I'm not a Catholic because

[Bballer32]

Hi,

well I read it as requested. I then checked out who the people writing were - they are schismatics apparently and have been dicussed here before:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=52968

I also checked out other peoples views, and there is a large number of priests, bishops and even popes along with doctors who were not only not impressed by Padre Pio’s claims and stigmata, but actually thought he was a fraud and a charlatan. There is no independent corroberating evidences to support all of the anecdotal tales about him.

So while I thank you for the link, I have to say, on further research, it’s not in the least bit impressive. And even IF every single thing were true, that is just ONE priest in hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, over the millenia. It does not make the case Im afraid.

Sarah x

Just to point out, he’s is not the only one to have stigmata. There are atleast 62 documented saints and blesseds who had the stigmata (my confirmation saint, St. Francis of Assisi, was the first documented to have stigmata )

Now, let me say something about those bishops and priests that say Pio was a fake. Priests, bishops, cardinals, doctors, popes, they are all humans. Criticism runs in our veins. That’s how we operate. Now, just because they were not impressed by the stigmata, doesn’t mean the rest of his claims are true. He claimed that he could be in two places at once (bilocation) and a priest did not believe him. So, Pio asked him to join him at Mass the next day and he did. After he blessed the bread and the wine to make The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ , he grabbed the priest by the hand and they went around the world giving the Eucharist to people, and they came back to the Mass and finished it.

 

[atheistgirl]

he grabbed the priest by the hand and they went around the world giving the Eucharist to people, and they came back to the Mass and finished it.

With the utmost respect to you and your faith and in all charity - if two men were materializing left right and centre in Spain then The Ukraine, then Ireland then Alsaka dont you think there would be news accounts, witness accounts? If there are witnesses, Im going to speculate now they were people on their own??? Im going to speculate they didnt materialize to a catholic who happened to be on air on a tv channel? Or to a catholic at work in a busy office where there would be dozens of independent witnesses???

Or was the only witness the priest who took part in this?

I really hope you can see I do not discredit, discount, mock or jeer at this accounts - I actually find them intriguing - but not credible.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

What about Our Lady of Guadalupe? She left a picture of herself on a tilma.

Once again, a lot of controversy exists around this, from what Ive been reading.

What I cant understand, is why would a divine entity leave open the possibility of misunderstanding and misinterpretation? Why not create something, which defies all known materials, systems: Even back in the day, from what Ive been reading on this, the Franciscans objected to public desplay since they beliefed it would encourage idolatry and the atribution of miracles to what was just a painting They clearly did not believe the story of it’s origins. I also think the ‘‘supporting’’ skin codex making an appearance in 1995, and up until that point not a single mention or reference to it anywhere that it ever existed, is extremely suspect.

This is what I mean when I ask why not just make it utterly and totally indisputable by anyone, no matter who they are, or what faith they are?

Sarah x

 

[Bballer32]

With the utmost respect to you and your faith and in all charity - if two men were materializing left right and centre in Spain then The Ukraine, then Ireland then Alsaka dont you think there would be news accounts, witness accounts? If there are witnesses, Im going to speculate now they were people on their own??? Im going to speculate they didnt materialize to a catholic who happened to be on air on a tv channel? Or to a catholic at work in a busy office where there would be dozens of independent witnesses???

Or was the only witness the priest who took part in this?

I really hope you can see I do not discredit, discount, mock or jeer at this accounts - I actually find them intriguing - but not credible.

Sarah x

I don’t know how much this is going to help you but it is good. Enjoy

ewtn.com/padrepio/mystic/bilocation.htm

 

[PJM]

=sallybutler;8592983]Unfortunately, the Church is made up of people. And I’m sure you know, people are not perfect, so they individually are not always a good example of anything.

Given that, would you require that Shakespeare write a sonnet to Sarah (being that is my legal name, I would love it) in order to prove that Shakespeare existed. Did you personally watch Dickens write Great Expectation? If not, how do you know he wrote it? What would it take for you to believe that Christopher Columbus existed? Going further back in time, King Tut (his real name is beyond my spelling capabilities)? Is a moon rock really from the moon (I love conspiracy theories). Do you know before you get on a plane that the pilot is a pilot (or do you trust the airlines to hire experienced pilots) While I understand your desire to have every question answered fully, that is not possible.

