Non Catholics imput

[notsmart]

I will be getting to talk to a priest soon, I think. If any non catholics have some things they think I should investigate before I continue to get too involved in this, let me know what they are so I can decide if its a matter of concern. I have seen some things already that dont bother me that seem to be a concern for some.

Infant baptism- does not bother me
purgatory- does not bother me, in fact I like the idea!
sinlessness of Mary- why not?

Okay, if there are other things let me know.

Thank you for helping

Monica

 

[khutcheson]

I will be getting to talk to a priest soon, I think. If any non catholics have some things they think I should investigate before I continue to get too involved in this, let me know what they are so I can decide if its a matter of concern. I have seen some things already that dont bother me that seem to be a concern for some.

Infant baptism- does not bother me
purgatory- does not bother me, in fact I like the idea!
sinlessness of Mary- why not?

Okay, if there are other things let me know.

Thank you for helping

Monica

Monica

My questions with respect to Mary aren’t why not, but why? Where did the belief as to the sinlessness of Mary come from? Sure, it makes sense, but personally I need more–I need to know that this doctrine is divine in origin, not man made.

Like you there are things about Catholicism I like.

You didn’t mention confession.
I like the idea of confession–I think there are real benefits to real and regular confession.
Infant babtism doesn’t make sense to me–but I think it’s Biblical
I like the idea of the Magisterium (sp?)–Helps deal with false doctrines
I don’t understand the idea of praying to/through Saints
I like the respect shown communion–My initial interest in Catholicism last year came when I realized that my Church takes communion far to lightly.

 

[notsmart]

Monica

My questions with respect to Mary aren’t why not, but why? Where did the belief as to the sinlessness of Mary come from? Sure, it makes sense, but personally I need more–I need to know that this doctrine is divine in origin, not man made.

Like you there are things about Catholicism I like.

You didn’t mention confession.
I like the idea of confession–I think there are real benefits to real and regular confession.
Infant babtism doesn’t make sense to me–but I think it’s Biblical
I like the idea of the Magisterium (sp?)–Helps deal with false doctrines
I don’t understand the idea of praying to/through Saints
I like the respect shown communion–My initial interest in Catholicism last year came when I realized that my Church takes communion far to lightly.

Hello! I like your observations. I must apologize by saying I did not make a complete list of the things I like so far, but only mentioned the few that seem to be ones that are a topic that leads to dissagreement here from my limited viewing.

As to your thoughts about Mary, I understand what you mean.
How I am trying to look at these issues is this, in case X would that belief change or alter in any way the Jesus God Man?
You see, what I find happening here (generally) is the catholic reply will sometimes be : Because the Church says…
The non catholic reply will sometimes be: the bible doesnt say that

Whereas, I choose to place Jesus as the one to focus on for the moment.
In the case of this sinlessnes and Mary 2 things come to mind-

1. it takes nothing away from the historical Jesus, his philosophy, or teachings and does not contradict any.
2. I am operating on the principle that God is positive and not limited, does this in any way conflict with that principle?

So, even if the Catholic Church says its so, I am not using that as a factor in my ability to accept this, nor am I placing the bible as my only factor to consider. Right now, I am even open to the idea there could have been others that were sinless, but we dont know about them. Maybe there is no need to.

Then, as you say it makes sense in a strange way. It just doesnt sound outlandish or unreasonable.

I like your other points also. I am not too sure about the saints thing either, but I only just started researching that topic, and it seems like its going to take me more time to grasp the concept presented to put it to my “test”(I know it sounds arrogant, my test! ) I outlined above.

Your observations about the other things, I tend to agree with, I just need to think of the right way to express why.

Your help is appreciated,

Monica

 

[NDfan]

I will be getting to talk to a priest soon, I think. If any non catholics have some things they think I should investigate before I continue to get too involved in this, let me know what they are so I can decide if its a matter of concern. I have seen some things already that dont bother me that seem to be a concern for some.

Infant baptism- does not bother me
purgatory- does not bother me, in fact I like the idea!
sinlessness of Mary- why not?

Okay, if there are other things let me know.

Thank you for helping

Monica

Monica,

I was in the Catholic church for 40 years and I am very proud that I was brought up that way. The church does and always will take a firm stance on sin and the need to confess and repent.

I have not been attending Catholic services for about 2 years because as I became more intimate with scripture some things bothered me about the RC church that I thought were more man-made or Pope-made.

