Name 3 reasons you are not Catholic (yet).

[kujo313]

Of all the rubbish I’ve ever heard on these forums I suppose you think babies who die at three days of age have sinned too, and are included in that ‘all’? How about an adult whose mental function is that of a three day old child? Have they sinned too? Are they included in the ‘all’?

All Catholics accept that Mary needed a saviour, and that she was saved - that’s not the issue. She said so herself. We believe she was saved by being granted the grace not to sin. That’s how she KNEW she was saved even before Christ was born and rejoiced in her saviour. Even though she had many years left to her on earth in which to sin and lose that salvation (or prove that she’s never really been saved, if you will), if she was at all susceptible to sinning.

And whatever arguments you may wish to bring, that ‘all have sinned’ line is woefully inadequate.

Actually, I believe in an “age of accountablility” where the parent is accountable for the child and in his/her upbringing.

“We believe” in something that’s un-Biblical. IF Mary didn’t sin, then Paul is a liar. Otherwise, you’ve proven my point without a doubt: you have a man-made religion that’s not Biblically based.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, I believe in an “age of accountablility” where the parent is accountable for the child and in his/her upbringing.

“We believe” in something that’s un-Biblical. IF Mary didn’t sin, then Paul is a liar. Otherwise, you’ve proven my point without a doubt: you have a man-made religion that’s not Biblically based.

If you believe in an ‘age of accountability’ then you believe the child isn’t responsible for themselves - in other words that it’s not possible for them personally to sin, even if the parents did sin by raising them improperly. If the child personally can’t sin, then it’s obviously not literally true that ‘all have sinned’, is it??? Thanks for making my point.

By the way, where and when did Jesus say that the Bible is the only standard by which religious matters were to be judged? He didn’t, because it isn’t. It didn’t exist for decades after his death. The scriptures DO refer to ‘the CHURCH’ as being the pillar and bulwark of truth, nowhere are the scriptures described as such. So we have every right to believe in something extrabiblical - not contradictory of scripture, but outside of it, since you do too - namely in the fallacy of Bible-only faith.

 

[Antwill]

Antwill;2196855:

“we have a final authority”.
kujo313 Quote: Your pope once said that the catholic church has the “exclusive on Salvation” I have to strongly disagree. There IS Salvation outside of your religion. Those who follow Scripture and do not follow your traditions are not doomed to Hell.

If you look at the teaching of the Church regarding this, you will see that the Church teaches that those of non-Catholic faiths are, in essence, quasi-Catholic because they still hold some of the truth contained in the Catholic faith, but not all. Therefore, there is a possibility for salvation to non-Catholics, but it is because they are still holding to many of the teachings that were passed down by the Catholic Church (ie. the Bible). Thus, there is no salvation outside the Church.

“Chrisianity” has been around longer. I’ve stated in earlier posts the Scriptural reasons why the catholic religion is corrupt. Muslims believe that Islam is true. Jehova’s Witnesses beleive that, too.

Please, show me some evidence of non-Catholic “Christianity” being around first (something verifiably historical and not taken from Loraine Boettner or Jack Chick or some other disreputable anti-Catholic source). For the first 1600 years or so to be Christian was to be Catholic (save the Orthodox schism in the 1000s and the Anglican split in the 1200s).

A “Universal Church” HAS been around but it’s not the RCC. Your religious leaders quench the Holy Spirit by making rules and regulations reguarding Penticost. In Brazil, your pope is going there to stop the growing Penticostal Church and the delining of the catholic church. No true “church” would stop the movement of the Holy Spirit.

Again, see my comment above about providing evidence. In regards to the Pope going to South America - he is doing so to try to stop the spread of heresy. Wouldn’t you want the leader of your church to do the same if the JWs or Muslims were coming to your town and converting people? I’m not saying that protestantism is on par with non-Christian religions, but you get my point.

Until the “Reformation”, the pope appointed individuals to various positions within the Church (bishop, cardinal, etc.) on the basis of financial contributions. Also, the RCC taught and sold indulgences ( Indulgence, in Roman Catholic theology, is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due to sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution.(Code of Canon Law 992-997) Indulgences were a major point of contention when Martin Luther initiated the Reformation.

First, I’m aware of what an indulgence is. I would also concur that there were many problems within the Church at the time of the Reformation. However, as many have stated on these forums before, the Catholic Church is divine, it’s members are not (Peter denied Christ, Judas betrayed Him, Paul committed terrible persecutions against Christians before his conversion, yada, yada, yada). However, none of this provides any evidence in regards to there being another “church” from the beginning because there is no reputable evidence of the fictional “universal church” you talk about. And, if there was no other church than the Catholic Church since the time of Christ, the Catholic Church has to be the one, true church Christ promised to us or else he was lying when he said he would establish a church that hell would not prevail against.

