I'm not a Catholic because

[ndismyhome]

Why I am not Roman Catholic:

1. The celebration of the Lord’s Supper understood to be a participation in the one Sacrifice of Christ, not in the resurrected Christ.
2. Immaculate Conception
3. Ultramontanism (Papal Supremacy)
4. Novus Ordo and post VII improvisations on the historic liturgy
5. Indellable (Sacramental) Character

These are the “big 5”.

In Christ,
ND

 

[Roy5]

**Stephen W. ** I love the Mennonites, though I have a more liberal view of the scriptures than most Mennonites do. However, I have known Mennonites, especially when living in Pennsylvania, and what a fine people they are. I am deeply sympathetic to their position on peace, also.

** For many of us, I think authority is a major issue**. I have studied the Bible read various Church Fathers, subscribe to four RC periodicals and receive the diocesan newspaper, too, spent awhile in a Trappist monastery in Canada years ago, watch EWTN and listen to Catholic radio, attend Mass from time to time, etc.
**
Even so, I guess I’m too much of an individual thinker who treasures that freedom rather than ‘give my mind over’ to any church or pastor. **For one thing, perhaps I have been too influenced by the wonderful democracy we have here in the USA and am well aware that it was created and developed under non-Catholic auspices.

** There are too many things about Catholicism as well as fundamentalist Protestantism that alienate me**, especially the notion that they have ‘the wisdom of truth’ which no one else possesses. And I suspect that the influence of ancient superstitions and paganism have left an imprint, especially on Catholicism. I am even troubled that such a great Doctor of the Church as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that heretics should be killed and by such modern documents as “The Syllabus of Errors” (Pius IX) which sharply condemned the separation of church and state. Etc.

** I know this sense of independence will be denounced as egotism, being my own Pope, arrogant refusal to humbly accept the truth, and so on.** But, as Luther said, “Here I stand. I can do no other” (or words like that). I actually enjoy delving into various theologies, weighing them, accepting or rejecting them, often coming to no solid decision.

 **For example, hell and purgatory. Do they exist or not?** I don't know and don't worry about it because God is loving and just and forgiving. Or, Mary. Was she a perpetual virgin, living a sinless life, immaculately conceived, and assumed into heaven? None of that is confirmed by scripture, and I don't know. It doesn't make much difference to me. She was, after all, a married woman, a blessed woman. the mother of Christ - and that is enough for me to honor her without knowing whether she is the Queen Mother. When Bathsheba is used as a Queen Mother model - hm! Not impressive. As for Queen of Heaven? Sounds a bit like some ancient goddesses. Sorry. No offense. But I've always been told to speak the truth in love.

** We could go on, but that’s enough. I respect much about Catholicism,** from its hospitals and schools to Father Damien and Mother Theresa. But the requirement that a good Catholic must accept all the other beliefs that go along with it has kept me from being a good Catholic, despite a rich Catholic heritage on my paternal side. (The family tree includes the first Archbishop of Quebec!).

** But God bless Catholics, Protestants, and people of every creed,** color, culture and country. May religion become a bridge rather than a barrier.

 

[AbideWithMe]

There is a distinct difference between something nonsensical and something incomprehensible. Some of the Church’s claims (the Trinity, transubstantiation, etc.) are the latter, not the former. There is a humility involved in submitting one’s will with the will of God. But with the CC, one does not have to suspend one’s rationality with one’s faith; they go hand in hand. Paragraphs 158-160 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church come to mind.

History. History. History. Reading apologetics works are great, but have you read the Early Church Fathers? Read Augustine, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, the Didache. You will find that they are thoroughly Catholic in doctrine; and bear in mind they were all writing (with the exception of Augustine, who played a role in the Council of Hippo also confirming the canon of Scripture) before there existed a Bible as we know it.
.

Hi Geoformeo–

Your paragraph on the distinction between nonsensical and incomprehensible was well said. I believe that’s something that everyone has to come to terms with if we are to mature.

