Former Catholic Priest Condemns the Catholic Church and Scott Hahn

[thecoach]

Can you tell me what you’re studying? Since coming back to the church 3 years ago, I can’t get enough books on the Catholic Church. I love the Catholic Church. I love Christ and I’ve changed so much. I hope you reconsider on not leaving the church.

I am studying the Bible. I dont think I would ever consider returning.

 

[mercygate]

I am studying the Bible. I dont think I would ever consider returning.

Well, we’ll leave the door open and the lights on for you if you change your mind.

Funny you seem to think that studying the Bible is somehow antithetical to Catholicism. I became Catholic partly because the Scriptures were so dripping with “catholicity” that I was compelled to examine the claims of the Church that produced the New Testament.

Ever hear of Scott Hahn?

 

[thecoach]

Well, we’ll leave the door open and the lights on for you if you change your mind.

Funny you seem to think that studying the Bible is somehow antithetical to Catholicism. I became Catholic partly because the Scriptures were so dripping with “catholicity” that I was compelled to examine the claims of the Church that produced the New Testament.

Ever hear of Scott Hahn?

Funny perhaps but that is my understanding of it, try not to belittle it. I believe I am now free in the freedom of Christ and you are still in man-made bondage.

 

[mercygate]

Funny perhaps but that is my understanding of it, try not to belittle it. I believe I am now free in the freedom of Christ and you are still in man-made bondage.

I am neither “belittling” nor making judgments about your “man-made bondage.”

The Scriptures are at the heart and soul of Catholic thought and devotion. To believe otherwise is to believe something about the Catholic Church that is not true.

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t see myself in bondage any more than a football player is by the rules of the game. Sure, it can limit what I want to do, but in order to play the game correctly, we have to follow the rules.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Funny perhaps but that is my understanding of it, try not to belittle it. I believe I am now free in the freedom of Christ and you are still in man-made bondage.

Not sure of the man-made bondage to which you refer, since the Catholic Church is the Apostolic Church of Christ. (Matt 16:18) I freely put myself in the “bondage” of the teachings of Christ. The man-made interpretations began with the heresies of Arianianism, Marcionism, etc. - and continue until the present with the church of me deciding which doctrines are essential and which are not. Predestination, Sola Fides, necessity of Baptism, Real Presence vs symbolic, only 144,000 are saved, Sola Scriptura. There are so many flavors to choose from. Is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
So your basic “heresy” is the denial of free will. Quite sensible. Though incorrect. Being sensible, for many many good reasons, has very little to do with being correct.

Could you, right now, decide that you honestly believe in Zeus? How about Scientology? How about believing that your computer is really a pad of paper? Even if I threatened you or promised you money, is there any way you could honestly do any of those?

I certainly could believe in those (at present) unbelievable things if I chose to. And I’d have to “pay” the consequences of those beliefs, which would be various inconsistencies I’d notice between my belief and reality.

One believes what is believable to them at the time, and people are amazingly good at rationalizing their beliefs.

While I could go about the motions of reading about Zeus and obtaining a statue, I could not honestly bring myself to believe. As I can not make sense out of my computer being a pad of paper, I could not believe that either. Scientology has premises which seem absurd to me and a dubious history, which would also make me unable to believe.

Those are those “inconsistencies” that I was refering to. But some people can easily (if at the cost of some odd further consequences to their “psyche”) rationalize those inconsistencies away.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
You are trapped into thinking that you have the authority to decide, finally, what is true. That is sensible, and a very good “self protection” mechanism. The question is what it is you are protecting yourself from?

It will be a lifelong journey. I must always continue to learn. The numerous amount of religions out there show me that there is much misinformation, and I am trying to protect myself from going down the wrong path.

All I can say is that since every non-Catholic group is essentially a “one man” religion, as their is no central authority and all their members may choose whatever sets of doctrines they will follow, your task is practically infinite, and you’ll never be able to use your own criteria to choose one because you can’t exhaustively “digest” all the data available.

You will ALWAYS be tormented by not having researched this or that remote religion, as it may hold the “secret golden key” which you will always find lacking in whichever religion you are “tentatively” in.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
You have your “basic principles” backwards. The first principle is that God is All-Good, All-Just, and All-Powerful. The second principle is that whatever does happen is for the greater good, regardless of what it appears to be. The third is that our very existence is a prayer, just as are those times we call “when I pray”, and that these “prayers” are always answered in the way best for us.

I agree with the first principle.

As for the second, I try to find the good in things, but my view is that if there is a god out there, it is a very non-involved god, so I think that whatever happens, just happens. I don’t believe in fate.

ANY involvement by God is God being an involved God. If you believe that God is AT ALL involved, God is an involved God. That you require that God show you in some spectacular way that He is involved sounds a bit non-humble, perhaps?

The third principle I believed while I was a Catholic, but, today, see it more as expression of our hopes, meditations, etc.

Because you don’t see God as “involved”, this view of prayer is quite sensible.

Where you are wrong is in not believing that God is “involved”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
You can’t FORCE your way back into the Church. You can only ALLOW yourself back into the Church. That takes humility. The humility to allow God qua God, and not “God” qua god (idol), to be your God by allowing revelation to be what it is instead of simply “rationalizing myth”.

I feel like I’ve tried a whole lot. Yes, there was a big period over those 12 years where I did everything I could to be humble, sitting quietly in an empty church, adoration, rosaries, talking with priests, retreats, having others pray for me, asking on this board what else i could do, etc, wondering what was wrong with me that faith just kept slipping away no matter what I seemed to do. I can see how my sentence is confusing – I did not try to force myself back for the whole 12 years, but I did at the end; I was desperate. Its not easy or fun to have everything you believed in and were taught about the religion to be turned on its side. I still have a big stack of books I need to read, but besides that, I’m out of ideas. If you have some other reasonable suggestion(a 4 month pilgrimage is not doable at this time ), I’d love to hear what I’ve been doing wrong all this time.

The only thing required is to find out the real meaning of “humility”.

Humility is simply allowing yourself to believe in something at present you consider unbelievable, and hold onto that belief while observing what happens.

If nothing happens, investigate why it is that you consider what DID happen as not the “happening” you REQUIRED. To REQUIRE anything from your being humble is not to be humble.

That is the singular suggestion possible for you to “get around” your habit of trying to FORCE faith and belief.

 

[adrift]

I haven’t read the entire thread so I don’t know if this has been adresssed but has it ever been confirmed that he was really a former priest? Where did he serve? How long was he a priest?

 

[ralphinal]

I haven’t read the entire thread so I don’t know if this has been adresssed but has it ever been confirmed that he was really a former priest? Where did he serve? How long was he a priest?

He was. One of us contacted the group home where he served. His background story,as listed, seems to be 100% true.

 

[distracted]

Ipeople come in who were “just there for the day” - they’d been to Mass once, they knew how to make the Sign of the Cross, and had once been to a Protestant Bible study somewhere, so they “knew it all” and were ready to be received into the Church, like, next Sunday, so, “hurry it up and get my paperwork done; I’m not staying in this dummies’ class.”

Well, at least the people you dealt with were interested in joining the Church… I am sure you’ve also been around those who think they know everything and DO NOT wnat to join - in fact, they are trying to take you out of the Whore of Babylon… Yikes!

I used to tell this one guy everyting i knew about the Catholic faith, figuring that if he only knew, he would see the beauty of it and want to join… Instead, i felt like i was talking to a wall… :banghead: :hypno: I finally had to realize that this guy really wasn’t into Jesus… In fact, he didn’t even want to hear Jesus’ name… always wanted, instead to just talk about God…
I’m sorry, but to me, that is a sure sign that something is not right… Too bad it took me so long and so much aggravation to realizw that… uch:

 

[qui_est_ce]

Well, at least the people you dealt with were interested in joining the Church… I am sure you’ve also been around those who think they know everything and DO NOT wnat to join - in fact, they are trying to take you out of the Whore of Babylon… Yikes!
… uch:

Kinda like some of the people that come on these boards and think they are telling Catholics something new!

 

[Namesake]

One thing is sure: this one priest doesn’t adhere fully to the whole teaching by the Magisterium of the Church. It could be someone who has great worldly ambitions which he sees (after a whileas a priest) would not be fulfilled as he would like within the Catholic Church… or it could be some shock on a couple of specific things
in the Church teachings or in somebody’s conduct… it can be a number of things. God knows!

Or it could be that he really has changed his beliefs based on his experience and learning. Can you accept the possibility that leaving the RCC and going public about the reasons could be a rational act?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Or it could be that he really has changed his beliefs based on his experience and learning. Can you accept the possibility that leaving the RCC and going public about the reasons could be a rational act?

Actually, he is spreading lies about the Catholic Church. He claims he “started” reading thing the Bible and left the Church. It is impossible to be a priest, especialy OP, and not read the Bible.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Or it could be that he really has changed his beliefs based on his experience and learning. Can you accept the possibility that leaving the RCC and going public about the reasons could be a rational act?

To murder small children because they are “jewish”, let’s say, is a perfectly rational act. The rationale is incorrect, in my opinion, but an act is rational if there exists a rationale for it, not because the rationale is correct.

It was certainly a rational act that he left the Church, but his rationale was in error.

He simply didn’t want to abide by the authority that was a component of his professed belief. It was hypocritical of him to not do as he said, and instead of changing his mind, he decided to change his affiliation.

His post-break behavior is one of a person energetically trying to help people believe as he does. He thinks he’s right. He thinks only he can be believed as to what he believes. Catholics realize that only the Church can be believed as to what we believe.

 

[thecoach]

I don’t see myself in bondage any more than a football player is by the rules of the game. Sure, it can limit what I want to do, but in order to play the game correctly, we have to follow the rules.

Unfortunately, Jesus taught otherwise, and Paul followed suit.

 

[thecoach]

Not sure of the man-made bondage to which you refer, since the Catholic Church is the Apostolic Church of Christ. (Matt 16:18) I freely put myself in the “bondage” of the teachings of Christ. The man-made interpretations began with the heresies of Arianianism, Marcionism, etc. - and continue until the present with the church of me deciding which doctrines are essential and which are not. Predestination, Sola Fides, necessity of Baptism, Real Presence vs symbolic, only 144,000 are saved, Sola Scriptura. There are so many flavors to choose from. Is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic?

Thats just it, you dont. You are in bondage to your church.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Thats just it, you dont. You are in bondage to your church.

What you see as bondage, we see as freedom.

The bondage to do as you will is greater than the bondage to do as you should.

But, if there are no shoulds, there are only wills, and in the battle of wills between all those who do as they will, as well as between he who wills and He who IS will, the one who wills as one against all others and the one who wills against THE will WHO IS that will not be overuled, loses.

Adam was in the bondage of the should, until he was in the bondage of his own will sans shoulds. Which bondage would Adam have chosen if given the choice after he knew of both bondages?