3 things why you could never be Catholic again

[Mannyfit75]

This kind of thing is despicable, plain and simple. I simply asked a question of the non-Catholics in this forum and all I see is this kind of rhetoric. This confirms my point with many Catholics that it is only their opinion that counts and nobody elses. Mr. Manny, maybe you will find that it is your sacrements that are invalid and those of the Reformation that have been restored to sanctity.

Really you think a CC that is 2,000 yrs old has invalid sacraments, with its Apostolic Succession. I hardly think so.

When the Reformation happened in 1517, the Protestant Reformers did away with the Sacrament and only kept it two, Faith Alone and Bible Alone.

Sacrament remain valid as long as there is a sucession of bishops. The Orthodox Church maintain Apostolic Succession hence their Sacraments are valid.

Catholic Church also maintains it. Protestant Churches have invalid sacraments because most of them (have no Priesthood, with the exception of Anglicans, Lutherans).

In another Forum, I said that the Protestants (Evangelicals) have no Real Presence of Jesus Christ. I still affirm that because they believe that Jesus is only Symbolic…

 

[Mannyfit75]

If you would ever stop your arrogant process of so called faith, you would realize that there are more opinions of what the truth is and what is believed and what is not to be believed among the mere folks sitting in the pew next to you versus the Protestants that you accuse of differing on everything amongst themselves. I am not going to get into a war of wits with you over knowledge of the Catholic faith. Let’s just suffice it to say that I know far more about it than you are giving me credit for (that is not such a bad thing either).

You need to get out of this Forum you are Anti-Catholic and we don’t need your kind here.,

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ok, I thought that was the teaching of the church…now.
Check this out from Catholic Answers
catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
This is on Salvation outside of the church.
I didn’t see what you just said in that. As a “separated brethren” I am glad to hear the Lord is at work in my non RC denomination.
Why isn’t what you posted on the part about salvation. Since I am not RC I guess I can be ignorant.
Barbara

That post was not addressed to you. It was address to another Protestant.

 

[a_priori]

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.

This logic would shut down 80% of the content on Christian internet forums.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t believe it is wise to dismiss all non-Christian religions as demon-inspired. I’ve studied the world’s religions and to me there is absolutely no evidence any have a ‘satanic’ origin, though I don’t believe any are as beautiful as Christianity is in their conceptions of God/the Absolute. We need a better intellectual response in a global world than wholesale dismissal of non-Christian philosophies and religions (this is something which has caused me the most problems in my faith, when Christians/Catholics arrogantly pronounce only they have access to God and no-one else does).

I done my research myself on Paganism. For Pagans they do not believe that they are worshipping demons. They believe they are worshipping nature. However, they have been deceived. Despite their claims that they aren’t worshipping demons, they are.

Some of them can cast magic, and perhaps issue curses. Where is this power coming from? Well, it ain’t God. It’s Satan and his fallen angels.

They can believe in pagan gods and goddesses all they like but these men and women are deceived; even without them knowing it.

If you claim they are worship nature? or a Goddess, then there must be another god. It would contradict the belief in Singular God.

Paganism today is just something that came out of the New age movement in the 1960s. People then were fed up with mainstream Christianity and find other means to replace God. Paganism, or Neo-Paganism is coming back.

They were destroyed when Christian rise during the Roman Empire, now they want to worship those idols. Don’t be surprise to see someone from the pagan lie end up Neo-Nero, and claim himself a God.

 

[Allweather]

The religion that the Jews practised at the time of Christ was different in many respects from modern day Christianity.

Without a doubt! It was also rather different in many respects from the Christianity practiced among the Apostles during the period described in the Acts of the Apostles. But that has nothing to do with dosdog’s fairly elaborate layout of evidence that the Book of Mormon was written during the 19th century by people with a 19th century mentality and knowledge of history, rather than by an ancient prophet.

But Christianity was supposed to a continuation of the same God, same religion.

Christianity, especially Catholicism, is ABSOLUTELY a “continuation” and fulfillment of Judaism. But when you suggest that “the Jews” were unable to receive Christianity, you apparently ignore the many Jews who did accept it. In fact, ALL of the Apostles were Jews. ALL, or at least the vast majority, of the early Christians, were Jews. The Acts of the Apostles describes the point at which gentiles started coming in as converts in large numbers, and the council that was held to determine whether to expect these to conform to Hebraic laws regarding circumcision and diet. So, it isn’t accurate to say that the Jews weren’t able to receive Jesus as Messiah. Many were, and still are. But Jesus himself stated in various ways that the Jewish religious leaders would remain aloof from him, so it wasn’t a surprise, but rather the fulfullment of prophesy.

