If you have studied the Catholic Church & her Teachings from sources within the Catholic Church and as a result you did not become Catholic, Please Po

  • Thread starter Thread starter SingleMomMonica
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
adrift said:
The Church IS the Catholic Church since Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to protect it.

The Catholic Church (the Church of Rome) was a part of the Orthodox Church in the beginning. Rome separated herself from the rest of the Orthodox Churches a millenia ago.

No other existed from then until now.

Are you trying to pretend that the Orthodox Church never existed? It’s been in place since before St. Peter ever even stepped foot in Rome!
Click to expand...
 
40.png
SingleMomMonica:
The Catholic Church (the Church of Rome) was a part of the Orthodox Church in the beginning. Rome separated herself from the rest of the Orthodox Churches a millenia ago
Click to expand...
This is history according to the Orthodox point of view. The Catholic point of view is that there was an unfortunate schism where the Orthodox left the Catholic Church. I am sure that you will never agree with this as you knew that I would not agree with what you wrote.
Are you trying to pretend that the Orthodox Church never existed? It’s been in place since before St. Peter ever even stepped foot in Rome!
Click to expand...
Never wrote nor indicated such. The Church began on Pentecost under the leadership of Paul. For the first 1000 years there was not designation of the Church other than Christian or Catholic. During that time, there were about 129 Popes. Successors to the Rock upon which Jesus built his Church.
 
O.S.Luke said:
This is why I do not respond to these posts anymore. We are invited to respond to a question, and then set up for the kill.

Baiting for the kill may be appropriate for hunting and fishing, but it is not an appropriate thing to do to fellow Christians.

I did study Catholicism, RCIA, and even served as an organist/musician for a time in a Catholic Church. Why did I not become Catholic? I’ll be damned if I will tell you and be subject to getting beaten up for it.
Click to expand...
Would you have preferred I answered AFTER I got the answer? There is limited time for that. Besides, I was responding to accusations against me and the Church - and false statements in general.
I can have just as charitable a dialogue as the anti-Catholic allows.
As for your not responding to posts from educated Catholics – I’m sure it has more to do with your inability to control the conversation.
 
NoWings said:
Eh… it’s quite common knowledge that pharaoh was considered an incarnation of the god Horus.
Click to expand...
The 3 Hebrew boys refused to bow before the statue of Nebakenezer even though they knew it was not God nor a god. Some believed pharaoh was a god the faithfull never believed it. The 3 Hebrew boys went to die rather than bow to a statue they knew was not god. Catholics have no regard to this commitment to holiness.
 
elvisman said:
And, unfortunately for you - we ARE the Church. You are a seperated member of that Church. Nobody who calls themselves “faithful Christian” can deny the eucharist. It’s an oxymoron.

Tell me something - did Jesus establish the church you belong to? How about the Protestant denomination down the road that believe different things than your Church? How about the tens of thousands that disagree with your denomination?

NOPE - He established ONE Church - the Catholic Church. We have Scripture, Tradition, history and the writings of the Early Church to back it up.
At best - all you have is a short 500 year history of prideful rebellion - and arrogance . . .
Click to expand...
Elvis you are drunk with kool aide.
I am a member in good standing in Christs Church and neither you or any nut can exclude me. Why do you attack me rather than condemn idolatry?
 
adrift said:
Of course the faithful did not recognized them as gods. That is why the Christians were killed. That is why they did not offer incense. What behavior? You avoid definitions. Give me a definition from a neutral source not examples. I gave you a definition from
They were killed because they refused to bow to the idols.

Webster

You said that the Christians went to their death for not offering Caesar incense To do so would have acknowledge him as a god. So your example proves what I am saying. Under your statements, men may not go down on their knee to propose. You may not kiss the picture of a loved one or even have the picture. Then there is gardening better bend over to pick that weed. Ops wait bowing is another form of worship. Better remain standing. Oh oh another form of worship 🤷
Click to expand...
No your answer proves mine. In the minds of the faithfull Cristians ceasar was not god. In the minds statues of saints are not God.
Early Christians refused to light incense modern Catholics dont.
 
