The Catholic Church

[guanophore]

Hi,

Years ago when I was in thr RCIA class there were so RCC doctrines that I didn’t agree with, and there are some that I still don’t agree with. Which ones really doesn’t matter, not at all saying that doctrines don’t matter, but the point is that if, in my heart I was not doing the right thing before God, then it would be wrong for me to participate in that particular activity. In other words, how could I reconcile in my heart, doing something that I felt was wrong, just because other people were doing it. Now I wasn’t saying that the others should not do something that they felt justified before God in doing, I just didn’t want to be forced into doing something that I wasn’t sure about. I remember I was asked at one point why I decided to refrain and I explained it just about the same way. I don’t think anyone was offended. I am a memeber of the RCC. Lately, someone said, not word for word but basically, that if I didn’t agree with all the RCC’s doctrines and their interpretation, that I wasn’t a real Catholic. I was a little offended at first, but then I remebered that everyone has their own opinion, whether I think they are correct or not, and their opinion doesn’t change my relationship God. I do think it is “anti-Christian” to insult and demean fellow Christians, and enemies for that matter, who oppose your position on Christian teachings. We all know were not supposed to hate each other, but to have Christian love for on another, because that’s how the world will know that we are Christians. With that said and not wanting to be pegged as a hypocrite, I know that sometimes I fall into the “Devil’s trap” and start trading insults, or worse, with other Christian. When I read “The History of the Church”, in regards to agreeing on doctrines, I realize that there was a lot of fighting, even among the early Christians. There’s even evidence in the Bible, in some of Paul’s, Peters, and John’s letters of some heated disputes, i.e. Paul and Barnabas. Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if all the doctrines are really correct if they came to be after such “anti-christian” behavior. I know the Holy Spirit is supposed to lead us into the truth, and every followers of Christ is garaunteed the Holy Spirit, but if we are not following Christian behavior when trying to find out the truth of a certain doctrine, reconciling, or establishing a doctrine, then how can we be sure that it was the Holy Spirit that led us to the conclusion.

If you do not accept all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches, then you are not reallly Catholic. Catholicity means accepting all that Jesus taught through His apostles and through the authority that He appointed. Most of us have struggled with some or another doctrine over our lives. It is permissible to proceed in faith, trusting that God will work out that in us that is lacking in faith.

Most American"Catholics" are really Protestants in their hearts. We know this because they do not think and act with Catholicity. They are often called “cafeteria” Catholics, which means they live in sin and justify themselves. I understand this, I used to be one myself! I was really in rebellion against the Church, but just fooled myself in believing I was really Catholic, picking and choosing what I agreed with, or not.

 

[guanophore]

I was, for some time, considering some brand of catholicism, but find so many claims to be absolutely ridiculous and unfounded, I would be forced to check my brain at the door.

I think this is really the crux of the issue. The Apostolic faith must be received with expectancy in order to be planted in good soil. If one believes that one must be able to “understand” all the mysteries of God before being able to embrace God, it will not happen. Our human minds are just to finite to be able to “reason” all there is to know about God. If we cannot accept even the most basic mysteries we cannot move forward in faith.

It is faith, seeking understanding that allows us to grow in rational understanding of our faith. The carnal approach, understanding seeking faith, is what Jesus called “of the flesh - no avail”.

 

[Peter_J]

Sigh. On every side this thread is getting really uncharitable.

Can’t we all try to be nice?

You’re kind of new to the internet, aren’t you? (Actually I guess you aren’t, but you know what I mean.)

As that one guy in Joyeux Noel liked to say, “Par for the course.” (My apologies to anyone who hasn’t seen the movie.)

 

[Peter_J]

The Catholic church choose the Reformation rather than self correction.

FIXED

Dr. Scott Hahn has little saying … I can’t find it online so I don’t know the exact wording, but it’s something like “Heresies represent the unpaid debts of the Church.”

P.S. Still, do you really want to be a heretic?

 

[elvisman]

The Catholic church choose the Reformation rather than self correction.

FIXED

**The Church DID reform itself. All the Protestant “Reformers” (Rebels) did was leave. They reformed nothing. **
They formed their own “churches”.

