Why do people leave the Catholic Church?

[Peter_J]

I didn’t mean my list to be exhaustive. LOL. As i understand it papal infallibility is a fairly recent addition.

Depends on your p.o.v., I suppose. That particular dogmatic definition was 139 years ago which, in the Catholic way of looking at things, is very recent indeed.

 

[michaelcollins]

Mental note: SpiritMeadow knows too much.



I jest. But seriously, I think the problem with your reasoning is in #3. If a person doesn’t agree with the Church’s moral teaching, then I would take that as a sign that his/her conscience isn’t as well-formed as it could be; but that does not necessary mean that he/she has neglected the duty of forming his/her conscience.

Thus I would say that your conclusion (#4), that there is no such thing as primacy of conscious, is incorrect.

I’m a simple person I still believ the primary reason people leave the catholic church is mass is over.

However, I went through RCIA and I taught RCIA and will tell you that the program veries greatly based upon the education level and the intelligence of the class and teachers, it should not but does. doctrine is either very simplistic or very advanced based upon the parameters I listed.

 

[SSTeacher]

Many Catholics are horribly catechized. They really don’t understand the sacraments, so they don’t know what they are missing.

Too many parishes do a poor job of making the sacrament available and it turns some people off.

I was wondering if you attribute any culpability to the parents of children who are horribly catechized?

Inquiringly,
Mick

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m sorry about some of that post. I was in ill humor. Pardon me. I entirely disagree with you about Homosexual union however. There is nothing in scripture to support it. In fact, quite the opposit. I’m tired of the same use of Davids love for Jonathan as an indicator of homosexual love. I have a male friend who I love very much and want the best for him but I did not have a homosexual union with him and neither did David. The fact is love is not limited to sexual relationships.

I was not arguing that scripture supports homosexuality, other than in the general precepts that love is our guiding principle. Frankly I have never heard of the David/Jonathan thing, whatever that is. My point is that one has to understand what Paul meant by what we now call homosexuality in the brief references to it that he MAY have made. (Many do not believe that Paul authored Timothy for instance). What Paul and those of his time understood about what we now call homosexuality has almost nothing to do with today. In fact, I could pretty much agree with Paul given his understanding.

My view about people leaving the RCC is that they have no real idea what their taught. I mean I was musing the other day that as a child I always thought that the very last responsatory for mass was because everyone felt the way I did. The Priest says “this mass has been conclude go in peace” and the reponsitory was “thanks be to God”. My imagination always sees the congregation letting out a sigh of relief (as in thanks be to God its over). Somehow many catholics when going to mass turn on the remote control and “blindly” follow the service. Not realizing what they are actually saying or doing. It seems that many have more consern over “doing things right” such as when to genuflect or bow before the Eucharist not realizing that these things are forms of devotion rather than a formula to “get the sacrifice right”. And the focus comes off what is actually going on. Catachisis. I think I threw off our preist when recieving the Eucharist last sunday. Most people at my parish seem to hobble their way up to the priest with a dejected look and ritually take the Eucharist. Almost as if saying I’m miserable (which some are I’m sure). I walked up with a smile on my face (not purposely but because of my expectation on recieving Christ) and when the priest said “the body of christ” my grin became a full on smile as I said “amen” knowing full well I was saying “so be it”. He saw my smile and unexpectedly smiled himself. My sins are forgiven and I was partaking the in Lord. How could I not rejoice? However, many miss this because for them its simple ritual. And it is these that misunderstand their faith an move on to other churches when they actually connect with what the Gospel is saying. That’s my contention anyway.

I couldnt agree more in some respects. I used to be astounded at how little some of my catholic friends knew about our faith when I shared it with them! It was so funny to see the Easter/Christmas Catholics (I know that is unkind). They had no clue. I recall Father taking us through a mass once stopping every few words to explain exactly where the words came from, and when they were added into the mass. No doubt most faith traditiions are the same in this respect.

And I totally agree about the Eucharist. I was expecially so, since our Bishop was with us this past Sunday. I know my “amen” following his “the body of Christ” was more exuberant that usual! It is such a wonderful gift. We have an alter rail that we kneel at. I so much prefer that. Most RCC have removed them, and even where they still are, we always stood to receive.

