|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Almost thou persuadest me (to the Roman Catholic Church)
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Questions for the Roman Catholics here.
You have nearly convinced me your Church has, more than any other, the right to call itself the true church (not that it's utterly compelling to me, at this writing anyway).
1) Why should I convert?
2) Can you think of any reasons I shouldn't convert?
Thanks much for any replies, unless you're an amateur winder upper who really has little respect for the institution.
[Spelling fix in the title, so shoot me. -Gwai]
[ 20. May 2014, 14:37: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
You have nearly convinced me your Church has, more than any other, the right to call itself the true church (not that it's utterly compelling to me, at this writing anyway).
1) Why should I convert?
If you decide that you truly believe that it is the (closest thing to the) True Church, then why wouldn't you?
Or are you asking them to finally convince you of that fact?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
I guess it depends on how deeply your soul/mind/spirit is crying out. As Lumen Gentium 2.14 says
quote:
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
Paging IngoB...
AV
[ 16. May 2014, 13:15: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Well the reason I have not converted (as yet!) is that I am not fully persuaded. I don't know if this is a general policy in the UK, but the (excellent) priest who I had instruction with really did think that I should only convert if that was my genuine conviction, and that if in my heart of heart I was still, theologically, more Anglican that Roman, I should stay where I was whilst always seeking more light.
So it depends on how nearly is nearly.
So, for example, issues where I am more in line with the current C of E are:
- artificial contraception (not that at my age it is an issue ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
- no celibate priesthood (getting awkward)
- women priests (well that just about does it).
I rather think the policy of discouraging non wholehearted converts is wise.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
- no celibate priesthood (getting awkward)
- women priests (well that just about does it).
I rather think the policy of discouraging non wholehearted converts is wise.
The great irony is that the appeal on the latter is largely based on 1 Timothy 2, though a certain passage on false teachers in the same letter is curiously downplayed by catholics: quote:
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
Where the point bolded is rather pertinent to the 2nd of your two points quoted.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
Make sure you actually CAN.
If you are "living with" someone or divorced or something they get "funny".
[Voice of bitter experience]
Also ask yourself "Does the world NEED another Catholic?" and if so "Does it have to be ME"
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
It may not be a head decision but a heart one.
Do you have an inner feeling that this is a spiritual home for you?
Does that feel come back over and over even when you are wrestling with seeming inconsistency in dogma and polity?
Have you found a local congregation that feels right even in the light of larger institutional questions?
Does this local congregation wrestle with the larger issues in a way that is open and compassionate?
Your inner guide will let you know which direction to go.
I wish you peace as you engage in this discernment.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
1) Why should I convert?
Let me answer with a Zen koan (Mumonkan, Case 46):
quote:
Master Sekiso said, "You are at the top of the 100 foot high pole. How will you make a step further?" Another Zen Master of ancient times said, "One who sits on top of the 100 foot pole has not quite attained true enlightenment. Make another step forward from the top of the pole and throw your own body into the 100,000 universes."
You have climbed the 100 foot pole, and now you are sitting on top there, swaying in the breeze. You are asking me how you could climb up even further. I do not have an answer to that. Yet that is not true religion. Religion is to step forward.
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
2) Can you think of any reasons I shouldn't convert?
Sure. It's tough to live according to Catholic morals, the Church is spent and shallow, many people hate you as a cultural throwback, and mostly it's getting worse. Etc.
Shrug. This isn't kindergarden, this is the Church Militant.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EloiseA
Shipmate
# 18029
|
Posted
As someone who converted to Catholicism more than 30 years ago, I'm not sure where to start.
Except to say with Chesterton that the Church is bigger inside than outside and there is a great feeling of coming home, great inner peace when you do know you are in the right place. Not that anything is easier or that doubts fade away overnight. But the crucial decision has been made and you are now free to move in a new direction and discover what is there within. You belong.
“He has come too near to the truth, and has forgotten that truth is a magnet, with the powers of attraction and repulsion. . . . The moment men cease to pull against [the Catholic Church] they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair. . . . When he has entered the Church, he finds that the Church is much larger inside than it is outside.”
G. K. Chesterton
The Catholic Church and Conversion
--------------------
“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you odd.” Flannery O'Connnor
Posts: 55 | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I used to feel those things, or some of them, pulled towards the Catholic church, a tug towards it, enjoying many things in it, affection, and so on, and then, oddly, those things began to lessen. I'm not sure why really, but I don't see them as things that I control in any case. Somehow I was dissuaded.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Shrug. This isn't kindergarden, this is the Church Militant.
You already know this is less than endearing.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
It seems to me there are at least two questions here: one is about your own beliefs and the other is about whether to join a (large) group. I see no reason why you shouldn't agree theologically with the Roman Catholic church and still remain in another Christian institution, perhaps out of habit or family concerns. On the other hand, perhaps it is important to you to belong to the appropriate church.
As for myself, I am not a "joiner", but I do enjoy Sunday services with a group of believers. I do not assume we all agree about details.
(I doubt that a person who deserves the name "moron" would be worrying about all this; I suggest finding another appellation.)
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB;
quote:
You have climbed the 100 foot pole, and now you are sitting on top there, swaying in the breeze. You are asking me how you could climb up even further. I do not have an answer to that. Yet that is not true religion. Religion is to step forward.
No quarrel with that especially. I would be genuinely interested in your account of how you reconcile what is, essentially, a 'fideist' position with the Catholic Church's claim to be 'rational' rather than 'fideist'. That is a polite enquiry and you have no need to answer it if you have other demands on your time and attention.
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was perhaps the most active priest in the gaining of conversions that the modern age has seen. Sheen was instrumental in the conversion, or in the return to the Church of lapsed Catholics, of scores of people, many famous, some obscure.
I recommend this paper as well as Sheen's essay The Psychology of Conversion, plus the biography by Thomas C. Reeves: America's Bishop: The Life & Times of Fulton J. Sheen.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
No quarrel with that especially. I would be genuinely interested in your account of how you reconcile what is, essentially, a 'fideist' position with the Catholic Church's claim to be 'rational' rather than 'fideist'. That is a polite enquiry and you have no need to answer it if you have other demands on your time and attention.
You climb up with grace and intellect, you step forward with grace and will.
I'm not a fideist, far from it. Heck, I have explained and defended various metaphysical proofs of God's existence on SoF, including one of my own. That does not mean that I'm unable to recognise the impossibility to logic yourself into faith. Incidentally, that this is in fact impossible is a "de fide" dogma of the RCC.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I have experience, if it is worth anything, having gone from Lutheran to Roman Catholic to Orthodox. Ultimately, you have to make your mind up one way or the other. Staying in no man's land too long is dangerous. Obviously you're looking for someone to push you over the threshold but I'm not quite sure it works like that.
[ 16. May 2014, 20:58: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
As someone from the Anglican tradition who is wrestling with basic Christian theology, I would not join the RC church because my perception, as an outsider, is that I would be asked to assent to a number of propositions I could not agree with. I don't mean just the classic differences between the RCC and other denominations such as the infallibility of the Pope and the Assumption of the BVM, but more basic ones such the meaning of the atonement. As, I have said, that is an outsider's perception and catholic members of the Ship may tell me there is more room for doubt in the RCC than I think.
The genius of the Anglican church is that you can join and be accepted without anyone questioning you about what you actually believe. Many people see that as a weakness and say the the Anglican church doesn't believe in anything very much. I see it as a strength that I am not being asked to be intellectually dishonest.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
2) Can you think of any reasons I shouldn't convert?
Sure. It's tough to live according to Catholic morals, the Church is spent and shallow, many people hate you as a cultural throwback, and mostly it's getting worse. Etc.
Shrug. This isn't kindergarden, this is the Church Militant.
Don't take it personally, Ingo, but sometimes I want to kiss you!
I will always live on the edge of the Tiber. Ecclesiologically I am painfully aware that Mother Cantuar is a bastard child. I mourn that, though I sometimes remind myself that Jesus was, too.
Hagiologically I have difficulty with wise old men sitting around a table deciding whether a weeping statue really cured some old dear of cancer ... the only miracle I need is that this old dear reached out her hands and believed, against all odds, that God was in the bread and the wine and the word. I still think that Mother Rome has most else right though. ('scuse the grammar).
But in the end I think God stuck me in Mother Cantuar, and that for all its legion faults, and all my love for Rome, and for all that even this is a mystery, that is where I have to stay.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's tough to live according to Catholic morals, the Church is spent and shallow, many people hate you as a cultural throwback, and mostly it's getting worse. Etc.
IngoB,
Rather say that the place has been run by the cultural throwbacks for the last few hundred years. It spent the 19th century in reaction against democracy and the 20th century in reaction against gender equality. It no longer leads anything except the arch-conservative tendency. Which is why you find those who dissent so predictable - they're all coming from the same place - modern life.
moron,
But that's not all that important. If you feel that Jesus is more present there than elsewhere, or that God is calling you to go there, what else matters ?
Would you not choose to put up with any amount of crap for the sake of Jesus ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
Eighteen years ago I walked into my nearest Catholic church one Sunday. I was a Quaker at the time, but becoming more and more uncomfortable with the way I felt the Society was losing its Christian roots. I immediatly felt at home, which was acutally a bit of an 'oh no' moment. I wasn't married to my partner at the time and my family hd lots of prejudices against Catholicism, so deciding to be received into the Church wasn't an easy, however It's not a decision I've ever regretted.
--------------------
'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Pope Francis has changed all that, leo. I think you would be quite happy in the RCC.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
The genius of the Anglican church is that you can join and be accepted without anyone questioning you about what you actually believe. Many people see that as a weakness and say the the Anglican church doesn't believe in anything very much. I see it as a strength that I am not being asked to be intellectually dishonest.
Sure if you actually join (i.e. are baptised and confirmed or received into the church) you are expected to understand and accept the Nicene Creed at least? Anglicans may not agree on much but the historic creeds are certainly on the list. That certainly doesn't lock you into any particular theory of atonement, beyond "for our sake he was crucified..." but it does lock down the core of the faith.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenuphar
Shipmate
# 16057
|
Posted
Moron, you should convert if your study leads you to believe the RCC really is the one church founded by Christ, as it claims. If you come to believe it still holds fast to the true teaching of Christ, you may feel you are called to take up your cross and follow her, even when it is hard.
Try reading at least some of the Church Fathers ( the early followers of the apostles and their successors) such as Ignatius, Iranaeus, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr...does the Catechism still teach the same as they did about, say, the bread and wine becoming the true Body and Blood of Christ after consecration by a bishop, ordained himself by a successor of the apostles? ( As numbers increased, bishops were assisted by presbyters: I believe the word priest tended to be avoided to avoid confusion with the Jewish priesthood at least until the Temple was destroyed).
I was an Anglican who resisted entering the Catholic Church for 40 years, until I had to decide who had the authority to change fundamental doctrines - it happened to be whether women could become priests, but it was the principle that mattered. Once I really looked into the doctrines held by the Catholic Church which previously I had not believed to be essential to salvation (in my case, the 4 most recent dogma of the Church - the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Our Lady, and the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope) - I found it was my misunderstanding of the Church's teaching that was faulty, not that these were ideas recently dreamed up. The faith has always remained the same, although it is so complex it took centuries to clarify - the Trinity, the two natures of Jesus, etc. Doctrines tend not to be spelt out until they are queried, so although I think you will find from the writings of the Fathers that Transubstantiation, for instance, was taught and believed from the earliest Christians onward, not invented in the 11th century , when we think ithe word was first written down. As Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman (himself a convert) said, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
Like so many others, once I entered I felt I had "come home", and I have never once regretted it for a moment. It gives me my deepest joy and utmost fulfillment . Even the doctrines I found hardest (contraception) made complete sense eventually, and are very beautiful and logical. God gives grace to help with difficulties if you ask Him. I will remember you, and all seekers, in my prayers.
Posts: 161 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, though, as we all know, the Orthodox ALSO make the same claims as the RCs do.
I don't know how to square that particular circle. Either the Pope becomes more Orthodox and drops what our bearded friends would consider to be innovations, or the Orthodox make adjustments to become more Roman Catholic ...
All that said, I can certainly understand how any engagement with Patristics and with church history in a fuller sense than the usual 'those nasty Catholics got it wrong' approach that many Protestants take is going to lead to a more 'Catholic' and sacramental approach.
I can also understand how Catholicism resonated with Gussie a former Quaker. Some Quakers I've met have told me that RC visitors have felt very at home in their meetings ... given the vein of contemplative prayer that runs throughout Catholicism in its various forms.
Whether we are Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox there are, of course, interlocking sections of the Venn Diagram and these are the things that resonate most with me.
'What matters is Christ, all else is trifles,' as Queen Elizabeth is supposed to have said.
That's not to go for a reductionist approach - as I do think that we should take very seriously the combined witness of the Churches of East and West in their undivided state for the first Millenium (or first 500 years if we include our friends the Oriental Orthodox who, we're told, were never as Monophysite as they were taken to be ...).
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chocoholic
Shipmate
# 4655
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
The genius of the Anglican church is that you can join and be accepted without anyone questioning you about what you actually believe. Many people see that as a weakness and say the the Anglican church doesn't believe in anything very much. I see it as a strength that I am not being asked to be intellectually dishonest.
Sure if you actually join (i.e. are baptised and confirmed or received into the church) you are expected to understand and accept the Nicene Creed at least? Anglicans may not agree on much but the historic creeds are certainly on the list. That certainly doesn't lock you into any particular theory of atonement, beyond "for our sake he was crucified..." but it does lock down the core of the faith.
The only ones who absolutely have to do that are the clergy (maybe some other office holders too, my memory for this is a little poor).
Those baptised as babies have the profession of faith made for them. Faith is professed again at confirmation, as well as the recitation of the Creeds at main services, but you could argue you need neither to understand or accept them to recite them. Things can change along the way too, things you once believed you may question or stop believing but still carry on going.
Posts: 773 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Most Catholics,just like most Anglicans and most other Christians are brought into the family of the Church at an early age.
Most Catholics,just like most Anglicans and indeed most other Christians, do not spend a long time investigating or worrying about the finer points of doctrine of their respective communities.
If they have had a happy childhood,if they have trusted their parents, they are often happy to take on trust the religious community into which they have been born and in which they have been nurtured.
This is not in any way to denigrate those relatively few people who have taken the time to investigate the finer points of doctrine and perhaps,to transfer ,for one reason or another, to another form of Christianity, which they can more readily identify with.
The 'invincible ignorance' of which leo speaks is in one way a reasonably positive statement for its time.
The man who became in the 1840s pope Pius IX,of course was brought up to see the Catholic Church as the Ark of Salvation outside of which there was no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
He was one of the first to state publicly from the Catholic side that those who did not know the Church from the inside (yes, due to their 'invincible ignorance' of what the Church actually is,) could attain eternal salvation.
Of course this may seem a viewpoint from the distant past,but that is because it does in fact come from the distant past and for its time it was a bold statement.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The conversion rate is OOM 1:1000
We're all RUBBISH at it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Both of my parents were lapsed Catholics. My father because of his awful experiences in a Catholic orphanage and my mother because she followed a 1960's spiritual awakening path away from the church. My husband was raised Catholic and so both of our extended families are heavily Catholic. For several reasons it was not the path for us or our children but I still end up at the Catholic Church for countless occasions and celebrations and the family who are members seem content in their choice.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Questions for the Roman Catholics here.
You have nearly convinced me your Church has, more than any other, the right to call itself the true church (not that it's utterly compelling to me, at this writing anyway).
1) Why should I convert?
-So that you "may have life, and have it abundantly."
-Because "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you."
-And so "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
-Which leads to "Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs."
-From which comes
quote:
Homer: (after finishing confession) “Woo-hoo, I’m clean! In your face, Lord!“
Fr. Sean:“Not yet, Mr. Simpson. I can only absolve you if you’re a Catholic”
Homer:“Uh-huh. And how do I join? Do I whale on some Unitarians?”
Fr. Sean:“Well, it’s a little harder than that. It starts with looking deep inside yourself…”
(Homer groans)
“But it ends with bread and wine”
Homer:“Woo-hoo!”
(kinda, sorta)
-And if your lucky maybe even a taste of this.
-But always available: an encounter with This.
quote:
2) Can you think of any reasons I shouldn't convert?
Not right now. It's late at night and I'm hungry but I'll think about it.
[ 19. May 2014, 07:58: Message edited by: Pancho ]
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I have experience, if it is worth anything, having gone from Lutheran to Roman Catholic to Orthodox. Ultimately, you have to make your mind up one way or the other. Staying in no man's land too long is dangerous. Obviously you're looking for someone to push you over the threshold but I'm not quite sure it works like that.
I would just add to this that the final step is a leap of faith and that's something only you can do.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
This is also a question I've been wondering about - whether to become a Catholic. I don't have answers, but my specific questions are about whether having differing views on things like contraception, gay marriage, women priests, etc. mean that one can't honestly become a Catholic, or whether the larger overall beliefs override the details? I hear different perspectives from different Catholics, so I remain confused.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenuphar
Shipmate
# 16057
|
Posted
Well, when I was received into the Church, I had to stand before the priest and congregation and say, "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God."
But before you say, "Well, that settles it, then!" please find a sympathetic Catholic (or Catholic source) who can explain what the Church really teaches and why, particularly in those areas in which you have difficulties. For example, I really struggled with the issue of contraception, until I came to realise that the Church teaches that God designed the marital act as inseparably both unitive and procreative. It is a total self-giving of the spouses to each other, without holding anything back, and it is also a participation in God's ongoing act of creation. Spacing one's children is not sinful, however, for instance by exercising restraint during the wife's fertile period.
Feel free to PM me if you think I offer any help.
Posts: 161 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
One shouldn't think that if one does enter into full communion with the Catholic church that confusion will simply disappear.
We are thinking human beings and should continue to think for ourselves while trusting in God's mercy.
Believing and accepting that the Church teaches what it does - as contained in the historic creeds - doesn't necessarily mean that we understand,nor that we agree with everything and any thing that every bishop or some other'authority' has pronounced upon.
We must accept however that the Church has certain policies on things like women priests and gay marriage.If we disagree with these policies then we must try to ask ourselves why we disagree with them and then follow our 'informed' conscience.
The Church would claim that she aims in all things for justice and peace amongst the nations,the peoples and also individuals and we should struggle also for that in whatever way we find best.(That might just possibly be trying to explain why we favour,if we do, gay marriage and/or women priests.)
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
One shouldn't think that if one does enter into full communion with the Catholic church that confusion will simply disappear.
We are thinking human beings and should continue to think for ourselves while trusting in God's mercy.
Believing and accepting that the Church teaches what it does - as contained in the historic creeds - doesn't necessarily mean that we understand,nor that we agree with everything and any thing that every bishop or some other'authority' has pronounced upon.
We must accept however that the Church has certain policies on things like women priests and gay marriage.If we disagree with these policies then we must try to ask ourselves why we disagree with them and then follow our 'informed' conscience.
The Church would claim that she aims in all things for justice and peace amongst the nations,the peoples and also individuals and we should struggle also for that in whatever way we find best.(That might just possibly be trying to explain why we favour,if we do, gay marriage and/or women priests.)
They are not policies, they are unalterable teachings.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Until they're altered, of course. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
One shouldn't think that if one does enter into full communion with the Catholic church that confusion will simply disappear.
We are thinking human beings and should continue to think for ourselves while trusting in God's mercy.
Believing and accepting that the Church teaches what it does - as contained in the historic creeds - doesn't necessarily mean that we understand,nor that we agree with everything and any thing that every bishop or some other'authority' has pronounced upon.
This is an attitude I have found in quite a few Catholics - Catholics who are devout in their faith, and who also don't agree with everything the church teaches, for reasons they have thought through and prayed through. They tend to be cradle Catholics though - so when they first accepted the faith, they hadn't yet really thought through many of these things. Their views have come as they've grown older. Whereas if I become a Catholic as a middle-aged adult, I am already aware of the areas in which my views differ and the areas in which they are the same. So I'd be entering into it with more awareness.
It's hard to give examples, because the examples tend to be DH topics, and I don't want to discuss the DH topics themselves, so don't want to move to that board. I'm just trying to work out how such topics relate to one's discernment process in whether to become a Catholic - how central they are, how it's viewed if a person doesn't accept them all as God's rules, but is willing to join the Catholic church, respecting that these views are part of the tradition, and may or may not be changed in the future.
Surely realistically, the many people in any particular faith/denomination are going to each have variations in interpretations and understandings of certain doctrines. It is impossible, surely, for every person to see every single aspect of the catechism in exactly the same way. Certainly every Catholic I've talked to has a different take on things. I'm wondering to what extent this is simply an unspoken and accepted understanding, or to what extent it's seen as wrong.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Indeed, the requirement that one must agree with the whole faith to enter the Catholic church has the odd result that cradle Catholics agree with less doctrine than converts. Why should converts be "better" than Catholics who attend church every week? Or is it that the cradle Catholics aren't good enough either, but no one knows who it is who should be kicked out?
I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it. And yet converts must have better understanding than that?
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it. And yet converts must have better understanding than that?
Furthermore, Jesus and the New Testament writers seemed to be more concerned about right behaviour than right belief (important though they still considered the latter to be).
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it. And yet converts must have better understanding than that?
Aren't you conflating full understanding with acceptance? Which of Jesus's teachings did they outright reject? Surely there are many things which He taught that we cannot understand entirely - but which we accept on faith.
In Jesus's own words, there were teachings which the apostles were not ready for even after His post-resurrection appearances to them: He told them they would only be ready for them after He sent them the Holy Spirit who would lead them "into all truth". For Catholics, that teaching authority is delegated by Christ to His Church (in the Holy Spirit), with Peter at its head.
Both converts and cradle-Catholics alike are required not to reject outright the Church's teaching in favour of their own ideas. Both are required to work at their misunderstandings of the Church's doctrines, or at least not to let them stand in the way of their acceptance of the Church's teaching authority.
[ 20. May 2014, 15:15: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it.
Ironically, one of the things that really appeals to me about the Catholic church is the very acknowledgement of the mystery of God - that we can't understand God, that God is a mystery, that we don't have answers for everything. And yet, the more I explore Catholicism, the more it seems that there are certain answers one is expected to fully accept, rather than acknowledge that it's impossible to know. Transubstantiation is an example - I'm sure discussion of it belongs on a different board, but I am not wanting to discuss or debate it here. Just using it to illustrate something broader. I can't say for certain exactly what happens to the bread and the wine when I take communion. To me, it is a mystery. I don't feel I can say it is definitely the literal, physical body and blood of Christ - because to me Jesus' words on it are vaguer. One priest told me this wasn't good enough - that I have weak faith and won't be able to become a Catholic unless I change my view on this. Other Catholics disagree. I find it so bizarre - how is acknowledging that God's ways are too vast and incomprehensible for my human brain to fully grasp them an indication of weak faith?
What I'm really finding confusing is that although the Catholic church is supposedly far more specific and prescriptive about what one must believe, while the Anglican church is supposedly far more 'woolly' and allowing for many differences, I find in general the opposite when I actually talk to Anglicans and Catholics. The majority of Catholics I talk to are far more accepting of difference in understanding, while the Anglicans I talk to seem far more intent on trying to persuade me to see things exactly as they do. So while in theory the Anglican church appeals to me more, in practice - in terms of the actual people I want to be a part of - I'm far more drawn to the Catholic church.
[ 20. May 2014, 15:27: Message edited by: Fineline ]
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Yes,there are times when even those who followed Jesus ,could not understand what he was saying,nor agree with it. There is the episode recorded in St John's Gospel where some people could not understand what Jesus was saying about giving them his Body and Blood and some walked away.
No doubt some of those who did not understand did stay.They may be like some of us who say :Where shall we go ,Lord? You have the words of eternal life.
This is the situation for some,possibly many, Catholics.We believe that the Church teaches in Jesus'name.If we accept that Jesus is the Son of God (in Catholicspeak the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) and that He has given the Church
the commission to carry His message to the ends(and the end) of the world,then we listen with some respect to what the Church says.We may find it difficult to understand or sometimes impossible to follow - and some of us may even walk away,saying 'this is a hard saying'.
Although for Catholics the Church,as Jesus, is infallible,it is certainly not the case that all Churchmen are infallible,nor is it the case that all church people,men and women,see clearly and understand some of the words used by churchmen to describe the eternal and unalterable teachings.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it. And yet converts must have better understanding than that?
Aren't you conflating full understanding with acceptance? Which of Jesus's teachings did they outright reject? Surely there are many things which He taught that we cannot understand entirely - but which we accept on faith.
And some of those things that the Catholic church takes on faith I am not ready to take on faith. If I were sure that Christ meant me to take them on faith, I would obviously have to get over that, but in practice I seem to be expected to take on faith that Christ meant me to take on faith whatever the church says I must take on faith. (Things like the virgin birth that I don't take as important although they are orthodox teaching.) Truthfully I suspect God doesn't really care whether I believe in the virgin birth, even if it happened.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Both converts and cradle-Catholics alike are required not to reject outright the Church's teaching in favour of their own ideas. Both are required to work at their misunderstandings of the Church's doctrines, or at least not to let them stand in the way of their acceptance of the Church's teaching authority.
But surely you agree that in practice short of an inquisition of the creepy kind cradle-Catholics will end up much less orthodox in belief than people who must as grown-ups decide that they believe (or will say they believe) everything the church teaches.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
What I'm really finding confusing is that although the Catholic church is supposedly far more specific and prescriptive about what one must believe, while the Anglican church is supposedly far more 'woolly' and allowing for many differences, I find in general the opposite when I actually talk to Anglicans and Catholics. The majority of Catholics I talk to are far more accepting of difference in understanding, while the Anglicans I talk to seem far more intent on trying to persuade me to see things exactly as they do. So while in theory the Anglican church appeals to me more, in practice - in terms of the actual people I want to be a part of - I'm far more drawn to the Catholic church.
I think the difference is that Anglicans are more wooly because they don't expect you to actually agree with them on everything. The Catholic church does. On the other hand, as I noted above, most actual Catholics don't, which creates a really weird two tier system.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
It's not a two tier system.It is a 1 billion tier system.Each person understands the same message in a personal way
It's really no more difficult taking the Church on trust than taking Jesus on trust.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
This is the situation for some,possibly many, Catholics.We believe that the Church teaches in Jesus'name.If we accept that Jesus is the Son of God (in Catholicspeak the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) and that He has given the Church the commission to carry His message to the ends(and the end) of the world,then we listen with some respect to what the Church says.We may find it difficult to understand or sometimes impossible to follow - and some of us may even walk away,saying 'this is a hard saying'.
This is to me the crux of the decision whether or not to convert. Do you believe that the Roman church has Christ's authority to rule on all matters of life and faith, and that such rules are guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore always correct at the present time?
If yes then go and convert.
The specifics of the doctrines are less important. You may agree with 100% of the teachings now but if in 20 years there is a new development, will you accept that as wholeheartedly? You need to have that frame of mind, in my opinion, to be comfortable taking that next step.
In my CofE parish we have ministry staff who do not agree on OOW but they all still have a place. Neither side would accept top-down authority telling them what to believe, that's why the ones who share the RCC position do not go to that church even though they agree in that area.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Indeed, the requirement that one must agree with the whole faith to enter the Catholic church has the odd result that cradle Catholics agree with less doctrine than converts. Why should converts be "better" than Catholics who attend church every week? Or is it that the cradle Catholics aren't good enough either, but no one knows who it is who should be kicked out?
How is this strange? It is one thing to become a citizen of for example the UK, it is quite another to have such a naturalised citizenship revoked over offences against the UK. In order to become a UK citizen it is requires that you have lived in the UK for several years, that you pass a test concerning your knowledge of British traditions and customs, that you swear allegiance to the crown... Whereas those who are born to British nationals can get their UK citizenship even if they never set foot on British soil, nobody tests them on their knowledge of British traditions and customs, and their allegiance to the crown is assumed rather than vowed. Furthermore, those who are naturalised UK citizens can have their citizenship revoked, can become denaturalised, over grievous offences against the UK as decided by its government. But the level of offence required for that is quite beyond for example a lack of knowledge of British traditions and customs.
Becoming a member of the RCC means to become a naturalised citizen of the City of God, and to swear allegiance to its Lord. As for any nation (or tribe, if you wish...), becoming part of it is rather different than getting thrown out of it. Unlike for a regular nation we are all born in exile, in the City of Man, and will not see our adopted country till our death. Yet just as for normal nations, there are special provisions made for the children of those who are already nationals, even though they are not born in the home country. They can gain citizenship from their parents, typically by walking into one of the local embassies...
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it. And yet converts must have better understanding than that?
This is simply not true. In John 6, for example, Jesus absolutely requires a specific belief of his disciples. And he loses a lot of them because they just cannot believe in this. In Matt 16:23, he tells St Peter brutally what he thinks of his lack of understanding. And of course, if we count his various teaching encounters with the Jews, in particular with the Pharisees, then Christ cannot be accused of doctrinal "laissez faire" in the slightest. If you merely look at the apostles, then you are suffering from severe selection bias: you are then of course considering the very people that somehow made the cut. Many Jews who encountered Jesus didn't.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
How is this strange? It is one thing to become a citizen of for example the UK, it is quite another to have such a naturalised citizenship revoked over offences against the UK.
Not strange in terms of not what you'd expect - it makes sense in terms of human nature. But to me it seems a bit bizarre that in order to join a group of people whose depth of faith and wisdom and commitment I really admire, I'd have to agree to a set of beliefs way more rigid than theirs - to agree to what seems to me to be a much narrower understanding of the Bible and God than they do. It seems a step back rather than a step forward.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
