Catholic Converts to Protestantism

[Hodos]

Well… scripture says Moses allowed divorce, because of the hardness of men’s hearts. God honored Moses’ decision.

Scripture says in the beginning it was not so. God didn’t like it, but honored Moses’ decision.

Scripture says, “You are Peter…” that Jesus will build His Church on Peter. He conferred the keys to the Kingdom of God to Peter. What Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven. What Peter looses on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Therefore, if the chair of Peter says it wasn’t a marriage, it wasn’t a marriage.

And yet Christ still called divorce sinful. We have laws against murder to regulate the unlawful killing of persons. We have laws about divorce to regulate the sinful breaking of covenant that occurs when one of the marriage parties commit adultery. Moses didn’t change what God had commanded. What you are proposing though is changing what God instituted with a backdoor redefinition. God did not give Peter the authority to redefine what God instituted. That would be a radical misuse of the keys, which has nothing to do with declaring doctrine to begin with. The office of the keys has to do with declaring the gospel and pronouncing forgiveness of sins, not making up a new gospel.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

as a theologian, what doctrinal points do you have disagreements on with the Catholic Church?

Currently? Where do I begin? Below is a list, from earliest known disagreement to latest. I am sorry, but I neither have time nor space for anything else. My window of time for posting is very limited, and each would require their own detailed conversation, which I am not willing to do on this thread.

1. The dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception;
2. Papal infalliability;
3. Papal supremacy (I would have no issue with this if all it meant was that the Pope is the Patriarch of the West);
4. Indulgences;
5. Contraception;
6. Some aspects of ecclesiology relating to the function, powers, and sacramental identity of priests and bishops;
7. The definition of sacrament and the number of sacraments;
8. The function and definition of faith, and consequently the definition and role of good works; (My official break with Rome happened here, though everything above has also been further developed since that time.)
9. The role, powers, and legitimate forms of governmental and economic systems;
10. The issue of the ordination of women and the role of women in the church;
11. The definition and purpose of marriage and who has proper authority over it;
12. Some issues relating to [theological] anthropology.

Okay, that’s a pretty good list. Due to space requirements, I’m deliberating on the best way to answer you. But I will answer you

 

[Justin_Mary]

What you are proposing though is changing what God instituted with a backdoor redefinition. God did not give Peter the authority to redefine what God instituted

Not at all. Marriage is still marriage. Two people living together isn’t necessarily marriage.

Most civil authorities recognize “common law” marriage. The Church does not. Likewise there are several instances of marriage recognized by civil authority thea the Church does not.

 

[billsannie]

I’m eager to see your answer because, with some exceptions, MiserereMei’s list of disagreements is similar to my own.

 

[Hodos]

Not at all. Marriage is still marriage. Two people living together isn’t necessarily marriage.

Most civil authorities recognize “common law” marriage. The Church does not. Likewise there are several instances of marriage recognized by civil authority thea the Church does not.

I never even hinted at addressing common law marriage. I said marriage, as in a couple obtaining a marriage license, and getting married by someone authorized by the state (priest or JP) to make a legal union.

 

[Jimbo]

I’ve known a few people who I found out left. But (the ones I’ve known, YMMV) they never seem to have had a real solid grasp on the faith they left. Several have told me basically protestant tropes about the Church that they believed.

I’m reminded of what I’ve heard Dr. Anders say a few times. “I wouldn’t believe in a Church that did (x) either!”

 

[Vanny]

I have several cousins who have left for mostly atheism, some Protestant denominations. I was never Catholic but they were raised Catholic. All in one large family. One brother became a Protestant the other 3 became nothing or New Age. All in their 50’s.

 

[steve-b]

I’m eager to see your answer because, with some exceptions, MiserereMei’s list of disagreements is similar to my own.

I’m working on it.

For space I’m trying to be efficient but easy work through

 

[GKMotley]

Depends on which protestants you are thinking of.

 

[MiserereMei]

I’m working on it.

For space I’m trying to be efficient but easy work through

I’m working on it.

For space I’m trying to be efficient but easy work through

Take your time, steve-b. I won’t be able to respond until Thursday at the earliest, anyway. And remember, I really do not want to derail this thread into a debate over my particular objections. If you want to start a more devoted discussion thread, I wouldn’t mind, however.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’m working on it.

For space I’m trying to be efficient but easy work through

Take your time, steve-b. I won’t be able to respond until Thursday at the earliest, anyway. And remember, I really do not want to derail this thread into a debate over my particular objections. If you want to start a more devoted discussion thread, I wouldn’t mind, however.

I tried to find short reads, but thorough answers. I’m sure it will stimulate questions

1. The dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception;
   … The Immaculate Conception in Scripture | Catholic Answers
2. Papal infallibility;
   … Inerrant vs infallible The Bible Is Not Infallible | Catholic Answers

… How to Argue for Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers

1. Papal supremacy (I would have no issue with this if all it meant was that the Pope is the Patriarch of the West);

From then Card Ratzinger under JPII, The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html note: paragraphs 3 & 4.

AND From:

Eastern bishop emeritus (retired) John Alya Re: Patriarchal system (5 heads)
… » Are we Orthodox united with Rome?

1. Indulgences;

comes via the power Jesus gave His Church to bind and loose. Open the links
… http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=indulgences&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

1. Contraception;
   … https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-contraception-is-a-pro-life-issue
2. Some aspects of ecclesiology relating to the function, powers, and sacramental identity of priests and bishops;
   Could you be more specific
3. The definition of sacrament and the number of sacraments;

Definition and number:
From scripture: https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/sacraments_in_scripture.htm

1. The function and definition of faith, and consequently the definition and role of good works; (My official break with Rome happened here, though everything above has also been further developed since that time.)

… Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation? | Catholic Answers

1. The role, powers, and legitimate forms of governmental and economic systems;

Could you explain what you’re asking?

1. The issue of the ordination of women and the role of women in the church;

… Why No Women's Ordination? | Catholic Answers

1. The definition and purpose of marriage and who has proper authority over it;
   Matrimony is a sacrament: http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=matrimony&xsubmit=Search&s=SS (open all links)

 

[Justin_Mary]

I never even hinted at addressing common law marriage. I said marriage, as in a couple obtaining a marriage license, and getting married by someone authorized by the state (priest or JP) to make a legal union.

Common law marriage was just an example. Same sex marriage is legal in most of the states, the Church doesn’t recognize them.

Just like there are three conditions that must be present to constitute grave sin, there are conditions that must be present to constitute a sacrament. Whether it be baptism, holy orders, anointing of the sick, or marriage.

 

[Hodos]

Common law marriage was just an example. Same sex marriage is legal in most of the states, the Church doesn’t recognize them.

And I addressed this earlier as well. Feel free to scroll up so that you are not attacking a strawman.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

In response the OP question, God can save anyone He wants but He gave the world the Catholic church for salvation. It is still true that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. That has not changed.

We are not saved by faith alone, we are not saved by works alone but by faith and works through God’s grace.

Grace is what is needed and God can pour out His grace anywhere He wants but in the sacraments of the Catholic church is where sacramental and sanctifying grace are found. Sanctification meaning: to make holy.

From the CCC 1999 sanctifying grace is:

The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification

Having said all that, I would absolutely pray for your family that have fallen away from the faith. Pray specifically that they return to the Catholic church especially since they were once Catholic and very well may know that is where they should be but just left due to anger at a particular priest. I am not saying that they won’t be saved. That is up to God but since we are not saved by works, it doesn’t matter how good they act here in this life. You can never be good enough. You need God’s grace. We all need the sacraments. A Catholic leaving the Church puts his very soul in danger and needed is the sacrament of penance which can restore the sanctifying grace that was cut off by one’s sin.

I am a Catholic revert, who once left the Church for “not a very good reason” and I am ever so grateful for the prayers (specifically the rosary) of those family members who refused to believe I was just fine in the protestant denominations. I can not even begin to tell you the joy and peace I felt when returning home to the Church.

God bless

 

[Justin_Mary]

And I addressed this earlier as well. Feel free to scroll up so that you are not attacking a strawman

Your whole argument is a strawman. “The Church has recognized civil unions as marriage…”

The annulment process is to determine if a marriage, civil or otherwise, was a sacramental union in the first place.

 

[MiserereMei]

tried to find short reads, but thorough answers. I’m sure it will stimulate questions

Thank you for the response. I will get to this eventually. It may take a few days and posts, but I promise I will respond.

 

[MiserereMei]

I will make this quick response now, just to clear things up.

1. I generally actually agree with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. However, I acknowledge that there has been debate on the issue by many faithful theologians, and so disagree specifically with the binding of the concience on such a matter.

What was my original number? 7? Yes, I am aware of the verses talking about them. Here is a statement of my position: A Sacrament has three components simultaneously: 1. The specific command of Christ, 2. A material form, 3. A verbal form. I agree that the other rites your church recognizes as sacraments can be mediums of God’s grace, as can preaching or reading the Bible, or praying, all of which is also supported by the Scriptures.

1. I am not asking anything. I am stating that it is my position that a Christian can live, take part in, and support any governmental or economic system. I believe your church forbids Christians from being socialists. The merits of a system are different from whether or not a Christian qua Christian can support or participate in civil movements.

2. Matrimony is a sacrament:

I will read the texts when I have the time, but as a clarification: from the definition of Sacrament I gave above, marriage does not make the cut.

Number 12 of my original post,

Some issues relating to [theological] anthropology.

you left off, I assume due to space. This is probably the most fundamental difference, however, and want to give you the opportunity to tar and feather me for it. I assume Aristotelian terms are understood well enough, so I shall try to state one issue specifically in as Aristotelian language as I can tolerate. I do not have the time or patience (with my phone’s keyboard) to defend it fully on my cell phone during lunch, however. The issue I will address here, as an example, is that I do not believe maleness and femaleness to be substantial qualities of humanity. Rather, maleness and femaleness are accidents, like blond hair or pale skin. In fact, these qualities cannot be substantial, as otherwise Christ could not “be like us in all things but sin”, nor could St Gregory’s maxim of “what he did not assume was not healed” be regarded as true, for Jesus, being male, did not thereby assume femaleness, just as he did not assume blondness, being a Palestinian Jew in the first century. So, if he did not assume a substantial quality, he cannot be said to be like one who has such a quality, and thus that one cannot be saved. However, who can deny that at least one among humans with the quality of femaleness has reached heaven, and is saved by Christ’s healing? Therefore, we must either reject the maxim or reject the category.

Break is over. Again, I will read your response and its links, and respond accordingly when I next have time. Thank you.

 

[Hodos]

The annulment process is to determine if a marriage, civil or otherwise, was a sacramental union in the first place.

Are they married (assuming male-female)? Then the answer is yes. No investigation required.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Justin_Mary:

The annulment process is to determine if a marriage, civil or otherwise, was a sacramental union in the first place.

Are they married (assuming male-female)? Then the answer is yes. No investigation required.

Interesting. What if one was already married and had run off to marry the new “spouse?” Is that marriage valid?

What if one of the parties was coerced into the marriage? Is that marriage valid?

What if one of the parties was led into the marriage under false pretenses? Is that marriage valid?

 

[Hodos]

Interesting. What if one was already married and had run off to marry the new “spouse?” Is that marriage valid?

No, as both civil and religious definitions of marriage deny plural marriage. And again, this would be extremely rare.

What if one of the parties was coerced into the marriage? Is that marriage valid?

Define coerced. And considering that marriages in the ancient world were typically arranged by the father, you would have to find an exceptional case of “coercion”.

What if one of the parties was led into the marriage under false pretenses? Is that marriage valid?

Define “false pretenses”. If you mean I married a person who presented themselves as the opposite sex, when that wasn’t true, I would be on board with you. Claiming religious differences (as many on this site do to petition for annulment), or not wanting to have kids, etc., isn’t a legitimate reason for divorce. Again, something like this would be extremely rare. It is akin to the pro-choice movement trying to use the incest and rape (extremely rare occurrences) to argue for the broad acceptance of abortion.