I still just don't get it

[khutcheson]

I believe 1 Cor chapter 12 is helpful in appreciating my point.

Indeed it is…now if you make the leap that the “Church” Paul was talking about is the Catholic (as opposed to catholic) Church, then I would have to agree with you.

 

[Pax]

Indeed it is…now if you make the leap that the “Church” Paul was talking about is the Catholic (as opposed to catholic) Church, then I would have to agree with you.

Obviously, I have made that leap, but I have not done so without good reason. History and the Early Church Fathers are very helpful in running this issue down.

There is but one church per scripture. Likewise, scripture indicates that this is a visible church. Moreover, scripture indicates that this Church has deacons, priests, and bishops. Scripture also shows us that the powers associated with the hierarchical ministry are given through the laying on of hands. This is an unbroken chain within the Catholic Church.

 

[MDK]

Am I absolutely married to the idea that something must be explicit and clear in the Bible in order for it to be true. No…at least not at this time. Maybe if someone can show me the Scripture in the Bible that says this is the case I could change my mind.

But it sort of begs the question on how God would show somebody like me something as being definitely true outside of the Bible. But in the end I suppose that is God’s problem.

…God’s problem… this attitude is a bit arrogant, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps this is not God’s problem at all. What if He has already given all that is needed for us to come to Him? That would then put the ball in your court, would it not?

 

[MDK]

I have left the Catholic Church. I have no belief in any of its teachings other than those about kindness, compassion, and morality. I may be wrong in my path and end up in Hell. The one thing I do know is the path I am following is leading me to live a better life right here and now.

I wish that all people follow their chosen religion with persistance, mindfulness and effort. The world will be better for it.

Forgive me if I don’t trust your logic, priorities or values expressed here. That you would let anything interfere with eternal life in Heaven with God needs immediate and serious rethinking. Secondly, are you claiming some kind of moral equivalence between religions?

There is one true God, and He has established one Church for His people. Leaving the Catholic Church may not be just the biggest mistake of your life, but of your eternity!

 

[jmcrae]

So you acknowledge that Catholics disagree on this point.

You can understand why this point would be kind of important to me. I would sort of like to have my eternal destiny to be settled as much as possible this side of the grave.

If you don’t believe that the Catholic Church has received authority from Jesus Christ (Matthew 18:18), then why would it matter to you what it teaches with regard to your salvation?

Yet I am not getting one answer here. Since you have all of the advantages of an infallible magisterium and tradition, that seems to be a great big disconnect to me.

The Magisterium doesn’t rule on individual cases. Only God can do that. It gives us the general principles by which we can know how we ourselves are doing, but it doesn’t really give us the ability to know how those outside the Church are doing.

When we look at history, we don’t find anyone who accidentally fell out of the Ark of Salvation. All of them jumped out, with full awareness of what they were doing. But those in modern generations who are their followers may not be aware of history, and might get a “pass” on that basis. This assumes that they have lived perfectly, without any need of the Sacraments, for their entire lives. If not, then they will go to Hell for the old-fashioned reason - mortal sins not absolved in the Sacrament of Reconciliation - their ability to know anything about the Church won’t even be a factor.

 

[mark_a]

This was under another thread that went to thread heaven (or thread purgatory). I don’t get it, because after having been two years or so on these forums, I still dunno exactly what y’all think of us.

This is what I have figured out thus far as a non-Catholic.

Catholics of course have the advantage of tradition (whatever that is) and a teaching magisterium that is incapable of being incorrect. As a result they have what is called “Catholic unity” as opposed to the Protestants who all believe “Sola Scriptura” which has produced approximately 3567128 denominations with the number increasing daily.

Catholics believe something called “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church”. Now I could ask where in the Bible they get that from, but of course that is an invalid question because Catholics don’t believe in “Sola Scriptura” and they do not operate under the limitations that Protestants do of making sure that the Bible actually teaches something before they believe it.

Now the quote “There is no salvation salvation outside of the Catholic church” was said (I think) first by St. Cyprius of Carthage in 150AD or so when the Catholic church was the only game in town outside of the gnostics and other weirdos. It is perfectly logical according to Catholicism to lift that quote, dogmatize it, and plop it down here in the 21st century under conditions that St. Cyprius couldn’t even imagine.

Now to some Catholics this is quite cut and dry. It was quite clear that St. Cyprius meant (and later reaffirmed by many popes through the ages), that if you are not a card carrying Catholic you go directly to hell…do not pass go…do not collect $200. Well perhaps maybe something called “invincible ignorance” could apply to a few. But for folks like me who know of the claims of Catholicism and still obstinately remain outside of the “Ark of Safety”, “invincible ignorance” just does not apply. We bake in the lake forever when we die.

However to some Catholics this quote has a different meaning. Vatican 2.0 has changed the rules that somehow we now are separated brethren (I know that really the rules have not changed and some really smart people can tell me how this is the same thing…but by all appearances to folks like me who apparantly lack reading comprehension skills is that something has changed). The best explanation I have received is that now I am already a Catholic (having been baptized under the trinitarian formula), I just don’t know it yet. Maybe in purgatory I will get a clue.

Anyway, this perspective is the one that is supported from the Catechism which as we all know is the authentic guide to Catholic teaching.

However, to the other Catholics, Vatican 2.0 changed nothing. I have received a number of explanations as to why this is ranging from
(1) It is not infallible and therefore is heretical because it conflicts with what previous popes have infallibly declared,
(2) See (1) with the added twist and the popes that produced this heresy are really antipopes, The Catholic church now lacks a valid pope
(3) It is not heresy, but the Catechism has misinterpreted it and is incorrect.

And on it goes. Having followed these forums for some time, I have concluded that Catholics disagree amongst themselves on what exactly their own church teaches in this regard.

Meanwhile, Catholics of course have an infallible magisterium that has created “Catholic unity” as opposed to Protestants who all believe in “Sola Scriptura” that has created about 5672398 protestant denominations.

That’s a pretty good analysis.

So are you going to become Orthodox?

 

[Syele]

I perceive mozart-250 as being somewhat past the “answer me this!” stage of his quest. He already has a lot of answers.

Then why are you answering? People ask questions when they want an answer.

Wherever you may stand on this, Syele,

I am in this thread cause I agree with the OP 100%, he simply worded it better than I could have.

 

[Jonathan_Cid]

There are little Old Catholic parishes crying out in the distance…

 

[mozart-250]

Personally I think Mozart-250 is hearing God’s call to the body of Jesus Christ on earth. I think he has graduated from the man made theology of the bible “alone” or faith “alone” saves you.

Umm…

…you wish…

If the claim of Catholicism was rough equivalency to the rest of us, perhaps. Certainly it would not be a terribly high threshhold to meet.

Hey, I could perhaps even buy that there is an implicit advantage in Catholicism in that you have a historical link to the beginnings that we don’t have.

But that is not the claim.

The claim is that you are…“The Church”…

This is a claim of superiority.

I just don’t believe it. Sorry.

Instead I believe that y’all are just as messed up as the rest of us.

I don’t mean that as an insult. Honest. It is just that the evidence in my heart points overwhelmingly to rough equivalency.

I could go into much more detail on this I suppose, but the evidence in my heart clearly points this way.

The only other possibility I suppose would be that you are “The Church” but that God has made it just about impossible for anyone to discern this. But that one makes no sense.

 

[mozart-250]

That the Catholic Church is the Church built by Christ is a no-risk assumption.

It is an assumption all right.

It is only no-risk though if the assumption is in fact true.

 

[jmcrae]

The only other possibility I suppose would be that you are “The Church” but that God has made it just about impossible for anyone to discern this. But that one makes no sense.

“Anyone” meaning Protestants?

Because everyone I know who is not Protestant understands that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and that it is currently headed by the Pope, who traces his authority in a straight line back to the Apostle Peter. The only part they don’t “discern” is that Jesus is/was God, although they certainly grant that Christians believe Him to be God.

I was originally given this information by a Hindu woman who was teaching my world religions class in the eighth grade. She understood it as a well-known fact, and it was printed out right there in the Grade 8 Social Studies curriculum materials.

 

[mozart-250]

That’s a pretty good analysis.

So are you going to become Orthodox?

Nah…I don’t have any good reason to become Orthodox either,

Besides, the only Orthodox church that I know of is in the big city of Burlington about 40 miles from where I live. Just too far away.

 

[mozart-250]

The Catechism takes a broader, more theological and mystical view of the boundaries of the Catholic Church than the view the dead popes were working from in their statements.

The dead popes were responding to contemporary heresies and (prior to the discovery of the New World) answering the question: What does it take to be saved?

The Catechism looks at the question: What is the Catholic Church?

It stands to reason that while the answers might overlap, they might not be exactly parallel. The view of the *Catechism *is much broader than that of the dead popes whose question was fundamentally narrower.

I could understand a slight shift in emphasis since the dead popes were speaking to a different audience and answering different questions than the Catechism.

But gosh, it seems to me that what the dead popes are saying is fundamentally different than what the Catechism is saying.

I just can’t see how this statement leaves any room for any ambiguity (now I don’t believe it at all either, but that is a separate issue).

