Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The hidden exodus: Catholics becoming Protestants
NCR ^ | Apr. 18, 2011 | Thomas Reese

Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock

Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....

The number of people who have left the Catholic church is huge.

We all have heard stories about why people leave. Parents share stories about their children. Academics talk about their students. Everyone has a friend who has left.

While personal experience can be helpful, social science research forces us to look beyond our circle of acquaintances to see what is going on in the whole church.

The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.

Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.

Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.

Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions. This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time.

Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant? Liberal Catholics will tell you that Catholics are leaving because they disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control, women priests, divorce, the bishops’ interference in American politics, etc. Conservatives blame Vatican II, liberal priests and nuns, a permissive culture and the church’s social justice agenda.

One of the reasons there is such disagreement is that we tend to think that everyone leaves for the same reason our friends, relatives and acquaintances have left. We fail to recognize that different people leave for different reasons. People who leave to join Protestant churches do so for different reasons than those who become unaffiliated. People who become evangelicals are different from Catholics who become members of mainline churches.

Spiritual needs

The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.

In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.

Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines. While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. Only 23 percent said they left because of the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent because of the church’s teaching on divorce; only 21 percent because of the rule that priests cannot marry; only 16 percent because of the church’s teaching on birth control; only 16 percent because of the way the church treats women; only 11 percent because they were unhappy with the teachings on poverty, war and the death penalty.

The data shows that disagreement over specific doctrines is not the main reason Catholics become Protestants. We also have lots of survey data showing that many Catholics who stay disagree with specific church teachings. Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic.

People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.

Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.

Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.

Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.

Some of the common explanations of why people leave do not pan out in the data. For example, only 21 percent of those becoming Protestant mention the sex abuse scandal as a reason for leaving. Only 3 percent say they left because they became separated or divorced.

Becoming Protestant

If you believed liberals, most Catholics who leave the church would be joining mainline churches, like the Episcopal church. In fact, almost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.

Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism. Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service. But compared to those who became mainline Protestants, a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent) and that they had stopped believing in Catholic teaching (62 percent versus 20 percent). They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. Only 11 percent were unhappy with the church’s teachings on poverty, war, and the death penalty Ñ the same percentage as said they were unhappy with the church’s treatment of women. Contrary to what conservatives say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.

Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results. For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. However, when specific issues were mentioned in the questionnaire, more of those joining mainline churches agreed that these issues influenced their decision to leave the Catholic church. Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage, and 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving. Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.

Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching. The unhappiness with the church’s teaching on poverty, war and the death penalty was equally low for both groups (11 percent for evangelicals; 10 percent for mainline).

What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.

Perhaps after marrying a mainline Christian and attending his or her church’s services, the Catholic found the mainline services more fulfilling than the Catholic service. And even if they were equally attractive, perhaps the exclusion of the Protestant spouse from Catholic Communion makes the more welcoming mainline church attractive to an ecumenical couple.

Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent). Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.

Lessons from the data

There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.

First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.

While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.

Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.

The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.

Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.

Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.

The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.


TOPICS: Catholic; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: agendadrivenfreeper; bleedingmembers; catholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,341-1,3601,361-1,3801,381-1,400 ... 1,441-1,455 next last
To: bkaycee; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ...
I was just reading through Leviticus today and came across this verse.....

Leviticus 6:30 But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place; it shall be burned up with fire.

Sin offerings are NOT to be eaten. Period.

And this..... Leviticus 7:26-27 26 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. 27 Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”

1,361 posted on 06/07/2012 9:41:12 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1304 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

It’s a red herring and is not pertinent to the discussion.

I refuse to get drawn into it for that reason alone.

The argument that not answering means that an assumed answer is a given is a manipulation technique. It is baiting, plain and simple.

Not playing.


1,362 posted on 06/07/2012 10:00:12 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1360 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
While “any” Catholic might agree with the newadvent statement (can it be that all, “any Catholic”, would anyone be able to speak for them all?) such agreement would not be based upon any sort of analysis of what is actually being said in this melange of pettifoggery and Orwellian doublespeak.

Looking at this statement under the bright light of the Scriptures that the Catholic church claims it owns by virtue of writing, editing, protection and preservation, and reception, reveals the spiritual bareness of the newadvent pronouncement.

“Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved — viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary”

(Utraquist simply means “both” here and given the level of writing in the rest of the article stands out out as a pretentious Latin fossil).

“...if we assume the doctrinal points involved....”

