actually do contradict older teachings… …I see a contradiction.

Please provide the verbal gymnastics quotes, as I’m not sure which ones you are referencing specifically. I have however looked at this specific issue and I believe if you look closely and anlayze it in a strict logical fashion, they flow quite nicely together. If you can provide some quotes I’d be happy to address them.

Obviously the doctrines on [the exception to] subjection to the Roman pontiff, “baptism by desire” and “belonging to the Church without realizing it” have been believed since Christ. Think about it…how could the ECF’s and the Catholic Church, being the vessel of how God gave humans the Sacred Scriptures, be able to explain the thief on the cross going to Heaven? The thief didn’t formally submit to any Roman Pontiff, he wasn’t physically baptized, and he definitely was not institutionally inducted into the Church. Obviously the ECF’s and the Church had a way of explaining how he got to go to Heaven.

1. I am deeply concerned by the Catholic practice of making eternal damnation the punishment for violating man-made disciplines.

I am quite positive the Catholic Church does not practice the punishment of eternal damnation…that would be God’s practice. And I don’t know of any violation of *man-*made disciplines that would cause one to be damned by God.

1. I am concerned by the apparent contradiction in beliefs between Eastern and Western Catholics.

There is no contradiction in beliefs on infallible doctrines, else they would not be Catholic. Secondly, I am not aware of any contradiction on any doctrines above the certainty of common teaching, either. I’m aware there are differing beliefs, but only where there is the freedom to differ.

1. 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.

No argument here. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that is more pleasing to God, either. In fact, if a Catholic was in that situation, he would be more likely to go to hell than the Protestant.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

And, in the end, neither side could convince me.

This at least tells me you recognize there are “difficulties” in EO and that allows for a fair look at both the CC and EO.

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.

To me it comes down to this…St Peter. He is admitted to be the head Apostle in the New Testament as well as with the Early Church Fathers. There is no dispute the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St Peter and that St Peter came to Rome. Rome is called the “Apostolic See” because the two greatest Apostles Peter and Paul landed there. With the EO, Constantinople is the “head” church yet there is no support an Apostle was originally there not to mention the See of Rome is around 300 years older.

Now it comes down to this, Rome, admitted to be the See of St Peter, the head Apostle, is said to have fallen into heresy/schism…does this make sense? Not in my mind.

1. 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.

What “doctrinal developments” do you have in mind?
You cant deny the fact that as time goes by doctrine sometimes needs to be further defined, in the case of Protestantism, the Council of Trent was invaluable.

1. 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.

Its a tough issue, but important questions cant just be brushed off, for example:
If Original Sin doesnt stand in the way of salvation, will all unBaptized infants go to Heaven?..NEITHER the CC or EO have concluded “yes”…why not? Because each recognizes its not a open and shut case, this isnt a matter of either side wanting to be “mean”, rather we both recognize difficulties in the situation.

1. 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.

There are two issues here, the first regarding original sin and Baptism. The Church infallibly teaches Baptism is the oridinary means of cleansing of OS, it has never said God’s grace is restricted to Baptism. In short we dont claim to pre-judge anyone.
As for the “subject to the Roman Pontiff” that is directed at those knowingly not submitting to him.

Also teachins like “Baptism of desire” are infallibly taugh by Trent.

1. I am deeply concerned by the Catholic practice of making eternal damnation the punishment for violating man-made disciplines.

Im not sure what this means.
Surely you recognize the famous “What ever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven”…authority given to men by Jesus isnt “man made”

1. I am concerned by the apparent contradiction in beliefs between Eastern and Western Catholics.

I dont know the details of this.

1. 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.

This isnt a valid question in terms of EO vs CC.

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!

No problem. By the way Im interested in your Big 7 Questions in regards to EO doctrines you cant accept at this moment in time.

 

[DeFide]

All other arguments against Catholicism by the Orthodox have no merit if Papal primacy is indeed correct. This is where I would focus all my energy and research if I were you.
.

I apologize if Iambic has seen this link before, but I offer it for convenience in his studies. If he has seen it before, it may have more content now:

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/easternorthodoxy.html

 

[Verbum]

Hi Iambic,

I pray that God willl lead you where He wants.

As for all your objections, they have been very ably answered. But if you are persuaded that Peter’s primacy was to be transmitted to his successors, then Peter’s successor is the Head of the true church – the Church that Christ promised He would be with until the end of time. How can this church have gone astray?

Believe me, few Catholics know or understand ALL the doctrines which the Church teaches (I don’t!), but they believe all that the Church teaches, because God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, is with her.

God wants total submission from us : body and mind. Submission of the mind is faith.

Verbum

 

[Image_of_God]

Hi Iambic. Long time no see!

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.

Is it not Jesus that says to Peter “feed my sheep,” or in Greek “rule my sheep.” The Sheep here is in reference to the Apostles and even the flock of the individual flocks. You need only to look at the New Testament to see the Primacy of Peter. There is much significance in Peter being the first Apostle to be named in the Gospels.

1. 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.

It is also a question to me as to why the Orthodox have “boxed” the development of doctrine into one millenium, as if the Church is no longer a growing instrument of knowledge and wisdom. The Orthodox Church is still an instrument of knowledge, but how is this knowledge growing if the Church really is a living bride of Christ?

1. 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.

Baptism is the normative, not the absolute neccessity. The early Church, both East and West, have taught that NO ONE is born innocent and that everyone is in need of God’s help (Except Mary and Jesus). The Bible says that “through one man death has come to all,” and similarly “I was convieved a sinner,” and also “none is righteous, no, not one.” Baptism is needed to make one filled with grace.

