Why I am not a Catholic (briefly)

Post Reply New Topic

Probably cause he would mop the floor with you.

Fact is, the blame Bush thing has gotten old and people don't believe it anymore, so now he's blaming the rich and Republicans.

Well this didn't help FDR in an offyear election back in the 30s, in fact it backfired and actually saved the Republican party whom picked up quite a few house and senate seats because people were afraid FDR was trying to become another dictator.

The fact of the matter is, Obama had tried to fix the economy, it it was the Republicans who had dug their heels in. Obama, to his discredit, had tried to be a conciliator working with the right. The economy is in the toilet because of unfettered capitalism, and because the Republicans are more interested in siding with big money who they appease with not only tax cuts, but also with cuts in social programs. And now, they want the rest of us to shoulder the tax burden, while the so called job creators are free to create employment - - in Bangladesh.l And yes, this does all go back to Bush.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

(Sigh) While Luther in his later years had written some very ugly things about Jews, he never had those things put into action, nor did any other Protestant religious or civil leader. Considering that the worst history of Antisemitism was one of violent action, Luther hardly belongs anywhere the top of the list. And while Luther's hateful writings against Jews was used by the Nazis to justify their position, those writings had almost been forgotten till Hitler and friends had dug them up. In no way do any of these Antisemitic writings have any influence on modern American Lutheranism.

And to give you a little history; Luther wrote those things only in later life, after he had more than one catastrophic illness which had left his behavior and thinking erratic. A very good argument for organic brain damage can be made.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You give yourself too much credit. User "91" wrote me today and asked what I thought of Catholicism. The length of my response warranted simply starting a thread where everyone could participate in the discussion. I don't feel strongly one way or another about you.

Yes Cuz Hanity is a super-genius double wash-out bartender I quake at his utterances.

That is a rather large problem for me sometimes. I am sorry for thinking that. Even though if you did feel strongly about me, I hope it was complete hate.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 26 Oct 2011, 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I haven't studied Luther extensively, but the man who wrote those anti-Semitic things is not the same man who nailed the 95 theses to the door, passionately pleading for honesty of doctrine from the Catholic Church when moved by God to do so, so I tend to agree with you. His body of work taken as a whole simply doesn't reflect a true anti-Semite, but a person who longed for the truth of God above all.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Surprised you didn't become an atheist by now then.

My intention was not to stir a public sectarian pot, rather just have a private chat. I personally see myself as a 'mere Christian' first and a Catholic after that.



That title is hotly debated within the Church, but it does not mean what you think it does. The title is not meant to imply that Mary is the redeemer, since she herself needed redemption also through Christ. The term mostly relates to the view of Pius XII that she was predestined. The special place of Mary within Christian theology goes back to the first century and is clearly evident within the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch. His writings give us a clear view into Christianity's early years and it is a telling sign that within his lifetime the practice of the power of the Bishops, the real presence of the Eucharist and even the use of the word Catholic are all emphasized as mainstream (katholikos meaning according to the whole) Christian teachings.

Baatar has kind of taken care of the 'praying to the dead' claim. Also I would like to add that you would find it in the Bible, if Luther had not chopped Maccabees out. Baatar has also taken care of the whole 'salvation by works claim'. I would like to add that the Catholic Church has a joint doctrine on justification with the Lutherans now... we actually agree on the matter

North Ireland can breathe free.

As for Bataar's explanations, each one is symantics-based, and thus weak to me. Mary is revered beyond that which she should be. She should never be prayed to, only God should. Prayer to anyone else never exists in a righteous context in all of Scripture. Also, asking dead people to pray is prayer itself. "Pray" means ask, as in "I pray thee let me go." And as the verse I quoted says, you're not to "consult" them, which would mean any contact. As for his claim that the Catholic Church never teaches salvation is by anything but God's grace, I just find that disingenuous; the Catholic Church does not teach full and final assurance of salvation -- and, on that note, they invent Purgatory out of thin air. They teach that sins must be followed with little payment rituals, like "hail Mary"s. Not true! Jesus died for ALL sins for ALL time, because He was an infinite Being who was infinitely innocent when He died. Therefore His sacrifice is once-for-all. You don't need payment for salvation. The Bible is clear that the only other way to Heaven besides Jesus Christ is a non-way for any human: keeping the law perfectly.
As for the pope, that office simply should not exist; there are only two classes of believers in Scripture -- God, and humans. That's why such "layers of middle management", if you will, are expressly forbidden in Scripture (Mark 10:42-44). It's always us-to-God, God-to-us -- there is NO other order of divine communication or accountability in the New Testament. The Bible teaches that, among each other, we are accountable as equals, not with a church member confessing to a "father" and asking that mere man to "forgive me for I have sinned", in that kind of one-way, you're-above-me fashion. That leadership is just a false, self-appointed priesthood. We are all priests at Salvation, not just some of us later on (1 Peter 2:9-10). And we are also all saints, not just who the Catholic Church deems suitable for it. A saint is a Christian.

Last edited by Ragtime on 26 Oct 2011, 11:18 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Because Catholics are the problem there?
Oh I'm sorry I did not mean to pray to you but I do not know any other way to get info.

I read the Bible and see clear indications Jesus intended to teach the same message as Buddha regarding enlightenment. There has been much editing of the Scriptures, but in some passages it seems pretty clear to me that is what He intended. There is also some legitimate doubt about whether or not Jesus was an actual historical personage, much less divine. If He was a manifestation of God in the flesh, it seems clear to me He was trying to tell us that each of us are that too. Of course that was and is a subversive message, so the Scriptures were edited heavily. It is still possible to read the Christian Bible from a Hindu perspective (for example) and see what I am talking about. I am neither the first nor the only person to realize this. It is my opinion (and not just mine) that Christians put Jesus on a pedestal and worshiped the messenger instead of understanding His message.

I don't think the Christian Bible is relevant to us today. It was written by and for people of a different time and place. Perhaps it communicates timeless truths, but in my opinion those truths are also expressed in other religions that were in their turn written by and for people of their particular times and places. If one gets hung up on the details of stories used to communicate spiritual teachings, it is easy to completely miss the point of what the stories are trying to teach. Also, such teachings are by their nature ineffable (cannot be adequately communicated by language alone), and once put into words they become subject to errors of translation, misinterpretation, and polluted and diluted by cultural baggage.

So for me, to hear Protestants bashing Catholics or vice versa is ridiculous. They are both right, and both wrong. It is possible to transcend the polarities of ordinary thinking and go beyond thoughts or feelings to directly experience one's ground of being. Different people are at different levels of spiritual awareness, and that's okay. For some, the fundie path is the only way. I disagree with those who insist their interpretation is the only way for everyone. I am not saying my interpretation is the only way. For you, maybe being a Protestant Christian is the only way that will work for you. For others, perhaps being a Catholic. I do not see this as a problem nor a conflict. Obviously, many people don't see it this way, and of course, I could be wrong!

While I have no evidence besides my personal experience (which cannot be shared but only vaguely described to others) about these spiritual matters, I am on much more solid footing regarding the fact evolution happens. On this subject, the Catholics are much more grounded in reality than some Protestant denominations. Most Christian sects (including Roman Catholics and most Protestant churches) either accept the fact evolution happens or say it is not relevant to their faith. Those denominations that don't though seriously damage their credibility on spiritual matters by denying what is observably real. Saint Augustine warned a long time ago (ca. 400 A.D.) that if Christians make ignorant assertions about the natural world that nonbelievers can easily see are false, it can turn people away from Christ. It also makes Christians look really stupid. Those Christians who deny the fact of evolution are just as wrong as if they were to insist the earth is flat.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 27 Oct 2011, 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

What the OP said. Plus their constant hiding of and moving around of pedophile priests.

catholic logic:
Homosexual = bad
priest touching boy = Depends? is anyone looking?

Bataar's reasoning is sound, it is based on Catholic doctrine and the reasoning behind it; your position unfortunately seems to be based on appearances.



We do not pray to Mary. It is as simple as that. We ask her to pray to God for us; now and at the hour of our death.



Nonsense; 1 Timothy 2:5 says that we ought to pray for one another. That we should pray for our king's and queen's; that God might intercede on our behalf. The dead also engage with the living for example in Matt 17:3 where Elijah and Moses talk to Christ. Paul encourages us to pray for each other all the time Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1, and if the Protestants had not cut out Maccabees you would see clear instances of prayer to the dead. We ask the dead to pray for us; Mary included.



No more than a pray for you would be a prayer to you.



From the joint declaration on the doctrine of justification;

"The strict emphasis on the passivity of human beings concerning their justification never meant, on the Lutheran side, to contest the full personal participation in believing; rather it meant to exclude any cooperation in the event of justification itself. Justification is the work of Christ alone, the work of grace alone"

"Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works."

Seems pretty clear cut to me. The main issue I have is that this is rarely taught to many Protestants; especially evangelicals.



Catholic doctrine does not consider purgatory to be a place; but there is plenty scriptural evidence for some sort of intermediate state; especially in the OT. I am not really read up on Purgatory but if you are looking for something on the subject check out; John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.



The passage you listed does not expressly forbid power within the Church, it is a statement that leaders should be servants. Now I will admit that Catholics do not always get it right but neither does anyone. The authority of Peter is well established; Matthew (16:17‑19), Luke (22:32)and John (21:15‑17). It is however within the apostolic tradition that you will encounter the Bishops and the Papacy etc. Protestant study of the early Church usually stops at the moment the books of the NT have been written. If you want to understand how the people believed then, you need to read about the early Church. You need to read St. Ignatius of Antioch, St Iranaus, Pope St Clement I, St Polycarp,St Athanasius, etc.

I am not sure I caught every issue you raised there but surely I have given you grounds enough for second thoughts regarding your rejection of the Catholic position.