I'm not a Catholic because

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PJM said:
***PLEASE HELP ME OUT HERE; I’m mising the point of you’re argument:***shrug:

God Bless,
Pat
Click to expand...
Not sure Michael had an argument there, Pat. He was simply offering a Catholic doctrine that Jesus died for our sins. No one here would disagree with that!
 
PJM said:
Matt, I’m 67 and kinda dumb to begin with. Would you PLEASE clarify this for me?

THANKS,
Pat [FYI: I’m the OP]
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say you’re dumb, Pat, not even “kinda”. But I can try to further clarify. It can turn me off when I see Catholics on “Catholic Answers” say someone identified as a Catholic member by the Church, is not Catholic. Sure they might not be as practicing or be less faithful than another, but the Church still identifies and counts them as Catholic. So I can just find that as confusing as something a less faithful Catholic might say about some other teaching. And a bit unwelcoming at times.
 
PJM said:
Allow me to clarify the issues of “redeemption” and “salvation.” They are NOT synomous terms or actions.

"Redeemption" refers to and applies to ALL of humanity: past, present and future. In essence it makes reference to the opening of the gate to heaven which God choose to close because of the Original Sin. It also refers to the FACT that God obligates humself to Offer sufficient grace for everyone to Know him; whih is the firsr step towards Faith.

It has further application to those who accept this initial offer of grace and the continuing graces that God then makes available to them.

'Salvation" correctly understood is “future-tense”; relates to grace offered and accepted through the MERITS of Jesus Himself as Sacrifice. It then become the responsibility of humanity to cooperate with these graces and to Know, Love, Serve God FULLY and completely; meaning not only the commandments, but also ALL that is taught and required in the Bible; most notably; obedience to the “church” [SINGULAR] that he, Christ set up for this very purpose. That church being toda’s RCC.

Christ gave up His Body to make Salvation a POSSIBILITY, not a reality based on ANY one or two things. Salvation is always a PROCESS of many steps. It is foolish to think or worse, assume that Christ sufferd FOR us and does not expect anything in return except that we acknowlege that we “know Him.”

**1Pet.5: 1, 9 ** “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world.”

**1Pet.4: 13 **” But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

**Phil.1: 29 **“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, “

2Thes.1: 5 “This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering “

**Heb. 2: 10 **For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.

God Bless,
Pat
Click to expand...
This is an excellent post Pat. Good on you! and thanks, it will go into my notes file if you don’t mind.;):)Peace, Carlan
 
PRmerger said:
Yes, I am in truth saying that some of your posts are undeserving of the dignity of a response.

Namely, those that are stream-of-consciousness. 🤷

If you are making a point, rather than just spouting Biblical verses or doctrines that are non-sequiturs, please do so.
Click to expand...
PR, I understand you have faith in all interpretations of the Catholic Church. But why are Biblical verses non-sequiturs?
 
CMatt25 said:
I wouldn’t say you’re dumb, Pat, not even “kinda”. But I can try to further clarify. It can turn me off when I see Catholics on “Catholic Answers” say someone identified as a Catholic member by the Church, is not Catholic. Sure they might not be as practicing or be less faithful than another, but the Church still identifies and counts them as Catholic. So I can just find that as confusing as something a less faithful Catholic might say about some other teaching. And a bit unwelcoming at times.
Click to expand...
I, too, find it obnoxious when one Catholic calls another Catholic “less faithful” or “not as practicing” as another Catholic.

However, it remains clear that no person who identifies as a Catholic ought to be proposing views on this forum which are contrary to Catholic teaching. To do so causes great scandal and confusion among those who are uninitiated in the faith.

Thus, for a poster who claims to be Catholic in her ID to say, “I believe that Mary is part of the Trinity” would cause for concern. Now, on this forum she is certainly free to say that, and offer arguments as to why she believes Mary is divine–but she cannot say that and have “Catholic” by her name.

Similarly, if a poster who claims to be Catholic in his ID says, “I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with killing a person who’s an abortionist” then he ought to remove the Catholic designation from his profile.

Those who read these posts might understandably be led to believe, 'Hmmm…the Catholic Church does believe in " in error.
 
CMatt25 said:
PR, I understand you have faith in all interpretations of the Catholic Church. But why are Biblical verses non-sequiturs?
Click to expand...
He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. --Acts 5:2

See?
 
PRmerger said:
Not sure Michael had an argument there, Pat. He was simply offering a Catholic doctrine that Jesus died for our sins. No one here would disagree with that!
Click to expand...
I thought his argument was that Christ gave His body for our sins.
 
