Non-Catholic Christians, which ONE doctrine...

[1edyson]

do you disagree with most, and more importantly why? I don’t want this to be a flame fest, but I do respect our brothers in Christ and want to know which doctrine, of all that the Catholic Church Teaches, leads you to believe that she is not the true Church founded by Christ?

Fellow Catholic Christians, I wanna sit back and see what people say, and not necessarily be quick to jump on anyone, but if and when necessary correct our brothers in Christ in what we believe.

I feel like a thread like this may already be posted, so if it is moderators please edit, but I’m interested in what people have to say. Thx

 

[universalist]

papal infallibility,I would accept the pope as first among equals though, transubstantiation; try as I might in good conscience I can believe in the "spiritual’ presence only, apostolic succession: is not relevant to me,i believe all who are baptized in the name of father,son,and holy spirit are in apostolic succession,wisdom means much more than a laying on of hands by a bishop.sorry thats 3 instead of one.but there are many things about the Roman Catholic church I love,charity works,standing up for life,St Francis, St patrick,Chesterton,Bishop Sheen,mother theresa,pope JP2, and many priests and nuns i have gotten to know. In Christian Unity.

 

[BrianH]

The complete emphasis (any of the dogmas) on Mary that I do not think the Bible teaches or the earliest Christian history. I believe it is a later developing emphasis.

 

[JonNC]

papal infallibility,I would accept the pope as first among equals though,

I agree with this.

Jon

 

[Henning]

Mary’s immaculate conception.

Because of 2 Cor 5:14’s two 'all’s…its the same all.

(since I just started RCIA this comment is not about whether or not CC is true, just what I still disagree with)

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I as a Catholic even have some troubles with things. Mine is mostly the Church’s stance that we worship the same God that the Muslims do. This is confusing to me especially when I see posts from Muslim members that they believe in no god but allah and refer to Jesus, my Lord, as nothing more than a prophet.

Everything else I chalk up to my misunderstanding, but this one I admittedly wrestle with.

God bless

 

[KingAlfred]

papal infallibility,I would accept the pope as first among equals though, transubstantiation; try as I might in good conscience I can believe in the "spiritual’ presence only, apostolic succession: is not relevant to me,i believe all who are baptized in the name of father,son,and holy spirit are in apostolic succession,wisdom means much more than a laying on of hands by a bishop.sorry thats 3 instead of one.but there are many things about the Roman Catholic church I love,charity works,standing up for life,St Francis, St patrick,Chesterton,Bishop Sheen,mother theresa,pope JP2, and many priests and nuns i have gotten to know. In Christian Unity.

Truthfully, I don’t think most Catholics even think much about papal infallibility. It’s a lofty principle that doesn’t affect the average believer. Moreover, I don’t think most Catholics care that much about what the Pope says or does.

 

[VARC]

The dogam of the treasury of merits and the papal indulgence. Completely unscriptural with absolutely no basis in apostolic tradition or the teachings of the ecumenical councils. I know most RCs don’t pay any attention to it but it is still one of the more absurd roman beliefs (no offense).

 

[Ruthie]

I as a Catholic even have some troubles with things. Mine is mostly the Church’s stance that we worship the same God that the Muslims do. This is confusing to me especially when I see posts from Muslim members that they believe in no god but allah and refer to Jesus, my Lord, as nothing more than a prophet.

The God we both worship is the God of Abraham. The Muslims are the descendants of Ishmael - and they have issues (so to speak) with all doctrine, Jewish and Christian, that comes after Abraham’s time.

Hope this helps,

Ruthie

 

[SIA]

do you disagree with most, and more importantly why? I don’t want this to be a flame fest, but I do respect our brothers in Christ and want to know which doctrine, of all that the Catholic Church Teaches, leads you to believe that she is not the true Church founded by Christ?

Fellow Catholic Christians, I wanna sit back and see what people say, and not necessarily be quick to jump on anyone, but if and when necessary correct our brothers in Christ in what we believe.

I feel like a thread like this may already be posted, so if it is moderators please edit, but I’m interested in what people have to say. Thx

I have trouble with much in the RCC. I stayed for many years after I dried up spiritually which was a mistake. I praise God everyday for showing me the way back to him which absolutely was not the Catholic church.

 

[Sailka]

[SIGN]papal infallibility[/SIGN]

So you think Our Lord was mistaken in what He said in Mathew 16:18-19, as he picked Peter as The Rock upon which He is building His Church? And don’t believe that What He Binds, Looses on Earth is Bound, Loosed in Heaven? That the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it? Think that Our Lord gave the keys of Heaven to you, us, the Bible instead of to Peter?

Disagree with God that the Truth on Earth on Earth is in the Annointed Apostles our Lord Chose, Anointed? Think God meant something else than what 1 Timothy 3:15 says?

