Intrigued by Catholicism, but just can't convert for many reasons

[jmcrae]

“But if I can’t get to any priest and none (there are not many, BTW), return contact with me…”
I cannot make a priest return phone calls. Mission unaccomplished. I have run out of ideas. I am too tired to chase. I see my way through a bit differently and that’s okay too.

Blessings

What message are you leaving them? Priests need short messages, and to the point. They don’t read or listen to lengthy messages. One or two lines, but not without content. “HI, I need an appointment.” No. First, say why. Then, say how. Last, say what. Give him a list of choices; don’t leave it up to him to be creative. Say something like,

Hi, I want to join the Church; I have some health issues, so I need to discuss how I can adapt my RCIA process. I need an appointment with you this week. My name is ] and you can call me at ]. I am available (this and this evening) and during the day on ]."

 

[guanophore]

I wonder if this is the Holy Spirit working in your life... just wondering...

…with God nothing is impossible!

I have no doubt this is the case. Let us pray for our dear sister, that she may follow the lead of the HS, being willing to surrender all to Him.

 

[meme1961]

We are - except for certain American Catholics.

Are we? The Swiss Guard arms (modern):

SIG P220 (P75)
Glock 19
Heckler & Koch MP5A3
Heckler & Koch MP7
SIG SG 550
SIG SG 552

As far as I know, the Church has never taken a stance on guns, either for or against (but I could be wrong). What the Church teaches is the sanctity of life. It also has the doctrine that defines a “Just War.”

I would hazard that Catholics who are “against guns” are in fact “against murder.” That I would agree with, whole heartedly, but that hardly constitutes being “against guns”, nor does a pro-life stance require that one be against guns, anymore than a pro-salvation stance means that one is against the existence of hell.

 

[eddie_too]

calilobo,

remind yourself continuously that the Bible is not the SOLE source for truth in this world, even when it is correctly interpreted.

the other source of truth in this world is called Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is composed of the non-Biblical teachings and actions of the Apostles.

the Apostles were instructed by Jesus Himself. the Apostles were given instructions that the Bible itself says are not contained in the Bible. the Bible also states that the Apostles were given instructions that were NOT given to the masses of people to whom Jesus preached.

the bottom line is that unless one accepts the truths taught by the Roman Catholic Church, one is only left with the truths as understood by the finite minds of sinful men and women.

the truths for Lutherans is limited by the finite understanding and sinful natures of Martin Luther and his followers. Episcopalians are limited to the truth in the same manner to the understandings and sinful natures of Henry VII and his followers. Methodists are limited to the finite understandings and sinful natures of John Wesly and his followers. etc. etc. etc. for every church and religion out there. that includes, buddhism, islam, hinduism, taoism and sikkhism. you name it and the any truth they might contain is necessarily restricted and limited by the fact that its teachings were developed and proclaimed by a sinful and finite human mind.

only the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church come from the infinite and divine mind of the Incarnate Word, the only Son of God Himself.

so, you may not understand the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in their fulness, you are not alone, no finite human being understands the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in their fullness. that is why the Roman Catholic Church teaches its flock that the Trinity is a mystery. the Incarnation is a mystery. the Immaculate Conception is a mystery, because the fullness of these truths is infinite and our finite human minds cannot fully comprehend them completely.

however, your choice remains as it does for all of us, to follow someone other than the Incarnate Word, i.e. Luther, Wesley, the Buddha, Mohammed, etc.; or, to follow Jesus Christ who can only fully be known through the instrument that Jesus Himself created, the Roman Catholic Church. Apostolic Succession exists fully only within the Roman Catholic Church. any proclamation of truth that is made outside of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are necessarily limited by finite mind and sinfulness of those proclaiming them.

as i said earlier, you may not understand why the Roman Catholic Church teaches what it does, no Catholic understands completely the whys of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but every faithful Catholic understands give assent to the fact that those teachings come from Jesus Himself and are guaranteed true because Jesus instilled His Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic Church through the principle of Apostolic Succession.

Apostolic Succession exists fully (i say fully, because it, in an incomplete sense, still exists in some of the Eastern Orthodox chuches) only within the Roman Catholic Church. without access to Jesus through His gift of Apostolic Succession, the Bible cannot be correcly intepreted and the truth provided through Sacred Tradition is unavailable.

so agree or disagree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but the fullness of Divine Truth is unavailable and unattainable outside of its teachings.

no amount of heming and hawing, no amount of dithering and doubt, no amount of misunderstanding and challenging can change that simple fact.

only assent to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can make fully accessible the Divine Peace, the Divine Love, the Divine Grace and the Divine Forgiveness given mankind through the Life, Death and Resurrection of the Incarnate Word.

that is the bottom line!!!

 

[eddie_too]

calilobo,

i guess to summarize what i was trying to get at in last, lengthy post is, if you have a better source for understanding the world and the divine than the Roman Catholic Church (with its connection to Jesus through Apostolic Succession) than follow that source.

i, myself, was unable to find a better (meaning a source more closely and clearly connected to Jesus, the Christ, Himself) source or a better connection to the divine; and, i did search for something else.

after concluding that the Roman Catholic Church has the fullness of faith and the only God given connection to the Divine, giving assent to the teachings of the Church was natural and unavoidable even to those teachings i did not understand and which seemed wrong or irrational. that is because at that point i was forced to come face to face with my own limitations and sinfulness and accept that it was my pride, and nothing else, that was preventing my asssent

 

[rellanor]

This is a simple question with a complicated answer, because there are varying degrees of, and reasons for, animosity between any two religious groups. This particular battle is rooted in history. Degrees of reaction have ranged from friendly disagreement (as reflected in the numerous ecumenical dialogues produced between the two groups), to outright persecution and murder of Protestants at the hands of Rome. Reformation teachings that identify the Pope as the Beast of Revelation and / or Roman Catholicism as Mystery Babylon are still common among Protestants. Clearly, anyone with this view is not going to “warm up” to Rome any time soon.

For the most part, today at least, the animosity comes from basic human nature when dealing with fundamental disagreement over eternal truths. Passions are sure to ignite in the more weighty matters of life, and one’s faith is (or at least should be) at the top of the heap. Many Protestants think Roman Catholics teach a works-gospel that cannot save, while Roman Catholics think Protestants teach easy-believism that requires nothing more than an emotional outburst brought on by manipulative preaching. Protestants blame Catholics for worshipping Mary, and Catholics think Protestants are apparently too dull to understand the distinctions Rome has made in this regard. These caricatures are often difficult to overcome.

Behind the particular disagreements over the role of faith and works, the sacraments, the canon of Scripture, the role of the priesthood, prayers to saints, and all the issues surrounding Mary and the Pope, etc., lies the biggest rift between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: the issue of authority. How one answers the authority question will generally inform all the other issues. When it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t really much to discuss on the Catholic’s side because once Rome speaks, it is settled. This is a problem when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic authority.

Thus, many of the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one’s “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the “official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.” Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their tradition. But this merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities (to choose their authority) and their interpretive skills (to understand what that authority teaches) in order to determine what they will believe. Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

Both sides can also be fiercely loyal to their family’s faith or the church they grew up in without much thought to doctrinal arguments. Obviously, there are a lot of possible reasons for the division between Catholicism and Protestantism, and while we should not divide over secondary issues, both sides agree that we must divide when it comes to primary issues. Beyond that, we can agree to disagree and worship where we find ourselves most in agreement. When it comes to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the differences are just too great to ignore. However, that does not give license for caricatures or ignorant judgments – both sides need to be honest in their assessments and try not to go beyond what God has revealed.

 

[eddie_too]

jharek,

so what term do you use for the apostolic succession of the eastern orthodox who are not in communion with the pope?

if incomplete is the completely wrong word, you should be able to provide a better one.

or, is it your understanding that there is no apostolic succession in the eastern orthodox churches that are not in communion with Rome?

 

[jmcrae]

Are we? The Swiss Guard arms (modern):

SIG P220 (P75)
Glock 19
Heckler & Koch MP5A3
Heckler & Koch MP7
SIG SG 550
SIG SG 552

As far as I know, the Church has never taken a stance on guns, either for or against (but I could be wrong). What the Church teaches is the sanctity of life. It also has the doctrine that defines a “Just War.”

I would hazard that Catholics who are “against guns” are in fact “against murder.” That I would agree with, whole heartedly, but that hardly constitutes being “against guns”, nor does a pro-life stance require that one be against guns, anymore than a pro-salvation stance means that one is against the existence of hell.

I wasn’t referring to armies, or members of police forces - in most countries, it is taken for granted that non-combatants don’t need guns except for hunting and for defending the herd against animal predators.

 

[eddie_too]

my understanding of catholic teaching is that it is moral to defend oneself from an unjust aggressor.

for that reason, there is nothing wrong with a catholic owning a gun and i know of no church teaching that states otherwise.

 

[eddie_too]

jhaarek,

i did add “in a sense”. if you have a better word for their having valid orders but not having the fullness of the faith, i would be happy to use it.

i only said “incomplete in a sense” for lack of the correct term for their status re: the teachings of the apostles.

 

[Miriam1947]

Are we? The Swiss Guard arms (modern):

SIG P220 (P75)
Glock 19
Heckler & Koch MP5A3
Heckler & Koch MP7
SIG SG 550
SIG SG 552

As far as I know, the Church has never taken a stance on guns, either for or against (but I could be wrong). What the Church teaches is the sanctity of life. It also has the doctrine that defines a “Just War.”

I would hazard that Catholics who are “against guns” are in fact “against murder.” That I would agree with, whole heartedly, but that hardly constitutes being “against guns”, nor does a pro-life stance require that one be against guns, anymore than a pro-salvation stance means that one is against the existence of hell.

 

[Miriam1947]

I wasn’t referring to armies, or members of police forces - in most countries, it is taken for granted that non-combatants don’t need guns except for hunting and for defending the herd against animal predators.

Gun free zones are why murderers pick schools, malls and churches to do their heinous deeds. It’s like sitting ducks at a carnival show.

There are many sources you can find which explain why gun free cities and countries have more gun crime.

Honest citizens with guns are not going around shooting up schools, etc.

 

[guanophore]

jhaarek,

i did add “in a sense”. if you have a better word for their having valid orders but not having the fullness of the faith, i would be happy to use it.

i only said “incomplete in a sense” for lack of the correct term for their status re: the teachings of the apostles.

We are in schism with one another. The Orthodox are considered to have valid sacraments, valid Holy Orders, and valid apostolic succession.

In fact, their Apostolic lines are older than the Western lines, as Peter started a line of Bishops in Antioch of Syria before he came to Rome. Paul and the other Apostles also began valid lines of bishops in the East before coming to Rome.

 

[meme1961]

Degrees of reaction have ranged from friendly disagreement (as reflected in the numerous ecumenical dialogues produced between the two groups), to outright persecution and murder of Protestants at the hands of Rome.

And, of course, theft from, persecution of and murder of Catholics at the hands of Protestants. What was done to Catholics in England during the purges was not the equivalent of a tea party.

Reformation teachings that identify the Pope as the Beast of Revelation and / or Roman Catholicism as Mystery Babylon are still common among Protestants. Clearly, anyone with this view is not going to “warm up” to Rome any time soon.

Agreed. And Protestants of various stripes were long decried as heretics by Holy Mother Church. While technically correct, such labels did not prove conducive to re-unification.

For the most part, today at least, the animosity comes from basic human nature when dealing with fundamental disagreement over eternal truths. Many Protestants think Roman Catholics teach a works-gospel that cannot save,

Based in what they are told by Protestant preachers. There in lies the problem of “basic (base) human nature” . . . even when wrong, people will defend a belief quite vigorously. Combine that with giving faith to what some one tells you, rather than in that which you can learn for yourself, and the schism continues.

Protestants blame Catholics for worshipping Mary, and Catholics think Protestants are apparently too dull to understand the distinctions Rome has made in this regard. These caricatures are often difficult to overcome.

Quite often because these cariactures have a solid foundation of statistical truth to them. Protestants are not, on the whole, too dull, but they take on faith what is told to them by Protestant Preachers, instead of studying it for themselves.

Catholics, epecially cradle catholics, often have no experience with Protestantism except in those cases where a fundamentalist directs an attack against them, or their faith. This does not lead one to be open minded. Combine that with poor catechesis (many cradle catholics can’t actually articulate these distinctions themselves!) and the result is reinforcement of negative perception.

. . . lies the biggest rift between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: the issue of authority.

Indeed. This is why I am no longer a Protestant. The Bible says nothing. The Bible, being merely a collection of signs, means nothing; signs have no meaning. Meaning is what you bring TO signs, not what you take from them. It is this fundamental statement of linguistics that disproves Sola Scriptura, and disproving Sola Scriptura, one demonstrates the need for both Tradition, and the Magisterium, and of course, Papal authority.

It is Tradition, the Magisterium, and the Succession that allows us to know what meaning is right and proper to bring to the Bible. In turn, the Bible stands as a written record that protects all Christians from to much “mutation” in the faith.

How one answers the authority question will generally inform all the other issues. When it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t really much to discuss on the Catholic’s side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.

If by “Rome”, you mean an infallible statement made ex cathedra by a sitting Pope, you are correct. Otherwise, not so much. It is fairly common for Holy Mother Church to take many years to decide a question, and during those years, Catholics must act as best they can in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while remaining faithful members of the Church.

This is a problem when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic authority.

Catholicism is a religion of faith and reason, in equal measure and proper relationship. But like any religion is has its dogma (divine revelation). To point only at Catholicism and decry that it has dogma is to ignore the dogma in your own eye. Reason is not authoritative AT ALL in some Protestant sects. Fundamentalism is, in a very real way, a Fideistic religion. I’ve sat through sermons dedicated to preaching against evolution, and claims that the Earth is literally only 6,000 years old.

But this merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities (to choose their authority) and their interpretive skills (to understand what that authority teaches) in order to determine what they will believe. Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

Fundamentally wrong, in exactly the way a Protestant would get it wrong. The Pope should have a sign on his desk that reads “The Buck Stops Here.”

We don’t choose our authority. Just as we don’t vote on the truth, we don’t choose our authority. God is Truth, and Truth has ALL authority. By his power, he gave a special gift to the Magisterium, and an additional, special gift to the office of the Papacy. Your interpretation ignores that important fact: that the Magisterium and Pope are not “just like any other believer”. This (“every man his own priest”) is part of the Five Solae of the Protestant Church, but is antithetical to Catholic thought and belief.

The Pope is imbued with special powers. Such a bald statement is shocking to Protestants, and even to some Catholics, but the Pope is quite literally touched by a supernatural power that is not given to any other human being.

 

[jmcrae]

There are many sources you can find which explain why gun free cities and countries have more gun crime.

I live in a gun-free city; we had five gun-related deaths this year.

How many gun-related deaths were there in your city this year?

Honest citizens with guns are not going around shooting up schools, etc.

Anybody can snap. There isn’t such a thing as a job description, “bad guy.” Nobody wakes up in the morning thinking, “Today I’m going to do something terrible.”

Everyone is a “good guy” until they lose their temper - and if they lose their temper with a gun in their hand, that’s when people die.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Gun free zones are why murderers pick schools, malls and churches to do their heinous deeds. It’s like sitting ducks at a carnival show.