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

 

[mozart-250]

“Anyone” meaning Protestants?

Because everyone I know who is not Protestant understands that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and that it is currently headed by the Pope, who traces his authority in a straight line back to the Apostle Peter. The only part they don’t “discern” is that Jesus is/was God, although they certainly grant that Christians believe Him to be God.

I was originally given this information by a Hindu woman who was teaching my world religions class in the eighth grade. She understood it as a well-known fact, and it was printed out right there in the Grade 8 Social Studies curriculum materials.

Your Hindu woman probably was overlooking the Orthodox.

Let’s say for grins and giggles that I assume for a moment that Jesus did found a church that today exclusively resides in one denomination. Let us assume furthermore that this church must have its roots traceable to the apostles.

Hmm…the problem is that with these assumptions, I am still left with the Catholic and Orthodox (actually there are a few others like various Orthodox strains, Sedevacantist Catholic, etc. but for simplicity sake we will keep this at Catholic / Orthodox). Both the Catholic and Orthodox claim to be the church of Jesus Christ to the exclusion of the others.

Now a neutral impartial observer will want to give equal weight to both of these claims. My problem is that I have no idea how a neutral observer after listening to both Catholic and Orthodox apologists would be able to with any certainty discern which of the two is “The Church” outside of a “best guess”.

 

[MDK]

It is an assumption all right.

It is only no-risk though if the assumption is in fact true.

Yes, considered an assumption until one realizes the truth of it… you understand the logic of what was meant. Please understand also the truth, which is that the Catholic Church was and is indeed the Church built by Christ. It is “the Church” in the New Testament. Both Godly Traditions, Oral and Written, support this. It has been His Church, established by the time of Pentecost after the Resurrection, and will last until the end of time. Truth is greater than simple fact.

 

[jmcrae]

Your Hindu woman probably was overlooking the Orthodox.

Let’s say for grins and giggles that I assume for a moment that Jesus did found a church that today exclusively resides in one denomination. Let us assume furthermore that this church must have its roots traceable to the apostles.

Hmm…the problem is that with these assumptions, I am still left with the Catholic and Orthodox (actually there are a few others like various Orthodox strains, Sedevacantist Catholic, etc. but for simplicity sake we will keep this at Catholic / Orthodox). Both the Catholic and Orthodox claim to be the church of Jesus Christ to the exclusion of the others.

Now a neutral impartial observer will want to give equal weight to both of these claims. My problem is that I have no idea how a neutral observer after listening to both Catholic and Orthodox apologists would be able to with any certainty discern which of the two is “The Church” outside of a “best guess”.

Even the Orthodox admit several things - that Peter was “first among equals,” that his See is Rome, and that they can’t have (and haven’t had) a Council without the Successor of Peter being present (although it could occur without any one of the others, which is why it remains possible for the Catholic Church to have Councils) - all of which point to a singular primacy of Peter and his Successors in the Church, even in the minds of the Orthodox.

 

[mozart-250]

Even the Orthodox admit several things - that Peter was “first among equals,” that his See is Rome, and that they can’t have (and haven’t had) a Council without the Successor of Peter being present (although it could occur without any one of the others, which is why it remains possible for the Catholic Church to have Councils) - all of which point to a singular primacy of Peter and his Successors in the Church, even in the minds of the Orthodox.

But this is not relevant. In fact the closeness of the two faiths actually work against each other if one had to pick between the two.

The Orthodox and Catholic are two mutually exclusive faiths.

Both claim to be the Church of Jesus Christ that the gates of hell can not stand against.

Both can not be that church.

And it is not obvious at all which one is “The church”. At least to this observer. All I would have is my best guess.

This is one big reason amongst a few that I don’t believe that any one denomination in its entirety is The church to the exclusion of all of the others. If I believed this, I would still have no idea what that church would be.

 

[notself]

Forgive me if I don’t trust your logic, priorities or values expressed here. That you would let anything interfere with eternal life in Heaven with God needs immediate and serious rethinking. Secondly, are you claiming some kind of moral equivalence between religions?

There is one true God, and He has established one Church for His people. Leaving the Catholic Church may not be just the biggest mistake of your life, but of your eternity!

Thank you for your obvious concern about my spiritual welfare. It is very compassionate of you.

I don’t think that all religions are equivalent. Certainly there is much in common between many religions, but that does not make them equivalent. The point I was making is people actually practicing their religious teachings would improve the world dramatically. There are so many lip service followers who don’t put in the effort.

