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

[Claire_from_DE]

The real reason I cannot be Catholic is because of a closed Eucharist to baptized Christians. I do know all of the reasons - and I’ve never been able to reconcile them theologically, particularly with those who embrace the Real Presence.

O+

In talking to protestant friends, they don’t believe what catholics do about the eucharist. My friends believe that Jesus is present in the gathering and in the act of communion and some believe that Jesus is in some way within the bread and wine during the service. But they don’t believe that what appears to be only bread is actually, really, Jesus’ own flesh and continues to be so even after the communion service is over. But Catholics believe this quite literally and don’t even let their children receive communion until they know who Jesus is and that this is Jesus.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

In talking to protestant friends, they don’t believe what catholics do about the eucharist. My friends believe that Jesus is present in the gathering and in the act of communion and some believe that Jesus is in some way within the bread and wine during the service. But they don’t believe that what appears to be only bread is actually, really, Jesus’ own flesh and continues to be so even after the communion service is over. But Catholics believe this quite literally and don’t even let their children receive communion until they know who Jesus is and that this is Jesus.

And then Catholics go ahead and treat it as if it is Jesus. We have Adoration, etc. etc.

 

[O.S.Luke]

In talking to protestant friends, they don’t believe what catholics do about the eucharist. My friends believe that Jesus is present in the gathering and in the act of communion and some believe that Jesus is in some way within the bread and wine during the service. But they don’t believe that what appears to be only bread is actually, really, Jesus’ own flesh and continues to be so even after the communion service is over. But Catholics believe this quite literally and don’t even let their children receive communion until they know who Jesus is and that this is Jesus.

Some Protestants (and their church/denomination) do believe in the Real Presence, Claire.

 

[O.S.Luke]

But Catholics believe this quite literally and don’t even let their children receive communion until they know who Jesus is and that this is Jesus.

Eastern Orthodox believe this as well… but commune their infants.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Eastern Orthodox believe this as well… but commune their infants.

Well, I know that, just didn’t want to complicate things. Also the eastern rites of the catholic church do this. But I believe they discontinue this at about the age they think children capable of sin and of reasoning and then do catechesis before the children can again receive.

 

[mozart-250]

Probably the same reason I am not Baptist or Congregationalist or Episcopalean or Presbyterian or …

My community (well the next door town actually) has about 10-15 churches in it. Since I am not omnipresent, I can only be in one church at a time.

Just because I am not in the remaining churches does not mean that I believe that they are necessarily bad or that I have to have a reason for not being in it.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Some Protestants (and their church/denomination) do believe in the Real Presence, Claire.

My friends are Presbyterian, Methodist, Brethern, Baptist, and non-denominational and none of them believe as Catholics do. There was an Episcopal woman in town who used to attend our daily mass and was permitted to receive communion by our pastor because she did believe in the real presence and there were no daily masses in her church and she had approached the priest and asked for communion. This was an unusual situation.

What denominations believe in the real presence as Catholics understand it?

 

[HannahLisa]

Can you name something “good” that is not in the Church?

People on fire for God can be found inside and outside the Church. You are probably going to say that they are inside the Church and just don’t know it, but I have trouble believing that if these people on fire for God believe things opposite to Catholic doctrine. I don’t think I really understood what you were trying to say when you said that.

Claire from DE: I don’t think there are any Protestant denominations whose beliefs include transubstantiation. Individual Protestants may believe in it, though. I know Episcopalians believe in the “Real Presence” but do not define how it happens; they just acknowledge that it does.

 

[O.S.Luke]

My friends are Presbyterian, Methodist, Brethern, Baptist, and non-denominational and none of them believe as Catholics do. There was an Episcopal woman in town who used to attend our daily mass and was permitted to receive communion by our pastor because she did believe in the real presence and there were no daily masses in her church and she had approached the priest and asked for communion. This was an unusual situation.

What denominations believe in the real presence as Catholics understand it?

