Formally Leaving the Catholic Church

[a_cermak]

Why do you want to reject your religion formally? Who are you doing this formally for?Yourself? Another religion? Some kind of scientific society? Why are you choosing to do it formally?Who must you feel it is necessary to prove or show this to in some formal statement? Who do you feel that you must express this too?

There are really good reasons to do this. The biggest is that if this gentleman (or lady) wants to marry a person in a non-Catholic church, it will provide a stumbling block to his parents participating in the wedding if they are scrupulous because as a Catholic (which one is until one formally defects) one is required to be married in a Catholic church or to have a dispensation.

Additionally the requirement to receive Reconciliation and Communion once a year is also binding on Catholics regardless of how distant they may be from the church.

If this person doesn’t believe, it is best for the individual to pursue this course. If the individual ever changes the mind, the Church has a process of RCIA to bring this person back into the fold.

 

[JimmyJazz]

There are still miracles that did not happen too long ago.Padre Pio had miracles attributed to him along with stigmata for many years still unexplainable by science.

I’ve read that Padre Pio created and maintained his stigmata using carbolic acid. That could be wrong, of course, but I freely admit that I’m more willing to believe an unpleasant naturalistic explanation than a miraculous one.

There is also the miracles of Fatima.

I know of none other than the Miracle of the Sun, which doesn’t sound that impressive or inexplicable. Are there other miracles associated with Fatima that you had in mind?

But if these scientifically unexplainable phenomena still occur there is no reason for me to assume the ressurection did not occur.

There might still be. I would guess that, despite believing in the Resurrection and various twentieth and twenty-first century miracles associated with Catholicism, you don’t believe that Mohammed split the moon, that God sent California gulls to save the Mormon pioneers from starvation, or that Hindu devas drank milk when it was offered to them. Every alleged miracle should be investigated on its own merits; however, I think that one should maintain a basic disposition of skepticism since miracles are by their very nature improbable.

Science and knowledge do not always concretely prove everything.

I wholeheartedly agree that science can’t prove everything. The scientific method is only useful for understanding what is ultimately a very small part of reality.

 

[JimmyJazz]

There are really good reasons to do this. The biggest is that if this gentleman (or lady) wants to marry a person in a non-Catholic church, it will provide a stumbling block to his parents participating in the wedding if they are scrupulous because as a Catholic (which one is until one formally defects) one is required to be married in a Catholic church or to have a dispensation.

Additionally the requirement to receive Reconciliation and Communion once a year is also binding on Catholics regardless of how distant they may be from the church.

If this person doesn’t believe, it is best for the individual to pursue this course. If the individual ever changes the mind, the Church has a process of RCIA to bring this person back into the fold.

Thank you for understanding why (among other reasons) I might want to formally defect. Besides the reasons that I’ve already listed, I don’t want to even *technically *have certain obligations incumbent upon me for belonging to a religion that I neither believe nor practice.

 

[Jenny_Z]

I’ve read that Padre Pio created and maintained his stigmata using carbolic acid. That could be wrong, of course, but I freely admit that I’m more willing to believe an unpleasant naturalistic explanation than a miraculous one.

It was documented by several doctors that the wounds completely disappeared when he died. No scarring, nothing. Couldn’t have happened if it was carbolic acid.

He also had several physicals (at the order of his superior) that said that there was no necrosis of the skin as there would be if he were constantly killing the area with acid. There was no decomposing smell; the wounds smelled like violets.

 

[human_being]

And 1 more.I really hope you can navigate and find the Truth. I’m not the greatest navigator on this thing,but I am geting better.ewtn.com/journeyhome/index.asp

 

[JimmyJazz]

It was documented by several doctors that the wounds completely disappeared when he died. No scarring, nothing. Couldn’t have happened if it was carbolic acid.

He also had several physicals (at the order of his superior) that said that there was no necrosis of the skin as there would be if he were constantly killing the area with acid. There was no decomposing smell; the wounds smelled like violets.

They were alleged to have had a pleasant smell, yes. But all we have for this is the word of people already convinced of Padre Pio’s sanctity. And were the doctors that examined him at any point in his life inclined to believe in miracles? I’m not accusing the Church of hiring people to lie or anything, but I would be more likely to believe in miraculous phenomena if atheists and agnostics reported them than, say, Catholics.

But perhaps Padre Pio didn’t mutilate himself; there are still natural explanations for his wounds. In people who exhibit psychogenic purpura, the skin appears bruised as the psychosomatic result of personality disturbances. Maybe this could account for stigmata, especially considering that both conditions occur primarily in women and are associated with mental duress (in the stigmatic’s case, intense contemplation of the Passion). I know that this is something of a stretch, but it’s not quite as much of a stretch as saying that God did it.

 

[Jenny_Z]

They were alleged to have had a pleasant smell, yes. But all we have for this is the word of people already convinced of Padre Pio’s sanctity. And were the doctors that examined him at any point in his life inclined to believe in miracles? I’m not accusing the Church of hiring people to lie or anything, but I would be more likely to believe in miraculous phenomena if atheists and agnostics reported them than, say, Catholics.

But perhaps Padre Pio didn’t mutilate himself; there are still natural explanations for his wounds. In people who exhibit psychogenic purpura, the skin appears bruised as the psychosomatic result of personality disturbances. Maybe this could account for stigmata, especially considering that both conditions occur primarily in women and are associated with mental duress (in the stigmatic’s case, intense contemplation of the Passion). I know that this is something of a stretch, but it’s not quite as much of a stretch as saying that God did it.

Considering scabs of dried blood would fall off his hands, i don’t think it was bruising…

And with all the other miracles associated with the man, I find it far more plausible that God did it. If you haven’t read any of his biographies, I urge you to. Quite a few of the people who visited and examined him weren’t even Catholic (but some converted after meeting him).

 

[human_being]

There are really good reasons to do this. The biggest is that if this gentleman (or lady) wants to marry a person in a non-Catholic church, it will provide a stumbling block to his parents participating in the wedding if they are scrupulous because as a Catholic (which one is until one formally defects) one is required to be married in a Catholic church or to have a dispensation.

Additionally the requirement to receive Reconciliation and Communion once a year is also binding on Catholics regardless of how distant they may be from the church.

If this person doesn’t believe, it is best for the individual to pursue this course. If the individual ever changes the mind, the Church has a process of RCIA to bring this person back into the fold.

Honestly, I don’t know all of the rules,but I would think that if you intentionally missed Mass for 1-2 years, or however long,that you would be able to go to reconcilliation 1x,be absolved and recieve communion immediately after.But with a formal renunciation of your baptismal vows it may be more difficult. I was away from the church for years and came back due to my wife wanting to join. I went to RCIA with her the whole time but do not think it was required of me. I did not formally remit my vows. My initial marriage was in Las Vegas.In the RCIA the priest said we should have “quiet-but- valid” ceremony to make our marriage right with the Church. And we did.

 

[thevickinator16]

I have been reading this thread for several days. I am so sorry to hear that you want to defect from Catholism. What horrifies me though is that you want to go to a religion that for all intents and purposes is a pagan religion. Nature’s God? To me this justs is a way to rationlize not following the Church rules. It allows you to have your cake and eat it too.

A great many people do this, and then find that they are not satisfied with whatever pursuit they endeavor in. I fell away from the Church for 35+ years, I also was dissatisfied with Church teachings. I came to a relization one day: I was nothing, this world did not satisfy my life. I had everything I wanted and no peace in my soul. I believed in God. I just believed MY way. It gets you nowhere. Now on the other hand, satan was quite pleased in giving me all I desired through this world. I have and will pay for this for the rest of my life.

Before you “defect”, Think long and hard at why your beliefs have evaporated. You may find that satan is doing his will in your soul. He is the best liar there is.

I hope your journey finds you true happiness. At this rate, you seem to be unsure of your new beliefs.

God Bless!

 

[dans0622]

There are really good reasons to do this. The biggest is that if this gentleman (or lady) wants to marry a person in a non-Catholic church, it will provide a stumbling block to his parents participating in the wedding if they are scrupulous because as a Catholic (which one is until one formally defects) one is required to be married in a Catholic church or to have a dispensation.

Additionally the requirement to receive Reconciliation and Communion once a year is also binding on Catholics regardless of how distant they may be from the church.

If this person doesn’t believe, it is best for the individual to pursue this course. If the individual ever changes the mind, the Church has a process of RCIA to bring this person back into the fold.

Hi a_cermak,

One who formally defects is, as far as the Church is concerned, only freed from three obligations: to get a dispensation to marry an unbaptised person, to get permission to marry a baptised, non-catholic, and to be married in canonical form or be legitimately dispensed from it. All other obligations are still in effect.

Also, the “defector” is still Catholic. By analogy, the prodigal son was still the son of the father, no matter how far away he wanted to go.

