I'm not a Catholic because

[John_Paul_Jones]

Threats of violence aside, I think is rather embarrassing and degrading to sit in the pews while everyone else (all sinless?) approaches the altar and receives communion. Why bother? The communion is the central focus of the mass.

Maybe it’s how you look at it, one could also be leading a good example to others by showing reverence to the Divine Presence by showing others that he respects the sacrament enough not to go in a state of mortal sin if that was the case or not in full communion with the Church, or not baptised, - whatever the case may be. Maybe someone is going to communion in a state of mortal sin and by that example of sitting in the pew made that person thought twice about what he is doing and maybe by the grace of God that is the cause for his conversion to a better spiritual life.

You can always offer up the feeling of embarrassment too even Jesus was mocked by others on the road to Calvary. Give it time and you would overcome any obstacles you might have.

 

[CopticChristian]

A few points

(1) **There is considerable debate over whether the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest within Christianity. **Certainly the Orthodox churches as well as certain Churches of the East (e.g., Coptics) would argue with that. **Protestants generally would say that Roman Catholicism took on many aspects of Greek and Roman** culture (and religion) that were not part of the message of Christ, and eventually this required a reformation. 

(2) **As for divorce, Christ made fornication an exception**. He was actually disputing Jewish law which permitted men to divorce their wives quite easily. However, he said nothing about divorce being an unforgivable sin. I have never understood why **murderers **can be forgiven their crime

** One question along this line.** I know a woman, a baptized Catholic, who fell in love with a minister. They were married, she became a Protestant, taught Sunday School, and in every other way became involved in her husband’s ministry. She happened to be chatting with a Catholic priest one day at an ecumenical gathering, and the priest kindly but specifically told her that in the eyes of the Catholic Church she was living in sin, that her marriage was not valid because she had been baptized Catholic - despite the fact that she had become a Protestant. **She was furious at the priest’s comment. Let me ask: was the priest right or wrong? **
(3) As for the presence of Christ, he said he was with us even to the end of time. To my knowledge, he never said that he was going to be less or more with us in the Eucharist. Frankly - and forgive me if this is offensive - the idea that Christ is to be identified physically as bread and wine can seem bizarre to many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I saw a survey in the US Catholic magazine a couple years ago that over half of **Catholics **don’t believe this. I presume, then, that these are not genuine Catholics and should not be counted when Catholics are counted. Transubstantiation is, if I’m not mistaken, an absolute must belief when it comes to Catholic authenticity.

  **Various pagan religions had a 'sacred meal' **when they consumed of some food, believing that such an act was consuming God that would make them more like God.

** I have stated several times that I have a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage**. I have drawn away from both the traditional Catholic belief system as well as that of evangelical Protestantism (also part of my heritage - maternal side). Instead I find myself attracted to mainline Protestantism which permits a wide range of belief. Such groups as the Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians and UCC (Congregationalists) offer Bible study groups which are predicated on the idea that reasonable people can interpret different passages differently. If you refuse to go to war, you can quote the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:38-44). Ditto if you are a Quaker and refuse to swear on the Bible in court (matt.5:34). Etc.

** I love much about Catholicism**. The Church certainly has produced some remarkable cathedrals, music, saints, hospitals, schools and much more. She does excellent work among the poor. It grieves me that she is so authoritarian when it comes to **doctrine and permits so little freedom of thought** on questions where the faithful should be allowed to hold diverse views. I also would like to see the church permit priests to marry and allow women to serve as deacons. I personally believe this will happen in time, but the papal leadership since Paul VI has moved in the opposite direction on such issues. This is sad.

  **But if you can go along with all this, fine.**  Different strokes for different folks. The thread wants to know why we're not Catholic and I've tried to provide one partial and (to me) reasonable response.

  God bless everybody, of every creed, color, culture and country. Let us make religion  a bridge rather than a barrier. Christ must be saddened by the intolerance of so many people who claim to be his followers.

Roy,

The OHCAC is Roman East/West, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental…to quibbel as to which is oldest…the OHCAC is oldest that includes all of the former. Rome once an imperial pagan city is now Christian…and has been for some time…God is Lord of all and Lord of History…can you name any other city that has been Christian for that many years…? Ain’t the work of man.

Murder is not a sacrament. Confessing Murder requires repentance not to do it again. Marriage is a Sacrament and bonds two together. Having relations in a marriage that is not sacramental obviates the union and therefore to resolve the problem they need to be celibate.

Catholics believe in the Eucharist and that is why the OHCAC is the largest and growing group of unified Christians in the World.

You can think anything you like…just don’t deny doctrine.

By the way this past weekend we had Christmas services on Saturday at 4, 6, 8, 10 pm and each and everyone was standing room only as was the 9 am the following day. The Mass I attended everyone went to the Eucharist. I had to laugh at a Protestant community up the road that had a sign out saying that they were celebrating “midnight mass”…I drove by one of the hours of their service and the parking lot was half full. Thought you should know.

 

[FutureCatholic1]

May I share a few thoughts with you? Please continue to go to Mass for 1 Mass is spiritually more valuable than all the rosaries and devine office prayers combined in all of history.
You can become a Catholic, it just might mean loving God more than your family, job friends, money , inheritance or anything else the world has to offer

In the Love of God
escambuit

very very true just remember (and i know im still going through it) it may not be easy but you have our Holy Father, Lord,Spirit, And Mother to comfort us

 

[FutureCatholic1]

very very true just remember (and i know im still going through it) it may not be easy but you have our Holy Father,Lord,Spirit, And Mother to comfort us

 

[PRmerger]

But the Church has offered communion to this person and it seems to me that your reasoning implies She is a power which can separate a person from God’s love.

No, Michael. It’s true that we can never be separated from God’s love. It is pouring out on us even as we speak. However, we have to be in right relationship with God in order to receive Him. And if we are violating a command that He gave, which is to not divorce and re-marry, then we are not in right relationship with Him.

Take this analogy: nothing can separate a man and woman who have been married (except, of course, death.) But if they are not in right relationship with each other, it would be wrong for the husband to assume that he can enjoy the marital embrace without making amends to his wife.

The poster stated that she is not about to live with her spouse as brother and sister, and that that is the chief reason she is no longer Catholic.

:sad_yes:

Rules with regard to communion have been changed before - the fasting prohibition lifted and communion in the hand.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the difference between “rules” of discipline and doctrine?

Check out this to understand it better:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-it-a-doctrine-or-a-discipline

 

[PRmerger]

None. But we are not supposed to approach communion if not in a state of grace.

And how was it that someone berated your parents for allowing you to go to communion? Did they happen to know that you were guilty of mortal sin and your parents were unaware of this?

I was never given the opportunity by my parents to go to confession. I was not given any religious education because I was threatened with violence if I should go (to CCD). At college I attempted to go to a mass with some friends but as I neared the campus parish a crazed female student turned around and said she would have me killed if I went in! It was noted by my friends, who in good samiratan style left me to return to the dorms in wonder.

I see.

Threats of violence aside, I think is rather embarrassing and degrading to sit in the pews while everyone else (all sinless?) approaches the altar and receives communion.

So do you decide, then, that God really doesn’t mind if you go to communion while guilty of grave sin?

 

[PRmerger]

The righteous, who make the places we worship inhospitable to the poor in spirit, leave people without recourse to communion.

Ah. I think you mean “self-righteous”, not “righteous”.

No one ought to be self-righteous, but all of us are called to be righteous, like Noah, Zechariah, David, Job, Elizabeth were.

 

[CMatt25]

(2) As for divorce, Christ made fornication an exception. He was actually disputing Jewish law which permitted men to divorce their wives quite easily. However, he said nothing about divorce being an unforgivable sin. I have never understood why murderers can be forgiven their crime and able to receive communion without going through some church procedure other than confession but good people who are incompatible husbands and wives who divorce cannot do the same, but have to go through an extensive process known as annulment. Clearly, it would seem to be a church divorce based on the judgement of others. Different dioceses also seem to impose different standards. I was shocked to find that Gingrich seems to have forgiven his two divorces and is now viewed by many as a ‘good Catholic’ because he converted. Miserabile dictu!

God bless everybody, of every creed, color, culture and country. Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier. Christ must be saddened by the intolerance of so many people who claim to be his followers.

Thanks for this Roy. I quoted a verse but some either interpret Jesus’s words differently or say the Douay Rheims English translation is mistaken. In any case indeed God bless all His created children. And peace to you and to all along our faith walks.

 

[Michael19682]

PRMerger,

No, Michael. It’s true that we can never be separated from God’s love. It is pouring out on us even as we speak. However, we have to be in right relationship with God in order to receive Him. And if we are violating a command that He gave, which is to not divorce and re-marry, then we are not in right relationship with Him.

Receiving him is the highest voluntary form of his Love. Just as God is inseparable, so must be the gift of his love. If we say that he gives his Love more to some than others, we might as well not have a church called ‘Catholic’, because then it is no longer universal. He might give gifts such as faith and charity more to some than others - but it is a foundational principle stated clearly by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross that he loves all men without exception. He makes the sun shine on the good and bad alike. He calls all men and draws all things to Himself.

The only thing separating that poster and her communion with the lord is words and doctrine. I find it very sad that the Church is impeding her progress to the altar.

What do we know of her life aside from this divorce? She has been silent throughout this attempt at advocacy for her, but what if she is a very charitable person, and person of deep love for the lord and her children, even for the church? Should we ignore all of scripture extolling the virtue of charity and focus on the one flaw we can find? and on that basis conceal and obscure from her the sacred expression of love handed down to us since the time of the Apostles?

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the difference between “rules” of discipline and doctrine?

I’m not unfamiliar. Doctrine is based on scripture, Those who hold your position often claim of the feelings of those who do live (or so imagine they do) in accord with the teachings that these will be hurt if the unrepentant and sinners are admitted to communion. How do you interpret this:

“And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Check out this to understand it better:

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not unfamiliar. Doctrine is based on scripture,

I think you* are unfamiliar, Michael. You have it exactly backwards*. :sad_yes:

We do not glean our doctrines from Scripture; rather, the Scriptures reflect the doctrines that were already being proclaimed, once for all, by the Apostles.

The Catholic doctrines were delivered whole and entire by Christ to the Church before a word of the NT was ever committed to paper (or papyrus, as the case may be )
Catholics are not people of the Book. Rather, we are people of the Word.

Just curious, Michael, if you did not receive catechesis from your parents, and you were not allowed to attend CCD, how* did* you get catechized?

 

[PRmerger]

Receiving him is the highest voluntary form of his Love. Just as God is inseparable, so must be the gift of his love. If we say that he gives his Love more to some than others, we might as well not have a church called ‘Catholic’, because then it is no longer universal. He might give gifts such as faith and charity more to some than others - but it is a foundational principle stated clearly by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross that he loves all men without exception. He makes the sun shine on the good and bad alike. He calls all men and draws all things to Himself.

This is very Catholic of you to say, Michael! (And, I might add, you are proferring doctrines and rules here, which, peculiarly, you seem to be dismissive of. Why do you espouse doctrines and rules when they are to your liking, but when they are not to your liking you say, “P-shaw! those doctrines and rules are for the birds!”?).

See below here, for an example of dismissing doctrine. And your post above for an example of proclaiming doctrine.

The only thing separating that poster and her communion with the lord is words and doctrine. I find it very sad that the Church is impeding her progress to the altar.

Yet it is this very Church that offers you the doctrines that “receiving Him is the highest form of voluntary love”. (I might tweak that comment a little to make it more correctly aligned to the Faith, but for the sake of this discussion I will leave it, imperfectly said as it is.)

What do we know of her life aside from this divorce? She has been silent throughout this attempt at advocacy for her, but what if she is a very charitable person, and person of deep love for the lord and her children, even for the church? Should we ignore all of scripture extolling the virtue of charity and focus on the one flaw we can find? and on that basis conceal and obscure from her the sacred expression of love handed down to us since the time of the Apostles?

We assume that her first marriage is valid, until proven otherwise. Otherwise, we must question all marriages.

Those who hold your position often claim of the feelings of those who do live (or so imagine they do) in accord with the teachings that these will be hurt if the unrepentant and sinners are admitted to communion.

Do you really think an unrepentant husband ought to be receiving the marital embrace from his wife, Michael?

How do you interpret this:

“And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Check out this to understand it better:

I interpret it to mean that while God is a God of justice, he is also a God of mercy and surpassing generosity. And that human beings are capable of resentment and envy.

 

[PJM]

=Whadyamean;8743627]Thanks. Pat. I do appreciate your efforts. But once again, as I have said, and even repeated a few times, and mentioned in other places, (been taking lessons from CC) I have come from a very staunch and devoted Catholic practice. I have experiential and theoretical knowledge both of what you are talking about. I am, I assure you, no stranger to your beliefs. But thanks for the reiteration.

***THANK YOU for the kind response.

I can go one step better and explain not only what we Catholics believe; but space permitting, ALSO Why we believe it and How we are able to accept it.

Logic seems to didtate that there is ONLY One full, accurate and complete truth per precise issue. God Himself to place them on ALL Faith-belief and Moral issues under His direct supervision, guidence and protection within His CC.

So my friend, if there is someting you’d care to discuss just let me know.***

God Bless,
Pat

 

[CMatt25]

So do you decide, then, that God really doesn’t mind if you go to communion while guilty of grave sin?

Or Someone Else “might” have decided. (QMs especially for you PR as I know you like using them on occasion.) And I know with 100% absolute certainty :yup: you’re not sola scriptura and might say again that Jesus’s words were mistakenly translated when put into English.

John 6:37 “Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me” (GNT)

“All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.” (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

 

[PRmerger]

Or Someone Else “might” have decided.

What do you mean by this?

(QMs just for you PR!) Though I know with 100% absolute certainty :yup: you’re not sola scriptura

and might say again that Jesus’s words were mistakenly translated when put into English

.
Yep. For, again, does it make sense that Jesus would give permission to divorce if I commit adultery?

John 6:37 “Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me” (GNT)

Amen!

“All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.” (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

To be sure!

Now, again, to use the analogy that the Church and Christ uses: do you think it’s okay for an unrepentant husband to enjoy the marital embrace? Let’s say he’s just committed adultery with another woman, is unrepentant (to use Michael’s word) and now wants to get together with his wife. What should she do?

 

[Michael19682]

I think you* are unfamiliar, Michael. You have it exactly backwards*. :sad_yes:

We do not glean our doctrines from Scripture; rather, the Scriptures reflect the doctrines that were already being proclaimed, once for all, by the Apostles.

The Catholic doctrines were delivered whole and entire by Christ to the Church before a word of the NT was ever committed to paper (or papyrus, as the case may be )
Catholics are not people of the Book. Rather, we are people of the Word.

Be that as it may, or rather, as God decrees. I lost a more lengthy post due to an error with the settings of my computer. Perhaps God was discouraging me from saying in totality what I set out too. Nevertheless, I want to say that even you admit of a close association between words and papyrus: “before a word of the NT was ever committed to paper”. Also, the Letter of James refers to the human tongue as “a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” Jesus himself is recorded as saying that the Holy Spirit will remind his followers of all he has said. Since the evangelists produced the gospels from memory, we must presume that it was the holy spirit which aided them in their work. I think these two statments combined give primacy to the written word, which comes from the spirit aided memory, and not from doctrinal instruction (which, in its best form, is the recitation of scripture).

Just curious, Michael, if you did not receive catechesis from your parents, and you were not allowed to attend CCD, how* did* you get catechized?

To answer you question,

I was taught by my mother to make the sign of the cross, put my hands together, and then to pray the Our Father. The line “for the kingdom and the power and the glory are yours, now and forever” was omitted from my instruction. I attended one or two CCD classes before communion, but was removed because I defended myself in a fight. (I actually got the upper hand after being attacked, so the person in charge, who arrived late at the scene, only saw me on the offensive. I wasn’t kicked out; perhaps it was me who wanted out. I don’t recall. But I do know that I said the prayer in the class when asked, and no one there ever corrected me or added the last line/verse.) I was never actually hurt or mistreated in anyway or by any means by the religious. I do remember that my penance at first confession was 10 Our Fathers and 10 Hail Mary’s. I was told in later years that that is quite stiff penance.

No one in my family ever said the last line of that prayer when we it prayed together (which was in Church only and before dinner). I don’t even remember it being said in the parishes I attended in the very Roman Catholic area of NYC where I attended mass with my grandmother. I used to read from the missal, but don’t recall it being written as part of the prayer.

I never was able to recall the Hail Mary. I used to hear my grandmother say it before she went to bed, but I had no idea what ‘the fruit of a womb’ might be. I understood that Jesus was the fruit of her womb, but it seemed irrelevant to even ask because you get all you need from the Our Father. (Obviously now I know them both very well).

I pray the Our Father everyday. Sometimes I say it automatically, as if to keep my memory sharp. I have everything the prayer instructs us to ask for. One might argue that I don’t have a wife; but that is not asked for in the prayer - in fact, some of the women I have met qualify as not temptations, but as out and out evil. They take issue with the Lord’s prayer, calling it misogynist, because it identifies God as a male Father. I wish they would consider that in leaving out spouse in any gendered form, Jesus was very considerate to women. If he had said, and ‘a wife to be’, women would really be in trouble.

Oh yes. RCIA at 25 years old.

 

[CMatt25]

What do you mean by this?

Now, again, to use the analogy that the Church and Christ uses: do you think it’s okay for an unrepentant husband to enjoy the marital embrace? Let’s say he’s just committed adultery with another woman, is unrepentant (to use Michael’s word) and now wants to get together with his wife. What should she do?

You asked Michael if he decided. And I merely meant it was Jesus Whom might have decided He would not turn anyone away.

Do I? Well if he remained unrepentant and wanted the door open to continue to commit fornication, I’d might have to consider a divorce. But then that’s me and what I read in the English version of Matt 19:9.

 

[Michael19682]

“And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

PRmerger, you don’t ‘glean’ any references to the sacrificial altar in this? Ok. I’ll come out and ask another question directly: Would Jesus be cheating any of us by giving his body to a sinner? Are we not taught that the gift is something totally unearned, like that portion of the wages those who worked only one hour received. What business of yours or mine is it what Jesus does with his body, with whom he gives it too? He gave his life as ransom for the world.

 

[CMatt25]

I was taught by my mother to make the sign of the cross, put my hands together, and then to pray the Our Father. The line “for the kingdom and the power and the glory are yours, now and forever” was omitted from my instruction… No one in my family ever said the last line of that prayer when we it prayed together (which was in Church only and before dinner). I don’t even remember it being said in the parishes I attended in the very Roman Catholic area of NYC where I attended mass with my grandmother. I used to read from the missal, but don’t recall it being written as part of the prayer.

I don’t remember that last line either and I was in a very small midwestern town. Not NYC.

 

[CMatt25]

Would Jesus be cheating any of us by giving his body to a sinner?

I hope not. Because isn’t that what Christians believe He did? Gave up His body on the cross for sinners to be saved?

 

[PRmerger]

Nevertheless, I want to say that even you admit of a close association between words and papyrus: “before a word of the NT was ever committed to paper”. Also, the Letter of James refers to the human tongue as “a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” Jesus himself is recorded as saying that the Holy Spirit will remind his followers of all he has said. Since the evangelists produced the gospels from memory, we must presume that it was the holy spirit which aided them in their work.

This seems to be a stream-of-consciousness post, with no real point to it. However, I agree with all the truths (i.e. doctrines) you have proclaimed.

I think these two statments combined give primacy to the written word, which comes from the spirit aided memory, and not from doctrinal instruction (which, in its best form, is the recitation of scripture).

Non-sequiturs.

To answer you question,

I was taught by my mother to make the sign of the cross, put my hands together, and then to pray the Our Father. The line “for the kingdom and the power and the glory are yours, now and forever” was omitted from my instruction. I attended one or two CCD classes before communion, but was removed because I defended myself in a fight. (I actually got the upper hand after being attacked, so the person in charge, who arrived late at the scene, only saw me on the offensive. I wasn’t kicked out; perhaps it was me who wanted out. I don’t recall. But I do know that I said the prayer in the class when asked, and no one there ever corrected me or added the last line/verse.) I was never actually hurt or mistreated in anyway or by any means by the religious. I do remember that my penance at first confession was 10 Our Fathers and 10 Hail Mary’s. I was told in later years that that is quite stiff penance.

No one in my family ever said the last line of that prayer when we it prayed together (which was in Church only and before dinner). I don’t even remember it being said in the parishes I attended in the very Roman Catholic area of NYC where I attended mass with my grandmother. I used to read from the missal, but don’t recall it being written as part of the prayer.

I never was able to recall the Hail Mary. I used to hear my grandmother say it before she went to bed, but I had no idea what ‘the fruit of a womb’ might be. I understood that Jesus was the fruit of her womb, but it seemed irrelevant to even ask because you get all you need from the Our Father. (Obviously now I know them both very well).

I pray the Our Father everyday. Sometimes I say it automatically, as if to keep my memory sharp. I have everything the prayer instructs us to ask for. One might argue that I don’t have a wife; but that is not asked for in the prayer - in fact, some of the women I have met qualify as not temptations, but as out and out evil. They take issue with the Lord’s prayer, calling it misogynist, because it identifies God as a male Father. I wish they would consider that in leaving out spouse in any gendered form, Jesus was very considerate to women. If he had said, and ‘a wife to be’, women would really be in trouble.

Oh yes. RCIA at 25 years old.

Ah, so until RCIA it appears that you received very little catechesis. :sad_yes:

This lengthy post on the doxology of the Our Father is curious. Did you know that it was not part of the original Scriptures but was added later on?