A question from a former non-Catholic, for non-Catholics...

[Janet1983]

I apologize on their behalf that they make you feel like this. But we have plenty of sources from Sacred Tradition (oral and spoken) that lead to evidence that makes a claim that those who do not believe the Church do not believe in Him. In any case, nobody should make you feel that way whether or not you are. On the other hand, you also are ever so subtly telling us what we believe by saying things like, “…submitting to the authority of men…” We have the authority of Christ Himself. That is our belief. Only from an outsider does it look like the authority of men. And being an ex-Catholic hardly counts at saying you know our beliefs. It is actually even worse.

Perhaps you might want to answer me on this next question. This is much much worse than our statements against you. Answer for all your Protestant brothers and sisters.

Why is it that websites, like www.christiananswers.com, exclude Catholics? An entire part of Christianity who are in fact Christians is not even considered Christian by its own brethren. I do not want you to say why YOU would or would not do this.

Read John 15:18-19. This is being fulfilled by our own brethren.

Anyway, it is not an authority of men. It is a divine authority given by God Himself. And the claims that you make seem false are very justifiable and justified (of course, with a little alteration to your claim that would conform with what we actually believe); otherwise, we would not believe it.

I do respect your positions and I know that some of them differ from mine in that you have a different view on the Catholic Church. My view and yours do not coincide in all points and even though I for my part can in no way continue to believe what I perceive to be mere men, I understand and respect that you see it otherwise and do not believe to be following mere men in that you believe them to be guided by God. This difference in understanding of the authority of the Church does not lead me to believe that you might not be a Christian. What I am declaring is my personal opinion and the way I see things as an explanation of how I act and interact. I would never dare to be so bold, daring and more or less arrogant to claim that because we look at Church authority in a different way you wouldn’t be a Christian. From what I understand we are all part of the body and I will and cannot exclude anybody who is willing to follow Christ diligently, be it within or without the Catholic Church, and accept Him as their Lord and Saviour. That is the basics on what my faith is founded.

If my words let you assume in any way that I was trying to tell you or anybody else that by virtue of being Catholic they could not be Christians I would ask you to please forgive me. I never meant to say that, but sometimes my wording is inaccurate. I should be more careful about how I express myself and that is my fault. I never meant to offend you and if I did, I sincerely hope that you will accept my apologies.

I know that my knowledge about the Catholic Church is heavily debated from time to time. I might be an ex-Catholic and that might or might not disqualify me from knowing. Knowledge however has never been a proof of faith. I was a very faithful Catholic for most of my life against all odds and I even was a student teacher and a Catechist. Knowledge and believing were what characterized me. Me losing my faith in that which the Catholic Church teaches does not mean, that I do not know what is being taught. I know it very well and I choose to not believe anymore. I might or might not be qualified to argue this and I would never assume that I have all the knowledge, on the contrary. I am but a human and I can err. When people talked badly about Jesus Christ they were always wrong. If someone however talks badly about me they might just as well be right. I am but a human and I can err.

I am very touched by you apologizing on their behalf. Know that it means a lot to me. Religion has been a major topic for name-calling in the past and I wonder why this is reaching so far into the present. Catholics as well as Protestants did make it a habit to follow and execute dissenters from their faith (be it directly or through local authorities). There is no doubt about that. That this is however so much a part of the present, even though it has been downgraded to doubting other people’s faith astonishes me on a regular basis. I have been called a heretic before and I have been called a schismatic before. People called me apostate and thereby a non-Christian since I have left the Catholic faith. I am not here to judge anybody and I am not upset with either of these who presumed they could call me such and tell me that I was on my way to hell if I didn’t repent. I do believe that they were serious and I will always give them the benefit of the doubt assuming that they have the best for my soul in mind, trying to convince me of what they perceive to be the truth.

If all I clearly know about my Lord is leading me to be willing to serve Him and Him alone, all the while being aware that He is so much greater than anything I could possibly fathom, how could I assume that they are not trying to do the exact same thing? We are all human and in that we are and will always be limited in our understanding of the Lord, until the day He comes. When we will see Him face to face we will know, but until then we see per speculum in ænigmate.

The Lord bless you and protect you;
the Lord make His face shine on you, and be gracious to you;
the Lord look with favor on you and give you peace.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Any atheist making a claim against you will automatically have you assume that they do not have faith-illumined reasoned; therefore, they cannot see the whole picture and fail to see any relevant part of the picture. The theist automatically assumes this and rightly so because faith-illumined reason leads to a form of Truth that surpasses fact and figure. Truth cannot contradict Truth.

This is the case for the Church. The Church is the only one (to my knowledge anyway; correct me if I am wrong) that believes in being His Mystical Body. We are actually the only ones believe IN His Mystical Body. This is exactly why we think that rejection of the Church is rejection of Christ because it IS Christ. St. Paul somewhere in the Bible talks about His Body as the Church. Hopefully, my Catholic brethren who reads this knows where this is. I know it is there but I personally have no clue where it is. And this is also why I do not believe that Catholicism is just another sect of Christianity. I believe it IS Christianity. I have many reasons. And although it is a religion in every respect, I believe that it transcends even the idea of religion. Just like I believe that we are humans but by the grace of God, can transcend humanity (saints are experts at and on this). A difficulty of understanding something should not lead one to doubt the Church. It just means it is difficult to understand. I have plenty of difficulty understanding the Resurrection and rightly so, but that should not leave me to doubt it.

We see Him more than a Man in a book. I am not saying that you do not believe that same thing. We see Him more than the Man in spoken tradition. We see Him as the Word of God, who was with God and is God. He was spoken at the Creation. I can go on and on but I think you understand the point. Somebody (some body) has to have the Truth and we have reasons for believing that to be the Church, His Mystical Body

I find so much that we agree on. We have radically different conclusions. Do not think for a minute though that I do not understand your position. I have not spent the last however many years reading my own posts. We simply, absolutely, disagree about core issues.
Thank you for your post.
On a side note, I can tell you have not read my posts, it is known by most that I spent more than 35 years as an atheist. Or maybe you did know that.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Janet, Thank you for your post. As a side note, we do consider our Protestant brothers as separated brethren. If we did not believe that they were Christians, we would certainly not be calling them that. And I think (not quite sure on this) that the Church also considers Christians as being a part of the Church. Maybe not in full communion. A distant part, but a part nonetheless. We are not better than anybody and you seem to know that. Thank you for your kind words.
Gregg

P.S. - I think that being humans give us the illusion that that gives us an excuse for being wrong. We do err as humans but we ought not to. We sin but we ought not to. Anyway, just a thought. Take care and God bless you and your family.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I find so much that we agree on. We have radically different conclusions. Do not think for a minute though that I do not understand your position. I have not spent the last however many years reading my own posts. We simply, absolutely, disagree about core issues.
Thank you for your post.
On a side note, I can tell you have not read my posts, it is known by most that I spent more than 35 years as an atheist. Or maybe you did know that.

Actually, I did not know that. I skipped about 9 pages of the thread.
Yes we do disagree. I am not at all saying that you know nothing about the Church. The information is everywhere, both true and false. I do not mean this to be hubris and forgive me if it is, but I understand more fully the Catholic Church that you do or any other non-Catholic. I just get frustrated when somebody 1. Tells me they know more about my faith then me, 2. They tell me what I believe or 3. Imply that they are more intelligent (whether or not is is true). You do not fall into these categories. I am just saying it and I know it is pointless.
Take care and God bless you.
Gregg

 

[East_Anglican]

A question for non-Catholics: Let’s assume that the non-Catholic position is correct regarding the notion that the Catholic Church cannot teach infallibly (in a non erroneous manner) - regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ, and cannot infallibly (in a non erroneous manner) - interpret sacred scripture. Where could one go to find a church that does claim to teach error free doctrine regarding the teachings of Jesus, and does claim to interpret sacred scripture in a non erroneous manner - in other words - infallibly?

The Church that is fluent in ancient Greek and Hebrew and understands the original scriptures in the context of the culture they were written in and does not add interpretations based on their culture or bible translation. In short, there isn’t one.

1 Corinthians 13:9
For we know in part and we prophesy in part,

 

[Javl]

The Church that is fluent in ancient Greek and Hebrew and understands the original scriptures in the context of the culture they were written in and does not add interpretations based on their culture or bible translation. In short, there isn’t one.

1 Corinthians 13:9
For we know in part and we prophesy in part,

The Catholic Church ( of which the Roman Catholic Church is a part one of 23 Churches ]) is the only Church that can fulfill your requirements. It is the only Church that was founded by Jesus and given the Authority and power to act in His name.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[East_Anglican]

A church that is right would be Catholic, have apostolic succesion, valid sacraments, emphasis on the authority of scripture and adherance to the doctrine of justification by faith.

The one true church is the Anglican church.

 

[StTommyMore]

A church that is right would be Catholic, have apostolic succesion, valid sacraments, emphasis on the authority of scripture and adherance to the doctrine of justification by faith.

The one true church is the Anglican church.

except that it is not Catholic, lacks valid sacraments, has no apostolic authority and was founded by a head of state that couldn’t control his libido

 

[East_Anglican]

except that it is not Catholic,

Yes it is.

lacks valid sacraments,

Wrong again.

has no apostolic authority

Wrong again. It’s succesion can be traced back to Christ himself.

Jesus was never a head of state and how dare you say that about him!

 

[StTommyMore]

Yes it is.

Wrong again.

Wrong again. It’s succesion can be traced back to Christ himself.

Jesus was never a head of state and how dare you say that about him!

The Anglican Church sprang into existence in 1535 due ti the Actions of King Henry VIII. Due to his arrogant rejection of Rome, succession was broken, rendering sacraments invalid. Furthermore, a “church” based on the political situation in 16th century England can hardly be “universal”.

 

[East_Anglican]

The Anglican Church sprang into existence in 1535 due ti the Actions of King Henry VIII. Due to his arrogant rejection of Rome, succession was broken, rendering sacraments invalid. Furthermore, a “church” based on the political situation in 16th century England can hardly be “universal”.

That is as much a myth as the idea that the RC Church was founded by Constantine. Every parish Church in England had a priest who did exactly the same after Henry VIII did what he did as they did beforehand. That’s why Anglicans have apostolic sucsession. If God would make an epiclesis invalid because of what a king did, then the New Covenant isn’t any better than the old one.

 

[East_Anglican]

If my first point is true then it should all be true. ‘women priests’ are a differant matter

 

[Javl]

Yes it is.

Wrong again.

Wrong again. It’s succesion can be traced back to Christ himself.

Jesus was never a head of state and how dare you say that about him!

Sorry, but when the Anglican Church broke with Rome it rejected all validity, authority, and succession. And neither are its sacraments licit. None of the Catholic Churches ( all 23 of them ) recognize it as Catholic, no matter what the claim.

The reference to head of state refers to the King of England, and not Jesus.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[StTommyMore]

That is as much a myth as the idea that the RC Church was founded by Constantine. Every parish Church in England had a priest who did exactly the same after Henry VIII did what he did as they did beforehand. That’s why Anglicans have apostolic sucsession. If God would make an epiclesis invalid because of what a king did, then the New Covenant isn’t any better than the old one.

How priests acted afterward is irrelevant. The act of succession, which named King Henry the head of the Church, excommunicated the priests which submitted to it. You cannot be in communion with the Holy See and at the same time reject it.

 

[East_Anglican]

How so?

 

[East_Anglican]

Sorry, but when the Anglican Church broke with Rome it rejected all validity, authority, and succession. And neither are its sacraments licit. None of the Catholic Churches ( all 23 of them ) recognize it as Catholic, no matter what the claim.

As Arch-
bishop Cranmer’s appointment to Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was suported by the then pope, your claims are silly.

The reference to head of state refers to the King of England, and not Jesus.

What’s he got to do with it?

 

[Javl]

As Arch-
bishop Cranmer’s appointment to Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was suported by the then pope, your claims are silly.

Pope Leo XIII nullified and voided all of Anglicanism, for which he had the authority and right to do so. You may call it Catholic, but it is not. The only Catholics are those in Communion with the Catholic Church ( The Roman Church is but one of the 23 Catholic Churches ).

What’s he got to do with it?

Again, that is in response to your statement.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[East_Anglican]

Pope Leo XIII nullified and voided all of Anglicanism, for which he had the authority and right to do so. You may call it Catholic, but it is not. The only Catholics are those in Communion with the Catholic Church ( The Roman Church is but one of the 23 Catholic Churches ).

Again, that is in response to your statement.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Pope Leo XIII was a philanderer. I sugest what he said was null and void too.

 

[StTommyMore]

Pope Leo XIII was a philanderer. I sugest what he said was null and void too.

Of course you have evidence for this? Oh I forgot, you don’t deal in facts.

 

[East_Anglican]

Of course you have evidence for this? Oh I forgot, you don’t deal in facts.

Cardinals had bastard children all over the place back then.The sons got eccleseastical posts when they were 9 or 10 and there fathers pocketed the money. This is why the reformation had to happen. The Roman Catholic church had become corupt.