So doesn’t it make sense that had the Jews been able to receive it, that the prophets would reveal more of what would appear to be modern day Christianity than a derivitaive teaching of the Law of Moses?

Are you referring to Jewish prophets? Or Mormon prophets? I must be missing your point, and that is why I’d hoped for more elaboration on this issue that you’re raising. I’m more than a little thick-headed!

I’m far from expert on the OT prophets, but I don’t see why there should’ve been a detailed layout describing Christian religion as it developed since Christ. Maybe this is part of the reason that the Jewish religious leaders had such a hard time accepting Jesus. According to their readings, the Messiah would not look, or talk, like Jesus looked and talked. He certainly wouldn’t come presenting himself as the incarnated God, with full power to forgive sins and to perform miracles. Besides, in the Catholic Church, we DO see the continuity from Judaism to Christianity, and we DO see the gradual development of doctrine under the authority that Jesus established.

But, I’m much more interested in your detailed response to what dosdog wrote, regarding the evidence he presented that the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. If I’m so dense that I’m missing your point, forgive me, that is my fault, but please do go on…

 

[rmcmullan]

Allweather, I don’t know if you’ve ever read the Book of Mormon, I think you have. If so, you’ll see that they were much better prepared to receive the Messiah. True, he descended in a very dramatic fashion and there was little doubt who He was when he appeared in the Americas but the American prophets were looking forward with eagerness to this event and they had received the sign of his birth. The tradition among the American Jews was much more Christian.

So, I think what dosdog was assuming was that the American Jews should be like the Jews of the Old Testament. But I am thinking that it’s the other way around, the Jews of the Old Testament should have been more like the (North) American Jews. In general, you’d expect the Jewish and Christian religions to align much more closely. The only reason I can think of for this not happening is the generally lack of faith and the degraded spiritual conditions around Christ’s ministry.

When I look at the OT, it looks as though the Jews had not changed much from when they were first given the law from Moses. The Saducess did not even believe in a resurrection but that is so far from the Christian belief.

When Nephi was taken from Jerusalem, he and the prophets that followed were instructed through heavenly ministrations and the traditions that followed were much more closely aligned with the Jewish/Christian hybird that you would expect.

 

[dosdog]

Allweather, I don’t know if you’ve ever read the Book of Mormon, I think you have. If so, you’ll see that they were much better prepared to receive the Messiah. True, he descended in a very dramatic fashion and there was little doubt who He was when he appeared in the Americas but the American prophets were looking forward with eagerness to this event and they had received the sign of his birth. The tradition among the American Jews was much more Christian.

So, I think what dosdog was assuming was that the American Jews should be like the Jews of the Old Testament. But I am thinking that it’s the other way around, the Jews of the Old Testament should have been more like the (North) American Jews. In general, you’d expect the Jewish and Christian religions to align much more closely. The only reason I can think of for this not happening is the generally lack of faith and the degraded spiritual conditions around Christ’s ministry.

When I look at the OT, it looks as though the Jews had not changed much from when they were first given the law from Moses. The Saducess did not even believe in a resurrection but that is so far from the Christian belief.

When Nephi was taken from Jerusalem, he and the prophets that followed were instructed through heavenly ministrations and the traditions that followed were much more closely aligned with the Jewish/Christian hybird that you would expect.

Adair’s History of the American Indians
worldcat.org/wcpa/ow/ce21720246e085a9.html
Adair, James Originally published in 1775

Elias Boudinot (1740-1821)
A star in the West or, A humble attempt to discover the long lost ten tribes of Israel, preparatory to their return to their beloved city, Jerusalem.
The Second Advent, or coming of the Messiah in glory shown to be a Scripture doctrine, and taught by divine revelation, from the beginning of the world
by Elias Boudinot Language: English Type: Book : Microform
Publisher: Trenton, N.J. : D. Fenton & S. Hutchinson, 1815.
directtextbook.com/author/elias-boudinot
worldcat.org/wcpa/ow/128e55e54631b184a19afeb4da09e526.html

Ethan Smith’s book is largely a compilation of material from the works of other writers, particularly James Adair and Elias Boudinot

Both books argue that the American Indians are descendants of the Hebrews

Both books relate the discovery of buried records

Both books refer to inspired prophets and describe objects resembling the Urim and Thummim and the breastplate of the Hebrew high priest

Both books refer to written characters similar to Egyptian hieroglyphs

Both books claim that the Indians were separated into civilized and barbarous cultures and that the civilized people were exterminated by the barbarous Indians

Both books emphasize the destruction of Jerusalem, refer to the scattering and restoration of Israel, quote frequently from Isaiah, and claim that American Gentiles are to play an important role in restoring the Indians back into the house of Israel

Both books condemn pride and seeking of riches, and both praise the virtues of the Indians.

Both books describe the appearance of an important person on the American continent – Christ and Quetzalcotl

In addition, Ethan Smith discusses only one theory about the migration of people to the Americas. He holds that they took a northward journey across Asia to the Bering Strait and then spread southward. Adair mentions this theory once
But the parallels actually testify to the fact that the Book of Mormon agrees with many of the popular theories and speculation of the day
mormonstudies.com/author1.htm

 

[ronnok20]

You need to get out of this Forum you are Anti-Catholic and we don’t need your kind here.,

This is pathetic. If I spoke to a Catholic in the manner that you spoke to me on this forum, I would be kicked out of here so fast it would make Purgatory take notice.

 

[hosemonkey]

Allweather, I don’t know if you’ve ever read the Book of Mormon, I think you have. If so, you’ll see that they were much better prepared to receive the Messiah. True, he descended in a very dramatic fashion and there was little doubt who He was when he appeared in the Americas but the American prophets were looking forward with eagerness to this event and they had received the sign of his birth. The tradition among the American Jews was much more Christian.

So, I think what dosdog was assuming was that the American Jews should be like the Jews of the Old Testament. But I am thinking that it’s the other way around, the Jews of the Old Testament should have been more like the (North) American Jews. In general, you’d expect the Jewish and Christian religions to align much more closely. The only reason I can think of for this not happening is the generally lack of faith and the degraded spiritual conditions around Christ’s ministry.

When I look at the OT, it looks as though the Jews had not changed much from when they were first given the law from Moses. The Saducess did not even believe in a resurrection but that is so far from the Christian belief.

When Nephi was taken from Jerusalem, he and the prophets that followed were instructed through heavenly ministrations and the traditions that followed were much more closely aligned with the Jewish/Christian hybird that you would expect.

You are citing from a book of fiction.The BOM has no basis in fact and is a product of the imagination of Joseph Smith, plagarist and con-man. You may as well cite “The Lord of the Rings,” It is just as factual.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is pathetic. If I spoke to a Catholic in the manner that you spoke to me on this forum, I would be kicked out of here so fast it would make Purgatory take notice.

LOL

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is pathetic. If I spoke to a Catholic in the manner that you spoke to me on this forum, I would be kicked out of here so fast it would make Purgatory take notice.

It is because many of your assumed beliefs that the CC is completely taken out of context. I already point out to you that the Co-Redemptrix of Mary is not even a doctrine even though it is believed by many Catholics.

The Only Marian dogmas that are part of the deposit of faith (unchanging), Pertual Virginity of Mary, She is the Theotokos (God Bearer-Mother of God because she is the Mother of Jesus and because Jesus is God, she is rightly called Mother of God), Mary is Immaculate and was assumed Body and Soul into heaven.

These are all based on Patristic sources from the Early Church Fathers. It was not made up. It was handed down. If you look at Christian history you find the two most ancient Christian groups are Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Their beliefs about Mary is very similar. The Orthodox does not believe in the Immaculate Conception but they do believe that Mary was without sin all her life. They do not believe in the concept of original sin. They do not believe Assumption but they do believe in the Dormition of Mary (Falling Asleep) that she died and was taken up into heaven by Jesus.

The beliefs are similiar not to mention the numerous icons they have in their churches, which I think is very beautiful.

 

[ronnok20]

It is because many of your assumed beliefs that the CC is completely taken out of context. I already point out to you that the Co-Redemptrix of Mary is not even a doctrine even though it is believed by many Catholics.

The Only Marian dogmas that are part of the deposit of faith (unchanging), Pertual Virginity of Mary, She is the Theotokos (God Bearer-Mother of God because she is the Mother of Jesus and because Jesus is God, she is rightly called Mother of God), Mary is Immaculate and was assumed Body and Soul into heaven.

These are all based on Patristic sources from the Early Church Fathers. It was not made up. It was handed down. If you look at Christian history you find the two most ancient Christian groups are Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Their beliefs about Mary is very similar. The Orthodox does not believe in the Immaculate Conception but they do believe that Mary was without sin all her life. They do not believe in the concept of original sin. They do not believe Assumption but they do believe in the Dormition of Mary (Falling Asleep) that she died and was taken up into heaven by Jesus.

The beliefs are similiar not to mention the numerous icons they have in their churches, which I think is very beautiful.

So it is righteous for you to beat me in the head with all of this and tell me to get out if I disagree with it. This has gotten way off beat from the original thread.

 

[dosdog]

So it is righteous for you to beat me in the head with all of this and tell me to get out if I disagree with it. This has gotten way off beat from the original thread.

Just tell us what your agenda is - Dont act like you came here to learn something about the Church - You didnt

 

[ronnok20]

Just tell us what your agenda is - Dont act like you came here to learn something about the Church - You didnt

And what are you sir? The FBI? I cannot believe that you would treat others in this manner just because they may not agree with you and would like to explore as to why. The original thread was actually a question to other non-Catholics here lest you forget. This was a sure fire way to be bullied by those who would wish to stifle the opinions of others.

 

[Mannyfit75]

So it is righteous for you to beat me in the head with all of this and tell me to get out if I disagree with it. This has gotten way off beat from the original thread.

You can disagree but many of your beliefs about the Catholic Church are not true.

What we Catholic believe was handed down to us from the bishops, the successors of the Apostles. I also believed that Jesus Christ himself promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So far after Jesus said that, the Catholic Church is still standing. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church gains its authority from God, especially if it deals with moral and faith issues. To deny the Church would be to deny Jesus himself. Scripture is filled verses that show that the Church has authority.

It wasn’t meant to be Church to have menu of different doctrines, which you find in many Protestant Churches.

 

[rmcmullan]

You are citing from a book of fiction.The BOM has no basis in fact and is a product of the imagination of Joseph Smith, plagarist and con-man. You may as well cite “The Lord of the Rings,” It is just as factual.

HoseMonkey! Thank you for your probing analysis. You’re one of the few voices here at the Catholic forums I can always rely on to give a hostile, unpleasant remark.

Dosdog, I really don’t know why you are even persuing this line of reasoning. Neither you nor I are well qualified archeologists and parroting back what you read in somebody’s book isn’t going to impress me. Really, what’s the point? You can pick your witnesses and present their testimonies but in the end, you don’t know anything about it and there’s no jury.

I think you underestimate my conviction of the truthfullness of the Book of Mormon. There’s really no point in trying to undermine it. It really is the #1 reason why I will never go back to being a Catholic. That plus the absence of Apostles. Oh, and the gifts of the spirit thing.

Instead of trying to undermine the Book of Mormon, why don’t you tell me what changes in doctrine you’d have to make in order to accept it (and add it to the Catholic canon) and from there we can discuss those changes. Or have you never read it enough to understand it? I don’t want to hear anything about what some learned person wrote or said about it, I want to know what you personally think about it.

 

[ronnok20]

You can disagree but many of your beliefs about the Catholic Church are not true.

What we Catholic believe was handed down to us from the bishops, the successors of the Apostles. I also believed that Jesus Christ himself promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So far after Jesus said that, the Catholic Church is still standing. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church gains its authority from God, especially if it deals with moral and faith issues. To deny the Church would be to deny Jesus himself. Scripture is filled verses that show that the Church has authority.

It wasn’t meant to be Church to have menu of different doctrines, which you find in many Protestant Churches.

It strongly looks like you are the one who is having issues understanding doctrine. Your own Catechism states that Mary is a co-redemptrix of souls. Did you miss that entirely? I am beginning to believe that you are not very well rooted in your denomination. A Catholic priest once told me that it is of RC dogma that salvation without Mary is not possible and that being of the Catechism of the Catholic church.

 

[dosdog]

It strongly looks like you are the one who is having issues understanding doctrine. Your own Catechism states that Mary is a co-redemptrix of souls. Did you miss that entirely? I am beginning to believe that you are not very well rooted in your denomination. A Catholic priest once told me that it is of RC dogma that salvation without Mary is not possible and that being of the Catechism of the Catholic church.

2.Corredemptrix" Mary’s cooperation in the work of redemption is sometimes expressed by giving her the title “Corredemptrix.” The Popes have used this title, but more rarely and in documents of lesser weight, because it easily admits of misunderstanding. The first extant use of the title is in a fourtheenth century liturgical book from Salzburg. The prefix “co-” signifies that Mary does not contribute independently to the redemption, but only as associated with her divine Son.Now that all graces have been earned, once for all (cf. Hebrews 9:29), is there further role for Our Lady? The mere fact that she shared in earning all graces–for Calvary did not earn just some graces, but all graces–would all by itself warrant our calling her the Mediatrix of all graces.
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya3.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

It strongly looks like you are the one who is having issues understanding doctrine. Your own Catechism states that Mary is a co-redemptrix of souls. Did you miss that entirely? I am beginning to believe that you are not very well rooted in your denomination. A Catholic priest once told me that it is of RC dogma that salvation without Mary is not possible and that being of the Catechism of the Catholic church.

I have the Catechism of the Catholic Church and it is not dogmatic statement.

Take a look for yourself:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm#II This covers all about Mary.