Going to hell for leaving the Catholic church

[Jon_Hus]

I’ve liked some of what the Progressive Dispensationalists have written… I think they’ve tried to ramp down the level of separation between Israel and the Church more evident in earlier dispensational writings. I don’t agree with most of dispensationalism at all, though I do find premillennialism somewhat convincing. I see more of a separation between Israel and the Church than what Covenant Theology puts forward, but less so than dispensationalism.

Amen to that.

Would you say that you are covanent pre-mil? (I blew my cover, now your turn ).

 

[TriuneUnity]

Would you say that you are covanent pre-mil? (I blew my cover, now your turn ).

I would say of the choices given, I would be closer to New Covenant Theology (as it relates to the relationship between Israel and the Church), especially on the Sabbath, and the continuance of Old Testament law for the Christian. As for the millennium, I don’t have a firm position, but would lean toward premillennialism in as much as the second coming is concerned. I do not think that the relevant passages in Rev. 20 can be so easily spiritualized or allegorized. It was really Origen who started that practice and I am loathe to follow the exegetical example of that lunatic lol. As for the flow of the events leading up to the second coming, I would identify more with amillennialism in that, I do not accept the idea of a rapture at all.

 

[SSTeacher]

Roman_Catholic;6583008:

I haven’t read all of the OP’s posts but is his position that he believes the Church is everything it claims to be but wants to reject it still?

God bless

I don’t know if the OP believed everything at one time or not. But if someone did and then has a change of beliefs, are still Christian but does not remain fully Catholic, apparently the Church says they can not be saved without repenting their new beliefs.

I think that to be fair it probably ought to be inferred that the Catholic Church asserts as a general rule that such people cannot be saved but that it allows for the fact that in individual cases the general rule might not be applied. I’m thinking of the fact that the Catholic Church also asserts the importance of conscience. So that’s where the uncertainty might arise because who dares to be the judge of another person’s conscience? The nearest the Catholic Church gets to tying up that loose end is to assert that a person’s conscience (presumably any sane adult person) can be seared or misinformed and that a person with a seared and/or misinformed conscience may not be free of guilt.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[nhylan]

I’ve been thinking about this thread for a couple hours and I think I’ve decided its largely a useless threat apart from intellectual curiosity. For example:

If the OP is going to convert to, say, Lutheranism, for an example the Catholic Church’s teachings on leaving the church are irrelevant if he is committed to converting. If the OP is questioning his faith then thats another story. I can only conclude that your having some difficulties with your faith, and are merely asking about the Church’s position because it is easy to question things like this in the anonymity of the interwebs. I would honestly urge you to stick with it and try to reconcile what you believe. Honestly, I know this may sound harsh, but if you were truly going to convert, the church’s position on conversation wouldn’t matter.
Does that make sense?

 

[SSTeacher]

Can we all stay focused on the Original Post from now on, please?

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think that to be fair it probably ought to be inferred that the Catholic Church asserts as a general rule that such people cannot be saved but that it allows for the fact that in individual cases the general rule might not be applied. I’m thinking of the fact that the Catholic Church also asserts the importance of conscience. So that’s where the uncertainty might arise because who dares to be the judge of another person’s conscience? The nearest the Catholic Church gets to tying up that loose end is to assert that a person’s conscience (presumably any sane adult person) can be seared or misinformed and that a person with a seared and/or misinformed conscience may not be free of guilt.

Cordially,
Mick

If this were a question posted not to the Roman Catholic Church but to the Orthodox Church, how would you respond?

 

[KindredSoul]

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.

Think of it this way: If I live a healthy lifestyle, and I say that anyone who doesn’t live a healthy life style will be out of shape (even if not visibly) and risk dying earlier as a result, am I making a “corrupt and suspicious” claim to have power over people by making them agree that healthy living is the best way to live? Or am I sharing the fruits of what I have discerned, and it just so happens that part of that discernment is that people should live a healthy lifestyle in order to avoid those unpleasant consequences? It is the same for Catholicism. The Church has found, due to many reasons (beyond the scope of this thread to get into major debate on “is it or isn’t it”) that Catholicism is true, that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Christ founded. The Church has found that Jesus came to save us from Hell through a relationship with Him. Thus it is only logical that the Church would caution that the safest thing to do is to be Catholic–to have a relationship with Jesus in the context of the Church we truly believe He founded–just as a Health expert would caution that the safest thing to do is to live healthy. Nor are we “condemning” non members, anymore than a Health expert is “condemning” people who live unhealthy lifestyles. He’s only sharing what he has found to be the plausible or probable consequences of their unhealthy choices. He’s only the messenger of what he has found to be so, and he shouldn’t be accused of being “corrupt and suspicious” for simply being honest with others about that, out of concern, no less; it’s the same with the Church. It’s not about power or expanding our numbers, or about condemning people. This is what we as a Church have found to be true, and we’re sharing that with people in your shoes.

