Why do people leave the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SSTeacher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mario_grgic said:
Jesus didn’t drive a pick up truck full of Bibles and threw them at people and shouted here, read that, believe in it and be saved. No, he taught people his holy word by speaking to them. And so did the apostles for centuries.

It is only later that they found it necessary to write something down so that it could be preserved and reach wider audience even though literacy still prevents people from reading it in many parts of the world.

So, where in line did you stop believing that succession? You now choose to only read and accept the written word as you understand it. You only have the text, but Catholic church has the meaning and the text.
Click to expand...
The offical Catholic teaching is that the bible is the inspired inerrant word of God. Do you disagree with this teaching?
 
ralphy said:
Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? Ralph
Click to expand...
The Bible as interpreted by the catholic church in catechism is the word of God.

This is exactly why there should be a church. If each one of us is to interpret the meaning of some text, what would be the point of having a church to guard the faith left to it by God at all?

This is why belonging to a protestant movement is pointless. Since protestantism is inviting each one of their adherents to be their own Pope, and make theological pronouncements on anything and everything. And if we disagree, well just start another “church”. So, why should I listen to anything you have to say? Your authority comes form the fact that you can read? I can do that too. I don’t need you.

But there is this one organization who claims to have more intimate knowledge and insight and that has been there when Jesus walked on earth.
 
DD2007 said:
I left for many reasons. What got the ball rolling was that I realized that I was involved in idolatry. Praying to Mary and the saints. Getting on my knees in front of statues…etc
Click to expand...
I have friends who were converted from Catholicism to Christian (non-denom), one “mega church” with church premises like a disco house with disco ball and disco lights and everything.

I was attending sermons there and found out that one of the pastors was a former Catholic rooted with a very shallow foundation on the faith. Now he preaches using his story as example: When he was in his youth, he used to attend the Mass (as he says) but, due to the large number of Catholics here in the Philippines, he used to stay outside the church, hearing no Mass at all!

Here is the conclusion: he left Catholicism because he did not have that deep faith at all and did not do anything about it while he was a Catholic.
 
mario_grgic said:
The Bible as interpreted by the catholic church in catechism is the word of God.

This is exactly why there should be a church. If each one of us is to interpret the meaning of some text, what would be the point of having a church to guard the faith left to it by God at all?

This is why belonging to a protestant movement is pointless. Since protestantism is inviting each one of their adherent to be their own Pope, and make theological pronouncements on anything and everything. And if we disagree, well just start another “church”. So, why should I listen to anything you have to say? Your authority comes form the fact that you can read? I can do that too. I don’t need you.

But there is this one organization who claims to have more intimate knowledge and insight and that has been there when Jesus walked on earth.
Click to expand...
So you place tradition as a greater authority than scripture?
 
Hisalone said:
So you place tradition as a greater authority than scripture?
Click to expand...
Yes, because it came before scripture. Jesus came before the new testament. But tradition is not just things that were not written.

Tradition is also how we understand things that were written too.

And like I said, if scripture is all there is, then why should I belong to any church? Why should I listen to you? Your authority comes from the fact that you can read. I can do that, hence I don’t need anyone else to tell me what it all means.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
No apology required. I imagine your mother and I would get along famously!

I agree that homosexuality was more common in certain circumstances in classic Greece and Rome. However no one today would agree with the abuse of children, and no matter the platonic definition, we don’t give children the right of consent to sexual acts by adults upon them. That is violence.

As the the other two main types of Paul’s day, they were temple prostitution by young males who feminized themselves for sale. This was thought to be a violation of the stoic concept of natural law, wherein men were by definition superior to women and it was unseemly to act like a woman. Secondly, the call-boy took the submissive position and this too was thought “feminine” and thus unnatural.

If you read Paul, you will see that he refers to unbridled lust a lot. It was thought that homosexual behavior was a choice, not an inborn condition or predisposition. It was thought that some men and even some women were so overcome by lust that they were not satisfied with the “normal” behavior of male and female, but had succumbed to their bodily desires. Since at that time in Christianity, as in Stoicism, the denial of bodily desire was considered virtuous, Paul argued against it. But remember his remarks were limited, and included in a long variety of behaviors that were not sinful themselves but evidence that the person had succumbed to sin in general. These “codes” were common in both the Old and New Testament, and they are nowhere ever the same. There is no One list.

But I think you are right that the human body was not a thing to be covered in the way that we think today. The Olympic games I believe were conducted by nude athletes. And the baths were common, though I think usually restricted to each sex. Not having the modern facilities we do today means that people looked a bit differently at nudity and so forth, not necessarily more pruriently either. You learned to see but not see if you get my drift.
Click to expand...
You say there is no list. However, I would agree that there is no one list but I would disagree saying one list means permisiveness of another. For instance the 10 commandments themselves do not list homosexuality. However, it does mentions three consepts which homosexuality may fall under. 1. No fornication 2. no adultery 4. no lust.

The book of Exodus land Leviticus list punishment for the offense of homosexuality and specifically calls it an abomination. Paul also indicates that women (and men) have given up the natural affections for the opposit sex and have sexual relations among themselves (two of the same sex). He ends up calling it an abomination and sin. So where two list coincide with what is considered to be sin we can safely assume it is.

You may very well get along famously with my mother. I love her and we often agree to disagree. However, at what point do you cease to be a christian and end up being a secularist? Which is a germane question.
 
Jesus made the Pope Holy. Peter upon This Rock I will build my Church. Jesus gave the first Priests the power to forgive sin. It’s in the Bible.
 
LeroyCRHP said:
Most leave for reasons obvious in the seventh day adventist beliefs. Freedom, lack of rules, only believe what is in the bible says, scriptural, rules created by a group of people in the mid 1800’s. Not to pick on the 7th day adventist, but they do not even issue a position on abortion, yet have a position on assault weapons. With ~1 million members in the US I don’t think the majority of Catholics are going here.

adventist.org/beliefs/statements/index.html

adventist.org/world_church/facts_and_figures/history/index.html.en
Click to expand...
Leroy:

As a former SDA myself, feel free to pick on them all you want. Seriously though, the SDAs have lots and lots of rules - no pork, preferrably no meat at all, no tobacco, no make-up, no jewelry, no work on Sabbath from Friday night to Saturday night and on and on and on. Also, while they claim to be Sola Scriptura, the truth is that they support all their beliefs with an EGW quote first. They do have a position on abortion, “Its not our #1 choice, but you do what you gotta do.” (This position may be found on the SDA GC website.)

The majority of Catholics may not be going SDA, but the SDA work really hard to bring in all the Catholics they can, considering a Catholic converted to SDAism to be a real coup. And like any good gunslinger, they tend to notch their belts everytime they snag a Catholic - even if he/she were a lapsed Catholic before the SDAs catch them.
 
pontoon said:
Jesus made the Pope Holy. Peter upon This Rock I will build my Church. Jesus gave the first Priests the power to forgive sin. It’s in the Bible.
Click to expand...
That statement was written in the gospel 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. Therefore, an interpolation by the Church with the purpose to document the Church with apostolocial credibility. Besides, Peter was a Nazarene and never a Christian. It means, he could have never been a Pope. The first Pope was Paul, the real founder of Christianity. (Acts 1`1:26)

Ben: 🙂
 
Ben_Masada said:
That statement was written in the gospel 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. Therefore, an interpolation by the Church with the purpose to document the Church with apostolocial credibility. Besides, Peter was a Nazarene and never a Christian. It means, he could have never been a Pope. The first Pope was Paul, the real founder of Christianity. (Acts 1`1:26)

Ben: 🙂
Click to expand...
I think catholic teaching is quite clear (and it’s also spelled out quite clearly in the bible) that we are **all **called to be holy. Even more we are all called to be saints. So, nothing special about Pope here. No matter how much people try to make pope sound more than he is, he is still just a bishop, first among equals.
 
mario_grgic said:
Yes, because it came before scripture. Jesus came before the new testament. But tradition is not just things that were not written.

Tradition is also how we understand things that were written too.

And like I said, if scripture is all there is, then why should I belong to any church? Why should I listen to you? Your authority comes from the fact that you can read. I can do that, hence I don’t need anyone else to tell me what it all means.
Click to expand...
Scripture is Gods revelation to us. through scripture we can come to know God and what He expects of us. Scripture is the OT also, the NT is the OT revealed.
Scripture tells us not to foresake the assembly together.

Thank you for your honesty most Catholics would not say that tradition is more important than scripture yet by their decisions they demonstrate it is.
As a former Catholic I could never hold tradition as more important than scripture. An answer to the OP
 
Hisalone said:
Catholics would not say that tradition is more important than scripture yet by their decisions they demonstrate it is.P
Click to expand...
You have to understand that choice is NOT between scripture or tradition. We have BOTH.

It’s like this. Imagine we find a diary of my great grand father, and we both read it. You understand it one way, but I another. Obviously, we have a conflict now. So all I have to do is go talk to my parents to tell me what their parents told them about my grandfather so I can clarify the diary. This is the tradition of my family (both the diary and my understanding of it).

Apostles are my spiritual grandfathers, and catholic bishops are their descendants. I’d rather listen to them, than to some random guy claiming he has “transcended the truth” and will clarify it for me.
 
Hisalone said:
Scripture is Gods revelation to us. through scripture we can come to know God and what He expects of us. Scripture is the OT also, the NT is the OT revealed.
Scripture tells us not to foresake the assembly together.

Thank you for your honesty most Catholics would not say that tradition is more important than scripture yet by their decisions they demonstrate it is.
As a former Catholic I could never hold tradition as more important than scripture. An answer to the OP
Click to expand...
Actually, HisAlone, Mario did not state that Tradition was more important than Scripture, He is stating however that Tradition (and the Magisterium) is necessary in order to interpret Scripture. It all boils down to Sola Scriptura which we as Catholics do not subscribe to. Hisalone, do you have any T/traditions within your own Church? God Bless.
 
Hisalone said:
Thank you for your honesty most Catholics would not say that tradition is more important than scripture yet by their decisions they demonstrate it is.
As a former Catholic I could never hold tradition as more important than scripture. An answer to the OP
Click to expand...
Scripture is Tradition. Tradition determined what books were included in the Canon.

When Jesus ascended into Heaven He did not pass out leather bound red letter KJV Bibles to the apostles. Oral Tradition was how the Truth was spread.

Oh, but the Old Testament existed, right? No, it didn’t. There were writings but there was no canon. The priests only considered the books written by Moses to be inspired. The laity (Pharisees) accepted the writings of the prophets and the wisdom literature to be inspired. But some laity considered only these prophets as inspired and other laity only considered those prophets as inspired. So while there were Old Testament writings in existence, it was still Oral Tradition that determined which of those writings the Apostles accepted as inspired revelation. When the Jews got around to defining a canon, they decided only those books written in hebrew/aramaic could be considered inspired. (God forbid that God would choose to speak through a Greek or Persian Jew.)

So, to recap, you only have a Bible because Tradition gave it to you. Bible = Tradition
 
DD2007 said:
I left for many reasons. What got the ball rolling was that I realized that I was involved in idolatry. Praying to Mary and the saints. Getting on my knees in front of statues…etc
Click to expand...
That’s why I almost left. Eventually I learned that it’s not idolatry. People kneel to pray in front of their bed don’t they? Does that mean we’re worshiping our bed? As long as the person who is kneeling before a statue isn’t actually treating it as a god and praying to it, then it is not idolatry.

And praying to Mary and the Saints, we are only asking them to pray for us. We can ask our friends and family to pray for us, so why can’t we ask Mother Mary or any of the saints who are already in Heaven with God?

~Amanda
 
SSTeacher said:
Do you think people generally leave Catholicism for reasons of conscience or simply because they aren’t much interested in spiritual matters of any kind?

Curiously,
Mick
👍
Click to expand...
(24 pages to read ?? No , thanks !!)

My Answer:
Because of conscience or spiritual matters ??

ONLY speaking for myself: both !!
  1. I disagree on the vatican sayings & rules !!
    Even I agree on some points , this doesn’t
    give me any sense of reason to admire the vatican !!
  2. Since I don’t belief (catholic) religion ,
    why need to stay in the (catholic) faith ??
  3. I even don’t feelme pretty well
    to stay in the faith !!
    And even , I’mnot here to judge anyone ,
    because I have no right do that !!
Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), february 25, 2009
 
mario_grgic said:
You have to understand that choice is NOT between scripture or tradition. We have BOTH.

It’s like this. Imagine we find a diary of my great grand father, and we both read it. You understand it one way, but I another. Obviously, we have a conflict now. So all I have to do is go talk to my parents to tell me what their parents told them about my grandfather so I can clarify the diary. This is the tradition of my family (both the diary and my understanding of it).

Apostles are my spiritual grandfathers, and catholic bishops are their descendants. I’d rather listen to them, than to some random guy claiming he has “transcended the truth” and will clarify it for me.
Click to expand...
What you dont understand is that by subjecting scripture to tradition you are placing your ultimate authority in tradition. Tradition should be subjected to tradition.
 
Hisalone said:
The offical Catholic teaching is that the bible is the inspired inerrant word of God. Do you disagree with this teaching?
Click to expand...
I agree with this statement, I believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God. I do not believe that statements made by the Pope or statements made by the Catholic church outside of scripture are inerrant. Ralph
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top