Goya;12991055:
But that does seem to be what you said:
Except that I went on to say: “…
without rejecting any fundamental tenet of the Faith”–which, taken in conjunction with what I said before that:
“leaving the Church” is different than “leaving the faith”, (or ‘rejecting the faith’)"–amounts to me not saying what you’ve inferred.
Note the example I gave: one could cease
attending mass regularly–and even begin attending protestant services–without
rejecting the Faith. That is
NOT saying that
conversion to Protestantism, is not rejecting the faith, as “conversion” suggests rejection of the old–in this case, Catholicism–and acceptance of the new–in this case, Protestantism (though by the same token, ‘suggests’ doesn’t imply necessarily, either).
If one converts to Protestantism, that implies that one has intellectually accepted
sola scriptura, sola fide, perhaps OSAS, and such…
…and rejected any one or more (depending on the denom) of the following Catholic beliefs: the Pope, his authority, the Magisterium, its authority, the authority of Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, the efficacy and centrality of the Sacraments, the necessity of Baptism, the propriety of infant baptism, the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and such.
Stated differently, leaving the Church–like becoming apathetic, as in a lapsed Catholic, for instance–does not necessarily require rejection of the Faith.
Taken a step further–that is, beyond just ceasing to attend Catholic mass, and being active in the Church–but also patronzing another (protestant) faith community–without rejecting Catholicism, and not accepting or assenting to those aspects of what ever the protestant denomination be that are offensive to Catholicism, imo–does not constitute rejecting the Faith, or rejecting Catholicism (or ‘leaving the Faith’).
In those cases, it’s more like a dormant faith, not rejected.
But when you say “conversion”, that implies much more than that.
JMHO.