I do not know if you plan to read any more or if you’ve already satisfied yourself on this matter. But I hope and pray that you will consider not leaving, and also that even if you leave you will be absolved of this notion that the Church’s teachings that we should ideally be Catholic in order to be safest are “corrupt and suspicious.” To say such claims are “corrupt and suspicious” is just not a logical conclusion to which to leap.

My prayers are with you. May the Holy Spirit guide you and keep you.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[dzheremi]

Re: Discussion between CMatt25 and R_C

I’m afraid I do not understand this distinction. From reading the quoted portion given by Matt, it would seem that his interpretation of what it means is not far off the mark. What exactly does it mean to believe in everything the Church says about itself but still reject it? If this actually happens, then it might be a useful distinction to preserve. But does this actually happen? I have a hard time imaging that it does, given the massive amount of cognitive dissonance that must be overcome in order to hold such a position.

I will say that for myself when I joined the Church I had become convinced that it was everything that it says that it is. I’m not sure that it’s really fair to blame the fact that I no longer believe that on bad catechesis – in fact, I would say that’s downright uncharitable. As far as I know, I am the only member of that class to have voluntarily removed himself from active communion with the Church, and it isn’t out of any sort of malice or misunderstanding of the apologetic arguments in favor of Catholicism. Heck, I myself repeated many of these arguments on this very board for many months before my deeper study of church history started to make apparent to me the contradiction of trying to uphold all RC doctrine while claiming to adhere to the faith as handed down by the Apostles. Even then, there is also the fact that I am just fundamentally uncomfortable with the approach of the Latin Church towards the faith. Someone once said that to be deep into history is to stop being Protestant, and I agree. I would go one step further and say that to be deep into history is also to begin to doubt some modern RC claims.

So what now? I am going to hell for having sincerely believed and, over the course of several years, come to disbelieve? This is a ridiculous. I do not see how it is a tenable position in light of various other positions that the Church claims to hold, e.g. non-Catholics may be “saved”, Orthodox Christians have valid sacraments, etc.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6583235:

I think that to be fair it probably ought to be inferred

that the Catholic Church asserts as a general rule that such people cannot be saved but that it allows for the fact that in individual cases the general rule might not be applied. I’m thinking of the fact that the Catholic Church also asserts the importance of conscience. So that’s where the uncertainty might arise because who dares to be the judge of another person’s conscience? The nearest the Catholic Church gets to tying up that loose end is to assert that a person’s conscience (presumably any sane adult person) can be seared or misinformed and that a person with a seared and/or misinformed conscience may not be free of guilt.

Cordially,
Mick
:thumbsup:If this were a question posted not to the Roman Catholic Church but to the Orthodox Church, how would you respond?

I’d refer the questioner to his spritual adviser. However, if I were asked for my personal opinion I’d declare that I’m a hopeful Universalist and that my hope therefore is that nobody will end up suffering in agony for all eternity.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’d refer the questioner to his spritual adviser. However, if I were asked for my personal opinion I’d declare that I’m a hopeful Universalist and that my hope therefore is that nobody will end up suffering in agony for all eternity.

Cordially,
Mick

Well, that’s certainly sane.

Honestly, whatever church one is considering leaving or joining… when it comes to the issue of Hell, I would probably want to focus on more about what Jesus said than what Church dogmatics say. i.e., you should probably only worry about what He says when it comes to whether you’re going to be saved from judgment or not.

 

[KindredSoul]

So what now? I am going to hell for having sincerely believed and, over the course of several years, come to disbelieve? This is a ridiculous. I do not see how it is a tenable position in light of various other positions that the Church claims to hold, e.g. non-Catholics may be “saved”, Orthodox Christians have valid sacraments, etc.

I do not believe that anyone could say whether you’re going to hell or not. The Catechism makes exception for those who do not know the Truth through no fault of their own. Does sincerely coming to disbelieve, such that the person just could not even will themselves to believe in Catholicism if they wanted to, count as being no fault of one’s own? I honestly don’t know.

