Leaving the Church

[o_mlly]

Its my understanding that salvation is always open to all. You are saved when you walk through the “door”.

Does it not seem reasonable that one’s salvation is a process initiated by God? If “walk through the door” means one opens themselves to God’s invitation to His friendship then the process has begun. Through dialogue with Christ’s Church, one learns how God wills us to walk with Him. The walk with God continues until we die. He knows we are weak. In our relationship, God remains constant; we may not. When we fall, His hand remains extended encouraging us to renew our friendship but we must reach out to take His hand.

Whether that door is Catholicism, or some other belief. Leaving aside the fact that obviously Catholics would regard any “door” other than theirs the wrong one.

Catholics believe the ordinary means of salvation are through His church and her sacraments. But we do not limit God. His love of His own is infinite and His plan for the salvation of some may be extraordinary.

The question is…having walked through that door is it possible to walk out again? Would walking out that door be equated with renouncing Catholic belief?

We all fall – one way or another. But there is nothing we can do that would cause God to give up on us – nothing,

What is the purpose of this indelible mark on your soul if it does not guarantee salvation?

The indelible mark identifies us as belonging to Christ. There are other forms of baptism besides liturgical. All who desire to know God are baptized and marked for salvation. Those who keep His laws and at their death are His friends are guaranteed salvation.

Would you believe that anyone who has had communion, confirmation and the sacraments of baptism cannot be damned? Hundreds of millions of Catholics and simply by carrying the name and doing the rituals you will be saved? I personally find that hard to believe. Every one of those rituals can be performed while ignorant or indifferent of their meaning.

The efficacy of the sacraments depends on the disposition of the recipient.

Then when understanding catches up to action they may be renounced as false. What then difference is there between that done in ignorance within the Church and that not done yet out of ignorance outside the Church? These things leave no more indelible mark on your soul than belief in them would allow. And if you renounce your belief? What then? Are you renouncing that indelible mark? Like a tattoo scrubbed away leaving no remnant of its former existence other than scarred skin? Of course I say these things in ignorance, not yet with understanding.

The indelible mark is not yours but His and it is His guarantee that He will pursue you to the gates of Hell. It is up to you whether you will to enter or not.

 

[Marie5890]

The OP hasn’t been back since they created this thread.

 

[adamhovey1988]

The OP hasn’t been back since they created this thread.

Pity. I wanted to see where this was going.

 

[John_Yurich_USA]

How does one officially leave the Roman Catholic Church? Thank you

Why would any Catholic in their right mind want to leave the Catholic Church? Total stupidity to leave the Catholic Church. Even if one does not subscribe to all Catholic doctrine they should remain a practicing Catholic and continue to attend Mass.

 

[steve_b]

The OP hasn’t been back since they created this thread.

They still might be reading the responses. Then again maybe the responses are helping anonymous readers as well

 

[Della]

Della;14511766:

Hello again Elder of the gospel,
I am pleased you feel me worthy of your time.
God give you strength to bare my ignorance.
What is this “stain” of original sin apart from its consequences? Do we not know the stain on mans nature by the consequences? How does ones soul become receptive? Is the soul not receptive before baptism? If not how is one receptive to baptism itself? As I’ve said baptism can be done under pretense or mistaken understanding. Is it still a legitimate baptism then? What then does it mean to be sensitive to the movement of the Holy Spirit? If one prays for me will not the Holy Spirit be moved within me?
How is it that a consequence is intellectual darkness when the bible declared Adams eyes were opened to knowledge? In what way was will weakened? Wasn’t it weakness of the will to resist temptation that caused the fall in the first place? How was human nature corrupted? Nothing is said by the bible to have changed within Adams nature. Only that which was external to him was taken. Namely his comfort and access to immortality.
Confession does nothing of itself to gain grace. Cannot an unrepentant sinner confess to save his life? Technicalities is exactly what we’ve created in the sacraments. Faithfulness is born and sustained within not without. Expression of faith externally without the life giving roots of internal conviction is like a hollow tree ready to fall with the merest breeze. It looks strong and proud on the outside but is empty of life.
My point being, as I’ve said before, the sacraments by themselves are without meaning. Empty gestures to a God who knows the hearts of men. Only by true belief and conviction is a man allowed by God to give substance to them.

First of all, please don’t address me with such lofty expressions of praise. I am no “Elder of the gospel” and never claimed to be.

The stain of original sin is the loss of saving grace. It’s that simple. The sacraments bestow God’s saving graces upon us, beginning with baptism. We lose those graces when we commit serious/grave/mortal sin. The sacraments of initiation, of which baptism is the first, infuse God’s grace into our souls, but we can lose that grace through mortal sin. The Eucharist satisfies for venial sins. However, the main purpose of the sacraments is to strengthen us with God’s graces to be holy and do good in charity. They are completely effective if we properly receive them in faith. So, we do our part by cooperating with God’s grace. It is, therefore, grace that saves us through the operation of the sacraments. They are therefore not meaningless for those who are disposed to receive them–open to God’s forgiveness and grace.

