Going to hell for leaving the Catholic church

[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: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?

I know you’re doing your very best to be fair and I admire you for it and for your patient tenacity in trying to get a categorical answer. However, I honestly don’t think you’re going to be able to get one on this particular issue. It’s just impossible to nail down.

The answer to how much conscience is allotted or allowed, surely, is all of it. I don’t see how there could be any other answer. However, the promptings of my conscience are doubtless different from the promptings of your conscience. This is where having an informed conscience comes into the picture. The Catholic Church teaches that it is the duty of each and every Catholic to inform his or her conscience – in other words, to learn to tell the difference between right and wrong. It therefore follows that an informed Catholic will think and do as the Catholic Church teaches not just because the Catholic Church teaches it but also because it is right according to each Catholic’s individual (and informed) conscience. In other words, there should in theory be no difference between what the Catholic Church teaches and what individual Catholics believe.

The major problem arises when individual Catholics consider matters of faith and morals and lifestyle and come to conclusions that contradict what the Catholic Church teaches. The reason it’s a major problem is because conscience must necessarily have the last word. If it were otherwise i.e. there was an insistence that the promptings of conscience were to be ignored or stifled then there would exist a situation where people were being forced to think and to do things that they sincerely believed to be wrong, which, I guess, some might describe as “being brainwashed.”

And I know that would be wrong because my conscience tells me so.

Conscionably,
Mick

 

[dzheremi]

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:

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I would think that most Catholics who went on to leave the Church for another communion probably had, at some point, everything they needed in order to be Catholic for the rest of their lives. What do you mean by “made a faulty/immoral choice that enabled them to reach the point where they could no longer believe”? Did you have some specific immortality in mind? I am thinking more of matters of dogma, not necessarily specific actions that the CC might condemn. I could see, for instance, how reception of the Eucharist in an impure state is intrinsically morally objectionable. I do not see how a similarly self-evident moral objection can be made about someone who rejects the supposed orthodoxy of the Filioque or the Immaculate Conception.

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?

Wait a minute, though. What is the point of making this distinction if they are still ultimately at fault? Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying here that anyone who leaves the Church “brought it on themselves” (condemnation to hell, or whatever it is you think happens when people leave the Church). So essentially the OP is correct and everything following that post is so much hemming and hawing for no reason?

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.

Another option, not addressed above, is whether or not God will see their joining a different church communion as a sincere attempt on their behalf to follow Him to a degree or in a manner that they were, for whatever reason, unable to follow Him within the Catholic Church. I don’t know this either.

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.

Well this sounds down right “orthodox”…like they say, they know where salvation is, but not where it is not.

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?

Oh, no. Please do not misunderstand me: I’m not faulting you specifically or Catholics in general. This stance that you have articulated makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, there is some question as to how much of this kind of “we don’t know what’ll happen to you” idea is shown in the quoted portion from CMatt25, which seems to say that if you were once Catholic and came to reject the Church, you will not attain salvation. This seems to me to be saying, when taken together with other Church statements about non-Catholic who have never been Catholic, that it is better to have stayed completely outside of the Church than to have been within it and eventually moved on to another communion. The interesting thing to me, as I consider both Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy, is that I know that the CC also affirms those communions to have completely valid sacraments and apostolic succession. So I guess I may be in danger of hell if I don’t hurry up and get my keister into some church. Of course, I don’t need the RC or the CCC to tell me that…

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.

Of course. I do not think it is uncharitable to do so. The only mention of uncharitable behavior from me is for those who might say that people only leave the CC out of ignorance due to bad catechesis, which is a common accusation. The idea that someone might have been completely and adequately taught the doctrines of the Church and still come to reject them is a hard pill to swallow, I’ve seen.

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.

Thank you. Sorry, I didn’t mean to make this all about me. It’s just that I can sympathize with the OP because I am in a similar position, so I also have these sorts of thoughts.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Sorry,but that is a bogus statement. To be fully ‘catechesized’ does not equate into being 'brainwashed."

Did Jesus 'brainwash" them by telling them he was God and that he is the Way,Truth and Life?

 

[dzheremi]

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”.

I think this is a false dichotomy. Any person active in the Church must become “person B” if they are to leave. Person A…I do not know where you would find such a person. Where are all these people who recognize that the Catholic Church is true but then actively refuse union with it?

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.

I still don’t, because I think person A is a chimera. There may be people who believe that the Catholic Church is everything it says it is but remain outside of it as a result of some cultural or societal difficulties, but this is not “rejection” as much as an admission that they would join the Church were it possible to do so. They are essentially embracing the Church, but are not able to do so openly. This is not the scenario you’ve given above.

And what is your stance now? Do you still see it as “every that it says” it was?

No. I see that it sees itself that way, but I do not.

Or do you reject what it teaches about itself?

Yes. I reject that it contains “the fullness of truth”, and do not look to it for an orthodox exposition of the Christian faith.

Do you now see a difference?

No.

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

Perhaps it is easier if I say that I do not see how it is useful or beneficial to maintain the sort of distinction that you are trying to illuminate.

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.

No, it is not to you. It is a general comment since others had brought up the phenomenon of Catholics pointing to bad catechesis as the only conceivable reason anyone would leave the Catholic Church.

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.

Yeah, sorry. That’s my fault for not making it clear that I was making a general comment. Apologies.

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

Interesting. I would think it would, but I guess that’s neither here nor there.

 

[CMatt25]

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.

God bless you

Well thank you although I’m just as interested in how it applies to the general person and not specifically me. It still seems very confusing. But for the sake of argument say I knew and had believed everything fully and then later because of a change in belief, refused to remain? That still wouldn’t make me person A? God bless you too.

 

[CMatt25]

I know you’re doing your very best to be fair and I admire you for it and for your patient tenacity in trying to get a categorical answer. However, I honestly don’t think you’re going to be able to get one on this particular issue. It’s just impossible to nail down.

Thanks Mick. I admire your fairness and patience as well. And you’re probably right it appears. God bless and peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Unfortunately, there is some question as to how much of this kind of “we don’t know what’ll happen to you” idea is shown in the quoted portion from CMatt25, which seems to say that if you were once Catholic and came to reject the Church, you will not attain salvation. This seems to me to be saying, when taken together with other Church statements about non-Catholic who have never been Catholic, that it is better to have stayed completely outside of the Church than to have been within it and eventually moved on to another communion.

Well that’s how I read it too. But

 

[Non_Serviam]

Well thank you although I’m just as interested in how it applies to the general person and not specifically me. It still seems very confusing. But for the sake of argument say I knew and had believed everything fully and then later because of a change in belief, refused to remain? That still wouldn’t make me person A? God bless you too.

My take on it is that I am person B-the church and its members have made a lot of claims about it truth, necessity, etc, etc and told me on what they consider the claims to be valid. Based on my own studies, I have found the claims to be unconvincing, to put it mildly. Therefore I haven’t believed them.

You heard the same claims, believed them and “submitted to the Roman Pontiff” to use the language of Unum Sanctam. According to the teachings of the Catholic church you are now bound to it in membership forever and subject to its laws and authority. In the catechism, the Catholic church makes it quite clear that you don’t have the option to rethink your decision-three quick examples:

93 “By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.”

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

So if at some point you believed enough of the church’s claims to believe that you must submit to it to please Christ, you are in the Person A situation according to the church. It;s not a matter of believing “everything”, but rather a matter of having believed “enough”.

Of course, if you now believe that the church was wrong about those claims, then it is possible that you also believe it is wrong about what happens to those who stop believing them.

 

[eucharisteo]

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!

Okay. Let’s try to get this right:
Jesus is “THE WORD”. That said then what else do we have that was left other than the inspired writings written by his followers? Well, for one, we have the Church, His Church. The Church established to do God’s Will… His Fiat. The deposit of faith as it is taught:

Majisterium or Church Leadership
Sacred Tradition [not man’s tradition]
Sacred Scripture.

 

[Reuben_J]

About a Catholic who wants to leave the Church. No fellow Catholics who believe that the Church which is the one that Jesus founded and where salvation can be found would tell him to go ahead and leave; that the door is open, test other Christian churches and if he is not happy there then to come back to the Church.

A Catholic will try to exhaust all available option first to remind him perhaps there might be something he misses or that he may not be adequately informed or understood in the Catholic Church. Being properly catechized is always the aim but for many of us it is also ongoing. Normally there is no reason to leave if a person properly understands it. Of course ultimately it is a person’s decision whether to leave or stay and the question of forcing him to stay does not arise. Neither is telling him that he will go to hell if he leaves. I think that’s the essence of most Catholics’ position regarding this issue.

There are Protestants who take the line that if a person wants to leave it’s OK and then finds a church that suits him, a church which theology he agrees with. This is understandable coming from Protestants.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Any person active in the Church must become “person B” if they are to leave.

Not necessarily. What prevents someone from leaving the Church who believes the Church is everything it says it is?

Person A…I do not know where you would find such a person. Where are all these people who recognize that the Catholic Church is true but then actively refuse union with it?

That is, however, who the quote is referring to. If the person A does not exist that does not mean that the quote automatically pertains to person B by default (when there is a lack of person A). The quote pertains to those who refuse to remain in the Church and or enter it who know that Christ made the Church necessary.

My point is that the quote offered is discussing just that person. Whether or not that person may or may not exist (I don’t see why it is outside the realm of possibilities) doesn’t matter. If I said “elfs cannot be saved” because there is no such thing as elfs does not mean that I am saying Anglicans cannot be saved.

The quote is discussing those who know that Christ made the Church necessary and yet refuse to enter or remain in it. Not a person who rejects the belief that Christ made the Church necessary.

Yes. I reject that it contains “the fullness of truth”, and do not look to it for an orthodox exposition of the Christian faith.

Therefore the quote offered by Matt does not, in my opinion, pertain to you.

Perhaps it is easier if I say that I do not see how it is useful or beneficial to maintain the sort of distinction that you are trying to illuminate.

That may very well be. It certainly would not be the first time someone has accused me of not offereing useful or beneficial points in a discussion. I just see the quote saying something different than has been presented. I do not see the quote offered by Matt pertaining to you as you are not a person who “knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ” refuses to enter or remain in the Church. Or do you know that the Church was made necessary by Christ and still refuse to enter or remain.

Yeah, sorry. That’s my fault for not making it clear that I was making a general comment. Apologies.

No problems.

Interesting. I would think it would, but I guess that’s neither here nor there.

I really don’t think the quote applies to someone who rejects what the Church says about itself. We will have to disagree on this but here is the quote again one last time:

“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.”

Emphasis mine. Do you feel you fall into that category? Someone who knows that the Church was made necessary by Christ and still refuse to enter or remain in it?

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Well thank you although I’m just as interested in how it applies to the general person and not specifically me. It still seems very confusing. But for the sake of argument** say I knew and had believed everything fully and then later because of a change in belief, refused to remain? That still wouldn’t make me person A?** God bless you too.

If your change of belief was that Christ did not make the Church necessary than, with regards to the quote you offered, no. From my example Person A is as follows:

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

God bless you

 

[Answersplease]

I am quitting this forum once I hit 500 posts, I have 165 to go!

Answersplease:

I hope you keep your word, and leave when you say you will.

The Body of Christ does NOT need confusion, there can only be ONE TRUTH.

Since you speak of your in depth research and knowledge…

then you should know that according to The Holy Bible that you seem to hold up above the church (The Body of Christ), that let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Let your word be your bond.

On another note.

The Holy Bible says:

that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth,

that one must guided to understand the scriptures (Phillip and the Ethiopian),

that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church.

Satan is the father of lies, if untruth has corrupted the church then the gates of hell have indeed prevailed.

Why is it that there are major disagreements among the protestants concerning the correct interpretation of The Holy Bible? (That is a rhetorical question, don’t bother to answer, people who know the Truth already know the answer.)

If you say that you don’t belong to any denomination and that you just follow The Holy Bible, then who made you an “infallible” interpreter of scripture? Who made you your very own Pope? (That is another rhetorical question, again don’t bother to answer, people who know the Truth already know the answer.)

I would like to see if you actually do leave when you reach 500 posts,

but you could always come back since you did’nt say you would leave for good,

or you could just come back under a different screen name.

Perhaps you would like to rephrase your statement about leaving,

and make a definite statement and say that you will not come back to the forum in anyway shape or form.

 

[CMatt25]

If your change of belief was that Christ did not make the Church necessary than, with regards to the quote you offered, no. From my example Person A is as follows:

God bless you

:extrahappy: Wow :newidea: I think I FINALLY get where you’re coming from RC! So you are saying Person A is only the person who believes and does not enter or the person who STILL believes but does not remain. :banghead: :extrahappy: God bless you too.

 

[Carlan]

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.

hello Redman, welcome!

I 'm thinking you are still very young, early 20’s may I suggest you save these posts you have written and read them again when you are in your early 30’s and if necessary again in your 40’s and 60’s and if you need to and are fortunate enough, as I am, to be living in your 80’s better start moving in the right direction times running out my young friend.
Come to think about it why take the chance in the first place,you never know, you know!!!. God’s grace and peace, Carlan

 

[Answersplease]

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?

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.

Answersplease:

Snarky and passive agressive.

 

[Answersplease]

But I have noticed it. If you disagree it’s only because you can’t understand, don’t understand, or are stubborn.

"Answersplease:

There can only be one Truth.

If the Truth resides within the Catholic church,

then it is absolutlely reasonable to say that if you disagree then you either can’t or won’t understand.

No. Honestly. Sometimes it’s just because I think the church is wrong.

Answersplease:

Who made you an infallible interpreter of the scriptures.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You said the Bible does not contain all of the Word of God. Isn’t the Gospel basically the Word of God, the Good News? How is it insufficient in delivering God’s Word? The Church isn’t God’s Word, it is the protector of God’s Word. I can see the viewpoint that the Church is the custodian of God’s Word, but not the Word itself. The Bible is the Word of God and the entire truth of Christ, literally his words, are Scripture. Salvation history is the Scriptures. I cannot agree that it is insufficient or lacking…

Okay. Let’s try to get this right:
Jesus is “THE WORD”. That said then what else do we have that was left other than the inspired writings written by his followers? Well, for one, we have the Church, His Church. The Church established to do God’s Will… His Fiat. The deposit of faith as it is taught:

Majisterium or Church Leadership
Sacred Tradition [not man’s tradition]
Sacred Scripture.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Okay. Let’s try to get this right:
Jesus is “THE WORD”. That said then what else do we have that was left other than the inspired writings written by his followers? Well, for one, we have the Church, His Church. The Church established to do God’s Will… His Fiat. The deposit of faith as it is taught:

Majisterium or Church Leadership
Sacred Tradition [not man’s tradition]
Sacred Scripture.

Can you point to any place in Scripture that states that the Church is God’s Word?

 

[eucharisteo]

Can you point to any place in Scripture that states that the Church is God’s Word?

Now that’s a circular argument if I’ve ever seen one. I hope you’re actually joking. Funny.

What I should have included is that there is nothing the Church teases that is contrary to scripture… I haven’t found it. But boy have I been looking for it. And truthfully it could be said that all of the Word of God is included in the bible, just not spelled out enough to convince everyone enough that the Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth. But what I said I hold to in that the bible wouldn’t even exist without sacred tradition.

And I won’t expound for anyone’s sake. I said it plainly and that’s the end of that tune. Anybody remember “Beretta”? Anyone care to expound more? Go for it. This is what you call making a mountain out of a molehill.