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

[SteveGC]

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

Hi again, 1beleevr…you almost sound Catholic here, especially in terms of ‘opportunity for relationship’, and ‘confession of sins’. Realize that devout Catholics are VERY in-tune, personally, with Christ Jesus. He is the source and summit of our worship. And we do confess our sins to God the Father, we always have, and always will.

One thing we’d adjust at the end of your comment…“Jesus’ death on the Cross for the forgiveness of confessed sins of a repentent heart.” In other words, Jesus’ death only forgives your past sins if you come to him as a professed and repentent sinner (your ‘sinners prayer’, our reconcilliation sacrament)…and in the exact same way, this applies to your present and future sins as well. You must come to God in this humble, contrite manner so long as your life continues to be plagued with sin (which, for most of us, takes us to our deathbed).

God Bless

 

[orange_man]

After 42 years as a follower of Christ, I can’t imagine it would make any difference if they dropped any teachings or not; I still would not feel the need to be a catholic! But, if I were to speculate, I would say, let us eat meat on Fridays, do away with transsubstantiation, and the obligation to go to confession with a priest! Is it true that the catholic church does not condone oral sex between married couples?

these sort of rules so miss the point it’s unfathomable to think any denomination could have ever pulled these ideas from scripture or the teaching of any apostle. Any true Christian should be holy (we’re sealed with the Holy Spirit after all) … but that doesn’t mean ascribing to some laundry list of man made rules.

Catholics tend to focus on rituals they have promulgated over the centuries i.e. don’t eat meat on Friday’s, say your rosary, venerate people they presume to be saints, sin away but make sure you hit confession on Saturday, and so on. As a Presbyterian (Orthodox or PCA) we focus on actual holiness. We shun adultery, drunkardness, homosexuality, anger, use of foul language, pornography, etc. I attended a Catholic college and most of the priests there were drunks, grossly overweight (gluttons), etc. something the PCA or OPC would never tolerate.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Try living in Norther Ireland or Scotland and you will realise that this name has all sorts of extreme protestant connotations. The oarange men are the most anti Catholic organisation you can get - a bit like the KKK is to blacks

oh dang it all

 

[ralphinal]

these sort of rules so miss the point it’s unfathomable to think any denomination could have ever pulled these ideas from scripture or the teaching of any apostle. Any true Christian should be holy (we’re sealed with the Holy Spirit after all) … but that doesn’t mean ascribing to some laundry list of man made rules.

Catholics tend to focus on rituals they have promulgated over the centuries i.e. don’t eat meat on Friday’s, say your rosary, venerate people they presume to be saints, sin away but make sure you hit confession on Saturday, and so on. As a Presbyterian (Orthodox or PCA) we focus on actual holiness. We shun adultery, drunkardness, homosexuality, anger, use of foul language, pornography, etc. I attended a Catholic college and most of the priests there were drunks, grossly overweight (gluttons), etc. something the PCA or OPC would never tolerate.

First, the meat thing is not just some ritual. It actually has meaning. It is choosing to give up something that we like to better our soul. WOuld you dare tell Christ that he should not have fasted for forty days?

Are you saying that there are no overweight PCA or OPC ministers? None of them were alcoholics? None of them committed adultry? Are homosexual? Have tempers? Veiw porn?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

The OP’s question is well meant, but sort of negates itself the closer you look at it. Everything depends on whether the Roman Catholic Church is what she claims to be. If not, I’d do better not to join. If so, it’s not my place to ask change on the RCC’s part–quite the opposite.

If the question is, “what about the Catholic Church would make it more pleasing to me,” I don’t really have the stomach to answer that. I’d like–LIKE–to become the sort of person who will sign on for the truth, regardless of whether or not the truth suits me. If the question is, “what changes would help persuade you that the Catholic Church is the true Church,” well, you’re getting warmer, but answering that question would simply give you MY idea of what it would be like. If one’s own instincts and preferences are reliable on those points, then who needs a Church, and who even needs a Saviour?

Now, I’d like to think that some of my opinions are closer to the Church’s than they appear at first blush to be. For example, there may be Protestants who have essentially Catholic understandings of grace, but opaque Catholic jargon and centuries of polemic have made it difficult to see.

There are other issues where I don’t and may never appreciate Catholic teaching–issues such as certain Marian doctrines (the perpetual virginity, that “Queen of Heaven” business), contraception and the obligation of reproducing in the first place, social teachings on labor, the death penalty, etc. This weird, almost dismissive attitude toward poor catechesis (what being unbaptized is to Catholics, not understanding basic salvational doctrine is to Protestants). Other Protestants may have other issues. But if the Catholic Church is what it claims to be, it’s not our job to bring it into line with us.

 

[orange_man]

Try living in Norther Ireland or Scotland and you will realise that this name has all sorts of extreme protestant connotations. The oarange men are the most anti Catholic organisation you can get - a bit like the KKK is to blacks

of course the same could be said about the IRA if you’re Protestant … however, in truth the Orange Men are not a hate organization, they’re a protestant defense organization.

 

[NDfan]

to know what are the true teachings? the writings of the early fathers will be of great help. if those men who lived w/in generation after Jesus could not convince a skeptical Christian, nothing can. this site has many writings of the early fathers in its archives which you can access. good luck.
God bless.

Ok emarc I’ve seen all the writings of the ECFs. So here’s a question. Which ones do you use? Do you take Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement given they may have had contact with the Apostles? If their writings are of such great help then why are they not considered official canon?

If you go much later than say the late 1st century to early 2nd century all you end up with is commentary from folks who are interpreting scripture. If we look at the 3 I mentioned above you find nothing in the way of Immaculate Conception, Sinless Nature of Mary, Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome etc. etc. Point of fact if you read Ignatius’ letter addressed to the church in Rome, he mentions no Bishop at all let alone one that is supreme or considered the vicar of Christ.

So then why should I trust something someone wrote maybe in the 3rd or 4th century? Because they lived closer to the time of Christ than someone today so they should no more?

 

[NDfan]

That is a great insight, and needs to be addressed more often than not; I too struggled with this as a Roman Catholic. After much research I discovered that these dogmas became dogmas because the apostolic teachings came under attack. The Catholic church after much scrutiny (from Councils, Synods, Saints, and Popes) to these belief’s concludes that any Catholic from this day foward who denounces these belief’s which have now been defended and defined as Apostolic and can never change will be excommunicated.

Hello Gabriel how are you brother??

Sorry to interrupt this post with Lambic but I wanted to ask a few questions. If we look back at the first councils and the representation they had we find that many of the churches who considered themselves to be Christian were not represented. So we really can’t claim that many of these councils were truly ecumenical. Look at the council of Nicaea which was called by Constantine. We had Bishops right within what became known as the Catholic church that held different views on the nature of Christ. This all was taken by their interpretation of scripture. And we find that the councils mostly appealed to scripture to try to define their dogmas. Now the councils usually made their final decisions by majority vote. Is it really fair to say that because the majority voted one way that this now is absolute truth?? And we really can’t consider it to be a majority given the entire church was not represented. I’m curious what your thoughts are on this and what have you found in your research?

In other words upon studying the early church fathers and sacred scripture along with apostolic “Tradition” these belief’s are taught and believed in since the Old and New testament periods. To aquire this full deposit of faith, one need not look at the New Testament “Only”, but at all of God’s Word, Jesus teachings from the Septuagint which Protestants reject as Inspired of God, along with Apostolic Oral and Sacred Tradition in order to grasp these full deposits of faith and revelation.

I would challenge the septuagint given that there are many versions written by different people. And it was compiled over a long period of time. Not the 70 or 72 days some claim. Now Protestants don’t reject the entire Septuagint so you’re making kind of an unfair statement here. Just the Apocryophal works which the Jews also reject.

As far as sacred tradition I don’t dismiss it because I think it’s important to know what the early churches were doing. But sacred tradition cannot contradict scripture. 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.

If you hold to the New testament as or just the bible as your only source of revelation and your interpretation of scripture, one will always fall short of the full deposit of faith. Besides the Catholic church has been divinely instituted by Jesus Christ himself through the Chair of Peter to protect these teachings, feed, and teach his sheepfold, that is why Jesus built his Church upon “Rock” because she will not bend to every wind of doctrine, and she cannot change for the whims of man, and she will not move for no one, except God.

Well once you truly understand the meaning of Matthew 16 then the whole chair of Peter thing kind of falls by the wayside. But not to derail the thread we face an interesting dilemma because the OP asks an intriguing question. If we said that there are dogmas of faith that are required for our salvation what would those dogmas be and can Protestants and Catholics ever agree? 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?

Peace Gabriel

 

[NDfan]

Are you saying that Mary is just a distant figure in history who servered her purpose and now has no influence at all on Jesus?

Yes. Because that would imply Jesus gives special treatment. If I pray to GOD then by your implication HE may not listen to me but if Mary intercedes then suddenly I have leverage. Using the wedding at Cana is so typical of taking 1 verse of scripture and twisting it to mean something universal.

Why don’t we see anyone in scripture asking a deceased Christian for intercession?? Stephen and James were killed for their faith among many others. We read constantly that the Apostles prayed to GOD but we never see any of them say Stephen please pray for us, or James please pray for us. We see them telling each other who are alive to intercede in prayer for one another. Actually please show me an ECF that wrote that they prayed for Mary’s intercession.

 

[promethius]

I would beg to differ here. Although I wouldn’t expect you to agree. The church did not teach transubstantiation nor did the concept of the mass exist in the early church. We also don’t see any teachings or devotion to Mary until the 4th - 5th century. This is where the argument will always fall off the cliff because Catholics and non-Catholics will continue to disagree.

I’m certainly NOT going to agree with statements which are historically inaccurate. I’ll recopy a post I made previously for you here since it appears you’ve fallen to the error of believing protestants when they deceive with the idea that early christian worship didn’t resemble the mass.

Well, I think there’s a reason that protestants have gone with the historically and scriptural untenable position of sola scriptura. That is because it provides a wonderful excuse to ignore legitimate FACT about what occurred, be that in the form of inscriptions in ancient roman catechombs, writings of the early church fathers, paintings and art forms from as early as 75 AD portraying the mass, and also historical accounts by roman scholars.

Historical documentation shows that one of the major concerns of pagan roman authorities was rumors of cannibalism taking part at Christian worship. This can ONLY be the case if a eucharistic celebration was already in place AND if Real Presence was the accepted standard projected by those worship events. In 155 AD, a samarian convert named Justin wrote in a letter to the emperor (i’ll make notes in this color):

:
Originally Posted by Justin

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.* [readings of the liturgy of the word, still in mass today]*** When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to immitate these beautiful things. [the homily. Still in practice today] Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves… and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. [known as prayers of the faithful, still in practice today] When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. [the sign of peace. Still in practice today] Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the bretheren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks [in greek: eucharistian] that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.** [consecration as part of the liturgy of the Eucharist, still in practice today]** When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying “Amen.” [known as the “great amen”, still in practice today] When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine, and water and take them to those who are absent. [distribution of the Eucharist, important enough that it is taken to those who could not be present. Still in practice today]

and so if we refuse the unscholarly and unbiblical practice of rejecting truth in favor of a made up dogma of “sola scriptura” and if we actually look into the historical documentation, we can clearly see that the structure of the mass is the same exact organization today as it was in 155 AD.

Further, we can surmise that the original post is incredibly flawed in it’s statement that these practices didn’t originate until after 200 AD, since we clearly have proof from roman historians that the mass organization was an established practice as early as 155 AD and likely earlier (other accounts exist, but Justin gives an incredibly detailed and perceptive one).

 

[firstmode]

I’m certainly NOT going to agree with statements which are historically inaccurate. I’ll recopy a post I made previously for you here since it appears you’ve fallen to the error of believing protestants when they deceive with the idea that early christian worship didn’t resemble the mass.

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. [readings of the liturgy of the word, still in mass today] When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to immitate these beautiful things. [the homily. Still in practice today] Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves… and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. [known as prayers of the faithful, still in practice today] When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. [the sign of peace. Still in practice today] Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the bretheren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks [in greek: eucharistian] that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. [consecration as part of the liturgy of the Eucharist, still in practice today] When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying “Amen.” [known as the “great amen”, still in practice today] When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine, and water and take them to those who are absent. [distribution of the Eucharist, important enough that it is taken to those who could not be present. Still in practice today

Wow, that is the exact description of how we do our church service in protestantism as well.

Of course the singing is not mentioned, it comes before the reading of the Word of God, but I suppose it does in the Catholic Church as well in these present days.
[/quote]

 

[1beleevr]

Orange man: I attend a nondenominational church, and would probably be labeled as Protestant by the catholic church!But, anyway, we pretty much follow the same guidlines on the topics you listed; but keeping in mind that no one is beyond God’s love and forgiveness! We believe that for those of us who have struggled with any type of addiction, or habit that detracts our attention from the Lord, can and will be restored by Our Heavenly Father through confession of said sin, repentance, and prayer. Also, we support programs, such as Celebrate Recovery, a wonderful, Bible-based ministry, originated by Rick Warren!

 

[firstmode]

What would make a 1 Unifying Universal Church for me?

One that is formed on Biblical Truths.

Belief in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Speaking in Tongues for Personal Edification of prayer, Speaking in Tongues outloud for interpretation by another in the church, Prophecy, etc. all being allowed.

All Marian Dogma dropped. Mary being seen as a great follower of the Lord, just as Paul was, just as Billy Graham is, etc. Seriously, if you have a bead necklace for prayer to Mary you need to make one for St. Paul! He was the MAN! Or better yet, St. Peter!!! HE WAS THE ROCK! Why not ask for intercession from him more than Mary? YOU SHOULD SEEK INTERCESSION FROM PETER 1,000,000 TIMES MORE TIMES THAN MARY! THAT DUDE WAS THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN! Mary is just a person that played a role in God’s plan, just like John the Baptist. Jesus said that John the baptist was the GREATEST profit of all, and he then said that those who follow the son of man are even GREATER than John the baptist!! WOW, Jesus said I am GREATER than John the baptist. I certainly do not feel this way and it is very humbling, but I will believe him and just seek holiness as much as I can.

Confession of Sin through a priest a requirement to the forgiveness of sins. I know that Jesus died for all my sins on the cross, I cannot re-crucify him. I just need to make sure to ask for forgiveness for my sins to receive his purifying love. I do not NEED a person to hear my sins to be forgiven, but I do tell of my sins to others, such as my close friends or my wife. I tell them where i am struggling, where I have sinned (confess them) and ask them for prayers in my growth in holiness.

I dont know guys, this thread seem pointless.

I know we all have our disagreements and we bicker back and forth. I just want you guys to know that you are my BROTHERS and SISTERS in Christ and I love you dearly! I cannot wait to spend eternity worshiping God with you in heaven with you, side by side, unified.

Until then I think us Christ followers all have a little bit of the puzzle wrong, but that has definitely not allowed the gates of hell to prevail against the universal church!! The Church has won! Christ has won!

 

[Publisher]

Your comment shows ignorance my friend. What you describe doesn’t sound remotely like the Catholic Church!

You would be “surprised by truth”!!

Yes I have been told my only hope is “invincible ignorance”…which I embrace happily.

My point, I have no need of a “priest” performing any ritual or sacrament on my behalf…that a “priesthood” exists other than the “priesthood of all believers” is what I cannot accept. The work of Christ as High Priest is the only Priest I need to act on my behalf.

 

[bilop]

Yes I have been told my only hope is “invincible ignorance”…which I embrace happily.

My point, I have no need of a “priest” performing any ritual or sacrament on my behalf…that a “priesthood” exists other than the “priesthood of all believers” is what I cannot accept. The work of Christ as High Priest is the only Priest I need to act on my behalf.

If that is true, why did Jesus select his Apostles and send them forth? Why did these Apostles, who knew Christ personally, and died horrific deaths for him, ordain other men as bishops, priests, and deacons. And why did these men (within the lives of the Apostles) offer Mass, and other Sacraments?

God Bless

 

[Peter_J]

The OP’s question is well meant, but sort of negates itself the closer you look at it. Everything depends on whether the Roman Catholic Church is what she claims to be. If not, I’d do better not to join. If so, it’s not my place to ask change on the RCC’s part–quite the opposite.

If the question is, “what about the Catholic Church would make it more pleasing to me,” I don’t really have the stomach to answer that. I’d like–LIKE–to become the sort of person who will sign on for the truth, regardless of whether or not the truth suits me. If the question is, “what changes would help persuade you that the Catholic Church is the true Church,” well, you’re getting warmer, but answering that question would simply give you MY idea of what it would be like. If one’s own instincts and preferences are reliable on those points, then who needs a Church, and who even needs a Saviour?

Now, I’d like to think that some of my opinions are closer to the Church’s than they appear at first blush to be. For example, there may be Protestants who have essentially Catholic understandings of grace, but opaque Catholic jargon and centuries of polemic have made it difficult to see.

There are other issues where I don’t and may never appreciate Catholic teaching–issues such as certain Marian doctrines (the perpetual virginity, that “Queen of Heaven” business), contraception and the obligation of reproducing in the first place, social teachings on labor, the death penalty, etc. This weird, almost dismissive attitude toward poor catechesis (what being unbaptized is to Catholics, not understanding basic salvational doctrine is to Protestants). Other Protestants may have other issues. But if the Catholic Church is what it claims to be, it’s not our job to bring it into line with us.

Hi Le Cracquere,

Clearly, you believe that the Catholic Church teaches some things which are erroneous. That’s not really surprising. (Presumably, if you didn’t think that, then you would be Catholic yourself.)

What’s curious to me is that it seems (reading between the lines) that you believe the Catholic Church is, if you will, “infallibly wrong”. I.e., that she teaches errors and will never stop teaching those errors.

Kind of a bleak position to take, if I may say so.

 

[NDfan]

I’m certainly NOT going to agree with statements which are historically inaccurate. I’ll recopy a post I made previously for you here since it appears you’ve fallen to the error of believing protestants when they deceive with the idea that early christian worship didn’t resemble the mass.

Paul this is so weak and I mean no disrespect but this just shows you don’t understand the purpose of the mass. All you showed to me was that Justin wrote how Christians worshiped and inserted what you thought the Catholic church does that resembles what Justin wrote. By this post all protestants could claim they follow the mass as you say. Even our church follows a similar liturgical service that is described in your post.

But that’s not the mass. The mass has nothing to do with the order of service. That’s called the liturgy or as you may have heard liturgy of the mass or order of the mass. The mass itself is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ in an unbloody manner. The word mass from a religious perspective means a death sacrifice. That’s why Catholics ask GOD to accept the sacrifice at our hand. Meaning accept the sacrifice of Christ again for our sins even though Christ said it is finished on the cross and Scripture clearly tells us there are no more sacrifices for sin. So going back to your post we see nothing of a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice nor the phrase GOD accept the sacrifice at our hand. We just see them partaking in communion with ordinary bread and wine and then saying Amen which is exactly what we do. So again as I stated we have no proof that the early church practiced the mass.

 

[NDfan]

Wow, that is the exact description of how we do our church service in protestantism as well.

Of course the singing is not mentioned, it comes before the reading of the Word of God, but I suppose it does in the Catholic Church as well in these present days.

You too huh Firstmode I said the same thing in response to Paul. Seems he doesn’t understand what Mass really is.

 

[Publisher]

If that is true, why did Jesus select his Apostles and send them forth? Why did these Apostles, who knew Christ personally, and died horrific deaths for him, ordain other men as bishops, priests, and deacons. And why did these men (within the lives of the Apostles) offer Mass, and other Sacraments?

God Bless

The belief in “apostolic succession” was one of the earmarks of the emerging proto-orthodox/catholic church, which eventually gained dominance as the largest “version” of Christianity in those first centuries of Christian history after the fall of Jerusalem. I understand it is part of Catholci belief and I’m ok with that understanding…I do not embrace it myself, but if this belief makes the message of Christ real in your life and helps to conform you to His nature…I am all for it…we each must seek and follow the Light of Christ.

 

[1beleevr]

Hey, Cinette: Thanks for the acknowledgement, even with the frown! After 42 years of walking with Christ, there’s no use in changing horses in the middle of the stream! What’s that old saying,“If it aint boke, don’t fix it”! And it’s nice to see that ther are others who agree about the confession of sins to a mere mortal man! And before anyone hits us with anointment of these priests, through Apostolic succession, please be reminded that the original Apostles(disciples) walked and talked with are Lord, and WERE anointed of the highest order!