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

[guanophore]

 First of all, I am not a troll.

I am glad to hear this. I do think you are truly struggling to reconcile your politics with your spirituality.

I admire those who choose to remain Catholic and attempt to live Catholic lives.

This seems to imply that you don’t know anyone who has been successful…

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. **

This is a very telling statement. Love cannot be separated from the Truth, and that is why it is the most loving thing for the CC to tell the Truth. Now this may not result in the hearers feeling warm and fuzzy. More often, like those who heard the Gospel from the Apostles, the hearers will get hurt, angry, or be “cut to the heart” by the Word.

In such cases, a person may not “feel loved”, especially if what they believe is love is tolerating sin in life.

Actually no. It’s not just about politics. It’s that I believe the CC’s political stubbornness distracts from preaching the Gospel.

On the contrary, I think preaching the Gospel distracts from political stubborness. When one receives the Word of Truth in their life, that Word of Truth will manifest itself in absolutely every area of their lives, family, vocational, and political.

I see Catholics more passionate about banning abortion than preaching the Gospel.

For us, there is no separation between the two. The Gospel of Christ is to defend those who are voiceless. There are none in the world today whose voices are more ignored than those who are in what should be the safest place ever for them, their mothers womb. And yet, that safety is violated 4000 times day while these silently screaming innocents are put to death.

Protestants, by making politics secondary, are better showing love to people around the world and gaining converts as a result.

What good are a large number of converts if they are only converted to falsehoods? The road is narrow and the way steep that leads to life, and few will find it.

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.

You seem to be able to separate your spirituality from your politics, but for Catholics this is not possible. We are to be salt and light to the world, a city set upon a hill. For us the opposition to the culture of death IS about saving souls. We cannot support or tolerate “politics” that are anti-life.

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

I think you have this backwards. Jesus has called us to bring light and truth to the culture in which we live. It is easy for us, a millenia later, to look back at the Crusades and criticize that those involved did not bring light and truth in them. Certainly it does not appear that way from where we are sitting. The same is true for the Reformation.

But these are part of the reasons why Catholic clergy are no longer allowed to occupy political offices, so that there will not be a conflation of temporal and spiritual goals. If every Catholic lived their faith in the marketplace and the government, then our society would be much better place.

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?

Catholics feed on the Eucharist, but if you do want good sermons, there are many available on the internet. Catholic priests are commissioned for Sacraments, and many of them are not gifted teachers.

We have a different understanding of what “gospel” is. For us, the Gospel is contained in every Mass in the form of the Eucharist. We become that which we behold.

I do agree with you, though, there is much need of formation.

 

[guanophore]

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).

You seem to be contradicting yourself now. Above you criticized Catholics for this position.

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 think you don’t see this because you have been blinded by the culture of death in which you live. You don’t realize that doing wrong to self and others is not a “civil liberty”. It is the same as saying “I don’t see why preventing people from rape constitutes love, when clearly you are alienating all the rapists in doing 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 Truth of God cannot be compromised. He is immutable, and His commandments stand without wavering. However, if you read the Catholic guide for voters, you will see that it is possible for catholics to vote for a “better” or “less evil” candidate.

The only reason Catholics stand against these civil liberties is because the Vatican and Catechism say so.

since you have been blinded by the culture of death, it may not occur to you that those Catholics who oppose sin in our culture (what you call “civil liberty”) do so because we are pursuaded by the Holy Spirit that it is our duty to resist evil.

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…

You have probably been asked for this before, but I will do so again. Please provide evidence of both these assertions. You have claimed the Catechism "distorts’ the bible. Please show us .

You have claimed the CC didn’t exist until 300 AD. Please provide proof.

The Bible and Holy Tradition don't say anything about how to treat these issues politically.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? Catholics understand that, if we do not speak out against evil, then we will be held responsible for supporting it.

In personal life yes, but not in politics.

There is no separation for us. We are to reflect in all aspects of our lives what we believe.

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.

LOL. Let’s talk in another 2000 years.

Lukewarm and “cafeteria” Catholics will not survive. But those who are grounded in the Vine will.

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.

Yes. And if an emotional experience were enough, then it would last, but since it is not, the megachurches will also wane and disperse, just like the Crystal Cathedral.

Offensive, divisive, and bigoted is not Christlike, is it?

No. Were you claiming to be Christlike?

 

[guanophore]

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?

Apparently you are not well educated in the history of the CC, or the work of the Catholic charities.

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".

Certainly the HS uses such ecclesial communities to draw people to Himself. But without the doctrines of Christ, and His Real Presence, such expereinces will be limited. Eventually the “feeling” and the enthusiasm wears off, and the suffering sets in. Tolerating sin and error is the easy and wide path that leads through the gates of hell.

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.**

Well, I guess we should thank you for your judgment of our spiritual lives.

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.

I expect if your focus is to dress us down for our failings and faults, perhaps you have already achieved your goal.

One more thing, I have to reply to this:

Sorry, but that’s a horrible, ignorant stereotype!

You might want to consider setting the example of charity you seem to want from others. You are full of accusations and scoldings, but do not express yourself in a very couretous manner.

 

[meme1961]

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

So, in a gun free city, how did you end up with five gun-related deaths this year? Your very statement contradicts itself.

And comparing cities in different countries really is bad statistics, as I’m sure you know. There are far too many uncontrolled variables to draw conclusions from comparing two different cities in two different countries. One gets a better, more valid result by comparing the gun-related deaths in a city when it increases gun control, or contrawise, decreases the governmental violation of 2nd Amendment rights. In the US, relaxing the rules against issuing concealed carry permits almost always reduces gun-related crimes, and almost never results in a CC permit holder instigating violence.

On the other hand, there are multiple instances of greatly increasing gun control resulting in a an increase in violent, gun-related crime.

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.”

Wrong twice. Not everybody can “snap”, and there are people who wake up in the morning thinking “I’m going to do something terrible today.” In fairness to you, I would restate your position as “we can’t know from the outside who is going to snap or not.” I agree with that, which is why the ability to defend oneself, one’s family, and if possible one’s community is a right, and duty.

Mind you, “terrible” is our interpretation of their action, not theirs, but none the less, the Columbine shooting was planned out, so those boys woke up many mornings in a row planning 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.

Not true. People often loose control of their temper, but they don’t commit homicide, whether or not they have access to a gun. If your statement was at all reasoned, then one would find evidence of murder everywhere, everytime someone lost their temper, regardless of their access to firearms. Houses are full of knives, clubs and other blunt instruments, yet in the vast majority of all “losses of temper” you don’t end up with a homicide.

Your hypothesis is based on invalid sampling. You can’t reach a conclusion based on what is reported in the news. The news never mentions all the times nothing “news worthy” happens, so your sample is so badly skewed as to be worthless. Before you can reach a reasoned conclusion, you must take into account all those times where a gun prevented violence, but was never fired (and therefore didn’t end up on the news, and was not added to any summary of gun-violence).

 

[meme1961]

What a load of garbage–you seriously think a deranged and mentally unstable individual says oh gun free zone I will go there?

Absolutely. Emotionally or mentally disturbed doesn’t mean that one can’t make a reasoned decision based on facts.

They go where the people are–who knows how a sick mind chooses its victims.

Doctors who’ve studied hundreds of patiens know how sick minds work. That’s there job. There is a classic story that illustrates this:

A man lost a tire with all the lugnuts just outside an insane asylum. He stood looking at the problem when he noticed one of the inmates watching through the fence. the inmate suggested, “Why not take one lugnut from each of the other tires? That should hold your spare long enough for you to make it to a garage.” The guy tried it and it worked! He said to the inmate, “That was brilliant! Why do they have a guy like you in there?” The inmate replied, “I’m crazy, not STUPID!”

But all one needs to do is look at the difference between psychotic and delusional, versus morally sick to understand that someone can make reasoned, highly intelligent decisions and still be morally sick.

Yet again: why has the percentage of mass murders that occur in gun-free zones increased? Contrawise, why don’t we see more mass murders on gun-ranges, or in police stations?

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.

You’re wrong. Otherwise, they wouldn’t show a statistical tendency to choose places where the victims are especially helpless, and where they are nearly guaranteed that no person opposing them will have a gun.

You’re wrong twice. An opponent who has a gun does indeed deter the mass murderer. If in no other way, by shooting the mass murderer before he runs out of bullets. Sad, certainly tragic, but true. The length of time of a mass murder is directly related to how long it takes another gun to arrive on the scene. In a gun free zone, that is a much longer period of time than in, say, a mall where some guy just happens to be carrying concealed, despite the fact that the property owners had posted it as a “gun free” zone.

With a sane killer who planned–your armed guard would be the first person taken out before they new what was going on.

Thank you for proving that not only should every law abiding citizen be allowed to carry just about anywhere, but also that they should be allowed to carry concealed. By Jove, I think you are finally getting it!

Your teacher would be dead trying to open their gun safe.

And if this teacher was the very first or second person shot, you would be correct. But if the mass murderer is working their way through the building, and starts with the class room next door, that teacher would have the time necessary to open the gun safe, load the weapon, direct the children to the safest place in the classroom, then take the best position to cover the classroom entrances.

You are simply repeating the fallacy of “since not everybody can be saved, then nobody should be saved.” Either that, or you are trying to generalize from “a surprise attack can almost always kill anybody, no matter how heavily armed they are” into “since the first person can be surprised and killed, then everybody can be killed, regardless of how they are armed.”

No, not every person can be saved in a surprise mass murder. But there is a benefit in restricting a mass murder to, say, four deaths, instead of the 27.

But if you truly believed what you post, then the police should be disarmed as well. Are you proposing that?

This idea that more guns is what will make us safe–is just crazy.

Your reply is a straw-man argument. Nobody has proposed more guns. What has been proposed is that the laws be changed to allow the law-abiding citizen to carry the guns the already own. Preferably concealed, to allow the law-abiding to have the same element of surprise that the mass murder has working for them.

It sure didn’t make the west safe–thats why it was called the wild wild west and why it required cleaning up.

A total mis-representation of the actual historical facts. It was, in fact, guns that made the wild, wild west less wild. The “cleaning it up” that you skate over involved lots of guns, in concert with the establishment of the rule of law, an establishment and strengthening of public and private morality, and hails of bullets that ended the lives of the gangs that had, to that point, been running rampant.

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.

I agree with that.

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.

These things are not mutually exclusive. More importantly, you again lapse into a straw man argument . . . nobody is suggesting we “pass out guns to all citizens.” The suggestion is merely to stop violating our 2nd Amendment rights. If you, personally, don’t want to carry then by all means don’t. No one is forcing you to. Your political opposition simply wants you to stop forcing THEM and their families to be unarmed victims.

 

[meme1961]

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.

But “taken for granted” shifts your argument away from what Catholics believe, to a political, secular, or cultural belief.

My response was to your assertion that Catholics are “anti-gun”. We are not. We are pro-life, but being pro-life sometimes requires using a gun to stop someone from taking an innocent life.

One would hope, and pray, that that rarely occurs, and in most cases, that the time, and less lethal means were available, but this is not always the case.

In America, the police are not tasked with defending our lives. One can’t sue the police for failing to prevent a crime. Nor or the police a “higher class” or citizen, as legally America is a politically classless society. They are simply our fellow citizens, doing the job of pursuing criminals after a crime has been committed.

Americans are a free people, with the right to life, and therefore, the right to defend it. If necessary, through the employment of lethal force, if all other options have been voided.

 

[jmcrae]

So, in a gun free city, how did you end up with five gun-related deaths this year? Your very statement contradicts itself.

Outsiders bring in guns - the majority get caught, but some slip through, and one person used a gun to kill five people.

And comparing cities in different countries really is bad statistics, as I’m sure you know. There are far too many uncontrolled variables to draw conclusions from comparing two different cities in two different countries.

I understand that in a typical American city of similar size, the annual gun deaths are in the tens of thousands - hence, a good reason to avoid my question.

Wrong twice. Not everybody can “snap”, and there are people who wake up in the morning thinking “I’m going to do something terrible today.” In fairness to you, I would restate your position as “we can’t know from the outside who is going to snap or not.” I agree with that, which is why the ability to defend oneself, one’s family, and if possible one’s community is a right, and duty.

Until the “protector” decides he has a “duty” to kill everyone who has ever wronged him in any way.

Mind you, “terrible” is our interpretation of their action, not theirs, but none the less, the Columbine shooting was planned out, so those boys woke up many mornings in a row planning to do something terrible.

And someone gave them the guns to do it - they were underage, so an adult bought them the guns they used, without asking himself, “Is this a good idea?” And there were no checks or balances for anyone to ask what the guns were for. It was just a commercial transaction, the same as buying the kids a pair of bikes or a couple packs of smokes - worse, actually, since someone would have probably prevented the adult from buying cigarettes for kids.

 

[meme1961]

A quality Protestant pastor will incorporate the Gospel in every sermon. Do priests do that in Mass?

Seriously? Seriously!?

I can go to mass every day of the week. In every one of those, I get the liturgy of the word. Do you know what that liturgy is?

I will receive more Gospel in the Catholic Mass in one week, than I will in six months of attending a Protestant service. And yes, I speak from experience, having bounced through just about every major world religion, including multiple Protestant sects, and even Atheism.

Your viewpoint is not evolving. You keep repeating the same points you started this discussion with. This indicates that you are here solely to argue, and are not open to the truth. Thus, you seem to be a troll.

Can you honestly admit to any change in perception, belief or knowledge about the Catholic Church to disabuse us of this notion?

 

[joe370]

Hey CaliLobo.

Sorry this is long and unfocused, but my mind is in such conflict about all areas of Catholicism.

For the past few years I’ve been more and more intrigued by the Catholic Church. I like the intellectual edge it has, and its claim to be the original that Jesus founded.

That was the most important factor to me as a former protestant. I wanted to belong to the church founded by God, circa 33AD, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, as opposed to a church founded by mere men in the 16th, 17th…21st century.

But the more I look into it and ask around, the more I get confused. And because of this confusion, it just makes it impossible to pull the trigger and convert. Here’s some reasons why:

• The Vatican says we should vote against gay marriage and abortion rights. The Vatican says one cannot be pro-choice and Catholic. But I can always find another liberal parish that disagrees.

You can find a catholic parish that is pro-choice in terms of abortion, etc.? Where?

• Why should the Church continue to hold such positions, then? Even when so many Catholics disagree with the Vatican?

Well, if the CC is Jesus’ church and Jesus is guiding His church then the CC should not give in to weak human will IMHO. Seems reasonable. Christians belonging to the CC do not determine doctrine, and they shouldn’t; therefore, logically speaking, the Catholic Church should continue to hold to such positions. Imagine if the CC caved every time someone, from within Jesus’ church or without, resisted…?

 

[joe370]

CaliLobo…Even when social conservatism is dead now with the reelection of Obama, and gay marriage winning by popular vote in three US states? Isn’t the Church least effective when it meddles with politics the most? Doesn’t the fact that Jesus said “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” while also being called Prince of Peace, mean that Jesus never came for social and political peace, that he was never a political reformer?

Social situations, in terms of right to life, feeding the poor etc., certainly matter to Jesus and He would want His church to mix it up. Politics outside of the welfare of Jesus’ creatures, however, I happen to agree…

• Since so many Catholics disagree with the Vatican, doesn’t that make the Church less effective?

The whole world could disagree with the CC; can that really make Jesus’ church less effective?

