Help, I'm thinking about leaving the Church

[Wildkit]

Erethron, I have not read this entire post, please bear with my comments. Yet, why should I leave, why should I not seek this one Church that gives me all these signs/miracles that I can see today? Is someone just trying to tell me something?

 

[CEM5]

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

One must look at the history during the time of the convocation of this council. It was originally convoked in 1431 in Basel, Switzerland and later transferred to Ferrara in 1438, then with the danger of plague, was again moved in 1439 to Florence. The original name for this council was the Council of Basel, but because of its last move, is known as the Council of Florence.

Among the topics of discussion were the East-West Schisms, thus the papal bull regarding those outside the (Catholic) Church, and the anti-pope (Clement VII, 1378-94). During that period there were two popes who were deposed as well, Benedict Xlll, in Avignon and Alexander V, 1409-10 who was followed by a very unworthy successor John XXlll, 1410-15, who was not considered a legitimate pope). At one time there were two then three (so-called) popes “reigning” simultaneously. The true Popes during those times were: Urban Vl, 1378-89; Boniface lX, 1389-1404; Gregory Xll, 1406-15. Gregory Xll resigned during the Western schism to permit a proper election of a successor. This Council was successful with the reunification of several Eastern churches!

By rejecting the Church, one in effect rejects the teachings of Christ, and without Christ, there is no eternal life, once one has been taught about our Lord and Saviour and yet rejects Him (and rejects His Bride, the Church, whom Christ shed His blood for). During this period there were no “protestant churches”: only the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church.

The Church teaches that those separated brothers and sisters of the Church still have salvation through the Church, for their beliefs and Christianity derived from the Catholic Church.

The understandings of doctrine evolved more fully over time: this did not negate any truths just because all Doctrine was not taught (or understood fully) when Christ died, was resurrected and then ascended into heaven. Christ promised to guide His Church (the Bride of Christ) with the Holy Spirit forever. All truth is taught from His Bride, whom He protects and guides. Christ is the faithful Bridegroom. It is like the bud of a flower, not yet fully bloomed, but blooming and opening up gradually to reveal its beauty and truths over time. The truth has always been there, but not available or understood at the bud of its inception.

Blessings,
CEM

 

[CEM5]

Well, it’s extremelly disturbing now. In fact, it’s sickening. As I’ve said before, I want no part in that.

You might accept that happines is possible in spite of the suffering of your loved ones, I cannot. It’s a grotesque ideea, it’s inhuman and horrible. It stands against everything that love really is.

Ask yourselves, yourselves, not the books, yourselves, not the dogmas, ask youselves, look deep down into your hearts, forget, for a minute, all that you have been told, ask yourselves this:

Could I be happy, knowing that my son, my mother, my father, my brother, could at the same time be experiencing eternal torment, could be shrieking in pain and misery, forever, for all eternity, burning, because he decided not to attend Mass or for cohabitating ?

Hi Erethorn,

I have contemplated this many times and it has bothered me tremendously because I have loved ones who have rejected Christ and don’t believe in God, as well as friends. One used to believe in God but has become atheist.

I can only know that in heaven all tears are wiped away, as God promised, and only love and eternal happiness exist there with God. In Corinthians, we are told that all things pass: knowledge, tongues, etc. but only three things remain: faith, hope and love, and love being the greatest.

This is only my thougths, but perhaps God wipes away not only our tears, but our memories of those we loved and lost on earth, who are not in heaven any more since knowledge will pass away? It makes sense to me. If we die before them, and we are in heaven, I know that we pray for them while they are alive on earth. Afterwards, if they have not accepted God and rejected His gift of eternal life and happiness, then perhaps at the time they are in hell, we no longer have a memory of them. Could be possible. I don’t really know, but I certainly will not reject God and His Church just because I cannot understand how this will be. There are many things impossible to understand with our puny human minds, but St Paul promises that once we are face-to-face before God, we will understand.

I certainly do not want to reject God just because my loved ones reject God. Would you go rob a bank or murder someone just because your loved ones have and are in jail and you couldn’t imagine a life without them outside of jail? Would you do this in order to join them inside of a prison cell and reject the freedom and good life outside of prison?

Just a thought…

peace and love of Christ,
CEM

 

[CEM5]

So then, what you’re saying is that my father, my mother and my wife basically deserve to go to hell, for they don’t go to Mass (or Divine Liturgy) ?! Thank you very much. What a display of christian love ! that has helped me a lot, thank you very very much.

If God is real and if he deserves to be loved, He will not send my family to any place even remotely resembling what the Church calls hell. If He does, then He does not deserve my love and I’ll have no part with Him. I will be where my father is and nowhere else.

|Hi Erethorn,

It is very distressing to think of our loved ones not going to heaven. I know, I feel the same, yet I also know that God is my true Father, and I will be where my Father is and no where else. In the meantime, I love my earthly parents, siblings and friends, and pray for them as well as praying for myself, and let God do His work on them. God doesn’t force anyone to love Him or accept Him, – that is our choice, our free will. I can only hope that even up to the moment of their death, they will repent like the thief on the cross, and thus accept Christ and eternal life.

God is good; God is love.

CEM

 

[Erethorn]

This is only my thougths, but perhaps God wipes away not only our tears, but our memories of those we loved and lost on earth, who are not in heaven any more since knowledge will pass away? It makes sense to me. If we die before them, and we are in heaven, I know that we pray for them while they are alive on earth. Afterwards, if they have not accepted God and rejected His gift of eternal life and happiness, then perhaps at the time they are in hell, we no longer have a memory of them. Could be possible.

Could be possible, yes; so I understand that you have managed to deal with this question by stating the possibility that perhaps, once in Heaven, we will be brainwashed into forgetting whom we loved before, right ?

I certainly do not want to reject God just because my loved ones reject God.

And I certainly did not say that my loved oes reject God, just that they do not follow all the rules of the Church.

Would you go rob a bank or murder someone just because your loved ones have and are in jail and you couldn’t imagine a life without them outside of jail? Would you do this in order to join them inside of a prison cell and reject the freedom and good life outside of prison?

I did not say that. I didn’t say: I am going to sin on purpose in order to join my loved ones; I merely doubted whether the teaching of the Church, which says they must or should be in prison/hell, is true or just.

Let me put it this way: If you were told that your loved ones would go to prison for this and that reason, and you were absolutely convinced that they did not deserve to go to prison, what would you do ?

A. Doubt the truth of the matter, and doubt the one who tells you that they will go to prison - that’s the most obvious course of action, I believe;

B. But If you were somehow convinced that they would indeed be imprisoned, for something you still do not and cannot believe to be just reason, then, would you be willing to be imprisoned with them, or would you rather “enjoy” the “good life” outside of prison, allthewhile knowing that they are unjustly imprisoned ?

But wait, that’s not a possibility, either, because the judge says: “Unless you agree that they were justly imprisoned, you cannot remain outside and you cannot enjoy the good life”, is that right ?

So in order for me to even remotely contemplate the possibility of entering heaven, or at least to not go to hell, I have to agree that my father deserves to go to hell, right ?

 

[mariafransisca2]

Have humility Erethorn. If you have humility you will see that we, you, your family, our families, are sinners

 

[Erethorn]

Have humility Erethorn. If you have humility you will see that we, you, your family, our families, are sinners

There is a huge gap that neither morals not common sense nor logic can cover, a gap between "my father is a sinner " and “my father deserves to go to hell”.

We all do wrong and we all receive some punishment for it, be it here or someplace else, but the punishment of hell as described by the Church is at odds with any sense of justice, it is every bit as inhuman and sadistic to say: you deserve to burn forever and you probably will, as it is to acctualy light up someone’s stake.

If by humility you mean the serene acceptance of the posibility (and the justfulnes) of your loved one being tortured forever, then I’m afraid your concept of humility is at odds with my concept of love and humanity.

 

[jmcrae]

And I certainly did not say that my loved oes reject God, just that they do not follow all the rules of the Church.

This makes it sound as if you think the rules of the Church don’t come directly from God.

It is God who established the Church. It is God who speaks through the Church, using the Pope and the Bishops as His megaphone or microphone, to make Himself heard in a human voice on earth.

I did not say that. I didn’t say: I am going to sin on purpose in order to join my loved ones; I merely doubted whether the teaching of the Church, which says they must or should be in prison/hell, is true or just.

It is their free choice to break the rules of the Church. If they are doing so in an innocent or ignorant manner, not realizing that the Church is the vocalization of God’s thoughts, then God will take that into account - we can’t know how anyone will be judged.

But it is also true that the natural and normal destination of all human beings is Hell. it always was. No human being ever went to Heaven until after Jesus died on the Cross, and even then, it was only the Saints who went to Heaven - there were no “Joe Sixpacks” getting into Heaven, at that time.

It is only because Christianity has become widespread since that time, that ordinary people could start to get into Heaven - but even so, they still have to do what they know is right, and follow the teachings of the Church to the best of their understanding.

Let me put it this way: If you were told that your loved ones would go to prison for this and that reason, and you were absolutely convinced that they did not deserve to go to prison, what would you do ?

Well, I’ll tell you what I wouldn’t do - I wouldn’t abandon civilization, or decide that the rules of society don’t apply to me anymore, simply because someone I knew went to jail for something I didn’t think ought to be illegal.

So in order for me to even remotely contemplate the possibility of entering heaven, or at least to not go to hell, I have to agree that my father deserves to go to hell, right ?

No one is required to believe that any specific individual is going to go to Hell. Nobody requires you to believe this of your father. Leave the judging to God.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

This makes it sound as if you think the rules of the Church don’t come directly from God.

It is God who established the Church. It is God who speaks through the Church, using the Pope and the Bishops as His megaphone or microphone, to make Himself heard in a human voice on earth.

It is their free choice to break the rules of the Church. If they are doing so in an innocent or ignorant manner, not realizing that the Church is the vocalization of God’s thoughts, then God will take that into account - we can’t know how anyone will be judged.

But it is also true that the natural and normal destination of all human beings is Hell. it always was. No human being ever went to Heaven until after Jesus died on the Cross, and even then, it was only the Saints who went to Heaven - there were no “Joe Sixpacks” getting into Heaven, at that time.

It is only because Christianity has become widespread since that time, that ordinary people could start to get into Heaven - but even so, they still have to do what they know is right, and follow the teachings of the Church to the best of their understanding.

Well, I’ll tell you what I wouldn’t do - I wouldn’t abandon civilization, or decide that the rules of society don’t apply to me anymore, simply because someone I knew went to jail for something I didn’t think ought to be illegal.

No one is required to believe that any specific individual is going to go to Hell. Nobody requires you to believe this of your father. Leave the judging to God.

Well stated. We cannot judge what a person knows or doesn’t know. Or what their state of mind is at the time.

We can only state what is objectively sinful. Nothing that the church has taught in regards to this matter contradicts anything.

Let us take a step back. The Church has always taught that Mortal Sin seperates us from God. The Church defines a Mortal Sin as:

1. Grave Matter
2. Knowledge that the matter is grave
3. Full constent of the will

Anyone who meets these three conditions, and does not repent through normal means (i.e. the sacrament of confession), one has a chance at Hell. As humans, we can only really judge if an action is of grave matter or not. We are to leave the last two up to God.

In the OP’s original post he gives two examples. I will use the definition of Mortal Sin as proof.

In first example, he is trying to reconcile the statements of two councils - where OP thinks they contradict. Other posters have basically stated, that nothing contradicts, that the Church only has expounded on teaching. The answer lies in other techings, such as the teaching of Mortal Sin. In this case, the rejection of God, Jesus, the teachings of the Church, etc. can definitely qualify as Grave matter. It’s lineage can be traced back to the 10 commandments. However, it does not qualify as a Mortal Sin because one may not have had an oppurtunity to learn about the Faith.

In the second example, his father does not regularly go to Church. The OP thinks that this a silly reason to go to Hell, even though his father has other good qualities. Again, the Church has good reason to command us to go to chuch, and it’s lineage at least goes back to the 10 commandments. So, again this qualifies as Grave Matter. But, again it may fail the Knowlege/Will check.

 

[Carlan]

Forgive me if I am being presumptuous after all this talk, but I am beginning to think that Christian counsel really is not being sought, but rather a show of derisiveness stemming from past beliefs perhaps, We pray! Peace, Carlan

 

[Erethorn]

Forgive me if I am being presumptuous after all this talk, but I am beginning to think that Christian counsel really is not being sought

You are wrong and you are forgiven.

This makes it sound as if you think the rules of the Church don’t come directly from God.

Not all of them, no.

It is God who established the Church. It is God who speaks through the Church, using the Pope and the Bishops as His megaphone or microphone, to make Himself heard in a human voice on earth.

Any megaphone might be malfunctioning at times.

But it is also true that the natural and normal destination of all human beings is Hell. it always was.

I don’t believe that. I choose not to dishonor God by believing that he would sentence a person to infinite torment for a finite mistake. Some form of attonement, purgatory, limbo, something like that, I can believe. Hell, never.

No human being ever went to Heaven until after Jesus died on the Cross, and even then, it was only the Saints who went to Heaven - there were no “Joe Sixpacks” getting into Heaven, at that time.

That, I can believe.

Well, I’ll tell you what I wouldn’t do - I wouldn’t abandon civilization, or decide that the rules of society don’t apply to me anymore, simply because someone I knew went to jail for something I didn’t think ought to be illegal.

Bu you would no longer be expected to believe that the law is perfect, now would you ?

Ok, the above being said, where does that leave me ? Am I still a Catholic ? A “cafeteria” Catholic maybe ?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

You are wrong and you are forgiven.

Not all of them, no.

Any megaphone might be malfunctioning at times.

Christ did give the Church authority and said that evil will not prevail against it. Do you deny this?

I don’t believe that. I choose not to dishonor God by believing that he would sentence a person to infinite torment for a finite mistake. Some form of attonement, purgatory, limbo, something like that, I can believe. Hell, never.

I leave it to God to sort that out.

 

[Erethorn]

Christ did give the Church authority and said that evil will not prevail against it. Do you deny this?

Authority can be abused. Do you deny this ?

For evil to prevail againt the Church, it would be necesary that the Church as a whole should fail, and that has not happenned.

There have been good men and women in the Church even through the worst of times, and that for me means that evil has not prevailed.

If you equate “gates of hell shall not prevail…” with “you will always be right”, I think you are mistaken.

I leave it to God to sort that out.

To sort out what ? Whether believing that He would sentence people to an eternity of torment for missing Mass is an insult, or whether to sentence people to an eternity of torment for missing Mass ?

 

[fred_conty]

Could you please elaborate on those points ? What “directions of separation and identification” are we talking about ?

Because, to be honest, those words have just send some very nasty chills down my spine…

Hi,
The council talks about clothes and housing, but I would that you read it for yourself.
Search on Cantate, then on Jews. In the 15th century the ordinary Christian person had no education and an informal religious education only from the pulpit. It may well have worked out better for the orthodox Jews too since they had a society to call their own and to live their faith together away from christians.

“Slaves be obedient to you human masters…in sincerety of heart as to Christ…” could make us all blush explaining this in terms of human rights to modern society.

If I may say so, I have been a fool more than once when I took sides on an issue before listening to both sides. Or when I found out later that I hadn’t heard or knew the other side.
Now when I am confounded about something, I wait for a while, do some research, and see if I am missing something before I jump to an ugly wrong conclusion.

This is especially so when reading the Holy Bible, or deciding human matters. When wrong and then sow the error, it is diffricult to fix. Patience and charity in our understanding of each other and events brings forth lots of good children.

There was Saul and then there is Paul. The difference is understanding the other side.

 

[Erethorn]

Hi,
The council talks about clothes and housing, but I would that you read it for yourself.
Search on Cantate, then on Jews. In the 15th century the ordinary Christian person had no education and an informal religious education only from the pulpit. It may well have worked out better for the orthodox Jews too since they had a society to call their own and to live their faith together away from christians.

".

Sorry, please tell exactly where to look. Link, please.

The council talks about clothes and housing, but I would that you read it for yourself.

Where ? Where ?

Edit OMG I think I found it:

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. This holy synod following in the footsteps of our saviour Jesus Christ, desires in deepest charity that all may acknowledge the truth of the gospel and thereafter abide in it faithfully. By these salutary instructions it desires to provide measures whereby Jews and other infidels may be converted to the orthodox faith and converts may remain steadfastly in it. It therefore decrees that all diocesan bishops should depute persons well trained in scripture, several times a year, in the places where Jews and other infidels live, to preach and expound the truth of the catholic faith in such a way that the infidels who hear it can recognise their errors. They should compel infidels of both sexes who have reached the age of discretion, to attend these sermons under pain both of being excluded from business dealings with the faithful and of other apposite penalties. But the bishops and the preachers should behave towards them with such charity as to gain them for Christ not only by the manifestation of the truth but also by other kindnesses. The synod decrees that Christians of whatever rank or status who in any way impede the attendance of Jews at these sermons, or who forbid it, automatically incur the stigma of being supporters of unbelief.

Since this preaching will be more fruitful in proportion to the linguistic skill of the preachers, we decree that there must be faithful observance of the constitution of the council of Vienne, which ordered the provision in certain universities of teachers of the Hebrew, Arabic, Greek and Chaldean languages. So that this may be more adhered to, we wish that the rectors of these universities should add to what they swear to on taking office, that they will endeavour to observe the said constitution. It should be clearly laid down, at the councils of the provinces in which these universities are situated, that the teachers of the said languages are to be adequately recompensed.

Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts. They should not be given other public offices, or admitted to any academic degrees, or allowed to have on lease lands or other ecclesiastical rents. They are to be forbidden to buy ecclesiastical books, chalices, crosses and other ornaments of churches under pain of the loss of the object, or to accept them in pledge under pain of the loss of the money that they lent. They are to be compelled, under severe penalties, to wear some garment whereby they can be clearly distinguished from Christians. In order to prevent too much intercourse, they should be made to dwell in areas, in the cities and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as possible from churches. On Sundays and other solemn festivals they should not dare to have their shops open or to work in public.

WAS THIS THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH !!!

 

[Erethorn]

Continued

This is like opening Pandora’s box:

“Converts should be forbidden, under pain of severe penalties, to bury the dead according to the Jewish custom or to observe in any way the sabbath and other solemnities and rites of their old sect. Rather, they should frequent our churches and sermons, like other Catholics, and conform themselves in everything to christian customs. Those who show contempt for the above should be delated to the diocesan bishops or inquisitors of heresy by their parish priests, or by others who are entrusted by law or ancient custom with inquiring into such matters, or by anyone else at all. Let them be so punished, with the aid of the secular arm if need be, as to give an example to others.”

Edit

“Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. **But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, **but with unequal pains.”

The part I highlighted in red obviously refers to unbaptized infants.
So, the teaching was that unbaptized infants go straight to hell to be punished ? How can we say today, then, that we entrust them to God’s mercy ?!!!

“Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally.”

And you still say that the Church doesn’t change it’s teachings !!!

 

[Carlan]

I choose not to dishonor God by believing that he would sentence a person to infinite torment for a finite mistake. Some form of attonement, purgatory, limbo, something like that, I can believe. Hell, never.
That, I can believe.

Ok, the above being said, where does that leave me ? Am I still a Catholic ? A “cafeteria” Catholic maybe ?

Erethorn, we were discussing serious matter, the 3rd and 6th commandments.
You would have no concern if your loved one,whom you say is Catholic, were to seek confession and receive forgiveness and absolution.
If he is refusing to do so by his actions,for whatever reason, it is up to him alone to respond to God’s actual grace.
You can pray for him in his need in love, but you cannot condone what you know to be against church teaching. Accept that!
Yes, you are a Catholic and having difficulty accepting teaching, to reconcile,your best way would be to seek out your parish priest, either in the confessional or call his office for a personal appointment. God bless you and your family, Peace, Carlan

 

[Erethorn]

you cannot condone what you know to be against church teaching. Accept that!

Church teaching ? See my previous post for some Church teaching !!!

Jews should wear special clothes as to be told apart from the christians !!! That was Church teaching !!!

One who keeps the Sabath shold be punished by secular power, to be made an example of !! That was Church teaching !!!

Unbaptized infants go straight to hell to be punished !!! THAT was Church teaching !!!

No, my friend, I will call myself a cafeteria Catholic from now on and be PROUD of it.

 

[Carlan]

Church teaching ? See my previous post for some Church teaching !!!

Jews should wear special clothes as to be told apart from the christians !!! That was Church teaching !!!

One who keeps the Sabath shold be punished by secular power, to be made an example of !! That was Church teaching !!!

Unbaptized infants go straight to hell to be punished !!! THAT was Church teaching !!!

No, my friend, I will call myself a cafeteria Catholic from now on and be PROUD of it.

We seek the truth and defend it, for a Catholic it is a live long process ,our growth in the holiness of Christ,I am in my 85th year and still learning and growing.
Dear Lord give us all the grace of perseverance until the end for us here on this earth!

Peace to you and yours, Carlan

 

[jmcrae]

Church teaching ? See my previous post for some Church teaching !!!

Jews should wear special clothes as to be told apart from the christians !!! That was Church teaching !!!

Do you know the reason why? Jews were coming into Churches and giving the preaching. People were being taught in the churches that Jesus was not God, or that He was the son of a Roman soldier who had raped Mother Mary.

They did not know that these teachers were not Catholic priests, but that they were Jews.

Thus, in order that people could know who was teaching them, whether it was a Jew or a Catholic, they had to wear distinctive clothing.

It is the same today. If you go into a Jewish school, you have to indicate by what you wear that you are a Gentile - you can’t wear a yarmulka, and pretend that you are Jewish. The Jewish children have to be able to tell that you are a Gentile.

Jews also, when they come into Catholic schools, wear yarmulkas to identify themselves as Jews, so that the students know who it is who is teaching them. It works both ways.

One who keeps the Sabath shold be punished by secular power, to be made an example of !! That was Church teaching !!!

This is referring to converts to the Catholic faith who continue to practice their former religion at the same time as the Christian religion: ie: he is observing two holidays every week, instead of just one.

Unbaptized infants go straight to hell to be punished !!! THAT was Church teaching !!!

Where does it say that they will be punished?

Hell is simply the abode of the dead. What happens in Hell depends on whether you sinned, and what your sins were, during your life. Those who committed no sin during their lives cannot be punished for things they never did.