 

[guanophore]

to distinguish between disputable matters and salvation issues. On subjects like holy days, what you eat or drink, and other disputable matters, Christians should be free to believe as they “are each convinced in their own minds.” As far as I can tell, Catholics are not free to believe anything.

Who decides which matters are disputable, and which are essential? Where is the “list”?

How are Catholics less “free” than any other Christian? Freedom does not mean “license” to do whatever you want. True freedom is the ability to choose the right and the good.

You are correct, Catholics are not given license to sin. We are expected to choose the right and the good.

I was, for some time, considering some brand of catholicism, but find so many claims to be absolutely ridiculous and unfounded, I would be forced to check my brain at the door.

Brand?

If you are looking for some kind of Catholicism that requires no profession of faith, or trust, then you are right, you are not ready to become Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

The list of what Catholics are free to do has been steadily decreasing for hundreds of years. Likewise, what they are required to do has been increasing for hundreds of years.

I asked a pretty simple question. Can you, or can you not, choose whether to observe something like Lent, or another holy day or season? Or is that a requirement?

If it is a requirement, then my statement is certainly not a non-sequitur. Paul said you have freedom. Catholic church says you do not.

Becoming Catholic does not take away one’s freedom of choice. Catholics are free to choose. They can choose to forsake the vows made at baptism, they can choose to disobey the authority appointed by Christ, they can choose to spurn the protection and guidance He provided through the Church.

The fact that there are "requirements’ is not a lack of freedom. Jesus said “unless you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you”. Now do we have a choice? Sure! We can choose not to eat and drink. Are we less free? I would say that the ultimate freedom is found in perfect obedience.

Again, we’re back to my favorite disease: explanationism, which I think I can Scripturally show is unnecessary, and contradictory to Jesus plain statement that “all truth” would be revealed to the Apostles.

I do think that there are sometimes too much attempts to explain. However, there is more space in the NT taken up by Apostolic explanation than anything else! It is necessary to apply the principles of the faith,just as Paul applied the spiritual principle of expediency by explaining and giving examples. This is entirely an Apostolic practice.

I will agree, though, some things just defy explanation.

 

[guanophore]

Well, Jesus himself did not identify his church as the Catholic Church. It was given this name years after. When the Catholic Church started to seperate into its different rites is when the name Roman Catholic came about it, and it is this Church, the Roman Catholic Church, that represents the religon started by Jesus Christ. All other rites of Catholicism and any other religon are just interpretations of the Catholic bible.

With all due respect, block, what you have posted here is false. The other 22 Rites of Catholicism ar no less “Catholic” than the Latin Rite, and many of them are older than the Latin.

None of them are “bible based”, but all came from the Apostles. Did you not know that there is a line of bishops ordained in Antioch by Peter prior to his coming to Rome?

I fail to see the point of the seperations, I don’t understand why other religons can’t except the fact that the authority of His church was given to the Catholics and jump on board.

Well, giving out misinformation is not going to help!

 

[guanophore]

The first written record we have of the reference to The Catholic Church is from Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was born 50 A.D. and was taught The Faith by the Apostles St. Peter and St.John. He was the first martyr to be thrown to the wild beasts in the Collesium. On his way to his martyrdom he wrote “Wherever Jesus Christ is there is The Catholic Church.”

Of course, terms are generally in wide use long before they are ever seen in written form.

I hope you find this helpful.

Your servant in Christ.

Actually I think the reference in Acts predates that one by about 50 years.

Acts 9:31

31 Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.

Kath Holos = the Church throughout = Catholic

 

[guanophore]

So you can only be a CAF member if you are thinking of converting to catholicism?

No, we are here to answer genuine questions about the Catholic faith. We are not here to provide a venue for people who want to spew anti-Catholic hostility. You can start your own blog for that.

No, but if you’re not thinking about converting to Catholicism, then that means that your purpose here is spew anti-Catholic hostility.

I dont think so. I think there are people that have genuine questions. Some of them are already Catholic! Some are not hostile toward Catholicism, but just curious.