SEE NEXT POST FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

 

[Antwill]

kujo313 Quote: Was it arrogance when Paul wrote his letters? No. God loves you so much that He wants to speak to you one-on-one.

Paul may have been a little arrogant at times, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion. Plus, Paul was one of the original Apostles that was entrusted with the doctrine of the faith (2 Thess 2:14 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle). New divine revelation was granted to the original apostles but there has not been any new revelation since the death of John. So, to give equal weight to my interpretation of scripture to that of Paul, any of the Apostles, or any of the popes (keepers of the keys that Christ gave us to preserve the Faith) would be arrogant and foolish on my part.

And, of course, I know Christ wants to speak to me one-on-one. However, He also loves me enough to give me an infallible authority outside myself to know what He wants of me. There are many stories of personal revelation in the Church. Being Catholic and obeying the Church does not negate our personal conversation with God. It enhances and clarifies it.

Luke 20:21 Then they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, we know that You say and teach rightly, and You do not show personal favoritism, but teach the way of God in truth. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
John 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
Truth revealed to all followers of Jesus.

2 Peter 3:16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

All these scriptures that you quote to defend your position are based on your fallible interpretation. The Catholic Church teaches nothing that contradicts with anything in scripture. Again, just because YOU think that this proves your point doesn’t mean that it does, just like anything that I say doesn’t necessarily prove my point, even though I think it does. That is precisely why we need a final authority and why Christ gave us a final authority to determine these things (THE CATHOLIC CHURCH).

1 Thess 5:12 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

I’ll anxiously await your explanation for the thousands of different protestant faiths and the thousands of different interpretations of scripture by people who all feel they are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

God Bless!

 

[kkieft]

Well I just wanted to tell everyone that I took the next step. I called the Priest at the church we attend and he put me in contact with the person in charge of the RCIA and I put my name on the list! I felt a deep sense of satisfaction when doing so, and I’m actually looking forward to the process. Thanks everyone.

Kevin

 

[Good_Fella]

Contarini, Holy Scriptures makes it explicitly clear that there were only the twelve
male apostles present at table with Jesus when he instituted the Sacrament of
the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Holy Orders; although the bible does
tell us that Jesus had female followers or disciples. In the literature of the early
Church the elders, the successors of the apostles and the current episcopate of the
Church, were males. This is after the birth of the Catholic Church at Pentecost, and
there are no cultural or social constraints on the Holy Spirit. Our Lord wishes that
the royal priesthood, as opposed to the common priesthood, of Christian men and
women, be comprised of males, whether you like it or not.

 

[Antwill]

Well I just wanted to tell everyone that I took the next step. I called the Priest at the church we attend and he put me in contact with the person in charge of the RCIA and I put my name on the list! I felt a deep sense of satisfaction when doing so, and I’m actually looking forward to the process. Thanks everyone.

Kevin

PRAISE GOD AND WELCOME HOME!

 

[kujo313]

If you believe in an ‘age of accountability’ then you believe the child isn’t responsible for themselves - in other words that it’s not possible for them personally to sin, even if the parents did sin by raising them improperly. If the child personally can’t sin, then it’s obviously not literally true that ‘all have sinned’, is it??? Thanks for making my point.

By the way, where and when did Jesus say that the Bible is the only standard by which religious matters were to be judged? He didn’t, because it isn’t. It didn’t exist for decades after his death. The scriptures DO refer to ‘the CHURCH’ as being the pillar and bulwark of truth, nowhere are the scriptures described as such. So we have every right to believe in something extrabiblical - not contradictory of scripture, but outside of it, since you do too - namely in the fallacy of Bible-only faith.

We’re all born with a sin nature. Children CAN and do sin. It’s up to the parents to raise a child in the way he should go.
The Pentatuch IS the law. It covers religious matters, also. The Bible

2 Timothy 3: 16-17

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture? Old Testament Law and Prophets. “Bible-only faith” cannot be fallible.

Revelation 2:2
“I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars."

Galatians 1:6-11

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ./COLOR]

All throughout the New Testament, the word “Scripture” shows up. Which one? The Old Testament. “Tradition” shows up when the Jewish leader’s traditions nullified the Word of God. Paul says to “keep your traditions” that he taught. Which “traditions”? The fulfillment of Scripture through Jesus Christ: The Gospel. He does NOT say to make up more as you go. The RCC’s claim that their “traditions” date back to Christ are false because many of today’s traditions were not followed by the Apostles.