Of course! Anything makes sense if only we assume enough but on what basis can anyone assume that is which is purportedly going to be demonstrated by some evidence to be so?
And if we can assume a mouse why not a whale and be done with it?

“.. viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds,...”

That's a ocean of assumption packed into a thimble since the “Divine precept” was “keep doing THIS (bread and wine, eat and drink)in remembrance of me”. Not half of “this” but an inclusive “this”.

“the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species...”

Thus another assumption that the bread and wine, species, are to this degree equivalent or perhaps with the bread somewhat more necessary as no one has suggested taking the wine only to avoid untoward events from trying to swallow a hard wafer.
Yes it is in the blood that life resides and must be poured out for forgiveness of sins not unleavened bread.
If either bread or wine would do we're at a loss to explain why Christ used both and said to “keep doing THIS”.

“.... the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined”

Only by tossing the Scriptures into either the guillotine or the rack may it be said that those entitled to drink of the cup could be denied it by fiat when Jesus said both were necessary for eternal life.
“..not divinely determined...”? Please.

“...the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception...”

Thus may all the dense and dark hedgerows of unscriptural clap-trap that encircle the laity be reduced to one sturdy pale: Do the laity (or some distinct fraction of it) have a God given right and obligation to “keep doing this in remembrance of me” or is it an optional call? Something akin to a spectator sport? You can cheer on the team but stay off the field? So no cup for you since you might spill a drop and whoever heard of straws?

“Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers — the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it”

Examine in the above just what is meant by “Catholic discipline”.
Imagine Jesus being told by the disciples that gathering up the fragments of bread after the crowds ate that doing so was ‘unsanitary, inconvenient and would just take too long. They may have been told to do but they felt justified in just saying NO. Imagine that and that's the gist of what is said above. You may (or may not)have an obligation to partake of the wine but convenience decides.

“Catholic discipline”: “There's no way Christ can offer wine to 5000 with shaky handed old people and squirmy babes so we'll forbid it.” Bread yes, wine no.

“when Christ in the words “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19), gave to the Apostles both the command and the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque. This obligation the Church has rigorously observed.

And so has absolutely defrauded the laity by pretending there was an obligation on their part to partake of either when in fact the Catholic doctrine was that “they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque.”

Back to the simple question: Were the laity ever obligated to partake of the bread and wine? If they were...who can deny either to them and if not they've been led to partake unworthily.

“In John 6:54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”.

More careful avoidance of the obvious. Jesus had just compared and contrasted himself with the manna, the bread from heaven that sustained the Israelites in the wilderness. No wine fell from heaven with that “bread” but lest anyone suppose otherwise Jesus says plainly four times in a row, vss. 53,54,55,56, flesh AND blood, i.e., bread AND wine, not flesh OR blood, not bread OR wine.

“In John 6:54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”. Now the Utraquist interpretation would suppose that in verse 54 Christ meant to emphasize the distinction between the mode of reception “by eating” and the mode of reception “by drinking”, and to include both modes distinctly in the precept He imposes. But such literalism, extravagant in any connection, would result in this case in putting verse 54 in opposition to 52 and 59, interpreted in the same rigid way”

More assumptions. If you do not bend the knee to the “IN TRUTH THERE IS NO WINE” deep thinkers then surely you are imposing “ But such literalism, extravagant in any connection,” upon Jesus words, which like all speech can contain wide degrees of literalness even in a single sentence. And to make sure the ITTISNW will even assume a title for the anti-ITTISNW, “UTRAQUIST”!

Consumption is consumption no matter the mode or fine distinctions between the acts of eating and drinking.

“We are justified in concluding that the N.T. contains no proof of the existence of a Divine precept binding the faithful to Communicate under both kinds”.

But the priests are so bound? Either the laity are required to “keep doing this” or they are not, no communion “light” to be found in the Scriptures.

1,363 posted on 06/07/2012 12:20:25 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1359 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
“Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers — the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it”

Maybe it's time for the RCC to enter the 20th century.

There are these.....

http://www.victorychurchproducts.com/Communion-Cups/products/2/0/7?gclid=CJC3oYr1vLACFYFo4AodGxDaqQ


1,364 posted on 06/07/2012 1:00:32 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1363 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Seems that the concern about spilling the cup is unwarranted.

Jesus bled out all over the ground when He died. If some wine gets spilled, the biggest problem would be stains on the carpet or a puddle on the floor. Easily remedied.