I think that most people are concerned with the possibility that anyone who has been Catholic before may well have, at some point, had everything they needed in order to be Catholic for the rest of their lives, and at some point might have made a faulty/immoral choice that enabled them to reach the point to where they could no longer believe. In that case, the line is blurry: True, the person now cannot believe, but can we say it was through no fault of their own if the initial means that set them on this path was due to some moral misdirection they inflicted upon themselves earlier? Will God decide whether they are “at fault” based on now and the future, or will He consider that they certainly had their chance to keep believing and, at some point (perhaps forgotten by them now, as unsettling a possibility as that is) did something that weakened that, thus they themselves are at fault for their unbelief? Again, I honestly don’t know.

So you see, there are too many variables for me to be totally at ease with someone being non-Catholic. I can honestly say I do not know they are definitely going to Hell, but nor do I have enough knowledge (nor am I sure they themselves can) to know confidently that, in the Catholic context, they will definitely going to Heaven. I just don’t know. My uncertainties are why the only thing I can say for certain is that it is safest, by far, to be a devout, practicing, believing Catholic, from my Catholic perspective. I do not know what will become of a given non-Catholic or a Catholic who leaves the Church, but I do know that a devout and practicing Catholic goes to Heaven. When faced with one path that is less than certain, and one that certainly leads to Heaven, who can fault us for cautioning people against following the path we have found to be the uncertain one?

Again, this isn’t to start a debate on whether Catholicism is true (that’s not the point of this thread) but just to show why it is not uncharitable or “condemning” for someone who does believe in Catholicism to caution someone against leaving Catholicism or staying outside of the Church. We only know for sure what happens to a devout Catholic, which is eternal bliss with God, so of course we would caution anyone to take that safer route. As for your own opinion as to what is true and what will happen to you, you must work that out with God yourself, and I will pray for you.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6583309:

I’d refer the questioner to his spritual adviser. However, if I were asked for my personal

opinion I’d declare that I’m a hopeful Universalist and that my hope therefore is that nobody will end up suffering in agony for all eternity.

Cordially,
Mick
:thumbsup:Well, that’s certainly sane.

I’m chuffed that you would think so but it’s certainly a minority view.

Honestly, whatever church one is considering leaving or joining… when it comes to the issue of Hell, I would probably want to focus on more about what Jesus said than what Church dogmatics say. i.e., you should probably only worry about what He says when it comes to whether you’re going to be saved from judgment or not.

That’s also sane.

However, I am supposing that cradle Catholics must have great difficulty attempting to look at the issue in this way because of the doctrine of papal infallibility. It seems probable to me that the effect of that doctrine upon cradle Catholics is that they are brought up to think of the whole of the Catholic Church as being covered with a veneer of infallibility. This would mean that the visions of there being large numbers of people in hell (visions that have been claimed as authentic by Catholics who have subsequently been canonized as saints by the Catholic Church) are probably understood by cradle Catholics as being at least vaguely connected with this idea of “infallible teaching” because so many Catholics believe these visions to have been genuine. It’s true that belief in these visions is theoretically classed as optional but in practice I feel sure that the mere knowledge of them would cause both emotional concerns and intellectual struggles for any cradle Catholic who attempted to leave the Catholic Church.

Thoughtfully,
Mick

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m chuffed that you would think so but it’s certainly a minority view.

Of course, I would limit the universal aspect to those who have faith in Christ. I certainly wouldn’t restrict it along ecclessial lines, however.

However, I am supposing that cradle Catholics must have great difficulty attempting to look at the issue in this way because of the doctrine of papal infallibility. It seems probable to me that the effect of that doctrine upon cradle Catholics is that they are brought up to think of the whole of the Catholic Church as being covered with a veneer of infallibility. This would mean that the visions of there being large numbers of people in hell (visions that have been claimed as authentic by Catholics who have subsequently been canonized as saints by the Catholic Church) are probably understood by cradle Catholics as being at least vaguely connected with this idea of “infallible teaching” because so many Catholics believe these visions to have been genuine. It’s true that belief in these visions is theoretically classed as optional but in practice I feel sure that the mere knowledge of them would cause both emotional concerns and intellectual struggles for any cradle Catholic who attempted to leave the Catholic Church.

Thoughtfully,
Mick

Which is why I chafe at those Protestants who universally state that Catholics cannot inherit eternal life. We’re simply not in the position to make any claims to that degree of exclusivity beyond that which Scripture does. At least the Catholics can at least provide the anecdotes of miraculous visions to try and support those kind of claims, as weak as they may be. Protestants sure as heck don’t.