Having said that, your generalized blanket statement about acceptance of authority being lacking in Protestants does a disservice to understanding Protestants, and is an unhelpful assumption on your part.

Regarding “history, history, history”, I’ve read a great deal from the ECF’s, and in an open-hearted, open-minded way. And yet, all that reading has left me questioning the CC’s claims more then when I started. It doesn’t appear to me to be such a cut and dried matter as Catholic apologists often seem to make it out to be. Reality is often messier than we would wish it be, and history as well is often more complicated—more human—than we’d like.

Please keep in mind that many Orthodox and Protestant scholars are far more experienced in studying church history than people such as you or I are likely to be, yet they don’t fully agree with all the CC’s claims for itself—obviously. So, what do you make of them? :

Are they ignorant?–certainly not.

Are they deliberately being intellectually dishonest?—maybe some are, but not the majority.

Is some spiritual or psychological block keeping them from seeing things the way you see them?—well, maybe in some cases, but I doubt in most. We Christians seem to commonly ascribe differences in belief to some underlying spiritual or psychological cause, and sometimes that can be a reasonable thing to do. However, I believe we do it far too often, with too little accurate information and insight to make those judgments about someone beside ourselves, and with too little charity.

So, Geoformeo, again my sincere question, because you seem thoughtful —what do you make of all the Orthodox and Protestant history experts that aren’t Catholic despite their honest study?

 

[KathleenGee]

People have to study how Christianity was put into practice as Christ’s Church.

Christianity was pretty much uniformly practiced throughout the world until Luther. Now it is hard for people to realize and even visualize such unity of belief and practice even existed.

I find most fundamentalists take a long time to finally look at history. There is great emphasis on the great faith of the believers in the Old Testament. And they look at recent, contemporary models of faith in action by devout Christians. It is like Christ left a paltry history of believers.

If you study the Catholic faith, rather, if you study the lives of the saints, you will find many countless lives redeemed and restored and renewed in Christ. We have feast days of the saints where we focus on those who had endured in Christ to the end, countless saints to draw on to help us live better Christian lives.

You have the Bible without the Church, you have ongoing splintering of denominations because these are based on man and not Christ. You go down the street and you pick the church that fits you.

 

[PJM]

There must indeed. I’m not disputing the existence of God here, or the divine nature of Jesus. I struggle with doubts about those things, yes, but those doubts are not the reason why I’m not a Catholic. As far as I can make out, if there are miracles–and I’m inclined to think there are–they don’t occur exclusively among Catholics.

If not, I’m unaware of it. I don’t ever recall a non Catholic miracle? Maybe? But they are rather; even very common in the Catholic Faith. Google Eucharistic Mircales… this happenes countless times, everyday throughout the world.

The Bible, or parts of it, may well be inspired. There’s a real question about just what “inspired” means, however. “God-breathed” is a metaphor. It’s quite possible that it means that the people who originally wrote the texts were deeply moved by their personal experience of God, and they tried to convey their experience in words that were colored by their own background beliefs, and their personal hopes and fears. This would still set these texts apart from most other writings.?QUOTE]

***Perhaps my friend you lack a full understanding of what is meant by 2 Tim.3:16 that affirmes that “all of the bible” is inspiried by God.

This is not to be taken as a word for word dictation by God; rather ONLY that ALL that is taught is TRUE. The language is of course that of the the various authors themselves. Expressed in a manner that would have been understood by those being instructed at that time and place. BUT the ideas conveied, the messages shared and the Teachings are ALL Inspired by the Holy Spirit. Even then one MUST seek who was teaching and who was being instructed and place in back into the authors culture, and time to gain a right understanding of the intent***.

People are inspired by many other texts too, and there are many stories of conversion experiences attached to those texts. And even if the historical evidence is sufficient to establish the main events of the Bible, it is not sufficient to establish their meaning.