Dan

 

[Tamsulosin]

JimmyJazz:
We, as humans are dotted with: 1- a mind to reason, and 2- a soul capable of feelings.
The outputs of 1 and 2 are both real and valid, they complement each other.
A busy brain does not make up for the void in the soul which wordly matters will never completely satify. An imbalance is created.The time will come when you will see this clearly, believe me.
Jesus was the embodiment of completness,He taught us universal truths and reasonings,which are relevant then and today, and showed us the unending value of love(a feeling), by telling us that He will love us to the end of times, uncondicionally.
Christ founded the Catholic Church, you may disagree with some of the dogma of the Church, as organized(and we can discuss that) ,but how can you turn away from such love? Do not tear away from He who promised to sustain you in your needs, showing both unequalled humility and majesty in His presentation.
I wish you the best in your discernment. Tam

 

[JimmyJazz]

Considering scabs of dried blood would fall off his hands, i don’t think it was bruising…

If his wounds indeed scabbed, this doesn’t threaten the psychosomatic hypothesis. Documented cases of psychogenic purpura prove that certain mental states can effect visible skin damage, which may very well include wounds complete with scabbing.

There are other matters that must be explained if the stigmata were miraculous: first, why were the wounds on the Padre’s hands in the center of his palms? If the Romans crucified anyone through the palms, the nail would have to be driven through the hand a little off-center, near the thumb. Otherwise, the weight of the executed wouldn’t be supported. Second, why were these wounds round when the Romans used rectangular nails?

And with all the other miracles associated with the man, I find it far more plausible that God did it.

Could you please name some of these miracles?

Quite a few of the people who visited and examined him weren’t even Catholic (but some converted after meeting him).

Do you have any names of non-Catholic physicians that converted after examining Padre Pio’s wounds, or investigating other medical miracles? If so, are their designations of the alleged miracles as medically inexplicable uncontested?

 

[JimmyJazz]

I have been reading this thread for several days. I am so sorry to hear that you want to defect from Catholism. What horrifies me though is that you want to go to a religion that for all intents and purposes is a pagan religion. Nature’s God? To me this justs is a way to rationlize not following the Church rules. It allows you to have your cake and eat it too.

I won’t deny that many modern Deists practice their religion in a very pantheistic or pagan way, neglecting God or closing the infinite divide between Him and His creation. I’m quite frustrated by New Age-y, Birkenstock-shod Deists with their unsophisticated monism, as well as by Voltaire types that do nothing but attack organized religion. I’m more of a classical, Anglo-American-style Deist, a la Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or even Matthew Tindal- though I should note that I don’t have any particular reverence for nature.

A great many people do this, and then find that they are not satisfied with whatever pursuit they endeavor in. I fell away from the Church for 35+ years, I also was dissatisfied with Church teachings. I came to a relization one day: I was nothing, this world did not satisfy my life. I had everything I wanted and no peace in my soul. I believed in God. I just believed MY way. It gets you nowhere. Now on the other hand, satan was quite pleased in giving me all I desired through this world. I have and will pay for this for the rest of my life.

I don’t plan on abandoning Catholicism so that I can pursue a life of moral dissolution. I believe in objective morality, Heaven, and Hell (I even believe in Purgatory), and in many ways my ethics are Aristotelian/Thomistic.

I hope your journey finds you true happiness. At this rate, you seem to be unsure of your new beliefs.

God Bless!

Thank you for the goodwill.

 

[JimmyJazz]

JimmyJazz:
We, as humans are dotted with: 1- a mind to reason, and 2- a soul capable of feelings.
The outputs of 1 and 2 are both real and valid, they complement each other.
A busy brain does not make up for the void in the soul which wordly matters will never completely satify. An imbalance is created.The time will come when you will see this clearly, believe me.

I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that I should give reason and emotion equal hearings when forming my religious beliefs?

Jesus was the embodiment of completness,He taught us universal truths and reasonings,which are relevant then and today, and showed us the unending value of love(a feeling),…

I agree. One of the first things I decided when I fell away from Catholicism was that the teachings of Christ- in their pristine, historical form unaltered by additions, misattributions, and myth- were relevant, valuable, and worth keeping.

…by telling us that He will love us to the end of times, uncondicionally. Christ founded the Catholic Church, you may disagree with some of the dogma of the Church, as organized(and we can discuss that) ,

With all due respect, I don’t see any reason to believe that Jesus founded the Catholic Church or actually promised to remain with his worshipers through all time.

…but how can you turn away from such love? Do not tear away from He who promised to sustain you in your needs, showing both unequalled humility and majesty in His presentation.
I wish you the best in your discernment. Tam

I’m not rejecting God’s love. I’m just leaving a religion that I no longer believe speaks for Him.

 

[Jenny_Z]

If his wounds indeed scabbed, this doesn’t threaten the psychosomatic hypothesis. Documented cases of psychogenic purpura prove that certain mental states can effect visible skin damage, which may very well include wounds complete with scabbing.

