Name 3 reasons you are not Catholic (yet).

[Antioche]

(oh admit it… this one is kinda funny)

Amen on that…HA HA HA…very funny

 

[paarsurrey]

Paarsurrey, being a Christian and calling oneself a Christian are two different things.
The Mormons, for instance, call themselves Christians but are not Christians - Christian

Hi
Who would decide who is a Christian and who is not a Christians.It is definitely logical that if we believe and respect the freedom of the individual, that one would decide if one is a Christian at heart or not, if one decides that one is a Christian, nobody could deny one that right. This is, to me, as simple as that if we believe in the freedom of expression. Otherwise, it is coumpulsion, which nobody would like. At least I would decide for myself, and won’t allow others to decide for me.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

A Christian is, by definition, also in communion with the mother of Christ. She was the very first Christian, and initiated her Son into His public ministry, and supported Him throughout it. She followed Him from the moment He was received until He left the world, first by way of the cross, then by way of the ascension. Sh is of the same body, same faith, same baptism. One cannot be a Christian and reject the mother of Christ.

A Christian is also, by definition, in communion with every other Christian – “if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another…” ((1 John 1:7).

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Hi
I agree with you. It is difficult to all religions get collapsed into one religion but it is not immpossible.
The difference in concepts of God could be rectified by comaparing and understandign attributes of GodAllahYHWH with rational , reasonable agruments.
Since all revealed religions were sent by one GodAllahYHWH so in origin they are one, so that makes the work easy.
There is no compulsion in religion, so there is all the necessity that Islam as it has always been, should be understood with peace rather than violance which has never been its part.This misunderstanding should be removed and rectified.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.

If I say that I am a TrueAhmadi, does that make it so? I am a TrueAhmadi and I reject that idea that Muhammad was the prophet of God. I agree that Jesus was the divine incarnation of God in the flesh who lived and died and was resurrected. This I declare to be the faith of all True Religions anywhere. Thus I who believe that which is true am by my own definition a True Christians and a True Ahmadi. And since I am the one who defines these things you cannot dispute it. It is true because I have said that it is true. This is what I believe in my heart to be true and you have said that it is enough for me to believe these things in my heart.

 

[Vicia]

1. Images and Statues - I just can’t get my head around it
2. Veneration of Mary - From the studies that I have done I see no where that Jesus or his apostles intended for us to think this highly of her or that she was sinless
3. Can’t think of another off the top of my head… the first two are just too HUGE to move past to another issue…

I am just curious, what is the problem with images and statues?

Mary, I had a hard time with this to, until Fr. Corapi said “If she is good enough for God, she is good enough for me!” I have a hard time believing that God could live and grow inside a vessel that had any sin in it. This is why it makes sense to me that she would not have sinned and been protected from original sin.

God ordered images to be used in the temple, the ark of the covenant, and images to aid worship. God ordered Moses to cast a bronze serpant which was held on a pole, and all the Israelites who looked at the statue at the command of God were healed of their snake bites. God has used images in the past, we use them only to aid us in our worship, not to worship the statue in and of themselves.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am just curious, what is the problem with images and statues?

Mary, I had a hard time with this to, until Fr. Corapi said “If she is good enough for God, she is good enough for me!” I have a hard time believing that God could live and grow inside a vessel that had any sin in it. This is why it makes sense to me that she would not have sinned and been protected from original sin.

God ordered images to be used in the temple, the ark of the covenant, and images to aid worship. God ordered Moses to cast a bronze serpant which was held on a pole, and all the Israelites who looked at the statue at the command of God were healed of their snake bites. God has used images in the past, we use them only to aid us in our worship, not to worship the statue in and of themselves.

Well, said. I am not ashame of Mary… I embrace it because it was her that Jesus came into the world. If I could see her now, I would embrace her like a lost son, and say, “Thank you, Mother for bringing me to your son, Jesus.”

