I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?

[Jimmy_B]

http://fratres.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/pope-benedict-xvi-blessing-of-the-host.jpg
I don’t get it…if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren’t you a Catholic Christian?
This is a serious question, so please post your reason here… Please, don’t be afraid to voice your opinion and to defend your own particular denomination.
I am not the only Catholic here at CAF, or elsewhere, who wonders and wants to know the answer to this question.
If any Catholics, or any converts to Catholicism here, have any insight to the answer, or possible answer(s) to this question, then please post a response here.
Your thoughts?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Catholic for life!!!

 

[JRKH]

Jimmy
There can be many reasons - most of which have already been posted in one form or another.
People are “born into” and “raised in” a denomination and they see no reason to change is one.
They come to Christ through a non-catholic church and are content there. Again they see no reason to change

These are probably the main reasons.

As to actual beliefs, of course there are many. Most non-catholic Christians hold pretty strictly to The Bible, and based on what they see in The Bible, they see issues with how Catholics see things.

That is my (name removed by moderator)ut for now.
This is an interesting question and I hope for some good answers from our brothers in Christ. The answers could provide quite a nice listing of areas for discussion and evangelization.

I fear though that this thread will rapidly change from one “listing reasons” to one of arguing the same points that have been argued in numerous other threads.

Ah well - that is the way of open forums.

Look forward to the answers.

Peace
James

 

[Spencerian]

I came into the Church after living with the understanding (if not proof) that God very much existed–neither agnostic nor atheist nor Christian. It took me some study in RCIA to wrap my head around that “Jesus thing.”

To see Christ as the ultimate in heroes, as a historic person, helped my belief greatly.

I work in the computer industry. Most people use PCs equipped with some brand of Microsoft Windows. Most of these owners have no idea what an Apple Macintosh computer is, or that, for many of them, it would be a better brand to use. It takes experience and frustration from many failures or issues from their PC for them to consider another option. Thus, a computer is a computer until you know different.

The same is true with Catholicism. Like the name “Macintosh”, the name can be off-putting.

“What’s a Mac? That’s different from a PC, right?”
“What’s a Catholic? That’s like the Mormons, right?”

**People go with what they know, the path of least resistance, until they actively seek and consider that there is a larger truth and are willing to sacrifice time, money and even peer and family approval to consider and commit to that choice.

Maybe for some, the practices and rules of being a Catholic frighten them just as our messages and churches attract.

To be Catholic is to live with Christ’s words: “Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.” (Luke 12:48). It’s a harder road to be a Catholic, I think, but it far more rewarding.

 

[LindaSK]

From my personal experience, I must agree with James. I was ‘born’ into a Union Church - Ev. Lutheran/UCC. I grew up on a dairy farm. We milked early on Sundays so we could get to church on time. We ate breakfast together. Mom taught Sunday school. We kids always went to Sunday school, church, summer Bible school. We were baptized and confirmed. We were faithful Protestants. There were Catholics in town, but, our contact was limited because most went to Catholic school. We went to their week-long summer picnic/carnival - good food, music, and, of course, bingo.

I was never anti-Catholic, just non-Catholic.I would like to believe that I would have been a faithful Catholic had I been born into a Catholic family. My mother would have been a good Catholic mother. She took her responsibilities to bring us up in the Faith very seriously. Catholicism just was not her family’s faith heritage or tradition. My grandparents and great-grandparents lived their Christian Faith and also worshiped regularly. Again, not anti-Catholic, just non-Catholic. I cannot ever remember hearing criticisms of the Catholic Church.

Now that I am Catholic, I can look back with 20/20 hindsight. But, I am grateful for the Christian upbringing I had, and the Bible teaching I received. We were encouraged to read scripture, and we did.

It was a curious string of events that got me into the Catholic Church. I have no doubt, though, that this is where I belong. I could never go back.

 

[AmateurPianist]

FYI:

I am also a non-Baptist Christian, a non-Lutheran Christian, a non-Presbyterian Christiain…

Do I need a reason why I am not one of these?’

