Not anymore.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Let me tell you a true story.
Once upon a time, I was a simple Bible-Belt redneck (still am, in fact) who, confused and scandalized by the disunity and lack of historical continuity of Protestantism, investigated and converted to the Catholic Church.
Every time I picked up a magazine or pamphlet or tract or newspaper (OSV) in church (or read a Church-approved Catholic bible), there would be an article pushing evolution, or historical-criticism, and assuming that all Catholics knew they were true and that anyone who believed otherwise was an ENEMY to be combatted before he snatched precious Catholic souls. The official newspaper of my diocese actually carried an article advocating the teaching of higher Biblical criticism in public schools. You read that right. I am NOT making this up.
Do you have the slightest idea at the conflict this set up within me? I could either believe the inspired Bible or the infallible Church but could not believe both. You think I shrugged my shoulders and just said, "oh, well"??? You don't know me.
I cannot tell you how hard I worked to remain loyal and faithful to a "one true church" that regarded my beliefs with hostility (while celebrating the "inculturation" of "indigenous pipples"). I was willing to believe in Mary. I was willing to believe in the real presence. I was willing to believe everything. But I could not and would not believe that the inspired Bible was full of fables, fairy tales, myths, and mistakes. Now my parish knew this and they put up with me . . . you know, like they would with a mentally deficient person who "couldn't help it." But I want you to tell my just WHY that wasn't enough for them? Why Catholics are supposed to believe in evolution and higher criticism too?
Now after a couple years I went to a school in a large multicultural city out of state. Here is where my beliefs were shown much less toleration. One day I had become so depressed from "living in sin" (ie, interpreting the Bible literally) that I actually confessed my Biblical literalism to one of the priests at the local church. This priest was no hippie; he was an older man with white hair. Nevertheless he spent some fifteen minutes with a line forming outside trying to enumerate all the errors and mistakes in the Bible. Have you ever been in this situation? Well you are now with Francis!
Eventually (after being told by my "denominational counselor" on a holy day of obligation that my beliefs "weren't Catholic," just before I had to attend mass) I stopped going to the Latin rite church and began attending masses at a small uniate church nearby. The priest here was very old and in poor health, but kept doing what he was doing because there was no one else to do it. I spoke with him once and he might have possibly shared some of my beliefs, but of course I can't be certain. What I do know is that one day while speaking with a Latin-rite seminarian who served in the choir there, he told me that he had "no evidence" that Noah had ever existed.
No evidence.
He had no evidence that Noah didn't exist. But he had no evidence that he did either.
The Biblical assertion that there was once a man named Noah who built an ark and saved life on earth during a universal flood meant nothing to him.
I left that day and never looked back at Catholicism, but I took advantage of the "exotic" opportunities a large cosmopolitan city provides and began investigating Eastern Orthodoxy. I actually attended the "Pascha" night services where I was told that there was "nothing wrong with evolution." When I got back to my dorm afterwards I literally cried. Protestantism may not have any historical authenticity, but all the "one true churches" thought the Bible was garbage.
Oh, and Eastern Orthodoxy apparently doesn't believe there's anything wrong with us. We're just like Adam before the sin. In which case why in sam hill is the chrstian religion even necessary???
The last place I investigated (I would have gone to more if they had been more conveniently located) was a local Armenian Apostolic church (non-Chalcaedonian). They Armenians have the most beautiful rite of all that I saw (the Armenian badarak remains the most aesthetically beautiful experience I have ever had), but they were liberal as all get-out. The priest was a liberal who didn't seem to believe in much (and yes, he preached a homily endorsing evolution and environmentalism) and it was almost entirely an ethnic church fueled by resentment against the Turks. Scratch that . . . the Armenian Church is a purely ethnic church. It's for Armenians, and its purpose is to preserve the Armenian nation. (Which apparently is why no Armenian should be a Protestant.)
I also met with the priest of another Armenian church in the vicinity, and he told me the Armenian Church is a "very tolerant church," which apparently means as long as you're Armenian that's all that matters. I know he mentioned something about a homosexual in one of the churches.
Recall please that the Armenians are supposed to have some sort of connection to Mt. Ararat and to Noah. But again, it's all apparently hooey.
My permanent break with chrstianity came about when an Eastern Orthodox friend in the dorm loaned me a short booklet about Eastern Orthodoxy, in which the author simply went on and on and on and on about the evil, arch-heretical pagan doctrine of "original sin" (which he claimed Augustine got from Greek pagans). Then I saw ONE that caused everything I had experienced, everything I had gone through, to make perfect sense. Here it is:
"The true doctrine of human nature is to be found in the Talmud."
Now this was an Eastern Orthodox author, remember, and his point was to attack the dogma of "original sin" because it contradicted the "true doctrine of human nature" taught by Judaism. And if you have the slightest bit of logic or reason about you, I bet you know my first reaction.
If that is so, WHY DID WE NEED A NEW RELIGION WHEN THERE ALREADY WAS ONE THAT HAD THE CORRECT DOCTRINE OF HUMAN NATURE??? In other words: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I really must bring this to a conclusion, but I hope you will understand that as a former Fundamentalist Protestant the rituals and commandments of the ancient churches had always been a huge problem for me to begin with. I had always been taught that "salvation" was through a loophole in which G-d subjected Himself to a vicarious eternal damnation--after all, you can't go to hell if you're already there! The "new testament" explicitly ruled the ancient Biblical ritual "fulfilled." But the ancient churches claimed that their post-Biblical rituals, commandments, and ceremonies actually took the place of the Biblical system which was now done away with. From a Fundamentalist Protestant perspective, this is simply ridiculous. Why do away with one system if you're simply going to replace it with another? What's the difference, except that the chrstian systems are post-Biblical and pale imitations of the authentic Biblical ritual???
All along my journey, the further I went back in history (Protestantism to Catholicism to Orthodoxy to Judaism) I noticed that at each step human nature was considered less damaged, and the individual more responsible for his own eternal destiny. (Also that the more ritual and symbol was employed, the less literal the religion was; it was a kind of pantomime.)
What's the point of a chrstian religion in which people still spend their lives walking a tightrope over the fires of hell while burdened every bit as much with ritual and commandment, other than the ritual and commandment are no longer Biblical? Furthermore, the traditional Catholic teaching is that even after a lifetime of devotion most people are headed for hell (nowadays it's the opposite--everybody supposedly goes to Heaven).
There's no need going on. This is my experience. Never having been a Fundamentalist Protestant, I doubt you will understand or sympathize.
Yes, Protestantism is not authentic chrstianity. But real authentic chrstianity is a fraud--and that's worse.
Fascinating; I understand your journey. It reminds me somewhat of Frank Schaeffer’s although obviously different.
Sorry, but you've lost all your credibility with me. Anybody who claims he believes in all books of the Bible (but the Book of Job), yet denies Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is a hypocrite.
Anybody who would let a novus ordo seminarian cause him to apostatize from the Catholic Faith, never had the Faith.
Do you not find yourself unique in your leaps from such different religions? Are you done jumping or are you still looking for another one?
“WHY DID WE NEED A NEW RELIGION WHEN THERE ALREADY WAS ONE THAT HAD THE CORRECT DOCTRINE OF HUMAN NATURE???”
Well, knowing human nature only lets you diagnose the disease... it doesn’t automatically provide the cure!