Non-Catholics, what do you dislike most

[HannahLisa]

Manny – there is a difference between following what the Church has already said and asking nit-picky questions better answered with common sense.

I am aware that the sacraments are to give us grace. However, I believe God can work outside valid Catholic sacraments if He so chooses, and I do not think there needs to be a Catholic priest with valid apostolic succession present in order for transubstantiation to occur – God can make ANY Communion valid if He so chooses. He is not limited by sacraments.

I am aware that indulgences are not sold and that the abuse of indulgences is not present as it was during Martin Luther’s time. However, I do not understand how the Church can say “do x, y, and z and you will get time out of purgatory” which is the kind of thing I find when I googled “first friday indulgence”. I understand that our prayers may help the people in Purgatory. I do not understand the idea that we have to do this or that thing in order to not be punished in purgatory for this sin. The idea that it can be regulated so by people on earth doesn’t make sense to me.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

By a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory. A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance with the penitential discipline of the early Church.

Jimmy – I find your comments somewhat offensive. I came here to learn more about Catholicism, as I was considering becoming Catholic. I have learned a lot here. I am also doing my own research, not just going by what is said here.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

First I would have to say the claims of infallibility for both the Church and the Pope.

Second would be the requirement to believe the Marian dogmas, not necessarily the beliefs themselves.

Third, the claim to be the one true Church; one of the churches yes but not the one and only.

I agree on all three , except for:
even the (maria-)believes themselves !!

But further:

Because it is true. Jesus established only one Church. He did say in Matthew 16:17-19;

Who wrote these bible , and when it is / they are written ??

The Church didnt make this up. Jesus Himself did not allow divorce.

Mark 10:
5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,** 8and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=10&version=31&context=chapter**So like (a wild example):
when a man or woman beats up his wife or her husband ,
they may not divorce 'cause they have to learn
to live with eachother even in such unhappiness ??

I also disagree on the 10 commandments !!
(MAYBE worth another thread ???)

And further , TOO many reasons (worth) to mention !!
But / Actually who cares ,
I’m not catholic , and so , to be honest ,
who am I to disagree or agree with the vatican & its followers
as it is not my way of life !!
I’m quite sure some of you’d see it as bashing on your religion !!

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), february 24, 2008

 

[JIMMY68]

Manny – there is a difference between following what the Church has already said and asking nit-picky questions better answered with common sense.

I am aware that the sacraments are to give us grace. However, I believe God can work outside valid Catholic sacraments if He so chooses, and I do not think there needs to be a Catholic priest with valid apostolic succession present in order for transubstantiation to occur – God can make ANY Communion valid if He so chooses. He is not limited by sacraments.

I am aware that indulgences are not sold and that the abuse of indulgences is not present as it was during Martin Luther’s time. However, I do not understand how the Church can say “do x, y, and z and you will get time out of purgatory” which is the kind of thing I find when I googled “first friday indulgence”. I understand that our prayers may help the people in Purgatory. I do not understand the idea that we have to do this or that thing in order to not be punished in purgatory for this sin. The idea that it can be regulated so by people on earth doesn’t make sense to me.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Jimmy – I find your comments somewhat offensive. I came here to learn more about Catholicism, as I was considering becoming Catholic. I have learned a lot here. I am also doing my own research, not just going by what is said here.

Hannah-

Sorry that you were offended, a lot of that going on these days. Then again, this Church as been offending people for over 2000 years.

My intent was not to offend, but to challenge, that’s all.

You’re in my prayers for your conversion, may I suggest the RCIA program at your local parish for your conversion process, they’ll have all your answers. Perhaps this time next year you will be in full communion with the Church.

Peace in Christ.
J.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Who wrote these bible , and when it is / they are written ??

The OT was written by the Jews. The Deutrocanonical Books were written by Alexandrian Jews. The NT Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Acts by Luke, the Epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, St. John, and St. Jude. In 392 AD in the African Canon, the Catholic Church compiled the list of Books considered to be canonical. It was the Council of Carthage, and Council of Hippo in 396 AD.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny my brother-

You’re wrestling with a pig in the mud…eventually you figure out the pig likes it.

They are hard headed people

These people need to do their own research, no matter what you provide, say or do, the Holy Spirit must move on their hearts and THEY must want to receive the graces…there’s nothing you can say or do to help that, it’s their decision to believe what they want.

You keep going back and forth, it’s an endless he-said/she-said scenario, our time is better spent praying for our separated brothers and sisters, probably much like they pray for us.

We’re dividing the body of Christ here in these exchanges, and every exchange is a nail in His cross.

They should do their own research.

I’m also more curious as to why non-catholic visit Catholic web sites…interesting thoughts hey? I certainly don’t visit non-catholic blogs to debate dogma, how about you?

