If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2

[Jimmy_B]

That seems to be Jimmy’s modus operandi

Hello thecoach,

Let me guess, you are not Catholic.

Why don’t I read similar remarks towards Protestants, by Protestants, when in fact, there are more disagreements among Protestants?

Why pick on the poor old, helpless Catholic Guy? If we have a theological disagreement, why don’t you simply defend your position? If in fact your position is founded in truth, then there would be no need for a personal attack…right?

Why make it personal, I’m nobody.

I don’t have a problem with any of my Protestant friends here, who I honestly believe are decent people. However, I disagree with my Protestant friends, based on our theological differences.

That’s ok, I still like you too, even though you are jumping on the “pick on the Catholic -band wagon”, because, I can only imagine how hard it is to defend something, which isn’t true.

BTW, what does “non-denominational” even mean? I have asked this question here before and have never received an answer.

Now for a general comment -

I am afraid that there are some here who don’t know what they believe, or why…am I wrong?

Thank you for your post.

Peace

 

[guanophore]

Hello O.S. Luke,

Why do you feel so compelled to constantly discuss your “education”…A master’s degree and SAT scores, are not required to go to heaven, you aren’t insecure, are you?

Your background is irrelevant to this discussion; you are posting a Christian truth(s) here, or you are not.

Apparently, you were not studying the right things, because, if you were, you would be Catholic.

I think his background is entirely relevant to the discussion. The question is, why are you not Catholic? He has spent many years studying, and has come to this conclusion to the best of his educated ability. It is prejudicial to say “if you were studying the right things, you would be Catholic”. I say that because I was baptized Catholic, and left the Church for 20 years. It was years of college and Protestant Seminary that led me back to the Church. It is not for us to judge the road that another must take to come to Christ. He is here, in spite of his great learning. Why?
I think some value needs to be given to that.

If Protestantism were the true expression of Christianity, it would defend itself and yet, Protestants can’t even agree with each other.

If you are as gifted as you would like all of us to believe, then why don’t you take on the real Catholic Apologists? Better yet, take on the likes of G.K. Chesterton and John Henry Newman, or some other famous convert to Catholicism. Surely, you can prove them wrong.

Ego is man’s greatest weakness.

Good luck with yourself and your own intellect.

God uses the intellect of some to lead us to Himself. He knows what we have need of before we ask it. Some come to Him through emotion, some sense the spiritual call, each one is reached differently.

As for me, I completely surrender to Christ and His Catholic Church.

You seem to be holding yourself up as an example of how everyone should think and behave.

 

[guanophore]

By your insulting tone, you clearly show that you are not interested in my thoughts nor receptive to them, so why bother?

I do agree with you that ego is man’s greatest weakness. You illustrate it well.

I am sorry that I have to agree with you, OS. However, I am interested in your thoughts.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I am sorry that I have to agree with you, OS. However, I am interested in your thoughts.

Me too.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t have a clue. Why are there Catholics who believe in and practice birth control and those Catholics who do not?

That is easy! They have rejected the Apostolic Faith. They are apostate, and don’t know it.

I can take a hint. Pax vobiscum.

O+

I wasn’t really “hinting” at anything, just wondering. Perhaps you just thrive on dialogue?

 

[guanophore]

This discussion, isn’t about you and it isn’t about me…
It is about the truth! You made yourself the focal point of this discussion, by your own comments and talking about yourself, not me.

And that is the point that I was attempting to convey. Nothing personal…

Peace

The OP is quite personal, Jimmy. And your condescending response to OS was also personal.

Hello thecoach,

Let me guess, you are not Catholic.

Why don’t I read similar remarks towards Protestants, by Protestants, when in fact, there are more disagreements among Protestants?

The observation had nothing to do with a disagreement in doctrine. It had to do with your manner and attitude.

He was noting the lack of humility and reverence in your response to his answer.

1 Peter 3:14-16
15 but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, **yet do it with gentleness and reverence; **

Why pick on the poor old, helpless Catholic Guy? If we have a theological disagreement, why don’t you simply defend your position? If in fact your position is founded in truth, then there would be no need for a personal attack…right?

As much could be said of you!

Why make it personal, I’m nobody.

You asked a personal question, you got a personal answer, then you made condescending remarks to the person who answered your inquiry!