What a load of garbage–you seriously think a deranged and mentally unstable individual says oh gun free zone I will go there? They go where the people are–who knows how a sick mind chooses its victims. Most public places in america don’t have armed guards. Many of these disturbed people want to commit suicide by cop or end up killing themselves–an armed person is not going to deter them in their mission–they just want to fire off weapons and end up dead. With a sane killer who planned–your armed guard would be the first person taken out before they new what was going on. Your teacher would be dead trying to open their gun safe. This idea that more guns is what will make us safe–is just crazy. It sure didn’t make the west safe–thats why it was called the wild wild west and why it required cleaning up.

What will make us safer is a culture that respects people and life, and one that makes a serious attempt to treat and help our mentally ill. A society that doesn’t glorify violence and killing probably wouldn’t hurt either. But as long as this culture continues to devalue life --any life that is not of xyz affluence and health or wanted–well the killing will continue. If we want to be safe–we need to change the culture of death–not pass out guns to all citizens.

Mark

 

[Kal2012]

I have to ask if you’ve gotten yourself a copy of the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

A lot of your questions are answered there.

Regarding abortion, I am pro choice because my faith leads me to have compassion for women. Women shouldn’t have to suffer disproportionately for a creepy guy’s mistake. My heart weeps for the Irish South Asian woman who died because the government was so square to not allow an abortion to save her life!

How many more women need to die and suffer? You keep talking about the unborn. But the unborn don’t have rights in secular law. How about the suffering of women? How about the reduced crime, poverty, and drain on natural resources and the economy as a result of population control? Doesn’t God care about that too?

Also, the Bible has nothing on point about abortion, contrary to what most Christians think. God knew us when we were in the womb, but what does that have to do with abortion?

Compassion is an emotion. It is right and true that you feel empathy with people who suffer.

Still, not all abortions happen because of medical necessity, rape or incest. These circumstances account for very few of the actual abortions performed. Most abortions aren’t performed for those reasons.

Actually, the unborn do have rights under the law - which is why Scott Peterson - you know the guy who killed his wife and unborn child - was charged with two counts of felony murder, not just one. That is not unusual by any stretch.

Yes, my heart weeps for the lady who died in Ireland, but I also understand that in Ireland there are much stricter laws about when doctors can perform abortions w/o fear of going to jail. I can understand where why jail time can motivate decent people not to do something, even if it would save someone’s life. Still, changes need to be made in Irish law to help women in circumstances such as that lady found herself in.

I think it’s unfair to think that women suffer less after they choose to have an abortion. I can’t imagine having an abortion. Still, I had an unplanned pregnancy and I gave the child up for adoption. I can’t imagine making another choice, although I understand why another woman would make a different choice. It seems to me that living as a woman who knows that she voluntarily killed a healthy baby would be a harder thing to do.

Regardless of the choice you make, being with child changes your perspective on life forever. How you came to be pregnant really doesn’t seem to have much bearing on how whether that change occurs. It changes you forever, regardless.

The whole situation is full of sadness and sorrow.

Same could be said about gay marriages; doesn’t the Bible forbid temple prostitution and not gay unions, according to some experts?

The problem is that marriage is a religious sacrament. It’s one thing if gay couples want to get married civilly and another if they want their marriage recognized by the church.

And if you’re so pro-life, shouldn’t you be anti-guns??

Yep, the “aren’t you being a hypocrite” argument!

I don’t make the assumption that people who own guns want to use them on other people. The people who I know that have guns use them to hunt and that is a legitimate use for guns. Not everyone lives in a city or wants to live in a city.

If you are pro-choice, then shouldn’t you be happy that I’m pro-gun? Don’t guns get rid of people and help with population control - which you seem to be concerned about?

Seriously, your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Kal2012]

To continue:

And isn’t euthanasia humane? Aren’t we playing God by extending life through medical technology? Why should patients have to suffer?

Aren’t we allowing doctors to play God by assuming that they always know what they are talking about?

At what point do we get to decide that the life of another person isn’t worth much? Why that point?

Why should patients have to suffer death because doctors and nurses don’t want to deal w/the long-term care of a patient who has disabilities?

