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

[Janet1983]

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

I am not trying to destroy the foundations you are laying as a “future Catholic” so I am going to keep it short.
I was a cradle Catholic and I was raised by my parents and my grandparents with my grandmother being very devoted to Mary.
When I hit my teenage years I started doubting. I doubted many things like my own worth to even enter a church all up to kneeling in church and to asking one of the saints for help.
After that phase I went to confirmation and I did it purposely and without doubt. My father did not like me to, but I did it anyways and was astonished to get his silent approval by him showing up at church on that day.
I forced myself to believe. I knew what the church taught. Before my own age of reason I just accepted it as a given and in Germany days like the feast of the assumption and all others are in most regular calendars. I took it as a given, but as a young adult I was in a stage of forcing myself to believe the teachings of the church and submitting myself to them. I went to Mass every day and sometimes even more often (when I had to serve in more than one).
It is not that Mary is so important that she should shake my whole faith in the Catholic Church, but the dogmata about her were where it all started.

 

[Jon_Hus]

… 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.

James, I was not trying to “beat you up” so to speak. You are being honest about where you stand and that is commendable as far as I’m concerned. And as far as Jack Chick is concerned, I have been in conservative/fundamental/evangelical circles for 35 years now and I hear more about him in a week of reading posts here than in all my time outside of here put together. It is, way overplayed here if you know what i’m saying.

James, If you knew how many people who are not in your camp who don’t respond to messages on this forum because it is an obvious waste of time, I think you would be surprised. I know I pass on a lot of them because why spend 30 minutes putting together a well thought out response that may require some research only to have 5 or 6 people respond in a negative way when it is obvious they didn’t read or consider what you wrote?

You say you “trust the source” of your Catholic faith and again this is your right. I don’t trust any source, Catholic, Protestant, whatever, with my vital relationship with the Almighty. That is why I go to the infallable Scriptures for my answers.

… 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. …
And to you my friend

Peace
James

There are many things I don’t understand in the Bible. On the basics though I’m in good shape. I do know that when it is written that we are not to do a certain thing, I simply do not do it. And where it does say to do something, I do it. I don’t have to fully understand the the concept that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory” to be confident that this includes the mother of Jesus. If this verse said "most have sinned… or “all but one have sinned…” then things would be different. But you James see it differently and that is your right.

regards,
Jon

 

[Janet1983]

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

Well I just gave an answer to somebody else as to why I refuse to believe. I will not however subject myself blindly to Catholic Church teachings and I honestly do not miss the Eucharist which was another case of doubt for me.
I can see how you, as a revert, could never leave the Eucharist based on any doubts about Marian teachings.
I do not trust the Church’s teachings about Mary, why should I blindly trust the Church in any other way?
I have been called a heretic already, so this does not make a difference for me personally. I believe in Jesus Christ and it is He whom I cling to and only He.

 

[Roblox84]

Why is it that most people on this thread say that they’re not part of the Catholic Church or even other churches because they don’t agree with a particular doctrine or belief of that church? What I want to know is since when did God put us in charge of getting to pick what is commanded by God and his Church and what isn’t commanded by him? There are hard teachings of the Church, but God never intended faith to be easy as to pick up a bible and know everything.

 

[JRKH]

Well I just gave an answer to somebody else as to why I refuse to believe. I will not however subject myself blindly to Catholic Church teachings and I honestly do not miss the Eucharist which was another case of doubt for me.
I can see how you, as a revert, could never leave the Eucharist based on any doubts about Marian teachings.
I do not trust the Church’s teachings about Mary, why should I blindly trust the Church in any other way?
I have been called a heretic already, so this does not make a difference for me personally. I believe in Jesus Christ and it is He whom I cling to and only He.

Again, Let me say that I am not trying ot convert you. That is not the purpose of this thread or of my post. I was just trying, rather poorly I suppose, to demonstrat that there is a thrid choice to either “blind acceptance” or “abject rejection”.
Since you do not refer to yourself as a catholic I would never refer to you as a heretic. That is not my way.

You say that you, “do not trust the Church’s teachings about Mary, why should I blindly trust the Church in any other way”.
My experience has been that, for most people it is the other way around. They come to accept The Church’s teachings on Mary because they trust the Church in every other way. I can say that this is why I accept them.

The issue, to me, does not come down to what does the Church teach and do I agree with it. It comes down to which Church is the Church I belong in. The one with the authority to bind and loose. Most of these things come down to this basic premise. Ones acceptance or rejection of The Catholic Church revolves around authority.

I have accepted that authority, you have rejected it. But of course I once rejected that authority too. So perhaps later you will come to the same conclusion I did, or I will come to your conclusion. Of course niether of us sees that as likely at this point.
As Jon Hus said, these are just points for consideration. That there is a possible middleground between blind acceptance and abject rejection.

Peace
James

 

[Jon_Hus]

Why is it that most people on this thread say that they’re not part of the Catholic Church or even other churches because they don’t agree with a particular doctrine or belief of that church? What I want to know is since when did God put us in charge of getting to pick what is commanded by God and his Church and what isn’t commanded by him? There are hard teachings of the Church, but God never intended faith to be easy as to pick up a bible and know everything.

Well my friend, as is your right you put all of your faith in an institution based on what they say about themselves. Others see it differently. Some say God gave us his word (the Bible) and he gave us a brain and lots of historical material to do research on. If your brain and your hard research points you to the RCC then don’t let me disourage you from it. But isn’t a little insulting of you to imply that Bible believing Christians outside of the RCC are halfwits? This is what you seem to be implying. And isn’t it a little pretentious of you to be God’s spokesman on how easy or hard it is to have saving faith in our Heanvenly Father?

It may surprise you to know that some of us non Catholics have considered Matthew 16:18-19 in detail and what the RCC has to say about it and still do not see what the CC tells us it says. Jesus Christ and his work on the cross is my rock. I have looked to the ANF and what modern researchers have said about Peter and find very little to support the CC take on this passage. And I find mountains of support for other interpretations of this pasage. Interpretations that are in harmony with the whole rest of the Bible. So if that makes me a halfwit, so be it.

take care,
Jon

 

[Roblox84]

Well my friend, as is your right you put all of your faith in an institution based on what they say about themselves. Others see it differently. Some say God gave us his word (the Bible) and he gave us a brain and lots of historical material to do research on. If your brain and your hard research points you to the RCC then don’t let me disourage you from it. But isn’t a little insulting of you to imply that Bible believing Christians outside of the RCC are halfwits? This is what you seem to be implying. And isn’t it a little pretentious of you to be God’s spokesman on how easy or hard it is to have saving faith in our Heanvenly Father?

It may surprise you to know that some of us non Catholics have considered Matthew 16:18-19 in detail and what the RCC has to say about it and still do not see what the CC tells us it says. Jesus Christ and his work on the cross is my rock. I have looked to the ANF and what modern researchers have said about Peter and find very little to support the CC take on this passage. And I find mountains of support for other interpretations of this pasage. Interpretations that are in harmony with the whole rest of the Bible. So if that makes me a halfwit, so be it.

take care,
Jon

It’s hard for me to look at it in another way Jon, but I am trying. I will give you my view, but if you feel it is off, then correct me. How can it be though that the majority of Christians in the world decide to put the Church as their foundation, but then a few Christians decide to put the bible as their foundation? I can’t help but think that those few people just have issues with authority, no offense intended. So when I pick up the bible and look at the passage that states that the Church is the foundation, whether you think that is the people or the institutional church, it is still saying the “Church” is the foundation. So how can I in all honesty believe in Gods word, but not do exactly that? And I understand that most protestants think that the “Church” is vulnerable to error and that is why they don’t follow the “Church” but then can it be fair to say that Catholics follow the WHOLE bible and not just parts of it whether it is or isn’t necessary to salvation?

 

[JRKH]

James, I was not trying to “beat you up” so to speak. You are being honest about where you stand and that is commendable as far as I’m concerned. And as far as Jack Chick is concerned, I have been in conservative/fundamental/evangelical circles for 35 years now and I hear more about him in a week of reading posts here than in all my time outside of here put together. It is, way overplayed here if you know what i’m saying.

No problem. I did not feel attacked in any way. I was only concerned that I was not making myself clear. As for Jack Chick, you may well be right and I am sure that most protestants are tolerant of catholics just as most catholics are tolerant of protestants - Then of course there are the exceptions.

James, If you knew how many people who are not in your camp who don’t respond to messages on this forum because it is an obvious waste of time, I think you would be surprised. I know I pass on a lot of them because why spend 30 minutes putting together a well thought out response that may require some research only to have 5 or 6 people respond in a negative way when it is obvious they didn’t read or consider what you wrote?

