Posted on 06/01/2007 2:28:41 PM PDT by Gamecock
|
Following is my resignation letter from the Roman Catholic Church and from my position as Director of the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA), a program designed to teach Catholicism to adults who would like to become Catholics. |
This letter serves to inform you that I am separating myself from the Roman Catholic Church. This decision has come about after many months of intensive research into the Scriptures, the writings of the Patristic fathers of the church, and church history. During this period of research I have considered the writings and/or oral arguments of such Catholic authors as Keating, Sungenis, Ott, Hahn, Matatics, as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). My separation from the church of Rome is driven by differences in doctrine. This is not a matter of rancor but rather a matter of being faithful to my Lord and Savior with a clear conscience. It is worth noting that I might never have reached this conclusion, except that I was appointed to the position of the Director of the RCIA. Being placed in that position compelled me to look at the Scriptures and church in depth as I studied Catholic doctrine. I readily acknowledge that there are many sincere and devout people in the Catholic church that love the Lord Jesus, but I believe that many of them are misled as to how a person is saved. What happened that I should change my mind? When I joined the Church in 1993 I made a serious commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the Catholic church. My commitment to the Lord Jesus remains and has grown, but my decision to join the RCC was based upon only a surface reading of Scriptures and the Catechism of the Catholic church. The more I have looked at Scripture (and not just at localized passages) I discovered that not all the doctrines taught by the RCC are Scriptural. Not being content with this, because I realized that my private interpretation might possibly be in error, I began to read the writings of the early fathers of the church. I found that many of the doctrines held and taught by the RCC today are not in agreement with the early church, nor are they found in Scripture. Many of them actually contradict Scripture. What are some of the doctrinal problems that force me to separate myself? Marian Doctrine
I have reviewed the church’s teaching on Mary, as Co-Mediatrix, her perpetual virginity, Immaculate conception, and being enthroned as Queen of Heaven. These doctrines are not in agreement with scripture or the teachings of the early fathers of the church. Saint Paul writes in his letter to Timothy (1 Tim 2:5) "there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.." It was interesting to discover that none of the early church fathers in the first three hundred years of the church ever wrote about Mary as a Co-Mediator. If there is only one mediator as God’s Word says, how can there be a co-mediator? This is a blatant contradiction. As to Mary’s perpetual virginity Scripture is quite plain. In Matthew 13:55-56 are found references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Now I am aware of the claim of some that these terms may refer to cousins or kindred. If one looks up the Greek words for brother and sister in this passage the meaning is clear: the gospel writer means the siblings (adelphos) of the Lord. There are other passages that list the words for cousins (sungenes) as well as for brother (adelphos) or sister in the same passage (such as Luke 21:16). As to the immaculate conception does not Romans 3:23 say: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It is worth noting that the scripture says that God alone (with respect to human beings) is without sin. There is no mention in scripture for Mary being the Queen of Heaven. Nor do the early church fathers write of this. Scripture does make mention of a Queen of heaven, however, in Jeremiah 44:25. In this portion of scripture the Lord voices his great displeasure with the people of Israel for offering worship to the Queen of Heaven. Indulgences and PurgatoryIn paragraph 1030 of the CCC it says: "All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified…after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." The idea that regenerated believers in Christ can be imperfectly purified is not scriptural. In Hebrews 10:14 it says: " for by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated." If believers in Christ are made perfect by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, how can there be any that are considered impure by God? Again it is written in Hebrews 10:10: "we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." If these passages are not clear enough, we should consider what the Lord Jesus said to the "good" thief, in Luke 23:43 "..Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Now surely no one would claim that a thief whose crimes were so monstrous as to rate the death penalty would have been able to enter Heaven, because his acts would have rendered him impure and unclean. Instead we see that by his faith in the Lord Jesus, he was cleansed from all imperfection and entered into Christ’s presence in heaven. There is no mention in Scripture of temporal punishment for sin remaining after forgiveness.
