Poll: I can understand why people leave the Roman Catholic Church

[Javl]

You numbered 1, 2, and 4. Where’s 3? I would say that you should add a fourth possibility: Disagreement with what Catholics claim about the papacy and history as well as believing that certain doctrines like indulgences, the treasury of merit, and purgatory are not part of the historical faith so they choose Orthodoxy or Anglicanism, etc.

Sorry, I made a booboo in numbering. You may add a fourth if you wish but the disagreement you mention falls under #1 and #2.

Let’s be fair, not everybody who leaves Catholicism did so because they’re goobers, rebels, or selfish. Some genuinely have brains, analyzed the theology, ecclesiology, history, and philosophy and find it to not totally be true and so they choose another apostolic option.

If those that leave the Church find it totaly not to be true, then they have not analyzed anything thoroughly and fall under #3. Everything that the Church ( I’m not talking about personal opinions of individual clergy, scholars, theologians ) teaches is supported by scripture. Basic dogmas are those truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles. Resulting doctrines, tenets, etc. are either definitions or expansions of beliefs that have been held by all over the years. All teachings, other than dogma, of the Church ( NOT individual ) are supported by scripture and are so after careful scrutiny and study by theologians and Church scholars and pronounced by a Church Council. The Church cannot institute or teach any falsehood. There is an obvious line for all to see between Church teaching and the teachings of individuals within the Church. The trouble is very few see this line and confuse personal opinions as that of the Church.

It should be noted and admitted that there is some abuse and misunderstanding within the Church of some of these teachings.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

I do not believe that to be true.

Then you deny the infallibility of Jesus Christ? You are confusing teachings, statements, and personal opinions of individuals within the Church with those of the Church. There is a BIG difference between the two. Please read my post before this one.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[TedDC]

Then you deny the infallibility of Jesus Christ? You are confusing teachings, statements, and personal opinions of individuals within the Church with those of the Church. There is a BIG difference between the two. Please read my post before this one.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I do not believe the Catholic Church is infallible.

 

[JonNC]

After reading these posts and other research, I find that there are three basic reasons for anyone leaving the Catholic Church:

1 ) Poor, or no, catechesis.

2 ) Rejection, or rebellion, of authority.

3 ) Personal interests ( mainly beliefs )

This actually is the order of reasons in which one would leave. Other supposed reasons will fall under one of these three. I’ll be glad to dialogue with anyone on this.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Just wondering about 1 and 2. Probably the most notable Lutheran converter to Catholicism over the last few decades is Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. It would be my hope that no one would place him in either of these 2 categories. But if there are Catholics who place former Catholics in one of these two, then I wonder if they too look at converters to Catholicism in the same way. I hope not.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I still disagree. People don’t always leave the Church because of misunderstandings or foolish pride or not thoroughly researching things. They just came to a different conclusion based on the events of history and theology than you did. You chose Catholicism and you see it as a logical progression of a rational religious mind. Because you chose it and you feel it’s the truth, you now conclude that all folks should come to the same conclusion or else they’re just not thoroughly researching and being open to the truth. I submit that your end-result is not the same conclusion as that of many other folks, notably those converting to Orthodoxy, etc. They would draw the same conclusion about you in reverse, that you have submitted to an irrational and illogical strain of thinking that the pope is infallible despite many pieces of evidence historically and philosophically that he’s not, from their view of history and events. You make this sound like a slam-dunk no-brainer for anyone with a rational mind. It’s not that simple. It’s great that you’ve found your Church and faith but this line of thinking won’t win hearts or converts and it’s just not based on what I’ve seen or read or known of Protestants and other non-Catholics. There is plenty of pride and arrogance in all churches, as well as ignorance and apathy, etc.

Sorry, I made a booboo in numbering. You may add a fourth if you wish but the disagreement you mention falls under #1 and #2.

If those that leave the Church find it totaly not to be true, then they have not analyzed anything thoroughly and fall under #3. Everything that the Church ( I’m not talking about personal opinions of individual clergy, scholars, theologians ) teaches is supported by scripture. Basic dogmas are those truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles. Resulting doctrines, tenets, etc. are either definitions or expansions of beliefs that have been held by all over the years. All teachings, other than dogma, of the Church ( NOT individual ) are supported by scripture and are so after careful scrutiny and study by theologians and Church scholars and pronounced by a Church Council. The Church cannot institute or teach any falsehood. There is an obvious line for all to see between Church teaching and the teachings of individuals within the Church. The trouble is very few see this line and confuse personal opinions as that of the Church.

It should be noted and admitted that there is some abuse and misunderstanding within the Church of some of these teachings.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Radical]

After reading these posts and other research, I find that there are three basic reasons for anyone leaving the Catholic Church:

1 ) Poor, or no, catechesis.

2 ) Rejection, or rebellion, of authority.

4 ) Personal interests ( mainly beliefs )

This actually is the order of reasons in which one would leave. Other supposed reasons will fall under one of these three. I’ll be glad to dialogue with anyone on this.

Gurney has nailed it. You operate off the assumption that the CC embodies the fullness of truth, and as such, one could only fail to reach that conclusion if one is somehow deficient. Therefore, you come up with a list of deficiencies:

1 has the person deficient in knowledge (presumably b/c he hasn’t been given the opportunity, refused the opportunity or b/c he lacks the mental capacity to arrive at a proper (your) understanding)​

2 has the person deficient in character, rejecting what he knows (or ought to know) is the fullness of truth​

3 aka #4 (if I understand your words correctly) has the person deficient in character, choosing self-interest over what he knows (or ought to know) is the fullness of truth​

I suppose you could also say that the fellow must be spiritually deficient and not able to recognize the leading of the Spirit and/or not willing to follow the Spirit.

On the other hand, I am inclined to think that your assumption is the deficient thing…though I am prepared to entertain your argument that Catholics are superior to the rest of mankind in that, as a whole, they are not plagued (to the same extent) by the deficiencies that so hinder the rest of us slobs.

 

[PatriceA]

i rest my case…

I don’t know what you mean by “rest my case”. I’m Catholic, I haven’t left the Church. But I am open to listening to why others have without resorting to belittling them.

 

[VinnyC]

When Catholics refer to others who have left the “church”, shouldn’t they qualify what they mean? Are they referring to people who having once embraced Christ now reject Him or are they referring to everyone who leaves the Roman Catholic Church? The church, as I understand it, is made up of all believers in Christ. If this includes Protestant and Orthodox believers then can we accurately say that people who were raised Catholic but later have chosen to worship Christ in a Protestant or Orthodox church have left the church? Is this what Roman Catholics believe?

 

[VinnyC]

Your statement that you “don’t believe everything the Catholic Church teaches” falls primarily under “personal interests”. You disagree with the Church’s teachings is a personal matter and is because of your interests in whatever you disagree with. Because you disagree does not mean that the Church’s teaching is wrong. The teaching may not be the Church’s, but a personal one of the teacher.

By the very fact that it is founded by Jesus Christ, the Church cannot err, the Church cannot teach falsely, the Church cannot sin, and the Church is infallible in its teachings. Jesus IS the Church and the Church IS Jesus. But, members of the Church, from the Pope on down, are human and are subject to error and sin.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

You stated: “Jesus IS the Church and the Church IS Jesus”. How do you justify this statement? My understand is that Jesus is the head of the church. The church is His body.

 

[Javl]

I do not believe the Catholic Church is infallible.

May I ask why you believe as you do? The Catholic Church IS the Church founded by Jesus and has taught what Jesus and the Apostles taught for these past 2000 years. It can and must teach only that which IS supported by scripture. It can do no other for if it did it would violate the commission that Jesus gave it. It is protected by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. As such, it cannot err and therefore IS infallible. Again, please do not confuse the opinions of individuals ( men ) as teachings of the Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Just wondering about 1 and 2. Probably the most notable Lutheran converter to Catholicism over the last few decades is Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. It would be my hope that no one would place him in either of these 2 categories. But if there are Catholics who place former Catholics in one of these two, then I wonder if they too look at converters to Catholicism in the same way. I hope not.

Jon

The reasons I’ve given are the ones for those that leave the Church. Fr. Neuhaus and others are converts TO the Church. At present I am trying to research why non-Catholics become Catholic.

 

[Javl]

I still disagree. People don’t always leave the Church because of misunderstandings or foolish pride or not thoroughly researching things. They just came to a different conclusion based on the events of history and theology than you did. You chose Catholicism and you see it as a logical progression of a rational religious mind. Because you chose it and you feel it’s the truth, you now conclude that all folks should come to the same conclusion or else they’re just not thoroughly researching and being open to the truth. I submit that your end-result is not the same conclusion as that of many other folks, notably those converting to Orthodoxy, etc. They would draw the same conclusion about you in reverse, that you have submitted to an irrational and illogical strain of thinking that the pope is infallible despite many pieces of evidence historically and philosophically that he’s not, from their view of history and events. You make this sound like a slam-dunk no-brainer for anyone with a rational mind. It’s not that simple. It’s great that you’ve found your Church and faith but this line of thinking won’t win hearts or converts and it’s just not based on what I’ve seen or read or known of Protestants and other non-Catholics. There is plenty of pride and arrogance in all churches, as well as ignorance and apathy, etc.

If what you say is the norm then can you explain why the number of converts of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church is greater than all converts to other versions of Christianity put together?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Gurney has nailed it. You operate off the assumption that the CC embodies the fullness of truth, and as such, one could only fail to reach that conclusion if one is somehow deficient. Therefore, you come up with a list of deficiencies:

1 has the person deficient in knowledge (presumably b/c he hasn’t been given the opportunity, refused the opportunity or b/c he lacks the mental capacity to arrive at a proper (your) understanding)​

2 has the person deficient in character, rejecting what he knows (or ought to know) is the fullness of truth​

3 aka #4 (if I understand your words correctly) has the person deficient in character, choosing self-interest over what he knows (or ought to know) is the fullness of truth​

I suppose you could also say that the fellow must be spiritually deficient and not able to recognize the leading of the Spirit and/or not willing to follow the Spirit.

On the other hand, I am inclined to think that your assumption is the deficient thing…though I am prepared to entertain your argument that Catholics are superior to the rest of mankind in that, as a whole, they are not plagued (to the same extent) by the deficiencies that so hinder the rest of us slobs.

Please read my response to Guerney. Also I do not think or state that Catholics are superior in any way. It’s just that the Catholic Church ( again, the Church and not individuals within it ) has the fullness of truth given it by Jesus and the Apostles. To try to prove otherwise is an exercise in futility.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Shiranui117]

May I ask why you believe as you do? The Catholic Church IS the Church founded by Jesus and has taught what Jesus and the Apostles taught for these past 2000 years. It can and must teach only that which IS supported by scripture. It can do no other for if it did it would violate the commission that Jesus gave it. It is protected by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. As such, it cannot err and therefore IS infallible. Again, please do not confuse the opinions of individuals ( men ) as teachings of the Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

You wave this around like it is an undeniable fact, that everyone MUST see it, or else they’re either ignorant, incompetent, rebellious, snobbish or put their wishes above God’s. While some may, you are painting with a brush so broad that you don’t have enough paint to color everyone who leaves the Catholic Church with your own false assumptions. If it were a clearly objective FACT that the Catholic Church was the one true Church, then we wouldn’t have massive schisms, as I’ve said already. Millions of people don’t leave the Church in one go just because they’re ALL poor excuses of Christians.

It really is assertions like these that make me question the Church sometimes; when I see nothing but people saying this and that there is NO reason to leave under ANY circumstances, then THAT is when I become skeptical of the Catholic Church. It is one thing to argue that the Catholic Church IS the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and to present facts and evidence, and explain how those support the conclusion you came to. It is quite another to claim that anyone who doesn’t bow down to the Catholic Church is a sorry, sorry soul and should either be instructed to cure their obvious and blatant ignorance or reprimanded for being so prideful as to deny God.

 

[Javl]

You stated: “Jesus IS the Church and the Church IS Jesus”. How do you justify this statement? My understand is that Jesus is the head of the church. The church is His body.

Primarily by Jesus’ statement “I will build MY Church”. Also, as you state “The Church is His body”. As such He IS the Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

When Catholics refer to others who have left the “church”, shouldn’t they qualify what they mean? Are they referring to people who having once embraced Christ now reject Him or are they referring to everyone who leaves the Roman Catholic Church? The church, as I understand it, is made up of all believers in Christ. If this includes Protestant and Orthodox believers then can we accurately say that people who were raised Catholic but later have chosen to worship Christ in a Protestant or Orthodox church have left the church? Is this what Roman Catholics believe?

The term “left the Church” when used by Catholics refers to those who have left the Catholic Church for Protestantism, Orthodoxy, or another religion altogether ( Islam, Bhuddism, Shintoism, etc. )

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

You wave this around like it is an undeniable fact, that everyone MUST see it, or else they’re either ignorant, incompetent, rebellious, snobbish or put their wishes above God’s. While some may, you are painting with a brush so broad that you don’t have enough paint to color everyone who leaves the Catholic Church with your own false assumptions. If it were a clearly objective FACT that the Catholic Church was the one true Church, then we wouldn’t have massive schisms, as I’ve said already. Millions of people don’t leave the Church in one go just because they’re ALL poor excuses of Christians.

