Yes, let's return to the subject at hand. I disagree, of course, with your premise that those who leave Catholicism do so for "personal reasons" - since I left purely for theological ones as have most of those here who have testified of leaving. My "Protestant" Dad joined Catholicism so that he and my Mom could marry in the church (her Mom's insistence, though they had already married at a JOP). When they divorced some fifteen years later, he went back to the Baptist Church. Later on, he started going back to the Catholic Church, but NOT for "theological" reasons, but because he said he liked how all the priests he met on the golf course drank and told dirty jokes back at the bar.
As to your insistence on continuing to misstate Smvoice's comments, all I can say is NO ONE has said anything about "rejecting the Gospels and the acts of the Twelve. It is to Paul in whom lies our salvation". If, after all these many times, you STILL do not get that, I would suggest that you refrain from trying to engage in further dialog until you have done some more reading about the subject. I can suggest a few links for you that can help you to sound less uneducated about the topic. Let me know.
My Church in MA consists of 80% former RC’s and all have left for theological reasons.
I am not surprised in the least that the writer of the article makes it sound like people only leave for personal reasons and not theological ones.
It is, after all, written from a Catholic perspective. To admit to the fact that most people leave for theological reasons would be to admit that there is something wrong with them theologically.
That then leaves the Catholics who absolutely insist that people only leave for personal reasons able to feel smug about themselves and their church as they can then accuse, or imply, that everyone who states that they leave for theological reasons is lying.
After all, they even have a *study* to prove it.
Most of the testimony here of the failed Catholics involve personal reasons, the rest involve the insistance on the authority to form one's own theology as one wishes and whenever one wishes.
Later on, he started going back to the Catholic Church, but NOT for "theological" reasons, but because he said he liked how all the priests he met on the golf course drank and told dirty jokes back at the bar.
If Einstein drank and told dirty jokes at the bar, would that make him wrong?
As to your insistence on continuing to misstate Smvoice's comments, all I can say is NO ONE has said anything about "rejecting the Gospels and the acts of the Twelve. It is to Paul in whom lies our salvation".
That is the constant theme of the antiCatholic. You have participated in that theme as well, although nowhere near the level that some others practice. I will challenge you to deny that I have had postings to me that state that the Gospels were for the Jews only and that Paul's Epistles are bruited about as the only formula for salvation. Your cohorts might be able to shed some light on the situation.
If, after all these many times, you STILL do not get that, I would suggest that you refrain from trying to engage in further dialog until you have done some more reading about the subject. I can suggest a few links for you that can help you to sound less uneducated about the topic. Let me know.
I have done what I consider to be sufficient reading on the subject. If you have more, then I would certainly entertain the notion of further education. I value your opinion, certainly much more than some of the folks that you hang out with.