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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2ndGen said:
Wow.

You believe that Jesus would command us to follow men who would mislead us.

I would counter that with a no…Jesus would not tell us to follow men who would mislead us because we could get hurt. And Jesus wouldn’t want us to be misled. Supposedly, Jesus is The Truth.

How could The Truth tell us to follow lies?

But hey, to each his/her own.

👍

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
John 14:6
Click to expand...
Okay it’s your turn to answer questions:
a.) Does any well known catholc apologist claim the pharisees were infallible? If so, who and where do they make this claim?

b.) Please explain how the pharisees can be both infallible and teach the corban rule where Jesus clearly said that they teach the precepts of man as doctrine?

c.) Is there any text in the NT where believers are told to obey a fallible authority?
 
jkarp said:
The pastor invited me on several occasions to communion because it is “open-communion.” I politely declined each time. I could not in good conscience recieve communion at a church in which I do not express communion.
Click to expand...
Communion in Protestant churches isn’t political. It doesn’t represent alignment with a denomination. It represents acceptance of redemption though Christ Jesus and Him crucified. That isn’t Catholic or Protestant, it’s Christian.
 
Pwrlftr said:
BTW, I gave two or three examples of where believers were told to obey fallible authority in my previous post. I guess you skipped over it?
Click to expand...
I honestly didn’t recall seeing it.

Please show me the post # and I’ll check it out.
 
jkarp said:
I don’t see why a non-Catholic would want to receive the Eucharist, in addition to being the real presence of Christ, the Eucharist is also an outward sign of communion with the Church (hence the reason some people call it “communion”). Why would someone want to profess communion with something they don’t believe in or agree with?

For example, I worked as a musician at a First Christian Church while I was in college (I played at a 8:00a.m. service and then attended 11:00 Mass). The pastor invited me on several occasions to communion because it is “open-communion.” I politely declined each time. I could not in good conscience recieve communion at a church in which I do not express communion.
Click to expand...
👍

Like I always say, I don’t want anybody in my Church that doesn’t want to be there!
 
2ndGen said:
I honestly didn’t recall seeing it.

Please show me the post # and I’ll check it out.
Click to expand...
No problem, I will repost it, I thought you were intentionally ignoring me.

I really don’t mind someone ignoring me but didnt’ like it one bit when we were in the middle of a discussion.
 
Claire_from_DE said:
. . . told me that after the service they respectfully poured the leftover wine onto the ground to return it to the earth. I think they crumbled the bread and did the same. To a Catholic this would be the worst sacrilege.
Click to expand...
This is not exactly true, most Catholic altar servers can attest that in most churches there is a special sink in the sacristy called a piscina. The piscina is used to wash the vessels used in the consecration and distrubution of the Eucharist. It is (usually) connected via a drain directly to the ground to ensure that any unconsumed particles of the Eucharist are washed to the ground instead of into the public sewer system (which would be a sacrilege).
 
On another point.
saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
(Matthew 23:2-3 NASB)
Click to expand...
Jesus tells us that the Pharisees seated themselves on chair of Moses. In other words they took in on their own. Would that mean that anyone can take authority on themselves?
 
Namesake said:
Communion in Protestant churches isn’t political. It doesn’t represent alignment with a denomination. It represents acceptance of redemption though Christ Jesus and Him crucified. That isn’t Catholic or Protestant, it’s Christian.
Click to expand...
Well according to Scripture, it’s about aligning yourself with Christ. Remember what Paul said?

1 Cor 11:
24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
 
Namesake said:
Communion in Protestant churches isn’t political. It doesn’t represent alignment with a denomination. It represents acceptance of redemption though Christ Jesus and Him crucified. That isn’t Catholic or Protestant, it’s Christian.
Click to expand...
You may say that, but the underlying truth is that it does. To say otherwise really represents a superficial understanding of communion.
 
SyCarl said:
On another point.

Jesus tells us that the Pharisees seated themselves on chair of Moses. In other words they took in on their own. Would that mean that anyone can take authority on themselves?
Click to expand...
If this was wrong (which is what you seem to insinuate), why would Jesus tell them to do as they teach?