1. 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.

It should be hoped that the teachings you are reading are being read correctly, for not all teachings all infallible.

1. I am deeply concerned by the Catholic practice of making eternal damnation the punishment for violating man-made disciplines.

Everyone is bound to the teachings of Peter, since Jesus has given authority to him and his successors.

1. I am concerned by the apparent contradiction in beliefs between Eastern and Western Catholics.

As I will continue to reemphasize, this contradiction was in the Early Church, too. As I remember stating earlier; St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom taught sometimes contradicting things, yet neither one of them is considered heretic.

1. 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.

Why should a Catholics see Jesus grudgingly? Is it not the emphasis of the Church, that such grudgy service of the Lord should be reformed? Certainly the Protestant is better off, but even in this case, the Catholic is making a similar sacrifice to the Protestant.

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!

Sorry, I can’t answer in detail, but I had to answer all the questions.

 

[ricmat]

Iambic, I’m fairly new to this forum, and have no idea what paths you’ve gone down. You’ve obviously done a lot of work to try and figure things out.

One thing I’ve noticed in the forum is that there are a lot of people trying to be helpful, and most of us (myself included) are amateurs at this. We say what we think the CC teaches, but sometimes we don’t get it quite right. And you might get totally contradictory posts both from Catholics! The way you phrase some of your issues leads me to think this…

If you can get “expert help” locally, you might want to try that.

Also, IMHO, if absolutely EVERYTHING needs to be proven without doubt for you to have a church, then it seems to me that you have a very long path still ahead of you. Because no matter how many roadblocks you drive around, if you keep looking for roadblocks, you will find them,

Good luck on your journey, you will have a lot of folks praying for you!

.

 

[Trad_Catholic_1]

Forgive me, because I have not read all of your posts since you have joined the forums. I am in awe of all of the research and studying that you have done in trying to find the one true church, but I wonder…do you go to Mass?

I think really this might be kind of like learning to swim. Before you learn to swim, I guess you could study anatomy and physics to understand everything there is to know about swimming. That really isn’t necessary though. If you just jump in and abandon your fear, you will find that you’ve already been equipped with the essential knowledge.

I will be honest with you, when I joined the Catholic Church, I wasn’t convinced of all its teachings, I just wished that I was and trusted that eventually I would be. I joined the Church about six years ago, but really I have learned more about theology and spirituality in the last two years than I have for all the rest of my years combined. NOW, I really am convinced of all its teachings. I’ve had so many lightbulb-going-off moments in the last two years that I know that I never would have had if I had just stayed on the sidelines in limbo. I just can’t believe that God would make it so tough that you would need an advanced degree to know his will. Realize that you are and will continue to be a work in progress, and your work is to get closer and closer to God. The surest way that I know of to do that is through the Church, the sacraments, and the communion of saints.

Agreed. It is not about carrying a check list and shopping around in the market for the best value religion on offer.

 

[Ahimsa]

Agreed. It is not about carrying a check list and shopping around in the market for the best value religion on offer.

So you’re saying that one can join the CC, without being convinced of many key doctrines?

 

[DeFide]

So you’re saying that one can join the CC, without being convinced of many key doctrines?

I’m not trying to speak for the previous poster, but I mentioned this in another thread:

I have some mentally retarded friends who became Catholic. They recognize and accept the voice of authority of the Church as having a divine origin, but they do not have to know a certain number of dogmas or understand a certain percentage of teaching to be Catholic.

---

Having said that, I am “convinced” of the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, but it is due to the voice of authority of Christ’s Church, not because I am capable of wrapping my mind around the nature of God.

P.S. However, I can see how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (not just the Father), otherwise the Son and the Holy Spirit would collapse into one person, having no difference of relation to the Father, and we’d only have the Binity.

 

[ldv]

So you’re saying that one can join the CC, without being convinced of many key doctrines?

One may not understand all of them but by faith through grace you may come to believe in the truth!

 

[malachi_a_serva]

If you can get “expert help” locally, you might want to try that.

Very interesting thread. I shall keep a close eye on the posts. I like the above advice.

 

[RNRobert]

The Orthodox were a huge part in my conversion to Catholicism from Protestantism. I saw these other churches that had valid apostolic authority that have been separated from Rome for over 1,000 years, and they aligned with a lot of the Catholic faith, so that was important to me.

Same here. I had a friend who had been trying to get me to go to RCIA class for years, but I was a “Bible-believing Protestant” who thought he knew better. However I came across someone who was Eastern Orthodox. They were different enough from the Catholic Church for me to give them a listen, but close enough to it for me to understand what the Church taught.

In the end, I chose Catholicism over Orhtodoxy for two reasons. One was that the Orthodox were pretty much concentrated into a few ethnic/national groups (Russian, Serbian, Greek, etc.). It seems this protected them from the liberalism and modernism that infected the West (even the Catholic Church to a certain extent) it prevented them from reaching the world the way the Catholic Church did. Another thing was the Papacy. The Pope provides a visible symbol of Christianity that both the Orthodox and Protestant lack. When he writes an encyclical on faith or morals, it’s big news, even in the secular world (I’m reminded of the old TV commercial: when E.F. Hutton talks, people listen! ). Do patriarchs write similar things about faith and morals? They may, but I’ve never heard about any of them.

 

[mark_a]

1. 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.

Is this something the Catholic Church teaches?