Why I Can't Be Catholic

[GeorgeSword]

I disagree. Mary IS a barrier to God. When Christians direct their thoughts and prayers to her rather than to God this actually breaks a rather important commandment “You shall have no other God than me!” Buddy, if you’re praying to her I don’t know what else to call it. I suppose that I could pray to say, Ba’al to intercede on my behalf, or Odin. Would that be okay?

No, Odin and Ba’al are false gods, and they are fictional. Mary is the very real Mother of God and there is no doubt that she is in heaven.
When I ask her or any saint to pray for me, I am asking them to go to God and ask him to help me. Again, how is this so different from asking a friend on earth to pray for us? Are we not supposed to ask others to join us in our prayers and petitions, does this take our eyes from God?

 

[joe370]

Yankee, you know what’s really sad: If Jesus had his way, we wouldn’t even be here at CAF, on different sides of the Christian barrier. There would be no barrier. If Jesus had his way there would be just one catholic (universal) - church built on the foundation of the Apostles with Jesus as the Cornerstone, throughout the entire world. All Christians belonging to Jesus’ church would have the same name, the same beliefs, the same truths regarding any one doctrine.

God is ONE in all respects - ONE person, ONE being, ONE essence, ONE existence, ONE will, ONE thought, ONE influence, ONE action, and it only stands to reason that He would have wanted His church to have the same characteristics. Perhaps Jesus knew something was going to divide his Mystical Body, when he prayed that his body, the church would be ONE just as He and His father are ONE. He said through Paul: keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is ONE body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. It’s suppose to be all about oneness and unity, and yet division run amok.

When you look at Christianity, (encompassing the protestant/ evangelical churches) - do you really see ONE catholic (small c) - church being guided by the holy spirit -the spirit of truth, into all truth?

I hope we all here at CAF, regardless of church affiliation, pray, as Jesus did, for oneness and the unification of the protestant churches separated from one another and from the CC, as assiduously and diligently as we debate. After all, we are all on the same team.

 

[brb2]

I would love to become Catholic.

Then do it ! Why go against the encouragement / urge of H.S.

Don’t let the enemy keep you from your dream / desire.

 

[yankee_drifter]

What must I do to be saved?"

Paul’s reply, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:25-31) is as clear as you can get.

If Paul and Silas were Roman Catholics, why didn’t they say "Mr. Warden, first you have to go to confession to a priest, who will forgive your sins (sort of). And then you have to attend mass every Sunday, and take communion at least once a year. Then you have to ask Mary, God’s mother, to intercede for you, because without her help God can’t give you any grace. And buy a few Mass cards, and do penance, and earn as many indulgences as you can. but after you die you still have to pay the price for your own sins in Purgatory, which is a really terrible place where you burn horribly for an unknown duration of time. Forget this stuff we’ve been preaching about grace and faith in Christ being sufficient. What Jesus did was not enough, no, not at all. And take care to not commit any mortal sins, Mr. warden. If you happen to still have a mortal sin on your soul, all bets are off.

Joe370, this is what is really sad. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever taught the above.

What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved.

Jesus Christ was born, suffered on the cross, died, was buried and resurrected for one reason, and one reason only - to save you from your sins and guarantee your place in Heaven. All He asks is that you admit you are a sinner, acknowledge that Jesus is God incarnate, and ask Him to be your Savior and Lord of your life.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What must I do to be saved?"

Paul’s reply, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:25-31) is as clear as you can get.

Oh, good. Then the kids of the household are covered, too!

Acts 2:38-39
38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Repent and be baptized. And, oh, good…the kids are included, too.

As for Paul’s response that we must believe, what does “believing” entail? Yankee_drifter knows what he must do:

first you have to go to confession to a priest, who will forgive your sins. And then you have to attend mass every Sunday, and take communion at least once a year.

Good so far.

Then you have to ask Mary, God’s mother, to intercede for you, because without her help God can’t give you any grace.

Optional.

And buy a few Mass cards,

I’ve never purchased a mass card in my life. Don’t know anyone who has. Optional.

and do penance,

Yes.

and earn as many indulgences as you can.