1,365 posted on 06/07/2012 1:03:26 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1363 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Getting that last whiff of wine out the plastic might be a problem since down to the tiniest fraction the “real presence” is there in the wine and if a tiny spill is “irreverence” imagine what tossing a particle of wine into the trash would be.
1,366 posted on 06/07/2012 1:11:48 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1364 | View Replies]

To: metmom

In the new version it’s the flesh that counts not all that bleeding.


1,367 posted on 06/07/2012 1:22:14 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1365 | View Replies]

To: metmom
>> Sin offerings are NOT to be eaten. Period.<<

The RCC takes the one verse but doesn’t want the rest of that passage understood.

John 6:54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. Now let’s go to the next verse where Jesus begins to explain.

57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.

Notice where He said “this is the breadwhich came down out of heaven? Jesus was not talking about His physical flesh. Jesus said His words are spirit, not flesh.

John 6:63 The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life,

It’s the spirit that giveth life, not the flesh.

2 Cor. 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Follow the letter as the RCC teaches but remember what 2 Cor. 3:6 says.

1,368 posted on 06/07/2012 1:48:30 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1361 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; metmom; boatbums
>> A non answer shows you don't believe Jesus is God<<

Or one could just see it as such a preposterous obfuscation and simply ignore the question not giving it any credence.

1,369 posted on 06/07/2012 1:58:39 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1344 | View Replies]

To: metmom
What are the credentials of all these so-called *prophets* that you keep quoting?

The prophets are usually humble people who love God very much and the exception a great sinner at the time who God chooses to help all of us come to believe.

On what basis are their words considered true?

The messages line up with magisterial teachings, oral tradition, prophecy given the saints and Scripture, which is (right now) non-Catholic Christian's lone authority.

How have they received their *revelations*?

Doesn't Scripture say something about hearing a voice behind thee. The prophets usually hear an "interior" revelation and a few actually hear God's voice and a third, not many, Our Lord and the Blessed Mother appear to them.

Have they been correct 100% of the time as required by God?

God always reveals the truth, that's one 100% but some prophecy already given is changed by man's believing, changed by mankind's prayers and actions. One of the major reasons God speaks to us, to every generation through prophets.

Why should we accept their words as true?

The words in prophecy make explicit God's revelation. prophecy helps the faithful live more fully in a certain period of history.

For that matter, why should we accept them at all?

No one is required to believe private revelation -prophecy-. If they don't, it's their loss. Do not reject your own Protestant messenger. Glynda's messages are shared on a two Catholic sites I know of, her messages line up with Catholic prophecy though not as explicit and that is for a reason. Does this mean Catholics are more open to God's messages? I hope not, it saddens God.

~ The sites are besides her own, shared in the OP.

www.catholicbinder.com

Yahoo Groups - Seers 2

1,370 posted on 06/07/2012 2:11:24 PM PDT by stpio (ue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1357 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“Getting that last whiff of wine out the plastic might be a problem since down to the tiniest fraction the “real presence” is there in the wine and if a tiny spill is “irreverence” imagine what tossing a particle of wine into the trash would be.”

~ ~ ~

This same mocking discussion continues, why? Protestants
REJECT Jesus is truly present in the consecrated host and
wine.

It will take God Himself, to show you personally during
the Great Warning. Pride is so strong, many will still
say no.

Three things to change on, most important, belief in the
Eucharist, accepting Mary’s help and confession of your
sins to a priest.

Just repeating to help because we (Catholics) love you all.

XXO.


1,371 posted on 06/07/2012 2:22:28 PM PDT by stpio (ue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1366 | View Replies]

To: stpio

“It will take God Himself, to show you personally during
the Great Warning. Pride is so strong, many will still
say no.”

If you truly believe that then why are you sending these posts to me? If “it will take God Himself”, what do you think you’re going to accomplish?


1,372 posted on 06/07/2012 2:38:36 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1371 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

“Or one could just see it as such a preposterous obfuscation and simply ignore the question not giving it any credence.”

~ ~ ~

True, and using simple words, non-Catholic Christians say
things that make no sense. I wish Protestants could see without any God given authority, their beliefs contradict Scripture who they proclaim is their only authority!

On “making sense” there is one fallen away Catholic lady
here who is Protestant now, this is the reason most of her
posts aren’t replied to plus all of her replies, are a mock of the true faith.


1,373 posted on 06/07/2012 2:44:23 PM PDT by stpio (ue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1369 | View Replies]

To: stpio

So, if I told you that God told me something, you’d believe that as well?

And that lady, whoever she is, who I never heard of before, isn’t MY own Protestant messenger. I’m not obligated to accept what she says just because someone else says she’s Protestant.

