Can I be a Catholic? Would I want to...

They pray to them, they sacrifice food to them. Is that enough for you?

 

This is a debate thread. The guy asked if he should be a Catho9lic, I told him why I thought he shouldn't. I am able speak up my opinions of Catholicism since I dont really have to pay attention to a old guy in Rome to express my opinions. One last thing about Peter, if his primacy was established, could you picture the other apostles kissing his hand when he entered the room? Then why do it for the pope? Put me on ignore if you want, but answer this question first.

 

I lied, I do know a thing or two about Buddhism.

You have respect and worship confused. If I put up a picture of my deceased mother in my house and talk to her, is that worship? I wish I could elaborate more about your misunderstandings, but I have work to do. Maybe at my lunch I can.

 

worshipping of one's ancestors is a common practice. maybe at your "lunch" you can explain why its not really worship

 

the buddha himself vehemently denied the existence of an afterlife, and described it as an illusion/delusion like the rest of our human desires.

i believe the practice of worshipping one's ancestors is a corruption of original buddhist doctrine when it was introduced into indian and chinese culture. before it reached china, buddhism adopted the concept of karma and reincarnation (not to mention the deification of buddha and the canonisation of many of his followers) from hinduism, to make its concepts more palatable to the indian public. this religion was then mixed with confucian, taoist and indigenous religious practices (which had ancestral worship and concepts such as immortals, bodhisattvas, worship/rites, ancestral spirits, heaven and hell, etc.) to make it more palatable to the chinese public and ruling class upon its introduction in china. as a result, modern chinese buddhist sects perform many services for the dead and has several offical doctrines on immortality, karma and the afterlife.

though i'm not a big fan of these practices, i am a big fan of the original buddhist scriptures. and i do understand how it is difficult for the modern buddhist institutions to promote their esoteric, often ascetic, fundamental beliefs without first offering these practices, which are far more accessible to the uninitiated public.

hope that helps. i am a buddhist by the way.

 

Connecting with your ancestors and worshipping the dead are two different things. I will let Thich Nhat Hanh explain:

"I always feel that I am the continuation of my ancestors. Every day I practice touching my ancestors. In my country every home has an altar for ancestors, blood ancestors and spiritual ancestors. An altar is just a table, but it is very important. You place that table in the central part of your house and you focus your attention on the table as the point of contact between you and your ancestors. Usually every morning we come and offer some incense to our ancestors. Our ancestors do not need to smell incense, but we want to light a stick of incense to our ancestors because the practice of lighting incense focuses our attention on the presence of our ancestors. During the time you strike the match, you light the stick of incense, you offer the incense on the table, you have an opportunity to touch your ancestors within yourself. You realize that your ancestors are always alive in you because you are the continuation of your ancestors.

In your sitting meditation you can practice like this, “Daddy, I am your son. I am your daughter.” That is a fact. You know it so well, but you don’t feel it sometimes. You feel that your father is one person and you are another person. But in fact that is not so. You are a very real continuation of your father. It is like the plant of corn is the continuation of the seed of corn. Although the statement is very simple, you have to perceive it, to feel it, to live the reality of it. “Daddy, I am your daughter, I am your son.” No matter how hard it is for you to make the statement, you have to make it because that is the truth. Even if between you and your father there is a lot of difficulty, you still are his continuation. You are still him. All the sufferings that he endured may be still in you, and it is up to you to work for the transformation. If you are able to transform the suffering in you, you have your father in you; you practice for both of you.

Maybe when you were young, you suffered so much already you are determined to be very different from your father. You will never do what he has done to you. You were so determined, and yet because you don’t know how to transform the energies that has been transmitted by him to you, when you grow up, you have the tendency to behave exactly like he did. That is called the wheel of samsára, the vicious circle. We know we hate that. We don’t want to do it, but we still continue to do exactly that. We make our children our partners suffer also.

The habit energy is transmitted from generation to generation. The only way is to recognize that you are just the continuation of your father, your mother; you are him, you are her, and you are determined to practice to liberate you, to liberate him at the same time. That is your blood ancestor. Your ancestors have transmitted to you many positive seeds, but also many negative seeds. It is up to you to practice to develop the positive seeds and to diminish and to transform the negative seeds. The essential is to learn how to do it, learning from the Dharma, learning from the Sangha.

We know that the practice here is to cultivate mindfulness to be able to recognize the tendency, the habit energy, every time it begins to show itself. Not fighting, not suppressing, but just recognizing and embracing it with the energy of mindfulness so that it will not continue its course of destruction. If you allow it to go on its way, there will be damage done to you and to the people you love. You did not want to say that, you did not want to do that, but you said that, you did that anyway because you don’t know how to take care of that habit energy. That is why there must be continued practice in order to generate the energy of mindfulness for the recognition and transformation of this habit energy.

And then there are your children and your grandchildren, your blood children. You know that they have inherited some of your habit energies. The habit energies you have received from your ancestors and also have transmitted to them. In each cell in your body you can find everything. Each cell of our body contains all the habit energies of all generations of ancestors."

 

Let me start with...what a moron.

WITH, not TO...already been covered.

Do you have ANY documentation for this assertion? No..why? Because it's FALSE. There are MANY prayers which are said to Jesus directly in the Catholic faith. Also, we pray directly to God (ie the Our Father). Conclusion...you have NO clue what you're talking about.

What???!!!! I actually laughed when I read this tripe. A brief lesson in history for you. From the time of Christ's life until the day Martin Luther posted the 95 Thesis, Catholicism was the ONLY Christian faith. Call me funny if you'd like, but I have some strong faith in a church founded by the Apostles...you know, the guys who were THERE. This is not a knock on the other Christian denominations, but merely an insight.

This is just silly. The Pope is revered and treated with respect for his being the figurehead and leader of our faith. It's a very large organization, and as such, it has a leadership structure. Kissing the hand has been a sign of deference and respect in Europe throughout centuries. That's all it is.

Good to know that you think you speak for Jesus Christ. I'm sure he would be very proud of your intolerance of Catholics.

Uhhh...we pray to Jesus all the time. I can't make it any more plain. There is nothing in the Bible stating that you may not ask for prayers from another, alive or dead.

Funny...that's just what I was going to suggest you do. It's OBVIOUS that you haven't.

 

Dude he's just being a troll, I gave him perfect explanations for things and if he wants to ignore or disregard them so be it. I found the ignore button to be quite useful.

 

giddyup,

I am a Protestant, just to let you know my point of view. I believe in the divine truths of sola fide, sola gratia, and sola Scriptura. I liked The Passion of the Christ, although I wish Mel Gibson had not based the movie in part on the visions of a Roman Catholic nun.

I hope that you don't become a Roman Catholic, not because I have anything personal against Roman Catholics, but because the Roman Church teaches many unbiblical doctrines.

May God lead you to the truth. God bless.

Sincerely,
KateBeckinsale7


These are a series of articles on Roman Catholicism from the Christian Research Institute.

What Think Ye of Rome?

http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-1.pdf
http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-2.pdf
http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-3.pdf
http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-4.pdf


These are some debates between Protestant apologist James White and Roman Catholic apologists. You can listen to many of them for free. They're good resources, because they allow you to hear both sides of the issue.

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/debates/rc.htm


These are additional Protestant resources on Roman Catholicism, most of them written by White.

http://aomin.org/Roman.html


I think you should definitely read the first one.

Sola Scriptura in Dialogue

http://aomin.org/SS.html

An excerpt:

“I would very much like to pursue that assertion” I picked up, “but we can do so without personal testimonies. Some in this room once embraced Roman Catholicism, as well, but we are not seeking to explore those personal stories this evening. I would like to begin by asking you to define what you think sola scriptura is.”

“Yes, well, sola scriptura is the belief that the Bible alone is to be our guide. That we are not to hold to any traditions.”

“I’m sorry you think that is what the doctrine states” I replied matter-of-factly.

Paul was definitely not used to being on the defensive. “Well,” he smiled, “given that there are 28,000 different denominations out there, I’m sure there are about as many definitions of sola scriptura as there are denominations.”

“Oh, I thought the new number Roman Catholic apologists were using was 33,000. I’ve heard so many grossly inflated numbers it is hard to keep track. If there are 250 meaningful denominations with any substantial historical or numerical presence I’d be surprised, not counting non-Christian religions and the like that are often lumped into such a survey number, like the Mormons, but even then, those who actually hold to sola scriptura and who seek to consistently practice it would be an even smaller number. But the fact remains that no meaningful historical Protestant denomination has ever put forward the definition of sola scriptura that you just did.”

“I have talked to many who accepted that very definition” Paul insisted.

“No doubt you have, which may explain your success in confusing folks on the topic, actually. But sola scriptura does not teach what you are saying it teaches. Let me get the definition clear before we discuss its truthfulness. Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.”

Roger turned from Paul to the others in the room and asked, “Is that not what I have preached from the pulpit and in this very classroom all along?” They nodded in agreement.

“Well, OK” Paul said as he attempted to recover the initiative. “We can use that more specific definition, if you wish. The fact remains that it is a human tradition, not a biblical teaching, and it was unknown before Martin Luther…or at least Jan Hus.”

“Which of those two erroneous statements would you like to deal with first?” I asked.

Paul seemed taken aback by my direct question.

“I mean, shall we demonstrate that the doctrine is biblical first, or demonstrate that it was taught and preached long before Jan Hus met his death at the hands of the Roman Church at the Council of Constance?”

“You are prepared to mount a historical defense of sola scriptura?” Paul asked, almost incredulously.

“I see you have not read Goode or Whitaker or Salmon or Webster and King” I said, smiling. “Yes, I surely am. But I think it better if we begin with the biblical issue first. You said the doctrine is unbiblical, correct?”

Paul again looked a little dazed at the turn of events, but pressed bravely on. “Yes, I said it is unbiblical. The Scriptures teach us to hold to the traditions we were taught, whether by word of mouth or letter from the apostles, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and Jesus bound men under extra-biblical authority in Matthew 23:1-3, as well, referring to a non-biblical tradition, the “seat of Moses.”

“So are you admitting that your proof against sola scriptura is found primarily in your positive assertion of sola ecclesia?”

“I’m sorry, sola ecclesia?” he replied quizzically.

“Yes, the other position being presented here this evening, Rome’s position. The idea that the church, specifically, the Magisterium, headed by the Pope, is the final and infallible authority in all things.”

“Gracious” Paul laughed, “we don’t believe that!”

“Oh?” I replied. “I thought I just heard you defending that idea, or at least getting ready to. But I think you do, indeed, believe that, and in fact, I think you will confirm that when I ask a few simple questions. First, do you believe the Roman Church infallibly defines the extent of Scripture, i.e., the canon?”

“Yes, of course, I was going to be getting to that eventually.”

“I’m sure you were, and I look forward to that. And does not the Roman Church have the ability to infallibly interpret the meaning of the text of Scripture?”

“Well, I’d prefer we refer to the Catholic Church, not the ‘Roman Church,’ and yes, Christ gave that authority to His Church.”

“I’m sure you would prefer that, but I refer to the church that is centered in Rome, headed by the bishop of a single city, Rome, and hence, that is the Roman, not the Catholic, Church. Be that as it may, you have now affirmed that Rome can infallibly define the extent of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture, and is it not likewise true that Rome claims the infallible ability to define both the extent of ‘tradition’ as well as the meaning of ‘tradition’?”

“Yes, that is true as well, since in reality, Scripture is just tradition written. It is the written portion of the Word of God.”

“OK, so please tell me: if Rome determines the extent of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ and the meaning of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ how can she logically be subservient to two things that she in fact defines and interprets?”

Paul seemed taken aback. “Well, that’s an interesting way to put it, but surely you realize we do not put it that way.”

“Of course, but that is what sola ecclesia is all about: the Church as the final authority in all things. That is the position you hold, if you are a faithful defender of the orthodox Roman Catholic claims to infallible teaching authority. And that is what I meant when I said your citations from Scripture were showing me that you attack sola scriptura so as to establish sola ecclesia. It is vital that everyone see that there are two positions being presented, and that the standard of proof demanded for one side be demanded of the other as well.”

 

As pithy as that Protestant is, he brings up good points, but he changes our definitions of things to fit his logic. If I get some free time at work I'll try to get you some good links to ex cathedra statements and what that means.

One simple question: Why did Christ establish his church upon Peter?

 

Man, some of you Protestants have some serious problems.

Of course, none of this is new to me since many in my extended family have said that Catholics aren't Christians. These idiots are Baptists.

 

It seems to me non-Catholics have more problems with Catholics than Catholics have with non-Catholics. Growing up Catholic, I never heard anyone talk down aboutnon-Catholics, but it seems to be the norm to talk down about Catholics. I honestly think they suffer from some sort of inferiority complex. Also, 99% of the reasoning for which they do hate Catholics is pure misinformation. As a Catholic when you hear this stuff you just think, "Man, people are still this ignorant?" It makes that person look very shallow.

I think just like all other things, undersatnding is the key to peace between different Christians, and different religions. If you are going to judge, at least get the facts straight.

 

I was reading that James White guy's email conversation with Mark Shea and it was pretty disheartening, both guys let that situation get out of control and neither had an adequete critique of the other. It was like watching andy and T_J argue.

The other person's expositions on the state of the Catholic Church was pretty weak. Example...his total lack of source texts for giving explanation of Catholic doctrine (i.e. here's what a Protestant preacher says about Catholic justification, and then here's what, and here they would give the name of a Protestant thinker par excellance, thinks about Protestant justification) I also didn't like the way he subdivided the Church into 6 seemingly equal factions-- Its still one church all over the world...I especially took offense at the Cultural Catholic description, I thought that was pretty weak...

I was speaking to one of my good friends who entered a monastery and we were talking about Protestants and all he could say was that he loves their dedication and finding of Christ, most notably in Scripture. He loved the zeal that was there. HE just didn't know how much it deepend (or to what extent it could deepen) after that, which would really only make sense to a Catholic in that we are supposed to be establishing and deepening a relationship with Christ in the Eucharist, and that this is a real and present connection that has its effects manifested in the 7 sacraments....and so on and so on...

 

I have a question regarding Catholocism. Is it true that the clergy recommend that the laypeople cannot interpret the Bible? I've always heard this anecdotally, but have never seen it proffered as an 'official' stance.

 

Define interpretation.

Sure you can interpret the Bible, they don't put any restrictions on that. They encourage you not to play Bible Roulette, i.e. picking quotes completely out of context and expounding doctrines from them...without a proper exegesis...

But giving ex cathedra doctrines regarding scripture is solely up to councils and the pulpit.... at least I think, but I could be wrong...

 

I thought I'd say a little something in this thread.

My wife and I had to go through this when we got married and we still have "discussions" about it to this day.

She grew up in a very Catholic family, while I grew up in a very Protestant family.

The biggest issue I have with the Catholic church is not memorizing prayers, having a Pope, focusing on traditions and ceremony...that is all fine and good, just not my bag.

The biggest problem I have had with the Catholic church is they always seem very exclusionary...

Let me explain...I grew up in a church where everybody was always welcome to take communion, participate in the ministry, and to join freely. You could walk in off the street and be babtized if you felt you truly were ready...it was always taught with a very bible based message, focusing more than anything on the gospels of Christ.

Then I started going to church with my wife. I had been babtized, so I was told that I was a "recognized" Christian, but not Catholic...so since I was not a member of the Catholic faith, I could not take communion, participate in ministry, or get babtized without taking classes to make me catholic. It was like I had to be Catholic first, then I could be a Christian, whereas in my church, if you were a Christian first, that was what was important.

I don't know what is was, but I always felt excluded, and I just thought that would be against what Christ would want. I always felt that if Christ wanted you to be babtized into him, and you wanted the same thing, some class shouldn't get in the way...and you wouldn't have to pass tests. Christ requires nothing but devotion to him...the Catholic church seems to require classes, tests, devotion to church...THEN devotion to Christ.

It always just irked me that my wife could be welcome to be a part of my church, and take communion, and participate in ministry...but I could not participate in the Catholic church.

I understand the argument that it is OUR church, so you have to follow OUR rules....but I don't think Jesus would go in for that argument...especially since it was the rules, and tests and "red tape" of the Jewish establishment of the Temple that he railed against himself.

Anyways...I don't have a problem with Catholics...I'm not some crazy person that doesn't see them as Christians...I just always felt excluded in Catholic churches, but not so in most protestant churches.

Just my two cents.

 

Even if you are born Catholic you still have to take classes to receive the sacraments. And you still have to follow rules to continue to receive them. I never took the classes very seriously, I was young, even my wife and I rolled our eyes a million times during our wedding prep classes. I think you would have to do the same if you converted to Judaism.

I see your point though. I guess they just want to to be sure you know what you are getting into, and take to it seriously. Your devotion to Christ is what should get you through it.

 

It's not so much exclusionary as it is...should you be taking the Eucharist without a proper Catholic instruction of what the Eucharist is? Say I've committed a grave mortal sin, like gotten drunk or something...when I go to mass, I don't take communion simply because I haven't been to the sacrament of reconciliation...its a respect for what it is I would ingest, and although my venial sins would be covered by confessing them at the beggining of mass.. my mortal ones would not. Compare that to a Protestant coming in, they would need to go through the proper channels and sacraments before they would have the Cahtolic understanding (or hint of understanding, I don't know if I'll ever be able to understand the Eucharist without God's grace) of what the Eucharist is...and besides anyone who is at mass is recieving and participating in grace any ways...

I'm thinking this is a little bit harder to explain than I thought it would be...

But its definitely not something that should be thought of as exclusionary, I mean try to think of it in terms of what should I be doing instead of what I'm not able to do...Should you recieve the Eucharist if you don't really believe that Church's teachings? (I would argue that your wife shouldn't take it outside of the Catholic church if she doesn't hold to those tenents) Try to think of it in that manner...

Hope that helps

 

Upon this Rock
http://aomin.org/Epitetaute.html


The Peter Syndrome
http://aomin.org/SBNDDHrep.html


Many Thanks, Honorius
http://aomin.org/ThanksHonor.html


Whitewashing the History of the Church
http://aomin.org/Whitewash1.html


The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18—An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism
http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html


What Think Ye of Rome? (Part 4): The Catholic-Protestant Debate on Papal Infallibility
http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-4.pdf