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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
larkin31 said:
I did not say this.

I said that Jesus was rebelling against the authority in Judea that God had established through the seat of Moses. It is very clear that he did this. Not EVERYTHING that he did was a rebellion, but several key events and sayings which characterize the heart of the sayings and deeds of Jesus. This is why he is arrested, after all.
Click to expand...
He was arrested because He said he was the son of God.
 
onmyknees said:
Yes, We believe too that Jesus is everywhere and we can experience Him anywhere too but in the Eucharist He is truly present in a different and very special way. It was Jesus’ gift to us. He wanted to give us this great gift since He knew He was departing from us here on earth until He would come again. I used to go to Protestant Churches to see what they were like. I missed Jesus so much in the Eucharist. He is really and truly present in the tabernacle in the Catholic Church. When you go into a Catholic Church you know that He is present. It is holy and sacred because Jesus is really there. Please read John 6:48-68.
Click to expand...
👍
 
onmyknees said:
Yes, We believe too that Jesus is everywhere and we can experience Him anywhere too but in the Eucharist He is truly present in a different and very special way. It was Jesus’ gift to us. He wanted to give us this great gift since He knew He was departing from us here on earth until He would come again. I used to go to Protestant Churches to see what they were like. I missed Jesus so much in the Eucharist. He is really and truly present in the tabernacle in the Catholic Church. When you go into a Catholic Church you know that He is present. It is holy and sacred because Jesus is really there. Please read John 6:48-68.
Click to expand...
I have heard this many times, and I suppose the “us”, is catholics(Jesus’s gift). And I also would say that the process through which He is present, is called transsubstantiation; or a belief that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ? Some have said that Jesus’s words, and gifts were only given to the disciples, and not the “common” man. I can tell you that when I am fasting, I feel the presence of Christ VERY strongly! I love sharing with people, how He walks and talks with me every day!👍
 
PRmerger said:
Then, 1beleevr,* you*, cast doubt upon Paul’s words by saying he didn’t literally mean ALL have sinned either. Remember, Paul did not say, “except Jesus” in that verse.

So where was Paul in error when he wrote Scripture?
Click to expand...
Is it possible that you have juxtaposed your words? I have maintained all along that Paul was indeed LITERAL, when stating that ALL have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God! It was you initially, who said, you didn’t believe that Paul meant ALL have sinned! And I cannot point out any scripture where he erred, can you?:rolleyes:
 
onmyknees said:
1beleevr,

I just wanted to let you know that Catholics also believe all that we have and all the good that we do is a gift from Him. We also have a personal relationship with Jesus. We pray to Him in our own words all day long for everything.

At the mass we worship, praise, and give thanks to Him. We then enter into (the once and for all passion, death and resurection of Jesus Christ, we share in Jesus’ suffering by offering up our own sufferings to Him, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. When we receive Him, body blood soul and divinity,in the Holy Eucharist we are given a very special gift, we have this most holy and intimate time to talk to Him and through His grace we become more and more like Him.

In confession we do confess our sins to a priest who was given the authority by Jesus to forgive sins but the priests are representing Jesus. It is Jesus we are talking to and Jesus is the one who is forgiving us. I think Jesus gave us priests to confess to because it is humbling and we are reassured of His forgiveness.
Click to expand...
I look at the title of this thread, and I realize that it is a rarher pointless question:eek: I mean, think about it; when we join our Saviour on that glorious day, nothing that we did, were, or had on Earth will mean anything! All the bickering, shouting, name-calling, and antagonism will be history!👍 There will be no denominations, no prejudices, no bias, just saints of every color, size and ages worshipping and praising their God! Hallelujah!👍
 
1beleevr said:
Is it possible that you have juxtaposed your words? I have maintained all along that Paul was indeed LITERAL, when stating that ALL have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God!
Click to expand...
Then, 1beleevr, you are saying that Paul believes Jesus has “sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”???

And since you believe that Paul cannot misspeak in Scripture (that is, he is infallible!), then you believe that Jesus sinned and has “fallen short of the glory of God.”??

