R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Please tell me these are not your PERSONAL objections but merely things you’ve heard others say.
- Status
C
clem456
Guest
I’m just trying to directly address the question you posed.Please tell me these are not your PERSONAL objections but merely things you’ve heard others say.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Thank you.
So, are these objections that you personally have to Catholicism? Or are these issues that you have heard other people raise?
C
CaliLobo
Guest
Another simple argument against being Catholic is the guarantee of salvation that Protestants teach according to John 3:16.
R
rcwitness
Guest
No, I just checked… we have that verse too!!!
C
CaliLobo
Guest
But do Catholics teach that salvation is guaranteed if you have a genuine belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior?
R
rcwitness
Guest
I was just trying to be light hearted. The Church doesn’t Teach about salvation based on an isolated verse.
But yes, at the moment of genuine belief, the believer has realized his/her salvation.
This should not be considered a belief which is opposed to repentance and works of Charity, which have an understood necessary participation in our salvation.
C
clem456
Guest
Seems to be the most common issue. People have a hard time grasping the real nature of the Church. They see it as a concept rather than a substantial and personal body.
The guy I’m mentoring this year is very solid scripturally from his evangelical background. But he interprets things for himself. The faith has to be proven for him in Scripture (which is great to a point).
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
Then you also understand what a daunting process it appears to be from a non-Catholic. A Catholic that marries outside of the Catholic church gets a comparative wrist slap (nullity due to lack of form) as compared to two baptized non-Catholics who divorce and have THAT marriage considered to be valid and thus require a lengthy annulment process, if it is even possible.I wouldn’t say that.
It’s not blaming the church and/or recognizing sin, necessarily. It’s the annulment process which brings up a canonical civil case (Just another court case really) that involves lawyers, psychologists, etc and having to re-live a painful experience all over again. In the end, you still have a divorce regardless of whether that marriage was valid or not. Well, it is valid under State law and Civil Law. It the wait process and that you are left behind while you wait, unless… you live as brother and sister. Which might just end up helping you get a 2nd or 3rd divorce… And where you have to pay for whoever needs to get involved in the process, even if it’s related to your ex.
In the end, you still were married and you still got divorcedIt’s like Sola Scriptura
, it doesn’t make sense
A sin is a sin. It’s painful to admit and confess sin.
In reality, even if we look at someone else lustfully we commit adultery. Difference is that an adulterer and a serial killer can partake communion as long as they confess. A remarried Catholic cannot, unless you live as brother and sister. So… do I procreate as mandated or do I go against the mandate? On the one hand I disobey God and on the other I disobey the Church - It is the literal damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
The prospect for a remarried Catholic is Hell. That is a hell of a place to be.
Non-Catholics who were raised in a faith that considered divorce to be a grave sin (but could be repented and absolved) face a significant barrier to enter the Catholic church. Is the fullness of the truth worth it? It may be difficult to convince someone who has survived spiritually on a leaner version of the Gospel that they need something more.
[and yes, as you may have a guessed this “is” a personal subject to me and I’d be happy to discuss in a PM]
S
SteveVH
Guest
Actually, it is at our Baptism that we realize our salvation, even if we can later loose it. I have never heard that we are saved at the moment of genuine belief, even if we are not opposed to penance and the sacraments. Maybe you could explain further.But yes, at the moment of genuine belief, the believer has realized his/her salvation.
Steve
R
rcwitness
Guest
Sure. We are already turning to the Lord when we believe the good news. It is our desire to receive the sacrament of forgiveness of sins, yet if through no fault of our own we are unable to fulfill Baptism and produce fruits of our faith and conversion, we are in no way rejected by God or considered unjustified.
In a way, we are all, since Christ accomplished his atonement for us, already forgiven, we just need to believe (accept the free gift) and follow. There is no gradually earning salvation, but remaining in the faith which continually saves us.
I can use more Scriptural and Catholic Teaching to support this if you disagree, but this is all I had time to respond with at the moment.
Here’s one I posted before…
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1249)
But you are right that there is a moment of actual washing away of sins and entering into the new covanent in Baptism. Im not contradicting this.
P
Peter_J
Guest
What’s wrong with that.
(Mine is: because I’m Catholic already.)
I
IowaJay
Guest
I love many aspects of the Catholic Church - the mass, monastics and the preservation of the mystical, contemplative tradition of the early Church, the saints, etc.
But I was born, baptized, raised, confirmed, and ordained in the Lutheran tradition. And as long as God calls me to be a shepherd to his flock there, I cannot abandon them.
This story that came out awhile back about Pope Benedict’s advice to a German Lutheran friend resonates with me:
"Sigrid Spath translated in these cases [documents written by the Pope in Italian] the German Pope into German. One of her favorite books was Ratzinger’s “Introduction to Christianity”, dozens of copies of which she gave to Protestant students visiting Rome.
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger charged her personally with the German version of particularly sensitive documents, such as his response to the objections of Protestant theologians to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification of 1999. It was also Cardinal Ratzinger who, according to her own testimony, advised Sigrid Spath to remain a Protestant, and not to convert to the Catholic Church, as she had considered in a moment of crisis. She could do more for both churches if she remained a Protestant, said the Cardinal. The Carinthian remained in the Protestant Christuskirche in Rome [the Evangelical-Lutheran community of Rome] throughout her life."
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/she-wanted-to-convert-but-she-listened.html
But I was born, baptized, raised, confirmed, and ordained in the Lutheran tradition. And as long as God calls me to be a shepherd to his flock there, I cannot abandon them.
This story that came out awhile back about Pope Benedict’s advice to a German Lutheran friend resonates with me:
"Sigrid Spath translated in these cases [documents written by the Pope in Italian] the German Pope into German. One of her favorite books was Ratzinger’s “Introduction to Christianity”, dozens of copies of which she gave to Protestant students visiting Rome.
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger charged her personally with the German version of particularly sensitive documents, such as his response to the objections of Protestant theologians to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification of 1999. It was also Cardinal Ratzinger who, according to her own testimony, advised Sigrid Spath to remain a Protestant, and not to convert to the Catholic Church, as she had considered in a moment of crisis. She could do more for both churches if she remained a Protestant, said the Cardinal. The Carinthian remained in the Protestant Christuskirche in Rome [the Evangelical-Lutheran community of Rome] throughout her life."
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/she-wanted-to-convert-but-she-listened.html
G
guanophore
Guest
If anyone here is tempted to fall for that, I strongly encourage a reading of them.
Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald - 1537
1] The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].
2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].
3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.
4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Yes and no. It matters in that I want to know. It doesn’t matter in that the Church is infallible, so it’s all good.
Was an acorn full when it fell to the ground? Is the oak tree that sprang up full once the birds fill its branches. Same tree. Different look.
When do you think we will have learned everything there is to know about God?
What if the Church gets it wrong, like in Exurge Domine article 33?
Jesus didn’t had down an acorn to believers, he handed down the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. No additions necessary.
God is infinite so never. But fortunately there is no new information that God is waiting to spring on us about himself or the faith.When do you think we will have learned everything there is to know about God?
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Could a Catholic have the fullness of truth in 1869 if he denied the infalliblity of the Pope? How about in 1949 if he denied the assumption of Mary?Hey House (i like the sound of that),
I understand your concern. My reply is just what I see as the Church understanding of your arguement.
It always has. Defining the deposit of faith is not the same as “gaining new faith” or “receiving a new Truth”
Your best arguement is probably the Marian Dogmas.
CCC:
84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing, and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.”46 (857, 871, 2033)
The Magisterium of the Church
85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. (888-892, 2032-2040)
86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”48 (688)The fullness of Truth has always existed in the Catholic Church because of His Eucharist. Interpreting the life of Christ is given first to Peter and the Apostles.
1324 The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.”136 “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.”
Colossians 2:2-3 (RSVCE)
“That their hearts may be encouraged as they are knit together in love, to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
How do you know that you have the fullness of truth today when tomorrow the faith might be more full?
S
SteveVH
Guest
While you misunderstand the term “fullness of truth”, one who denied the infallibility of the pope or the assumption of Mary at any time would be in error. Truth never changes. And as the Church, a living organism, continues to grow, so does the depth of its understanding of the “fullness of truth” delivered once to the Church by the Apostles.
I pray that our understanding of the “fullness of truth” continues to grow. It is the same truth received in the beginning. That cannot and will not change. It is “full” because our faith is in a Person, Jesus Christ who is the “Fullness of Truth”. He promised to remain with his Church until the end of time, did he not? He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church into all truth, did he not? Why would you think that the Church that Christ himself said he would build would not possess the fullness of truth?
G
guanophore
Guest
I can’t say any dogmatic pronouncement wouldn’t “matter”. And for me, since I see that the dogmatic pronouncements have made it progressively more difficult to reconcile with the East, I would prefer the Church delay making any more of them until it can be done from unity of East and West.
That being said, I do trust Jesus, even if there is much yet to be revealed to me, and I do trust that He is head of the Church, and that she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit, so yes, I can assent to whatever needs to be defined, ,since I believe He will keep His promise to guide us into “all truth”.
Catholicism is not “Roman”, HH, and it is not a denomination. All the denominations have been taken out of her - each defined by which parts, and to what extent Catholic doctrine is denied. Catholics did not “denominate” from anyone.
Dogmas don’t change the once for all divine deposit of faith that was entrusted to the Church by the Apostles. Dogmas just clarify the faith to prevent the faithful from falling into heresy. Don’t you think that all Christians believed there was one God in three persons before the term “Trinity” was adopted (dogmatized)? don’t you think the apostles and those who received their instruction believed Jesus was both human and divine before the Church adopted the term homoousious?
Yes, there will continue to be heresies, and situations where the doctrines of the faith must be clarified or restated, just like the canon of Scripture. Prior to the Reformation, there was never a bible that did not have 73 books, but during the Reformation people were disputing the canon, so the Church made a formal pronouncement. Did this mean that the canon was not already recognized and accepted? Did the Catholic bible of 73 books get more “full”? You are not making any sense, HH.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think this is especially true of US persons. Our country was founded on rebellion and individualism, and there is a culturally ingrained “don’t tread on me” value that is largely unconscious.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Hmmm, not anymore than the French Revolution, British Civil War, German Civil War, or others.
The biggest difference was civil liberties and a democratic society that opened the doors for more opportunities for all social classes. It came with consequences, like any political system but… it’s not like Europe was this utopic society…
But that is food for another thread…
- Status