Former Questions Please share with us why?

[Riccardo]

My problem with you all along is NOT that you left the Church - that’s your business. My problem is NOT that you disagree with the the Church’s teachings - that’s your problem.

My problem with people like you is that you misrepresent the Church’s teachings. Regardless of what you claim - you are not “well aware of Catholic teaching”. Having charity doesn’t mean that I should let you get away with spreading lies. TRUE charity is in *admonishment *and correction of such untruth.

**You state that the Church’s position on homosexuality is that it is a sin **and that homosexuals are condemned to hell. That is a complete misrepresentation of Catholic Doctrine. It is the homosexual ACT that is considered sinful - not the fact that one is homosexual.

**You also completely misrepresent the Church’s teaching on Original Sin. You state that the Church teaches that unbaptized babies "go straight to hell". The Church leaves all unbaptized persons to the mercy of God. Nowhere, does the Church teach that unbaptized babies go straight to hell.

As for your othr beliefs - I think you’re way off the mark, but I’ll leave that alone for now.

---

Can i say thank you for clearing a few things up for me in your reply post.
I totally agree, “Love the person not the sin”.

Again on infants, its refreshing to hear the RCC teaching on infants in regard to baptism or not.
I have heard and been led to believe so much on the RCC that my back has been turned, but the more i’m learning and listening here, the more i’m being changed.
Thank you E.
Ric

 

[elvisman]

---

Can i say thank you for clearing a few things up for me in your reply post.
I totally agree, “Love the person not the sin”.

Again on infants, its refreshing to hear the RCC teaching on infants in regard to baptism or not.
I have heard and been led to believe so much on the RCC that my back has been turned, but the more i’m learning and listening here, the more i’m being changed.
Thank you E.
Ric

God bless you, friend.

God loves us ALL. He wills the salvation of ALL. (1 Tim. 2:4). Jesus died for the entire world (John 3:16) - NOT just heterosexulas and Catholics. He died for ALL of us and in doing so he redeemed (paid for) the word. We must answer that grace and cooperate with it in order to be saved.

It is not for us to damn anybody to hell - we leave everybody to the grace of God.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t!!

A condom is a barrier type birth control, like the diaphragm. When in use no life is created, so no life is destroyed.

Barrier ontraceptives are the perfect answer for the loving married couple to use especially if for health reasons they should not have children.

I thank God that Jesus wore no “barrier” when He donated Himself completely for His Holy Bride, the Church.

The marital embrace is to be a reflection of this love of Christ for His Bride. How does a barrier reflect any self donation of oneself? Never mind…it is way off topic here.

 

[elvisman]

You haven’t proven that birth control is non Biblical, thus wrong doctrinal position.

If you can’t see that putting up artificial barriers and “flying in the face of God” is wrong - I really feel sorry for you.

If you can’t see that God is offended by your rejection of his gifts of life - I pray for you.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry you feel that way,** Guan**** - but I simply refuse** to allow anybody to misrepresent the Church. This is exactly what Light1111** was doing.
Read the posts.**

---

As I stated earlier - it is not “more charitable”** to allow somebody to spread falsehoods about the Church. **He falsely asserted some things about the Church’s teachings on Baptism and homosexuality.

---

**It is ****far **more charitable to correct them and point them in the right direction.

No, Light was just sharing a perception of what the Church taught. I don’t think it is accurate either, but instead of addressing the errors, you just pounced on the person. Light was very open and welcoming of being corrected. I agree with you, it is more charitable to correct the errors, and point them in the right direction. Light was not claiming to be Catholic, or Christian even. I don’t get any sense of a desire to misrepresent what Catholics believed, just a lack of knowledge.

 

[guanophore]

• I have heard and been led to believe so much on the RCC that my back has been turned, but the more i’m learning and listening here, the more i’m being changed.

Ric

I am so glad to hear this Ric. You are the reason CAF is here.

 

[Riccardo]

Thank you!

I still have my concerns over some issues, which i dont wont to argue over, but wish to understand.
Dont want to go off thread, so if something comes up which i feel will be ok to ask i will.
Ric

 

[Dokimas]

If you can’t see that putting up artificial barriers and “flying in the face of God” is wrong - I really feel sorry for you.

If you can’t see that God is offended by your rejection of his gifts of life - I pray for you.

Thanks for your opinion and remember, most likely, it’s just that, your opinion.

As I said, you haven’t proven from the Bible that God is against all forms of ‘not having a baby’ as an outcome of intimate times with ones spouse.

 

[schaick]

I thank God that Jesus wore no “barrier” when He donated Himself completely for His Holy Bride, the Church.

The marital embrace is to be a reflection of this love of Christ for His Bride. How does a barrier reflect any self donation of oneself? Never mind…it is way off topic here.

Actually I think of the spouse that could have a child if with another yet stays intimate with only the one with Huntingtons as having donated themself to the relationship.

It is not just sperm and egg that make a marriage relationship.

 

[Dokimas]

I thank God that Jesus wore no “barrier” when He donated Himself completely for His Holy Bride, the Church.

The marital embrace is to be a reflection of this love of Christ for His Bride. How does a barrier reflect any self donation of oneself? Never mind…it is way off topic here.

However, you’d have us believe Mary and Joseph never had the full ‘marital embrace’.

 

[Light1111]

Thanks for your opinion and remember, most likely, it’s just that, your opinion.

As I said, you haven’t proven from the Bible that God is against all forms of ‘not having a baby’ as an outcome of intimate times with ones spouse.

Thank you to each of you for your corrections, and for your understanding. My mom had told me that the Church had reversed a few edicts/laws (I’m never sure the correct word to use) that had been in effect at the time of our Catholic School education. Perhaps I did choose the incorrect wording in parts – and I apologize for that. I did not mean to misrepresent the Church’s teachings. With homosexuality, for instance, I merely used the incorrect wording – I was aware that it is not the homosexual who is the sinner, but his actions which constitute the sin. I suppose to be clearer I should state that I find neither the homosexual’s state of being nor his actions reprehensible to God – and again, I am well aware that falls outside the official stance of the CC. I mean no disrespect to anyone who does believe this. I have admitted that in part, my feeling on this matter is personal, as I have a homosexual (practicing) brother. Also, professional, as I am a social worker, and ethically we are compelled not to judge clients (and I have had homosexual clients).

As for the baptism of a child – which prevents his entry into hell – I am only relieved to learn I was wrong about this. As others pointed out, I very much welcome correction, and it puts my mind at ease to learn this has changed. Unless I was always mistaken? When I attended Catholic School (from '81 to '92) we were still being taught that baptism was necessary, for otherwise if the infant dies prior to baptism, he would go to hell. In fact, the more I think about this, I think we learned the infant would go to Purgatory – but would have to remain there until Jesus came again. I just didn’t understand what that infant had “done wrong” to merit even a trip to Purgatory, but I know that the basis for this is with a belief in Original Sin. So again, that was merely my way of saying it’s difficult for me to comprehend adequately the nature of Original Sin.

Thank you to each of you for encouraging a charitable nature. I never did wish to offend you, Elvis, and I am not interested in putting down your faith tradition. I find Catholicism beautiful. But it is often mentioned, in this forum, that one can be a “Cafeteria Catholic,” or a Catholic who only attends mass on Christmas and on Easter – etc. Members discuss how you can’t cherry-pick ideas you agree with, and then leave behind the ones you don’t agree with, and at the end of the day, still claim you are a “Catholic.” Because I really do respect and agree with this, I know that the points I listed do disqualify me from being a Catholic, because you can’t just leave behind some teachings but move forward with the rest.

Some of the responders to the conversation Elvis and I had pointed out that I had misinterpreted some aspects of the Faith. Please, I sincerely do welcome your corrections. These items do weigh on my mind, and if I am wrong, I so wish to learn the truth. Again, I was taught these things in Catholic School and at Church – by the monsignor, by the other priests, by the nuns, and by the deacon. If those items were misrepresented by them at that time, or if things have since changed, please let me know!

Thank you so much to each one of you, I’m most grateful for this discussion!

Peace,
Light1111

 

[Todd520]

As for the baptism of a child – which prevents his entry into hell – I am only relieved to learn I was wrong about this. As others pointed out, I very much welcome correction, and it puts my mind at ease to learn this has changed. Unless I was always mistaken? When I attended Catholic School (from '81 to '92) we were still being taught that baptism was necessary, for otherwise if the infant dies prior to baptism, he would go to hell. In fact, the more I think about this, I think we learned the infant would go to Purgatory – but would have to remain there until Jesus came again. I just didn’t understand what that infant had “done wrong” to merit even a trip to Purgatory, but I know that the basis for this is with a belief in Original Sin. So again, that was merely my way of saying it’s difficult for me to comprehend adequately the nature of Original Sin.

Light, that matches my memory while in Catholic school. Here is an article from 2007 that expands on the story
Vatican revises limbo view, hope for unbaptized babies

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were “serious” grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.

 

[Light1111]

This was a real eye-opener! Thank you sincerely for posting that article. I didn’t realize, either, that there was consideration towards the possibility that there existed “no limbo” (AKA Purgatory). I was always puzzled by Purgatory and now I have a lot to think about. Thank you so much!

Peace.

 

[guanophore]

As far ar I know Christians don’t have developed Dogmas and doctrines like the Catholic Church.

This is an interesting statement, schaick. You may not consider Catholics to be Christians, but Catholics do. Catholics consider the Catholic Church a Christian Church.

Actually, all of the original Reformers developed doctrine this way. They used Sacred Tradition as a valid Source, but redesigned the doctrines so that they would fit with SS.

Modern American Evangelicals also develop doctrines, but unlike the Catholic method, they are based on traditions of the Reformation, which have already been removed from the Apostolic Traditions.

 Now a minister might haved preached against barrier birth controls because he didn't understand how they worked, was worried about promiscuity, **or didn't realize the need for them in the case where a married couple might want to be intimate but could not have children for health reasons - a couple where one has Huntingtons Chorea**

Sex is not a “need” schaick. I know it feels this way sometimes, but Jesus and Paul were full, complete, and healthy human beings, even without sex.

Your point is well made, that some preach out of ignorance. This is one reason why it is important to have a Teaching Authority.
schaick;7126718:

LOL! You would deny a loving married couple intimate relations? Already they carry the cross of living-dying with Huntingtons. You want them to also be celibate?

No, if a couple chooses not to be intimate so they can devote themselves to prayer, this is between them, and their Creator. God sometimes allows disease and disability so that His glory can shine through. If people miss the chance to glorify God because they are more focused on gratifying the desires of the flesh, then they are missing HIs intention for them.

Besides, the term “celibate” is used to describe a lifestyle in which one has “made oneself a eunuch for the Kingdom of God”. Married persons are rarely celibate (though there are some, like Mary and Joseph, that choose to relinquish the marital embrace for God) but generally when they refrain from relations it is called “abstinent” because their intention is temporary.

Actually I think of the spouse that could have a child if with another yet stays intimate with only the one with Huntingtons as having donated themself to the relationship.

It is not just sperm and egg that make a marriage relationship.

It is good that you know this. Part of the abstinence from the marital embrace is to purify and enhance the marriage relationship that is not in the flesh. When a couple chooses to consecrate their time together to devotion to the lord, and offers restraint from the marital embrace to God, God blesses this consecration of themselves with deeper intimacy and love that transcends the physical plane.

However, you’d have us believe Mary and Joseph never had the full ‘marital embrace’.

No, I know you will not "have"this Apostolic Teaching. It is preserved infallible in the Church founded by Christ, and it is available for you to embrace, but you can refuse any and all of the Apostolic Teachings.

Dont’ you think the Apostles would know if Jesus had siblings? I mean, really. How could they miss that little factoid? Why, if they knew them, would they teach their disciples that Jesus was her only child? Anyway, that is off topic, so we better not go there.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you to each of you for your corrections, and for your understanding. My mom had told me that the Church had reversed a few edicts/laws (I’m never sure the correct word to use) that had been in effect at the time of our Catholic School education. Perhaps I did choose the incorrect wording in parts – and I apologize for that. I did not mean to misrepresent the Church’s teachings.

I did not think you were trying to misrepresent the Church Teachings. It is our duty, though, to make you aware when your ideas are not congruent with them.

Yes, there have been many changes to “edicts/laws” over the centuries. This is where it is important to distinguish between disciplines/rules and doctrine. Disciplines (practices)can change, but doctrine cannot.

With homosexuality, for instance, I merely used the incorrect wording – I was aware that it is not the homosexual who is the sinner, but his actions which constitute the sin. I suppose to be clearer I should state that I find neither the homosexual’s state of being nor his actions reprehensible to God – and again, I am well aware that falls outside the official stance of the CC. I mean no disrespect to anyone who does believe this. I have admitted that in part, my feeling on this matter is personal, as I have a homosexual (practicing) brother. Also, professional, as I am a social worker, and ethically we are compelled not to judge clients (and I have had homosexual clients).

From the Catholic point of view, a person who engages in a homosexual lifestyle would be considered living in a state of sin (a sinner). The Church is clear, though, that same sex attraction in itself is not a sin, just a grave disorder.

You do have an ethical challenge there, being a professional who is not to judge the client’s. Do you think it is possible for you to hold a view that a certain behavior is a sin, yet still be non-judgmental with a client? I mean, supposing the client is a pedophile. I don’t think behaving professionally and non-judgementally with a client means that you approve his lifestyle or actions.

 As for the baptism of a child -- which prevents his entry into hell -- I am only relieved to learn I was wrong about this. As others pointed out, I very much welcome correction, and it puts my mind at ease to learn this has changed. Unless I was always mistaken? When I attended Catholic School (from '81 to '92) we were still being taught that baptism was necessary, for otherwise if the infant dies prior to baptism, he would go to hell. In fact, the more I think about this, I think we learned the infant would go to Purgatory -- but would have to remain there until Jesus came again. I just didn't understand what that infant had "done wrong" to merit even a trip to Purgatory, but I know that the basis for this is with a belief in Original Sin. So again, that was merely my way of saying it's difficult for me to comprehend adequately the nature of Original Sin.

Yes, no doubt you were taught this, as it was the most common theological speculation at that time. It is a concept that was called “Limbo”. The Church has never determined the eternal state of anyone who has died, but you are right on, it relates to original sin. The Church does not teach that those below the age of reason (knowledge of right and wrong) have any person sin, but the doctrine about baptism does relate entirely to original sin. The Apostles taught that we enter this world separated from God by sin, and that baptism is the normative means by which we are justified (placed in right relationship with HIm).

Thank you to each of you for encouraging a charitable nature. I never did wish to offend you, Elvis, and I am not interested in putting down your faith tradition. I find Catholicism beautiful. But it is often mentioned, in this forum, that one can be a “Cafeteria Catholic,” or a Catholic who only attends mass on Christmas and on Easter – etc. Members discuss how you can’t cherry-pick ideas you agree with, and then leave behind the ones you don’t agree with, and at the end of the day, still claim you are a “Catholic.” Because I really do respect and agree with this, I know that the points I listed do disqualify me from being a Catholic, because you can’t just leave behind some teachings but move forward with the rest.

I have great respect for this kind of integrity, and I fervently pray that more “catholics” will come to it. May God bless you for your refusal of hypocrisy.

Some of the responders to the conversation Elvis and I had pointed out that I had misinterpreted some aspects of the Faith. Please, I sincerely do welcome your corrections. These items do weigh on my mind, and if I am wrong, I so wish to learn the truth. Again, I was taught these things in Catholic School and at Church – by the monsignor, by the other priests, by the nuns, and by the deacon. If those items were misrepresented by them at that time, or if things have since changed, please let me know!

There is a whole generation of us that got an abysmal catechesis. I have learned more abotu the Catholic faith since I joined CAF than I did in all the decades previous.

Thank you so much to each one of you, I’m most grateful for this discussion!

Peace,
Light1111

You are why we are here.!

 

[Light1111]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am most grateful for you taking the time to walk through, item for item, and respond to my questions and my concerns. I think what I experienced in Catholic School and at Church may have at times represented the opinion of the speaker, as opposed to the firm edicts of the Church. Probably in most cases the speaker was earnest but mistaken (or else the edict was later retracted or further clarified). As a child I greatly feared hell and many of the other things I was taught–worrying about the sinners to whom the edicts applied. I used to picture these little innocents roasting in hell and I would grow so upset at that thought. I find myself comforted by these new additions to what I was taught in my early childhood!

Thank you again and peace!
Light1111

 

[Pat_De]

God bless you, friend.

God loves us ALL. He wills the salvation of ALL. (1 Tim. 2:4). Jesus died for the entire world (John 3:16) - NOT just heterosexulas and Catholics. He died for ALL of us and in doing so he redeemed (paid for) the word. We must answer that grace and cooperate with it in order to be saved.

It is not for us to damn anybody to hell - we leave everybody to the grace of God.

If that were true, then everyone would be in heaven; so the context must not be correct since most people are not going to be in heaven. Proverbs, the Psalmist and Jesus Himself state as much.

 

[Pat_De]

Yes, no doubt you were taught this, as it was the most common theological speculation at that time. It is a concept that was called “Limbo”. The Church has never determined the eternal state of anyone who has died, but you are right on, it relates to original sin.

What are all the canonized “saints”? See the error? Saints are physically dead and that is the context.

 

[Janet1983]

Given the number of fallen away [Former “Catholics”], I 'd really like to gain some insight on what caused your departure?

I ask all to apply extreme charity in this dialog.

Love and prayers,
Pat

I’ve been rather quiet concerning this topic as I know that charity is not always a focus (and especially in this kind of a topic)…

I left the Catholic Church for dogmatic issues.
It was not because of the teachings on sexuality, nor because of a lack to deal with sin (and going to confession), nor because of any other “typical” reason to leave (even though this is usually suspected of the ones that leave the Church by those who remain). I am of the opinion that the majority of those who defect don’t fit the stereotype. Most who leave do not do so because of a divorce, an abortion, practising birth control, fornication, homosexuality, laziness etc.

My personal reasons were doubts and denial in these areas:

• the IC,
• the perpetual virginity of Mary and her assumption,
• the structure, origin, sending and authority of the (modern) Catholic Church,
• the power of priests all the way up to the pope,
• the veneration of saints, their relics and images of saints,
• the existence of purgatory,
• the necessity of the sacraments, especially baptism
• the eucharist,
• indulgences,
• Mary being without sin,
  etc.

As this thread is not about Catholics trying to win back lapsed Catholics I won’t go into deep discussions of my motives.
I know that you will disagree with me and I respect that.
In case you might ask, no I do not hate Mary, and no I am still a Christian, though I am not a Catholic Christian any more.
I live my life for Jesus Christ who is my Lord, my Saviour and my Master and there is none other for me.
If you think that my rejection of the Catholic Church and my proclaimed love for the Lord are contradictory I respect that opinion too. You are entitled to that opinion.
I am not trying to convince anybody to follow me on my path. I am just trying to answer the question I quoted above.
If my post sounded as if I was trying to convince you or anybody else to leave the Catholic Church I ask you to please forgive me as this was not my intention. I have no intention to break the rules for this part of the forum.

As for me, yes I do not submit myself to the authority to the Catholic Church any more nor do I necessarily accept all of her teachings, even though I did for about 20 years. My formal defection did not take place until January of this year, though I had quit to consider myself Catholic before that…
I do not believe myself lost. As a matter of fact I do believe myself to be saved and forgiven by my Lord.

 

[Riccardo]

In a recent post i did state i did have some concerns on the RCC, but i would not raise them until a thread led that way, well i feel this thread has led me to ask;

I dont Understand why the Pope allows many to bow down before him and kiss his hand, to me this is a sign of worship. Paul was horror struck when it happened to him, even to point where he ripped his clothes.

I dont see anywhere in scripture where Mary stayed a virgin. Yes, she should be honoured, as she was a virgin with Christ.I dont feel this is a salvation issue though.

I’m not a catholic.

But i’m learning and trying to understand, looking through the written word, not anyone human beings word.

Ric