Romans 3:4

let God be true but every man a liar.

There is no doubt that the Bible was written by God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I don’t see ANY subject that needs to go outside Scripture to get resolved.

If you want to go through “popes”, “saints” or some other Biblical character besides Jesus, that’s on you. Even if that person had gone through Jesus.

Matthew 25:9 The parable of the 10 virgins:

But the wise answered, saying, ‘No, lest there should not be enough for us and you; but go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’

The first five virgins got what they needed. They told the 2nd five “you go where we went.” Those first five can be those “saints” already in Heaven telling you “Don’t come to us. Go to where WE went!”

Go fetch to the only One and He’s in the Scriptures.

All through

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, Holy Scriptures makes it explicitly clear that there were only the twelve
male apostles present at table with Jesus when he instituted the Sacrament of
the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Holy Orders; although the bible does
tell us that Jesus had female followers or disciples. In the literature of the early
Church the elders, the successors of the apostles and the current episcopate of the
Church, were males. This is after the birth of the Catholic Church at Pentecost, and
there are no cultural or social constraints on the Holy Spirit. Our Lord wishes that
the royal priesthood, as opposed to the common priesthood, of Christian men and
women, be comprised of males, whether you like it or not.

In other words, you fall back on bare assertion with no proof. I have already pointed out that you have to provide a reason why the maleness of the Twelve is so very significant. Sure, the Holy Spirit can work against cultural and social norms, but clearly does not do this unless necessary. Obviously God did not think it was necessary in this case. You cannot turn that into a binding norm for all time (without simply appealing to the authority of the Magisterium, which I can respect).

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

You cannot turn that into a binding norm for all time (without simply appealing to the authority of the Magisterium, which I can respect).

Magisterium and Tradition. East and West. Dating back many years. That’s good enough for me.

 

[Contarini]

Magisterium and Tradition. East and West. Dating back many years. That’s good enough for me.

I’m not going to quarrel with that. It’s when Catholics start giving other alleged reasons that the case falls apart.

Edwin

 

[Fate]

My reasons:

1. The end result of Christian churches is consistant hatred, opressions, looking down on, and elitism toward non-Christians or non-members. I am not Christian because I do not like the hatred, prejudice, and elitism I felt in myself while following a “Christian” (though many will debate if that is true) religion.
2. The Catholic Church, despite having some doctrine that appears on the surface to be contrary to #1, still creates an atmosphere of elitism and prejudice. This attitude is even evidenced by (some of the) postings here.

In short, the attitude of “we’re going to heaven because we have the Truth and if you aren’t really lucky when you don’t follow that, you’re going to Hell” - has completely turned me off of Catholicism, Protestantism, non-denom and other form Christianity, and Islam. I see no “love” in any Christian churches. I see love in the members of these Churches, and often the most loving have moved to become the leaders of Churches.

1. In the NT, we can find that the “Great commandment” and the sign that people would know the true church is Love. Thus if I accept the Bible, no Christian group could be true, but only Christian groups “follow” the Bible. That contradiction leads me to the conclusion that there is more out there.

My life experience makes me believe that there is more out there - I have felt evil, called out, and felt good. I have also had near death experience, and felt the benefits of prayer. Those events give me faith that God exists, but I have not found an organized group that begins to approach the nature and greatness of those experiences…

 

[heathernoel]

My reasons:

In short, the attitude of “we’re going to heaven because we have the Truth and if you aren’t really lucky when you don’t follow that, you’re going to Hell” - has completely turned me off of Catholicism, Protestantism, non-denom and other form Christianity, and Islam. I see no “love” in any Christian churches. I see love in the members of these Churches, and often the most loving have moved to become the leaders of Churches.

…

I am in RCIA, and am coming HOme to the church. I just want to clarify that the church does not actually claim to be the only way to heaven. Hell isn’t the punishment for Non Catholics. Actually, I have found that the Catholic church in general is more accepting of other religions, and actually acknowledges that She is not the only path to ‘salvation’ though there might be atonement for willingly turning away from His teachings.

I am so sorry you have had such negative experiences with Christianity.

 

[Techno2000]

My reasons:

1. The end result of Christian churches is consistant hatred, opressions, looking down on, and elitism toward non-Christians or non-members. I am not Christian because I do not like the hatred, prejudice, and elitism I felt in myself while following a “Christian” (though many will debate if that is true) religion.
2. The Catholic Church, despite having some doctrine that appears on the surface to be contrary to #1, still creates an atmosphere of elitism and prejudice. This attitude is even evidenced by (some of the) postings here.

