Three reasons why people rejected Jesus are the same three reasons people reject...

[Michie]

...the Church

Are three reasons why people reject the Catholic Church today. I’ve been thinking about this for some time, ruminating about the common objections I hear against Catholicism. They can be summarized in three distinct yet overlapping categories: ontological, moral and epistemic.
On the first, many deny that the Catholic Church is who She says She is.

This is the ontological objection. They deny the “who” and therefore dismiss Her as a fraud or mere denomination. The second, the moral, is the complaint that the Catholic Church is full of sinners. Luther had this problem — although he admitted his solution did not fix it per se, just covered it up with snow (insert laugh) — and so too today, especially in lieu of the abuse scandal, is the Church riddled with accusations — true as it is — of being a house of sinners. We are teeming with them. Lastly, the epistemic complaint is that the Catholic Church claims to always be right, to speak with infallible veracity — or so it goes. I know better, says the reply, the Bible tells me so, looky here, or something like it is leveled against what appears on the outside an egomaniacal power-play. Who does the Catholic Church think she is?

Of course, all of these complaints could be leveled against Christ. In that way, the Catholic Church can claim She is eerily similar to Her head. [Hold your objections for a moment and keep reading] On one point the analogy seems to go afoul as Christ is not full of sin, but I will explain the parallel in a moment. Let’s consider these three objections, not so much with the Catholic Church in mind, but rather with Christ himself as our referent. I will then return to the Church and ask you to consider how the logic of the objections (notice I did not say legitimacy) against Christ have equal force upon the Church.

Again, I am emphasizing the logic of the objections as distinct from the factual legitimacy of the objections. I make this distinction because generally we accept or reject a statement based on the former. We almost never have the facts before us nor have we properly investigated them. Therefore, we consider the logic of a statement, and upon those merits, accept it or reject it. What is at stake then is the first push-back many non-Catholics have regarding Catholicism, which is at the level of logic not evidence. What I will show is that the Christian objector to Catholicism does not fairly apply this logic and has likely not considered the evidence, something I am not claiming will necessarily require them to become Catholic but will hopefully make their objections to Her less canard-like.
1.

Continued-
Three reasons why people rejected Jesus are the same three reasons people reject the Church...

 

[MKJ]

I didn't read all of this, but given it's characterization of why Luther left the CC, it seems a little hard to take it seriously.

 

[Fantine]

Here's my read on the author.

He presumably lives in the United States, where, it came out in the media, "the second largest denomination in the country would be 'ex-Catholic.'"

(I'm presuming that that doesn't include the people whom he would regard as "not Catholic enough" for him.)

But let's look at the ex-Catholics....if there are 75 million Catholics in the U.S., let's say there are 30 million "ex-Catholics." Just theorizing.

Does he know all 30 million of them? Does he presume to know why any of them left, much less all 30 million?

And there--in the author's argument--is the answer.

The answer is not moral, epistimological, etc.

The answer is that the Church, like the author, doesn't look at them as individuals. Their expectation is that they are all the same--in belief, behavior, and culture. And if they deviate from the idealized "norm," then they should getouttathere....

Just like the nuns who--surprise--had become their own persons.

Jesus, on the other hand, relished people's individuality. It's amazing to see how much good psychology he used in the Gospels.

 

[StThomasMore]

Here's my read on the author.

He presumably lives in the United States, where, it came out in the media, "the second largest denomination in the country would be 'ex-Catholic.'"

(I'm presuming that that doesn't include the people whom he would regard as "not Catholic enough" for him.)

But let's look at the ex-Catholics....if there are 75 million Catholics in the U.S., let's say there are 30 million "ex-Catholics." Just theorizing.

Does he know all 30 million of them? Does he presume to know why any of them left, much less all 30 million?

And there--in the author's argument--is the answer.

The answer is not moral, epistimological, etc.

The answer is that the Church, like the author, doesn't look at them as individuals. Their expectation is that they are all the same--in belief, behavior, and culture. And if they deviate from the idealized "norm," then they should getouttathere....

Just like the nuns who--surprise--had become their own persons.

Jesus, on the other hand, relished people's individuality. It's amazing to see how much good psychology he used in the Gospels.

No, just ....no...

