Marjorie Taylor Greene: I Was Raised Catholic, but Wicked Bishops Have ‘Driven Me Away’ from the Church

LifeSite News ^ | 5/4/22 | Claire Chretien

[marshmallow]

‘Mrs. Greene's statement about leaving the Church is as enlightening as it is saddening,’ commented Michael Hichborn, president of the Lepanto Institute.

(LifeSiteNews) – Following criticism of comments she made about the U.S. Catholic bishops, conservative firebrand U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed that she was raised Catholic but left the Church “with great sorrow” when she had kids because she had concerns about the left-wing hierarchy protecting abusive priests.

“With great sorrow, and unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, I stopped attending Catholic Mass when I became a mother, because I realized that I could not trust the Church’s leadership to protect my children from pedophiles, and that they harbored monsters even in their own ranks,” the now-evangelical said in a lengthy statement.

The Georgia Republican was responding to the Catholic League’s Bill Donahue, who slammed her for suggesting in an interview with Church Militant’s Michael Voris that “Satan is controlling the Church.”

“The Church is not doing its job. And it’s not adhering to the teachings of Christ,” she added.

“It’s the Church leadership I was referring to when I invoked the Devil,” Greene clarified on Twitter. “Just so we’re clear, bishops, when I said ‘controlled by Satan,’ I wasn’t talking about the Catholic Church. I was talking about you.”

“The Catholic Church must throw out these monsters instead of lecturing the people its own bishops have driven away,” she continued, blasting the U.S. Catholic bishops as “some of the worst in the world” and “scheming bureaucrats in miters.” It was the “bishops’ wickedness” that drove her out of the Church, Greene said, and her own refusal to “submit the spiritual and physical livelihood of my children to these monsters.”

Greene, who is sometimes referred to as “MTG” (à la “AOC”), went on to say what many faithful Catholics who.......

[Elsie]

1 Corinthians 10

 

¹⁵ I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.

 

¹⁶ Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ?

    And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 

 

 

1 Corinthians 11

²³ For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, ²⁴ and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 

²⁵ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 

²⁶ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

 

 

So; is verse 23 to be taken literally or metaphorically?

How many times have you heard someone say, "This is my..." and it is obviously not to be taken literally.

 

 

³¹ So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 

 

[Philsworld]

You certainly have not, and until you do, I will not answer either of those two easily answerable questions.

Why would ANY researcher, SUCH AS Ken Johnson or Andy Woods, fail to mention the only ECF’s who ever mentioned the Restrainer of the Antichrist, when giving their opinion of who the Restrainer of the Antichrist is?

Does the law of Christ include the 10 commandments?

[Elsie]

If Jesus gave us the Holy Supper as a feast of remembrance, why not remember as often as we are able to do so?

HE did?

The bible clearly indicates it was a Passover meal.

---

Last Supper Bible Story Summary (assembled from all four gospels)

On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, or Passover, Jesus sent two of his disciples ahead with very specific instructions regarding the preparation of the Passover meal. That evening Jesus sat down at the table with the apostles to eat his final meal before going to the cross. As they dined together, he told the twelve that one of them would soon betray him.

One by one they questioned, "I'm not the one, am I, Lord?" Jesus explained that even though he knew it was his destiny to die as the Scriptures foretold, his betrayer's fate would be terrible: "Far better for him if he had never been born!"

Then Jesus took the bread and the wine and asked God the Father to bless it. He broke the bread into pieces, giving it to his disciples, and said, "This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

Then Jesus took the cup of wine and shared it with his disciples. He said, "This wine is the token of God's new covenant to save you—an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you." He told all of them, "I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom." Then they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives.

[Elsie]

I’m still waiting to find out what PTR means.

[MHGinTN]

A remembrance, not an act or ritual to save me, for that would be a sneaky way of injecting works into the Grace of God in Christ. When the Ekklesia participates in the remembrance they acquire cohesion, not salvation or an increase in salvation.

[Elsie]

And the Catholics, who want to claim possession of all of Christianity since the day Jesus left the earth for heaven, seem to want to disavow those scriptures.

They also seem to easily ignore the errors being taught in the CHURCH as the angel relays to John in Revelation.

Strange actions, if I do say.

[metmom]

The admonition to not eat blood was reiterated by the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15.

It was given before the Law, enforced by the Law, and reiterated again after Jesus died.

It has never been rescinded, Catholic misapplication of Scripture notwithstanding.

[Elsie]

“This is my body...

Can't be literal, for Jesus was quite alive and already using a body He was born with.

Kinda hard to have TWO bodies in play at the same time.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

—> an you explain why you still continue to refuse to EXPLAIN

Same reason I don’t talk to statues

[metmom]

And John 6:63 tells us that the SPIRIT gives life.

The flesh profits nothing.

So whether one wants to claim that flesh is not referring to Jesus’s physical body, or that it is, even if applied to OUR physical bodies, it still precludes eating Jesus as a means of salvation. Because if the flesh profits nothing means out bodies, then it clearly says our fleshly actions to not profit anything.

[Philsworld]

Are you just afraid of the truth that the PTR theory came directly from the Jesuit lie of Futurism?

[Luircin]

Thread-hopping is against forum rules.

[MurphsLaw]

(MHG) The Word of God, that God is SPIRIT, not some confection your cult priests can feed to you at a pagan altar after some mumbo jumbo magic incantation supposedly brings Jesus from the Throne room to your altars, as if your priest commands GOD! Your cult is the most pagan evidence of the spirit of antichrtist and you are lost to it!

Thats a bit excessive, don't you think?

And I have not employed John 6 at all... yet
- or the early Church Fathers who wrote about the Eucharist.
Below I will draw a comparison to see if your Catholic-Pagan-cult theory has validity.

All foods ARE clean, and the admonition against blood has to do with ritual idol worship that was common at the time and was warned against in the same way that eating foods sacrificed to idols was warned against.

OK- I get all that. Now square it up.
Ironically, todays first Mass reading is exactly that, Acts 15.
A warning to the gentiles (always read Pagan worshipper when you see gentile - though there were Atheists around as well, even then) As decided by the Council- with all in agreement.:

It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.

the decree Paul and Barnabas will carry actually is this:

29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.
You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell

OK. The point I am belaboring here is that St. Paul was very well attuned to the Pagan influences he was converting - and knew their ways needed to be replaced with Christian ones. It was important enough for him to travel all the way to Jerusalem to be part of this first Church Council.
4-5 years later, writing to the Corinthians.. he's dealing with similar behavioral issues.
Paul, chastising, reminds those crazy Corinthians that the Lord's Supper is not for party time.
He then recites for them - which IS one of the Traditions he handed down to them -
The Last Supper words of Christ- THAT CHRIST GAVE TO St.Paul:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you, that the Lord Jesus,
the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.

24 And giving thanks,
(NOT MUMBO JUMBO Incantation- but Giving Thanks to God)
broke, and said: Take ye, and eat:
this is my body, which shall be delivered for you:
this do for the commemoration of me.

25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

Then he explains the condemnation the casue from their unworthy actions in approaching the Lord's supper.

So much so .. he says - if your just hungry- Eat at Home !!!

34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment.

So if you have been following along- knowing what you do about Paul's presence at the Council - his dislike for practicing Pagan customs, his dislike for not revering the Lord's Supper to the point they condemn themselves... through all this-

SO I HAVE TO ASK... just one question - just one...
Do you really think St. Paul thought of the Eucharist as just a pagan ritual-that is deserving of the derision from you, that has been practiced in the Catholic Church through its entire existence?

[MHGinTN]

Your religion turned into a cult, rife with paganism. The earliest church fathers were not so disposed. But it is typical of a cult member tomake many fallacy moves, like the undistributed middle, etc.

[MHGinTN]

First, Paul never referred to the commemoration / remembrance as the Eucharist.

Second, you post the actual Bible phrasing yet ignore it entirely, preferring instead to twist the Word of God to not say it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to tell the new converts to abstain from blood! With that track record for dissembling, what comes next? Mary idolatry?

[MHGinTN]

Brilliant point!

[MurphsLaw]

It was given before the Law, enforced by the Law, and reiterated again after Jesus died.

So why is St. Paul using the word "blood" in his preaching- when clearly knowing it was bad thing- and not use "ceremonial" wine instead for that reference...?
Why would St. Paul confuse his converts in this way?

And the many instances where Jesus says we must drink his Blood 0- was he then overruled after his death?
Can he be overruled?

And taking into account where St. Paul would have clearly referenced this Blood Covenant with ALL HIS CONVERTS in his travels...
Why bring this confusion into the Church then - as he clearly refers to Jesus' tradition and teaching that repeats the drinking of the Blood of Christ- and do this OFTEN....
as it is written in divine inerrant scripture?

[MHGinTN]

You really are unable to see your own contradictions! Here is your One Question: did God tell the Israelites to not eat the blood?? And He repeated that several places in the first five books of Moses! Is the god of catholicism duplicitous? I their god unable to see the end from the beginning so he would not be duplicitous?

[MurphsLaw]

Thats a bogus answer.
The Catholic Church didn't start until 1517 according you guys... so we weren't around... remember?

St. Ignatius- I think - stated around 107 AD ...

"STAY AWAY... from the heretics who say the Eucharist IS NOT the Body and Blood of Christ !!!

And so then this IDEA was in practice then, only 60-70 years after Christ's death.

Now where did this Doctrine of A REAL Presence come from...?
I would really like to know.
How could the Catholic Church have turned that into a cannibalistic, pagan- cult rite... hundreds and hundreds before Trent got the Church started?

Answer not accepted.

Why did St. Paul call the Lord's Supper - "The Blood of Christ" if it was paganesque to drink Blood?