What are some of the main reasons that people are attracted to the Protestant faith?

[Sy_Noe]

Again, you have left a Church in which you didn’t understand its teachings.

Would that you understood what you left!

And would that you didn’t shop for a church which conforms to your own particular tastes and sensibilities, creating a god that you like and prefer.

You confuse me. I thought you said “left” = “ex” and “ex” = calling oneself “ex”.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Best answer here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10748682&postcount=7

Thanks for providing the best answer. But I still see that the CC acknowledges missing the obligation is a mortal sin. I think it maybe again just comes back to faith. Faith in the teaching authority.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I don’t understand your point. Could you re-phrase?

Sure. So there are non Catholics even here on CAF who you know who understand Catholic teaching maybe they are Lutherans in the MO synod or conservative Anglicans unhappy with TEC, I have no idea who you know. But perhaps whom you deem closer to your views. The point is they have not entered even though they understand. They must have their reasons just as Catholics who have “left” and self describe themselves as “ex” have their reasons. So I’m not going to presume no Catholic would leave if only they understood. Any more than I’m going to say those non Catholics you know of who understand but don’t enter don’t have their reasons.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sure.

I have met some folks here who put a whole lot o’ Catholics to shame with their correct understanding of Catholicism.

Did you note that in the discussion where you dismissed the fact that Catholics who leave the faith don’t know their faith one ex-Catholic here didn’t even know that divorce is permitted in the CC?

And I note that he (as well as you) called lay ministers of the Eucharist “Eucharistic Ministers”.

That’s clearly an uninformed understanding of what the priest does, the nature of the Mass, and, most importantly, a greatly impoverished understanding of the Eucharist.

I don’t understand your point. Could you re-phrase?

If there’s a well catechized Catholic who’s left I have yet to meet him.

I challenge you, Sy.

Can you answer a few basic questions without recourse to Fr. Google?

 

[Sy_Noe]

And I note that he (as well as you) called lay ministers of the Eucharist “Eucharistic Ministers”.

That’s clearly an uninformed understanding of what the priest does, the nature of the Mass, and, most importantly, a greatly impoverished understanding of the Eucharist

And I’ll note not just he as well as I. But in today’s bulletin of my local Catholic parish as well it says they are in need of lectors, ushers, and yes in need of and I quote “Eucharist ministers” and “if you would like to join and be part of this wonderful group in serving Christ as well as your fellow parishoners please contact the parish office.” I don’t suppose they only mean they are in need of priests and deacons.

 

[AbideWithMe]

So is your point, then, that the Church should change the Word of God to make it more palatable (see the divorce discussion) since people don’t like to be obligated to do this?

…

That’s what Christ said. Not our words. But His.

PRmerger–I’m just stopping in briefly and trying to stay up with reading this thread. I haven’t yet backtracked over my reading elsewhere on divorce and the Bible in Jewish context to gather up links for you.

But, I want to ask you about something since it’s come up again. You keep saying, “Not our words. But His.” Okay, well, His words in regard to divorce (in Matthew 19, Matthew 5, Mark and Luke, and then through Paul in 1 Corinthians 7) say, to men, that they may not divorce their wives, except for marital infidelity*. The context of the discussion in Matthew 19 is about the debate between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai on the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jesus affirms the stricter understanding of the school of Shammai, as I wrote earlier.

You have acknowledged that the CC allows divorce, including men divorcing their wives, for reasons other than marital infidelity. If you’re going to keep saying, “Not our words. But His” how do you account for that? (Not a snarky challenge–I’m sincerely interested. I originally just hopped into this thread to talk about the meaning of “porneia”, and I was not intending to get drawn into a longer discussion for which I know I don’t really have time. I don’t think any church, except for some fundamentalist ones, take Jesus’ prohibition on divorce at its literal face value.)

• porneia= Greek root refers to selling something (sex, in this case); so the closest Latin and then English translations would be fornication, from “fornix”, an archway, specifically here an archway where prostitutes sold themselves. Also, the LXX translates the Hebrew for prostitution as “porneia” when moving to Greek. And, among the ECF’s, Origen understood porneia in Matthew 19 to mean fornication, as have all translations, Catholic or Protestant, that I’ve read up until the recent change in some Catholic Bibles. I’ve yet to find any evidence that “unlawful marriage” is an accurate translation for porneia in Matthew 19. If someone has any such evidence, I’d be interested in seeing it.

 

[SteveVH]

And I’ll note not just he as well as I. But in today’s bulletin of my local Catholic parish as well it says they are in need of lectors, ushers, and yes in need of and I quote “Eucharist ministers” and “if you would like to join and be part of this wonderful group in serving Christ as well as your fellow parishoners please contact the parish office.” I don’t suppose they only mean they are in need of priests and deacons.

One of the wonderful things that came out of Vatican II was a focus on the participation of the laity in all aspects of the Church, save those that are reserved for the ordained. It called for “full and active participation…”.

The term “Eucharistic minister” is commonly used incorrectly, even by those responsible for the parish bulletin. The correct term for a lay minister who distributes communion at Mass or brings the Eucharist to the homebound is “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist”. The priest is the “ordinary minister of the Eucharist”. Only the priest can consecrate the elements, but the laity may distribute it to the faithful.

There are many, many ministries in the Church that are performed 100% by the laity. It is a wonderful thing and I would urge all Catholics to get involved in some ministry at their particular parish. Sadly, in just about every parish I have attended, about 10% of the people do 100% of the work.

So you are correct, they didn’t mean only priests and deacons, but they spoke in error if they used the term “Eucharistic Minister”.

 

[SteveVH]

You have acknowledged that the CC allows divorce, including men divorcing their wives, for reasons other than marital infidelity. If you’re going to keep saying, “Not our words. But His” how do you account for that?

As PR said, we go by the words of Christ. The issue is not so much the divorce but rather the re-marriage. Lets take a look at what Jesus said:

"“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18)

So a Catholic may divorce, but he or she may not re-marry unless they obtain an annulment, which means that there was never a valid marriage to begin with. If they re-marry without an annulment they are committing adultery and are not allowed to participate in the sacraments. A divorced Catholic without an annulment must remain single. That may seem like a bummer, but it is what Christ said.

 

[PRmerger]

You confuse me. I thought you said “left” = “ex” and “ex” = calling oneself “ex”.

Well, best if we remove any doubt about what you consider yourself. Why don’t you just make it clear?

Are you a Catholic?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As PR said, we go by the words of Christ. The issue is not so much the divorce but rather the re-marriage. Lets take a look at what Jesus said:

""Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." (Luke 16:18)

So a Catholic may divorce, but he or she may not re-marry unless they obtain an annulment, which means that there was never a valid marriage to begin with. If they re-marry without an annulment they are committing adultery and are not allowed to participate in the sacraments. A divorced Catholic without an annulment must remain single. That may seem like a bummer, but it is what Christ said.

Yes, an adulterer that remains married, an abuser that remains married, a child molester that remains married can participate in the sacraments after reconciliation. A divorcee cannot. Bummer doesn’t even begin to describe the 2nd class treatment for divorcees.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, an adulterer that remains married, an abuser that remains married, a child molester that remains married can participate in the sacraments after reconciliation. A divorcee cannot. Bummer doesn’t even begin to describe the 2nd class treatment for divorcees.

I must correct you here. A divorcee certainly can.

But an unrepentant adulterer cannot. That’s the problem with most 2nd marriages.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I must correct you here. A divorcee certainly can.

But an unrepentant adulterer cannot. That’s the problem with most 2nd marriages.

Only if they live as brother and sister.

 

[Babylonianlove]

Yes, an adulterer that remains married, an abuser that remains married, a child molester that remains married can participate in the sacraments after reconciliation. A divorcee cannot. Bummer doesn’t even begin to describe the 2nd class treatment for divorcees.

Four your information, some culture/church don’t have divorce or allow marrying a divorce person. They give time for the couple to reconcile especially kids in between. This is my cousin’s case. They are dating other people, we don’t know whose fault. What we know is bishop tries hard to put them back together, or they can take their next marriage somewhere else to other rite. He won’t do it. never before.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, an adulterer that remains married, an abuser that remains married, a child molester that remains married can participate in the sacraments after reconciliation. A divorcee cannot. Bummer doesn’t even begin to describe the 2nd class treatment for divorcees.

The issue is that, as Jesus said, “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery”. If one remains in a sexually intimate relationship with another after divorce then one has not repented. A priest cannot forgive a sin for which one has no intention of stopping. An adulterer can repent and change his ways, as can an abuser or even a child molester. A divorcee can also change his or her ways and be forgiven, but it would entail ending the relationship, at least as far as sexual relations are concerned.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And so I take it that you are very upset with Jesus over this. No?

This question is quite condescending.

But just so you know, I’m upset with Jesus on other matters as well. I don’t pretend to understand it all and I am honest with my intellect and with my Priest and with Christ.

The issue is that, as Jesus said, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. If one remains in a sexually intimate relationship with another after divorce then one has not repented. A priest cannot forgive a sin for which one has no intention of stopping. An adulterer can repent and change his ways, as can an abuser or even a child molester. A divorcee can also change his or her ways and be forgiven, but it would entail ending the relationship, at least as far as sexual relations are concerned.

A divorce is a type of purgatory in its own right.

The issue is that a remarriage is treated as an unforgivable sins until other factors are met. It doesn’t matter that I repented on engaging in an erroneous marriage outside the Church or that I was in an abusive relationship and among other things. And I’m not even one of the most drastic cases!

Where did Christ said that adultery is not a forgivable sin?

Is the child abuser forced to go and get an annulment on his desire to abuse children again?
Is the wife beater forced to go and get an annulment on his impulse to beat his wife?

It is also the only sin that doesn’t fall into the “no fault of their own”. It doesn’t matter that the person is not Catholic or that the person entered into the marriage in Civil Court. The person is held under the same accountability as a Catholic marriage.

No - it is a 2nd class treatment.

 

[AbideWithMe]

As PR said, we go by the words of Christ. The issue is not so much the divorce but rather the re-marriage. Lets take a look at what Jesus said:

""Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." (Luke 16:18)

So a Catholic may divorce, but he or she may not re-marry unless they obtain an annulment, which means that there was never a valid marriage to begin with. If they re-marry without an annulment they are committing adultery and are not allowed to participate in the sacraments. A divorced Catholic without an annulment must remain single. That may seem like a bummer, but it is what Christ said.

Hi Steve–Thanks for the reply.

I’m puzzled— it seems that you’re just looking at one verse, not the whole description of this exchange with the Pharisees? In Matthew, for example, please go back to 19:3 to start and then continue on. The Pharisees saw Jesus was gaining crowds, and so they wondered where he stood in regards to the two rival “Houses” of the time–Hillel or Shammai?–specifically regarding the interpretation of Deut. 24:1-4 about what constituted grounds for divorce. The whole discussion centers around divorce itself, with remarriage only coming up later.

And please see 1 Cor. 7:11, too.

And, as I recommended before, the online 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia entry on divorce, and also on ketubahs, is helpful. Another weird, long but interesting article is from the Jewish Women’s Archive on “Wifebeating”.

 

[SteveVH]

This question is quite condescending.

I thought the same after reading it which is why I deleted it, apparently not fast enough.
Apologies.

But just so you know, I’m upset with Jesus on other matters as well. I don’t pretend to understand it all and I am honest with my intellect and with my Priest and with Christ.

God bless you.

A divorce is a type of purgatory in its own right.

The issue is that a remarriage is treated as an unforgivable sins until other factors are met. It doesn’t matter that I repented on engaging in an erroneous marriage outside the Church or that I was in an abusive relationship and among other things. And I’m not even one of the most drastic cases!

Where did Christ said that adultery is not a forgivable sin?