That’s the only conclusion to reach if you believe, as you say, that Paul was being LITERAL. :hmmm:
 
1beleevr said:
I look at the title of this thread, and I realize that it is a rarher pointless question:eek: I mean, think about it; when we join our Saviour on that glorious day, nothing that we did, were, or had on Earth will mean anything! All the bickering, shouting, name-calling, and antagonism will be history!👍 There will be no denominations, no prejudices, no bias, just saints of every color, size and ages worshipping and praising their God! Hallelujah!👍
Click to expand...
Yes indeed!! Remember the song : what a day that will be when my Savior I shall see?:

Gives me goose bumps everytime I sing it, it will be a marvelous day.
 
1beleevr said:
Is it possible that you have juxtaposed your words? I have maintained all along that Paul was indeed LITERAL, when stating that ALL have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God! It was you initially, who said, you didn’t believe that Paul meant ALL have sinned! And I cannot point out any scripture where he erred, can you?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sadly some people like to split hairs, How simple is it to believe what the Bible says?
 
PRmerger said:
Then, 1beleevr, you are saying that Paul believes Jesus has “sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”???

And since you believe that Paul cannot misspeak in Scripture (that is, he is infallible!), then you believe that Jesus sinned and has “fallen short of the glory of God.”??

That’s the only conclusion to reach if you believe, as you say, that Paul was being LITERAL. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
It is not rocket science to figure out that Paul was talking about us humans, not Jesus:p To even suggest that Jesus sinned, is outrageously ridiculous! You are just looking for an out, to verify Paul’s not being literal, by your standards! Was Paul infallible? Then why would he say,"I am a wretched man!?"In fact, Paul said,“He became sin, who knew no sin,” or was that from the Book of Isaiah?
 
1beleevr said:
It is not rocket science to figure out that Paul was talking about us humans, not Jesus:p To even suggest that Jesus sinned, is outrageously ridiculous! You are just looking for an out, to verify Paul’s not being literal, by your standards! Was Paul infallible? Then why would he say,"I am a wretched man!?"In fact, Paul said,“He became sin, who knew no sin,” or was that from the Book of Isaiah?
Click to expand...
2 Cor 5:21
 
1beleevr said:
It is not rocket science to figure out that Paul was talking about us humans, not Jesus:p
Click to expand...
Well, since Scripture doesn’t say that, it’s something you’re adding, yes?

If you’re saying it’s LITERAL, then you must read it as LITERAL: ALL have sinned.
To even suggest that Jesus sinned, is outrageously ridiculous!
Click to expand...
Clearly. There’s exceptions to the “all have sinned”. i.e: it’s NOT literal!
Was Paul infallible? Then why would he say,“I am a wretched man!?”
Click to expand...
Wretchedness and infallibility are not mutually exclusive. That’s, I think, where all non-Catholics get hung up. They think that if someone is “infallible” it means they are “impeccable”. Not the same thing.

You believe Paul is incapable of teaching error when he writes the inspired Scripture. That is, he’s infallible.
 
PRmerger said:
Well, since Scripture doesn’t say that, it’s something you’re adding, yes?

If you’re saying it’s LITERAL, then you must read it as LITERAL: ALL have sinned.

Clearly. There’s exceptions to the “all have sinned”. i.e: it’s NOT literal!

Wretchedness and infallibility are not mutually exclusive. That’s, I think, where all non-Catholics get hung up. They think that if someone is “infallible” it means they are “impeccable”. Not the same thing.

You believe Paul is incapable of teaching error when he writes the inspired Scripture. That is, he’s infallible.
Click to expand...
The spreading of the idea of purity and infallibility over time through the teachings of the Catholic Church is one of the reasons that I could never be one. It seems so unnecessary, to me, to insist on the impossibility of error in the writings and teachings in these documents whose provenance is so varied and complex and in some cases, muddied. We don’t even know who really wrote some of them (like the books “of Moses”). I have never been an absolutist (a condition, honestly, that I consider neurotic), my church and my Protestant minister father NEVER taught infallibility in the texts and teachings of Jesus as written in these very human documents, and the wisdom held therein was never reliant upon the idea of perfect freedom of error.
 