 

[exoflare]

If I say that I am a TrueAhmadi, does that make it so? I am a TrueAhmadi and I reject that idea that Muhammad was the prophet of God. I agree that Jesus was the divine incarnation of God in the flesh who lived and died and was resurrected. This I declare to be the faith of all True Religions anywhere. Thus I who believe that which is true am by my own definition a True Christians and a True Ahmadi. And since I am the one who defines these things you cannot dispute it. It is true because I have said that it is true. This is what I believe in my heart to be true and you have said that it is enough for me to believe these things in my heart.

hehe good one

 

[Good_Fella]

Paarsurrey, the freedom of fallible expression that you endorse leads to heresy
and the falling away from the true Faith. Jesus intended to establish his one true Church.
And he conveyed his authority to his twelve apostles when he commissioned them
to form the Church by purveying his Word and Sacraments under the enlightenment
and guidance of the Holy Spirit. By the laying on of hands these apostles communicated
this divine authority to their successors, the elders and presbyters, who now
comprise our Catholic bishops and priests. In 325AD the bishops in communion with the
pope held a council in Nicea at which time the dogma of the Holy Trinity was solemnly
defined by the authority entrusted to them by Christ in the apostolic succession.
This dogma was later ratified by the Council of Constantinople in the late 4th century.
Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon Church, had no divine authority to begin with
when he formulated the doctrine of tritheism. His doctrines often contradict the teachings
of the Church and thereby Sacred Scriptures. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to
his true disciples and their successors in the teaching office to enlighten and guide them
in all authentically revealed divine truth. This is the reason why Jesus formed one Church:
to unite humankind in one true Faith based on the fullness of His revelation. The freedom of
theological expression espoused by fallible religious thinkers and mortals evidently results in
pluralism and disunity. These effects oppose the wishes of Christ, that his true believers be one
like He and his heavenly Father are one.

Jesus warned us that many false prophets and Messiahs would come after him
and oppose his Church and stifle her mission. These figures would include Arius,
Mohammed, Luther, Baha ‘u’ llah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Joseph Smith, Ron L Hubbard,
and Rev.Sun Myung Moon to name a few heretics.

Jesus warned his disciples that many false prophets and messiahs would
come after him in the last days spreading their false doctrines and teachings.

“Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name claiming,
‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.” [Matthew 24:4-5]

 

[cjh28]

Ditto for me too!

In addition:

1.) Papacy - not established in the bible.

2.) Prayers to Mary and the saints - Why?

3.) Purgatory and indulgences - No biblical basis.

1. Saint Peter was our first pope. “On this rock I will be my church…” Jesus was talking to Peter. In latin, Peter means rock.
2. Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you? That is what we do, when we pray to the saints and Mary. We are not worshiping them, we are simply asking for their prayers. Wow, to have Mary or one of the saints pray for me, is more powerful than say… someone here on earth.
3. As far as purgatory, well… I personally believe in purgatory (a place for purification before heaven.) If there wasn’t purgatory, we would all have to be in the state of grace at the time of death. If we were not, we know what the alternative is.

 

[Greg27]

Several reasons. Actually, at one point I converted and then left. I did not have much faith in Marian doctrine but the person teaching RCIA told me don’t worry that is not essential and so I went through with conversion. Left a few years later.

Here are some reasons for not being Catholic:

i) I am called to ordained ministry and service. Problem since I am married.

ii) I have problems with some doctrines and superstitious excesses (watching statues of Mary paraded around in the Third World while people attached money to it is sad. (I know we Protestants have our tele evangelists selling miracle oil and so on but I would not join their church either). Not to mention the venerated pieces of the true cross, drops of the real blood and so on.

iii) Lack of enthusiasm for the faith by many Catholics. Whereas Protestants in Churches I have attended go to Bible Study, children’s activities, all sing enthusiastically during service and so on…Catholics in my experience rarely do much beyond the one hour of church, have little fellowship or sense of community, come to mass late and leave early, mediocre sermons with little substance (compared to exegetical Baptist sermons), people are not enthusiastically singing. Two exceptions to the above are military communities and a church I attended where the Catholics were very enthusiastic and invovled in activites such as Bible study.

iv) Mishandling of the pedophile, pederast priest scandal and ignoring of priests actively engaged in homosexual lifestyles.

