Rejecting Catholicism???

[WinePusher]

I notice there is a pretty large amount of people who belong to the "Rejected Catholicism" usergroup?

1) Would you please list your reasons as to why you rejected catholicism? If you don't want to, that's fine.

[fredonly]

I notice there is a pretty large amount of people who belong to the "Rejected Catholicism" usergroup?

1) Would you please list your reasons as to why you rejected catholicism? If you don't want to, that's fine.

I attended Catholic schools for 12 years. In elementary school, I was taught catechism and Bible in the traditional way, by nuns. I accepted all of it - I had no reason to doubt. In high school, I was taught by priests, who were relatively liberal. Some of my high school theology courses encouraged me to think on my own, and do my own exploration. During these times, I reflected back on my elementary school education, and could not escape the fact that this was indoctrination - we were told what to believe, and never provided a justification for the belief. I realized I was Catholic because I was raised and educated to be Catholic. If Catholicism and Christianity were true, I would need to see the case for it. I took a class in comparative religions at this key point in my questioning - and it reinforced my observation that everyone believed what they were taught to believe.

It was now abundantly clear that religious beliefs are subjective, and that objective religious truth (if there is any) would take effort to find. The more I looked, the more I could see bias and indoctrination in the teachings of all religions. In my case, I could see the bias even in my classes in history and literature. This really pissed me off and motivated me to look deeper and to strive for objectivity. But my attempts at objectivity led to increasing skepticism. Around 11th grade, I decided I was agnostic. The priests assured me I would eventually come back, and with a much stronger faith. It hasn't happened yet, but I do continue exploring from time to time. Joining this forum is part of my continuing exploration. I invite people to prove me wrong. Time's running out - since I'm now 57.

[HeatherAnn]

I surely know how you feel about how it felt being put into a situation with no choice to decide...I also know how Catholics are myself and to a point they are in a way correct about what they said to you even if you have not noticed.After all you were in school for all those years I'm sure that your life does reflect Catholic religion in some ways. After all the religion of Christianity goes the same by giving no one a choice and thinking that they are now the only religion when there are different types and surely always will be.

That was were a similar experience occured was within Christianity and I have went to churches with different religions. I do still like Catholic religion though and I know its not for everybody.I hope one day that someone can prove it to you since your time seems to be running out and it's good to know that you are still researching to find out for sure.

[Adstar]

I belonged to the group at first, but decided to remove it because I want to be defined by what I am for rather than what I am against.

My reasons for rejecting Catholicism (there are probably some that I am forgetting):

• Veneration of idols (relics)
• Mary died sinless
• Mary died a virgin
• Prayer to Mary
• Mary as co-mediatrix (mediator) with Christ
• Prayer to other dead people (invoking saints)
• Papacy
• Papal succession
• Pope taking the title, "Vicar of Christ"
• Papal infallibility while speaking ex cathedra
• Transubstantiation
• Purgatory
• Penance (we cannot atone for our own sins in any manner)
• Church has authority to pass judgment on and interpret Scripture for members
• Mass/Eucharist is an actual real propitiatory sacrifice offered on behalf of living and dead people
• Salvation is only found within the Catholic Church
• Sacred Tradition is authoritative in addition to Scripture

According to the Council of Trent, the above must be believed to be a Catholic. These teachings cannot be found explicitly in the 66 books of the Bible, and in some cases are explicitly contrary to the Bible, therefore I reject Catholicism and its dogma.

I am answering because the nature of the OP seems to be merely asking "why" and didn't seem like it was intended for debate. I've debated this recently and am a bit burned out on it for the time being. It seems like debating it is futile anyhow, as neither side, since the Reformation, has shown any intention of budging an inch. It is what it is, and certain people are attracted to one or the other and almost seem predisposed to it.

I would actually agree with many points on your list, so I'd appropriately be considered a heretic in some ways. But there are some on your list that I do believe in and assert, and I'll try to give a defense of them later on in the week.

I cannot see how you could agree with any of the points listed and still be a catholic. Being a catholic means accepting the official position of the catholic church on all religious matters.

You cannot disagree with any catholic church teaching and still call yourself a catholic because if you do disagree with the catholic church teaching are not a catholic.


All Praise The Ancient of Days

PS Oh I was raised a catholic so i guess 1 belong to that group. But like fewwillfindit i prefer to stand up for what i believe instead of spending my time attacking what i do not believe.

[fredonly]

You cannot disagree with any catholic church teaching and still call yourself a catholic because if you do disagree with the catholic church teaching are not a catholic.

I believe a Catholic is anyone who has been baptized into the Catholic faith and who is allowed to receive the sacraments. This is based on my reading of the article on excommunication in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Internal failings, e.g. doubts entertained against the Catholic Faith, cannot incur excommunication."

I therefore think that even "Cafeteria Catholics," who reject some of the teachings, still qualify as Catholics.

[Adstar]

You cannot disagree with any catholic church teaching and still call yourself a catholic because if you do disagree with the catholic church teaching are not a catholic.

