I'm not a Catholic because

[PJM]

=geoformeo;8483759]What an interesting and insightful thread. Thank you, PJM, for starting it, and thank you all who have sincerely stated your questions and doubts regarding Catholicism. Moreover, thank you all for being here on this forum, and actually seeking the truth for yourselves about what the Church really teaches and not taking things on hearsay. Like PJM, I am also a catechist (albeit for Confirmation, so I deal with the instruction of teens which is an adventure in and of itself), and realize that the average Joe Catholic knows and does very little with regard to understanding, explaining, and defending their faith. In my own small way, I am trying to remedy that situation.

There is no single topic that is the “clincher” that brings one to Catholicism; it is a process of discernment and I commend those of you searching here on the forums. Oftentimes, one must knock down specific wall after specific wall until there are no more walls to knock down. PJM is doing a great job at addressing individual specific issues, and I offer my humble services to do the same.

That being said, I have to throw out a blanket generalization that in my experience applies to both teens and non-Catholics: a resistance to submission to an authority. In both situations, it often appears to be “my will, not Thy will, be done”. In short, everyone wants to be their own pope. Which, of course, is the sin of pride and the result of our fallen nature. But ultimately, the buck has to stop somewhere, and Christ Himself said that somewhere is the Church (Mt 18:16-19). Christ instituted a leader of His Church (Peter, Mt 16:16-19; Lk 22:31-32; Jn 21:15-19), a Church with apostolic succession (Acts 1:15-26, 2 Tim 1:6), and who Christ identified Himself with (Acts 9:4-5) and is His body, with Him being the ultimate head (Eph 5:29-32).

And there’s the rub. Catholics are so into being “Catholic” because to be fully Catholic means to be fully immersed in the fullness of Christ Himself. Christ makes no distinction between Himself and the Church: they are married, and “the two have become one”. Therefore, to follow and trust the Church is to follow and trust Christ, and not just on an abstract or esoteric level. It is truly the aligning all of oneself, body and soul, with the will of Christ.

One final thought: I hope everyone reads and contemplates all of John 17, Jesus’ prayer for unity in His Church. “That they may be one, as You and I are one.” Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit do not disagree on infant baptism, faith alone, once-saved always saved, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex “marriage”, contraception, or anything. As far as I know, only one Church (the Catholic Church) makes the audacious claim to infallibly teach in alignment with God, as only one has the ability to back up that claim. And if your church does not or cannot make that claim, why are you there? If it can offer you only some but not the fullness of Truth (which is Christ Himself), ask yourself if you are okay with knowing your belief structure is incomplete and is at least in some ways away from the will of the God you claim to worship.

God’s blessing and peace to all.

THANKS dear friend!

And your CORRECT. The New Age teaching that everyone has a “right” to there own opinion is the most common issue we must address, No such thing has a Godly foundaton.

The idea that One can choose what to believe and disbelieve is IMO shockinly illogical. It certainly cannot be found in the bible where God always and everywhere insist that there is ONLY One God, One RIGHT set of Faith-beliefs and only One Church. That whicj Jesus Himself founded, inspires and protects. Jn.14:16-17, Jn.17:15-19, John 20-19-23 and of course Mt. 16:18-19.

The Moral of the “narrow gate” is based on God’s understanding of human nature. Salvation is not supposed to be easy.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Stephen_W]

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

I re-read my post and realized just how shockingly bad it is. I sincerely appologize. I am on this site precisely because of what I learned from reading church history and wanting to understand the connection between the ECFs and the RCC.

Obviously, many, okay most, of the things I’ve heard in the past about the RCC is rooted in ignorance. I’ve been reading through the CCC, and have been very disappointed with how little most of the Catholics I came face to face with know about thier own belief system. This really baffles me. In my faith, all are expected to “have a ready answer”. So, yes, I have to wonder if the average Catholic is only in the church because that is where they were raised, and do not feel the need to take thier faith seriously. Notice I said “average”, alot of what I have read on this forum is obviously from sincere, devout, thinking Catholics, who understand, or are seeking to understand, thier church’s teaching.

