What teachings would the Catholic Church have to drop for you to be a catholic

[Janet1983]

It would not be the Catholic Church! Maybe Janet should put her prejudices aside and take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There are answers and explanations for everything we believe.

Otherwise I find Janet’s list very funny indeed.

Well you are right about one thing: It would surely not be the Catholic Church anymore because the theological aspects are just too deeply rooted.
I am however of the opinion that I am not prejudging… I grew up in a little village with more than 99% Catholics (2 people out of 800 were Protestant). I went through Catholic daycare, Catholic kindergarten and a Catholic elementary school and I took some classes at the Catholic high school… I even had Catholic religious education as one of my majors… I was baptized as an infant, was confirmed at 16 and was an altar server until the age of 22. I held confirmation classes and was an altar server group leader for some years… I also sung in different choirs and spend 10 months at a nunnery…
I guess I was far too embedded to qualify for a prejudice…

Glad to see that I amused you at least however…

 

[adolfo123]

For me to even begin to consider becoming Catholic, the idea of a “sacrificial” priesthood that has the “power” to perform rituals on my behalf before God to obtain “grace” would need to be dispensed with.

well Jesus did not end all sacrifices but all the christian sacrifices are under him… my question what is any sacrifice offer to God for …???

 

[jlhargus]

Hi Tom,

The answers for both of the above come from the Catholic doctrine (or is it dogma?) that ordination is valid only if done by a bishop in apostolic succession as defined by the Church. Flowing from that, according to the Church, the Eucharist can be validly confected only by one ordained through that apostolic succession.

The supposed lack of apostolic succession in the Lutheran church (and in other non-Catholic churches – save the Orthodox) is based on the premise that no validly ordained bishops joined the Reformation. I believe that was true in Germany, but in Sweden the Catholic clergy were given no choice but to be brought into the Church of Sweden. Therefore, there were validly ordained clergy in that branch of Lutheranism.

Of course, one gets into the questions of whether the actions of validly ordained bishops (who have been taken, by government fiat, into a non-Catholic church body) are valid themselves. These are the kinds of issues that make my head spin.

Enough for now.:banghead:

JL: gcnuss, here is a link on invalid orders by pope Leo XIII. It seems intent in ordination can invalidate, newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm

Also I don’t know if you have ever heard of The Coming Home Network, I thought you might want to check it out, chnetwork.org/

 

[JonNC]

Hi Tom,

The answers for both of the above come from the Catholic doctrine (or is it dogma?) that ordination is valid only if done by a bishop in apostolic succession as defined by the Church. Flowing from that, according to the Church, the Eucharist can be validly confected only by one ordained through that apostolic succession.

The supposed lack of apostolic succession in the Lutheran church (and in other non-Catholic churches – save the Orthodox) is based on the premise that no validly ordained bishops joined the Reformation. I believe that was true in Germany, but in Sweden the Catholic clergy were given no choice but to be brought into the Church of Sweden. Therefore, there were validly ordained clergy in that branch of Lutheranism.

Of course, one gets into the questions of whether the actions of validly ordained bishops (who have been taken, by government fiat, into a non-Catholic church body) are valid themselves. These are the kinds of issues that make my head spin.

Enough for now.:banghead:

Just as an aside, Pastor, to make one’s head spin faster, is the fact that even the Catholic Church has used presbyter ordination, not unlike ours, in the past, most notably in the 1400’s.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

Well, I for one, am not amused. Your background and entry into Religious Life held such promise. Something truly went wrong and I certainly hope that someone on the list can help. Maybe that is why you are on the list?

I am truly sad at your broken relationship with the Catholic Church. Your "list’ seems to indicate a real hatred for everything Catholic - and I was just wondering why your list was so long? It must be difficult to be on this list with people who obviously love Christ through His Church - and, that would be the Catholic Church.

My wife and I will keep you in our prayers. Maybe there is a place in your heart not consumed with what appears to be hatred.

God bless

Well you are right about one thing: It would surely not be the Catholic Church anymore because the theological aspects are just too deeply rooted.
I am however of the opinion that I am not prejudging… I grew up in a little village with more than 99% Catholics (2 people out of 800 were Protestant). I went through Catholic daycare, Catholic kindergarten and a Catholic elementary school and I took some classes at the Catholic high school… I even had Catholic religious education as one of my majors… I was baptized as an infant, was confirmed at 16 and was an altar server until the age of 22. I held confirmation classes and was an altar server group leader for some years… I also sung in different choirs and spend 10 months at a nunnery…
I guess I was far too embedded to qualify for a prejudice…

Glad to see that I amused you at least however…

 

[guanophore]

Catholics dont want “common ground.” They want submission to the Pope

Actually Catholics want Apostolic ground. You are right,this is getting more and more uncommon, as evidenced in denominations such as your own. some Protestants are so far departed from Apostolic ground that it is unrecognizable.

“Submission” to the Pope is actually synonmous with embracing the Apostolic Teaching. when one embraces what the Apostles taught, there is automatic “submission” to the Pope. Unity with the Successor of Peter is found in unity with the Truth taught by Jesus.

The Pope comes up with some pretty clever sayings to try and lend credence to his dogma of the whole world submitting to him. Only one problem. This phrase makes no sense.

You are right 101, this makes no sense. It is becoming increasingly clear that you have a serious authority problem and you are projecting it onto the Pope.

The Catholic Church has no expectation that “the whole world” will submit to the Pope. The “world” is under the dominion of the devil, and because of that, does not submit to Christ or the authority appointed by Him. The successor of Peter has been given authority to feed and protect the “sheep” (disciples). As scripture reflects, we are to submit to the authority appointed by Christ as if he is Christ. This is how Jesus set things up.

Obedient sheep always follow the voice of the shepherd. His commandments are not burdensome.

 

[guanophore]

LOL, I am not so sure about that. Most Catholics are pretty good at it!

I don’t think so. The ones in here, yes, but I think the majority of Catholics are not very good at being Catholic. I am continually amazed at the long lines at communion as compared to the very short lines at the confessional. If “most” Catholics believed and practiced Cathlicism, the United States would be a very different place. In many ways, our salt has lost it’s savour. I have to side with Fr.Corapi on that point. Our society is going to hell in a handcart because we have failed to be the light and salt. There is also a massive fallout of catholics into other denominations, primarily because they do not understand their faith (if they did, they would never leave) or they are rebellious against the teachings of Christ in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

A couple of other things come to mind, concerning whether or not a non-catholic, would consider becoming a catholic; 1) most or all of us do not recognize the pope as the evangelical leader of the entire Christian world, 2) we don’t believe in praying through Mary and the saints,3)no need for the rosary or prayer beads! Let’s face it; if most of us non-catholics suddenly decided to take the plunge, we would definitely be “cafeteria catholics”.

Actually, cafeteria Catholics ARE Protestants, they just don’t realize it.

The Pope is not an “evangelical leader” but a Pastoral leader. He is the chief shepherd. Anybody can evangelize. Actually, that is the work of the disciples. His job is to equip us to do that work.

It is not required to be ask the intercession of others to be Catholic. It is beneficial, but Catholics are not required to ask for their mother Mary’s help. It is foolish not to do so, but she is tolerant of those who don’t ask for help.

The Rosary is a private devotion, and is also not required. The reason this is such a good thread is that there are so many of these misunderstandings about Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

Indeed, it is a* **mortal sin ***for a man to finish outside his wife’s vagina. I find this belief ridiculous.

You can certainly have that opinion, but I do not share it.

I am glad for you. As far as obeying, I am single and celibate, so I am not dis-obeying anything. But I am not going to lie and say I believe something which I do not believe.

I commend your honesty. I recommend JPII’s theology of the Body. All the Church’s teachings on sexuality will make a lot more sense.

 

[guanophore]

Believe it or don’t, because you are afforded the opportunity to have a personal:thumbsup:relationship, with the very same God who spoke the universe into existence, you can also confess your sins to Him, and repent, thanking Him for His forgiveness! I for one believe, that Jesus’s death on the Cross forgave all sins, past present and future!!! Psalms 103:10-12, 1John 1:9

Forgiveness is now available through His sacrifice, but not all have, do, or will access that forgiveness. Jesus said, if you do not believe, you will “die in your sins”. Believe means obedience, and He set it up so that we could confess our sins to one another, so that we could be healed. Further, He empowered ordained persons with the authority to forgive sins. He did this because this is the best way for us to be healed of the damage of sins.

 

[Cinette]

Forgiveness is now available through His sacrifice, but not all have, do, or will access that forgiveness. Jesus said, if you do not believe, you will “die in your sins”. Believe means obedience, and He set it up so that we could confess our sins to one another, so that we could be healed. Further, He empowered ordained persons with the authority to forgive sins. He did this because this is the best way for us to be healed of the damage of sins.

Yes, this is something of which I have become increasingly aware as I learn more every day about my Catholic faith - obediance. Some people feel they have to dictate to the Church. It is the Church that guides and instructs us how we should lead our lives - like it or not. It is not for us to pick and choose.

I know that nowadays many children like to dictate to their parents on how they should bring them up and parents tend to take the line of least resistance and yield just for the sake of peace. This is wrong. Parents who do not yield but stay the course with love and patience win in the end. Perhaps our cafeteria Catholics are precisely those who are in the habit of doing what they want to do and were those who, as children, dictated to their parents.

As for me I feel safe in the Catholic Church. There are things that are difficult but I know that I must obey and offer my sufferings and difficulties to God who never lets me down.

How I regret the 27 years I spent in the secular world never giving God a thought. Yet even then He took care of me. Today I have to pray that my children will turn to Him and I have my work cut out for me. Like St Monica I have to pray in Faith, patience, trust and expectation.

Cinette

 

[Cinette]

Well you are right about one thing: It would surely not be the Catholic Church anymore because the theological aspects are just too deeply rooted.

I am however of the opinion that I am not prejudging… I grew up in a little village with more than 99% Catholics (2 people out of 800 were Protestant). I went through Catholic daycare, Catholic kindergarten and a Catholic elementary school and I took some classes at the Catholic high school… I even had Catholic religious education as one of my majors… I was baptized as an infant, was confirmed at 16 and was an altar server until the age of 22. I held confirmation classes and was an altar server group leader for some years… I also sung in different choirs and spend 10 months at a nunnery…
I guess I was far too embedded to qualify for a prejudice…

Glad to see that I amused you at least however…

Hi Janet - Hmmmm! I don’t know why I reacted that way except for hysteria perhaps. I have had two days of pressure and anxiety and … No it is not funny - on the contrary.

Perhaps you might like to explain what triggered your leaving the Church?

I tell you something. You will be back.

Love
Cinette

 

[guanophore]

With regard to meet on Fridays I was always taught in Catholic school that it was because Christ was the sacrificial lamb that died on a Friday.  That's why we don't eat meat on Fridays.  Was that your teaching?

Yes, this is what I was taught also. It is a way of commemorating and rememberance of the Lamb of God,who takes away the sin of the world.

What used to upset me was the constant changing from you can to you can't to you can back to you can't.  Then it was you can't unless you're pregnant or are elderly then it was Ok.

Since the fasting guidelines are disciplines, and not doctrine, they can be adapted in various ways to best serve the faithful.

  I remember a very funny story.  Our church had a bullroast during Lent on of all days Good Friday.  The Priest literally stood up and offered special dispensation that it was Ok to eat meat.

Peace Brother

This is not a “funny story” but a tragic one. It is an example of disobedience, irreverence,and sacrilege. Only the Bishop can make such a dispensation, and this practice reflects the heart of a priest who is in rebellion against God. Anyone who does not obey the Bishop and the Teachings of the Church should examine oneself for such a heart of rebellion. For many, it is ignorance, but all too often, it is rebellion and disobedience. These are the mortal sins. Whether one practices the disciplines imposed by the Shepherds of the Church is only a superficial sign of a greater spiritual problem.

 

[guanophore]

NDfan:

And some traditions like those related to Mary did not appear until the 5th century. Maybe the late 4th century but in either case we cannot trust that these traditions were handed down by the Apostles given we don’t find them cited in scripture. This is where I am guarded with sacred tradition because it’s so easy for legend to start to creep in once you get past 100 years of an event.

This is like saying that the Trinity did not “appear” until it was defined by the councils. The fact that certain words such as Trinity do not appear in Scripture, or are not articulated for centuries does not equate to the concepts being non-aposotlic. If that were true, you would have to throw out the whole NT, because it was not defined until the fourth century.

NDfan:

Well once you truly understand the meaning of Matthew 16 then the whole chair of Peter thing kind of falls by the wayside.

I think there is some truth to this. The Teaching of Jesus was whole and entire in the Church before a word of the NT was written. That is why the Catholic Church is not
“bible based”. The Catholic Church produced the NT,and it reflects what the Church believes and teaches. However, the Reformers found it necessary to reject the Church founded upon the Person of Jesus, and replace it with a Church founded upon their re-interpretations of the Scriptures. That was the best way to dispense of the authority appointed by Christ (make the “chair of Peter think fall apart”). Once the authority appointed by Christ is abrogated, anyone reading the Scripture can then derive their own “true understanding of the meaning” as you say.

However, this practice does not change the Truth. Jesus only founded One Church, and He only commissioned on person to feed and care for the flock. Only those in union with that person appointed by Christ are in unity with the Church He founded. Re-interpreting the scripture to suit one’s own desires does not change that.

NDfan:

Things that are not required for salvation can be placed in a category of this is what the church teaches but not required belief.  For instance I don't have to believe Mary was assumed into Heaven to obtain salvation in Christ.  I don't have to believe Mary was a perpetual virgin nor that she was sinless to obtain salvation in Christ.  Why does the Catholic church make these dogmas required beliefs when they have nothing to do with Christ and many Catholics today don't even believe in them?

It is an error to think that man can determine “what is required for salvation”.This is the perogative of God, and has already been decided by Him. He committed these requirements to the Church, and they have been held (by the power of the HS) from that day until this. Protestants seem to desire a “readers digest” version of salvation, and delight in various denominations to determine for themselves what minimum requirements must be met to be “saved” rather than accepting what God has revealed. It reminds me of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. Cain wanted to invent his own method of pleasing God, apart from what God had revealed.

Your statement about the doctrines of Mary “having nothing to do with Christ” only reveal your ignorance of your own family history. All the doctrines about Mary are derived from the development of the doctrines about Christ to refute heresy. If yuou deny them, then you deny the Apostolic teaching on the nature of Christ.

 

[Thorwald]

This is like saying that the Trinity did not “appear” until it was defined by the councils. The fact that certain words such as Trinity do not appear in Scripture, or are not articulated for centuries does not equate to the concepts being non-aposotlic. If that were true, you would have to throw out the whole NT, because it was not defined until the fourth century.

I think there is some truth to this. The Teaching of Jesus was whole and entire in the Church before a word of the NT was written. That is why the Catholic Church is not
“bible based”. The Catholic Church produced the NT,and it reflects what the Church believes and teaches. However, the Reformers found it necessary to reject the Church founded upon the Person of Jesus, and replace it with a Church founded upon their re-interpretations of the Scriptures. That was the best way to dispense of the authority appointed by Christ (make the “chair of Peter think fall apart”). Once the authority appointed by Christ is abrogated, anyone reading the Scripture can then derive their own “true understanding of the meaning” as you say.

However, this practice does not change the Truth. Jesus only founded One Church, and He only commissioned on person to feed and care for the flock. Only those in union with that person appointed by Christ are in unity with the Church He founded. Re-interpreting the scripture to suit one’s own desires does not change that.

It is an error to think that man can determine “what is required for salvation”.This is the perogative of God, and has already been decided by Him. He committed these requirements to the Church, and they have been held (by the power of the HS) from that day until this. Protestants seem to desire a “readers digest” version of salvation, and delight in various denominations to determine for themselves what minimum requirements must be met to be “saved” rather than accepting what God has revealed. It reminds me of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. Cain wanted to invent his own method of pleasing God, apart from what God had revealed.

Your statement about the doctrines of Mary “having nothing to do with Christ” only reveal your ignorance of your own family history. All the doctrines about Mary are derived from the development of the doctrines about Christ to refute heresy. If yuou deny them, then you deny the Apostolic teaching on the nature of Christ.

Jesus, Himself, states that He is the way, the truth and the life, and no man can come unto The Father, but by Him. It is our belief in Jesus (His life, death and resurrection) and the following of the 10 commandments, plus the one given unto us by Him (Love your neighbour as yourself), etc. that determines our eventual fate. Mary has nothing to do with it. She was not even allowed to touch Jesus after His resurrection, because He had not yet ascended up to His Father in heaven. (I do not believe that doubting Thomas touched Christ either. Ask yourself, would you have dared to ‘not believe Christ’, after what you had just witnessed, as Thomas had witnessed?)

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Tom,

The answers for both of the above come from the Catholic doctrine (or is it dogma?) that ordination is valid only if done by a bishop in apostolic succession as defined by the Church. Flowing from that, according to the Church, the Eucharist can be validly confected only by one ordained through that apostolic succession.

The supposed lack of apostolic succession in the Lutheran church (and in other non-Catholic churches – save the Orthodox) is based on the premise that no validly ordained bishops joined the Reformation. I believe that was true in Germany, but in Sweden the Catholic clergy were given no choice but to be brought into the Church of Sweden. Therefore, there were validly ordained clergy in that branch of Lutheranism.

Yes, although I would imagine that if a Swedish Lutheran minister converted to Catholicism, he would be conditionally reordained nevertheless.

 

[Peter_J]

Just as an aside, would the situation in Sweden be that much different than the one in England with the Anglicans?

The most obvious difference is that papal bull Apostolicae Curae (1896) stated that Anglican (Edwardian, to be more specific) orders are invalid; but there’s been no similar decree about the Swedish Lutheran orders.

 

[ralphinal]

Jesus, Himself, states that He is the way, the truth and the life, and no man can come unto The Father, but by Him. It is our belief in Jesus (His life, death and resurrection) and the following of the 10 commandments, plus the one given unto us by Him (Love your neighbour as yourself), etc. that determines our eventual fate. Mary has nothing to do with it. She was not even allowed to touch Jesus after His resurrection, because He had not yet ascended up to His Father in heaven. (I do not believe that doubting Thomas touched Christ either. Ask yourself, would you have dared to ‘not believe Christ’, after what you had just witnessed, as Thomas had witnessed?)

Wrong Mary.

 

[ralphinal]

The most obvious difference is that papal bull Apostolicae Curae (1896) stated that Anglican (Edwardian, to be more specific) orders are invalid; but there’s been no similar decree about the Swedish Lutheran orders.

I wonder why. There must be something inherently clear about why the Swedish ones are not valid but not as clear with the Anglican ones.

 

[ralphinal]

I would like to point out that no Catholic teaching says that the Blessed Virgin is required as part of our salvation. The reason the Marian dogmas are important is because of two simple things. First, the tell us about her Son. Second, because the holy Church says that they are dogmatic. Not accepting the Assumption is not a problem because you deny something granted to Mary by Christ but because you deny the Authority on Earth that Christ granted to his Church.