**Yes indeed. However ONLY the bible is warrantied by Christ Himself, [Jn.14:16-17; Jn. 17:15-19 and Mt. 16:1819]and is given assurence by God Himself, along with the Teachings of Christ Catholic Curch [SOLE holder of the keys to heaven] on the two broad catagories of Faith -beliefs [what MUST be accepted, believed and lived -out in our daily lives] and all-moral issues; where She; Mother Church in an absolute sense cannot error in Her Official teachings.

Do not overlook the fact that it is the RCC that “birthed the bible.” In fact the entire NT is written by men known today to have been early Catholics. We assembled and codified the bible.***

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[dingodile]

If not, I’m unaware of it. I don’t ever recall a non Catholic miracle? Maybe? But they are rather; even very common in the Catholic Faith. Google Eucharistic Mircales… this happenes countless times, everyday throughout the world.

I suppose we might get into a dispute about which miracles are authentic. But the case of the apparent incorruptibility of the body of Paramhansa Yogananda, described here is perhaps an example. Yes, his body was embalmed, per California law under the circumstances, but the statements indicate the manner in which his embalmed body did not deteriorate in the expected way.

I’ve read Cruz’s book, The Incorruptibles, so I’m aware of the Catholic literature on this sort of thing. It seems to me that the Yogananda case, though not as dramatic as some of the Catholic cases, is also better documented than some, and falls withing the general range of phenomena that Cruz describes.

Fr. Amorth, noted exorcist, wrote (concerning the reluctance of many Catholic bishops to address demonic activities), “On the other hand, some Protestant denominations do not take this approach. Even in Rome there are some who take the matter very seriously. They investigate an occurrence, and when after their process of discernment they find evidence of diabolical activity, they exorcise with an efficacy that many times I was able to witness personally.” I would take exorcism to be a kind of para-miraculous phenomenon, carrying the same kind of supernatural authority that miracles are supposed to have. So it should be significant that a Catholic exorcist attests to the efficacy of exorcism by (some) Protestant ministers.

Perhaps my friend you lack a full understanding of what is meant by 2 Tim.3:16 that affirmes that “all of the bible” is inspiried by God.

It says “all scripture”, not “all of the Bible.” It’s a matter of further interpretation to decide what was meant by “scripture.”

This is not to be taken as a word for word dictation by God; rather ONLY that ALL that is taught is TRUE. The language is of course that of the the various authors themselves. Expressed in a manner that would have been understood by those being instructed at that time and place. BUT the ideas conveied, the messages shared and the Teachings are ALL Inspired by the Holy Spirit. Even then one MUST seek who was teaching and who was being instructed and place in back into the authors culture, and time to gain a right understanding of the intent.

Yes, but who knows what is being taught and what is merely being described? That, again, is a matter of interpretation. Not everything in a text is part of the “message”.

Yes indeed. However ONLY the bible is warrantied by Christ Himself, [Jn.14:16-17; Jn. 17:15-19 and Mt. 16:18*19]and is given assurence by God Himself, along with the Teachings of Christ Catholic Curch [SOLE holder of the keys to heaven] on the two broad catagories of Faith -beliefs [what MUST be accepted, believed and lived -out in our daily lives] and all-moral issues; where She; Mother Church in an absolute sense cannot error in Her Official teachings.

As you know, there are other interpretations of these passages. I find no reason to accept the Catholic interpretation above all others. It is, of course, circular and self-serving to appeal to the very texts whose meaning is in doubt to support the claim that only the Catholic interpretation is sound.

Do not overlook the fact that it is the RCC that “birthed the bible.” In fact the entire NT is written by men known today to have been early Catholics. We assembled and codified the bible.

I don’t overlook it, but I also don’t overlook the possibility that the Church got it wrong, or that the Church has misinterpreted it and then locked itself into those misinterpretations.
It always comes down to “We assembled the Bible, and we interpret this book that we assembled to mean that we couldn’t have erred in the assembling of it.”

It doesn’t work for me.

