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

[1beleevr]

But the “BIBLE” the whole thing, was not written by Catholics correct?

Correct!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Weren’t all the disciples, with the exception of Mark, Jewish?

I believe they were, but they converted.

Catholicism began with the beginning of Christianity. The Old Testament was written prior to Christianity.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Correct!

You know, God gave us brains too. It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to realize that the Catholics received the Bible from the authors, along with the interpretations, explanations through the oral tradition. They defined the canon of the New Testament and preserved the scriptures for the Protestants to have in the 1500s. Even Martin Luther gave Catholics credit for that, or else as he said, ‘we’d know nothing about it at all’. Yet modern day thinkers think that Catholics are wrong on every point. Common sense just left the building.

I’m still waiting on your answers to those questions 1beleevr.

 

[vera_dicere]

michaeldaniels is perfect proof of why these threads do not work. SOME Catholics simply cannot stand to have people give their opinions, when asked, and want, the ten thousandth thread on the same old same old questions.

Aw, don’t tar us all with the same brush! V_V

I really find the whole concept of “I’m a Baptist because…”, “I’m an Anglican because…” et cetera, very interesting. Its a mix of culture, societal pressures, family upbringing and life experience that determines an individual’s faith.

I too, often wonder why people can be Lutherans based on what has been said. But I also wonder how people are Anglicans when the whole reason their church exists is because some King wanted to get a divorce.

But then what I think could be wrong, and I want to be corrected if I am.

 

[Janet1983]

After 38 pages in this thread there have been some who answer the question, including me and there have been lengthy discussions on the motives of those who are “non-Catholic Christians”.
After all I think most of us have showed clearly why we are not Catholics or former Catholics.
I guess even though the Catholic arguments are there, this will not really turn anybody around who loves the Lord with all their heart in their own specific denomination outside of the Catholic Church.
Why would it be an issue for any Catholic to accept a non-Catholic Christian as a brother or sister in the Lord?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

After 38 pages in this thread there have been some who answer the question, including me and there have been lengthy discussions on the motives of those who are “non-Catholic Christians”.
After all I think most of us have showed clearly why we are not Catholics or former Catholics.
I guess even though the Catholic arguments are there, this will not really turn anybody around who loves the Lord with all their heart in their own specific denomination outside of the Catholic Church.
Why would it be an issue for any Catholic to accept a non-Catholic Christian as a brother or sister in the Lord?

Why would it be an issue for any non-Catholic to accept a Catholic Christian as a brother or sister in the Lord?

See, most who come here challenge Catholicism to the extent of declaing Catholicism wrong. Others come here to ‘lead’ us to salvation, as if Catholicism does not offer the truth to salvation. Protestism came from the Catholic Church. They only took parts of the faith with them. As Protestantism splintered more and more, less and less of the faith was taken to those who splintered.

With those parts of truth, it is the hope and prayers of the Catholic Church that enough parts are there for the salvation of all. It’s one thing to never have known the fullness of truth. It’s another to reject the fullness for parts of the truth. But let me caveat that statement with, I am not the judge and that is only my opinion and belief of how I must live my life. I cannot accept anything less than has been revealed to me, through scriptures, His Church and the gifts of faith, knowledge, wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are all held accountable for the knowledge of truth that we have and for those in authoritative positions, they are more accountable, at least that’s how it appears in scriptures.

 

[1beleevr]

Why would it be an issue for any non-Catholic to accept a Catholic Christian as a brother or sister in the Lord?

See, most who come here challenge Catholicism to the extent of declaing Catholicism wrong. Others come here to ‘lead’ us to salvation, as if Catholicism does not offer the truth to salvation. Protestism came from the Catholic Church. They only took parts of the faith with them. As Protestantism splintered more and more, less and less of the faith was taken to those who splintered.

With those parts of truth, it is the hope and prayers of the Catholic Church that enough parts are there for the salvation of all. It’s one thing to never have known the fullness of truth. It’s another to reject the fullness for parts of the truth. But let me caveat that statement with, I am not the judge and that is only my opinion and belief of how I must live my life. I cannot accept anything less than has been revealed to me, through scriptures, His Church and the gifts of faith, knowledge, wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are all held accountable for the knowledge of truth that we have and for those in authoritative positions, they are more accountable, at least that’s how it appears in scriptures.

I DO accept all my catholic Christian brothers and sisters! I have said as much on many occasions! And this is despite some of them calling me disconnected, separated, or even not Christian period! I love all you guys!

 

[1beleevr]

I believe they were, but they converted.

Catholicism began with the beginning of Christianity. The Old Testament was written prior to Christianity.

Oh, that’s right; they became Christians!

 

[1beleevr]

A street ministry, or preaching in the street, because the Church was just beginning and there was no building, is far short of an ‘altar call’. Yes, what a silly question. Catholicism has taken the message of Christ around the world. Don’t you know any history?

If you derive a private interpretation and then teach others according to your interpretation, you have assumed an authority position. Read Nehemiah 8 and tell me how the people were caused to understand the scriptures. I also notice you’re not going to touch on points like the two on the road to Emmaus, who knew Christ and scriptures, yet He had to open their hearts to what was written.

Just stop it, and show me where the doctrines of private interpretation is in scriptures. As you say, if it’s not in scriptures, it a man made tradition. It’s that simple. Show the me doctrine written in scriptures. I have shown multiple examples of scriptures teaching against it. How is it now justified?

See, more deliberate twisting of my points. I guess it would be just too much to understand, much less appear to agree with a Catholic. We, as Christians, are called to a ‘royal priesthood’, to share that ‘good news’ which is in us. This doesn’t mean we can perform sacraments, make eccumenical decisions, etc. I’m sorry, but you are deliberatly twisting most everything I say and I find that, in itself, to be most dishonest.

You don’t know, or understand, Catholicism well enough to tell anyone about it.

The Church was ONE when Christ built it. Man separated it. Again, I provided scriptures showing the Church was meant to be one, but you overlooked it somehow.

Sort of like when you accuse me of boasting, when I get excited about serving my King! It is okay for Christians to get excited; I’m sure Paul got excited while serving Jesus And while it is okay for you to call a mortal man holy father, I cannot do it! That is God’s name! And could it be possible that there were “invisible” altars? I mean transsubstantiation is a BELIEF that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, right? And then you open your eyes and the bread and wine are still bread and wine Sorry if I offended you with my words, it wasn’t intentional And even though I am led by the Holy Spirit, I do not set my own doctrine! I have been a bit distracted lately, as my wife and I have been sweating out the results of her biopsy on her breast. We find out the results today! See you all next week!

 

[T_More]

Sort of like when you accuse me of boasting, when I get excited about serving my King! It is okay for Christians to get excited; I’m sure Paul got excited while serving Jesus And while it is okay for you to call a mortal man holy father, I cannot do it! That is God’s name! And could it be possible that there were “invisible” altars? I mean transsubstantiation is a BELIEF that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, right? And then you open your eyes and the bread and wine are still bread and wine Sorry if I offended you with my words, it wasn’t intentional And even though I am led by the Holy Spirit, I do not set my own doctrine! I have been a bit distracted lately, as my wife and I have been sweating out the results of her biopsy on her breast. We find out the results today! See you all next week!

May the Lord be with your wife and yourself during this anxious time. I will pray for you.

 

[tweetymom]

The Bible was assembled, not written, by Catholics. I don’t believe there were Catholics in the OT. Also the Bible was written for all, and assembled for all. If wrong please show me where.

Rev, how I agree with you.

 

[tweetymom]

Sort of like when you accuse me of boasting, when I get excited about serving my King! It is okay for Christians to get excited; I’m sure Paul got excited while serving Jesus And while it is okay for you to call a mortal man holy father, I cannot do it! That is God’s name! And could it be possible that there were “invisible” altars? I mean transsubstantiation is a BELIEF that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, right? And then you open your eyes and the bread and wine are still bread and wine Sorry if I offended you with my words, it wasn’t intentional And even though I am led by the Holy Spirit, I do not set my own doctrine! I have been a bit distracted lately, as my wife and I have been sweating out the results of her biopsy on her breast. We find out the results today! See you all next week!

Just sent a prayer for you and your wife,dear brother in Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sort of like when you accuse me of boasting, when I get excited about serving my King! It is okay for Christians to get excited; I’m sure Paul got excited while serving Jesus And while it is okay for you to call a mortal man holy father, I cannot do it! That is God’s name! And could it be possible that there were “invisible” altars? I mean transsubstantiation is a BELIEF that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, right? And then you open your eyes and the bread and wine are still bread and wine Sorry if I offended you with my words, it wasn’t intentional And even though I am led by the Holy Spirit, I do not set my own doctrine! I have been a bit distracted lately, as my wife and I have been sweating out the results of her biopsy on her breast. We find out the results today! See you all next week!

