Disagreeing with elements of one's organised religion

[Northey]

A nice and thoughtful thread to discuss in more detail the question of how we cope with finding ourselves in conflict with certain elements of our religions.

Is it a traumatic or bearable conflict for you? How do you decide which elements of a religion are non-negotiable and which are up for argument? How far can you go in disagreement before you decide you can no longer consider yourself part of that religion?

And other such questions.

I agree with what you are saying about a sort of cultural Catholicism, migsy. It's how I was brought up, and things I learnt through shape how I see the world now. I almost feel that if I say I think Catholicism is totally wrong and not for me, it sort of makes a mockery of all the views and opinions I have developed, seeing as they are all based on it. Leaving Catholicism would be like leaving myself

transubstantiation is one of the mysteries that I love the most, like hiddenhome describes, I feel now that I would barely manage without the sort of help the Eucharist grants - but I accept I might be mad or indoctrinated

I go to mass at least twice a week, hoping to go every day when in Rome over Easter though

am quite newly returned to the church after a lot of pushing and pulling, it has never gone away, I have problems with the teachings against birth control, abortion, homosexuality (although oddly don't care much about the ordination of women) but although the parish priest couldn't say 'yes yes believe the bits you want' he did help me to recognise that the challenges of faith work in both directions - it's not just us struggling to adapt everything that flows from the Vatican to our lives in the modern world but that it is also up to us to apply our faith and participate even or especially in the face of differences

But who decided the last supper / communion involved trans-substantiation? Is there any real basis for it in the scriptures? It is something that has made no sense to me, ever. Perhaps it was never explained well. Perhaps it cannot be explained. Where does it come from?

transubstantiation

Thanks hiddenhome This thread is really making me think afresh about my faith.

Following a faith is a bit like being married I guess. There are bits you find difficult, irritating and just plain odd, but you have to keep the reason why you married them fresh in your mind, or you'd go bonkers

Have been lurking on this thread whilst at work this afternoon but frustrated at not being able to post!

Hiddenhome - thanks for that link. It's very useful and kind of sums up more eloquently what I was going to say.

As a CofE to RC convert, transubstantiation was something I had to think long and hard about. I really couldn't get my head around accepting it to begin with. However now I am in no doubt of it's truth. I do sense more of an indescribable power around the RC eucharist than I ever did on CofE. I'm not wanting to offend any CofE there but that is the truth of how I feel about it. What convinced me ultimately was studying John 6 in full though.
Save me typing it out, there is a link here to the chapter in full.

I had heard extracts quoted before and put Jesus as the bread of life down to imagery. For me though, reading it in full, it seems clear that Jesus is quite clear that this is an absolute reality. Particularly verses 51 onwards. When the disciples start arguing amongst themselves, sating "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?", Jesus' response is not "I tell you this as an image to help you understand", it is:
"In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person. As the living Father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will also draw life from me. This is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever."

I decided I could not interpret this as Jesus using imagery, he was speaking absolute truth and if I couldn't believe He was capable of this miracle, then there was not a lot of substance to my Christian faith.

I stress, that this is my personal journey of discovery and don't necessarily expect others to automatically agree with me, but hopefully it explains why I do believe in transubstantiation.

SESthebrave

SES So does what Jesus says in John 6 mean that you cannot enter heaven unless you take communion?
In so far as trans-substantiation, it seems to me that the bread and wine cannot physically be flesh and blood, but must be spiritually, i.e., the energy/power of Jesus' flesh and blood is within. Does that make sense?
I just don't see any reason to think that the bread and wine is physically flesh and blood. From what I have read so far, it is spiritually flesh and blood. That is my interpretation. Maybe not a Catholic one.

Migsy - in reading the chapter as a whole, the initial point that Jesus stresses is that anyone who believes has eternal life. I think that this is "all" anyone has to do to enter heaven - turn to God and believe in him. Sounds very simple but I think this involves rejecting sin and expressing a will and desire to do God's will, since as our perfect loving Father, he wants the best for us.
The receiving communion - and other sacraments - are part of the journey of faith we are all on. They are gifts that allow us to experience God's love and graces even more and hence have life to the full.

Excuse me as I'm on my phone and not easy to read back what I've typed. I'm not sure I've expressed myself that well and I stress this is my personal thought process informed by my own personal journey.