Mary is a big one for me. For the record I think Mary is an incredible example of how we should be devoted to and do the will of GOD. But that doesn’t translate to her being sinless and forever virgin. The references to scripture are not sufficient and many of the Marian teachings did not enter the church until the 4th or 5th century. You probably will get opposite opinions regarding this from Catholics but I have studied church history intensly and there is nothing prior to about 375AD that speaks of Mary in this regard. I just think it’s very dangerous to start applying titles and creating doctrine around someone when we really don’t know what GOD’s plan is for them. Calling Mary the queen of Heaven and co-mediatrix is flat out wrong. The RC puts so much emphasis on Mary that to me it’s a distraction from Jesus. Many times I hear RCs talking about their faith and everything seems to always be the virgin did this for me and the virgin did that for me. GOD is the only one who can help us.

If interested I can give you a quick scriptural lesson on the sinless nature of Mary and show you why it doesn’t make sense. Then you can present this to the Priest. I can tell you exactly how he will respond. So you will have to decide for yourself how you feel about it.

Also keep in mind that many of the statements made at Catholic services make references to Mary asking for intercession. I don’t feel comfortable doing this and have prayed to GOD so much about it.

The other thing I disgree with is the belief that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ through the process of transubstantiation. I believe in Jesus being present for the sacrament but not literally as a piece of flesh and a cup of literal blood. This again goes against scripture specifically Leviticus where Mosaic law tells us that eating or drinking the blood of anything whether it be man or animal is strictly forbidden. John 6 gets very distorted when justifiying this belief.

Just make sure you fully understand all Catholic beliefs before moving forward.

PEACE sister.

 

[notsmart]

Hello ND fan, If you dont mind- could you read my second post in response to the khutcheson, and preform my “test” and then see what my answer to this, very heartfelt concern you have will be?

Both cases you mention will fail the test miserably. Both of your concerns are strictly ones you tested by scripture (and I have to trust your interpretation on top of that)
Secondly, it fails because if I accept your position I am left with a Man God Jesus, and a little god in the OT. This is reason to outright reject it.

But, I appreciate your concern over me

I just want to put Jesus first here.

I hope you understand!

And, peace to you also!

 

[NDfan]

Hello ND fan, If you dont mind- could you read my second post in response to the khutcheson, and preform my “test” and then see what my answer to this, very heartfelt concern you have will be?

I did read your second response and understood I think what your approach will be. But I’m not clear if you are asking me to perform your test given you framed a question, or were you just re-stating?

Both cases you mention will fail the test miserably. Both of your concerns are strictly ones you tested by scripture (and I have to trust your interpretation on top of that)

That’s very true. But I certainly would never expect you to accept my interpretation. I was merely offering to give an interpretation based on my studies from Bible college. Then at least you could compare this with what the Priest tells you. Ultimately you still need to decide what you are going to believe. The RC church will tell you that you must believe all teachings and there are only certain parts of scripture that are left to your own free will to interpret. You then must decide if you agree with the required teachings. If not then you are going down the wrong path. I’ve been there and was just offering some information. I absolutely want you to decide for yourself.

Secondly, it fails because if I accept your position I am left with a Man God Jesus, and a little god in the OT. This is reason to outright reject it.

I’m not sure why you would think this. Can you clarify why my statements would lead to a little god in the OT?

But, I appreciate your concern over me

You are certainly welcome.

I just want to put Jesus first here.

Yes absolutely Jesus is first. But sometimes the RCC made me feel as if Mary was first. Too many times I’ve heard people giving credit to Mary for a miracle because they prayed the Hail Mary or asked for her intercession. I felt as if there were too many distractions that took away from focusing on Jesus. Buy only you can determine if the RCC is a fit for how you worship now and want to worship GOD in the future.

I hope you understand!

And, peace to you also!

I always understand. GOD Bless

 

[notsmart]

Okay, thank you ND, I only have time for a part one reply now, I am heading out the door, so I have to be brief sorry!

Mary, or not Mary, lets look at the question of the possibility of sinlessness.
We know, the God revealed in the OT was either a liar or limited by our actions or reactions to Him if we take the position its impossible for anyone to be sinless. This makes it a postion that changes the entire definition of God as I believe it to be in the Triune creedal understanding. I have to reject any theory that changes the way I see God. Again, not because a Church says so, or a bible says nothing on the topic, but because Jesus would be affected by this thinking.

 

[Isambard]

Why does Jesus call his followers towards a vow of poverity, yet the Pope, and the Vatican have so much wealth?

The Epicurean question is another good which I have yet to hear any sort of logical answer to.

 

[notsmart]

Why does Jesus call his followers towards a vow of poverity, yet the Pope, and the Vatican have so much wealth?

The Epicurean question is another good which I have yet to hear any sort of logical answer to.

What is the Epicurean question?

Where does Jesus ask for a vow of poverty? Can I read it in context?

 

[NDfan]

Okay, thank you ND, I only have time for a part one reply now, I am heading out the door, so I have to be brief sorry!

Mary, or not Mary, lets look at the question of the possibility of sinlessness.
We know, the God revealed in the OT was either a liar or limited by our actions or reactions to Him if we take the position its impossible for anyone to be sinless. This makes it a postion that changes the entire definition of God as I believe it to be in the Triune creedal understanding. I have to reject any theory that changes the way I see God. Again, not because a Church says so, or a bible says nothing on the topic, but because Jesus would be affected by this thinking.

Monica I know you are heading out the door so you can read and think this over when time prevails.

I understand what you mean now. But let’s take a look at this more closely. Do I think that GOD is capable of anything? Yes absolutely. But remember GOD gave us free will. We live in a fallen world that is stained by the sin of Adam and Eve. We are all born into sin and are stained by it. That is taken right from scripture and I’m sure you would agree with me on this.

Now the question is can GOD protect us from sinning? I’m sure HE could but then that would take away our free will which is something GOD would not do. Why does GOD need someone to be sinless anyway?? There were plenty of righteous people from scripture i.e. Moses, Abraham, Enoch, David etc. As righteous as they were they definitely were not sinless. David commissioned murder, committed adultery and yet GOD called him a man after HIS own heart.

I’m not reducing or limiting GOD’s abilities I’m simply recognizing how HE created us. To say that someone is sinless means that they were not affected by the fall of Adam and Eve and are capable of being sinless on their own. That’s a Pelagian view which the Catholic Church strictly considers a heretical teaching.

If you say that someone was born into sin but did not sin because GOD protected them I would then ask why? Why do they have to be sinless to do something great for GOD? If GOD can protect someone from being sinless then HE can certainly protect us all from being sinless all the way back to Adam and Eve which would have prevented the fall to begin with. But again GOD did not do this as he decided to give us free will.

The final point to remember is this: the whole reason GOD came to us as a man in Jesus Christ was to offer salvation to us. Jesus came to pay the price for sin. If GOD protects us from sin then that suggests that certain people don’t need Jesus as their savior. This contradicts what Jesus teaches us that HE is the only way to GOD which is taken right from the Gospel of John. If certain people would be pardoned from the affects of sin and remain sinless then Jesus would only be a savior to some and not all. Again a contradiction of scripture.

So I am not limiting GOD. I’m working within the framework that HE created.

PEACE and GOD Bless.

 

[Isambard]

What is the Epicurean question?

Where does Jesus ask for a vow of poverty? Can I read it in context?

Epicurean question

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? "

Mark 12:41-43 (English Standard Version)
The Widow’s Offering
41(A) And he sat down opposite(B) the treasury and watched the people(C) putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums. 42And a poor widow came and put in two(D) small copper coins, which make a penny.[a] 43And he called his disciples to him and said to them, "Truly, I say to you,(E) this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box.

catholictradition.org/Christ/christ12-3.htm (talks further about how Jesus dignified poverity)

 

[notsmart]

Hello again ND, I want to reply to your great observations for me to think more about. And, I will.

But, the first thing that popped into my head reading it, was Jesus again and his words: May you be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect

?

Whatever or why did he say this for?

 

[Della]

Monica I know you are heading out the door so you can read and think this over when time prevails.

I understand what you mean now. But let’s take a look at this more closely. Do I think that GOD is capable of anything? Yes absolutely. But remember GOD gave us free will. We live in a fallen world that is stained by the sin of Adam and Eve. We are all born into sin and are stained by it. That is taken right from scripture and I’m sure you would agree with me on this.

This is true, but not the whole story. If we leave it at that it gives the impression that this explains it all, when it certainly doesn’t–not that that was your intention.

Now the question is can GOD protect us from sinning? I’m sure HE could but then that would take away our free will which is something GOD would not do. Why does GOD need someone to be sinless anyway?? There were plenty of righteous people from scripture i.e. Moses, Abraham, Enoch, David etc. As righteous as they were they definitely were not sinless. David commissioned murder, committed adultery and yet GOD called him a man after HIS own heart.

God did not take away Mary’s free will, if that is what you are implying. The Church’s teaching is that she was conceived without the stain of original sin, therefore she was free from concupiscence (the desire to sin). This doesn’t mean she was incapable of sinning, merely that she had no desire to do so.

I’m not reducing or limiting GOD’s abilities I’m simply recognizing how HE created us. To say that someone is sinless means that they were not affected by the fall of Adam and Eve and are capable of being sinless on their own. That’s a Pelagian view which the Catholic Church strictly considers a heretical teaching.

Since the Church does not claim this about Mary what I your problem? Mary’s sinlessness is a result of her immaculate conception not some kind of after thought on God’s part. You are truly confused.

If you say that someone was born into sin but did not sin because GOD protected them I would then ask why? Why do they have to be sinless to do something great for GOD? If GOD can protect someone from being sinless then HE can certainly protect us all from being sinless all the way back to Adam and Eve which would have prevented the fall to begin with. But again GOD did not do this as he decided to give us free will.

Once again you are misstating Church teaching. Mary was not “born into sin” she was born free from sin and free of the stain of original sin so the rest of your argument falls on those grounds.

The final point to remember is this: the whole reason GOD came to us as a man in Jesus Christ was to offer salvation to us. Jesus came to pay the price for sin. If GOD protects us from sin then that suggests that certain people don’t need Jesus as their savior. This contradicts what Jesus teaches us that HE is the only way to GOD which is taken right from the Gospel of John. If certain people would be pardoned from the affects of sin and remain sinless then Jesus would only be a savior to some and not all. Again a contradiction of scripture.

Wrong again. God never said no one could pray for us except his Son. That is the interpretation you are putting on Scripture. Jesus is the one mediator between God and man when it comes to the justice of God. IOW, only Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross brings us redemption. Nowhere does the Church teach that Mary has that power nor anyone else. Mary is a prayer partner in her intercession not a stand in between the justice of God and mankind.

So I am not limiting GOD. I’m working within the framework that HE created.

PEACE and GOD Bless.

What you are doing is seriously misrepresenting Church teachings. And no, Mary is not more important than Jesus in the Catholic Church. We don’t offer the sacrifice of Mary on the altar but the re-presenting of the one sacrifice of Christ. We don’t pray in Mary’s name but only through her intercession. We pray through the name of Jesus, our one redeemer.

And we could go on and on about all your other misconceptions, but space will not allow. I strongly suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church before telling others what the Church teaches when it is obvious you have been sadly misinformed by others outside it.

 

[notsmart]

Dignifying poverty is not the same thing, I think as demanding a vow of poverty, which I dont recall Jesus asking people to do, but I can see why some would want to take that life on. However, its my understanding not all priests must take this vow. Some do.
Why should they all be commanded to, when Jesus never said they should?

Epicurean question

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? "

Mark 12:41-43 (English Standard Version)
The Widow’s Offering
41(A) And he sat down opposite(B) the treasury and watched the people(C) putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums. 42And a poor widow came and put in two(D) small copper coins, which make a penny.[a] 43And he called his disciples to him and said to them, "Truly, I say to you,(E) this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box.

catholictradition.org/Christ/christ12-3.htm (talks further about how Jesus dignified poverity)

 

[notsmart]

Della, is my “test” misguided in an attempt to see if there is anything harmful that could come from these things discussed?

I personally, like my test. Its objective enough I think.

Additionally, what would be the priori reason for catholics to hold these views?

I see there could be one from the non catholic side, because (I could be wrong) but it seems to be something Elizabeth started to negate this idea. That would make sense because she WOULD have a priori reason to reject it, being a Queen not wanting any percieved competition.

 

[Della]

Della, is my “test” misguided in an attempt to see if there is anything harmful that could come from these things discussed?

I personally, like my test. Its objective enough I think.

What you are going to get is what we’ve already seen here–misinterpretations of what the Church teaches. Why would you want to take that into consideration? I’m truly puzzled.

Additionally, what would be the priori reason for catholics to hold these views?

Do you mean why does the Church teach what it does and where does it get its authority to do so? In answer to that, the Church teaches what it heard from the lips of its Founder, Christ, and the Apostles through their successors, the bishops. Ours is an apostolic Church, which means the authority to teach and preach and minister the sacraments was given by Christ. The Church is his Body, and thus his representative on earth. There is no other.

I see there could be one from the non catholic side, because (I could be wrong) but it seems to be something Elizabeth started to negate this idea. That would make sense because she WOULD have a priori reason to reject it, being a Queen not wanting any percieved competition.

You are referring to the English Reformation, yes? Elizabeth thought it more advantageous to bow to the Protestant lords who really held the power in England at the time. But, speaking of our time, there are as many reasons to reject the authority of the Church as there are people to reject it. People will always find reasons why they will do what they want to do. It takes humility and grace and sometimes courage to put oneself under proper authority.

The Catholic Church predates all others except the Orthodox and the Coptic (as far as I know). And even those groups weren’t in schism from it from the beginning.

You need to know more about Sacred Tradition and how it is very different from mere human traditions in order to understand what the differences truly are between the Catholic Church and all others.

 

[notsmart]

Well, I want to be open to whatever any non catholic may believe is a doctrine that is not correct. I was surprised to see the big conflict over Marys sinlessness, but I realize this seems to be because the bible is silent about it.
I like to see what the concerns are for non catholics because I really thought there was more agreement in the catholic non catholic groups than there is.

 

[mercygate]

Well, I want to be open to whatever any non catholic may believe is a doctrine that is not correct. I was surprised to see the big conflict over Marys sinlessness, but I realize this seems to be because the bible is silent about it.
I like to see what the concerns are for non catholics because I really thought there was more agreement in the catholic non catholic groups than there is.

Depends on what non-Catholics you talk to. Some are quite rational. Others are absolutely insane. 99% of the time, the objections to Catholicism include the life issues: marriage, sex, abortion . . . Some objections are to the actual teaching and practice of the Church; many are objections to things that don’t exist – like whatever that person told you about not being able to attend RCIA unless you have a decree of nullity. Actually, on this thread I have seen enough culpable ignorance on Catholic teaching by former Catholics to open a store.

I think it would profit you better to ask non-Catholics what THEY believe rather than asking them why the Catholic Church is wrong. All you get with a negative question is a bunch of negative answers.

 

[notsmart]

Good idea Mercygate! I will approach it with that direction then.

 

[Della]

Well, I want to be open to whatever any non catholic may believe is a doctrine that is not correct. I was surprised to see the big conflict over Marys sinlessness, but I realize this seems to be because the bible is silent about it.
I like to see what the concerns are for non catholics because I really thought there was more agreement in the catholic non catholic groups than there is.

Well, the Bible is silent on that issue as well as many others, such as the nature of the Holy Trinity and the nature of Christ. These issues weren’t “on the table” when the NT was being written, either, so they weren’t written about.

Also, the writers of the NT never set out to write a comprehensive book of theology. The Gospels were written to give us some of the teachings of Christ and to show how he fulfilled the prophecies concerning the longed-for Messiah. St. Paul wrote most of the Epistles, and again, his purpose was to instruct the churches (more like dioceses not independent churches) in things they were having problems with, not give us a complete instruction in all the teachings of the Church.

There was never any intention by the authors of the NT to include everything that could ever be said about God, Jesus, Mary and so on, in the NT. A very good book, and easy to read is the classic: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church. I think you would find it very helpful in understanding what the Bible is and its place within Sacred Tradition.

Because questions came up as to the nature of the Holy Trinity, the nature of Christ, Mary’s place in the life of the Church, etc., councils were held, just as the first Council of Jerusalem was held (Acts 15) to decide matters that were in dispute. Jesus left a way to resolve such disputes–he left us the Church, which predates the NT. The Apostles looked to Scripture to help them decide what was the mind of the Holy Spirit, but they also prayed and discussed the matter. In the end, though, they decided what should be done because they had been given the authority by Christ to do so. No authority was ever given to any written document to decide anything, although the Bible certainly is the first source for deciding on matters of faith and morals from the time of the Apostles until now.

The Bible is, for lack of a better illustration, like the US Constitution. It cannot interpret itself, which is why the Supreme Court was set up to do so. Jesus was wise enough to know that men would dispute everything he ever had to say or did, so he set up the Church’s leadership (we call it the Magisterium, which means in the Church “teaching authority”) to discern, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all that Christians need to know in matters of faith and morals. The Church has faithfully fulfilled that duty down through the centuries, and will continue to do so until Christ returns.