Outside the Church there is no salvation…is certainly true biblically, but only if that is understood to mean those who possess faith in Christ, which automatically makes them a member of the Church. Once you start restricting that to one particular, visible communion you will run into the sorts of problems evident on this thread. I realize what Catholics point to in an attempt to bolster the surety of such a position (papal infallibility, for example), however, those things which they point to are too unsure for me to take seriously. At least, not when it comes to a human soul’s eternal perdition.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Re: Discussion between CMatt25 and R_C

I’m afraid I do not understand this distinction. From reading the quoted portion given by Matt, it would seem that his interpretation of what it means is not far off the mark.

There is a distinction and I believe the quote Matt offered is trying to make that distinction. I could be wrong in this (what the quote offered is trying to say), but I am not wrong in there being a distinction.

Person A believes that the Church was made “necessary by Chirst” and rejects the Church.

Person B knows what what the Church teaches about itself and rejects the belief that the Church was made “necessary by Christ”, hence, does not believe that the Chuch was made, “necessary by Christ”.

It is a condition of the heart. Person A is knowingly in rebellion. Person B, coming from a Catholic, is simply wrong (arguable I understand but coming from a Catholic). Person B may very well be in rebellion but it is not his/her hearts intention. It is not “knowingly”. Whether or not Person B is wrong is debatable but there is a disctinction between person A and person B. Person A rejects the Church which he believes Christ made necessary. Person B rejects the belief that Christ made the Church necessary. I am not God so I do not know how He will look upon this distinction, but in my fallible, fallen-human judgement (which in no way is equal to divine justice) I see a distinction.

What exactly does it mean to believe in everything the Church says about itself but still reject it? If this actually happens, then it might be a useful distinction to preserve. But does this actually happen? I have a hard time imaging that it does, given the massive amount of cognitive dissonance that must be overcome in order to hold such a position.

It is a matter of a person’s heart. That is why it is common for a Catholic to say, “it is not up to us to determine who is and is not saved. That is left to God.” (or something similar to those lines). God judges the heart.

I will say that for myself when I joined the Church I had become convinced that it was everything that it says that it is.

And what is your stance now? Do you still see it as “every that it says” it was? Or do you reject what it teaches about itself? Do you now see a difference? Here again is the quote that Matt offered to which I responded:

“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

“Knowing” that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ. Not “knowing that the Church teaches that the Church was made necessary by Christ”.

My discussion has evolved entirely around the quote offered. I just think it is saying something different.

I’m not sure that it’s really fair to blame the fact that I no longer believe that on bad catechesis –

Hopefully this is no longer aimed at me as I have not mention anything on bad catechesis in general or whether you had any specifically.

in fact, I would say that’s downright uncharitable.

Again, hopefully this is speaking of a different poster. As it was my quote that you are responding I have to assume you are speaking to me. Please tell me that I am mistaken.

So what now? I am going to hell for having sincerely believed and, over the course of several years, come to disbelieve?

That is not up to me to decide but since you no longer believe I would hazard to say that the quote Matt offered does not apply to you:

“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

God bless you

 

[SSTeacher]

Outside the Church there is no salvation…is certainly true biblically, but only if that is understood to mean those who possess faith in Christ, which automatically makes them a member of the Church. Once you start restricting that to one particular, visible communion you will run into the sorts of problems evident on this thread. I realize what Catholics point to in an attempt to bolster the surety of such a position (papal infallibility, for example), however, those things which they point to are too unsure for me to take seriously. At least, not when it comes to a human soul’s eternal perdition.

Indeed. C.S. Lewis writes (Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, HarperCollins, 2001, Page 64.):

Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.

I think the idea Lewis posits here is very helpful.

Suppose, for example, a child dies in infancy and never has a chance to hear about the real Jesus. Will that child inherit eternal life?

Well, suggests Lewis, we don’t know. God hasn’t told us what His arrangements for that child are so we can safely leave the judgment to God.

Suppose an adult is born with a mental defect that prohibits him or her from understanding anything about the real Jesus. Will that adult inherit eternal life?

Again, suggests Lewis, we don’t know so we can safely leave the judgment to God.

Suppose a person is born into a religion other than Christianity and during childhood that person imbibes and believes so many non–Christian tenets that as an adult he or she becomes quite incapable of understanding about the real Jesus? Will that adult inherit eternal life?

Again suggests Lewis, we don’t know so we can safely leave the judgment to God.