No sin is forgivable if one persists in it. If one ends the relationship, as you apparently have, then one can certainly be forgiven.

Is the child abuser forced to go and get an annulment on his desire to abuse children again?
Is the wife beater forced to go and get an annulment on his impulse to beat his wife?

I can’t answer a question that doesn’t make sense. A child abuser must stop abusing children, confess his sin and ask for forgiveness. The same with an adulterer or an abuser. Obviously, no one can be “annulled” from child abuse or wife beating.

It is also the only sin that doesn’t fall into the “no fault of their own”. It doesn’t matter that the person is not Catholic or that the person entered into the marriage in Civil Court. The person is held under the same accountability as a Catholic marriage.

Yes, God’s law applies to everyone.

No - it is a 2nd class treatment.

You have obviously been hurt very deeply and for that I am sorry. You are in my prayers.

God bless.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes it’s interesting to learn about other faith practices without presuming we know what they do.

Yes. One ought never presume we know what they do in their churches.

One thing on my bucket list has always been to attend a non Roman Catholic service. Finally for the first time in my life today (and I’m no spring chicken) I built up the nerve. Not because I am told God’s word is interpreted to mean I would be committing mortal sn if I didn’t.

Sigh.

It’s not a mortal sin for you to attend a non-Roman Catholic service.

Exhibit # 4322234 regarding Catholics (ex/former/not practicing/current) not knowing their faith.

You can certainly attend. But you are obligated to worship God at Mass on Sunday.

(And you cannot receive communion in non-Catholic services, although you may, with permission receive in the Orthodox liturgies. And, of course, you are always welcome to receive communion in non-Roman Catholic Masses.)

But because I’m drawn to how they serve the Lord and wanted to freely worship with them as believers in 1 God and in Christ and to learn more about them.

Of course you can. But one ought to be very, very cautious about what they preach.

Did you know that there’s pastors who believe in 1 God and in Christ but who teach some very peculiar things?

For example, here’s a church that believes that if one eats grass, it makes her closer to God.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...sQ6rH0yDcj7b3YQ85hoxu2UDhgAPYXEYTEpzMZfPzY2QQ

And would you worship with this church that wants to serve the Lord and freely worship Him as believers in 1 God and in Christ? They just profess that the writings of St. Paul are satanic.

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

So, one can certainly worship with other Christians. But what they profess ought to be of great import to you.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s a lot for me to read at the moment but so far I do see where the precept of the CC bounds the obligation based on canon.

Exhibit #478937984.

You ought to have known this already, Sy, without my offering you apologia for why the Church teaches this.

You really can’t articulate, even in 4 sentences, where the Church gets this teaching from? Why she professes this?

Now, don’t get me wrong–I applaud your inquiry. And it is good for you to continue to seek and learn.

However, your posts here, as well as the posts of some other ex-Catholics on this thread ought to put to rest your objection to my saying, “Catholics who leave don’t know their faith.”

What you are saying is, “I don’t agree with the Church’s teaching on the Sunday obligation to attend Mass!”

But when asked, “What is the Church’s teaching, and where does it come from?” you cannot answer.

That’s a shame.

But it’s good for you to be asking!

And I mean this sincerely.

 

[PRmerger]

And I’ll note not just he as well as I. But in today’s bulletin of my local Catholic parish as well it says they are in need of lectors, ushers, and yes in need of and I quote “Eucharist ministers” and “if you would like to join and be part of this wonderful group in serving Christ as well as your fellow parishoners please contact the parish office.” I don’t suppose they only mean they are in need of priests and deacons.

That’s just another Exhibit of Catholics not knowing their faith.

Heck, today, just a few hours ago, my DH and I went up to serve as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, and I put over my head the cross necklace that we are to wear when we go up to the altar.

Guess what it says…

EUCHARISTIC MINISTER.

The lay volunteer who made these wooden crosses and then engraved them was also uninformed about what it is we do.

'Tis sad indeed. :sad_yes:

But read this from our Bishops:
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/extraordinary-ministers-of-holy-communion-at-mass.cfm