Going to hell for leaving the Catholic church

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Eucharisteo,

Would you mind enumerating the various parts of God’s Word that are not in the Bible? I’m sure posters would like examples.

God bless!

I agree. Unfortunately the bible does not contain all of the word of God.

 

[TriuneUnity]

but rather the Church/Israel relationship within the redemptive plan of God. Catholics would be surprised I think at the commonality (from a theological prespective) between them and reformed (covanent) theology. Of course, other fairly large disagreements remain, such as ecclesiactic doctrines and so forth.

take care,
Jom

Ooo, now that would be a thread I would actually take the time to respond to!

 

[SSTeacher]

I was raised Catholic, am now in my early 20’s, and have recently made the decision to leave the Catholic church. I was curious about what the Catholic church itself would say about me leaving, and according to the Catechism, someone who has full knowledge of the church’s mission, beliefs etc, and then leaves the Catholic church, will not achieve salvation. It sounds like I’m going to hell.

This seems kind of weird. I suppose I can understand how the Catholic church got so big if it has a “you go to hell if you leave” clause in the Catechism.

Thoughts?

Thanks for the answer. It made me think. But I’ve never thought the church would actually send you to hell. I know God is the only one who can send you there. Regardless, the church telling me that I’ll go to hell if I leave seems to be a bit corrupt and suspicious. When I step outside of the box of Catholicism, and stop trying to defend my faith, I realize that no group should ever condemn its nonmembers.

Well, if by “fully catechized” you mean “brainwashed to believe that there is only one true religion”, then yes I was. 12 years of Catholic school. I think your response about me not being fully catechized truly shows how people of the Catholic faith try to invalidate the opinions of others through semantics.

I appreciate the posts and prayers, thanks.

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums.

As you give your religion as, “Looking,” it seems to me (purely on pragmatic grounds) that you might as well stay inside the Catholic Church while you look for something that you think might be better. I don’t see any benefit for you if you leave the Catholic Church but have no place else to go – unless you’ve decided to reject all communal worship and are considering deism or agnosticism, in which case you would have little or no interest in the opinions of people who post on CAF since the majority of them are members of faith communities.

I assume you’ve posted in the Non–Catholic Religions forum in order to attract comments and questions about your thought processes from Non–Catholics (I’m one ) as well as from Catholics and I’m interested in your comment about being “brainwashed to believe that there is only one true religion.”

Would you prepared to say why you find the notion of “only one true religion” objectionable?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[Jon_Hus]

Ooo, now that would be a thread I would actually take the time to respond to!

Have your read Augustine? Jaroslav Pelikan? Martin Luther? At least some of the ANF? Adolph Harnack? The CCC? Jonathan Edwards? Calvin? Richard B. Hays? Oscar Cullman? Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum? O. Palmer Robertson? Kendal R. Soulen? Louis Berkhof? Lewis Sperry Chafer? Kenneth Scott Latourette? Philip Schaff? and my personal favorite Ronald Diprose?

 

[twopekinguys]

I’m going to throw my 2 cents in here, and let it go at that.

1. Didn’t we recently have a poster start a thread like this? Almost verbatim if I remember correctly. I think that OP is no longer able to post, if you know what I mean.
2. Poor catechesis is a good “question”. The reason I say “question” is that I have seen a huge difference in the understanding of catechesis between cradle Catholics, and those that have converted form another religion. Let’s face it. When you’re in 3rd grade, in religion class, you’re not as likely to pay attention and absorb the way an adult would. By the time you get to high school and college, you tend to tune it out because you think you have heard it all before, and know it all.

As the Lay Director of RCIA for our parish, I can’t tell you how many cradle Catholics have come through for a “refresher” type course, and are amazed at the things they either never know, or had forgotten about.

I think you can see how poor catechesis is a valid “question”, but not always a valid answer.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Have your read Augustine? Jaroslav Pelikan? Martin Luther? At least some of the ANF? Adolph Harnack? The CCC? Jonathan Edwards? Calvin? Richard B. Hays? Oscar Cullman? Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum? O. Palmer Robertson? Kendal R. Soulen? Louis Berkhof? Lewis Sperry Chafer? Kenneth Scott Latourette? and my personal favorite Ronald Diprose?

I’ve read Augustine, Luther, Harnack, Edwards, Calvin, Robertson (in this particular topic, I would say Christ of the Covenants is pretty close to the top of the list), and Berkhof.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Pat Robertson? LOL!!

I’ve read Augustine, Luther, Harnack, Edwards, Calvin, Robertson (in this particular topic, I would say Christ of the Covenants is pretty close to the top of the list), and Berkhof.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Pat Robertson? LOL!!

LOL!! Nooooo, Pat did a book on Blaming Natural Disasters on Pacts with the Devil theology, not covenant theology.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Have your read Augustine? Jaroslav Pelikan? Martin Luther? At least some of the ANF? Adolph Harnack? The CCC? Jonathan Edwards? Calvin? Richard B. Hays? Oscar Cullman? Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum? O. Palmer Robertson? Kendal R. Soulen? Louis Berkhof? Lewis Sperry Chafer? Kenneth Scott Latourette? Philip Schaff? and my personal favorite Ronald Diprose?

Have you read Cullman’s book on Peter? In the past I’ve referenced it on a couple of CAF threads on Peter and the papacy and gotten no response. Personally I think it’s one of the best books written on the topic of Peter and his ministry.

Likewise for Pelikan on his books on the early church and on Mary and Schaff on the creeds (along with J.N.D. Kelly’s writings on the creeds)

/off topic

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know! I was just kiddin’ ya. I just crack up at the thought of Pat Robertson; the guy’s just hilariously quirky-weird!! The way he shakes his head when he talks, has that bizarre unsure-about-himself tone and yet he speaks so confidently, and the way people call in to his 700 Club show to ask him the most inane questions, gotta love it! LOL

I’ll never forget years ago when I was in the Philippines with my wife visiting her family and we went to her aunt’s house. There on the wall right by the dinner table was a big framed picture of Pat Robertson. In the heart of Baguio, Philippines, high high high up in the mountains of Benguet region----Pat Robertson. My wife explained that she was a Protestant. I replied, “evidently! and one with poor taste in protestant churches as well!” LOL

LOL!! Nooooo, Pat did a book on Blaming Natural Disasters on Pacts with the Devil theology, not covenant theology.

 

[Jon_Hus]

I’ve read Augustine, Luther, Harnack, Edwards, Calvin, Robertson (in this particular topic, I would say Christ of the Covenants is pretty close to the top of the list), and Berkhof.

Excellent. I will start a new thread on this over the weekend. This is good, I didn’t want to have a discussion with myself.

I just finished Riddlebarger, if you know of him, it was murder.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I know! I was just kiddin’ ya. I just crack up at the thought of Pat Robertson; the guy’s just hilariously quirky-weird!! The way he shakes his head when he talks, has that bizarre unsure-about-himself tone and yet he speaks so confidently, and the way people call in to his 700 Club show to ask him the most inane questions, gotta love it! LOL

I’ll never forget years ago when I was in the Philippines with my wife visiting her family and we went to her aunt’s house. There on the wall right by the dinner table was a big framed picture of Pat Robertson. In the heart of Baguio, Philippines, high high high up in the mountains of Benguet region----Pat Robertson. My wife explained that she was a Protestant. I replied, “evidently! and one with poor taste in protestant churches as well!” LOL

LOL! Replace the picture of the Pope with the picture of Pat Robertson. I don’t even think Luther would’ve advocated that one. Did he pray a hurricane away from the Philippines or something?? LoL

 

[TriuneUnity]

Excellent. I will start a new thread on this over the weekend. This is good, I didn’t want to have a discussion with myself.

I just finished Riddlebarger, if you know of him, it was murder.

I haven’t read anything of Riddlebarger’s on covenant theology per se. Are you referring to A Case for Amillennialism? I’ve read that one.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Have you read Cullman’s book on Peter? In the past I’ve referenced it on a couple of CAF threads on Peter and the papacy and gotten no response. Personally I think it’s one of the best books written on the topic of Peter and his ministry.