So, you know what makes God sad?

Really?

About that land in FL, I’ll cut you a really good deal.


1,374 posted on 06/07/2012 3:33:40 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1370 | View Replies]

To: stpio; metmom; boatbums
>> True, and using simple words, non-Catholic Christians say things that make no sense.<<

Here’s why they don’t make sense to Catholics.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

When Catholics stop listening to the “wisdom of man” put out by the Vatican they’ll begin to “make sense”.

>>I wish Protestants could see without any God given authority, their beliefs contradict Scripture who they proclaim is their only authority!<<

Well, here’s the “God given authority” for all who will listen.

And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. John 14:16,17

Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.

Notice that “no distinction” between the apostles and the lay? The RCC claiming “without any God given authority” applies to anyone but the Vatican is total nonsense and contradicts the clear teaching of scripture. I certainly wouldn’t rely on them.

>> On “making sense” there is one fallen away Catholic lady here who is Protestant now, this is the reason most of her posts aren’t replied to plus all of her replies, are a mock of the true faith.<<

Fallen away? LOL I think the admonition to “come out” of the false “religion” of Catholicism in no way could be described as “fallen away”. Those who have “come out” of the Catholic “religion” have found truth and have become part of the body of Christ rather than some humanistic “religion”.

1,375 posted on 06/07/2012 3:40:24 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1373 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

stpio: It will take God Himself, to show you personally during
the Great Warning. Pride is so strong, many will still
say no.

“If you truly believe that then why are you sending these posts to me? If “it will take God Himself”, what do you think you’re going to accomplish?”

~ ~ ~

I am replying to your posts and joining in the discussion with everybody.

You ask very good questions. My answer....

I hope people will remember this FR thread when the Great Warning (the awakening) happens. It will help confirm to disbelievers, yes, all that the Catholics tried to share is TRUE.


1,376 posted on 06/07/2012 3:57:39 PM PDT by stpio (ue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1372 | View Replies]

To: stpio
Three things to change on, most important, belief in the Eucharist, accepting Mary’s help and confession of your sins to a priest.

Three things to not change on....

Trusting Jesus alone for salvation, accepting the HOLY SPIRIT'S *help*, and confessing my sins to GOD since HE is the one I've sinned against.

1,377 posted on 06/07/2012 4:01:12 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1371 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.

Cynical Bear: Notice that “no distinction” between the apostles and the lay? The RCC claiming “without any God given authority” applies to anyone but the Vatican is total nonsense and contradicts the clear teaching of scripture. I certainly wouldn’t rely on them.

~ ~ ~

Taking one verse again, isolating it, taking it out of context. You nor I have the authority to interpret Scripture. God gave that authority to the Church. Private Judgment is heresy. Look at the fruit of Private Judgement.

Acts 15:8-9
And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; [9] And put NO difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Notice verse 9. Protestantism is “rot” with differences,
your beliefs are inconsistent.


1,378 posted on 06/07/2012 4:16:21 PM PDT by stpio (ue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1375 | View Replies]

To: stpio; CynicalBear
Taking one verse again, isolating it, taking it out of context. You nor I have the authority to interpret Scripture. God gave that authority to the Church. Private Judgment is heresy. Look at the fruit of Private Judgement.

Catholicism does that all the time to support their doctrines.

No Catholic is in any position to cast stones over that when their whole church bases its papacy on ONE verse, taken out of context.

1,379 posted on 06/07/2012 4:33:49 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1378 | View Replies]

To: stpio
>> Taking one verse again, isolating it, taking it out of context.<<

So show me how it’s taken out of context. The context is that the disciples were discussing putting the gentiles under the law like Catholics try to put people under the law. The “context” applied rather well to our discussion. True believers don’t listen to the RCC.

>> You nor I have the authority to interpret Scripture.<<

Oh but we do.

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Even the Bereans were commended for not just taking mans word but to search the scriptures to see if what they said was true. Search the scriptures and you, as we have, will see that the RCC is not to be trusted. It’s obvious to anyone searching for truth that we are indeed told to “search the scriptures” with obvious implications that we would be able to “interpret scripture”.

>> God gave that authority to the Church.<<

Show me from scripture the source of that.

>> Private Judgment is heresy.<<

Not according to scripture as proven in the above passage in Acts.

1,380 posted on 06/07/2012 4:38:45 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1378 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,341-1,3601,361-1,3801,381-1,400 ... 1,441-1,455 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson