Why do catholics leave the Catholic Church

[ConstantineTG]

I can’t think of a single reason.

That is because you’re trying to apply your own understanding and experience to everyone else.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think people need to realize that there are also very good reasons that people leave. And that will be cause for self examination and an attempt to fix the problems.

You mean “problems” like doctrine, dogma, Church laws, and moral theology?

I ask because here / you talk about 'theological issues."

I did not dwell on the theological issues that I know is beyond the three of us, individually or collectively.

Other posters addressed, and I addressed, a variety of reasons for leaving. Setting aside any value judgments for those reasons, there are indeed a variety. There are in fact Catholics who leave the Roman rite for other Catholic traditions who do so for theological issues. How is that the “problem” of the Roman Church? I find that very judgmental actually, when it is the person departing who has the “issue,” not the Church.

There are other people who leave for reasons of “atmosphere,” such as a perception of community. But note that it’s a perception. That perception may be very real to the one departing, but in itself I question the reasonableness of leaving acknowledged Truth for the sake of social connectedness. The latter can be discovered and created. Truth cannot; it is eternal and not created by man. What I’m saying is that identifying “insufficent community” (which some people do) as “the [Catholic] Church’s fault” and “a problem that needs fixing” (some posters suggest that) is a statement that assumes a lot. It assumes that there’s a locatable and objective “cause” for the subjectively perceived “lack of community.” Second, it is subordinate in objective importance to the absolute character of Truth.

Now, again, back to myself: When I left (more than once), I left ultimately due to lack of the theological virtue of faith, because – like many others – I had not worked on that virtue, a virtue which requires regular work. I may have given lots of apparent and immediately perceved reasons for leaving, but had I put faith first, all the other discomforts wuld have receded in comparison to the importance of that.

Note, again, I do not condemn anyone for leaving, even if I had never left myself. I recognize that it is human nature to be dissatisfied, to become weary, to grow discouraged,just as it can in any relationship (say, a marriage, which similarly takes lots of work for renewal). I’m saying that it is unjust and inaccurate to lay the “blame” for Catholics leaving the Church on the institution itself, or the people in it.

It was I who required the change, not the Church. That included when I was turned off by particular parishes and viewed them as insufficiently charitable, welcoming, whatever. When I examine now how I view parishes, it is with eyes of faith and hope. Now I stop focusing on the unwelcoming, cool, or seemingly detached parishioners (whatever parish I’m worshipping in). Maybe they are going through their own crisis of faith. Maybe they have little to no energy to extend to others, given such crises. Maybe they are enduring enormous pain in their personal lives (affair in a marriage, news of a terminal illness, death of a loved one, miscarriage or stillbirth). And in fact most of the time it turns out that such hunches are correct. Either other parishioners are by nature quiet and do not easily take initiative, and/or I have found out that they have something heavy in their lives. To ask that they exhibit heroic charity in the face of that would be uncharitable on my part. And if they cannot respond to my overtures, the least I can do is merely smile. Always, I will get some kind of a warm recognition in return – just a slight facial expression of gratitude.

We do not come to Church to be served but to serve. If we do not “experience” what we assume or hope we should in a parish, we need to examine what expectations we are putting on others, i.m.o.

 

[guanophore]

Why? What’d you do??

…must have been pretty bad…

:dancing::clapping:

 

[ConstantineTG]

You mean “problems” like doctrine, dogma, Church laws, and moral theology?

I ask because here / you talk about 'theological issues."

A lot of the problems we have are practical issues. I believe Catholicism has become so impersonal that the pastoral needs of individuals are neglected. I believe this is a huge contributor to people leaving the Church. Sure, we can say people were lazy to read up on Catholicism, but when an Evangelical Pastor can make time to sit down with someone and explain to them the bible, while their former Catholic priest can’t be bothered to even answer the simplest of questions, where do you think people will go?

 

[Elizabeth502]

A lot of the problems we have are practical issues. I believe Catholicism has become so impersonal that the pastoral needs of individuals are neglected. I believe this is a huge contributor to people leaving the Church. Sure, we can say people were lazy to read up on Catholicism, but when an Evangelical Pastor can make time to sit down with someone and explain to them the bible, while their former Catholic priest can’t be bothered to even answer the simplest of questions, where do you think people will go?

Constantine, I don’t disagree with you in this respect, and I wonder if you had the chance to discuss this with the priest and bishop, in that farewell conversation: You’re right that the pastoral role of the priest should be first, including in that pastoral role the accompanying spiritual ‘time apart’ which is critical to fulfill such a role. It is one of the few areas in which I will agree with you: The Church as an institution must in a practical way re-prioritize the role of the parish priest if it wants to succeed at the New (internal) Evangelization. Stop using priests inappropriately as glorfied, underpaid Managing Directors with Roman collars. If he wanted to do that he could have gone into the business world and earned 4-5 times the amount of his stipend. The first role of any priest is adminstration of the sacraments; second role is tending the flock (which yes, Constantine, would include teaching – both in larger parish groups and 1-1) . Not tending an administrative committee. Not spending hours on parish budgets every week. Not spending inordinate time with internal personnel issues. That’s what lay associates are for. Those people are trained in that and don’t need seminary degrees for that. The priest is irreplaceable. The administrators of a parish are not.

I’m pretty sure I’ve made my views known on this elsewhere, and earlier, on this forum, regarding much better personnel use in parishes. They include:

~ using the priest precisely as he was called to serve (described above)
~using lay administrators as they are capable of being used, given different experience.
~using qualifed, trained, educated lay people in a new coordinated catechetical program approved by the bishop, and overseen by the pastor and any members of religious orders who happen to be associated with him or the parish.
~as appropriate (as now), various lay ministries can continue to be run by those suitable and hired for those roles (music, sacristans, whatever)

This is using the Body of Christ in the way that is allowed by the Church but doesn’t drain the priest and doesn’t keep him from his flock.

Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, I don’t disagree with you in this respect, and I wonder if you had the chance to discuss this with the priest and bishop, in that farewell conversation: You’re right that the pastoral role of the priest should be first, including in that pastoral role the accompanying spiritual ‘time apart’ which is critical to fulfill such a role. It is one of the few areas in which I will agree with you: The Church as an institution must in a practical way re-prioritize the role of the parish priest if it wants to succeed at the New (internal) Evangelization. Stop using priests inappropriately as glorfied, underpaid Managing Directors with Roman collars. If he wanted to do that he could have gone into the business world and earned 4-5 times the amount of his stipend. The first role of any priest is adminstration of the sacraments; second role is tending the flock (which yes, Constantine, would include teaching – both in larger parish groups and 1-1) . Not tending an administrative committee. Not spending hours on parish budgets every week. Not spending inordinate time with internal personnel issues. That’s what lay associates are for. Those people are trained in that and don’t need seminary degrees for that. The priest is irreplaceable. The administrators of a parish are not.

I’m pretty sure I’ve made my views known on this elsewhere, and earlier, on this forum, regarding much better personnel use in parishes. They include:

~ using the priest precisely as he was called to serve (described above)
~using lay administrators as they are capable of being used, given different experience.
~using qualifed, trained, educated lay people in a new coordinated catechetical program approved by the bishop, and overseen by the pastor and any members of religious orders who happen to be associated with him or the parish.
~as appropriate (as now), various lay ministries can continue to be run by those suitable and hired for those roles (music, sacristans, whatever)

This is using the Body of Christ in the way that is allowed by the Church but doesn’t drain the priest and doesn’t keep him from his flock.

Thank you for clarifying that.

You know, I have a friend who at one time wanted to become an RC priest. He actually joined an order. But as he went through his seminary education he realized that he was being set-up for an office/administrative post. He quit the order and seminary. He said that wasn’t why he wanted to become a priest.

Sad, isn’t it?

 

[Elizabeth502]

You know, I have a friend who at one time wanted to become an RC priest. He actually joined an order. But as he went through his seminary education he realized that he was being set-up for an office/administrative post. He quit the order and seminary. He said that wasn’t why he wanted to become a priest.

Sad, isn’t it?

Sad is not an adequate word. Tragic. Incomprehensible. An enormous loss for the Church. Every such lost vocation hurts us all.

