Former Catholics become anti-Catholic

[Mickey]

Genesis315:

Here is the main problem with those who leave the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, we must conform our beliefs and opinions to the Truth. This can be difficult as pride gets in the way. Our egos do not want us to submit and admit that we do not know best. Someone who leaves the Church conforms the truth to his personal beliefs or opinions. It strokes the ego. It is easy to submit to your own opinion. But is the easy way always the best?

Check out Matt. 7:13-14 and John 6:60

I agree with this Genesis 315. It also seems to me that those who were once Catholic, now lash out at their former Church. There is an underlying anger. I just don’t see this kind of angry attack coming from protestants who were born into protestantism. There are exceptions but on the whole, I don’t see much of it. Also, protestants who convert to Catholicism usually become very devout and knowledgeable Catholics. Someone once told me that protestantism is like grade school, junior high, high school, and college. But final graduation is into the Catholic church.

 

[Curious]

I was wondering if the reverse is true - if former Prots become all anti-Protestant. Any thoughts?

(it may be necessary to start a new thread on this, though)

 

[Xavier]

Genesis315:

Here is the main problem with those who leave the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, we must conform our beliefs and opinions to the Truth.

God says my word is truth. There is a gospel song out Order my steps in your word. no truer words spoken

This can be difficult as pride gets in the way. Our egos do not want us to submit and admit that we do not know best. Someone who leaves the Church conforms the truth to his personal beliefs or opinions. It strokes the ego. It is easy to submit to your own opinion. But is the easy way always the best?

Check out Matt. 7:13-14 and John 6:60

Jesus said narrow is the gate and few are they that enter.

 

[Mickey]

Xavier:

Jesus said narrow is the gate and few are they that enter.

How true xavier. How true.

 

[Mickey]

Curious:

I was wondering if the reverse is true - if former Prots become all anti-Protestant. Any thoughts?

(it may be necessary to start a new thread on this, though)

Hi Curious,

My personal observation is that the reverse is usually not true. Protestants who convert to Catholicism usually remain very charitable to their roots. They seem to understand that prior to their conversion, they were in partial truth and there was a natural progression into the fullness of truth.

 

[MariaG]

Although technically a revert, I consider myself a convert as all my teachings of Christ came from Protestant Churches first.

I am deeply saddened by those unable to see the basic Christianity of the Catholic Church. And although many do not seem nice about it, they truly believe that they are trying to save us from Hell.

Most of the time I can appreciate what they are doing. If I believed what they thought we did, we would be going to hell.

Lately, I think I have forgotten that my job is not to get them to see the truth, but to plant seeds that the Holy Spirit will nourish to fruition sometimes 5, 10 or even more years later.

Seeds and prayers are my job.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Genesis315]

Xavier:

God says my word is truth. There is a gospel song out Order my steps in your word. no truer words spoken

Jesus said narrow is the gate and few are they that enter.

Correct, God’s Word is truth. Unfortunately, it just so happens that not everyone’s personal interpretation of His Word is true. There’s only one true interpretation of God’s word. How do you know your’s is the right one?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Xavier:

Game, set, match!

Nope. It was out of bounds.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Xavier:

Or they study the bible and learn church history. They see when and where the institution of the RCC went astray and is still defended to this day for being in error. (the selling of indulgences to build the Basilica in Rome etc etc)

You say they study the bible. Bible alone provides truth, according to you? Then you say they learn Church history. The Bible tracks Church history? Where? Is there a Book of Ozzie which the Catholics took out? When did that happen? Was there a Council of Ozzie?

How do you do that? Look how neatly you have sidestepped Luther’s mental illness; his rude, aggressive, ungrateful, and uncharitable renunciation of his job, his community, and his superiors; superiors who sought to comfort him and to advise him and to spare him the humiliation of making his private illness a public insurrection – a public insurrection with enormous collateral damage.

Parts of the Church had problems. Parts of the Church always have problems. If we didn’t have problems, then we wouldn’t have solutions. Luther’s proposal for those problems wasn’t a solution. Luther’s proposal was the defence mechanism of a man in pain who sought, before any other consideraton, to numb his awareness of his own failures. Not the failures of people within the Church but his own failures.

The problems within the Church were pretexts which allowed Luther to blame, cut loose, and demonize the nearest authority figure at hand just as he had done with his father years before. The nearest authority figure was the Church because the Church exercises authority and because the Church (being Catholic) is always near.

With healthy adults, failure is the true test of greatness. Failure teaches us. With Luther failure resulted in a personal conflict so overwhelming to him that the demons of childhood violence sprang back up in his imagination. He couldn’t tell friend from foe and so he sought his own council; he became a workaholic. And by workaholic, I don’t mean that he did his work. I mean he stole time from those people for whom he worked in order to indulge his own unauthorized appetites for starvation, sleep deprivation, and extreme self punishment, all of which occurred on the level of compulsion.

Scripture Alone? Faith Alone? These are red herrings to the real story. The real story was Luther Alone. The real story was of the rise of the modern deception which is that we are rocks and islands unto ourselves. If you want to subscribe to the Alone list, that is your choice. In my opinion one Alone begets another. Before long the list of Alones just grows and grows like a tumour into something ugly and inhuman. I don’t want to be Alone. That’s why I am Catholic.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Xavier:

The bible is the inspired inerrant word of God.

The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

Didn’t you just finish promoting the study of Church history? what happened?

 

[reggie]

xavier, since you just won’t give it up, I will respond once again to the very lame point that Peter was married when Jesus called him.
You seem to think that this one point is enough to say that priestly celibacy is unbiblical.

ONCE AGAIN, yes Peter was married. The CC accepts into the priesthood men who are married. But they have to have been married beforethey become a priest.

*Note that Peter was married before Jesus called him and not after.

*Note also, that there is no mention of any of the Apostles marrying after they are called.

It was the practice of the church in the early times to allow both married and unmarried priests. If a priest took the vow of celibacy, he was expected to remain chaste. If a priest was married, he must have been married only once and if his wife died, he could not remarry. I notice that you make no mention of what may have happened to Peter’s wife. The Bible doesn’t mention it either. But, there is one passage where the disciples say they have left all behind. Did Peter perhaps leave his wife behind?

The point is that different Scriptures can be used to support both sides of this issue. But, after years and years, the Church came to see that it is better if her priests remain unmarried. Candidates for the priesthood understand and accept this when they begin their journey to ordination. It is such a peripheral issue, why does it bother you so much?

I notice too that you refer to yourself as an ex-Catholic. It appears from your posts, you are one of the ones who leaves and then bashes. So I guess in a way, you have answered the original question.

 

[Ignatius]

Curious:

I was wondering if the reverse is true - if former Prots become all anti-Protestant. Any thoughts?

(it may be necessary to start a new thread on this, though)

This is from the title posting on this thread.

Ihave 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.

 

[Ignatius]

Xavier:

the selling of indulgences. . . .

Two names, James Baker, and Jimmey Swaggert. You will find sinful people in every church. Just because certain members of the evanglelical and penticostal churches does not mean that the churches themselves should be condemned. Mankind will sin, the membership of the churches are made of ordinary, sinfull people; therefore they will sin. Don’t shoot the wounded.

 

[Xavier]

Genesis315:

Correct, God’s Word is truth. Unfortunately, it just so happens that not everyone’s personal interpretation of His Word is true. There’s only one true interpretation of God’s word. How do you know your’s is the right one?

For the most part the bible is very straight foward and easy to interpret, that is why God desires all should read it.
Jesus has promised to send the Spirit of Truth to lead us unto all truth. You must have faith in Jesus’ promise. Can disagreements arise between good intentioned people, yes. How are these settled.
By trusting in the Lord.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

reggie:

I notice too that you refer to yourself as an ex-Catholic.

Whoops! To be an ex-Catholic, a person would have to have been confirmed in the Catholic Church at some point. To be confirmed in the Catholic Church a person would have had to have received instruction in Church teaching.

1. He does not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of Church teaching to warrant calling himself either a Catholic or an ex-Catholic.
2. Now think about this really carefully, kiddies: why would he refer to himself as an ex=Catholic as opposed to an Evangelical, or Baptist, or whatever? What kind of a religion is ex-Catholicism? Don’t you think there is something fishy there?
3. ‘Questioning Catholic’ is OK. ‘Doubting Catholic’ is OK. As long as someone has not made that step to joining another church. Do you think this applies to him? Does he talk like someone who is not a card-carrying member of a non-Catholic church with an official Catholic-bashing agenda? I don’t think we should let him get away with calling himself an ex-Catholic.

reggie:

It appears from your posts, you are one of the ones who leaves and then bashes.

I don’t believe he left. I believe he was never in.

reggie:

So I guess in a way, you have answered the original question.

Or once again begged it.

 

[Xavier]

Ignatius:

Two names, James Baker, and Jimmey Swaggert. You will find sinful people in every church. Just because certain members of the evanglelical and penticostal churches does not mean that the churches themselves should be condemned. Mankind will sin, the membership of the churches are made of ordinary, sinfull people; therefore they will sin. Don’t shoot the wounded.

No one condones Swaggerts behavior or the fall of Baker.
Has Tetzel ever been condemned?

 

[Church_Militant]

WOW Ani! Beautifully stated in that long post above.

As for this statement:
Originally Posted by Xavier

Or they study the bible and learn church history.

They see when and where the institution of the RCC went astray and is still defended to this day for being in error. (the selling of indulgences to build the Basilica in Rome etc etc)

This was corrected by the Council of Trent. Quit cryin’ :crying: and let it go. As pointed out above there is plenty of dirt among the Prots that could be tossed in the air, but that’s not the point nor righteous. (Ecclesiasticus 8 :6 Despise not a man that turneth away from sin, nor reproach him therewith: remember that we are all worthy of reproof.)

Yeah? Prove it! But NOT here! There’s a whole thread that was opened just for that. If you have unbiased, verifiable, historical] evidence that supports this allegation then I suggest that you go and provide it. I don’t believe that you can…and no other non-Catholic has done so either. I submit that that is because no such evidence exists. Here’s the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=36068

As for the study of church history: In all my 34 years as a non-Catholic, NOT ONCE did I EVER hear or see any reference to the ECF and to church history. I can only surmise that there are two possible reasons for this omission.

1. They are ignorant of it. Therefore your statement is false.
   or
2. They are aware of it and intentionally choose to ignore it because it offers far more support for Catholicism than they are willing to allow their people to see for themselves. In which case they are being willfully dishonest and therefore are wrong…as are you Xavier.

BTW: Ani’s right…it was way outta bounds…as usual.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Xavier]

Ani Ibi:

You say they study the bible. Bible alone provides truth, according to you?

You have assumed Im Sola Scriptura, wrongly.

Then you say they learn Church history. The Bible tracks Church history? Where? Is there a Book of Ozzie which the Catholics took out? When did that happen? Was there a Council of Ozzie?

Why do you continue to mock me?

How do you do that? Look how neatly you have sidestepped Luther’s mental illness; his rude, aggressive, ungrateful, and uncharitable renunciation of his job, his community, and his superiors; superiors who sought to comfort him and to advise him and to spare him the humiliation of making his private illness a public insurrection – a public insurrection with enormous collateral damage.

Parts of the Church had problems. Parts of the Church always have problems. If we didn’t have problems, then we wouldn’t have solutions. Luther’s proposal for those problems wasn’t a solution. Luther’s proposal was the defence mechanism of a man in pain who sought, before any other consideraton, to numb his awareness of his own failures. Not the failures of people within the Church but his own failures.

The problems within the Church were pretexts which allowed Luther to blame, cut loose, and demonize the nearest authority figure at hand just as he had done with his father years before. The nearest authority figure was the Church because the Church exercises authority and because the Church (being Catholic) is always near.

With healthy adults, failure is the true test of greatness. Failure teaches us. With Luther failure resulted in a personal conflict so overwhelming to him that the demons of childhood violence sprang back up in his imagination. He couldn’t tell friend from foe and so he sought his own council; he became a workaholic. And by workaholic, I don’t mean that he did his work. I mean he stole time from those people for whom he worked in order to indulge his own unauthorized appetites for starvation, sleep deprivation, and extreme self punishment, all of which occurred on the level of compulsion.

Scripture Alone? Faith Alone? These are red herrings to the real story. The real story was Luther Alone. The real story was of the rise of the modern deception which is that we are rocks and islands unto ourselves. If you want to subscribe to the Alone list, that is your choice. In my opinion one Alone begets another. Before long the list of Alones just grows and grows like a tumour into something ugly and inhuman. I don’t want to be Alone. That’s why I am Catholic.

Sounds like a lot of bitterness to me.
Catholics refuse to take responsiblity in the schism. It was sin, corporate sin that caused the break. Again Luther had his shortcomings (personal sin) The corporate sin He fought against was more grevious.

 

[Church_Militant]

Xavier:

No one condones Swaggerts behavior or the fall of Baker.
Has Tetzel ever been condemned?

In answer to this post:

Quote:Originally Posted by Ignatius

Two names, James Baker, and Jimmey Swaggert. You will find sinful people in every church. Just because certain members of the evanglelical and penticostal churches does not mean that the churches themselves should be condemned. Mankind will sin, the membership of the churches are made of ordinary, sinfull people; therefore they will sin. Don’t shoot the wounded.

This is nothing but smokescreen. Acknowlege failings and move on.

 

[Xavier]

Church Militant:

WOW Ani! Beautifully stated in that long post above.

As for this statement:
Originally Posted by Xavier

This was corrected by the Council of Trent. Quit cryin’ :crying: and let it go. As pointed out above there is plenty of dirt among the Prots that could be tossed in the air, but that’s not the point nor righteous. (Ecclesiasticus 8 :6 Despise not a man that turneth away from sin, nor reproach him therewith: remember that we are all worthy of reproof.)

Yeah? Prove it! But NOT here! There’s a whole thread that was opened just for that. If you have unbiased, verifiable, historical] evidence that supports this allegation then I suggest that you go and provide it. I don’t believe that you can…and no other non-Catholic has done so either. I submit that that is because no such evidence exists. Here’s the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=36068

As for the study of church history: In all my 34 years as a non-Catholic, NOT ONCE did I EVER hear or see any reference to the ECF and to church history. I can only surmise that there are two possible reasons for this omission.

1. They are ignorant of it. Therefore your statement is false.
   or
2. They are aware of it and intentionally choose to ignore it because it offers far more support for Catholicism than they are willing to allow their people to see for themselves. In which case they are being willfully dishonest and therefore are wrong…as are you Xavier.

BTW: Ani’s right…it was way outta bounds…as usual.
Pax vobiscum,

You have found it neccesary to shout again?