Why we left the Catholic Church

Peter J Barban said:

I told the priest that I left the church because they never taught me the gospel of grace, that I didn't accept the Pope's authority and that I wanted to interpret the Bible myself without the guidance of millennia of Church teachings (like praying to Saints), but I was very intent on living for Jesus and serving God as a missionary.

Click to expand...

Although I was never a Catholic, I can fully understand your comments.

I grew up in a very polarised community where Roman Catholics were, in my view, substantially marginalised by the so-called Protestant political majority. It’s an appalling background that never really went away, although society here today is much less sectarian, thankfully. I certainly wouldn’t call myself a Protestant today and I’ve been thankful to have devout Roman Catholics for neighbours.

When I became a Christian at 18 I was influenced by the historic idea in my province that Roman Catholicism along with nationalism should be suppressed through the ballot box. Along the way I shook off the divisive political angle and took the time to look much closer at the Roman Catholic faith.

What has struck me most over the years, and what truly astonishes me more than anything else, is the vast gulf I found between Roman Catholic Magisterium dogma and the fullness of the Gospel message in Scripture (the Magisterium is “the [Roman Catholic] Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion”).

My insurmountable problem with the Roman Catholic system is its dogmatic determination to rank Tradition as authoritative and indispensable as God-breathed Scripture. It's this Tradition that gives Roman Catholicism its distinctive characteristics. If we lay aside every dogma and teaching of the Roman position and use Scripture alone to define the fullness of the Gospel message, do we need anything that Roman Catholicism has to offer?

To be fair, how does that work out in actual practice for me? Well, every aspect of Christian teaching, and every aspect of my salvation and daily walk of faith in Christ, and every aspect of the practices of my local church, are catered for by Scripture. This secure day-to-day reality (that I’ve known for over 40 years) calls into question the Roman Catholic system in general, and its infallible Tradition in particular.

SamInNi said:

Well, every aspect of Christian teaching, and every aspect of my salvation and daily walk of faith in Christ, and every aspect of the practices of my local church, are catered for by Scripture.

Click to expand...

And that would be your church's interpretation of Scripture. And that is what all churches must do and that is part of what distinguished them. It is part of what makes a community of faith, shared beliefs and interpretations. If one can no longer share the particular beliefs and interpretations, the community no longer feels right.

Hello Akita.

Unfortunately that's a very common but unworkable position to hold to. At best its a misleading line of argumentation because the focus then immediately shifts to another very important subject: Does unique Roman Catholic Tradition help to define and clarify Bible teaching, or does it in fact very often directly clash with it?

The problem with boiling everything down to the level of local church interpretation is it sidesteps the fixed clarity of essential biblical doctrine, as if if was so obscure we cannot reach a clear understanding of Salvation, our daily walk of faith, and church practices without the Roman Catholic system's assistance. (This definite understanding and those church practices were uniformly understood in the 4 churches I've attended over the decades, 3 of them non-demoninational.)

Sadly, the arrogance that decrees Scripture can only be correctly interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church should take our breath away. And the ways in which that system runs around on Scripture is well documented, should anyone wish to look deeper into it.

SamInNi said:

Hello Akita.

Unfortunately that's a very common but unworkable position to hold to. At best its a misleading line of argumentation because the focus then immediately shifts to another very important subject: Does unique Roman Catholic Tradition help to define and clarify Bible teaching, or does it in fact very often directly clash with it?

Click to expand...

The belief, which is without any Scriptural basis, is that it supplements the Bible because it supposedly is a second stream of divine revelation equal to the Bible. It's not just that this theory that has been arbitrarily labelled "Sacred Tradition" clarifies Holy Scripture.

SamInNi said:

Unfortunately that's a very common but unworkable position to hold to. At best its a misleading line of argumentation because the focus then immediately shifts to another very important subject: Does unique Roman Catholic Tradition help to define and clarify Bible teaching, or does it in fact very often directly clash with it?

Click to expand...

I think you will find that most, if not all of the dogmas taught by His Church can be backed up by scripture. I think you'll find the problem is that most will disagree with His Church's interpretation of the specific scripture that backs up each dogma.

concretecamper said:

I think you will find that most, if not all of the dogmas taught by His Church can be backed up by scripture. I think you'll find the problem is that most will disagree with His Church's interpretation of the specific scripture that backs up each dogma.

Click to expand...

Could you possibly work in the words "His Church" a third or fourth time? There might be some reader who didn't get the point that you believe your own denomination is the only true church and we're all supposed to know it.

