If you have studied the Catholic Church & her Teachings from sources within the Catholic Church and as a result you did not become Catholic, Please Post here the reason(s) why?

[elvisman]

Originally Posted by ckempston

Has anybody else ever told you that your unnecessary and excessive use of different fonts, colors, and sizes make your posts difficult to even read? Perhaps this is a cover that you use to make it difficult for people to respond to you so you can claim they just couldn't answer your points?

Yes, they have. Usually people who can't come up with a better argument than, "I find your colors distracting."

Originally Posted by ckempston

I obviously have no beef with the fact that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The fact that you think it scores some big point for Catholicism is simply weird. The church is indeed the pillar and foundation of truth, but that doesn't give it the authority to ADD more truth as it goes along. Pillars and foundations hold things up (i.e. the truth). They do not add to them. This doesn't help the Catholic position in the least.

Then listen to the words of Jesus on the matter:
John 16:12-15
"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

Originally Posted by ckempston

Yeah, I gotcha. Doesn't "hurt" in the least.
Ok. You obviously, again, think there is some grand significance to this. What you conclude from it is a non sequitur, which I have learned from years of debating with Catholics, is their favorite fallacy.
Amen. Your point? You can just rattle off passages and pretend they support your assertions, but they don't. That's the problem.

Ahhh - the old, "I'm rubber, you're glue - whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you" routine.
The last bastion of the truly desperate . . .

Originally Posted by ckempston

Ok. This is all well and good, but still doesn't support the Catholic assertion, which is that it can dig around, find some vague reference to some concept or another, say that it was universally held by the church, and call it the teaching of the Apostles. Anybody who falls for that is naive.

The vast disagreement of the early churches proves that the Catholic church has very little ability, beyond what we are fairly certain are the New Testament scriptures, to distinguish what is "Tradition" and what is just some Bishop's personal opinion.

The funny thing about the disagreements and heresies in the Early Church - they were settled by the Authoritative decisions and decrees of the Church. Your apparent lack of faith in the promises of Christ to his Church are very telling.

Originally Posted by ckempston

If I have seen it once, I have seen it a thousand times - you ask for the earliest possible evidence of some Marian doctrine. Catholics will invariably quote some vague passage from a church father in which Mary was merely peripherally mentioned, and from this develop some grand doctrine that has no relation to the quoted text whatsoever.

"Vague" references?
I think I've showed you some rather explicit ones at that.
Look - we have the Scriptures, the Early Church Fathers, the declarations and decrees of the councils, the creeds, history, etc.

As I stated in an earlier post to yet another anti-Catholic:
All you have is a short 500 year history of rebellion, confusion, perpetually splintering denominations - and arrogance.

[DocProct]

Originally Posted by SingleMomMonica

This is not a thread for people who have only obtained & researched information about the Catholic Church from non-Catholic sources.

I did not because the doctrines and practices are not in line with the mouth of God. Jesus said, "that man will not live by bread alone, but by every word the proceeds from the mouth of God". This also makes the case as to why Protestants adhere to the Scripture in my opinion, which is worthless.

[CradleCath]

Originally Posted by ckempston

It is inappropriate. Mary is presumably in heaven, but she can neither hear my prayers, nor influence the answering of them, because she is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

As the Father's choice from all time to be the mother of his only begotten Son and our Savior, Mary deserves to be called Blessed, as she said, but nothing more.

Do you give my mother attention and love? No, you don't. She's not your mother.

No, I do not.....but then you aren't God. If you came into this world to suffer & die for my sins.....I would give special attention & love to your Mother.

[CradleCath]

[quote]

Originally Posted by sckcd

But how can I know things haven't been skewed through the ages?

You can't unless you believe that our Church is protected from false teachings re. faith & morals.....protected as Christ promised:

13 And Jesus came into the region of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples: who do people say that the Son of man is?
14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 Jesus said to them: But who do you say I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: You are Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him:[b][size="3"][b] Blessed are you, Simon son of Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build MYchurch, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

B]

It always amazes me how those who say they are Sola Scriptura.......that they believe that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian......that ALL Scripture is "God-Breathed....... seem to be stumped by this one.

