Ask-A-Catholic

[CSloan]

Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?

Well, I met a Catholic women in my graduate program and I asked her why she was Catholic instead of Christian.  She was open to my questions and very nicely informed me that Catholics are Christians and then gave me a few books to read.  I devoured the books - I was thrilled to see that I had been misinformed about the Catholic Church.  I continued my own research into the Catechism / Church Fathers / Church history / disagreements between Catholics and Protestants and after about 1 year and a half I signed up for RCIA, which is a 6-8 month program which prepares adults to join the RC.  I remember my wife was initially horrified - she was raised in an independent fundamentalist church and felt she was already compromising by attending a Presbyterian Church - it took her a bit more time, but after reading Scott Hahn and a lot of church history she decided to join, as well.  I also have to say that a professor at my Presbyterian college really prepared me for my reconciliation with the RC.

Let me see if I understand.

You were led to catholicism by another catholic. You researched some catholic books and decided to become a catholic. Soon after you led your wife from a fundamentalist church down the same path.

Did you have any children you also brought to this faith?

[ravenlorre]

For the record, although I was introduced to the Catholic Church through a person and books, we believe our family led to the Church by God :)
 
blessings

[CSloan]

We have two daughters and we are raising them Catholic.  Although our oldest attends a Protestant youth group, as well as Mass.  Also, although I was introduced to the Catholic Church through a person and books, we believe we were lead to the Church by God :)
 
blessings

Have you ever considered you were on the narrow path, but have been led onto the wide path?

[ravenlorre]

For the record, although I was introduced to the Catholic Church through a person and books, we believe our family led to the Church by God :)
 
blessings

Have you ever considered you were on the narrow path, but have been led onto the wide path?

Of course.  I didn't make this decision lightly.  As I wrote earlier, I spent years researching and praying before I actually became Catholic.  I am now convinced that I was misinformed about Catholicism by my religious leaders.

blessings

[broach972]

I am glad and impressed that this thread has been civil and extremely enlightening.  Ravenlorre, I also joined the Catholic Church recently...this past Easter.  My experience mirrors yours to a degree.  My journey lasted for about 10 years.  I too was attracted to RC as a history major.  Ultimately, I came to the same conclusions as you did.  It took some time.

My wife also grew up in a very conservative fundamentalist background.  Most of her family attended Bob Jones Academy, which is attached to the Bob Jones University in South Carolina.  I was shocked that she wanted to explore Catholicism.  She made it very clear when I met her that if I continued to explore it, then I could forget about a longterm relationship.  I wasn't sure if Catholicism was for me at the time, and I didn't want to sacrifice a potential mate, so I backed off.  I continued to study Catholicism and work out my problems with the faith.  Ironically, it was the authority of the Papacy that was the last remaining obstacle for me.  I firmly believed that if God wanted me to take this path, then He would provide the opportunity.

After being married for about three years, my wife shocked me when she told me that she wanted to explore Catholicism.  No doubt that it was God who opened the door.  I thought that it would never be a possibility.  We attended RCIA classes and a year and half later, we both entered the Church.

Ravenlorre, thanks for sharing your experience and insights.

[DCR]

ravenlorre,

During your investigation of the Roman Catholic Church, how much did you explore Orthodoxy, if at all?  Did you ever consider their side of the schism?

And, do you believe that the entire church was always under the single authority of the Papacy even during the original apostolic times of the first century?

Thanks for being open and willing to share your thoughts. 

I really only investigated the Orthodox Tradition briefly after I joined the RC.  I am sure I have much to learn about their faith and doctrines.  Although, I have read a lot of writings from early Orthodox Church Fathers like St. Basil and St Gregory - I really admire their tradition of monasticism and contemplative prayer.

I believe that the Orthodox Churches and the Anglican / Episcopalian Churches are so close to Roman Catholicism that I only distinguish between the traditions if it might offend someone if I didn't - I hope that makes sense.

I believe in the supremacy of Peter - that Jesus set him apart from the other apostles as the first Pope.  I acknowledge that the office of the Pope has developed over the past 2000 years in order to lead a world wide church, but it was there in the beginning as well.

blessings

If I were seriously exploring what I suspected to be the continuous apostolic church, then the RCC/EOC question would have to be clearly resolved in my mind before I would consider going there.  To be honest, from the outside looking in, the scales are weighed slightly in favor of the Orthodox, in my opinion... just in reading what led up to the schism and how things evolved afterwards and so forth.  We have had some Orthodox posters on this forum before.  One poster, CDHealy, was fairly prolific and eager to give a defense of Orthodoxy.  He was still in the catechumen process (or whatever they call it), but left the board when he and his family were officially inducted into the Orthodox Church (Antiochian Orthodox, I believe) earlier this year.  Anyway, I thought I would ask you whether you ever investigated this (and, the question is open to other Catholic converts as well).