Justification
I think that the fundamental difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and the scriptures is most pronounced with respect to how we are saved. The CCC teaches that we can merit eternal life by works done in a state of grace, and not simply by faith alone. St. Paul on the other hand writes in several places that:
The scriptures are clear that salvation comes from repentance and faith in Christ Jesus alone. We will never be justified by our own works whether done in a state of grace or not. Now some have argued that what Paul meant by the law was the ceremonial law of the Mosaic covenant. This cannot be the case, because Paul later refers to coveting as a violation of the law in Romans 7:7-13. So it can be shown that when Paul says that no one will be justified by the works of the law he is in fact referring to the moral code as well as the ceremonial codes.
The scriptures teach that we are declared righteous by God because of our faith in the Lord Jesus, not by performing penances, novenas, masses, obtaining indulgences or experiencing purgatory. Paul writes in Romans 4:6 "So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits (imputes, declares) righteousness apart from works." So it can be seen that we cannot earn our way to being declared righteous by God, or receiving supplemental graces from God to earn our way into heaven. I am not saying that those who are justified by Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary have no obligation for obedience to the Lord. Nor am I saying that one is saved by faith, and then allowed to do nothing. In fact those who are called by God our Father, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, repenting of their sins, and believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, will invariably seek to do the will of the Lord. To continue on with the passage in that was quoted earlier:
I freely believe that faith without works is dead (so did the leaders of the Reformation). God does indeed call us to repent from sin and to work in His service. Nevertheless, no human being will be justified by his own works before God (Romans 3:20), because such works can never be performed perfectly. If someone claims faith in the Lord Jesus, yet no evidence of conversion is found, that person has not yet encountered the risen Christ! I agree that sanctification, that is, being conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus, is an on going process that takes a lifetime. I agree that we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16) " even as He is Holy." We are to strive to complete that holiness, (Hebrews 12:14) "without which no one will see the Lord." The work of that holiness comes from the Lord and is His work, and not from ourselves (Ephesians 2:10). By our own efforts we will not succeed. The Eucharist.I fully agree that the Eucharist, true to the meaning of the original Greek, is in fact an offering of praise and thanksgiving to God. It is also certainly a memorial like the Passover, and we are certainly called to be obedient to Christ by celebrating it and proclaiming his death until He comes again. Where Catholic doctrine begins to differ with Scripture is when it states (Paragraph 1367 of the CCC) that the sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, and that Christ is re-sacrificed, but in an unbloody manner. According to Scripture an unbloody sacrifice is not propitiatory, Hebrews 9:22 "and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." The scriptures actually declare that there is no longer an offering for sin, because Christ died once and for all (Romans 6:10). The author of Hebrews declares in 10:18 "Where there is forgiveness of these (sins), there is no longer offering for sin." Again in Hebrews 10:10 " We have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
I am not claiming that Christ is not present in the Eucharist. He is most certainly present in Spirit. He cannot be physically present in the Eucharist because He is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. He will come again physically at the second coming. Did not the angels say to the apostles in Acts 1:11 "Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking up at he sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven." Many people in the West today think that the word "spiritual" is synonymous with "not there." I totally disagree with them. Christ is in fact spiritually present with us during the Eucharist, even as he is present in the hearts and spirits of believers. Worship of ImagesOne of the things that has bothered me about the Catholic faith since the beginning, is the reverence and worship offered to images and statues. I tried to ignore this at first, because many a catechist had likened the use of sacred images to keeping of pictures of Jesus, or family members in the home. The problem with this argument is that I don’t worship pictures of my relatives or bow down to them, or pray to them. There is a clear injunction in the second commandment in Exodus 20:4 " You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below, or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them." How can I respect the church’s teaching and maintain a clear conscience before the Lord our God? Scripture no where teaches that we are to pray to any other being other than the Lord. Scripture and TraditionI have no problem with tradition. Tradition must, however be subordinate to and in agreement with the Scriptures or it is not from God. As I have shown above there are a number of traditions of the RCC that are not in agreement with the Scriptures. What does the Bible say about the authority of Scripture? In 2 Timothy 3:16 St Paul writes: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be perfect, equipped for every good work." Some Catholic apologists have argued that Saint Paul was speaking about an independent, parallel, unrecorded Gospel contained in an oral tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. The problem with this concept is that Paul tells us elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 11 " The chief message I handed on to you, as it was handed on to me, was that Christ, as the Scriptures foretold, died for our sins…That is our preaching, mine or theirs as you will; that is the faith that has come to you." It was interesting to discover what St. Augustine had to write about Scripture and Tradition:
PapacyThe RCC teaches that the Pope is the head of the entire Christian church, and as such exercises supreme authority, and is guaranteed to be free of error when teaching on faith or morals (CCC 881 through 891). If the Pope is infallible, how can he and the Magisterium of the church teach doctrines that contradict Scripture? The foundational passage in Scripture used to justify the Pope’s position is Matthew 16:18-19: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." If the Roman interpretation is correct then Peter did indeed have the keys. How did the early church fathers interpret this key passage?
It appears, that at least in the early church, that the rock referred to by the Lord was the faith of Peter, not Peter himself. In 1 Peter 5:1 Peter writes: " Therefore, I exhort you the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ…" Note that Peter does not refer to himself as the supreme pontiff, rather as a fellow elder! Saint Paul rebuked Peter for his compromising of the Gospel at the Council of Jerusalem. This is recorded in Galatians 2:11-14 and Acts 15. It is worth noting that after Paul’s rebuke that Peter actually repented and changed his position. Where is infallibility in this?
Just for the record there was a Pope who was branded as a heretic. Pope Honorius (625-638 AD) was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical council for supporting monotheletism. Pope Liberius (352-356) signed an Arian confession and denounced Athanasius in order to maintain his See against pressure from the Emperor Constantius II. Pope Zosimus (417-418) rebuked Augustine and the North African church for their condemnation of Pelagius and his heretical teachings. The North African church subsequently rejected the directions and admonitions of Zosimus. Apparently the church has not always believed what Rome requires that we believe today. As I review all these findings I find myself squarely in the position of the Reformed church. How surprising! I thought it would turn out the other way. By God’s grace I am headed back to the faith of my fathers after all. In the Service of Jesus Christ our Lord, Robert W. Mayberry Note: In the parish priest's response to my letter he did not comment on any of the doctrinal issues that I raised.
|
LOL,Now you know that some people only accept the books they want to and their interpretation is the only one acceptable.
I ride to work with an Evangelical and he reads out loud while we go to work at 4am. I have a Roomate that is Jewish and converted and he quotes all day Long...
I give him the catholic take and tell him about the Liturgical Calendar Like Pentecost sunday and last Sunday being Trinity Sunday....
I even explained to Him St Faustina and Christ declaring Divine mercy Sunday! the Sunday after Easter! Thats Christ speaking about HIS Church....to St faustina in the 1930’s
Thats the reward we get as Catholics we can draw off of so many Saints of the church as a Matter of fact the Liturgy combines that with scripture every day!
GOD Bless!
“Some people” know better.
Who’s fooling who? The largest used portion of the Bible serves by most RCC households is convenient family records section. There they record all the “sacramental” events in the lives of their children.
Other than the extra books that justify non-Biblical doctrine, I have found the RCC translations to be generally reasonable, even good. But let’s face it, there’s little risk of an RCC member actually reading it.
You ought to brush up on the dispersed nature of early Believers and their congregational independence.
As to Tobit, I have this to share. It is an uninspired piece of literature that ought to be taken as such.
There’s nothing wrong with studying history, and if you’re that interested in Scripture, why don’t you read it for yourself. You’re a smart person; you’re certainly capable of understanding what you read.
Why is it that your church is okay with its members reading and decyphering its liturgy, canons and other tomes, but when it comes to the Bible... you guys are considered complete dolts, incapable of comprehending it? When I bought my car I made sure I understood the contract. I took great care to read through every (tedious) word of it to make sure to understand my rights and obligations. I certainly wouldn’t have signed the document without reading and understanding. And if the salesman tried to get me to ignore the contract and sign my name, I would have walked out. Shouldn’t we be even more diligent with our eternal souls?
Apparently you need to brush up on early believers so that you would recognize that their customs and beliefs were wholly Catholic. You wouldn't make these spectacularly ignorant statements:
As to Tobit, I have this to share. It is an uninspired piece of literature that ought to be taken as such.
You diminish any credibility you might enjoy by making these outlandish comments. How can you advise people to read scripture when you don't even know what it is?
LOL. What a shallow understanding you display. You have been thoroughly propagandized.
I guess we'll have to do away with the FReeper prayer threads.
You have no idea what you speak of. And I’ll kindly ask you to refrain your comments to the content of the discussion rather than resorting to the last bastion of a failed argument: personal attack.
Maybe I'm underestimating them because they seem to speak as though they have all knowledge and understanding. They seem to be setting themselves up as gods who can judge the actions and beliefs of others. They seem to think that their eisegesis is applicable to everyone. Some, in their conceit, believe that they have more human knowledge than that assembled by the believers of Christ for 2000 years. I don't begrudge them their belief because God is supreme, He will save who He will.
As for me and my house, I will serve the Lord, my God through His body of believers through the Catholic Church. Others have chosen their own way and I trust that God will lead them.
And that is certainly your choice through the exercise of the free will that God grants all men.
As for me, I defer to the Authority of Scripture, and choose to study it directly to learn what God has done for, and requires of me.
I know exactly what I speak of. I've seen these bigoted anti-Catholic stereotypes a thousand times. And nothing I have written should be construed as personal attack, but that just speaks to the fallacy inherent in personal interpretation.
What failed argument? I haven't argued about anything. Your understanding of what constitutes sacred scripture is different from the perrenial belief of the community of saints. That is just a fact, not an argument.
There are some people out there who imply to others and obviously believe in there own minds that Catholics don’t study scripture directly and learn, like the Pharisees they believe that only they have it right. I wonder if they are so thankful that they strike their breasts and thank God that they are so holy.
Matthew 7:6
Goodbye
A sweeping generalization will almost always turn up exceptions, and if you are one of those exceptions I apologize for lumping you in.
It would be disingenuous for you to have the world believe that more than a small percentage of RCC laity actually read the Bible for themselves. They are not taught such. They are taught the catechism, and gather their knowledge of spiritual things at mass on Sunday and the occasional HDOO (holy day of obligation). While certain Scriptures are recited at mass, it is not studied there. Furthermore, there is little opportunity for, and small participation in (percentage-wise) actual study of Scripture.
Remarkably similar to your own MO, wouldn't you say?
Scour internet to find stories of disaffected Catholics (date irrelevant), post and add provocative comments until debate ignites, then disappear and watch inferno. Reappear occasionally to stoke fire and ping others to bring gasoline.
Repeat daily or as fuel availability permits.
Let's see I'm making "sweeping generalizations" and you are doing what?
It most certainly is studied through the homily.
Here read this,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1845279/posts?page=423#423
Not only that but obscure people who no one but their own parents have ever heard of and we’re supposed to take their new religion as gospel. The difference with Beckwith, Hahn, Grodi...is that their “pedigrees” are known and can be checked.
So, I take it you believe in sweeping generalizations and for a few minutes I just thought you were being pretty hypocritical.
I don't live my life or beliefs on sweeping generalization, and I don't think God does either, He KNOWS the heart of all of His faithful and I really don't believe you do.
this is the Part about reading the Bible every day!I do.. so why do you keep saying I don’t!
it is really sad however when you lose the reading of Books by Catholic Saints.. who have loved the Bible and gave us insights into the Bible Like the Old Testament being full filled in the New.. or Explain Hell or Purgatory or our Souls in depth or experiences or Show us in the Bible the levels of heaven...
People who think they are born again and gain entry into heaven automatically like My carmate Really are reading the Bible just ommitting the Part about Sin... and what Happens..as a result of it ...Hell is real...and you suffer the consequences of your unfullfilled life on Earth.
It Irks me when Catholic Politicians who claim they are special because they were Altar Boys growing up or went to catholic Schools like it Gave you some special dispensation into heaven..it doesn’t, GOD expects more from a catholic because we were raised in CHRISTS OWN CHURCH
I am Glad God gives us Novena’s and Litanies he passed down through our Saints.. June Being the Month of the sacred Heart of Jesus... passed Through St Mary Alconque
http://www.catholicculture.org/liturgicalyear/prayers/view.cfm?id=1055
I am on Fire with My FAITH and when people Insinuate that just the BIBLE and just them talking to GOD is enough I hope it is for their Sake!
When they mock me it’s ok..when they Mock Jesus church I will defend it!
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.