WHY are you NOT a Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then, permit me to attempt to reply to your Primacy concerns. I’m at a disadvantage here not knowing what you have already been told & the space restrictions of this NEW CAF.

I just noticed I missed the age concern of your children and communion. In the RCC 1st Communion usually takes place around the age of reason [7]… earlier than that and they are only following along; NOT comprehending what it IS that they are doing.

I Can [space permitting] show you a list of 50 PETER first from the bible [IT CAN be GOOGLED] but check these out: Mt 10 1-3 [then read verses 4-8] & Mt 28:19-20], Mt 16:18-19, and John 21:10-17 ALL of which are to be taken literally.
It is notable that Jesus Choosing Peter was [dare I say “just”] following OT Tradition of Yahweh, who consistently choose 1 MAN to lead His “chosen people” Exo 6:7; which Jesus continues with Peter. “My Church” Mt 16:18

Yahweh choose Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Judges, the kings like David, the Prophets who lead to John the Baptist, who lead to Jesus who choose 12 MEN to be led by Peter, holder of THE KEY’S & His Authority Jn 17: 17-20

BUT my friend, the Pope does NOT operate in a vacuum; as the NORM, he works with, in and through the Magisterium, in union with the Cardinals and Bishops. The Pope can when circumstances call for it, ACT ALONE in teaching on Faith and Morals; but that is very rare. The Bishops too can speak infallibly when teaching on FAITH & Morals and in UNION [agreement/ non -contradictory] with Rome.
The Largest part of the Popes task is Governance of the Universal Church which serves through ROME a worldwide common community of beliefs for over one BILLION Catholics; so not unlike a worldwide corporation; there is a HIGH degree of delegation of his authority as is articulated in Canon Law: 331-359

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM

PERSONALLY, I struggle a bit understanding this concern. … Mt 16:15-19 seems to ME, to be precisely clear.

Mt 16: & the KEY”S too was following Traditions of that time & place. It was common then for each walled-in-city which did have gates with keys, to have a KING. Who choose a Visar, whom he gave the KEYS & unlimited power of Governance of that cities day to day business ANSWERABLE ONLY to that KING. This is precisely what Jesus knew and was passing on to PETER. And this was completely understood and accepted by ALL that witnessed the transfer of POWER from Jesus to PETER and shared later Mt 18:18 with the others THROUGH Peter.

I do hope and pray this is of help to you,

God bless you & your family,
Patrick [PJM]
 
TRUST ME, I AM very well informed about ALL the turmoil going on. I Am CERTIFIED [trained and tested] Marian Catechist, Cardinal Burke is the International Director of our Organization founded By Fr. John A. Hardon S.J., and I have met and talked with His Eminence Cardinal Burke on multiple occasions.

So in fraternal correction, HOW [???] can you agree with “MY” statement on TRUTH and then declare that you don’t belief that the RCC "owns; it? I’m not arguing, just trying to understand how to reconcile these two positions

God Bless you,
Patrick.
 
Last edited:
PJM said:
I just noticed I missed the age concern of your children and communion. In the RCC 1st Communion usually takes place around the age of reason [7]… earlier than that and they are only following along; NOT comprehending what it IS that they are doing.
Click to expand...
If full comprehension was required, no one could receive the Mysteries.

I get that there are historical circumstances at play in the Latin Rite’s decision to delay first communion, but if in the hypothetical scenario that we became Catholic, we would canonically be Byzantine Catholics and they would still be allowed to commune, etc., since they have already received baptism, confirmation and first communion since they were all 40 days old. The big issue is that the Latin Rite would be what is available to us, and even though they’d have the right to the sacraments, they would either have to stick out in receiving (and cause confusion for the other children in the parish) or stop. It would awful to say, “You’ve had full access to what the Church offers up to this point, but now you don’t,” but I also feel like saying, “You still have full access to what the Church offers, but these other kids don’t because your dad pulled the trigger on the Eastern rite while they were born in Rome” would be weird.

As to the Petrine issue, I’ve seen all the pop apologia for it over and over and over the last 15 years. I just don’t think the case is that strong.

Again, I’m not anti-the Pope (as opposed to antipope, I guess?), I just don’t see a whole lot of reason for being pro-Pope.

I appreciate that you’re trying to do the apologist thing. I’m just sharing my reasons, not looking to be convinced.
 
PJM said:
TRUST ME, I AM very well informed about ALL the turmoil going on. I Am CERTIFIED [trained and tested] Marian Catechist, Cardinal Burke is the International Director of our Organization founded By Fr. John A. Hardon S.J., and I have met and talked with His Eminence Cardinal Burke on multiple occasions.

So in fraternal correction, HOW [???] can you agree with “MY” statement on TRUTH and then declare that you don’t belief that the RCC "owns; it? I’m not arguing, just trying to understand how to reconcile these two positions

God Bless you,
Patrick.
Click to expand...
Christs call is given to each individual and that is how we will answer to Him in the end. I did not say that the CC has no truth, rather, I stated that it does not have a monopoly on the truth of Christ. There are many true belivers who are non-Catholic. I understand that is also the official position of the CC now.
 
PJM said:
Thanks for sharing!

Allow me as SPACE permits to try at least to respond to your concerns
Several reasons…

1. Infant baptism

John 3:5 & Mt 28:19

[5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless [EVERY] one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God

[19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing [ALL OF] them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

BOTH passages do not limit or exclude infants. Were that God’s intent, surely it would have been clearly stated, as Sacramental Baptism is the first and essential step to salvation.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you sharing your views in this forum. There is no historical record of infant baptism occurring before 200AD.

Kurt Aland wrote…
It can be no accident… that all of our information about the existence of infant baptism comes from the period between A.D. 200 and 250….For the time before this we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism… To this day [1963] nobody can prove an actual case of the baptism of an infant in the period before A.D. 200…. That our entire sources, at least when allowed their literal sense, have in view only the baptism of adults, or at best the baptism of older children, can as little be contested. (Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, pp. 101, 102)

Everett Ferguson wrote…
There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it means that supporters of the practice have a considerable chronological gap to account for. Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations.
Arguments against the originality of baby baptism, in addition to its lack of early attestation, include: the essential nature ascribed to verbal confession and repentance; the liturgy designed for persons of responsible age; size of baptisteries; and the lack of an agreed theology to support it (Chrysostom and the Eastern churches vs. Augustine).
The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of the practice of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries.
In the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy infant baptism was a principal support for the doctrine of original sin, rather than the other way around, since baptism was universally recognized as for forgiveness of sins. With the victory of Augustine’s arguments original sin became the reason for infant baptism in the western church. (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, pp. 856, 857)

I hope this helps…
 
PJM said:
2. inherited sin
As space is severely restricted PLEASE REREAD Genesis Chpt 2: 21-24 & all of chpt 3; especially 11-23; then NOTE please that the punishments inflicted by a JST God extended all of humanity for all time. Then note that the reasons for tese punishments flow directly & exclusively from Their ORIGINIAL SIN, which too is inherited by ALL humanity, who like A & E are created in GOD”S very Image Gen 1: 26-27
Click to expand...
Nothing in the verses you provide either state or infer that the children of Adam and Eve have some sort of inherited unholy taint because of the actions of their parents.

Scripture clearly teaches that guilt for sin is not passed from parent to child…

2 Kings 14:6 But their children he did not put to death, according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD commanded: “Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for one’s own crimes shall a person be put to death.”

Ezekiel 18:20 Only the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son. Justice belongs to the just, and wickedness to the wicked.

I hope this helps…
 
PJM said:
  1. praying in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, instead of in the name of Jesus Christ only
This is grounded in 2 facts:
Mt 16:19 ABOVE & the fact that GOD is a TRINITY:

Lk 3: 21-22 “Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that JESUS [GOD THE SON] also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened; And the HOLY GHOST [GOD THE HS] descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; [GOD THE FATHER] in thee I am well pleased”
Click to expand...
John 14:13 - And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

John 15:16 - …so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you.

John 16:23 - …whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you

Colossians 3:17 - And whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him
 
PJM said:
  1. belief in creation ex-nihilo
    OK, so where did the “something come from”… are you suggesting GOD is not ALL Powerful” The size and complexity of the Universe and humanity itself, with the Natural and Moral Laws lend POWERFUL evidence of otherwise. For example Read gen 1:26-27 & compare it to John 4: 23-24 & explain HOW & Why that is possible [I do know the answers]
Click to expand...
How could rejecting the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo suggest that God is not all powerful?!?!

The Bible both teaches that God is all powerful and also contains no hint of creation ex-nihilo.

Peter Hayman records:
“Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C. E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism.” (Peter Hayman, “Monotheism – A misused word in Jewish Studies?”)

Stanley L. Jaki, a Catholic priest of the Benedictine Order, stated:

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6

In the Bible God does not start with nothing.
 
PJM said:
5. the doctrine of the Trinity
See #3 & Isa.55: 8 to 9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Thus theology is replete throughout the NT
It is presumptuous my FRIEND to presume that man [any human] can fully and logically understand the MIND of GOD.
Click to expand...
The doctrine of the Trinity is NOT found in the Bible as these quotes from Catholics show.

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. (William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.)

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44

Note this from the New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 14 page 295:

Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century

I hope this helps…
 
Last edited:
I am not a Catholic anymore because I was searching for understanding of the gospel/etc which I did not find, resulting in me searching elsewhere. My search took where I am now and I am happy in the decision at the time and how my faith and conviction has grown greatly.
 
gazelam said:
There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44
Click to expand...
The full quote as noted at bible.ca/trinity/trinity-fortman.htm

The doctrine of the Triune God has had an amazing history. Convinced that this doctrine is a Christian doctrine that did and could originate only from divine revelation. I start the study from the authentic record of divine revelation that is found in the sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments. What does the Old Testament tell us of God? It tells us there is one God, a wonderful God of life and love and righteousness and power and glory and mystery, who is the creator and lord of the whole universe, who is intensely concerned with the tiny people of Israel. It tells us of His Word, Wisdom. Spirit, of the Messiah He will send, of a Son of Man and a Suffering Servant to come. But it tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated. To study the gradual transition from an unformulated Biblical witness to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to a dogmatic formulation of a doctrine of the Triune God, we look first to the Eastern Church where most of this development took place. The Apostolic Fathers were witnesses to the Biblical data and the traditional faith rather than theologians, but they furnished useful insights into the lines along which the Church’s unconscious theology was developing. Most of them indicated quite clearly a belief in the divinity of Christ, less clearly a belief in the distinct personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit. They gave solid evidence of a belief in three pre-existent ‘beings,’ but they furnished no trinitarian doctrine, no awareness of a trinitarian problem.
 
gazelam said:
I appreciate you sharing your views in this forum. There is no historical record of infant baptism occurring before 200AD
Click to expand...
I disagree. Please see my entry at 122 above and which I copy here:

"In addition to these passages, there are two passages in Acts that describe baptisms. First, Acts 10: 24 - 48 describes how Cornelius and his relatives and friends were baptized. In Acts, 16: 25 -34 shows that the jailer and his entire household were baptized. It could be assumed that these entire families were baptized and that this would include children.
The Church Fathers also testifiy to the baptism of infants: Origen: “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism to infants.” (Commentaries on Romans 5,9 AD 244)
St. Cyprian of Carthage: “As to what pertains of infants: you said that they ought not to baptized with the second or third day after their birth, and that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified with the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. (Letter of Cyprian and of his Colleagues in Council to the number of Sixty-Six; To Fidus [64 (59), 2] AD 251/252) Please note here that the dispute is WHEN the infant should be baptized not IF he should be baptized.”

Please especially note Origen’s statement that this teaching comes from the apostles. It should be noted that if what Origen had written was a novelty, other of the Fathers would have been all over it. There is no evidence that they did.
 
Last edited:
OK:smiley:
So you’re saying something did EXIST before God? OR did that “something” just created itself without GOD, or it “always existed”?

God Bless you FFIEND

Patrick
 
My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

[Douay explanation]
[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes
“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21]

God Bless you,
Patrick

.
 
I would also point out my friend that Jesus IS part of the Trinity AND the Trinity of Father,Son & Holy Spirit are Co-equal and Co-eternal. Amen

God Bless you,
Patricl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top