Why do people who say they are Catholic continue to say so when they do not follow the teachings of the Catholic church?

[rinnie]

Okay I may have to recant:crying::crying: But NOT everything

Okay missing Church every once in awhile in the past was NOT a mortal sin for me because I was not aware of that. Now that I know I can never just blow off Church not even once for NO good reason. My Bad I will eat worms or etc:blush:

With that said I was still not wrong that Matt was so wrong. Here is why.

Vatican I says we can judge the act itself BUT we must entrust judgement of persons whether a specific act is mortal to the Judgement and mercy of God. No. 1861 (not sure what this is, sorry)

And PAPA also says Matt 7:1-5 which throws Matt out of the water, He is saying a Catholic who misses one sunday must repent and is in Mortal Sin, He Cannot make that Call. SO Matt told Matt you are wrong.

Next In order for a sin to be mortal FULL knowledge and Opposition of Gods Love CCC 1859.

Next mortal sin means the INTENTION of the acting person.

Splendor of the truth says when there are circumstances when a person cannot attend mass while most regretable is NOT SINFUL.

Back to the context of what Matt said. He said if a persons never misses and then missed he must repent or he is going to hell. That is not true. How does a person who misses under UNKNOWN circumstances be condmned to hell for not repenting a sin that he may not even be held accountable.

This is what bothered me the whole time. When he said you miss church you don’t repent you are automatically in a state of mortal sin, Thats not true. There are circumstances when you can’t go and if they are acceptale to God you have no sin to repent.

But in all honestly I NEVER knew that missing ONE Sunday would truly put you out of the Sant. Grace from God. ITs still hard for me to believe this is the teaching of the RCC.

I am not saying you guys are not correct, but I do not see where you missing one Sunday shows you rejecting God though This is what I have to figure out.

 

[rinnie]

On the contrary, the burden of proof rests with the Church to support its extraordinary claim that all of that paper was written by God.

You either believe that the Holy Spirit entered the Church on Pentecost or you reject it. While I for one will tell you I do not understand every single teaching if its indeed a teaching and I know it I MUST obey it.

If you feel that the Church must prove that it is led by the power of the Holy Spirit how do you expect it to do so? If you reject the word of God that the Holy Spirit entered the Church at the day of Pentecost and said I am with you until the end of age which is the word of God, and you reject the word of God what more can ANYONE do?

Do you believe that Jesus Christ said he was sending the Advocate to lead you into all truth and did indeed come a Pentecost? If you do not believe Christ what could WE possibly do to convince you?

I for one admitted I may have Mis-understood a Church teaching, If I am wrong, which it appears that I am. I recanted and admitted I WAS WRONG. Thats okay.

I can be wrong, and I apologize for anyone I misled. But God knows my intention and my heart. If the Pope says its so ITS SO.

So either Jesus told us the truth and is leading the Catholic Church into all truth or Jesus lied? What other alternative is there?

OR are you trying to say the Pope can say that he is speaking in the voice of Christ as Christ said he can, or are you saying he can SAY he is and lie and make Christ a liar?

 

[Jesus_123]

+The original mortal sin . . . was that of . . . disobedience . . . the consequences of which were detailed by God . . . that if Adam and Eve chose to disobey they would die . . . they disobeyed once and death entered into the human condition for both of them . . . the Catholic Church has absolutely defined that . . . for Catholics . . . that . . . subject to a very few critical exceptions such as illness. . . to deliberately miss Sunday Mass . . . is a mortal sin . . . the result of which is . . . NOT to just wound and injure the soul and its relationship to God . . . but to separate a soul in spiritual death from God . . . this is a very serious matter . . . and a doctrine of the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church . . .

******. . . :coffeeread: . . .

THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH******

ARTICLE 1
“I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR
OF HEAVEN AND EARTH”

Original Sin—an essential truth of the faith …

II. The Fall of the Angels

391
Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 …

392
:bible1: Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is "a liar and the father of lies."271

393
It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272

394
Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning,” who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

395
The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries—of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature—to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history.

III. Original Sin

Freedom put to the test

396
God created man in his image and established him in his friendship.** A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.** The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” …

Man’s first sin

397
Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398
**In that sin **man preferred himself to God ****and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God,” but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God."279

399
Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve** immediately lose the grace of original holiness**.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image—that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400
The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay."284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground,"285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

:compcoff: Link: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[rinnie]

+The original mortal sin . . . was that of . . . disobedience . . . the consequences of which were detailed by God . . . that if Adam and Eve chose to disobey they would die . . . they disobeyed once and death entered into the human condition for both of them . . . the Catholic Church has absolutely defined that . . . for Catholics . . . that . . . subject to a very few critical exceptions such as illness. . . to deliberately miss Sunday Mass . . . is a mortal sin . . . the result of which is . . . NOT to just wound and injure the soul and its relationship to God . . . but to separate a soul in spiritual death from God . . . this is a very serious matter . . . and a doctrine of the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church . . .

******. . . :coffeeread: . . .

THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH******

ARTICLE 1
“I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR
OF HEAVEN AND EARTH”

Original Sin—an essential truth of the faith …

II. The Fall of the Angels

391
Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 …

392
:bible1: Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is "a liar and the father of lies."271

393
It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272

394
Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning,” who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

395
The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries—of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature—to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history.