Why didn’t He say “they commandered the chair by improper means, do “not” do what they teach you!”?

As for anyone taking authority for themselves, I would call that “responsiblity” in that we are guilty of or smart enough to choose who we follow.
 
Pwrlftr said:
No problem, I will repost it, I thought you were intentionally ignoring me.

I really don’t mind someone ignoring me but didnt’ like it one bit when we were in the middle of a discussion.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have so many arguments going here that I get lost!

😃
 
The Pharisees and the misuse of the corban rule:
Mark 7:5-13:
5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the (a)tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with (b)impure hands?” 6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: '(a)THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 7 ‘(a)BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ 8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the (a)tradition of men.” 9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your (a)tradition. 10 “For Moses said, ‘(a)HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘(b)HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO (1)BE PUT TO DEATH’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is (a)Corban (that is to say, (1)given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your (a)tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
Click to expand...
We see that:
  • Jesus is addressing the supposedly infallible pharisees.
  • Jesus says that the Pharisees teach the precepts of men, neglecting the precepts of God.
  • Jesus explains where the Pharisees teaching was wrong regarding the decalogue.
  • Jesus says that the pharisees teaching invalidates the word of God.
I’m not sure how an group can be described in the way in which Jesus described the Pharisees and still be thought of as infallible.
 
jkarp said:
You may say that, but the underlying truth is that it does. To say otherwise really represents a superficial understanding of communion.
Click to expand...
That is what Catholics think, but they are not correct. :cool:
 
2ndGen said:
If this was wrong (which is what you seem to insinuate), why would Jesus tell them to do as they teach?

Why didn’t He say “they commandered the chair by improper means, do “not” do what they teach you!”?

As for anyone taking authority for themselves, I would call that “responsiblity” in that we are guilty of or smart enough to choose who we follow.
Click to expand...
Well, if authority can be assumed on one’s own, how can it be said that Reformers were wrong to do so?

Also if the Pharisees were infallible why would Jesus tell his disciples to beware their teaching?
“How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
(Matthew 16:11-12 NASB)
Click to expand...
 
Paul said:
Colossians 3:22 22 (a)Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters 1)on earth, (b)not with (2)external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
and

Ephesians 6:1 NAU Ephesians 6:1 (a)Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.

We see again that following your logic, one must assume that because one has authority:
a.) slave owners are infallible
and
b.) parents are infallible

Having authority does not mean one is infallible. Slaves were told to obey their masters and choldren to obey their parents.
 
Pwrlftr said:
The Pharisees and the misuse of the corban rule:

We see that:
  • Jesus is addressing the supposedly infallible pharisees.
  • Jesus says that the Pharisees teach the precepts of men, neglecting the precepts of God.
  • Jesus explains where the Pharisees teaching was wrong regarding the decalogue.
  • Jesus says that the pharisees teaching invalidates the word of God.
I’m not sure how an group can be described in the way in which Jesus described the Pharisees and still be thought of as infallible.
Click to expand...
Look at what Jesus “said”.

He pointed out their wrongs their “deeds” not their words.

Then, he pointed out their secular teachings, but doesn’t condemn their Mosaic teachings which are The Law.

He criticized “their” traditons, not His Father’s traditions.

This is an incredibly strong case “against” people that create doctrines outside of The Church.

That cannot be denied.

It is when they veer off of The Law and begin to add their own personal interpretations to The Law that they fail.

It’s not their rabbinic teachings that are wrong,
but their personal teachings that are wrong.

He is criticizing how they took what God gives them and make it their own. The whole attack by Jesus is on the man in the Pharisee, not the Rabbi in the Pharisee.

The Word of God is truth. If one teaches it alone, then he/she is incapable of teaching false doctrine, but they were teaching their own teachings…not affiliated with the Seat of Moses. When they taught outside of The Law, they were “not” teaching by the authority of Moses…which is the only Law that Jesus told His Disciples to follow.

Right?

Jesus even said it…to do as they “teach” in reference to The Seat of Moses, but not as they do (which are their behaviours), for they don’t practice what the preach.

So there, what they do is wrong, but what they teach is right.

Right?

There is a huge difference.

Again, the text of Jesus says it all…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top