Reasons I would revert:

i) Wonderful sense of tradition and history.

ii) Beautiful and meaningful worship and depth of spirituality.

iii) Central teaching authority grounded in the bible and tradition.

iv) Great sense of intellectual tradition and history.

v) Church connected to the church founded by the apostles.

vi) The Pope, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, Mother Teresa, Cardinal Newman, Fr. Pacwa, A number of heroic military Chaplains who were Catholic Priests, and Fr. Corapi, Fr. Groeschel, Sister Prokes, Fr. Callam,…and so on.

vii) Catholic witness to the world in terms of education, hospitals, ministry to the poor and so on.

viii) Preservation of Christianity by monks and so on during the dark ages.

ix) Cadfael

So, there you have it. I watch EWTN with enthusiasm and love Catholic spirituality, abhor anti Catholic nonesense (such as the tired and stupid “Whore of Babylon” assertions, you can’t call a Priest “Fr” stupidity, and mindless, unscriptural and anti intellectual Chick Publications).

Finally, ETWN has done a wonderful job of bringing programs like Protestants (Southern Baptists) have for family issues (ie Catholic Psychologists), youth programs and so on to Catholics. Go EWTN.

Rev North

I myself have only recently finished RCIA and sometimes find it difficult to maintain my faith, for a number of reasons I prefer to keep private. But, your reasons for reverting are the ones which keep me in the Church (along with the reverence of the Eucharist and real prescence), especially reasons 2) and 4). The CC has some truely wonderful mystics (Dionysius the Aeropagite, Meister Eckhart, John of Cross), theologians and philosophers and reading Augustine somehow makes me feel at home once again, if I start to feel like I’m not at home.

 

[strngrnrth]

Hi, I read only four pages of this thread before replying, since I didn’t have a full day just to pore over it. Excuse me if several people have already answered these objections.

1. What is scriptural basis for Mary’s Immaculate Conception, sinless life, and Assumption? From the 66 agreed-upon Bible books, please. See next objection.
2. The Jews rejected the Apocrypha, citing late authorship and signs that they were not meant as scriptures, from what I have heard. Please give evidence that this is not so, that the Jews accepted the Apocrypha or that their rejection of these books was poorly founded.
3. Doesn’t the Bible say we must pray only to God, and that the departed do not know what goes on on earth?

 

[strngrnrth]

Hi, while I’m at it I think I’ll mention a couple of reasons I’m not happy as a protestant:

1. Some of the reformers apparently led lives of excess and mistreated those close to them. Jesus, though, said people would know his followers by their love.
2. Prosperity teaching!
3. Lies about catholics and other religions: false witness, and paranoia isn’t one of the nine fruits last I heard. Love… joy… peace… patience… kindness… goodness… faithfulness… gentleness… self-control… no mention of conspiracy theories and false rumors there, unless I misread it somehow.
4. Prosperity teaching!
5. Prosperity teaching!

 

[Mommyof02green]

1. What is scriptural basis for Mary’s Immaculate Conception, sinless life, and Assumption?
   From the 66 agreed-upon Bible books, please. See next objection.

I forget if those things have been answered in this thread.

However here are some links to other threads here on CAF (Catholic Answers Forum)

This one is about Mary’s Immaculate Conception: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=157366&highlight=Immaculate+Conception

This one is About her Assumption:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=62555&highlight=Assumption

Those might help… I also believe that both links touch on her “sinless” life. God Bless.

1. Doesn’t the Bible say we must pray only to God, and that the departed do not know what goes on on earth?

Jesus also said “See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” (Mathew 18:10 NIV). Why does that matter?

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints (NIV)

Revelation 8:4 The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel’s hand. (NIV)

How did the elders and angels, who are heaven by the way, recieve the prayers of the Saints? Who are these Saints?

This might also apply: biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.php?id=16

God Bless.

 

[Good_Fella]

The biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception can be found in Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28.
Pope Pius lX referred to these verses when he issued his Apostolic Constitution ‘Ineffablis
Deus’ proclaiming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854.

