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

[fbl9]

I would say unlikely (but not impossible) as long as I live in this locale. I am quite loyal to the local body of Christ where God has me. I could only see myself moving from where I am to another church in this area if (a) my present church changes dramatically from what it is (b) very unusual personal circumstances.

Should we ever move locations, who knows.

If becoming Catholic means adopting the arrogant attitude that I see here with some, no thanks.

my dear mistaken friend if you want to see something arrogant take a long hard look at the popularteaching regarding rapture. i have never seen a thing in the holy bible like this disgusting teaching. only pure arrogance would say i deserve heaven before those who suffered unto death for the Lord.When HE comes the first to see Him will be last and the last to see Him will be first. Why did Christ say the tribulation would be shortened? In my reading of the scriptures i have not found any words to support the gross theory,of the “rapture”. may God bless and help us amen.

 

[nilofc]

If you think that Catholics here explaining their faith, the hope within them or catholics refuting erroneous arguments while not doing it in gentleness is arrogant…then you have all the right to feel the way you do.

But if you just feel that way because you don’t like it when they do make sense… then that is another matter.

Peace Bro…God Bless.
May Mother Mary lead you to Christ.

 

[HannahLisa]

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”.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, and that I may have misunderstood the original question. I know that people who are on fire for God do not all believe the same things, yet they are all following God. They can all be on fire for God, following Him to the best of their ability, and mistakenly believe wrong doctrine – it doesn’t invalidate their faith. I do not understand how the Catholic Church can claim them when the people in question disagree with her doctrines and are perhaps opposed to her in other ways. The fire comes from the Holy Spirit; I see it as unrelated to the Catholic Church or, indeed, any other church.

 

[HannahLisa]

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.

I am not waiting to be convinced about everything – I phrased that wrong. Rather, I’m waiting to be convinced of major doctrines, such as purgatory and the absolute necessity of sacraments.

Laws are good, yes. But there is a difference between “Stop” and “make a full stop, put on the parking brake, wait for thirty seconds, look both ways three times, then go.” From my limited understanding, it seems that sometimes the Catholic Church approaches the latter extremity at times. I’m still exploring this, though, and hopefully I will understand more.

Tim – Yes, I think I misunderstood the question. I don’t think I can answer it, either.

CalmDownWisWins – thank you for the links, I’ve bookmarked them so I can read them when I have time. I especially appreciate the Theology of the Body link.

I have a problem with the idea that grace can be handled in a way which seems to me at times to be like the way we handle money. Another thing I will have to research more.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Oh, come on!

This thread asserts that people who leave the Catholic Church do not do so for doctrinal reasons, but instead emotional/personal ones.

This is a pointless approach, because it only annoys people - & if it’s true of Catholics leaving the CC, there is no reason it cannot be applied to converts to the CC. People often say they do leave for doctrinal reasons - what right have we not to believe them ? So that sort of psychological argument gets no one anywhere, fast. ​

Why can’t people understand, & appreciate, that
others can have conscientious, & morally good, & considered reasons, not to be Catholics (or whatever-it-may-be) ? If we don’t respect the reasons others give for the faith that is in them, there is no reason why they should have any respect for our convictions or for the faith that is in us.

NO COMPARISON!!!

The OP was dead right - all hell would break loose.​

The sooner this thread is closed, the better

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, and that I may have misunderstood the original question. I know that people who are on fire for God do not all believe the same things, yet they are all following God. They can all be on fire for God, following Him to the best of their ability, and mistakenly believe wrong doctrine – it doesn’t invalidate their faith.

That is too general a statement, as SOME doctrines can and DO in fact violate “being of God” (accepting human sacrifice as a good, for example) such that if sincerely and firmly held at one’s end WOULD send one direcly to hell.

Each doctrine needs to be tested as to it’s “Godliness” to determine whether it “invalidates faith”.

The tricky bit is the “yardstick” that is used to judge the worthiness of each doctrine.

I’ve heard of lots of headhunters who are “on fire for God” (as they think they know Him) after every murderous raid.

I do not understand how the Catholic Church can claim them when the people in question disagree with her doctrines and are perhaps opposed to her in other ways. The fire comes from the Holy Spirit; I see it as unrelated to the Catholic Church or, indeed, any other church.

You clarify things enormously when you say, “…or any other church”.

We use the same word “C(c)hurch”, but we mean different things by it.

The “fire” does come only from God (the Holy Spirit), but God’s way for us to access this “fire” is ONLY through Christ’s Church, a subset of which is what you call the “Catholic Church” (meaning denomination) but which we call only the people in full communion with The FULL Church (meaning Body of Christ) which is our meaning of “The Church (Catholic, meaning universal)”.

