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

[Memaw]

I do not believe that the RCC today is the one true Church that Jesus founded. I do however believe that the RCC shares in the Body of Christ with many others. I do not believe in the ultimate authority of the Bishop of Rome. I do not believe many of the doctrines concerning Mary and i do not believe that many other practices of the RCC are condoned or sanctioned if you will by Scripture. i believe that Jesus came to save all of us if we would be so heralded to follow him as our Savior. This does not include the works and conduct obeying of the RCC. Having said this, I believe that many Catholics do have a deep rich faith in our Lord but i believe that many other non-RC’s do as well.

Here we go again, I,I,I, everything is up to I. Are You the authority of all???

 

[guanophore]

One needs be mindful of the canons of logic,
avoiding “circular reasoning.”

[One seeks to prove “A” - while using "A "as part of the proof.
Taking what is to be proved - and using same, as part of the ‘proof.’]

I am not called upon, by the exegencies of logic, to prove a negative, e.g. ----->
“God does not exist.”
“The RCC is not the true faith.”

The demand for proof - of a given assertion - is the reality that pertains…
in the chilly realms of logic.

The one doing the asserting ------> e.g. -God exists] is called upon to defend the assertion.
Not the other way round. I am not required, by the canons of logic, to prove that God does not exist.
[How could I prove that a purple unicorn does not ‘exist.’] reen12

Gosh, I HOPE NOT! My unicorn would be VERY disappointed. http://www.esatclear.ie/~cammalot/purple-unicorn.gif

 

[NotWorthy]

Here we go again, I,I,I, everything is up to I. Are You the authority of all???

Perhaps he uses the term “I” because he doesn’t want to speak for anyone else?

Sometimes “I” isn’t all about “me”.

 

[Memaw]

Perhaps he uses the term “I” because he doesn’t want to speak for anyone else?

Sometimes “I” isn’t all about “me”.

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.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Fine, yes, correct, there are very many different kinds of groups within Protestantism. But still you defend the unity of Catholic teaching in vain. The Catholic catechism itself states that assent of intellect and will is required of the faithful Catholic to beleive in Roman doctrine. Therefore, dissent is possible. Why, Catholics (in practise) substitute the Bible with what their catechism states or what the pope says on faith and morals, but even the interpretation is open to debate (the good old Protestant way, right?)!

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.

Don’t you sense a sort of double standard here? And we still haven’t gotten to the question: regarrding a certain theological question, why does the pope have to be the boss in what is correct? Why not my aunt Sue? She’s a nice, smart person and has a lot of insight, you know.

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.

It is simply a logical fallacy to state that Roman Catholic reasoning is correct regarding a certain theological question because “the pope made an infallible statement”, because there is no logical connection between the two statements. It’s the same as saying the reason I bought my child some candy today is because it rained yesterday.

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.

The popes have been shown to contradict one another anyway: see pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: all must be subject to the pope in order to attain salvation versus Vatican II which states that salvation is open to the Orthodox church which denies the supremacy of the Roman pope.

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.

You of course might answer: well, because the pope is guided by the Holy Spirit when he speaks on matters of faith and morals. This is a heresy which emerged early in Christianity called Montanism, which says the Holy Spirit is tied to a single person. You cannot tie the Holy Spirit to a single person or to a single office.

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

You see, it’s a no go for you, therefore we must let everybody be free to interpret Scripture the way they see fit and not bind them to other people’s fallible opinion. It’s the only safest way, and in the end the fruits of our decisions and logic will decide who was correct in the first place.

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?

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.

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

That’s correct. He’s speaking only for himself. If the post said, “We Believe”, than he is being authoritative. When he says, “I believe”, he is simply being honest, IMO.

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.

I agree with that 100%. But God gives us all Free Will, which means the poster can honestly state what he thinks.

 

[awantz]

55 pages on the divisiveness of Christians. Sad! Catholic, Protestant, whatever! We are all Christians and should concentrate on what we have in common, not what divides us. For us who make it to Heaven, we may be surprised who is there with us and who isn’t. There even may be some non-Christians next to us.

C’mon folks! :banghead:

AMEN

 

[celticcrusader]

with everything that has been told and rehashed and rehashed and rehashed I think everyone is trying to see this topic go to the 1000 mark you are close.

 

[Jimmy_B]

… I spent 4 years in college, 3 in seminary, and more in post-graduate work and…

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.

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.

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?

Your Thoughts?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Your Thoughts?

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.

 

[Jimmy_B]

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.

Hello buddy

What are you talking about? You know I like you :console:

I just…disagree with you.

If there were not people like you here, there wouldn’t be people like me here…

Stop fighting it and come over to our side. I think you could do a great job, defending Catholicism.

Peace

 

[guanophore]

John 6 means a great deal to me - it’s one of the most eucharistic passages of the entire Gospel.

Jesus told the disciples to have the crowd “recline” (in Greek) - the posture of a feast. He also instructed that they give them something to eat.

This is interesting. I was just dialoging with an evangelical on another thread who said that Jn. 6 has nothing to do with Eucharist. How do you suppose it happens that the two of you are so divergent in your views?

Why are you on CAF, O.S? You seem content with your faith, and are not looking for “catholic answers”.

 

[O.S.Luke]

How do you suppose it happens that the two of you are so divergent in your views?

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

Why are you on CAF, O.S? You seem content with your faith, and are not looking for “catholic answers”.

I can take a hint. Pax vobiscum.

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

What are you talking about? You know I like you

Kindly don’t patronize me. You seem to delight in denigrating my faith. Note that I have not denigrated yours.

I will take my leave of you, Jimmy. You give Catholics and a wonderful Church a bad name, in my opinion.

O+

 

[guanophore]

If it is true that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church, does this not mean that you can have eternal assurance of salvation (one of the common teachings of all Protestants)? Am I not correct?

If the gates of hell shall not prevail aganist the church, and this church is the visible, earthly institute of the Roman church, does this then mean that you can then escape all possible sorts of punishment in hell simply by just joining Rome? And then you can live any kind of immoral life you want, because you can always chime in yourself: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against me…” You know, all those unfaithful priests, bishops, and lay people?..

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.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Kindly don’t patronize me. You seem to delight in denigrating my faith. Note that I have not denigrated yours.

I will take my leave of you, Jimmy. You give Catholics and a wonderful Church a bad name, in my opinion.

O+

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

 

[guanophore]

we have several major Protestant denominations:

Calvinist
Lutheran
Baptist
Methodist
Anglican
Presbyterian
Congregationalist

These most probably make up around 99% of all Protestantism.

The rest of the 40000 could simply be considered as miscellaneous fragmented ecclesioles.

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?

But the big joke is that these religious groups were most probably listed as different denominations because they all each have a seperate confession of faith, no two group’s is the same.

But this raises a very good question: if a seperate denomination is formed once there is a change in the confession of faith, then this would mean that every single man is his own denomination. Why? Because the thought processes and thought patterns of every single person is different from the next person. Get it? My own special personal confession of faith is different from that of my pastor’s, different from that of my friends’, etc… in a sense we are all different microdenominations at a personal level.

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.

Catholic unity? That’s just a smokescreen!

Who’s the really fragmented one?

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.

 

[SIA]

Here we go again, I,I,I, everything is up to I. Are You the authority of all???

I have a conscience

I can read Scripture.

I can pray to God

I can think for myself

I can ask for forgiveness

 

[thecoach]

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.

That seems to be Jimmy’s modus operandi

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps he uses the term “I” because he doesn’t want to speak for anyone else?

Sometimes “I” isn’t all about “me”.

And I note the OP is a personal question.