Where the Papacy is concerned, and particularly the "supremacy of Peter," does that mean that Peter had authority above the other apostles?  If so, when looking at the New Testament scriptures empirically, I find problems with that.  In the first few chapters of Acts, I do see Peter having a prominent role.  However, as time goes on, Peter seems to fade into the background, and we see people like James apparently having a more authoritative role.  Notice in the epistle to the Galatians that the apostle Paul calls attention to a time when Peter/Cephas was said to be in the wrong (Galatians 2:11).  So, I'm missing where Peter and his "successors" were said to have a single authoritative role over the Church.  Furthermore, in the first century, the church seemed to be centered in Jerusalem.  As time went on, Antioch and then the Asia Minor area (modern-day Turkey) seemed to be where the Church was concentrated.  Rome was just a "mission" (if you will) in the beginning.  A central headquarters in Rome seemed to come much later.  And, the power of the Bishop of Rome seemed to evolve much later.

Anyway, I'm just rambling through things I've pondered before.  Thanks for your insight.

[ravenlorre]

I am glad and impressed that this thread has been civil and extremely enlightening.  Ravenlorre, I also joined the Catholic Church recently...this past Easter.  My experience mirrors yours to a degree.  My journey lasted for about 10 years.  I too was attracted to RC as a history major.  Ultimately, I came to the same conclusions as you did.  It took some time.

My wife also grew up in a very conservative fundamentalist background.  Most of her family attended Bob Jones Academy, which is attached to the Bob Jones University in South Carolina.  I was shocked that she wanted to explore Catholicism.  She made it very clear when I met her that if I continued to explore it, then I could forget about a longterm relationship.  I wasn't sure if Catholicism was for me at the time, and I didn't want to sacrifice a potential mate, so I backed off.  I continued to study Catholicism and work out my problems with the faith.  Ironically, it was the authority of the Papacy that was the last remaining obstacle for me.  I firmly believed that if God wanted me to take this path, then He would provide the opportunity.

After being married for about three years, my wife shocked me when she told me that she wanted to explore Catholicism.  No doubt that it was God who opened the door.  I thought that it would never be a possibility.  We attended RCIA classes and a year and half later, we both entered the Church.

Ravenlorre, thanks for sharing your experience and insights.

What an interesting story!  Thanks for sharing it......my wife is quite familiar with Bob Jones University - it was highly admired at the church she grew up in.

I followed a link in your profile that lead me to a Traditional Catholic ministry - are you Traditional Catholic?

blessings

[mllevaleur]

I've also been following this thread with interest, as I was raised in the Church of Christ and became Catholic after trying to convert my Catholic friend to the CoC, lol. (He's now my husband. ;-)

Anyway, I thought I would ask you whether you ever investigated this (and, the question is open to other Catholic converts as well).

I did not initially investigate Orthodoxy, personally, simply because my focus was on Catholicism (as I was trying to convert someone from Catholicism). After seeing all my misconceptions, and reading a lot of books about Catholicism and history, and the history of the papacy (especially Steve Ray's Upon This Rock), I was thoroughly convinced of the necessity of the papacy, and honestly just wasn't all that aware of Orthodoxy to begin with. But having grown up in a church where split upon split happened constantly, and where every person claimed equal authority to decide such things, I can tell you...the idea of one final authority on Earth just basically made a lot of sense.

A couple years after I converted, I was on a board with a lot of fellow Catholic ladies, but we had some protestants too (it was an NFP board, anyone was welcome though it was mostly Catholics). One protestant lady about my age was beginning to look into Catholicism and Orthodoxy. She was very thorough about her research, and she shared with us as she went along. For a while it looked like she was leaning towards Orthodoxy, but then after doing more research she came to the conclusion that to be truly "One" (one of the four marks of the Church), the papacy was necessary. I found her journey to be fascinating and enlightening, I learned a lot.

Then there was an Orthodox lady on our board (who had converted from protestantism), and I struck up an email discussion with her. I was very interested in learning more about what she saw as the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It seemed to me, though, that the things she would explain were either misunderstandings of Catholicism, or else very similar to Catholicism in which case I'd say, "Oh! Well we believe that too," but she didn't seem to believe me. It's almost like she didn't WANT to hear that Catholics believed the same things. I tried my best to explain how what we believed was similar, and to ask for clarification if I was misunderstanding Orthodox beliefs, but just when I thought we were getting somewhere, she told me her spiritual director had said she needed to stop engaging in apologetics, and she left the board and stopped emailing me. :-/

I've done research here and there on my own several times since, and each time it seems to come down to the same semantics arguments, when it seems the majority of the beliefs are the same (save the papacy of course), and on one side you have the Orthodox people saying "No! It's not the same, it's very different," and you have Catholic people saying, "Um...but what you just explained is exactly what we believe...what's the difference?"  On most issues, I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation of how different the beliefs are, or else that the differences are all that significant.

As for the papacy, I do believe that Peter was first among equals, certainly the papacy has developed over time into what you see today, but I do believe even at the beginning Jesus gave a special role to Peter and did so for a reason.

As for the Great Schism, there were certainly wrongs done on both sides. I pray that one day the two lungs of the Church may be reunited again. 

[Quinn]

Could you explain about the "no birth control" doctrine?

[ravenlorre]

The moderators have noticed we are having a massive increase in the amount of bantering back and forth between Catholics and Protestants here at Grace Centered Forums.  As the discussions intensify, which I am sure they will, remember that we are free to discuss doctrine.  We are free to discuss why we think a certain belief is true or why we believe a certain belief is not true according to the scriptures.  However we are not free to call other posters heretics, cultists, or any other derogatory name.  Keep the posts focused on the topic of discussion at hand and off of personal attacks and we will be able to have civil, intelligent discussions with one another.

There have already been some posters on both sides who have overstepped their bounds in this area on a few recent threads.  Remember to speak the truth in love.  Remember to keep the royal law according to the scriptures.  Remember to love your neighbor as yourself.  After you have finished a post, read over it a second time to make sure all personal attacks have been edited out.  Then, and only then, hit the post button.

For those who are not thick skinned, please remember if someone is explaining why they think a belief you cherish deeply is false according to the scriptures, they are not necessarily attacking you.  Instead they may just be trying to let you know how their understanding of a certain scripture differs from yours.  But if you feel like someone is attacking you and calling you a heretic or a cultist, please report that to the moderators - we don't catch everything.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

   
Before I continue posting on this board, I want to respond to this post from the moderators.  I am really glad to see that the leadership of this site is concerned with how it's members are treated.  I have posted on many boards where agendas or doctrines are more important than people and not only do people get hurt - learning is replaced by partisanship.

I am here because I like to discuss theology and I enjoy talking with people who may or may not agree with me.  I am not concerned about pushing my choice of church membership on anyone, however I do agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church and I am sure I probably come across as having strong opinions on the subject.  I am more than willing to apologize for my presentation if it has offended anyone, but I am not willing to apologize for my beliefs.  Also, I believe that my opinion on any ministry that uses deception, hate, or coercion as means to justify an end, are will known and I will try not to express them again.

Once again, I am in total agreement with the leadership of this site; the definition of an orthodox Christian is a person who agrees with the Nicene Creed and I would add; is engaged in an authentic, growing, sanctifying relationship with Christ.  If you tell me that you are a Christian, I will believe you.  Please notice that my definition of a Christian includes millions of people who are not members of the Catholic Church and include the majority of the people who post on this site.

So please remember, if I happen to get swept away in the passion of a heated conversation and offend you, I am sorry and will apologize on the spot.

One last thing - I realize that I never defined a term that I have used in my posts - pseudo-Protestant.  What I mean by this term is all churches that retain Protestant-based theology, but are no longer orthodox - Jehovah's Witnesses, for example retain Protestant roots, but no longer adhere to the Nicene Creed, and therefore lie outside orthodox teachings.  There are also pseudo-Catholic churches - although they may not be as well known to people who are not Catholic - the Society of Pius X is one such church that broke away from the Catholic Church.  Do Christians exist in these churches - of course, but the churches' doctrines are not orthodox.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

Could you explain about the "no birth control" doctrine?

Yes.  The Catholic Churches stance on the issue of birth control is consistent with it's teachings on all issues concerning the value of human life, for example; euthanasia, the death penalty, just war and abortion.  The Catholic Church teaches that human life must be defended and protected whenever possible; birth control like abortion, restricts life and therefore is inconsistent with the Churches teachings.

It is interesting to note that the majority of Protestant Churches were against birth control before 1930, as well.

blessings

[zoonance]

The Pill, in practical terms, has been both a blessing and a curse.   Protecting a young family still getting to know each other and giving a false license to sexual freedom in others - too often chunking committed relationship out the window (perhaps a lifetime habit not easily reversed and passed on to the kids?).   In terms of scriptural pros and cons, I suspect there ain't much.    What were the methods of birth control before 1930?

[ravenlorre]

The Pill, in practical terms, has been both a blessing and a curse.   Protecting a young family still getting to know each other and giving a false license to sexual freedom in others - too often chunking committed relationship out the window (perhaps a lifetime habit not easily reversed and passed on to the kids?).   In terms of scriptural pros and cons, I suspect there ain't much.    What were the methods of birth control before 1930?

Birth control has been used for centuries, but was never very effective before the 1960's, I think.  I am not really sure about the methods.

blessings

[zoonance]

I think at least some type of intrauterine device was used.   I recall something about nomads using rocks or something in camels to keep them from breeding centuries ago.  Perhaps a version of the rhythm method, chastity belt!, folklore remedies? abortion?  kill the undesired sex?
 Until the reproductive cycle was worked out, the methods were still far less effective than "just say no" :)

[Harold]

In my family growing up, we had a few catholics in the wood shed, and the rhythm method was very popular, along with condoms.

FTL