You’re not sorry for offending Catholics, or it certainly doesn’t seem so. You took time to once again assert your opinions, based on your ‘private interpretation’, against Catholic beliefs. Then, you have completely avoided the questions, I have kindly asked repeatedly that you answer. In a discussion, questions are asked by both sides and the other side should respond. I have responded to all your questions, sometimes repeating the answer with a more detailed explanation. I am really doubting any intent, on your part, to participate in a honest discussion. You take your jabs at Catholicism and ignore any points and questions raised.

Hope all is well with your wife.

 

[larkin31]

my first girlfriend was Pentecostal. And hot. The rest is history.

 

[Cristian_B]

Do non-Catholic Christians ever realize that without the Catholic Church there never would’ve been a Bible?

I would rectify that by saying that without the Holy Spirit there would have been no Bible.

And, BTW, why are there so many catholics in the non catholic religions forum?

Basically … this is a Catholic forum.

Now consider what those scriptures were written on, originally; skins or papyrus. They didn’t have paper and pencils or pens as we do today. Each copy had to be done by hand.

You seem to say that it was hard for them to write letters (i.e.: epistles). But I find Paul’s words interesting: “To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.” (Php 3:1 ESV) He says it isn’t hard for him to write the same things again. You make it seem that it was very hard actually. God takes care of the needs, so they could write.

Where in scriptures did anyone appoint themselves to an authority position in the Church?

As far as I know nowhere.

The Holy Spirit does lead all Christians in their walk of faith. This however does not extend us to positions of authority.

None of us have authority.

We cannot appoint ourselves to teach or preach the Gospel or make doctrinal decisions in the Church.

Neither did I say we can or must.

Jesus did say, ‘Go ye therefore into all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ But, read that passage in context of who Christ was speaking too. Was it the multitudes? No. Was it the men He chose and appointed over His Church? YES.

So? What is your point?

We are not all Apostles, disciples or anything granting us authority to make doctrinal decisions, act in authority in the Church, settle disputes, perform sacraments, etc. etc.

Neither did I say we are.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You seem to say that it was hard for them to write letters (i.e.: epistles). But I find Paul’s words interesting: “To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.” (Php 3:1 ESV) He says it isn’t hard for him to write the same things again. You make it seem that it was very hard actually. God takes care of the needs, so they could write.

The poster I was responding to, had made the argument that the BIble was widely circulated and owned by everyone. Paul did write letters, to many different locations scattered across Asia, however, bringing all those letters together to form a complete New Testament, and adding the New to the Old, then copying a full Bible involved a lot of labor. It wasn’t until the late 1400s, to the early 1500s, that the printing press was invented. Speculation that everyone owned their own copy of the Bible, prior to the printing press, is a speculation without merit.

As with the part I have responded to, I deleted the rest of your post as it was responding to points I made with another poster. So, I never said ‘you’ said those things.

 

[Cristian_B]

The poster I was responding to, had made the argument that the BIble was widely circulated and owned by everyone. Paul did write letters, to many different locations scattered across Asia, however, bringing all those letters together to form a complete New Testament, and adding the New to the Old, then copying a full Bible involved a lot of labor. It wasn’t until the late 1400s, to the early 1500s, that the printing press was invented. Speculation that everyone owned their own copy of the Bible, prior to the printing press, is a speculation without merit.

As with the part I have responded to, I deleted the rest of your post as it was responding to points I made with another poster. So, I never said ‘you’ said those things.

Thank you for the clarification but I don’t mind if you respond to the rest of my post as well, even though it was not directed to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would rectify that by saying that without the Holy Spirit there would have been no Bible.

The Holy Spirit worked through the Catholic Church so, yes the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures, written, defined and preserved by the Catholic Church, so that we all have one in our possession today.

As far as I know nowhere.

One, teaching themselves, the truth, specifically in reference to interpretation of scriptures, is ‘authoritative’, especially when one assumes their interpretation is correct over any other. That is assuming a ‘teaching’ authority over those that you say have an incorrect interpretation and then assert yours is correct.

Now, since you don’t find it in scriptures that anyone assumed an authority upon themselves, it would appear that authority in His Church is only through the Apostolic succession by those He chose and apppointed, and those they chose and appointed, with this process continuing until the present day.

None of us have authority.9/quote]

Except for those in authority over His Church, as explained in the Apostolic succession, which of course are under His authority. He controls His authority with His Holy Spirit.

Because there are sinful men who have been chosen and appointed through the Apostolic succession, does not take away the head authority, which is Christ. Just as we all have free will to obey Him, the men placed in authority also have free will. Those who commit sins while in authority will be held accountable, as we all will.
Cristian B;6557431:

So? What is your point?

The other poster seemed to be using ‘disciple’ as an authority given to everyone who reads scriptures and had quoted the scriptures as saying ‘make disciples’. Scriptures does not say ‘make disciples’. I had quoted the correct translation to English and even provided the translations in the Catholic and King James Bibles.

 

[Cristian_B]

The Holy Spirit worked through the Catholic Church so, yes the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures, written, defined and preserved by the Catholic Church, so that we all have one in our possession today.

Fair enough. I believe we agree on this one.

One, teaching themselves, the truth, specifically in reference to interpretation of scriptures, is ‘authoritative’, especially when one assumes their interpretation is correct over any other.

I believe the reasons of why he believes that are also important.

That is assuming a ‘teaching’ authority over those that you say have an incorrect interpretation and then assert yours is correct.

I see.

Now, since you don’t find it in scriptures that anyone assumed an authority upon themselves,

If by ‘authority’ you mean authority to teach the truth, then there is one case in which a man spread a truth without that authority of which you speak about.

It’s in John. John 9:24-34 KJV
~24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
~25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
~26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
~27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
~28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
~29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
~30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
~31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
~32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
~33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
~34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
I find the last phrase interesting: ‘Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us’? That man shared the truth the Jesus was a man from God with the Pharisees and that is teaching. Then they chose not to listen to what he said and cast him out. He taught them Jesus. Looks like Scripture doesn’t say anything against spreading the truth. The man was spreading the truth. He was teaching the truth to the Pharisees.

it would appear that authority in His Church is only through the Apostolic succession by those He chose and apppointed, and those they chose and appointed, with this process continuing until the present day.

So by this you mean that only those chosen by Apostolic succession can interpret Scripture faithfully and correctly?

Except for those in authority over His Church, as explained in the Apostolic succession, which of course are under His authority. He controls His authority with His Holy Spirit.

What do you think this authority consists of?

Because there are sinful men who have been chosen and appointed through the Apostolic succession, does not take away the head authority, which is Christ. Just as we all have free will to obey Him, the men placed in authority also have free will. Those who commit sins while in authority will be held accountable, as we all will.

Why would it take away the leadership of Christ?

The other poster seemed to be using ‘disciple’ as an authority given to everyone who reads scriptures and had quoted the scriptures as saying ‘make disciples’. Scriptures does not say ‘make disciples’. I had quoted the correct translation to English and even provided the translations in the Catholic and King James Bibles.

Fair enough.

Do you know what is the maximum authority? Or who has the maximum authority in your opinion?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If by ‘authority’ you mean authority to teach the truth, then there is one case in which a man spread a truth without that authority of which you speak about.

It’s in John. John 9:24-34 KJV
~24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
~25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
~26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
~27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
~28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
~29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
~30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
~31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
~32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
~33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
~34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
I find the last phrase interesting: ‘Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us’? That man shared the truth the Jesus was a man from God with the Pharisees and that is teaching. Then they chose not to listen to what he said and cast him out. He taught them Jesus. Looks like Scripture doesn’t say anything against spreading the truth. The man was spreading the truth. He was teaching the truth to the Pharisees.

That is not telling of someone assuming an authority. He was telling them what He had done for him, or what the authority had done for him. They used the term ‘teach’. He did not. Where else do we ever hear of the blind man again?

So by this you mean that only those chosen by Apostolic succession can interpret Scripture faithfully and correctly?

Those chosen and appointed, chose and appointed others. These chosen and appointed wrote the scriptures, they chose and appointed others, who received the scriptures AND the interpretations. Those men chose and appointed others, who received the scriptures AND the interpretations. All through Apostolic succession up until today. Now, we search scriptures in minute detail and find some things, because of the times and culture, we don’t have full knowledge of. We try and apply today’s time and culture to the reading, but we have to leave this interpretation to the authoritative Church, who has the ‘oral tradition’ and scriptures, and the promises of Christ to be with the Church until the consummation of the world and promises that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would teach them all things.

What do you think this authority consists of?

Read the scriptures. Christ chose and appointed men over the Church. Those men chose and appointed others. Several locations tell us of the imposition of hands. It was their decision, who was accepted.

**Act 6:6 These they set before the apostles: and they praying, imposed hands upon them.

Act 13:3 Then they fasting and praying and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

2Ti 1:6 For which cause I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

Why would it take away the leadership of Christ?

Some, invalidate the Church, because of the actions of sinful men. This in a way is rejecting the leadership of the Church as being in control and authoritative, which is Christ.

Do you know what is the maximum authority? Or who has the maximum authority in your opinion?

Christ.