Why is it that some non-Catholics are more Catholic than many "Catholics"

[distracted]

I think if the priests didn’t like donuts they wouldn’t serve them at all.

they might…

to try to kill off us orthodox Catholics…

 

[distracted]

then there are the people who have big families, yet aren’t (officially) Catholic…

they just naturally seem to realize that artif birth control is not good…

where are all the big Catholic families???

seems only about 20% ofthose who go to Mass are really catholic…(?)

:coffeeread:uch:

:knight2:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I know people (and know OF people) who:

are very pro-life,

very devoted to Scripture,

try to live by the Word of God…

and would never THINK of voting for someone who is pro-abortion

To me, they are “Catholic”…

Then there are those who attend Sunday Mass every week (some even daily Mass )

yet do NOT support the right to life…

and thereby are NOT in compliance with the Word of God… (“Thou shalt not kill”)

That verse forbids murder - the death penalty is frequently commanded in the Torah, & elsewhere in the WofG. FWIW, abortion is not directly forbidden - there are passages that can be taken & developed in that direction - but nothing that is an unmistakable prohibition of it. An argument can be made that in the light of Christ, certain passages (as in Luke 1) are being under-interpreted if they are not seen as ruling it out - but that is an argument from the effects of the coming of Christ, not from the text of the WoG.​

and WOULD vote for someone who is pro-abortion…

Very strange…

I just don’t “get it”…

How is that any different from voting for someone who promises to increase Army spending ? To spread someone (or a great many of them) over a few acres with the help of some “technologically sweet” weapon is no more “pro-life” than disassembling an infant in the process of being delivered out of the womb.​

One of the few differences seems to be that many Christians who are horrified by abortion, are ready to pay to provide the means for the armed forces to
disassemble their out-of-the-womb fellow-humans; even fellow-Christians. Were there any complaints by Catholics when the USAF bombed Serbian Orthodox Christians during their Holy Week ? It would be interesting to know.

Voting for candidates is not as free from moral ambiguity as some opponents of abortion seem to think. It would very nice, & so much easier, if it were so simple - but it very often isn’t; and if we are to affect the world, we have to take in all its complexity, ambiguity, confusion, messiness, & not over-simplify it. Sometimes, compromises & “connivance” in evil at some point can’t be avoided; we do not always have a choice - it could be said that Jesus was conniving with evil by paying the Temple tax: it went to the Temple, but only at the cost of keeping the Temple solvent so that sacrifices could be offered, some of them on behalf of the very power that was keeping its legions in Judaea. Was Jesus supporting the enemies of Judaea ? A Zealot might have said so.

Which is more human:

• an implanted group of cells 20 days old
• an adult of 30 years
• a woman in an iron lung
• an old man with Alzheimer’s disease

And which one is to be judged not really human, IOW, “human” ?

The answer from opponents of abortion and euthanasia can be predicted But, if there are no “humans”, neither are there any “Catholics”: one can no more be “a little bit human”, than “a little bit pregnant”. All of the four listed are equally human in fact, even though they are not equally human in the way their shared humanity is manifested. And Catholics are all equal in the fact of being Catholic, even when they are not equally Catholic in the way their shared Catholic identity is manifested. To be Catholic is irreversible - it can’t be undone, not by anything - just as what is born of woman is human, irreversibly.

To deny that Catholics are Catholic implies several things:

• it means forgetting that the character conferred in baptism that makes the baptisand the property of Christ is permanent & indelible
• it measures the fact of Catholic identity by external appearances; for it is God’s grace, not our fruitfulness, that gives our Catholic identity
• it is undercut by the possibility that even while we are faulting others, others may be finding us wanting as well
• It overlooks the possibility that where we find fault, God may may find little or none: we do not know overselves fully - how much less can we read the souls of others !
• It is a temptation to forget that what others may be today, perhaps we will be tomorrow - if they seem to fall or do fall, we could fall much further; perhaps never to rise again; yet they might.
• if we have no compassion on them, how can we expect compassion ourselves from man, or from God ?
• By rejecting others, we are making it harder for them to recover from whatever is being faulted in them - which is very odd behaviour for those who claim the Church is in some sense needed for salvation.
• Today’s candidate for chucking out, may be tomorrow’s Saint for the Church to honour. There are Saints who have fallen very low - only to be raised up, persevere, & be honoured by the Church. Where would St Peter be, or St. Margaret of Cortona, or quite a few others? It was Peter whom Jesus called Satan - nobody else has been called this.