It really is assertions like these that make me question the Church sometimes; when I see nothing but people saying this and that there is NO reason to leave under ANY circumstances, then THAT is when I become skeptical of the Catholic Church. It is one thing to argue that the Catholic Church IS the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and to present facts and evidence, and explain how those support the conclusion you came to. It is quite another to claim that anyone who doesn’t bow down to the Catholic Church is a sorry, sorry soul and should either be instructed to cure their obvious and blatant ignorance or reprimanded for being so prideful as to deny God.

You really don’t understand, do you? Your comment shows me that you either know nothing as to the why or just reject it outright without bothering to analyze and understand.
If you supposedly are Catholic you should know and realize that the Catholic Church IS the one true Church founded by Jesus. If you supposedly are Catholic you should know and understand not only the history of the Catholic Church but also the reason for the split with the Eastern Churches ( Orthodoxy ) and the reason for Protestantism. If you knew, or know, all this, you would NOT have made such a statement as you have.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Shiranui117]

you assume far too much… but nothing new there… everyone @ CAF seems to do that…

anyway, since you are convinced you are the only who has “objective” proof… I will just let you keep thinking that… I’m not into useless arguments where pride seems to reign

I never said I had objective proof. You’re putting words into my mouth, and I think that whooshing sound you heard was the point of my post flying right over your head… Perhaps you should read it again, and read it carefully. Or you could see my post to Javl, where I said pretty much the same thing. I didn’t assume anything; I simply said that the Catholic Church wasn’t just the Roman CC, but also all the Oriental Catholic Churches and the Eastern Catholic Churches (the former ordinarily being lumped into the latter) and that people who leave often do so whilst they are well-informed of their Catholic faith. Some may feel that God is tugging them towards somewhere else, some may find enough circumstantial evidence to make them come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church messed up somewhere; many of them may pull from the very same sources that Catholics use to justify our Church as the One True Church, down to the very word.

 

[Shiranui117]

You really don’t understand, do you? Your comment shows me that you either know nothing as to the why or just reject it outright without bothering to analyze and understand.
If you supposedly are Catholic you should know and realize that the Catholic Church IS the one true Church founded by Jesus. If you supposedly are Catholic you should know and understand not only the history of the Catholic Church but also the reason for the split with the Eastern Churches ( Orthodoxy ) and the reason for Protestantism. If you knew, or know, all this, you would NOT have made such a statement as you have.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Again, you don’t seem to get it at all. We believe and uphold that we are part of the One True Church. So do the Orthodox and even the Protestants. If there was CLEAR, OBJECTIVE PROOF WITHOUT DISPUTE that the CC is THE ONLY Church, then we would NOT have had such major schisms. I’m not sure if you’re even reading my posts. I know precisely the reasons for the schisms. You are simply trying to dismiss anyone who leaves as an ignorant, selfish, whiny child, and that does nothing but cause you to look conceited and incapable of understanding the very real struggle it is to have a crisis of faith, to wonder if you are in the wrong church after seeing the nuts and bolts and learning how they work. You are creating a very big false dichotomy, and being extremely unfair, dismissive and antagonistic in saying what you do.

 

[Radical]

Please read my response to Guerney.

There you claimed, that " the number of converts of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church is greater than all converts to other versions of Christianity put together". I don’t understand what you mean…if such were truly the case then one should expect that the Catholic share of Christendom would be gaining in percentage every year (especially given that Protestants are allowed birth control )…but in 500 years, in the West, non-catholic Christians have gone from what, < 1 % to about 40% (?) Your claim seems to be off.

An explanation wrt converts that you might be missing is that if a Catholic scholar concludes that the CC is not the one, true Church and is merely a denomination, the Catholic scholar need not leave the CC for another mere denomination. In contrast, if a non-Catholic scholar concludes that the CC is the one, true Church and is not merely a denomination, then that non-Catholic scholar must join the CC.

Also I do not think or state that Catholics are superior in any way. It’s just that the Catholic Church ( again, the Church and not individuals within it ) has the fullness of truth given it by Jesus and the Apostles.

but it seems that you definitely do think that they are possessed of an ability to recognize and accept the fullness of truth in a way that the rest of us slobs just can’t achieve…and your reasons seem to be that what we lack is knowledge or character…hopefully, we’ll at least benefit from our invincible ignorance

To try to prove otherwise is an exercise in futility.

it sure is futile if the audience can’t bring himself to consider any other possibility, but on a balance of probabilities, to an audience free to consider that other possibility, it is quite provable IMHO