I believe a Catholic is anyone who has been baptized into the Catholic faith and who is allowed to receive the sacraments. This is based on my reading of the article on excommunication in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

I was baptised (water baptism) into the catholic religion and i guess i could go down to the local catholic church and take part in communion. I know the drill. Went to church every Sunday for 17 years. But i am definitely Not a catholic now.

No true catholics are people who place their complete and absolute trust in all the official teachings and rulings handed down to them from the authorities of the catholic church.

Same goes for Christians who place absolute trust in the teachings of the Messiah Jesus.

"Internal failings, e.g. doubts entertained against the Catholic Faith, cannot incur excommunication."

Of course people can doubt as long as they tow the line and do not teach/speak out against the teachings of the catholic church. You can doubt the teaching of the sinless Mary but in the end your supposed to submit and not speak out against the doctrine.

I therefore think that even "Cafeteria Catholics," who reject some of the teachings, still qualify as Catholics.

Rejection is a step up from doubt, two different words.

The fact remains all doctrinal matters officially declared by the catholic church Must not be rejected by those who are part of that religion. Because the catholic church states that they are the supreme infallible interpreters of the will of God for mankind.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[fredonly]

You cannot disagree with any catholic church teaching and still call yourself a catholic because if you do disagree with the catholic church teaching are not a catholic.

I believe a Catholic is anyone who has been baptized into the Catholic faith and who is allowed to receive the sacraments. This is based on my reading of the article on excommunication in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

I was baptised (water baptism) into the catholic religion and i guess i could go down to the local catholic church and take part in communion. I know the drill. Went to church every Sunday for 17 years. But i am definitely Not a catholic now.

No true catholics are people who place their complete and absolute trust in all the official teachings and rulings handed down to them from the authorities of the catholic church.

Same goes for Christians who place absolute trust in the teachings of the Messiah Jesus.

"Internal failings, e.g. doubts entertained against the Catholic Faith, cannot incur excommunication."

Of course people can doubt as long as they tow the line and do not teach/speak out against the teachings of the catholic church. You can doubt the teaching of the sinless Mary but in the end your supposed to submit and not speak out against the doctrine.

I therefore think that even "Cafeteria Catholics," who reject some of the teachings, still qualify as Catholics.

Rejection is a step up from doubt, two different words.

The fact remains all doctrinal matters officially declared by the catholic church Must not be rejected by those who are part of that religion. Because the catholic church states that they are the supreme infallible interpreters of the will of God for mankind.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I'm not sure you're right. I do think it's fine for you and I to decide we're not "Catholic," but I still think the Church will still consider you to be Catholic, although a Heretic (which I believe is a mortal sin, and will therefore send you to hell). But the Church says it retains "ecclesiastical jurisdiction" over you:

Cathoic Encyclopedia (Heretic): The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church. Their material severance, however, precludes them from the use of ecclesiastical rights, except the right of being judged according to ecclesiastical law if, by any chance, they are brought before an ecclesiastical court. They are not bound by ecclesiastical laws enacted for the spiritual well-being of its members, e.g. by the Six Commandments of the Church

.

IMO, you and I should be labelled "Hellbound Catholic Heretic." (Maybe we should start a new user group). We're baptized Catholics, and you can't undo that in the eyes of the Church.

[Slopeshoulder]

Apparently there is a way to request not being as catholic from the catholic chruch.

[fredonly]

Apparently there is a way to request not being as catholic from the catholic chruch.

I found this:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/formal_defectio.html

... in order to formally defect one must:

1) Decide to leave the Church (which supposes an act of heresy, apostasy, or schism),
2) Put this decision into effect ("realize" it),
3) Manifest this decision externally by submitting it in writing to the Ordinary (normally the bishop) or one's pastor, and
4) Get the Ordinary or pastor to agree that you really have performed the act of will to leave the Church described above and thus committed heresy, apostasy, or schism.

It is then to be noted in the parish baptismal register that you have so defected.

The author of that blog does suggest there are some practical problems with making it happen, but nevertheless I think this verifies that it is theoretically possible to stop being a Catholic.

Still, it strikes me that the "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply to Catholics. It's invalid to say someone's not a "true Catholic" based on his beliefs (or lack thereof). You're a Catholic if you've been baptized as a Catholic, and have not gone through the formal process described above.

[Adstar]

Apparently there is a way to request not being as catholic from the catholic chruch.

I found this:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/formal_defectio.html

... in order to formally defect one must:

1) Decide to leave the Church (which supposes an act of heresy, apostasy, or schism),
2) Put this decision into effect ("realize" it),
3) Manifest this decision externally by submitting it in writing to the Ordinary (normally the bishop) or one's pastor, and
4) Get the Ordinary or pastor to agree that you really have performed the act of will to leave the Church described above and thus committed heresy, apostasy, or schism.

It is then to be noted in the parish baptismal register that you have so defected.

The very act of going through these steps is conforming to the orders of the catholic authority.

God knows i have left the catholic church and as far as i am concerned He is the only Authroity. The catholic curch can please it'self.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[Braveheart]

I belonged to the group at first, but decided to remove it because I want to be defined by what I am for rather than what I am against.

My reasons for rejecting Catholicism (there are probably some that I am forgetting):

• Veneration of idols (relics)
• Mary died sinless
• Mary died a virgin
• Prayer to Mary
• Mary as co-mediatrix (mediator) with Christ
• Prayer to other dead people (invoking saints)
• Papacy
• Papal succession
• Pope taking the title, "Vicar of Christ"
• Papal infallibility while speaking ex cathedra
• Transubstantiation
• Purgatory
• Penance (we cannot atone for our own sins in any manner)
• Church has authority to pass judgment on and interpret Scripture for members
• Mass/Eucharist is an actual real propitiatory sacrifice offered on behalf of living and dead people
• Salvation is only found within the Catholic Church
• Sacred Tradition is authoritative even when it contradicts Scripture, thus elevating it above Scripture

According to the Council of Trent, the above must be believed to be a Catholic. These teachings cannot be found explicitly in the 66 books of the Bible, and in some cases are explicitly contrary to the Bible, therefore I reject Catholicism and its dogma.

I am answering because the nature of the OP seems to be merely asking "why" and didn't seem like it was intended for debate. I've debated this recently and am a bit burned out on it for the time being. It seems like debating it is futile anyhow, as neither side, since the Reformation, has shown any intention of budging an inch. It is what it is, and certain people are attracted to one or the other and almost seem predisposed to it.

I find your reasons for rejecting the Catholic Church very amateur and misguided.
So, I shall go through each of your objections with a Catholic answer.

What is wrong with venerating relics? You must keep in mind that venerating and worshiping are 2 very different things. Relics remind us of the life of that saint, that we may imitate their good example.

Mary had to die sinless I would think that to bear the Christ she would need to be sinless. To bear something so perfect as Gods' only Son, wouldn't God need to create a sinless being to hold the Christ. It just stands to reason.

As for not being virgin, you are doubtless referring to the many mentions of Jesus' brothers. Brothers were about the only word for relation back then. My 4th cousin is my brother.

We pray to Mary asking her to pray for us. I, as a sinful human being, would much rather have a heavenly being pray for me, who is sinless, wouldn't you?

Praying to other dead people? I imagine you and I have very different understandings of death. I consider death final and eternal damnation to hell, and life eternal dwelling in heaven. Ask them to pray to God for us for same reasons as Mary.

Jesus himself set up the papacy when he told Simon Peter "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Peter, means rock. Why would Jesus change Simon's name to Rock unless he had a real purpose?

Papal succession. Jesus instituted that when he laid hands on the Apostles. Jesus instituted the Papacy because he knew he wasn't going to show up every day and tell the people exactly what to do. He set up the Papacy that it may clarify His teachings.

Transubstantiation. Read chapter 6 in the Gospel of John, specifically these verses:

John 6:47-66
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.�

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?�

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.� 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?�
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.� For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.�

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Many say Jesus was only speaking symbolically, but this cannot be true. In the Aramaic language Jesus Christ spoke, to symbolically eat and drink the flesh and blood of someone meant to persecute and assault them. So...if that is what you believe you are certainly no Christian.

II Maccabees 12:38-46 talks about praying for the dead,

38
"Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the week was ending, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there.
39
On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his men went to gather up the bodies of the slain and bury them with their kinsmen in their ancestral tombs.
40
But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain.
41
They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden.
42
7 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43
He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view;
44
for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.
45
But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought."
46
Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. so let's think about that for a minute. If the person is in Hell, no prayers can help them now. If they are in Heaven, they don't need prayers because they're already in Heaven and perfectly happy. So...we can see that purgatory must exist. Now I know, Maccabees is part of the Apocrypha, and the Apocrypha is messed up. But, before y'all jump to conclusions on that, please read my post in the Holy Huddle Room under "avoiding Purgatory." Thanks.

Penance is needed for forgiveness of sins, which Christ Himself gave the power to His Apostles in John 20:19-23 19
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!� 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.� 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.� That's why to this day the Catholic Church has it's priest forgive sins through the power of Jesus Christ.

Why should the Church not have the authority to pass judgement on and interpret scriptures? Someone certainly has to, and why not the authority that Christ Himself instituted? The Catholic Church put the entire cannon of the Bible together. Martin Luther states,

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

The Mass, like praying for those in purgatory, is offered up for both the living and the deceased. The Eucharist is Jesus Christ in the Flesh. Not symbolically, but literally. Christ was the Ultimate sacrifice for the sin of Adam & Eve, and we re celebrate it in the Mass in an unbloodied manner. Jesus did it at the Last Supper.

Salvation is not found only in the Catholic Church, as Vatican II asserts, but anywhere. However, the Catholic Church, being the original Church, is the most sure of ways, unless you are not truly a Catholic, but claim to be one. This is very dangerous for your soul.

Tradition is never contrary to scripture. Any who claim so are ill informed. Please give me an example of contradictory to scripture traditions.



P.S. The Judas mentioned in Maccabees in not Judas Iscariot found in the New Testament, but Judas Maccabeus, a God-fearing Israelite leader.