Former Catholics become anti-Catholic

[mark_a]

Seems to me that former Catholics, including some that post here, have an ax to grind. That’s personal baggage and emotional stuff.

But I always wonder about people born non-Catholic, who hate the Church, and fabricate these scorching lies about the Church. May I presume that this is pure prejudice? Taught by these people who need someone to hate, to their own children?

I used to think I was poorly catechised, and probably was poorly catechised in the “letter of the law”. But I was better trained in the “spirit of the law” than so many of the proof texters who are ready to put me on the hell express because I’m Catholic.

Go figure.

 

[Church_Militant]

Thank You for proving my point. Church Militant has yelled in virtually every one of his posts on this page, yet I do it once and now Im the one yelling.

Hey lemme point something out…I enlarge one or two words For emphasis…not a whole bleedin’ line…so just quit yer cryin’… You want civility…act civil. I consistently use a larger font to make my posts more eaily read]…which, if you were honest…you would have acknowleged and not accused me without cause. :tsktsk:

You expect me and the rest of us to sit here and be sheep while you present a false case against the teachings and practices of the one true church…Forget it! NOT happenin’! (to steal a line from Dennis Leary)

What about 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Tim 3:1-12, Titus 1:6, 1Tim 4:1-3.

Now to your so called evidence:

I will display each of these passages and deal with them in turn…

1st Corinthians 9:5 “5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Paul certainly had the right…but he, in obedience to the very words of Christ chose not to. We know that he was unmarried and this just simply points up the fact that at least one apostle (that we know of for sure) chose and lived a celibate life. This really cuts both ways, but does not help your case anymore than it helps mine. I feel that it shows a case FOR celibacy as much as it shows that some of the apostles and early Bishops were marraied… this certainly DOES support my case that there are valid scripitural reasons for celibate clergy reagardless of the change that teh deformers brought about in the 1500’s because some of them couldn’t hack it… This only means that one should be very sure of his calling before making such a vow.

1st Timothy 3:2-12(dropped verse 1 as self evident)
"2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: 9 Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

11 The women in like manner chaste, (Nuns?) not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses."

So what we see here is that St. Paul says that those who seek the office of bishop must be squared away in many things. This shows the sanctity of marriage and the importance of a good report with the non-believers…this still does NOT negate Christ’s own call to celibacy in the passages I gave you earlier…Nor St.Paul’s own statement to that effect that I also cited. you set up these straw mwn and then wanna tell me that this is the answer///? Sorry Xave…If Jesus and Paul BOTH hadn’t made these statements, then we’d have nothing to discuss…but your flat refusal to even acknowlege that my cited passages exist and that they are indeed scriptural mandates and guidelines (at least) is just “cherry picking” (as you call it). I’m not doin’ that at all…I have no questions about marriage and that some of the apostles were married…we have some married priests today and that is fine…

cont’d

 

[Church_Militant]

Titus 1:6 “6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly”
Same as above…

1st Timothy 4:1-3 “1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

I would just answer with this note that is in my Bible that covers what I was gonna say better than I could have.

3 “Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance."

So, the admonition about heretics that forbid to marry is directed at the heretics of that day they really have nothing to do with those who willingly take a vow of celibacy for the sake of their service of God.

Now…what say you about the passages that I gave you?
Here they are a third time. Please don’t ignore them (again).
Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

Pax vobiscum,

 

[Xavier]

Church Militant:

Titus 1:6 “6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly”
Same as above…

1st Timothy 4:1-3 “1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

I would just answer with this note that is in my Bible that covers what I was gonna say better than I could have.

3 “Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance."

So, the admonition about heretics that forbid to marry is directed at the heretics of that day they really have nothing to do with those who willingly take a vow of celibacy for the sake of their service of God.

Now…what say you about the passages that I gave you?
Here they are a third time. Please don’t ignore them (again).
Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

Pax vobiscum,

Why Peter was married makes game, set, match.
Jesus chose Peter knowing that he was married.
peter was not only selected as one of the twelve but he was chosen with John and James into jesus’ inner circle.
Jesus knowing full well Peters’ marital status selected him. Today he would be disqualified.
I repeat, the RCC has every right to determine what the qualifications are for their priests. But do not claim biblical authority.

 

[dumspirospero]

This is because instead of admitting they do not have the fortitude, courage, and commitment necessary to be a Catholic, and they do not want to admit they are weak and not willing to submit to the Magisterium…in truth, they just want to pick and choose what they want to follow…whatever is expedient for them…therefore when they leave Catholicism to become a Protestant…they are ashamed of the truth, so they mask it with outlandish stories about the evils of Catholicism.

Mickey:

This is only an observation:

I have noticed that when protestants convert to Catholicism, they remain very charitable to their former protestant roots. They are grateful for the foundations that were laid before they converted. On the other hand, Catholics who convert to protestantism usually become vehemently anti-Catholic and begin bashing the Church on many fronts. I know there are exceptions, but does anyone have any thoughts on why this occurs?

 

[Xavier]

Church Militant:

How do you figure unBiblical?
Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Some men have no desire for a women from the before they were born. Some men were castrated. Some men (John the Baptist)
have given up the maried life for the work of God.

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
"6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried

, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt."

…And just what’s unhistorical about obeying the very words of Christ and the apostle Paul, from the very Bible that YOU say is the sole source of all we are supposed to believe. You don’t know what you’re talking about…

Seems to me that your interp is unBiblical sir…(And out of context)
Pax vobiscum,

BUT I SPEAK THIS BY INDULGENCE NOT BY COMMANDMENT.

Paul prefers that all Christians remain unmaried. Not a commandment but Pauls personal preference. There have been Christian societies which have banned marriage (some Shaker communities) they died off very quickly.
In neither scripture is marriage forbidden. In Matthew it is not even hinted as a prefered state.

 

[Xavier]

Church Militant[color=navy:
[QUOTE]
You don’t know what you’re talking about…

Seems to me that your interp is unBiblical sir…(And out of context)
Pax vobiscum,
[/QUOTE]
This is laughable.

 

[Xavier]

dumspirospero:

This is because instead of admitting they do not have the fortitude, courage, and commitment necessary to be a Catholic, and they do not want to admit they are weak and not willing to submit to the Magisterium…in truth, they just want to pick and choose what they want to follow…whatever is expedient for them…therefore when they leave Catholicism to become a Protestant…they are ashamed of the truth, so they mask it with outlandish stories about the evils of Catholicism.

What is sad is that you really believe this.

 

[Church_Militant]

Xavier. In Matthew it is not even hinted as a prefered state.

In your laughable interpretation…

 

[dumspirospero]

Maybe you can offer a better explanation…my beliefs are not sad…they are right on the money. The burden is on you to prove me wrong.

Xavier:

What is sad is that you really believe this.

 

[Church_Militant]

Xavier:

What is sad is that you really believe this.

What is worse is that you are too biased and blinded that you don’t. :whacky:

 

[Xavier]

Church Militant:

Now to your so called evidence:

I will display each of these passages and deal with them in turn…

1st Corinthians 9:5 “5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Paul certainly had the right…but he, in obedience to the very words of Christ chose not to. We know that he was unmarried and this just simply points up the fact that at least one apostle (that we know of for sure) chose and lived a celibate life. This really cuts both ways, but does not help your case anymore than it helps mine. I feel that it shows a case FOR celibacy as much as it shows that some of the apostles and early Bishops were marraied… this certainly DOES support my case that there are valid scripitural reasons for celibate clergy reagardless of the change that teh deformers brought about in the 1500’s because some of them couldn’t hack it… This only means that one should be very sure of his calling before making such a vow.

So by inference Peter was being disobedient. You can not have it both ways. Again I suggest you have misread Matthew 19.

1st Timothy 3:2-12(dropped verse 1 as self evident)
"2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife,

sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: 9 Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

11 The women in like manner chaste, (Nuns?) not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses."

So what we see here is that St. Paul says that those who seek the office of bishop must be squared away in many things. This shows the sanctity of marriage and the importance of a good report with the non-believers…this still does NOT negate Christ’s own call to celibacy in the passages I gave you earlier…Nor St.Paul’s own statement to that effect that I also cited. you set up these straw mwn and then wanna tell me that this is the answer///? Sorry Xave…If Jesus and Paul BOTH hadn’t made these statements, then we’d have nothing to discuss…but your flat refusal to even acknowlege that my cited passages exist and that they are indeed scriptural mandates and guidelines (at least) is just “cherry picking” (as you call it). I’m not doin’ that at all…I have no questions about marriage and that some of the apostles were married…we have some married priests today and that is fine…

cont’d

Christ never called to celibacy. He said that there are those that chose to. Neither of your scriptures are mandates.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Xavier:
So by inference Peter was being disobedient. You can not have it both ways. Again I suggest you have misread Matthew 19.

Christ never called to celibacy. He said that there are those that chose to. Neither of your scriptures are mandates.Christ did call for obedience and since that is the norm handed down by proper authority,then it does not contradict scripture.By the way Priests are called to be Priest they know the celibacy rule,they are free not to go to the priesthood.God Bless

 

[Church_Militant]

Again…in your personal and highly biased opinion.

I still say that the words of Christ are indeed a directive even though you refuse to admit it.Since Paul says "3 Labour as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No man, being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular businesses; that he may please him to whom he hath engaged himself. " (2nd Timothy 2:3 & 4)

and again and perhaps even more revealing: 1st Corinthians 7: 28-38

"28 If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.
29 I tell you, brothers, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them,
30 those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning,
31 those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away.
32 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33 But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.
36 14 If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.
37 The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.
38 So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

In the context of ALL the relevent scriptures…it becomes very clear that Christ and the apostles DID indeed espouse celibacy for the clergy. AND at the very least Christ and St. Paul did not condemn such practice so therefore: Where do you get off doing so?

 

[Genesis315]

Xavier:
Christ never called to celibacy. He said that there are those that chose to. Neither of your scriptures are mandates.

The Church does not mandate celibacy. Priests choose it. They are “those that choose to.” I don’t see what point you’re trying to make. The Church forces no one to be cellibate. Priests are free of anxieties. “An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife” (1 Cor. 7: 32-33). Priests, as celibates, can better focus on their flock when they don’t have to worry about their families. Protestant ministers need to live in nice houses so they can take care of their families, while priests live in rectories. The funds that would take care of a minister’s wife and kids can be used for the good of the parish in the Catholic situation.

Likewise, priests choose to be Christlike, so they are cellibate. They show that Jesus is enough to completely satisfy and give meaning to their lives. What’s wrong with asking those that represent Christ to be as Chirstlike as possible? They are not married because Jesus was not married. Jesus was celibate, that’s scriptural.

You’re not one of the wackjobs that think Jesus was married are you?

 

[Fitz]

Mickey:

This is only an observation:

I have noticed that when protestants convert to Catholicism, they remain very charitable to their former protestant roots. They are grateful for the foundations that were laid before they converted. On the other hand, Catholics who convert to protestantism usually become vehemently anti-Catholic and begin bashing the Church on many fronts. I know there are exceptions, but does anyone have any thoughts on why this occurs?

I think it is because they go to churches that are more than willing to share their anti-Catholic bias and they must have left for some reason, and so they join in.

 

[Genesis315]

Xavier:

I repeat, the RCC has every right to determine what the qualifications are for their priests. But do not claim biblical authority.

Well, when Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and with them the power to loose and bind, that gives the Church the authority to make such decisions as making celibacy a condition to priesthood. Sounds like biblical authority to me (Matt. 16:19, in case you were wondering where I got the keys stuff from).

 

[MariaG]

Xavier,

So you believe one should offer less than the best to God?

Paul says one should be unmarried and that is best. That’s in the Bible.

As pointed in the previous post, Christ gave Peter the authority (and through him the Church) to make and change the rules.

Is it any wonder when Scripture tells us that the best way to serve God is being unmarried, that a Church would decide as a general rule, one should be Married to Christ instead of another person on earth?

How on earth or in heaven can you claim it is unbiblical?

Priests are married. They are married to the Church (who is Christ). I think this is the point you are missing.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Ani_Ibi]

reggie:

It is much easier to reject “Catholism” than to resist our human impulses and desires. If one can convince one’s self that the Church is wrong, then there is less guilt with going against her teachings. But, there is underlying guilt and that manifests itself in anger and a backlash against that which is causing the guilt.

Zing! cache.corbis.com/thumb/11/55/40/11554003.jpg

---

---

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gus:

I recall a convert the Catholic Chuch saying:
That moving to the Church is usually the result of yearsof Study
So that decision is intellectual.
People tend to leave the Church for personal reasons or their own failure. This tends to be emotional.

Nope.

The years of study you mention are not undertaken in the spirit of unbridled ideology. Texts and Tradition are studied to deepen our connection with those people who have gone before us, those others who have witnessed Christ; those Saints, those Martyrs. It is a human endeavour, an endeavour devoted to community. It is not an endeavour to bolster some bizarre notion we might entertain of personal autonomy or of the supremacy of the individual intellect.

The Church is about, of, with, for a Person. It is not an idea. It is not invisible. People leave the Church because they get ‘bright ideas’ about other people and want to justify their separation from communion.

People come to the Church because they cannot bear another moment living in the torment of mistrust. They have no ‘bright ideas’ about their mistrust. They simply exhale, lay it down, and let themselves experience the joy of communion. They surrender. The decision to become Catholic is not intellectual. It is spiritual.