For some, those that were not born into Catholic Christianity were instead born into christian Ecclesial groups, Whether, its protestant style Lutheran, to Baptist, or any number of Non-denominational churches,if I person is born into it and raised well spiritually,they may feel no need to leave it to embrace a different aspect of christianity even if someone else considers it a fuller faith. As that is a matter of opinion people are free to accept it or ignore it.
I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, JimmyH, it is clear from reading your objections (if indeed they are really your own, and not cut and pasted from some anti-catholic websit) that you were really never “raised in it”. A person who is brought up in the Catholic faith would know that these statements are false. So, not only does it appear that you did not get much scripture in you, but you did not get much catechism either.
I had a similar experience, left the Church, then returned after many years when I made my way through that whole list, and found out my perceptions were all off the mark. I hope the same will happen to you someday.
G
guanophore
Guest
No one is saying that it does not apply to us, or that it is not important to read. What we are saying is that how it applies to us is not going to be diametrically oppoosed to the way it applied to those who wrote it, and those to whom it was written originally. You are taking the contents out of their context, and extrapolating a meaning that departs from the original one. It is like me reading Shakespeare,and instead of understanding the meanings of his language as he wrote it, projecting my own modern fancy upon the text.
When the writings are separated from the Apostolic Faith that produced them, the meaning becomes distorted.
You believe you do not, but in fact, you do. The influence of denominational ties is clearly evident in your posts. You just dont realize where the influence in your spiritual tradition has it’s source. someday, when you are ready to study the history of your faith, you will realize this.
No.
You interpret and teach it how you BELIEVE Christ intends.
The HS does not lead individuals in opposite directions. The disunity in the Body is all the evidence we need that our own thoughts and perceptions have been at work.
Yes.
Anyone can discern this by looking at what they are teaching in comparison to the Teaching of the Apostles that has been infallibly preserved in the Church. The promise was not to the individuals, but to the Church. Any time an individual departs from the One Faith, that one is no longer protected by the promise of infallibility.Some would argue that Christian is Christian! And how can we be sure that those men in the cc who are teaching and interpreting scripture were chosen by Jesus?
G
guanophore
Guest
I was very bitter and resentful toward the Catholic Church when I first started reading the Scripture and attending Protestant prayer groups and bible studies. I think I felt betrayed because I thought the truth had somehow been kept from me. I was angry because the tools to live a happy and successful Christian life had never been made clear to me.W-O-W! What a powerful, moving post! I have encountered many former catholics, who express similar sentiments! Was talking with a former catholic, who does street ministry, and outreaches for Christ, recently and he said something that I thought was odd; that he was catholic until he got saved???
There were a lot of factors in this, not the least of which was poor catechesis. I did not find out for a couple decades that all the things I 'discovered" in Protestant circles came from Catholic Church. When I decided to take on the responsibility of learning the faith, I studied my way back.
As far as the “saved” think goes, it is a difference in understanding the nature of salvation. The Apostles taught that there are some aspects of salvation that are passed, some that are present, and some that do not happen in this life. When the Reformers departed from the Apostolic teaching, the emphasis got placed on the elements that were in the passed, and the other two elements got lost.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, this is very Catholic.
And I do believe you are showing them Jesus to the best of your ability.
No, what the Scriptures say is that we are not to do so in separation from the Apostolic succession.
You are to be commended for your zeal. You stand firmly in the tradition of Apollos.What about when Jesus was teaching the multitudes, such as in the Sermon on The Mount; the Beatitudes? Because I am filled with the Holy Spirit, I have been empowered to share Jesus with others.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, you have misunderstood the promise of Christ. This promise was made to the fledgling Church, in union with the Apostles, and the Rock who Jesus made of Peter. Those who depart from this foundation upon which the Church was founded no longer benefit from the promise.Well, I know that in the eyes of the catholic church, which puts forth exclusivity, I know they will think I am wrong, but I believe that John 14:26, tells me, and every other Christian, that Jesus sent the Advocate(aka the Holy Spirit) to lead us ALL into Truth and Spirit!! Do you also believe that the mansions that are in the Father’s house, are just for the disciples?
The HS leads in unity. If the HS is leading a person, they will move in the direction of unity, which means they will return to the Foundation of Apsotles and Prophets upon which Jesus founded HIs Church.
The HS is not going to lead one individual in an opposite direction than He has led the Church founded by Christ for 2000 years.
G
guanophore
Guest
This statement seems to imply that persons are excluded, which is not the case. All are welcome at the table of plenty.
What is excluded is heresy. The Church is obligated to educate the faithful about departures from the faith, and the consequences thereof. For that reason, since the first century, the Church “puts forth exclusivity” with respect to all that departs from the Apostolic message that was once for all delivered to the saints. These departures from the Truth, also called heresies, are excluded. The people are not. When people choose to cling to their departures from Truth rather than accepting the Apostolic message, then they are excluded, however, they exclude themselves by their choice.
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
It’s really pretty simple.
Non-Catholics don’t believe the Church is true.
Non-Catholics don’t believe the Church is true.
I
Izdaari
Guest
Essentially this. While I do consider Catholics to be real Christians, I don’t consider the Catholic Church to be the true Church. It may be a true Church, as part of the catholic (small-“c”) invisible Church, but I don’t believe its claims to authority.
And I don’t agree with a lot of Catholic theology, though I do agree with some, even where it differs from the Protestant tradition. I.e., I think the Catholic theology of science is quite good, and it’s fully in tune with my thinking on the subject.
I consider myself to be a non-denominational Christian who happens to be a member of an Assemblies of God church. I also have strong sympathies with Lutheranism, Anglicanism and the “emerging church” movement.
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
In the interests of positive thinking, I’ll first list why I would consider the Catholic Church.
1. It stands up boldly against the evils of abortion and homosexuality, which the rest of the world (and, I am ashamed to say, much of my own church) increasingly thinks are just fine.
2. J.R.R. Tolkien belonged to it.
3. The new Anglican Ordinariates will (I hope) have a simply beautify liturgy full of thees and thous and vouchsafes.
4. While it doesn’t teach the salvation of pluralism and relativism so common in liberal Protestantism, neither does it teach the unquestionable loss and perdition of ignorant pagans so common in conservative Protestantism.
But…
1. It seems so legalistic, on matters not relating to actual morality. One example: the obligation to attend Sunday Mass. Now I do go to church every Sunday, and I like doing so. But if for some reason I decide not to go one day, no one will condemn me. Making it obligatory turns a joyful thing done freely into a burden. 1 Corinthians 9:7 says: “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” And I think the same holds true for churchgoing.
2. All the load of dogmas about St. Mary. Now there’s naught wrong at all with honoring her. I’m not one of those poor souls who think praying the Ave Maria is idolatry. Was she assumed bodily into heaven? Maybe she was. It’s a sound idea. But to require that all the faithful believe it without question? Why O Why O Why? The same thing goes for her perpetual virginity. But the idea of her sinlessness seems to cross the line to actual contradiction with Scripture.
3. Its history. Now I know Protestants have also done horrid things it the past. But it seems to me that if you call yourself the One True Visible Body of Christ on Earth, you ought to be held up to a little higher standard than those who make no such claims.
4. It seems to me that, if Christ did found His Church as one and visibly united, that the Orthodox have just as good a claim as the Catholics do.
1. It stands up boldly against the evils of abortion and homosexuality, which the rest of the world (and, I am ashamed to say, much of my own church) increasingly thinks are just fine.
2. J.R.R. Tolkien belonged to it.
3. The new Anglican Ordinariates will (I hope) have a simply beautify liturgy full of thees and thous and vouchsafes.
4. While it doesn’t teach the salvation of pluralism and relativism so common in liberal Protestantism, neither does it teach the unquestionable loss and perdition of ignorant pagans so common in conservative Protestantism.
But…
1. It seems so legalistic, on matters not relating to actual morality. One example: the obligation to attend Sunday Mass. Now I do go to church every Sunday, and I like doing so. But if for some reason I decide not to go one day, no one will condemn me. Making it obligatory turns a joyful thing done freely into a burden. 1 Corinthians 9:7 says: “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” And I think the same holds true for churchgoing.
