If you believe Jesus Christ is God, why aren't you Catholic?

[collegeprof]

Interesting question. I can only say:

1. If one does not believe in the primacy of the pope and teaching authority of the pope and magesterium, and;
2. If one does not believe in apostolic succession as defined by the Catholic church (or doesn’t believe in at all) and therefore called and ordained ministers of any number of faiths are valid, and;
3. If one doesn’t believe in the real presence in the Eucharist OR doesn’t believe that the Catholic Church is only place the real presence exist;

then the Catholic Church (to many) has no more, and perhaps less in some circumstances, to offer than any number of other church bodies or ecclesiastical communities.

I think that would be a very brief summation of why many are non-Catholic Christians.

 

[Ensrune]

I don’t think 1voice is specifically attacking the Catholic theology of what defines the Church. How would you define the Catholic Catholic Church?

 

[JonNC]

Christianity is not a Church. It is not a Religion. It is a personal/ intimate relationship.

I beg to differ. It isn’t either/or, but both/and. While there is certainly a personal relationship involved, Christ clearly intended to establish His Church. He says so, when referring to Peter and his confession of faith, “on this rock I will build my Church.”

The Augsburg Confession defines the Church as the “congregation of saints…” (recognizing both the personal relationship and the communion of saints), "…where the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered,) recognizing also the functional role of an institutional Church - to preach the word and administer the sacraments, the means of grace.

Jon

 

[vikingwarlord77]

While I believe that jesus is god that is not all I believe. I take a “hindu” for lack of a better word point of view. Jesus is just one aspect of god. he is the one you pray to when you need to get rid of guilt while thoth is the god you pray to when you need understanding in math or astronomy or wisdom or magick. or pray to ares when you need to survive a fight. I used to be catholic but got sick of all the bull, and compleat lack of openmindedness.

 

[RKO]

I am trying to have the Orthodox position (or anyone’s position) explained to me so I understand why they are the true Church and I should convert, because we are brothers just like Peter and Andrew, so why should their be divisions among us if we are a family? The Catholic view is if Andrew, Philip, Thomas or any other Apostle or subsequent Bishops fall into error Peter or the Pope was there to *unify *& settle disagreements. Catholics believe Jesus’ promise to Peter, individually, of the ability to bind and loose while He gave Peter the keys is why the Succession of the Seat of Peter is the claim to being the True Church.

Yes, all the Apostles went out, they were ALL a part of the Catholic Church united under Peter commissioned by Christ (it wasn’t referred to as Catholic until early 2nd century). At what point did the division occur? ** The Apostles were united that is my point. **Once a church stops reckonizing the authority to which it is a part of they become another church not the same because they now recognize a new authority, only one can therefore be the Church Jesus started that will not fall into error. I am simply saying I think that Church is the Roman Catholic Church. I am not discounting Anyone or any work anyone has done to spread the Gospel and am especially not discounting the Apostles or their efforts, as I said already They were all a part of the beginning of the Catholic Church; I am directly saying convince me why another Church is the One Christ started and not the Catholic Church and/or answer my question which is why you aren’t Catholic, or what teaching you disagree with, etc. which causes you not to respect the Authority of the Catholic Church.

The point I am arguing is that we are brothers whether we are Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, any denomination of Christianity, so why aren’t we united as a family as a part of the same house? If we know what the original Church is why aren’t we united. Orthodox position is they don’t believe in the teaching of the Papacy -why the schism happened (that and And the Son, but also Byzantine Emperor’s & Muslim Sultan’s didn’t help anything either). As Catholics we have far more in common to build on (practically everything theologically) with the Orthodox Church then what divides us. I am not discounting the work of anyone, I am explaining how we used to be united and now we aren’t. As a Christian, that bothers me because I see them as brothers and sisters, it is like we are from a broken home. If you are seeking truth, you are seeking Christ after all He is the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life. If Christ intended on having 38,000 different denominations He wouldn’t have claimed to teach and testify to the Truth, rather He would have started 38,000 denominations Himself.

Some of your points are valid. I do want to correct one thing: The Orthodox didn’t split because they didn’t believe in the teaching of the papacy. They didn’t agree with Rome that the Pope was infallible and the singluar primate of the Christian Church on earth.

anyway, here’s my 2 cents: Christ sent out the apostles to preach the Gospel. Peter went to Rome, Andrew went to Antioch. Fast forward 2000 years and there are problems but the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church EACH willingly admit that the real presence exists in their own, and each other’s Eucharist. Doesn’t that have a lot more weight than us debating which one is real? The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus lives in the Orthodox communion. The Orthodox teach the same thing about the Catholic Church. Jesus started both and still lives in both. We men created the differences and started all these arguments.

PS-I’m Catholic. I just don’t play the “I’m more catholic than you” game which so many seem to do these days.

 

[RKO]

I want to correct myself: I said jesus “started both” churches. He didn’t. He started one which fractured into 2 or 38,000, depending on how you look at it.

 

[1voice]

Christianity is not simply an organization with membership based on affiliation.

I know. I was a Catholic for 25 years.

There is often a huge difference between what is written and what is practiced though … in every religion.

An example that comes to mind, because they are/were public figures … Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. They both have worked their entire lives to establish laws that are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching … Yet their allegiance and affiliation to Catholicism was not seriously questioned.

 

[RKO]

You’re right, but we’re both also incorrect. Having just looked it up on the Orthodox church in America website, it appears not to be a dogmatic teaching. The Orthodox really don’t have a similar term for “validity.” They simply don’t validate or invalidate anything outside their own teaching.
When the question was posed on the OCA website, Does the Orthodox Church believe in the real presence in the catholic eucharist? The answer basically was : Some Orthodox Christians believe it, some don’t.

And I’ll probably get flamed for this, but I find that refreshing

 

[RKO]

Jarek, I just re-read your post and you are exactly right. Not sort of right and a little wrong, as I claimed a few minutes ago.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

This thread is not about the Orthodox church.
Return to the OP and remain there.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t see the direct link between believing that Christ is God and being Catholic as a matter of necessity that the OP apparently. As others (both Catholic and non) have rightly pointed out, the church in Rome is not by a long shot the only one that can (and does) claim apostolic foundation, and uses patristic study to substantiate that and other positions. It is not even the only Petrine See, as that honor also belongs to Antioch. In fact, Rome is not even the first ‘Papal’ church, as that title was first assumed by the Patriarch of Alexandria, starting with Pope Heracleus, the 13th Alexandrian Patriarch (AD 232-249). At no point was the Alexandrian Pope assumed to have the prerogatives that would come to be assigned to the Roman Pope by his supporters over the centuries.

All of this, of course, is entirely separate from believing that Jesus Christ is God. Again, I’m just not seeing the connection. Yes, Christ founded the Church no matter where it is, but the forms that developed in (say) Armenia or Cyprus are different than those founded in Iraq or India. We grouped together later along doctrinal lines.

On the subject of Rome as being some kind of mediator by virtue of Peter’s role as head of the apostles, it is possible to believe the second without believing the first. In fact, history bears this position out as the one that was actually held. Rather than being the center of all Christianity that the modern RC view would have it be from time immemorial, the reality is that for large sections of the church, Rome was out of the loop at an early age, so to speak. So much so that by the Synod of Dadisho, held in the Sassanian territory in AD 424 (27 years before Chalcedon, 630 years before the commonly accepted date of the Great Schism), the following was affirmed by the church in Babylonia (what is nowadays popularly known as the “[Assyrian] Church of the East”):

“It is the Catholicos who is for us Peter, head of our ecclesistical congregation.”

AND

“We now confirm under oath as follows: ‘It is not lawful that the people of the East complain about their patriarch to the patriarchs of the West, and in case a lawsuit is not settled in his presence, then it will be left for the judgment of Christ.’ We confirm and sanction this law that will not be abolished or annulled, because we confirmed it under oath in the name of the Holy Trinity.”

(source)

Ecclesiastical history is terribly messy and fascinating, and deserves a much more nuanced interpretation than is often given by arguments like those in the OP.

As far as why I personally am not Catholic, the previous sentence sums everything up quite nicely on the organizational front. There are a myriad of other reasons that aren’t really within the realm of the argument presented by the OP, so there’s no reason to get into them here, as they also do not infringe upon the truth of Jesus Christ’s divinity.

 

[TrueLight]

I always find these kinds of threads amusing.
Things are never so simple.

So as a Protestant, I knew that Peter was the Rock and I knew that Jesus said “Upon this
Rock, I will build my church.” In fact, there is a duet called “Who do men say that I am” that I have sung twice.

I believed Jesus used Peter to build his church by spreading the good news. He and Paul established churches all over.

Now here is where the disconnect occurs.

I did not believe that mean that every bishop who followed Peter also inherited that same authority. So for example a Pastor might found a little store-front Baptist church with 20 people and with lots of hard work grows the church to 1000 members. Great job! So now the Pastor dies and another pastor continues the good work. That pastor doesn’t necessarily have the respect that the founder had. He is respected on his own merit. There is succession, but that succession is not SUCCESSION!

So the question, if you believe Jesus is God, why aren’t you Catholic is pretty arbitrary.

 

[afiala2]

I think Jesus Christ was God. I also think the CC teaches other, untrue things and requires their members accept them. The main one, and the one that probably caused all the others, is the role given to the papacy. I can’t join the CC so long as they maintain that position.

The Papacy or the Successor of St. Peter was started by Christ as He started His Church. So that means you reject the teaching of Christ in regards to His Church. So are you completely against accepting the teaching of Christ in regards to the office of the Pope as head of the Church then?

The Papacy or the successor of St. Peter is a Biblical concept. It is a tradition as I have already stated there is a line of Popes from Benedict XVI back to St. Peter and Christ who instituted the office. Simply reading the Gospels in their entirety without an anti-Catholic, anti-papal bias would lead one to the conclusion that Christ entrusted Peter as the leader of His Church. But only the two times below in particular are enough to convince me that Christ gave Peter a special leadership role above the other Apostles and if Apostolic Succession is important then logically so would Papal Succession (the Office of Peter). Without the Successor of St. Peter, the leadership of a church wouldn’t mimic the leadership of the Church Christ started that is described in the Bible.

***Remember Peter denied Christ three times after Christ said that Peter would and Christ still selected Peter for this role.

Specifically in Chapter 10 of the Gospel of John, Christ called Himself the Good Shepherd. John 21:15-17, Christ asks Peter if he loves Him more than the other Apostles/disciples present who were with them and Peter said yes. Christ’s responds feed my lambs. 2nd and 3rd times Christ asks Peter if he loves Him after Peter says yes, Christ says tend my sheep and feed my sheep. In order for Christ to be a Shepherd, that means He has a flock. So His flock is His followers or His followers are His sheep. Christ as the Master Shepherd commissioned Peter, AND ONLY Peter, as the servant shepherd. Notice Christ doesn’t give Peter His sheep, He asks Peter to take care of or feed and tend His sheep. (if your response is that Jesus was literally talking about a flock of sheep, why would that be in the Bible?)

Matthew 16:13-19, this is a pretty plain statement of Christ giving Peter, individually, authority. People argue otherwise, but no matter what you interpret rock to mean it doesn’t change the fact that at this exchange Simon’s name is changed to Peter by Christ. His name is now rock and Christ did the naming. Remember Matthew 7:24-27, Christ recommends building on rock. Why would Christ not build His Church on rock? So if you argue Christ called a grown man a little pebble in between Peter just acknowledging Christ as the Messiah and Christ giving Peter the Keys to Heaven while talking about building His Church, you need to read it again or trust someone who knows how to translate words properly. This is the equivalent of Christ laying a foundation for His Church, the Papacy. Remember you can’t take things out of context to fit any one of millions of imaginable interpretations if you are honestly trying to find the truth. In CONTEXT, Christ is talking about building His Church.

The real question is, going back to the original post, why did the Catholic Church which was started by Christ fall into error and why is your church’s current teachings regarding faith and morals more correct and why is your church (include name of church and its founder) not going to fall into error the way the Catholic Church apparently did?

Christ started Church A, this group of men started Church B, Luther started Church C, etc. Why did God deem it necessary for the Church His Son started to be changed or reformed by a man in order for people to continue to have salvation? Why is another church going to be protected from error? Where in Scripture does it say well in 1,000 years we will break of and that will be the new true church and the 500 years later that will be the new one, etc., etc, etc,etc,etc,etc……………………There is only one Church that can be protected from error that is the Church that Christ started, hence the Catholic understanding of infallibility. That doesn’t mean the Popes aren’t men who sin just like everyone else or that everything that comes out of their mouth is official teaching. It just means when they officially address the entire Church on a matter of faith and morals, Catholics believe those Papal statements will be guarded from error by the Holy Spirit because we take Jesus on His Word in Matthew 16:18. Why don’t you trust Jesus when He promised His Church would not fall into error? Do you believe in the Power of the Holy Spirit? Do you believe the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity?

So to disprove a Catholic teaching wouldn’t be a defense for your Christian religion (arguing the Holy Spirit doesn’t exist in Christianity), it is more of an attack on all of Christianity and an argument to become Jewish, not start your own religion. Which goes back to my point of if you think Christ is God, why are you not Catholic? I am saying if I didn’t believe Christ was the Messiah, I would be Jewish. But **sense I believe **like Peter I am a Catholic.

People always say the Church teaches untrue things (implying many or a multitude of things). What are they? Why is your church’s opposing position the correct one over the Catholic Church? Be specific.