Why are you NOT Catholic, POLL

[St_Redemption]

To me, Religion is a social construct created for unifying and sharing the values of a people.

In today’s world, I feel that religion is just humanity trying to make sense of a senseless world. We are scared when faced with the meaningless of life and the finality of death. It is a great coping mechanism to belief in stories or myths that are loved ones have passed down from generation to generation, especially when those faiths promise eternal life and a god who loves you and is so concerned about each and everyone of your actions.

No offense, but you don’t know much about the founders of Christianity do you?

 

[catholic1seeks]

**Looking at the poll results, I see that I probably should have been more specific with my desired population. Looks like there are as many who aren’t Catholic because they simply are not convinced of Christianity as there are who aren’t Catholic because of the papacy (so probably, Orthodox or Protestants). I should have aimed this at non-Catholic Christians, etc.

It also looks like the FAITH ALONE issue is a primary one, receiving four votes (coming in 3rd, after the papacy & general Christianity, which each had about 10 votes).

I did not expect this. I realize faith alone was a rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation, but nowadays, I thought there was a better understanding of how close both side’s views actually are. So whoever out there may not know: Catholics simply do not believe anyone has to work you way to heaven. We believe that a faith that works saves, however, because this means we do not merely believe intellectually but love supernaturally: Our hearts are in the right place, obeying God’s word and not simply acknowledging a creed or that Jesus died for us. This is not the place to discuss the theology of jsutification and salvation of course, but I wished to clear that up.
**

 

[Lucretius]

Any moral system is going to have to deal with the issue of people who hear it and say “why should I care about that?” I think the main difference then becomes whether the commands come from a teleological approach to imperatives or a deontological one. With teleological imperatives, you can use empirical facts to support you commands, or try to build a bridge to your values by appealing to values that the other person already has. With deontological imperatives, if the person doesn’t already share whatever values or intuitions form the basis of your commands, there’s not much you can do except appeal to force or try switching to a teleological approach.

Yes, which is why the natural law is way cooool It’s based entirely on the telos of human nature.

I guess what I wrote before can be summed up by that genius Paul: “the letter killeth.” It’s actually a big problem, especially when it comes to the Powerful, sexual morality, and the health of a society.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Maria Goretti, pray for us!

 

[IdiNaPut]

That’s the first step! The second step is to let Christ do the heavy lifting. The Saints are holy because God is Holy, and thus makes them holy via Grace, not because they themselves are holy. They will all attest to this.

Also, I’m the holder of the Worst Catholic Award. Don’t be trying to take my trophy away

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I wish I could remember a saint quote (I can’t even remember the Saint, which is annoying) where he said something like “before I came to God, I did all sorts of bad things. With the help of God I am a better person”. If a saint can say this, there is hope for me!

Also, that trophy is mine!

 

[Lucretius]

Also, that trophy is mine!

Fight me for it :nunchuk:

You can’t win :slapfight:

I’ll send you away in a :stretcher:

With your face like this :blackeye:

And your stride like so :crutches:

Finally, I will leave with my prize :yeah_me:

If I did that, I would really be the Worse Catholic!

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[spedteacherita]

I’m not voting, because I’m not sure I could narrow it to just one thing. From your above categories, here are some of my objections. They’re ranked in order of least resistance to most offensive.

Marian dogmas: I can agree to these. In fact, I personally believe she remained a virgin, and that there is something to the pious belief in her Assumption. As for being immaculately conceived, I suppose it is possible to understand that Christ purified her at her conception - but it must be clear that she needed a Savior just as much as anyone else. So I’m not opposed to these pious beliefs, but I do think they are just that – pious beliefs. Proclaiming them mandatory things that must be believed for salvation has no basis in Scripture, the early fathers, or the creeds.

Prayer to departed saints: We do ask our fellow Saints Militant to pray for us, and tradition does seem to support the practice – but it mustn’t be abused. They are neither God, nor our One Mediator. I know too many Catholics who treat them like a pantheon of gods or an assortment of Pokemon.

Justification: The Catholic Church has moved closer to the Lutheran position on Justification since Trent, and some high-profile Catholics even appear to be crypto-Lutherans on the subject (here’s looking at you, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI). But I’ve heard many Catholics explain the process of Justification very poorly and, frankly, I don’t see any substantive difference between Semipelagianism and its full-blown mess of a sibling; if a human is, in any capacity, moving toward God on his own, then why need God at all – why separate the two with an arbitrary measurement of ‘how much?’ Either God saves man, or man takes God’s place.

Papal Infallibility and Universal Immediate Jurisdiction: Nope.

I agree with Don except for the Marian doctrines. I have not been able to find any proof in my studies so far that the Earliest Christian Fathers ever mentioned her more than the Mother of Jesus. The changes I find were at the Council of Ephesus when the word “theotokos” was used to describe her. Still studying and searching for more evidence of her being held up in spiritual esteem and being considered “Queen of Heaven” and someone who I need to speak to in order to gain Jesus’ favor.

This is not stated out of any negativity or antagonism - I have not been convinced yet that this is what Jesus taught His disciples through either Tradition or the Magisterium.

God bless,

Rita

 

[Lucretius]

I agree with Don except for the Marian doctrines. I have not been able to find any proof in my studies so far that the Earliest Christian Fathers ever mentioned her more than the Mother of Jesus. The changes I find were at the Council of Ephesus when the word “theotokos” was used to describe her. Still studying and searching for more evidence of her being held up in spiritual esteem and being considered “Queen of Heaven” and someone who I need to speak to in order to gain Jesus’ favor.

This is not stated out of any negativity or antagonism - I have not been convinced yet that this is what Jesus taught His disciples through either Tradition or the Magisterium.

God bless,

Rita

Some of those doctrines are “implicit,” that is, the premises in which those doctrines were a conclusion to were all there, but the actual conclusion wasn’t reached by the minds of mortal men until some time after Apostle age. Papal infallibility, specifically the ability of the Bishop of Rome to speak ex cathedria, wasn’t fully drawn out until Vatican I, but is just a logical conclusion of the early Church’s premise that the Church is infallible. Blessed Cardinal Newman wrote much about this “progression of doctrine.” Pope Benidict XVI also wrote insightful information on this topic, I believe.

Furthermore, remember that the Fathers are not Tradition, but rather are witnesses to Tradition.

Also remember, that the Apostles really couldn’t have preached fully all the doctrines about Mary, simply because she was still alive in their lifetimes! This is why Mariology only appeals late in the New Testament canon, like in Revelation.

Another fantastic insight (at least in my opinion) is to realize that for us Apostolic Chistians, Mar in some sense represents the Church, which is why the woman in Revelation is understood by us to be both Mary and the Church (and the Ark of the Covenant). When we talk about Mary, we are understanding the Church, and the what the fate of the Elect is like.

You might want to look in the writings of St. Irenaeus. He’s the first Father to sit down and write a full Mariology, or at least the first one to write and have it survive.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[spedteacherita]

Some of those doctrines are “implicit,” that is, the premises in which those doctrines were a conclusion to were all there, but the actual conclusion wasn’t reached by the minds of mortal men until some time after Apostle age. Papal infallibility, specifically the ability of the Bishop of Rome to speak ex cathedria, wasn’t fully drawn out until Vatican I, but is just a logical conclusion of the early Church’s premise that the Church is infallible. Blessed Cardinal Newman wrote much about this “progression of doctrine.” Pope Benidict XVI also wrote insightful information on this topic, I believe.

Furthermore, remember that the Fathers are not Tradition, but rather are witnesses to Tradition.

Also remember, that the Apostles really couldn’t have preached fully all the doctrines about Mary, simply because she was still alive in their lifetimes! This is why Mariology only appeals late in the New Testament canon, like in Revelation.

Another fantastic insight (at least in my opinion) is to realize that for us Apostolic Chistians, Mar in some sense represents the Church, which is why the woman in Revelation is understood by us to be both Mary and the Church (and the Ark of the Covenant). When we talk about Mary, we are understanding the Church, and the what the fate of the Elect is like.

You might want to look in the writings of St. Irenaeus. He’s the first Father to sit down and write a full Mariology, or at least the first one to write and have it survive.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I have his Against Heresies book. What other writings are you referring to that I may read and see what he said.

It is hard for me to understand how things can be “implicit” also and not referred to in any of the Biblical teachings as well as those who knew the apostles. What I hear you saying is that as time goes on new teachings can be understood from what was learned before - isn’t there a danger in new doctrine being developed along the way?

Also, how do you know what is considered Tradition? Is this written down? Can Catholics or Protestants read what the Tradition of the Apostles was?

Thanks for the respectful response because I know how much Mary means to Catholics. I honor her as Jesus’ mother but beyond that I’m still not convinced.

God bless and Christ’s peace to you as well,

Rita

 

[Marie5890]

**Looking at the poll results, I see that I probably should have been more specific with my desired population. Looks like there are as many who aren’t Catholic because they simply are not convinced of Christianity as there are who aren’t Catholic because of the papacy (so probably, Orthodox or Protestants). I should have aimed this at non-Catholic Christians, etc.

It also looks like the FAITH ALONE issue is a primary one, receiving four votes (coming in 3rd, after the papacy & general Christianity, which each had about 10 votes).

I did not expect this. I realize faith alone was a rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation, but nowadays, I thought there was a better understanding of how close both side’s views actually are. So whoever out there may not know: Catholics simply do not believe anyone has to work you way to heaven. We believe that a faith that works saves, however, because this means we do not merely believe intellectually but love supernaturally: Our hearts are in the right place, obeying God’s word and not simply acknowledging a creed or that Jesus died for us. This is not the place to discuss the theology of jsutification and salvation of course, but I wished to clear that up.
**

What you have stated pretty much echos something Ven Fulton Sheen once said.

“There are not one hundred people in the Untied States who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly believe the Catholic Church to be”

Now, putting aside the word “hate”, because I think that is overkill these days, I have no doubt that if those who have responded were to be asked, in detail, about those things that they say are reason for not being Catholic, I bet we would find that in many instances, they don’t rightly understand Catholic teachings, and the reasoning behind those teachings.

Many don’t understand that Catholic teaching is based on faith AND reason. Nor do they understand the three pillars of of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium, and how they work in Catholic thought…

For example, the Real Presence. John 6 certainly is clear on that as is the Didache.

 

[Lucretius]

For example, the Real Presence. John 6 certainly is clear on that as is the Didache.

Chapter 9. The Thanksgiving (Eucharist)

Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

But after you are filled, thus give thanks: We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. You, Master almighty, created all things for Your name’s sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant. Before all things we thank You that You are mighty; to You be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Your love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Your kingdom which You have prepared for it; for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

I don’t know if I would say the Didache is obvious regarding its teaching of the Real Presence. I do think it is implicitly assumed, as it was probably such a well known teaching that there was no reason to pronounce it explicitly, as the target audience are all ready orthodox Christians.

Now, when we have early Christians dealing with heretics who deny the Real Presence (as Jesus couldn’t be physical, as the physical is evvviiiil ), we get statements like this:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Smyrnaeans, Chapter 7: Let us stand aloof from such heretics).

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Not only is St. Ignatius (who was taught by St. John and knew both Sts. Peter and Paul) explicitly defining the doctrine, as he was writing in combat with the heretics, he is also implicitly understanding the Sacrifice of the Mass here ("Flesag which suffered for our sins…). I don’t see how someone can deny that the Church believed in the Real Prensence after reading the Diadache with old Iggy

On the other hand, by reading the Diadache, one might be able to at least somewhat defend that it teaches “symbolic communion,” however, this is unsound once the weigh of Iggy and of the other Church Fathers fall on them

St. Ignatius and St. Irenaeus are really good at dismissing Protestant and modern theories on “what the early Church really looked like”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[simspt]

I would agree with everything cmodmac lists and would add sexual difficulties that your church has found itself in. There is, shall we say, an unhealthiness that is prevalent. I am Anglican (born and raised) and very happy to be so, both theologically and in practice. Plus, you have to admit, we have WAY better hymns.

your in San Francisco and are Anglican…isn’t that the pot calling ket …black
just a wee bit re “unhealthiness”
just sayin…difference catholics sin and call sin sin…Anglicans over time change moral code
gay marriage, contraception etc
whatever suits their laity eg like politicians grasping at votes

 

[cath4alltime]

• (1) Your current religious adherence

The Charismatic Episcopalian Church (not affiliated with the ECUSA)

• (2) Why you are interested in Catholicism – after all, you are here at CAF

At this point I am not interested. I use to be a Catholic and still have much respect for the Church.

 

[bgfischer]

Lutheran Church MS.

I am interested in the Catholic Faith because 500 years ago my family was Catholic. I really want to understand some of the traditions.

Why I am not Catholic

1. Pope
2. Praying the rosary

 

[Lucretius]

Lutheran Church MS.

I am interested in the Catholic Faith because 500 years ago my family was Catholic. I really want to understand some of the traditions.

Why I am not Catholic

1. Pope
2. Praying the rosary

Why the Rosary? You can be Catholic and never pray the Rosary, you know?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[bgfischer]

I did not know that. I thought it could be part of a penance after confession.

Thanks, thats why I come to this site. To learn.

 

[Lucretius]

I did not know that. I thought it could be part of a penance after confession.

Thanks, thats why I come to this site. To learn.

The Rosary is a Western Catholic thing. Eastern Catholics have different forms of meditation (Jesus Prayer). Why do you not like the Rosary?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[bgfischer]

Its not that I don’t like it. I don’t understand it. I wouldn’t be comfortable praying the rosary because I would feel I was praying to someone other than God. I have heard different explanations of why the rosary is prayed but still have the same feelings. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Lucretius]

Its not that I don’t like it. I don’t understand it. I wouldn’t be comfortable praying the rosary because I would feel I was praying to someone other than God. I have heard different explanations of why the rosary is prayed but still have the same feelings. Hope that makes sense.

That makes sense, except for:

What’s wrong with praying to someone other than God?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Louie1983]

That makes sense, except for:

What’s wrong with praying to someone other than God?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Or more precisely: Praying through someone else to God …intercessor. Our Lady, The Saints etc…

Ultimately all our prayers go to God.

 

[bgfischer]

Im sure this is a common subject on CAF. The first commandment covers why we should not pray to someone else other than God. I think Louie1983 stated it a little easier to understand for me as praying through Mary or Saints. I do believe having a prayer life with others but it can be misunderstood that somehow anyone other than God can help you spiritually.