III. Original Sin

Freedom put to the test

396
God created man in his image and established him in his friendship.** A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.** The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” …

Man’s first sin

397
Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398
**In that sin **man preferred himself to God ****and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God,” but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God."279

399
Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve** immediately lose the grace of original holiness**.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image—that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400
The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay."284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground,"285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

:compcoff: Link: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

:sad_yes:

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

On the contrary, the burden of proof rests with the Church to support its extraordinary claim that all of that paper was written by God.

Actually, the initial burden of proof always lies with the person who lays the claim. It has nothing to do with if one side deems the other side to be making an “extraordinary” claim or otherwise.

 

[TedDC]

Actually, the initial burden of proof always lies with the person who lays the claim. It has nothing to do with if one side deems the other side to be making an “extraordinary” claim or otherwise.

OK, let’s use your standard. The Catholic Church claims God-given authority. Where’s the proof of that authority?

 

[SteveGC]

OK, let’s use your standard. The Catholic Church claims God-given authority. Where’s the proof of that authority?

It’s all over the New Testament and writings from the early Church Fathers, Ted. Men who had direct discipleship under the twelve. But since (I’m guessing) you read those things differently than we do, it is pointless to offer this to you as evidence. My guess is that you’ve been down that road before, and still obstinately object.

So, my only question would be, does it make sense at all that there be NO earth-bound authority designated by Christ to lead His Church after His departure to the right hand of God? For He never said He was leaving a book to lead all into the faith, He said He left a Church to do that. So, it’s not so much needing proof that this authority exists, as much as it is…where is this authority today? Only one Church claims it, Ted. Once you follow that logic and give the Church an honest exploration, the rest comes Gracefully.

 

[TedDC]

It’s all over the New Testament and writings from the early Church Fathers, Ted. Men who had direct discipleship under the twelve. But since (I’m guessing) you read those things differently than we do, it is pointless to offer this to you as evidence. My guess is that you’ve been down that road before, and still obstinately object.

It’s not that I read those things differently; it’s simply that I don’t believe the Bible is necessarily an inerrant record of God’s interaction with mankind.

So, my only question would be, does it make sense at all that there be NO earth-bound authority designated by Christ to lead His Church after His departure to the right hand of God? For He never said He was leaving a book to lead all into the faith, He said He left a Church to do that. So, it’s not so much needing proof that this authority exists, as much as it is…where is this authority today? Only one Church claims it, Ted. Once you follow that logic and give the Church an honest exploration, the rest comes Gracefully.

Well, I don’t follow that “logic”. In fact, it exemplifies a fallacy common in Catholic apologetics: the reasoning that “We claim to have an answer and you say you don’t know the answer, therefore our answer must be correct.”

 

[SteveGC]

It’s not that I read those things differently; it’s simply that I don’t believe the Bible is necessarily an inerrant record of God’s interaction with mankind.

Well, I don’t follow that “logic”. In fact, it exemplifies a fallacy common in Catholic apologetics: the reasoning that “We claim to have an answer and you say you don’t know the answer, therefore our answer must be correct.”

Then what is it you want to do, Ted? Convince us that the Church is man-made and we’re doomed? Seems to me you’re a man without a compass, bitterly snooping around the crowd that has one. And since we’ve found ours, you’d maybe like it if we lost it, as you have? Otherwise, why have the nerve to basically say to us “Let’s face it, the Catholic Church is man-made, and think they’re following God but aren’t”.

Or you’re trying to receive some sort of validation that it’s okay not to believe the Church is what She claims to be? Won’t get that from me, nor likely from any other Catholic on here. So again, what’s up? You don’t want to believe the Church is infallibly guided by the Spirit? Ok. But I notice you’re not offering any viable alternative here… Just the claim that we’re wrong for our loyalty and obedience to Her. What’s the alternative, Ted?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

OK, let’s use your standard. The Catholic Church claims God-given authority. Where’s the proof of that authority?

The Church has not participated in this thread in an official capacity. Your statement of the Church position cannot be construed as a claim on their part. However, since you’ve made the claims in this thread, it would be fitting you begin to defend your claim.

Let’s face it, all those doctrines and dogmas and disciplines are just man-made stuff anyway. Men claiming to speak for God, but mere men nevertheless.

 

[rinnie]

OK, let’s use your standard. The Catholic Church claims God-given authority. Where’s the proof of that authority?

Through the power of the Holy Spirit, Here let me show you.

When Pentecost day came round, they had all met together, when suddenly there came from HEAVEN a sound as violent wind, which filled the entire house in which they were sitting, and there APPEARED to the TONGUES OF FIRE, these separated and came to rest on the HEAD of EVERYONE of them. THEY we all FILLED with the HOLY SPIRIT and began to SPEAK different languages as the SPIRIT GAVE THEM POWER to EXPRESS THEMSLEVES.

 

[rinnie]

Ted, if you want to see the authority given point blank check out Matt 10:1

He summoned his 12 disciples and gave the AUTHORITY over unclean spirits with the POWER to drive them out and CURE all kinds of disease and ALL kinds of illness.