Optional but helpful.

but after you die you still have to pay the price for your own sins in Purgatory,

No. Purgatory deals with the temporal effects of sin and not paying the price for your own sins. Yankee_drifter has been told this, but he continues to bear false witness against his Catholic brothers and sisters in direct violation of one of the commandments.

which is a really terrible place where you burn horribly for an unknown duration of time.

Purgatory is a really joyful place where you know with certainty that you will soon be united with God forever.

Forget this stuff we’ve been preaching about grace and faith in Christ being sufficient.

We are saved by grace through faith. Yankee_drifter refuses to admit that Catholics believe this because it would force him to reconsider his decision to rebel against the Church of Christ.

What Jesus did was not enough, no, not at all.

What Jesus did was sufficient. What we do may or may not be. Jesus isn’t going to force anyone to go to heaven.

And take care to not commit any mortal sins, Mr. warden. If you happen to still have a mortal sin on your soul, all bets are off.

Another winner. Yankee_drifter is not completely clueless.

Joe370, this is what is really sad. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever taught the above.

What is truly sad is that Yankee_drifter misunderstands what Jesus REALLY taught; he relies instead upon his own flesh and the fleshly teachings of his own pastor and faith community to discern the things of the Spirit.

What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved.

Amen! Truly believng Jesus means accepting what He said about obeying.

Jesus Christ was born, suffered on the cross, died, was buried and resurrected for one reason, and one reason only - to save you from your sins and guarantee your place in Heaven. All He asks is that you admit you are a sinner, acknowledge that Jesus is God incarnate, and ask Him to be your Savior and Lord of your life.

Which, of course, is not the answer He gave to the rich young man who asked what he must do to be saved.

I hope that Yankee_drifter will provide the chapter and verse where Jesus said anything like: “admit you are a sinner, acknowledge that * God incarnate, and ask [me] to be your Savior and Lord of your life.”

I think a lot of non-Catholics would love to see that passage in the Bible, but it just isn’t there, because this is NOT “all He asks”. This wishful thinking is the “tradition of Protestant men.”*

 

[paul_c]

Nick,
The Cup? why does the Catholic Church omit the cup at Holy Communion?
See 1Cor.11;25, Jn.6;53-54 " I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you." Jesus said to them, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.”
How do you understand these passages?

God bless,
bluelake

It doesn’t . You can receive both the body and blood of christ.

 

[paul_c]

joe370,

Could you please provide proof that the New Testament writers were roman catholic thereby giving us the Scriptures?

How does it make any difference if the Bible wasn’t put under one cover when many years before this council convened, the books of the New Testament were already considered inspired?

100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.

135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.

160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.

165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.

This was long before the council of Carthage. The councils of Carthage and Hippo were regional synods. They were not universal or ecumenical councils. About 50 bishops from the provinces of Africa attended each. These councils did not have authority to speak for the whole 4th century church.

All of these men you mentioned considered themselves Catholic. And Pope Damascus declared the canon of the scripture in 382AD. Eusebius covered most of this in His History of the church. There was only one church and it was Catholic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nick,
The Cup? why does the Catholic Church omit the cup at Holy Communion?
See 1Cor.11;25, Jn.6;53-54 " I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you." Jesus said to them, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.”
How do you understand these passages?

God bless,
bluelake

Nick-

I’m a convert, and over the past 30 years, I have attended mass in many states and several countries. I don’t recall ever NOT being offered both the host and the cup.

However, our bishop has decided in the past month that we will not receive the cup until the swine flu has passed. Since Jesus is fully present in both species, we are not missing out on receiving Him fully.

Is there perhaps something that is unclear to you about this?

 

[Randy_Carson]

joe370,

Could you please provide proof that the New Testament writers were roman catholic thereby giving us the Scriptures?

Sure thing…always happy to help.

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as the Way (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those who followed Christ began to be called Christians beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).

As early as 107 A.D., that same group was referred to as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. That means that the Christian assembly was probably calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.

How does this relate to the writers of the NT being “Catholic”? Simple. There was only one Christian Church in existence during the first century, and that Church was already calling itself the “Catholic Church” before the death of the last Apostle. Therefore, those who wrote the New Testament were members of the Catholic Church. They were Catholics.

How does it make any difference if the Bible wasn’t put under one cover when many years before this council convened, the books of the New Testament were already considered inspired?

Some were, some weren’t. There was no universal certainty about WHICH books were inspired and which were merely inspirational. For example, Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians was read at mass AS SCRIPTURE for many years, but it was ultimately rejected as inspired. Other books which ultimately were canonized were questioned. And most significantly, the complete library of inspired writings were not available to every church immediately.

100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.

135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.

160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.

165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.

This was long before the council of Carthage. The councils of Carthage and Hippo were regional synods. They were not universal or ecumenical councils. About 50 bishops from the provinces of Africa attended each. These councils did not have authority to speak for the whole 4th century church.

You’re in some deep waters here, and I’m not sure you have all the facts. Try Gary Michuta’s Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger for a definitive treatment of this subject.

 

[jamison]

As a nonCatholic Christian, I personally feel so much freedom. I feel happy, full of God, and peaceful. I feel safe and secure in Jesus Christ. Confident and prepared for His coming.

But as a Catholic, I feel scared. I feel agony, fear, anxiety, worry, etc. I feel like I’m dishonoring God by talking to other heavenly creatures.

Is it not right to go with my conscience? Or would it be better for me to live a life in constant fear?

My brother, if you are not living in sin and are in grace you have no reason to fear. If you are, go to confession and be free. Remember Paul worked out his "own salvation , with FEAR and TREMBLING.

 

[jamison]

My brother, if you are not living in sin and are in grace you have no reason to fear. If you are, and are Catholic, go to confession and be free. Remember Paul worked out his "own salvation , with FEAR and TREMBLING.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The OP was banned; let’s move on.

 

[Magnus1981]

The OP was banned; let’s move on.

I keep in touch with him. Actually, I’ve been relating with him even before he joined these forums, but it may be of interest for you all to know that he still feels drawn to Catholicism despite some hang-ups. Tristian is doing well.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Sure thing…always happy to help.

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as the Way (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those who followed Christ began to be called Christians beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).

As early as 107 A.D., that same group was referred to as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. That means that the Christian assembly was probably calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.

How does this relate to the writers of the NT being “Catholic”? Simple. There was only one Christian Church in existence during the first century, and that Church was already calling itself the “Catholic Church” before the death of the last Apostle. Therefore, those who wrote the New Testament were members of the Catholic Church. They were Catholics.

Some were, some weren’t. There was no universal certainty about WHICH books were inspired and which were merely inspirational. For example, Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians was read at mass AS SCRIPTURE for many years, but it was ultimately rejected as inspired. Other books which ultimately were canonized were questioned. And most significantly, the complete library of inspired writings were not available to every church immediately.

You’re in some deep waters here, and I’m not sure you have all the facts. Try Gary Michuta’s Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger for a definitive treatment of this subject.

Randy,

We already know what you believe as per your lengthy, rhetorical postings. I addressed my questions to joe370.

The christian church in the beginning was catholic, not roman catholic.

None of the apostles and other NT writers were roman catholic. They were Jews who converted to Christianity…not roman catholicism.

Protestants believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. This has nothing to do with the roman catholic church. There were bands of Christians everywhere since the beginning of Christianity. They had different names or no names at all. One thing they had in common is that they met to worship, sing and break bread. Many of them comprise the Baptist faith today which did not come out of the Reformation. Therefore, the Baptist is not a Protestant faith.

There was never any uncertainty about which books were inspired. The Holy Spirit authored them all. No church or council was ever needed to tell God which of His books should be canonized.

As for bigger being better, that’s not always the case. The catholic bible added spurious uninspired books during the Reformation period…very late in church history…that were never part of the Hebrew canon. The apostle Paul said that the “Oracles of God” were given to the Jews. The Dead Sea Scrolls is added proof that the Jews have the Scriptures in its purity. Jesus never once mentioned any of the apocryphal books. He said the Scriptures were the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms…no other writings!!