Yes I dare say I might be surprised. I too try not to get too involved in such discussions because, frnakly I don’t have the time or energy to put into the study and digestion of the various points and positions.
As for how many responses you receive in opposition to a given post, I suppose that, since this is a catholic forum, that is to be expected.

You say you “trust the source” of your Catholic faith and again this is your right. I don’t trust any source, Catholic, Protestant, whatever, with my vital relationship with the Almighty. That is why I go to the infallable Scriptures for my answers.

Very Good, but you know what I had to ask myself many years ago? Why is it I trust “The Scriptures” - The Bible?
I could not accept the Bible simply based on what the Bible alone says since any book will be self authenticating. Plus - I don’t know of anywhere in the Bible where it says that the particular canon we use today is “infallible”. In fact I don’t believe the word infallible or inerrant appear anywhere in the bible.
That led me into some very interesting discussions with myself (and the Holy Spirit).

There are many things I don’t understand in the Bible. On the basics though I’m in good shape. I do know that when it is written that we are not to do a certain thing, I simply do not do it. And where it does say to do something, I do it. I don’t have to fully understand the the concept that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory” to be confident that this includes the mother of Jesus. If this verse said "most have sinned… or “all but one have sinned…” then things would be different. But you James see it differently and that is your right.

Are you equally confident that when it says in Mt 3:5 that, “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins”, that this mean ALL Jerusalem, ALL of Judea, ALL of the area around about Jordan - Every man, Every woman and Every Child went out to John and were baptized by him?
After all - It does say all.

Peace
James

 

[Jon_Hus]

It’s hard for me to look at it in another way Jon, but I am trying. I will give you my view, but if you feel it is off, then correct me. How can it be though that the majority of Christians in the world decide to put the Church as their foundation, but then a few Christians decide to put the bible as their foundation? I can’t help but think that those few people just have issues with authority, no offense intended. So when I pick up the bible and look at the passage that states that the Church is the foundation, whether you think that is the people or the institutional church, it is still saying the “Church” is the foundation. So how can I in all honesty believe in Gods word, but not do exactly that?

You ask some good questions. I cannot answer them for you. For me personally, God has wired me in such a way that I have to know the root of my beliefs. I’m one of those persons who if I go to bed with an unanswered question on my mind, I wake up at 3 AM and hit the books. But thats me and not you.

Again, acknowledging freedom of religion, when I take exactly what the CC says about Mat 16:18-19 and compare it to the actual passage in the Bible Matt 16, I find that the CC makes claims that are not in those ar any other verses. You disagree which is fine with me. Never take my word for anything that may have an effect on your eternal destiny. You don’t know me or where I come from.

take care,
Jon

 

[Roblox84]

You ask some good questions. I cannot answer them for you. For me personally, God has wired me in such a way that I have to know the root of my beliefs. I’m one of those persons who if I go to bed with an unanswered question on my mind, I wake up at 3 AM and hit the books. But thats me and not you.

Again, acknowledging freedom of religion, when I take exactly what the CC says about Mat 16:18-19 and compare it to the actual passage in the Bible Matt 16, I find that the CC makes claims that are not in those ar any other verses. You disagree which is fine with me. Never take my word for anything that may have an effect on your eternal destiny. You don’t know me or where I come from.

take care,
Jon

I see where you’re coming from and I can respect that. Although for me the Church knows a lot more of the bible then I ever will so I have to trust in that.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Very Good, but you know what I had to ask myself many years ago? Why is it I trust “The Scriptures” - The Bible?
I could not accept the Bible simply based on what the Bible alone says since any book will be self authenticating. Plus - I don’t know of anywhere in the Bible where it says that the particular canon we use today is “infallible”. In fact I don’t believe the word infallible or inerrant appear anywhere in the bible.
That led me into some very interesting discussions with myself (and the Holy Spirit).

Are you equally confident that when it says in Mt 3:5 that, “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins”, that this mean ALL Jerusalem, ALL of Judea, ALL of the area around about Jordan - Every man, Every woman and Every Child went out to John and were baptized by him?
After all - It does say all.

Peace
James

Perhaps every single person did go out (at some point or another) to hear John. The passage doesn’t say that all were baptised though.

Or it could be a literary device. Like saying I went to WalMart today, it was really crowded, everyone was there. everyone=the whole population of the county or just a whole bunch of people?

Eatherway, we get the idea that Matthew was saying, massive crowds were making the trip to hear John. As far as the exact time and number, I will ask Matthew for clarification when I see him.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Why is it that most people on this thread say that they’re not part of the Catholic Church or even other churches because they don’t agree with a particular doctrine or belief of that church? What I want to know is since when did God put us in charge of getting to pick what is commanded by God and his Church and what isn’t commanded by him? There are hard teachings of the Church, but God never intended faith to be easy as to pick up a bible and know everything.

So we should only stay with the church we were born into? didnt He say “My yoke is light?”

 

[JRKH]

Perhaps every single person did go out (at some point or another) to hear John. The passage doesn’t say that all were baptised though.

Or it could be a literary device. Like saying I went to WalMart today, it was really crowded, everyone was there. everyone=the whole population of the county or just a whole bunch of people?

Eatherway, we get the idea that Matthew was saying, massive crowds were making the trip to hear John. As far as the exact time and number, I will ask Matthew for clarification when I see him.

Actually a literal reading of the passage says they all went out and were baptized.
But -
You are willing to accept that “ALL” might not actually mean “ALL” - That it might be a literary device - that there might be exceptions. That is good.

Second Question - Paul says, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory”. Does that include Jesus? Jesus was a man who lived 33 years among us and we know he could be tempted. Did He also sin? Paul says “ALL”.

Please don’t think that I am being facetious in this question. I am not.

Peace
James

 

[Jon_Hus]

Actually a literal reading of the passage says they all went out and were baptized.
But -
You are willing to accept that “ALL” might not actually mean “ALL” - That it might be a literary device - that there might be exceptions. That is good.

Second Question - Paul says, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory”. Does that include Jesus? Jesus was a man who lived 33 years among us and we know he could be tempted. Did He also sin? Paul says “ALL”.

Please don’t think that I am being facetious in this question. I am not.

Peace
James

To answer your question James, the Bible says that all went out. That must mean all. For me to believe anything other is to take your word over God’s word. What ever God ment by all, that is the number of people involved. James, I’m sure your a very nice person but I will defer to the Bible and let the chips fall where they may.

For the second question, all have sinned according to the verse but other passages state that Jesus was without sin. So, all men are sinners and do sin but the man Jesus who is fully man and fully God is without sin.

James, as far as I’m concerned, the reason why I place my full trust in the Bible is because if I defer to anyone, be it man or institution, it is subject to the influence of sinful man. I know that Catholics don’t like that because they believe that their church has a God sanctioned teaching authority. I do not share that belief.

 

[JRKH]

To answer your question James, the Bible says that all went out. That must mean all. For me to believe anything other is to take your word over God’s word. What ever God ment by all, that is the number of people involved. James, I’m sure your a very nice person but I will defer to the Bible and let the chips fall where they may.

For the second question, all have sinned according to the verse but other passages state that Jesus was without sin. So, all men are sinners and do sin but the man Jesus who is fully man and fully God is without sin.

So if says “ALL” in one passage and then says there is an exception in another passage, it seems obvious that “ALL” must not mean “ALL”. If there is an exception one exception there just might be two.
This is my only point here. As you have said before - Just something to consider.

James, as far as I’m concerned, the reason why I place my full trust in the Bible is because if I defer to anyone, be it man or institution, it is subject to the influence of sinful man. I know that Catholics don’t like that because they believe that their church has a God sanctioned teaching authority. I do not share that belief.

As you wish. You are obviously and intelligent person and I find your responses to be well thought out.
Of course I am bound to mention that by placing your trust in just the bible and yourself, your faith is still influenced by “sinful man”. But in this case there is no one to prevent personal error from becoming personal erroneous doctrine. Make no mistake - that is why Jesus instituted a Church with authority to bind and loose, and to excommunicate those who will not listen to The Church. (Mt 18:15-18)

You may not agree that the Catholic Church is that Church but, unless you wish to disregard Christ’s own words, you need to consider that there is an earthly authority to which you are expected to submit and that authority is called “Church”, and not “Scripture” or “Bible” by Christ.

Peace
James

 

[Dokimas]

To answer your question James, the Bible says that all went out. That must mean all. For me to believe anything other is to take your word over God’s word. What ever God ment by all, that is the number of people involved. James, I’m sure your a very nice person but I will defer to the Bible and let the chips fall where they may.

For the second question, all have sinned according to the verse but other passages state that Jesus was without sin. So, all men are sinners and do sin but the man Jesus who is fully man and fully God is without sin.

James, as far as I’m concerned, the reason why I place my full trust in the Bible is because if I defer to anyone, be it man or institution, it is subject to the influence of sinful man. I know that Catholics don’t like that because they believe that their church has a God sanctioned teaching authority. I do not share that belief.

But you do defer to someone, yourself. God gave us teachers, friends and a brain AND the Holy Spirit. We need a correct balance of all to be able to correctly divide the Word of God. And then we won’t understand everything, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13, until Heaven.​

As for the ALL HAVE SINNED: IMO, the all includes all those that were born to a woman that wasn’t a virgin. All born to a non-virgin have a sin nature. Jesus is the ONLY one without a sin nature, thus does not fall in the ALL HAVE SINNED.

 

[Dokimas]

So if says “ALL” in one passage and then says there is an exception in another passage, it seems obvious that “ALL” must not mean “ALL”. If there is an exception one exception there just might be two.
This is my only point here. As you have said before - Just something to consider.

Peace
James

Well, IMO, wisdom and knowledge must be applied when considering these ‘hard’ questions. I’d not expect God to sin; I wouldn’t care if anyone else sinned, including the mother of Jesus. She was born as we all were. Sure God picked you out specially as God throughout history picked out specific people to do specific things and all were sinners. NO BIG DEAL; that give us hope that God could and will use us as He wills to His glory.

 

[JRKH]

Well, IMO, wisdom and knowledge must be applied when considering these ‘hard’ questions. I’d not expect God to sin; I wouldn’t care if anyone else sinned, including the mother of Jesus.

I’d not expect “God” to sin, but what about “Man”. What about the “Son of Man”. Was Jesus man? Could Jesus be tempted?
The passage cited says “All” have sinned yet we see at least one exception to that. I could easily demonstrate others. An infant cannot sin. Nor can someone who is mentally impaired. Yet we are to accept that when Paul says “All have sinned” that that means “all” without exception?

She was born as we all were.

As was Jesus

Sure God picked you out specially as God throughout history picked out specific people to do specific things and all were sinners. NO BIG DEAL; that give us hope that God could and will use us as He wills to His glory.

Yup.

Peace
James

 

[Dokimas]

I’d not expect “God” to sin, but what about “Man”. What about the “Son of Man”. Was Jesus man? Could Jesus be tempted? Jesus was tempted in all ways like we were yet without sin, as the Bible says. I’d find the verse if I had time.

The passage cited says “All” have sinned yet we see at least one exception to that. I could easily demonstrate others. An infant cannot sin. Nor can someone who is mentally impaired. Yet we are to accept that when Paul says “All have sinned” that that means “all” without exception? Yep, no exception to all who are 100% human and 0% God.

As was Jesus No, Jesus was born to a virgin. You and I weren’t. Did you miss that part of my post?

Yup.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
I’d not expect “God” to sin, but what about “Man”. What about the “Son of Man”. Was Jesus man? Could Jesus be tempted?

No need. I am fully aware that Christ was without sin. The point is that the verse says ALL have sinned. The man Jesus did not. Therefore “ALL” have not sinned.

The passage cited says “All” have sinned yet we see at least one exception to that. I could easily demonstrate others. An infant cannot sin. Nor can someone who is mentally impaired. Yet we are to accept that when Paul says “All have sinned” that that means “all” without exception?

Yep, no exception to all who are 100% human and 0% God.

The verse makes no such qualification.

As was Jesus No,

Jesus was born to a virgin. You and I weren’t. Did you miss that part of my post?

I suppose I miread what you intended.
Yet Jesus was born - Just as we were. Jesus was 100% Human. Jesus did not sin.

I don’t expect that my line of reasoning will convince you any more than I expect it will convince Jon. The fact remains that the term “All” does not necessariy mean “ALL” and that seems to be a part of my post that you missed. The part that read
The passage cited says “All” have sinned yet we see at least one exception to that. I could easily demonstrate others. An infant cannot sin. Nor can someone who is mentally impaired. Yet we are to accept that when Paul says “All have sinned” that that means “all” without exception?
Since neither an infant nor a mentally impaired person can sin, “ALL” cannot mean “ALL without exception.”

Peace
James