larkin31 said:
The spreading of the idea of purity and infallibility over time through the teachings of the Catholic Church is one of the reasons that I could never be one. It seems so unnecessary, to me, to insist on the impossibility of error in the writings and teachings in these documents whose provenance is so varied and complex and in some cases, muddied. We don’t even know who really wrote some of them (like the books “of Moses”). I have never been an absolutist (a condition, honestly, that I consider neurotic), my church and my Protestant minister father NEVER taught infallibility in the texts and teachings of Jesus as written in these very human documents, and the wisdom held therein was never reliant upon the idea of perfect freedom of error.
Click to expand...
LOL!! Your post above is FULL of absolute statements!

Nevertheless, I appreciate your sentiments.

My opinion: I just don’t know why any Truth-seeking person would follow an idea, a person, a church that claims it’s going to be wrong. That defies logic and reason, IMHO. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
LOL!! Your post above is FULL of absolute statements!

Nevertheless, I appreciate your sentiments.

My opinion: I just don’t know why any Truth-seeking person would follow an idea, a person, a church that claims it’s going to be wrong. That defies logic and reason, IMHO. 🤷
Click to expand...
To say “My screen name is Larkin31” or “I believe that infallibility is a strange, warped idea” are neither one of them absolute statements.

I am not claiming that I never make them, of course, nor even that I am always right. I am simply sharing an opinion directly on the topic. And I am no absolutist, and I am not a woman, and I am not dead, and I have no affinity for an ethical system or world-view that considers itself inerrant.
 
1beleevr said:
It is not rocket science to figure out that Paul was talking about us humans, not Jesus:p To even suggest that Jesus sinned, is outrageously ridiculous! You are just looking for an out, to verify Paul’s not being literal, by your standards! Was Paul infallible? Then why would he say,"I am a wretched man!?"In fact, Paul said,“He became sin, who knew no sin,” or was that from the Book of Isaiah?
Click to expand...
Hi 1beleevr,

Infallible does not mean that a pope is without sin. They are human and have sinned. Jesus said that the Church and the popes would be guided by the Holy Spirit in all their teachings. When the popes teaches infallibly he is without error. The teachings on faith and morals are also infallible.

I have heard this many times, and I suppose the “us”, is catholics(Jesus’s gift). And I also would say that the process through which He is present, is called transsubstantiation; or a belief that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ? Some have said that Jesus’s words, and gifts were only given to the disciples, and not the “common” man. I can tell you that when I am fasting, I feel the presence of Christ VERY strongly! I love sharing with people, how He walks and talks with me every day!
Reply With Quote

No the “us” is for everyone, not just Catholics. I love sharing with people too. We are fishers of men.🙂
 
larkin31 said:
To say “My screen name is Larkin31” or “I believe that infallibility is a strange, warped idea” are neither one of them absolute statements.
Click to expand...
But the above is. Actually, your first example is also. When you propose something as true, as a fact or reality that is free from exception, qualification, or restrictions, that is an absolute truth.

An absolute truth is an undeniable fact.

“Most people would agree that the earth’s gravity or 1+1=2 are absolute truths. We know that whenever you add one and one the sum will always be the same, hence an absolute truth.”
I am not claiming that I never make them, of course, nor even that I am always right. I am simply sharing an opinion directly on the topic. And I am no absolutist, and I am not a woman, and I am not dead, and I have no affinity for an ethical system or world-view that considers itself inerrant.
Click to expand...
Then why should I believe a statement from a person who doesn’t even believe that he himself knows what’s true? :confused:
 
PRmerger said:
But the above is. Actually, your first example is also. When you propose something as true, as a fact or reality that is free from exception, qualification, or restrictions, that is an absolute truth.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t. You keep simply trying to pin me into little rhetorical corners for little points. It’s really kind of funny. But it doesn’t work.

If you mean to suggest that “My name is Frank” is an “absolute” (or an “absolutist statement”) like “all murder is wrong,” then you are simply engaging in sophistry for some other reason of your faith. If you mean to claim that all declarative sentences (e.g. “I like some types of meat”) is a form of “absolute,” then you are wasting our time here. But it is your prerogative, and your time to spend how you wish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top