Likewise for Pelikan on his books on the early church and on Mary and Schaff on the creeds (along with J.N.D. Kelly’s writings on the creeds)

/off topic

I have Cullmans book on Peter but haven’t read all of it, only a chapter or two just to get a feel for him. Pelikan, I have his 5 volume set on the development of doctrine, he is of course slow reading but exact. I’m afraid to read his works on Mary as I have total respect for him and don’t want to ruin that. I have two works by Kelly, the creed book and the doctrine book, the 3 vol on creeds by Schaff and the 8 vol series on church history. I really appreciate how Schaff takes the Bishops from Trent and V1 to task.

Maybe I will read Cullman in detail next so that we can chat.

 

[Jon_Hus]

I haven’t read anything of Riddlebarger’s on covenant theology per se. Are you referring to A Case for Amillennialism? I’ve read that one.

Yes that book. I’m personlly not convinced by his case. I have many pages of notes and quotes and questions.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Yes that book. I’m personlly not convinced by his case. I have many pages of notes and quotes and questions.

I thought his arguments against the dispensationalist interpretations of certain texts of Scripture were very well thought out. His arguments against premillennialism were not as good… I admit that historic premillennialism is the older view of the Church and I don’t think Riddlebarger addressed that one well, if at all.

 

[distracted]

wht happned to Red Man?

i guess he’s out there doing what former Catholics do… getting into hot water…

that’s what happened to me and i never even renounced the Church EVER… just went away from it…

boy did i suffer… and a lot of people i was involved with…

nothing fights the devil more the Church… the Mass… the sacraments…

as Jesus said “I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” (st mt 16 18)

 

[Lazarette]

Hi Jon H,

yes I agree with you that a truly informed decision takes all sides into account. Since you’re reading source materials, have you read the Church Fathers? They’re on the internet at newadvent.org/fathers/

Another book, more in the popular reading than the ones in your new thread is Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home.

The word “study” brings to mind studying topics. You can even study a person. For example, interviews read up and study about a person. But knowing a lot about a person is different than encountering him or her in person. I wish you success both in your study about Jesus and your personal encounter with Jesus.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I have Cullmans book on Peter but haven’t read all of it, only a chapter or two just to get a feel for him. Pelikan, I have his 5 volume set on the development of doctrine, he is of course slow reading but exact. I’m afraid to read his works on Mary as I have total respect for him and don’t want to ruin that. I have two works by Kelly, the creed book and the doctrine book, the 3 vol on creeds by Schaff and the 8 vol series on church history. I really appreciate how Schaff takes the Bishops from Trent and V1 to task.

Maybe I will read Cullman in detail next so that we can chat.

I find Cullman to read really well, actually interacts with the texts and tradition rather than trying to mythologize them like Bultmann for example. Quite often everyone’s ox gets a bit of goring from his analysis and I especially fid that to be the case in his book on Peter, where he clearly points out special perogatives attached to Peter in Scripture, but makes it equally clear that they don’t support the weight of papal authority Catholics attempt to rest on them.

What about Pelikan’s approach concerns you re: Mary? He takes the same approach as in development of doctrine (which was the work I was referring to, esp. volume 1) only narrowing his focus to Marian beliefs and piety. I don’t find him to be disrespectful of the biblical Mary in the text, but rather a reporter on later development using historical-critical methods.

If you do, let me know, I would be interested in someone else’s opinion. Cullman isn’t the “latest news” anymore, so folks often pass on to more recent authors in discussions.

 

[Jon_Hus]

I thought his arguments against the dispensationalist interpretations of certain texts of Scripture were very well thought out. His arguments against premillennialism were not as good… I admit that historic premillennialism is the older view of the Church and I don’t think Riddlebarger addressed that one well, if at all.

He takes dispensationalist totally out of context, as well as the supporting Scripture. He claims to be a former dispensationalist, if so, he didn’t pay attention to his teachers. Some of his comments on his internet blog are unchristian, in my opinion. The way he uses George E. Ladd (a fellow Fuller graduate and total superior intellect to Riddle) to argue both sides of the arguement is frustrating and unbecoming.