 

[masuwerte]

There are many things I like and admire about Catholicism, but this is not one of them. It seems disingenuous, to me, that your ecclesial community claims fervently to support freedom of religion, but denies the right of communicants to leave, and reserves the right to punish them if they do. Since your ecclesial community does not, at present, control any civil governments, this point might seem moot. But how many young men on this forum claim to support the establishment of Catholicism as a state religion? Portugal’s Estado Novo was not so long ago, nor so far away to escape notice. It didn’t work very well. Neither did Franco’s Spain. Maybe you’d better let apostates just leave. I don’t see how you can keep a clear conscience if you don’t.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

We are not speaking of civil law. As a matter of free will, all have the “right” to commit apostasy. However, the Apostles and Church Fathers considered apostasy and schism to be among the very gravest of sins. The Church has no authority to change that teaching.

 

[o_mlly]

There are many things I like and admire about Catholicism, but this is not one of them. It seems disingenuous, to me, that your ecclesial community claims fervently to support freedom of religion, but denies the right of communicants to leave, and reserves the right to punish them if they do. Since your ecclesial community does not, at present, control any civil governments, this point might seem moot. But how many young men on this forum claim to support the establishment of Catholicism as a state religion? Portugal’s Estado Novo was not so long ago, nor so far away to escape notice. It didn’t work very well. Neither did Franco’s Spain. Maybe you’d better let apostates just leave. I don’t see how you can keep a clear conscience if you don’t.

Friend, Christendom did not work in the Middle Ages and Catholics do not think it will work any better today.

The Catholic Church is a hospital, not a prison. Catholics do not deny the right of Catholics to abandon Catholicism. Excommunication is automatic as it is the choice of the apostate. The Church simply acknowledges the apostate’s choice. Please remember, we consider excommunication medicinal. We hope the apostate’s hunger for the Eucharist will heal the cause(s) of their apostasy.

 

[masuwerte]

So why support freedom of religion in the civil sphere?

 

[adamhovey1988]

OP, Do you honestly believe that the Wesleyan church is the true Church? I can tell you they are not the historical one since they were founded in 1843 in Utica, New York. I will tell you there were many denominations founded during the 19th century in New York state why this one?

 

[o_mlly]

So why support freedom of religion in the civil sphere?

The Church proposes; she does not impose.

A mark of the true Church of Christ is catholicity. She embraces all humanity.

A mark of the truth Church of Christs is oneness. She protects the deposit of faith from corruption.

 

[masuwerte]

The Church proposes; she does not impose.

A mark of the true Church of Christ is catholicity. She embraces all humanity.

A mark of the truth Church of Christs is oneness. She protects the deposit of faith from corruption.

That doesn’t address my question.

 

[o_mlly]

That doesn’t address my question.

Yes, it does.

Secular religious freedom allows citizens to practice the religion of their choice (exceptions for religions whose practices are illegal). The state does not endorse any particular religion as preferential.

Religious freedom within the Catholic church does not allow a member to believe other than our deposit of faith as taught by her ordinary magisterium, scripture and tradition. Otherwise, what would it mean to be Catholic?

 

[steve_b]

There are many things I like and admire about Catholicism, but this is not one of them. It seems disingenuous, to me, that your ecclesial community claims fervently to support freedom of religion, but denies the right of communicants to leave, and reserves the right to punish them if they do.

Being free to choose, doesn’t mean being free of consequences for choices made

For example,

Dt:30
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”

We don’t live in a consequence free existence
m:

Since your ecclesial community does not, at present, control any civil governments, this point might seem moot. But how many young men on this forum claim to support the establishment of Catholicism as a state religion? Portugal’s Estado Novo was not so long ago, nor so far away to escape notice. It didn’t work very well. Neither did Franco’s Spain. Maybe you’d better let apostates just leave. I don’t see how you can keep a clear conscience if you don’t.

Where’s that coming from?

Does the Catholic Church

force apostates not to leave? No
force heretics not to leave? No
force schismatics not to leave? No
etc etc etc

Are there consequences for those actions and for those people who do them? Absolutely. Just look at all the places in scripture where God through His apostles and writers of scripture describe and warn about the eternal consequences for those who do that.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes, it does.

Secular religious freedom allows citizens to practice the religion of their choice (exceptions for religions whose practices are illegal). The state does not endorse any particular religion as preferential.

Religious freedom within the Catholic church does not allow a member to believe other than our deposit of faith as taught by her ordinary magisterium, scripture and tradition. Otherwise, what would it mean to be Catholic?

You should re-visit and re-acquaint yourself with the seminal decree of Vatican II, Dignitatis humanae.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Why would any Catholic in their right mind want to leave the Catholic Church?

In my experience over decades of priesthood? Many more reasons than I could list in 6000 characters or less.

 

[adamhovey1988]

In my experience over decades of priesthood? Many more reasons than I could list in 6000 characters or less.

I think you’re absolutely right about that I mean there are as many reasons as there are former Catholics

 

[o_mlly]

You should re-visit and re-acquaint yourself with the seminal decree of Vatican II, Dignitatis humanae.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Did you have a specific point or points to make?

 

[masuwerte]

Being free to choose, doesn’t mean being free of consequences for choices made

Does the Catholic Church

force apostates not to leave? No
force heretics not to leave? No
force schismatics not to leave? No
etc etc etc

Your ecclesial community reserves the right to punish apostates, heretics and schismatics, but it no longer has the means to do so in modern society. In a practical sense, the only punishment you impose on former Catholics is that if they marry, you won’t consider their marriages valid. That’s not insignificant.

As recently as 2006, a person could formally defect from the Catholic Church in order to marry validly (in your opinion). That option has been taken away.