 

[ataylorfam]

Why I am not Catholic:

I haven’t been able to do RCIA. Well, the full story is more complicated. I have been on a faith journey for such a long time. Right now I am ready to go to RCIA and join the church, but my husband is not. We have 2 young children we also have to consider. We have been completely honest with each other about where we are in our faith, and after much discussion I agreed to wait one year to enter RCIA and join the church so that he could have time to research and consider the faith for himself, and that whatever he decides we would both take RCIA together next year for me to join, for him to consider it, and for our children to join with me as well. This way whatever his decision, my children and I will be in the faith, and he will have a good understanding of it (although, I am hoping he does join with us!). In the meantime, we are attending mass together as a family and participating as fully as we can without being Catholic.

I would like to share though, what DID lead me to the Catholic church. And that was the division that exists within Protestantism. I live in the South, and the division is terrible. Yes there are some denominations which say its a universal church and that we are all part of one body, etc. however they still all individually feel like they are 100% right and the tons of other denominations are wrong, no matter how politically correctly they phrase it! As I researched history, and sola scriptura, I realized that sola scriptura was what led to this division and confusion, and I don’t believe that God would allow for that within His church. So, I had to look at the alternative. That Christ founded a physical church that had authority. I read Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn, and my journey has just continued from there.

Kelli

 

[havana1]

Because the Catholic church is hostile to “singles” - homilies and everything are geared towards married couples with families and small kids. Teens get special preferential treatment with their LifeTeen masses and the singles get treated like lepers. **I have never felt so lonely and alone and isolated as I do when I’m at a Catholic mass. **

 

[Ahimsa]

I suppose we might get into a dispute about which miracles are authentic. But the case of the apparent incorruptibility of the body of Paramhansa Yogananda, described here is perhaps an example. Yes, his body was embalmed, per California law under the circumstances, but the statements indicate the manner in which his embalmed body did not deteriorate in the expected way.

What’s also interesting is the lack of “signs of physical deterioration and no putrefactive odor”, 24 hours after death*, before* the embalming took place.

 

[geoformeo]

The claims of the Church rest on Tradition, upon which the authority of scripture itself rests. But that doesn’t really change anything for me. Tradition itself is, from the vantage point of the present, a collection of texts. And as you know, there are many, many texts from that period, expressing a vast diversity of opinions on the details and meaning of the life of Jesus and the apostles. Which ones are authoritative?

Ah, excellent question. One I forgot to address in my previous post. Here’s the deal. You can look at the canon of Scripture or any of the early Church writings in one of two ways: 1) There were a bunch of “equal” writings about the life and teachings of Christ with the “strife and interpretations” that you point out, and after a drawn out battle, the CC emerged and snuffed out the other “equally valid” scriptures (gnostic gospels, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.). (This is the view that many modern secular biblical scholars adhere to.) Or 2) The CC preserves the true and authentic teachings of Christ because there has been direct succession from the ones who physically heard Christ preach and teach.

When I was studying the canon of Scripture, this point came to me very clearly and spoke very loudly: the Church decided on what was to be included in and excluded from the canon because only the Church had the legitimate authority to do so. The only ones who really knew what Christ literally said and did were the Apostles and the additional men and women who followed him (like Matthias). These individuals then handed on these authentic teachings to their successors, who handed them on to their successors, who…

But this is not even remotely close to being the same as the old “telephone” game. This is about the most important thing that ever happened to/for humanity. It wasn’t/isn’t a game, and the early Church and the Church today does not treat it as such. Many Christians lost their lives in defense of the authentic teachings that have been faithfully handed down to us today, and that is why they so staunchly fought against heretical teachings. They had every right in the world to see such documents as the Gospel of Thomas as nothing more than heretical garbage and reject them on legitimate grounds.

Think about the historical/political/cultural situation for a moment. It was not easy to convert the world. And the early Christian writers were very aware of the real possibility and actuality of those who would pervert the authentic Gospel by wanting to amalgamate some of the existing religions of the day. Only the successors of the Apostles could truly verify whether a teaching was of Christ or was not. Which is even why Paul himself said that he went to confer with Peter and James that the teaching he was giving to the Gentiles that he had received as a revelation from Christ Himself were authentic (Gal 1:18-19, 2:1-2).

