Anyone close to converting to Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kristanl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes me! I am currently Anglican but feel a strong pull to the Catholic Church. I do still love the Anglican services and the “happy clappy” thing from time to time. I don’t know if when I convert I could still go to those services from time to time? I love Mass and the tradition of it but miss the singing some times. I go to Westminster Cathedral in London after work some days and feel so peaceful there. One major problem I have with Catholicism is the purgatory thing. I think that is the main doubt I have. The other problem is that I don’t have any Catholics in my family so have to go alone which is horrible. Anyway, am trying to find a RCIA course this year.
 
Yes me! I am currently Anglican but feel a strong pull to the Catholic Church. I do still love the Anglican services and the “happy clappy” thing from time to time. I don’t know if when I convert I could still go to those services from time to time? I love Mass and the tradition of it but miss the singing some times. I go to Westminster Cathedral in London after work some days and feel so peaceful there. One major problem I have with Catholicism is the purgatory thing. I think that is the main doubt I have. The other problem is that I don’t have any Catholics in my family so have to go alone which is horrible. Anyway, am trying to find a RCIA course this year.
Hello Charlotte, Thank you for your. kind post .I will give you a little bit of a teaching on Purgatory, I am sure there will be more in depth stuff following

Anyway the basic teaching of purgatory is that it is a place of purification from sin and attachment to sin,because nothing unclean will enter heaven.
Part of Catholic teaching concerning salvation includes an interior transformation, We are not simply declared clean, we are actually made clean. For many of us this process is not complete when we die. Purgatory is the completion of the process.

This makes no sense if salvation is just a ‘declaration of cleanliness’ or a covering over of sin, as some believe. We must be transformed interiorly. we cannot just be declared clean; we are actually made clean. This process is purification whether completed in this life or in the next.Ponder the Beatitude ‘Only the pure in heart shall see the face of God’

God bless you ,Charlotte:wave::getholy::gopray2::heaven: Carlan
 
Hello Charlotte, Thank you for your. kind post .I will give you a little bit of a teaching on Purgatory, I am sure there will be more in depth stuff following

Anyway the basic teaching of purgatory is that it is a place of purification from sin and attachment to sin,because nothing unclean will enter heaven.
Part of Catholic teaching concerning salvation includes an interior transformation, We are not simply declared clean, we are actually made clean. For many of us this process is not complete when we die. Purgatory is the completion of the process.

This makes no sense if salvation is just a ‘declaration of cleanliness’ or a covering over of sin, as some believe. We must be transformed interiorly. we cannot just be declared clean; we are actually made clean. This process is purification whether completed in this life or in the next.Ponder the Beatitude ‘Only the pure in heart shall see the face of God’

God bless you ,Charlotte:wave::getholy::gopray2::heaven: Carlan
This will sound bizarre I know. I understand what you are saying but to me the purgatory thing feels like some kind of rejection by God - kind of like: you are not good enough go away. Maybe I feel that way because of all the hurt and rejection I have come to expect in life but love God and that is how my mind feels about it.
 
This will sound bizarre I know. I understand what you are saying but to me the purgatory thing feels like some kind of rejection by God - kind of like: you are not good enough go away. Maybe I feel that way because of all the hurt and rejection I have come to expect in life but love God and that is how my mind feels about it.
I always saw purgatory or the final purification as something of a merciful good God bestows on us because he is making us holy as we were intended to be, and who doesn’t want to be holy? God bless.
 
This will sound bizarre I know. I understand what you are saying but to me the purgatory thing feels like some kind of rejection by God - kind of like: you are not good enough go away. Maybe I feel that way because of all the hurt and rejection I have come to expect in life but love God and that is how my mind feels about it.
No Charlotte, God loves us he created us for himself, we belong to him, he is beside us to heal us of those hurts and rejections in our life. Can you imagine how we hurt him with our sin, and after all he had done for us, the suffering so to redeem us, and we still sin, after all that. It is the sin that causes all the hurts and rejection the dreadful things we humans do and say to each other. we are all sinners and fall short of the Glory of God. No I thank him also for purgatory,for the purifying I need for my unhealthy attachment sin(concupiscence)I know he forgives when we fall and return to him but there is that temporal punishment that remains and we must strive to accept temporal punishment as grace to do good and to put of the old man and put on the new, This is hou we come to achieve holiness, Gosh , didn’t mean to preach. EXcuse me. I’m sure there are people out there who can better explain Purgatory doctrine better than I. God bless you Charllote and give you his peace.:hug1::angel1::heaven: Carlan B
 
join to this intention 🙂
Hello Wina and Jon, I would like to write some of my thoughts on the disunity present within the Church.
I think what caused it was the disobedience and pride of some back when the Church needed

reforming some 500years ago. Some broke away and did not try to correct and help resolve the wrong which was with in the Church.

The result was that today we have thousands of differing denominations protesting each other as to what is the Truth.

Instead of seeking the unity which Christ desires for his Church the many Christian denominations engage in polemics which only blinds them to what is important and what is truth…the apologist Marcus Grodi says "If we

read Matthews Gospel and make notes of the words of Jesus through out it we will be enlightened. It is not reading Jesus through Saint Paul(the eyes of Paul’) or through our own particular interpretation of Paul, it is what Jesus says".

I believe Protestants are the Catholic Church(Universal )and they, for the most part,don’t see it. It’s not that I believe that if you are Protestant that you don’t have faith or love Jesus,for you do.

What saddens me,Is the the result of the reformation, all of the splits and the wrong teachings.The Reformation back then sure did open up a can of worms.

I can’t believe Jesus wants it this way. It hurts him to see the disunity in His Church.

Getting back to this problem, Grodi says, what is needed, after studying what Jesus says in the Gospel of Matthew is simply, “a heart changed and surrendered and submissive to the will of God”.

Read Matt(16:24-27)This quote from Jesus must be remembered about what it takes to be a disciple. He doesn’t emphasize ‘Faith alone, though faith is certainly presumed and he doesn’t emphasize’ Faith and Works, though again

works are clearly mentioned, what he requires are hearts changed and surrendered and submissive to the will of God.

Sooooooo, I can see and understand that if as a whole we were to pray and ponder (Matt 16:24-27)we would not be so troubled about ‘Faith and Works’ and other such dividers. There is hope for unity!

We pray every day for the unity of your Church Lord!

SO BE IT!
Carlan
 
Hello Wina and Jon, I would like to write some of my thoughts on the disunity present within the Church.
I think what caused it was the disobedience and pride of some back when the Church needed

reforming some 500years ago. Some broke away and did not try to correct and help resolve the wrong which was with in the Church.

The result was that today we have thousands of differing denominations protesting each other as to what is the Truth.

Instead of seeking the unity which Christ desires for his Church the many Christian denominations engage in polemics which only blinds them to what is important and what is truth…the apologist Marcus Grodi says "If we

read Matthews Gospel and make notes of the words of Jesus through out it we will be enlightened. It is not reading Jesus through Saint Paul(the eyes of Paul’) or through our own particular interpretation of Paul, it is what Jesus says".

I believe Protestants are the Catholic Church(Universal )and they, for the most part,don’t see it. It’s not that I believe that if you are Protestant that you don’t have faith or love Jesus,for you do.

What saddens me,Is the the result of the reformation, all of the splits and the wrong teachings.The Reformation back then sure did open up a can of worms.

I can’t believe Jesus wants it this way. It hurts him to see the disunity in His Church.

Getting back to this problem, Grodi says, what is needed, after studying what Jesus says in the Gospel of Matthew is simply, “a heart changed and surrendered and submissive to the will of God”.

Read Matt(16:24-27)This quote from Jesus must be remembered about what it takes to be a disciple. He doesn’t emphasize ‘Faith alone, though faith is certainly presumed and he doesn’t emphasize’ Faith and Works, though again

works are clearly mentioned, what he requires are hearts changed and surrendered and submissive to the will of God.

Sooooooo, I can see and understand that if as a whole we were to pray and ponder (Matt 16:24-27)we would not be so troubled about ‘Faith and Works’ and other such dividers. There is hope for unity!

We pray every day for the unity of your Church Lord!

SO BE IT!
Carlan
Hi Carlan,thank you for sharing you thought and I agree with it.
I do believe that if people truly look for the truth and surrender totally to God then the Holy Spirit will let them to find it. When they find it they will unite themselves. And there’s still always hope for unity.
 
Hello Carlan,
…I would like to write some of my thoughts on the disunity present within the Church.
I think what caused it was the disobedience and pride of some back when the Church needed reforming some 500years ago. Some broke away and did not try to correct and help resolve the wrong which was with in the Church…
I am not here to defend the Protestant Reformation, as such. I have my own viewpoint which is not directly sympathetic to either the Roman Catholic nor the Protestant positions. However, I actually think that the motive of the original reformers (such as Father Luther, Father Zwingli, Father Simons, etc.) was to try and correct the wrongs, and they did not run off, they remained engaged.

The hierarchy was, unfortunately, in so deep with it’s corruption that it initially put the full weight of it’s power into silencing the reformers.

This had an unfortunate result of making the reformers and their followers doubt the veracity of the church authority and it’s teachings, and it led them to question everything. In other words, the hierarchy gave scandal, and this was a primary cause of many people going astray.

For instance, Father Luther introduced his 95 thesis in 1517AD, a reaction to an abuse, and it was not until 1545AD that a council was gathered to undertake major reform. That is approximately 28 years, and a lot of damage had been done in the interim, more than one entire generation as usually figured. It seems a lot of important people had to die and millions lose faith before powers that be could agree on a reform agenda to end the scandals of the church. It was not until 1563AD, approximately 18 years, that the church completed it’s work, almost another whole generation at risk.

There is more than enough blame to go around, of course. No one is innocent, but I feel it is unfair and incorrect to put the onus entirely on the reformers.
 
Hello Carlan, I am not here to defend the Protestant Reformation, as such. I have my own viewpoint which is not directly sympathetic to either the Roman Catholic nor the Protestant positions. However, I actually think that the motive of the original reformers (such as Father Luther, Father Zwingli, Father Simons, etc.) was to try and correct the wrongs, and they did not run off, they remained engaged.

The hierarchy was, unfortunately, in so deep with it’s corruption that it initially put the full weight of it’s power into silencing the reformers.

This had an unfortunate result of making the reformers and their followers doubt the veracity of the church authority and it’s teachings, and it led them to question everything. In other words, the hierarchy gave scandal, and this was a primary cause of many people going astray.

For instance, Father Luther introduced his 95 thesis in 1517AD, a reaction to an abuse, and it was not until 1545AD that a council was gathered to undertake major reform. That is approximately 28 years, and a lot of damage had been done in the interim, more than one entire generation as usually figured. It seems a lot of important people had to die and millions lose faith before powers that be could agree on a reform agenda to end the scandals of the church. It was not until 1563AD, approximately 18 years, that the church completed it’s work, almost another whole generation at risk.

There is more than enough blame to go around, of course. No one is innocent, but I feel it is unfair and incorrect to put the onus entirely on the reformers.
Actually the Church did not silence Luther, in fact, Johann Eck (representing the CC) in 1519 publicly debated Luther in Leipzig (June 27th - 15 July) and won.

“With a clear insight into the meaning of Lutheranism, he was the first to champion the cause of Catholic teaching against Protestant error; and he became Luther’s ablest opponent, skilful, untiring, and thoroughly equipped in theology. The rest of his life was spent in conflict with the Reformers in Germany and Switzerland. He defended the Catholic Church, its doctrines and its institutions, in his writings, in public debates, in his speeches at the diets, and in his diplomatic missions. For the betterment of ecclesiastical life and the spread of genuine reform he laboured earnestly by preaching to the people and by insisting on the scientific education of the clergy. As a reply to Luther’s “theses” he wrote his “Obelisci”, originally intended solely for the Bishop of Eichstätt. Both Luther and Karlstadt answered bitterly and then it was agreed to submit the points at issue to the test of a public debate, which was held in Leipzig, 27 June-15 July, 1519. Eck came off victorious, exposed Luther’s heresy, and won over as a loyal adherent to the Catholic standard, George, Duke of Saxony. During the same year he published several essays attacking the tenets of Luther, and grew steadily in prominence as an authority on theological questions. In 1520 he visited Rome to report on the condition of affairs in Germany and to secure the condemnation of Luther’s heresy.”

It was not the Church’s silence that caused many people to go astray but nationalism under the guise of the reformation movement that caused them to leave their faith (either directly or indirectly).

p.s. Catholic reformers like St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Genoa, St. Thomas More were all intent on fixing the wrongs in the CC before Luther came along, and they did so without rebelling against the Church.
 
Hello Carlan, I am not here to defend the Protestant Reformation, as such. I have my own viewpoint which is not directly sympathetic to either the Roman Catholic nor the Protestant positions. However, I actually think that the motive of the original reformers (such as Father Luther, Father Zwingli, Father Simons, etc.) was to try and correct the wrongs, and they did not run off, they remained engaged.

The hierarchy was, unfortunately, in so deep with it’s corruption that it initially put the full weight of it’s power into silencing the reformers.

This had an unfortunate result of making the reformers and their followers doubt the veracity of the church authority and it’s teachings, and it led them to question everything. In other words, the hierarchy gave scandal, and this was a primary cause of many people going astray.

For instance, Father Luther introduced his 95 thesis in 1517AD, a reaction to an abuse, and it was not until 1545AD that a council was gathered to undertake major reform. That is approximately 28 years, and a lot of damage had been done in the interim, more than one entire generation as usually figured. It seems a lot of important people had to die and millions lose faith before powers that be could agree on a reform agenda to end the scandals of the church. It was not until 1563AD, approximately 18 years, that the church completed it’s work, almost another whole generation at risk.

There is more than enough blame to go around, of course. No one is innocent, but I feel it is unfair and incorrect to put the onus entirely on the reformers.
yes of course, however, a loving and devastated family does not desert when all is in need of correction and healing. It would be a different church today had the protesters stayed with in the Church and fought the corruption and scandals.and healed on both sides. Carlan
 
Question about RCIA.

Is there some kind of test at the end or is it a discussion group? How does it work? Can anyone recommend any books for me to read?

I am a baptised and confirmed Anglican so have done the confirmation course before although was 15 at the time and now a lot older 🙂

Thank you
 
yes of course, however, a loving and devastated family does not desert when all is in need of correction and healing. It would be a different church today had the protesters stayed with in the Church and fought the corruption and scandals.and healed on both sides. Carlan
But I am trying to point out that they did not ‘desert’.

They attended the same parishes, the priests worked in the same parishes (although they would be evicted if the state would cooperate).

The Papacy and bishops spent twenty years excommunicating those who complained. After a while it got pretty nasty on both sides, there was no middle ground.

What we have to take into account is that the hue and cry for reform had been going on for many many years before this big horrible event. Everyone was patiently waiting, the outcry for reform was immense and the priests and people “stayed with in the Church and fought the corruption and scandals”, except they went on to die without seeing any reform.

A Council held and finished at the Lateran cathedral earlier the very same year as Luther’s thesis (1517AD) was specifically a reform council and whitewashed over the biggest problems. In other words, nothing was happening but more corruption and scandals, plus coverup. The powerful people in control had their game going and nothing would move them, they legally blocked every attempt to disrupt their practices.

It did not take long for the Pope and bishops to have excommunicated a significant body of educated people, who were now outside. These people, many in fear for their immortal souls, could not be reconciled unless they submitted and silenced themselves. That is how it worked, that is the nature of the system, it is not transparent and reformers were not usually promoted to higher office.So they* submitted and silenced themselves for generations* and no significant reforms took place until the entire organization was in danger of dissolving. It was dissolving because generations of outrage boiled to the surface.

The system has really not changed, which recent events have demonstrated. We have watched how it dealt with scandal in modern times, when about forty years of malfeasance boiled over, not in the church media/newspapers/websites, and not from the cathedral pulpits, but in the independent media which could not be controlled.

The lack of transparency and lack of local influence in the appointments of the church is a chronic systemic problem that manifests itself in different ways at different places and times.
 
But I am trying to point out that they did not ‘desert’.

They attended the same parishes, the priests worked in the same parishes (although they would be evicted if the state would cooperate).

The Papacy and bishops spent twenty years excommunicating those who complained. After a while it got pretty nasty on both sides, there was no middle ground.

What we have to take into account is that the hue and cry for reform had been going on for many many years before this big horrible event. Everyone was patiently waiting, the outcry for reform was immense and the priests and people “stayed with in the Church and fought the corruption and scandals”, except they went on to die without seeing any reform.

A Council held and finished at the Lateran cathedral earlier the very same year as Luther’s thesis (1517AD) was specifically a reform council and whitewashed over the biggest problems. In other words, nothing was happening but more corruption and scandals, plus coverup. The powerful people in control had their game going and nothing would move them, they legally blocked every attempt to disrupt their practices.

It did not take long for the Pope and bishops to have excommunicated a significant body of educated people, who were now outside. These people, many in fear for their immortal souls, could not be reconciled unless they submitted and silenced themselves. That is how it worked, that is the nature of the system, it is not transparent and reformers were not usually promoted to higher office.So they* submitted and silenced themselves for generations* and no significant reforms took place until the entire organization was in danger of dissolving. It was dissolving because generations of outrage boiled to the surface.

The system has really not changed, which recent events have demonstrated. We have watched how it dealt with scandal in modern times, when about forty years of malfeasance boiled over, not in the church media/newspapers/websites, and not from the cathedral pulpits, but in the independent media which could not be controlled.

The lack of transparency and lack of local influence in the appointments of the church is a chronic systemic problem that manifests itself in different ways at different places and times.
hI Hesy, Your souces please. Carlan
 
Question about RCIA.

Is there some kind of test at the end or is it a discussion group? How does it work? Can anyone recommend any books for me to read?

I am a baptised and confirmed Anglican so have done the confirmation course before although was 15 at the time and now a lot older 🙂

Thank you
Goodmorning Charlotte, I am not sure about how the parishes do RCIA in london or in this country for that matter, I wouldn’t think there would be any tests as such involved.

I would suggest that you locate the closest Catholic church to your home in London. give them a call or go to the office of the parish church and they will be only to happy to answer your questions and will give you all the information about the RCIA program.

I am praying for you Charlotte, God bless you in your journey . Carlan:)👍
 
Goodmorning Charlotte, I am not sure about how the parishes do RCIA in london or in this country for that matter, I wouldn’t think there would be any tests as such involved.

I would suggest that you locate the closest Catholic church to your home in London. give them a call or go to the office of the parish church and they will be only to happy to answer your questions and will give you all the information about the RCIA program.

I am praying for you Charlotte, God bless you in your journey . Carlan:)👍
Thank you 🙂
 
DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS
Code:
 As a liberal Protestant, I'm sure my voice doesn't impact most posters, whether they are traditionalist Catholics, Orthodox or sola scriptural Protestants. But I feel 'called' to work for understanding among Christians, a sense of unity, though not organic union. 

 I am not interested in belonging to one church in which there are severe limitations to freedom of thought on theological matters. That is the RC position, clearly. It regards itself as the one, true church. Fine for those who can accept that, but millions of other Christians, like me, need the freedom to wander about in the vast field of theology, filled with faith in God, but not feeling obliged to accept doctrines and various practices in an atmosphere that I find oppressive.

  I come from a Catholic background (on Dad's side) and my late wife was educated in a parochial school. But early on we both found that we simply could not accept a whole list of things promoted both by traditionalist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants. They strike me as similar in that they proclaim 'the truth' and everyone had better say 'Amen' or they are heretical. 

 God is much beyond human understanding. I worship him in spirit and in truth, but all sorts of additional stuff about angels and archangels, venerating Mary and the saints, Christ seated on the right hand of God, our bodily resurrection (as in the Apostles Creed), seem to reflect the ancient Greco-Roman world of superstition and polytheism rather than the religion bequeathed us by Christ. And there is so much theological and liturgical legalism that I cannot accept. One had to worship this way and not that, etc. Critics will attribute this to my lack of humility, my excessive pride, or whatever, but so be it. 

  Now as for Luther and other Reformers, they were human beings like the rest of us, and no Protestants I know indulge in veneration of any of them. They are not judged to be saints, and I personally am not altogether admiring of them - Luther's role in the Peasant's War, for example, or Calvin's burning of Servetus in Geneva. At the same time, they succeeded in breaking the monopoly of the RC Church in the West, and this gradually evolved into freedom of thought, separation of church and state, etc. 

 So I thank God for the Reformation, but I am not stuck in that era. Too many Christians are stuck in past centuries, using the Church Fathers as authorities, for example, when so much they wrote is irrelevant today. I excuse them because they had no microscope and only a primitive telescope, and they lived in an age of great superstition. But I certainly am not going to depend upon them for great theological insight. I have read the Church Fathers - most of them - and they wrote considerable wisdom but also heaps of nonsense. 

 The Catholic Church depends far too much on ancient and outdated traditions, while fundamenalist Protestants are far too literal when they come to scripture. The notion that the world was created in six 24-hours days is absurd, and others parts of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, are contrary to what Christ taught. What about Jehovah ordering Joshua to murder every last inhabitant of Jericho and Ai, and King Saul being commanded to murder every Amalekite. More like Hitler than Jesus. Compare that to the beautiful Sermon on the Mount. Which side are we on?

   We should have a 'big tent' Christianity, welcoming those who profess Christ whatever their views on all sorts of theological matters. When Christ was asked how to inherit eternal life, he said nothing about doctrine, only love God and love one another. Too often Christians have carefully embraced 'proper doctrine' while spiteful toward other Christians who see things differently. None of us or our church has a monopoly on truth. When we get to heaven I suspect we will learn that religious prejudice is no better than racial prejudice, and both are wrong.

   But may God bless people of all faiths and races and nations. I appreciate the role of Catholicism in feeding the poor and its concern for refugees and others in need. I feel badly that I cannot be part of that branch of Christianity because it insists that its communicants believe too many things that I cannot in good conscience believe.
 
DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS
Code:
 As a liberal Protestant, I'm sure my voice doesn't impact most posters, whether they are traditionalist Catholics, Orthodox or sola scriptural Protestants. But I feel 'called' to work for understanding among Christians, a sense of unity, though not organic union. 

 I am not interested in belonging to one church in which there are severe limitations to freedom of thought on theological matters. That is the RC position, clearly. It regards itself as the one, true church. Fine for those who can accept that, but millions of other Christians, like me, need the freedom to wander about in the vast field of theology, filled with faith in God, but not feeling obliged to accept doctrines and various practices in an atmosphere that I find oppressive.

  I come from a Catholic background (on Dad's side) and my late wife was educated in a parochial school. But early on we both found that we simply could not accept a whole list of things promoted both by traditionalist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants. They strike me as similar in that they proclaim 'the truth' and everyone had better say 'Amen' or they are heretical. 

 God is much beyond human understanding. I worship him in spirit and in truth, but all sorts of additional stuff about angels and archangels, venerating Mary and the saints, Christ seated on the right hand of God, our bodily resurrection (as in the Apostles Creed), seem to reflect the ancient Greco-Roman world of superstition and polytheism rather than the religion bequeathed us by Christ. And there is so much theological and liturgical legalism that I cannot accept. One had to worship this way and not that, etc. Critics will attribute this to my lack of humility, my excessive pride, or whatever, but so be it. 

  Now as for Luther and other Reformers, they were human beings like the rest of us, and no Protestants I know indulge in veneration of any of them. They are not judged to be saints, and I personally am not altogether admiring of them - Luther's role in the Peasant's War, for example, or Calvin's burning of Servetus in Geneva. At the same time, they succeeded in breaking the monopoly of the RC Church in the West, and this gradually evolved into freedom of thought, separation of church and state, etc. 

 So I thank God for the Reformation, but I am not stuck in that era. Too many Christians are stuck in past centuries, using the Church Fathers as authorities, for example, when so much they wrote is irrelevant today. I excuse them because they had no microscope and only a primitive telescope, and they lived in an age of great superstition. But I certainly am not going to depend upon them for great theological insight. I have read the Church Fathers - most of them - and they wrote considerable wisdom but also heaps of nonsense. 

 The Catholic Church depends far too much on ancient and outdated traditions, while fundamenalist Protestants are far too literal when they come to scripture. The notion that the world was created in six 24-hours days is absurd, and others parts of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, are contrary to what Christ taught. What about Jehovah ordering Joshua to murder every last inhabitant of Jericho and Ai, and King Saul being commanded to murder every Amalekite. More like Hitler than Jesus. Compare that to the beautiful Sermon on the Mount. Which side are we on?

   We should have a 'big tent' Christianity, welcoming those who profess Christ whatever their views on all sorts of theological matters. When Christ was asked how to inherit eternal life, he said nothing about doctrine, only love God and love one another. Too often Christians have carefully embraced 'proper doctrine' while spiteful toward other Christians who see things differently. None of us or our church has a monopoly on truth. When we get to heaven I suspect we will learn that religious prejudice is no better than racial prejudice, and both are wrong.

   But may God bless people of all faiths and races and nations. I appreciate the role of Catholicism in feeding the poor and its concern for refugees and others in need. I feel badly that I cannot be part of that branch of Christianity because it insists that its communicants believe too many things that I cannot in good conscience believe.
You have great confidence in your own understanding of Christianity (notice how many times you use the word “I” in your post). 😉

p.s. And the Catholic Church can’t in good conscience dilute the truth because you or others don’t believe it.
 
But I am trying to point out that they did not ‘desert’.

They attended the same parishes, the priests worked in the same parishes (although they would be evicted if the state would cooperate).

The Papacy and bishops spent twenty years excommunicating those who complained. After a while it got pretty nasty on both sides, there was no middle ground.

What we have to take into account is that the hue and cry for reform had been going on for many many years before this big horrible event. Everyone was patiently waiting, the outcry for reform was immense and the priests and people “stayed with in the Church and fought the corruption and scandals”, except they went on to die without seeing any reform.

A Council held and finished at the Lateran cathedral earlier the very same year as Luther’s thesis (1517AD) was specifically a reform council and whitewashed over the biggest problems. In other words, nothing was happening but more corruption and scandals, plus coverup. The powerful people in control had their game going and nothing would move them, they legally blocked every attempt to disrupt their practices.

It did not take long for the Pope and bishops to have excommunicated a significant body of educated people, who were now outside. These people, many in fear for their immortal souls, could not be reconciled unless they submitted and silenced themselves. That is how it worked, that is the nature of the system, it is not transparent and reformers were not usually promoted to higher office.So they* submitted and silenced themselves for generations* and no significant reforms took place until the entire organization was in danger of dissolving. It was dissolving because generations of outrage boiled to the surface.

The system has really not changed, which recent events have demonstrated. We have watched how it dealt with scandal in modern times, when about forty years of malfeasance boiled over, not in the church media/newspapers/websites, and not from the cathedral pulpits, but in the independent media which could not be controlled.

The lack of transparency and lack of local influence in the appointments of the church is a chronic systemic problem that manifests itself in different ways at different places and times.
Yes please give us your sources (a lot of what you said is unsubstantiated opinions)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top