According to conventional CAF wisdom, that’s just not possible.

Any and all Protestants posters who aren’t thinking of converting to Catholicism must necessarily have evil motivations, especially anti-Catholic bigotry.

Saying “I’m not thinking of converting to catholicism” is itself an act of hostility-spewing.

Conventional CAF wisdom also tells us that, since you’re a non-Catholic, your religion is not defined by what you believe but rather by what you reject.

I don’t understand this at all. I don t find this to be CAF “convention”. There is an expectation that the Catholic beliefs will be treated with respect, which is really hard to do for some people who have received anti-Catholic teaching for so long.

I have found many conciliatory and happy Protestants here.

 

[grampben]

No, we are here to answer genuine questions about the Catholic faith. We are not here to provide a venue for people who want to spew anti-Catholic hostility. You can start your own blog for that.

But I wasn’t spewing ‘anti catholic hostility’!

In all honesty, in recent days there has been more hostility in this sub forum from catholics than non-catholics. I don’t mean you personally by the way.

God Bless.

 

[guanophore]

The church didn’t ‘self-reform’ until after the reformation. The only reason these guys didn’t directly reform the church is because the church chucked them out.
Without the reformation, the Council of Trent and the ‘self reform’ of the church would not have happened.

Your posts really do seem to have an anti-catholic hostility.

The Church did make reforms. Men are always in need of reform.

The reason that “these guys” were unable to reform the Church is because they embraced heretical doctrine, and therefore, had to be excommunicated. If they wanted to reform the Church, then they needed to do so without changing what Jesus taught.

God always cleanses His Church. Often the arrival of heresies fuels the flames of cleansing. Perhaps the heresies of the Reformation provided impetus, I would not doubt it. The reason God allows factions is so that the truth can be more clear.

Oh yes, the church didn’t need reforming. What about the nepotism and corruption at the highest level? What about abuse of indulgences? What about not letting the laity read the word of God!

No, the Church is the pure and Holy Bride of Christ. However, the sinful men who are attached to her are always in need of reform. Nepotism, corruptino, greed, lust, etc.

That bit about the laity reading, though, is a myth.

 

[guanophore]

What does Scripture say about this Church (THE Church)?
“Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” God is saving and equipping those ‘whosoevers’ all over the world, starting powerful ministries, planting churches, amassing genuine conversions, translating scriptures into all the known dialects, and doing it very well, thank you, apart from the RCC.

I could have you walk into literally tens of thousands of non-catholic churches this weekend, where, if you were honest, you would say you not only hear Scripture taught powerfully, and accurately, but you would witness worship that is majestic, transcendant, and explained only by the presence of Christ and his Holy Spirit.

Guys ranging from Billy Graham to Tim Tebow, son of missionaries to the Phillipines, to Truet Cathy, Christian founder of Chik Fila, to Rick Warren, to Franklin Graham, to Tony Dungy, George Whitfield Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, to Dawson Trotman, founder of the Navigators, to amazing pastors and missionaries all over the world, who live in the power of God BUT HAVE NO ROOTS IN THE RCC WHATSOEVER…these are the flesh and blood fulfillment of the promise to “whosoever” and proof Christ is building His Church universally.

God Bless, My Friend!

Well, you are must misinformed. The ONLY reason that these ecclesial communities have any benefit to offer is BECAUSE of the Catholic Church. These fruits spring from those elements of truth that were not rejected from the teaching of the Catholic Church. If not for the Catholic Church, none of these ministries would exist, or bear any fruit.

The HS does work through these people and communities, but it is not “apart” from Catholicism.

 

[grampben]

Your posts really do seem to have an anti-catholic hostility.

The Church did make reforms. Men are always in need of reform.

The reason that “these guys” were unable to reform the Church is because they embraced heretical doctrine, and therefore, had to be excommunicated. If they wanted to reform the Church, then they needed to do so without changing what Jesus taught.

God always cleanses His Church. Often the arrival of heresies fuels the flames of cleansing. Perhaps the heresies of the Reformation provided impetus, I would not doubt it. The reason God allows factions is so that the truth can be more clear.