Of course its very hard to generalize as this thread well shows. People leave for many reasons. It was the hardest thing I have ever done, but I held tight to Jesus’ hand and I have landed in a church I am thrilled to be a part of. Isn;t it wonderful? One can but hope that everyone finds the right place, exactly where they should be.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Just curious. What rights don’t gays have?

Oh my that should be obvious. The right of inheritance if the partner dies intestate. The right to be declared next of kin for visiting in hospitals. Basically any right that a spouse has by law, they don’t necessarily have. It’s a state by state thing.

Certainly they don’t have the right to marry in most states. But as all polling shows, the next generation assumes this without argument for the most part and I know things will be changing as they are now.

 

[Peter_J]

I have no reason to believe Jesus lied.

Dude, you’re messing this all up.

You’re supposed to say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say "No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe

 

[michaelcollins]

Oh my that should be obvious. The right of inheritance if the partner dies intestate. The right to be declared next of kin for visiting in hospitals. Basically any right that a spouse has by law, they don’t necessarily have. It’s a state by state thing.

Certainly they don’t have the right to marry in most states. But as all polling shows, the next generation assumes this without argument for the most part and I know things will be changing as they are now.

Most people believe gays should have to marry and divorce so they have the same right ot being miserable that the rest of us have why should they be special

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry, the system wouldn’t let me post more than 6000 characters. (Although, to be honest, I was getting a little tired of typing anyways.)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

As Maxwell Smart once said Oh the old universal church is what he really meant trick.

That always begs the question of the time between the establishment of the RCC and the protestant reformation.

I always ask protestants ok if I give you that the first days of the church like any organization was developing, still by x date only the rcc was the church until the protestant revolution, I never believed God or Jesus would leave without a church for roughly 1500 yrs.

The strangest response I ever got was one where I was told we would have had a seperate chuch not have been part of the rcc but the church was burning at the stake anyone who possessed a bible

I think you misunderstand me. I am making no claims of first. By and large most Protestants and Anglicans aren’t interested in that. But I would contend that the “church” is universal, encompassing all its denominations from beginning to end. There are those that believe that at the time of the Reformation, the church had strayed to a degree it was no longer teaching truth, thus some split from her and taught what they believed was closer to the mark. One can argue endlessly about that to no avail I suspect.

I don’t quite understand what the obsession is about being 'first". There have been defections almost since the beginning and the suppression of ideas by the majority. Such is the way of any movement and most governments. Some of those might be mostly right, or mostly wrong. But no one has yet proved that the Holy Spirit doesn’t attach to all at least baptized and thus allow them to gain truth.

If Catholics find it necessary to their faith to believe that they are first among Christians, that is fine. I’m told that the first enunciation of the word Catholic church arrived from Irenaeus sometime around 110 AD. I don’t see any significant “control” from Rome until the 300’s or so. Paul’s letters reflect a huge divergence among the various communities in teaching. No doubt this was a result of his early assumption that time was short. He trained em and sent them out to convert as fast as he could. Some of them weren’t getting it as he intended. Thus the letters to communiteis to straighten out disputes. It all leads to the conclusion that the early “church” was not a whole, but a coat of many colors, later coming under Roman rule for a variety of reasons. Such is my take anyway.

I believe today there are at least 2 other catholic churches in the US beyond the RCC. Those all claim supremacy as being the true church as well. Then we got the reformation, the Eastern Orthodox, and I know there were others even before the EO split.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Mental note: SpiritMeadow knows too much.



I jest. But seriously, I think the problem with your reasoning is in #3. If a person doesn’t agree with the Church’s moral teaching, then I would take that as a sign that his/her conscience isn’t as well-formed as it could be; but that does not necessary mean that he/she has neglected the duty of forming his/her conscience.

Thus I would say that your conclusion (#4), that there is no such thing as primacy of conscious, is incorrect.

LOL. I don’t mean to dicker. But. I wrote 3 a bit wrong. It should be:

If after forming one’s conscience, one is still not in agreement with the Church, this is evidence that one’s conscience remains improperly formed. Thus one must continue forming.

If the upshot is that the process never can end until you agree with Rome, than there is no primacy of conscience.

I continue to contend that this is what some here would say.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Depends on your p.o.v., I suppose. That particular dogmatic definition was 139 years ago which, in the Catholic way of looking at things, is very recent indeed.

You betcha! It remains an amazing institution. The longest running in all the world. That is something indeed to be proud of. I always was!

 

[Peter_J]

You betcha! It remains an amazing institution.

The longest running in all the world. That is something indeed to be proud of. I always was!

So do you agree, then, that the Roman Catholic Church has a better claim at being the one true Church than the Eastern Orthodox Church does? (Not meaing to go off on a tangent; but, well obviously I’m curious after the highlighted statement.)

 

[WarriorAngel]

TO THE OP:

People leave because they are not cooperating with grace. IE - they are not choosing to want more faith, or more of God. Most are apathetic until some ‘zealous’ guy comes along teaching the Catholic what the Church teaches [which is always 100% wrong]

Paul said and warned against new gospels even from angels in Heaven.

And YET - on the other hand - about a good 80% return to the Church.

See their zeal gets so strong that they finally once and for all have to proove the Catholic Church is wrong and poof, they fall right back into the Church because they discover she has been the only one right all along.

I love watching when that happens. Heaven rejoices when Jesus goes after the one sheep…

 

[sambos671]

Oh my that should be obvious. The right of inheritance if the partner dies intestate. The right to be declared next of kin for visiting in hospitals. Basically any right that a spouse has by law, they don’t necessarily have. It’s a state by state thing.

Certainly they don’t have the right to marry in most states. But as all polling shows, the next generation assumes this without argument for the most part and I know things will be changing as they are now.

BTW you thing about homosexuality in the context of the day wasn’t so different than it is today. It was actually more culturally accepted in his day. Greeks gloried in their naked bodies and sexual activity among both sexes. The Gymnasium was used extensively for the physical disciplines of the human body among men and at times sexual activity would ensue. Also Greeks mentoring consept (much like the spartans) would be homosexual relationships between an elder man and a younger man. So I think whom ever wrote Timothy (most likely Paul) understood this.

As far as not having this right you’re absolutely wrong! All a homosexual couple need do is complete legal paperwork to allow it. Insurance moneis need to be worked out with the insurance companies. It just isn’t assumed that homosexual couples have that right unless stated in a legal document. Married couples by nature of their wedded status are assumed certain legal requirements because a contract has already ensued with their marriage. So its not as obvious as you think. My belief is that Married couples statis has been well establish by both statutory Law and Common law. Homosexuals therefore need to draw up legal contracts. Now should homosexuals be considered married. I don’t think marriage should be forwarded to homosexuals for moral reasons. There is no difference in my mind between a homosexual couple and a non married couple living together. They have the exact same rights.

As christians we are commanded to Love but not to the exclusion of righteousness. Therefore, I can love a murder but I cannot condone his activity or claim that it is not sin. I can love an adulterer but I cannot condone their activity or say what they are doing is right. In fact, My responsibility is to enlighten them to what is right. Like a house on fire. If I keep the fact that the house is burning down to myself and save myself, I do not love those left behind. If I warn them of their situation and need to escape then I exhibit my love in that they are saved.

And to those others who said I prejudged you (possibly) it turns out I wasn’t wrong. Medow If I initially came of too strong I’m sorry.

 

[SSTeacher]

TO THE OP:

People leave because they are not cooperating with grace. IE - they are not choosing to want more faith, or more of God. Most are apathetic until some ‘zealous’ guy comes along teaching the Catholic what the Church teaches [which is always 100% wrong]

Paul said and warned against new gospels even from angels in Heaven.

And YET - on the other hand - about a good 80% return to the Church.

See their zeal gets so strong that they finally once and for all have to proove the Catholic Church is wrong and poof, they fall right back into the Church because they discover she has been the only one right all along.

I love watching when that happens. Heaven rejoices when Jesus goes after the one sheep…

WarriorAngel,

Thanks for the above contribution. May I ask from where comes the 80% figure?

Numerically,
Mick

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Dude, you’re messing this all up.

You’re supposed to say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say “No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then you say “No, I don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe Jesus lied.”

And then we say "No, we don’t believe Jesus lied. You believe

Dude! What can I say. I don’t play well with others! LOL…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Most people believe gays should have to marry and divorce so they have the same right ot being miserable that the rest of us have why should they be special

LOL. Good point. Actually I saw some figure from Britain that said divorce among gays was down from straights. But I figure that will even out to the same before long. We aren’t very careful about our partners for the most part it seems. It’s quite sad really. Humans haven’t done a very good job with marriage in general.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So do you agree, then, that the Roman Catholic Church has a better claim at being the one true Church than the Eastern Orthodox Church does? (Not meaing to go off on a tangent; but, well obviously I’m curious after the highlighted statement.)

See the point is that the EO would argue that they are the continuation of THE true church. They would argue that Rome strayed. So would Anglicans and anybody else for that matter. The point of break would change no doubt. It’s just that as far as I know, nobody seems concerned about this except some RCC members. I certainly recall no such teaching as an RCIA member or frankly in my reading. But of course, I don’t tend to apologetics which I don’t feel is actual scholarly investigation.

I’m just not sure why it’s so important to the RCC or at least some adherents that this be true. It smacks of some need of certainty I think, but I’m not sure. When you seek certainty in matters of faith, I suspect one is on the wrong track. If God meant for certainty, there are easier ways to make that clear. I think it’s faith for a reason.

I don’t mind the tangent. LOL…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

BTW you thing about homosexuality in the context of the day wasn’t so different than it is today. It was actually more culturally accepted in his day. Greeks gloried in their naked bodies and sexual activity among both sexes. The Gymnasium was used extensively for the physical disciplines of the human body among men and at times sexual activity would ensue. Also Greeks mentoring consept (much like the spartans) would be homosexual relationships between an elder man and a younger man. So I think whom ever wrote Timothy (most likely Paul) understood this.

Well, I disagree. How homosexuality was viewed in those days is not at all like it is today. It had nothing whatsoever to do with nakedness. It did have to do with pedastry and temple prostitution. It had to do with choice, lust, and power. They had not a clue about what it really entailed. I respect that you believe Paul wrote Timothy. Many experts do not agree of course, but either way, as I said, Paul reflected his times.

As far as not having this right you’re absolutely wrong! All a homosexual couple need do is complete legal paperwork to allow it. Insurance moneis need to be worked out with the insurance companies. It just isn’t assumed that homosexual couples have that right unless stated in a legal document. Married couples by nature of their wedded status are assumed certain legal requirements because a contract has already ensued with their marriage. So its not as obvious as you think. My belief is that Married couples statis has been well establish by both statutory Law and Common law. Homosexuals therefore need to draw up legal contracts. Now should homosexuals be considered married. I don’t think marriage should be forwarded to homosexuals for moral reasons. There is no difference in my mind between a homosexual couple and a non married couple living together. They have the exact same rights.

I thought i made it clear that intestate was what I was talking about. If there is no rights to be gained, then I can’t imagine why gays are arguing for something non-existant. Of course one can execute legal documents to gain one’s partner rights. But of course that doesn’t prevent family from filing countersuits. I see no valid reason why gays should be put to additional effort to make their wishes legal.

As christians we are commanded to Love but not to the exclusion of righteousness. Therefore, I can love a murder but I cannot condone his activity or claim that it is not sin. I can love an adulterer but I cannot condone their activity or say what they are doing is right. In fact, My responsibility is to enlighten them to what is right. Like a house on fire. If I keep the fact that the house is burning down to myself and save myself, I do not love those left behind. If I warn them of their situation and need to escape then I exhibit my love in that they are saved.

I don’t disagree with your examples.

And to those others who said I prejudged you (possibly) it turns out I wasn’t wrong. Medow If I initially came of too strong I’m sorry.

I don’t know what you mean to say here. If you prejudged me, you might have been right? Thank you I think.

 

[SSTeacher]

See the point is that the EO would argue that they are the continuation of THE true church. They would argue that Rome strayed. So would Anglicans and anybody else for that matter. The point of break would change no doubt. It’s just that as far as I know, nobody seems concerned about this except some RCC members. I certainly recall no such teaching as an RCIA member or frankly in my reading. But of course, I don’t tend to apologetics which I don’t feel is actual scholarly investigation.

I’m just not sure why it’s so important to the RCC or at least some adherents that this be true. It smacks of some need of certainty I think, but I’m not sure. When you seek certainty in matters of faith, I suspect one is on the wrong track. If God meant for certainty, there are easier ways to make that clear. I think it’s faith for a reason.

I don’t mind the tangent. LOL…

I don’t think it’s necessarily a tangent. Perhaps those who leave the Catholic Church to face East do so because they perceive the reasons for faith found within Orthodoxy to be superior to those relied upon by Catholics?

Hypothetically,
Mick