Are there ANY VALID reason a Catholic would leave the CC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dzheremi said:
I disagree. I didn’t fall away from the Catholic Church. I didn’t slowly decrease my Mass attendance or devotions. I made the conscious decision to leave…
Click to expand...
Some fall slowly while others fall quickly. Either way a fall is a fall, and you my friend have fallen away.

"A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path and was trampled, and the birds of the sky ate it up. Some seed fell on rocky ground, and when it grew, it withered for lack of moisture. Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew with it and choked it. And some seed fell on good soil, and when it grew, it produced fruit a hundredfold." --Luke 8:5-8

Our Lord explains to all of us why Catholics fall away from His Church.

"The seed is the word of God. Those on the path are the ones who have heard, but the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts that they may not believe and be saved. Those on rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy, but they have no root; they believe only for a time and fall away in time of trial. As for the seed that fell among thorns, they are the ones who have heard, but as they go along, they are choked by the anxieties and riches and pleasures of life, and they fail to produce mature fruit."–Luke 8:11-14

The reason for your fall is one of these my friend but dont worry as long as you are alive there is still time to come back and bear fruit. I wouldnt wait thought because death can come at anytime.
dzheremi said:
And if all baptisms are Catholic baptisms, then this must be news to the churches that require a person to be rebaptized due to the questionable nature of Catholic baptism.
Click to expand...
I have always wondered what exactly is so questionable about Catholic baptisms. I hear some who say it is because Catholics do not submerge themselves under water but I ask you are baptisms required to be done this way? Where in Scripture does it say this? Is there Scriptural evidence of a baptism where someone was submerged? Sprinkling water sounds a little bit more logical especially when baptizing people in houses and prisons (which was something the apostles frequently did). Regardless either way is a valid baptism so this cannot be what’s “questionable.”

This must then leave infant baptisms as being the “questionable” practice although I do not understand why this is “questionable” either. One would think that the same God who commanded that all male Jews including infants be circumcised in order to enter the covenant as members of His chosen people wouldn’t really have a problem with infants being baptized…since baptism is the means for which we enter the new covenant that God has made with His people. I find it very strange that the same God who was circumcised while He was an infant would have a problem with infants being baptized. When looking at it I think the only questionable thing here is why anyone would have a problem with infant baptisms especially if Gods very commands and actions show that God did not exclude infants from joining in His covenant in the past.

I guess it doesnt surprise me that other Churches have a problem with Catholic baptisms since when you leave the Church Christ founded you also leave the Pillar of truth and fall into all sorts of errors.
dzheremi said:
I’m sorry, but the Catholic Church is not the Borg. Your Church can consider me whatever you want, but I’m not a Catholic. I purposely do not adhere to the faith as practiced by those in union with Rome.
Click to expand...
Yes the devil does not adhere to the commandments of God but he is still an angel. Likewise Judas did not adhere to the teachings of Christ but he is still an apostle and bishop of the Church. You my friend are Catholic and will always be Catholic weather your adhere to the faith or not. A human can act like a dog but this does not change the fact that they are still human. Likewise a Catholic can act like a Portestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, or Athiest but this does not change the fact that they are still Catholic. Being a Catholic is not just something you believe but something you are and when your were born again after baptism a Catholic is what you became.

God Bless
 
It is a mistake to think that the parable of the sower and the seeds represents distinct types of people, rather than states of the heart. Or maybe you’re just far more consistent than I am and have never had a time of difficulty.

Anyway, re: Catholic baptisms…if I had to guess (without getting into an argument over form, which I don’t care to do), I think this is one of those things that could fall under the Orthodox maxim of “we know where salvation is, not where it is not”. If this is an operating principle of your church, then it makes sense that you would re-baptize anyone coming in from the outside not necessary because you are convinced that their baptism was in some way incorrect or lacking, but because you just can’t know, and you’re better safe then sorry in such a situation. This is why I used the word “questionable”, rather than something more certain and divisive.

Concerning the rest of your post, were it not that Rome as Catholic apologetics paint it considers itself the rightful claimant of my soul with the attendant authority to guide my spiritual life even when I absolutely don’t want them to, I would not at all dispute the idea that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. In fact, I do believe this. What I disagree with is that this brands me as a Catholic with all of the loaded presuppositions that we find in the Church today. If it were the time of the councils, the unaltered Creed, and communion shared by Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria, I would have no problem with that. Indeed, if the Church were what it claims it is, no one would ever leave. Those of us who have left for Orthodoxy know quite well that it isn’t so. Any polemics you might employ to convince yourself otherwise are contradicted by the history of your own church, which was readily acknowledged when I was in RCIA only 6-7 years ago in lessons on the councils, the filioque, etc. Much energy is wasted trying to convince people like me that we’re somehow all still under Rome instead of doing the hard work of bringing Rome into line with its own historical faith and practices.
 
dzheremi said:
It is a mistake to think that the parable of the sower and the seeds represents distinct types of people, rather than states of the heart. Or maybe you’re just far more consistent than I am and have never had a time of difficulty.

Anyway, re: Catholic baptisms…if I had to guess (without getting into an argument over form, which I don’t care to do), I think this is one of those things that could fall under the Orthodox maxim of “we know where salvation is, not where it is not”. If this is an operating principle of your church, then it makes sense that you would re-baptize anyone coming in from the outside not necessary because you are convinced that their baptism was in some way incorrect or lacking, but because you just can’t know, and you’re better safe then sorry in such a situation. This is why I used the word “questionable”, rather than something more certain and divisive.

Concerning the rest of your post, were it not that Rome as Catholic apologetics paint it considers itself the rightful claimant of my soul with the attendant authority to guide my spiritual life even when I absolutely don’t want them to, I would not at all dispute the idea that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. In fact, I do believe this. What I disagree with is that this brands me as a Catholic with all of the loaded presuppositions that we find in the Church today. If it were the time of the councils, the unaltered Creed, and communion shared by Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria, I would have no problem with that. Indeed, if the Church were what it claims it is, no one would ever leave. Those of us who have left for Orthodoxy know quite well that it isn’t so. Any polemics you might employ to convince yourself otherwise are contradicted by the history of your own church, which was readily acknowledged when I was in RCIA only 6-7 years ago in lessons on the councils, the filioque, etc. Much energy is wasted trying to convince people like me that we’re somehow all still under Rome instead of doing the hard work of bringing Rome into line with its own historical faith and practices.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate … this is very interesting.
Could you make a few lines as to where you think the Catholic Church is wrong and the Orhodox is right? The Filioque question… yes indeed I did learn that the Western Church forgot to consult with the Eastern Church before they added those words…

What do you think about the authority of Peter eg?
 
I don’t think they “forgot”, Marlene. It’s not as though Rome was not present at Nicaea. There were literally hundreds of years of opposition from Rome to the addition of the Filioque clause. The problem is that this opposition was not maintained to the current day. This is problem with so many Rome-specific doctrines which should never have risen to that level: Papal infallibility, the IC, etc.

What do I think about the authority of Peter? Peter is certainly vested with apostolic authority, given to him by the Lord our God as to all the apostles in kind. I find arguments that Peter was somehow most favored or more favored than all others to be rather self-serving, as they only ever come up in relation to contentious points of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. Certainly, Peter’s confession of the Lord Jesus Christ’s divinity was first (according to Mark 8:27-29), and I suppose I have no problem with Rome being considered “first among equals” of the ancient Pentarchy (though one wonders why, if Rome’s authority and unique claims to leadership of the entire church comes through Peter’s favor, that this does not extend to Antioch in kind, as it was also founded by Peter). This in no way should constitute an endorsement of the claims that Rome makes today, though. Rome long ago went off the rails.
 
dzheremi said:
I don’t think they “forgot”, Marlene. It’s not as though Rome was not present at Nicaea. There were literally hundreds of years of opposition from Rome to the addition of the Filioque clause. The problem is that this opposition was not maintained to the current day. This is problem with so many Rome-specific doctrines which should never have risen to that level: Papal infallibility, the IC, etc.

What do I think about the authority of Peter? Peter is certainly vested with apostolic authority, given to him by the Lord our God as to all the apostles in kind. I find arguments that Peter was somehow most favored or more favored than all others to be rather self-serving, as they only ever come up in relation to contentious points of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. Certainly, Peter’s confession of the Lord Jesus Christ’s divinity was first (according to Mark 8:27-29), and I suppose I have no problem with Rome being considered “first among equals” of the ancient Pentarchy (though one wonders why, if Rome’s authority and unique claims to leadership of the entire church comes through Peter’s favor, that this does not extend to Antioch in kind, as it was also founded by Peter). This in no way should constitute an endorsement of the claims that Rome makes today, though. Rome long ago went off the rails.
Click to expand...
Dzheremi, I don’t know much about the Orthodox Church…
I guess the primacy of Peter is quite evident in Scripture though…
Now there are cardinals and bishops too so the Pope is not alone in authority and you know he cannot actually say something new which is not in line with Church tradition.
However… I know quite alot about the Catholic Church… but not so much about the Orthodox Church. I have been told that the Orthodox Church has become infected with man-made doctrines - such as divorce - because they have no hierarchy and authority.
As a convert to the Catholic Church this has been very important for me… the unity of teaching, and whereas I sometimes don’t like the style of Catholic expressions, I believe in the truth of Catholic doctrine, and I have found no fault in it, whereas if any church should openly say that divorce is okay, I would question the authority of that church.
Anyhow… you are free to correct me. Maybe I am wrong.
 
=yosephdaviyd;7628819]I have found that the only reason why people leave the Catholic Church is for the same reason why everyone isn’t Catholic. That is, they don’t believe in or don’t know what the Catholic Church teaches about the Holy Eucharist. For, certainly if they did they would never put themselves in a position to go a day without the bread of life.
Click to expand...
I suspect your correct.

But how can this be?

God Bless,
Pat
 
When I hear about people leaving because of the misconduct of priests, though this is a horrible, sickening thing, I just don’t buy that as a reason for leaving the Church. It is a cop out. Then there are those who don’t like the conduct of some Catholics they know. Another cop out.

Is God at fault for these things? Is Jesus Christ, our Savior at fault? As many have said, misinformation and/or ignorance is usually the root of the problem.

I do have another perspective, though. In my situation, I married a wonderful man who is of the Greek Orthodox faith. We were together for 6 years, trying to resolve the situation, and had spoken to several priests, Catholic and Orthodox. We married in the Orthodox Church and have baptized our 5 children there. We generally attend church there, but also attend the Catholic Church on occasion. After some years, I was chrismated in the Orthodox church because it pained me greatly not to be able to receive Holy Communion. A Catholic priest told me, however that Orthodox can receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. I am not intending to debate this issue, and I am not sure if that is the official stance of the Church.

I know that many will not agree, but I have done a great deal of study and I have a very difficult time seeing why one of these two Churches is true and the other not true. They are both from the Apostolic succession, giving them valid priesthoods, thus all the other Sacraments. I love both Churches and it is really like a knife in my heart that they are separated. I pray fervently for reunification some day. I don’t think that the two Churches could agree on everything…in fact even the various Orthodox churches don’t agree with each other on certain things, but that is a whole other story. However, I wish they could be in closer communion, and recognize the vast similarities and areas for agreement so that Sacraments can be shared between the two Churches. I sincerely believe that God does not want this division.

So, I do not feel that I have “left” the Church, but I know that my obligation is to raise my children to love and serve the Lord, our God, and since my husband was not moving toward joining the Catholic Church, the way to keep my family unified and worshiping God together was to be in the Orthodox Church. I still love the Catholic Church and always will, but for now I am at peace with our decision.

In Christ,
Alicia

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength
 
=TedDC;7634617]Simple: I’ve heard the claims and don’t find them convincing.
Click to expand...
So state again for me your issue and permit me to try to clarify it for you…

God Bless,
Pat
 
davidv said:
This is highly derogatory and uncalled for.
Click to expand...
OK, let’s look at two diametrically opposed political views. They are neither one completely accurate nor inclusive. In fact in the US today it is like rooting for football teams while the stadium burns. Both are pretending and demanding faith by conformity to their alleged “truth.” How is making that analysis highly derogatory and uncalled for? Did you take my stating “in any number of areas to” be specific to your investment in your religious faith?
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Due to declining charity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top