Reasons not to be Catholic?

[fred_conty]

I hesitate to post this. I’m not debating religion this weekend, there are more important things. Christ is entombed and we are in mourning yet awaiting His glorious Resurrection tonight. Still, I believe I can post this in a way that is only uplifting and supportive, which is all I’ve been trying to do this weekend.

I was Roman Catholic. I was devout Roman Catholic. I attended the Tridentine Mass, prayed the rosary (in Latin even). I tried to start college Catholic groups in my hometown. I studied my faith and I did know it. I loved and still do love the Catholic Church.

But my faith is weak. I couldn’t be part of a church that doesn’t help me to practice what she claims to teach. I didn’t understand why so much has been lost since Vatican II, and nobody had a very good answer for me. Still I tried to remain loyal to Rome. For a year or more I endured homilies that were either condemning of Rome and hardline traditional (a memorable one praised the Tea Party from the pulpit) and outright blasphemous. I ignored the hideous churches, void of sacred architecture and not in any way catechetical.

My Orthodox friend was patient. He never tried to get me to convert, until one night I burst out on him all my frustrations. He finally told me the only true way to explore Orthodoxy - “Come and See”. I went and saw a church where everyone acted respectfully towards Holy Communion. Where the priest didn’t shy away from his authority, and yet is funny and approachable. Where everyone talks about Christ and faith, even the men (of whom there are no shortage). Where popular piety hasn’t been abandoned.

Yet I wasn’t going to abandon Rome without doctrinal foundation. If Papal Infallibility fell apart, so does the Catholic Church. So I went to the Early Fathers. I didn’t find any quote definitive of Papal Infallibility or universal jurisdiction save perhaps one. One quote does not a doctrine make, and neither does it help that the man was known for writing in flowery language and was trying to suck up to Rome at the time.

It was very, very, very difficult to leave the Roman Catholic Church. I’ll freely admit to having cried. It was difficult to enter Orthodoxy, which at times seemed strange. Yet here I am, the journey over halfway over, and I couldn’t imagine not making prostrations, not venerating the icons when I enter, not being part of that popular piety.

There is a Western Bias in our culture that Orthodoxy left Catholicism, but from our perspective it was quite the opposite. There were Five Patriarchs and they divided into two groups of one and four. Who left who? Nevertheless I am infinitely grateful for the multitude of things I learned from Catholicism, a mother on my way to my true home.

So why am I not Catholic any longer? Because I found Christ’s True Church, a modern, historical, spiritual, rational, sin-loathing yet compassionate Church, preserved by the Holy Spirit from any innovation for 2,000 Years. May we all have a blessed Pascha.

Sounds like you were wounded in the faith by the changes.
My understanding goes out to you. You missed what you
valued in you beloved church, the peace of Christ. I can
relate to that.

But sometimes we must follow wherever He takes us,
especially when it is cold and dark and we seem to loose
his closeness.

I’m very fond of St. Catherine Labore. She was a Catholic
Sister who saw Mary in a vision three different times and
issued the drawing of the Scapular Medal. After she
received this consolation from Mary, she took care of grumpy
old men in a home, doing a lot of laundry and clean up
work ---- for 40-50 years. Mother Theresa the 1st. From a
human point of view, a rather drab, uneventful, and boring
life except she saw Jesus in every one of their faces.

Sometimes Jesus asks of us great things in little ways because
He loves us. When it hurts, that’s when we have the greatest
opportunity to do the most good with a cheerful spirit. I wish the
best for you and will remember you in my prayer.

 

[joe370]

I certainly wasn’t trying to change your mind. I love the EOC’s. Like I mentioned before, both have access to the Holy Eucharist, and I pray that they one day - reunite. I was just curious as to why certain eastern Patriarchs in the 4th, 5th 6th centuries believed in the primacy of Rome and not just, as first among equals? I actually started a thread regarding those quotes:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=549520

I was hoping you could show some examples of eastern Patriarchs, prior to the 10 century, rejecting what these eastern Fathers said, but you said “no” so I guess I won’t expect a PM.