Know almost 70% of all Christians are in the 2000 year old 7 Sacraments, Real Presence Eucharist Roman, Eastern, Orthodox Church in the world? Just a few questions.

Yes, Our Lord God Is the Truth, The Rock. But what did He say in the Bible on where the Earthly Truth, Authority of His Church on Earth is?:bible1: See a Few verses above, for beginners.

The Church teaches that the “Real Presence” in Eucharist Is “Spiritual”, although there have been Several widelly acclaimed Eucharistic Miracles, impossible to otherwise explain: Heart, Blood of Dropped Host in Italian Chapel Centuries ago, No preservatives, original state.

 

[Sailka]

I have trouble with much in the RCC. I stayed for many years after I dried up spiritually which was a mistake. I praise God everyday for showing me the way back to him which absolutely was not the Catholic church.

Yes, but the OP Original Question is which One Doctrine of the RCC do you disagree with Most, and that caused you to Leave?

We’ve been suggesting in Vast number of Posts, Friend SIA, that you never understood the RCC. And we have given you Hundreds of Bible Citations and references on all the teachings/doctrines you disagreed with. Why ignore the Full Bible As Written, as Intended by God that only the Catholic Church Lives fully?

 

[Sailka]

Re Posting # 2: Is Book out entitled www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Miracles-Joan-Carroll Many Authenticated, irrefutable Eucharistic Miracles documented:
www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

Can’t copy Lot more Links; system malfunction. will try later.

 

[VARC]

So you think Our Lord was mistaken in what He said in Mathew 16:18-19, as he picked Peter as The Rock upon which He is building His Church? And don’t believe that What He Binds, Looses on Earth is Bound, Loosed in Heaven? That the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it? Think that Our Lord gave the keys of Heaven to you, us, the Bible instead of to Peter?

I do not believe the Lord made any mistakes. I believe you are mistaken to believe that Our Lord didn’t also give the power of binding and loosing to the other apostles as well. I also believe that you are mistaken in extending that privilege exclusively to the bishop of one city.

Disagree with God that the Truth on Earth on Earth is in the Annointed Apostles our Lord Chose, Anointed? Think God meant something else than what 1 Timothy 3:15 says?

I do agree that our Lord commissioned the apostles to preach the gospel and to found churches all over the world but I don’t see how it follows that the bishop of Rome is infallible.

 

[LutheranDK]

Fellow Catholic Christians, I wanna sit back and see what people say, and not necessarily be quick to jump on anyone, but if and when necessary correct our brothers in Christ in what we believe.

And this thread has ample example already on why I’m not going to answer an otherwise perfectly valid question. I’ve had about all the “just give him the same standard, unreflected, auto-dial response”-answers I can take today…

 

[Martin777]

The complete emphasis (any of the dogmas) on Mary that I do not think the Bible teaches or the earliest Christian history. I believe it is a later developing emphasis.

Fully agree. If you want to read an amazing book that explains a lot about the real roots of Roman Catholicism, get The Two Babylons by Hislop. An amazing documentation of where things like pontiffs, purgatory, mother and child obsession, and even the pointy thing the pope wears on his head come from. Most of it goes right back to the pagan religious system of Babylon a couple of millenia before. It’s not that they researched and modelled after that system, but rather, I think, the same ‘guy’ inspired it all, if you know what I mean.

 

[ChristianKnight]

1. Mary: I do not like the idea of praying to Mary constantly. Praying to Jesus thats fine, but to Mary or even a disciple doesn’t seem right.
2. Papal/Apolistic Succession: I do not see in the bible where it says Peter or the disciples passed down their power to the priests or the pope.

Their are others, but I am kinda tired.

 

[Sailka]

I do not believe the Lord made any mistakes. I believe you are mistaken to believe that Our Lord didn’t also give the power of binding and loosing to the other apostles as well.

[SIGN] I also believe that you are mistaken in extending that privilege exclusively to the bishop of one city. [/SIGN]

Think God can make mistakes? Why did our Lord tell Both the Apostles (Future Magestrium) and Peter that what they bind on Earth Is Bound in Heaven? Forgot Romans 20:23, The Commissioning of the Apostles, That Our Lord used the Same Words: :Bound on Earth, Bound in Heaven, about Dogma, Basic Doctrine, which have Never changed in 2000 years. Doesn’t kinda sugest Infallibility of Magesterium Dogma/Doctrine Basics? :bible1:
And please do not forget God’s Word on where Truth on Earth is: 1 Timothy 3;15: In the Apostles, The Church. :bible1: How could Truth be Fallible?

 

[Church_Militant]

Fully agree. If you want to read an amazing book that explains a lot about the real roots of Roman Catholicism, get The Two Babylons by Hislop. An amazing documentation of where things like pontiffs, purgatory, mother and child obsession, and even the pointy thing the pope wears on his head come from. Most of it goes right back to the pagan religious system of Babylon a couple of millenia before. It’s not that they researched and modelled after that system, but rather, I think, the same ‘guy’ inspired it all, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, right. Let’s look at what a fellow Protestant and pastor says about that “amazing documentation”?

**Did the Catholic Church Have Its Origin in Paganism? **
A Protestant pastor tells This Rock how he got involved in the issue and how his understanding of the issue has changed.
By Ralph Woodrow

There are many points of agreement between Protestants and Catholics; there are also many points of disagreement. In this article, I want to present an honest, unbiased evaluation, separate from any other doctrinal considerations.

As a young preacher, I was introduced to The Two Babylons, a book written over a century earlier by Rev. Alexander Hislop, which claimed that the religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife Semiramis, was disguised with Christian-sounding names and became what is known today as the Catholic Church.

“The essential character of her system, the grand objects of her worship, her festivals, her doctrine and discipline, her rites and ceremonies, her priesthood and their orders,” Hislop wrote, “have all been derived from ancient Babylon.” Furthermore, if Belshazzar were to come back to life “and enter St. Peter’s at Rome . . . he would conclude that he had only entered one of his own well-known temples, and that all things continued as they were at Babylon.” Thus “two Babylons”—the ancient one in Babylon, the modern one being described in the book of Revelation as “Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.”

Hislop’s subtitle, The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and his Wife, seemed to me at the time to be factual. Though the arguments were complicated and difficult to follow, he did present all kinds of pagan parallels to rites and teachings of the Catholic Church. Consequently, some of us quoted Hislop as an authority on paganism, just like Webster might be quoted on word definitions.

I later wrote a book based on Hislop’s teaching called Babylon Mystery Religion. It became quite popular, went through many printings, and was translated into several languages. Many preferred my book over The Two Babylons because it was less involved and easier to read. Sometimes the two books were confused with each other. On one occasion someone mistakenly introduced me as “Rev. Hislop.” Some people came to regard me as an authority on the subject. At the time, Karl Keating wrote: “Its best-known proponent is Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion.”

I got many letters expressing appreciation for the book and only an occasional one dissenting. One who disagreed was Scott Klemm, a high school history teacher in California. A Lutheran, Klemm’s disagreement did not reflect any doctrinal bias. He simply recognized that Hislop was not a reliable historian, and he demonstrated that citing pagan parallels is insufficient. After honestly, carefully, and prayerfully going back over all of this, I realized that he was right.

‘Undercover Jesuit’

In 1997 our ministry quit publishing Babylon Mystery Religion. I presented the details about the reasons for the change in another book, The Babylon Connection? I received some fine letters from both Catholics and Protestants expressing appreciation for the clarification and correction.

I also got mean-spirited letters from radical anti-Catholic folks who felt I had given in to the enemy. Some used terms like stupid and scum. They said I was “scared of the truth,” a “low-down coward,” “traitor to Christ,” and following “a false god.” One letter accused me of being an “undercover Jesuit.”

It puzzles me how some can be so fanatical against one set of errors—or what they perceive to be errors—only to develop greater and more obvious errors: becoming judgmental, hateful, and dishonest.

Rumors flew. According to one, “the Catholics” put so much pressure on me that I had a heart attack and almost died. Consequently, I “recanted” and wrote the other book. Another rumor had it that my motives were financial—my desire was to be popular and make more money. To the contrary, our ministry faced much financial loss because of the decision to take the original book out of print.

I recall a man saying, “I know the Catholics really must be persecuting you. Tell me, what all are they doing to you?” He seemed disappointed when I told him I had not been persecuted by Catholics.

My reason for pulling the original book out of print was quite basic: Citing similarities between Catholic practices and pagan practices proves nothing if there is no actual connection. One could take virtually anything—even McDonald’s golden arches—and do the same: The Encyclopedia Americana (article: “arch”) says the use of arches was known in Babylon as early as 2020 B.C. As Babylon was called “the golden city” (Is. 14:4, KJV), can there be any doubt about the origin of the golden arches? As silly as this is, this is the type of proof that has been offered again and again about the supposed pagan origins of the Catholic Church.

The rest of the facts

 

[elvisman]

Fully agree. If you want to read an amazing book that explains a lot about the real roots of Roman Catholicism, get The Two Babylons by Hislop. An amazing documentation of where things like pontiffs, purgatory, mother and child obsession, and even the pointy thing the pope wears on his head come from. Most of it goes right back to the pagan religious system of Babylon a couple of millenia before. It’s not that they researched and modelled after that system, but rather, I think, the same ‘guy’ inspired it all, if you know what I mean.

You still think that Hislop’s shoddy fairytale about the Catholic Church is true???
It’s been debunked a hundred times over, most notably by Ralph Woodrow, as ChurchMilitant has already pointed out.

I take it you are also an adherent to the rantings of Jack Chick?