What's 'wrong' with Catholicism (dare we try to discuss without debate?)

scubamouse said:
I've seen a lot of posts that I don't understand on the subject of Catholicism. Why is there so much animosity toward the religion from other Christians?

FTR - I was raised Catholic but no longer practice. We attend another Christian Church but they are not hostile to the Catholic Church.

I left the Church long before the child abuse scandal and that is the thing I'm personally most angry about. But I respect that the faith has brought tremendous peace to people I love.

Think we can do this without fighting? :flower:


Disclaimer: I'm not Catholic, but married to a former Catholic. His is a big Catholic family, complete with nuns in high places.

To me, what's wrong with the Catholic Church is not so much the religion itself, although I would never follow some of its teachings, but the way the church wields its incredible political power to make whole countries follow its beliefs.

If you choose to be a Catholic and want to follow its edits, that's great. There's great beauty and power in its ceremony (if not some incredibly brutal bits of past history, i.e. the Spanish Inquisition). But if you just happen to be a citizen in a Catholic dominated country, you shouldn't have to follow the edicts of a religion in which you do not believe.
 
Lisa loves Pooh said:
Don't you just love it when that happens?

OT--I had a thread where this happened with my posts a bit--the person even said they refused to go and read my earlier posts. So I fetched them and reposted....and they still didn't give a horse's pooty that I never said what they claimed I said (and even repeated that they didn't have the time to reread even though it was right there on the same page in front of their face). :teeth:

ETA: not saying that this will happen here--just why I was helpin' you out ;) .


Thanks, Lisa!!!

You can be my official interpreter!! ;)
 
jodifla said:
Disclaimer: I'm not Catholic, but married to a former Catholic. His is a big Catholic family, complete with nuns in high places.

To me, what's wrong with the Catholic Church is not so much the religion itself, although I would never follow some of its teachings, but the way the church wields its incredible political power to make whole countries follow its beliefs.

If you choose to be a Catholic and want to follow its edits, that's great. There's great beauty and power in its ceremony (if not some incredibly brutal bits of past history, i.e. the Spanish Inquisition). But if you just happen to be a citizen in a Catholic dominated country, you shouldn't have to follow the edicts of a religion in which you do not believe.


Well, there are more Catholics in the US then any other denomination, do you feel you have to follow the teachings of the Catholic church? I guess I don't agree with your thinking here. Maybe you could give some specific examples to make your point more clear. Which countries are you talking about and what political power are they using in those countries?
 
jodifla said:
Disclaimer: I'm not Catholic, but married to a former Catholic. His is a big Catholic family, complete with nuns in high places.

To me, what's wrong with the Catholic Church is not so much the religion itself, although I would never follow some of its teachings, but the way the church wields its incredible political power to make whole countries follow its beliefs.

If you choose to be a Catholic and want to follow its edits, that's great. There's great beauty and power in its ceremony (if not some incredibly brutal bits of past history, i.e. the Spanish Inquisition). But if you just happen to be a citizen in a Catholic dominated country, you shouldn't have to follow the edicts of a religion in which you do not believe.
ANd yet you have some Very Catholic Countries like Spain,with very liberal ideas ..Like legalizing Gay Marriage. SOme predominantly Catholic countries and states are very capable of recognizing that eveyone else should not be forced to live by Catholic Ideals
 

Lisa loves Pooh said:
Don't you just love it when that happens?

OT--I had a thread where this happened with my posts a bit--the person even said they refused to go and read my earlier posts. So I fetched them and reposted....and they still didn't give a horse's pooty that I never said what they claimed I said (and even repeated that they didn't have the time to reread even though it was right there on the same page in front of their face). :teeth:

ETA: not saying that this will happen here--just why I was helpin' you out ;) .


Ok, just for the record, I was looking at Deb's original post when you posted this. :teeth:
 
castleview said:
What I didn't like was the church telling my father that he would have to get an annullment (basically saying his first marrieage never happened and both his daughters were now "illegitimate") in order to be an accepted Catholic again.

If you want to remarry in the church you have to have an annulment-the catholic church does not illegitmatize children from annulled marriages. If children are born by at least one catholic parent and baptized into the Catholic faith they will always be a member of the Catholic community, never illegitimate. I think the public sector law got mixed up with this.

As far as changing church doctrine, I did at least simply choose another religion. However, I do think the church needs to be more realistic about divorce - it just happens sometimes; priests being celibate; and many other things.
This was a large statement. I am only going to comment on one. Priests being celibate-I work for the Milwaukee Archdiocese. We just lost 2 priests. One because he found out he could not live alone-plain and simple, he became very lonely. Not necessarily for a wife-but for a family. When he married my cousin this summer-he told them, don't forget about me, I know you 2 love bowling, could I be on your bowling team. People just chuckled in church. Guess what, 1 month later he put in for a 6 months leave of absent-and he told the members, he probably won't be coming back, but to pray for him. This was the 2nd time he did this. The parishioners are hoping he comes back, but the Archdiocese knows now he won't. He just turned 40.

The 2nd priest who was just ordained 5 years ago and is 32 just asked for a 6 months leave of absence-reason-loneliness.

Both of these priests were excellent priests-they just said, everyone forgets about them, and don't invite them to any functions. If they have to go anywhere, it is always alone. People are so afraid of the pedophile scandal, they truly did forget that there are good people left. So they are basically paying for the sins of their predecessor's.
 
In response to the OP’s question, it’s not so much what is “wrong” with the Catholic church as why I personally choose to belong to a different Christian denomination. I don’t like the term “wrong.”

I have a problem with the reliance on tradition. I believe that the Bible contains what we need to know to have a relationship with God. I don’t mean that devotion books, commentaries, sermons, etc. aren’t useful, just that I think they should be Scripturally based, not traditionally based.

Some of the practices of the Catholic church, at least in my understanding, derive from tradition. For example, I do not personally believe in confession to a priest. I believe that Jesus is the High Priest, and that His coming negated our need for an intermediary between us and God (Jesus is the intermediary in my belief).

That’s why there are so many denominations out there. We can each find one we are comfortable with.
 
ead79 said:
Some of the practices of the Catholic church, at least in my understanding, derive from tradition. For example, I do not personally believe in confession to a priest. I believe that Jesus is the High Priest, and that His coming negated our need for an intermediary between us and God (Jesus is the intermediary in my belief).

.
The belief in confession to a preist does not come from Tradition

From the Catholic Encyclopdia

as the Council of Trent declares, Christ principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance after His Resurrection, a miracle greater than that of healing the sick. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained' (John 20:21-23). While the sense of these words is quite obvious, the following points are to be considered:
Christ here reiterates in the plainest terms -- "sins", "forgive", "retain" -- what He had previously stated in figurative language, "bind" and "loose", so that this text specifies and distinctly applies to sin the power of loosing and binding.
He prefaces this grant of power by declaring that the mission of the Apostles is similar to that which He had received from the Father and which He had fulfilled: "As the Father hath sent me". Now it is beyond doubt that He came into the world to destroy sin and that on various occasions He explicitly forgave sin (Matthew 9:2-8; Luke 5:20; 7:47; Revelation 1:5), hence the forgiving of sin is to be included in the mission of the Apostles.
Christ not only declared that sins were forgiven, but really and actually forgave them; hence, the Apostles are empowered not merely to announce to the sinner that his sins are forgiven but to grant him forgiveness-"whose sins you shall forgive". If their power were limited to the declaration "God pardons you", they would need a special revelation in each case to make the declaration valid.
The power is twofold -- to forgive or to retain, i.e., the Apostles are not told to grant or withhold forgiveness nondiscriminately; they must act judicially, forgiving or retaining according as the sinner deserves.
The exercise of this power in either form (forgiving or retaining) is not restricted: no distinction is made or even suggested between one kind of sin and another, or between one class of sinners and all the rest: Christ simply says "whose sins".
The sentence pronounced by the Apostles (remission or retention) is also God's sentence -- "they are forgiven . . . they are retained".
It is therefore clear from the words of Christ that the Apostles had power to forgive sins. But this was not a personal prerogative that was to erase at their death; it was granted to them in their official capacity and hence as a permanent institution in the Church -- no less permanent than the mission to teach and baptize all nations. Christ foresaw that even those who received faith and baptism, whether during the lifetime of the Apostles or later, would fall into sin and therefore would need forgiveness in order to be saved. He must, then, have intended that the power to forgive should be transmitted from the Apostles to their successors and be used as long as there would be sinners in the Church, and that means to the end of time. It is true that in baptism also sins are forgiven, but this does not warrant the view that the power to forgive is simply the power to baptize. In the first place, as appears from the texts cited above, the power to forgive is also the power to retain; its exercise involves a judicial action. But no such action is implied in the commission to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20); in fact, as the Council of Trent affirms, the Church does not pass judgment on those who are not yet members of the Church, and membership is obtained through baptism. Furthermore, baptism, because it is a new birth, cannot be repeated, whereas the power to forgive sins (penance) is to be used as often as the sinner may need it. Hence the condemnation, by the same Council, of any one "who, confounding the sacraments, should say that baptism itself is the Sacrament of Penance, as though these two sacraments were not distinct and as though penance were not rightly called the second plank after shipwreck" (Sess. XIV, can. 2 de sac. poen.).
 
Confession isn't a tradition, it's a Sacrament, which is a holy rite and bestows the gift of grace.
 
golfgal said:
Ok, just for the record, I was looking at Deb's original post when you posted this. :teeth:


That's okay--that's why i edited to say I didn't think it would happen here--but I indeed had a poster refused..and I only replied to Deb as she reposted her post and in my case--a review was still refused. Confused?

:rotfl2:

Anyone--I wasn't directing it at anyone. Just having a chuckle.
 
golfgal said:
This comes up quite a bit at our kids' school where the non-Catholic kids feel 'left out' when it comes to First Communion and there after. It is just something you have to accept when you send your kids to a Catholic school. None of the kindergarten, first or second graders at our kids' school take Communion now, they go up with arms crossed for a blessing from the priest because they have not received their First Communion yet. Communion is a sacrament in the Catholic church. It is a BIG deal and not taken lightly. Your other option is to allow your children to become Catholic to participate in the Sacraments. Your child is not being excluded, he/she is being blessed by the priest. If they were being excluded they wouldn't be at Mass at all. Do your children receive communion at your church? Have they since the time they were born? No. Our neighbors growing up were the Episcopal minister in our town and his family. They didn't receive Communion until they were in about 8th grade.


I'm confused by this. Are you saying that Episcopalians don't take communion til 8th grade? Because that's patently untrue. My infant twins had their first communion the day they were baptized and my oldest has been receiving communion since he was 3 (when we joined the Episcopal church). The Episcopal church welcomes ALL baptized Christians at the table.
 
Nothing is wrong with Catholicism that isn't also wrong with any other religion. :)
 
zagafi said:
[/b]

I'm confused by this. Are you saying that Episcopalians don't take communion til 8th grade? Because that's patently untrue. My infant twins had their first communion the day they were baptized and my oldest has been receiving communion since he was 3 (when we joined the Episcopal church). The Episcopal church welcomes ALL baptized Christians at the table.

When I was growing up that was the practice in the Episcopal church. I made my First Communion in second grade and my friend made hers in 8th grade (the DD of the Episcopal minister).
 
zagafi said:
[/b]

I'm confused by this. Are you saying that Episcopalians don't take communion til 8th grade? Because that's patently untrue. My infant twins had their first communion the day they were baptized and my oldest has been receiving communion since he was 3 (when we joined the Episcopal church). The Episcopal church welcomes ALL baptized Christians at the table.

It used to be that you had to be confirmed to receive Communion, but the Episcopal Church changed its stance many years ago, and now you just have to be baptized.
 
zagafi said:
[/b]

I'm confused by this. Are you saying that Episcopalians don't take communion til 8th grade? Because that's patently untrue. My infant twins had their first communion the day they were baptized and my oldest has been receiving communion since he was 3 (when we joined the Episcopal church). The Episcopal church welcomes ALL baptized Christians at the table.

I think someone pointed out that there's been a rule change. Our Episcopal Church is the same way.

JennyMominRI - once again you are a font of interesting information :goodvibes
 
scubamouse said:
I think someone pointed out that there's been a rule change. Our Episcopal Church is the same way.

JennyMominRI - once again you are a font of interesting information :goodvibes
That's nice to hear because most people call me a font of useless information..I mean what good does it do me in live to know the exact year old QElizabeth the first's reogn(except for Trivial Pursuit)
 
castleview said:
Actually, my parents' divorce wasn't my choice...although, it was nice to see two people move on with their lives and regain their faith since they weren't so miserable anymore. What I didn't like was the church telling my father that he would have to get an annullment (basically saying his first marrieage never happened and both his daughters were now "illegitimate") in order to be an accepted Catholic again. He was told by a friend in a similar situation that he could "give a little more" and the rule might be overlooked.

As far as changing church doctrine, I did at least simply choose another religion. However, I do think the church needs to be more realistic about divorce - it just happens sometimes; priests being celibate; and many other things.
Again, other religions also look down on divorce in different ways. My sister had a friend who was Mormon. Her husband left her for another woman in their church. My sister's friend was no longer welcome in the church, yet her ex and his new wife were. :rolleyes:
 
[(((((((((((((]
Actually, my parents' divorce wasn't my choice...although, it was nice to see two people move on with their lives and regain their faith since they weren't so miserable anymore. What I didn't like was the church telling my father that he would have to get an annullment (basically saying his first marrieage never happened and both his daughters were now "illegitimate") in order to be an accepted Catholic again. He was told by a friend in a similar situation that he could "give a little more" and the rule might be overlooked)))))))))))

Sad..Your family got a bad preist..The Church does not view the children of an annulment as illegitimate.In fact ,a Catholic annulment doesn't say that a couple was never legally married,just that they were not Sacramentally married .Annulment doesn't question the legallity of the civil portion of the marriage
 
I do not have the time to follow this thread right now,

But to the OP, I feel that there is a lot wrong with catholicism.

While it does have it's good points and it's merits,
in the whole, it is very far removed from what I read in the Bible.
It sometimes is completely contradictory to what I read in the Bible.
I could never support, or be a part of, a religion that is so contradictory.

I am definately talking about the Catholic Church as an institution here. And, I truly bear no negative predudicial feelings towards any catholic person.

I could list examples here, but I simply will not.
Not only would it take tons of time, it would be completely futile.
It would only result in the usual rhetoric and flames that are evident on every one of these threads.
 
Wishing on a star said:
I do not have the time to follow this thread right now,

But to the OP, I feel that there is a lot wrong with catholicism.

While it does have it's good points and it's merits,
in the whole, it is very far removed from what I read in the Bible.
It sometimes is completely contradictory to what I read in the Bible.
I could never support, or be a part of, a religion that is so contradictory.

I am definately talking about the Catholic Church as an institution here. And, I truly bear no negative predudicial feelings towards any catholic person.

I could list examples here, but I simply will not.
Not only would it take tons of time, it would be completely futile.
It would only result in the usual rhetoric and flames that are evident on every one of these threads.[/QUOTE]
Well, then why post at all? Were we being to civil and you wanted to stir things up?
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom