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

[MyRdmrLvs]

It is not a question of giving people “such a bad impression of our Mother” It just seems that sometimes Catholic’s admiration of her seems to border on the extreme. As a convert, Mary is no real stumbling block for me. I accept her, and always have, as the Mother of God. What an awesome responsibility - to give birth to and raise our Savior. I accept the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and her virginity because I have no doubt that God would and could accord her such graces. In my prayers, I go directly to Christ or to God our Father. For me, Mary is in the company of the Saints, whom I ask to pray for me as I would ask a friend to pray for me. I do not pray to her.

People see the medals and the statues, the hymns and prayers, and the many feast days that focus on Mary. If devotion to her is second to worship of God, then it is in its proper place. Some Catholics do, however, seem to put devotion to Mary above worship to God. It may not be accurate, but, it is an impression that is given. When I see it, I have trouble with it. I see it as a violation of the first commandment. Most have their priorities right, but to someone who does not understand, devotion to Mary may appear to be misplaced. It isn’t a bad impression of Mary, but the impression one may get from those who appear to put Mary above Christ. I would ask that you try to look objectively at the treatment some Catholics do give to Mary, and imagine how it may appear to those on the outside.

Please don’t read this as a criticism, just as an observation from someone who was Protestant most of her life.

Very well put. I would add, some quotes from some popes seam to be over the top also, but I dont know if they are accurate or is they would not be so bad if left in context.

 

[Proallen]

Please provide your definition of “early Church” and then provide the source document from that time with the list containing All the “facets” of the “Early Church”.

Again - I’m not setting any traps

Peace
James

The Early Church being the Church that Christ established. Lots has changed in all churches since then. I don’t think anyone can deny that.

 

[schaick]

I think it to be the other way around. There are facets of the Roman church that did not exist in the Early Church.

I have to agree with this. And most likely why I am not Catholic- the organization of the Catholic Church.

“Please provide your definition of “early Church” and then provide the source document from that time with the list containing All the “facets” of the “Early Church”.”

Maybe another thread should be started on this topic:

Here are a few good reads- no listing for library books.

The Holy Bible
Didache
churchhistory101.com/index.php
ritchies.net/churchhi.htm

This one is interesting - sacred history.
highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65541446.html
*Similarly, in 1524, when Erasmus published the Paraphrase on Acts, he lamented in his dedication to the newly elected Pope Clement VII: “I could not fail to compare the very turbulent and corrupt state of the church in our own day with the kind of church of which Luke has given us such a wonderful picture in this book”

…it appears that Erasmus was proposing **sacred history **as a model for the present, as a remedy by example to help cure the ills of the contemporary church. *

This is an interesting statement from:
earlychurch.com/index.php
But one of the things we find when we read the early Christian writings is that the Christianity of their day was not theology-centered. It was relationship-centered.

Interesting blog page:
apostate.com/introduction-early-christian-heresies
*It is important, when discussing such matters, to acknowledge the fine lines between heresy, apostasy, and schism: heresy is a variance from orthodox opinion; apostasy is an abandonment of faith; and and schism is division of a religious body.
According to the new Catechism, the Roman Catholic church now considers it schism to deny the authority of the Pope. A few hundred years ago, this would have been considered heresy. Gnosticism was originally condemned as a heresy, but it can easily be classified as apostasy, because it is separate religion, and an abandonment of primal Christian ideas.
What are these “primal Christian ideas?” I, of course, risk venturing into heresy myself by stating this, but hold the single tenant, “we are dependent upon the redemptive work of Jesus Christ to gain salvation,” as the defining idea of Christianity. *
His source: David Christie-Murray’s book, A History of Heresy (1976, Oxford UP).

webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html

 

[Proallen]

I have to agree with this. And most likely why I am not Catholic- the organization of the Catholic Church.

“Please provide your definition of “early Church” and then provide the source document from that time with the list containing All the “facets” of the “Early Church”.”

Maybe another thread should be started on this topic:

Here are a few good reads- no listing for library books.

The Holy Bible
Didache
churchhistory101.com/index.php
ritchies.net/churchhi.htm

This one is interesting - sacred history.
highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65541446.html
*Similarly, in 1524, when Erasmus published the Paraphrase on Acts, he lamented in his dedication to the newly elected Pope Clement VII: “I could not fail to compare the very turbulent and corrupt state of the church in our own day with the kind of church of which Luke has given us such a wonderful picture in this book”

…it appears that Erasmus was proposing **sacred history ***as a model for the present, as a remedy by example to help cure the ills of the contemporary church.

This is an interesting statement from:
earlychurch.com/index.php
But one of the things we find when we read the early Christian writings is that the Christianity of their day was not theology-centered. It was relationship-centered.

Interesting blog page:
apostate.com/introduction-early-christian-heresies
*It is important, when discussing such matters, to acknowledge the fine lines between heresy, apostasy, and schism: heresy is a variance from orthodox opinion; apostasy is an abandonment of faith; and and schism is division of a religious body.
According to the new Catechism, the Roman Catholic church now considers it schism to deny the authority of the Pope. A few hundred years ago, this would have been considered heresy. Gnosticism was originally condemned as a heresy, but it can easily be classified as apostasy, because it is separate religion, and an abandonment of primal Christian ideas.
What are these “primal Christian ideas?” I, of course, risk venturing into heresy myself by stating this, but hold the single tenant, “we are dependent upon the redemptive work of Jesus Christ to gain salvation,” as the defining idea of Christianity. *
His source: David Christie-Murray’s book, A History of Heresy (1976, Oxford UP).

webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html

Excellent post!

 

[JRKH]

The Early Church being the Church that Christ established.

By the definition you give above, the Catholic Church qualifies as, “the Church that Christ established”, based on our ability to trace our teachings and our leadership back, unbroken to the Apostles.
Would you like to modify your definition of “Early Church”?

Lots has changed in all churches since then. I don’t think anyone can deny that.

“Change” does not equal “defect” and so I think it that if it is your position that the Catholic Church, along with all of the others, is “defective” you will need to show a definitive listing of ALL of the beliefs of this “Early Church” you speak of so that we may all discern what current teachings are in error.

It is easy for people (myself included) to toss out such sayings. It is also easy to believe such things. I too once felt this way. Perhaps that is why I am interested in your position - because it “strikes close to home” in my journey.

Peace
James

 

[Proallen]

By the definition you give above, the Catholic Church qualifies as, “the Church that Christ established”, based on our ability to trace our teachings and our leadership back, unbroken to the Apostles.
Would you like to modify your definition of “Early Church”?

“Change” does not equal “defect” and so I think it that if it is your position that the Catholic Church, along with all of the others, is “defective” you will need to show a definitive listing of ALL of the beliefs of this “Early Church” you speak of so that we may all discern what current teachings are in error.

It is easy for people (myself included) to toss out such sayings. It is also easy to believe such things. I too once felt this way. Perhaps that is why I am interested in your position - because it “strikes close to home” in my journey.

Peace
James

You are trying your best to turn this into an argument. The criteria you used to determine that the Early Church is also the Roman Catholic church is equally sustainable to show that it is also the Orthodox church. Would you not agree??

 

[JRKH]

I have to agree with this. And most likely why I am not Catholic- the organization of the Catholic Church.

“Please provide your definition of “early Church” and then provide the source document from that time with the list containing All the “facets” of the “Early Church”.”

Maybe another thread should be started on this topic:

Here are a few good reads- no listing for library books.

The Holy Bible
Didache
churchhistory101.com/index.php
ritchies.net/churchhi.htm

This one is interesting - sacred history.
highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65541446.html
*Similarly, in 1524, when Erasmus published the Paraphrase on Acts, he lamented in his dedication to the newly elected Pope Clement VII: “I could not fail to compare the very turbulent and corrupt state of the church in our own day with the kind of church of which Luke has given us such a wonderful picture in this book”

…it appears that Erasmus was proposing **sacred history ***as a model for the present, as a remedy by example to help cure the ills of the contemporary church.

This is an interesting statement from:
earlychurch.com/index.php
But one of the things we find when we read the early Christian writings is that the Christianity of their day was not theology-centered. It was relationship-centered.

Interesting blog page:
apostate.com/introduction-early-christian-heresies
*It is important, when discussing such matters, to acknowledge the fine lines between heresy, apostasy, and schism: heresy is a variance from orthodox opinion; apostasy is an abandonment of faith; and and schism is division of a religious body.
According to the new Catechism, the Roman Catholic church now considers it schism to deny the authority of the Pope. A few hundred years ago, this would have been considered heresy. Gnosticism was originally condemned as a heresy, but it can easily be classified as apostasy, because it is separate religion, and an abandonment of primal Christian ideas.
What are these “primal Christian ideas?” I, of course, risk venturing into heresy myself by stating this, but hold the single tenant, “we are dependent upon the redemptive work of Jesus Christ to gain salvation,” as the defining idea of Christianity. *
His source: David Christie-Murray’s book, A History of Heresy (1976, Oxford UP).

webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html

I agree this is an excellent post.
However - can you say, first of all, just what time frame this “early Church” covers? and also can you definitivaly say that the documents referenced from that time, such as the didache accurately present ALL of the beliefs of the early Christians?.

For example. I could offer to you the “Apostles Creed” and we would probably both agree that it accurately declares the beliefs of Christian faith (with a variation in the meaning of “catholic”), and yet I am sure that we, as catholic and non-catholic, Christians would quickly find areas where we disagree. Of course each of us believes that these additional beliefs, or understandings of earlier beliefs, or whatever - in other words these “changes” - are perfectly acceptable.

I find nothing in Christ’s teachings on the establishment of His Church that says there shall be no changes. In fact I see the opposite. I see Christ knowing and providing authority for change. I also see, even in the Bible, the early Church excersizing that authority to given it by Christ to make “changes”.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

You are trying your best to turn this into an argument. The criteria you used to determine that the Early Church is also the Roman Catholic church is equally sustainable to show that it is also the Orthodox church. Would you not agree??

Absolutely - and in fact I fully accept the Orthodox as being “Fully Catholic”.
The Vatican too accepts the Orthodox as brother catholics. I think that it was JP II who refered to the east and west churches as the “right and left lung” of The Church - and the two “lungs” have entered into discussions aimed at resolving the issues that divide us and reunify east and west.

I’m sorry if you see my posts as being “argumentative”. That was not my intent.
My intent was to simply to provoke some “lines of thought”.

If you’d rather not continue, I will understand.

Peace
James

 

[Proallen]

I agree this is an excellent post.

However - can you say, first of all, just what time frame this “early Church” covers? and also can you definitivaly say that the documents referenced from that time, such as the didache accurately present ALL of the beliefs of the early Christians?.

 

[Proallen]

Absolutely - and in fact I fully accept the Orthodox as being “Fully Catholic”.
The Vatican too accepts the Orthodox as brother catholics. I think that it was JP II who refered to the east and west churches as the “right and left lung” of The Church - and the two “lungs” have entered into discussions aimed at resolving the issues that divide us and reunify east and west.

I’m sorry if you see my posts as being “argumentative”. That was not my intent.
My intent was to simply to provoke some “lines of thought”.

If you’d rather not continue, I will understand.

Peace
James

Then please answer why it is that the Roman and the Orthodox church have two different sets of books in their Canons. They cannot both be discerned by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JRKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRKH
I agree this is an excellent post.
However - can you say, first of all, just what time frame this “early Church” covers? and also can you definitivaly say that the documents referenced from that time, such as the didache accurately present ALL of the beliefs of the early Christians?.

Well we do. Holy Scripture tells us that not everything had yet been revealed (Jn 16:12-13) or had been written down (John 21:25)(2 Th 2:15) Holy Scripture also tells us that “The Church” is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that said Church has authority to “bind and loose”… “Whatever” (Mt 16: 18-19; Mt 18:15-18). We also know that Christ Promised to be with His church forever and not “leave us orphans”.
So Holy Scripture provides the very evidence we need to see that change is acceptable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRKH
For example. I could offer to you the “Apostles Creed” and we would probably both agree that it accurately declares the beliefs of Christian faith (with a variation in the meaning of “catholic”), and yet I am sure that we, as catholic and non-catholic, Christians would quickly find areas where we disagree.