None of that excuses what I wrote. Again, I am embrassed and do humbly appologize.

 

[Tallguy88]

I’m not a Catholic because I wasn’t raised in a Catholic home. I may end up becoming one, but these things take time…

 

[ataylorfam]

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

I have an 8 year old daughter, and a 2 year old son. Both of them were baptized in the Anglican church as infants, so I think it will be relatively easy for them to make the change over once I go through RCIA.

Thank you for your prayers!

Kelli

 

[PJM]

=Stephen W;8489146]I re-read my post and realized just how shockingly bad it is. I sincerely appologize. I am on this site precisely because of what I learned from reading church history and wanting to understand the connection between the ECFs and the RCC.

Obviously, many, okay most, of the things I’ve heard in the past about the RCC is rooted in ignorance. I’ve been reading through the CCC, and have been very disappointed with how little most of the Catholics I came face to face with know about thier own belief system. This really baffles me. In my faith, all are expected to “have a ready answer”. So, yes, I have to wonder if the average Catholic is only in the church because that is where they were raised, and do not feel the need to take thier faith seriously. Notice I said “average”, alot of what I have read on this forum is obviously from sincere, devout, thinking Catholics, who understand, or are seeking to understand, thier church’s teaching.

None of that excuses what I wrote. Again, I am embrassed and do humbly appologize.

My dear brother in Christ,

You are sadly correct in your estimation of “the average” catholics faith knowledge. Even worse is that we did it to ourselves:blush:

The modernazation of Catholism wrought by the “spirit of Vatican II” changed the way Mass is perceived, the type of homilies that were given and to a large degree still are that focus on feeling rather than beliefs and doctrines, have desimated once Catholic schools, and the churches entire education system.

We are fighting back; but its an up hill struggle. Yet God remains in Charge and no doubt at some point we’ll return to a more informed laity.

In the mean time, I would be delighted to discus any issues or questions you may have, Please feel free to send me a private message, and we can discuss any topics of interest or concern.

May our Loving God continue to bless you,

a brother in Christ,
Pat

 

[truthordeath]

Wow, where do I start on this subject? Hmm. Could be the biggest reason that I am not catholic and never will be is that in this age of information we all need to be very careful in what we put our faith in. Many people put their faith in what used to be a church that Christ instituted . But now just look at what has been perverted into something that was never meant to be.I have never believed what other people claim to know or to be, but instead I do the research myself with an open mind. The real truth is there is not one single religion today that is 100% accurate with the teachings of Christ. So, in short, I do my own worship. Free of any meddling by man. 'Nuff said

 

[andrewstx]

Wow, where do I start on this subject? Hmm. Could be the biggest reason that I am not catholic and never will be is that in this age of information we all need to be very careful in what we put our faith in. Many people put their faith in what used to be a church that Christ instituted . But now just look at what has been perverted into something that was never meant to be.I have never believed what other people claim to know or to be, but instead I do the research myself with an open mind. The real truth is there is not one single religion today that is 100% accurate with the teachings of Christ. So, in short, I do my own worship. Free of any meddling by man. 'Nuff said

Interesting TOD. Can I ask a few questions please? Did you baptise yourself? Do you consecrate the Holy Eucharist and then give yourself communion? Did you know the very word communion implies more than one?

Or maybe you just don’t care about such things?

What you say is not unheard off, there are a lot of people now who consider themselves to be “free agent” Christians.

Of course to me we are all in this together.

Do you belong to a denomination that calls itself Church ofChrist, COC?

 

[someguy114]

Sometimes resisting submission to authority is a good thing.

Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.

 

[ItsLove]

i’m not a catholic because the easter vigil hasn’t arrived yet

me too!!!

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

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’ll do so.

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!

catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-catholic-church-list-all-the-teachings-given-to-the-apostles-by-divine-revela

Tradition is implicit and Explicit.

A good example of why this is so can be found in the Monothelite controversy. The Monothelites were seventh-century heretics who claimed that Jesus had only one will, the divine. The orthodox position is that Jesus also has a human will which is distinct from but never in conflict with his divine will. This position was infallibly defined at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681).

Neither the Bible nor the writings of the earliest Church Fathers explicitly stated that Christ has a human will distinct from but in harmony with his divine will. That doctrine was not handed on from the apostles in explicit form, but it was handed on in implicit form.

The apostles taught, as the Bible and the Fathers indicate, that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. This contains the implicit teaching of two wills, because if Christ is fully human, he must have a human will, and if he is fully divine, he must have a divine will. For Christ to lack one or the other would make him either not be fully human or not be fully divine. Because of Christ’s supreme holiness and the unity of his Person, his human and divine wills are never in conflict.

All of this is recognized even by Protestants. They acknowledge that the doctrine of the two wills of Christ must be accepted as something coming to us from the apostles, even though it did not come in explicit form. It was a legitimate doctrinal development that emerged when a heresy struck and the Church was sought a deeper, more explicit understanding of what it already implicitly knew.

 

[joe370]

Why are you not a Catholic?

When I was a protestants the reasons were:

The teachings of the CC clashed with my church’s teachings. For many it’s as simple as: the CC’s understanding of scripture clashes with their understanding of scripture.

I doubted that the CC was the one true church founded by Christ at least until I did my own research and stopped relying other non-Catholics.

I was told that the man-made CC fell by the wayside, doctrinally speaking. What I couldn’t understand was the protestant obsession with that notion if in fact the CC was nothing more than another man-made church.

Inquisitions no doubt for many, but that was never an issue for me because Jesus predicted such things and the propaganda was largely and glaringly exaggerated.

I had been taught that the word of God was the foundation of truth, that was until I discovered that it was in fact the church, at which point I started my search for the historical church founded by God. My protestant friends had always (still do) - largely ignored that passage.

My misunderstanding of the Pope’s infallibility. Boy did I, as so many, really miss the mark on that one. Sadly, many simply rely on what they are told. I certainly don’t blame them; I blame the pastors in charge. Most know better. This is a biggie as you can see from reading the posts on this thread.

I had come to believe that all communions, regardless of denomination, even those of the future, comprised the one church founded by God in Jerusalem on Pentecost, only tenuously though, for it appeared on the surface, logically incongruous which was that idea short lived. I was big time in denial.

Finally, I thought, how could one church, out of a bevy of churches in the world today, have the audacity to claim that only their church is the one church of Acts 1 and 2, Matthew 28:20, Matthew 16, John 16:13, John 14:16, Ephesians 3:10, Matthew 18, 1 Timothy 3:15.

Of course, even after only a cursory reading the ECF’s, historical data and scripture from an unbiased standpoint - all fell into place. The CC did in fact have the right to make that claim. No one had a problem with that claim until the reformation.

Conversely, if a non-Catholic has, what they believe to be a legitimate reason(s) for not belong to the CC, I would ask them to read what the early church fathers had to say about the Holy Eucharist and reconsider. Who wouldn’t be willing to overlook a few tough catholic doctrines if they thought that they could actually partake of our Saviors very Being, everyday?

The bible speaks of eternal life only a few times and of those few time the only one that is ignored by protestants, is the last one in red:

• Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this? – John 11:25-26 *

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. – John 3:16

And this is the promise that He has promised us, even eternal life. – 1 John 2:25

For he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. – Galatians 6:8*

*“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my flood, hath eternal life.” *

 

[Slinger]

For several reasons: I was not raised a Catholic and grew up an evangelical Christian. Like many people you tend to gravitate to the faith you were raised in. Upon exploring what the Catholic beliefs are I find that there are several things I agree with. I think the Catholic faith is a beautiful one and devout Catholics are a wonderful people who I hold a great deal of respect for. However, the fact that I do not believe in transubstantiation is pretty much a deal breaker. That, and several other components such as infallibility of the Pope, birth control, etc.

 

[PJM]

=Tallguy88;8489180]I’m not a Catholic because I wasn’t raised in a Catholic home. I may end up becoming one, but these things take time…

Dear frind in Christ,

Perhaps you’ll allow me and us at the FROUM to assist you.

Feel free to ask any questions or raise any issues of concern.

The FORUM offers a Private message service that siuts this purpose well.

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by truthordeath

Wow, where do I start on this subject? Hmm. Could be the biggest reason that I am not catholic and never will be is that in this age of information we all need to be very careful in what we put our faith in. Many people put their faith in what used to be a church that Christ instituted . But now just look at what has been perverted into something that was never meant to be.I have never believed what other people claim to know or to be, but instead I do the research myself with an open mind. The real truth is there is not one single religion today that is 100% accurate with the teachings of Christ. So, in short, I do my own worship. Free of any meddling by man. 'Nuff said

So my friend, perhaps you can provide a bit more information on your comments.

First: Do you accept the Bible as being inspired by God?

Second: what is your basis for thinking the church of today * is not what God intended?

Third: Can you PLEASE point me two where God even once oermitted belief in more than One God; One set of Faith-beliefs [His NOT translated at will by thousands of denominations man made sects] and only and always JUST One Church?

May God Bless you and guide your responce,
Pat*

 

[dingodile]

CopticChristian:
catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-catholic-church-list-all-the-teachings-given-to-the-apostles-by-divine-revela

Tradition is implicit and Explicit.

Thanks for the link to that interesting article. Explicit or implicit, I find no good reason to believe in infallibility of any sort where human beings are involved.

 

[krahnicles]

WELCOME TO THE FORUM!

Thanks!

I assume by your post that your a Christian?

Yep.

Are you aware that Christ only founded one new Faith? [Mt. 16:15-19]

Yes. That Faith is called Christianity. Do you understand the difference between Christianity and Catholicism?

One New Church and that is the precise reason we Catholics seem to be so bull-headed.

Perhaps you seem bull-headed because you are bull-headed, and there actually is something wrong with the way you’re doing things.

We ARE doing it God’s way. Not modified to suit me, you, or anyone BUT God

The way Catholics interact with Protestants seems to have improved to some extent, but it’s still not the kind of thing that suits God.

Not one place in the entire bible does God: Yahweh or Jesus even once allow, permit, or let go unpunished beliefs in other gods, other sets of faith beliefs, or other churches.

Believe me, I’m rolling my eyes right back at you.

The RCC is the Only Church and Faith founded by God Himself; as evideniced by holding the ONE “key to the kingdom” of heaven given to it personally by Jesus.

There is one Key to the House of David, and this is different from the Keys to the Kingdom (plural). You are most incorrect in equating the two. Look up all the places where the Key to the House of David is talked about, and you’ll find out exactly where that key is. It’s only mentioned two or three times, but those references should make it clear.

The RCC is the original Bible Church and the entire NT is authored by men known today to be Catholics.

I don’t think either of these things are entirely accurate. The RCC isn’t even the oldest of the apostolic churches, and it’s certainly not the only one. Also, you have to differentiate between Jewish Christians who favor the Tanakh as the basis for canonicity and Greek/Roman Christians who favor the Septuagint in some way, don’t you? Or do you just refer to all of them as catholic?

It is a historical FACT that the RCC is the One church and faith founded by Christ as no other Christian faith even existed until the GREAT schism of the Eastern catholics in 1010 AD.

I know there were a few other ones. Surely you know this too- but you wouldn’t intentionally disseminate false information, would you? Christianity did exist outside the Roman Empire while there was still a Roman Empire, you know.

And The first prominate non-catholic chuch [Ahgelicans / church of England] founded by a disgruntled King Henry Eighth in the 13th. Century, was not joined by other Protestants until Luthers revolt in the 16th. Century.

Two questions: How would you describe the Archbishop of Canterbury? Was he a disgruntled archbishop? And number two- wouldn’t it be more accurate to say German Catholics joined them in the process of leaving the Catholic Church and becoming Protestant?

I just found out one other thing, too- the disgruntled king to whom you refer, along with Edward VI, broke away from Rome temporarily. It was Queen Elizabeth I that broke away permanently, so don’t you think she should get a little bit of attention as well?

Bonus question number three: Was Queen Elizabeth I a disgruntled queen?

There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH]

It’s one body (or CHURCH) made up of Christians. Could you act a little bit more like it is actually one body? That means focusing more on unity with all Christians (THE WHOLE BODY) and less on trying to make everyone think you’re extra-special. When you do that, you’re not really acting in the best interest of unity. You’re doing the exact opposite.

Does it help when I put things in all caps? I really want to emphasize things like THE WHOLE BODY and ALL OF CHRISTIANITY and NOT JUST ROMAN CATHOLICS.

So my friend, is truning your back on many other people more important than your own salvation? :dts:

My salvation is doing just fine, but since you ask, that is of primary importance. God has done a wonderful job taking care of that, though, so that allows me to focus on other things.

How’s your salvation doing? If you were able to find some way to enjoy full Christian unity with Protestants without anyone being forced to convert from one denomination to another, do you think that would threaten your salvation in any way?

I’m very serious about this question, btw. If you want to shorten up your response and address just one thing from this post, that should be the one.

 

[pablope]

catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-catholic-church-list-all-the-teachings-given-to-the-apostles-by-divine-revela

Tradition is implicit and Explicit.

Thanks for the link to that interesting article. Explicit or implicit, I find no good reason to believe in infallibility of any sort where human beings are involved.

I hope you are aware of the definition of infallibility…which the incapability to teach error on faith and morals…versus impecabillity.

And I would say I agree with you…in that no human by himself/herself…we can be certain can not teach infallibly.

But…“as the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth (Jn 16:13)”…as this verse says…with the protection of the Holy Spirit…can indeed teach infallibly on faith and morals…led by the Pope…which speaks for Christ as his Vicar here on earth.

 

[dingodile]

I hope you are aware of the definition of infallibility…which the incapability to teach error on faith and morals…versus impecabillity.

I am indeed.

And I would say I agree with you…in that no human by himself/herself…we can be certain can not teach infallibly.

But…“as the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth (Jn 16:13)”…as this verse says…with the protection of the Holy Spirit…can indeed teach infallibly on faith and morals…led by the Pope…which speaks for Christ as his Vicar here on earth.

As I said, I don’t believe in infallibility at all, so I don’t believe that the Bible is the infallible record of anything. I need hardly add that to try to demonstrate the infallibility of the Church by citing the Bible is an exercise in circular reasoning. Moreover, Jn 16:13 says only that the Spirit of Truth would come to guide people into the truth. It doesn’t say that they would follow, or how long it would take to get there. After all, even according to the fallible Gospels, the result of the in-person teaching of Jesus was anything but the ability to teach infallibly. He didn’t produce that effect in the flesh, so why would anyone expect him to produce it by means of the Spirit of Truth?

As I see it, all arguments from scripture and Tradition for the infallibility of the Church are circular. The only non-circular argument is the theological argument that God wouldn’t leave his people without an infallible guide to truth. I find little merit in that argument, since God clearly did leave his people without an infallible guide to truth for eons and in places scattered around the world where there was no access to scripture. And in any case, I am deeply skeptical of any argument from premises about what God would or wouldn’t do. If we knew that much about God’s intentions and methods, I suppose we wouldn’t need scripture or Church.

I’m not saying that we know nothing of what Jesus taught. I am saying that what we know is fallible and incomplete and we should never forget that fact. It makes a difference.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I am not a Catholic because I don’t believe in what the Church teaches. If I did, I would be a Catholic–not a good Catholic, necessarily, but I wouldn’t be a Pagan!

I have read this and other of your missives to this forum, and I have a question for you? Since none of the pro-Catholic arguments have any effect on your set beliefs, why on earth are you on this forum? Is it to show your arrogance, or just to irritate the sincere people who correspond here?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Because I want to read a good share of the church fathers and some info on the filioque-question before I decide to become Catholic or Orthodox. Busy with it right now.