Former Questions Please share with us why?

[elvisman]

Are you saying that for Catholics the following is not the great commission?
Matthew 28
**The Great Commission **
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

I have been in on the baptism of a couple infants and baptized one myself.

And THAT right there is the tragedy of Protestantism. If you’re not part of the ministerial priesthood of Christ - you have no business baptizing anyone - unless there is some sort of dire emergency.

 

[guanophore]

This sounds very invasive. I’m divorced. I married when I was far too young and have been divorced for over 10 years now (I’m 33). If I decided to ever marry again, and was a Catholic, would I have to dig up a very painful past - with an estranged woman who all but abandoned her children to start a new life somewhere - just to satisfy the Church’s demands?

If you were baptized at the time, you might. Part of the goal of the Church, in addition to preventing adultery by encouraging a validly married person to take another spouse, is to see these wounds heal. The presumption is that they can hinder a new relationship, and if reconciliation and healing need to happen, it is best to do it while one is single, or stilll courting someone. If the annulment is then granted, the subsequent relationship is likely to be much healthier.

 

[guanophore]

Yes I agree. Jesus was speaking to the 72 who then spoke to hundreds who then spoke to more hundreds and down through the years the universal Church is quite large and not all contained in just the Catholic denomination,

Except that Catholicism is not a denomination. A denomination is a group that takes it’s name from another. Denomiations are defined by how much, and which parts, of Catholicism they reject.

 

[1234]

WHERE do you get that idea from? The idea that Jesus was a pacifist is a fallacy, perpetuated by those who don’t know the Scriptures.

---

Matt. 10:34-36** tells us that Jesus said: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword**. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’”

---

In Luke 22:35-36, Jesus again proves that he is no pacifist:* “He said to them, “When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?”
“No, nothing,” they replied. He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one*.”

---

In Rev. 19:15, we read about Jesus. It says: "Out of His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."

---

Finally – not all killing is murder. If it was – God himself would have been breaking his own commandment when he sent Moses and Joshua and David into battle. That’s whay the commandment reads – “You shall not MURDER” not, “You shall not KILL”.

---

**Don’t forget what Ecclesiastes 3:1-3 **tells us:
“There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens. ***
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant. ***
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to tear down, and a time to build.”

Well, Elvis, I’m quoting from Jesus and his Sermon on the Mount, something he undoubtedly felt was very important in summing up his teachings:

—not Revelations or Ecclesiastes.

Here’s from that sermon, from Matthew and Luke:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

To me this is pretty clear and unambiguous. Jesus isn’t even speaking in parables–just nice and direct, hard to misinterpret, except to those Christians who want to start wars.

And, Elvis, we could do without all the colors and underlining. We can read, you know.

 

[Karamazov]

And, Elvis, we could do without all the colors and underlining. We can read, you know.

Haha, yeah, I’ve been seeing a lot of his posts and they’re REALLY distracting because of all the colours. The seem to emphasize random words during each sentence.

 

[schaick]

Except that Catholicism is not a denomination. A denomination is a group that takes it’s name from another. Denomiations are defined by how much, and which parts, of Catholicism they reject.

The Catholic hierarchy has developed much more then what was.

Catholism is not the perfect example of the Church that Jesus built.

 

[schaick]

And THAT right there is the tragedy of Protestantism. If you’re not part of the ministerial priesthood of Christ - you have no business baptizing anyone - unless there is some sort of dire emergency.

Are you saying that the Catholic congregation is not a part of the priesthood mentioned by Peter?

1 Peter 2
4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

 

[schaick]

WHERE do you get that idea from? The idea that Jesus was a pacifist is a fallacy, perpetuated by those who don’t know the Scriptures.

---

Matt. 10:34-36** tells us that Jesus said: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword**. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’”

---

In Luke 22:35-36, Jesus again proves that he is no pacifist:* “He said to them, “When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?”
“No, nothing,” they replied. He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one*.”

---

In Rev. 19:15, we read about Jesus. It says: "Out of His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."

---

Finally – not all killing is murder. If it was – God himself would have been breaking his own commandment when he sent Moses and Joshua and David into battle. That’s whay the commandment reads – “You shall not MURDER” not, “You shall not KILL”.

---

**Don’t forget what Ecclesiastes 3:1-3 **tells us:
“There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens. ***
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant. ***
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to tear down, and a time to build.”

Matthew 10 is a prophecy from Jesus that has come true. Jesus is preparing HIS Disciples for things to come just as HE is in Luke 22 .

Reading further in Luke 22 we see Jesus also set the stage to once again prove HIS power.

49When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

In Ecclesiastes 3 it is not a time for us to kill so much as obeying the order from GOD to kill when man is so very wicked.

 

[elvisman]

Well, Elvis, I’m quoting from Jesus and his Sermon on the Mount, something he undoubtedly felt was very important in summing up his teachings:

—not Revelations or Ecclesiastes.

Here’s from that sermon, from Matthew and Luke:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

To me this is pretty clear and unambiguous. Jesus isn’t even speaking in parables–just nice and direct, hard to misinterpret, except to those Christians who want to start wars.

And, Elvis, we could do without all the colors and underlining. We can read, you know.

And you take this to mean that Jesus was a pacifist??
You cannot read the Bible without its proper context – which is exactly what you’re doing.

---

I have given you 4 verses that show Jesus was no Pacifist. Just a few examples to illustrate the point that God DOES approve of war in certain circumstances. God is Love – but God is ALSO Justice. You cannot have one without the other. God led the Israelites into many battles where thousands were killed.

---

Remember** who Jesus was talking to in the Sermon on the Mount. He was talking to a nation that was subjugated by a superior force – the Romans. They didn’t have a chance them. Jesus was telling them how to live in this circumstance. Instead of wasting their time with futile uprisings, he wanted them to see the Salvation that had come to their nation. **

---

**In the end – they wouldn’t listen to him and 40 years later Jerusalem was sacked and destroyed by the Romans. Yet another mass killing that God allowed because of their insolence. **

---

Jesus a pacifist? I think NOT . . .

 

[elvisman]

Haha, yeah, I’ve been seeing a lot of his posts and they’re REALLY distracting because of all the colours. The seem to emphasize random words during each sentence.

Yet another post with no substance . . .

 

[elvisman]

The Catholic hierarchy has developed much more then what was.

Catholism is not the perfect example of the Church that Jesus built.

Example? No.
It is the ONLY Church Christ built.

 

[elvisman]

Are you saying that the Catholic congregation is not a part of the priesthood mentioned by Peter?

1 Peter 2
4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

You’re forgetting that the Heavenly Kingdom is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom.

---

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests: Aaron, the High Priest, the Levitical Priesthood, and the rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.

---

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests: Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25), the Ministerial/Levitical Priests (James 5:14-15) and the general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

---

Just as with all New Testament fulfillments, the fulfillment is always more glorious than the Old Testament type. **

---

Finally, in the Epistle of Jude, we read the warning about those who would usurp Church Authority by assuming the ministerial priesthood without the Church’s consent (Jude 1:11). In this passage he compares them to the rebellion of Korah and their subsequent punishment (Numbers 16:1-35; 31:16). Your baptizing of people without being in the ministerial priesthood mocks it and resembles the rebellion of Korah.

 

[elvisman]

Matthew 10 is a prophecy from Jesus that has come true. Jesus is preparing HIS Disciples for things to come just as HE is in Luke 22 .

Reading further in Luke 22 we see Jesus also set the stage to once again prove HIS power.

49When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

In Ecclesiastes 3 it is not a time for us to kill so much as obeying the order from GOD to kill when man is so very wicked.

**Then you’re contradicting yourself.
How can you say that it’s okay to kill when God says so - yet you say that Jesus (who IS God) is a pacifist.
A pacifist is somebody who refuses to take up arms to kill - no matter what.

You are taking these verses out of context. We must take ALL of Scripture in context.
Jesus is the Prince of Peace - but you cannot have peace without justice.

 

[TedDC]

Originally Posted by TedDC
Not necessarily true. In my case, learning more about the faith brought about a realization that I don’t believe many of its essential tenets.

Do you want to say more about what those are? If you already did so, please excuse the question. I am a little behind on the thread.

I’ve found that it’s not really productive to discuss in detail what I don’t believe. I have read the arguments in support of those tenets but find them unconvincing.

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic hierarchy has developed much more then what was.

Yes indeed. The disciples of the Apostles followed their instructions to appoint elders in every town, and to entrust the Sacred Tradition to faithful men who were able to teach others, also. As the Church founded by Christ developed and expanded throughout the world, furhter overseers have been appointed, and the office of the Successor of Peter has taken on more importance in the refutation of heresies and divisions. Peter is now visible as a symbol of unity among the Apostolic sees.

Catholism is not the perfect example of the Church that Jesus built.

What makes you think not?

 

[schaick]

**Then you’re *contradicting ***yourself.
How can you say that it’s okay to kill when God says so - yet you say that Jesus (who IS God) is a pacifist.
A pacifist is somebody who refuses to take up arms to kill - no matter what.

You are taking these verses out of context. We must take ALL of Scripture in context.
Jesus is the Prince of Peace - but you cannot have peace without justice.

The arguement you use is sounds like a Oneness Pentecostal.

Yes, Jesus is GOD but in the Holy Trinity there are 3 persons, manifesting to human in what I consider very different ways. The person who is Jesus of the Triune GOD is a pacifist.

 

[PJM]

=Karamazov;7096749]This sounds very invasive. I’m divorced. I married when I was far too young and have been divorced for over 10 years now (I’m 33). If I decided to ever marry again, and was a Catholic, would I have to dig up a very painful past - with an estranged woman who all but abandoned her children to start a new life somewhere - just to satisfy the Church’s demands?

These are VERY complicated issues that require many facts.

Your well advised to speak to a Catholic Priest who can better advise you.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Light1111]

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

Just yesterday, I was engaged in a very warm and welcoming discussion with other members, regarding other faiths. The view I had expressed was in defense of the Muslem faith, but I might just as well have written in defense of any other faith tradition. I believe that all worshipers of God are seen by Him as attempting to go forward in this world from a posture of love, gratitude, and respect.

This is one area where I cannot accept Catholic doctrine. Perhaps it is I who am mistaken, but I am correct in thinking that a Catholic must accept that this path is the only one that leads to God? If that is the case, that is one area where I cannot agree.

In yesterday’s discussion, I felt the need to refrain from making any specific statements regarding my departure from the Church. I still feel uneasy about spelling out my reasons, as I do not wish to offend anyone–and I do accept that the Church accepts the very things I take issue with. That is something I feel comfortable with.

I suppose I can generally state a few points for you to consider, since you seem sincere in your question. Please let me preface these remarks by stating that my view is but one, and I do respect the beliefs of the Catholic Church, even when I disagree with them. I was born and raised a Catholic, attended Catholic school for 9 years, and undertook the sacraments of Holy Communion, Reconciliation and Confirmation. I certainly do not know everything about the Catholic faith, yet I have a very firm and lifelong basis for the comments I put forward here.

There are specific edits, laws, or beliefs, which I have a difficult time accepting–or feel I cannot accept. One in particular, I have already voiced in another forum. It is the belief that homosexuality is a sin. I come to my divergent belief from many directions. 1) My brother is an open homosexual. I do not believe he is going to hell. He is kind to people and has lived a decent life. I just do not see him as a sinner. 2) I am a social worker, and view homosexuality both scientifically and psychologically. From both viewpoints, I believe it is not a sinful life choice, but a birth-path, and one which definitely causes significant pain in one’s life (owing to the cruel treatment they receive from others). This and other taboos associated with sex are simply views I do not share.

I do not believe that the soul is born with original sin, and that if a baby is not baptized before his death, he goes straight to hell. That does not match up, in my mind, with the God I know, whom I believe to be loving, understanding, and compassionate.

I do not believe it is sufficient for one to confess his sins to a priest, and then to have his soul absolved. I believe as Jews believe, that one must make direct amends to the individual they have harmed, apologizing to them and setting things to rights in any way available to them (so that if one has robbed another, he must apologize and also repay the debt). Obviously if one commits murder, there can be no reparation, but at least the person can go express their regret to the fallen’s loved ones. So, I guess you could say that ultimately I don’t believe that Christ could have died for our sins – I see each one of us as being responsible for each “sin,” and responsible for making amends or otherwise expressing remorse to the person you injured. At that time, once apologies and reparations are complete, then I see no issue whatsoever in going to a priest to make a formal confession. Then it becomes a beautiful sacrament and a communication with God. But I believe God would wish that we first apologize to the one we offended, then speak with Him about it. I don’t see how the injured benefit in any way from us making confession in the absence of such apologies.

I do not believe the world benefits from the edicts that forbid birth control. In Latin America, in the areas where poverty has hit its people the hardest, there are families with upwards of 10 and 15 children apiece. These people could not afford to feed their families before they grew so large. I do not see God as wishing for such people to grow into deeper and deeper poverty, which happens to them because they are devout Catholics, and they do obey the no-birth control laws.

Similarly, in Africa, those who follow Catholicism are increasingly at risk for contracting HIV (actually, this is the case the world over). If pregnancy were the only potential result of unprotected sex, the world would be in enough trouble. But since the advent of STDs, and HIV in particular, so many have lost their lives or have fallen ill, in an attempt to obey the CC.

I do understand why the CC forbids condom use, or birth control. I too respect the unborn soul. I simply see the ramifications of not using birth control as far outweighing the downfalls inherent in using it. The world suffers due to overpopulation; the family suffers due to poverty; the individual suffers due to disease.

Again, I believe the OP was sincere in wishing to learn about why some might have left the Church, and I respond in this spirit, wishing to offend no one.

I also wish to let everyone here know how much I have grown to respect each of you, and how deeply I have enjoyed our conversations. You have been most kind to me, answering my questions, and allowing me to wonder about various points of the faith. I mean no disrespect to anyone in making these statements. These are merely my personal views, and a response to the question posed by the OP.

That said, my gratitude goes out to each of you. Thank you for being so welcoming, and peace to all of you.

 

[elvisman]

The arguement you use is sounds like a Oneness Pentecostal.

Yes, Jesus is GOD but in the Holy Trinity there are 3 persons, manifesting to human in what I consider very different ways. The person who is Jesus of the Triune GOD is a pacifist.

WRONG. God cannot contradict himself.
There is no conflict in the Godhead. To claim so is plain old heresy . . .**

 

[elvisman]

Just yesterday, I was engaged in a very warm and welcoming discussion with other members, regarding other faiths. The view I had expressed was in defense of the Muslem faith, but I might just as well have written in defense of any other faith tradition. I believe that all worshipers of God are seen by Him as attempting to go forward in this world from a posture of love, gratitude, and respect.

This is one area where I cannot accept Catholic doctrine. Perhaps it is I who am mistaken, but I am correct in thinking that a Catholic must accept that this path is the only one that leads to God? If that is the case, that is one area where I cannot agree.

In yesterday’s discussion, I felt the need to refrain from making any specific statements regarding my departure from the Church. I still feel uneasy about spelling out my reasons, as I do not wish to offend anyone–and I do accept that the Church accepts the very things I take issue with. That is something I feel comfortable with.

I suppose I can generally state a few points for you to consider, since you seem sincere in your question. Please let me preface these remarks by stating that my view is but one, and I do respect the beliefs of the Catholic Church, even when I disagree with them. I was born and raised a Catholic, attended Catholic school for 9 years, and undertook the sacraments of Holy Communion, Reconciliation and Confirmation. I certainly do not know everything about the Catholic faith, yet I have a very firm and lifelong basis for the comments I put forward here.

There are specific edits, laws, or beliefs, which I have a difficult time accepting–or feel I cannot accept. One in particular, I have already voiced in another forum. It is the belief that homosexuality is a sin. I come to my divergent belief from many directions. 1) My brother is an open homosexual. I do not believe he is going to hell. He is kind to people and has lived a decent life. I just do not see him as a sinner. 2) I am a social worker, and view homosexuality both scientifically and psychologically. From both viewpoints, I believe it is not a sinful life choice, but a birth-path, and one which definitely causes significant pain in one’s life (owing to the cruel treatment they receive from others). This and other taboos associated with sex are simply views I do not share.

I do not believe that the soul is born with original sin, and that if a baby is not baptized before his death, he goes straight to hell. That does not match up, in my mind, with the God I know, whom I believe to be loving, understanding, and compassionate.

I do not believe it is sufficient for one to confess his sins to a priest, and then to have his soul absolved. I believe as Jews believe, that one must make direct amends to the individual they have harmed, apologizing to them and setting things to rights in any way available to them (so that if one has robbed another, he must apologize and also repay the debt). Obviously if one commits murder, there can be no reparation, but at least the person can go express their regret to the fallen’s loved ones. So, I guess you could say that ultimately I don’t believe that Christ could have died for our sins – I see each one of us as being responsible for each “sin,” and responsible for making amends or otherwise expressing remorse to the person you injured. At that time, once apologies and reparations are complete, then I see no issue whatsoever in going to a priest to make a formal confession. Then it becomes a beautiful sacrament and a communication with God. But I believe God would wish that we first apologize to the one we offended, then speak with Him about it. I don’t see how the injured benefit in any way from us making confession in the absence of such apologies.

I do not believe the world benefits from the edicts that forbid birth control. In Latin America, in the areas where poverty has hit its people the hardest, there are families with upwards of 10 and 15 children apiece. These people could not afford to feed their families before they grew so large. I do not see God as wishing for such people to grow into deeper and deeper poverty, which happens to them because they are devout Catholics, and they do obey the no-birth control laws.

Similarly, in Africa, those who follow Catholicism are increasingly at risk for contracting HIV (actually, this is the case the world over). If pregnancy were the only potential result of unprotected sex, the world would be in enough trouble. But since the advent of STDs, and HIV in particular, so many have lost their lives or have fallen ill, in an attempt to obey the CC.

I do understand why the CC forbids condom use, or birth control. I too respect the unborn soul. I simply see the ramifications of not using birth control as far outweighing the downfalls inherent in using it. The world suffers due to overpopulation; the family suffers due to poverty; the individual suffers due to disease.

Again, I believe the OP was sincere in wishing to learn about why some might have left the Church, and I respond in this spirit, wishing to offend no one.

I also wish to let everyone here know how much I have grown to respect each of you, and how deeply I have enjoyed our conversations. You have been most kind to me, answering my questions, and allowing me to wonder about various points of the faith. I mean no disrespect to anyone in making these statements. These are merely my personal views, and a response to the question posed by the OP.

That said, my gratitude goes out to each of you. Thank you for being so welcoming, and peace to all of you.

No offense, Light - but every thing I just read seems to come from a person who not only doesn’t have a clue who the God of Christianity is but is clueless about Catholic doctrines.