PRmerger said:
I, too, find it obnoxious when one Catholic calls another Catholic “less faithful” or “not as practicing” as another Catholic.
Click to expand...
PR, I would just as well all people initiated into the Church be called Catholics too. No adjectives or quotation marks. That’s more than fine with me. But a former bishop of mine distinguished between practicing and non for me so I was just using that terminology.
 
PRmerger said:
He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. --Acts 5:2

See?
Click to expand...
PR, in the verses preceding, we are told possessions were shared in common so that none were needy. So if your point is people don’t live in that manner today, then I suppose I see. I’m getting ready to head out for some tacos though. If you needed one and if I could punch it thru my monitor, I’d share. 😃
 
=PRmerger;8747140]Not sure Michael had an argument there, Pat. He was simply offering a Catholic doctrine that Jesus died for our sins. No one here would disagree with that!
Click to expand...
Agreed, and THANKS!

I kinda got the impression he advocated OSAS?

I’m grateful for you’re imput:thumbsup:

Love and orayers,
Pat
 
=CMatt25;8747165]I wouldn’t say you’re dumb, Pat, not even “kinda”. But I can try to further clarify. It can turn me off when I see Catholics on “Catholic Answers” say someone identified as a Catholic member by the Church, is not Catholic. Sure they might not be as practicing or be less faithful than another, but the Church still identifies and counts them as Catholic. So I can just find that as confusing as something a less faithful Catholic might say about some other teaching. And a bit unwelcoming at times.
Click to expand...
Thanks Matt,

I too find this practice deceitful.

God Bless,
Pat
 
CMatt25 said:
PR, in the verses preceding, we are told possessions were shared in common so that none were needy. ** So if your point is **people don’t live in that manner today, then I suppose I see. I’m getting ready to head out for some tacos though. If you needed one and if I could punch it thru my monitor, I’d share. 😃
Click to expand...
See why quoting Bible verses is a non-sequitur? You have to ask “if your point is ____”.

(And, no, that was not my point :))

God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all.
If we say, “We have fellowship with him,”
while we continue to walk in darkness,
we lie and do not act in truth.

As for tacos, we just had Mexican last night–with lots of leftovers, so I’ll be eating Mexican for a while this week. But thanks anyway. 🙂
 
PRmerger said:
As for tacos, we just had Mexican last night–with lots of leftovers, so I’ll be eating Mexican for a while this week. But thanks anyway. 🙂
Click to expand...
I understand PR. I just finished my Christmas leftovers last night even though the Church says it’s still Christmas. 👍
 
PRmerger said:
How is that different from what I said?
Click to expand...
You said Michael was making the argument that Jesus died for our sins. And I had just thought we were at least partially also discussing how people are not allowed when in a particular situation to approach Christ and receive Him in the Eucharist when He gives His body. But I may have misunderstood.
 
PRmerger said:
Where did I call earth “heaven”? :confused:

Is this when the consecration occurs? Could you please cite a source for this?

Even if we are unrepentant? Remember, in your hypothetical situation you are claiming that this sinner is unrepentant.
Click to expand...
This last point about unrepentant sinners and forgiveness is a subject of considerable diverse possibility. Many would argue that if you lie to priest about your sorrow (and I’m not sure that it is even possible to make such a lie), then the absolution is invalid and lost. Yet I see in the very word the mother church uses: absolution, the conjugation ‘absolute’. God’s forgiveness is absolute and irrevocable. Our lies do not make god a liar. The Cross may never be retracted. “It is done,” as Christ himself said while on it.

The poster said that she was not about to live with her husband as brother and sister. That sounds unrepentant. But I also see in her posts a great deal of sorrow.

You’ll likely call this one a non sequitur, but this issue aparently shows why you and I have both chosen to identify ourselves as Roman Catholic. Latin is the church’s mother tongue, and knowledge of this language aids immeasurably in understanding Her.
 
Michael19682 said:
This last point about unrepentant sinners and forgiveness is a subject of considerable diverse possibility. Many would argue that if you lie to priest about your sorrow (and I’m not sure that it is even possible to make such a lie), then the absolution is invalid and lost. Yet I see in the very word the mother church uses: absolution, the conjugation ‘absolute’. God’s forgiveness is absolute and irrevocable. Our lies do not make god a liar. The Cross may never be retracted. “It is done,” as Christ himself said while on it.
Click to expand...
As Catholics we defend the Faith the way it was handed down to us from Christ through the Apostles to the best of our ability. We pray for enlightenment for ourselves and others.
We do not go by our own understanding. We seek, always, the Truth of God.
We stand corrected when we get off track and make mistakes.
We always go back to the beginning of the New Covenant to be reminded of the Truth.
I like to recommend a book of simplicity about early Church fathers, Four Witnesses ,author Rod Bennett, Ignatius press. Peace, Carlan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top