So Why Aren't You Catholic Yet?

[Lil Red]

but i think, excuse my ignorance, that God works in mysterious ways (euphemisms, gag me...sorry!) and His grace goes where it wills. A book i read, Last Words of Catholic Saints and Sinners, reminds me a lot of this.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1311400752' post='2274221']
That's the thing with the Catholic Church.
With it's claim to be Jesus' church, to claim to be divinely guided, to claim to be infallible, surely there can be no cherry picking. Either a person must accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church or hence believe that the Catholic Church is not what it claims to be. If this is the case then that person surely cannot claim to be Catholic.
How can they follow the Church but not believe it or respect it on its claim to divinity.
In my view a Christian who wants to interpret the Bible themselves and not take on the Church's interpretations, well this person cannot be Catholic.

Please don't be upset, this is just my thoughts, I'm probably wrong and expect someone will show me just how wrong I am.
[/quote]

I understand your view. Even if I didn't, nothing you said should make anyone upset - I don't think.

Like I said above, I don't understand it myself, but I have seen it. I volunteered with a guy who chose not to receive Holy Communion for a while because he didn't believe in the true presence. He went to mass multiple times a week and worked with the Youth Group. He could explain the teachings even though he didn't believe them himself. He did eventually come to believe and now receives. I considered him to be as strong a Catholic as anyone else: by choosing not to receive until be believed, he demonstrated that he understood and respected the church's teachings.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1311404079' post='2274245']
Like I said above, I don't understand it myself, but I have seen it. I volunteered with a guy who chose not to receive Holy Communion for a while because he didn't believe in the true presence. He went to mass multiple times a week and worked with the Youth Group. He could explain the teachings even though he didn't believe them himself. He did eventually come to believe and now receives. I considered him to be as strong a Catholic as anyone else: by choosing not to receive until be believed, he demonstrated that he understood and respected the church's teachings.
[/quote]
Yes, I would have an extremely high regard for this man, particularly with the pressure/scorn/bizarre looks associated with not going up to receive.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1311400752' post='2274221']
That's the thing with the Catholic Church.
With it's claim to be Jesus' church, to claim to be divinely guided, to claim to be infallible, surely there can be no cherry picking. Either a person must accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church or hence believe that the Catholic Church is not what it claims to be. If this is the case then that person surely cannot claim to be Catholic.
How can they follow the Church but not believe it or respect it on its claim to divinity.
In my view a Christian who wants to interpret the Bible themselves and not take on the Church's interpretations, well this person cannot be Catholic.

Please don't be upset, this is just my thoughts, I'm probably wrong and expect someone will show me just how wrong I am.
[/quote]

I actually see that as good food for thought. Not to sound uncharitable, but there are some people who I wonder why they stay Catholic if they do not respect the Church and have serious issues with it. It would be one thing if they decided to hold onto their Catholic identity and try to understand the Church's teachings on the issues that they struggle with. That I can understand.

Some people might pick and choose what they like from multiple religious affiliations and put them all together to basically have their own church. I have friends and peers who do this. I know a couple of girls who say that they are Buddhist Christians. Another friend of mine I knew during my first two years of college, identified herself as Catholic and said her rosary, but she "church hopped" on sundays to various Protestant churches. I don't recall ever seeing her at Mass at the one Catholic Church in that small town. She may have also have dabbed into worshipping some goddess. (She and I were roommates and I saw a book about a goddess in the room which wasn't mine. I'm not sure if she was reading that for a class, was curious about her, or if she was actually looking into believing in her.)

Others may think, "Well I've been Catholic all my life and not all of Catholicism is so bad. I'm partial to some of it."

Some are Catholic out of a sense of obligation to their family. My dad converted to Catholicism for his wife so that the family would be united, even if he didn't believe in it.

There may be other reasons as well.

[Polsky215]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1311367689' post='2273971']<br />1. I was born without a belief in god, so was my neighbor's dog. My car also laks a belief in god. It is the default position for me.<br />2. I have seen Catholics getting attacked by other Catholics on this forum when they disagree with Church teachings.<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />

Well judging by a cars default position you lack any knowledge including that of the material world, not to mention the spiritual. U except the physical world and deny the spiritual with some sort of a priori argument like i cant touch a spiritual thing thus it cant exist. You wouldnt except a blind person denying light because he couldnt see it. I think before you can deny the metaphysical you need to look through arguments for God with the souls reason and to pray. Otherwise you risk being like a baby who grows up refusing to open his eyes and denies light, justifying his actions by claiming blindness is the default position

[stevil]

[quote name='Polsky215' timestamp='1311454900' post='2274462']
Well judging by a cars default position you lack any knowledge including that of the material world, not to mention the spiritual.
[/quote]
This would be taking an analogy to the extreme and thus completely missing the point that I was attempting to convey

[quote name='Polsky215' timestamp='1311454900' post='2274462']
U except the physical world and deny the spiritual with some sort of a priori argument like i cant touch a spiritual thing thus it cant exist.
[/quote]
I've never said this

[quote name='Polsky215' timestamp='1311454900' post='2274462']
You wouldnt except a blind person denying light because he couldnt see it. I think before you can deny the metaphysical you need to look through arguments for God with the souls reason and to pray. Otherwise you risk being like a baby who grows up refusing to open his eyes and denies light, justifying his actions by claiming blindness is the default position
[/quote]
What you regard as my denial, I would say is my disbelief. I've heard some of the arguments for gods and I currently don't see these as proof of any god's existence.

[Polsky215]

The car analogy I did not use for the rest of my analysis; I was just trying to first show it was a faulty analogy. Disbelief in the existence of something is synonymous with denying its existence. By being atheist, I assumed you were a materialist. If you are a materialist, you deny the spiritual world because you have not experienced it. Likewise, to a materialist, experience must be limited to material experience. Thus, though you have not said it, many atheists fall into the mistake of making the claim that they only believe what they can see (referring to physical sense experience).

Edited July 23, 2011 by Polsky215

[Azriel]

I'm Catholic and I struggle with Church Teaching at times. Why? Cause I'm human. I doubt. I doubt a lot at times. I have what-if'd myself sometimes into a non functioning human being. But, I stay because I ask God to help me with my doubt and sometimes with my unbelief. As far as I am aware, God's ok with that.

I truly believe that if anyone thinks they have it all figured out .... whether claiming Atheism or Catholicism - or whatever ism you ascribe to, then they certainly have another think coming. The one thing I refuse to do is put God in a box.

[Adrestia]

I think the difference between disbelief & denial is that disbelief = lack of evidence where denial = evidence that God does not exist.

When I was a teenager I wasn't sure if God existed. I prayed - figuring that an answer of any type would be proof.

[infinitelord1]

Catholic= conservative Christian
Protestantism= liberal Christian

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1311389011' post='2274140']
extra ecclisium nulla sullus im sure i got that wrong
limbo

and there's some others per potential 'contradiction'

and the lack of concrete enough exercise of papal authority in the earliest church, that even an orthodox could believe legit in no pope

im sure there's other reasons
[/quote]

The earliest evidence of the Papacy is found in scripture. As well as Apostles having the authority to forgive sins.

Edited July 24, 2011 by infinitelord1

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah, the same words that were used to give peter 'power' were given to all the apostles. 'what you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven'. and that's even in passages other than the 'who's sins ye forgive' verse.
plus the bible itself is hardly definitive enough of proof. that means we go to early history, and that doesn't clear up anything either. hence, the orthodox will always remain separated, because the proof just isn't definitive enough at all.

[Amppax]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1311564651' post='2275318']
yeah, the same words that were used to give peter 'power' were given to all the apostles. 'what you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven'. and that's even in passages other than the 'who's sins ye forgive' verse.
plus the bible itself is hardly definitive enough of proof. that means we go to early history, and that doesn't clear up anything either. hence, the orthodox will always remain separated, because the proof just isn't definitive enough at all.
[/quote]

meh, meh, and more meh.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1311564651' post='2275318']
yeah, the same words that were used to give peter 'power' were given to all the apostles. 'what you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven'. and that's even in passages other than the 'who's sins ye forgive' verse.
plus the bible itself is hardly definitive enough of proof. that means we go to early history, and that doesn't clear up anything either. hence, the orthodox will always remain separated, because the proof just isn't definitive enough at all.
[/quote]

The same words were used. Yes the Apostles (modern day Bishops) have the ability to make decisions that are bound in heaven. For example, when Christ gives his Apostles the ability to forgive sins by breathing the Holy Spirit upon them.....Today, the Apostles are Roman Catholic Bishops. There is nothing in scripture that suggests that Priests have this same ability. It is by the Authority of the Bishop that Priests are given the ability to forgive sins. The bishop does not have to grant this ability to his priests. When the Bishop grants the ability to forgive sins, to his Priests, it is also bound in Heaven.

The Bishop does not have Authority, however, on the same level as the Pope. The Pope has a direct connection with God the Father (as noted in scripture). The Bishop does not.

I hope what I am trying to say makes sense to you. I did my best.

Edited July 25, 2011 by infinitelord1

[stevil]

[quote name='Polsky215' timestamp='1311463778' post='2274535']
Thus, though you have not said it, many atheists fall into the mistake of making the claim that they only believe what they can see (referring to physical sense experience).
[/quote]
I think you have a bit of confusion here.

Many Atheists only claim to have knowledge of material things. Knowledge meaning an understanding of a thing's existence and properties of that thing. They gain their knowledge through accepting theories that are backed up by quantified, measured and predicted events. Through this episimology it is expected that a theory must be substantiated through objective and recreatable tests and measurements.

With regards to the existence of immaterial things such as god, or heaven, or the soul or the mind, they are interesting theories but have not yet been measurable or predictable. There are theories describing all sorts of properties or attributes of these things (even a personality) but none have been verified through testing hence most Atheists would keep these things as theories rather than knowledge.

I can certainly understand a soul or the mind as being a conceptual model of a physical thing so to me these two things are not simply theories but can be looked upon conceptually to give a high level simplistic understanding to the much more complex and not entirely understood physical system underlying this. In this way I do accept that there is a soul and a mind, but only on a conceptual level.
I am certainly not saying that these things don't exist in their own right as something not made of energy or matter, although I do struggle with the concept that something can exist and yet not consist of anything with substance. i think my struggle with this could be likened to a Theist's struggle to concieve of the solution to infinite regression e.g. the cause and effect of existence, without having it resolve to an eternal god.
An Atheist simply says "I don't know" a.k.a. "I have no knowledge of this"

[cmotherofpirl]

If I wasn't a Catholic Stevil, I would be a Jew. From a historical viewpoint both have been around for over 2000 years, both are original, not derivatives, and both are both make sense. I was convinced by the writings of C.S. Lewis's book "Mere Christianity".

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1311664643' post='2276124']
I think you have a bit of confusion here.

Many Atheists only claim to have knowledge of material things. Knowledge meaning an understanding of a thing's existence and properties of that thing. They gain their knowledge through accepting theories that are backed up by quantified, measured and predicted events. Through this episimology it is expected that a theory must be substantiated through objective and recreatable tests and measurements.

With regards to the existence of immaterial things such as god, or heaven, or the soul or the mind, they are interesting theories but have not yet been measurable or predictable. There are theories describing all sorts of properties or attributes of these things (even a personality) but none have been verified through testing hence most Atheists would keep these things as theories rather than knowledge.

I can certainly understand a soul or the mind as being a conceptual model of a physical thing so to me these two things are not simply theories but can be looked upon conceptually to give a high level simplistic understanding to the much more complex and not entirely understood physical system underlying this. In this way I do accept that there is a soul and a mind, but only on a conceptual level.
I am certainly not saying that these things don't exist in their own right as something not made of energy or matter, although I do struggle with the concept that something can exist and yet not consist of anything with substance. i think my struggle with this could be likened to a Theist's struggle to concieve of the solution to infinite regression e.g. the cause and effect of existence, without having it resolve to an eternal god.
An Atheist simply says "I don't know" a.k.a. "I have no knowledge of this"
[/quote]
Do me a favor...go gather a bunch of your atheist/agnostic buddies and go harass the Puritan Protestant sects throughout the United States....I got your back.

[stevil]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1311747457' post='2276732']
Do me a favor...go gather a bunch of your atheist/agnostic buddies and go harass the Puritan Protestant sects throughout the United States....I got your back.
[/quote]
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
You want me to leave this forum?
You think that I am harrassing people here?
Why the United States in particular?
Why Protestants?

[Lumiere]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1311372246' post='2274003']
2. The personal responsibility of working out what is right or wrong. I am happy to listen to and discuss these things with other people with different backgrounds, different world views. I am even willing to change my mind on these things given a well reasoned and thoughtfull argument. But religious people only take this responsibility in so far as making an effort to understand or simply agree to the viewpoint of their church. In this way they have deligated this responsibility onto their church rather than to take personal responsibility.
You could say that they have excercised their personal responsibility by deligating to their church but ultimately it means they have deligated that responsibility
[/quote]

Hear! Hear!

[BigJon16]

Why Catholic?
I like to look at it this way: When you walk into a room, and there is one chair, you sit in it because you know that it is truly a chair. You dont sit in an enpty spot of air 'hoping' that there is a chair there. To do so would be stupid. So when faced with a 'room' full of denominations, you choose the denomination that is [i]true. [/i]And I believe that the Catholic Church is the truth. Why? Not because of some welll tought history lesson, but because, when I 'sit down', I know that I will be in fact sitting on a very strong chair, made by The Best Carpenter ever known, Jesus Christ.


As for what I view athieism as: "When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing; he believes anything." I feel athiests believe what they want to beleive, most of which to be frank, is wrong. But I agree with Stevil, in that, atheism "isnt an ism". Most athiests I know, believe what they want to believe, and are very stubborn about it. And they could also care less what other athiests believe. And are just as quick to start an argument with another athiest as they would be to try and start an argument with a thiest. Mostly because, unlike Stevil, the athiests I know are all fellow teenagers and are athiests because they just dont care, and would rather get drunk and high and party. Its how they think. Whereas athiests like stevil have morals and reasons for being athiest other than "it lets me do what I want". They are just as different as we are.


Just my two cents.