I am no longer a Catholic because I don’t believe. Perhaps if I believed in Christianity I could return to the Church. I don’t believe. I don’t believe there is a Creator God who needs or requires anything, not even worship. How does one force oneself to believe? I don’t think it can be done. I don’t think anyone can be forced to become an unbeliever. Could you force yourself to give up your faith in God and the Church?

I may be wrong and when I die I may end up in hell. If hell is a place of eternal physical and mental torture, then I don’t think the God who would condemn a mortal being to eternal torture is worth worshipping as divine. Cruel, yes; powerful, yes; divine, no.

Since many here say that hell is the absence of God and since I don’t believe in God, how would that hell work exactly?

All in all, I think there is something innate that makes some people sincerely believe in God and makes others sincerely believe there is no God. I wish I new what makes you believe what you do. I wish I knew what makes me believe the way I do. Why did I stop believing? I could give you reasons, but they would just be words. I didn’t stop so I could be an immoral twit or because I cannot be humble before a deity. I just stopped believing.

Best wishes for you in your spiritual efforts and dedication.

 

[MDK]

Umm…

…you wish…

If the claim of Catholicism was rough equivalency to the rest of us, perhaps. Certainly it would not be a terribly high threshhold to meet.

Hey, I could perhaps even buy that there is an implicit advantage in Catholicism in that you have a historical link to the beginnings that we don’t have.

But that is not the claim.

The claim is that you are…“The Church”…

This is a claim of superiority.

I just don’t believe it. Sorry.

Instead I believe that y’all are just as messed up as the rest of us.

I don’t mean that as an insult. Honest. It is just that the evidence in my heart points overwhelmingly to rough equivalency.

I could go into much more detail on this I suppose, but the evidence in my heart clearly points this way.

The only other possibility I suppose would be that you are “The Church” but that God has made it just about impossible for anyone to discern this. But that one makes no sense.

As long as you look at it from the bottom up, then you’ll probably never get there. You’ll spend an infinite amount of time just looking at earthly or man made features. The true Church has a Divine Nature as well. To determine the Church Christ built, you have to start at the top, with Christ… If you wanted to find the church that Luther built, you start with Luther. It’s difficult to get to Christ, by climbing on the backs of men. Christ is so much above created men. Unless you understand from the divine, understanding Christ’s Word, you will never discern, understand, nor believe the claims of the One True Church apart from the others. One will never get far enough by simply comparing features like buying a car. After all, does a car have both earthly and divine nature? Unless you can “see” and believe the Divine, you will never see the divine nature of the Church.

 

[MDK]

Thank you for your obvious concern about my spiritual welfare. It is very compassionate of you.

I don’t think that all religions are equivalent. Certainly there is much in common between many religions, but that does not make them equivalent. The point I was making is people actually practicing their religious teachings would improve the world dramatically. There are so many lip service followers who don’t put in the effort.

I am no longer a Catholic because I don’t believe. Perhaps if I believed in Christianity I could return to the Church. I don’t believe. I don’t believe there is a Creator God who needs or requires anything, not even worship. How does one force oneself to believe? I don’t think it can be done. I don’t think anyone can be forced to become an unbeliever. Could you force yourself to give up your faith in God and the Church?

I may be wrong and when I die I may end up in hell. If hell is a place of eternal physical and mental torture, then I don’t think the God who would condemn a mortal being to eternal torture is worth worshipping as divine. Cruel, yes; powerful, yes; divine, no.

Since many here say that hell is the absence of God and since I don’t believe in God, how would that hell work exactly?

All in all, I think there is something innate that makes some people sincerely believe in God and makes others sincerely believe there is no God. I wish I new what makes you believe what you do. I wish I knew what makes me believe the way I do. Why did I stop believing? I could give you reasons, but they would just be words. I didn’t stop so I could be an immoral twit or because I cannot be humble before a deity. I just stopped believing.

Best wishes for you in your spiritual efforts and dedication.

I knew what you were doing.

Whether you believe in God or not doesn’t change that He exists. That you don’t believe in Him now, doesn’t mean you can’t have a change of heart. Entrance into Heaven or Hell will come after the God’s judgment. I believe if you even had any idea what Hell was like, you would take a different tone.

It’s simple, and we call it hardness of heart. You have hardened your heart toward your Creator for some reason.

Whatever you do, is of your own free will. If someone tries to wake you up before you sleep past the final buzzer, is that wrong?

Your arrogance is astounding in the sense that you decide the one who Created you is not worth worshiping because you don’t understand. God loves you, despite your rejection at this time. He is very polite, in the fact that if you reject Him and don’t come back, He will grant you your wish for eternity of rejecting Him. If you don’t want to live with Him in eternity, then you are choosing your place. I don’t think He gets any pleasure out of watching you do this. God can mend a broken heart.