I don’t have a problem with any of my Protestant friends here, who I honestly believe are decent people. However, I disagree with my Protestant friends, based on our theological differences.

For a person who doesn’t have a problem, your expressions are certainly problematic.

That’s ok, I still like you too, even though you are jumping on the “pick on the Catholic -band wagon”, because, I can only imagine how hard it is to defend something, which isn’t true.

He was not on the “pick on the Catholic band wagon”. On the contrary, he has been much more respectful of the Catholic faith than most of the non-Catholics here.

 

[Jimmy_B]

 

[Jimmy_B]

The question here is - If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic?

“What we don’t like about Jimmy B” would be a great topic for another thread but that isn’t the question here.

Peace

 

[joe370]

If your read this article, you will have a clear understanding and textual proof that Peter was the bishop of Rome in the 1st century and was martyred there. If you choose to discredit the early church leaders (well before Constantine) then you unwittingly discredit your bible as well; after all, these Catholic church leaders preserved sacred scripture for 400 years, when heresy was flourishing and finally codified and canonized it out of necessity.

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=635

A timeline of Catholic Church history
1-500 A.D. AND

a time line of the decisions on the books of the Bible (Canon)

davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.htm

There are 3 reasons most protestants (correct me if I’m wrong) are not catholic: (1) familial tradition (2) a traumatic experience with an individual within the C.C. or (3) the belief that the C.C. fell into a complete apostasy in the 4th century under Constantine.

Number 3 is easily refuted if anyone is interested, however, due to lack of space I will just say, Constantine could not have started the Catholic Church. How could he have asked the Catholic bishops to gather in council if there was not yet a Catholic Church? As a former Lutheran, I was quite befuddled by this question, that is of course until I researched it myself. Not to mention the fact that the word catholic was used in the preceding centuries to differentiate between the true apostolic Christian church and the heretical churches claiming to be the true Christian church.

If the C.C. fell into a complete apostasy, as I said before, when exactly in history did this earth shattering event take place? Surely it must be recorded in the annals of Christianity or other! It’s neither biblical or historical!

Also as I said before, If anyone can prove that Catholicism fell away from what Christ intended for the church to be --through Peter–then I will be forced to renounce all of Christianity because Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit (the spirit of truth who cannot fail and would never misguide Jesus’ created church) would be with His created church “forever” and that means through every century until His second coming. If protestants are right then that makes Jesus a liar, negating all of Christianity. That of course is absurd!

However, I don’t believe that Catholicism fell away from what Christ intended for the church to be, through Peter; Quite the contrary!!!

Jesus said, “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth…I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” (If Catholicism fell away from what Christ intended for the church, then Jesus did in fact leave them as orphans, aimlessly wandering in spiritual darkness until the protestant reformation) and a few verses later He reaffirms by saying “the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

So, if the H.S. (“the spirit of truth” Who cannot fail) —the Trinity if you will, is to be with the church forever, which includes the 4th century, the 11th century, the tumultuous 16th century and this century—until His second coming —the H.S. is obviously still with Jesus’ created church, teaching Jesus’ church all things and reminding them of everything Jesus said. To say otherwise is to call Jesus a failure—according to the bible and the early church fathers who collected, selected, edited, compiled, codified and finally canonized our bible. If you trust the C.C. with the bible, why not trust them on all matters of faith and morals. I trust the church because the Holy Spirit is forever guiding her, and her alone according to the bible, unless of course there is another church that preceded the C.C. and that church inherited the mantle of the apostles? However, I think we all know that isn’t the case.

It was Jesus Christ who founded the Apostolic Church, shortly after he rose again from the dead. Fifty days after Jesus rose again, and ten days after Jesus ascended to heaven, the Holy Spirit descended, and presided at the birth of the Church that has been known as Catholic, since at least 107 AD. The Catholic Church had successfully endured several hundred years of brutal persecution, by the time Constantine came along. Anyone who calls themself a Christian, and has the gall to attempt to denigrate the testimony of Jesus Christ, as well as that of the early martyrs, by denying the identity of the Catholic Church they died for, is either in denial, misinformed, or both.