Go read the Gospel of John

There were 2 things Jesus was most concerned about. Whether you accepted him as the one God had sent and as God's Son, and whether you believe that he gave the gift of eternal life through his grace. Basically, to give us Truth. "Truth,What is truth", Pilate asks Jesus. Did Jesus say to Pilate "it is whatever you as an individual you think it as?"


If he doesn't deny mother , father, brother, sister and family, then he is not worth to be my disciple?

Whoever doesn't not believe in the Son does not have eternal life?

Those are concrete bold statements that refuse to waver to the individual. It is one reason why the Jews had such a hard time accepting his teaching.

Those are Jesus's word. Doesn't sound like individualism to me. He came with one message, which was to give eternal life to those who believed, you were with him or against him. He even calls his disciplines his sheep. And that his sheep recognize him and follow him where He goes

There is nothing individual about Jesus's teaching. Maybe you are too indoctrinated by those LCWR nuns who treat him as some new age teacher. The gospel doesn't teach that.

We are a herd with a Shepard. Not a individual lost sheep falling into a well that has no Shepard

If you want a religion that thrives on individualism, then look into the eastern religions, like Buddhism or the New Age. But don't portray Jesus as this individualistic Buddhist type teacher, he never gave us that option. Jesus only gave us 3 individual options as to our opinion 1. He is a liar, 2. He is crazy, 3. He is God in the flesh

 

[Rhamiel]

Here's my read on the author.

He presumably lives in the United States, where, it came out in the media, "the second largest denomination in the country would be 'ex-Catholic.'"

(I'm presuming that that doesn't include the people whom he would regard as "not Catholic enough" for him.)

But let's look at the ex-Catholics....if there are 75 million Catholics in the U.S., let's say there are 30 million "ex-Catholics." Just theorizing.

Does he know all 30 million of them? Does he presume to know why any of them left, much less all 30 million?

And there--in the author's argument--is the answer.

The answer is not moral, epistimological, etc.

The answer is that the Church, like the author, doesn't look at them as individuals. Their expectation is that they are all the same--in belief, behavior, and culture. And if they deviate from the idealized "norm," then they should getouttathere....

Just like the nuns who--surprise--had become their own persons.

Jesus, on the other hand, relished people's individuality. It's amazing to see how much good psychology he used in the Gospels.

well there are not really many reasons to leave a religion
1 people leave because they do not think it is teaching the truth
2 they leave because they do not like the people
3 they leave because they do not think the spiritual life matters (though this could fall under reason number 1 as in they do not believe that what the religion is teaching is as important as they say it is)

 

[fhansen]

...the Church

Are three reasons why people reject the Catholic Church today. I’ve been thinking about this for some time, ruminating about the common objections I hear against Catholicism. They can be summarized in three distinct yet overlapping categories: ontological, moral and epistemic.
On the first, many deny that the Catholic Church is who She says She is.

This is the ontological objection. They deny the “who” and therefore dismiss Her as a fraud or mere denomination. The second, the moral, is the complaint that the Catholic Church is full of sinners. Luther had this problem — although he admitted his solution did not fix it per se, just covered it up with snow (insert laugh) — and so too today, especially in lieu of the abuse scandal, is the Church riddled with accusations — true as it is — of being a house of sinners. We are teeming with them. Lastly, the epistemic complaint is that the Catholic Church claims to always be right, to speak with infallible veracity — or so it goes. I know better, says the reply, the Bible tells me so, looky here, or something like it is leveled against what appears on the outside an egomaniacal power-play. Who does the Catholic Church think she is?

Of course, all of these complaints could be leveled against Christ. In that way, the Catholic Church can claim She is eerily similar to Her head. [Hold your objections for a moment and keep reading] On one point the analogy seems to go afoul as Christ is not full of sin, but I will explain the parallel in a moment. Let’s consider these three objections, not so much with the Catholic Church in mind, but rather with Christ himself as our referent. I will then return to the Church and ask you to consider how the logic of the objections (notice I did not say legitimacy) against Christ have equal force upon the Church.



Continued-
Three reasons why people rejected Jesus are the same three reasons people reject the Church...

Yes, interesting. I came back to the Church once I had 1) come to genuinely recognize that we're all sinners, including me, and 2) began to appreciate the authority that God gave to the Church, and appreciate the reason why He gave her that authority. Little by little I came to recognize Who she is, something greater than her human numbers, and in spite of her members and the way they sometimes misrepresent or fail to heed her gospel.

 

[Fantine]

People leave because the Church bills itself as "one size fits all" and they learn that it's not even "one size fits most."

And a lot of those who stay are those who are willing to put up with an imperfect fit and not adverse to letting out a seam or taking down a hem.

 

[Athanasias]

People leave because the Church bills itself as "one size fits all" and they learn that it's not even "one size fits most."

And a lot of those who stay are those who are willing to put up with an imperfect fit and not adverse to letting out a seam or taking down a hem.

It depends on what you mean by imperfect. If you mean the people are imperfect then sure. But so are all denominations and all religions so good luck on that. If you mean imperfect by doctrine and teachings then you have to beleive that Jesus is imperfect and your argument is with God not with us.

 

[Fantine]

It depends on what you mean by imperfect. If you mean the people are imperfect then sure. But so are all denominations and all religions so good luck on that. If you mean imperfect by doctrine and teachings then you have to beleive that Jesus is imperfect and your argument is with God not with us.

There are many millions, perhaps even a billion, Christians, who believe that Jesus is perfect but don't accept that the Church is the "perfect" interpreter of doctrines and teachings.

And when the Church says that Jesus said "The Church will be the perfect interpreter of doctrines and teachings," they are giving THEIR interpretation of what Jesus said.

Saying that people who reject the Church reject Jesus is, I believe, the height of arrogance and intolerance.

 

[Athanasias]

There are many millions, perhaps even a billion, Christians, who believe that Jesus is perfect but don't accept that the Church is the "perfect" interpreter of doctrines and teachings.

And when the Church says that Jesus said "The Church will be the perfect interpreter of doctrines and teachings," they are giving THEIR interpretation of what Jesus said.

Saying that people who reject the Church reject Jesus is, I believe, the height of arrogance and intolerance.

So ok your being clear here. Are you Catholic? Or are you uneducated in the catholic faith? Or are you just rebellious like Satan, Eve,and Luther etc? Because those million of Christians who don't accept the church correctly interprets Jesus teachings are either 1) Protestant 2). do not properly understand the faith(which is many Catholics) or 3) Dissenters who think they know better then the Church Jesus founded and died for?

What does Jesus say of his Church??

"He who hears you hears me"(LK 10:16)

"Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"(Matt 18:15-19, Matt 16:13-19)

 

[Fantine]

Living in an area with a very small Catholic population (for the first time in my life) I have heard people from other churches, often the churches of their birth, justify their own churches' claims of legitimacy.

I respect their beliefs, and I am often inspired by how some of them live out their Christianity.

They could quote the exact same Bible verses you quote and not interpret them the same way you do.

And personally, I have never found bluster and bombast to be particularly effective tools for evangelism.

 

[fhansen]

Living in an area with a very small Catholic population (for the first time in my life) I have heard people from other churches, often the churches of their birth, justify their own churches' claims of legitimacy.

I respect their beliefs, and I am often inspired by how some of them live out their Christianity.

I'm often inspired by how non-believers live out Christianity.

They could quote the exact same Bible verses you quote and not interpret them the same way you do.

But this is the point, isn't it? Sola Scriptura fails as a useful doctrine as is evident by the diversity of interpretations-sometimes widely divergent on important matters-and most non-Catholic as well as non-Eastern Orthodox churches claim to rely exclusively on scripture for their understanding of the gospel-while the earliest churches don't; they rely also on their lived, historical Tradition.

 

[Athanasias]

Living in an area with a very small Catholic population (for the first time in my life) I have heard people from other churches, often the churches of their birth, justify their own churches' claims of legitimacy.

I respect their beliefs, and I am often inspired by how some of them live out their Christianity.

They could quote the exact same Bible verses you quote and not interpret them the same way you do.

And personally, I have never found bluster and bombast to be particularly effective tools for evangelism.

So your not going to answer the question then??? Here is the question again. Are you Catholic? Or are you uneducated in the catholic faith? Or are you just rebellious like Satan, Eve,and Luther etc? Because those million of Christians who don't accept the church correctly interprets Jesus teachings are either 1) Protestant 2). do not properly understand the faith(which is many Catholics) or 3) Dissenters who think they know better then the Church Jesus founded and died for?

 

[Fantine]

The subject is the article posted by the OP.

The question is whether, when self-appointed Catholic authors tell non-Catholic Christians, former Catholics, and everyone else that they are rejecting Jesus if they reject Catholicism, they are helpful or hateful.

Whether they are evangelizing or polarizing.

The answer is a no-brainer.

 

[Rhamiel]

People leave because the Church bills itself as "one size fits all" and they learn that it's not even "one size fits most."

And a lot of those who stay are those who are willing to put up with an imperfect fit and not adverse to letting out a seam or taking down a hem.

i am kind of confused
I know you and me argue back and forth sometimes but i allways try to be respectful
I am not baiting you, I really am not sure what you mean

 

[Fantine]

What I mean is that all Catholics are different.

And everyone has his or her own unique perspective on the Church and the role it plays in his or her own spiritual life, relationship with God, etc.

I don't have expectations about other Catholics' orthodoxy. They're there, praying next to me, that's enough.

The rest is none of my business, and none of yours.

I've never met anyone who was bullied into being a Catholic, although I know Lydia made her slaves convert....and that Spanish conquistadors often foisted Christianity on the Indians.

 

[QuantaCura]

The subject is the article posted by the OP.

The question is whether, when self-appointed Catholic authors tell non-Catholic Christians, former Catholics, and everyone else that they are rejecting Jesus if they reject Catholicism, they are helpful or hateful.

Whether they are evangelizing or polarizing.

The answer is a no-brainer.

But what if it's true? Shouldn't the truth be spoken in and out of season? As St. Joan of Arc said, "About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they're just one thing, and we shouldn't complicate the matter." (Acts of the Trial of Joan of Arc, cf. CCC 795 citing Sts. Joan, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Gregory).

Or Pope John Paul I in his general audience on September 13, 1978:

Read St Paul: "Corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia". Christ and the Church are only one thing. Christ is the Head, we, the Church, are his limbs. It is not possible to have faith and to say, "I believe in Jesus, I accept Jesus but I do not accept the Church." We must accept the Church, as she is. And what is this Church like? Pope John called her "Mater et Magistra". Teacher also. St Paul said: "Let everyone accept us as Christ's aids and stewards and dispensers of his mysteries."

When the poor Pope, when the bishops, the priests, propose the doctrine, they are merely helping Christ. It is not our doctrine, it is Christ's: we must just guard it and present it.

Or more recently, Pope Benedict XVI (Audience, March 15, 2006):

With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one. The fact that he entrusted to his Apostles, during the Last Supper and before his Passion, the duty to celebrate his Pasch, demonstrates how Jesus wished to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the mandate to be a sign and instrument in history of the eschatological gathering begun by him. In a certain sense we can say that the Last Supper itself is the act of foundation of the Church, because he gives himself and thus creates a new community, a community united in communion with himself.

In this light, one understands how the Risen One confers upon them, with the effusion of the Spirit, the power to forgive sins (cf. Jn 20: 23). Thus, the Twelve Apostles are the most evident sign of Jesus' will regarding the existence and mission of his Church, the guarantee that between Christ and the Church there is no opposition: despite the sins of the people who make up the Church, they are inseparable.

Therefore, a slogan that was popular some years back: "Jesus yes, Church no", is totally inconceivable with the intention of Christ. This individualistically chosen Jesus is an imaginary Jesus.

We cannot have Jesus without the reality he created and in which he communicates himself. Between the Son of God-made-flesh and his Church there is a profound, unbreakable and mysterious continuity by which Christ is present today in his people.

 

[Fantine]

I have apparently been a member of OBOB for 7 years, and in all those seven years, I have hardly ever seen someone accomplish that inoffensively....

And, in most cases, it seems as if they go out of their way to offend.

In addition, the bishops who seem to be most admired by the typical OBOB member--Cardinal Burke, for example--also seem to be completely unable to make a speech without offending and polarizing people.

And if one cannot make his point without being offensive, he is doing more harm than good.