And suppose a child is brought up in a Christian home and taught all the relevant doctrines but turns away from those doctrines because of the lack of love demonstrated by religious people purporting to be Christians and so never has a chance to hear about the real Jesus? Who is responsible for that adult’s condition? And will that adult inherit eternal life?

Yet again, suggests Lewis, we don’t know so we can safely leave the judgment to God.

Amen to these sentiments!

Definitely,
Mick

 

[BettyM]

It seems to me that alot of people leave the Catholic church because lack of knowledge of the Church and the loud voices outside the Church call and make it look like the grass is greener on the other side and there are no problems there and the Bible is easy to understand and that is all you need but when they get there they find it is not. There are many problems in protestant churches.

These people who leave the Catholic church, and I was one of them, after a while become confused because the protestant churches tell you scripture alone and every single person interprets the scripture for themselves and has their own set of beliefs and it has become total chaos and confusion out there.

You hear the Bible is the final authority and when you try to figure out who’s interpretation of that final authority is correct they cannot answer. They all say theirs is. They all argue about who is right. So you search more. The more you search for answers the more confused you get because they all say they stand on the Bible alone but all hold different viewpoints of the Bible and in the end people are looking for someone who believes the same thing they believe instead of looking for the truth. That is why churches are splitting up and dividing at an enormous daily rate. They can’t agree because there is a spirit of protesting. They can’t stop. They continue to argue and divide. Just look at how many churches are out there.

There needs to be an authority who interprets the Scripture. You wouldn’t run a company building cars or airplanes or etc by giving everyone a handbook and say figure it out. The book is your final authority. Ask me if you have a question and then the writer of lthe book give everyone a different answer.

That is what is different about the Catholic Church. We have organization and someone to help us interpret the scriptures. The Magisterium

I say pray and pray some more for God to lead you. Ask for the intercessionof the saints.
Pray.

God loves us so He gave us the Church.

 

[CMatt25]

Person A believes that the Church was made “necessary by Chirst” and rejects the Church.

Person B knows what what the Church teaches about itself and rejects the belief that the Church was made “necessary by Christ”, hence, does not believe that the Chuch was made, “necessary by Christ”.

That is not up to me to decide but since you no longer believe I would hazard to say that the quote Matt offered does not apply to you:

God bless you

Persons A might have but no longer believe either. So even though they didn’t remain, you’re counting them among those the statement does not apply to? Who would the statement apply to then?

 

[CMatt25]

I think that to be fair it probably ought to be inferred that the Catholic Church asserts as a general rule that such people cannot be saved but that it allows for the fact that in individual cases the general rule might not be applied. I’m thinking of the fact that the Catholic Church also asserts the importance of conscience. So that’s where the uncertainty might arise because who dares to be the judge of another person’s conscience? The nearest the Catholic Church gets to tying up that loose end is to assert that a person’s conscience (presumably any sane adult person) can be seared or misinformed and that a person with a seared and/or misinformed conscience may not be free of guilt.

Cordially,
Mick

Mick, I’m really, really trying to be fair. I was trying to get yes or no which I know isn’t always the easiest thing to accomplish. So you’re saying gray not black and white. And could not be saved is a general rule but open? I wonder how much conscience allotted?

 

[CMatt25]

I am just going off of the quote you provided.

Would you agree that there is a difference between knowing that, “the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ” and knowing that that is what the Church teaches about itself? Do you see there being a difference between rejecting what the Church says about itself and, believing what the Church teaches about itself, rejecting the Church still?

Without reading the entire link and just going off the excerpt you provided, I think the quote you provided has more to do with rebellion in that aa person knows that the Catholic Church was, “made necessary by Christ” and still rejects it.

God bless

Yes I see a difference. That’s why I’m trying to find out if a person knew the Church was made necessary but then later changed beliefs, if that rejection falls under not remaining and could not be saved? And if not, who does?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Persons A might have but no longer believe either. So even though they didn’t remain, you’re counting them among those the statement does not apply to? Who would the statement apply to then?

Person A, in my example, knows, “that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ” and yet still “refuse(s) to enter or to remain in it”. That is who I think your quote is referring to. Not someone who rejects the belief that the Church was, “made necessary by Christ” but someone, who acknowledges (knows) that the Church was made necessary by Christ and rejects the Church. Based on what you are telling me I don’t not believe you would be Person A. You reject the belief that the Church was made necessary by Christ. I do not believe the quote would be referring to you. Take that for what it is worth.

“Whosoever, therefore,** knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ**, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

not

“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church (teaches it) was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

God bless you