The Catholic Church converted Constantine, the Roman Emperor, via Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church went on to convert the Roman empire, via Christ. The Catholic Church converted most of the known world, via the H.S. (THE TRINITY). It was definitely NOT the other way around. And not a single Protestant had anything to do with it … not even the Baptists … some of whom falsely claim to have been “secretly” hiding out, while all this was happening.

 

[joe370]

Now, as some like to claim —if the the H.S. (“the spirit of truth”) was in fact only promised to counsel and guide the apostles, and upon their demise, He would cease to counsel or guide Jesus established church, which of course was/is not the case, due to Jesus’ promise of perpetuity, then that would leave their disciples (the church) vulnerable to a complete apostasy; a falling away from what Christ intended for the church to be —through Peter. However, the bible, given to us by the C.C., emphatically dispels this notion, and it would contradict Jesus’ plan of salvation for all.

Jesus established a church in the 1st century and it will never fail, because Jesus cannot fail! “Many will fall away” due to the human innate nature of sin, and there will be apostates in Jesus church, as foretold by the Jesus and Paul, but the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church as a whole cannot fail and will come to fruition at Jesus’ second coming.

A few bible verses to support my claim…

“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” John 14:15-18

“All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14:25-26

"Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter (kepha), and on this rock (kepha) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:16-19

“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” (Acts 20:26-30 RSV)

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Matthew7:15:thumbsup:

 

[guanophore]

The question here is - If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic?

“What we don’t like about Jimmy B” would be a great topic for another thread but that isn’t the question here.

Peace

Indeed, if you did not want to know the answer, maybe you should not have asked the question! But you did ask, and he answered, then you criticized him for what he had to say. He shared his personal experience at your invitation, and you found fault with him. I do not think this is “reverent” as the Apostle enjoins.

I can’t speak about Jimmy B, because I don’t really know him, but I can say that the attitude expressed in the post was not conducive to productive dialogue.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Indeed, if you did not want to know the answer, maybe you should not have asked the question! But you did ask, and he answered, then you criticized him for what he had to say. He shared his personal experience at your invitation, and you found fault with him. I do not think this is “reverent” as the Apostle enjoins.

I can’t speak about Jimmy B, because I don’t really know him, but I can say that the attitude expressed in the post was not conducive to productive dialogue.

Hello guanophore,

All great points, I’m sorry, please forgive me, I have no excuse…thank you.

Peace

 

[n2thelight]

Christainity is not a religion its a reality,with that said Catholicisim is not a reality

 

[csmatyi]

URL=“http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/gd/IFMA_World_Trends.pdf”]Study done in 2005 by Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (non-Catholic.)

Hold your heels, man, I read this source and this is what it says exactly about that 40,000 figure you mentioned:

Christians now form 39,000 denominations ranging in size from millions to less than 100 members, these
are listed for each of the world’s 238 countries in the World Christian Database

This means Christians in general, as the author seems to include Catholicism into Christianity as well. He doesn’t expicitly say that this means all Protestants belong to so many denominations. By the way I myself would discount all neo-Protestant charismatic and Pentecostal groups because in my view they say that speaking in tongues is needed for a true conversion. They also have many non-Biblical practises, so this would greatly reduce the 40000 figure, since charismatics are responsible for fragmenting into small eclesioles.

Of course, the Catholic church is also fragmented into many different orders like the Franciscans, Dominicans, Cistercians, Jesuits, Apostolic Catholics, and other types of Catholics, who deny the legitimacy of the present pope, etc… Throughout history different Catholic groups even oppressed other Catholic groups, so this is a far cry from true Catholic unity. Many Catholics dissent with the official teachings of their church (the so-called cafeteria Catholics), but still remain because they want to retaina a sense of community.

Still a no go.

 

[csmatyi]

Ah, but do you have any sources that say they didn’t teach this? If I’m correct, there is proof in their writings of their beliefs as I quoted above. You can’t just point the finger and say, “The Catholic Church lied”.

You know, the Catholic Church has a nasty habit of retaining heretical writings in the hope that history doesn’t repeat itself. Sadly, this has not proven to be true.

The Cathars can trace their roots back to the Galatians from the time of Paul the apostle. If you think the Reformation is a repetition of this thing you call heresy (Paul and the Galatians), then this is very sad, to say the least.

bereanbeacon.org/history/history/the_waldenses_and_valleys.pdf

bereanbeacon.org/history/persecution/ch4.pdf

Also check up on works done by Peter Allix. The Cathars I read about in a book titled Christ and Antichrist, Cassels, 1846.

 

[csmatyi]

Read his post again," I do not believe, or I believe," with no true authority to turn to just in case “I” am not right in my opinion.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, they have no real authority to turn to. As a Catholic we do have the Authority of the Pope and the teaching Magisterium of the Church to guide us. Granted some Catholics do not follow the teaching authority of the Catholic Church but the TRUTH is there if we want to see it. People are “free” to do their own thing, (as we have seen in many Heresies of the past, also in the protestant reformation and now because of secularism,) if they so choose, they have a free will, but the Catholic Church is still there to return to, as it has been for 2,000 years still teaching the TRUTHS given by Jesus Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit. History has proven the Catholic Church is indestructible and Infallible, Jesus will be with HIS Church till the End of Time. Thank God for the Holy Eucharist where we can truly share in the Sacrifice of Our Lord.

To quote a few Catholic sources:

*"The divine institution of the threefold hierarchy cannot of course be derived from our text; in fact it cannot in anyway be proved directly from the New Testament; it is a Catholic dogma by virtue of the dogmatic tradition, i.e., in a later period of ecclesiastical history the general belief in the divine institutions of the episcopate, presbyteriate, and diaconate can be verified and thence followed on through the centuries. But the dogmatic truth cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strict historical testimony." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 334). *

*“Some parts of the governmental system of the Catholic Church are of divine origin; and many of them are human institutions.” (Externals of the Catholic Church, p. 19). *

Catholic sources also state that if tradition contradicts tradition, then tradition is invalid. This has happened many times, for example when Boniface VIII in 1308 declared that all must be subjected to the pope in order to have salvation, but this changed in 1965 when Vatican II declared that salvation is open to the Orthodox who deny the pope.

We have seen right here on Catholic Answers forum that Catholic tradition and therefore Catholicism is invalid.

 

[csmatyi]

First of all, it is not “Roman” doctrine, it is Catholic doctrine. Secondly, yes, dissent is possible but if one is in dissent then their faith is no longer Catholic, as I said above. Thirdly, the Catechism is not a “substitute” for the Bible. The Catechism is loaded with Scriptural references so the Catholic can “look it up and see for themselves” that nothing in the Catechism was made up out of thin air.

But, my dear friend, it shows that you have been Catholic for less than a year, since Catholics don’t beleive all of their doctrine so uniformly. This you shall see most painfully clearly as you progress within the Catholic church. I had been Catholic for 10 years, and I found the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Solus Christus blatantly obvious…

*The duty of the Pope is to ensure that the teachings of the Church are always and everywhere in line with the teachings of the Apostles. If the Pope declares that the best pizza is found in a little restaurant in Sicily, I am not bound to agree with him or face excommunication. *

This is incorrect. It had already been ensured before time when God produced for us the Revelation, that is, His holy Word, the Bible.

*But that’s not the reasoning behind Papal Infallibility. It’s based on Jesus’ promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. *

1. So you can be sure of your salvation? Or does this mean that bad popes can be sure of their salvation?
2. This regards only salvation, not doctrinal safety. Which is always open to re-interpretation. Think about it. If Catholic dogma declares a given viewpoint on some matter, then if it is erroneous, then the whole entire Catholic church is locked onto a path which will push itself away from Scriptural truth and Christ. Think about it, do you really want to take such a dare?? I think that it is because of such a mentality, that the RCC has drifted far away from Scriptural truth after 1500 years.

I submit that the reasoning for Unam Sanctam had nothing to do with the Eastern Church and was not addressed to them at all. When one reads 14th century Papal Bulls one must consider the time in history in which it was written, and the intended audience. Having been Catholic for less than a year now I pray that someone with more information regarding Papal Bulls will speak up here, but it is my understanding that those are not infallible, ex cathedra statements.

Boniface VIII decalred that this is a definition that one must be subject to the pope for salvation. But anyway, I can quote you pope Leo X:

*“Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.” (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Edidit Centro di Documentazione, Instituto per Science Religiose, Herder, Bologna, 1962, no. 40, pp. 619, 620.) *

The Holy Spirit is not tied to a single person, I’m sorry you’ve been misled to believe the Church teaches that.