“The Church (Catholic)” is therefore the only source of that which is from God, but that doesn’t limit that access to only those in full communion with Her.

Just as you can SAY that you power your electric vaccuum cleaner from “the wall socket in the bedroom” but you can certainly ALSO choose to power it from the socket in the living room, it is also possible, and more correct, to say that you get your electric power from the power grid.

How is it wrong to claim that all power comes from the power grid?

 

[nilofc]

Two types of Catholic Dissenters.:

Catholics who leave the church for doctrinal reasons are poorly cathecized individuals.

Catholics who can’t live by the standards the Church requires of them.

There are only two.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Two types of Catholic Dissenters.:

Catholics who leave the church for doctrinal reasons are poorly cathecized individuals.

Catholics who can’t live by the standards the Church requires of them.

There are only two.

It’s of course impossible for someone to know what your church teaches and reject it.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I am not waiting to be convinced about everything – I phrased that wrong. Rather, I’m waiting to be convinced of major doctrines, such as purgatory and the absolute necessity of sacraments.

What would “proof of purgatory” look like? What would you accept as “proof”?

As you probably already know, the sacraments are the ordinary means of salvation and not “absoultely necessary” as you mean “do them as specified precisely regardless of circumstances or go to hell”.

Laws are good, yes. But there is a difference between “Stop” and “make a full stop, put on the parking brake, wait for thirty seconds, look both ways three times, then go.” From my limited understanding, it seems that sometimes the Catholic Church approaches the latter extremity at times. I’m still exploring this, though, and hopefully I will understand more.

The rubrics are an attempt to be most charitable to the people of God by making things as maximally effectively easy to do as possible. Do please keep exploring why this is the most charitable method possible to help the greatest number of people in diverse situations as possible.

…

CalmDownWisWins – thank you for the links, I’ve bookmarked them so I can read them when I have time. I especially appreciate the Theology of the Body link.

Most welcome!

I have a problem with the idea that grace can be handled in a way which seems to me at times to be like the way we handle money. Another thing I will have to research more.

Grace is always a free gift, but we have to accept it as and when given. The Church provides (free of charge) efficient ways of receiving grace by means which have been developed to perfection over millenia. Anyone is free to “plug in” to the freely given infinite quantity of grace by these methods should they choose to do the work necessary to simply be able to do so.

There are also “non-ordinary” methods of accomplishing the same thing, but they are not as efficient, just as draining a lake with a straw is not efficient. But salvation is not dependent on having an efficient method of access to grace, of course. It only improves one’s odds in being strong, by being satisfied with experience with God’s bounty, to the end.

The goal is to help as many people as possible.

Frustration and despair are more likely where “poverty of resources” is more prevalent.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by nilofc
Two types of Catholic Dissenters.:

Catholics who leave the church for doctrinal reasons are poorly cathecized individuals.

Catholics who can’t live by the standards the Church requires of them.

There are only two.

It’s of course impossible for someone to know what your church teaches and reject it.

To choose hell is quite possible, and prevalent! But why would that choice be a problem to one who doesn’t believe in hell?

By the way, the first case above (the poorly catechized) is highly likely to be a case of “(quasi-) invincible ignorance” which doesn’t MANDATE that heaven is likely but rather allows that heaven is somewhat more likely than a true knowing rejection of the Church.

You imply that that which can’t be wrong could be wrong, and that deciding that that self-contradiction is adequate grounds for rejecting that which can’t be wrong is somehow a good thing.

But then, to one whom the choice of hell is “a good thing” is at least being consistently logical in using a self-contradiction as grounds for a decision.

And of course that’s not a problem for one whose faith is “simple denial”.

 

[Pwrlftr]

To choose hell is quite possible, and prevalent! But why would that choice be a problem to one who doesn’t believe in hell?

By the way, the first case above (the poorly catechized) is highly likely to be a case of “(quasi-) invincible ignorance” which doesn’t MANDATE that heaven is likely but rather allows that heaven is somewhat more likely than a true knowing rejection of the Church.

You imply that that which can’t be wrong could be wrong, and that deciding that that self-contradiction is adequate grounds for rejecting that which can’t be wrong is somehow a good thing.

But then, to one whom the choice of hell is “a good thing” is at least being consistently logical in using a self-contradiction as grounds for a decision.

And of course that’s not a problem for one whose faith is “simple denial”.

I haven’t a clue what you are saying.

Can you give a yes or a no answer to this question:

Is it possible for a catholic to clearly understand what the catholic church teaches, reject that teaching and leave the church?

 

[c659smith]

What I would suggest is what someone in this thread stated and that is to remain on fire for Jesus Christ, to have that thirst for knowledge, to listen, and then follow your heart. Love of Jesus, your fellow man, and smile when life gets tough. Try this for a day,
give up full control of yourself and to control others.Pray and ask Jesus for the answer, close out your mind of all distractions, and leave that control for Jesus to handle. It will be the greatest day of your life.

I am a Catholic

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I haven’t a clue what you are saying.

Not surprising.

Can you give a yes or a no answer to this question:

Is it possible for a catholic to clearly understand what the catholic church teaches, reject that teaching and leave the church?

Yes.

Just as one can know what “boiling oil” is and jump into a large vat of it.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

What I would suggest is what someone in this thread stated and that is to remain on fire for Jesus Christ, to have that thirst for knowledge, to listen, and then follow your heart. Love of Jesus, your fellow man, and smile when life gets tough. Try this for a day,
give up full control of yourself and to control others.Pray and ask Jesus for the answer, close out your mind of all distractions, and leave that control for Jesus to handle. It will be the greatest day of your life.

I am a Catholic

Amen! A great “experiment” indeed!

Do that habitually and the result will be, “Holy Cats! I’m Catholic!”

Why? Because eventually the “highs” need more “juice”, and the most “juice” is located in the Church.

If the “highs” don’t need more “juice”, you’re not doing it right!

 

[Pwrlftr]

Not surprising.

Why is it “not surprising”?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Just as one can know what “boiling oil” is and jump into a large vat of it.

One can also know when to leave a sinking ship for the safety of another vessel.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

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

Agreed. But infants who receive communion have been baptized so are no longer in sin; they are in Christ and have not committed personal sin.

Catechesis is necessary for a person who has reached the age of reason but of course this doesn’t mean that he has a complete understanding of the mystery (which would be impossible for anyone). A genius or a mentally handicapped person would each understand according to his ability who Jesus is and what He has done for us. They need to know Him well enough to love Him. They would have to know what they receive is not bread but, despite its looks, is actually Jesus. They need to understand that sin affects their relationship with God and that they have to repent of sin and forgive others before they can come to communion. They need to know that serious sin can break that relationship and then repentance involves confessing their sins to the priest who is the representative of Christ and the church before they can come to the eucharist (see John 20:21-23).

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Just as one can know what “boiling oil” is and jump into a large vat of it.

One can also know when to leave a sinking ship for the safety of another vessel.

If that’s your view of the Church, then you have objectively proven that you are ill-informed. There is only one vessel, using your analogy.

There are different cabins on the one vessel, but there is only one “ark”, my friend.

If you really think that there is more than one vessel, then you are in the “poorly catechised” camp, as opposed to the “culpably rejecting” camp.

But hey, if you want to claim “true rebel-tude” over simple ignorance that’s up to you.

 

[Pwrlftr]

If that’s your view of the Church, then you have objectively proven that you are ill-informed. There is only one vessel, using your analogy.

There are different cabins on the one vessel, but there is only one “ark”, my friend.

If you really think that there is more than one vessel, then you are in the “poorly catechised” camp, as opposed to the “culpably rejecting” camp.

But hey, if you want to claim “true rebel-tude” over simple ignorance that’s up to you.

By the grace of God I am squarely in the “culpably rejecting camp”.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

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

My friend who was a Presbyterian elder personally believed in the real presence but 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.

I think only the Orthodox and some Anglicans believe as Catholics do. And, to be honest and not wishing to offend, to Catholics and Orthodox the Protestant communion services are a symbolic remembrance of the last supper motivated by the desire to do what Jesus commanded when He said, “Do this in memory of Me.” But only Catholic and Orthodox priests have the God given power to actually make Jesus present because He entrusted this to the apostles and those they ordained down through the ages. Just believing in the Real Presence isn’t enough if He isn’t present in that way.

I think you use the term ‘real presence’ differently than Catholics do. We would say Jesus is really there in the Protestant service because you are praying and wanting to do His will, but this is a spiritual presence. But that He is physically, in His resurrected body, bodily present in the Catholic and Orthodox sacrament under the appearance of bread and wine.

This probably seems like splitting hairs to you and that we must think we are better than Protestants. I’m ashamed that I know many Protestants who are better than I am and love Jesus more than I do and do more for God and others than I do. I am inspired by them to live my faith more. But I still wish they were Catholic because I believe that this is the church Jesus established.