Again, from “inside the circle” we may say that the Holy Spirit guided the process to the right outcome. That is a key principle, in fact. But what is the evidence for that? Certainly not history.

I’m afraid that there will be no “evidence” of the sort you are asking for on this point on this side of heaven. Are you looking for God to come down and say directly to you: “The Catholic Church is infallibly correct on its canon of Scripture and on all its teachings on faith and morals”? All we can muster at this point is the best thing to evidence that we have, which is indeed the historical reliability of the teachings of Christ through apostolic succession. Because if the Holy Spirit says to me that the Church is right and the Holy Spirit says to you that the Church is wrong, then apparently somebody’s “Holy Spirit” isn’t telling the truth!

I have, although it’s been a few years now. I should look at it again. My recollection is that Lewis’s comments on atonement were the weakest point of the book. In fact, I had the impression that he wasn’t all that confident of the doctrine himself, although that could be a trick of my memory.

I highly suggest looking again. It took me 3 times through it to finally get the full impact.

That’s fair enough. It has been a struggle of decades for me to get to the point of “mere theism”, and I feel like I’m hanging on by a thread! If it takes as long for me to find my way into Christianity, well, I probably won’t get there…

I’m an optimist that you will get there:thumbsup: If you’re still struggling with the “mere theism” part, I’ve written a book that may be right up your alley. If you’re interested, PM me and I’ll let you know the details and see about getting you a copy.

Thank you for your answers!

And thank you for your honesty and forthrightness. It is very refreshing!

 

[geoformeo]

Hi AbideWithMe!

your generalized blanket statement about acceptance of authority being lacking in Protestants does a disservice to understanding Protestants, and is an unhelpful assumption on your part.

My apologies if that was offensive to you, but I was just stating what has been my personal experience. And unfortunately it is precisely the authority issue that has caused the multitude of factions within Protestant Christianity that run rampant today. Luther disagreed with the Church. Calvin disagreed with Luther. Zwingli had his issues. The local Baptist minister has his disagreements with the other Baptist Church the next block down, who disagrees with the non-denominationalist Christian pastor…

Who is right? Who has the whole truth as given from Christ to the Apostles? Either 1) Nobody has it; or 2) Only one of the Christian churches has it. “That they may be one, as You and I are one”. What a shameful state Christianity is in today, completely opposed to the will of Christ.

Regarding “history, history, history”, I’ve read a great deal from the ECF’s, and in an open-hearted, open-minded way. And yet, all that reading has left me questioning the CC’s claims more then when I started. It doesn’t appear to me to be such a cut and dried matter as Catholic apologists often seem to make it out to be. Reality is often messier than we would wish it be, and history as well is often more complicated—more human—than we’d like.

And yet isn’t it amazing how despite human frailties and the messiness of history, the Catholic Church is still standing after 2000 years, just as the Holy Spirit was promised to be with the bride of Christ. I’m curious, do you have specifics with regard to issues that are “not as cut and dried” as you claim?

Another question, and this is not to be antagonizing in any way, but I’m wholeheartedly curious about this: do Protestants think that the church they belong to (whether a specific denomination or not) is the closest thing to the authentic, original, early Church? Or does that even matter to you?

Please keep in mind that many Orthodox and Protestant scholars are far more experienced in studying church history than people such as you or I are likely to be

Agreed!

yet they don’t fully agree with all the CC’s claims for itself—obviously. So, what do you make of them? Are they ignorant?–certainly not. Are they deliberately being intellectually dishonest?—maybe some are, but not the majority. Is some spiritual or psychological block keeping them from seeing things the way you see them?—well, maybe in some cases, but I doubt in most. We Christians seem to commonly ascribe differences in belief to some underlying spiritual or psychological cause, and sometimes that can be a reasonable thing to do. However, I believe we do it far too often, with too little accurate information and insight to make those judgments about someone beside ourselves, and with too little charity.