It might be very convenient to have a purge of the “deviationists” (however defined) in the CC, & it might make the CC “look good” - but would it agree with the Spirit of Christ ? Obedience is not unimportant - but there is more than one kind, and not all kinds are Christian. Worldliness in the Church of Christ is not going to be overcome by something that is just one more form of worldliness - both are overcome by Love.

 

[Peter_J]

That verse forbids murder - the death penalty is frequently commanded in the Torah, & elsewhere in the WofG. FWIW, abortion is not directly forbidden - there are passages that can be taken & developed in that direction - but nothing that is an unmistakable prohibition of it. An argument can be made that in the light of Christ, certain passages (as in Luke 1) are being under-interpreted if they are not seen as ruling it out - but that is an argument from the effects of the coming of Christ, not from the text of the WoG.​

I would have to disagree with you there. If we’re talking about abortion as such, then it is forbidden by the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”.

It’s a slightly different matter if we’re talking about a fetus being removed from the womb, and then dying as a result of being unable to survive outside the womb. I wouldn’t call that abortion, strictly speaking.

 

[distracted]

That verse forbids murder -​

waht verse?

, abortion is not directly forbidden -

hmmm… What part of God’s commandment Thou shalt not murder do you not u/stand? ever seen an abrted child? If thats not murder, what the h- is?

there are passages that can be taken & developed in that direction - but nothing that is an unmistakable prohibition of it.

thou shalt not commit murder is pretty clear. How about: “He who sheds men’s blood by man shall his blood be shed?” (the Word of God)…

One of the few differences seems to be that many Christians who are horrified by abortion, are ready to pay to provide the means for the armed forces to
disassemble their out-of-the-womb fellow-humans; even fellow-Christians. Were there any complaints by Catholics when the USAF bombed Serbian Orthodox Christians during their Holy Week ? It would be interesting to know.

Who said i was in favor of war? Most wars in history have been , at best, not so just… In any case, you cannot compare killing a soldier in a war (a just war) wi/ the killing of a totally helpless, defenseless, never-sinned hman being…

Which is more human:

• an implanted group of cells 20 days old
• an adult of 30 years
• a woman in an iron lung
• an old man with Alzheimer’s disease

And which one is to be judged not really human, IOW, “human” ?

they are all equal in the eyes of God (and me).

The answer from opponents of abortion and euthanasia can be predicted

can it? Then did you predict the afore-given answer?

 

[mark_a]

I know people (and know OF people) who:

are very pro-life,

very devoted to Scripture,

try to live by the Word of God…

and would never THINK of voting for someone who is pro-abortion

To me, they are “Catholic”…

Then there are those who attend Sunday Mass every week (some even daily Mass )

yet do NOT support the right to life…

and thereby are NOT in compliance with the Word of God… (“Thou shalt not kill”)

and WOULD vote for someone who is pro-abortion…

Very strange…

I just don’t “get it”…

For lil’ ol’ narrow minded me, non-Catholics who refuse to contracept are more Catholic than most Catholics.

 

[distracted]

For lil’ ol’ narrow minded me, non-Catholics who refuse to contracept are more Catholic than most Catholics.

even before i was totally Catholic (i was raised “Catholic” but we weren’t very Catholic… our family… and i wasn’t taught the faith)… i always knew that artif birth control was wrong… True, maybe i learned this just by being Catholic and in a big family… but still… i just always knew it was wrong…

so it kinda seems like most others would naturally find it wrong also… but then… some are raised w/ no Christian faith at all…

hmmm… So why are those who raised in the most Christian of all Churches… so… slow to “get this one”??? one of the great mysteries of life… :banghead::coffeeread:

 

[tmac1238]

The Catholic Church holds that all baptisms performed in the proper way (Trinitarian formula and with proper intent) are valid and therefore there are many Catholics in other denominations that just do not know it.

And being baptized into the Catholic Faith is a starting point, if some chose to not to fully embrace it, then they have cut themselves off.

I have known non-Catholics who fully believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist in the manner taught by the Catholic Church (many do eventually become Catholics officially because of this).

We are not meant to be divided this way and I can only hope that Christ’s Church will be reunited one day. In the meantime it is tragic that there are many in the Catholic Church that do not realize how lucky they are.

We were united before, but at that time there was no freedom of religion, there was no openness: many things were done in secret. Just like many posts here, everyone had to believe what Catholic officials said. No debate was tolerated. That same intolerance is witnessed in most of the posts on this system.

