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

[Eternaly_Secure]

There seems to be so much in common across all Christians that i wondered what would need to be changed about the Catholic church before you would consider converting e.g. stop the focus on Mary as key for many but what else would need to change…

The Church is every born again believer that ever lived and will ever live.
I dont believe in denominations, I believe that we need to trust the Lord Jesus Christ and follow him only.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lambic Pen,

I had never thought of God engaging in Divine Brinksmanship…

I am inclined to agree. However, for the sake of argument, one could suggest that God has protected the Church from teaching dangerous error which could lead people to Hell, while not necessarily guiding the Church into complete doctrinal infallibility.

Catholics often suggest that if the Church were to be in error on even one point, then this would mean that Hell had prevailed against the Church. I think this is a bit alarmist, to say the least.

But, I am felixible…so, let’s see how this plays out with this incredible list of objections that Benedictus2 properly characterized.

belief in transubstantiation So, it really is just a symbol and Christ had His Fingers crossed?
belief that god hears our prayers So, God is really deaf?
belief that there is a moral law imposed upon man by god So, the conscience that shows up in secular novels after the murder is committed is fantasy, too?
belief that god or saints intercede on behalf of manSo, the image of Christ being the Vine and we he branches is fantasy, too?
belief in miracles So, everything can be explained?
belief that bible is the inspired word of god So, this was the early draft of the Brothers Grimm and their Fairy Tales?
view on artificial birth control So, feed and breed is what we are all about?
view on abortion So, life is not only useless but worthless, too?
belief that man is sinful at birth.So, someone missed the ‘Terrible Twos’?
Belief that god required a blood sacrifice to forgive what he himself created. So, since there is no God [sorry, Honey, this is an upper case word!] why did we go thought this truly stupid list for an atheist anyway?
Belief in god. See above

So, tell me…just for the sake of arugment, like there isn’t anything else better to do… what kind of a distinction are you making so that some error is OK for God to allow but the line is drawn at “dangerous error”? And, in your enthusiasm for answering that question, please give a reference that would allow for the All Perfect God to allow imperfection in the teachings of His Chruch (and, that would be the Catholic Church).

I think that in the area of Doctrine, there are no ‘small’ or ‘inconsequential’ or ‘insignificant’ errors.

Do you think people just start out with dangerous error? Look at Martin Luther as a classic example. He had a valid point about the error some had created by violating CC doctrine and engaging in the sale of indulgences. Now, he went from that - to throwing out the Sacrament, the Pope and everything else he did not personally agree with. The attempted sale of indulgences is only ‘small’ when you compare it to what else Luther wound up doing.

Looking forward to hearing form you.

God bless

 

[Cinette]

The Church is every born again believer that ever lived and will ever live.
I dont believe in denominations, I believe that we need to trust the Lord Jesus Christ and follow him only.

Demominations exist whether you believe in them or not - more than 40 000 of them!

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

Demominations exist whether you believe in them or not - more than 40 000 of them!

LOL.

 

[guanophore]

Probably the most stupid post i have ever read. Honey, if any of these were dropped there would be no Catholic Church to return too.

Rational thought deserted you when you left the church?

Understandable considering that wisdom comes from God

I don’t think this is fair or charitable. She answered the OP, which was basically asking “what teachings of the Church keep you from joining”. I don’t think the OP was worded very well, because I agree, if these teachings were changed, the Church could no longer be Catholic. But the list of reservations is honest, and I do not think should be belittled. What is the point of posting the question, then telling someone their answer is “stupid”?

 

[cazayoux]

Personally; I would not want to become a Catholic for any reason. There is not so much in common with Catholics and the rest of the Christian world as some would have us believe. They would have to change so much that indeed, they would not even seem Catholic anymore, if they would do what it takes to get more to join their denomination.

P101 … I saw your signature and had to ask …

The Bible is it’s own, best Expositor. The Bible is sufficient; for it is GOD’S WORD. - PROTESTANT 101

Where does the bible say it is it’s own, best Expositor?
Where does the bible say it is sufficient?

I absolutely, 1000% agree that it is God’s Word.

michel

 

[Daedelus76]

"There cannot be you truth and my truth, for this would mean that their is NO TRUTH."

Love and prayers:heart:

This is only true if you believe in bivalent logic. Actually, there are logical systems, such as certain Indian ones, that deny that bivalent logic is absolute. For instance, in Buddhism (and Jainism, and to a lesser extent, Hinduism) ultimate reality is perspectival, it is indeed possible for one person and another person to see the same thing in a different way, and the this “Truth” as it is, to be beyond all rationality.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Thank you for this excellent link. It was like finding a unexpected treasure!

I would like to expand on that and list here the Biblical background for the Liturgy of the Mass taken from this website : http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Biblical_Mass_Texts.htm

God bless

 

[1beleevr]

Cinette: I would not waste my time or yours, relating true instances of catholic friends, who use profanity at will, or brag about getting drunk! Just last year, during a heated debate about legalism, one of my best friends, who just happens to be a catholic, dropped at least 5 F-bombs on me, and 3 GD’S, Your comment, as catty as it seems about them telling me these things in a dream, would be tantamount to me saying,“Well maybe, someone told you in a dream that the catholic church was the one founded by Christ!”

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Confession? I’ll tell you my experience. When I came back to the Church after a long absence I found myself checking my actions all the time because I would remember that I would have to go to confession and many, many times I changed direction and stopped myself from committing sin precisely because of Confession. When we go to confession we confess to God in the presence of the Priest who will counsel us and give us absolution when we tell him of our sorrow and regret for our sins and when we express our desire never to commit them again. If we are not repentent the absolution won’t be effective because God knows our hearts.

Thank you for your post. This is good to hear.

So yes, the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church into infallibility because it is Christ’s Church. And indeed, a tiny error will mean that the gates of hell has prevailed.

I suppose I tend to look at this from a military perspective. If an Army loses a battle, it does not immediately declare the war to be lost. It continues to fight and work toward victory. For example, the Allies in World War II suffered many setbacks, but one cannot say that the Axis Powers prevailed against them.

Perhaps the Church is always infallible in everything that it teaches, free from error and confusion. However, if, for a time, it was to teach something that was not fully correct, I do not think this means the Church has been defeated.

Prior to, say, Vatican I, I am sure that many within the Church taught that papal infallibility was not true. The Church today would say that they were teaching falsehood, though innocently. Despite 1800 years of allowing error on this matter, the Church did survive, pronounced its doctrine, and is still here today.

Some may say that the Church was not infallibly speaking against papal infallibility prior to Vatican I, and that, therefore, the authoritative teaching office of the Church was not in error. I understand that. I am simply saying that, from a Catholic perspective, error did exist within the Church, and the Church was not destroyed.

Hi Pen. I think you’ve got us all wrong.

Say for example a council makes a decree about some doctrinal matter or other. If it’s false, that doesn’t mean that the Church is wrong; rather it means that that council is a local council, not an ecumenical council, and hence can’t be said to represent the Church.

How would one know if the council’s decision was false, thereby rendering it the decision of a local, rather than ecumenical, council?

So, tell me…just for the sake of arugment, like there isn’t anything else better to do… what kind of a distinction are you making so that some error is OK for God to allow but the line is drawn at “dangerous error”?

I don’t presume to tell God what He may or may not allow. People are in error all the time, about a great number of things, and God allows this. I don’t think this means He has abandoned us and doesn’t care.

And, in your enthusiasm for answering that question, please give a reference that would allow for the All Perfect God to allow imperfection in the teachings of His Chruch (and, that would be the Catholic Church).

Perhaps one example would be allowing doctrine to develop, rather than be fully perfected and detailed at the time of Christ. The Church teaches things now that it did not teach one thousand years ago or two thousand years ago. Error was present in the past, and, as time has gone by, this error has been identified and dogmatic pronouncements have been made to clarify the matter. People at the time of Christ did not have a perfect understanding of papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, purgatory, etc., and God allowed this.

Do you think people just start out with dangerous error? Look at Martin Luther as a classic example. He had a valid point about the error some had created by violating CC doctrine and engaging in the sale of indulgences.

As this error was committed by others, what was Martin Luther’s initial error? Martin Luther may have committed a number of errors. Personally, I certainly think he did. However, I do not think his opposition to those selling indulgences was one of them.

God bless

God bless you too!

 

[Daedelus76]

I think infallibility is hard to stomach, so is the juridical approach to religion born of Scholasticism, the fact that “moral theology” for Catholics seems to come down to sexual ethics almost exclusively, the celibate priesthood, and so forth. Other than that, I don’t see a problem with the beliefs. Belief in saints and the virgin mary seems harmless to me… I’d submit that subjective immortality would be rather worthless if people can’t pray to you in “heaven”. Then again, some people believe in “soul sleep” in Protestantism, which IMO is a ridiculous idea and seems to be contradicted by peoples actually experiences (near-death experiences).

Personally, I have trouble stomaching the idea of a literal bodily resurrection and end the world, it probably sounded great to people that believed the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, but I don't buy it.  There are alot of liberal Protestants that don't believe in it, either.  One conservative evangelical say "take the Ressurection away and you are left with Plato's Phaedo", to which I say "What's so bad about Socrates?"  Zombie bodies rising up out of the ground probably sounded great to simple-minded peasants and fishermen.  Personally, being confined to "this body" sounds like Hell more than Heaven.  Even with Jesus resurrection stories, it is clear that he doesn't have a normal physical body- it appears physical but does things that breaks "natural law".  The whole last judgement just sounds like stuff out of Zoroastrian religion.  I find it hard to believe that the world is going to end and 110+ billion people will be shoved onto this small little planet.  Again, doesn't sound very heavenly to me.

Also, Catholics still sort-of believe the Bible is infallible, and I don’t. You can read Mark and Matthew and compare them and see Jesus saying different things. In one of them, he tells Peter to be silent when he calls him the Messiah, in another version (Matthew) he tells Peter that he’s going to get the “keys to the kingdom”. They can’t both be right. In one version Jesus tells people they will be forgiven only if they forgive others, in another version he gives authority to “the church” to bind and loose sin. There are contradicitons all over the place, that’s the way I see it. I’m sure Jesus was a real person, but the Bible seems to have alot of contradiction.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LittleSage,

Yes, there are many beautiful Catholic Churches.

Homosexuality as an issue to change is an interesting item.

There’s a few things I disagree with, but the big one is their stance on Homosexuality. I won’t go into it, as I’m rather opinionated, but suffice it to say that God loves everyone, or so I understand it.

While the Bible (both OT & NT) do not given practicing homosexuals any latitude… the inspired authors are equally critical of those who commit fornication and/or adultery. Anyone who practices sexual immorality is not in conformity with God’s Divine Plan for the Human Race.

To the best of my knowledge, the CC has always had the position of hating the sin but loving the sinner…because we are all sinners that Christ came to save. Those who insist in practicing their sin - whatever it may be - are simply stating that they would rather have sin then God. And, that is what free will is all about: there are consequences for every action.

Would you be having this issue with the CC on fornication or adultary - or, for that matter, those who have sex with children, animals or the dead!? A line has clearly been drawn by God, announced by His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) and spelled out clearly in the Bible. The only real question is, where do you stand in relaitonship to that line.

God bless,

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Guanophore,

I realize that your post was directed to Benedictus2 - who is more then capable of responding on her own… but, I wanted to say that I agreed with her assessment.

I don’t think this is fair or charitable. She answered the OP, which was basically asking “what teachings of the Church keep you from joining”. I don’t think the OP was worded very well, because I agree, if these teachings were changed, the Church could no longer be Catholic. But the list of reservations is honest, and I do not think should be belittled. What is the point of posting the question, then telling someone their answer is “stupid”?

Yes, the comment could easily be seen as belittling - but, your assumption that the list was honest, is taking a lot on faith in and of itself.

Personally, I saw this list as offensive and simply a litany of why she is no longer a Catholic and a bitter and self-serving explaination at that. IMO, neither the content or tone expressed in this list really belong on CAF as a forum for those primarily interested in knowing more about the CC.

God bless,

 

[1beleevr]

Hey cinette: In your reply to Thorwald, you pointed out that he resorts to insults, when unable to answer questions! In fact, you cited Matthew 7:1, concerning judgement! So, I am wondering; when catholics use insults, whether veiled or not, are they insulated by virtue of being catholic, from Matthew 7:1?

 

[Peter_J]

How would one know if the council’s decision was false, thereby rendering it the decision of a local, rather than ecumenical, council?

I would point you to the quotation here. (I would repost it, except that I’ve already posted it a couple times, and I don’t want to start annoying people. )

 

[distracted]

the belief that you can do whatever you want and still be considered a good Christian and also still go straight to Heaven when you die…

True, the Church doesn’t teach this but you would never knwo it by the behavior of certain individual Catholics…

(i AM Catholic… but sometimes… not exactly whole-heartedly so…because some of the most pagan-like, agnostic-like people i’ve met call themselves Catholic)…

but (sigh)… i just try to focus on the good ones…

hmmm… if i only I knew some…

just kidding…

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The Church is every born again believer that ever lived and will ever live.
I dont believe in denominations, I believe that we need to trust the Lord Jesus Christ and follow him only.

I totally agree with the sentiments of this post. This is EXACTLY what I have been at pains to point out since I first came on this forum.

Salvation is always by GOD’S GRACE ALONE; this is why there are true Christians who are ‘Catholics’ and true Christians who are affiliated under various ‘denominational labels’. The Lord knows those who are His. There is only ONE, TRUE UNIVERSAL CHURCH which was founded by Jesus Christ on the Day of Pentecost. This Church is a SPIRITUAL ORGANISM which is INTIMATELY CONNECTED to Christ through REGENERATION AND THE NEW BIRTH. There is no other Church!

Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of humans. He is a Mighty Saviour and in His awesome grace He draws His people to Himself, into the true/universal Body of Christ. I praise God that I have met ‘Catholics’ who I regard as true Christians, who are saved, who are cleansed by the Blood of Christ and who will be in heaven with me. Praise God!

Please hear me carefully; the so-called institutional Church does NOT SAVE - only Christ saves. Christ saves repentant sinners who put their faith and trust in CHRIST’S FINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS as their only way of Salvation!

It really is simple. I have met fine ‘Catholics’ who are Christians; but they are not saved because they are ‘Catholics’ - they are saved by Christ’s blood alone. The same applies to so-called ‘Protestants’ and so on.

I have met, furthermore, hypocrites who are ‘Protestants’ and hypocrites who are ‘Catholics’; I have met Saints who are ‘Catholics’ and Saints who are ‘Protestants’. I think you get the point.

I am convinced that Christ did not found an INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH such as is seen in the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC, in my view, is an historical phenomena that developed in history. Having said this, though, I rejoice that God has used the RCC at times to bring glory to Himself through the centuries and I rejoice that God has had some of His precious people in this institution.

I do NOT believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, nor do I buy into some of the excessive ‘bagging’ of the RCC by certain sections of ‘Protestantism’.

This is where I am at in my Christian life and walk. I am grateful for the ‘Catholics’ on this forum board who I consider as true Christians and friends In Christ.

In the love and grace of Christ, the Saviour

Craig

 

[benedictus2]

demominations exist whether you believe in them or not - more than 40 000 of them!

** excellent point!!!**

 

[Cinette]

Hi Craig -

I am sleepy - just woken up. However I would like to focus on something you said:

Salvation is always by GOD’S GRACE ALONE; this is why there are true Christians who are ‘Catholics’ and true Christians who are affiliated under various ‘denominational labels’.

I believe that the Catholic Church believes this too.

Grace is given to us by God and it is through grace that we have Faith. I don’t believe Faith comes first - grace comes first. Grace is for all who strive to be good whether they believe in God or not.

There! I have set the cat among the pigeons!

It is through grace that people are good. There are good people who do not believe in God.



going, going - click

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think this is fair or charitable. She answered the OP, which was basically asking “what teachings of the Church keep you from joining”. I don’t think the OP was worded very well, because I agree, if these teachings were changed, the Church could no longer be Catholic. But the list of reservations is honest, and I do not think should be belittled. What is the point of posting the question, then telling someone their answer is “stupid”?

Yes I do realize that my post was uncharitable but there is no getting away from the fact that it is stupid.

What makes it totally stupid is the last line. What is a religion without a belief in God?

She is in effect saying that if the Catholic Church became atheist she/he would become Catholic. But if that were so there is no need for him/her to cease to be atheist.

And that is why I still say that rationality eluded him/her.

At least the others said Mary or Confession or some other particular Catholic doctrine which does not stop the Catholic Church from still being a religion if she were to drop these doctrines.