As the parent of a special needs child, I’m always leery when people start suggesting that caring for a child like mine is a burden. It’s not. I love my child and through him I’ve learned a lot more about compassion.

You mention pursuing the Truth, but it’s hard to see it in a church that shows hatred to others by infringing on their civil rights of others, along with all the other issues I posted in this thread about tradition, liturgy, and the lack of vibrancy. I see Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches dying in Europe with stats to show it. I see more Truth being practiced in the nondenominational Protestant churches, even though they’re far from perfect. I only see Protestants evangelizing these days in today’s world.

And it’s disappointing. I wanted to find the Truth in the CC but couldn’t. I find myself too clever for Protestant churches (the rhetoric and emotions are predictable), but at least I find more fire and love in them, so that’s why I continue being Protestant.

You are right that the Catholics haven’t been doing their job. I’m not going to lie. It’s amazing they get converts, despite their lack of zeal (in comparison to the protestants). My RCIA class is looking more and more like a bad joke. Still, I have CAF and solid Catholics in my life to help me after my class is over.

Still, if you start digging into the CCC, then start looking at Protestantism again, I think you’ll rethink your position…that is if you aren’t a troll…which I’m beginning to suspect…because it’s like every secular cliche about the church is in this post. (Although, I have to admit that the gun one was new to me!)

The thing is that, ultimately, you decide if the church is right for you. You change for the church. The church doesn’t change for you.

In the end, where you see hate, I see love and compassion.

I don’t think it’s hateful to tell people that they are sinning and living a questionable lifestyle - especially since most gay people really don’t want to get married and be monogamous. I think a lot of people want to do the right thing and treat gay people as well as everyone else, but there’s a difference between religious marriage and secular marriage and our legal system needs to work out the secular part of this question. The Church already has answered the question.

I don’t think it’s hateful to tell women and men to wait for sex until marriage because I’ve experienced an unplanned pregnancy and saw first-hand how it devastated lives around me, not just my own.

I think it’s more hateful to lie to people and act like there aren’t going to be consequences to these actions, emotional, spiritual and physical. People get into drugs/alcohol to bury the pain that they are in a lot of times, not because it’s fun and life’s one big party. Why else would you want to be numb all the time?

I spent years in therapy after my daughter was placed because I had to deal with issues that were deeper than just that one event. I imagine it’s the same for women who made a different choice as well. I’m not going to lie and say that I was able to get on with my life, exactly as it was before. That’s BS. It doesn’t work like that as much as some people try and pretend that it is. You always remember, regardless if the child is physically in your life or not.

I don’t think it’s hateful to say that every life has value, regardless if it’s in the womb or in the nursing home. People’s lives matter, regardless of how healthy or how disabled they are. What’s hateful is assuming that people have a diminished quality of life because they aren’t exactly 100% healthy and have disabilities.

Later -
Jo

 

[CaliLobo]

First of all, I am not a troll. I admire those who choose to remain Catholic and attempt to live Catholic lives. But I, along with billions of others, honestly have questions, and we are seeking real answers for them instead of platitudes. We want to be loved, but don’t feel loved by the CC.

trevor1055:

It appears that most of your objections to the Catholic Church rest upon political questions and the tendency of self-professed Catholics to follow the teachings of the Church at the ballot box.

Actually no. It’s not just about politics. It’s that I believe the CC’s political stubbornness distracts from preaching the Gospel. I see Catholics more passionate about banning abortion than preaching the Gospel. Protestants, by making politics secondary, are better showing love to people around the world and gaining converts as a result. Clearly, people are being alienated by church because they see it as anti-abortion and anti-gay. But saving souls is more important than politics. Let people who want abortion and gay unions have them, and let people who oppose them just not participate.

In short, the CC is least effective when it meddles in politics (think Crusades).

