With What Do You Disagree?

I am a cradle Catholic.

Went away from church for 20 years. Came back approx 14 years ago. Been a strong Catholic. I love my faith in God. Yes, i have sinned badly this year.

Now, i do have issues with the Catholic church.

I agree with a lot of teachings. One i struggle with is contraception as i think it is a great invention.

Mostly, i disagree with the wealth of the church as a whole, the vast amounts of Gold it has, the pomp and ceremony, Its murderous past with certain Popes, the way lots of clergy spend money on luxuries (We all need these just some go way over the top).

Another thing that i find really hard to do these days is to kiss a relic, or bow in front of a statue! One priest i know has approx 30 relics and he likes people to bow to them and kiss them when on display! Ok, i know we are meant to venerate them but to me i think it is so wrong! It feels so wrong!

Also i think that Jesus meant, when saying to Peter that on this Rock i build my church that he was referring to the strong 'Faith' of Peter (Peter means Rock) and on this type of Faith Jesus would build his church!

I really have a hard time agreeing with having a 'Pope' or Head of the church the way it has always stood. I dont think it was meant to be that way, i really think that Jesus had another plan!

Also, some things handed down regarding 'Tradition' i find hard to swallow. Surely if it is not in the Bible then why should it be such a massive part of the faith?

I am also starting to think that there are too many 'Prayers'. Too many ritual prayers. Books of prayers etc etc. Jesus taught us the most important prayer, The Our Father. I have cut my prayers down drastically to only a handful now. I feel better for it. Is that wrong?

antletems said:

I am a cradle Catholic.

Went away from church for 20 years. Came back approx 14 years ago. Been a strong Catholic. I love my faith in God. Yes, i have sinned badly this year.

Now, i do have issues with the Catholic church.

I agree with a lot of teachings. One i struggle with is contraception as i think it is a great invention.

Mostly, i disagree with the wealth of the church as a whole, the vast amounts of Gold it has, the pomp and ceremony, Its murderous past with certain Popes, the way lots of clergy spend money on luxuries (We all need these just some go way over the top).

Click to expand...

It is impossible to reconcile the property and wealth of the Church with what Jesus commanded in the Gospels.

Another thing that i find really hard to do these days is to kiss a relic, or bow in front of a statue! One priest i know has approx 30 relics and he likes people to bow to them and kiss them when on display! Ok, i know we are meant to venerate them but to me i think it is so wrong! It feels so wrong!

Click to expand...

I remember being told as a child that every crucifix in our church and supposedly in our homes had a relic of the True Cross inside them. Being the inquisitive and rational child I was, I quickly realized that for all the Catholic churches in the world to have a piece of the True Cross in them would require enough lumber for a mansion. Veneration of supposed relics is medieval superstition.

Also i think that Jesus meant, when saying to Peter that on this Rock i build my church that he was referring to the strong 'Faith' of Peter (Peter means Rock) and on this type of Faith Jesus would build his church!

I really have a hard time agreeing with having a 'Pope' or Head of the church the way it has always stood. I dont think it was meant to be that way, i really think that Jesus had another plan!

Click to expand...

Peter was held up as an example, as the glue that would hold things together at the start when Jesus was no longer there physically. Acts and other documents show that Peter, while considered chief of the Apostles and an esteemed elder of the Church, was not considered the final and only authority over everyone.

Also, some things handed down regarding 'Tradition' i find hard to swallow. Surely if it is not in the Bible then why should it be such a massive part of the faith?

Click to expand...

One astute Church scholar pointed out that tradition appeared to extend no further back than the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Another Catholic historian said that tradition had shrunk from being a "cathedral of the spirt" to being a "storeroom in the basement of the Vatican." Tradition is simply an excuse to continue many bad doctrines and outdated practices.

I am also starting to think that there are too many 'Prayers'. Too many ritual prayers. Books of prayers etc etc. Jesus taught us the most important prayer, The Our Father. I have cut my prayers down drastically to only a handful now. I feel better for it. Is that wrong?

Click to expand...

Too many, and way too formulistic. Our prayers reflect a European culture and have little meaning or applicability to non-European peoples (which is, interestingly, the majority of today's Catholics). It is notable that many national and regional bishops' conferences have called for more autonomy in how they do liturgies and how they pray. The use of ritual prayers also seems to detract from the real purpose of prayer, which should come from our hearts and be our personal communication with God. I find it difficult to believe that God really cares to hear the same prayer millions of times each day. It is like hearing a recoded message over and over again; I think God 'hung up" on us a long time ago.

Matthew 6:7New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
7 “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.

"Our Father Prayer" Most important Prayer ever!

Here is a quote about rubrics and ritual from the late Dom Helder Camara, a bishop of Brazil:

We always used to think, we priests and bishops, that nothing must be changed, not even the rubrics. The rubrics were sacred! I remember how we were taught to arrange our fingers during Mass, after the consecration. That was sacred, too! And when a bishop was about to administer communion, the body of Christ, the communicant would first of all have to kiss his ring. Imagine that: first the ring, then the body of Christ! It was as if the respect due to the bishop and the communion service were placed on the same level of importance as the love of Christ!

Click to expand...

A priest at my former parish understood this, and at times did not follow the exact rubrics of the liturgy. The "liturgy police" would report him to the Bishop. When I asked him what happened, he said "nothing". I have the feeling our Bishop had better things to do than field dozens of complaints each week from around the diocese about imagined "liturgical abuse". Too bad people weren't as diligent about that other abuse that was occurring, which was much more damaging to the Church and the faithful.

As i said before, the pomp and ceremony in todays church has gone too far. Everything is Gold. Very expensive vestments. Linens, architecture etc etc. Statues galore! All these churches named after saints with hardly any named after Our Lord. Too much emphasis put on everything except Jesus!!

Our faith is centred around Our Lord not all the different saints, or the statues or relics etc in our churches!

I have been slowly moving away from all these things of late. I dont kiss or bow to relics any more. I dont bow to statues any more. I dont bow to a priest any more. My aim is straight to Jesus / God.

I am finding it harder to accept some of these things in our churches.

I just come back from Lourdes and the number of people i see touching the Grotto wall or bowing to the statue of Mary was unbelievable. For me, my visit there was all about a spiritual visit. To try and get closer to God. The water at Lourdes will not heal you!! Its the Faith in God that will heal. Its the strong love of God that heals. Not some Rock or water or statue! Its the undying love of God that heals.

I could go on i guess but i better stop there!

Hi, I'm new here... I'm currently a non-denominational Christian but my family going back generations has been Catholic. No one agrees 100% with Church doctrine. I have issues with the mistreatment of gays and lesbians by the clergy, the denial of the Eucharist to divorcees and contraception/abortion.

I think it's the meanness and the constant condemnation and judging that I see from conservative clergy on social issues that discourages me at times (I don't buy the idea that only liberals are "cafeteria catholics" as conservative Catholics also pick and choose what they want to believe in or follow more diligently like only lecturing or yelling out only regarding gays, abortion, and contraception instead of balancing their remarks with things like helping the poor and the sick and the environment).

I also find that although I have gay and lesbian friends and am liberal on social issues, I also find that spending too much attention on those divisive issues (so easy to do on social media or in the newspapers/talk shows) can be distracting from developing a closer relationship with God. It gets kind of exhausting at times but it's the world we live in, unfortunately.

smoothrose said:

Hi, I'm new here... I'm currently a non-denominational Christian but my family going back generations has been Catholic. No one agrees 100% with Church doctrine...

I also find that spending too much attention on those divisive issues (so easy to do on social media or in the newspapers/talk shows) can be distracting from developing a closer relationship with God. It gets kind of exhausting at times but it's the world we live in, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

I quoted these items because the first is so representative of the current state of Catholicism and the latter is how I look at it as well.

I could not possibly list all the people I know who are former Catholics or were raised in a Catholic family but who belong to another faith, or no faith at all. And your point about no one agreeing 100% with Catholic doctrine is probably correct. I know of fellow Catholics who claim to follow every teaching of the Church but disagree with certain social gospel and moral teachings, including those of our current Pope. Everyone picks and chooses, as you say.

I also agree that most of us spend too much time on the divisive issues, and not enough on the basic requirements of being a Christian. Some seem to think that condemning others and broadcasting their own righteousness brings them closer to God, when actually it is the antithesis of Jesus in the Gospels. The Catholic church hierarchy and magisterium has, unfortunately, usually supported such behavior or, at the least, acquiesced to it.

And welcome to these forums, but be careful. There are many people here who are ready and willing to pounce on the new and unsuspecting.

smoothrose said:

I'm currently a non-denominational Christian but my family going back generations has been Catholic. No one agrees 100% with Church doctrine. I have issues with the mistreatment of gays and lesbians by the clergy, the denial of the Eucharist to divorcees and contraception/abortion.

Click to expand...

I agree with the points you've made--and all the others that I've read.

My dad, a "cradle-to-grave" Catholic, has told me many times what you've stated: "No one agrees 100%" with the Church.

...I don't buy the idea that only liberals are "cafeteria catholics" as conservative Catholics also pick and choose what they want to believe in or follow more diligently like only lecturing or yelling out only regarding gays, abortion, and contraception instead of balancing their remarks with things like helping the poor and the sick and the environment.

Click to expand...

That's been my experience/observation, too.

I also find that although I have gay and lesbian friends and am liberal on social issues, I also find that spending too much attention on those divisive issues (so easy to do on social media or in the newspapers/talk shows) can be distracting from developing a closer relationship with God. It gets kind of exhausting at times but it's the world we live in, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Soma Seer said:

My dad, a "cradle-to-grave" Catholic, has told me many times what you've stated: "No one agrees 100%" with the Church.

Click to expand...

Very true. No two Catholics totally agree on what the Church teaches, either, or they do not agree on how a teaching should be applied or interpreted. We can see from the recent Synod that the hierarchy of the Church is not in agreement with one another. As monolithic as the Church seems to some, it is far from that. Even the first Apostles disagreed with each other and with Jesus!

Jesus requires us to live by a few basic tenets or commands; the key is in the application of those commands in our lives, not in professing to follow a laundry list of doctrines created by fallible men, doctrines which no one totally comprehends.

It amazes me that hundreds of people can gather at Mass and together recite the same creed, say the same prayers, hear the same scripture readings and homily, but leave church with all different kinds of views on what being a Catholic and a Christian means.

Martinius said:

Jesus requires us to live by a few basic tenets or commands; the key is in the application of those commands in our lives, not in professing to follow a laundry list of doctrines created by fallible men, doctrines which no one totally comprehends.

It amazes me that hundreds of people can gather at Mass and together recite the same creed, say the same prayers, hear the same scripture readings and homily, but leave church with all different kinds of views on what being a Catholic and a Christian means.

Click to expand...

I think all the variety of belief is possible due to all the legalistic layers--i.e., "red tape"--that have been added to the RCC's teachings. If the entirety of it's belief system rested solely on Matthew 22:37-40, how much simpler things would be (IMO).

That is not to say, though, that I dislike the solemnity of the Mass. I love it and feel very much at home within in. Oh, the irony.

Soma Seer said:

I think all the variety of belief is possible due to all the legalistic layers--i.e., "red tape"--that have been added to the RCC's teachings. If the entirety of it's belief system rested solely on Matthew 22:37-40, how much simpler things would be (IMO).

Click to expand...

Exactly. And Jesus emphasizes this core commandment many times and in many ways. But it may not be simpler for those who want everything spelled out in detail, from what is morally and ethically right or wrong to right down to what position their hands should be in when they pray and what exact words they should use. For those people, living by just the core teachings of Christ would cause extreme stress. They need to be assured of their righteousness by following the concise instructions of other men. There are a lot of OCD people in the Catholic Church.

Martinius said:

And Jesus emphasizes this core commandment many times and in many ways. But it may not be simpler for those who want everything spelled out in detail, from what is morally and ethically right or wrong to right down to what position their hands should be in when they pray and what exact words they should use. For those people, living by just the core teachings of Christ would cause extreme stress. They need to be assured of their righteousness by following the concise instructions of other men.

Click to expand...

I think your assessment sums up RCs' need for ritual quite succinctly.

There are a lot of OCD people in the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

I can't/won't dispute as much, even though I consider myself Catholic. I enjoy many RC rituals but do not consider them pivotal for the evolution of one's soul. (Calling myself Roman Catholic, I have trouble with; according to the dogma of the RCC, I would not be considered a true--a "good"--Catholic, as I don't believe in its rules.)

Soma Seer said:

I think your assessment sums up RCs' need for ritual quite succinctly.



I can't/won't dispute as much, even though I consider myself Catholic. I enjoy many RC rituals but do not consider them pivotal for the evolution of one's soul. (Calling myself Roman Catholic, I have trouble with; according to the dogma of the RCC, I would not be considered a true--a "good"--Catholic, as I don't believe in its rules.)

Click to expand...

I am not saying that all Catholics are OCD, but there seems to be an inordinate number in our faith. A lot of worry about saying words incorrectly and not following the exact rubrics. Don't hear about that in other denominations.

Many Catholics think that certain rituals ARE pivotal to salvation, but if one reads the Gospels it is clear that Jesus did not like ritual and rubrics, and saw other actions by true disciples as pivotal. From my observations of various parishes in several dioceses, it seems that the desire for ritual varies by age, gender, ethnicity and local culture. In general, Idon't see it being emphasized as it was a half century back.

I was raised Catholic, and share a lot of the views that have been expressed here. I would like to see remarried Catholics accepted back into the Church, I don't oppose secular gay marriage, I'm not opposed to contaception, and support the social justice work of the Church.
I am also different in that I'm also an agnostic, a seeker if you will. I attend Mass regularly, pray and study Catholicism, but am also open to the idea that parts of the truth can be found on other spiritual or even materialistic paths

Mountain_Girl406 said:

I was raised Catholic, and share a lot of the views that have been expressed here. I would like to see remarried Catholics accepted back into the Church, I don't oppose secular gay marriage, I'm not opposed to contaception, and support the social justice work of the Church.
I am also different in that I'm also an agnostic, a seeker if you will. I attend Mass regularly, pray and study Catholicism, but am also open to the idea that parts of the truth can be found on other spiritual or even materialistic paths

Click to expand...

It sounds like you are not agnostic, but perhaps pluralistic or ecumenistic. Over many decades I have read about and studied various religions, Christian and otherwise. I have found spiritual value and wisdom in some part of every one of them. There have been several theologians, including Catholic ones, who have been exposed to non-Christian cultures, and have developed theologies that reflect those cultures. I have known people of non-Christian faiths who were better at living the Gospel than most Christians, including myself.

I don't know if such a category exists, but I would label myself as a "Christian humanist of the Catholic faith".

Martinius said:

Over many decades I have read about and studied various religions, Christian and otherwise. I have found spiritual value and wisdom in some part of every one of them.

Click to expand...

Ditto, though for me, it's been a 15-year journey of religious/spiritual study. I feel a strong affinity for Hinduism but still consider myself a follower of the teachings of Jesus, first and foremost.

There have been several theologians, including Catholic ones, who have been exposed to non-Christian cultures, and have developed theologies that reflect those cultures. I have known people of non-Christian faiths who were better at living the Gospel than most Christians, including myself.

Click to expand...

You've described why it is I could never believe that only Christian followers could get into Heaven. Here's a quote that I came across in my studies and that really resonates with me: "...You grow to heaven, you don't go to heaven."

I don't know if such a category exists, but I would label myself as a "Christian humanist of the Catholic faith".

Click to expand...

I like this.

When they come up, I will post them.

Well, for one, the way in which First Communion is administered to children. First Communion is actually received when (or if) the mother receives while pregnant. The Church teaches abortion is wrong because babies are people. I agree. So the fetus is a person and is therefore capable of receiving First Communion. The Church's entire theology of Mary (rightly) stems from the fact that Our Lady was pregnant with God - Mary's blood nourished God and likewise was nourished by God's blood. If anyone has a high view of pregnancy and the relationship between the baby and the mother it is the Catholic Church.

However, if these things are true - as I believe them to be - then that means that when the mother communes, the baby shares in that communion. And certainly no one's faith is purer or more worthy to receive than a baby. The baby in the womb is like Adam & Eve eating from the Good tree - so why would a baby not also be receiving? In this case, upon birth, babies should continue to receive. They should be immediately baptized & confirmed, fully brought into the Church. Long before the need to begin confessing - a child should long be used to receiving Communing and benefiting from the grace it brings. With all due respect to current practice - perhaps adult Catholics should not be so quick to receive while kids should be the first at the table? If anyone should be receiving, it is children. Certainly us adults can after being rightly prepared, but that is because as we age we bring sin into our lives and have reasons we need to be Confessing and rightly discerning whether or not we eat and drink to judgement or life.

Why not let kids continue communing from birth onwards? Before one has sinned, is there a need to have such a strong connection made between First Penance / First Communion? With apologies to the beautiful dresses and expensive gifts, the concept and timing of First Communion needs rethinking. When children do reach the age of reason and can begin to truly choose right from wrong, of course they need to be taught Confession. Teaching kids First Penance should serve the purpose of teaching them how to return to the Table when they have done wrong - not as a pre-requisite for approaching the Table in the first place! The way in which the current practice makes such a strong link between First Penance / First Communion is psychologically damaging.

Yeah, I know, if I'm so frustrated with the way the Church practices this, why not find a protestant church? Well, the only problem there is that I literally cannot find any protestant churches who truly believe the Eucharist is the body, soul & Divinity of Christ... nor can find any who truly believe Mary is the Mother of God who plays a role in our salvation... and there are others... so believe me when I say that any protestant church I could visit would snub me for "worshiping" Mary and the Eucharist. Absolutely not an option...

FaeryChild said:

When they come up, I will post them.

Click to expand...

Not sure what post you are responding to here.

Well, for one, the way in which First Communion is administered to children. First Communion is actually received when (or if) the mother receives while pregnant. The Church teaches abortion is wrong because babies are people. I agree. So the fetus is a person and is therefore capable of receiving First Communion. The Church's entire theology of Mary (rightly) stems from the fact that Our Lady was pregnant with God - Mary's blood nourished God and likewise was nourished by God's blood. If anyone has a high view of pregnancy and the relationship between the baby and the mother it is the Catholic Church.

However, if these things are true - as I believe them to be - then that means that when the mother communes, the baby shares in that communion. And certainly no one's faith is purer or more worthy to receive than a baby. The baby in the womb is like Adam & Eve eating from the Good tree - so why would a baby not also be receiving? In this case, upon birth, babies should continue to receive. They should be immediately baptized & confirmed, fully brought into the Church. Long before the need to begin confessing - a child should long be used to receiving Communing and benefiting from the grace it brings. With all due respect to current practice - perhaps adult Catholics should not be so quick to receive while kids should be the first at the table? If anyone should be receiving, it is children. Certainly us adults can after being rightly prepared, but that is because as we age we bring sin into our lives and have reasons we need to be Confessing and rightly discerning whether or not we eat and drink to judgement or life.

Why not let kids continue communing from birth onwards? Before one has sinned, is there a need to have such a strong connection made between First Penance / First Communion? With apologies to the beautiful dresses and expensive gifts, the concept and timing of First Communion needs rethinking. When children do reach the age of reason and can begin to truly choose right from wrong, of course they need to be taught Confession. Teaching kids First Penance should serve the purpose of teaching them how to return to the Table when they have done wrong - not as a pre-requisite for approaching the Table in the first place! The way in which the current practice makes such a strong link between First Penance / First Communion is psychologically damaging.

Yeah, I know, if I'm so frustrated with the way the Church practices this, why not find a protestant church? Well, the only problem there is that I literally cannot find any protestant churches who truly believe the Eucharist is the body, soul & Divinity of Christ... nor can find any who truly believe Mary is the Mother of God who plays a role in our salvation... and there are others... so believe me when I say that any protestant church I could visit would snub me for "worshiping" Mary and the Eucharist. Absolutely not an option...

Click to expand...

Interesting theology. There has always been a question as to how long the Eucharist remains the Body and Blood once it is in the digestive system. The fact that the baby does not "share" directly in what the mother ingests may be a stumbling block for your idea.

I am sympathetic to your points about communion and reconciliation. There has been a lot of discussion, of both a theological and practical nature, on how and when these sacraments should be first given. The process the Church currently follows is a little odd. It seems they are applying the process used for adults entering the Church to little children. Not at all the same.

Well, as for that "stumbling block"...
the Eucharist is supposed to be medicine for sin. And we are supposed to take it literally that we are consuming Jesus. Pregnant women have to be careful what they take... smoking? drinking? drugs? even prescription meds. The rules change when you are pregnant. But if the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus... well, don't tell me that anything we have in this world is more powerful. Clearly the presence of Jesus, apart from questions of the digestive system, must permeate us and have an effect on us. Perhaps people are more open / closed to feeling Jesus in their minds / hearts depending on where they are at. But certainly one would have to at least conclude that the baby, at least in some way, experiences the positive graces of Communion.

Thus, perhaps I would amend what I said above to say that the baby certainly has begun to experience, in some way, the graces of Communion. Upon being born instead of having the child cut off completely from what s/he experienced in the womb - we should just go ahead and celebrate full initiation upon birth.

I'm just asking the Church to fully embrace Her own theologies on the Eucharist, Mary and being pro-life (which is more than being pro-birth). She should be more Catholic, not less.

FaeryChild said:

Well, as for that "stumbling block"...
the Eucharist is supposed to be medicine for sin. And we are supposed to take it literally that we are consuming Jesus. Pregnant women have to be careful what they take... smoking? drinking? drugs? even prescription meds. The rules change when you are pregnant. But if the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus... well, don't tell me that anything we have in this world is more powerful. Clearly the presence of Jesus, apart from questions of the digestive system, must permeate us and have an effect on us. Perhaps people are more open / closed to feeling Jesus in their minds / hearts depending on where they are at. But certainly one would have to at least conclude that the baby, at least in some way, experiences the positive graces of Communion.

Thus, perhaps I would amend what I said above to say that the baby certainly has begun to experience, in some way, the graces of Communion. Upon being born instead of having the child cut off completely from what s/he experienced in the womb - we should just go ahead and celebrate full initiation upon birth.

I'm just asking the Church to fully embrace Her own theologies on the Eucharist, Mary and being pro-life (which is more than being pro-birth). She should be more Catholic, not less.

Click to expand...

It would be nice if the Eucharist was "medicine for sin". Instead it is more of a reward for the "healthy". Those most in need of it are denied it. That theology does not compute with the inclusiveness of Jesus in the Gospel, who literally embraced the most unworthy. The "wisdom" of the Church turns that completely around.

I agree about the importance of being more than pro-birth. The teaching of the Church has moved in that direction, but most Catholics, including many voices of traditional views, have not kept pace.