Shouldn’t the Catholic Church just tolerate political dissent like the Protestant churches, and not advocate any political position in particular? Why are abortion, gay marriage, cloning, euthanasia, and (I forgot the other) such immutable issues for Catholics? Yes I’ve heard natural law and moral issues. But aren’t civil rights important?

Abortion and euthanasia are both murder; homosexuality is frowned upon in the bible. Why would Jesus’ church suddenly decide to compromise on these things?

• But then again, if the Catholic church were to liberalize politically or tolerate political dissent, what would it then offer that I can’t find in a Protestant church?? Protestant churches are okay with political diversity because they know it’s secondary to the main mission of preaching the Gospel. Politics doesn’t save us after all, right?

Things like abortion, euthanasia, both of which are murder and homosexuality are found in the bible and are wrong, as per the bible; they are not secondary to the main mission…

 

[joe370]

CaliLobo - - For every worship-related reason why the Catholic Church is so great I can always find a reason to counter that. For example, some love the liturgy, but others cannot get anything out of the old liturgical style of worship, because it’s just empty rituals to them. And why should communion be reserved to only Catholics, isn’t that offensive? And if confession is so important why do most people not do it, and live a life of “Catholic guilt”?

There will always be reasons not to belong to the CC. However, there is only one reason to disregard all of that and pull the trigger: It’s Jesus’ church, the pillar and foundation of truth, as per sacred scripture. Why would anyone want to belong to a man-made church if they have access to God’s church? That’s just me…

• In general, why are Catholic churches so dead and boring? Isn’t the faith “more alive” in a Protestant church?

If you believe in the Holy Eucharist/the Sacrifice of the Mass, then I believe you would have your answer. It’s a time to recall what Jesus did for us 2000 years ago on Calvary; it’s not a concert. LOL…Many protestants find it hard to make the transition at least until they grasp the profound mystical nature of the Mass.

I appreciate that Protestant churches have more entertaining music, are more welcoming, will say hi to you if you’re new, and will ask you to fill out a welcome card so they can get back to you! Even if it’s annoying and in your face, it at least shows they care! Where are the people that care in a Catholic church, besides the nuns (many which give me platitudes of advice when I talk to them)? I just get the sense that the Catholic faith is so personal, but why can’t Catholics get involved with the lives of others, form small groups, and talk about faith with each other? I get the sense that there’s a disconnect between priests and nuns and laypeople, because they live a life of cloistered study. Where are the laypeople that care and I can talk about faith with?

Everything you just mentioned is foreign to me. I experience all of that with the exception of entertaining music during the Mass. Again, the Mass is all about the Sacrifice of Calvary. It’s not suppose to be a festive moment. The sacrifice of Calvary is being renewed and contemplated on…

• In general I just don’t see Catholics practicing their faith, the way Protestants do.

Well, that is rather subjective…

The Catholic Church does have the edge intellectually, but why doesn’t that translate into a growing, vibrant church?

It sounds like you want it all or nothing. That is not what Catholicism is about, I am afraid. The one thing protestants fail to do is pick up their cross and follow Christ, as per the bible, IMHO.

All I see is a moribund, boring church with inconsistency in the beliefs among members. In fact, Catholics who convert to Protestantism complain that the Catholic Church is just a bunch of rote rituals with no meaning.

Perhaps you should focus on attempting to find your own way and stop relying on the opinion of others, or not…

Sorry this is long and unfocused, but my mind is in such conflict about all areas of Catholicism. The Catholic Church has such potential, but right now Protestant churches have the edge in how “alive” their faith is. I just don’t see Catholics stepping up. Why don’t the bishops just excommunicate people left and right anymore? I do need to figure out where my faith is gonna turn next, so I appreciate your help.

Quite a few of your questions are rather vague. However, I do not believe it is about which church has the edge, do you - really? it’s about finding the church founded by God, IMHO.

God bless brother…

 

[MarkInOregon]

These things are not mutually exclusive. More importantly, you again lapse into a straw man argument . . . nobody is suggesting we “pass out guns to all citizens.” The suggestion is merely to stop violating our 2nd Amendment rights. If you, personally, don’t want to carry then by all means don’t. No one is forcing you to. Your political opposition simply wants you to stop forcing THEM and their families to be unarmed victims.

While you have jumped to many erroneous conclusions from my comments I do not have time nor a desire to address them all. And I do not wish to enter into dualing statistics and studies–as we all know they can be made to say anything–after all how many studies–funded by drug companies but conducted by supposedly unbiased university professors telling us how safe xyz drug is only to find it recalled because it was not safe–do we need to see before we realize this? Gun studies are no better–no matter what side you’re on.

I would however like to address the above–as you have responded just as I knew someone would. Please note: I never said anything about taking away anyones gun or even suggested it. I never voiced an opinion about or opposition to the second amendment. I never said I was against guns. This is the problem – it is impossible to have a discussion with people regarding what will actually make people safer–without you all screaming and kicking about your second amendment rights–even if no one is talking about taking them away–which I certainly wasn’t. I will, however, apologize for the tone of the post–I just get exasperated at times.

I simply don’t believe the path that you seem to want us to go down will make us safer. I don’t think the prospect of an armed teacher or even an armed guard will make the people who commit these acts think twice (I realize you disagree and put great faith in their reasonableness and in the psychiatrists). And if it could be proven that it would – then you would need an armed guard in every establishment in america – or you’d just be pushing these nuts from one location to another–choosing winners and losers so to speak. So just because I don’t agree with you regarding what will make us safer–please don’t jump to conclusions regarding what I think about guns.

That said – in general – I do think I would be safer at the mall or anywhere with fewer people carrying concealed weapons. While most of these people are good law abiding citizens–so are most people until they have that one moment when they lose it. When that guy loses it–I am better off if he is not armed. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to be armed but I am not safer because he is and I think that in reality I am in greater danger because he is. And I am guessing this is where you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Something has changed in our society. When I was in school you could have a gun rack in your rig with a gun in it and head up hunting after school. No one thought anything about it and we never had an incident of gun violence. Kids fought but no one went out and grabbed their rifle–it never occurred to them. Today it does and thats the problem–until that is addressed, until that changes–we will not be safer. And putting armed guards in our schools will not change that. Rather than addressing the root causes of our problems we simply wish to get more guns for ourselves and put armed guards everywhere and lull ourselves into a false sense of security–this is what I object to.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Razanir]

I can go to mass every day of the week. In every one of those, I get the liturgy of the word. Do you know what that liturgy is?

I will receive more Gospel in the Catholic Mass in one week, than I will in six months of attending a Protestant service. And yes, I speak from experience, having bounced through just about every major world religion, including multiple Protestant sects, and even Atheism.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you went to Mass every day for three years, don’t you hear the entire Bible (looking at all three readings, the alleluia, the psalm, and the entrance and Communion reading thingies)

Well, if the CC is Jesus’ church and Jesus is guiding His church then the CC should not give in to weak human will IMHO. Seems reasonable. Christians belonging to the CC do not determine doctrine, and they shouldn’t; therefore, logically speaking, the Catholic Church should continue to hold to such positions. Imagine if the CC caved every time someone, from within Jesus’ church or without, resisted…?

If the Church caved every time a view was becoming more popular, we’d all be atheists right now.

 

[jmcrae]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you went to Mass every day for three years, don’t you hear the entire Bible (looking at all three readings, the alleluia, the psalm, and the entrance and Communion reading thingies)

Actually, no - but one does encounter nearly 80% of the text of the Scriptures, and within any 52 week period, one encounters every major teaching of he Church as expressed in the Gospels and other readings.

If the Church caved every time a view was becoming more popular, we’d all be atheists right now.

That’s very true.

 

[Kal2012]

First, I need to apologize for assuming you were a troll. I tend to assume the worst in people. That’s something I need to work on.

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…

I tend to believe this is a generational issue. Most people in this generation don’t have respect for public institutions or authority, regardless if they are secular or religious leaders/institutions.

Actually, the reason why Catholics stand against these things is because the Church is interested in promoting stable families and communities. “Anything goes” is in direct conflict w/doing that.

I focus on the politics of the Church because I’m politically active and I would be disappointed if the CC didn’t stand up for her values. That’s one of the reasons why I’m attracted to the church. They aren’t changing their values to be popular.

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.

Politically, most countries were ruled by monarchs or dictators for most of world history. So, of course, there wouldn’t be any manual for Catholics in politics because mass opinion didn’t matter in these systems. Politics as we know it today didn’t exist when the church began.

I find it kind of ironic that it’s okay for the personal to be political for Liberals when they support Liberalism, but not for Conservatives.

I don’t agree with the premise that the Church has to change to survive another generation. The CC will be just fine, despite naysayers.

Offensive, divisive, and bigoted is not Christlike, is it?

I think it’s offensive that others think that the CC needs to change to fit public opinion.

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.

Depends on who you spend time with. I see plenty of fire and passion in the Catholic families I know - they just don’t advertise like their protestant counterparts. It is what it is.

 

[Kal2012]

CaliLobo: Do you attend a protestant or a Catholic church? The reason I ask is because Catholicism is as much of a culture as it is a religion. You won’t learn about Catholicism and how it’s practiced unless you start going to mass in area.

In my area, there’s ample opportunity to check out how different parishes do things. One family I know goes to the Polish CC because they are Polish Catholics and want to connect w/ their ethnic community. Another family I know attends the Slovak CC because they are more conservative and have lots of activities for both kids and parents. I picked my parish because it was recommended to me by someone who was also new to area and had gone to a lot of the churches in the area looking for a parish home for her family - and they have a rarity in the Catholic world - a day care for the preschool kiddos.

I understand that making the switch can be difficult because it’s really a change in lifestyle and worldview.

It’s so easy to be a Protestant (at least in my opinion) because if you don’t like what the church teaches, then you leave and find a new church more to your liking.

So, while you might see more fruit in some of these churches, I have to wonder how many people will still be there in 5-10-15 years. Are they able to sustain their congregation for the long haul? I’ve seen members split off and form their own church because they don’t like what the original church was doing. So, what does that say about the people who leave? Are they rebelling or are they trying to be better Christians? What about the people who stay? Are they wrong for staying? Which person is following Christ more in that situation? What authority are they following? What’s going to happen when the pastor dies?

Speaking from my own experience, it took me a long time to go into a Catholic Church. This summer, I really just decided that I was going to stop being wishy-washy about it and figure out if I could find a place in Catholicism. Slowly, I’m finding it, but you really have to work at finding your Catholic community.

Finding community in the Protestant world is so different. It’s part of the package from when you walk in the door in Protestantism. Not so much in Catholicism.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CaliLobo,

Quite a set of denials you have listed - things can be set straight, but ultimately, you can not change your argument to suit how you ‘feel’ on a given topic.

Criticizing a ‘…secular Protestant-influenced cocuemnt’ is simply an ad hominem dismissal of a valid position. And it you want a Catholic position - here are a few links you may find of interest:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm (Actual teaching of the Catholic Church)

vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html (Papal encyclical on human dignity)

ihmsjc.org/roman_catholic_human_rights.htm (An interesting graphic)

Take you pick - and if you have an argument just give it - rather then dismissing what is presented.

Just take a look at your inquiry into abortion - every issue brought up is simply wrapped in emotionalism rather then an honest effort to address the facts. Your ‘compassion for women’ is emotionalism run amuck. While the inconvience of a pregnant woman to continue the pregnancy is viewed as worth the risk to her life (just look at the recent ultiple deaths and serious damage to these women undergoing the abortion) should allow the butchery of an innocent life. And, when you add that now sex-selection abortion (the focus is the destruction of unborn female life - this is somehow being ‘pro-woman’? This is simply inconsistent and lacking in any kind of consistency. Your so-called ‘compassion’ is only for what you see - not for what is in reality.Here is a link that may provide you with some much needed real information, rather then the hype provided by Planned Parenthood.

Now, if you want a biblical reference - try the Fifth Commandment - “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. The official teaching of the Catholic Church can be found here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

Ah, and then yoiu find the time to endorse ‘gay marriage’ - when homosexuality is specifically condemned in the bible - and here is a link that provides you with multiple references that all you have to do is read the biblical references given. There are many so-called ‘experts’ who have claimed that homosexuality is just fine - and take a look at the 2,000+ year history condemning this and the truly recent endorsement that the ‘experts’ want to give it. And, this may have more with people simply wanting their beliefs to conform to their behaviors. Chrit warns of false prophets who will try and mislead others - catholicessentials.net/falseprophets.htm So, before providing your own endorsement for the ‘experts’ who are misleading others - try providing your own biblical references in priase of homosexuality. I think you need to back up your various statements and stop dismissing the arguments of those you disagree with.

God bless

Sorry but using a secular, Protestant-influenced document to back up your claim weakens your argument. What does the Catholic Church have to say about where rights come from?

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?

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

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

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

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

Actually, it is not just you … I’m with you, for one - and there are many others on this thread, alone! Christ built His Chruch on Peter (Matt 16). Luther built his church on himself and personal interpretation of Scripture - and then became offended when others interpreted Scripture their way - and not his way! Of course, Calvin, Knox and the rest of the rebels all came up with two amazing statements:

1.) After all is said and done - the Catholic Church is always wrong.

2.) No matter how Protestants contradict one another - they all agree that the Catholic Church is wrong

Christ did not leave us orphans - He gave us the Catholic Curch.

God bless

There will always be reasons not to belong to the CC. However, there is only one reason to disregard all of that and pull the trigger: It’s Jesus’ church, the pillar and foundation of truth, as per sacred scripture. Why would anyone want to belong to a man-made church if they have access to God’s church? That’s just me…

If you believe in the Holy Eucharist/the Sacrifice of the Mass, then I believe you would have your answer. It’s a time to recall what Jesus did for us 2000 years ago on Calvary; it’s not a concert. LOL…Many protestants find it hard to make the transition at least until they grasp the profound mystical nature of the Mass.

Everything you just mentioned is foreign to me. I experience all of that with the exception of entertaining music during the Mass. Again, the Mass is all about the Sacrifice of Calvary. It’s not suppose to be a festive moment. The sacrifice of Calvary is being renewed and contemplated on…

Well, that is rather subjective…

It sounds like you want it all or nothing. That is not what Catholicism is about, I am afraid. The one thing protestants fail to do is pick up their cross and follow Christ, as per the bible, IMHO.

Perhaps you should focus on attempting to find your own way and stop relying on the opinion of others, or not…

Quite a few of your questions are rather vague. However, I do not believe it is about which church has the edge, do you - really? it’s about finding the church founded by God, IMHO.

God bless brother…

 

[empantarhei]

It sounds like you want it all or nothing. That is not what Catholicism is about, I am afraid.1.The one thing protestants fail to do is pick up their cross and follow Christ, as per the bible, IMHO.

2. Quite a few of your questions are rather vague. However, I do not believe it is about which church has the edge, do you - really? it’s about finding the church founded by God, IMHO.

1. Say what??!! Explain, please. Thanks
2. Amen!!

 

[sw85]

Much of the OP’s complaints boil down to “why can’t the Church be more like mainline Protestantism?”

This is why. The vast majority of mainline Protestantism has lapsed into apostasy just as the OP would like the Church to do, and is paying the price for it with increasingly irreverent, irrelevant, and ridiculous liturgy and skyrocketing rates of atheism.

The failure of mainline Protestantism is the exact reason the Church must never, ever cave on its moral teachings.