I'm not a catholic because?

  • Thread starter Thread starter almost2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I went to a christian Bible college and the catholic family went nuts .screaming heretic
 
For myself further, the Catholic church was not what it claimed to be so it was best for me to find the truth elsewhere.
 
Mainly because the church has failed to live up to some of its claims. Two such claims are its supposed ‘Indefectability’ and the perpetuity of the papacy. Secondly, I understand that certain divine teachings do not need to be proven from reason alone, but it seems as if both the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation cannot be reconciled with reason, and instead conflict with reason. Thirdly, the criteria for true prophecy and false prophecy seems completely arbitrary; anyone can be a prophet, so who exactly could you trust has brought a true revelation from God?
 
Ahhhhh

THEE Truth IS ONLY in the RCC, [historically & Biblically provable[

Can you please provide examples of your real concerns?

God Bless you

Patrick [the OP]
 
OK,

And what diid you learn that debunks the TRUTHS of the RCC?

God Bless you
Patrick [the OP]
 
REALLY, [Im the OP]

So exactly did you find in the bible which BTW is a Catholic Book that convinced you that you are right and the the RCC is wrong?

If you could please be precise, than so can I in my reply to you

God Bless you
Patrick
 
CourtingTex said:
For myself further, the Catholic church was not what it claimed to be so it was best for me to find the truth elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Seriously? And the Mormon Church is what it claims to be? Sounds like you didn’t learn anything.
 
Your personal training is suspect. As a Marian cath. Is a different gospel …fr. John harden. Deceived many with his opinions
 
Last edited:
almost2 said:
I’m not a Catholic because?

It is not ? And no one gets any more spiritual

It is just a list of rules . go to mass once a week. Go to confession once a year.

Don’t commit a mortal sin. Feel guilty .

Don’t believe in the real presence

Well that’s a mortal sin. According to the counsel of Trent

What about you?
Click to expand...
If you took the time to learn about the Catholic faith, all of your reasons for not being Catholic would be snuffed out.

Your profile says you’re an evangelical. Pray tell how this is better than being Catholic.
 
If you read his teaching on mystics. Visions and visionaries. He admits he can not decern spiritual people .and says they just have a big imagination.
And then describes john the cross and terrisa of avelia. As his examples of spiritual .
He is very skilled at"creative writing" or inventive writing. .I was there when he taught at western mi university.
Hus analogy and description of spiritual manifestations are deceptive. And they were lacking in his personal writings.
 
Saint Paul was Evangelical. 1cor 2. I came not with the wisdom of man theology. But with the demonstration of the holy spirit.

1cor12 of spiritual things I would not have you ignorant.
When you com together (mass) each one bring a hym.a revelation . a psalm. A tongue.
1cor 14.25. His heart is revealed and he knows that God is in your midst
 
It seems that 90% of the people who joined after the format switch are trolls. Now I always look at the join date before deciding who is worth replying to if the post does not already make that obvious.
 
Thanks, this is what it says:
…It was said above that one part of the Church’s gift of indefectibility lies in her preservation from any substantial corruption in the sphere of morals. This supposes, not merely that she will always proclaim the perfect standard of morality bequeathed to her by her Founder, but also that in every age the lives of many of her children will be based on that sublime model. Only a supernatural principle of spiritual life could bring this about. Man’s natural tendency is downwards. The force of every religious movement gradually spends itself; and the followers of great religious reformers tend in time to the level of their environment. According to the laws of unassisted human nature, it should have been thus with the society established by Christ. Yet history shows us that the Catholic Church possesses a power of reform from within, which has no parallel in any other religious organization. Again and again she produces saints, men imitating the virtues of Christ in an extraordinary degree, whose influence, spreading far and wide, gives fresh ardour even to those who reach a less heroic standard. …
Click to expand...
That’s about as much as I could post with the word limit. But, it says enough. With which part of that do you disagree?
 
Years ago, when I wanted to become Catholic, I was very much inclined to the sedevacantist position, and then I read John C. Pontrello’s ‘The Sedevacantist Delusion’ and James Larson’s ‘War against the Papacy’, which made me realise it was impossible to be a sedevacantist and remain Catholic. Eventually, I realised that the Catholic Church just isn’t the indefectable ‘Body of Christ’ it claims to be. Since Vatican II, or perhaps even before it, it wasn’t just Liturgical changes, but the church has largely abandoned defined dogma such as creationism, and has instead adopted ‘progressive creation’ and ‘theistic evolution’. The church has also modified salvation dogma by introducing ‘invincible ignorance’ and asserting that unbaptized infants could be saved. Pope John Paul II referred to slavery as intrinsically evil, “now and forever”, thereby opposing scripture, and the theologians and Magisterium of the church for most of its history.

Even before the 20th century, the strongest case of the church changing its teaching on morals, is when it changed its attitude towards usury. There is also the Immaculate Conception, Bernard of Clairvaux refers to the doctrine as if it were an emerging innovation, and NOT an ongoing dispute. Augustine himself is accused to this very day by Eastern Orthodox, of innovation, namely the doctrine of original sin; Augustine’s Pelagian opponents charged him with Manichaeism on account of this. Most Catholics also, like to assert that during the Galileo controversy, only Galileo’s heliocentrism was condemned as a heresy, when actually it was also his opposition to geocentrism which was condemned as a heresy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top