Am I a Catholic?

[Howard509]

I was raised in the Roman Catholic faith. I was in CCD class, went to Catholic school, had my first communion, etc. During my junior year of high school, I left the Catholic church as a reaction against the priest scandal.

At that time, I had not yet made the distinction between the Catholic faith and its hierarchy, so I threw the baby out with the bath water. I did not know, perhaps because of the media's reporting, that the same amount of public school teachers are accused of child molestation as Catholic priests.

SEXUAL ABUSE IN SOCIAL CONTEXT:
CATHOLIC CLERGY AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS
http://www.catholicleague.org/resear...al_context.htm

When I left the Catholic church, I started attending the Orthodox church, because my father's side of the family is Greek Orthodox. At first, I only thought it to be Catholicism without the Pope. I did not intend on changing my faith, and didn't become serious about following Eastern Orthodox doctrine until my junior year of college.

I was insecure at the time and became a zealot for Orthodoxy to compensate for my lack of self-confidence. In the words of Eric Hoffer, "The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause."

When my college career ended, Metropolitan Herman, the highest bishop of he Orthodox Church in America, resigned for being connected with a massive financial scandal. I had run away from the Catholic church for its corruption, and became exposed to scandal in Eastern Orthodoxy as well.

Financial scandal in the Orthodox Church in America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi...rch_in_America

For several reasons, I began questioning the teachings and authority of the Eastern Orthodox church. I had also realized how much my zealous proselytizing for Orthodoxy offended and hurt people. For me, Orthodoxy became legalistic, and I was more concerned with church dogma than living out the Christian life.

After reading the Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy, an indictment of the Russian Orthodox church's collusion with the Tsarist state, I came to the conclusion that the hierarchy of the Orthodox church cannot possibly be what Jesus originally intended.

For the past year, I've considered myself Christian without necessarily being either Catholic or Orthodox. I infrequently attended both churches, and recently started attending service at the Salvation Army. I've been very influenced by the emergent church movement and the thought of Marcus Borg, that living relationship with God is more important than propositional belief about God.

I decided to attend a Protestant church for a year, just to give it a chance, and if I end up missing the Eucharist, I'll return to the Catholic faith. If I did return, there is no way I could take the hierarchy seriously. I'd be one of many Catholics who believe in the faith, not the institution.

What matters is not whether you agree with the Vatican on every matter of belief and practice. What matters are the essentials of apostolic faith, such as the Apostles Creed. If there is a church doctrine not shared by the undivided church pre-Schism, I have no reason to follow it.

Hans Kung, a Roman Catholic priest and theologian who worked in Vatican II, has been highly critical of the Vatican. In response, the Vatican removed him from teaching, yet he was able to stay a priest. According to Kung, papal infallibility is a modern invention with no basis in the early church.

A Review: The Catholic Church: A Short History
http://crossculturalreviews.blogspot...t-history.html

This shows that one need not agree with the Vatican to be a faithful Catholic. What matters is the universal Christian faith of the apostolic era. If Christ truly founded the Catholic church, the laity should question any doctrine which doesn't conform to what the early church taught.

There are a few doctrines of the Catholic church that Protestants often misunderstand that I can help explain. Firstly, Protestants often have the mistaken belief that Catholics worship the saints. However, Catholics merely ask for their intercession, since it's perfectly Biblical to ask your fellow Christians for their prayers. Revelation states that the saints in heaven pray for us.

Another objection is that Catholics refer to priests as their father, in contradiction to Jesus' words to "call no earthly man your father." Was Paul then a heretic for writing "I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel"? (1 Cor. 4:15) Jesus' Aramaic hyperboles should not be taken literally. Should you literally cut off your hand if it causes you to sin?

Protestants often claim that Catholics believe in works-righteousness, that they don't rely on grace through faith for salvation. Again, this is a misunderstanding. One should read the common declaration between the Catholic church and Protestant denominations:

In November 1999, the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity issued the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" that said, "By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works."[1]
On July 18, 2006, delegates to the World Methodist Conference voted unanimously to adopt the declaration. The Methodists' resolution said the 1999 agreement "expresses a far-reaching consensus in regard to the theological controversy which was a major cause of the split in Western churches in the 16th century" over salvation by grace alone or by grace and good works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_gratia

Another claim is that Catholics don't believe in God's grace because of their belief in purgatory. However, such Protestants as John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, and Greg Boyd have been open to purgatory as a state of purification and sanctification before entering heaven, rather than as a punishment for sin.

Purgatory Explained by Greg Boyd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRM_Kn2PQsU

Another objection is that you shouldn't confess your sins to a priest, that one must confess to Christ alone. I agree with this. One can see the sacrament of confession as confessing your sins to Christ with a pastoral witness to counsel you in your relationship with Christ. (James 5:16) When you confess your sins, you don't even see the priest face to face, as to protect your anonymity.

A faithful Catholic need not assent to every Catholic dogma. According to the Catechism of the Catholic church, one has a right to conscience on religious matters:

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm

Many Catholics have understood this to mean that they have the right to conscience on matters in which they're in disagreement with the Vatican. I happen to share this point of view. If you make a distinction between the faith and the institution, one can see a great deal of good in the Catholic faith.

With over a billion members, the Catholic church is the largest Christian body in the world. Comprising many different cultures and historical traditions, it's earned the right to the name "catholic," as in "universal."

No other church comes close to its diversity in unity. Protestantism is split into thousands of denominations, and American Protestant congregations are largely segregated along racial lines, while Eastern Orthodoxy is made of many national jurisdictions that sometimes don't even get along.

[Howard509]

I am not saying this to belittle Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism. At the time of this writing, I don't consider myself a Catholic, yet I can honor the Catholic faith. Protestantism has a great deal to learn from Catholic art, liturgical music, theology, and spirituality, all beautiful works for God. The saints are examples of piety in poverty for whom Word-Faith pastors should take heed.

In the words of Martin Luther, twenty years after the Reformation began, "I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God’s Word and Baptism, and is holy." Despite his strong disagreements with the Vatican, Luther honored the Catholic faith as pious and holy. Charles Hodge expressed the same honor for the Catholic faith:

Romanism retains the supernatural element of Christianity throughout. Indeed it is a matter of devout thankfulness to God that underneath the numerous grievous and destructive errors of the Romish Church, the great truths of the Gospel are preserved. The Trinity, the true divinity of Christ, the true doctrine concerning his person as God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever; salvation through his blood, regeneration and sanctification through the almighty power of the Spirit, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life, are doctrines on which the people of God in that communion live, and which have produced such saintly men as St. Bernard, Fénélon, and doubtless thousands of others who are of the number of God’s elect. Every true worshipper of Christ must in his heart recognize as a Christian brother, wherever he may be found, any one who loves, worships, and trusts the Lord Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh and the only Saviour of men. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III, 1981 Eerdmans reprint, pp. 135, 136 - bold emphasis mine.)
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/20...an-church.html

If I returned to the Catholic church, it would be for the faith rather than the institution. It would be for the depth of preaching that gives more reverence to Scripture than the average Evangelical Protestant preacher. It would also be to receive the body, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist.

If Christ is present in the Eucharist, that is the one thing that would persuade me to be Catholic instead of Protestant. Either way, I'd retain my ecumenical outlook and skepticism of church authorities. The early church, based on Jesus' words in the Gospels, and Paul's words on communion, unanimously believed that the host is the body of Christ.

Eucharistic miracles are a living proof of the real presence. It doesn't matter whether ones uses Aristotelian thought forms to describe the consecration. What matters is what we can observe in the real world.

The Eucharistic Miracles of the World
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucha...r/engl_mir.htm

Once you've witnessed a bleeding host, you know that not only do miracles occur in the world, but that one can receive true spiritual nourishment in the Eucharist. Please remember, this is what the majority of Christians have believed from the beginning of the faith. It is not the priest's power that consecrates the Eucharist, but the words themselves, "This is my body... This is my blood."

After a year of attending Protestant churches, I might return to Catholicism, yet with a deeper appreciation and tolerance for Protestantism. Having been involved in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches, I'll have an understanding and love for all three faith traditions.

As a postmodern, I don't want to advance the Roman Catholic faith as the one true faith. What matters is finding the right church for yourself as an individual. I tried forcing myself to believe in Eastern Orthodoxy's rejection of Western thought, and that created a schism in my own mind.

As a child of the West, I will not apologize for the Western intellectual tradition. Orthodox Christian theologians often criticize the Enlightenment, despite their enjoyment of the freedoms it won for them. As a Catholic, one can have apostolic faith while being open to the modern Western world.

Am I a Catholic? I don't yet have an answer to that question, and discerning it will take time. I hope that I've helped to give you a better understanding of the Catholic faith and why I will always have a place for it in my heart.

[Porter Doran]

"Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," they say.


[Edited to explain: This is what my lapsed Catholic friends say about themselves.]

[Rob A]

The way I figure it, if the Catholic Church was OK by a saint like Dorothy Day, then it's ok by me.

[Howard509]

The bottom line for me is whether the Eucharist is true or not. That trumps everything else, even the strong disagreements I have with the Vatican.

[Porter Doran]

If they've truly got Jesus hostage in the wafers, then you'll have to just come along, willy-nilly?

[Howard509]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

If they've truly got Jesus hostage in the wafers, then you'll have to just come along, willy-nilly?

While the Catholic church has its problems, and I disagree with the Catholic church on several things, every church has its problems and I'm likely to disagree with things that every church teaches. What do you think of eucharistic miracles?

[Porter Doran]

If my post you quote wasn't dripping with enough opinion, I'm at a loss how to convey it further.

Originally Posted by Howard509

What do you think of eucharistic miracles?

This is a digression -- but how do you, as a skeptical reader of Gospel who cannot believe Jesus's miracles or resurrection, swallow miracles he is said to be doing now as bread?

[Howard509]

I do believe in Jesus' miracles and resurrection. How the resurrection is interpreted is a different question.

Eucharistic Miracle 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6SH93arrIE

Eucharistic Miracle 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_BOY...eature=related

Eucharistic Miracle 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zTik...eature=related

[Porter Doran]

Do you believe these miracles or "belove" them? Do you find the witnesses to be objectively truth-telling or to be telling a "deep" truth in which their peer-culture, higher "status of consciousness", or kindly dotage excuses a counter- or extra-factuality? We learned the importance of such queries, as I remember, in another thread of yours.

[Howard509]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

Do you believe these miracles or "belove" them? Do you find the witnesses to be objectively truth-telling or to be telling a "deep" truth in which their peer-culture, higher "status of consciousness", or kindly dotage excuses a counter- or extra-factuality? We learned the importance of such queries, as I remember, in another thread of yours.

Rather than interpreting a text from two thousand years ago, we are speaking of events that happen here and now. Eucharistic miracles are well documented from all over the world in the present. What do you think of it?

[Porter Doran]

I think I find your (and so many others') stubborn prejudice against chaps who happened to live in generations before our piddling generation maddening and amusing. And I think I find the ways in which the prejudice manifests itself -- as tacit accusations of malice or stupidity -- to cross that deplorable but commonly-crossed line between bias and unaware hate.

[Howard509]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

I think I find your (and so many others') stubborn prejudice against chaps who happened to live in generations before our piddling generation maddening and amusing. And I think I find the ways in which the prejudice manifests itself -- as accusations of malice or stupidity -- to cross that deplorable but commonly-crossed line between bias and unaware hate.

Like usual, you are making accusations based on little I've actually said, while ignoring the actual topic. Is it possible that you simply don't want to think about whether Christ is truly present in the Eucharist or not, and whether this becomes visibly manifest in miraculous forms?