Curious that the Lutherans here “don’t get it” and are asking for a reason why y’all are not Lutheran Christians.

I suppose the reason why I not a Catholic Christian is the same reason why I am not a Lutheran Christian.

 

[TriuneUnity]

http://fratres.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/pope-benedict-xvi-blessing-of-the-host.jpg
I don’t get it…if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren’t you a Catholic Christian?
This is a serious question, so please post your reason here… Please, don’t be afraid to voice your opinion and to defend your own particular denomination.
I am not the only Catholic here at CAF, or elsewhere, who wonders and wants to know the answer to this question.
If any Catholics, or any converts to Catholicism here, have any insight to the answer, or possible answer(s) to this question, then please post a response here.
Your thoughts?

I believe the teachings of the confessions of my church are accurate to the teachings of Scripture and the apostolic witness. Whereas I don’t believe the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are. Therefore, I’m not. The same reason I’m not Presbyterian, Methodist, or Baptist.

 

[JRKH]

FYI:

I am also a non-Baptist Christian, a non-Lutheran Christian, a non-Presbyterian Christiain…

Do I need a reason why I am not one of these?’

Curious that the Lutherans here “don’t get it” and are asking for a reason why y’all are not Lutheran Christians.

I suppose the reason why I not a Catholic Christian is the same reason why I am not a Lutheran Christian.

Just from curiousity then - why are you not a “Lutheren Christian” or one of the others.
No baiting here, just curious since your post above really does not shed any light on the matter.

Peace
James

 

[BrianH]

Because…the things we agree on I believe.
The things we disagree on, I do not.

Primarily the Marian dogmas. I believe they are later developing starting around 100 AD to 150 AD.
For example, I believe in a very late date for Luke/Acts and look who early Luke focuses on.
I cant shake it. I tried.
Its all about Mary:shrug:
Isn’t that often the case…
And my family and I really like our church
And I am a theolgocial liberal…you guys dont need anymore liberals…

 

[crazzeto]

Because…the things we agree on I believe.
The things we disagree on, I do not.

Primarily the Marian dogmas. I believe they are later developing starting around 100 AD to 150 AD.
For example, I believe in a very late date for Luke/Acts and look who early Luke focuses on.
I cant shake it. I tried.
Its all about Mary:shrug:
Isn’t that often the case…
And my family and I really like our church
And I am a theolgocial liberal…you guys dont need anymore liberals…

This of it this way Brian, the Apostle John (beloved) lived into the 90s AD. So consider that, with the following:

St. Justin Martyr Writing in Palistine says:

We know that he, before all creatures proceeded from the Father by His power and will,…and by means of the Virgin became man, that by what wah the disobedience arasing from teh serpent had it’s beginning, by that way also it might have an undoing. For Eve, being a virgin and defiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and dath; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her and the power of the highest overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One that was born of her was the Son of God, answered, ‘Be it to me according to Thy word’

Tertullian who repersents Arfica & Rome (160-240AD) writes

God recovered His image and likness, which the devil had seized, by a rival operation. For into Eve, as yet a virgin, had crept the word which was the framer of death. Equally into a virgin, was to be introduced the Word of God which was the builder-up of life; that, wat by that sex had gone into perdition, by the same sex it might be brought back to salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel; the fault which one committed by believing, the other by believing has blotted out

St Iraenaus: 120-200 writes for Asia Minor, and the Apostle John as he is a student of Polycarp who was a direct student of the Apostle:

As Eve by the speech of an Angel was seduced, so as to flee God, transgressing His word, so also Mary received the good tidings by means of the Angel’s speech, so as to bear God within her, being obedient to His word. And, though the one had disobeyed God, the the other was drawn to obey God; that of the virgin Eve the Virgin Mary might become the advocate. And, as by the virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved, a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience.

Lets consider how closely in time these three authors are writing, and lets also consider the state of transportation and communications in those days. Is it really possible for such Marian dogma to be so wide spread unless it came from the Apostles?

 

[JRKH]

Because…the things we agree on I believe.
The things we disagree on, I do not.