There is a difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiation, if that’s what you mean. My faith believes that it is the body and blood of Christ. Period. No explanation. Per the epiclesis in the liturgy:

*Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here
and on these gifts of bread and wine.
*Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, **
that we may be for the world the body of Christ,
redeemed by his blood.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Well, I know that, just didn’t want to complicate things. Also the eastern rites of the catholic church do this. But I believe they discontinue this at about the age they think children capable of sin and of reasoning and then do catechesis before the children can again receive.

We are born in sin, Claire. And I’m not sure that reason has anything to do with “understanding” a mystery like a sacrament.

 

[Lepanto]

*I have yet to be convinced that everything the Church says is true (and I refuse to convert otherwise, as that would be false witness).
*I think the Church is, in some cases, much too legalistic.
*I see a LOT of God’s goodness/blessings/Holy Spirit outside the Catholic church.

HannahLisa, please note to your three points above:
*Don’t wait to be convinced about everything (or to understand everyhing), since this day will never come. No human being could do this. You ultimately must rely on the Christ-given authority of the Church.
*Laws provide structure and actually provide freedom. Could you imagine the chaos without clear-cut laws?
*The Church does not claim that there isn’t goodness outside of the Church. In fact, it recognizes goodness wherever it is found and admits as such.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

People on fire for God can be found inside and outside the Church. You are probably going to say that they are inside the Church and just don’t know it, but I have trouble believing that if these people on fire for God believe things opposite to Catholic doctrine. I don’t think I really understood what you were trying to say when you said that.

I meant to ask whther you could name one good thing that cannot be found in the Cahtolic Church that could be found elsewhere. So, I suppose you’re misunderstanding the question. But then, maybe I’m misunderstanding the original context…

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I’m not Catholic because I believe your church is off the rails theologically. From it’s views on justification to it’s various Marian dogmas.

Please be as specific as possible as to what “off the rails” means, or we won’t be able to help you understand what you don’t understand.

Thanks.

If you’ve been around here for any amount of time in sincere search for information the two topics you mentioned would be relatively clear as to what the Catholic rationale is for them. You’re free to not agree with the Catholic position, but you’ll have to be very specific about WHY we can agree to disagree about them.

If you can’t accept that there are basic reasons which we can agree to disagree about, then your time here is utterly wasted, other than as an exercise in simply annoying people you hate.

It is not Christian to not agree to disagree, or to try to force others to believe as you do without digging deeply into why (specifically and non-superficially) you disagree with them.

Thanks for being more specific and helpful in the future.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

CalmDownWisWins,

There are different Biblical interpretations. One side must be right, but I still don’t know which one that is. I’m not going to assume. If I believe that we are saved by faith alone (which I don’t), then I’m not going to think the Catholic church is right on that, now am I?

The question is not one of “biblical interpretation”. It is a question of authority. There is no “other side opposed to the Church (Catholic)” except in distiction TO the Church. The “theology” of the “non-Catholic Church” is a chaos of opinion. It is not “another side”, it is simply “non-Catholic”.

The “two sides” are thus: The Church and “everybody else”.

You can actually get a straight answer from the Church as to what She believes, stated sytematically and clearly.

There is a difference between intricate and legalistic. Examples of what I see as Catholic legalism would be the Sunday obligation, the excessive regulation of the marital bed, and holy days of obligation. This is from my viewpoint, from what I have seen on these forums and among my practicing Catholic friends. I also find it interesting that grace is, in a sense, limited to sacraments.

Firstly, grace is not limited to the sacraments. But the sacraments are the “most efficient” (a measure of being both maximally easy AND most effective) means of recieving grace.

There are easier ways, but they are less effective. There are also harder ways (more strict and “extreme”) but they are for those exceptional people who want to “take it to the next level”, as it were.

Secondly, obligations and regulations: Obligations exist to help us form good habits. Good habitual behavior strengthens us, as I’m sure you’ll admit. What do you actually, specifically, object to about the various obligations which the Church insists on?

As to the “marriage bed”: Please read “Theology of the Body” to more thoroughly understand what you think we think about such matters.

I DO NOT think that everything good is contained inside the Catholic church. I do not see how the Church can say that everything good is inside the church. I see how they could say that everything good comes from God, or something like that.

Protestants think of “church” as “denomination”. The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ. Please see the catechism as to what “Church” means.

“Church”
General ToC of the CCC

( usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9.htm )
( usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm )

Do please keep asking for clarification about things that are unclear to you. Thanks so much!

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Probably the same reason I am not Baptist or Congregationalist or Episcopalean or Presbyterian or …

My community (well the next door town actually) has about 10-15 churches in it. Since I am not omnipresent, I can only be in one church at a time.

Catholics believe that they are in the “place” which holds the fullest measure of the truth, not that they are in the most convenient “denomination” due to locale, or due to “all denominations being esssentially like all the rest”.

Why would you not search out and find the most “nutritious food” available?

Just because I am not in the remaining churches does not mean that I believe that they are necessarily bad or that I have to have a reason for not being in it.

The question really isn’t “Why you are not a Catholic?”, but rather,“Why are you where you are?”

This is ALSO a very VERY good question that (especially cradle-type) Catholics should ask themselves daily!

 

[Pwrlftr]

Please be as specific as possible as to what “off the rails” means, or we won’t be able to help you understand what you don’t understand.

Thanks.

By “off the rails” I mean I believe your church is clearly wrong on some important theological issues. I have no problem understanding what your church teaches but understaning it and accepting it are two different matters.

If you’ve been around here for any amount of time in sincere search for information the two topics you mentioned would be relatively clear as to what the Catholic rationale is for them. You’re free to not agree with the Catholic position, but you’ll have to be very specific about WHY we can agree to disagree about them.

I’m not sure if you are inviting me to state why I disagree with your church or if you are asking me about “WHY we can agree to disagree”.

If you can’t accept that there are basic reasons which we can agree to disagree about, then your time here is utterly wasted, other than as an exercise in simply annoying people you hate.

Every now and then I get as caught up in polemics, just as many others here do too. But most of the time it’s in reaction to a post or a section of a post like yours above.

I understand what your church teaches and reject it. I don’t hate you or anyone else on this board and for you to insinuate that I do is ridiculous.

It is not Christian to not agree to disagree…

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Your statement taken at face value would contradict much of what Jesus and the apostles did as recorded in the scripture.

If you mean we can still be charitable in our disagreement, I am with you 100%.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Kirchoff
Can you name something “good” that is not in the Church?

People on fire for God can be found inside and outside the Church. You are probably going to say that they are inside the Church and just don’t know it, but I have trouble believing that if these people on fire for God believe things opposite to Catholic doctrine. I don’t think I really understood what you were trying to say when you said that.

The “requirement” for “being in an absolute minimal communion with the Body of Christ (aka the Church [Catholic])” is to believe in the Holy Trinity. (Which is actually STILL too exclusive a definition because even the “invincibly ignorant”, and even the “vincibly ignorant”, are to SOME extent members of the Church simply by being created by God.)

Do you REALLY believe that all the people in ALL the various sects of non-Catholic Christianity who seem to be (and/or are) “on fire for God” believe all the same doctrines?

If someone can be “on fire” (truly) in one denomination and another person also be “on fire” (truly) in another denomination, all the while the two people DON’T believe the same doctrines, why does that NOT means that the one or the other denominations is “wrong”, and that one of those “on fire” people are not REALLY “on fire”?

It is possible to be “on fire” within any so-called “denomination” (which is really just a subset of the Body of Christ which is the Church [Catholic]) because each “denomination” has some measure of access, as it were, to the Holy Spirit.

The existence of an “on fire” baptist takes nothing away from the “on fire”-ness of methodist people, and prove nothing but that, because they DO have access to “fire”, they are in some measure within the Body of Christ!

What you object to is the myth that the Church (Catholic) AS A DENOMINATION claims exclusivity to access to the Holy Spirit. Since the Church is NOT a denomination but rather the Body of Christ itself, which contains all these self-so-called “denominations”, She has no problem with allowing those groups of Christian people what is by right and obviously theirs, which is what you call “fire”.

Claire from DE: I don’t think there are any Protestant denominations whose beliefs include transubstantiation. Individual Protestants may believe in it, though. I know Episcopalians believe in the “Real Presence” but do not define how it happens; they just acknowledge that it does.

There is no “defining” (ultimately) how a mystery happens. That’s why it’s a mystery. Those who truly believe in that mystery (and any mystery for that matter) understand WHY it is necessary, though, and don’t simply believe it because they’ve been told to believe it.

If one DOESN’T see the necessity for all our mysteries, then that’s a signal to study up a bit!

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Please be as specific as possible as to what “off the rails” means, or we won’t be able to help you understand what you don’t understand.

Thanks.

By “off the rails” I mean I believe your church is clearly wrong on some important theological issues. I have no problem understanding what your church teaches but understaning it and accepting it are two different matters.

You’ll have to be specific about these theological issues, so that we can be clear our relative possitions so that we can in good humor and in charity agree to disagree about those issues!

I’m VERY happy that you CAN understand what the Church teaches, as that facility seems to be an extreme rarity around here! That gives us all sorts of beautiful opportunites to agree to disagree about specfic points of theology, which is the very LIGHT of being clear within our respective “faiths”.

I absolutely LOVE agreeing with people! They so very rarely dig deep enough into their thinking to allow us to do so, and I’m very much looking forward to agreeing with someone in this rather noisy and generally superficial discussion hall.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
If you’ve been around here for any amount of time in sincere search for information the two topics you mentioned would be relatively clear as to what the Catholic rationale is for them. You’re free to not agree with the Catholic position, but you’ll have to be very specific about WHY we can agree to disagree about them.

I’m not sure if you are inviting me to state why I disagree with your church or if you are asking me about “WHY we can agree to disagree”.

They are the same thing!

I will happily agree to disagree with you about something that we both understand, but I have to actually understand, without necessarily agreeing with, what it is we disagree about.

The reason it’s good to agree about things is rather obvious. Reagardless of whether we either agree OR disagree about what we DON’T UNDERSTAND is simply not useful, because we are not agreeing or disagreeing about the same thing!

 

[mozart-250]

Catholics believe that they are in the “place” which holds the fullest measure of the truth, not that they are in the most convenient “denomination” due to locale, or due to “all denominations being esssentially like all the rest”.

Why would you not search out and find the most “nutritious food” available?

I know that is what Catholics believe. However I am not a Catholic and can not just take your word for it. Otherwise one can get me to believe anything.

When I survey the assorted denominations within Christianity, I believe a logical starting point is to view them as having equal stature. Then you adjust your opinion of them only if given sufficient reason and evidence to do so.

The answer to your second question is “because I don’t have any good reason to leave where I am”. Otherwise you can get me to change churches anytime a new church with shiny bells and whistles comes to my area. Too many folks do this; I am not one of them.

The question really isn’t “Why you are not a Catholic?”, but rather,“Why are you where you are?”

This is ALSO a very VERY good question that (especially cradle-type) Catholics should ask themselves daily!

Well “Why I am what I am” ultimately goes back to who was responsible for my conversion to Christ. It all ultimately flows from that.

Believe it or not, I went through that same exercise a while back and concluded that the answer was because this is the path that the Lord Jesus Christ had for my life.

If the Catholics were responsible for my conversion to Christ I undoubtedly would be Catholic today.

Ironically, if I were Catholic and going through the exercise of checking out Protestants, I am quite sure that I would conclude that I would not have sufficient reason to switch.