No can do. From what I’ve read, the idea of Papal universality (by which I’ve been meaning Universal Jurisdiction, the idea that the Bishop of Rome has authority over all other bishops) was entirely alien to most people in the Early Church. Perhaps everyone.

But I have to be clear. I believe Peter had a pre-eminent position. That’s undeniable. Peter’s descendants (through the Church in Rome) *should *have the post of highest honor. The Roman Popes *should *be a source of support and assistance to all bishops worldwide. He is the first among equals, and Peter is the stone that the Church was built upon.

*However *that doesn’t mean that he is infallible, or that just because one bishop appeals to another that the appealed-to-bishop has any authority over the other. If the stone leaves the rest of The Church, it is the stone’s lost, not ours’. That doesn’t mean he may act against the wishes of the rest of the church (in theory even). The idea that one man is infallible lacks any support from the Early Church Fathers that I can find. The fact that the Church in Rome was free from most of the major heresies doesn’t make her infallible, but graced. Unfortunately later popes interpreted that grace in a different way.

The EOC only claims infallibility through ecumenical councils, bishops, priests, and laity working together. No one man can ever claim infallibility alone.

Ahhh. Well, we are Catholic as well. We are One. We are Holy. We are Catholic, and we are Apostolic. The manner in which we use Catholic (whole in its teachings and complete when the bishop, priest, and laity are in union) is the meaning of St. Ignatius. Roman Catholics, IME, tend to use “Catholic” in the sense that their church is everywhere on the globe, or speak of The Church Militant, Triumphant, and Suffering as being the meaning of Catholic. I’ve heard far too many speak of needing “two lungs” or what have you for the church to be “complete” (i.e. Catholic) to think they understand it in the way I first spoke of.

 

[Rawb]

I certainly wasn’t trying to change your mind. I love the EOC’s. Like I mentioned before, both have access to the Holy Eucharist, and I pray that they one day - reunite. I was just curious as to why certain eastern Patriarchs in the 4th, 5th 6th centuries believed in the primacy of Rome and not just, as first among equals? I actually started a thread regarding those quotes:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=549520

I was hoping you could show some examples of eastern Patriarchs, prior to the 10 century, rejecting what these eastern Fathers said, but you said “no” so I guess I won’t expect a PM.

I didn’t get the impression you were. I should add, I can see how these quotes can be interpreted in the Roman Catholic fashion. So at that point I arrive at the conclusion that both East and West are still capable of being The One True Church (though I’ll admit, many, many of the quotes the RCC puts forth I don’t find nearly as convincing as y’all do). So I then looked at the contemporary practice of both

Catholicism has abandoned far too much. It has abandoned the holistic view of Christianity, and that is effectively changing your faith. The beliefs of the contemporary RCC, in practice, are drastically different from the beliefs of earlier forms of Catholicism. I’m not comfortable with that level of change, nor the places where the RCC is going because of the change in your beliefs.

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, had retained everything. It had survived and is surviving Communism, Crusades, and Islamic invasion. In practice it comes across as both ancient and modern, strict and forgiving, strange yet familiar. When I experience how many different directions Orthodoxy is pulled in, and yet retains everything and doesn’t fall apart at the seams, I can only attribute it to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Really, I think it’s that holistic mindset that is one of the largest gulfs between our Churches. Orthodox would incorporate it under their disdain for “scholasticism”, and it’s part of it. Returning to your roots is the first step in ending the Schism. In your current state your church is too strange to seriously contemplate reconciliation. I too though, believe it will eventually happen, and pray for that day.

 

[ConsciousCoward]

If they are right about the RCC not being the church founded in Acts then that would leave just one other church: the Eastern Orthodox church. None of the Protestant churches were around when the book of Acts was written, or even when the east and the west split in the 11th century, so logically speaking, that leaves us with either the CC or the EOC - yes no maybe?

They would probably argue that the reason for Protestants leaving was to “prune the branches from the vine,” so to speak, where the branches are the doctrines and ideas that are traditional rather than scriptural. Granted, no church organization is without its bad branches.

A Protestant also may argue in favor of Sola Scriptura (because as soon as tradition is mentioned that becomes an argument) by saying that humans aren’t perfect. We can all make mistakes, even the leaders. The leaders of the Catholic church have made mistakes before (see Galileo), and regardless of how it was handled, fixed, or apologized for, the mistakes were still made. The Bible is uncorrupted; you can look at the ancient texts and new texts and see the same thing. We know those haven’t changed. I’ve heard Sola Scriptura called a safety mechanism, because basing beliefs off of text that hasn’t changed is more reliable over time than tradition that is fluid and evolves over time.

Anyway, I’m tired of reading that the only reason Protestants would be Protestants is because they’re misinformed or they just like the music. There are some that have actual debatable problems with fundamental parts of the Catholic church.

 

[joe370]

I appreciate and respect everything you have said and, as a former protestant, I would never say: the “reason Protestants would be Protestants is because they’re misinformed or they just like the music.”

Where can the one reformed church be found today where the pruning of the branches from the vine, takes place and the uncorrupted bible interpreted correctly, something the catholic church, in their mind, did not do?

They would probably argue that the reason for Protestants leaving was to “prune the branches from the vine,” so to speak, where the branches are the doctrines and ideas that are traditional rather than scriptural. Granted, no church organization is without its bad branches.

A Protestant also may argue in favor of Sola Scriptura (because as soon as tradition is mentioned that becomes an argument) by saying that humans aren’t perfect. We can all make mistakes, even the leaders. The leaders of the Catholic church have made mistakes before (see Galileo), and regardless of how it was handled, fixed, or apologized for, the mistakes were still made. The Bible is uncorrupted; you can look at the ancient texts and new texts and see the same thing. We know those haven’t changed. I’ve heard Sola Scriptura called a safety mechanism, because basing beliefs off of text that hasn’t changed is more reliable over time than tradition that is fluid and evolves over time.

Anyway, I’m tired of reading that the only reason Protestants would be Protestants is because they’re misinformed or they just like the music. There are some that have actual debatable problems with fundamental parts of the Catholic church.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I did not put words in your mouth!!! I put it in the form of a question with the hopes of an answer!!!

OK me bad. Being too sensitive.

Backtracking…

I said

If I believed that God selects one and only one Christian organization to “bear the Truth” (thereby excluding all other organizations), then of course I would want to be a part of the organization that God favours.

You responded

So your answer to post #1 is: It doesn’t matter which church one belongs to for no one church is superior to another, doctrinally speaking, and no one church can claim to teach truth regarding the teachings of Jesus, when conflicts arise regarding any one truth, in the various churches?

I don’t believe this part logically follows…

It doesn’t matter which church one belongs to for no one church is superior to another

This part sort of does…reworded from

and no one church can claim to teach truth regarding the teachings of Jesus, when conflicts arise regarding any one truth, in the various churches?

to

and no one church is guaranteed to be teaching the truth regarding the teachings of Jesus, when conflicts arise regarding any one truth, in the various churches?

(meaning if organization ‘A’ is teaching one thing and organization ‘B’ is teaching another thing, that I know even before knowing what the issue is and what exactly they are teaching that organization ‘A’ is correct)

 

[cheese_sdc]

So there are many divided churches where truth can be found, or, are you suggesting that truth, regarding certain things, eg the Eucharist, is unknowable?

I did answer your question, however a moderator deleted it as being “off topic”.

 

[guanophore]

for me, I was catholic and there are many reasons why I left.

I am not sure you were every very “Catholic”. It is clear from your posts that you have very little understanding of the Catholic faith. You may have been baptized a Catholic, or had a Catholic family, but you did not have Catholicity.

  The church I belong too now is led by a pastor who is married (by the way also former catholic ) and is very passionate about following our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

I am glad that you found a community that spiritually supports you.

The Lord has opened my eyes to many things I did not see while being catholic.

It may be that your eyes were closed, or you had a blindfold over them.

 for 1, look at my “why cant priests marry” thread

If I have dreams of pastoring a church, It could not be a catholic church for the reason that the church requires an oath of celibacy to be given by their single priests … an oath I would not be willing to give.

I will reiterate what was said to you on that thread, which is that one who wants to serve the Lord does not come to Him saying “I will do this for you under these conditions”. If one wants to answer the call of God, then one must do so as Peter did, leaving EVERYTHING to follow Him, even the desire for marriage.

Besides that, you have no way of knowing that God is not using your dream of pastoring a Church to lead you to some other goal. If we can assume He has given you the desire of your heart, then He will work through it to bring you where He wants you. Most people who enter the seminary, and the discernment process for priesthood do not end up with Holy Orders. Clearly God uses the formation process to clarify His goals to people. One does not follow after God’s call knowing the outcome in advance. One recognizes that all we have is this day’s daily bread - not tomorrows.

You don’t even know if you will live until tomorrow!
James 4
13Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” 14Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”

It is not for us to know all of God’s plan, but to follow Him in the light we have been given. If you feel called to ministry, then you answer the call. FORSAKING EVERYTHING!

Peter was married. whether or not before he became a follower of Christ is irrelevant. Marriage did not prevent him from being a great leader of the church.

If you have the desire to be married, as well as the desire to pastor a church, then God will sort it out for you. I can assure you that this will happen much better if you don’t decide in advance what you think is best.

Besides, most of the leadership roles in American parishes are occupied by married laypeople. How do you know that God has not called you to some other role of leadership? Shall the clay say to the Potter, why hast thou made me thus?

 

[guanophore]

There are Protestants who truly believe that the Roman Catholic church itself was one of the first denominations from the church founded by the apostles. They believe that since the early church did not follow the bishop of Rome, he shouldn’t be held in higher authority. They believe that since the elders of the early church could be married, the pastors and priests of the modern church should be allowed to do so as well. Things lik that.

The point being, people believe the RCC is not the church founded in Acts.

Such persons clearly know little of the history of their faith.

 

[guanophore]

No can do. From what I’ve read, the idea of Papal universality (by which I’ve been meaning Universal Jurisdiction, the idea that the Bishop of Rome has authority over all other bishops) was entirely alien to most people in the Early Church. Perhaps everyone.

But I have to be clear. I believe Peter had a pre-eminent position. That’s undeniable. Peter’s descendants (through the Church in Rome) *should *have the post of highest honor. The Roman Popes *should *be a source of support and assistance to all bishops worldwide. He is the first among equals, and Peter is the stone that the Church was built upon.

*However *that doesn’t mean that he is infallible, or that just because one bishop appeals to another that the appealed-to-bishop has any authority over the other. If the stone leaves the rest of The Church, it is the stone’s lost, not ours’. That doesn’t mean he may act against the wishes of the rest of the church (in theory even). The idea that one man is infallible lacks any support from the Early Church Fathers that I can find. The fact that the Church in Rome was free from most of the major heresies doesn’t make her infallible, but graced. Unfortunately later popes interpreted that grace in a different way.

The EOC only claims infallibility through ecumenical councils, bishops, priests, and laity working together. No one man can ever claim infallibility alone.

Ahhh. Well, we are Catholic as well. We are One. We are Holy. We are Catholic, and we are Apostolic. The manner in which we use Catholic (whole in its teachings and complete when the bishop, priest, and laity are in union) is the meaning of St. Ignatius. Roman Catholics, IME, tend to use “Catholic” in the sense that their church is everywhere on the globe, or speak of The Church Militant, Triumphant, and Suffering as being the meaning of Catholic. I’ve heard far too many speak of needing “two lungs” or what have you for the church to be “complete” (i.e. Catholic) to think they understand it in the way I first spoke of.

You don’t seem to understand the whole notion of the gift of infallibilty. Have you considered learning about it? You are objecting to something that the CC does not believe or teach.

 

[GraceSofia]

A Protestant also may argue in favor of Sola Scriptura (because as soon as tradition is mentioned that becomes an argument) by saying that humans aren’t perfect. We can all make mistakes, even the leaders. The leaders of the Catholic church have made mistakes before (see Galileo), and regardless of how it was handled, fixed, or apologized for, the mistakes were still made. The Bible is uncorrupted; you can look at the ancient texts and new texts and see the same thing. We know those haven’t changed. I’ve heard Sola Scriptura called a safety mechanism, because basing beliefs off of text that hasn’t changed is more reliable over time than tradition that is fluid and evolves over time.

Sola Scriptura is a false teaching. We need to remember that Jesus founded the Church; then the Church assembled the books of the Bible. (And after 1500 years, the Protestants removed a few books).

Jesus himself promised that He would always be with us and protect the teaching of the Church : “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10. 16). The Holy Spirit guides the teaching office of the Catholic Church (the Magisterium) to compensate for humans’ imperfections.

A tribunal made a diciplinary ruling in the Galileo case; the Catholic Church did not teach error in faith or morals nor in solemnly defined doctrine.

Using Sola Scriptura is not a safety valve but rather a recipe for heresy; it means that every Protestant can make up his own version of Christianity by interpreting it however he wants. And history has many heresies to prove it; many are still with us today, such as the “health & wealth gospel.” Since the Reformation, thousands of denominations have been founded, which shows the danger of personal interpretation of Scripture.

Anyway, I’m tired of reading that the only reason Protestants would be Protestants is because they’re misinformed or they just like the music. There are some that have actual debatable problems with fundamental parts of the Catholic church.

I believe that if they truly searched for the truth and strove to understand the true Catholic teaching on the “problems” – all their problems would be solved.

 

[GraceSofia]

Catholicism has abandoned far too much. It has abandoned the holistic view of Christianity, and that is effectively changing your faith. The beliefs of the contemporary RCC, in practice, are drastically different from the beliefs of earlier forms of Catholicism. I’m not comfortable with that level of change, nor the places where the RCC is going because of the change in your beliefs.

These are pretty sweeping general accusations which I will take issue with. The faith of the Catholic Church is essentially the same as it was in the beginning.

What do you think the CC has abandoned and changed? What do you mean by “holistic” view?

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, had retained everything. It had survived and is surviving Communism, Crusades, and Islamic invasion. In practice it comes across as both ancient and modern, strict and forgiving, strange yet familiar. When I experience how many different directions Orthodoxy is pulled in, and yet retains everything and doesn’t fall apart at the seams, I can only attribute it to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

The ancient patriarchies of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and (later) Constantinople all fell to the Muslims. Catholicism survived and is surviving communism, too: one only has to look at Poland for a shining example. And we will survive Chinese communist persecution, too.

 

[Rawb]

You don’t seem to understand the whole notion of the gift of infallibilty. Have you considered learning about it? You are objecting to something that the CC does not believe or teach.

I can assure you, having been a practicing and believing Roman Catholic, I do know what infallibility means. I fail to see how you think I don’t, as I barely even discuss Infallibility in the post you quote.

What do you think the CC has abandoned and changed? What do you mean by “holistic” view?

I mean that Catholicism no longer teaches, at least in practice, that everything in Christianity comes together to complete the whole. The vestments, the architecture of the church building, the movements of the people, they’re now all up for debate so long as the words of the Consecration at Mass are said correctly. I was told far too often that the beauty of the church building, the homily, the way the laity acted at Mass, the free-for-all that is the sign of peace, these are things that could be altered, changed, or dropped altogether so long as the Mass is “valid”. I got tired of shutting my eyes and ears and pretending that everything was ok, saying to myself “the church is protected by the Holy Spirit” and seeing no evidence of it before me.

The ancient patriarchies of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and (later) Constantinople all fell to the Muslims

And still survive. They’ve endured horrible persecution for centuries and still do, yet remain intact. I fail to see your point here, are you implying that Christ wouldn’t let his His Church suffer persecution?

 

[josephback]

While it may be true that the Orthodox say the Catholic Church broke away from the one true Church, I know that the Catholic Church says the same thing about the Orthodox Church, and indeed all Protestantism. So the question remains: “Who’s right?” Did Catholicism betray the Church? Did Orthodoxy? How about Lutheranism? If they are all different, then which one contains the fullness of the Truth about Christ? This is the very question that Bettan89 wishes to raise, I think.
Iuventus

I used to be sold on the Orthodox Church. Then I had doubts about the Pope. Ultimately, who has Peter(Matthew 16:18)? That was enough for me.

 

[vsedriver]

I used to be sold on the Orthodox Church. Then I had doubts about the Pope. Ultimately, who has Peter(Matthew 16:18)? That was enough for me.

that’s what did it for me too but add the next verse. Matt. 16:19. Only the Chief Stewart gets keys.

I don’t discount the Orthodox so much as I am compelled to follow Christ’s shepherd on earth, Peter’s successor.

 

[JonNC]

=GraceSofia;7806191] Sola Scriptura is a false teaching. We need to remember that Jesus founded the Church; then the Church assembled the books of the Bible.

What is your understanding of sola scriptura?

(And after 1500 years, the Protestants removed a few books).

So did some Catholics, if you are talking about disputing or questioning the deuterocanon.

Using Sola Scriptura is not a safety valve but rather a recipe for heresy; it means that every Protestant can make up his own version of Christianity by interpreting it however he wants.

How do you square your comment here with what Martin chemnitz, the second generation Lutheran reformer said:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

And history has many heresies to prove it; many are still with us today, such as the “health & wealth gospel.” Since the Reformation, thousands of denominations have been founded, which shows the danger of personal interpretation of Scripture.

Is it the number of denominations the problem? It seems to me that any division of Christ’s Church is a problem, and this also happened without sola scriptura - The Great Schism, the Old Catholics, to name a couple.

I believe that if they truly searched for the truth and strove to understand the true Catholic teaching on the “problems” – all their problems would be solved.

I would be unwilling to imply that if one’s search for truth doesn’t end up as ____________ ( Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, fill in the blank), that that search must not have been a true search.

Jon

 

[joemccarron]

If I were not Catholic I would be Orthodox.

I just don’t believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the church Christ created.

I think the Holy Spirit is present in congregations of Protestant Christians but I find it historically impossible to believe any of them could be the Church Christ created.

 

[Rawb]

I just don’t believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the church Christ created.

Neither do we.

 

[joe370]

Hey Rawb…

Rawb;7807390]I can assure you, having been a practicing and believing Roman Catholic, I do know what infallibility means. I fail to see how you think I don’t, as I barely even discuss Infallibility in the post you quote.

Just a quick question regarding infallibility. Are the following 2 statements true:

Catholic doctrine maintains that the Church, via the perpetual guidance of the Holy Spirit, teaches infallibly when it teaches a doctrine of faith or morals only?

Eastern Orthodox doctrine maintains that the Church, via the perpetual guidance of the Holy Spirit, teaches infallibly when it teaches a doctrine of faith or morals only?

 

[joe370]

If I were not Catholic I would be Orthodox.

I just don’t believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the church Christ created.

I think the Holy Spirit is present in congregations of Protestant Christians but I find it historically impossible to believe any of them could be the Church Christ created.

I agree. Actually, I don’t know of any protestant churches that claim to be the historical church founded by God, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem. Identifying the name of the person that founded each and every protestant church and when, can be easily achieved via a simple google check. I suppose they could make the claim that they belong to the reformed church of Christ which of course is tantamount to saying: Jesus left the CC and founded one of the PC’s which is unsupported by scripture…