I have also known of recent would-be priests who hear about the prospect of business maangement vs. a true religious vocation, and have become discouraged from even entering seminary.

This is one of the most urgent problems in the Church to address. I guess my way differs from yours, though. I don’t see my leaving the Church (for another rite or another faith tradition entirely) as a “solution” or an effective protest move. I see staying in the Church and pleading from the inside as a more proactive response. The Church is much more interested in listening to its current flock than its ex-flock, which they have already lost.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sad is not an adequate word. Tragic. Incomprehensible. An enormous loss for the Church. Every such lost vocation hurts us all.

I have also known of recent would-be priests who hear about the prospect of business maangement vs. a true religious vocation, and have become discouraged from even entering seminary.

This is one of the most urgent problems in the Church to address. I guess my way differs from yours, though. I don’t see my leaving the Church (for another rite or another faith tradition entirely) as a “solution” or an effective protest move. I see staying in the Church and pleading from the inside as a more proactive response. The Church is much more interested in listening to its current flock than its ex-flock, which they have already lost.

Oh no, I did not leave for those reasons. I have theological issues as well, but I don’t want to bring that up on this thread because we can’t resolve it. I sincerely believe that the Byzantine Tradition, the Orthodox Way of life, is the true path to salvation. That is what I believe. But there are other issues that we can discuss and fix. Because to me it is tragic if one leaves the Church, Catholic or Orthodox, for the wrong reasons. One of the greatest things I learned about my conversion is that proselytism is evil. It truly is. To get someone to convert for the sake of it is not right. It is a fruit of either a misguided belief that membership is part of salvation, or that we just simply want to bolster our ranks and think that our own salvation is bolstered by winning new members. Along my journey I’ve met a number of people who are Catholics, like I was, who are interested in Orthodoxy. Some of them continued on to become Orthodox, some of them didn’t. I wish both well. I have a dear friend who is Orthodox for years and returned to Catholicism. I didn’t stop him. We talked and he told me the issues he is having. I understood. I was saddened that the state of the Orthodox parish where he is located is terrible. But I commend him for having that love of God that he wants to be where he can grow spiritually and get to love God more. Why would I stand in the way of that? God bless him for it. And this goes around to those practical issues we are discussing. Sometimes those practical issues are a deterrent to one’s spiritual growth. Someone advised me as I am in my process of converting to Orthodoxy. That person told me, " never join the parish council." I will heed that advice.

 

[Gavroche]

I’m going to try and provide some (name removed by moderator)ut on this as a young Catholic (early 20s) who has been involved in a struggle to keep faith.

This might not be saying much, but I consider myself a more informed Catholic than most, and as such a lot of my struggles with the faith have been teaching based rather than reasons such as people “feeling” better in a protestant faith or something.

Let me just give you a run down of teachings that have caused me great distress at one time or another or even still today:

• Immaculate conception
• Mary as Mediatrix
• Papal infallibility
• Inerrancy of scripture
• Reconciling old testament violence with Catholic teaching on killing
• Reconciling Vatican II with pre Vatican II formulations of teachings especially “no salvation outside the Church”
• Trying to reconcile the love of God with Hell.

Additionally, it being a mortal sin to not fast on Ash Wednesday or Good Friday or not abstain from meat on the appointed days for those obliged have caused me great distress. I just don’t understand why such a high penalty is attached to it. I don’t think I could ever not believe in God, and my crises of faith have usually been very Catholic specific and to be quite honest I feel I have not received great answers when it comes to these issues that trouble me.

On a related note, I also suffer from anxiety issues, and as such I suffer from scrupulosity which has associated negative emotions with spirituality. I want to pray more and read scripture more, but it seems the more time I spend devoting myself to such things, the more my scrupulosity bothers me. It’s so hard for me to see God as a loving father and just let go and trust Him when I’m reminded of things like certain old testament acts of violence, and damnation for a single mortal sin.

So taking into consideration the things I’ve said, I can see how someone having doubts over some of these things might refuse to adhere to the Church’s teaching and leave the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

That is because you’re trying to apply your own understanding and experience to everyone else.

LOL! That’s like my saying, “I can’t think of a single reason to justify taking heroin” and your responding, “That is because you’re trying to apply your own understanding and experience to everyone else.”

(NB: Please do not go here: * “How dare you equate taking heroin with leaving the Catholic Church!” * No one is “equating” the two. The purpose of the analogy is to show where things are analogous. Where they are similar, they are similar. Where they are dissimilar, they are dissimilar. Point being made: there are numerous things that we can say are wrong to do, even if we’ve never experienced them, or are only applying our “own understanding and experience to everyone else.”)

 

[PRmerger]

This might not be saying much, but I consider myself a more informed Catholic than most, and as such a lot of my struggles with the faith have been teaching based rather than reasons such as people “feeling” better in a protestant faith or something.

I applaud you for recognizing this. I do believe that theological reasons are of greater import than “feeling” better in a Protestant church.

Let me just give you a run down of teachings that have caused me great distress at one time or another or even still today:

• Immaculate conception
• Mary as Mediatrix
• Papal infallibility
• Inerrancy of scripture
• Reconciling old testament violence with Catholic teaching on killing
• Reconciling Vatican II with pre Vatican II formulations of teachings especially “no salvation outside the Church”
• Trying to reconcile the love of God with Hell.

It might be helpful if you went here: catholic.com// and then searched for the above issues and read the apologia for them.

Regarding reconciling a loving God with Hell, here’s my own article: How Could a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell?

Best synopsis of how this could happen, from Peter Kreeft: "The fires of hell maybe made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever."

 

[PRmerger]

So taking into consideration the things I’ve said, I can see how someone having doubts over some of these things might refuse to adhere to the Church’s teaching and leave the Church.

I think this is a dangerous paradigm to follow.

Rather than searching for a church to which one could agree with all of its teachings (which is the epitome of creating a god in one’s own image), one ought to find the Church that Christ established, then adhere to all the teachings of this Church.

 

[PJM]

=ConstantineTG;10757703]I wouldn’t call it rare. My bishop himself was a former Roman Catholic. There are plenty of reasons why people leave. I don’t deny that there are those who leave because of liberalist ideas or plain laziness to know more about the faith. But there are those who leave because they just wasn’t cared for, that no one cared to show them the path. You know what I loved about Orthodoxy? There is that personalism that doesn’t exist in Roman Catholicism these days. Every Sacrament is given to you by name, even common, repeated Sacraments like Communion and Confession. Priests are almost never rotated unless out of extreme necessity, so they stay with the same parish for life. They have a bond with everybody, a real father role for the parishioners. I’ve been to Roman Catholic parishes where I was a parishioner for years, and I’ve never known anyone nor have I carried a conversation with the priest. Sure, people will say, “well, you have to come up and introduce yourself.” Not every person on earth can do that. In fact, once I attended an “orientation” type of gathering where new parishioners are welcomed. And then every ministry and group in the parish try to get you to join them.

Some people do actually end up somewhere else after a sincere pursuit of faith. Or others whom I know who left for dubious reasons, but they grew in their new faith and become quite sincere in their belief.

I just want people to be fair to us. I know it’s not easy to understand or even love those who have turned their backs on the beliefs you hold. But at the very least, extend Christian charity towards us and be fair, that is all I ask.

I’ve given up on Orthodox message boards. I guess the best way to hate your own Church/religion is to join a message board about it. I was hoping to learn more about Orthodoxy but instead ended up with a group of people who’d rather question how Orthodox I am (being a new convert) than take me under their wing and help me grow. I’m thankful I have a priest who is there for me always and be the real icon of Orthodoxy for me.

Well, I don’t believe that, but I wanted to drive a point about saying hurtful things about other people.

I would still say it does. Because it still creates a stereotype, and stereotypes often lead to bigotry.

I’m just offended by the generalizations. I am not personally offended. But I am saddened that people enjoy speculating about other people or presuming what they think and feel. I don’t see how this fits into Christ’s commandment to love one another, including our enemies. If people want to learn about why Catholics leave, I offer myself to at least be one case where people can ask questions and learn. But speculating isn’t about learning.

Personally I love the Orthodox! Most especially the piety which seems to be AWOL from some Catholic parishes

Still theis is BUT One
God
Faith
Thruth

amen

 

[PJM]

=PJM;10762108]Personally I love the Orthodox! Most especially the piety which seems to be AWOL from some Catholic parishes

Still their is BUT One
God
Faith
Truth

amen

Originally Posted by Gavroche 
This might not be saying much, but I consider myself a more informed Catholic than most, and as such a lot of my struggles with the faith have been teaching based rather than reasons such as people “feeling” better in a protestant faith or something.

Let me just give you a run down of teachings that have caused me great distress at one time or another or even still today:

• Immaculate conception
• Mary as Mediatrix
• Papal infallibility
• Inerrancy of scripture
• Reconciling old testament violence with Catholic teaching on killing
• Reconciling Vatican II with pre Vatican II formulations of teachings especially “no salvation outside the Church”

My dear friend in Christ,

I would be delighted to discuss each of these issues with you; In Charity and with evidence of why we Catholic Do believe and practice as we do.

But not on this string as it would take us too far off topic.

Your ISSUES do however acount for Why SOME folks leave Chrsit Catholic Church. They; unlike you seem not to seek right understanding.

I’m a Certified [trained and tested an very experienced] Marian Catehist; a Lay Apostolate Approved by Rome to Teach and share our catholic faith.

I’ll be in touch:thumbsup:

God Bless you for wanting to know the truth.

pat miron /PJM here on CAF

 

[guanophore]

A lot of the problems we have are practical issues. I believe Catholicism has become so impersonal that the pastoral needs of individuals are neglected. I believe this is a huge contributor to people leaving the Church. Sure, we can say people were lazy to read up on Catholicism, but when an Evangelical Pastor can make time to sit down with someone and explain to them the bible, while their former Catholic priest can’t be bothered to even answer the simplest of questions, where do you think people will go?

I think you absolutely hit this nail on the head, Constantine. This was a big factor for me in leaving. The Baptists taught me how to study Scripture, while I knew of no Catholics that even read the bible, much less tried to apply it to daily life. I realize now that I based my decision on ignorance of many things, but had there been any kind of invitation like the one the Baptist student fellowship made, I very well may have stayed.

 

[Gavroche]

I think this is a dangerous paradigm to follow.

Rather than searching for a church to which one could agree with all of its teachings (which is the epitome of creating a god in one’s own image), one ought to find the Church that Christ established, then adhere to all the teachings of this Church.

I’m not saying this is right, I’m just saying I can see this happening. But you must understand, that I’m sure some people who leave the Church for theological reasons do so not thinking they are walking away from the one true faith. The Catholic Church must maintain consistency in terms of official teaching yes? After all the Holy Spirit cannot say that X is true, and later on that X is not true. And so if someone perceives an inconsistency, then in their mind they might see this as proof that the Catholic Church’s claim to being the the church founded by Christ is false.

And as someone who has struggled over this very thing, things like this come to mind that cause me a great deal of trouble in terms of Catholic official doctrinal consistency:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that ** none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her;**

and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Cantate Domino 1441 (bold portions emphasized by me)

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Quote from the Catechism on the Vatican website which quotes Lumen Gentium

I just find it so hard to reconcile in my mind this view presented in the Catechism with that of what is said in Cantate Domino. I’m not here to turn the thread into a discussion about this, but I can see how someone could read these two different things and have their faith shaken by perceiving some sort of inconsistency.

I’m just responding to what I think was the notion put forward in your post that people leave because they want to pick and choose which doctrines to follow as a matter of preference, and I really don’t think this is the principle motivation for many people who leave the Church for doctrinal reasons. Rather, I think one of the main reasons is that some people perceive some sort of inconsistency in official Church teaching which they believe nullifies the Church’s claim to being guided by the Holy Spirit and nullifies the claim that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not saying this is right, I’m just saying I can see this happening. But you must understand, that I’m sure some people who leave the Church for theological reasons do so not thinking they are walking away from the one true faith.

I understand that. But if you look at all the other churches (save the Orthodox), you can see that none of them can trace their inception to Christ and His Apostles.