I am not a theological historian, but as I understand it the Protestant Reformation and Martin Luther's struggle was driven by the desire to allow the individual Christian to form their own individual relationship with Christ, to read the Bible for themselves and follow the dictates of their own conscience.

That, for me, is the fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, which is why I'm genuinely about the apparent majority of soi-disant Catholics who wish to follow their own conscience on key teachings of the Church. Surely the word for Catholics like that is Protestant?

I am, however, not an expert on theology, so am happy to be corrected by anyone who is.

The question bothering me particularly at the moment, though, dilys, is what counts as a key teaching of the church.

ses Thanks, that is what we were taught in school. If you believe in Christ you get into heaven.

My Dad (devout RC) told me a joke once.

"St Peter was showing a man around heaven. He said "Look over there, we have a synagogue for the Jews, over there we have a mosque for the Muslims, and that is a cathedral for the Protestants. Now, you see that high wall over there? You must be quiet when you go past, as behind that wall is the Catholics. They think they are the only ones here."

Hi all, I haven't had much MN time in the last few days but I am interested in continuing this discussion. Thanks for starting the thread Northey. Since it's late and I've had some I thought it's good time to wade in.

I am interested to see your post Dilys because I have seen your posts elsewhere and I find your posts knowledgeable and thought provoking [stalker emoticon]. I do often feel that Protestant may be a better fit for me, on a non-emotional level.

However... I think that in viewing the different sects of Christianity as a list of options disregards the cultural aspects of faith, which has come up time and again as something important to the people on these threads. I think that can keep a person in the faith when all other things being equal they would prefer to go to the Anglican church down the road. And I can say that despite all my doubts about the church, I felt that if I wasn't married in it I wouldn't really be married, and when my DS was born early and almost died, I got the RC chaplain to come to baptise him. They were purely emotional reactions I think. In short, if I had not been brought up RC I would be unlikely to choose it, but I have and that makes it more complex, especially in the knowledge that most RCs I know feel as I do about the church's teaching. As do some priests.

I admit I am very woolly on my own religion. I went to Catholic school until I was 18, I studied A level theology and I went on many happy clappy retreats in my youth, it is only recently that I realise how little I really know about Catholicism. I feel a little bit let down by that, but also a touch reassured, because I feel that most Catholics must have a similar education to mine, and the ones that I know and the opinions that I have read on here seem to have a similar faith. That is, we are Christians trying to live a Christian life by the example of Jesus, not by the rules of a specific church.

I wonder how much members of other Christian churches feel the same. And I realise reading it back that the last paragraph sounds like a total cop out. I would like the RC church to change, and I think I need to be more proactive about that.

Thank you everyone for contributing to these threads, which are making me think deeply about my faith.

Celtic, I struggle in a very similar way. I feel like I have Catholicism in my veins, even though I am barely there these days. I honestly believe it is cultural indoctrination. My parents were Catholic, I went to mass every Sunday until I left home at 18, I went to Catholic schools and 90% of my friends were Catholic.

I now disagree with tonnes of it, to the point where I really do question that I can actually belong to a faith, I disagree with on so many levels & yet I cannot think of myself as anything other than Catholic.

I think I know more about my faith than most, becuase my mother is very knowledgeable. She was brought up in Ireland during the 1940s, when Catholic observance was very strict & they were taught every rule going, so that they could be severely punished for any infringement. She taught us the same way. I guess that is why I'm surprised at how many Catholics I know in real life and on here can take or leave bits of it and how lacking in knowledge they are about their faith. I think I'm envious, because for me that is not what the Catholic church is about.

I think a lot of it is dismissed at an early stage though. I went to a convent school and was taught RE by one particular nun. Sadly, she was of an unfortunate disposition and the girls ridiculed her. I think her character made it easier to reject a lot of what she was telling us. This didn't mean we had no faith, it just meant that we questioned it right from the outset as the person teaching us did not seem credible.

Having been on this thread and on the other marriage thread, I felt the urge to go to Mass on Sunday. I'm really glad I went too. I can't get used to the new format though!

That's so odd, migsy. I went into a catholic church for the first time this year last week, as a result of talking about Catholicism on the marriage thread. I didn't manage a mass (and I agree - the new translation of the liturgy is a bit [sceptical]), but small steps!