Why are you NOT Catholic, POLL

[Lucretius]

Yeah, the few of the afterlife in Judaism is so surprisingly vague when you consider how detailed Catholicism is with Hell/Purgatory/Heaven.

They say when you find two Jews you get three opinions

But seriously, I think he only thing Jews are “required” to believe in is the resurrection of the dead. And even then…

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I know I said that I didn’t really want this thread to be about debate and such, but I was wondering: why is the Pope more of a non-issue, when the Pope represents the Catholic understanding of Christian authority and interpretation of what is truly Divine Revelation? It seems like acceptance of the Pope would make the other issues lesser ones, ya know.

You are very much looking through the Roman Catholic lens. The Pope to non-RC members is something very different than what you believe he represents. Try looking at the Dalai Lama. He is the head of his faith, the head of his country (in exile) and the reincarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion.

I have great respect for the Dalai Lama, as do many, many people around the world. His teachings are ones that are filled with truth. Does that mean I am a Tibetan Buddhist? No. Do I want to become a Tibetan Buddhist? Not especially. Are his followers telling me that if I respect and try to live up to his teachings, then it must follow that I have to become a Tibetan Buddhist. I very much doubt it.

Do you understand the disconnect here? I can admire your Pope, but does that mean I must take the institution of Roman Catholicism along with him? I would doubt that he himself would ask that.

 

[catholic1seeks]

You are very much looking through the Roman Catholic lens. The Pope to non-RC members is something very different than what you believe he represents. Try looking at the Dalai Lama. He is the head of his faith, the head of his country (in exile) and the reincarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion.

I have great respect for the Dalai Lama, as do many, many people around the world. His teachings are ones that are filled with truth. Does that mean I am a Tibetan Buddhist? No. Do I want to become a Tibetan Buddhist? Not especially. Are his followers telling me that if I respect and try to live up to his teachings, then it must follow that I have to become a Tibetan Buddhist. I very much doubt it.

Do you understand the disconnect here? I can admire your Pope, but does that mean I must take the institution of Roman Catholicism along with him? I would doubt that he himself would ask that.

The person I was replying to said that the pope was a “non issue” compared to other subjects, such as the Eucharist.

In the context of this poll, the subject of the pope refers to Catholic teaching on the pope. So I was confused on how one could have a non issue with the Catholic teaching on the pope yet see the teachings which flow from the magisterium (pope and bishops; church authority) as more of an obstacle to being Catholic.

 

[arthra]

I’m not a Catholic because I’m a Baha’i…Generally only visit this site to see if there are questions about the Baha’i Faith… I respect the Church… My purpose here is not to attack the church.

 

[Rhubarb]

I am not Catholic because, I think ultimately, of what we know about the pre-Abrahamic Levant religion. It seems to me that there is a fairly clear evolution of this polytheistic religion to Judiasm, and then to Christianity. I can accept plausible reasons for believing in a deity. Philosophy is full of them. I haven’t found a clear and decisive argument for the expression of that deity being the Christian faith.

For those that do believe, I don’t think this is a death blow worry to their faith. I think there could be potential answers. But for me, none seem supported by historic or archaeological evidence as I’ve read it.

 

[meltzerboy]

They say when you find two Jews you get three opinions

But seriously, I think he only thing Jews are “required” to believe in is the resurrection of the dead. And even then…

Christi pax,

Lucretius

What you mention–the (bodily) resurrection of the dead–is one of the thirteen principles of Judaism as formulated by Maimonides. Nonetheless, it is not a requirement to believe in this except by Orthodox Judaism, and even here, the Karaite Jews may differ since the resurrection is not explicitly noted in the Torah.

 

[jane_doe]

You are very much looking through the Roman Catholic lens. The Pope to non-RC members is something very different than what you believe he represents. Try looking at the Dalai Lama. He is the head of his faith, the head of his country (in exile) and the reincarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion.

I have great respect for the Dalai Lama, as do many, many people around the world. His teachings are ones that are filled with truth. Does that mean I am a Tibetan Buddhist? No. Do I want to become a Tibetan Buddhist? Not especially. Are his followers telling me that if I respect and try to live up to his teachings, then it must follow that I have to become a Tibetan Buddhist. I very much doubt it.

Do you understand the disconnect here? I can admire your Pope, but does that mean I must take the institution of Roman Catholicism along with him? I would doubt that he himself would ask that.

This is very well said, and echoes my thoughts as well.

 

[Vanny]

Actually I’m not like most Protestants, in that I have no issue with the Marian devotions, prayer to saints, the Pope, icons, 7 Sacrements, as these are properly understood. the orthodox church has all those too but the Pope, so I can see historical precedence for all those things. Mine is the doctrine of justification. I think Luther was right about a lot of things but I didn’t want to start a new church. And yes I already know the arguments as to why he was thrown out. Just Sayin’ that unlike Henry the 8th he didn’t want to separate.
Justification in one word, you could say.
Faith alone. Although I realize that saving faith DOES have works. They are two sides of the same coin.
But I still see traces of works/righteousness and legalism in the CC, as much as I love and admire her.
I would far rather be in The Catholic Church as a conservative Catholic than join a liberal protestant denomination, if those were my only two choices. I have great admiration for the CC and consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I may wind up being Catholic someday.

 

[steido01]

Actually I’m not like most Protestants, in that I have no issue with the Marian devotions, prayer to saints, the Pope, icons, 7 Sacrements, as these are properly understood. the orthodox church has all those too but the Pope, so I can see historical precedence for all those things. Mine is the doctrine of justification. I think Luther was right about a lot of things but I didn’t want to start a new church. And yes I already know the arguments as to why he was thrown out. Just Sayin’ that unlike Henry the 8th he didn’t want to separate.
Justification in one word, you could say.
Faith alone. Although I realize that saving faith DOES have works. They are two sides of the same coin.
But I still see traces of works/righteousness and legalism in the CC, as much as I love and admire her.
I would far rather be in The Catholic Church as a conservative Catholic than join a liberal protestant denomination, if those were my only two choices. I have great admiration for the CC and consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I may wind up being Catholic someday.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d think you a Lutheran.

 

[Entwhistler]

Look inside AMerica’s prisons. Virtually No Atheists. (0.07%)

Its very possible to good without a god. Nonbelievers just recognize the intrinsic value of being good, they are not doing it for a supernatural reward or trying to avoid eternal punishment.

Atheists only comprise about 3%-6% of the American population. But that’s besides the point. I’m not saying Atheists are bad people. What I’m saying is that there is justification for almost any act per the Atheistic worldview. There would be no “intrinsic good” since good is what you make it. So as an atheist, I would not be able to say that Hitler’s atrocities were “bad.” He made his “good” or “purpose” to build up the superior Aryan race. The only thing I had to judge him by would be my own opinion which is all I would have. Not that all Atheists are maniacal mass murderers. There are plenty of atheists that are very charitable and all around great people, but the only reason to Be good is their own opinion.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

What I’m saying is that there is justification for almost any act per the Atheistic worldview. There would be no “intrinsic good” since good is what you make it. So as an atheist, I would not be able to say that Hitler’s atrocities were “bad.” He made his “good” or “purpose” to build up the superior Aryan race. The only thing I had to judge him by would be my own opinion which is all I would have.

There is no “the” atheistic worldview, just as there is no “the” theistic worldview. Atheists aren’t doomed to have to accept some sort of simplistic relativism or moral nihilism. There are plenty of metaethical theories out there that don’t require a God. If you want to argue against them, fine, but don’t pretend they don’t exist.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It isn’t Catholic Policy that once a Catholic always a Catholic.It is the effect of being baptized into the faith.The a Holy Spirit brand your soul with the mark of Catholicism.You can’t change that anymore than you can change your fingerprints.I may not have explained it perfectly,however it is a fact .

No I’m not sure that you did explain Church policy perfectly or that what you say is fact.

Unless CAF apologist Fr Grondin is wrong, he actually said here Church laws say once Baptized Catholic, always Catholic.

“The Code of Canon Law currently does not recognize that someone can leave the Catholic Church. You might become a non-practicing member, but the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12648280&postcount=2

 

[meltzerboy]

No I’m not sure that you did explain Church policy perfectly or that what you say is fact.

Unless CAF apologist Fr Grondin is wrong, he actually said here Church laws say once Baptized Catholic, always Catholic.

“The Code of Canon Law currently does not recognize that someone can leave the Catholic Church. You might become a non-practicing member, but the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12648280&postcount=2

That is what Jeanne is saying. IOW, it is not so-called “Catholic Policy” but rather the effect of baptism that makes you Catholic forever.

 

[Entwhistler]

There is no “the” atheistic worldview, just as there is no “the” theistic worldview. Atheists aren’t doomed to have to accept some sort of simplistic relativism or moral nihilism. There are plenty of metaethical theories out there that don’t require a God. If you want to argue against them, fine, but don’t pretend they don’t exist.

Hmm. As of now I’m not convinced. I can see where you are coming from though. I suppose I could be persuaded. Maybe…

 

[Jeanne_S]

No I’m not sure that you did explain Church policy perfectly or that what you say is fact.

Unless CAF apologist Fr Grondin is wrong, he actually said here Church laws say once Baptized Catholic, always Catholic.

“The Code of Canon Law currently does not recognize that someone can leave the Catholic Church. You might become a non-practicing member, but the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12648280&postcount=2

That is pretty much what I said.Once a Catholic always a Catholic.

 

[Sy_Noe]

That is pretty much what I said.Once a Catholic always a Catholic.

Oh ok. Sorry I did misunderstand what you were saying. When you said “It isn’t Catholic Policy that once a Catholic always a Catholic” and then went into about a mark of Catholicism, I was just reminded of once being told I was not Catholic and there was merely catholicity or something to that effect. And I thought your reference to a mark on the soul was similar and you were saying it isn’t Catholic teaching/policy that OCAC. I get now you were saying it is indeed CC teaching that thru Catholic Baptism/Confirmation people become Catholics. Glad Metlzerboy and you cleared that up for me. Peace to you both.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Hmm. As of now I’m not convinced. I can see where you are coming from though. I suppose I could be persuaded. Maybe…

Not convinced of which bit?

 

[Lucretius]

Atheists aren’t doomed to have to accept some sort of simplistic relativism or moral nihilism.

Maybe, but materialists are.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Thomas, pray for us!

 

[Thorolfr]

That is pretty much what I said.Once a Catholic always a Catholic.

There was a Catholic woman who posted in another thread that she had been pressured by her Presbyterian husband to convert and join his Presbyterian church but then she changed her mind and went back to the Catholic Church. But the Presbyterian church wouldn’t take her off their rolls, so I guess it’s also Once Presbyterian Always Presbyterian. So now I guess she’s a Presbyterian Catholic (is it possible to be two denominations at the same time?).

 

[Lucretius]

There is no “the” atheistic worldview, just as there is no “the” theistic worldview. Atheists aren’t doomed to have to accept some sort of simplistic relativism or moral nihilism. There are plenty of metaethical theories out there that don’t require a God. If you want to argue against them, fine, but don’t pretend they don’t exist.

Here’s an question: as an atheist, do you reject the idea of deity in itself, or do you see deity as the collective of Humanity (do you think the concept of deity should be redefined?).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Thomas, pray for us!