Hisalone said:
Elvis you are drunk with kool aide.
I am a member in good standing in Christs Church and neither you or any nut can exclude me. Why do you attack me rather than condemn idolatry?
Click to expand...
I don’t “attack” you.
I realize that you are a divorced, separated member of the Body of Christ and it is my fervent prayer that you - and ALL who believe in Him - are someday united with His Body. Jesus prayed for this same unity in John 17.

And if I gotta be drunk - thank God it is with his Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
 
Hisalone said:
No your answer proves mine. In the minds of the faithfull Cristians ceasar was not god. In the minds statues of saints are not God.
Early Christians refused to light incense modern Catholics dont.
Click to expand...
Where are your definitions? The Christians would not worship Caesar because that would be idolatry. That would be acknowledging that Caesar was a god. I am not sure what you are trying to say by “in the minds statues of saints are not God” Taken as stated that is correct statues of saints are not God therefore by DEFINITION are not being worshiped. By the way would you provide your reference on the incense. I know that Jews used incense.
 
credoinunum said:
The faith isn’t made for any one person, but we should be able to respect and love the individuals among us and where they are in their faith development. I happen to think that the responsible thing to do as a catholic is to be willing to question the Church and encourage dialogue, rather than focusing on being in lock-step. If you don’t get something, question and get an answer. It’s intellectually irresponsible to disagree without being willing to entertain the possibility of the Church being justified, but the Church should see the working of the Holy Spirit in earnest and faithful dissent.
Click to expand...
I’ve been Catholic since the day of my Baptism, when I was 2 wks. old & this may surprise you, but I agree with the highlighted section above. I attended parochial school for 12 years & it was the Sacred Heart nuns who taught me, in high school, to question until I got a complete answer, the background about our teachings…to question until I could understand the where & why of the Church teachings, doctrine & dogma.

The only one that I can say really troubled me is our belief about Artificial Contraception. I can’t say that I agreed with it UNTIL a pastor in a little country church made a copy of Humana Vitae for me. One thing…he didn’t just walk out of Mass & hand me the encyclical…I had to ask. It’s a long read, but I’d suggest that every Catholic read this prophetic document. I think that a lot of people just don’t take the time & make the effort to FIND the reasons. Following is a part of Humana Vitae that was instrumental re my agreement on this teaching:

[SIGN]Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue** if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. **Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for **marital infidelity **and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that **a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. **

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law.** Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone**. [think China & they didn’t stop at ABC., they’ve included forced abortion in their laws [/COLOR]It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife. [/SIGN]

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

It is so easy today to access the documents & explanations given for our teachings. Here’s a good site to begin with. It claims to be written for Catholic youth, but it’s great for any age:

youngcatholicadults.co.uk/catechesis.htm
 
credoinunum said:
I hope you are being sarcastic or ironic with some of these comments, because otherwise I would find them extremely insulting. I managed to stay a practicing Catholic despite feeling some of the same things expressed by Havana1 through the grace of God alone. I know what it is like to be someone going to Communion without a sense of community. I have to agree with him that sometimes the vocation to the single life is seen as a filler, and most Catholics expect that singles (especially men) should just pick between the priesthood or marriage (lest they be something we just can’t deal with). I’m glad to be married, but I empathize with Havana1 from where I have been.

The faith isn’t made for any one person, but we should be able to respect and love the individuals among us and where they are in their faith development. I happen to think that the responsible thing to do as a catholic is to be willing to question the Church and encourage dialogue, rather than focusing on being in lock-step. If you don’t get something, question and get an answer. It’s intellectually irresponsible to disagree without being willing to entertain the possibility of the Church being justified, but the Church should see the working of the Holy Spirit in** earnest and faithful **dissent.
Click to expand...
BTW. Good post. 🙂
 
adrift said:
This is history according to the Orthodox point of view. The Catholic point of view is that there was an unfortunate schism where the Orthodox left the Catholic Church. I am sure that you will never agree with this as you knew that I would not agree with what you wrote.

