Testing The Waters

[Odë:hgöd]

.
FAQ: I'm considering joining the Catholic Church. Would it be a mistake?

REPLY: Catholicism is a beautiful religion, but it's not easy.

Once someone is fully committed by completing First Holy Communion and
Confirmation and undergone Christian baptism; they will be expected to comply
with everything Rome teaches and stands for, e.g. the Commandments, the Canon
Law, the dogma, the rituals, the Traditions, the Councils, the Bulls, the Encyclicals,
the rites, the holy days of obligation, and the entire Catechism; plus everything
that Jesus and the apostles taught in the New Testament, i.e. all four gospels and
all twenty-one epistles, plus Acts and Revelation.

That's a lot to remember, let alone put into practice.

And then there's the matter of mortal sin. When Catholics leave this life with just
one mortal sin on the books awaiting absolution, just one, they go straight to Hell.
It's a direct flight; no stopover in a Purgatory. Even if a Catholic managed to be a
top performer in faith and practice for fifty years, none of that will be taken into
consideration. They will leave this life as if they'd been a pagan the whole time.
Mortal sins are that lethal.

The paragraph below from CCC 1782 of the catechism of the Catholic Church;
acknowledges everyone's rights and freedoms in regard to selecting a religion of
their own personal choice.

"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."

However, be aware that once someone joins the Catholic Church, they will have to
relinquish those rights and no longer be permitted to either interpret, or apply, the
Holy Bible's teachings sans hierarchy oversight per CCC 85 which says:

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its
written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching
office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of
Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the
bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."

Bottom line is: Catholicism isn't a democratic structure-- it's more like Communism
and/or Big Brother's thought control in George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty
Four". I'm not saying that's necessarily disagreeable as some folks prefer being told
what to believe rather than figuring things out for themselves; and they feel secure
having a hierarchy to blame if perchance Catholicism proves misleading-- I'm only
saying that it's a level of governance that some folks might find a bit too
controlling.
_

 

[Josiah]

CCC 85 (and that whole rubric) is PART of the reason I left the RCC. Not because of it's embrace of authority but because of it's rejection of accountability. Self looking to self is dangerous, at best.



.

 

[Albion]

Bottom line is: Catholicism isn't a democratic structure-- it's more like Communism
and/or Big Brother's thought control in George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty
Four". I'm not saying that's necessarily disagreeable as some folks prefer being told

It's not quite like Communism or any other totalitarian rule; and that's because there is no enforcement of the rules you just enumerated. If a member doesn't like it, they can leave the church. They'll be committing a sin, etc. etc. so far as that denomination is concerned, but they can follow their conscience in this regard as many have done.

And if they do not voluntarily leave, nothing is likely to happen to them in this life anyway.

To be sure, I do not suggest taking that second course, but it is true that the hold on its members that the RCC enjoys, while not enforced as some cult might do, is based on the church having convinced even those members who privately reject some of their church's rules and beliefs that no other Christian denomination is genuine.

 

[Josiah]

It's not quite like Communism or any other totalitarian rule; and that's because there is no enforcement of the rules you just enumerated. it is true that the hold on its members that the RCC enjoys, while not enforced as some cult might do, is based on the church having convinced even those members who privately reject some of their church's rules and beliefs that no other Christian denomination is genuine.

@Albion
@Odë:hgöd


Truth is: The RCC simply exempts itself from any accountability or responsibility for its doctrines. It simply declares itself to be infallible in matters of dogma, it simply claims that when itself (individually) speaks it's Jesus speaking and Jesus can't be wrong so nor can it (claims it... for it).

BUT as Albion correctly points out, while this epistemology is shared by the cults, the application is quite different. Yes, if you officially join the RCC you WILL be asked if you accept whatever the RCC itself individually currently teaches BECAUSE it itself currently does. You must say "yes" or you can't join. You may ATTEND but may not join. Catholics accept WHATEVER the RCC teaches "with docility." WITH DOCILITY.

Now, it's true that many churches require members to agree with it on its teachings. But here's the difference: The RCC tells all to swallow whatever it currently teaches BECAUSE it itself does - and it itself can't be wrong (in formal dogma, at least). Protestant denominations (generally) will say you should agree BECAUSE the teachings are biblical - the norm is OUTSIDE itself, the denomination/church is submitting to what is objectively OUTSIDE of itself. What is true in the RCC is that the norm is simply itself. "I alone agree with me alone so I alone must be right." This is even more stunning when we realize that this only applies to what self alone CURRENTLY holds that self alone should agree with self alone concerning. One could claim that the distinction I'm making has little PRACTICAL difference - and I wouldn't argue the point. But here's the difference: the RCC is simply pointing to itself whereas Protestant churches point to something timeless, objective and outside of itself - the words of the Bible. This is significantly different than the RCC (and cults) that simply call for docilic acceptance of itself, insisting that self alone can't be wrong so if self teaches it, it's right (NOT remotely suggesting the RCC is a cult, only that it shares a similar epistemology).

AND Albion is right that IN REALITY, this "submission" is not as it seems. While the epistemology of the RCC and generally the cults is similar, the application is vastly different. Indeed, the Deacon at my Catholic parish himself claimed that probably no more than 10% of Catholics are Catholics... the rest he argued are "Cafeteria Catholics" (Catholics who agree with some things and reject some things - based on their own evaluation). Catholics are free to "disagree" and it is generally accepted that many (my Deacon - 90%) do disagree, at least at some points. In other words, they do NOT just swallow everything with docility 'cuz it's the RCC saying it. And that's okay - in practice. Of course, that's true of virtually all denominations, to varying degrees. Permitted among the laity but perhaps less so among the clergy (depends on the denomination).

Case in point: My sister and her hubby were REQUIRED to take a course in the Pope's birth control method. They had to take this course in order to be married by their RCC church. They told us that there were about 12 in the class.... all being told that all other methods are sinful and terrible and must be repudiated, only the Pope's method could be used. And at the end, they had to pledge to abide by that. According to my sister and her beloved, NONE of them had any intention of using the Pope's method (at least exclusively) but they ALL pledged they would. Very Catholic, very much the way things work in Catholicism. Say what you need to say.... think and do as you please. A teacher of the First Communion Class at my former parish admitted that most Catholics don't believe in Real Presence and have no clue what Transubstantiation even is but hold to a very Zwinglian idea of symbolic, spiritual presence. Say one thing, believe another. THIS is how Catholics deal with this mandate that they pledge to accept whatever the RCC itself currently teaches BECAUSE it does. They say they do but rarely is that the case. AND no one is killed (or excommunicated) for that, it's just accepted as how it is. The epistemology is "cult like" but the application is vastly different. In reality, the views in the pews are very diverse. And again, the same could be said of many denominations - not just Catholic. I'm not picking on "pur Catholics" - it's generally true in our modern culture, to varying degrees. The whole concept of Authority has changed since the Enlightenment.


I reveal my struggle with this here: https://www.christianityhaven.com/threads/christianity-authority-and-individualism.10575/



Blessings


Josiah (Former Catholic who still holds that church in esteem).



.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
Another bit of caution:

If you're a young Catholic person considering a vocation in the Church, I strongly
urge you to avoid getting to it right out of high school. Give yourself a chance to
finish growing up first; especially seeing as how the new 21 is around 26 these days.

My reason for this is because too many young novices are starry-eyed and don't
know yet just how unpleasant it is to live with perpetual sexual frustration.

Also; God stated in the very beginning that it is not good for men to live solo, viz:
without a woman for companionship. And if so, then it must also not be good for
women to go it alone.

In Shaunti Feldhahn's book "For Women Only" (ISBN 1-59052-317-2) she relates a
survey taken among segregated groups of men and women with this question:

Given a choice; would you rather be disrespected, or would you rather be alone and
unloved in the world?

Just about every one of the ladies chose disrespect over living alone and unloved in
the world and that's obviously because mankind's creator didn't wire men and
women to function independently of each other. They are wired to be together; as
couples.

For example: some time ago, a Catholic priest here in Oregon broke his vows and
quit the vocation to get married after serving the Church more than 30 years
because he could endure gender segregation no longer. He wasn't especially
looking to get bedded, he was just plain lonely and wanted very much to be with
somebody; which is exactly how normal guys come out of the box via intelligent design.

Back when I and my siblings were youngsters, my sister dated a guy who dropped
out of seminary because he came to the realization early-on that there was just no
way he could ever manage to suppress his impulses forever without risking a nervous
breakdown.

My point is: celibacy isn't everyone's cup of tea and no one should allow themselves
to be pressured into it against their better judgment.
_