Faith is when you believe in something you didn’t actually witness, yet you believe is true.

VERY GOOD POST!

Thanks and welcome to CAF!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[atheistgirl]

I don’t know how much this is going to help you but it is good. Enjoy

ewtn.com/padrepio/mystic/bilocation.htm

I really appreciate the link. Thank you. But it’s much as I guessed. One woman in the group ‘‘claimed’’ the Padre was there, the others responded. The observer never saw him. I cant find a single reference to the apprearance to the pilots other than that copyrighted to EWTN - nothing on any military sites Ive looked for.

It’s just all too vague and questionable and there are other possible explanations possible before jumping to the miraculous.

Thanks for the links though - it’s very interesting.

Sarah x

 

[PJM]

=Flyingg;8593787]I’m not a Catholic because:

• I don’t believe in Gods, God, angels, demons, judgement day, life after death, heaven, hell, spirits,miracles, prophets or 'holy books" or any other supernatural things or beings.

• I don’t agree with most of what the Catholic Church teachs or does or did during history.

• I don’t see much evidence that supports Catholicism.

• if there is an INTELLIGENT designer who made this brilliant, amazing and large universe I don’t think he would send his son to save us by dying on a cross, and a god who cares about how much devout we are or about how much we go to confession or consider masturbation, pre marital sex, gay marriage, birth control as sins and I don’t think he would concentrate on humans as they are the center of everything and they need to be saved.

• I think organized religions including Catholicism limit the individuality of thoughts and free thinking.

• I think you can be a moral and loving person without following a 2000 years old book.

• I think prayers do nothing and change nothing, the same thing is going to happen wherever we pray or not, if we want to change anything and make the world a better place, we have to work on it. But I believe prayers can work only as meditation when we feel stressed or tired but many other thing can help too in making us feel better.

• The concept of free will which is being the answer for a lot of religious questions is illogical.

So then my friend, all of these marvalous things are here How and WHY?
God Bless,
Pat*

 

[Bballer32]

I really appreciate the link. Thank you. But it’s much as I guessed. One woman in the group ‘‘claimed’’ the Padre was there, the others responded. The observer never saw him. I cant find a single reference to the apprearance to the pilots other than that copyrighted to EWTN - nothing on any military sites Ive looked for.

It’s just all too vague and questionable and there are other possible explanations possible before jumping to the miraculous.

Thanks for the links though - it’s very interesting.

Sarah x

Yes, they are quite astonishing that’s for sure .

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl
I really appreciate the link. Thank you. But it’s much as I guessed. One woman in the group ‘‘claimed’’ the Padre was there, the others responded. The observer never saw him. I cant find a single reference to the apprearance to the pilots other than that copyrighted to EWTN - nothing on any military sites Ive looked for.

It’s just all too vague and questionable and there are other possible explanations possible before jumping to the miraculous.

Thanks for the links though - it’s very interesting.

Sarah x

Hi Sarah, looking for miracles:

GOOGLE: Eucharistic Miracles

The Stigmata / Padre Pio [died not to long ago]

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Roy5]

Gosh, I haven’t taken the time to read everything on this thread, but I have read enough to understand why someone would be an atheist rather than accept all the wild, miracle stories that often are peddled under the aegis of Catholicism.

** Take, Padre Pio, for example, Believe all the miracles about him if you can, but I simply can’t.** What troubles me is this. Most of the preposterous claims of incredible miracles are from centuries ago, when people also believed in ghosts, witches, banchees, elves and all sorts of other bizarre creatures. I discount most such claims, but I understand why they were so widely accepted. That was an era before a microscope and before a decent telescope. Humanity had no idea of the immenseness of creation. They thought the earth was it - the center of everything. Now that we know that there could be million or even a billion solar systems, each with countless stars - wow! those primitive ideas seem simplistic (bto be kind).

** But Padre Pio is a relatively modern person**. This bilocation business and many more suoernatural works by him are crazy. Sorry. If I had to believe them or be an atheist, I probably would have to be honest and an atheist.

**B] The good news is that one can be a Christian (I certainly claim to be), believe in God, accept Christ as our window into spirituality, seek to follow Jesus and his Sermon on the Mount, anticipate life eternal, etc., yet not be burdened with doctrines and practices rooted in ancient understandings but alien to the modern, educated mind. **Millions of Christians, especially among mainline Protestants - Episcopalians, Methodists, UCC, Presbyterians, etc. - are devout Christians but ignore those doctrines, even Biblical accounts, that contradict reason, science, morality, etc. How can a consistent Christian, for example, believe that God demanded that Saul slaughter every living Amalakite? That is genocide, totally at odds with Christianity. And don’t tell me that if God ordered it, it must have been okay. No. I would never accept this view of God.

 **Millions of Catholics remain in the Church and have the same doubts and practice the same selective Christianity**. They find comfort and strength in their faith but simply ignore beliefs and practices that they cannot accept. The wise course for the hierarchy is not to push them too hard or they will lose millions more. Thinking Christians demand the right to ponder, weigh, investigate, disagree, etc. They will not be confined to a straight jacket supplied them by any Church. Ditto for mainline Protestants.

** As for traditionalist Catholics (most CAFers seem to be of that group) and fundamentalist Protestants - let them believe whatever.** I certainly have no objection to Hindus or Buddhists or Sikhs or Jews or reasonable Muslims or those of any faith who hold on to their traditions, and I certainly don't condemn for a moment Christians of any and all varieties and degrees of belief. It's just that I choose not to be spoon-fed my religion. Call it egotism, rebelliousness, the devil's work - whatever you wish. 

 **But God bless everyone, including atheists** who I hope will not view Christianity as a narrow, bigoted faith that does not permit independent thinking. Christianity is a wide berth with room for all who love God and one another and choose to be part of it. Fortunately, the Lord is loving, also, as well as forgiving, full of compassion - and surely with a sense of humor, too

 

[Miriam1947]

I am a Catholic. I do not have to believe in any apparitions, revelations or have any particular devotions to be a good Catholic.

I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I go to Mass, confession when needed, and receive the Eucharist as often as possible. I believe in all the moral teachings of the Church.

One of the wonderful perks about being Catholic is that I can receive Jesus every day at Mass.

 

[atheistgirl]

…

Hi Pat

Ive read up on a few now, and Ive watched some youtube footage of an alleged miracle with the Host flaming and beating, filmed on someones camcorder - I totally respect these are wonderous signs for the faithful, but personally I can see so many issues around them, theyre not convincing for me Im afraid.

Sarah x

 

[alison37]

I am divorced and remarried (and so is my husband) and my conscience will not allow me to start the process of annulment. I have been a lifelong evangelical Protestant and my sadness at having the door to conversion to Catholicism effectively closed, is almost overwhelming. Those of you who were “born” into the Catholic faith don’t realize what a gift you were given. I would love to be a part of the Church.

 

[fbl9]

:hug1:You should discuss this more deeply with a priest. I am not sure of the person’s status, regarding church membership, when the tribunal decides in favor of the previous marital bond existing.

I am divorced and remarried (and so is my husband) and my conscience will not allow me to start the process of annulment. I have been a lifelong evangelical Protestant and my sadness at having the door to conversion to Catholicism effectively closed, is almost overwhelming. Those of you who were “born” into the Catholic faith don’t realize what a gift you were given. I would love to be a part of the Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

:hug1:You should discuss this more deeply with a priest. I am not sure of the person’s status, regarding church membership, when the tribunal decides in favor of the previous marital bond existing.

I agree and perhaps with a priest at the diocese.

 

[Deborah123]

Gosh, I haven’t taken the time to read everything on this thread, but I have read enough to understand why someone would be an atheist rather than accept all the wild, miracle stories that often are peddled under the aegis of Catholicism.

** Take, Padre Pio, for example, Believe all the miracles about him if you can, but I simply can’t.** What troubles me is this. Most of the preposterous claims of incredible miracles are from centuries ago, when people also believed in ghosts, witches, banchees, elves and all sorts of other bizarre creatures. I discount most such claims, but I understand why they were so widely accepted. That was an era before a microscope and before a decent telescope. Humanity had no idea of the immenseness of creation. They thought the earth was it - the center of everything. Now that we know that there could be million or even a billion solar systems, each with countless stars - wow! those primitive ideas seem simplistic (bto be kind).