So, Geoformeo, again my sincere question, because you seem thoughtful —what do you make of all the Orthodox and Protestant history experts that aren’t Catholic despite their honest study?

A very good and honest question. My answer, which you may see as a cop-out, is that I am not in a place to judge them. Each individual is different, with different knowledge, understanding, and grace given them to make their decisions. I agree with you that oftentimes there is far too little charity involved in the discussion process, and I apologize if I have been offensive in that manner.

I see a lot of Protestant scholars making the swim across the Tiber precisely because their scholarship compels them to do so (i.e., Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, Tim Staples, Steve Ray, Marcus Grodi, etc.) I also know and appreciate the efforts of current Protestant scholars, the William Lane Craig’s, J.P. Moreland’s, N.T. Wright’s of the world. I most certainly consider their works valuable, and if they or any non-Catholic history expert can stand before Almighty God with a clear conscience regarding their conviction to not join the Catholic Church, then they won’t be held culpable for the error. It is only if they know that the CC is the true Church Christ founded, and yet remain out of it for any personal moral, psychological, or intellectual reason, that it becomes sinful and can have unfortunate eternal consequences.

But ultimately it comes back to my point above. Either we all have it wrong, or only one of us is right. But one has to take an honest introspection and full-scale examination as to whether the church they belong to is the correct one, and not just “be” a Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox out of convenience, family tradition, or personal satisfaction. Hence, I am Catholic.

Thanks for your questions. May God bless you and all who are dear to you.

 

[Kouyate42]

Scrub my last answers, I’m not a Catholic because I can’t find any way to attend RCIA.

 

[admonsta]

May I add a small point to this discussion? It seems that many people are dissatisfied with the idea that the CC holds the fullness of truth. I forget how it was described otherwise.

It was explained to me that it’s not a case of we’re right and you’re wrong. There are good and holy people in all faiths. Every person on earth has their measure of truth and faithfulness according to what they know and understand. Every religion has some measure of truth. The christian denominations have a great deal of truth in them, and many great things happen in the world because of these religions.

We catholics believe this church has the fullness of truth, but that doesn’t mean only catholicism has any truth at all, or that it is the only means of goodness on earth.

I believe that Catholicism is God’s true church on earth, but I also believe that all faithful people on earth are my brothers and sisters in Christ, because they are being true to the measure of truth that they have. By faithful I mean those who have genuinely searched for the right path and followed that which they have discovered to be good.

“Test everything and hold fast to that which is good” 1 Thessalonians 5:21

I have had times of doubt, but at these times I read and discuss and I remember why it is that I decided that catholicism was right. So far no other religion has come close for me.

 

[dingodile]

Ah, excellent question. One I forgot to address in my previous post. Here’s the deal. You can look at the canon of Scripture or any of the early Church writings in one of two ways: 1) There were a bunch of “equal” writings about the life and teachings of Christ with the “strife and interpretations” that you point out, and after a drawn out battle, the CC emerged and snuffed out the other “equally valid” scriptures (gnostic gospels, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.). (This is the view that many modern secular biblical scholars adhere to.) Or 2) The CC preserves the true and authentic teachings of Christ because there has been direct succession from the ones who physically heard Christ preach and teach.

I’m no scripture scholar, but my sense of the matter is that many writings were rejected from the canon because they were known to have been written too late and were therefore too far from the sources. I’m not suggesting that the Church got this wrong, by the way. Indeed, my point wasn’t just about scripture anyway. I’m not a sola scriptura Protestant–I’m not sure just what I am, but I’m pretty sure I’m not one of those!

My point is that even what is called “Sacred Tradition” is a kind of written oral history, a set of texts. Unlike scripture, there is not, to my knowledge, a canon of texts of Sacred Tradition, just a set of sources that the Church has traditionally relied upon. Thus, there’s a tradition of preferred sources that help to establish the preferred interpretations of the preferred texts of the canon, and all this becomes the basis of the preferred teachings.