I don’t see where. Do you?

Well I’d have to know your specific beliefs but a couple of area where catholics and Protestants differ are on “communion of saints”, OSAS, and purgatory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRKH
I find nothing in Christ’s teachings on the establishment of His Church that says there shall be no changes. In fact I see the opposite. I see Christ knowing and providing authority for change. I also see, even in the Bible, the early Church excersizing that authority to given it by Christ to make “changes”.

Then you shouldn’t have major issues with much of the Reformation then.

Peace
James

If the “reformation” had remained within the Church I would have no problem with it. As it was, a series of mistakes on both sides, coupled with non-religious political factors, conspired to make the protestant reformation something more than just a theological issue. That was then - -

Today, the fruits of the protestant reformation as I see them are chaos. Why? Because, for better or worse, the rejection of a temporal authority has removed the “court of appeal” for doctrinal issues and resulted in a new, theological, “Tower of Babel” among the “protestant” churches.

Peace
James

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Then please answer why it is that the Roman and the Orthodox church have two different sets of books in their Canons. They cannot both be discerned by the Holy Spirit.

really? thats interesting. Yet there is only one church, one Spirit, etc. etc.

 

[schaick]

Well we do. Holy Scripture tells us that not everything had yet been revealed (Jn 16:12-13) or had been written down (John 21:25)(2 Th 2:15) Holy Scripture also tells us that “The Church” is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that said Church has authority to “bind and loose”… “Whatever” (Mt 16: 18-19; Mt 18:15-18). We also know that Christ Promised to be with His church forever and not “leave us orphans”.

The Holy Spirit did come and we have the Scriptures-What the Apostoles succeed to us.

John 16
12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Points to miracles when read in context **“did many other things”. ** What teachings were not written down? Is there verse that implies not all Jesus’ teachings were written down?

John 21
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written

2 Thessalonians 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Until the Holy Bible was sent out for all the world to read the Apostolic Fathers were the only ones that had all the information needed for our salvation.

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Where trinitarian Christians see unity in the one faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and diversity in celebrating that faith, Catholics simply see division and confusion.

 

[JRKH]

The Holy Spirit did come and we have the Scriptures-What the Apostoles succeed to us.

John 16
12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Points to miracles when read in context **“did many other things”. ** What teachings were not written down? Is there verse that implies not all Jesus’ teachings were written down?

I suspect maybe part of your answer here was meant to relate to John 21 below.

As for which teachings were not written down I am not enough of an apologist or theologen to address this. Besides if we were to go this route it would totally derail the thread.
Suffice it to say that the verse you quote above from John 16 tells us that, at least at the time of the ascention we did not yet have all of The Truth. That there were other teachings, and other understandings yet to be revealed.

John 21
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written

OK - but one must still admit that “not everything” was written down.

2 Thessalonians 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Until the Holy Bible was sent out for all the world to read the Apostolic Fathers were the only ones that had all the information needed for our salvation.

Could you provide the source that says that once the Bible was compiled (by the Universal Church in council) that the temporal and authoritative Church was no longer needed?

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Where trinitarian Christians see unity in the one faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and diversity in celebrating that faith, Catholics simply see division and confusion.

I’m curious why you refer to “trinitarian christians” as seemingly somehow seperate from Catholics. You do understand that Catholics are also “trinitarian christians” I hope.

If it were simply a matter of “diversity in celebrating” (that is practice) there would be no issue. We Catholic have many forms of celebrating the faith from differences in the Liturgy to special devotions prayers, songs etc.
But that is not where the core problems lie. The core problems lie in doctrinal differences that have only gotten worse since the start of the “reformation”.

Honestly - do you see every other Christian group as being just as correct, just as valid as the one you attend? Do you see the opposing views on the real presence in the Eucharist as both coming from the “One Mind” of Christ and The Father?
How about the various and often opposing views on Justification, OSAS, Baptism, Communion of Saints, and a host of other issues. Can these various and often opposing views be from the same source?

Peace
James

 

[Jimmy_B]

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

Hello James,

Good question. I asked this question here because I know that there are many here who are interested in religion and that there are people here who have had a chance to study different Christian denominations.

To answer your question, I was baptized as an infant into the Roman Catholic Church and I come from a Catholic family, so initially the answer is - “I was born into a Catholic family”. Now that I’m older and I’ve had the opportunity to study and to more fully experience Catholicism, I have a stronger connection and stronger belief in my Catholic faith, much stronger than as a child. I believe that this stronger connection is caused by faith, grace, logic and reason… and life experience. I am also blessed to have a wife (25+ years) who shares in my belief in Catholicism.

Your thoughts?

 

[Janet1983]

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 used to be Catholic for most of my life, but now I am at odds with Catholic teaching. To rejoin the Catholic Church to to continue to claim to be part of her would not only be hypocritical on my part, but also denying my own faith.

That I am at odds with the Catholic Church is based upon theological issues, including but not limited to, the following:

I do not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. (CCC 499 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s immaculate conception. (CCC [491](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/491 .htm), CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s assumption. (CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)

I do not hate Mary. As a matter of fact I think she is a wonderful example to all of us who long to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. I just simply refuse to believe that these things are true. Call it heretical or schismatic if you wish…

 

[mariahloves]

I used to be Catholic for most of my life, but now I am at odds with Catholic teaching. To rejoin the Catholic Church to to continue to claim to be part of her would not only be hypocritical on my part, but also denying my own faith.

That I am at odds with the Catholic Church is based upon theological issues, including but not limited to, the following:

I do not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. (CCC 499 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s immaculate conception. (CCC [491](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/491 .htm), CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s assumption. (CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)

I do not hate Mary. As a matter of fact I think she is a wonderful example to all of us who long to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. I just simply refuse to believe that these things are true. Call it heretical or schismatic if you wish…

Why don’t you believe these things? What prompted you to stop (if you ever did) believing?

 

[JRKH]

I used to be Catholic for most of my life, but now I am at odds with Catholic teaching. To rejoin the Catholic Church to to continue to claim to be part of her would not only be hypocritical on my part, but also denying my own faith.

That I am at odds with the Catholic Church is based upon theological issues, including but not limited to, the following:

I do not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. (CCC 499 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s immaculate conception. (CCC [491](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/491 .htm), CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s assumption. (CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)

I do not hate Mary. As a matter of fact I think she is a wonderful example to all of us who long to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. I just simply refuse to believe that these things are true. Call it heretical or schismatic if you wish…

This is not at all uncommon for people outside the church to accept. Mary is often sited as the biggest hurdle to people coming into The Church.
I personally want to applaud your integrety in not claiming wishing to claim to be Catholic while holding opposing beliefs.

As to the specific issues you raise I, like mariahloves, am curious to why you “reject” these teachings.
The reason I ask is because i too have some issues with certain marion teachings and devotions but not to the point where I would permit my doubts to drive me from the Church.

You see, The Church has made proclamations on the dogmas you mention above. I, a poor simple Christian, do not really understand all of the theological and historical reasons behind the proclamations. I have tried to read some on it but find that much of it is too deep for me (at least for now).
So I have a choice. I can either simply accept that The Church, being the Bride of Christ with Authrotiy to Bind and Loose, has told me the truth, even though I don’t understand it, or I can reject the teachings in which case I must assume that I know more and better than the above described Church and Her God given authority.
Well I can tell you that I have received no visit, no revelation, from the Holy Spirit that would lead me to believe that I know better than the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on these matters.

Often times I see people rejecting things, simply because they cannot, with their limited understanding, agree with them. It is as though there is no middle ground - I understand therefore believe or I don’t understand and therefore reject. There seems to be no room for, “I don’t understand but I trust The Church to teach Truth. Therefore I accept without understanding”.

One thing I know is that I could never leave the Eucharist based on any doubts about Marion teachings.

Peace
James

 

[Jon_Hus]

…The reason I ask is because i too have some issues with certain marion teachings and devotions but not to the point where I would permit my doubts to drive me from the Church…

…You see, The Church has made proclamations on the dogmas you mention above. I, a poor simple Christian, do not really understand all of the theological and historical reasons behind the proclamations. I have tried to read some on it but find that much of it is too deep for me (at least for now).

But you see James, freedom of the will and freedom of religion allows us to believe anything we so desire. That’s the beauty and responsibility we have before God living in our modern society. While you have every right to believe what ever you want and you have every right to believe that it is OK to not understand some of the teachings of the church you cling to, it is also the right of others to reject them having the same freedoms and responsibilities you enjoy.

Consider if you will the possibility that there are some individuals outside of the RCC who have taken the time to study the dogmas in light of history and the Bible and conclude that there is good reason to reject them. Consider the possibility that once the Scriptures were made available to just about anyone who wanted to have a copy (16th century and after), that there were some people who learned to read for no other reason but to read the Bible for themselves. If you can accept that, consider also the possibility that there are individuals today among us that have learned theology for no other reason but to know what God is trying to communicate to us apart from proclamations, dogmas and statements of faith. While it is strictly your business how much effort you put into studying the “proclamations” as you call them, why not allow for the possibility that there are others out there who will overcome the obsticles involved and put in that effort and come to the conclusion that those proclamations and dogmas are not what they are made out to be.

It seems like there are some here (not saying this includes you James) that have the opinion that everyone who rejects the teaching of the RCC is either a rebel, a satan worshipper, at war with God or at least less than intelligent. I think this is a mistake for I know many professed Christians who are outside of the RCC to take God and His word very seriously. Just some thoughts for your consideration.

Good day James,
Jon

 

[JRKH]

But you see James, freedom of the will and freedom of religion allows us to believe anything we so desire. That’s the beauty and responsibility we have before God living in our modern society. While you have every right to believe what ever you want and you have every right to believe that it is OK to not understand some of the teachings of the church you cling to, it is also the right of others to reject them having the same freedoms and responsibilities you enjoy.

No argument there. I hope I did not come across as being judgemental in that way.

Consider if you will the possibility that there are some individuals outside of the RCC who have taken the time to study the dogmas in light of history and the Bible and conclude that there is good reason to reject them.

I’m sure there are those people.

Consider the possibility that once the Scriptures were made available to just about anyone who wanted to have a copy (16th century and after), that there were some people who learned to read for no other reason but to read the Bible for themselves. If you can accept that, consider also the possibility that there are individuals today among us that have learned theology for no other reason but to know what God is trying to communicate to us apart from proclamations, dogmas and statements of faith. While it is strictly your business how much effort you put into studying the “proclamations” as you call them, why not allow for the possibility that there are others out there who will overcome the obsticles involved and put in that effort and come to the conclusion that those proclamations and dogmas are not what they are made out to be.

again - I have no problem with this

It seems like there are some here (not saying this includes you James) that have the opinion that everyone who rejects the teaching of the RCC is either a rebel, a satan worshipper, at war with God or at least less than intelligent. I think this is a mistake for I know many professed Christians who are outside of the RCC to take God and His word very seriously. Just some thoughts for your consideration.

As do I. I also know some people outside the catholic church who consider catholics, or at least the Church herself to be, at least - not christian - and at worse - the spawn of satan. Jack Chick is an obvious example.

Now - I guess that I wasn’t terribly clear in my post.
Many people seem to think that there are only two choices.
I understand it therefore I accept it
I don’t understand it and therefore I reject it.
I was trying to express that there is a third choice. I accept it, not because I understand it, but because I trust the source.

I would bet that there are things in the Bible that you do not fully understand. I would suggest that your understanding of things in the bible, like most peoples, runs the gamut from “well understood” to “really hard to grasp” to “what the heck does that mean”. Yet you accept things in the bible because you trust the source and not because you fully understand it all.

The same can be true for some of the teachings of the Church. The marion dogma’s are a good example. I don’t fully understand them, but I trust the source because I am firmly convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ and contains His authority to bind and loose.

If Janet1983, to whom my post was addressed, has done the study to make her own “well formed” decision then so be it.

Good day James,
Jon

And to you my friend

Peace
James