Jesus tolerated debate because He always won the debates as just one reason. Others later in the person of the Catholic Church couldn’t tolerate debates because they always lost. This was shown especially when Martin Luther’s grievances actually forced open debate. He won the debates as shown by the effect that they had.

Now even government is working after the same way the Inquisitions worked. Everything must be secret now. They’re saying we must arrest people without charge, for to charge them would bring the issue of why they are accused out into the open. They say they must have complete control over people they apprehend. They say they must not have any ability to defend themselves. This is perfection doctrine showing that the people who can make such unconscionable laws cannot make a mistake. It was carried out by American leaders who were far from perfect. When these criminal edicts were pointed out, supporters of those edicts came and said, “How dare you damage the reputations of our government leaders!” Who can damage the reputations of our government leaders while languishing in detention camps and being tortured?

Is there any other reason why all the churches are not united today? They have better sense. I mean it was in about 1959 when Vatican II was called where the Catholic Church cosmetically converted and said she had CHANGED. We are now called separated brethren. After 2,000 years Rome finally realized that freedom was something good. As she now claims to have accepted this, demonstrating that her intelligence comes about with the most imperfect reflexes, her supporters speak as if no one can disagree–not even the ones who had much better reflexes long ago.

THE CHURCH IS ONE does not mean everyone has to give up their beliefs, convert and become Catholic and form a global church. That’s why there were the followers of Christ and the followers of John the Baptist in Christ’s day. They were all followers of Christ, and even though they agreed on every single doctrine, none of them had the unification disease and went to the other to demand that they link up or else their religion and property is invalid.

 

[mark_a]

even before i was totally Catholic (i was raised “Catholic” but we weren’t very Catholic… our family… and i wasn’t taught the faith)… i always knew that artif birth control was wrong… True, maybe i learned this just by being Catholic and in a big family… but still… i just always knew it was wrong…

so it kinda seems like most others would naturally find it wrong also… but then… some are raised w/ no Christian faith at all…

hmmm… So why are those who raised in the most Christian of all Churches… so… slow to “get this one”??? one of the great mysteries of life… :banghead::coffeeread:

It is one of the great mysteries of life!

Catholics are just as much a part of this culture, the culture of death and the culture of killing, as other westerners.

However, once one learns about the abortificient nature of the pill, the more likely they are to investigate the Church’s teachings about contraception, and finally accept the truth of the matter.

 

[mark_a]

We were united before, but at that time there was no freedom of religion, there was no openness: many things were done in secret. Just like many posts here, everyone had to believe what Catholic officials said. No debate was tolerated. That same intolerance is witnessed in most of the posts on this system.

Almost everything is open to “debate” in the Catholic Church. There are very few non-negtiables.

This was shown especially when Martin Luther’s grievances actually forced open debate. He won the debates as shown by the effect that they had.

.Then why all the different branches of Lutheranism?

Is there any other reason why all the churches are not united today? They have better sense. I mean it was in about 1959 when Vatican II was called where the Catholic Church cosmetically converted and said she had CHANGED. We are now called separated brethren. After 2,000 years Rome finally realized that freedom was something good. As she now claims to have accepted this, demonstrating that her intelligence comes about with the most imperfect reflexes, her supporters speak as if no one can disagree–not even the ones who had much better reflexes long ago.

No problems here.

THE CHURCH IS ONE does not mean everyone has to give up their beliefs, convert and become Catholic and form a global church. That’s why there were the followers of Christ and the followers of John the Baptist in Christ’s day. They were all followers of Christ, and even though they agreed on every single doctrine, none of them had the unification disease and went to the other to demand that they link up or else their religion and property is invalid.

How 'bout if we all agree to one set of moral doctrines? That’s really putting your money where your mouth is.

The only problem I see is that proper faith doctrine leads to proper moral doctrine, not vice versa. So it just can’t happen.

 

[tmac1238]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac1238
We were united before, but at that time there was no freedom of religion, there was no openness: many things were done in secret. Just like many posts here, everyone had to believe what Catholic officials said. No debate was tolerated. That same intolerance is witnessed in most of the posts on this system.

Almost everything is open to “debate” in the Catholic Church. There are very few non-negtiables.

This is a typical statement made with no proof or evidence. Folks who have a habit of making such statements in debating environments likely love secrecy for many aspectso f their lives too. Nothing is actually open for debate in the Catholic Church. We exposed public death threats made by Jesuits after the Patriot Act was established to catch terrorists. Catholics–even posing as non-Catholics–always only attacked us for bringing these things to light. They kept calling us ANTI-CATHOLIC. We were kicked off of many forums for not realizing that people who want billions dead merely for not being Catholic are not terrorists!

Quote:
This was shown especially when Martin Luther’s grievances actually forced open debate. He won the debates as shown by the effect that they had.

Then why all the different branches of Lutheranism?

The topics being discussed didn’t mean that every topic was discussed. But it was clear the major damage to tyranny occurred through OPENNESS. That’s why now virtually all America’s national leaders favor the opposite and favor secrecy. All such also always have a burning desire to visit the Pope.

Quote:
Is there any other reason why all the churches are not united today? They have better sense. I mean it was in about 1959 when Vatican II was called where the Catholic Church cosmetically converted and said she had CHANGED. We are now called separated brethren. After 2,000 years Rome finally realized that freedom was something good. As she now claims to have accepted this, demonstrating that her intelligence comes about with the most imperfect reflexes, her supporters speak as if no one can disagree–not even the ones who had much better reflexes long ago.

No problems here.

Quote:
THE CHURCH IS ONE does not mean everyone has to give up their beliefs, convert and become Catholic and form a global church. That’s why there were the followers of Christ and the followers of John the Baptist in Christ’s day. They were all followers of Christ, and even though they agreed on every single doctrine, none of them had the unification disease and went to the other to demand that they link up or else their religion and property is invalid.

Reply: How 'bout if we all agree to one set of moral doctrines? That’s really putting your money where your mouth is.

The only problem I see is that proper faith doctrine leads to proper moral doctrine, not vice versa. So it just can’t happen.

There’s a big problem with that, and you’re showing that your slow reflexes that were supposed to have been healed in 1959 still is not.

What do you mean WE ALL agree to set moral doctrines? Set them for who? They are not already being set? We showed that the Apostolic Church itself didn’t even set the one for everyone telling them they had to link up and believe everything they believed. They didn’t travel to other churches to tell them they had to convert, surrender their ideas, and link up. How much more should that be done when churches everywhere are not united in belief like they were at that time?

All truth will come out through witnessing and proper dialogue and discussion. But people are trained all over the world and all over the internet to lie. They’re trained in every tactic and technique of evasion and deceit in order to cover up the truth. The word spoken by Rome was that the bible is useless in the hands of the heretics. We can easily defend all of our positions, but when we post all over the internet, people approach us with pure insults and mental evaluations. They know they can’t answer our questions, for to even attempt will prove they are first wrong, and then, when they persist, will prove they are liars. They repeat these tactics all the time. They keep calling us insane and show terrible disrespect to the readers. That’s why I can’t get anyone’s–even any non-Catholic’s–attention to the bold death threats against all non-Catholics posted on the internet. It is not the thing to come out at a time when people are contracting gonad cancer because they claim everyone and everything hates the Catholic Church. Where did these people get those ideas? Are these people likely to give up these ideas since only those who don’t like their ideas have been viciously attacked on the internet? How come every single person we found on the internet who was lying all the time refused to put their attention on the death threats we exposed? Was it because they’re Japanese?

In actuality, anyone who can’t notice the existence of those bold public death threats I don’t talk to. In this case it is merely to enlighten those who can see, and not those who keep the same terrorist codes for 2 millennia.

 

[tmac1238]

You trying to win souls? Or prove that the only people that will be saved are heretics?

Since you have the conscience to do this, how is it you deny the crimes your fathers did?

By the way, thanks for more evidence from the Antichrist of your capabilities for my website.

 

[tmac1238]

Couldn’t have enough molesting?!

You’re a felon!

Historically you were much much worse than one!

 

[tmac1238]

YOU WERE TOO LATE IN TAKING DOWN YOUR JAIL SENTENCE!!

That reply showing the typical Antichrist hate because you just couldn’t cope with the truth is found on my website here!..

Seventh-dayAdventism.com/jesuitfelon.htm

 

[Peter_J]

That same intolerance is witnessed in most of the posts on this system.

That’s true of this website and of many Protestant forums as well.

But since that’s been discussed a number of times, I’ll move on to another of your statements …

I mean it was in about 1959 when Vatican II was called where the Catholic Church cosmetically converted and said she had CHANGED.

No, that’s a caracature of Vatican II. Changes took place, but the Church didn’t change (or claim to have changed).

 

[tmac1238]

Why then do you all call Jack Chick a LIAR and a hateful anti-Catholic, when he said the very same thing you just confirmed.

Of course Rome didn’t change. Jack Chick said that. Why did you hate him and mark him for death because he told the truth?

WHY DIDN’T YOU SEE THE HATEFUL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY THAT WAS JUST PLACED UP ON THE BOARD HERE? I THOUGHT YOU GAVE THE IMPRESSION OF BEING THE FOREMOST DETECTORS OF HATE!!

How could such hate roll right past you? Was it because your lengthly history went right past you?

 

[mark_a]

This is a typical statement made with no proof or evidence. Folks who have a habit of making such statements in debating environments likely love secrecy for many aspectso f their lives too. Nothing is actually open for debate in the Catholic Church. We exposed public death threats made by Jesuits after the Patriot Act was established to catch terrorists. Catholics–even posing as non-Catholics–always only attacked us for bringing these things to light. They kept calling us ANTI-CATHOLIC. We were kicked off of many forums for not realizing that people who want billions dead merely for not being Catholic are not terrorists!

Is this the standard SDA line?

 

[Peter_J]

Why then do you all call Jack Chick a LIAR and a hateful anti-Catholic, when he said the very same thing you just confirmed.

I’m not really sure what you are referring to, but Jack Chick has said a lot of things. I would never claim that every single thing he has said is wrong. (Did you ever see that Seinfeld episode “The Opposite”?)

 

[Ridgerunner]

I know people (and know OF people) who:

are very pro-life,

very devoted to Scripture,

try to live by the Word of God…

and would never THINK of voting for someone who is pro-abortion

To me, they are “Catholic”…

Then there are those who attend Sunday Mass every week (some even daily Mass )

yet do NOT support the right to life…

and thereby are NOT in compliance with the Word of God… (“Thou shalt not kill”)

and WOULD vote for someone who is pro-abortion…

Very strange…

I just don’t “get it”…

I live in an overwhelmingly protestant (mostly Fundamentalist) part of the country; the Bible Belt, it’s called. There is much in the beliefs and practices of many of them that I find admirable. It’s an interesting thing to contemplate. Famed Catholic Southern writer, Flannery O’Connor, who probably knew Southern Fundamentalists better than they knew themselves, said that they would be surprised to learn (if they did) that their beliefs and morals are much closer to those of the Catholic Church than they are to classic protestantism. I agree with her. One might, on the flip side of the proposition, consider the possibility that many Catholics have adopted some of the beliefs and mores of classic protestantism. I think there’s truth to that as well.

It’s interesting to read the doctrinal statements of many protestant sects. Some are not more than a page long, yet they believe much, much more than their doctrinal statements contain. Why, particularly when protestantism’s very core is the primacy of private interpretation of scripture and primacy of individual conscience? It is my belief that Catholicism still runs through western society without it being acknowledged that it does. It is my belief that Catholic belief permeates even Protestant churches, albeit with differences here and there.

I believe that because of an experiment I do every once in awhile when I’m discussing religion with a protestant; particularly a Fundamentalist protestant. I’ll lend them a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and ask them to come back and tell me, when they’re ready, what they disagree with. Other than the Church structure stuff and the nature of the priesthood, they actually disagree with very little, though they assume, without really knowing, that they do. When their own statements of doctrine contain almost nothing, but they find themselves agreeing with almost everything the Catholic Church teaches about faith and morals, it tells you that protestantism, by and large, is derivative. What does saying “I’m Protestant” mean? It means “I am a Christian who believes in the scriptures and the salvific nature of Jesus Christ. To know anything more, you have to inquire because I ‘Protest’ some of…” Of what? What the Catholic Church, with its deep deposit of faith and doctrine teaches, that’s what. What The Catholic Church laboriously taught the western mind for centuries, that’s what.

And, yes, some Catholics also “Protest”. And they picked it up from Protestantism.

 

[tmac1238]

Is this the standard SDA line?

You mean older than the one called, “ANTI-CATHOLIC?”

If you keep saying “ANTI-CATHOLIC” all the time, could it be God can raise Ellen White from the grave and she then persecutes you “holy” people since you claim she’s the Antichrist?

And that your proof of this is because she was “struck in the brain with a rock?” And that she’s delusional. And that no one needs to worry about her even though you claim she’s the Antichrist, and prophecy says that the whole world will worship the Antichrist?

Which Adventist Standard line is older than the one that justifies the worst crimes: ANTI-CATHOLIC?

That’s why you guys can’t see the boldest public death threats against all non-Catholics, and now you can’t see your “Atheist” friend posting child pornography because he can’t cope with the truth I speak.

What then can you see?

Can you see that the Pope is not a God? Can you see that all liars are going to hell? Can you see that the Apostle Paul wasn’t able to lie like you?