Exceprt from here:
catholicbible101.com/whostartedyourchurch.htm

The Anabaptist church – 1520 AD. Founded by a man, Nicholas Storch, and Thomas Münzer, former Lutherans. The Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and were denounced by Martin Luther. This “reformation of the reformation” is proof positive that the doctrine of “scripture alone” is false. Otherwise, there wouldn’t have been more than one interpretation of scripture and no need for an anabaptist church that totally ignores Luke 18:15-17.

The Mennonite church – 1525 AD. Founded by men, Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock, in Switzerland, as an offshoot of the Anabaptists. It derived its name from Menno Simons, a former Catholic priest.

The Baptist church – 1606 AD. Founded by a man, John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam, as an offshoot of the Mennonites. Baptists reject infant baptism as contrary to the Scriptures, and accept immersion as the sole valid mode of baptism.

The Amish church – 1693 AD. Founded by a man, Jacob Amman, a Swiss Bishop. Also a breakaway from the Mennonite church. His followers were called the “Amish.” While similar to the Mennonites, they differ in language, dress, and interpretation of the Bible.

The Anglican Church – 1534 AD. Founded by a man, King Henry VIII, as a direct result of the Pope not granting him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Many a Catholic priest was tortured and killed as a result of the very aroused Henry trying to find another young maiden for his pleasure. The Queen of England is the current head of the Anglican Church.

The Presbyterian church – 1560 AD. Founded by a man, John Knox, in Scotland. Based on the personal beliefs of a man, John Calvin, which include predestination, no free will in humans, & total depravity in mankind.

etc etc etc

 

[PRmerger]

And as someone who has struggled over this very thing, things like this come to mind that cause me a great deal of trouble in terms of Catholic official doctrinal consistency:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Amen!

There is no Christian church that ought to be proclaiming anything other than the above. If someone rejects Christ and His Body, then he rejects heaven.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Amen!

I just find it so hard to reconcile in my mind this view presented in the Catechism with that of what is said in Cantate Domino. I’m not here to turn the thread into a discussion about this, but I can see how someone could read these two different things and have their faith shaken by perceiving some sort of inconsistency.

Only if you leave it at that, reading these 2 excerpts without making any attempt to reconcile the 2 by seeking answers.

Incidentally, you do know that there were no Protestants when Cantate Domino was written, right?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m just responding to what I think was the notion put forward in your post that people leave because they want to pick and choose which doctrines to follow as a matter of preference, and I really don’t think this is the principle motivation for many people who leave the Church for doctrinal reasons

I propose that it is, Gavroche.

If you are in a church where you cannot say, “I really prefer that this teaching were not part of the deposit of faith, but God has declared it, so I conform my beliefs to His”…then you are in a church modeled after the Almighty Self.

For it stands to reason, does it not, that God is going to declare some things that are unpalatable to you and me, right?

In the interest of humble disclosure, I will give an example of my own struggle. I really, really, really wish that it wasn’t a teaching of the Catholic faith that divorce and re-marriage is adultery. There have been many a wedding that I wish I could have celebrated with, as my friend found happiness with a new spouse, but I cannot change the words of the Church. So I conform my views to Christ’s and do not make up a teaching like, “God wouldn’t care if my friend divorced her jerky husband and in fact celebrates with her as she finds happiness with her new sweetheart of a husband.”

 

[Love4All]

The Catholic church HAS to be God’s “church”; a TERM first used in Mt 16 when He Christ /God choose to found it on Peter; and he himself being its essential Corner Stone.

Eph. 2 19-22
“Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God,** Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone**:
In whom all the building, [singular] being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord.[singular] In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit”

NOT ONLY THAT BUT

Every single reference to “church” in the bible referes directly and exclusively to todays Catholic Church. NO other “CHURCH” WOULD EXIST FOR NEARLY 1,000 MORE YEARS.

But in fairness to our Orthodox brothers and sisters, the One Church was both what later came to be called the Roman Catholic Church, and what later came to be called the Orthodox Churches. All the Churches were One in Faith until the thousand years was over and Satan was loosed for a little while to deceive the nations. Now, the Catholics see the Orthodox as in schism, while the Orthodox see the Catholics as in heresy. But prior to the completion of the first thousand years, there was but One Holy, Catholic, Orthodox, Apostolic Church.

The only thing that is going to reunite them is Love.