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

[cyejbv]

Ok Calilobo,

this is a brief response to your mention of Galatians as per the Real Presence.

When you read that at the Last Supper, Jesus told the Apostles that the bread and wine *were His body and blood *and they must eat it, and some of them left- in other words, they were disgusted!- and Jesus let them go, he didn’t say “No I am speaking metaphorically”, *how do you reconcile that they would leave if Jesus was speaking symbolically? *

Moreover, did you know that for the first 1000 years, the Real Presence was never questioned, and that in fact people were thrown to the lions oftentimes on charges of cannibalism, due to their belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

Have you done *any *studying or reading of the Church Fathers? It sounds like you’re typing from Jack Chick publications; forgive me if you aren’t and shame if you are! That’s not seeking, Calilobo. Disagree or ask for clarification but be honest …right?
At any rate, there have been plenty of schisms and heresies in the Church: the denial of the Real Presence is one of them.

Finally: the poster cheezey asked a pertinent question. Why are you looking at the RCC?

I hope you see that many are willing to answer questions you have, but also will defend the Church from attacks you make. Myself included. So be honest about why you’re on CAF – *if for no other reason than out of respect for the time people take to talk with you. *
God Bless.

 

[cyejbv]

I typed “When you read that at the Last Supper, Jesus told the Apostles that the bread and wine were His body and blood and they must eat it,” sorry, it should be clarified it wasn’t any of the 12 Apostles that left, rather other disciples and followers.

 

[CaliLobo]

eddie too:

nothing i wrote above says anything about politics even though calilobo writes as though it did.

it is obvious that my comment is totally related to the teachings of Jesus Christ and whether or not it is loving to refuse to educate people on those teachings and questioning how it can be loving to allow a person to remain ignorant of those teachings.

Eddie, as you know, politics is a major portion of this thread, although not the whole thread. My big question, to paraphrase is why the Catholic Church feels the need to be stubborn politically when it’s arguably hindering its evangelism. You asked these:

how can it be a loving act to tell people who fornicate that it will not impact their immortal soul and eternal destiny?

homosexual activity is definitely fornication since, according to Jesus, marriage is between one man and one woman.

how can it be ok to ignore and not oppose the murder of innocent people?

how can you find it Christ-like to advocate that such murders be permitted under the law?

So that is why I chose to respond in political terms. Sorry if I misinterpreted, that’s common online.
eddie too:

to set the record straight, the Roman Catholic Church is not shrinking. Its membership is growing in the USA and throughout the world. \

Whoever is stating otherwise is completely misinformed or deliberately lying.

Only because of the growing Hispanic population. Yes, the CC grew by 0.57% in 2010. But if it weren’t for Hispanics, the Catholic Church is a quickly dying church, especially among whites. Check out this article:
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/30/7-reasons-catholics-leave-church-in-trenton-1-is-sex-abuse-crisis/
Could that be why the Church is “compassionate” to illegal immigrants, to increase their numbers?

Kal2012:

The idea that protestants aren’t divisive and political is just crazy! They’re dividers too! Think Mike Huckabee/Rick Santorum on one side - on the other - The Revs. Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton. Protestants are a lot more divisive than Catholics ever could be.

Yes, but no Protestant church worth my tithe will preach that someone is in “bad standing” or “scandal” with the Church because of his political views. Though we might have 30000 denominations, we are all united by our belief in Christ as Lord and Savior.

Once again, the Bible does not say how to act politically, so it’s folly to think the Vatican has all the answers there. Besides, politics is secondary, compared our relationship with God.

The CC, on the other hand, will say one who disagrees politically with the Vatican is in bad standing or scandal. People, though they have relationships with Jesus, feel condemned, and that is why they leave (check out the CNN link).

MarkInOregon:

We [legislate morality] it all the time. it is illegal to steal and murder for example. Those are moral laws. We legislate morality all the time–lets not say that we don’t or rather can’t.

Because this is a criminal law problem, not a moral problem. Murder and theft are crimes with victims, and need to be enforced. No one is saying we should decriminalize murder and theft.

In fact, because the primary victims of the drug policy are the drug users, this is why we are rethinking our drug policy, and slowly decriminalizing drugs in favor of rehabilitation, like in Portugal.

On the other hand, gay relationships, abortions, and euthanasia are not crimes. These are human rights.

You might not like this, but everyone’s morality really is different, and that’s why we can’t legislate morality.

You say we can’t allow or tolerate sin? You say you want to change people? Then evangelize to them like Protestants do. Only Jesus changes lives. Not politics. Not laws. Not Holy Tradition.