No, the Church is the pure and Holy Bride of Christ. However, the sinful men who are attached to her are always in need of reform. Nepotism, corruptino, greed, lust, etc.

That bit about the laity reading, though, is a myth.

And on some later posts I corrected myself, and if it wasn’t on this thread, I’ll correct myself here.
I was angry when I wrote those due to a personal matter, I shouldn’t have taken it out on the faithful people on this forum.

You say ‘my posts seem to have an anti-catholic hostility’. Some maybe (though that is questionable) but on the whole I would say most regulars on NCR would say I’m not anti-catholic.

God Bless.

 

[guanophore]

They were NOT handwritten! What about the innovation of the printing press?

They were handwritten until the printing press was invented - by a Catholic. The very first book he printed was a bible!

When Tyndale translated the Bible into the vernacular, using a printing press to print it, he was killed.

It is true that it is wrong to kill people for infringing you copyright. But you have to consider that the Bible was given to the Church, and the Church is responsible for it. Printing deformed versions has the potential of subverting the faith. It was not his printing of it that was a problem,a s you see they did not do anything to Gutenberg. It was printing an unauthorized version that was the problem. Tyndale was not working with the authority appointed by Christ.

The regular peasant could not read latin, so regardless of whether it was chained up or not is irrelevant.

It is true that a rampant ignorance created problems in many areas.

Every christian has a right to be able to read the Bible in the vernacular.

The Vulgate was the vernacular when it was made.

Wyclif and Tyndale were condemned for this (I know they were heretics to catholics too, but one of their ‘crimes’ was translating the Bible into English.)

No, the crime was translating outside the authorization of the Magesterium. It was the rebellion that was the problem, not the translating itself.

Again, it seems simple discussion is impossible. After he died his body was taken from his grave by an English bishop at the command of the Pope, his bones were crushed then burned to ashes, and thrown into the river Swift.

Gruesome and primitive, is it not? Some of the Popes did stuff like this to other popes. Very scary. People, how does God put up with us at all?

The reformers agreed on what was known as ‘matters of indifference’, google it.
Unlike the catholic church, with most protestant denominations one does not have to agree with everything their denomination says, but need the ‘essentials’ (faith in Christ, baptism maybe).

God Bless.

Where is the list of the “essentials”? I can’t find it in my Bible.

Your comment here is a good example. “faith in Christ, baptism maybe”. This illustrates the point that there is very little agreement on what is “essential”.

 

[grampben]

Why should I answer any of your questions when I know you’ll have another question to every point I make?

I made these points days ago, and they have already been discussed. It’s getting late here.

God Bless.

 

[Peter_J]

In all honesty, in recent days there has been more hostility in this sub forum from catholics than non-catholics. I don’t mean you personally by the way.

God Bless.

I think if you look at the internet as a whole, rather than focusing on one particular forum, you’ll find that there is as much (or more) Protestant-to-Catholic hostility as there is Catholic-to-Protestant hostility.

(BTW, did we go through a time warp? freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-alien006.gif)

 

[Peter_J]

Why should I answer any of your questions

Ideally, you should answer my questions (and vice-versa) because we’re both seeking the truth, through sincere dialogue.

If it’s not that kind of conversation, then it’s likely to degenerate into a shout-each-other-down (or worse) type of exchange.

 

[Cinette]

Who decides which matters are disputable, and which are essential? Where is the “list”?

How are Catholics less “free” than any other Christian? Freedom does not mean “license” to do whatever you want. True freedom is the ability to choose the right and the good.

You are correct, Catholics are not given license to sin. We are expected to choose the right and the good.

Brand?

If you are looking for some kind of Catholicism that requires no profession of faith, or trust, then you are right, you are not ready to become Catholic.

The Catholic Church is not a franchise!!!

 

[benedictus2]

Brand?

If you are looking for some kind of Catholicism that requires no profession of faith, or trust, then you are right, you are not ready to become Catholic.

Bravo:clapping:

Perhaps he should just start his own church considering that as far as he is concerned, he wants a church where what he says goes.