The Scriptures contain both explicit and implicit divine revelations. God’s revelations begin with
Sacred Scriptures, but they do not end there. Our Lord has continually revealed his truth
through the Holy Spirit these past centuries in the life of his Church and her sacred Traditions.
These revelations are a development of the full picture of God’s plan for our salvation. Our Lord
told his apostles before he left them that he would reveal much more to his Church after he sent
the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. This is one reason why he founded his one universal Church. [John 16:12-13] Marian dogmas have been proclaimed by the enlightenment and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Protestants question why it is that Catholics tend not to pray directly to Jesus sometimes.
Like our separated brethren, we believe that we should pray directly to our Lord. But we
also believe that it is good for us to ask our fellow Christians to pray for us. When we pray to
Mary and the saints we are essentially asking them to pray for us and intercede on our behalf.
I have met many Protestants who have told me that they have asked their pastors to pray
for them because of his clerical status. They felt that their ministers would hold much
influence with Christ. Likewise, we Catholics ask Mary and the saints to pray for us because
of their highly established place in heaven and their influence with Jesus. The Mother of Christ must be the most influential person any Christian can turn to for spiritual help and support. The
clerics we ask for prayers might not even get to heaven. Meanwhile, Christians in heaven
are made more righteous and stand perfect before God. [Hebrews 12:22-25]

There is biblical support for the Catholic practice of praying to Mary and the saints. St. Paul
strongly encouraged Christians to pray and intercede for each other. [Romans 15:30-32;
1 Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thess 3:1] These Christians would obviously include Mary and
the saints in heaven. Even Jesus himself suggested that we pray for each other. [Matthew 5:44]
The Bible indicates that Mary and the saints are “like angels in heaven” [Cf. Matt 22:30] and
like angels can hear our prayers.The Book of Revelations 5:8 assures us that their prayers
and intercessions are efficacious.

The Old Testament also supports the Catholic practice of turning to the saints in heaven for their
prayers and intercessions. “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers
of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.” [Tobit 12:15] Indeed, if
there are angels who hear our prayers and present them before God, and if we are to become
like angels when we enter heaven, then obviously Mary and the saints can hear our prayers and
present them before God. Our prayers to Mary and the saints do not end with them, but with God, whom they stand before when presenting our petitions. By standing before God, Mary and
the saints stand before the Lamb of God. Our prayers go indirectly to Jesus Christ, but with
much greater efficacy than they would have by going directly to our Lord from us.

St.Paul tells us, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and
thanksgivings be made for all men…that we may lead a quiet life and peaceful life, godly and
respectful in every way. This is good and pleasing to God our Saviour who desires all men
be saved and come to the knowledge of truth.” [1 Timothy 2:1-4] It is clear that the great apostle
did not think that Christ’s role as mediator between man and God would be compromised by the
practice of Christians praying and interceding for each other.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception can be found in Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28.
Pope Pius lX referred to these verses when he issued his Apostolic Constitution ‘Ineffablis
Deus’ proclaiming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854.

I have heard it said that if you pick and choose your verses, one can prove about anything you want from the Bible. Finding proof for the Immaculate Conception from these verses goes even a step beyond that to pulling theology out of thin air.

 

[Good_Fella]

I have heard it said that if you pick and choose your verses, one can prove about anything you want from the Bible. Finding proof for the Immaculate Conception from these verses goes even a step beyond that to pulling theology out of thin air.

Grace Seeker, a Muslim told me the same thing about the dogma of the Holy Trinity.
If it is proof you want concerning any Christian doctrine derived either explicitly or
implicitly from the Bible, you are in for a big disappointment. It all amounts to religious
faith, a theological virtue. Instead of making a bald assertion without any theological
argument, why not first examine what Catholic theologians have to say about these verses
which point to the Blessed Virgin’s immaculate conception. You can start by looking at a
thread in this forum under the title “Immaculate Conception of Mary.”

There are numerous orthodox and heterodox Protestant churches, along with thousands
of independent groups, which cannot entirely agree on fundamental doctrines because
they accuse each other of not having any “proof” for their assertions. Each group believes
it is entirely the true Christian faith because of a “feeling” of the Holy Spirit or mere rationalizations.

Jesus made Peter the rock of the Church and gave his apostles the power to bind and loose
for a reason: for the sake of the spiritual truth and Christian unity. The Catholic Church is “One”
because she is truly enlightened and guided by the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised to send us the
Advocate so that we would not be left orphans. You can be sure that when the Pope and the
Sacred Magisterium infallibly proclaims a doctrine as dogma it is not pulled out of thin air. The
thousands of divided Protestant groups which practically bicker with each other, just like Luther,
Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley had, and remain divided are obviously orphans grasping at thin air.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Grace Seeker, a Muslim told me the same thing about the dogma of the Holy Trinity.
If it is proof you want concerning any Christian doctrine derived either explicitly or
implicitly from the Bible, you are in for a big disappointment. It all amounts to religious
faith, a theological virtue. Instead of making a bald assertion without any theological
argument, why not first examine what Catholic theologians have to say about these verses
which point to the Blessed Virgin’s immaculate conception. You can start by looking at a
thread in this forum under the title “Immaculate Conception of Mary.”

What makes you think I haven’t already done that? I have.

I am saying, and will stand by my statement, that these verses do not lead by means of logic to support a view of the Immaculate Conception. If you say that they do by faith, I will buy that. I will buy that belief in the Immaculate Conception is a statement of faith. And it is indeed the faith promulgated by the Catholic Church. Which, as is the topic of this thread, one of the reasons that I am not a Catholic.

BTW, I happen to be of the opinion that the Holy Spirit is equally available to guide non-Catholic Christians just as credibly as he guides Catholics. If non-Catholics disagree with one another, it is not because the Holy Spirit isn’t present, but because we do not pay close enough attention. I see no difference between protestant and Catholic in this aspect of the Christian life. Protestants have been wrong in the past, Catholics have been too, and both will be wrong again – even on matters of importance such as doctrines, which we no doubt declare with resolute assurance of our own rightness.

Of course, that statement is itself a statement of faith and doctrine, and one which I hold with resolute assurance of its rightness.

 

[MariaG]

Hi, I read only four pages of this thread before replying, since I didn’t have a full day just to pore over it. Excuse me if several people have already answered these objections.

1. What is scriptural basis for Mary’s Immaculate Conception, sinless life, and Assumption? From the 66 agreed-upon Bible books, please. See next objection.
2. The Jews rejected the Apocrypha, citing late authorship and signs that they were not meant as scriptures, from what I have heard. Please give evidence that this is not so, that the Jews accepted the Apocrypha or that their rejection of these books was poorly founded.
3. Doesn’t the Bible say we must pray only to God, and that the departed do not know what goes on on earth?

This thread will soon be closed (1000 posts), but I thought I would try to respond before it does.

1. See previous posts. Answered quited well.
2. The Jews rejected the “Apocrypha” in 70 AD. The Jew have no authority over Christians. Why do Protestants look to those who rejected Christ, literally, for what is inspired scripture over the Christians who accepted Him?

Also, the Jews rejected them because they made their decision based on whether or not they could be originally found in Hebrew. The dead sea scrolls now show that in fact, the deuterocanicals have fragments in hebrew. So in fact their scholarship was faulty. By todays research, the deuterocanicals would be accepted in the Jewish canon since the criteria, being written in Hebrew, was met.

1. Although others have answered, I would add that you are mixing apples and oranges.

We believe and teach that we are to pray to God alone. However, the meaning of the word pray, as you use it, used to be much broader and can include what we would now commonly say as ask people to pray for you.

So we are to pray to God alone. And we are to ask others to pray for us. This is what the Catholic Church does.

As for the scripture, I can’t recall exactly where it is. Could you please tell me where in scripture it tells us the departed don’t know what is happening on earth? This seems to be an inexact wording to my memory, but I can’t find the exact scripture.

God bless,
maria

 

[lak611]

As for the scripture, I can’t recall exactly where it is. Could you please tell me where in scripture it tells us the departed don’t know what is happening on earth? This seems to be an inexact wording to my memory, but I can’t find the exact scripture.

God bless,
maria

The only verse I could find is this one from Ecclesiastes.

Ecc 9:5

(ASV) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

(CEV) We know that we will die, but the dead don’t know a thing. Nothing good will happen to them–they are gone and forgotten.

(DRB) For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten.

(ESV) For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.

(KJV) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

(MKJV) For the living know that they shall die; but the dead do not know anything, nor do they have any more a reward; for their memory is forgotten.

(NASB) For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.

(RV) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

(RSV) For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.

 

[MariaG]

The only verse I could find is this one from Ecclesiastes.

Thanks.

If that is the verse, then I was right to think the context was wrong.

The DEAD know nothing. But those who die in Christ are not dead, but alive.

Mk 12:26-27 - he is God of the living, not of the dead