What Iam in your eyes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter historyfan81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
of course i belive the virgin birth , of course i belive that mary was virgin

mary always being a virgin till her death , eh…lack of evidence and lack of other things , and the perpetual virgin coming out centuries down the line makes me doudt it.

not that i reject the notion that she could have been , its just she migth have been ? or maybe not?

its an unknow , so yeah lets leave at I dont know and dont claim that she was or was not.
  1. the eucharist: this is a very important sacrament , now does it become the literal blood and body of the lord…ehhh i have my doudts so say the least
  2. divnity of jesus , Jesus is god no questions about it , he is the second person of the trinity and existed with the father before creation.
  3. the pope , at best he is the first among equals, but he is not king of the patriachs or the bishops
 
Hmmm…you say the Eucharist is a very important sacrament but then doubt it really is the real presence of Christ…so why is it so important if you doubt it to be true??
 
beacuse its a reminder of jesus sacrifice and the new covenant
 
the trinity explecity apears early on by second century church fathers

the perpetual virgin does not and no Protoevangelium of James is sing , but its apocrypha
 
Last edited:
historyfan81

1m

beacuse its a reminder of jesus sacrifice and the new covenant

Protestants believe it’s a “reminder” also…and not a sacrament
 
historyfan81 said:
One gets salvation by believing in Jesus and loving him ( if we love him we will keep his commandments and do good works )
Click to expand...
I do agree with this in theory, but no one can keep the 10 commandments. Only one person has and he is the son of God.
 
yeah , what iam refering to is if you love him , you will keep the commadments and when we break them repent of this sorry for not claryfing this
 
historyfan81 said:
since with these helps we can asnwer some of the bibles hard themes and questions and they also determine to guide us and not lead us to heresy.
Click to expand...
historyfan81 said:
No, the only apostolic succession is one of message we are the successors of the message left by them.
Click to expand...
This says Protestant, because the individual is his or her own Magesterium. There is no teaching authority higher than the individual. (I count non-denominational Christian as Protestant.)

As others have said, if you’re baptized Catholic, you are Catholic. We’re the Hotel California, that way…meaning, if you come back, you would not be re-baptized or recieved in the way as if you were baptized outside the Church, your marital status would be evaluated with the recognition that canon laws regarding marriage also applied to you, and so on.
 
Last edited:
Jimbo is full correct if you have been baptised and been brought up learning the Catholic Faith then you are a Catholic. Just as Jimbo said you’ve fallen away. But the door is still open.
 
i gladly would come back …once the evidence i require is presented …till them i stuck in this limbo
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
u’re baptized Catholic, you are Catholic. We’re the Hotel California, that way…meaning, if you come back, you would not be re-baptized or recieved in the way
Click to expand...
well some say protestan other says catholic but has disprecencies with church

instresting to see your points of view and its good to read them .
 
historyfan81 said:
well some say protestan other says catholic but has disprecencies with church

instresting to see your points of view and its good to read them .
Click to expand...
Canonically, you’re Catholic. Theologically and practically speaking, though, in the end your esssential premise that the Church has the burden of convincing you rather than to the accepted authority to teach you is Protestant. (I would say undeniably Protestant, even.)
historyfan81 said:
i gladly would come back …once the evidence i require is presented …till them i stuck in this limbo
Click to expand...
I’ve been outside and come back. I’d say that it usually works the other way around: that is, you accept that the Church has teaching authority, you come back, and you allow the Church to bring you around rather than requiring the Church to parent you while you are standing on the sidewalk in front of your home.
 
Last edited:
is wrong to ask? is not wrong to want evidence , if one cant present to me the evidence, and wants me to blindly take their word or their interpretation of the vagueness of an author

am i in fault for not beliving in them? how can one teach me if they cant bring forth a convicing evidence of thier teachings?

or do i have to blindly belive to get back to the church? if thats so i guess i will not return

and i hope its not the case , since iam not sure , also blind belive is something that leads to many bad things

i have and will say it again , i dont care wheter history is ecclisistical or secular , no side gets favoritisim while reviewing it .
 
Last edited:
historyfan81

1

16m

is wrong to ask? is not wrong to want evidence , if one cant present to me the evidence, and wants me to blindly take their word or their interpretation of the vagueness of an author

am i in fault for not beliving in them? how can one teach me if they cant bring forth a convicing evidence of thier teachings?

or do i have to blindly belive to get back to the church? if thats so i guess i will not return

and i hope its not the case , since blind belive is something that leads to many bad things

i have and will say it again , i dont care wheter history is ecclisistical or secular , no side gets favoritisim while reviewing it .

Well…you clearly stated that you have doubts about the Eucharist being the real presence of Jesus Christ…but rather a “reminder”…so you have rejected the words of Christ John 6 “amen amen I say to unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you do not have life within you”…like wise at the last supper when Christ said after blessing the bread and gave it to his Disciples saying “THIS is my body which will be given up for you…THIS cup is the new covenant in my blood”…so if you can’t accept the words of Jesus Christ…then surely you won’t accept his words when he said to Peter “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it…I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven…Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”…
so if you can’t accept the words of Jesus then why would you accept the authority of his church…of course you can always deny that Christ didn’t really mean what he said…or that the Catholic church just interprets it to suit itself…that you are your own authority and can interpret it the way you want…unless you can accept that authority and that the church has had 2000 years defining and upholding doctrine through the guidance of the Holy Spirit then you probably won’t as you said…“you will never return”…but one can never say never
 
Last edited:
iam not my own authority regarding ecliasiatical matter , but in secular ones iam my own authority regarding secular ones.

all that i asked for is evidence and i get the same response every time “accept that authority and the teachings of the church”

i asked for somthing and the response is all always just belive it, yes thats such a good response just belive it.

and no my position is not solid , if the evidence i seek comes , whether be it , me interpreting what i have read in a new ligth , or a new discovery is made i will gladly come back.

if more evidence comes condeming the former things , i will stay where iam .
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
is wrong to ask? is not wrong to want evidence , if one cant present to me the evidence, and wants me to blindly take their word or their interpretation of the vagueness of an author

am i in fault for not beliving in them? how can one teach me if they cant bring forth a convicing evidence of thier teachings?

or do i have to blindly belive to get back to the church? if thats so i guess i will not return

and i hope its not the case , since iam not sure , also blind belive is something that leads to many bad things

i have and will say it again , i dont care wheter history is ecclisistical or secular , no side gets favoritisim while reviewing it .
Click to expand...
We can just make this you and me talking. It is wrong to want evidence that someone who says they have teaching authority actually has it. I don’t think it is necessary or even profitable for a student to question a teacher at every turn. Once you’ve established that you have a reliable teacher, your choice is between relying on their interpretation of the facts and yours. Is there a logical reason to have blind faith in your own judgment, after all? I realize that you are the one who has to live with your own choices and that is only reasonable. In most fields of learning, however, the student doesn’t come in as the authority who automatically has the standing to question those who have established their authority with reasonable qualifications.

More to the point, if you read the plain sense of the New Testament, Our Lord and the Apostles presented a teaching authority model, not a “decide for yourself” paradigm. Our Lord established that He had the ultimate authority to teach. St Paul warned against thinking up new stuff or departing from what the persons in authority were teaching. The New Testament canon came from the discernment of the Church, too. There were written teachings that were rejected by comparison with what the Council knew was the truth.

The numerous denominations in Protestantism is evidence that the method of discernment you are suggesting will not lead to a single conclusion. How is it possible it can preserve someone from heresy?
 
Last edited:
i never cliamed to be a teacher iam not , even though i do belive that one , with proper historical , linguistical analysis of the bible + the writtings of the chruch fathers , is good for avoiding heresy

its basicly like if i where a muslim and i ask my iman , sir this teaching about the haddits does not make sense beacuse it lacks sources and even contradicts other things

and he basicly tells , me just belive in the authority of Allahs messengers.

now replace iman with priest, haditth with source that comes late and has its problems ,and allahs messgers with the church

its basicly saying dont question it , which is not an answer

for example i belived in jesus beacuse there is overwhelming evedince that he existed , died , and rose from the dead.
for early sources , that alsmot never go beyond a century after him .

can the same amount of overwheliming or even good evedence for all catholic traditions , in some yes absolutly , and for some its not they have few evidence for their existance prior to certian date or in some cases there is evidence to point out they are wrong.

but even in all of them the same response is … belive in the church.

my method is just analyzing the records which we have and the oral tradition to see which thing defently apeared earlier

and wich concept migth have evolved over time.

beacuse (and i dont claim to be the case but the possibility still exist) that the church is the one that added new things

is there protestans who do this ? no clue but looking at the horrible , protestan historical “theories” i doudt so .

and it does lead to a place when these questions are not asnwered and just saying just belive it beacuse we said so .

blind faith or apostasy
 
Last edited:
Have you heard Dr.Scott Hahn…and Stephen Ray…both are Protestant converts…you can find them on youtube…they may help you find answers you are looking for…checkout EWTN…The Journey Home…has videos of converts and how they found their way to the Catholic church…most of it through study…there are other resources also…you can go to the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia online…find almost anything you want about Catholicism
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top