If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
triuneunity: have you ever attended a Catholic Mass? Reading something once by Dr.Scott Hann about the Mass and how it is found in and relates to the book of Revelation, it was very interesting . When I reviewed Rev. again I could see he was right ! The Catholic Mass was in the Bible.If anyone wants the info. I am sure he has a web site with it on it.
I have no problem with the liturgy, celtic. Our Church uses almost the exact same form; and yes, the liturgy is a very awesome parellell with the feast of the Lamb in Revelation; my view of the falsity of the Mass is not the liturgy, but the doctrine behind the Mass itself; and yes, I’ve been to Mass many, many times. My wife was Catholic when we were married (we were married in the Catholic Church).
 
Actually, I would point to a lack of biblical statements that show apostolic authority was granted on those appointed by the apostles for ministry. Authority within the churches the elders were appointed to is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the charism of the apostles as it pertains to divine witness.

In other words, how many bishops today give new revelation or raise dead people to life?
Time for a parable excerpt:

A wise man flips the script when he cannot answer the question.

btw: I have seen some Bishops do some pretty amazing things that invoke the power of Jesus Christ.

New question: Are you curious about Catholicism though it’s not your preference?
 
Time for a parable excerpt:

A wise man flips the script when he cannot answer the question.

btw: I have seen some Bishops do some pretty amazing things that invoke the power of Jesus Christ.

New question: Are you curious about Catholicism though it’s not your preference?
No need to be snide, BLUE. I know that may be a virtue in apologetics circles, but it doesn’t impress.

Why would I need to show verses to prove a negative? It’s the equivalent of asking me to show you a verse that says the apostle Paul was not a pickle.
 
Time for a parable excerpt:

A wise man flips the script when he cannot answer the question.

btw: I have seen some Bishops do some pretty amazing things that invoke the power of Jesus Christ.

New question: Are you curious about Catholicism though it’s not your preference?
I digress I am guilty of being snide. Everyone gets that way over religion and politics. I always say to not put religion over Christianity. So you are right I should not be snide. In proving a negative-my frustration is that other religions always say their beliefs are backed up by scripture but Catholicism is not. Here we have Catholics backing their beliefs up with scripture and I asked you to do the same. But noone is holding a gun to your head to be Catholic or to prove anything. When I asked you for scripture it was in relation to all of your posts but I can’t quote them all without a ridiculous copy and paste frenzy. Lack of communication on my part. But hey, you have the right to believe whatever you like as I do as well. We all love the same God, guess we have different ways of going about it. I really would like to know, not that its any of my business, but you are here; so, if you have an interest/curiosity in Catholicism, and if so why? Not being snide, critical, sarcastic, no premptive strike for conversion, not wasting time defending my faith either. It’s a genuine question. I think you know why I am asking it too. It’s pretty obvious.
 
I am not Catholic because of:
  1. The Doctrine of the Mass
  2. The Invocation of the Saints
  3. The Papacy
  4. Most importantly; the RC doctrine of justification; and all false teaching that springs from it (indulgences, purgatory, et al).
Hey, TriuneUnity -
On another thread (Is the Catholic Church a Cult), you posted that you believed in the Communion of Saints except for prayers for the dead.

The Communion of Saints is a doctine that we are all part of the Body of Christ. One part cannot tell the other, “I have no need of you”. In fact, St. Paul tells us that we are more radically joined in Christ than the finger is to the hand. If you would ask somebody to pray for you, why, then, do you reject the invocation of the Saints? It just doesn’t make sense. They are just as alive in Christ - even moreso - than we are.

Just what, in your opinion - is the Communion of Saints?
I would like to know where this developed and by whom. The early Church Fathers adhere to the definition I gave you.
 
The reason I am not Roman Catholic (although I hope I am part of the Catholic [Universal] Church) is because I am Anglican. Now, why am I Anglican? Here are some reasons:
  1. Eucharist: This was what appealed to me at first. I remember when I attended an Anglican Church the first time and received Communion. Only later did I learn of the Real Presence and the fact that Anglican Holy Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper or Mass or w/e you choose to name it) can trace its roots back to some of the earliest writings on Church liturgy.
  2. History: The Anglican Communion can trace Apostolic Succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury (the first Archbishop of Canterbury elevated by Pope Gregory the Great). What other group can claim that?
  3. Foundational Theology: We have the Apostles and Nicene Creed (connects us to the Early Church), the XXXIX Articles of Religion, the Anglican Catechism and many great theologians (Cramner, Hooker, etc.), but we have no single theological founder.
  4. The Sacraments: Two ‘major’ Sacraments (Baptism and Holy Eucharist) and five ‘minor’ ones (Confirmation, Reconciliation of a Penitent, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick). These Sacraments can be traced back to Scripture and the Early Church.
  5. Via Media: We are not Protestant. We recognize the contributions of Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism/Reformed theology.
I am not Anti-Roman Catholic, but Pro-Anglican. It should be noted that the Anglican Communion recognizes Roman Catholic Holy Orders as valid.
 
The reason I am not Roman Catholic (although I hope I am part of the Catholic [Universal] Church) is because I am Anglican. Now, why am I Anglican? Here are some reasons:
  1. Eucharist: This was what appealed to me at first. I remember when I attended an Anglican Church the first time and received Communion. Only later did I learn of the Real Presence and the fact that Anglican Holy Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper or Mass or w/e you choose to name it) can trace its roots back to some of the earliest writings on Church liturgy.
  2. History: The Anglican Communion can trace Apostolic Succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury (the first Archbishop of Canterbury elevated by Pope Gregory the Great). What other group can claim that?
  3. Foundational Theology: We have the Apostles and Nicene Creed (connects us to the Early Church), the XXXIX Articles of Religion, the Anglican Catechism and many great theologians (Cramner, Hooker, etc.), but we have no single theological founder.
  4. The Sacraments: Two ‘major’ Sacraments (Baptism and Holy Eucharist) and five ‘minor’ ones (Confirmation, Reconciliation of a Penitent, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick). These Sacraments can be traced back to Scripture and the Early Church.
  5. Via Media: We are not Protestant. We recognize the contributions of Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism/Reformed theology.
I am not Anti-Roman Catholic, but Pro-Anglican. It should be noted that the Anglican Communion recognizes Roman Catholic Holy Orders as valid.
Hi, nsper7 -
The Catholic Church can trace its Apostolic Succession all the way back to the Apostles themselves.

We have the Eucharist as we accept Transubstantiation from Jesus himself and from the earliest believers. The Anglican Church believes in Consubstantiation. Jesus said, "This IS my body", not, "This is my body with bread".

And, you are a Protestant. In fact, you belong to one of the first Protestant denominations, which came along when Henry VIII broke from the Catholic church because the Pope would not allow him to divorce and remarry.

Also, the Anglican church doesn’t have Apostolic Succession and, therefore doesn’t have valid Holy Orders.


**Ultimately, this means that, no, you aren’t part of the Catholic Church - although I wish you were! 😉 **
 
The Catholic Church can trace its Apostolic Succession all the way back to the Apostles themselves
So does the Anglican Communion. After all, we trace AS back to St. Augustine of Canterbury. Of course, the Apostolic Succession up to St. Augustine of Canterbury can be traced back to the Apostles.
We have the Eucharist as we accept Transubstantiation from Jesus himself and from the earliest believers. The Anglican Church believes in Consubstantiation. Jesus said, “This IS my body”, not, “This is my body with bread”.
I recognize that Transubstantiation may be correct. Personally, I like the Eastern Orthodox way of viewing at as a Divine Mystery and leaving it at that.
And, you are a Protestant. In fact, you belong to one of the first Protestant denominations, which came along when Henry VIII broke from the Catholic church because the Pope would not allow him to divorce and remarry.
Yes, King Henry VIII was the the first to break from Rome, but remember that, later, under Queen Mary, the Church of England returned to communion with Rome. It was under Queen Elizabeth that the CoE made its final break with Rome and the ‘via media’ doctrine of Anglicanism (and, in general, the modern form of Anglicanism) was developed.
Also, the Anglican church doesn’t have Apostolic Succession and, therefore doesn’t have valid Holy Orders.
This is according to the Roman Catholic Church, which is quite biased on this matter.
Ultimately, this means that, no, you aren’t part of the Catholic Church - although I wish you were!
Remember, there is the Roman Catholic Church, which is a Rite (I won’t say denomination). The Catholic Church is the Universal Church (Catholic=Universal) of which we speak when we recite the Nicene Creed: We believe in Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

All Christians are Catholic, but not all Christians are Roman Catholic.
 
So does the Anglican Communion. After all, we trace AS back to St. Augustine of Canterbury. Of course, the Apostolic Succession up to St. Augustine of Canterbury can be traced back to the Apostles.

I recognize that Transubstantiation may be correct. Personally, I like the Eastern Orthodox way of viewing at as a Divine Mystery and leaving it at that.

Yes, King Henry VIII was the the first to break from Rome, but remember that, later, under Queen Mary, the Church of England returned to communion with Rome. It was under Queen Elizabeth that the CoE made its final break with Rome and the ‘via media’ doctrine of Anglicanism (and, in general, the modern form of Anglicanism) was developed.

This is according to the Roman Catholic Church, which is quite biased on this matter.

Remember, there is the Roman Catholic Church, which is a Rite (I won’t say denomination). The Catholic Church is the Universal Church (Catholic=Universal) of which we speak when we recite the Nicene Creed: We believe in Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

All Christians are Catholic, but not all Christians are Roman Catholic.
Wrong - all Christians are not Catholic. Protestants are separated Christians who, because of one misinterpretation or another or due to spiritual pride refuse to unite with the ONLY Church established by Jesus Christ.

Jesus established ONE Church, ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins, ONE faith - not thousands.

In John 17, he prayed passionately for UNITY, which has been denied due to the spiritual pride of the Protestant revolt.

You cannot have Apostolic Succession unless you belong to this Church - THE Church because your church fathers broke away from it. Either one has it and the other doesn’t or vice versa. You can’t have it BOTH ways.
 
Wrong - all Christians are not Catholic. Protestants are separated Christians who, because of one misinterpretation or another or due to spiritual pride refuse to unite with the ONLY Church established by Jesus Christ.

Jesus established ONE Church, ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins, ONE faith - not thousands.

In John 17, he prayed passionately for UNITY, which has been denied due to the spiritual pride of the Protestant revolt.

**You cannot **have Apostolic Succession unless you belong to this Church - THE Church because your church fathers broke away from it. Either one has it and the other doesn’t or vice versa. You can’t have it BOTH ways.
I agree with you and the Nicene Creed: there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (OHCAC), but it is not limited to one rite/tradition/denomination/etc. The Roman Catholic Church is perhaps an expression of the OHCAC and, as I said, the Anglican Communion recognizes the validity of Roman Catholic Holy Orders. Since Catholic=Universal, ALL Christians are a part of the Catholic Church, but not all Christians are part of the Latin Rite/Roman Catholicism. The Anglican Communion is not the OHCAC, but is, hopefully, another expression of it (the Anglo Rite perhaps).

And, according to the Anglican Communion, Anglicans do have Apostolic Succession (as do Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and some other rites/denominations that are connected to the AC, RC or EO). Yes, Roman Catholic doctrine denies the validity of Anglican Holy Orders and our Apostolic Succession, but then you are into a discussion of opinion (the RCC does not recognize Anglican Holy Orders and Anglicans do).

Two signs of Anglican respect for Roman Catholicism:
  1. Roman Catholics who join the Anglican Communion are not Confirmed (there is no such as re-Confirmation, just as there is no such thing as re-Baptism), they are Received into the Anglican Communion. Since we recognize Roman Catholic Holy Orders, this means that Roman Catholic Confirmations are valid as well.
  2. Although there is an Anglican presence in Rome (under the auspices of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe, a part of Province II of the Episcopal Church of the United States), there is no Anglican Bishop of Rome since the ordination of the Pope as Bishop of Rome is valid.
 
I digress I am guilty of being snide. Everyone gets that way over religion and politics. I always say to not put religion over Christianity. So you are right I should not be snide. In proving a negative-my frustration is that other religions always say their beliefs are backed up by scripture but Catholicism is not. Here we have Catholics backing their beliefs up with scripture and I asked you to do the same. But noone is holding a gun to your head to be Catholic or to prove anything. When I asked you for scripture it was in relation to all of your posts but I can’t quote them all without a ridiculous copy and paste frenzy. Lack of communication on my part. But hey, you have the right to believe whatever you like as I do as well. We all love the same God, guess we have different ways of going about it. I really would like to know, not that its any of my business, but you are here; so, if you have an interest/curiosity in Catholicism, and if so why? Not being snide, critical, sarcastic, no premptive strike for conversion, not wasting time defending my faith either. It’s a genuine question. I think you know why I am asking it too. It’s pretty obvious.
Well… Half of my family is Catholic (I can’t say the majority of them are practicing Catholics, unfortunately). There is somewhat of a more mutual understanding between Catholics and Lutherans on many issues. When I come here, I do not look at it any differently than if I were to go to a Presbyterian forum or a Baptist forum. I view it as a Christian forum, but lacking in many areas. So it’s always interesting to see other sides in a discussion and to interject the orthodox Lutheran opinion.

By the way, while I do ask Catholics to point to Scripture to back up their beliefs, I do not do so expecting not to be able to back up mine. In the case of the discussion on apostolic succession…there isn’t a verse I can point to that says apostolic authority wasnt passed to ordained presbyters… because if there was no apostolic authority passed on the Bible is not going to say that it wasn’t. It will not say that it was, which is my argument vis a vie the Catholic view.
 
Hey, TriuneUnity -
On another thread (Is the Catholic Church a Cult), you posted that you believed in the Communion of Saints except for prayers for the dead.

The Communion of Saints is a doctine that we are all part of the Body of Christ. One part cannot tell the other, “I have no need of you”. In fact, St. Paul tells us that we are more radically joined in Christ than the finger is to the hand. If you would ask somebody to pray for you, why, then, do you reject the invocation of the Saints? It just doesn’t make sense. They are just as alive in Christ - even moreso - than we are.

Just what, in your opinion - is the Communion of Saints?
I would like to know where this developed and by whom. The early Church Fathers adhere to the definition I gave you.
To say that we are in communion with the Church Triumphant is not to affirm that we can pray to or for them. The dead are still the dead and while they certainly pray for the Church Militant, they are neither omniscient or omnipresent as these are incommunicable attributes of the divine.
 
I agree with you and the Nicene Creed: there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (OHCAC), but it is not limited to one rite/tradition/denomination/etc. The Roman Catholic Church is perhaps an expression of the OHCAC and, as I said, the Anglican Communion recognizes the validity of Roman Catholic Holy Orders. Since Catholic=Universal, ALL Christians are a part of the Catholic Church, but not all Christians are part of the Latin Rite/Roman Catholicism. The Anglican Communion is not the OHCAC, but is, hopefully, another expression of it (the Anglo Rite perhaps).

And, according to the Anglican Communion, Anglicans do have Apostolic Succession (as do Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and some other rites/denominations that are connected to the AC, RC or EO). Yes, Roman Catholic doctrine denies the validity of Anglican Holy Orders and our Apostolic Succession, but then you are into a discussion of opinion (the RCC does not recognize Anglican Holy Orders and Anglicans do).

Two signs of Anglican respect for Roman Catholicism:
  1. Roman Catholics who join the Anglican Communion are not Confirmed (there is no such as re-Confirmation, just as there is no such thing as re-Baptism), they are Received into the Anglican Communion. Since we recognize Roman Catholic Holy Orders, this means that Roman Catholic Confirmations are valid as well.
  2. Although there is an Anglican presence in Rome (under the auspices of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe, a part of Province II of the Episcopal Church of the United States), there is no Anglican Bishop of Rome since the ordination of the Pope as Bishop of Rome is valid.
Again - the Anglican Church - and every other Protestant denomination is not and cannot be part of the Catholic Church. That is tantamount to saying that the United States is still part of England - even though we broke away.

As for Apostolic Succession - again, I’m sorry, but your church doesn’t have it. This is a matter of Authority, which, again - your church separated itself from.

I’m not sayig this to be unfair or cruel - it’s just a matter of fact. You can’t quit something and still be a part of it.
 
Again - the Anglican Church - and every other Protestant denomination is not and cannot be part of the Catholic Church. That is tantamount to saying that the United States is still part of England - even though we broke away.

As for Apostolic Succession - again, I’m sorry, but your church doesn’t have it. This is a matter of Authority, which, again - your church separated itself from.

I’m not sayig this to be unfair or cruel - it’s just a matter of fact. You can’t quit something and still be a part of it.
Hello elvisman,

Great analogy, great comments, all true, short and to the point. Also, great sigiture, which, sort of says it all, doesn’t is?

"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ" - St. Jerome

I am paraphrasing St. Jerome, here often, when and write*, *

“Ignorance of Catholicism is ignorance of Bible”
.

The Bible is a Catholic Book and Holy Scripture, Holy Christian History and Holy Christian Tradition, all point to the one true, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Jesus Christ.

And more specifically, The Roman Catholic Church, the only Christian Religion which embraces, accepts and does not reject the Office of the Pope and Supremacy of the Pope, an unbroken succession, guided by the Holy Spirit, going all the way back to Saint Peter and Jesus Christ Himself.

The Office of the Pope; where Jesus Christ, our Lord, laid His hands on St. Peter and then St. Peter laid his hands on the Bishops who would become Pope and so on and so on on, for 2000 plus years, passing down the Holy Spirit, which is ultimately passed down, by Catholic Bishops to every Confirmed Catholic.

Protestants, who say that they read and understand the Bible, apparently missed the part, where the Holy Spirit was passed down.

Awesome post!.

Peace
 
**If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 3 **

Why aren’t you Catholic? Tell the truth.

Note:


If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic -1?”

And

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

Were closed because, they both exceeded the maximum number of posts.

Please, continue your remarks on this topic, here.
Lots of reasons! Too many to list really, but maily because I don’t believe that the Catholic church of 2008 is the Church that Christ founded. I believe that many Catholics are included in the Church Christ founded along with many others from other denominations.
 
Lots of reasons! Too many to list really, but maily because I don’t believe that the Catholic church of 2008 is the Church that Christ founded. I believe that many Catholics are included in the Church Christ founded along with many others from other denominations.
If this is true of what you say, where all the other denominations in history for the first 1100 years of Christianity in the world. Where is the church Jesus built on Peter today? Where is the church that Jesus promised he “will never leave” today? Where is the church that is “offering a pure sacrifice from the rising of the sun to it setting” Today? There is only one answer to these questions; in the Roman Catholic church. All other denominations are under the umbrella of the Catholic church, because they took with them some “Truths of the deposit of faith” from the Catholic church. These are the different similarities from different denominations that may mirror some Cathoilc doctrines, except without validity, and or apostolic succession. The body of Jesus Christ cannot be divided. Scripture states there is only One faith, One body, One Lord, One baptism, and One Church.

Peace.
 
If this is true of what you say, where all the other denominations in history for the first 1100 years of Christianity in the world. Where is the church Jesus built on Peter today? Where is the church that Jesus promised he “will never leave” today? Where is the church that is “offering a pure sacrifice from the rising of the sun to it setting” Today? There is only one answer to these questions; in the Roman Catholic church. All other denominations are under the umbrella of the Catholic church, because they took with them some “Truths of the deposit of faith” from the Catholic church. These are the different similarities from different denominations that may mirror some Cathoilc doctrines, except without validity, and or apostolic succession. The body of Jesus Christ cannot be divided. Scripture states there is only One faith, One body, One Lord, One baptism, and One Church.

Peace.
Since exiting from the RCC I have come to see clearly that it is only the RCC making these claims about itself. It is the RCC tracing its roots back to the Apostles. I can trace myself back to Fort Knox because I was there once about 14 years ago but what does it ultimately mean? Virtually nothing. All Christians in one way or another can trace their roots back to the Apostles and to Christ.
 
Since exiting from the RCC I have come to see clearly that it is only the RCC making these claims about itself. It is the RCC tracing its roots back to the Apostles. I can trace myself back to Fort Knox because I was there once about 14 years ago but what does it ultimately mean? Virtually nothing. All Christians in one way or another can trace their roots back to the Apostles and to Christ.
To be more precise- the Catholic Church PROCLAIMS herself as the One True Church! We don’t just claim her to be our one true Church anymore because she’s been the “US” since the very beginning of Christianity.

How sad. You can only be content on tracing yourself back to your roots. No more you can claim to be part of her since you already separated yourself from her- the Catholic Church.😛
 
Apostasy

(apo, from, and stasis, station, standing, or position).

The word itself in its etymological sense, signifies the desertion of a post, the giving up of a state of life; he who voluntarily embraces a definite state of life cannot leave it, therefore, without becoming an apostate.

More here
Catechism of the Catholic Church

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
Unfortunately, Apostasy isn’t anything new, read John 6:66

(notice - “666”)
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Moreover, some today have left the Catholic Church for the same reason, a disbelief in the Holy Eucharist;
John 6:52-72

52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
71 He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top