[Porter Doran]

As I said in an earlier post, that the God of the universe is being held hostage in food to serve the purposes of some guys in frocks seems to me excessively dubious.

[Rob A]

Originally Posted by Howard509

The bottom line for me is whether the Eucharist is true or not. That trumps everything else, even the strong disagreements I have with the Vatican.

I'm telling you- go read The Long Loneliness, by Dorothy Day. It's her spiritual autobiography which beautifully portrays her love affair with the Catholic Church, warts and all. It might help seeing how an anarchist-minded person found herself embracing a Mother Church that did not entirely embrace her back.

[Howard509]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

As I said in an earlier post, that the God of the universe is being held hostage in food to serve the purposes of some guys in frocks seems to me excessively dubious.

It doesn't matter how it seems to you. If you cannot trust the universal testimony of the early church that the Eucharist is the body, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, how can you trust its testimony of the resurrection? How can you trust the authenticity of the New Testament? Was it not based on Jesus' own words that the Eucharist is his body and blood? If you believe that Eucharistic miracles are fraudulent, please give an alternative explanation. How do they happen and why have they been so widely reported throughout history? Did you see the video of it?

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Howard509

It doesn't matter how it seems to you.

Then why have you begun a discussion thread?

If you cannot trust the universal testimony of the early church that the Eucharist is the body, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, how can you trust its testimony of the resurrection? How can you trust the authenticity of the New Testament?

The New Testament says nothing whatever about priests controlling eternal life through small crackers.

Was it not based on Jesus' own words that the Eucharist is his body and blood?

Do you mean bread and wine? "As oft as ye" eat bread or drink wine, remember him, until he comes again (I Cor xi.25)? Do you have bread or wine in your home right now? Don't others -- including (qu'elle horreur) Protestants? -- But isn't the topic of your thread Roman Catholicism? And haven't you written here that "whether the Eucharist is true or not" will or will not force you to reconcile with "the Vatican"? So you can't be speaking of bread and wine. By "Eucharist" you must mean a cabal that has managed to trap God the way Solomon trapped the genii -- a concept abhorrent and, no, not found in "Jesus' own words", no.

If you believe that Eucharistic miracles are fraudulent, please give an alternative explanation. How do they happen and why have they been so widely reported throughout history? Did you see the video of it?

Why must I declare them "fraudulent" when I can simply declare that at this time I have no access to the characters of the reporters? But my "alternative explanation", were I convinced of one or more of these reports, would be God. God is the author of miracles.

[Howard509]

The early church wrote the New Testament. The early church, based on Jesus' own words, testified that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. In John 6, the word that translates as "eat" literally means to "gnaw," to "chew". If you can't trust the early church on the Eucharist, how can you trust the early church on the resurrection? Can you have it both ways? Eucharistic miracles have been captured on film. If there is an alternative explanation, I'd want to see it in the name of intellectual honesty.

[Porter Doran]

Further comments, free of charge.

Originally Posted by Howard509

If you cannot trust the universal testimony of the early church ... how can you trust the authenticity of the New Testament?

(I am extricating your statement from its Eucharisticism; so perhaps the extrication does not match your own belief about New Testament, but it does match the belief of many.) I do not believe the Gospels and Apostles to be writing the truth because a church told me so. I have read them in full, often, and I have read other scriptures -- Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish -- and I have read philosophers, &c. And (here is my point -- I have been coming to a point, believe it or not) I believe the Gospels and Apostles to be writing the truth because their contents accord with goodness &c. and are attested to by reason and by the Holy Spirit of Jesus within me.

Was it not based on Jesus' own words that the Eucharist is his body and blood?

Another brief thought in re Jesus's "own words":

Jesus told us "Do this" (Luk xxii.19ff; I Cor xi.25; et al.), not "Have this* done to you."


(* or, rather, what someone alleges to be something like this)

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Howard509

The early church wrote the New Testament. The early church, based on Jesus' own words, testified that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. In John 6, the word that translates as "eat" literally means to "gnaw," to "chew". If you can't trust the early church on the Eucharist, how can you trust the early church on the resurrection? Can you have it both ways?

You must know that most of Christianity is not Roman Catholic. You can't be ignorant of their beliefs and explanations and such.

Myself will say: No. Jesus's own envoys and other witnesses gave us the Gospels. The "early church" of creeds and eucharists, and certainly the Roman church in favor of which you make all this argument, were an institution of men, a government, a college -- or what-have-you -- but a machine built after the fashion of that great and bloody machine Imperial Rome.

Many others will say many other things. Why do you feel you must choose Catholicism's rationale?

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Howard509

... based on Jesus' own words ...

Originally Posted by Howard509

Jesus' Aramaic hyperboles should not be taken literally.

Oops.

[Howard509]

If reports from Poland are true, an alleged Eucharistic miracle that took place a year ago may have merit.

According to a Polish blog, the Metropolitan Curia of Bialystok has announced the results of the investigation of an Ecclesial Commission appointed by Archbishop Edward Ozorowski on March 30, 2009. The original post (in Polish) can be found here.

Father Andrzej Kakareko, Chancellor, writes that on Oct. 12, 2008, a consecrated host fell out of the hands of the priest distributing holy Communion. The priest picked it up and placed it in the vasculum in the tabernacle. After Mass, the vasculum and its contents were transferred to the safe in the sacristy.

Seven days later, after opening the safe, a red stain was seen on the host. Ten days afer that, the vessel with the host was transferred to the tabernacle in the chapel of the rectory. The next day, the host was removed from the water and placed on the corporal in the tabernacle.

On Jan. 7, 2009, a sample from the host was sent to the University in Bialystok for analysis. According to two medical professionals, professor Maria Sobaniec-Lotowska and professor Stanislaw Sulkowski, the sample, in their opinion, most resembled the myocardial (heart) tissue of a living organism.

As part of its investigation, the commission interviewed witnesses and pathomorphology experts. The commission determined that there was no third-party intervention. The case has been forwarded to the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw.

While unusual in this day and age, the Church has a long history of Eucharistic miracles. The Vatican International Exhibition’s “Eucharistic Miracles of the World” documents more than 130 worldwide miracles of the Eucharist, demonstrating that Jesus Christ in the Eucharist — body, blood, soul and divinity — continues to make his presence manifest at unique times and places in history.

Perhaps the most famous and well-known, is the Miracle of Lanciano, which occurred about A.D. 750. It bears repeating, as it closely resembles the alleged Polish miracle. During Mass, the celebrant doubted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. During the consecration, the host transformed into flesh and blood. Subsequent investigations confirmed the authenticity of the human tissue. An investigation, as late as 1970, found the flesh to be cardiac tissue and the blood to be type AB.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/eucha..._miracle_2009/

Eucharistic miracles are well documented throughout the world and throughout history. Does this not help to confirm Jesus' own words and the testimony of the early church on the Eucharist?

[Howard509]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

Oops.

One needs to look at how the early church universally interpreted Jesus' words, including Paul. If they were universally wrong about the Eucharist, were they universally wrong about the resurrection as well? Can you have it both ways?

[Porter Doran]

I have no idea whom you mean by this "early church universally", but whoever they were -- if indeed they were -- they were chaps like the rest of us. I believe in God and Jesus, not men.

I believe in God's attribute Truth, too -- and your saying (as per the quotes of you in my post you quote) "listen to Jesus" and "don't listen to Jesus" is contradiction and therefore cannot be true no matter what "early church universally" tells us about it.

[Howard509]

Please keep in mind, I don't believe that receiving Christ in the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. It is a means to receiving grace and there are other means as well. Without faith and with hate in your heart, the Eucharist can do nothing. As far as becoming mystically unified with Christ, I can't imagine anything better than consuming his body, soul and divinity in the Eucharist just as the early church universally practiced.