In short, the attitude of “we’re going to heaven because we have the Truth and if you aren’t really lucky when you don’t follow that, you’re going to Hell” - has completely turned me off of Catholicism, Protestantism, non-denom and other form Christianity, and Islam. I see no “love” in any Christian churches. I see love in the members of these Churches, and often the most loving have moved to become the leaders of Churches.

1. In the NT, we can find that the “Great commandment” and the sign that people would know the true church is Love. Thus if I accept the Bible, no Christian group could be true, but only Christian groups “follow” the Bible. That contradiction leads me to the conclusion that there is more out there.

My life experience makes me believe that there is more out there - I have felt evil, called out, and felt good. I have also had near death experience, and felt the benefits of prayer. Those events give me faith that God exists, but I have not found an organized group that begins to approach the nature and greatness of those experiences…

God will put like a “Truth Serum” on all people at their Judgement,so you decide where you should go: Heaven,Hell,or Purgatory, the souls of the Just will make it to Heaven because God is Just and Merciful. God dosen’t force you to go to heaven.
The problem you see in Churches is because of :The World,The Devil,and the Flesh.

 

[Al_Eluia]

1. I could accept the Bishop of Rome as Chief Bishop of the Universal Church if it were more like the Archbishop of Canterbury. I don’t believe the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra.
2. I don’t agree with certain beliefs such as the Assumption of Mary of the Immaculate Conception being proclaimed as dogma, though I can tolerate other people believing in them.
3. I have a problem with the RC’s tendency to behave as a giant answer-generating machine.

That said, I’d like to mention a couple PROTESTANT traditions I don’t accept: 1) sola scriptura and 2) sola fide. Both are non-biblical.

 

[Squeakum]

Well I just wanted to tell everyone that I took the next step. I called the Priest at the church we attend and he put me in contact with the person in charge of the RCIA and I put my name on the list! I felt a deep sense of satisfaction when doing so, and I’m actually looking forward to the process. Thanks everyone.

Kevin

I just finished my last class of RCIA and I enjoyed it so much that I told our instructor that if she needed more people next year as sponsors or just to round out the class that i would take it again next year. I learned so much and it gave me more of an understanding of God and everything!! I was so sad to see it end today. I became aquainted with more people from the church and it has been the best experience of my life!! Hope it will go well for you!! You get to go to different events and just get so much closer to God than just joining a church and going to a service every once in a while like in other faiths. Good Luck to you!!!

 

[Valke2]

Nothing sounds more unlikely to me then when someone tries to explain an infinite God’s wants and needs.

 

[TheStew]

I’ve got only one reason;

The RCIA classes at the Parish I attend with my girlfriend doesn’t start until September.

 

[Fate]

God will put like a “Truth Serum” on all people at their Judgement,so you decide where you should go: Heaven,Hell,or Purgatory, the souls of the Just will make it to Heaven because God is Just and Merciful. God dosen’t force you to go to heaven.
The problem you see in Churches is because of :The World,The Devil,and the Flesh.

And how exactly does one “decide” where they should go?

 

[kujo313]

1. I could accept the Bishop of Rome as Chief Bishop of the Universal Church if it were more like the Archbishop of Canterbury. I don’t believe the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra.
2. I don’t agree with certain beliefs such as the Assumption of Mary of the Immaculate Conception being proclaimed as dogma, though I can tolerate other people believing in them.
3. I have a problem with the RC’s tendency to behave as a giant answer-generating machine.

That said, I’d like to mention a couple PROTESTANT traditions I don’t accept: 1) sola scriptura and 2) sola fide. Both are non-biblical.

I don’t agree with #2, either. There have been “Infancy Gospels” written in the 2nd century and was not accepted into biblical canon. These gospels tried to fill in the life of Jesus between not mentioned in the “Four Pillars of the Church” or the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Mary’s “assumption” didn’t really come about until the 1950’s.
I believe that investigating what happened to Mary is taking your focus off of where it should be: Being righteous in the eyes of God through Jesus.

In response to your #1, I agree with you. The catholic religion has “anti-popes” who also spoke “ex cathedra.”
The people here in these messageboards talk about two groups: Catholics and Protestants. Then they mention how many thousands of denominations of Protestant churches there are.
There is a second “catholic church” called the “true Catholic Church” or “tCC”. It uses the lower-case “t” so people will not confuse it with the “other” catholic church.
The tCC says that the popes after 1950-something are anti-popes.

see truecatholic.org/heresiesb16.htm

and truecatholic.org/heresiesjp2.htm