Help, I'm thinking about leaving the Church

[Erethorn]

I’ve been a catholic for about a year and a half now, having been an atheist before that.

Recently I started to have very serious doubts about the Church.

My problems fall in two main categories:

1. I have a hard time believing in the infailibility of the Church.

When I started looking into Christianity, and exploring different Churches, it was a requisite for me that the True Church should not claim a monopoly on salvation.

In other words, I would NEVER join a Church who said “Everyone who does not belong to our Church goes to hell”.

At the time, I thought the Catholic Church met those requirements, because I read the Vatican II documents clearly stating that salvation was possible for those outside the Catholic Church.

However, lately I have discovered a Vatican I document, also clearly stating that whoever is not in the Church will go to hell.

This is most disturbing, because it means, to me at least, that the dogma can change, and the Church is therefore not infailible.

I have read a lot of stuff and arguments regarding this, but to me it sounds as rationalization. I cannot believe that Vatican I meant to say anything else but what it said: if you are not a Catholic, you will go to hell, period.

1. I have trouble accepting the Church’s teaching on the matter of mortal sin, specificaly, the fact that some actions are deemed sufficient to send one in hell.

Case in point: there is a certain person I love most dearly. By any measure, that person is a very good, king, gentle and loving man. However, despite being a Catholic, he lives with his spouse without being married in the Church, and he also doesn’t attend Mass.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that he will go to hell. This I cannot accept. If, by any chance, I should end up in Heaven, I would never ever be happy there, knowing that said person is in hell.

Please try to help me out with these issues. I have gained a deep respect for Christianity, and I know that, if I decide to leave the Catholic Church, I will not head for another christian church, because I see way more problems in those. I will be forced to leave Crhistianity altogheter.

 

[Carolus_Martell]

Well, it’s not easy trying to be a good Catholic, but that’s part of our profession of faith…to accept the teachings of the church. These conflicts should have been answered and cleared up any doubts with your religious instructions.

 

[Stylites]

If you were to be in heaven you think you could never be happy? Then you do not understand God, and the happiness which being in His presence brings.

People who are in hell are not there because the Church sends them there or even because God sends them there. They send themselves to hell, by choosing to be eternally separated from God. Now, perhaps the Church teaches that unrepentant mortal sin is a very grave matter, and it is a kindness of them to point this out, but the Church leaves the judging to God.

 

[MarysGirls]

Hello, Erethorn. Your first issue is something that I used to struggle with as well. I think I may have the answer, but to make sure, could you please post the actual Vatican I document you mentioned? It would be very helpful.

On your second issue, are you aware that in order for an action to be a mortal sin, the act must be a deliberate turning away from God? I have many friends who sadly do not attend Mass regularly, but I don’t think they fully understand all that their actions entail. This would make the sin venial, not mortal.

Here’s a quote from the Catechism:

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

I would suggest you spend some time in the prescence of the Blessed Sacrament and ask Him to help you understand. Please, please, don’t make this decision rashly!

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I’ve been a catholic for about a year and a half now, having been an atheist before that.

Recently I started to have very serious doubts about the Church.

My problems fall in two main categories:

1. I have a hard time believing in the infailibility of the Church.

When I started looking into Christianity, and exploring different Churches, it was a requisite for me that the True Church should not claim a monopoly on salvation.

In other words, I would NEVER join a Church who said “Everyone who does not belong to our Church goes to hell”.

At the time, I thought the Catholic Church met those requirements, because I read the Vatican II documents clearly stating that salvation was possible for those outside the Catholic Church.

However, lately I have discovered a Vatican I document, also clearly stating that whoever is not in the Church will go to hell.

This is most disturbing, because it means, to me at least, that the dogma can change, and the Church is therefore not infailible.

I have read a lot of stuff and arguments regarding this, but to me it sounds as rationalization. I cannot believe that Vatican I meant to say anything else but what it said: if you are not a Catholic, you will go to hell, period.

I think you’re reading (or not reading) too much into the documents.

Let us get back to basics…

I believe that all Vatican II was re-state and expound upon what was already taught.

It is true that things don’t look peachy for those outside of the Church. However, what the Church does allow for is “ignorance” as in, the truth hasn’t been revealed fully to some people. For example, the American Indians before 1492.

I believe the Church has always taught that if you are fully educated in the faith, you have to accept it, or else. I don’t see a change to core Dogma here, just a re-statement of what was already taught.

1. I have trouble accepting the Church’s teaching on the matter of mortal sin, specificaly, the fact that some actions are deemed sufficient to send one in hell.

Case in point: there is a certain person I love most dearly. By any measure, that person is a very good, king, gentle and loving man. However, despite being a Catholic, he lives with his spouse without being married in the Church, and he also doesn’t attend Mass.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that he will go to hell. This I cannot accept. If, by any chance, I should end up in Heaven, I would never ever be happy there, knowing that said person is in hell.

The Church believes certain graces are recieved by participating in the Sacraments. This is not for the Churches good, but for our own good. To reject the Sacraments is to reject what Christ himself instituted, which there is biblical evidence for.

Also, for something to be mortal, it not only has to be objectively sinful, the person has to know it’s wrong and do it anywaysof their own free will. Could it be possible that this is lacking for this person?

Please try to help me out with these issues. I have gained a deep respect for Christianity, and I know that, if I decide to leave the Catholic Church, I will not head for another christian church, because I see way more problems in those. I will be forced to leave Crhistianity altogheter.

Everyone has doubts from time to time.

 

[TuAutem]

This is an internet forum, so all I can do is offer brief responses to your questions here.

1. Your interpretation here, I would think, should be obvious to you that you are interpreting incorrectly. Do you somehow think the bishops at Vatican II did not know what was declared at Vatican I, which occurred less than 100 years before? Do you somehow think that the greatest and most educated theologians alive would not be fully aware not only of those declarations, but of every other declaration the Catholic church had ever made?

It seems to me obvious that the participants in the council knew all these things, and knew that they were not changing Church doctrine (something that is by definition impossible in the first place). Therefore their interpretations of their statements cannot possibly be ‘rationalisation’, it must have been the actual intent of those writing the statements.

There are plenty of resources, on this site and others, you can look up if you want to learn more about ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’.

A previous council banned kneeling on Sundays under penalty of anathema! I bring that up only to try to show you that there is a lot more to what constitutes doctrine or infallibility than you currently grasp. But this is a larger topic than one can treat in a forum post.

1. You say ‘the Catholic church clearly teaches he will go to hell’. This is plain WRONG: that is not what the Catholic church teaches. The Catholic church makes no claim or presumption about any individual. As you would know if you understood the teaching from point (1). Whether a sin is mortal or not depends on the intent of the individual, which is not something anyone but God and the individual fully understand.

Deeper than either of these points, however, is the far greater problem that you are placing conditions on your religious convictions, without regard for truth. It is not logical to say ‘I will not follow any religion who says that those who do not follow it will go to hell’: that implies that somehow you, a creature, can dictate to the creator how he has done things. The concern for any religious seeker needs to be finding out the TRUTH. Religion isn’t something we pick up in a store because we like the colour The only justifiable religious beliefs are those that are TRUE. Unless you are God, giving ultimatums to God on how he should be is bound to be a futile endeavour.

If you leave Christianity because it is false (which it isn’t), than you have done an honest thing. If however (as is the case), it is true, than you all you can gain from rejecting it is a share in the part of all the other angels and creatures who have chosen to rebel against God. Therefore do not think of it in terms of ‘the Church better teach this, or else’, think only of what is actually, in point of fact, the truth.

 

[Irishgal49]

I’m so glad you wrote on here and are being honest. I left the church for 11 years and became the president of an Atheist group. I was miserable. I thought that since I was a good and moral person I didn’t need the church and it’s silly rules. I could simply police myself and live a good life. I was wrong. I disintegrated into all sorts of sin, lost my morality (what little I had of my own) and the misery pain index of my soul skyrocketed. If I had to rate my pain on a scale of 1-10 I would say I was pretty much at 9. I was empty, dissatisfied, and tearing Christians apart and making fun of them ceased to amuse me any longer. I was bankrupt spiritually. When I finally went to a mass I cried my eyes out in the back row. It is still a work in progress as I went to Confession, was restored to the Church, but still wrestle with horrible guilt that I left. It’s NOT WORTH IT.

Here’s a suggestion: Get on your knees and just simply tell God what you wrote here. Be honest, just talk to Him like a friend and dump all those questions on God and ask that He direct you to the person with the answers. Too often I jump to looking around at people FIRST. Whenever I ask God to direct me to the right people, I literally trip over the amount of helpful people God brings to me.

Then call and schedule an appointment with a priest. If it’s hard to articulate type it up and read it to the priest. Tell him honestly that you are struggling, thinking of leaving, and need help. Chances are you may be able to totally clear up your issues and questions in an hour or less.

If I had done this instead of stomping off and insisting that I was right and the Church was wrong, I would be so much further along in my Christian walk than I am now.

By the way, the woman I “tore up” about her faith was on Facebook. I found her, profusely apologized, asking her to forgive me for my horrible anger and that I wanted to just say I was sorry. She friended me, and we are talking and she is praying for me. I cried. That was the most amazing way that God worked yet. I prayed and asked God first to let me find her and I did almost instantly.

God will help you. I am praying for you. Please don’t leave. You WILL regret it.

Lorrie

 

[Erethorn]

Hello, Erethorn. Your first issue is something that I used to struggle with as well. I think I may have the answer, but to make sure, could you please post the actual Vatican I document you mentioned? It would be very helpful.

!

Sorry, it’s not Vatican I, it’s the Council of Florence:

(N)o one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the “everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church… And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" - from the papal bull Cantate Domino

 

[mountainman99]

Please don’t leave!

For your first question, I’d consult the catechism. It makes sense of what seems like two differing positions. Start at CCC 839, but make sure you read 846 - 848. I hope this helps! You’re in my prayers.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Sorry, it’s not Vatican I, it’s the Council of Florence:

(N)o one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the “everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church… And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" - from the papal bull Cantate Domino

Again, please consider what I brought up. If an individual did not have a chance to learn about the faith and have a chance to make a fully informed decisions, through no fault of their own, how can they possibly be in Hell?

One has to deliberately reject the Catholic Church in order for this to be true.

 

[TuAutem]

Sorry, it’s not Vatican I, it’s the Council of Florence:
…

We have the catechism of the Catholic church today so that it is easy for all the faithful to easily find out what the Church teaches. There are no hidden ‘gotchas’–you are not going to find that the CCC was covering up the REAL Catholic teaching, which is contained in statements from an obscure 15th century council.

It is interesting and wothwhile to study church history–maybe Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine would be a good starting point, though, to understand that the church’s teaching can and does evolve over time, although never in a contradictory way. The fulness of the Church’s teaching was present from Pentecost, but in the way that the fulness of a mustard tree is present in a mustard seed: that seed will grow and change amazingly. But there is no way for a mustard seed to become anything other than a mustard tree. The DNA, if you like, is constant.

Sadly, the quote you mention is only scratching the surface if you want to get into the nitty gritty of the Church’s history. And yet even so, everything you quoted is true–but we MUST understand that quote in the light of the Church’s later teachings. Those later teachings came into existence precisely to avoid the kind of overreaching interpretation you are trying to make now (or are inadvertantly making). You may say that even so, that quote is objectionable and the Church should not promote it if it is misleading–but that is why the Church does NOT promote it, and why the catechism of the Catholic church today reads somewhat differenty (while not offering any teachings that are incompatible with the earlier ones–richer, yes, more insightful, yes, but not incompatible).

If you want to go in depth into dogmatic texts, you will need to have a commensurate depth in dogmatic theology. Just look at biblical interpretation outside the Catholic church if you need any proof!

 

[Erethorn]

Again, please consider what I brought up. If an individual did not have a chance to learn about the faith and have a chance to make a fully informed decisions, through no fault of their own, how can they possibly be in Hell?

One has to deliberately reject the Catholic Church in order for this to be true.

I’m very sorry, but this document does not cite any conditions for it to be true. On the contrary, it very clearly tells us Catholics that those not of catholic faith will go to hell.

My mother, wife and child are Orthodox, therefore schismatics.

**It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims **that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, my father, who is Catholic, will not go to every Sunday Mass, though he knows the Church teaches this to be grave sin. Again, the CCC tels that this is grave matter, mortal sin, therefore, if he should happen to die tomorow, he will go to hell.

There is no heaven for me without my family. I would rather go to hell with them. And, in the mean while, reject the Church that sends us there. I would not stop doing what I perceive as being good, helping others, but how cn the inffailible Church say that hitler, should he make a complete and perfect act of contrition, can go to Heaven, and my family not !!!

No God can be so great as to make me happy in the absence of my family.

I remember a quote from Huckleberry Finn, when Huck is told that he should be good, or else he won’t go to Heaven; he then asks whether Tom Sawyer, his friend, will go to Heaven; upon being answered that Tom won’t, he concludes: “I was content; I didn’t want to be in any place where Tom wasn’t”.

That’s how I feel.

Sorry for my ramblings and thanks to all that answered, but I am VERY troubled.

 

[MarysGirls]

Sorry, it’s not Vatican I, it’s the Council of Florence:

(N)o one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the “everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church… And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" - from the papal bull Cantate Domino

Ah, thank you! Upon first reading this, it does seem rather unjustly condemning. However, if you’ll read the CCC’s articles which mountainman99 so helpfully suggested, it makes more sense. I found paragraph 846 to be especially helpful.

If you have questions after reading the CCC, please let me know and I’ll do my best to answer them.

 

[Erethorn]

We have the catechism of the Catholic church today so that it is easy for all the faithful to easily find out what the Church teaches. There are no hidden ‘gotchas’–you are not going to find that the CCC was covering up the REAL Catholic teaching, which is contained in statements from an obscure 15th century council.

It is interesting and wothwhile to study church history–maybe Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine would be a good starting point, though, to understand that the church’s teaching can and does evolve over time, although never in a contradictory way. The fulness of the Church’s teaching was present from Pentecost, but in the way that the fulness of a mustard tree is present in a mustard seed: that seed will grow and change amazingly. But there is no way for a mustard seed to become anything other than a mustard tree. The DNA, if you like, is constant.

Sadly, the quote you mention is only scratching the surface if you want to get into the nitty gritty of the Church’s history. And yet even so, everything you quoted is true–but we MUST understand that quote in the light of the Church’s later teachings. Those later teachings came into existence precisely to avoid the kind of overreaching interpretation you are trying to make now (or are inadvertantly making). You may say that even so, that quote is objectionable and the Church should not promote it if it is misleading–but that is why the Church does NOT promote it, and why the catechism of the Catholic church today reads somewhat differenty (while not offering any teachings that are incompatible with the earlier ones–richer, yes, more insightful, yes, but not incompatible).

If you want to go in depth into dogmatic texts, you will need to have a commensurate depth in dogmatic theology. Just look at biblical interpretation outside the Catholic church if you need any proof!

Thank you for your reply.

I do not have an in depth understanding of dogmatic theology. However, I do have a degree in Logic, and I can see that when the Church says: “The schismatics will not be saved” the only way to turn that around on it’s head is by abandoning logic. “A is not B” can never turn into “Sometmes, A is B”.

I could very easily live with the Church teaching that it was not infailible, and therefore the previous statement is prone to error, but the Church tells me different.

 

[Warrior1979]

For your first question, I’d consult the catechism. It makes sense of what seems like two differing positions. Start at CCC 839, but make sure you read 846 - 848. I hope this helps! You’re in my prayers.

I’m not following this…CCC 839 is a flat out contradiction with this:

(N)o one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the “everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church… And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" - from the papal bull Cantate Domino

 

[TuAutem]

I’m very sorry, but this document does not cite any conditions for it to be true. On the contrary, it very clearly tells us Catholics that those not of catholic faith will go to hell.

Do you not see that in trying to interpret a dogmatic text outside of its context and outside of the Church’s teaching is every bit as ridiculous as if you brought up Leviticus 11:10 here and started wringing your hands that you were going to hell because you’d eaten shellfish? The whole point here is that the authoritative interpretation of the Church’s own authoritative texts belongs to the Church.

… the CCC tels that this is grave matter, mortal sin, therefore, if he should happen to die tomorow, he will go to hell.

Once again, this is not correct. Grave matter (or grave sin) is not the same thing as mortal sin. It is **one **of the **three **conditions that are required for a sin to be mortal: the other two are full knowledge, and full consent. Only God can definitively judge whether those conditions are met when someone dies.

In the same vein, as regards your reply just above, is it not possible that the schismatics are not as schismatic as you (or they) think they are? If not, then they can still be saved. The council’s ruling is not being changed from A to B, rather, we are saying that God does not judge people based on the surface, but on the heart. Is the heart of a Protestant, for example, focused on loving Jesus Christ, or on creating schism with the One True Church? I would submit that there are very few Protestants if any whose true motivation is of the latter sort, even though formally that is exactly what Protestantism is. As I understand the Church’s teaching, though, only the latter will go to hell (through their own choice and stubbornness); the former who were honestly mistaken will not.

There is no heaven for me without my family. I would rather go to hell with them.

Rather than rebel against God, you could also turn to God, and intercede for your family, and you may all end up in heaven. You do have a free choice in the matter. All the rest of us can do is pray for you.

 

[Erethorn]

Ah, thank you! Upon first reading this, it does seem rather unjustly condemning. However, if you’ll read the CCC’s articles which mountainman99 so helpfully suggested, it makes more sense. I found paragraph 846 to be especially helpful.

If you have questions after reading the CCC, please let me know and I’ll do my best to answer them.

I have read the Chatechism before I joined the Church, and at the time it seemed very reasonable.
But now I see that the Church has said, at Florence: A never equal B, and today it says: A sometimes equals B.

What would a Florence Council member say if you where to ask him what would become of Eastern Orthodox schismatics ?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I’m very sorry, but this document does not cite any conditions for it to be true. On the contrary, it very clearly tells us Catholics that those not of catholic faith will go to hell.

My mother, wife and child are Orthodox, therefore schismatics.

**It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims **that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Again, the Church felt a need to expound on earlier teaching. It does not contradict anything stated earlier, those that do not know Christ through the Catholic Church will go to Hell.

The only thing the Church added was that they need to be given an oppurtunity and we need to believe in God’s mercy in these matters.

How exactly is this contradictory?

I believe Catholics consider the Orthodox to have valid Sacraments. And there have been talks going on for awhile about reconciling. So, I would not be so concerned here.

On the other hand, my father, who is Catholic, will not go to every Sunday Mass, though he knows the Church teaches this to be grave sin. Again, the CCC tels that this is grave matter, mortal sin, therefore, if he should happen to die tomorow, he will go to hell.

There is no heaven for me without my family. I would rather go to hell with them. And, in the mean while, reject the Church that sends us there. I would not stop doing what I perceive as being good, helping others, but how cn the inffailible Church say that hitler, should he make a complete and perfect act of contrition, can go to Heaven, and my family not !!!

No God can be so great as to make me happy in the absence of my family.

I remember a quote from Huckleberry Finn, when Huck is told that he should be good, or else he won’t go to Heaven; he then asks whether Tom Sawyer, his friend, will go to Heaven; upon being answered that Tom won’t, he concludes: “I was content; I didn’t want to be in any place where Tom wasn’t”.

That’s how I feel.

Sorry for my ramblings and thanks to all that answered, but I am VERY troubled.

I’m sorry, but this is a narrow minded way of looking at things. And selfish, I think.

First, mortal sin is a choice. Your father chooses to sin mortally. Yes, it is uncomforting. But it is by his own doing. The Church doesn’t set arbitrary rules but it does it for our own good.

Also, I think your comment about Hitler is over the top. I think if he repented before he died, he’d have to spend quite a bit of time in Purgatory.

Lastly, at the end of time, God will let us know who was judged and why, so that we know he was a fair and just God. Obviously, we may be a bit shocked as to whose where.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Thank you for your reply.

I do not have an in depth understanding of dogmatic theology. However, I do have a degree in Logic, and I can see that when the Church says: “The schismatics will not be saved” the only way to turn that around on it’s head is by abandoning logic. “A is not B” can never turn into “Sometmes, A is B”.

I could very easily live with the Church teaching that it was not infailible, and therefore the previous statement is prone to error, but the Church tells me different.

What the Church is still saying is A is not B, but expanding on what A is not B actually means.

Also, A is not B refers to **normal **means. Not some corner cases. Corner cases make bad law.

Food for thought: What happens if you’ve never been exposed to Catholicism. Obviously A is not B. What if God somehow presents Catholic teaching to you after you die and gives you a chance to convert?

 

[Jim_Roberts]

RE

If you are having doubts about your religion and especially mortal sin, then, pray about it.

But as a Catholic, you must believe in mortal sin–it is the teaching of the Catholic Church, however, if you do not believe in Mortal sin, then, I think it would be best to leave the Church. I do not seem to be harsh, but you can’t go on receiving the sacraments if you are in a state of mortal sins; if you do, it becomes sacreligious. So each time you would receive Communion, in your state of condition, it would be like receiving nothing.

You will have lost your graces.