Catholic Priests leaving the RCC

GraceSaves,

Including all of those ex-priests and ex-nuns?

Ex priests and nuns did not have a firm grasp on catholic teaching?

Do you not realise how utterly silly that sounds?

Mike

 

Priscilla,

I agree that there is miseducation all over the place (although I think it is getting better, PRAISE GOD!).

That, however, is NOT an excuse for these people who claim to look to the source and do serious study on their own. It's there. I found it. They can find it. But they don't use it. They'd rather rely on experience than to see what the Church actually teaches. I'm not going to respect that type of attitude.

 

Including all of those ex-priests and ex-nuns?

Ex priests and nuns did not have a firm grasp on catholic teaching?

Do you not realise how utterly silly that sounds?

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I do think it is silly. That makes it sad, not untrue.

 

PriscillaAnn,

They do it all the time. Its kind of a stock answer. I was told I didnt understand catholic teaching as well.(raised CC, mass, religion class for 8 years, etc etc etc.)

I have seen programs on EWTN where catholic apologists(sometimes priests, sometimes lay apologists) tell the catholics what to say regarding things that will come up in discussion. Thats why they will, if you spend enough time sharing with Catholics, eventually start sounding like "stock" answers, because they really are.

"We're not worshipping Mary, we're just asking her to pray for us, like when you ask a friend to pray for you!"

"Why, if it werent for the Catholic church, you wouldnt even have a bible"!"

"The only place "faith" and "alone" are used together is in James, where it says we are not justified by faith alone!"

They begin to sound like mantras after a while. And they are so easilly refuted, but they keep coming up anyway.

God bless,

Mike

 

Mike,

Please address the two contradictions I have posted.

 

Oh, now the Catholics are saying that a man can become a priest or a woman a nun, with so little real knowledge of their faith that it is pitiful. I am sure they are evaluated before taking their vows, just as thoroughly as Protestant pastors are before they are ordained into the ministry. I am also sure that those who convert to other Christian denominations have as an average well over a 90 I.Q. All the priests and nuns that I have talked with were bright intelligent people. So lets not mold them into border line idiots.

People change from the Catholic faith because they see all the holes in the poorly defined, complicated and unscriptural doctrines and theology. When nuns or priests leave their church it is only after they are thoroughly convinced that the Bible is the only authority for faith and practice, rather than from some aging, imaginative, prelates from another country. In most cases, the Word of God speaks for itself; you don't have to be great scholars to get the true and faithful message that the Lord wanted to get across to every living soul.

 

That is absolutely true. I was never told I needed to receive Christ. Looking back I am convinced to this very day that none of those priests were ever born again as stated in Jn. 3.

My mother went to Catholic school and never knew what it meant to be a Christian.

In fact we viewed Christians as someone to stay away from. I was told that you never knew if you were ever going to heaven. As I got older I noticed that things in the church began to change. I never got any reasonable answers. I was taught that God never changes. But then I saw the church change. So I asked my mom that if the chruch follows what the Bible teaches then why does it change. From that point on I saw the differences between what I read in the Bible and what I was taught.

More and more as I considered being a priest I noticed the differences in what I read and what I was taught. Later as I studied I noticed more and more.

My mother says she is confused about the changes that she has seen.

 

Gracesaves,

You said...

I dont recall you bringing up a contradiction in any of your posts to me, but I did find this in your post from page 4, but it appears you were adressing "Bob"....

I dont see a problem. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Here is the entire quote where those statements were originally spoken, but the ex-nun...

The contradiction you seem to want to see isnt there. The point she was making, with both quotes, is clear by this statement found in between the 2 quotes, which you didnt quote...

Thats her point, and both of her quotes that you quoted fit perfectly with that.

God bless,

Mike

 

Bob Ryan
"Mioque-- was that simply intended to misdirect the weak?"
That was intended to remind everybody that you haven't changed.

"So far Mioque and Harley have only expressed opposition to these examples of true Christian interest in the Word of God..."
I haven't, I simply pointed out the obvious (that information you provide is not to be taken at face value).

 

"Ex priests and nuns did not have a firm grasp on catholic teaching?"
Especially among nuns this is quite common.

 

How can a church claim that its teachings are infallible when those entrusted with teaching those beliefs don't know them?? How is a person to trust such a church? How does a lay-catholic know if they are sitting under the teaching of a priest/nun who is teaching the "real" teachings of the rcc? Are there divisions, sects, whatever withing the rcc that teach rcc doctrines differently? As a catholic, how do you know which one is right?

These are serious questions, and please do not turn around and apply them to protestant denominations. That subject has been covered, ad nausiem, and protestants as a whole do not make the same claims of complete unity and agreement that the rcc does.

 

Ummm, er, uh, Bob ... 10th century = 1800's you say? I should be the one posting the

 

Hi Priscilla Ann,

You asked, "Why do you assume that ex-Catholics left the Catholic church because they really didn't understand the Catholic faith?"

You misread what I wrote.

Why are you so angry with ex-Catholics?

I'm not.

My son's CCD teacher told him that Catholics who leave the church go to hell.

Rejecting Christ's bride is grave matter. Whether this is an actual sin or not depends on one's knowledge and consent with regard to such matter. Your son's CCD teacher - if he/she said exactly that - is wrong.

My mother insists that there is such a place as Limbo, as that is what she was taught in her Catholic eduction. Now I understand that Limbo is not taught.

Limbo is a theological speculation that Catholics are free to believe or disbelieve. The Church allows for freedom on various issues, such as the possible existence of Limbo.

When I was a child, we were taught to pray for the dead, and to say masses for them, to shorten their time in Purgatory. Now the pope says that Purgatory is a state, not a place.

That is correct. Souls are immaterial, which means that they do not take up space; therefore, Purgatory cannot be a "place", metaphysically speaking.

The point is that even though the Catechism says one thing, that is not necessarily what Catholics have been taught.

And so your conclusion is...?

That Catholics can be taught things that are not Catholic? Assuredly.

That because Catholis are taught things that are not Catholic, Catholic teaching has changed or is self-contradictory? That's a non sequitur.

There may be only one "official" position; however, it is sometimes difficult to get the same answer -- even from two different priests.

You mean, two priests who would go to the same source for the "official" position.

I can go to someone who is ignorant of a teaching and ask them about the teaching, and they can give me an incorrect answer. To do so and then to conclude that Catholics are divided over doctrine is a faulty conclusion.

 

Hi Mike,


I asked you, "Would you please show me where, in Scripture, the Gospel is described as you describe it?," and you responded with If I tried I would still be here 8 hours from now typing away when the sun comes up.

That's a non-answer. If you can't show where in the Bible, it says (in so many words, similar or less), "The Gospel is how you get saved by faith alone wherein you have eternal security," then you have no basis for claiming that the Gospel is what you say it is.

You didnt share the most important part of the Gospel...how one can be justified before God and be eternally saved.

But that is not what Paul describes as the Gospel. Certainly, the Gospel has soteriological implications, but to say that these implications are the Gospel is to redefine the Gospel apart from what the Bible defines it as. You are essentially changing the meaning of Biblical words to suit your own purposes.

That is through faith, and faith alone in Christ substitutionary work on our behalf.

The Bible does not teach this. Since this teaching runs contrary to what the Bible teaches, you should not expect to find it taught in a Catholic Church.

I appreciate that, but that doesnt have anything to do with what we are talking about. This is now, and right now the gospel...or "good news"...is what saves us.

The Gospel hasn't changed, Mike. It is the same today as it was in Paul's day. It certainly matters what it meant for Paul because what it meant for Paul is what it means for us today.

I am a dispensationalist and I do understand that in different dispensations God had dealt with His people in different ways ... through the sacrifice of the animals

If you think that Jews are saved by their animal sacrifices in a different way than we are saved, then you are nullifying Christ's universal prerogative as Saviour. I encourage you to read the Book of Hebrews with regard to what it teaches about animal sacrifice and its efficacy.

Submitting to Gods Kingship will affect our walk here on earth, but that is not a condition for salvation. That would be a gospel of works.

That's not what Paul says. How does Paul start off Romans in the first chapter?

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. not of works, lest any man should boast."

I would encourage you to read this article:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/righteou.htm