Primarily the Marian dogmas. I believe they are later developing starting around 100 AD to 150 AD.
For example, I believe in a very late date for Luke/Acts and look who early Luke focuses on.
I cant shake it. I tried.
Its all about Mary:shrug:
Isn’t that often the case…
And my family and I really like our church
And I am a theolgocial liberal…you guys dont need anymore liberals…

Yes it does seem that Mary is a bit of a sticking point for many non-catholics.

And yup your right we don’t need any more “liberals”

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

This of it this way Brian, the Apostle John (beloved) lived into the 90s AD. So consider that, with the following:

St. Justin Martyr Writing in Palistine says:

Tertullian who repersents Arfica & Rome (160-240AD) writes

St Iraenaus: 120-200 writes for Asia Minor, and the Apostle John as he is a student of Polycarp who was a direct student of the Apostle:

Lets consider how closely in time these three authors are writing, and lets also consider the state of transportation and communications in those days. Is it really possible for such Marian dogma to be so wide spread unless it came from the Apostles?

Interesting quotes.
I do hope though that the thread does not become one of debating the reasons given. I think it would be so much more interesting to simply give our NCC brothers and sisters the chance to speak without too much “feedback”.

Peace
James

 

[loneviking]

Why? Because I believe that the RCC takes basic Biblical beliefs much farther than is warrented by the Scriptures. As a Lutheran, we share much in common with you folks. But, although (for example) we acknowledge, respect and learn from the ‘communion of saints’, we do not ask them to intercede for us as that something we do not find in the Bible. I find the Lutheran confessions and approach to Scripture to be correct, and so I’m not RCC.

 

[BrianH]

This of it this way Brian, the Apostle John (beloved) lived into the 90s AD. So consider that, with the following:

St. Justin Martyr Writing in Palistine says:

Tertullian who repersents Arfica & Rome (160-240AD) writes

St Iraenaus: 120-200 writes for Asia Minor, and the Apostle John as he is a student of Polycarp who was a direct student of the Apostle:

Lets consider how closely in time these three authors are writing, and lets also consider the state of transportation and communications in those days. Is it really possible for such Marian dogma to be so wide spread unless it came from the Apostles?

I do not imagine there are many people on here that have read the Ante-Nicene fathers much more than me.
I believe the belief in a perpetual virginity gets its first real support from the Origen historically speaking. The Protoevangelium of James lends some credence to a step-brother theory but does not specially state a support in the perpetual virginity.
The Assumption’s first mention is actually a bishop stating no one knows what happened to her. She could have died, been martyred, or assumed. No one knows.
The immaculate conception is STILL not believed by all of us who look to Tradition.
Yes, I absolutely believe it is possible for doctrines to be invented or more likely thought up based upon presuppositions and cultural influences within 100 years after the apostles. Heck, I think it could occur in a much shorter time. That is why you have the widely divergent accounts of Matthew and Luke concerning his birth.

 

[LindaSK]

Interesting quotes.
I do hope though that the thread does not become one of debating the reasons given. I think it would be so much more interesting to simply give our NCC brothers and sisters the chance to speak without too much “feedback”.

Peace
James

I agree. More are likely to respond if they know they are not going to be verbally ‘attacked.’ This has the potential to be more constructive if debate is ‘checked at the door.’ Being a convert, my journey has been curious, and, certainly, not one I would have expected even 5 years ago. If we hadn’t moved, I very well may still be attending the church of my childhood. So, I find the initial question interesting. No antagonism please.

 

[gcnuss]

I don’t get it…if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren’t you a Catholic Christian?
This is a serious question, so please post your reason here… Please, don’t be afraid to voice your opinion and to defend your own particular denomination.
I am not the only Catholic here at CAF, or elsewhere, who wonders and wants to know the answer to this question.

Jimmy,

I was born into a Lutheran family, I was raised as a Lutheran, and I haven’t been convinced that I should be anywhere else. Therefore, I am a Lutheran. I am not a Catholic for the same reasons.

I will add that I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church. I don’t agree with everything that it teaches but it has provided the foundation of my faith and beliefs, e.g., the three ecumenical creeds and the canon of scripture. I believe wholeheartedly that God works through the Catholic Church, believing that he also works through the Lutheran Church in the same way.

Finally, I will say that if I found myself unable to remain a Lutheran, for whatever reason that might be, I would have to consider seriously the Catholic Church as the place to go. I could not be a part of a church that does not take seriously our Lord’s words “this is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

 

[Publisher]

FYI:

I am also a non-Baptist Christian, a non-Lutheran Christian, a non-Presbyterian Christiain…

Do I need a reason why I am not one of these?’

Curious that the Lutherans here “don’t get it” and are asking for a reason why y’all are not Lutheran Christians.

I suppose the reason why I not a Catholic Christian is the same reason why I am not a Lutheran Christian.

In one way, this is my answer as well…I am a Friend because after much study over the years, both church history and scripture, I have found that the simple gospel message as proclaimed by the Society of Friends meets the deep questions of my life.

For me, being a Christian isn’t participating and trusting in ritual observances to somehow “dispense grace”, but this free gift of new life is to be lived out in our daily lives. I do not see that my particular “made made organization” has any more “authority” than the “man made organizations” as found in the Catholic church…the Nazarene church…the Baptist church…the Orthodox church…the Methodist church…the Episcopal church…the Mormon church…the “authority” rests in Christ himself as He is present among us Himself. I understand that for some Chrstian traditions they believe the Christ formed their religous institution…after review of the history of the formation of the institutional church…I do not believe Jesus began any church institution.

The simple message that Christ is known experientially…immediately…without the mediation of priest or minister performing “sacraments” for us or on our behalf is the basis of his message…it is the Good News…we now have One Priest who has opened the way and done away with all ritual observances of purification and mediations of grace…the Temple veil was rent in twain opening the Holy of Holies for all to see…Grace is found only in Him…and we have direct and unfettered access to that Wellspring of Grace…we share in His priesthood to approach God directly…no one stands between me and God.

Sacramental life…each moment…each day…each meal…each bath…each rain shower…each moment is an opportunity for Sacrament…the intersection of the Divine with the mundane…to occur. “Sacrament” occurs…or at least has potential to occur at any time…life is a sacrament…

If any “authority” exists to act on God’s behalf…it occurs only when we seek to live in such a way that the Life of Christ which we know inwardly is reflected in our outward lives…to not live the Life of Christ is to be void of His authority to act on His behalf…

I am a Friend because the understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ as understood by the People called Quakers makes most sense to me as to what it means to be a “Christian.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

Yes it does seem that Mary is a bit of a sticking point for many non-catholics.

Oddly enough, Mary has never been much of a sticking point. I certainly disagree with veneration, but that applies to all the saints, not just her. I don’t have a problem with the perpetual virginity, or even the assumption. Though I don’t necessarily believe them, I am open to their possibility. I have no problem with those piously believe these (I know Lutherans who hold to both). I disagree with the immaculate conception and the idea of grace coming by her intercession, but again, that applies to any saint so it isn’t a Marian sticking point.

I believe Rome has it right on the eucharist and baptism (except for some details), as well as the East (I think they have a much better eucharistic theology).

And yup your right we don’t need any more “liberals”

Peace
James

LOL

 

[JRKH]

I agree. More are likely to respond if they know they are not going to be verbally ‘attacked.’ This has the potential to be more constructive if debate is ‘checked at the door.’ Being a convert, my journey has been curious, and, certainly, not one I would have expected even 5 years ago. If we hadn’t moved, I very well may still be attending the church of my childhood. So, I find the initial question interesting. No antagonism please.

Of course I don’t want to imply that there have been any “attacks” so far. But I agree that the thread will be more interesting if we hold of “debates” as you say.

Peace
James

 

[Madaglan]

In becoming Orthodox I felt that I was becoming fully Catholic.

Something didn’t seem totally right with Roman Catholicism. Most of the beliefs were right and good, and I found the Protestant varieties of belief contrary to what the early Church believed. But ultimately I discovered the Patristic and Apostolic voice in Orthodoxy.