I'm not a Catholic because

[Cat_Herder]

It’s been a long time since I posted here…

Anyway, I don’t think I can become a Catholic because I don’t believe that the soul is inherently immortal. From what I know, this is considered heresy in the Roman Catholic Church, or at least used to be.

I don’t know why you would think that is a heresy. The Church teaches that the human soul is immortal.

CCC 1022:
Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, – or immediate and everlasting damnation.

 

[sallybutler]

If God does the saving then why does the person have to do anything at all?

So if the person doesn’t believe the right thing, they go to hell? Then how can a baby or a child below the age of reason be saved? How can a mentally infirm person be saved? How can someone who through no fault of their own never learns of the Gospel be saved?

The Catholic Church teaches that God will judge those who have not heard of Christ (and I assume those who are what we would call capable, babies, mentally incapable by human standards) differently than those who have heard and can understand.

 

[christian7777]

I don’t know why you would think that is a heresy. The Church teaches that the human soul is immortal.

CCC 1022:
Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, – or immediate and everlasting damnation.

I thought that because of this:
Fifth Council of the Lateran (1513):

Whereas some have dared to assert concerning the nature of the reasonable soul that it is mortal, we, with the approbation of the sacred council do condemn and reprobate all those who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal, seeing, according to the canon of Pope Clement V, that the soul is …] immortal …] and we decree that all who adhere to like erroneous assertions shall be shunned and punished as heretics.

So according to this, would annihilationism be considered a heresy, since it denies that the souls of the wicked have immortality? I’m just wondering.

 

[CopticChristian]

I thought that because of this:

So according to this, would **annihilationism **be considered a heresy, since it denies that the souls of the wicked have immortality? I’m just wondering.

This is a Jehovah Witness belief. It denies God’s judgement, it denies God has a heaven and a hell.

 

[CopticChristian]

[1] 1 Cor 15:1-4 the gospel by which one is daved
[2] God will save the baby and the mentally challenged
[3] If, at the point of (age) of reason **one seeks **a relationship with God by going on positive volition toward Him,. God is obligated to get the gospel to him. And He will! Example: Dr. Livingston in Africa. Doesn’t nature itself teach you that there is a God?

The saved person has just believed

What causes one to seek? What causes one to believe?

 

[christian7777]

This is a Jehovah Witness belief. It denies God’s judgement, it denies God has a heaven and a hell.

Actually, it’s also a belief held by Seventh Day Adventists, and I think some Anglicans believe it as well. Annihilationism doesn’t mean that God doesn’t have a Heaven and a Hell; it means that Hell is a place where unbelievers are incinerated rather than tormented forever. However, it is connected with the doctrine of conditional immortality, which basically says that only Christians are given immortality. Would this be considered heretical by the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[PJM]

=christian7777;8650608]It’s been a long time since I posted here…

Anyway, I don’t think I can become a Catholic because I don’t believe that the soul is inherently immortal. From what I know, this is considered heresy in the Roman Catholic Church, or at least used to be.

***My dear friend in Christ;

I am a life long fully practiving RC who * knows our Catholic Faith pretty well. I NEVER heard of the position you express.

We are created in the the "Image of God [Genesis 1:26-27]. God is a SPIRIT as are the Angels. Humanity ALONE have a mind [not speaking of the brain here], an Intellect [not referencing IQ], Freewill ALL attached to our SOULS; which like God himself are all Spiritual THINGS. They can not die or be killed; thus they are what go into heaven, hell or purgatory; and they are at the FIANL JUDGMENT united with our then pefected bodies.

Could you direct me to the heresy information?**

God Bless you,
Pat**

 

[christian7777]

***My dear friend in Christ;

I am a life long fully practiving RC who * knows our Catholic Faith pretty well. I NEVER heard of the position you express.

We are created in the the "Image of God [Genesis 1:26-27]. God is a SPIRIT as are the Angels. Humanity ALONE have a mind [not speaking of the brain here], an Intellect [not referencing IQ], Freewill ALL attached to our SOULS; which like God himself are all Spiritual THINGS. They can not die or be killed; thus they are what go into heaven, hell or purgatory; and they are at the FIANL JUDGMENT united with our then pefected bodies.

Could you direct me to the heresy information?****

God Bless you,
Pat
Fifth Council of the Lateran (1513):

Whereas some have dared to assert concerning the nature of the reasonable soul that it is mortal, we, with the approbation of the sacred council do condemn and reprobate all those who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal, seeing, according to the canon of Pope Clement V, that the soul is …] immortal …] and we decree that all who adhere to like erroneous assertions shall be shunned and punished as heretics.

Maybe I misinterpreted this…

 

[PJM]

=christian7777;8653098]Maybe I misinterpreted this…

I suspect your right in understanding that you misunderstood what was being said. IT IS CONFUSING!

But if our minds, intellects and souls were [ARE] NOT Imortal, than there can be no afterlife and no judgement by God. IMPOSSIBLE There in fact would be no reason for humaity to even exist.

God Bless,

SINCERE THANKS,

Pat

 

[barbhorses]

***Thanks for the candid response!

But a couple of questions if I may.***

Was Chrsit life on earth comfortable? Were the lifes of the Apostles and eary Fathers comfortable? Are you aware my friend that Christ command “to take up your Cross daily and FOLLOW ME” appears five times in the bible. The same number of times as the Eucgarist dsicourse, which is [or should be; after all is Jesus HIMSELF] the very foundation for belief in Jesus, the foundation for all Christian beliefs?

Are you aware that God [both Yahweh and Jesus]

YHWH or Yahweh in English is translated as Jehovah. Jesus OFTEN refers in the Bible that he does the will of the one whom SENT him. Not that he himself is God. There has been verses where it says that Jesus is A god, but it also says the same of Satan (note the lower case “g” and it being A not THE). Also, read Isaiah 43:10-12 (the American Bible Society in the early 20th century says that they removed God’s name and any place in the Bible that you see all caps: LORD that is the place that God’s name Yahweh or Jehovah was. You will notice that those verses is where Jehovah or God claims absolute authority. Many reasons exist for the removal of God’s name. The Jews didn’t use his name as they thought it too holy. Though, Jehovah himself said that His name was to be vindicated. How can you vindicate his name and not use it? Jesus himself used his Father’s name and gave praise to his Father and not himself.

 

[ZDHayden]

I am considering leaving the Roman Catholic Church. May I respond as to why, or do you simply want those who are currently, officially outside?

 

[andrewstx]

YHWH or Yahweh in English is translated as Jehovah. Jesus OFTEN refers in the Bible that he does the will of the one whom SENT him. Not that he himself is God. There has been verses where it says that Jesus is A god, but it also says the same of Satan (note the lower case “g” and it being A not THE). Also, read Isaiah 43:10-12 (the American Bible Society in the early 20th century says that they removed God’s name and any place in the Bible that you see all caps: LORD that is the place that God’s name Yahweh or Jehovah was. You will notice that those verses is where Jehovah or God claims absolute authority. Many reasons exist for the removal of God’s name. The Jews didn’t use his name as they thought it too holy. Though, Jehovah himself said that His name was to be vindicated. How can you vindicate his name and not use it? Jesus himself used his Father’s name and gave praise to his Father and not himself.

Actually the english translation of Yaweh is “I Am”. The word Jehovan came into being when the writers of the King James version put together the vowells of one word with the consonants of a completely different word.

I am aware that one ecclesial community have chosen the word “jehovah” as their sort of trademark. But facts are facts.

 

[PJM]

=barbhorses;8666296]YHWH or Yahweh in English is translated as Jehovah. Jesus OFTEN refers in the Bible that he does the will of the one whom SENT him. Not that he himself is God. There has been verses where it says that Jesus is A god, but it also says the same of Satan (note the lower case “g” and it being A not THE). Also, read Isaiah 43:10-12 (the American Bible Society in the early 20th century says that they removed God’s name and any place in the Bible that you see all caps: LORD that is the place that God’s name Yahweh or Jehovah was. You will notice that those verses is where Jehovah or God claims absolute authority. Many reasons exist for the removal of God’s name. The Jews didn’t use his name as they thought it too holy. Though, Jehovah himself said that His name was to be vindicated. How can you vindicate his name and not use it? Jesus himself used his Father’s name and gave praise to his Father and not himself.

My friend your loig LACKS understanding.
As I have explained Jesus has TWI total and COMPLETE natures. Divien and Human.

In this instance Christ speaks of His HUMAN NATURE, not His Divine, so that is how it is correctly undersood.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=zdhayden;8666649]i am considering leaving the roman catholic church. May i respond as to why, or do you simply want those who are currently, officially outside?

please do, and if i paechange miss your post, please send me a private message.

god bless you,
pat

 

[ZDHayden]

please do, and if i paechange miss your post, please send me a private message.

god bless you,
pat

I apologize for the delay in responding. I missed the email notification for this thread and just remembered that I posted something.

Where to begin? Spiritually, I have not had much growth until my exposure to the Orthodox Church. For most of my time as a Catholic, I have intellectually known of God and was emotionally patriotic towards Rome (a convert’s fervor), but never known God. My spiritual experiences were mainly associated with my own recognition of sin, my reading of Scripture and relationships. Roman spirituality, such as the Rosary, I tried but failed to make anything but a painful artificiality. My favorite prayers were, and are, typically from the Fathers, with very few Western outliers. My favorite prayers are the ones which teach me and speak to me and speak for me all in the same few words. I have come across many Orthodox prayers which fill that need, and the Jesus prayer flows naturally from my mind, heart and lips.

Doctrinally, the case for the Papal claims is far less obvious than it is made out to be. The traditional conception of Original Sin in the West is based partially off a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 (the Douai rendering of this verse is the only English translation I can find which has an obvious “Scriptural” support for the inheritance of Original Sin). Thus, the Immaculate Conception is moot - not needed when you have the proper wording from Romans. The other ex cathedra statement is held anyway in the East; so, again, it is not needed.

I have not found any significant evidence for the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son. Even if I could, I do not think the addition of the Filioque was legitimate: it was legitimized by what is called in the West an Ecumenical Council only retroactively, whereas the original Creed was composed and verified later by two Ecumenical councils.

Rome is the right place for many, but I think that God very well might be leading me Eastward.

Thank you. Feel free to ask questions.

 

[PJM]

=ZDHayden;8686765]I apologize for the delay in responding. I missed the email notification for this thread and just remembered that I posted something.

Where to begin? Spiritually, I have not had much growth until my exposure to the Orthodox Church. For most of my time as a Catholic, I have intellectually known of God and was emotionally patriotic towards Rome (a convert’s fervor), but never known God. My spiritual experiences were mainly associated with my own recognition of sin, my reading of Scripture and relationships. Roman spirituality, such as the Rosary, I tried but failed to make anything but a painful artificiality. My favorite prayers were, and are, typically from the Fathers, with very few Western outliers. My favorite prayers are the ones which teach me and speak to me and speak for me all in the same few words. I have come across many Orthodox prayers which fill that need, and the Jesus prayer flows naturally from my mind, heart and lips.

Doctrinally, the case for the Papal claims is far less obvious than it is made out to be. The traditional conception of Original Sin in the West is based partially off a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 (the Douai rendering of this verse is the only English translation I can find which has an obvious “Scriptural” support for the inheritance of Original Sin). Thus, the Immaculate Conception is moot - not needed when you have the proper wording from Romans. The other ex cathedra statement is held anyway in the East; so, again, it is not needed.

I have not found any significant evidence for the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son. Even if I could, I do not think the addition of the Filioque was legitimate: it was legitimized by what is called in the West an Ecumenical Council only retroactively, whereas the original Creed was composed and verified later by two Ecumenical councils.

Rome is the right place for many, but I think that God very well might be leading me Eastward.

Thank you. Feel free to ask questions.

THANK YOU for sharing.

You’re obviously well informed. My one question would be where did God ever permit practice of HIS FAITH in a manner suitable to “me?” And NOT what He Himself taught and Commands?

I just a couple of days ago posted an article that address this precise issue on my BLOG [address below]. You may wish to check it out?

It seems to me, that God limits our choices. Either He is is charge, or we are. And the responsibility can’t be split.

God Bless you,

Pat

 

[karaleigh]

I am considering leaving the Roman Catholic Church. May I respond as to why, or do you simply want those who are currently, officially outside?

Perhaps you should consider what Revelation said about the Seals and the Books. Though some knowledge of what is inside…doom, dispare, lives, etc…there are no direct words telling what is meant to doom, etc.

My point is that leaving the Roman Catholic Church, you may lose contact to improvements to biblical text…remember, the RCC own the copyright to the *original * text, that is, The Holy Bible. If God wishes to proclaim recompense, JEHOVAH-GMOLAH…Jeremiah 51:6 meaning “The God of Recompense”, one of those seals could easliy seal up any further translations by a simple decree of the Almighty God. Revelations goes on to say what is contained inside the books will only be revealed to those “who serve the Lord.” Outside the Catholic authority you may fall away in due time, and out-there would you still be in serve to the Lord? Faith without works is death(James 2) Something to think about.

 

[ZDHayden]

Perhaps you should consider what Revelation said about the Seals and the Books. Though some knowledge of what is inside…doom, dispare, lives, etc…there are no direct words telling what is meant to doom, etc.

My point is that leaving the Roman Catholic Church, you may lose contact to improvements to biblical text…remember, the RCC own the copyright to the *original * text, that is, The Holy Bible. If God wishes to proclaim recompense, JEHOVAH-GMOLAH…Jeremiah 51:6 meaning “The God of Recompense”, one of those seals could easliy seal up any further translations by a simple decree of the Almighty God. Revelations goes on to say what is contained inside the books will only be revealed to those “who serve the Lord.” Outside the Catholic authority you may fall away in due time, and out-there would you still be in serve to the Lord? Faith without works is death(James 2) Something to think about.

An odd reflection, considering that the Roman Catholic Church uses Latin translations instead of the original languages for its official version of Scripture. This reflection assumes that the correctness of Rome is understood. This will not do.

You’re obviously well informed. My one question would be where did God ever permit practice of HIS FAITH in a manner suitable to “me?” And NOT what He Himself taught and Commands?

Where did God ever say to take the claims of any group at face value? Looking between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, Christ’s warning in Matthew vii, 15, applies even to Rome. I never stated that my sole reason for looking Eastward was personal to suit me, but rather that such personal motivations form a part of the decision: Can God not speak through one’s spiritual experiences? Rather, the primary reasons are the intellectual reasons. I thank the Roman Catholic Church for bringing me back to Christ, but I do not think the evidence is there for it in its current form. What records are in existence can be interpreted to point to, say, Papal infallibility or supremacy, but that does not speak to the truth of either, as even Sacred Scripture can be used by and interpreted to support the Evil One (Matt. iv, 1-11). I am currently participating in another discussion on these forums concerning Papal infalliability . . . I hope to be able to see new perspectives in that discussion. Meanwhile, I will also seek out a similar discussion on an Orthodox forum.

I have found little spiritual fruit for me within the Roman Church. Could God be speaking through that? I find a few bits of evidence here and there for the Roman side of the debate, but, more often than not, when put back into its context, the evidence becomes muddied.

I am not leaving yet. If, in my period as a Roman Catholic (however poor a one), I can be used to lead even one of my loved ones to Christ, I shall remain. My brother’s father was Roman Catholic and attended the parish to which I belong. This connection to the father he never knew is drawing him closer to Christ, and, if I can be used to nurture that, I will. Christ is more important than the squabbles of His followers. I have no idea what God has in store for me.

Kyrie eleison.

 

[Going2Heaven]

I am not a Catholic because the Catholic faith is not the true religion of the lord

 

[Mickey]

Spiritually, I have not had much growth until my exposure to the Orthodox Church.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Your story is very similar to mine with a few differences. I was born into the Roman Catholic Church and fell away for a long period of time. It was frequent Holy Confession (Roman Catholic) that brought me back to the faith. After a chance encounter with the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, I attended the Byzantine Catholic Church for about eight years. My faith really began to be nurtured by the mysticism of the East. This naturally led me to the Holy Orthodox Church where I continue to learn and grow and pray.

I pray that your journey is fruitful.