SamInNi said:

The problem with boiling everything down to the level of local church interpretation is it sidesteps the fixed clarity of essential biblical doctrine, as if if was so obscure we cannot reach a clear understanding of Salvation, our daily walk of faith, and church practices without the Roman Catholic system's assistance

Click to expand...

the belief in the necessity of Baptism for Salvation was a universal belief amongst Christians. Today, you have many protestant denominations teaching the exact opposite (based on scripture). This departure should have every Christian quaking in their boots.

Albion said:

Could you possibly work in the words "His Church" a third or fourth time? There might be some reader who didn't get the point that you believe your own denomination is the only true church.

Click to expand...

well I'm not talking about Henry VIII's church am I.

concretecamper said:

the belief in the necessity of Baptism for Salvation was a universal belief amongst Christians. Today, you have many protestant denominations teaching the exact opposite (based on scripture). This departure should have every Christian quaking in their boots.

Click to expand...

Instinctively, I want to agree with you.

However, it's your church's Pope who says (and so do many Catholic laypersons and clergy) that pagans who've never known Christ can be saved simply by being good pagans!

That theory seems a lot worse than thinking that sacramental Baptism is not an absolute necessity for salvation, especially since the Roman Catholic Church also teaches "Baptism of Desire" which excuses people from sacramental Baptism if it's not available to them for some reason.

Albion said:

Instinctively, I want to agree with you

Click to expand...

but you just cant, huh?

Albion said:

However, it's your church's Pope who says (and so do many Catholic laypersons and clergy) that pagans who've never known Christ can be saved simply by being good pagans!

Click to expand...

everything the pope says is not true. He liberally expounded on what the Church has always taught. He is, as Bishops and priests are, as we all are, entitled to our opinion. What matters is what the Church teaches.

Albion said:

That theory seems a lot worse than thinking that sacramental Baptism is not an absolute necessity for salvation, especially since the Roman Catholic Church also teaches "Baptism of Desire" which excuses people from sacramental Baptism if it's not available to them for some reason

Click to expand...

Catecumens explicitly have the intent of Baptism. I dont see a problem here.

SamInNi said:

The problem with boiling everything down to the level of local church interpretation is it sidesteps the fixed clarity of essential biblical doctrine, as if if was so obscure we cannot reach a clear understanding of Salvation, our daily walk of faith, and church practices without the Roman Catholic system's assistance.

Click to expand...

Your position is in itself is a particular theological interpretation, whether your local church holds it or it is your own view. Some things, are indeed, very clear, "Love one another as I have loved you." for example. But the particulars of living it out give opportunity for guidance, good or bad. Westboro Baptist Church, for example.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Your position is in itself is a particular theological interpretation, whether your local church holds it or it is your own view. Some things, are indeed, very clear, "Love one another as I have loved you." for example. But the particulars of living it out give opportunity for guidance, good or bad. Westboro Baptist Church, for example.

Click to expand...

One tiny congregation that is criticized by almost everyone on all sides of these debates does not make much of an example or object lesson about anything, however.

Albion said:

One tiny congregation that is criticized by almost everyone on all sides of these debates does not make much of an example or object lesson about anything, however.

Click to expand...

Come now, there are many points that churches differ on. Why do you think there are so many?

Akita Suggagaki said:

Come now, there are many points that churches differ on. Why do you think there are so many?

Click to expand...

I was referring to your choice of the Westboro Baptist Church as being somehow typical of Protestantism.

Albion said:

I was referring to your choice of the Westboro Baptist Church as being somehow typical of Protestantism.

Click to expand...

the Westboro Baptist Church displays the phenomenon of protestantism quite well. It's all about what I think scripture teaches

concretecamper said:

the Westboro Baptist Church displays the phenomenon of protestantism quite well.

Click to expand...

That's just silly. Hot air.

If we like Westboro or if we despise Westboro or if we don't know what to make of Westboro, the one thing we can be sure of is that Westboro is not known for displaying anything that can be seen as typical of Protestantism.

Albion said:

That's just silly. Hot air.

If we like Westboro or if we despise Westboro or if we don't know what to make of Westboro, the one thing we can be sure of is that Westboro is not known for displaying anything that can be seen as typical of Protestantism.

Click to expand...

except as concretecampersays, independence..."what I think".

Akita Suggagaki said:

except as concretecampersays, independence..."what I think".

Click to expand...

Even that is patently false. It's a fave of Catholic debaters but it doesn't have a shred of truth to it.

To put it into perspective for you, that claim is like the flip side of what some uninformed Fundamentalists say (and probably believe) when charging that "Catholics worship the Pope."

Albion said:

Even that is patently false. It's a fave of Catholic debaters but it doesn't have a shred of truth to it.

Click to expand...

Then why so many churches?

Akita Suggagaki said:

except as concretecampersays, independence..."what I think".

Click to expand...

notice he ommitted the real meaning of my post. A tactic used to say " nothing here, look over there"