Still waiting for Randy to get the facts right…

 

[paul_c]

Randy,

We already know what you believe as per your lengthy, rhetorical postings. I addressed my questions to joe370.

The christian church in the beginning was catholic, not roman catholic.

None of the apostles and other NT writers were roman catholic. They were Jews who converted to Christianity…not roman catholicism.

Protestants believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. This has nothing to do with the roman catholic church. There were bands of Christians everywhere since the beginning of Christianity. They had different names or no names at all. One thing they had in common is that they met to worship, sing and break bread. Many of them comprise the Baptist faith today which did not come out of the Reformation. Therefore, the Baptist is not a Protestant faith.

There was never any uncertainty about which books were inspired. The Holy Spirit authored them all. No church or council was ever needed to tell God which of His books should be canonized.

As for bigger being better, that’s not always the case. The catholic bible added spurious uninspired books during the Reformation period…very late in church history…that were never part of the Hebrew canon. The apostle Paul said that the “Oracles of God” were given to the Jews. The Dead Sea Scrolls is added proof that the Jews have the Scriptures in its purity. Jesus never once mentioned any of the apocryphal books. He said the Scriptures were the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms…no other writings!!

Still waiting for Randy to get the facts right…

Yankee Drifter,
I know you addressed these notes to Randy and to Joe, but since its an open forum, I’m going to feel free to jump in here.

First of all,can you support your supposition that bands of Baptists were around since apostolic times? Where’s the documentational evidence of this? We’d all love to see it, because no one has ever successfully supported that claim that I know of.

Secondly, your understanding of the Deuterocanonical books (or apocryphal books as you describe them) we most certainly part of the original canon. They were included in the Vulgate and they were there for Martin Luther to translate, even if he shunted them off to the back of his translations. They were always part of the Greek translation of the old Testament that was in use at the time of the Apostles. Later, after Jerusalem was destroyed, the remaining Jewish rabbis disavowed the later works of the Bible as well as the New Testament. Just because a group of Jewish rabbis disavowed these books doesn’t mean they weren’t inspired. Afterall, you don’t care that they disavowed the New Testament books, do you? And furthermore there are dozens of references to the deuterocanonical books in the books of the New Testament:
cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/09/deuterocanonical-books-in-new-testament.html
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

This is from wikipedia:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

Influence of the Septuagint
The large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint—which includes the deuterocanonical books, as well as apocrypha—both of which are called collectively anagignoskomena (things that are read).[citation needed] Several appear to have been written originally in Hebrew, but the original text has long been lost. Archaeological finds in the last century, however, have provided a text of almost two-thirds of the book of Sirach, and fragments of other books have been found as well. The Septuagint was widely accepted and used by Greek-speaking Jews in the first century, even in the region of Roman Judea, and therefore naturally became the text most widely used by early Christians, who were predominantly Greek speaking.

In the New Testament, Hebrews 11:35 refers to an event that was only explicitly recorded in one of the deuterocanonical books (2 Maccabees 7).

 

[Thing]

Yankee_Drifter:

One thing they had in common is that they met to worship, sing and break bread.

I would like to be given the opportunity to dig out these christians beliefs about the ‘break bread’ part of your post. If you think you might be interested in reading any history I can find refering to it would you let me know? It may help you now as a christian to know what your spiritual ancestors believed about the breaking of the bread, and see if its the same as what you believe today.

 

[GeorgeSword]

I keep in touch with him. Actually, I’ve been relating with him even before he joined these forums, but it may be of interest for you all to know that he still feels drawn to Catholicism despite some hang-ups. Tristian is doing well.

I keep in contact with him as well.

 

[hesco]

What must I do to be saved?"

Paul’s reply, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:25-31) is as clear as you can get.

If Paul and Silas were Roman Catholics, why didn’t they say "Mr. Warden, first you have to go to confession to a priest, who will forgive your sins (sort of). And then you have to attend mass every Sunday, and take communion at least once a year. Then you have to ask Mary, God’s mother, to intercede for you, because without her help God can’t give you any grace. And buy a few Mass cards, and do penance, and earn as many indulgences as you can. but after you die you still have to pay the price for your own sins in Purgatory, which is a really terrible place where you burn horribly for an unknown duration of time. Forget this stuff we’ve been preaching about grace and faith in Christ being sufficient. What Jesus did was not enough, no, not at all. And take care to not commit any mortal sins, Mr. warden. If you happen to still have a mortal sin on your soul, all bets are off.

Joe370, this is what is really sad. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever taught the above.

What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved.

Jesus Christ was born, suffered on the cross, died, was buried and resurrected for one reason, and one reason only - to save you from your sins and guarantee your place in Heaven. All He asks is that you admit you are a sinner, acknowledge that Jesus is God incarnate, and ask Him to be your Savior and Lord of your life.

It is so tyical for Protestants to bash Catholics because they lack God’s grace. I feel sorry for you because you are clueless. It is because of your faith that I have a nephew and a stepson who don’t even believe in God which growing up protestant I had a lot of doubt, but now that I am a Catholic my heart burns for God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

We already know what you believe as per your lengthy, rhetorical postings. I addressed my questions to joe370.

The christian church in the beginning was catholic, not roman catholic.

Yes, it was. That’s why they called themselves the Catholic Church.

None of the apostles and other NT writers were roman catholic. They were Jews who converted to Christianity…not roman catholicism.

All of the Jews and Gentiles who became believers in Christ were members of one Church. They called themselves the Catholic Church.

Protestants believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. This has nothing to do with the roman catholic church.

No, they believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church. Our missals have the word catholic with a small “c”, too. Why? Because catholicity is one of the four marks of the Catholic Church (capital “c”).

There were bands of Christians everywhere since the beginning of Christianity. They had different names or no names at all. One thing they had in common is that they met to worship, sing and break bread. Many of them comprise the Baptist faith today which did not come out of the Reformation. Therefore, the Baptist is not a Protestant faith.

Yes. I have heard this before. Everybody wants to claim apostolicity and catholicity, but no one wants to recognize that you can’t have either apart from the Church that Jesus built.

The other thing that always strikes me as odd about these alleged groups…why is there so little record of them in history? Jesus told the Apostles to make disciples of all nations, but they apparently accomplished next to nothing over the past 2,000 years. Instead, The Christians that remained in union with the successors of the Apostles have become TRULY catholic and DID make disciples of all nations. Which group actually did what Jesus commanded? The Catholic Church. Which church is virtually unknown throughout the course of history? Dunno. No one has ever heard of them.

There was never any uncertainty about which books were inspired. The Holy Spirit authored them all. No church or council was ever needed to tell God which of His books should be canonized.

The Catholic Church did not tell God which books were inspired. However, the Catholic Church was led by the Spirit to distinguish between the inspired books and the inspirational books. For example, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians were all in circulation in the early Church, but they didn’t make the final cut. Why? Because they were not inspired. However, this was not obvious in the earliest days of the Church. It took nearly 400 years to sort it all out.

As for bigger being better, that’s not always the case. The catholic bible added spurious uninspired books during the Reformation period…very late in church history…that were never part of the Hebrew canon.

Sorry…your sources have misinformed you. The Septuagint (the translation used by Jesus and the Apostles) did contain these books. They were removed from the Hebrew canon by the Jews in the second century because they were being used to win Jews over to Christianity! Luther rejected them because they supported doctrines that he had come to deny (such as purgatory).

The apostle Paul said that the “Oracles of God” were given to the Jews. The Dead Sea Scrolls is added proof that the Jews have the Scriptures in its purity. Jesus never once mentioned any of the apocryphal books. He said the Scriptures were the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms…no other writings!!

Well, this is demonstrably false.

Matthew 6:14-15
14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Sirach 28:2
Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.

+++

Luke 6:31
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Tobit 4:15
Do to no one what you yourself dislike. Do not drink wine till you become drunk, nor let drunkenness accompany you on your way.

Still waiting for Randy to get the facts right…

I am happy to be corrected if I should ever stray from the truth.

 

[clashoff]

Why was the first Pope Married? MARK 1:29
MARY can not be a mediator! 1 Timothy 2:5