Peace.
J.

I am rather curious myself.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny – there is a difference between following what the Church has already said and asking nit-picky questions better answered with common sense.

Who is nit picking questions. The Church had already defined these doctrines through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit mislead his Church.

I am aware that the sacraments are to give us grace. However, I believe God can work outside valid Catholic sacraments if He so chooses, and I do not think there needs to be a Catholic priest with valid apostolic succession present in order for transubstantiation to occur – God can make ANY Communion valid if He so chooses. He is not limited by sacraments.

God can because he can read the hearts and mind of us all. Though, I believe Non-Catholic Christians have an imperfect union with God, because many of them persist in their errors.

I am aware that indulgences are not sold and that the abuse of indulgences is not present as it was during Martin Luther’s time. However, I do not understand how the Church can say “do x, y, and z and you will get time out of purgatory” which is the kind of thing I find when I googled “first friday indulgence”.

Selling indulgence is abuse. During Martin Luther’s time it was practiced, but not strongly condemned by the CC. It was wrong for their part.

I understand that our prayers may help the people in Purgatory. I do not understand the idea that we have to do this or that thing in order to not be punished in purgatory for this sin. The idea that it can be regulated so by people on earth doesn’t make sense to me.

Because God’s justice demand of it. Purgatory exist because of God’s mercy. He desires soul to be perfect they can can attain heaven.

Jesus said to St. Faustina in her diary concerning purgatory. "My mercy does not want this, but justice demands of it."

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The definition of indulgence is correct.

By a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory. A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance with the penitential discipline of the early Church.

Here is some history on indulgence for.

Indulgences by name were not known in the early Church. This does not mean that the principles underlying it were denied or not practiced. Rather, this doctrine is one that the Church found to be part of the deposit of faith given her by Our Lord. The seeds of this can be seen in the penitential practice of the Church.

Sacramental confession was known and practiced since the Church’s inception. The steps involved in the sacrament are very familiar to Catholics today, with one exception. First, the penitent confessed his sins to a priest or a bishop. Second, the penitent received absolution. Finally, the confessor counseled the penitent as to penances. If the sins demanded only private penance, the confessor-priest imposed it. If the case required public penance, then the penitent was sent to the bishop for imposition of the penances. This last step was reserved for serious sins, such as adultery, idolatry, murder, and fornication, to name a few.22

Such serious sinners were required to pass through four stages of penance. The first stage was referred to as the wailers,23 since the penitents had to stand outside the doors of the churches, asking the Christians going in to pray for them, while they were in sackcloth and ashes. After a period of this, the penitent advanced to the class of hearers. These penitents were allowed into the narthex of the church, but not inside with the congregation. Thus, they could hear the Word of God, which would help their change of heart. The third stage was that of the kneelers. Now inside the church, the penitent knelt in the back of the church throughout the liturgy. Finally, the last stage was the standers. These penitents could participate in almost all parts of the liturgy, save they could not receive the Eucharist and could not bring the gifts up to the altar.

If you want to read the full article go ahead. Here it is:

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/0910-96/article9.html

 

[paidion]

To answer the question posed by Jimmy and Manny as to why non-RCs come here…

I periodically listen to Catholic radio here in my area, and heard about this website through the program “Catholic Answers Live”. I thought this would be a good opportunity to check out thoughts & ideas & questions I had about the RC faith. I also have a sister who converted to the RC church several years ago, but because we live far apart, I don’t often have the opportunity to discuss ideas & questions I have with her. (Besides, she is relatively new to the faith and I can’t expect her to know everything.)

This forum has provided me an opportunity to ask questions of others more versed in matters of Roman Catholicism - something I can’t do just reading a copy of the catechism or other books. I’ve also learned of some reliable resources of information about the RC church, that I probably would not have otherwise run across.

Jimmy and Manny, would it be better for all us non-RCs to stay off this site and get our info on the RC Church from Jack Chick, etc.? And if we do ask questions or debate, is that necessarily a bad thing to do? How else are we to understand/comprehend anything the Church has to offer (barring the Holy Spirit performing a spiritual lobotomy and pouring in a complete acceptance of the RC Church’s dogmas)?

Tying this in with the OP, I’d have to edit my list of things I find troublesome about the RC Church (specifically regarding my experiences at this site). I would include the idea that one is supposed to have a knowledge and acceptance of Roman Catholicism - before one has even had time to see or digest any of it. It’s rather like expecting an infant to be able to walk/talk/act like an adult.

I realize you were not specifically addressing your original comments/question to me personally, but as a non-RC I find your statements disconcerting.

(shalom)

 

[t68ware]

They are hard headed people

They should do their own research.

I am rather curious myself.

Why would non-catholics go on the forums you may ask? It is to learn. I mean, i just found out that debating Protestants is like pig wrestling. I guess if an RC would debate Billy Graham, it is a pig wrestling match. How offensive!!! I am Protestant, but taking RCIA classes and I have never heard such comparisions from my classmates! We Protestants have lots to learn about the Catholic church, but it appears to me some Catholics have a lot to learn on how to be cordial when debating Protestants.

 

[paidion]

…

You’re wrestling with a pig in the mud…eventually you figure out the pig likes it.

Peace.
J.

Yeah, I overlooked this word picture before t68ware pointed it out… lovely way to attract Jews and Muslims to the Chrisitianity.

Also, Jimmy, just what did you mean by including the word “peace” at the end of your post??? You use the term “pig” to refer to a non-RC and then declare peace?

shalom

let me add this to the OP list: I don’t appreciate being referred to as a “pig”… nor do I think it appropriate to describe other believers (or anyone else) in that manner

 

[kalt]

Thank-you, paidion! That’s exactly why I asked the question–to broaden my own understanding of what others think about the CC’s doctrines. It would be impossible to ask that question and not limit it to a number of doctrines. 3 seemed doable. What relgion are you?

Thank-you, everyone, for your responses. I didn’t mean for this to turn into a debate, and I hope no one who answered feels “attacked” for their answers. I asked an honest question, and I appreciate the honest answers.

I find this question interesting in that it seems to imply I don’t like the RCC. I don’t “dislike” the Church at all. I just don’t understand all of its teachings.

Three (of many) things I don’t understand are:

1. the Eucharist - I don’t understand the RCC stance that it becomes Messiah’s flesh and blood
2. purgatory - I don’t really know enough of what the Church teaches to know what I do/don’t agree with
3. What’s the big deal about Peter? Some things I’ve read here make me wonder what folks would believe in if Peter had never existed.

I try to read through a variety of posts, taking many things I read with a grain of salt. Sometimes it’s hard to discern what is really the truth and what is not. I mostly come here to try to “talk” with someone about the faith to try to broaden my understanding.

shalom

 

[HannahLisa]

Who is nit picking questions. The Church had already defined these doctrines through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit mislead his Church.

Here’s an example:
The Church teaches that contraception is wrong. Okay, that’s fine, contraception is wrong, got it. Then someone wants to know the Church teaching on some very specific aspect of using contraception. I don’t have any problem with the Church saying something is wrong. I have a problem with people feeling like they have to go to the Church for something very specific which they should be able to figure out using their own common sense and the fact that the Church has said contraception is wrong. The Church shouldn’t need to specify every tiny little thing in a person’s life.

I understand the concept of Purgatory. I do not understand indulgences or the idea that if you go to First Friday Mass so many First Fridays in a row that you will get special blessings. Grace is not bought and sold. It seems to me that some of the indulgences approach very close to that idea.

 

[Rocky]

If one consciously makes an effort to get closer to Jesus, wouldn’t you agree that special grace/blessings would ensue—if nothing else the blessing of actually getting closer to the Lord? Do not non-catholic Christians feel that if they read the bible every day, they will receive some kind of benefit—i.e. getting closer to the Lord? People who go to Mass on the first Fridays are not practicing any kind of magic. They are consciously making an effort to get closer to Jesus. The fact that the action promises a reward is no different than what is promised by daily bible reading. And just praying the Hours of the Liturgy gives me many correlated bible readings to ponder during the day!

 

[kalt]

Paidion, I think what you’re seeing is a knee-jerk reaction to comments about the CC. It seems that so many people make comments about the CC’s doctrine that are false. They know they’re false (they’ve been told many times), and then still make the same comments. I’ve had this experience on the Net many times. I’m new here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the people who claim here that we worship Mary have made that claim many times. They just refuse to beleive that Catholic doctrine is what it is. They prefer to believe that they know better than Catholics what our faith is. It’s extremely frustrating to deal with people like that.

I agree with you. We shouldn’t assume that everyone who makes these comments about the CC knows better. The information is out there, but maybe a person is posting here to find out what Catholicism is all about.

If we Catholics here remember that this forum is yet another source of information on the Catholic Church for Catholics and non-Catholics, we just might come across as a group of people you would actually want to talk to.

I’m sorry if anything I’ve said on the forums came across as mean or as an attack.

 

[kalt]

I think that Catholics go to the Church for guidance because life is complicated. The Church teaches that using artificial contraception is wrong. But that’s not the end of the story. I want to know the reasons behind that teaching. I will follow the Church’s teaching on ABC, but I also want to know why the Church teaches what it does.

The Church teaches that it’s wrong to use ABC, but a woman can use BC pills if it’s for other health reasons, even though it will prevent pregnancy. You can’t use ABC to prevent pregnancy, though, even if a pregnancy would be a health risk. So someone with MS, for example, can’t use ABC because she’s afraid of having an MS attack after a pregnancy.

It’s not as simple as “Don’t use ABC”. Life is more complicated than that. And people naturally wonder when other factors might make using ABC acceptable. I’ve seen people ask about using condoms when one person has an STD, like herpes or HIV. I don’t think the teaching is that simple. People naturally wonder.

Why should someone not verify that what they’re thinking is correct? Why shouldn’t they ask questions about a Catholic teaching?

A lot of Catholics have stayed away from the Catholic Church because they’re divorced. They mistakenly believe that they can’t receive Communion. Wouldn’t it be better if they asked a question on what might seem to non-Catholics a black-and-white issue?

"Here’s an example:
The Church teaches that contraception is wrong. Okay, that’s fine, contraception is wrong, got it. Then someone wants to know the Church teaching on some very specific aspect of using contraception. I don’t have any problem with the Church saying something is wrong. I have a problem with people feeling like they have to go to the Church for something very specific which they should be able to figure out using their own common sense and the fact that the Church has said contraception is wrong. The Church shouldn’t need to specify every tiny little thing in a person’s life. "

 

[paidion]

Thank-you, paidion! That’s exactly why I asked the question–to broaden my own understanding of what others think about the CC’s doctrines. It would be impossible to ask that question and not limit it to a number of doctrines. 3 seemed doable. What relgion are you? Messianic Jew

 

[paidion]

Paidion, I think what you’re seeing is a knee-jerk reaction to comments about the CC. Yes, it certainly appears to be. I was hoping to see a little more charity - especially from those who have been on these forums (sp?) for a while and are (or should be) familiar with those who visit. There’s no reason to resort to ad hominem (sp?) tactics. It seems that so many people make comments about the CC’s doctrine that are false. They know they’re false (they’ve been told many times), and then still make the same comments. I’ve had this experience on the Net many times. I’m new here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the people who claim here that we worship Mary have made that claim many times. They just refuse to beleive that Catholic doctrine is what it is. They prefer to believe that they know better than Catholics what our faith is. It’s extremely frustrating to deal with people like that. Likewise I’m sure for other Protestants and non-RCs.

I agree with you. We shouldn’t assume that everyone who makes these comments about the CC knows better. The information is out there, but maybe a person is posting here to find out what Catholicism is all about. This has certainly been a great place to identify quality references, for me.

If we Catholics here remember that this forum is yet another source of information on the Catholic Church for Catholics and non-Catholics, we just might come across as a group of people you would actually want to talk to.

I’m sorry if anything I’ve said on the forums came across as mean or as an attack.

… no, I’ve not taken anything you’ve written as a personal attack… thanks for your understanding…

shalom aleichem

 

[HannahLisa]

If one consciously makes an effort to get closer to Jesus, wouldn’t you agree that special grace/blessings would ensue—if nothing else the blessing of actually getting closer to the Lord? Do not non-catholic Christians feel that if they read the bible every day, they will receive some kind of benefit—i.e. getting closer to the Lord? People who go to Mass on the first Fridays are not practicing any kind of magic. They are consciously making an effort to get closer to Jesus. The fact that the action promises a reward is no different than what is promised by daily bible reading. And just praying the Hours of the Liturgy gives me many correlated bible readings to ponder during the day!

Of course doing things to get closer to God will be rewarding because it will bring you closer to God. That is the point of it. When plenary indulgences are promised for going to nine First Fridays in a row or doing x or y other thing, I think that takes away from getting closer to God. I can see people doing it just to get the plenary indulgence instead of doing it because they want to get closer to God. While it will hopefully bring them closer to God, their motives can still be in the wrong place, if that makes sense.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Since there is no way to find out for certain, let everyone do what they think is right.

You could say “hey everyone let’s do what we think is right!” but then I think both you and I know that there are people out there who should not have that option. Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc all of these guys I would gladly oppress if that could change the past. Still that’s another topic for another thread.

 

[Annie_B]

To the non-Catholics on the board–what do you dislike most about the Catholic Church?

What 3 doctrines are most problematic for you? What do you know about those 3 doctrines, and what exactly do you disagree with?

1. Infant baptism; nothing is more pure in deed and heart than an infant. If batism is for the remission of sins, then why baptize a sinless baby? (I know it is supposed to be for the “original sin” - but I do not believe in that)

sorry - I do not have a #2 and a #3

 

[kalt]

Why don’t you believe in original sin?

1. Infant baptism; nothing is more pure in deed and heart than an infant. If batism is for the remission of sins, then why baptize a sinless baby? (I know it is supposed to be for the “original sin” - but I do not believe in that)

sorry - I do not have a #2 and a #3