Taking risks by rejecting the CC?

[4EverHis]

Hi Janet,

I’m going to give you my 100% honest opinion oki?

as a Catholic (and a convert to Catholicism), here is what I believe.

I converted to Catholicism because that is where I believe God lead me. It wasn’t out of “fear”. It was out of obedience to God. But then, I found there’s more… (that I didn’t know at the time)

see we are saved by Grace… but this grace comes from God, through the Church, out into all the world. The Church is His Body. Remember how St Paul was persecuting Christ by persecuting the Church? the two are so linked…

I’ll give examples of different people… let’s say someone is a non Christian. They’re being offered graces, like perhaps God is leading them to Himself, perhaps they will repent in their heart before they die, and so will be saved like the thief on the cross. (that is, if they don’t reject grace).

Now let’s say someone is a non Catholic Christian, like a Protestant. Can they know God? yes. Can they be saved? yes… but this is assuming they don’t knowingly reject the Church. If they were simply born Protestant, or even left the Church cause they were never taught Catholicism properly, they can still be saved through ignorance. But if they reject it, they’re rejecting Christ’s own Body, like St Paul did when he was Saul.

what Catholicism teaches, is that there is only one Church, and that’s the Catholic Church. That is Christ’s Body. However, non Catholic Christians are imperfectly united to it through thier baptism. (since there is only one baptism). So if you’re not a Catholic, it doesn’t mean you’re totally outside the Church, like an atheist or a non Christian - it does however mean that you’re not FULLY in the Church. Only partially. So - what that means, is there are less graces for Protestants.

I realize this might be hurtful for a lot of people, - I myself was offended by this when I was Protestant, but let me explain

see in not being Catholic, you’re missing out on the Eucharist… on Confession… on having the correct doctrines. You can still know God, He still hears your prayers, etc, but there are less graces for you to work with. You have Christ but not what He left the Church… which are the Sacraments.

If you left the Church, the risk depends on WHY you left. If you understand Catholicism and still reject it, that could be a problem, depending on why you rejected it… if you just liked another church, or was never properly catechized, that might not be your fault and so you wouldn’t be held as responsible. However, I have to say that I do not know. Only God knows your heart and why you left. So I can’t for sure answer your question. I do think it’s a good idea to look into the Church though with an open heart and perhaps give it a chance, just in case

God bless.

 

[Ceil-1]

:twocents:I think all Christians agree that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to the Father in heaven. That is everyone’s ultimate goodl. Eternal bliss with our maker. John 14 5-7: “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”

Our Lord indicated that ONLY those who do the Will of the Father will make it. He indicated that the Father’s Will is that we believe and abide in Christ (Jesus). To abide in Christ Jesus we are to love Him and to love Him is to keep His commandments. (Matthew 7:20-22, “NOt everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but ONLY he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

He indicated that we were to love God with our whole selves, and our neighbor as ourself. We are to follow His commandments. Luke 10:26-28. He says this several times.

The Church He started offers us His Body and Blood through Communion, which He indicated is necessary to be raised up on the last day. John 6:57

This is the tip of the iceberg. Since obedience is the theme throughout the Bible, we know it is what is necessary for salvation. The Church having authority over us in this way makes it easier to reach this goal. Pray, pay and obey may sound derogatory, but, hey, if it gets me where I’m going, so be it.

Given that, I do believe it is risky to leave the Church. It is willful disobedience to the known Will of God. It is different for one born a Protestant or other religion. After all, that was God’s Will too. It seems if we are truly seeking holiness, then God will call us where He wants us and we will go. I think too many of us on all sides are too content with ourselves.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Well I left the CC after more than 20 years…

Can you tell us why you left

 

[Janet1983]

Janet:

Did you select your “Christian Church” because you enjoyed the style, the preaching that you heard from that particular corner church? Was/is he a good speaker? Would that surprise anyone? Did you hear the things you wanted to hear? Did you come to understand from folks around you that “it is the Bible” and your interpretation?