There are other matters that must be explained if the stigmata were miraculous: first, why were the wounds on the Padre’s hands in the center of his palms? If the Romans crucified anyone through the palms, the nail would have to be driven through the hand a little off-center, near the thumb. Otherwise, the weight of the executed wouldn’t be supported. Second, why were these wounds round when the Romans used rectangular nails?

Could you please name some of these miracles?

Do you have any names of non-Catholic physicians that converted after examining Padre Pio’s wounds, or investigating other medical miracles? If so, are their designations of the alleged miracles as medically inexplicable uncontested?

Sure, I’ve got several books on him, I’ll go through them when I can… I know for sure that there are specific names. (I just got some big news today though, it might be a day or two)

 

[JimmyJazz]

Sure, I’ve got several books on him, I’ll go through them when I can… I know for sure that there are specific names. (I just got some big news today though, it might be a day or two)

That’s fine; it’s not urgent or anything (and congratulations, if it was good news).

 

[human_being]

I agree. One of the first things I decided when I fell away from Catholicism was that the teachings of Christ- in their pristine, historical form unaltered by additions, misattributions, and myth- were relevant, valuable, and worth keeping.

How is it that you may see Heaven,Hell, and Purgatory as factual,but not things you call things relating to Jesus as myths,additions,misattributions? How is it that you accept somethings about God as facts and others myths?Do this desire come from some founding fathers “hype” which is floating around the media of today,and even through these posts?

 

[JimmyJazz]

How is it that you may see Heaven,Hell, and Purgatory as factual,but not things you call things relating to Jesus as myths,additions,misattributions?

I believe that the existence of what classical Deists liked to call “a future state of rewards and punishments”- which I believe would include Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell- can be rationally established. Mind you, I’m still a little unsure of who goes where, but I have a basic understanding that they all exist. The myths, additions, and misattributions to which I refer are those words and deeds associated with Jesus that we have no good reason to believe are historical.

How is it that you accept somethings about God as facts and others myths?

I accept what can be at least proven to be very likely about God as true; what can’t (e.g., that He is Triune), I don’t.

Do this desire come from some founding fathers “hype” which is floating around the media of today,and even through these posts?

Not really. I cite some Founding Fathers as good examples of Enlightenment-era Deists, but they didn’t convince me of their religion. I’ve long been tending toward Deism; even as a Catholic I was skeptical of miracles, suspicious of alleged divine intervention, and disinclined to prefer authority over reason. I’d probably have ended up some kind of rationalist had I never heard of the Founding Fathers.

 

[Jenny_Z]

That’s fine; it’s not urgent or anything (and congratulations, if it was good news).

It is good news, thank you

And I don’t mind at all… he’s my confirmation saint, I find him fascinating.

 

[human_being]

I believe that the existence of what classical Deists liked to call “a future state of rewards and punishments”- which I believe would include Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell- can be rationally established. Mind you, I’m still a little unsure of who goes where, but I have a basic understanding that they all exist. The myths, additions, and misattributions to which I refer are those words and deeds associated with Jesus that we have no good reason to believe are historical.

I accept what can be at least proven to be very likely about God as true; what can’t (e.g., that He is Triune), I don’t.

Not really. I cite some Founding Fathers as good examples of Enlightenment-era Deists, but they didn’t convince me of their religion. I’ve long been tending toward Deism; even as a Catholic I was skeptical of miracles, suspicious of alleged divine intervention, and disinclined to prefer authority over reason. I’d probably have ended up some kind of rationalist had I never heard of the Founding Fathers.

You, my friend are begining to sum up alot my thoughts and concerns of American society and politics today. This country (and I don’t hate it & am not a liberal) seems to be pushing freemasonry. Were they not Deists(I really don’t know)? If you are to be considered a true Catholic you must vote against abortion.Which side votes against abortion? The far right. So it seems we look for alot of answers from the far right media. Unfortunately, the far right media also tends to put country above the catholic church. It leads people to the constitution and looking into these founding fathers and putting them on pedestals as though they are canonized saints. They are not, nor will they ever be canonized. They were not catholic. They were freemasons,Christian or not. The church stands firmly against freemasonry. I feel that the far right media may lead many away from the faith by putting country above Church. I could be totally wrong with you, personally, but I think what I’m describing is pretty close to what could happen if catholics put our freemason forefathers above the Catholic Church.I do apologize if I am way off track.
Has popular right wing media or interest in freemasonry swayed you towards your decision? If not, what are the books or other things that led you to decide to leave the True Church that Jesus began? Were there certain media people, or authors? Is it common teaching in the public schools or colleges? Is it freemasons or a group who began to sway you? Was it another Church? I do not speak to condemn you, only to know the truth.What began and helped you along this journey?