2. All the load of dogmas about St. Mary. Now there’s naught wrong at all with honoring her. I’m not one of those poor souls who think praying the Ave Maria is idolatry. Was she assumed bodily into heaven? Maybe she was. It’s a sound idea. But to require that all the faithful believe it without question? Why O Why O Why? The same thing goes for her perpetual virginity. But the idea of her sinlessness seems to cross the line to actual contradiction with Scripture.
3. Its history. Now I know Protestants have also done horrid things it the past. But it seems to me that if you call yourself the One True Visible Body of Christ on Earth, you ought to be held up to a little higher standard than those who make no such claims.
4. It seems to me that, if Christ did found His Church as one and visibly united, that the Orthodox have just as good a claim as the Catholics do.
G
guanophore
Guest
What is a “ritual”?That does not sufficiently answer my question, but one thing I have as a nondenominational Christian, is freedom from rituals and strict adherence to the Law, also known as legalism!
What is it about a “ritual” that you wish to be free from?
You imply that Catholics are bound by Law and legalism. Basically, this is just an excuse to justify rebellion against authority.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, it was Catholic. Yes, it was called “The Way”. Yes, the Catholics were first called Christians in Antioch.
The word Catholic was used by Luke to describe the “church throughout all”. It was described that way because it was considered One Church that was the same every where.
The Greek Orthodox emerged shortly after the Syrian (Antiochian) Church. Although they were all Catholic, the rites varied by language, culture (clothing) and customs. There varieties still persist today. There are very little differences between the Greek Catholic and the Greek Orthodox, except that the Greek Catholics are in unity with the bishop or Rome, and the Orthodox are not. They have the same liturgy, language, and calendar.
The Roman (Latin) Rite was one of the last to develop, since the Church began in Jerusalem and spread East before it spread West. After the Latin Rite came the various slavic rites of the Northern regions of the Empire. Some of these spread West from Asia, so they use the Greek or Byzantine calendar and liturgy. It is a long history but suffice to say that the doctrines they hold are all the same.
T
TedDC
Guest
Some of us simply believe the Church hierarchy has no authority to bind us; we don’t need an “excuse” because there’s nothing to be excused from.
1
1beleevr
Guest
Oh, come on now, you know: Not eating meat on Friday, confession every week, rosary, calling the pope Holy Father, praying through Mary, etc. Hey guan; just as an example of reading and understanding scripture, when you guanophore, read 2Samuel 14:14, what can you get from that verse, without saying something like," It depends on the context in which it was written. Just that verse, tell me how you interpret it!
1
1beleevr
Guest
There really wasn’t any denomination yet, right? So, they were a group of believers, called Christians by others, because they followed Christ!
G
guanophore
Guest
I hope you can tell me some more about this, because it seems to me to be impossible to turn the love of anyone into a ritual.
I would concede that the expression of love can be done through a ritual, but the ritual does not “turn” or change the love somehow.
For example, a couple may choose to have a wedding, and express their love for one another through ritual, but the love does not “turn” or change just because they exchanged vows or rings, do you think?
Did the blind man experience the love of Jesus "less’ because Jesus chose to put mud on his eyes and have him wash?
What makes you think that the expression of love through physical actions "turns’ that love into something less?
If God’s love cannot be manifested through ritual, why do you suppose He gave Israel such a broad variety of rituals with so may details?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Yes, and then at some point they began referring to the Church as ‘universal’, or Catholic in English. It remained the Catholic Church upto the present time.
No matter how one tries, you cannot deny the one Church.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
They deny the rituals of the Bible, specifically Revelations, starting in chapter one.
G
guanophore
Guest
Sure you can. You just can’t demonstrate that you understand the opponents position unless you can properly articulate it.
It means that it is likely that those persons do not understand the non-Catholic positon, since they are unable to articulate it.
My assessment is that you are not able to articulate the opposing point of view, and this leads me to believe you do not understand it. It also seems that you have a deficient view of original sin.
- Status