But please also read my other posts about the liturgy, traditions, rituals, lack of Gospel preaching, and the moribund state of the CC. A quality Protestant pastor will incorporate the Gospel in every sermon. Do priests do that in Mass? And where is the teaching for adults in the CC? Where are the good, long sermons where I can be fed?

uther:

Actually, that’s not really the choice you are making. Rather it is, either follow Christ or follow the world. Those so-called rights you advocate are not of Christ, Protestant or Catholic, although many Protestant groups have capitulated to the world.

You did find the truth and it didn’t conform to your view of civil rights. As one poster said on another thread in an online Catholic publication that he was forced to choose between being a good Catholic or a good American and he chose to be a good American…

This is not a “follow the world” problem. Once again, Christ came not to bring peace, but a sword (meaning he didn’t come to bring sociopolitical peace, and the peace he does bring alienates others). What he did say is to love one another as you love yourself. I don’t see how restricting civil liberties, whether secular or of God, constitutes love, when clearly people are being alienated from not church, but ORGANIZED RELIGION due to this. I don’t see why certain political issues are so immutable for the CC; why can’t they be compromised if one candidate is clearly better on most other issues. The only reason Catholics stand against these civil liberties is because the Vatican and Catechism say so. But I can find you Protestants that can show how the Catechism distorts the Bible. After all (sorry to be offensive), the CC didn’t exist until 300 AD, much could’ve been distorted in three centuries…

The Bible and Holy Tradition don’t say anything about how to treat these issues politically. In personal life yes, but not in politics. I know there are calls among Catholics to change the Vatican’s teachings from within, and it will have to change if it wants to survive just one more generation.

Yes, the Episcopal Church is dying (another common Catholic argument) but that’s due to the gay clergy issue (a different issue, and I don’t support hiring gay clergy). But the contemporary nondenominational megachurches (all Protestant) are growing by leaps and bounds. And the churches they plant in Europe and Latin America are also growing quickly–people feel they are experiencing God for the first time in them.

guanophore:

I don’t think you will be able to see Jesus in Catholics, because your personal values of what constitutes “Jesus” are quite a departure from what He taught. As a result, you will likely see in faithful Catholics what you consider offensive, divisive, and bigoted.
Faithful Catholics to not vote for, tolerate, or promote sin.

Offensive, divisive, and bigoted is not Christlike, is it? And if the CC doesn’t vote for or tolerate sin, why don’t we see the CC advocating laws banning divorce, porn, and prostitution?

guanophore:

It’s ok. It is clear your values prevent you from being Catholic,so even if there was a perfect parish full of vibrant Christians in love with Jesus and each other, there would still be problems for you.

Once again, though I’ll concede that the Catholic Church might have the “fullness of the truth,” I see more Truth being practiced in the Protestant churches, especially the contemporary nondenominational church. You can call it “a show” and “McChurch” and “lacking the Real Presence” or whatever, but I see more fire for the Gospel–people loving and caring for one another (even holding each other accountable for their sins), genuinely worshiping, preaching the Gospel, missions, evangelism, and Bible reading and study. I see people expressing their love for Jesus in multiple media forms–graphic design, rock and hip hop music, movies, fashion, etc. How can I, and billions of others, see Jesus in the Catholic Church if the Truth is not being fully practiced there (and you guys have agreed that today’s Catholic Church hasn’t done its job)? I can get just as much, if not more, of Jesus in the Protestant churches, and that is why I stay, even if they might not have the “fullness of the truth”.

To sum it up, the Protestants are producing more good fruit. The New Testament is about Jesus’ Great Commission, and the Catholics have lost their focus in that.

Great discussion. This thread is starting to lose focus. There are more things I’d love to discuss, so I’ll start another thread soon. For now, I’ll let you have the last word.

 

[CaliLobo]

One more thing, I have to reply to this:

Kal2012:

I don’t think it’s hateful to tell people that they are sinning and living a questionable lifestyle - especially since most gay people really don’t want to get married and be monogamous.

Sorry, but that’s a horrible, ignorant stereotype! There are many gays that are in committed relationships. Why did so many gays get married in the states where it’s legal?