Never wrote nor indicated such. The Church began on Pentecost under the leadership of Paul. For the first 1000 years there was not designation of the Church other than Christian or Catholic. During that time, there were about 129 Popes. Successors to the Rock upon which Jesus built his Church.
Click to expand...
I think you meant to say the Church began at Pentecost under the leadership of Peter.
 
adrift said:
This seems historically inaccurate. Will you provide a source for this claim? Idolatry? A definitions please. Deficient understanding? The Church IS the Catholic Church since Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to protect it. No other existed from then until now.
Click to expand...
Michael Sattler’s Arrest
Not long after the Schleitheim confession, Michael and his wife Margaretha were caught by Roman Catholic authorities. He was charged with denying transubstantiation (the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist/Communion bread and wine), denying that infant baptism saves, and with marrying after taking monastic vows.
christian-history.org/michael-sattler.html

As all students of history know, the Roman Catholic Church, through the Office of the ‘Holy’ Inquisition, tortured and killed, sometimes in the most horrific ways imaginable, those who did not accept its doctrine of transubstantiation. Gratefully, the killing has stopped, but despite the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the publication by the Vatican of the new Catechism in 1996 and the advent of the Catholic Charismatic Movement, Rome continues to uphold transubstantiation as a central non-negotiable dogma. Paragraphs 1374 and 1377 of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (the first officially published Catechism for 400 years) produced under the authority of the late Pope John Paul II, states that the bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ in the Mass.

webtruth.org/articles/theological-issues-23/transubstantiation-49.html
 
Hisalone said:
Michael Sattler’s Arrest
Not long after the Schleitheim confession, Michael and his wife Margaretha were caught by Roman Catholic authorities. He was charged with denying transubstantiation (the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist/Communion bread and wine), denying that infant baptism saves, and with marrying after taking monastic vows.
christian-history.org/michael-sattler.html

As all students of history know, the Roman Catholic Church, through the Office of the ‘Holy’ Inquisition, tortured and killed, sometimes in the most horrific ways imaginable, those who did not accept its doctrine of transubstantiation. Gratefully, the killing has stopped, but despite the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the publication by the Vatican of the new Catechism in 1996 and the advent of the Catholic Charismatic Movement, Rome continues to uphold transubstantiation as a central non-negotiable dogma. Paragraphs 1374 and 1377 of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (the first officially published Catechism for 400 years) produced under the authority of the late Pope John Paul II, states that the bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ in the Mass.

webtruth.org/articles/theological-issues-23/transubstantiation-49.html
Click to expand...
Not sure where you are going here, Hisalone…
 
adrift said:
Where are your definitions? The Christians would not worship Caesar because that would be idolatry. That would be acknowledging that Caesar was a god. I am not sure what you are trying to say by “in the minds statues of saints are not God” Taken as stated that is correct statues of saints are not God therefore by DEFINITION are not being worshiped. By the way would you provide your reference on the incense. I know that Jews used incense.
Click to expand...
This says it all

jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mary_worsip_is_crazy.jpg
 
elvisman said:
As for your not responding to posts from educated Catholics – I’m sure it has more to do with your inability to the conversation.
Click to expand...
I would welcome educated posts. I have no need to control the conversation, but neither do I have a need to be insulted.
 
Hisalone said:
This says it all

jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mary_worsip_is_crazy.jpg
Click to expand...
I really thought I was going to get something of substance you know like a definition.:rolleyes:

The picture says nothing. Nowhere is there evidence that those in the picture believe the statue is god. After asking for a definition three times, I must conclude that you cannot define it. We must except the standard definition which means there is not idolatry unless it is intended as a god. You have not been able to demonstrate that this is true of Catholics. This is bearing false witness however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top