a Question for our non-CATHOLIC BRETHREN

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=Kliska;11733324]lol No, not one particular issue.
Click to expand...
However, I will say, as I’ve said in many many threads, if I believed in transubstantiation, I’d be much more drawn to the RCC. I’ve studied, read, prayed, absorbed scripture, thus far no “light bulb” moment except a more stalwart belief against transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
GOD WILLING THIS WILL HELP YOU SEE GOD’S TRUTH

Five separate authors of the bible + Jesus Himself + the immediate belief of the Apostles and the early church ought to Convinece anyone and EVERYONE:D

Mt. 26:26-28
Mk. 14: 22-24
Lk. 22: 19-21
John chpt. 6: but especially:51- 57" I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day** For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed**. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him"

Paul: 1 Cor. 23-29
" For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. **For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. **

The Early Church called this Mass: “The Breaking of the Bread”
Acts 2:42 “And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

Acts 2: 46:“And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart”
**
And look up #1345 in our Catechism**
file:///C:/Users/Robert/Desktop/Catechism%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church.htm

Because this is the ultimate sacrifice God can do; perhaps even is a sense greater than His Passion; God choose to become an “inanimate object” [in appearance only] AND to BE not just “become”; to BE the GREATEST source of grace available to man: because it is; IT IS; Jesus Christ Himself. Amen:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
Patrick

.
 
Patrick, I feel honored you picked my point to discuss, but I can assure you I’ve read the scriptures multiple times, the catechism, RC Apologists, Lutheran Apologists, Orthodox Apologists, Anglican Apologists… still not seein’ it.
 
=Tomyris;11735171]There are a number of issues, but probably the biggest is the spectacular refusal of the bishops and priests to teach, or model, the Catholic faith to the people. In particular is my RCIA instructor who rejected the Trinity, taught us Muslim prayers (in front of the priest) and said we really have no way of knowing what happened with “the Jesus events” because the records are untrustworthy and were written centuries after those events. He thought there was no way we could know if someone named Jesus ever lived. He is the director of religious instruction. I looked at the parish paper recently and he wrote an article in which he discussed Jesus having demons in him.
Click to expand...
I heard a homily once on how to make bread, another on the places in the sanctuary where the bishop anointed the place.
Click to expand...
I have repeatedly run into Catholics who know much less about Catholicism than I do, even on CAF, and Catholics who, by their lifestyle, testify that the Church is not to be believed. In our church we have many people who have left the Catholic church and repeatedly say that the reason they left was the lack of teaching. I know a woman who went to parish school with the children of the mafia - everyone knew what the parents did - but it was ok, there was no call for repentance or holy living. One could be a good Catholic and be in the mafia, too. That’s what she grew up with. Another woman I know said what she likes about being a practicing Catholic is that there is a loophole for everything, so you can do whatever you want without ever worrying about sin. This is the testimony of Catholics I know, and CAF is a small voice in a roaring river of this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
My DEAR friend in Christ;
I am dismayed but not shocked at what you report. How long ago was this?

You are also right; partially at least, on the LACK of catechesis after Vatican II. Much has been dome and IS presently being done to correct that GAPING hole in teaching our catholic Faith.

I do take a BIT [a small one:)] exception to your position on this Forum. Not that your statement is wrong; rather that it is a GOAL of this Forum to educate Catholics and non-Catholic-Christians alike. And I think this is happening on a regular basis.👍

Using this as a reason NOT to Know, accept and then fully live out Gods singular true Faith and the only Church founded and guided by Him [when We permit it] is at best a week argument IMO. No where else except the Catholic Churches and the eastern Churches with Direct Apostolic Succession can one MEET their God FACE to FACE;) and have KNOWN forgiveness of their sins.

I started this String with a belief that NO reason is a GOOD enough reason NOT to be a Catholic:shrug:

One God
can and Does have only One set of Faith beliefs
& founded, guides and protects only One Church fully: todays Catholic Churches.

And yes my friend; this is a Biblical fact too.

God Bless you and THANKS for sharing,
Patrick
 
ChurchSoldier said:
I should clarify. Not Mary herself, just the quantity and exhuberance with which focus is placed on her by many. I have no problem with Mary or any other member of the Communion of Saints, nor asking their assistance in prayer.
Click to expand...
This is what holds me back, also.
 