** But Padre Pio is a relatively modern person**. This bilocation business and many more suoernatural works by him are crazy. Sorry. If I had to believe them or be an atheist, I probably would have to be honest and an atheist.

**B] The good news is that one can be a Christian (I certainly claim to be), believe in God, accept Christ as our window into spirituality, seek to follow Jesus and his Sermon on the Mount, anticipate life eternal, etc., yet not be burdened with doctrines and practices rooted in ancient understandings but alien to the modern, educated mind. **Millions of Christians, especially among mainline Protestants - Episcopalians, Methodists, UCC, Presbyterians, etc. - are devout Christians but ignore those doctrines, even Biblical accounts, that contradict reason, science, morality, etc. How can a consistent Christian, for example, believe that God demanded that Saul slaughter every living Amalakite? That is genocide, totally at odds with Christianity. And don’t tell me that if God ordered it, it must have been okay. No. I would never accept this view of God.

 **Millions of Catholics remain in the Church and have the same doubts and practice the same selective Christianity**. They find comfort and strength in their faith but simply ignore beliefs and practices that they cannot accept. The wise course for the hierarchy is not to push them too hard or they will lose millions more. Thinking Christians demand the right to ponder, weigh, investigate, disagree, etc. They will not be confined to a straight jacket supplied them by any Church. Ditto for mainline Protestants.

** As for traditionalist Catholics (most CAFers seem to be of that group) and fundamentalist Protestants - let them believe whatever.** I certainly have no objection to Hindus or Buddhists or Sikhs or Jews or reasonable Muslims or those of any faith who hold on to their traditions, and I certainly don't condemn for a moment Christians of any and all varieties and degrees of belief. It's just that I choose not to be spoon-fed my religion. Call it egotism, rebelliousness, the devil's work - whatever you wish. 

 **But God bless everyone, including atheists** who I hope will not view Christianity as a narrow, bigoted faith that does not permit independent thinking. Christianity is a wide berth with room for all who love God and one another and choose to be part of it. Fortunately, the Lord is loving, also, as well as forgiving, full of compassion - and surely with a sense of humor, too

Nothing to add, just wanted to say I think this is a fantastic post

 

[joe370]

Roy5, your argument can be used against you, and I am surprised that Deborah123 would agree with you considering she is a catholic, converting to Judaism.You said:

Gosh, I haven’t taken the time to read everything on this thread, but I have read enough to understand why someone would be an atheist rather than accept all the wild, miracle stories that often are peddled under the aegis of Catholicism. Take, Padre Pio, for example, Believe all the miracles about him if you can, but I simply can’t. What troubles me is this. Most of the preposterous claims of incredible miracles are from centuries ago, when people also believed in ghosts, witches, banchees, elves and all sorts of other bizarre creatures. I discount most such claims, but I understand why they were so widely accepted. That was an era before a microscope and before a decent telescope. Humanity had no idea of the immenseness of creation. They thought the earth was it - the center of everything. Now that we know that there could be million or even a billion solar systems, each with countless stars - wow! those primitive ideas seem simplistic (bto be kind).

Perhaps we should discount Noah’s ark as nothing more than a preposterous claim akin to “ghosts, witches, banchees, elves and all sorts of other bizarre creatures”?

You don’t think the exact same thing can be said about the old and new Testament? You don’t think an atheist views those wild old/new testament miracle stories, that often are peddled under the aegis of Christianity, found in the bible - the same exact way?

By the way are you actually comparing what happened to Padre Pio with ghosts, witches, banchees, elves and all sorts of other bizarre creatures?

Padre Pio is a relatively modern person. This bilocation business and many more suoernatural works by him are crazy. Sorry. If I had to believe them or be an atheist, I probably would have to be honest and an atheist.

Do you really believe that God couldn’t be responsible for Pio’s bilocation? Looks like, for you, something is impossible for God.

I could ask you the same thing from an atheist standpoint:

If you had a choice between believing the stories of some guy claiming to be God, and the ability to walk on water, raise the dead, defy natural laws and come back to life after being dead for 3 days, and being an atheist, which one would you pick?

The good news is that one can be a Christian (I certainly claim to be), believe in God, accept Christ as our window into spirituality, seek to follow Jesus and his Sermon on the Mount, anticipate life eternal, etc., yet not be burdened with doctrines and practices rooted in ancient understandings but alien to the modern, educated mind.

Atheists would say to you:

I do not need to be burdened with silly Christian doctrines and practices rooted in ancient understandings, but alien to the modern, educated mind.

 

[Eric_Stiles]

Its not so much that I’m not Catholic, as it is I am Lutheran. But to answer your question, I’ll point to 2 things:

1. I still find the Augsburg Confession to be a confession of faith that is both catholic and evangelical, and one I can still confess without any serious question of conscience.
2. I continue to find the current claims of universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the pope to be outside the teachings of the early councils and Church. This is for me the overriding factor in remaining outside of communion with the Bishop of Rome, something I would be happy to resolve.

Jon

As I am considering becoming Catholic, I am curious to know what specific examples in “the teachings of the early councils and Church” lead you to believe that “the current claims of universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the pope to be outside” them.

Also, why should we trust the teachings of the early councils and Church?

Many thanks for your response!

Eric

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know how much this is going to help you but it is good. Enjoy

ewtn.com/padrepio/mystic/bilocation.htm

This is interesting. The main problem I have with it is that the narrator strikes me as extremely naive (as well as narrow-minded, as in his horror that Orthodox priests sell candles near the site of the Crucifixion–I know this isn’t relevant but it doesn’t create a favorable impression in my mind of the general spiritual atmosphere surrounding Padre Pio). Padre Pio, by his own account, appears to have gone out of his way to tell him about his bilocations, while doing so in a manner that the narrator bizarrely thinks was designed to hide the saint’s miraculous gifts. For instance, there was no reason for the Padre to ask the narrator about how many windows were in the church except as a way of showing off his miraculous abilities. He makes the Padre sound like a manipulative charlatan. I’m not saying that’s what Padre Pio was, only that the narrator’s extreme credulity doesn’t do his subject any favors.

And much of the “bilocation” seems to have been invisible to most observers–the narrator frequently speaks of Padre Pio following him around invisibly, or being present in meetings and visible only to one woman there.

Certainly weird stuff, and I don’t rule its authenticity out. But on the whole I find that this particular account raises more difficulties than it solves.

 

[Contarini]

** Take, Padre Pio, for example, Believe all the miracles about him if you can, but I simply can’t.** What troubles me is this. Most of the preposterous claims of incredible miracles are from centuries ago, when people also believed in ghosts, witches, banchees, elves and all sorts of other bizarre creatures. I discount most such claims, but I understand why they were so widely accepted. That was an era before a microscope and before a decent telescope. Humanity had no idea of the immenseness of creation. They thought the earth was it - the center of everything. Now that we know that there could be million or even a billion solar systems, each with countless stars - wow! those primitive ideas seem simplistic (bto be kind).

** But Padre Pio is a relatively modern person**. This bilocation business and many more suoernatural works by him are crazy. Sorry. If I had to believe them or be an atheist, I probably would have to be honest and an atheist.

Roy, what puzzles me about this section of your post is that when confronted with evidence that your prejudices about the supernatural may be mistaken (i.e., that it’s not just something believed “centuries ago”) you see this as further evidence to reject the evidence as “crazy.” It sounds as if the one constant for you is your assumption that the supernatural can’t happen. It’s not clear on what this assumption is based. As you admit here, the premise that such stories always come from long ago and thus can be dismissed as legends or “primitive superstition” is obviously mistaken. You seem to want to go on holding to your prejudice against the supernatural in the absence of the only actual argument you present to support it. (I don’t think it takes Padre Pio to demolish that argument, but he’s certainly one of many counterexamples.)

Now as my own post above indicates, I have problems with the stories about Padre Pio. But I don’t rule them out as a matter of course. Why do you? You really haven’t given any solid reason for your principled exclusion of the supernatural.

Edwin