I meant that He is tied to a single person who can proclaim truth ex chatedra (this is purely a Catholic invention).

So you believe that there is more than one Truth and that’s it’s okey-dokey for the “Holy Spirit” to guide people into conflicting and contradictory doctrines, in spite of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 that we be one as He and the Father are one?

But why do Catholics disagree with each other so much? The unity described in Jhon 17 regards brotherly, Christian unity. Read it:

*That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. * (John 17:21-23)

Nowhere is it mentioned that this deals with doctrinal unity.

Martin Luther would disagree with you. Toward the end of his life, as he saw what resulted from everyone being free to have their own personal interpretation of Scripture, he expressed that he was afraid that “any milkmaid who could read” would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her “interpretation” of the Bible.

Let them do so, since this is basic human religious freedom. You can’t stop them. If they make bad arguments, then their denomination will soak up in time.

 

[csmatyi]

As for me, I completely surrender to Christ and His Catholic Church. I don’t believe that I am the “smartest” Christian who has ever lived. However, because of the flawed Protestant belief, which is “personal interpretation” many here do. Many Protestants belong to the religion of their own intellect, or should I say, “a slave’ or “victim” of their own intellect?

Jimmy B, just a note.

*And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. * (Rom 12:2)

Protestants do not rely on their own personal human judegement. The Roman Catholic church does, that is is why it strayed into error after 1500 years. Luther went so far as to exhort that the human intellect is a prostitute (Luther expressed himself quite vivdly from time to time). This means that one must be subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit who reveals all truth to us and reforms our thinking.

 

[csmatyi]

This is a common mistake that people make, and I have just read examples of it above in the thread. Some posters here stated that they were not Catholic because they were treated horribly by Catholics. Such thinking fails to distinguish between the Holy, Infallible, and Pure Bride of Christ and the fallible members which are joined to her. Christ made no promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against individuals, especially those that leave the protection of the Church. He did not ever guarantee that any one person would not fall from grace. These promises were made to the Church, and not to individuals. Individuals can partake of the precious promises to the extent that they are joined with the Church.

I don’t think you quite understood:

Salvation is not by church membership, but by faith in Christ: if you beleive in your heart and proclaim with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, then you shall be saved. It’s as easy as that.

Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. (1Peter 1:5)

This last verse was adressed by Peter to the people in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. This means that one cannot fall away from grace. But actually, think about what you just said: are you certain that you’ve thought it through well enough? What does the term mean that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church? Church writings? Church rituals? Church buildings? Can church buildings be damned and thus the gates of hell shall prevail against them?

No, the term refers to the body of beleivers who make up what is called “the church”, and referes to people, who have consciences, morals, commit actions and deeds, have relationships with God, etc… This means that the church as the invisible body of beleivers will not perish into hell. If you say that you cannot fall out of grace you are totally contradicting Scripture here.

 

[csmatyi]

Okey dokey. I think there are a lot more fragmentations, but the real question is, why ARE there all these “miscellaneous fragmented ecclesioles”? Was this Christ’s intention?



Pentecostals and charismatics which I don’t really count as Protestants. byw we are all human so all of our opinions differ. Jesus made room for that…

But we are not talking about individual confessions of faith. when we speak of the Apostolic faith, it is the faith that all the apostles, together, believed, confessed, and taught. It is not that each of us redefines the faith, but we embrace that which was passed on to us. I realize that individuals are in process, and I have gone through several faith confessions myself. It is only unity with the Apostolic Teaching that prevents fragmentation.

No. When it all comes down to beleiving inside what you really beleive (and by which you shall be personally judges on judgement day) then this means your own personal faith, assent or dissent and the fruits thereof will count.

Those who do not embrace the Apostolic faith that was preserved and handed down are just not Catholic. They may think they are, and call themselves that, but are not. Personally, I think most American Catholics are Protestant, and don’t realize it. I say this because they think there is such a thing as “cafeteria” faith, where they can pick and choose the parts they want to embrace. It is all or nothing, and those that don’t embrace the whole, have left the faith.

What is faith? What is apostolic? You simply just can’t come at me ans day “thus sayeht the pope… so there!” You have to give me logical arguments. Jesus didn’t want us to shut out our thinking processes when we think about theological questions.

All or nothing? Then Catholics don’t exist, because they all think differently.