Our pastor stated in a homily that many people are considering leaving the Catholic Church for other Christian religions. He further stated, “why would you want to do this? We offer 7 sacraments and the other churches only offer 2”. A rather curious position on the situation.
Sites like that and others tend to prey on the ignorance most Catholics have about the Faith.
Decades of horrible catechesis, a watering down of doctrine, and a refusal by some inside the Church to defend it from heresy have created several generations of Catholics that are easily poached by sites like this. They make unsuspecting Catholics feel ignorant, betrayed, and lied to. After those feelings are established, the Catholics are easily led away from Christ’s Church and into error. They ask themselves why they never saw how wrong the Church was before, and cling to their new faith communities that have welcomed them with more ‘fellowship’ than they ever thought possible.
This will not stop until lay Catholics assist our clergy in educating our flocks with SOLID and AUTHENTIC Catholic teaching.
We need to know the Bible, we need to know what we believe - and why, and we need to teach each other. If we don’t, we could be judged just as those who are leading so many astray.
A scary thought to me.
And also likely to not help his position when people point out other Churches also offer more than 2 sacraments.
Just want you to know that is why I am here to learn from Catholics about Catholics! Straight from the horses mouth, so to say. And before you worry that there are sometimes bad answers to questions asked, I have found that the discussions following a “wrong” answer is extremely informative as well. Yes, I have found that many Catholics on the street don’t know their faith very well. Same for most Protestants, Jews, Mormons, JW’s, etc. That is sad but typical today.
perhaps to a point, but then if we are in a court of verification, hearsay does not make more sense than what is written, by said testators.
I think thirty thousand and two “denominations” are in agreement, (the two being Catholic and Orthodox)
Yet the debate is really coming from, being put forth, mostly by the Catholic Church, for discernible reasons.
well, as one honest and humble Catholic here on CAF said, some do more with the two than some with the seven.
Mysterious ways in which we provoke one another to a higher walk with Him.
I am not surprised because I run into Catholics all the time who ask me “are you Catholic or Christian?” And lots of Catholics boldly claim “I am not Christian, I’m Catholic” at least in the area I live. My guess is 99% of them are un catechised.
It’s quite annoying actually.
I wouldn’t put it that way myself. ‘Hearsay’ implies a lowering of credibility, whereas the better way to describe it, in my own opinion, is that the Apostles taught their successors who taught their successors and so on in an unbroken line down to the present day. Catholicism, after all, predates the first Protestant denomination by 1500 years so I feel no real reason to place a better perspective on what they have to say.
As mentioned, despite my love of Catholicism and the fact I attend only Catholic churches and have enjoyed going to Mass as much as four times a week, I remain a Protestant. But in an historical sense I believe Catholicism and the Orthodox have the closest attachment to the first generation of Christians. The New Testament is a brief outline of this era and cannot possibly contain everything Jesus did, said, and taught his followers. Further, the Protestant interpretations of much of what is written takes little account of first century customs, language, syntax and the use of allegory and metaphor.
However, at the end of it all, it is hardly my intention or right to attempt to persuade you of any of this. My goal is not to convince you, but to help you find a better understanding as to why Catholics teach and believe as they do. There is no obligation to accept it, but I greatly enjoy the dialog. Blessings to you, mcq72.
and to say hearsay is equal to what one wrote makes the latter moot.
true, and why we both agree to many, many old things.
Yet as it is written in Job, that age should teach wisdom, but sometimes does not, and truth comes out of youth, the mouth of babes.
Also Jesus , even His first followers, were also seen as "newcomers’’, even arrogant, kicking against those who rested on aged tradition (1500 years?) based on Moses and Abraham, or so they claimed. They really fumed when Jesus said He was one with Abraham (even before him). And reformers are not well received when they also claim apostolicity, claims to oneness to the beginning and not a 1500 year aberration.
That would mean more if indeed everything Catholic was fully developed in that first century.
For JWs, that’s by design. If you really don’t understand the underlying exegis, then you’re not likely to notice when the “theologians” (and I use that word very liberally indeed) change things. It’s the one thing I actually admire about the traditional branches of Christianity, that there is a 2000 year tradition of interpretation and a whole body of coherent philosophy and theology, and not just some random guy reading the King James Bible and basing an entire section on a couple of passages read incoherently.
I agree, as I don’t think that is the case.
Yes, this would help some but make others twice the sinners (better at their religion but …)
And for many this is not the problem (catechesis, etc.). For example many of the reformers were Catholic clergy, even teachers.
I have known even a nun, and many who were altar boys, and went to Catholic high school (Jesuits even) and grammar school that became protestant. So I believe these were the most catechized of their parishes.
The irony here is that they will gratefully acknowledge that the seeds of their current faith were implanted when they were young Catholics.
They claim a lot of things that aren’t true.
When I was going through RCIA (21 years ago), it was encouraged to only read articles/sources that were sound Catholic, in order to minimize confusion. The example was given that when the US Treasury trains their agents to spot fraudulent currency, the training provided to them is to study only the “actual/real” bills, so that when they do encounter a fake it is more obvious. This analogy has stuck with me.
I think people need to be more careful with their terms.
To be 'anti-catholicism" (religion/belief/practice) is not necessarily to be “anti-catholic” (persons who practice catholicism). One must demonstrate by evidence that such a person as “Jack Chick” or David W Daniels, etc are “anti-catholic”. I think a person would be hard pressed to demonstrate that. Are said persons, “anti-catholicism”? Yes. Yet, even given that, this does not sanctify the additional conclusion automatically that they are “anti-catholic”.
This would be akin to Jesus stating in Revelation about his hatred for the “doctrine” and “deeds” of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6,15) and somehow coming to the conclusion, that Jesus did not desire the salvation of the persons themselves from those “deeds” and “doctrine”.
I would ask that people be more careful about word choice, and even possibly how they might misjudge a motive, or misapply to persons, when theologies (beliefs/practices) are involved.
I couldn’t disagree with you more. Genesis 40:8; Psalms 19:7; 2 Peter 1:20; Isaiah 8:20, 28:10,13, John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and so on.