I’m afraid that there will be no “evidence” of the sort you are asking for on this point on this side of heaven. Are you looking for God to come down and say directly to you: “The Catholic Church is infallibly correct on its canon of Scripture and on all its teachings on faith and morals”? All we can muster at this point is the best thing to evidence that we have, which is indeed the historical reliability of the teachings of Christ through apostolic succession. Because if the Holy Spirit says to me that the Church is right and the Holy Spirit says to you that the Church is wrong, then apparently somebody’s “Holy Spirit” isn’t telling the truth!

Indeed. I expect no evidence to appear. All appearances suggest that God has deliberately positioned humanity in such a way that our theological beliefs must always be vastly underdetermined by evidence. I can live with that. I accept that the most intelligent, sincere, prayerful people can and do reach opposing conclusions, and this appears to be a fundamental fact of the human condition.

I highly suggest looking again. It took me 3 times through it to finally get the full impact.

I’ll do so.

I’m an optimist that you will get there:thumbsup: If you’re still struggling with the “mere theism” part, I’ve written a book that may be right up your alley. If you’re interested, PM me and I’ll let you know the details and see about getting you a copy.

That’s very kind. I’m not as optimistic as you are, but I’ll willingly read what you’ve written.
As you may have guessed, I’m not averse to studying these issues.

And thank you for your honesty and forthrightness. It is very refreshing!

 

[AbideWithMe]

Indeed. I expect no evidence to appear. All appearances suggest that God has deliberately positioned humanity in such a way that our theological beliefs must always be vastly underdetermined by evidence. I can live with that. I accept that the most intelligent, sincere, prayerful people can and do reach opposing conclusions, and this appears to be a fundamental fact of the human condition.

And thank you for your honesty and forthrightness. It is very refreshing!

Geoformeo----

Likewise, thank you from me. Though we have come to different conclusions regarding the evidence available (and, in truth I’m still in place where I need to reserve judgment but be actively obedient to what I do understand to be from God), I don’t feel we are talking past each other, and that’s refreshing.

I’ll come back later with more of a reply on where I’m getting puzzled by what appears to be conflicting evidence regarding the early church…but meanwhile, the paragraph I quoted above from Dingodile is something I can relate to. And, though I’m often circumspect before coming to firm conclusions about most things, that is not to be confused with not having faith.

Any replies from you, Geoformeo, will be looked forward to with patience…I know we all often have alot going on in our “real” lives, and I personally place internet reply duties among things that are important but usually not urgent.

 

[jesuspsr]

Because the Catholic church is hostile to “singles” - homilies and everything are geared towards married couples with families and small kids. Teens get special preferential treatment with their LifeTeen masses and the singles get treated like lepers. **I have never felt so lonely and alone and isolated as I do when I’m at a Catholic mass. **

I guess I have to agree to dis-agree with you on this.
I’m single and old (48) I’ve never benn married, I have no kids and I don’t feel as you do, on the cantrary. Well, don’t want to derail the topic here so…

God bless

jesus g

 

[pablope]

I’m no scripture scholar,

My point is that even what is called “Sacred Tradition” is a kind of written oral history, a set of texts. Unlike scripture, there is not, to my knowledge, a canon of texts of Sacred Tradition, just a set of sources that the Church has traditionally relied upon. Thus, there’s a tradition of preferred sources that help to establish the preferred interpretations of the preferred texts of the canon, and all this becomes the basis of the preferred teachings.

And thank you for your honesty and forthrightness. It is very refreshing!

Hi, Dingodile…if I may, hopefully, this will help you understand Sacred Tradition:

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever.

And this is a highly recommended book:

aquinasandmore.com/catholic-books/meaning-of-tradition/sku/20511

 

[pablope]

Why I am not Catholic:

I haven’t been able to do RCIA. Well, the full story is more complicated. I have been on a faith journey for such a long time. Right now I am ready to go to RCIA and join the church, but my husband is not. We have 2 young children we also have to consider.
I would like to share though, what DID lead me to the Catholic church. And that was the division that exists within Protestantism. I live in the South, and the division is terrible. Yes there are some denominations which say its a universal church and that we are all part of one body, etc. however they still all individually feel like they are 100% right and the tons of other denominations are wrong, no matter how politically correctly they phrase it! As I researched history, and sola scriptura, I realized that sola scriptura was what led to this division and confusion, and I don’t believe that God would allow for that within His church. So, I had to look at the alternative. That Christ founded a physical church that had authority. I read Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn, and my journey has just continued from there.

Kelli

Hi, Kelli…how old are your kids? If they are young enough, they could be baptized with you after RCIA…and if your husband does decide to enter the Church…you could all be one family to be received.

I will ask all my Catholic brethen here to keep you and your family in their prayers.

Meanwhile, you may like this story:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

 

[PJM]

=Lokabrenna;8483438]I wish more people on CAF were like you. No one’s been screaming “devil worshiper!” and throwing holy water on me (please don’t, I don’t like having wet clothes and my hair just dried from washing it) but some of the comments on my two “Ask a Pagan” threads were…less than charitable, although I try to be civil in return. There’s no sense in getting angry over internet posts and I like answering questions about my faith.

I could go over the list of things areas where I disagree with Church teaching: I’m pro-choice, a lesbian (and I have absolutely no intention of remaining celibate for the rest of my life–especially now that same-sex marriage is legal in my country), I don’t believe the Bible depicts events that literally happened in history (if said events even happened at all–scholars like to argue), but I suspect you’ve heard all of this before. To borrow an analogy someone recently used: It’s like when you go away to summer camp, and you come back, and your old friends are there, but for some reason, you just don’t connect with them anymore. (Maybe a better analogy would be a school reunion.) I feel so strongly about those “unchangeable” teachings you mentioned that there’s no way I could go back, it would (in my mind) require me to adopt blind faith, and I just can’t go back to that.

My dear friend in Christ.

Help Me out here. How does anyone “believe in God” and then not accept what God teaches and commands? I’m not being a smart alec here; I just can’t connect the dots.

Can you share what country your from? I’m nosey.

Faith by its very defination * has always an element of trust and blind spots, or it would be termed something elase, right?

I have read many different pro-choice arguments. But in the end it’s always claiming that the one having the abortion has rights, and DEMANDS these rights; that they are quite willing to deny their baby. The logic and basic morality here is at best strange. What makes one human life more important than another?

God Bless,
Pat*

 

[PJM]

=Stephen W;8483379]I thought I knew what the CC taught; Mary worship, the silly superstitions (Really? My house will sell if I just turn the statue of St. Joseph upside down?), idol worship, etc… Then I started seriously studying church history, which led me to the early church fathers and thier writings. Which also led to another look at the CC. Now I don’t know. I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around some Catholic beliefs. Some I know would just have to be accepted on faith in the Magisterium. Others I can study out.

Your average, Catholic-on-the-street doesn’t help eithier when I hear them spout the same nonsense that I always thought the CC stood for (How many times do I say Hail Mary to insure it wont rain today?) How about alittle more teaching for your own people?

For now I remain a Mennonite. A Mennonite with an open mind, maybe. We’ll see where the Lord leads.

So my friend, are you actually open to hearing thre TRUTH? If you are let me know and I’ll explain what Catholics actually believe and practice and why; not the mush your holding on to.

Would it be called “Faith” if everything was clearly evident to human understanding?

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY and fully.

**Isaiah 55:6-9 **"Seek the LORD while he may be found, [GOD personally only founded One Church and One set of beleifs which you do not accurately understand]
call upon him while he is near;let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"

What you have been taught and think yo understand about the RCC is not even close to being accurate or true. And yes my friend, I CAN prove it to you.

Let me know if you really are seeking truth. And please be careful with the sarcasim. Its not very chairitable.

God Bless you,
Pat