romaneagle13 said:
Well, I always said that most Catholics (not many of the ones on here though--they seem to be a very conservative minority) are really Episcopalians and just don't know it.
The problem is that for a lot of folks, being a Roman Catholic is more a question of social and ethnic identity than of religion. There are a sizeable portion of RCC members who never attend mass and don't have many real beliefs in common with the Pope or, in some cases even Christianity as a whole, but would rather die than become a Protestant. It's just one of those things bred into you. I have an uncle who isn't even really a theist in the traditional sense, but can still be pretty criticial of Protestants. My Jewish friend dated a Roman Catholic, who was perfectly willing to date a Jew, but snarled whenever Protestanism was mentioned. It's just sort of inculcated in some folks growing up. I was an agnostic non-church attender for over ten years, but when my family got really upset is when I actually started attending church again and it wasn't a Roman Catholic one.
The other thing of course is that many Roman Catholics have the impression they'll go to hell if "become apostate". The RCC has a strong psychological grip over a lot of people. I really have major problems with what they do over there, to be perfectly honest. It's not a problem I have with Roman Catholics themselves -- my entire extended family, some friends, and so forth are Roman Catholic and I really like them all dearly. I even agree with some Roman Catholics theologically, because they so often disagree with their magisterium without really being aware of it.
It's just the structure itself that I feel needs massive reformation (Yup, I'm a Protestant
).
It's one of those things that just isn't visible from the outside or to someone with a slight association with Roman Catholicism. It's subtle. But I think we ex-Catholics have a special understanding of it. I get really upset when people try to say the RCC isn't that different from ECUSA or Lutheranism, because it is different in some very important ways. There is something intrinsically wrong with a religion that maintains a normal fallible human being has a direct line to God and implies you'll be tortured eternally if you oppose his theology, and which denies communion to those who support homosexuals, Democrats, and the like. They use God's gift of his body and blood as a weapon (by threatening denial) to control people and force them to obey their commands. They subvert the gospel to prop up their own authority and claim they have a monopoly on salvation and forgiveness, which properly belong to God. Historically, it gets even worse, because they've used the name of God to torture and kill people *here in this world* in crusades and inquisitions. I don't think God can be happy with those who are responsible for misuing his gifts and subverting his will in those ways.
Whole generations of Roman Catholics grow up in fear. That fear that the cross isn't enough, that they have to do a zillion little things to gain God's approval. They fear that God will damn them if they unrepentedly fail to fullfill their "Sunday obligation" and miss mass, don't attend confession, or use birth control pills. Those sort of scare tactics are unworthy of a church, but it's implicit in their theology, even though the leadership is wise enough to duck and dodge and deny they think these things in words that reading between the lines really don't even fully deny it. I don't believe in that God. I trust in the cross, which is to say, I trust in God's love. I don't trust in man, even if he's a man who lives in Rome, wears neat looking vestments, and claims he's something he's not. If Peter had acted the way the present day Popes act, there'd be no Christianity today. The clear testimony of the Acts of the Apostles is that he did not, though, praise be to God.
[Edited to Add: It has come to my attention that some have objected to what they perceived as being a mischaracterization of Roman Catholic belief and practice in this post. In the spirit of charity towards my brothers and sisters in Christ who accord special reverence to the Bishop of Rome, and out of respect to the person who brought this to my attention, I wish to note here that the Roman Catholic Church does not directly affirm the use of the word "weapon" in reference to communion in it's discipline, doctrines, or dogmas; and instead affirms what I view as an incorrect interpretation of the scriptural admonition that one must receive communion in a worthy manner or eat judgement against himself (or herself) in order to justify their communion practices (I would be happy to elaborate on my view versus the RCC view in another post upon request). Though I believe the implication of their theology is that communion is in fact used as an instrument of control (i.e. a weapon), I acknowledge freely that that there are many believers within Roman Catholicism who support the policy of their church due to their interpretation of scripture or their unconditional acceptance of the authority of the Pope, and not out of any alterior motive or ill-will towards their fellow Christians.
Additionally, I am told that there is a doctrine within Roman Catholicism that those who are honestly unware that what they are doing is wrong may not be liable for judgement on that particular action due to what is known as "invincible ignorance", which I again note by request. Of course, this begs the question of how preventing people from receiving communion is in fact protecting them from judgement, since they would be "invincibly ignorant" and thus not subject to judgement for their "sin" of following Christ's command to eat his body and drink his blood... *cough, cough* inconsistancy *cough, cough*]
John
)
)
