Catholic here. (Also just getting started dipping my feet in the Q scene.)
I'm a convert to Catholicism. I went into it with no illusions about the corruption in the hierarchy. There's been bad hombres in the Church even at the highest level all throughout history.
The retort Catholics tell each other with regards to this is that we don't abandon Peter because of the sins of Judas. Of course, there's a lot to unpack with that.
What keeps me in the Church is a belief in His real presence in the Eucharist, a belief in the doctrinal integrity of the Church, and a belief that Jesus intended the preservation and administration of these only via valid Apostolic Succession. None of these are dependent on the personal holiness of any individual in the hierarchy. Since I believe that only the Orthodox and Catholic churches hold valid Apostolic Succession, realistically, these are the only viable choices for me.
Obviously, I pray that if I'm wrong, that God lead me to the truth. And I'll continue seeking it as best as I can, hoping for the Lord's mercy if I've made the wrong choice.
What, the "trail of blood"? With all due respect, friend, that's revisionist apologetic trying to manufacture some air of legitimacy that simply doesn't exist. The theory didn't even originate until the 20th century. It's a LARP. The idea that anything aside from a sacramental conferral of holy orders via the physical 'laying of hands' in an unbroken succession tracing back to the original apostles provides a legitimate share in the authority and ministry uniquely appointed to the apostles (as opposed to, say, any layman Christian) by Christ would be entirely foreign to the earliest Christians -- this is evidenced by extra-biblical writings of the early Church dating back as early as the first and second century.
And again, I sincerely say this with all due respect and with love for you as a fellow brother in Christ. Obviously you disagree, or you wouldn't be a Baptist (are you a Baptist?), and I respect that.
Grace opened my heart to be receptive to the reality that God exists. Philosophy quelled the intellectual pride that was blocking me from allowing myself to believe in something I can't empirically test. The historical circumstances surrounding the death and resurrection of Christ proved to me that Christ alone is the Lord above any other god that people profess belief in. And, finally, history -- Christian belief expressed in continuous extra-Biblical writings from the first century until now -- have led me to the conclusion that the fullest expression of Christianity is found in the doctrine and sacraments of the Catholic church.
Truth be told, if I was picking a theology purely on what I'd want to be true, I'd probably be a Wesleyan or Anglican. The last thing I'd pick is Catholicism. But, any time I've been tempted to leave the Catholic church, I can't, because I haven't been able to convince myself that it's not the 'real deal'.
Thank you so much for the reply! If you don't mind me asking, what did you convert from? And how did you find the conversion process?
I love that line.... "we don't abandon Peter because of the sins of Judas". You are so right. We also are taught to hate the sin, but love the sinner... hence, trying to save all these souls.
I am still on the fence but there is something innate that has always drawn me to this religion and I pray that God leads me in the right direction and that the church is at its core serving the lord and will overcome those who try to taint the word of God and the church.
First, I converted to broadly monotheistic from philosophical arguments. At this point, I knew that either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam had to be true, or that no religion had it right.
Then, I converted to broadly Christian from historical arguments regarding Christ's death and resurrection. At the point, I knew that Christ was God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that Christ died that I may have new life, and that God desired a personal, saving relationship with each and every person.
Many of the dividing lines between denominations weren't trivial. Things like infant baptism, what exactly are the sacraments, are we saved by faith, works, or a combination of the two, etc. were doctrinal points with massive implications for our lives. I was attending Baptist services at this point while trying to wrestle with this stuff.
Actually, on the atheist to Catholic path, that final step -- what denomination do I think is correct? -- was the one that took me the longest. Everything before that, once I started digging, felt like an easy choice.
It really came down to taking all of the doctrinal points that I was struggling with and weighing the arguments from each side against the Bible and against history (e.g. writings from Church fathers, councils, Protestant reformers, etc.), and commentary on these from modern apologists & theologians designed to be more accessible to modern audiences.
Definitely consult with your husband assuming he's well versed. There's more apologetical content than anyone could read in a year for any denomination. I could recommend specific things if I knew what your specific hangups were.
My last bits of advice: Study every side. For every person that supports x and argues against y, make sure to find someone that supports y and argues against x. And pray, pray, pray! I didn't do enough of that in the beginning, trying too much to rely on arguments and not seeking enough guidance from God -- I struggle with intellectual pride and I didn't really recognize it until well into my conversion, but it was becoming a stumbling block against continuing to progress.
As far as the actual "initiation" if you decide on Catholicism: If you were baptized in another denomination, chances are, the Church will recognize it so long as it used the Trinitarian formula. You would go to a local parish and attend a year long process studying what the Church believes, and then, come Easter, if you decide that you believe, you follow through with Confirmation and receive First Communion. This process is called RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults). At some parishes it's great, at some it's terrible -- depends on who's teaching it. At my parish, luckily, it's taught by an ex-Reformed minister who went to Reformed seminary but converted to Catholicism later in life -- as such, he could handle pretty much any objection you threw at him. Unfortunately, the process will feel redundant if you start it already having done your research and made your choice.
Catholic here. (Also just getting started dipping my feet in the Q scene.)
I'm a convert to Catholicism. I went into it with no illusions about the corruption in the hierarchy. There's been bad hombres in the Church even at the highest level all throughout history.
The retort Catholics tell each other with regards to this is that we don't abandon Peter because of the sins of Judas. Of course, there's a lot to unpack with that.
What keeps me in the Church is a belief in His real presence in the Eucharist, a belief in the doctrinal integrity of the Church, and a belief that Jesus intended the preservation and administration of these only via valid Apostolic Succession. None of these are dependent on the personal holiness of any individual in the hierarchy. Since I believe that only the Orthodox and Catholic churches hold valid Apostolic Succession, realistically, these are the only viable choices for me.
Obviously, I pray that if I'm wrong, that God lead me to the truth. And I'll continue seeking it as best as I can, hoping for the Lord's mercy if I've made the wrong choice.
What, the "trail of blood"? With all due respect, friend, that's revisionist apologetic trying to manufacture some air of legitimacy that simply doesn't exist. The theory didn't even originate until the 20th century. It's a LARP. The idea that anything aside from a sacramental conferral of holy orders via the physical 'laying of hands' in an unbroken succession tracing back to the original apostles provides a legitimate share in the authority and ministry uniquely appointed to the apostles (as opposed to, say, any layman Christian) by Christ would be entirely foreign to the earliest Christians -- this is evidenced by extra-biblical writings of the early Church dating back as early as the first and second century.
And again, I sincerely say this with all due respect and with love for you as a fellow brother in Christ. Obviously you disagree, or you wouldn't be a Baptist (are you a Baptist?), and I respect that.
Grace opened my heart to be receptive to the reality that God exists. Philosophy quelled the intellectual pride that was blocking me from allowing myself to believe in something I can't empirically test. The historical circumstances surrounding the death and resurrection of Christ proved to me that Christ alone is the Lord above any other god that people profess belief in. And, finally, history -- Christian belief expressed in continuous extra-Biblical writings from the first century until now -- have led me to the conclusion that the fullest expression of Christianity is found in the doctrine and sacraments of the Catholic church.
Truth be told, if I was picking a theology purely on what I'd want to be true, I'd probably be a Wesleyan or Anglican. The last thing I'd pick is Catholicism. But, any time I've been tempted to leave the Catholic church, I can't, because I haven't been able to convince myself that it's not the 'real deal'.
Thank you so much for the reply! If you don't mind me asking, what did you convert from? And how did you find the conversion process?
I love that line.... "we don't abandon Peter because of the sins of Judas". You are so right. We also are taught to hate the sin, but love the sinner... hence, trying to save all these souls.
I am still on the fence but there is something innate that has always drawn me to this religion and I pray that God leads me in the right direction and that the church is at its core serving the lord and will overcome those who try to taint the word of God and the church.
I was an atheist originally.
First, I converted to broadly monotheistic from philosophical arguments. At this point, I knew that either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam had to be true, or that no religion had it right.
Then, I converted to broadly Christian from historical arguments regarding Christ's death and resurrection. At the point, I knew that Christ was God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that Christ died that I may have new life, and that God desired a personal, saving relationship with each and every person.
Many of the dividing lines between denominations weren't trivial. Things like infant baptism, what exactly are the sacraments, are we saved by faith, works, or a combination of the two, etc. were doctrinal points with massive implications for our lives. I was attending Baptist services at this point while trying to wrestle with this stuff.
Actually, on the atheist to Catholic path, that final step -- what denomination do I think is correct? -- was the one that took me the longest. Everything before that, once I started digging, felt like an easy choice.
It really came down to taking all of the doctrinal points that I was struggling with and weighing the arguments from each side against the Bible and against history (e.g. writings from Church fathers, councils, Protestant reformers, etc.), and commentary on these from modern apologists & theologians designed to be more accessible to modern audiences.
Definitely consult with your husband assuming he's well versed. There's more apologetical content than anyone could read in a year for any denomination. I could recommend specific things if I knew what your specific hangups were.
My last bits of advice: Study every side. For every person that supports x and argues against y, make sure to find someone that supports y and argues against x. And pray, pray, pray! I didn't do enough of that in the beginning, trying too much to rely on arguments and not seeking enough guidance from God -- I struggle with intellectual pride and I didn't really recognize it until well into my conversion, but it was becoming a stumbling block against continuing to progress.
As far as the actual "initiation" if you decide on Catholicism: If you were baptized in another denomination, chances are, the Church will recognize it so long as it used the Trinitarian formula. You would go to a local parish and attend a year long process studying what the Church believes, and then, come Easter, if you decide that you believe, you follow through with Confirmation and receive First Communion. This process is called RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults). At some parishes it's great, at some it's terrible -- depends on who's teaching it. At my parish, luckily, it's taught by an ex-Reformed minister who went to Reformed seminary but converted to Catholicism later in life -- as such, he could handle pretty much any objection you threw at him. Unfortunately, the process will feel redundant if you start it already having done your research and made your choice.