Anyone who is at all knowledgeable about the history of our world, during & after Christ's birth, KNOWS that the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for 15 centuries & that Jesus was referring to our faith when He said, "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom & that the gates of Hell will not prevail over HIS Church. He has given His promise that He will guide His Church, yet so many lack the faith that He will keep His promise. If you (generic you) cannot believe that our Pope is infallible when pronouncing ex-Cathedra Doctrine about matters of faith & morals, there is really no point in discussing this.

BTW, The Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura & it was the Catholic Church who put the teachings of Christ & the Apostles together into one book called the BIBLE.

Were there not corrupt popes and practices way back when? If the church was always as pure as it was in the first century I would be able to accept things easier, but I know there were instances of corruption, so how can I trust teachings that were added through the years?

Yes, there were corrupt Popes. Seven, if I'm remembering correctly.......but you must remember that Pope Benedict XVI is the 265th Pope. So, the great majority of those who have led Christ's Church were exceptionally good & holy men. We believe that God protected His Church against those who were evil. In reading church history it is an amazing fact that not ONE of these bad Popes ever passed doctrines against the faith handed down by the Apostles. I guess they were too busy with their fornicating & building private fortunes......to be worried about Church doctrine??

No one, including our Popes, has ever been sinless. Nor have any of them claimed to be. Don't confuse impeccability with infallibility. They are entirely different things.

God be with you in your searching.

[ckempston]

Originally Posted by elvisman

Yes, they have. Usually people who can't come up with a better argument than, "I find your colors distracting."

Your criticism would be warranted if this is all I wrote. It wasn't.

Then listen to the words of Jesus on the matter:
John 16:12-15
"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

This supports my position quite explicitly. The Holy Spirit would reveal ALL TRUTH TO THE APOSTLES.

Ahhh - the old, "I'm rubber, you're glue - whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you" routine.
The last bastion of the truly desperate . . .

Strawman. Totally not what my response was comprised of.

The funny thing about the disagreements and heresies in the Early Church - they were settled by the Authoritative decisions and decrees of the Church. Your apparent lack of faith in the promises of Christ to his Church are very telling.

How long after the Apostles were dead did this first happen (excluding Jerusalem, of course, where there were Apostles present).

"Vague" references?
I think I've showed you some rather explicit ones at that.
Look - we have the Scriptures, the Early Church Fathers, the declarations and decrees of the councils, the creeds, history, etc.

300 years after the Apostles were dead is hardly an impressive support for a council on "Apostolic Tradition." As I have pointed out, the ECFs rarely actually say what Catholics would need them to say to support their doctrines.

As I stated in an earlier post to yet another anti-Catholic:
All you have is a short 500 year history of rebellion, confusion, perpetually splintering denominations - and arrogance.

And all you have is nearly 2000 years of corruption, power grabs, and teachings of man being parroted as the commands of God.

[ckempston]

Originally Posted by CradleCath

No, I do not.....but then you aren't God. If you came into this world to suffer & die for my sins.....I would give special attention & love to your Mother.

Of course you would, and you would still be wrong to do so, because Jesus himself tells us not to put any store in who his physical mother, brothers, or sisters are.

Mark 3:31-35 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you. Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

[elvisman]

Originally Posted by ckempston

Your criticism would be warranted if this is all I wrote. It wasn't.

Just pointing out a fact about your use of red herrings. Stick to the discussion next time and leave the text formatting alone. It’s silly.

Originally Posted by ckempston

This supports my position quite explicitly. The Holy Spirit would reveal ALL TRUTH TO THE APOSTLES.

Yup - the Apostles, who were the Church at the time. He made his promise to the Church.
Strawman. Totally not what my response was comprised of.[/quote]
Nope – it was a silly response to an even sillier premise.

Originally Posted by ckempston

How long after the Apostles were dead did this first happen (excluding Jerusalem, of course, where there were Apostles present).

As soon as heresies sprang up their ugly heads.
Docetism (Christ was not truly human) – Late 1st Century
Sabellianism (modalism, God in 3 modes) – 2nd Century
Early enough for ya?

Originally Posted by ckempston

300 years after the Apostles were dead is hardly an impressive support for a council on "Apostolic Tradition." As I have pointed out, the ECFs rarely actually say what Catholics would need them to say to support their doctrines.

I already showed you, my angry friend, that they EXPLICITLY wrote about the very things taught by the Catholic Church today.

Originally Posted by ckempston

And all you have is nearly 2000 years of corruption, power grabs, and teachings of man being parroted as the commands of God.

We have the authority given by Christ Himself 2000 years ago:
Matt. 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 20:21-13, 1 Tim. 3:15
You have the doctrines and precepts of rebellious, spiritually prideful men – 1500 years AFTER Jesus.

[sckcd]

[quote=CradleCath;5932421]

You can't unless you believe that our Church is protected from false teachings re. faith & morals.....protected as Christ promised:

B]

It always amazes me how those who say they are Sola Scriptura.......that they believe that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian......that ALL Scripture is "God-Breathed....... seem to be stumped by this one.

Anyone who is at all knowledgeable about the history of our world, during & after Christ's birth, KNOWS that the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for 15 centuries & that Jesus was referring to our faith when He said, "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom & that the gates of Hell will not prevail over HIS Church. He has given His promise that He will guide His Church, yet so many lack the faith that He will keep His promise. If you (generic you) cannot believe that our Pope is infallible when pronouncing ex-Cathedra Doctrine about matters of faith & morals, there is really no point in discussing this.

BTW, The Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura & it was the Catholic Church who put the teachings of Christ & the Apostles together into one book called the BIBLE.



Yes, there were corrupt Popes. Seven, if I'm remembering correctly.......but you must remember that Pope Benedict XVI is the 265th Pope. So, the great majority of those who have led Christ's Church were exceptionally good & holy men. We believe that God protected His Church against those who were evil. In reading church history it is an amazing fact that not ONE of these bad Popes ever passed doctrines against the faith handed down by the Apostles. I guess they were too busy with their fornicating & building private fortunes......to be worried about Church doctrine??

No one, including our Popes, has ever been sinless. Nor have any of them claimed to be. Don't confuse impeccability with infallibility. They are entirely different things.

God be with you in your searching.

Thanks for the explaination , it does help.

[CradleCath]

[quote]

Originally Posted by ckempston

And all you have is nearly 2000 years of corruption, power grabs, and teachings of man being parroted as the commands of God.[/QUOTE

This wk. is the first time I've ever posted in the non-Catholic thread. I can see by your rude words above that you really are here..........not to discuss the learning you received about the Catholic Church FROM the Church......but simply to bash it. I've tried to maintain a civil manner here, but I think that I've had just about enough. Anyone who would come to a Catholic forum & spread the kind of JUNK that you just have,is NOT someone who I care to discuss the topic of this thread with. Bye Bye!!!

[PaulDupre]

Originally Posted by rick43235

Even if I could come to terms with God, I doubt that I could ever become Catholic. Church teachings on issues such as birth control, stem cell research, sexuality, papal authority, real presence, etc., just don't ring true to me.

You know, don't you, that the Catholic Church is not opposed to stem cell research? In fact, in Europe, the Ponitifical Academy of Sciences is the largest single funder and participator in stem cell research.

The Catholic Church is only opposed to fetal stem-cell research, because it requires and pre-supposes abortion, which the Church opposes.

[PaulDupre]

Originally Posted by Dettingen

For me, it would probably boil down to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. That's an important doctrine to me, and I think the RC would never accept me until I gave it up.

The Catholic Church has always taught the priesthood of all believers.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Part 2, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 1, SubSection 1, Heading 2

1141 The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, "by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that through all the works of Christian men they may offer spiritual sacrifices." 9 This "common priesthood" is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate: 10


Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people," have a right and an obligation by reason of their Baptism. 11

Part 2, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 1, SubSection 1, Heading 2

1143 For the purpose of assisting the work of the common priesthood of the faithful, other particular ministries also exist, not consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders; their functions are determined by the bishops, in accord with liturgical traditions and pastoral needs. "Servers, readers, commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function." 14

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, SubSection 7, Heading 3

1268 The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood." 74 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light." 75 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 2, SubSection 3

1305 This "character" perfects the common priesthood of the faithful, received in Baptism, and "the confirmed person receives the power to profess faith in Christ publicly and as it were officially (quasi ex officio)." 122

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 3

1535 Through these sacraments those already consecrated by Baptism and Confirmation 1 for the common priesthood of all the faithful can receive particular consecrations. Those who receive the sacrament of Holy Orders are consecrated in Christ's name "to feed the Church by the word and grace of God." 2 On their part, "Christian spouses are fortified and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and dignity of their state by a special sacrament." 3

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 6, SubSection 2, Heading 3

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially. 22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace-a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit-,the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 6, SubSection 7, Heading 2

1591 The whole Church is a priestly people. Through Baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the "common priesthood of the faithful." Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the Head in the midst of the community.

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 6, SubSection 7, Heading 2

1592 The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus liturgicum) and pastoral governance (munus regendi).

Hope this helps.

Paul

[Carlan]

Originally Posted by Dettingen

That was a quick reply! Thanks.

There's a lot of issues for me, but to be fair, I've not made a formal, organized study.

For me, it would probably boil down to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. That's an important doctrine to me, and I think the RC would never accept me until I gave it up.

Hello Dettingen, Hope you have not given up on this thread

I am curious to know what you think now after having having made an organized study of the doctrine of the priesthood according to what the Catholic Church teaches, see this copy of what the poster,Paul, above gave us Have you changed your mind?.Carlan


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dettingen
For me, it would probably boil down to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. That's an important doctrine to me, and I think the RC would never accept me until I gave it up.

The Catholic Church has always taught the priesthood of all believers.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


Quote:
Part 2, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 1, SubSection 1, Heading 2

1141 The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, "by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that through all the works of Christian men they may offer spiritual sacrifices." 9 This "common priesthood" is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate: 10


Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people," have a right and an obligation by reason of their Baptism. 11

Part 2, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 1, SubSection 1, Heading 2

1143 For the purpose of assisting the work of the common priesthood of the faithful, other particular ministries also exist, not consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders; their functions are determined by the bishops, in accord with liturgical traditions and pastoral needs. "Servers, readers, commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function." 14

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, SubSection 7, Heading 3

1268 The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood." 74 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light." 75 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 2, SubSection 3

1305 This "character" perfects the common priesthood of the faithful, received in Baptism, and "the confirmed person receives the power to profess faith in Christ publicly and as it were officially (quasi ex officio)." 122

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 3

1535 Through these sacraments those already consecrated by Baptism and Confirmation 1 for the common priesthood of all the faithful can receive particular consecrations. Those who receive the sacrament of Holy Orders are consecrated in Christ's name "to feed the Church by the word and grace of God." 2 On their part, "Christian spouses are fortified and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and dignity of their state by a special sacrament." 3

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 6, SubSection 2, Heading 3

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially. 22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace-a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit-,the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 6, SubSection 7, Heading 2

1591 The whole Church is a priestly people. Through Baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the "common priesthood of the faithful." Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the Head in the midst of the community.

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 6, SubSection 7, Heading 2

1592 The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus liturgicum) and pastoral governance (munus regendi).

Hope this helps.

[rick43235]

Originally Posted by josie L

Does your wife know that you look upon her beliefs as myths and fables (especially now that you're going to mass)?

Yes. Although I attend mass with my wife every Sunday and find it to be a quiet, reflective way to start the week, my wife is aware that I don't believe what is supposedly happening there.

[Rachel Malloy]

Please do not allow yourselves to loose your charity in the heat of debate. Both sides have issued very rude comments about the other's Faith.

Please stop it, or this thread will be closed.

God bless-

Rachel

[Javl]

Originally Posted by masuwerte

Having taken RCIA at my wife's parish, one reason I did not convert is that many of their teachings seemed based on "because I said so". Another reason was that I felt I was being taught falsehoods that made Catholicism look better - probably the reason for this was that the instructor was not properly trained. But, there are other reasons I did not choose to convert, which didn't have anything to do with RCIA.

I agree with you on that the person was not trained. He/she should not have been teaching RCIA. It's a requirement that teachers of RCIA must be well grounded in the faith.
Every question must be answered with a reference to scripture, if required, and NEVER
with " because I said so". All teachings of the CC are based in scripture. Please give it another try with a different RCIA class. Also whatever questions you have concerning the Catholic Church and its faith can also be answered here on these forums and by the Forum Apologists. God Bless.


PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem