Is there anything that would make you leave the Church?

[Polak]

The Catholic Church I mean.

There are a lot of things that would confuse me and make me wonder. Heck, there already are now. I think it would take a lot to cause me to leave, rather than just struggle through and assume the Church is going through (another) crisis. In the past I thought, if they legalise abortion, or gay marriage etc. that would do it for me, but looking at it again, I don't think it would. It would just make me very concerned for the Church.

I think only denying the divinity of Christ would cause me to actually leave completely, because that would mean they were basically denying the very foundation and central belief. If that happened, it might well be the time of the antiChrist.     

[Clean Water]

3 hours ago, Polak said:

The Catholic Church I mean.

There are a lot of things that would confuse me and make me wonder. Heck, there already are now. I think it would take a lot to cause me to leave, rather than just struggle through and assume the Church is going through (another) crisis. In the past I thought, if they legalise abortion, or gay marriage etc. that would do it for me, but looking at it again, I don't think it would. It would just make me very concerned for the Church.

I think only denying the divinity of Christ would cause me to actually leave completely, because that would mean they were basically denying the very foundation and central belief. If that happened, it might well be the time of the antiChrist.     

This along with protection of pedophiles has pushed me to the edge:

"From at least 1502 to 1888, European Christians, who were mostly Catholic, violently transported at least 12.5 million African women, men and children from the African continent to the Americas, Europe and other parts of Africa to fuel and sustain four centuries of Atlantic world slavery.

This trade constituted the largest forced human migration in modern history and laid the social, political and economic foundations for much of modern Europe and their “New World” colonies. It also resulted in the deaths of 10 million to 50 million African people, including babies.

Although the church’s rampant participation in this barbaric trade is beyond dispute, it is rarely taught in Catholic schools and religious formation programs.

Indeed, many Catholics can point to Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 condemnation of the slave trade and slavery in the bull, “In supremo apostolates.” However, few are aware of the 15th century papal bulls, including Pope Nicholas V’s 1452 “Dum Diversas” and Pope Alexander VI’s 1493 “Inter Caetera,” where the church first authorized the trade’s development and morally sanctioned the perpetual enslavement of Africans and the seizure of “non-Christian” lands.

Even less realize that Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 condemnation came some 337 years after the trade formally began and 35 years after the success of the Haitian Revolution. Indeed, it was the Haitian Revolution, led by baptized free and enslaved Black Catholics, that cemented the foundation of antislavery throughout Europe’s slave societies in the Americas, not the papacy.

Perhaps most indicative of the silencing of the church’s slaveholding past and culpability in modern racism, though, is how few Catholics know the story of São Jorge da Mina (St. George’s of the Mine) Castle in present-day Ghana."

https://www.catholicnews.com/commentary:-why-every-catholic-should-make-a-pilgrimage-to-elmina-castle-in-ghana/

[Polak]

1 hour ago, Clean Water said:

This along with protection of pedophiles has pushed me to the edge:

What's keeping you, if you don't mind me asking?

1 hour ago, Clean Water said:

From at least 1502 to 1888, European Christians, who were mostly Catholic

Source?

1 hour ago, Clean Water said:

Although the church’s rampant participation in this barbaric trade is beyond dispute

Beyond dispute? Are you sure?

1 hour ago, Clean Water said:

However, few are aware of the 15th century papal bulls, including Pope Nicholas V’s 1452 “Dum Diversas” and Pope Alexander VI’s 1493 “Inter Caetera,” where the church first authorized the trade’s development and morally sanctioned the perpetual enslavement of Africans and the seizure of “non-Christian” lands.

Rather than just take your word for it, I'd have to read those first and get back to you on whether the Catholic Church actually authorised the enslavement of people and taking of their land. I can believe they didn't condemn it, but I'd have to check they actually authorised it.

I'll ask once more though, given that you have 'Catholic' in your profile. Why do you stay in such an allegedly racist and pedophile protecting Church?

[Peace]

4 minutes ago, Polak said:

I'll ask once more though, given that you have 'Catholic' in your profile. Why do you stay in such an allegedly racist and pedophile protecting Church?

Because he likes Catholic rap music, apparently.

[Polak]

You know, I didn't actually realise this was a Catholic hip hop lovers forum (it is right?), then I noticed the Hip Hop tab.

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Polak said:

The Catholic Church I mean.

There are a lot of things that would confuse me and make me wonder. Heck, there already are now. I think it would take a lot to cause me to leave, rather than just struggle through and assume the Church is going through (another) crisis. In the past I thought, if they legalise abortion, or gay marriage etc. that would do it for me, but looking at it again, I don't think it would. It would just make me very concerned for the Church.

I think only denying the divinity of Christ would cause me to actually leave completely, because that would mean they were basically denying the very foundation and central belief. If that happened, it might well be the time of the antiChrist.     

Well the thing is that the Church cannot teach heresy as Christ himself is the Head of the Church and She is guided by the Holy Spirit. So if whatever you have decided to leave teaches that, it is not the Church you have left.

Personally, if I leave the Church, it will be to fornicate wantonly with runway models. If I am going to rot in hell for all eternity I may as well make it worth it. But that's just me.

My opinion is that most people who leave the Church do so because they do not want to live the moral life that the Church demands, and that they do not want to be under authority.

8 minutes ago, Polak said:

You know, I didn't actually realise this was a Catholic hip hop lovers forum (it is right?), then I noticed the Hip Hop tab.

You'd have to ask @dUSt I think that was the original intent of the site but it's basically a Trad-leaning forum now. How did that conversion happen? Only the Lord knows.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Peace

[GraceUk]

No. But i have trouble believing in the apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima even though they are recognised by the Church. I asked on here about it a long  ago and was told there wasnt a requirement  to believe. Thats a relief!

[Polak]

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in any of the Marian apparitions? Is it just those specific approved ones you have trouble with. If so, why?

And yes, as you said, you are not required to believe them, because they are considered private revelations.

[chrysostom]

Nope. Aside from my own sin, God forbid.

Edited June 12, 2021 by chrysostom

[Lea]

I once defended my parents decision to divorce to a priest who does not know them.

Therefore he told me something like "Well, you obviously are unable to love, otherwise you would not defend this. And when you can't love, you can't have a relationship to Christ either." 

On this occasion, he judged some others familiar backgrounds as well (e.g. a very faithful family where the mother was the breadwinner and the father stayed at home as he was terminally ill).

I could not stand attending mass with this priest celebrating and so stopped for a few month. Had it been easier to get an appointment to officially leave the church, I might have gone through with it. 

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Lea said:

I once defended my parents decision to divorce to a priest who does not know them.

Therefore he told me something like "Well, you obviously are unable to love, otherwise you would not defend this. And when you can't love, you can't have a relationship to Christ either." 

On this occasion, he judged some others familiar backgrounds as well (e.g. a very faithful family where the mother was the breadwinner and the father stayed at home as he was terminally ill).

I could not stand attending mass with this priest celebrating and so stopped for a few month. Had it been easier to get an appointment to officially leave the church, I might have gone through with it. 

Well the whole thing with that is that if we are gonna make our fidelity to the Church dependent on the Chris-likeness of individual clergy, we are all gonna have to leave the Church, or any other church or religion for that matter.

In some sense I think it would mean that the Donatists were right.

[Lea]

45 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well the whole thing with that is that if we are gonna make our fidelity to the Church dependent on the Chris-likeness of individual clergy, we are all gonna have to leave the Church, or any other church or religion for that matter.

In some sense I think it would mean that the Donatists were right.

I don't say we should make our fidelity dependent on individual clergy or other christians, but they should act in a manner that doesn't make their actions an obstacle for being faithful.

On a human level, I (and the others in this conversation expect the priest) felt like "Well, if I don't have a relationship to Christ, unbeknownst to me so far, then why should I go to Mass and receive the Eucharist?" We also highly doubted that this priest even would us let receive it anyway. 

Fun fact: this given evening was dedicated to thank the students who had been volunteering as camp advisors, catechists, musicians and so on in the church's summer camp. Some never returned to this parish. 

[Ash Wednesday]

I can't say I could ever see the Church condoning abortion or gay marriage or ever doing that kind of about face. I do see a lot of weaponized ambiguity (to borrow from the trads) and a lot of clergy or bishops that look the other way or even encourage things that are flat out wrong. And as far as the corrupt mess among the people that run the institution, nothing is new under the sun to me about that. My faith is in Christ, not men. I endured years of bad sermons, ugly churches, corruption and embarrassment for the sake of the only things that matter: the sacraments.

The Church is still the Bride of Christ and barring my own failings, I won't leave and hope to die a Catholic in a state of grace. 

[GraceUk]

I don't think I do believe in any of them.  I don't totally disbelieve but am very doubtful. A relative talked about Lourdes and said it was amazing. I don't doubt it was. It does still worry me that I just can't believe. I wouldn't argue the case with somebody who did believe though., 

[Polak]

Well I am just curious what specifically it is about those apparitions you find so hard to believe.

As a Catholic, you believe Christ was crucified and resurrected, that His body and blood are present during the Eucharist, that He worked miracles, and I presume, that miracles still occur today, because why wouldn't they? So what is it about children seeing Mary that is so hard for you to believe?

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Polak said:

Well I am just curious what specifically it is about those apparitions you find so hard to believe.

As a Catholic, you believe Christ was crucified and resurrected, that His body and blood are present during the Eucharist, that He worked miracles, and I presume, that miracles still occur today, because why wouldn't they? So what is it about children seeing Mary that is so hard for you to believe?

Well the logical starting point is not to believe something miraculous, from a purely scientific or secular standpoint.

Heck, St. Thomas did not believe that our Lord was resurrected, and he was an Apostle.

I think a better question is "why do some people so easily believe in the apparitions"?

I think that faith is a gift from God, personally. Those who have it should be grateful.

Just my two cents.

[Polak]

Well if you look at it from purely scientific and secular standpoint, then the Catholic faith as a whole is problematic, isn't it? Yet in Grace's profile it says Catholic. Hence my confusion. Why believe some miraculous unexplainable things by science, but not others?

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Polak said:

Well if you look at it from purely scientific and secular standpoint, then the Catholic faith as a whole is problematic, isn't it?

Well I would say that there are certain truths that are "revealed" if you will. Truths such as the Real Presence that cannot be reached logically without the gift of faith.

But certain aspects of the faith can be logically deduced (for example, the existence of God). So I don't think I would say that the faith as a whole would be problematic, only those aspects of it that are "revealed" and not obtainable by logic, history, reason.

Quote

Yet in Grace's profile it says Catholic. Hence my confusion. Why believe some miraculous unexplainable things by science, but not others?

Well perhaps God has not yet given Grace the particular graces necessary to believe those apparitions.

No pun intended.

I think God gives a person everything he needs to attain to his salvation, but this does not appear to include grace necessary to believe in those apparitions. The Church would require the faithful to believe in the apparitions were they crucial for salvation.

Let me ask you - why do you believe them? You believe them as a matter of faith, do you not? You believe them because God has given you the grace to believe them, do you not?

Or is it your position that you believe in them just because you woke up one day and decided to believe them like you choose to believe the news, as if your belief in them is not the gift of God but something you did all by yourself?

Edited June 14, 2021 by Peace

[chrysostom]

On 6/14/2021 at 5:35 AM, Polak said:

Well I am just curious what specifically it is about those apparitions you find so hard to believe.

As a Catholic, you believe Christ was crucified and resurrected, that His body and blood are present during the Eucharist, that He worked miracles, and I presume, that miracles still occur today, because why wouldn't they? So what is it about children seeing Mary that is so hard for you to believe?

As the Church does not actually ask its faithful to believe in these things I see no issue with that. They are not part of the deposit of faith. The best they can do is point away from themselves to Christ, as they should. Helps to stick to that as a principle when people bring up far more dodgy things like Medjugorje.

(For the record I think Lourdes and Fatima are cool)

Edited June 15, 2021 by chrysostom

[GraceUk]

I think Medjugore sounds really dodgy. Some of these so called visionaries have  become quite rich. Whereas Lourdes and Fatima I am not sure. I think the children themselves believe in what they saw. But Medjugore I think is a complete sham.