The 12 have continued to pass on this authority as the word of our Lord tells you by the laying of hands.

If someone is sick, etc send them to the Church to be cured. Being sick does not only mean disease, it can be your soul as we talked about being in grave danger, which also means death of the soul. But by the authority that you has just read in Matt, they have it from Jesus to cure, to free even the Soul from death.

 

[TedDC]

The Church has not participated in this thread in an official capacity. Your statement of the Church position cannot be construed as a claim on their part. However, since you’ve made the claims in this thread, it would be fitting you begin to defend your claim.

OK then, do you (or anyone else here) claim that the Church has God-given authority? If so, we’ll discuss your claim.

But anyway, it’s easy to prove that every doctrine, dogma and discipline of the Church is man-made. How? Simply by observing that every one of them was uttered or written by flesh-and-blood men. That makes them man-made until proven otherwise.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

OK then, do you (or anyone else here) claim that the Church has God-given authority? If so, we’ll discuss your claim.

I have no authority or qualifications to make a such claim on behalf of the Church.

But anyway, it’s easy to prove that every doctrine, dogma and discipline of the Church is man-made. How? Simply by observing that every one of them was uttered or written by flesh-and-blood men. That makes them man-made until proven otherwise.

I have an objection to your response. You make the statement that there has been observations that each dogmatic or doctrine was uttered or written by a man. However, you offer no empirical evidence of such alleged observations. Ergo, you have not made your case at all as you simply made another unsubstantiated claim.

 

[rinnie]

OK then, do you (or anyone else here) claim that the Church has God-given authority? If so, we’ll discuss your claim.

But anyway, it’s easy to prove that every doctrine, dogma and discipline of the Church is man-made. How? Simply by observing that every one of them was uttered or written by flesh-and-blood men. That makes them man-made until proven otherwise.

Hold on here. So then you reject the words of Christ then, that I Must leave you so that I can send to you the Advocate, The Advocate the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth.

WE do not claim that the Church has God-Given authority. It was Our Lord Jesus Christ that claims that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit. We only obey HIS words we don’t make them up.

So then are you saying, correct me if I am wrong, But you reject the whole bible as being the word of God? I am quite confused here

 

[TedDC]

I have an objection to your response. You make the statement that there has been observations that each dogmatic or doctrine was uttered or written by a man. However, you offer no empirical evidence of such alleged observations. Ergo, you have not made your case at all as you simply made another unsubstantiated claim.

OK then, let’s start with just one dogma: the Assumption of Mary. It was declared by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. The last time I checked, Pope Pius XII was a man; therefore, that dogma is man-made. Unless of course you can prove otherwise.

 

[rinnie]

OK then, let’s start with just one dogma: the Assumption of Mary. It was declared by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. The last time I checked, Pope Pius XII was a man; therefore, that dogma is man-made. Unless of course you can prove otherwise.

What are you talking about. Then ok you are saying that the Pope made it up or what? This is something that has ALWAYS Been believed by the Church and did not have to become Dogma until is was questioned hundred years later.

You show me where this was never a belief of the Early Church?

 

[TedDC]

What are you talking about. Then ok you are saying that the Pope made it up or what? This is something that has ALWAYS Been believed by the Church and did not have to become Dogma until is was questioned hundred years later.

You show me where this was never a belief of the Early Church?

This is yet another fallacy in Catholic apologetics: equating “belief” with “truth”. So often, arguments put forth as proof that something is true are really just proof that it has been believed for a long time.

Just because something has been believed for a long time does not mean that it’s true. That’s referred to as the “fallacy of antiquity”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ok, Ted, then point us to the teachings of the Catholic Christian Church which we can say absolutely are NOT ‘man-made’.

For example, are the Scriptures themselves man-made as you appeared to claim earlier? Is Christ Himself considered (by you) to be God and on what authority?

If you don’t believe in ANY Christian teachings as being other than ‘man-made’ by your contention that men could not possibly accurately set forth in words or writing actual teachings given to them by GOD, then really, all you’re doing is trolling trying to get everybody else to come around to your way of thinking because ‘misery loves company.’

Sorry, I trust God. He said He was establishing a Church and He said He’d send the Spirit (who is God) to guide it. You, poor guy, trust nobody but yourself to know ‘anything’ and so you’re like a blind man wandering proclaiming that you know the truth about the world and it is nothing but a black and blind abyss, and you dismiss as ‘man-made’ stories what people tell you about the sun, the moon, the sky, colors etc. How sad.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

OK then, let’s start with just one dogma: the Assumption of Mary. It was declared by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. The last time I checked, Pope Pius XII was a man; therefore, that dogma is man-made. Unless of course you can prove otherwise.

I have an objection to your response. You raise a single example, which is not necessarily applicable to all. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization. By way of example, if a person in a family is lactose intolerant, by your “logic” you would conclude that all persons in the family must be lactose intolerant.

Just to remind you, this was the claim you’ve made…

Let’s face it, all those doctrines and dogmas and disciplines are just man-made stuff anyway. Men claiming to speak for God, but mere men nevertheless.