Originally Posted by PJM
Dear friend, Is there one issue in particular that is holding you back from the Catholic Church?
God Bless you, Patrick
Click to expand...
Tomyris;11735171] There are a number of issues, but probably the biggest is the spectacular refusal of the bishops and priests to teach, or model, the Catholic faith to the people. In particular is my RCIA instructor who rejected the Trinity, taught us Muslim prayers (in front of the priest) and said we really have no way of knowing what happened with “the Jesus events” because the records are untrustworthy and were written centuries after those events. He thought there was no way we could know if someone named Jesus ever lived. He is the director of religious instruction. I looked at the parish paper recently and he wrote an article in which he discussed Jesus having demons in him.
Click to expand...
I heard a homily once on how to make bread, another on the places in the sanctuary where the bishop anointed the place.
Click to expand...
I have repeatedly run into Catholics who know much less about Catholicism than I do, even on CAF, and Catholics who, by their lifestyle, testify that the Church is not to be believed. In our church we have many people who have left the Catholic church and repeatedly say that the reason they left was the lack of teaching. I know a woman who went to parish school with the children of the mafia - everyone knew what the parents did - but it was ok, there was no call for repentance or holy living. One could be a good Catholic and be in the mafia, too. That’s what she grew up with. Another woman I know said what she likes about being a practicing Catholic is that there is a loophole for everything, so you can do whatever you want without ever worrying about sin. This is the testimony of Catholics I know, and CAF is a small voice in a roaring river of this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
Such a miscellany of diverse comments in answer to the OP’s question,
**“Is there one issue in particular that is holding you back from the Catholic Church?” **
Click to expand...
It begs the question, is it the intention of the OP, or any other person to submit the final list (if there could be envisioned such a thing) to a higher authority with a view to its being used to narrow the gap between Roman Catholics, and Non-Roman Catholics?

Protector.
 
Protector said:
Such a miscellany of diverse comments in answer to the OP’s question,
It begs the question, is it the intention of the OP, or any other person to submit the final list (if there could be envisioned such a thing) to a higher authority with a view to its being used to narrow the gap between Roman Catholics, and Non-Roman Catholics?

Protector.
Click to expand...
I heard it from the highest authority; “Love one another as I have Loved you”.

Threads like these always cut and motivate me to pray more.

Peace be with you
 
PJM said:
Dear friend,

Is there one issue in particular that is holding you back from the Catholic Church?

God Bless you,
Patrick
Click to expand...
The ONLY issue that is holding me back from the Catholic Church is the personages of the Bab and Baha’u’llah

If the Bab and Baha’u’llah did not exist and live such a turbulent spiritually historic lives, then I would have most definitely been a Catholic or a Muslim

.
 
Kliska said:
Patrick, I feel honored you picked my point to discuss, but I can assure you I’ve read the scriptures multiple times, the catechism, RC Apologists, Lutheran Apologists, Orthodox Apologists, Anglican Apologists… still not seein’ it.
Click to expand...
I don’t see ECF in that list.

One thing I have noticed when it comes to a dogma, is that there is usually a relationship to other dogmas. ie Since I know this this and this, those other “fact” are therefore going to influence and possibly impede my observation of the point under consideration. Since those other beliefs are not being questioned but, as it were, set in concrete, they do not become part of the question, and therefore they directly influence the evaluation of the point being looked at, often without realizing it.

I see this particularly in the huge shift from Catholic teaching, a gradual shift, beginning at the protestant. Since one belief was changed slightly, this eventually lead to a second belief being changed, which eventually lead to a third belief being changed. At some point in that progression the original belief of the real presence changed to symbology. It required a certain amount of change of other beliefs before that particular belief was able to change without conflicting the other beliefs.

So I ask the question are there any other things you belief which are influencing in a preventative manner, your acceptance of the real presence?
 
PJM said:
Dear friend,

Is there one issue in particular that is holding you back from the Catholic Church?

God Bless you,
Patrick
Click to expand...
The problems I have with the Church are endemic to Christianity as a whole. If i was Christian I would be Catholic.
 
Tomyris said:
There are a number of issues, but probably the biggest is the spectacular refusal of the bishops and priests to teach, or model, the Catholic faith to the people. In particular is my RCIA instructor who rejected the Trinity, taught us Muslim prayers (in front of the priest) and said we really have no way of knowing what happened with “the Jesus events” because the records are untrustworthy and were written centuries after those events. He thought there was no way we could know if someone named Jesus ever lived. He is the director of religious instruction. I looked at the parish paper recently and he wrote an article in which he discussed Jesus having demons in him.

I heard a homily once on how to make bread, another on the places in the sanctuary where the bishop anointed the place.

I have repeatedly run into Catholics who know much less about Catholicism than I do, even on CAF, and Catholics who, by their lifestyle, testify that the Church is not to be believed. In our church we have many people who have left the Catholic church and repeatedly say that the reason they left was the lack of teaching. I know a woman who went to parish school with the children of the mafia - everyone knew what the parents did - but it was ok, there was no call for repentance or holy living. One could be a good Catholic and be in the mafia, too. That’s what she grew up with. Another woman I know said what she likes about being a practicing Catholic is that there is a loophole for everything, so you can do whatever you want without ever worrying about sin. This is the testimony of Catholics I know, and CAF is a small voice in a roaring river of this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
Would you mind sending me the Parish’s name by PM?

Thanks,
 
Darryl_B said:
I don’t see ECF in that list.

One thing I have noticed when it comes to a dogma, is that there is usually a relationship to other dogmas. ie Since I know this this and this, those other “fact” are therefore going to influence and possibly impede my observation of the point under consideration. Since those other beliefs are not being questioned but, as it were, set in concrete, they do not become part of the question, and therefore they directly influence the evaluation of the point being looked at, often without realizing it.

I see this particularly in the huge shift from Catholic teaching, a gradual shift, beginning at the protestant. Since one belief was changed slightly, this eventually lead to a second belief being changed, which eventually lead to a third belief being changed. At some point in that progression the original belief of the real presence changed to symbology. It required a certain amount of change of other beliefs before that particular belief was able to change without conflicting the other beliefs.

So I ask the question are there any other things you belief which are influencing in a preventative manner, your acceptance of the real presence?
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, I have read many of the ECF’s that are cited on each side of this issue (I’m certainly not claiming to have read them all), and this is causing some of my thoughts on the topic to be solidified. Meaning that, as I’ve discussed in other threads, that they are going to talk about the Lord’s Supper in a very particular way because of the prevailing philosophical culture of the day. There is going to be an element of Platonic thought, and as they express those thoughts in the philosophical manner (unfortunately) for us that we are not used to in modern times. So while I do believe some ECF’s and some early Christian writers do hold to a literal somatic presence, I also feel that some don’t, and it’s not a majority vs. minority.

Your question to me is very profound and I’ve thought about it, and no, I don’t think there is any other barrier to my belief. I truly and humbly want to know the Truth, Jesus is my focus, I am intensely Christian, even the thought of Jesus being literal doesn’t bother me; there are actually people groups that eat flesh, drink blood so if that is what He wanted of me, that is what I’d do. Putting the whole matter into the context of Israelite culture and teachings, of their fest days and practices, of what other passages in the Bible seem to point to, I can’t “see” it being a somatic real presence.

There are just many many things in scripture that lead me to the conclusion that I rest on; which is not really a common one (I can agree with bits of Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, etc…) but I can say I don’t believe in transubstantiation the way that idea is taught in the RCC, and I don’t believe in the somatic presence exactly as taught by rest. Now, I am in position to fully understand the ideas presented by the varying groups; I understand transubstantiation and why the RCC teaches it, I just don’t agree with it. Obviously, as a protestant, I don’t believe that the RCC is infallible nor has the corner on truth, so that route to belief at this point is cut off from me.
 
Kliska said:
Just to clarify, I have read many of the ECF’s that are cited on each side of this issue (I’m certainly not claiming to have read them all), and this is causing some of my thoughts on the topic to be solidified. Meaning that, as I’ve discussed in other threads, that they are going to talk about the Lord’s Supper in a very particular way because of the prevailing philosophical culture of the day. There is going to be an element of Platonic thought, and as they express those thoughts in the philosophical manner (unfortunately) for us that we are not used to in modern times. So while I do believe some ECF’s and some early Christian writers do hold to a literal somatic presence, I also feel that some don’t, and it’s not a majority vs. minority.

Your question to me is very profound and I’ve thought about it, and no, I don’t think there is any other barrier to my belief. I truly and humbly want to know the Truth, Jesus is my focus, I am intensely Christian, even the thought of Jesus being literal doesn’t bother me; there are actually people groups that eat flesh, drink blood so if that is what He wanted of me, that is what I’d do. Putting the whole matter into the context of Israelite culture and teachings, of their fest days and practices, of what other passages in the Bible seem to point to, I can’t “see” it being a somatic real presence.

There are just many many things in scripture that lead me to the conclusion that I rest on; which is not really a common one (I can agree with bits of Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, etc…) but I can say I don’t believe in transubstantiation the way that idea is taught in the RCC, and I don’t believe in the somatic presence exactly as taught by rest. Now, I am in position to fully understand the ideas presented by the varying groups; I understand transubstantiation and why the RCC teaches it, I just don’t agree with it. Obviously, as a protestant, I don’t believe that the RCC is infallible nor has the corner on truth, so that route to belief at this point is cut off from me.
Click to expand...
So it is the prevailing philosophical culture of today (materialist) that is influencing your understanding then?
 
Darryl_B said:
So it is the prevailing philosophical culture of today (materialist) that is influencing your understanding then?
Click to expand...
No, it is the understanding of the way things would have been communicated 1) in the Israelite/Jewish cultural frame of the OT/NT and 2) the platonic/cultural frame of many of the ECF’s. Taking those into account, I don’t see either supporting transubstantiation of the Eucharist. At most, I could say some ECF’s or early Christian writers supported the idea of transubstantiation.
 
=MarinerFan;11737110]This is what holds me back, also.
Click to expand...
Then here is the GOOD news:)

The CC dies not MANDATE praying to Mary; it’s a personal pirty choice [and a DARN GOOD ONE TOO]😃 we ARE to acknowledge Her as the Mother of our God.

There is no -ne closer to Jesus Christ than His Blessed Mother.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Would you mind sending me the Parish’s name by PM?

Thanks,
Click to expand...
Yes, actually. I made a lot of noise there leaving and I wrote the bishop - I would probably be quickly identifiable, which is a no-no in my agreement with my husband on posting here.

If you want to find a parish like that one, I expect there are several within easy driving distance of you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top