You are not alone in this world.

My oldest son is your age and is not Catholic yet. My son has not rejected the CC, but hopefully my example will move him in that direction.

Pray for me!

Well I converted at a military chapel and there simply was not much of a choice… there were 2 different Protestant services and I attended both…
When we moved stateside my husband and me held our eyes open for a good church that would not preach the prosperity gospel a la Joel Osteen. We found a church with a pastor who would preach solid Biblical teaching… because of that it is one of the smaller churches in the area… many people want to get their ears tickled so this church is not attractive for the large masses.

 

[Peter_J]

That I heard on this site when I asked the question directly is it a mortal sin to leave the church. It is often backed up in discussions about atending weddings of family members who converted to other faith communities. Can one attend, if they attend can they be an usher for example.

Edit to add:
How can it not be a mortal sin if it is a mortal sin to miss a weekly mass?

Hi 4Squarebaby. I think your confusing the term “mortal sin” with the term “grave matter”.

For example, it is a grave matter to not fulfill one’s Sunday Obligation – hence it’s a mortal sin if it’s done with full knowledge and full consent.

Likewise, the question to ask here is not “Is it a mortal sin to leave the Catholic Church?” but rather “Is it a grave matter to leave the Catholic Church?”

 

[Peter_J]

Not according to JP2 - he, not the OP, called them the “Church’s other lung”. That sort of idiocy is of the Vatican’s making - no one else’s, & certainly not the OP’s.​

From Redemptoris Mater 34:

• 1. Such a wealth of praise, built up by the different forms of the Church’s great tradition, could help us to hasten the day when the Church can begin once more to breathe fully with her “two lungs,” the East and the West. As I have often said, this is more than ever necessary today. It would be an effective aid in furthering the progress of the dialogue already taking place between the Catholic Church and the Churches and Ecclesial Communities of the West.86 It would also be the way for the pilgrim Church to sing and to live more perfectly her “Magnificat.”
• [http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0224/__P7.HTM (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0224/__P7.HTM)

Aidan Nichols OP speaks to the FiF Assembly 2002

The other lung

This, I might add, should be on the understanding that the Church of Peter and Paul does not wish the West to breathe without the East, without that ‘other lung’ in the metaphor of the Dominican ecclesiologist Yves Congar. ‘The other lung’ is a phrase which the present Holy Father has often repeated, and indeed turned into action, not least in promulgating the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church much of which, as has been said, reads as if written in Constantinople. With this other Anglicanism the ecumenical road is, by any reasonable assessment, shorter and more secure.

Hard decisions lie ahead of you. The Rome that sent Augustine, Hadrian and Theodore, an Italian, an African and a Greek, to England still shows, despite or because of cosmopolitanism, a motherly solicitude for you. But behind a Church-mother there stands, even more importantly, the Mother of the Church.

• [A Mother (A Mother)

I would say two things:

1. If you interpret JPII’s words to mean that the Orthodox are one “lung” of the Church, than that’s fine but you should be aware not all Catholics interpret them that way. For example, I very seriously doubt that such an interpretation would be supported by Fr. Ray Ryland, who is famous for his crusade against Eastern Orthodoxy.
2. If JPII meant that the Orthodox are one “lung” of the Church, why didn’t he ever come right out and say “the Orthodox are one lung of the Church”?

 

[Ceil-1]

I take offense at the poster referring to John Paul II’s statement as “idiocy”.

Frankly, I’m fed up with this detraction and derision toward certain priests and bishops because certain types of people have this need to spread negative propaganda about Vatican II around so badly, they are willing to cause scandal and commit sin.

If one cannot trust the original founders of the Church to get it right, then how could anyone else possibly be trusted? If the Church didn’t get it right, it’s all a sham.

 

[Janet1983]

Can you tell us why you left

I could, but I don’t have the time right now to go back through my posts and find it real quick… I’ve given my account already a few times…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Weren’t you the one that said this:

I did. But what X thinks is of no relevance to what the Pope or Magisterium or whatever teaches or claims to teach. Gunning for - or for that matter saying nice things about - a poster does nothing to invalidate what the poster says or to support it. If the Popes falsify Catholic doctrine, then so be it: what others may think of their doing so, if the Popes do so, does not change the act of falsification. Whether a poster welcomes it or not, does not change it. What matters is not the attitudes of posters, but whether the falsification is real or not.​

Anyway, the Orthodox Church is still seen as schismatic, and this is clear for the simple fact that they do not accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

The Pope seems not to agree with you.​

The Church currently breathes with both lungs; We have the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Catholic churches. Orthodoxy is the other lung when they are in union with us. We already have Eastern Catholics. The hope is that the rest of Orthodoxy will follow.

Which is it then ? You’re contradicting yourself. As well as Paul VI & JP2 - Paul VI is the one who claimed the Orthodox are a sister-Church & JP2 made this “other lung” stuff his own. These are your Popes; you are responsible for what they say because that Catholic stuff is what *you *claim to believe. You can’t pick and choose the bits you like - your religion does not give you that liberty or right. So what you have to is to harmonise all these conflicts - that should be easy enough, because the Roman Pope to whom you are supposedly subject claims infallibility, as does the CC, as do its Ecummenical Councils. These positions are of your religion’s making, so you have to take responsibility for them.​

Please quote one single Vatican document since 1964 in which the Orthodox are referred to as “schismatic”. I very much doubt that you will be able to. But if you can’t - why should I believe that the Vatican does regard them as schismatic ? CAF members are not the Vatican or the bishops (including or the Pope) - so what gives anyone on CAF the right to contradict Vatican documents, Papal or otherwise ? What you may find is that the word “separated” is used of those Christians who are not Protestant or Papal - but even **if **it is used, that is a far milder term than “schismatic”.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Uh, GOG, I suppose it hasn’t occured to you that your posted remarks were probably speaking of the Eastern CATHOLIC Churches - the leaders of which haven’t always been palsy-walsy with the Popes and their brothers of the Latin ‘lung’, and have often felt (and rightly so) somewhat overlooked and ignored by Rome?

It did - so I had a look round. The meaning of the phrase “the other lung” seems either to include, or at least not be limited to, the Eastern Catholic Churches. That is not a problem. The inclusion of the Orthodox is a massive problem.​

Thank you for the suggestion though.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Cathloic Church has many Mass you can always find the time to get to mass and it is not a mortal sin to miss a weekly mass,Dont know where you got that

It is a mortal sin not to attend Mass if there is no sufficient reason for not attending. Sorry.​

Looking after the sick, or being sick, are sufficient reasons not to. Not attending because one does not feel like doing so, but could do so, is an insufficient reason not to.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is a mortal sin not to attend Mass if there is no sufficient reason for not attending. Sorry.​

Looking after the sick, or being sick, are sufficient reasons not to. Not attending because one does not feel like doing so, but could do so, is an insufficient reason not to.

Maybe I miss something here but let get this clear.

The Holy Mass is said everyday. Catholics are expected to attend masses as often as they reasonably can. However, missing daily mass in NOT a sin. Missing masses on Sundays and Days of Obligation is without any good reason.

What are sufficient reasons for one to miss a mass? Again this is a matter of the heart. If you love the Eucharist so much, lots of things can be done and arranged so that it will be possible for one to attend it. But if you truly can’t, God will understand. There is thing you can do like saying personal prayer and the likes and rever the moment knowing that your fellow Christians are celebrating the Lord’s supper in the church.

If it is merely to fullfil one’s obligation without the heart for it, attending masses on Sundays will not achieve the full potential that the celebration of the Holy Eucharist will do to the person.

God bless.

 

[Religio71]

I did. But what X thinks is of no relevance to what the Pope or Magisterium or whatever teaches or claims to teach. Gunning for - or for that matter saying nice things about - a poster does nothing to invalidate what the poster says or to support it. If the Popes falsify Catholic doctrine, then so be it: what others may think of their doing so, if the Popes do so, does not change the act of falsification. Whether a poster welcomes it or not, does not change it. What matters is not the attitudes of posters, but whether the falsification is real or not.​

The Pope seems not to agree with you.​

Which is it then ? You’re contradicting yourself. As well as Paul VI & JP2 - Paul VI is the one who claimed the Orthodox are a sister-Church & JP2 made this “other lung” stuff his own. These are your Popes; you are responsible for what they say because that Catholic stuff is what you claim to believe. You can’t pick and choose the bits you like - your religion does not give you that liberty or right. So what you have to is to harmonise all these conflicts - that should be easy enough, because the Roman Pope to whom you are supposedly subject claims infallibility, as does the CC, as do its Ecummenical Councils. These positions are of your religion’s making, so you have to take responsibility for them.​

Please quote one single Vatican document since 1964 in which the Orthodox are referred to as “schismatic”. I very much doubt that you will be able to. But if you can’t - why should I believe that the Vatican does regard them as schismatic ? CAF members are not the Vatican or the bishops (including or the Pope) - so what gives anyone on CAF the right to contradict Vatican documents, Papal or otherwise ? What you may find is that the word “separated” is used of those Christians who are not Protestant or Papal - but even **if **it is used, that is a far milder term than “schismatic”.

So wait, which is it, sister Church, or other Lung???

The Orthodox Church is a sister Church of the Catholic Church. It has valid sacraments, valid priesthood, valid apostolic succession, etc. according to the Catholic Church. So do other schismatic groups. The point is that the “other lung” is not the Orthodox Church, since they are not in full communion with us (try reading the basic Catechism, it’s right in there). The other lung includes the various Eastern Catholic churches.

Please tell me what the difference is between “separated” and “schismatic”. So the 1054 schism wasn’t really a…schism???

I will wait for you to provide evidence that the Orthodox Church is in full communion with the Catholic Church, or where there is a contridiction here. Otherwise, they are in schism. No Pope has said otherwise, and being a sister Church doesn’t mean being in full communion. The Schism of 1054 has not been healed, despite attempts throughout history. So I suggest you review history.

Can anyone tell me how it is logical to think that the Orthodox Church is not in schism when they do not accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome?

From the Catechism:

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.”
**

 

[Religio71]

I think I’ll take the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia over Gottle’s

“The technical name for the body of Christians who use the Byzantine Rite in various languages and are in union with the Patriarch of Constantinople but in schism with the Pope of Rome. The epithet Orthodox (orthodoxos), meaning “right believer”, is, naturally, claimed by people of every religion. It is almost exactly a Greek form of the official title of the chief enemies of the Greeks, i.e. the Moslems (mu’min, fidelis). The Monophysite Armenians called themselves ughapar, meaning exactly the same thing.”

newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm

 

[Peter_J]

It is a mortal sin not to attend Mass if there is no sufficient reason for not attending. Sorry.​

Basically I agree with you, but again I want to point out that there is a difference between grave matter and mortal sin.

 

[Javl]

GottleofGeer:
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.”

Schism with the CC is the refusal to accept the authority of both the Pope and Magisterium. Refusing the Pope but adhering to the Magisterium is no schism
but only disobedience.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Peter_J]

Schism with the CC is the refusal to accept the authority of both the Pope and Magisterium. Refusing the Pope but adhering to the Magisterium is no schism
but only disobedience.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

That’s not what the CCC says (see Gottle’s post).

 

[Javl]

That’s not what the CCC says (see Gottle’s post).

Refusal of submission to the Pope in matters of faith and/or morals is considered schism.
Refusal of the Pope in other matters is not schism but only disobedience. Refusal of the Pope in personal matters may or may not be disobedience. I should have defined my statement. Sorry.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem