-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Catholic Priests leaving the RCC
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
GraceSaves
New Member
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.
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.
GraceSaves
New Member
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,
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
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
GraceSaves
New Member
Mike,
Please address the two contradictions I have posted.
Please address the two contradictions I have posted.
Ray Berrian
New Member
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.
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...
Here is the entire quote where those statements were originally spoken, but the ex-nun...
God bless,
Mike
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).
"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).
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The Roman Catholic Church declares that God's authority is not sufficient to oblige men to believe and bow to it; it seeks to place church authority above God's authority."
How true.
Recall the RCC claim for Sunday (whether you agree with their argument or not - they make it). They argue that "nothing is said in the Bible" about a change from Sabbath to Sunday and yet the Sabbath commandment is "Changed" by them "alone" and though it is a change to God's Law - it stands on their authority. They even use that argument as a dig against "sola scriptura" in "The Faith Explained".
In Christ,
Bob
How true.
Recall the RCC claim for Sunday (whether you agree with their argument or not - they make it). They argue that "nothing is said in the Bible" about a change from Sabbath to Sunday and yet the Sabbath commandment is "Changed" by them "alone" and though it is a change to God's Law - it stands on their authority. They even use that argument as a dig against "sola scriptura" in "The Faith Explained".
In Christ,
Bob
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.
Harley4Him
New Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
10th century you say? (1800'S for Harley)
How "relavent".
Ummm, er, uh, Bob ... 10th century = 1800's you say? I should be the one posting the
Brother Adam
New Member
Originally posted by JustAsIAm:
Originally posted by mioque:
Especially among nuns this is quite common.
Source?
How can a church claim that its teachings are infallible when those entrusted with teaching those beliefs don't know them??
Do those on this board that are Catholic strike you as people who don't know their faith? There may be a priest or two, or more out there who end up teaching something incorrect for some reason. We know it happens in protestant churches.
How is a person to trust such a church?
The scriptures and the catachism are there for all to read. So is the GIRM, vatican documents, and various other sources. It is interesting to listen in to what Catholics argue about to each other. The last discussion I read was on if one should sit or stand during the Lord's Supper.
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?
Almost the same way you double check your pastor.
Are there divisions, sects, whatever withing the rcc that teach rcc doctrines differently?
Not if they want to remain in the RCC. Remember that the Roman rite, is only one of several rites in Catholicism. Remember also that the rites do not differ on matters of faith, but on such things as style of worship and other cultural influences.
As a catholic, how do you know which one is right?
Can't answer that one for you.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
So true Ray. However there are those whose minds can only "grasp" for one failed defense of Catholicism after another - and for them - "any excuse" will do to turn from accepting her testimony.
I applaud those however - who can appreciate the "light" that shines.
Recall that the RC's agents urged Charles V to that perfidity on his part would be ok with a heretic Just as it was with Sigismund's Word to Huss. They urge him to ignore his promise of safe conduct granted Luther for appearing at his trial.
Charles responded "No. We must keep our Promise". Later when they urged this treachery upon him again Charles V said "Though honor and faith should be banished from all the world, they ought to find refuge in the hearts of princes".
Finally when they urged that treachery is best when dealing with those that oppose the RCC from within the church, just as was done by Sigismund to Huss - Charles response was "I should not like to blush like Sigismund" as his promise of safe conduct had been trown back into Sigismund's face by Huss.
Maybe that item about "Causistry" is simply referring to "a little bit of history".
In Christ,
Bob
Originally posted by Brother Adam:
How is a person to trust such a church?
The scriptures and the catachism are there for all to read. So is the GIRM, vatican documents, and various other sources. It is interesting to listen in to what Catholics argue about to each other. The last discussion I read was on if one should sit or stand during the Lord's Supper.
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?
Almost the same way you double check your pastor.
My pastor tells me to always go back to the Word of God to double check anything he preaches. He admits without hesitation that he is a man, and a fallible one at that. I agree with you, catholics should be able to go back to their own documents to confirm that what the priest is teaching is correct rcc doctrine. In all my years as a catholic, I never had a priest suggest that I question him on matters of faith. Before you say it, I know, my experience with priests does not include every priest in the world, or even close to that.
My point here is that Carson especially seems frustrated with the average catholic not knowing church teachings. Someone here even said that the priests and nuns leaving the church don't understand church dogma. How can that be? If a person grows up and participates (RCIA, CCD) in a church, shouldn't they be taught what that church believes?? If they are being taught differently, isn't the church to blame too? The priest and or nun has to go through official rcc schools (I'm assuming. Do they do mail order or home study
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
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.
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.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
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
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
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Harley4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
10th century you say? (1800'S for Harley)
How "relavent".
Ummm, er, uh, Bob ... 10th century = 1800's you say? I should be the one posting the
</font>[/QUOTE]Good point! What a place to misskey!