Once again, relationship with Jesus is more important than the Catholic system of Tradition and Magisterium. Once again, if Tradition and Magisterium are hindering people from getting closer to Christ (see CNN article), don’t we need an upgrade?

MarkInOregon:

Would you explain to me where you got the Bible? And on what authority you except the Bible as the word of God? What do you do when what you believe has been revealed to you differs from what someone else believes was revealed to them–and you disagree with them as to what x Bible passage means? How do you know who is right? Are you not claiming for yourself–the authority the Catholic Church claims for itself and which you are dismissing?

Jesus. Jesus. Consult with more experienced believers and pray to Jesus directly. He speaks to us in different ways, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

It’s all about one’s personal relationship with Jesus, not the “system” of a particular church. Only Jesus changes and saves people.

cheezey:

Can you state just 2-3 definitive reasons why you would join the RCC? Leave out the “issues” and “concerns”, just state what is closest to your heart. Briefly. Thanks.

1. Its claim to be the original Jesus founded. But wasn’t the original church of Jesus his disciples in Jerusalem?
2. Its intellectual basis. I confess, I’m over it with the entertainment value of Protestant megachurches and want something more serious and deeper. But, I know it’s beneficial for others. However, though the CC may possess the truth intellectually, I still feel that Protestantism is the upgrade because it more effectively evangelizes and cultivates relationships with Jesus. Now if I’m wrong, please let me know why.

 

[CaliLobo]

(Continued)
Personally I think my arguments have some merit, and that is why some of you are using ad hominem attacks, accusing me of being a troll and attacking the Church, and saying I’m not a real seeker of the Church. Trust me, if I wasn’t a genuine seeker, I have better things to do.

If this thread is too divisive, we can close it. My next step is to read Budziszewski on natural law, because in the age of Obama I think natural law is the ONLY surviving argument as to why we should uphold “social conservatism”.

Sorry if it looks like I repeated the same points over and over. I agree we should move the discussion along. So here are some followup questions (which I posted but weren’t really answered):

1. Isn’t a relationship with Jesus is more important than the Catholic system of Tradition and Magisterium?
2. If Tradition and Magisterium are hindering people from getting closer to Christ (see CNN article), don’t we need an upgrade?
3. You say we do legislate morality all the time. But I argue that murder and theft are about criminal law, not morals. Why does the Vatican still think it should legislate morality, when it is definitely impossible? Hasn’t it failed the most when it got involved with politics the most (meddling with Medieval rulers, Crusades, Inquisition, Spanish conquest, and now Obama’s presidency)?
4. Since only Jesus can change lives, isn’t the best way to change people through evangelism, not law or politics?

 

[CaliLobo]

(Continued)

cyejbv:

When you read that at the Last Supper, Jesus told the Apostles that the bread and wine were His body and blood and they must eat it, and some of them left- in other words, they were disgusted!- and Jesus let them go, he didn’t say “No I am speaking metaphorically”, how do you reconcile that they would leave if Jesus was speaking symbolically?

Moreover, did you know that for the first 1000 years, the Real Presence was never questioned, and that in fact people were thrown to the lions oftentimes on charges of cannibalism, due to their belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

Have you done any studying or reading of the Church Fathers? It sounds like you’re typing from Jack Chick publications; forgive me if you aren’t and shame if you are! That’s not seeking, Calilobo. Disagree or ask for clarification but be honest …right?

My answer is that church history isn’t as relevant as people hold it to be.

But the Real Presence is a primary reason why people hesitate to convert, because Transubstantiation sounds nonsensical and unscientific.

The Eastern Orthodox also claims to be the original that Jesus founded, but they believe the Eucharist is symbolic.

Either way, by taking Communion, one is affirming one’s relationship with Jesus. Transubstantion is merely part of the Magisterium (the Catholic system I cited earlier).

I notice Catholics really like to cite their history and consistency of belief over time, how it survived heresy and schism, and all that. But what if the Vatican’s interpretation of Church history isn’t true?

Many Protestants believe that there were always non-Catholic churches since Jesus’ time, and that the CC wasn’t founded until the 4th century. If Islam could distort the Bible that much a few centuries after Jesus, couldn’t Catholicism with its system? I mean, we have the Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming they discovered new ideas in the 1950s!

After all, Jesus’ first church was his disciples in Jerusalem, not Rome, right?

So here’s question 5: Why does Church history matter so much to today’s Christian? Isn’t the priority to preach to the future, to connect with and create a new generation of Christians?

P.S. I don’t really know who Jack Chick even is, and never read his stuff. I hardly read “Christian books”. I lack time, many books are profit-based and incorrect, and the Bible is more important.

 

[cheezey]

Cali,
do ypu think the Episcopal Church might be right for you? Aesthetically similar, liturgically the same, but with some Protestantism you want to hold on to, apparently.

Though we might have 30000 denominations, we are all united by our belief in Christ as Lord and Savior.

Amen to that

It’s all about one’s personal relationship with Jesus, not the “system” of a particular church. Only Jesus changes and saves people.

Amen to this, too. But it’s okay for the Church to facilitate this.

1. Its claim to be the original Jesus founded.

That’s one reason for me as well.

1. Its intellectual basis. …However, though the CC may possess the truth intellectually, I still feel that Protestantism is the upgrade because it more effectively evangelizes and cultivates relationships with Jesus…

**Relationships with Jesus is not even limited to Churches. Churches are the medium, so why not the RCC? **

But the Real Presence is a primary reason why people hesitate to convert, because Transubstantiation sounds nonsensical and unscientific.

Not for me is isn’t. Despite my upbringing, in fact.…

The Eastern Orthodox also claims to be the original that Jesus founded, but they believe the Eucharist is symbolic.

I don’t know where to go tomorrow. The priest at the Episcopal Church is helping me because I will be homeless soon, and so I thought I should attend to show unity in Christ that one of His Children is helping me. I thought I should attend the RCC for one of your own reasons: closest to Jesus and His time. And the fact that the priest there said he’d have the deacon call me regarding RCIA, and again to show unity in Christ that I am drawn to the RCC. But time’s a wasting; I can’t make the deacon call me.

Either way, by taking Communion, one is affirming one’s relationship with Jesus. Transubstantion is merely part of the Magisterium (the Catholic system I cited earlier).

** That it is a part of the Magisterium is fine; That it is Jesus’ words that became the Magisterium it is better. I did not grow up even knowing about the Magisterium and I believe this to be fine. (I hope I stated this respectfully; again, not in the program yet. Forgive me.**.

Many Protestants believe that there were always non-Catholic churches since Jesus’ time, and that the CC wasn’t founded until the 4th century.

Could this be substantiated, please? On another thread (or this one SOOO many posts ago), I asked when the word Catholic was used in regards to the church and I believe the answer was in very late first or very early second century. Did I miss something?

Cali, I pray that you will find what you need.
Blessings.

 

[JuantheTuba]

The Eastern Orthodox also claims to be the original that Jesus founded, but they believe the Eucharist is symbolic.

Absolutely wrong. I don’t know where you got your information, but the Orthodox definitely do not believe the Eucharist is merely “symbolic”

 

[CopticChristian]

(Continued)

My answer is that church history isn’t as relevant as people hold it to be.

But the Real Presence is a primary reason why people hesitate to convert, because Transubstantiation sounds nonsensical and unscientific.

The Eastern Orthodox also claims to be the original that Jesus founded, but they believe the Eucharist is symbolic.

Either way, by taking Communion, one is affirming one’s relationship with Jesus. Transubstantion is merely part of the Magisterium (the Catholic system I cited earlier).

I notice Catholics really like to cite their history and consistency of belief over time, how it survived heresy and schism, and all that. But what if the Vatican’s interpretation of Church history isn’t true?

Many Protestants believe that there were always non-Catholic churches since Jesus’ time, and that the CC wasn’t founded until the 4th century. If Islam could distort the Bible that much a few centuries after Jesus, couldn’t Catholicism with its system? I mean, we have the Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming they discovered new ideas in the 1950s!

After all, Jesus’ first church was his disciples in Jerusalem, not Rome, right?

So here’s question 5: Why does Church history matter so much to today’s Christian? Isn’t the priority to preach to the future, to connect with and create a new generation of Christians?

P.S. I don’t really know who Jack Chick even is, and never read his stuff. I hardly read “Christian books”. I lack time, many books are profit-based and incorrect, and the Bible is more important.

Cali,

The Eucharist is the Eucharist. It is a Mystery. Transubstantiation is a word that describes a belief. It remains a Mystery.

 

[jmcrae]

Only because of the growing Hispanic population. Yes, the CC grew by 0.57% in 2010. But if it weren’t for Hispanics, the Catholic Church is a quickly dying church, especially among whites.

People of European ancestry are dwindling in population due to abortion and birth control. It’s true that we will soon be an extinct race.

The Catholic Church is a world-wide religion, and it is growing by leaps and bounds in places like Africa and the Philippines.

Murder and theft are crimes with victims, and need to be enforced. No one is saying we should decriminalize murder and theft.

In fact, because the primary victims of the drug policy are the drug users, this is why we are rethinking our drug policy, and slowly decriminalizing drugs in favor of rehabilitation, like in Portugal.

On the other hand, gay relationships, abortions, and euthanasia are not crimes. These are human rights.

Tell that to the people who are being sodomized, aborted, and euthanized.

They are real people, too - don’t they have any human rights? Or are human rights only allowed for those who are strong, rich, and powerful?

1. Its claim to be the original Jesus founded. But wasn’t the original church of Jesus his disciples in Jerusalem?

In 57 AD, the Romans captured the leadership of the Church and took them in chains to Rome, to a jail near the Colosseum. That building remains today the headquarters of the Church, and it is called “the Vatican” - the leadership of the Church lived there in captivity for 400 years, and then just never moved out, because they had nearly 300 years worth of Church records, books, and stuff that would have been difficult to transport. (At least, that is my understanding.)

The bones of the first Popes are all under the floors of where the jail used to be. It was turned into Church headquarters and seriously redecorated when Constantine made Christianity legal.

There was no reason for them to return to Jerusalem because everything they needed was already with them.

 

[latingirl]

In my experience, the faith is always incredibly renewed and alive where there are many former-Protestant converts. A Protestant who finds the eucharist is like a love story from which many fruits come.

 

[cheezey]

People of European ancestry are dwindling in population due to abortion and birth control. It’s true that we will soon be an extinct race.

The Catholic Church is a world-wide religion, and it is growing by leaps and bounds in places like Africa and the Philippines.

Tell that to the people who are being sodomized, aborted, and euthanized.

They are real people, too - don’t they have any human rights? Or are human rights only allowed for those who are strong, rich, and powerful?

In 57 AD, the Romans captured the leadership of the Church and took them in chains to Rome, to a jail near the Colosseum. That building remains today the headquarters of the Church, and it is called “the Vatican” - the leadership of the Church lived there in captivity for 400 years, and then just never moved out, because they had nearly 300 years worth of Church records, books, and stuff that would have been difficult to transport. (At least, that is my understanding.)

The bones of the first Popes are all under the floors of where the jail used to be. It was turned into Church headquarters and seriously redecorated when Constantine made Christianity legal.

There was no reason for them to return to Jerusalem because everything they needed was already with them.

 

[St_Francis]

Hi Cali,
Sorry this is so long, and repeats some of the points others have made, but I can’t go back and forth very well so am just including the whole thing, in two parts!

Rather than subscribing to the Catholic system of Magisterium, Tradition, Confession, and devotion to saints, which has not saved a thing (by the way, the only person who can change anyone’s life is Jesus), I use my personal relationship with Jesus. He reveals things to me, and I double check with the Bible to know I’m not deceiving myself.

And has He revealed to you that SSM should be legal in the US? And where did you find support for that in the Bible?

Like I said in post #287, couldn’t it be DANGEROUS to just subscribe to whatever a church says? Isn’t there individual responsiblity and accountability? So what if there are 30000 Protestant denominations, what’s so wrong with that? If a church does wrong, it is the responsible thing to do to walk away and move on.

Christ said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He did not say, I am 30,000 Ways, 30,000 Truths, 30,000 Lives…

Look just at one issue: baptism. The Catholic Church says that baptism is a sacramant, a visible sign of imparted grace. IOW, baptism *does * something, it is not a symbol. But what is accomplished is done not by the humans involved; it is accomplished by God. God does something but understanding our dual nature, God understands that we need a physical manifestation.

Now, there are several ideas about baptism in the various Protestant denominations: that it is necessary, that it is not necessary. That it is a sacrament, that it is symbolic, that it is a sign of obedience. That all may be baptized, that only adults can be baptized.

Obviously not all of these different ideas can be correct, can they? And yet their adherents all claim to find support for their particular idea in the Bible. So it doesn’t seem like this system of yours is really the best way to go because obviously *some *are confused.

But an even greater problem is that if the Catholic Church is correct, then those who do not baptise with water may well be doing themselves a disfavor, one which could have eternal consequences, not for all of them but possibly some.

Isn’t a personal relationship with God (which Protestants emphasize) more important than the Catholic system?

It’s not either/or; it’s not like Catholics are precluded from having “personal relationship with” God or Christ!

In fact, what happens is that the Church teaches us how *best * to have a relationship with Christ: If you do not eat of My Body or drink of My Blood, you shall not have life within you; keep holy the Sabbath day; the Church is the pillar and ground of truth; do penance for your sins…

Only 2% of the US has openly come out as gay. But there are many, many more that haven’t come out. And many, many people have experimented with the same sex, though they may not consider themselves gay.

Sexuality is a continuum between partially gay and partially straight. Add to that bi, asexual, queer, and so on. Sexuality is not black and white; it’s complicated.

Here is an article about the percentages. It would seem that the only people affected by a prohibition on SSM would be those who have *only *homosexual inclinations, so we do not have to worry about those who have some of each, do we? And you can’t “add to that” “bi … and queer,” as they are already included on the spectrum.

But the very idea of denying gays the equal right to marry IS discrimination per se.

Not really. No one is saying that homosexuals cannot marry a person if the opposite gender. It’s not like all heterosexuals who marry marry the person of their dreams, it is not unusual for all people to “settle.”

Because Jesus never did anything politically against Rome in the Bible. Because the Bible says NOTHING on point that we have to politically oppose these things.

Christ Himself said that we are to be salt and light to the world…

Additionally, the Roman Empire was not a democracy. The (name removed by moderator)ut of the average person in the Empire was non-existent, whereas in the US, we all particpate.

continued below

 

[St_Francis]

…continued from above

There used to be laws against fornication and divorce. Why doesn’t the CC support them now? How about laws against pornography and prostitution? Should we continue to support the losing war on drugs?

The Church would naturally support proposed legislation which was in line with Church teaching and which would improve society. However, when a society is not educated, sometimes the Church recognizes that the imposition of one law or another would cause more disorder than the lack of the law causes.

When I see women suffering from pregnancies and bad marriages, it’s clear how foolish laws banning abortion and divorce would be.

Wow, do pregnancies just happen to people? Is it contagious?

No. There is a reason that women become pregnant, and 99% of the time, it is because they agreed to have sex.

And who said anything about laws barring divorce? The Church recognizes that there are times when spouses must separate for important reasons. The problem with no-fault divorce is that, unlike any other contract in the US, either party can dissolve the contract with no penalties. I have met many men suffering from bad divorces that they didn’t even want, where they are barred from seeing their children, where they are unable to make changes in the child support arrangements… The evil goes both ways.

When I see my coworkers, just as bright and brilliant as anyone else, why would I advocate that they can’t have the same benefits and privileges of life? The gays have suffered enough.

Just as Sylvia can’t marry the man she wants because he is already married, just as Dave will never marry because he is a quadripelegic, just as Amy will never have children because she is now too old, just as Pete will never marry because he is a homeless drug addict…

Marriage is not a right to which we are entitled. There are lots of people who never marry. It is a cross–Protestants still believe in our personal crosses, don’t they?

We cannot legislate morality. All the time and effort Catholics spend politicking, they could instead spend it by preaching the Gospel. Getting people to convert. Because politics and laws don’t change human behavior; only belief in Jesus does. And if Magisterium and Tradition hinder belief in Jesus, we need an upgrade.

If laws don’t change people’s actions, why do I see brake lights on the cars in front of me where there’s a police officer? If laws don’t chnage actions, why do corporations hire lawyers to keep them within the law? If laws don’t change actions, why did the number of divorces increase with the advent of no-fault? Why did the number of abortions increase so much after Roe v Wade?

[quite]The Protestants have figured that out and that is why they flourish, and the CC shrinks.
**Some **Protestant denominations have figured out how to draw people into their churches, but they do not necessarily retain them. I had a friend who went to one Protestant mega-church for a while because they had a lot of special groups, the switched to a small non-denominational church because it was more closely-knit and charismatic. I see this sort of church-shopping and splitting (oh, my, they split like crazy in the Bible Belt!) a lot among Protestants.

Marketing and changing teachings to pull people in is not the way Christ ministered, is it? Instead, Christ proclaimed truths. If they were too hard for people to accept, He did not run after them and make the hard sayings easier; He let those who did not want to accept them go.

How is the divisiveness of politics a type of good spiritual fruit??

Who’s being divisive? Why do you see those who disagree with you as the ones who are being divisive?

There is a right and a wrong. Those who are wrong are the ones who are being divisive, not the ones who are right.

You guys keep talking about Catholic charities and hospitals run by the clergy, but where is the participation of Catholic laypeople in the Great Commission? Isn’t the Great Commission for everyone?

Well, a bunch of the Catholics participating in the Great Commission are right here, and some are answering your questions.

Moreover, iirc I answered this question earlier in the thread.

I’m sorry if I mocked the Real Presence. But I wanted to point out that it’s the fruit of Galatians 5 that indicates Jesus’ presence, and not the Eucharist. We are judged by our fruit, right? Can we really delegate the Great Commission to just the clergy?

Well, Galtians mentions the Holy Spirit rather than Christ, and says that these things are the fruits of the presence of the Holy Spirit rather than the proof.

Moreover, it is not as if non-Christians are completely devoid of virtue; it’s just that their virtue is natural rather than supernatural, which latter, as yu can imagine, is much stronger. Consider the martyrs singing praises to God on the way to their deaths.

…My only issue is that Christians will be relegated as an irrelevant hate group. My only issue is being persecuted by my gay coworkers for an unnecessary reason.

Well, no one is asking you to treat your co-workers *badly, *and the Church does not require that we be “in their face”–sowing pearls and shaking one’s sandals and all that.

However, Christ Himself was a sign of contradiction, and we are called to counter the culture where the culture is wrong. Christ could have avoided His entire Passion and Crucifixion by backing off a bit, but He didn’t, and thus saved all mankind! How is it that we feel that we can back off to avoid a little discomfort from those who do not know His word? How much are we spreading His word if we just drop all the parts that cause discomfort?

P.S. I’m male.
Why is it that I always guess wrong!!!

 

[St_Francis]

(Continued)
Personally I think my arguments have some merit, and that is why some of you are using ad hominem attacks, accusing me of being a troll and attacking the Church, and saying I’m not a real seeker of the Church. Trust me, if I wasn’t a genuine seeker, I have better things to do.

If this thread is too divisive, we can close it. My next step is to read Budziszewski on natural law, because in the age of Obama I think natural law is the ONLY surviving argument as to why we should uphold “social conservatism”.

Sorry if it looks like I repeated the same points over and over. I agree we should move the discussion along. So here are some followup questions (which I posted but weren’t really answered):

1. Isn’t a relationship with Jesus is more important than the Catholic system of Tradition and Magisterium?
2. If Tradition and Magisterium are hindering people from getting closer to Christ (see CNN article), don’t we need an upgrade?
3. You say we do legislate morality all the time. But I argue that murder and theft are about criminal law, not morals. Why does the Vatican still think it should legislate morality, when it is definitely impossible? Hasn’t it failed the most when it got involved with politics the most (meddling with Medieval rulers, Crusades, Inquisition, Spanish conquest, and now Obama’s presidency)?
4. Since only Jesus can change lives, isn’t the best way to change people through evangelism, not law or politics?

Cali,
I think you are sincere, but the problem is that you don’t seem to understand how to *discuss *an issue. You keep repeating your points without offering support for your points. And instead of responding to our arguments, you just repeat your points. Since this is all the infomation we have about you, I think we are getting the wrong impression.

Asking *more *questions is not the way to show you are not antagonistic to us, which is the impression we get from the way you are responding to us.

What I would suggest is that we all start over, concentrating on *one *topic, and then you read and respond to our explanations of Church teaching one area at a time.

I would like to suggest this as a starting point, if you don’t mind:

You seem to think the Church might possibly have teaching authority, but you don’t understand what that means, and you don’t see how that works given that various things seem to you to be happening (apparent lack of evangelization, disagreements with the way you view the world and Christ, etc).

So let’s first consider the issue of authority and what it means, and why the Church has it, while ignoring all your other points like SSM, abc, falling numbers, etc. And after that, we can discuss some of your other points, one at a time.

What do you think?

 

[CaliLobo]

St Francis:

So let’s first consider the issue of authority and what it means, and why the Church has it, while ignoring all your other points like SSM, abc, falling numbers, etc. And after that, we can discuss some of your other points, one at a time.

Ok youre right, we need to be more organized. Let’s do that. What points should we discuss about authority?

 

[cyejbv]

(Continued)

My answer is that church history isn’t as relevant as people hold it to be.

But the Real Presence is a primary reason why people hesitate to convert, because Transubstantiation sounds nonsensical and unscientific.

The Eastern Orthodox also claims to be the original that Jesus founded, but they believe the Eucharist is symbolic.

Either way, by taking Communion, one is affirming one’s relationship with Jesus. Transubstantion is merely part of the Magisterium (the Catholic system I cited earlier).

