WHY are you NOT a Catholic?


REPLY Q #4 pt A

**REPLY tlanman87 **
Q #4: Are these taught by the Apostles in Sacred Tradition?

“The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text”


“Still the general Messianic promises made to the house of David cannot be frustrated: “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel. He shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to refuse the evil and to choose the good. For before the child know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of the face of her two kings.” Without answering a number of questions connected with the explanation of the prophecy, we must confine ourselves here to the bare proof that the virgin mentioned by the prophetis Mary the Mother of Christ. The argument is based on the premises that the prophet’s virgin is the mother of Emmanuel, and that Emmanuel is Christ. The relation of the virgin to Emmanuel is clearly expressed in the inspired words; the same indicate also the identity of Emmanuel with the Christ”

You’re question cannot be addressed without a full and right understanding of God’s intended transfer of Power of the KEY’S in Mt 16:18-19. & Jn 17:17-20, Mt 28:18-20

Jerusalem at the time of authorship of the NT was “Walled in city”. It was the NORM for such to have a king, who choose a Visar to handle ALL of the day-to-day decisions, answerable ONLY to the KING. This is precisely what is taking place with Jesus & Peter in Mt 16:15-19.

Jesus knew and expected that His Church would be Organic and pragmatic.

Matt.16 Verses 18 to 19 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build MY CHURCH [singular] and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give YOU [all of them implied] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon Search Results
Result of search for “bind”: [Hebrew]

247 ‘azar aw-zar’ a primitive root; to belt:–bind (compass) about, gird (up, with).

330 ‘etuwn ay-toon’ from an unused root (probably meaning to bind); properly, twisted (yarn), i.e. tapestry:–fine linen.

481 ‘alam aw-lam’ a primitive root; to tie fast; hence (of the mouth) to be tongue-tied:–bind, be dumb, put to silence.


Q #4 vpt B

To “Loose” {Hebrew]

6605 pathach paw-thakh’ a primitive root; to open wide (literally or figuratively); specifically, to loosen, begin, plough, carve:–appear, break forth, draw (out), let go free, (en-)grave(-n), loose (self), (be, be set) open(-ing), put off, ungird, unstop, have vent.

7368 rachaq raw-khak’ a primitive root; to widen (in any direction), i.e. (intransitively) recede or (transitively) remove (literally or figuratively, of place or relation):–(a-, be, cast, drive, get, go, keep (self), put, remove, be too, (wander), withdraw) far (away, off), loose, X refrain, very, (be) a good way (off).
So the Growth in understanding, the issuing of NEW Laws and teachings was fully expected and HS Guided, hence your thinking is a bit off on this issue. The authority of the KEY”S was recognized by the Early Fathers:

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
Hope this clarifies the issue for you.

GB, Patrick


I am currently in RCIA. I have never felt so close to God since I am studying to convert to Catholicism. I always believed in God/Jesus but lived exactly how I pleased with no strong moral convictions. I love the intellectual aspects of Catholicism and we are not discouraged from questioning. It might be till Easter but I thank God that I am now in conversion classes!


How do you believe that a person is saved?


Teek, I am in no way qualified to answer this as a newbie myself. I am posting a link to a good explanation. In other words, the Catholics believe you just cannot believe in Christ and then go on to do nasty things and be in rebellion against God. You have to believe and then practice to the best of your ability. Go forth and sin no more so to speak.




God bless you Victorygirl…and welcome, welcome Home. Yes, the Truth is so very satisfying.


From your above post…

“1st is the conversion, that is placing faith in Christ. This is when we are adopted and filled with the Holy Spirit as opposed to baptism which is what I understand the RCC to believe. This conversion supernaturally changes our heart. We are made new creations in Christ. It is because of our faith that we receive the gift of eternal life.”

Adding this to your previous post…

“It seems that no matter how you slice it, if I have to merit something then I"m at least partially saying salvation is “of our own doing”.”

In your first quote, you maintain that we first have to put our faith in God. Is that not also at least partially saying that Salvation is of our own doing? If you don’t? No Salvation, right?

  1. God gave us free will so that we can freely choose Him. Or not. But He respects that choice. Choosing does not give you the power to save yourself. He does all the saving. He does it on an invitation and a response to that invitation. All Christians believe that this accepting of Christ as our Lord and Savior is necessary for redemption. None maintain that the acceptance itself has the power to save. God alone can do that. In Catholicism, the accepting itself also does not effect Salvation: it is received in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Baptism—an act of Jesus Christ through His Body the Church. He acts, and you are then saved. If you hold that placing faith in Christ is what causes you to be filled with the Holy Spirit, then your act effects your Salvation. In Catholicism, we believe that our salvation is much more than that. God has made our freewill an element of our salvation by His own generosity—He didn’t have to. And it is His act alone that saves us.

  2. The Church teaches that the desire that is in a person’s heart for the Lord is also a gift from the Lord. He planted that desire and purpose in every human heart. Then His grace moves us toward Him. The grace of moving toward Him is His gift, and it merits salvation, so to speak. It is not by our merits or actions but by the Holy Spirit that we move to accepting. So the merit we have itself was His gift, and was not earned, but it is what merits salvation.

I might be oversimplifying to the point of error in my next statement: if so, then all ye forum posters of brutal honesty please descend upon me!!! For me, it is that God’s generous love is what calls us, moves us, and transforms us. If our contribution was not required it would be an automatic, not personal, conversion. The only single thing that we truly contribute is our assent to His invitation and His promises. Not because it is necessary that we do, He could save every single one if us without it if He chose, but He does not, so that we might have the dignity of a free response to love Him. He wanted Sons and Daughters, not slaves. Not even slaves to love.


I believe “of our own doing” means to earn or merit the gifts of God. It is like saying I earned the playstation that was under the Christmas tree because I unwrapped the box. Did I do something to be able to “get the playstation”, yes. Did I earn or merit the playstation. No. It was a gift.

The only condition I can find in the bible to accept the Gifts of God is faith. Which, by my definition is, “surrendering myself Christ”. That surrendering myself to Christ will produce works of faith that will be evident in my life. Those works of faith include repentance, obedience, giving, worship, helping the poor and needy, and so on. If I don’t display a change in my life that compels me to do those things then I haven’t been converted.


I appreciate you compiling all of this but I’ve read it all before and am not convinced. If anything I’m moving toward Reformed Theology since I started visiting these boards.


Then you are rejecting the Catholic position based on what you define it to mean rather than what it actually means, and what the Church explains it to mean. You think your definition of merit and how it comes about is what the Church has to mean even when it is explained to you that it is not what the Church teaches. If you are not interested in Truth, no one here can help you.


Okay then. let’s use the gift metaphor.

Let’s say it is my birthday party and my father has a huge gift for me on the table. Using my metaphor, I accept the gift and open it. What is inside is so wonderful and life changing that it becomes the treasure of my heart. My thoughts and actions dwell on the treasure of my heart and I tell my friends about it and try to get others to love and enjoy it as much as I do.

In this very short metaphor the gift is Jesus and, receiving the gift is faith, and my thoughts and actions are the works of faith in which I glorify the gift and share the gift with others.

This is a very simplistic and admittedly inadequate metaphor of the Protestant view of Conversion and Sanctification.

What would be a similar Catholic Metaphor on receiving the gift of Jesus that would show the Catholic definition?


The same metaphor. We would call that acceptance of the gift and God’s offer of it to us as “merit.” We merit redemption precisely because God has offered it to us. Choosing to unwrap the gift is the assent of faith, and being given possession of what is inside would be Baptism. And our thoughts and actions and our sharing of the gift with others-we call that faith and good works. The opposite of faith is disobedience, right? And so we show faith by obedience to His will, in a response of loving gratitude for what He has done for us in Creating, Redeeming, and Sanctifying us, and in so doing we glorify His gift and share t with others.

There are legitimate points of departure between what Catholics believe and what others believe. This one—the one about merit—we would all agree on if people would listen to what is actually being said, rather than assuming the word merit is meant in the way a Boy Scout would earn a merit badge.


You’re on the WAY HOME my friend,

Logically and Morally there CAN be only

One True God

One True set of Faith beliefs

And One True Church… today’s Roman Catholic Church & Faith, provable both historically and Biblically


Fair enough,

How about we begin with a bit of Bible history:

YAWYEH God with consistency always choose one Man for leadership of HIS Chosen people [even before he identified tham as the Hebrew nation]

Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Judges, the kings, the Prophets leading to John the Baptist, who leads to Jesus, who choose 12 mane LED BY Peter

GOOGLE “Early Father on the Primacy” to obtain confirmation and acceptance of this reality.

I can provide 50 bible- FIRST for Peter if space would permit it]

Secondly in the business world there is commonly just one PERSON who is ultimately IN Charge.

BOTH reflect knowledge of human nature that when there is more than one “equal” boss; MOST often less will be accomplished.

GOOGLE " the early Fathers on the Primacy" for further evidence of this.

This alone ought to assuage your inquiry.

God Bless my friend,

Pray very much



Actually I have a very long list that could be expanded upon.

Contradicting history (Yes from Peter to Francis)
Changing under the explanation of development
Claiming a Patent on Christ
What is the Magisterium exactly?
Catholic morality (How to figure it out)
NFP and Contraception
Need for confession and therefore mortal sin

After a month, how has your experience been on the new forum?

It is curious why some people who joined these Catholic forums aren’t Catholic. And they question why we ask why they aren’t Catholic?! Why do some of those people complain about the Catholic Church, when they chose to become members of these Catholic forums. Instead, I would rather ask why any of you who aren’t Catholic chose to become members of Catholic Answers forums in the first place… that’s the big question I’m most curious about.


I have an entire family in law who wonders why I am not Catholic. If it wasn’t for that I wouldn’t have even known how to spell Catholic.

But the reality sets in and I need to converse with these people. Just a thought…


Several reasons…

Infant baptism
inherited sin
praying in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, instead of in the name of Jesus Christ only
belief in creation ex-nihilo
the doctrine of the Trinity
choice of bread or wine at communion
no apostles or prophets

… to name a few reasons


I can only speak for myself on why I chose to join. I have rubbed shoulders professionally with many Catholics but I have had very limited conversations in real life with anyone of them about what they really believe. I initially found it fascinating that people here actually possessed a personal faith within the realm of Catholicism. Most Catholics in real life that I have put questions to about their faith don’t seem to know what they really believe or else they just don’t care to verbalize it. So many just seem to think that since they are Catholic that there is nothing else to religious they need to say or know.

If you are questioning why I was questioning the meaning of PJM’s opening sentence regarding the “multiplicity of Protestant faiths” having a sharing in common that should make one desire to be a Catholic, I must admit that I am stumped on what that qualifier even means. Most people seem to be just responding to the thread title. If that is what was meant to be the essence of this thread then my reason for not being Catholic is that I do not believe that God is calling me to be a part of it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.