I notice Catholics really like to cite their history and consistency of belief over time, how it survived heresy and schism, and all that. But what if the Vatican’s interpretation of Church history isn’t true?

Many Protestants believe that there were always non-Catholic churches since Jesus’ time, and that the CC wasn’t founded until the 4th century. If Islam could distort the Bible that much a few centuries after Jesus, couldn’t Catholicism with its system? I mean, we have the Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming they discovered new ideas in the 1950s!

After all, Jesus’ first church was his disciples in Jerusalem, not Rome, right?

So here’s question 5: Why does Church history matter so much to today’s Christian? Isn’t the priority to preach to the future, to connect with and create a new generation of Christians?

ah Calilobo. Transubstantiation sounds unscientific and nonsensical? Uh. It could be argued that the whole of Christianity sounds that way. God, for that matter, sounds that way to many, no?!
If the “Vatican’s interpretation” isn’t true, as you phrase it, I must ask: what do you believe about Jesus? Is He perfect? Would he lie, telling us He would not leave us orphans, that the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against His church? What purpose would the paraclete serve, do you believe? And about non-Catholic churches and the Protestant belief that the Church wasn’t founded til the 4th c. READ THE CHURCH FATHERS!!! Iraneaus, Polycarp, see it as history if you must, but READ 'EM! And let’s not leave out good St. Paul, welllll before the 4th c. Moreover, It could be said that Judas was the first schism in the Church, and certainly there were other beliefs out there. Why else would the apostles be told to go out and convert 'em, preaching the Good News? And you have to fast forward to the 4th c to discuss why it’s the Roman Catholic Church, yes the disciples were Jews not in Rome, and again: it’s history, I am practically begging you to be familiar with the timeline and therein you will see the relevance of the history, among other things. *The quality of your questions will determine the level of your understanding, as well as of the answers you will be able to understand. *

Pax!
God Bless.

p.s. You have ears, I pray that they hear and eyes I pray that they will see So far, not so much. You must take the responsibility of assuming the humility to SEEK. Every single question you ask could be addressed in studying the first few centuries of the Church’s growth.

 

[jmcrae]

Ok youre right, we need to be more organized. Let’s do that. What points should we discuss about authority?

Let’s start with a definition of “authority.”

“Authority” and “author” share the same root word. A person with authority is someone who is the author (creator or co-creator) of that over which he is in authority.

For example, a business man has authority over the particular business that he has created. He makes the rules (within particular parameters pertaining to business.) He gets to decide who he wants to hire, how much he wants to pay them, and how long they will work for him. He is the one who appoints managers and members of the Board of Directors.

Parents have authority over their children. They decide what schools their children will attend, who will be allowed to babysit them, what their children will eat and drink at home, what time the children should go to bed, what they will wear, and things like that.

Governments have authority over their own nations. They decide what kind of government they want to be, they decide how and when to collect taxes, where to build roads and install hospitals and schools, and things like that. They decide how many soldiers they want to have in their army, and how they will equip it.

Authority has to be passed on to successors. Ordinarily, there has to be a process involved that is visible to everyone, so that there is no mistake about who is in charge. For example, if a business man wills his business to his children, but never tells anyone, or never teaches his children anything about his business, then there will be chaos, and the business will fail.

But if he lets everyone know that his children are in line to inherit the business, and brings them in from a young age to learn every aspect of the business, then when it comes time for them to take over, the transition will be smooth and effortless.

If parents hire a babysitter to come so that they can go out for an evening, but forget to tell the children that the babysitter is in charge, then the babysitter will have a lot of difficulty getting the children to behave themselves.

But, if the parents remind the children that they must obey the babysitter in the same way that they obey their parents, and that the babysitter will tell the parents about any disobedience, and that they will be punished in the same way that they would be if they had disobeyed their parents, then the babysitter will have a much easier time of it.

If Jesus had just left the Church to run itself without putting anyone in charge, it would have died out in the first decade.

He didn’t, though. He set up a plan of succession, and gave the leadership to the Apostles, with Peter as their head. That same authority has succeeded from generation to generation through the Bishops of Rome until now, in an orderly and recognizable process - everyone, even unbelievers, knows who the Pope is.

 

[kelner]

Hi Cali,
And has He revealed to you that SSM should be legal in the US? And where did you find support for that in the Bible?

There is also nothing in the Bible which says that SSM should be illegal.

All the Bible says is that arsenokoitai will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Putting aside arguments over whether arsenokoitai actually means homosexuals in modern sense, all that means is just that: they will not inherit kingdom of heaven.

The debate over the legality of SSM is basically this: can you use civil law to force heaven upon homosexuals, if they are not interested in it?

SSM, i.e. consesual homosexuality, is fundamentally different from, say, murder or theft. The reason murder or theft are illegal is not that murderers or thieves will be condemned, but rather, that murder or theft involve victim, which is deprived of something (life or property). In other words, the law is there to protect the potential victim from the potential perpetrator, not potential perpetrator’s salvation. Perpetrator’s salvation is a business between himself and God.

Also, if you believe that civil law should be used to guide homosexuals to heaven by force, then by the same logic, the civil law should be used to force everyone to convert to Catholicism and force weekly Mass attendance.

 

[St_Francis]

Ok youre right, we need to be more organized. Let’s do that. What points should we discuss about authority?

First let’s look at the definition of authority:

1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization Who has the authority to grant permission?
3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.

What I will (hopefully ) show you is that each of these three definitions is fulfilled in the Catholic Church.

The first point we agree on, I believe, the Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, 1. is all-good, 2. is all-knowing; and 3. has all authority over us. Do you see that Christ’s authority is God’s authority, and that God’s authority comes from being the Creator of us all? Even more than as parents have authority over their children, God has all authority over us, and each of us, even tho many do not acknowledge His authority.

Christ has this authority, and He has an additional claim upon us, because He redeemed us. Because He redeemed us of us, we owe Him our allegiance, just as we would owe something to someone who saved our life.

Now, how does this relate to the Church? We see that Christ was incarnate and lived on earth, and that He had disciples whom He taught. He and His disciples travelled around Israel and taught others as well.

There came a time when this happened: Matthew 16: 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Wow, what a lot He said in just those few words!

He re-names Peter. Re-naming is always very significant in the Bible, but this name change does not come through in English all that well. Simon’s new name was literally Rock in Hebrew.

Then Christ said that upon this Rock, He would build His Church. Rock would be the foundation of Christ’s church on earth.

And this church which would be built on the foundation Rock would be protected by Christ’s promise in such a way that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.” What does this mean? That Christ promised that His Church would not lose to the powers of Hell, that Christ would never abandon His Church.

Now Christ returns to Rock, and tells him He will give him the keys to His kingdom. In the Old Testament, we see that the giving of the keys of the kingdom signified that someone was being made a vicar of that kingdom, that he was to rule for at least a time in the king’s place.

Note too that Rock alone (notice Christ uses the second person singular thou) is given a special power of binding and loosing: whatsoever thou shalt bind *on earth *shall be bound in Heaven…

So you can see that Christ invested Rock with great power, authority, over His Church. Rock was to be the vicar, ruling for the King, Christ, in His absence.

And you can see that Christ promised that the domain of the Prince of Lies would not prevail over the Church, so the teachings of the Church, which come directly from what Christ taught the Apostles, would be protected.

 

[cheezey]

First let’s look at the definition of authority.

Now, how does this relate to the Church? We see that Christ was incarnate and lived on earth, and that He had disciples whom He taught. He and His disciples travelled around Israel and taught others as well.

There came a time when this happened: Matthew 16: 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Wow, what a lot He said in just those few words!

He re-names Peter. Re-naming is always very significant in the Bible, but this name change does not come through in English all that well. Simon’s new name was literally Rock in Hebrew.

Then Christ said that upon this Rock, He would build His Church. Rock would be the foundation of Christ’s church on earth.

And this church which would be built on the foundation Rock would be protected by Christ’s promise in such a way that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.” What does this mean? That Christ promised that His Church would not lose to the powers of Hell, that Christ would never abandon His Church.

Now Christ returns to Rock, and tells him He will give him the keys to His kingdom. In the Old Testament, we see that the giving of the keys of the kingdom signified that someone was being made a vicar of that kingdom, that he was to rule for at least a time in the king’s place.

Note too that Rock alone (notice Christ uses the second person singular thou) is given a special power of binding and loosing: whatsoever thou shalt bind *on earth *shall be bound in Heaven…

So you can see that Christ invested Rock with great power, authority, over His Church. Rock was to be the vicar, ruling for the King, Christ, in His absence.

And you can see that Christ promised that the domain of the Prince of Lies would not prevail over the Church, so the teachings of the Church, which come directly from what Christ taught the Apostles, would be protected.

for my clarification:
New Living Translation :
“And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.”

This helped me to understand better. Thanks for this method of helping CaliLobo. And I am sure others, too. (Me).