Can ex-Catholics be saved - A detalied look ....

[FireDragon76]

I actually have considered being a Catholic in the past but I was turned off by the legalistic approach.

My partner was actually baptized and confirmed in the Catholic church but she also had a Presbyterian mom and went to a Presbyterian church some too, and later became involved in the Nazarene church. She goes to a Lutheran church now with me, and if we were to go to a Catholic church we'ld have to give up a good community and probably go to a church that would not accept our irregular relationship (we are both disabled and not legally married), so we wouldn't have access to the sacraments anyways. It seems to me the Catholic Church is not all that grace-filled or welcoming towards a lot of people that live on the margins of society, they are legalistic and pharisaical at times. And I can understand why people leave and go to churches that teach a simpler faith in Jesus based on a relationship, and not rules. There are good things in the Catholic church but the legalism is not one of them.

There are actually more than a few former Roman Catholics at our Lutheran church for similar reasons. We don't sheep steal from Catholics, in fact our pastor is married to a Catholic. But we are there to preach the Gospel of God's justifying grace to anyone that wants to hear it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

One item he talked on was the subject of whether Catholics, who no longer attend Mass on Sunday, or who have left the Church for a non-Catholic religion, can be saved, if they do not return to the Catholic Church. He said: “The Catholic Church is not a free club; it is a necessary means of salvation established by Jesus Christ. Those who have known her, and left her, will not be saved”.

Looks like an attempt of a church to take full charge of someones life. Denominations/Churches aren't what saves us.

"Just no" puts it pretty well.

 

[Albion]

You cannot say that you have abandoned the Church for another that you feel is better without showing Adam's very sin of thinking that you know better than God who established his Church on the foundation of the apostles.

But if someone converts TO the Catholic Church, you would say that he isn't following his own judgment but is being led by God etc. etc., right?

This kind of naked partisanship is just not helpful, especially since anyone of any denomination can say exactly the same thing.

Within the Protestant movement hopping from church to church is not frowned upon or spoken against.

That's because Protestantism does not have a cult mentality. It is part of Protestant theology to believe that Faith is what saves, not a church membership card, and Faith in Christ as one's Lord and Savior is not the possession of any one denomination.

This to me this is an effect of the "invisible church" philosophy.

See. You DO know it.

After all if the church is invisible, who are you to tell me that I should convert or for that matter even attend church.

I guess I should have said that you recognize that Protestants believe in the so-called invisible church, not that you understand it. The very Biblical principle of the invisible church is more or less what Catholics understand when talking about the Communion of Saints.

 

[zeland2236]

I don't think zeland2236 is trying to convert Lutherans or other non-Catholics; but here is the rub. There are people who have made it their ministry to try to convert Catholics out of the Church. Many of the people that they convince to leave the Catholic Church are just unchurched and stop going to any church. They fall from any grace into the masses of modern secular culture. I think we can agree on the evilness of this.

To go the next step is to say that to a Catholic, the Church is the Bride of Christ and represents Christ's Body on earth. To be baptized and raised Catholic, to have been catechized, confirmed, and taken communion in the Catholic Church up until you should know the seriousness of our beliefs and then to abandon that Church is to turn your back on Christ's Body. You cannot say that you have abandoned the Church for another that you feel is better without showing Adam's very sin of thinking that you know better than God who established his Church on the foundation of the apostles. It does not take a lot of study to show the fruits of that sort of rebellion that are ruining Christianity today.

All of this is directed at ex-Catholics, who have fallen into their own pit of delusion. Usually their pride is bolstered by a hatred for the Catholic Church that is so un-Christian that it is a true indication of how far these people fall. I am using very blunt language here instead of trying to sound ecumenical because this to me is a much more serious matter than people who are born Lutheran, raised Lutheran, and stay in that Church. Typically they show a much more Christian attitude than ex-Catholics and the love they show is a true fruit of the Spirit. This is the group that Lumen Gentium was talking about when it referred to Separated Brethren. Ex-Catholics can not be called that. Their own choices show the proof for their condemnation.

Within the Protestant movement hopping from church to church is not frowned upon or spoken against. Certainly no Protestant would say that someone could lose their salvation for going to another Protestant Church, though I have heard Protestants make that very claim about people who convert to Catholicism. It seems that many modern day Protestants have become Gourmet Christians and what is life without a little variety. This to me this is an effect of the "invisible church" philosophy. After all if the church is invisible, who are you to tell me that I should convert or for that matter even attend church. The crystal goblet of Christianity has been shattered and everyone seems more intent on grabbing a few shards of the remains, than trying to put it back together.

I don't think zeland2236 is trying to convert Lutherans or other non-Catholics; but here is the rub. There are people who have made it their ministry to try to convert Catholics out of the Church. Many of the people that they convince to leave the Catholic Church are just unchurched and stop going to any church. They fall from any grace into the masses of modern secular culture. I think we can agree on the evilness of this.

To go the next step is to say that to a Catholic, the Church is the Bride of Christ and represents Christ's Body on earth. To be baptized and raised Catholic, to have been catechized, confirmed, and taken communion in the Catholic Church up until you should know the seriousness of our beliefs and then to abandon that Church is to turn your back on Christ's Body. You cannot say that you have abandoned the Church for another that you feel is better without showing Adam's very sin of thinking that you know better than God who established his Church on the foundation of the apostles. It does not take a lot of study to show the fruits of that sort of rebellion that are ruining Christianity today.

All of this is directed at ex-Catholics, who have fallen into their own pit of delusion. Usually their pride is bolstered by a hatred for the Catholic Church that is so un-Christian that it is a true indication of how far these people fall. I am using very blunt language here instead of trying to sound ecumenical because this to me is a much more serious matter than people who are born Lutheran, raised Lutheran, and stay in that Church. Typically they show a much more Christian attitude than ex-Catholics and the love they show is a true fruit of the Spirit. This is the group that Lumen Gentium was talking about when it referred to Separated Brethren. Ex-Catholics can not be called that. Their own choices show the proof for their condemnation.

Within the Protestant movement hopping from church to church is not frowned upon or spoken against. Certainly no Protestant would say that someone could lose their salvation for going to another Protestant Church, though I have heard Protestants make that very claim about people who convert to Catholicism. It seems that many modern day Protestants have become Gourmet Christians and what is life without a little variety. This to me this is an effect of the "invisible church" philosophy. After all if the church is invisible, who are you to tell me that I should convert or for that matter even attend church. The crystal goblet of Christianity has been shattered and everyone seems more intent on grabbing a few shards of the remains, than trying to put it back together.

I don't think zeland2236 is trying to convert Lutherans or other non-Catholics; but here is the rub. There are people who have made it their ministry to try to convert Catholics out of the Church. Many of the people that they convince to leave the Catholic Church are just unchurched and stop going to any church. They fall from any grace into the masses of modern secular culture. I think we can agree on the evilness of this.

To go the next step is to say that to a Catholic, the Church is the Bride of Christ and represents Christ's Body on earth. To be baptized and raised Catholic, to have been catechized, confirmed, and taken communion in the Catholic Church up until you should know the seriousness of our beliefs and then to abandon that Church is to turn your back on Christ's Body. You cannot say that you have abandoned the Church for another that you feel is better without showing Adam's very sin of thinking that you know better than God who established his Church on the foundation of the apostles. It does not take a lot of study to show the fruits of that sort of rebellion that are ruining Christianity today.

All of this is directed at ex-Catholics, who have fallen into their own pit of delusion. Usually their pride is bolstered by a hatred for the Catholic Church that is so un-Christian that it is a true indication of how far these people fall. I am using very blunt language here instead of trying to sound ecumenical because this to me is a much more serious matter than people who are born Lutheran, raised Lutheran, and stay in that Church. Typically they show a much more Christian attitude than ex-Catholics and the love they show is a true fruit of the Spirit. This is the group that Lumen Gentium was talking about when it referred to Separated Brethren. Ex-Catholics can not be called that. Their own choices show the proof for their condemnation.

Within the Protestant movement hopping from church to church is not frowned upon or spoken against. Certainly no Protestant would say that someone could lose their salvation for going to another Protestant Church, though I have heard Protestants make that very claim about people who convert to Catholicism. It seems that many modern day Protestants have become Gourmet Christians and what is life without a little variety. This to me this is an effect of the "invisible church" philosophy. After all if the church is invisible, who are you to tell me that I should convert or for that matter even attend church. The crystal goblet of Christianity has been shattered and everyone seems more intent on grabbing a few shards of the remains, than trying to put it back together.

Dear tz620q,

Thanks for your reply. You make some very good points.

zeland

 

[zeland2236]

I actually have considered being a Catholic in the past but I was turned off by the legalistic approach.

My partner was actually baptized and confirmed in the Catholic church but she also had a Presbyterian mom and went to a Presbyterian church some too, and later became involved in the Nazarene church. She goes to a Lutheran church now with me, and if we were to go to a Catholic church we'ld have to give up a good community and probably go to a church that would not accept our irregular relationship (we are both disabled and not legally married), so we wouldn't have access to the sacraments anyways. It seems to me the Catholic Church is not all that grace-filled or welcoming towards a lot of people that live on the margins of society, they are legalistic and pharisaical at times. And I can understand why people leave and go to churches that teach a simpler faith in Jesus based on a relationship, and not rules. There are good things in the Catholic church but the legalism is not one of them.

There are actually more than a few former Roman Catholics at our Lutheran church for similar reasons. We don't sheep steal from Catholics, in fact our pastor is married to a Catholic. But we are there to preach the Gospel of God's justifying grace to anyone that wants to hear it.

Dear FD76,

Could you give me an example of what you mean by the "legalism" you see in the Catholic Church. How do you define it.

I have heard this type of statement before about the Church, but I personally don't see it, or am affected by it.

Also if your marriage is "irregular" as you put it, why don't you fix that, and get legally married? You could still go to a Catholic Church and attend Mass, but you would not be able to receive Holy Communion. That is not the Church's rule, it is Christs rule ( 1 Cor 11: 23-30). The Church just explains and upholds what Christ taught.

Thanks & God bless.

zeland

 

[zeland2236]

I agree, ex-Catholics are unlikely to be saved if they don't go back to the Church.
What an excellent post, thank you for sharing, zeland2236.

Dear Lepanto,

Thanks for your comments and support.

God bless.

 

[zeland2236]

A circular argument frankly. When one makes the fount other than Christ for redemption, they have become a cult. Far be it from me to state Roman Catholics are in a cult. They are not. You just present your church as such.

The same circular argument you set up above is used by Mormons and Scientology.

The NT church looks nothing like the cold and wrathful form of your theology promoted.

Deformation of the New Testament Church and context of the Reformation

Dear Red,

How am I presenting the church as a cult? Could you explain please.

Thanks

zeland

 

[FireDragon76]

Dear FD76,

Could you give me an example of what you mean by the "legalism" you see in the Catholic Church. How do you define it..

It would be hard for a Roman Catholic to understand what legalism is without stepping outside the Roman Catholic system and seeing it from another perspective.

I think Wikipedia's definition, with some tweaking is decent, but I'll paraphrase: It's putting any moral or religious law above the Gospel in terms of religious requirements beyond faith alone in Christ's saving work. As a result, there is a lot of rigidity in Catholicism. Without a good excuse, you must: fast on these days, or go to hell. Don't ever received communion if you are remarried, or you go to hell. Go to church every Sunday and holy day, or go to hell. Etc. etc. It can sound like a wearisome list of religious obligations after a while that you must do. And to top it off, it turns the sacraments into things that are only given to those worthy to receive them, that complete a bunch of other steps first before they can confer grace. So a person must not be in a state of mortal sin to receive the sacrament of Communion, and when they confess they must be meticulous in doing so, not merely mentioning the sins that weight most on their conscience, but all mortal sins, in number and kind. That can all sound overwhelming in the details after a while... where exactly is a gracious God in all this?

Now it's true your average Catholic may not experience the full weight of this, but some do. And those people tend to be labelled scrupulous and have the most sensitive consciences. Catholics just say those people have an anxiety disorder, or overly zealous, or simply disobedient. Lutherans, on the other hand, tend to take that stuff seriously and don't regard those people as mentally ill. They regard them as the victims of legalism or poor pastoral care.

Orthodox BTW, tend to also regard much of Catholicism as juridical and even legalistic, for the same reasons.

 

[FireDragon76]

Dear FD76,
Also if your marriage is "irregular" as you put it, why don't you fix that, and get legally married? You could still go to a Catholic Church and attend Mass, but you would not be able to receive Holy Communion.

I do occasionally go to a Catholic church as a visitor. But I know what the Roman teaching is, that not receiving the sacraments is effectively excommunication. Which means what I gain at that church is not a substitute for hearing the Word preached at my own church or receiving the sacraments there.

I can't get married or we'ld both be homeless and that is not something I am willing to do merely to satisfy a technicality of law. As my pastor says, no one can demand you be a martyr.

That is not the Church's rule, it is Christs rule ( 1 Cor 11: 23-30). The Church just explains and upholds what Christ taught.

Faith is about relationship(s), not rules. I rely on my pastor to guide me, and at times, to stand in the place of Christ for me, just as a Catholic priest would. He is doing what Pope Francis says a pastor should be doing, he is accompanying me where I am at. I trust him not because of legal requirements that I must, but because he has simply shown me through his life that he is an authentic Christian and because of my spiritual experiences at my church that could only be from God.

The Roman Church's routine practice on these matters fails to account for the complexities of human life in a broken world.

In addition, my wife/partner is the one that really liked this church and she made it clear it is where she wanted to call home, so in the end I just followed her in. I was more cautious until I realized I should really just trust my intuition and experience. She has anxiety disorders and Lutheranism is easygoing and the people at church are pleasant. The pastor is probably the most authentic Christian I have ever met, for a while I was so cynical I just didn't want to believe he was real.

 

[zeland2236]

Dear FD76

It would be hard for a Roman Catholic to understand what legalism is without stepping outside the Roman Catholic system and seeing it from another perspective.

I think Wikipedia's definition, with some tweaking is decent, but I'll paraphrase: It's putting any moral or religious law above the Gospel in terms of religious requirements beyond faith alone in Christ's saving work. As a result, there is a lot of rigidity in Catholicism. Without a good excuse, you must: fast on these days, or go to hell. Don't ever received communion if you are remarried, or you go to hell. Go to church every Sunday and holy day, or go to hell. Etc. etc. It can sound like a wearisome list of religious obligations after a while that you must do. And to top it off, it turns the sacraments into things that are only given to those worthy to receive them, that complete a bunch of other steps first before they can confer grace. So a person must not be in a state of mortal sin to receive the sacrament of Communion, and when they confess they must be meticulous in doing so, not merely mentioning the sins that weight most on their conscience, but all mortal sins, in number and kind. That can all sound overwhelming in the details after a while... where exactly is a gracious God in all this?

Now it's true your average Catholic may not experience the full weight of this, but some do. And those people tend to be labelled scrupulous and have the most sensitive consciences. Catholics just say those people have an anxiety disorder, or overly zealous, or simply disobedient. Lutherans, on the other hand, tend to take that stuff seriously and don't regard those people as mentally ill. They regard them as the victims of legalism or poor pastoral care.

Dear FD76,

Thanks for the reply. Did you read all the scripture quotes in my original post?
Most of the concerns that you express in your reply are addressed in my post. I anticipated such responses as yours, and that is why I went into such detail in my post.

Lets take one item you mentioned and examine it in detail from a scriptural point of view. Do you believe that divorced & remarried people, or those who are unmarried and living together, should be able to receive communion in the Catholic Church?

The Church says that a person who is in the state of mortal sin - adultery or fornication for example - cannot receive Holy Communion. To do so is a sacrilege. This is not the Church's rule, it is Christ's.

Lets listen to what Christ says, through the writings of St. Paul, in regards to this matter.

In 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, Paul, confirms what St. John says in John 6: 50-62, and then adds a stern warning against receiving the Eucharist unworthily - reception by a non-believer, or by a person who is in a state of serious (mortal) sin. He says:

“For I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the New Testament in my blood: do this as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he comes. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord * *. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord”.

** “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” – guilty of the murder of Christ.

All this "legalism" you talk about comes directly from Christ, either directly, as in the above example, or indirectly through the rules that Christ gave the church the authority to make, for the good of her members.

As I outlined in my post: “Where does the Church get the authority to make such rules (no eating meat on Fridays in Lent, for example)? That authority comes directly from Christ! In Matthew 16:19, our Lord says to Peter: “I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”. Here, our Lord gives to Peter, as the head of His Church – the Office of Pope – the authority to make rules and regulations to govern the Church. You will note that this is an absolute authority; there were no conditions, exceptions, or exclusions in our Lords commission to Peter.

It should also be noted, that this authority was not given to Peter personally as an individual, but to the office which Peter would represent, the office of the Pope (also referred to as “The Chair of Peter”). In Matthew 18:18 our lord gives this same authority to all the apostles as a group. This authority and that given to Peter is passed on to their successors (Apostolic Succession - 2 Timothy 2:2.), and is exercised, for example, when the bishops come together for a Church Council.

You are correct that some people are scrupulous, I think that Martin Luther had such a problem, this is why he wanted a religion of no accountability.

For a more detailed explanation of all this please watch Dr. David Anders interview as he discusses Luther, the Bible, and the Reformation. Dr. Anders did his PhD. in Reformation History.

See:

Please feel free to write back

zeland

 

[zeland2236]

I do occasionally go to a Catholic church as a visitor. But I know what the Roman teaching is, that not receiving the sacraments is effectively excommunication. Which means what I gain at that church is not a substitute for hearing the Word preached at my own church or receiving the sacraments there.

I can't get married or we'ld both be homeless and that is not something I am willing to do merely to satisfy a technicality of law. As my pastor says, no one can demand you be a martyr.



Faith is about relationship(s), not rules. I rely on my pastor to guide me, and at times, to stand in the place of Christ for me, just as a Catholic priest would. He is doing what Pope Francis says a pastor should be doing, he is accompanying me where I am at. I trust him not because of legal requirements that I must, but because he has simply shown me through his life that he is an authentic Christian and because of my spiritual experiences at my church that could only be from God.

The Roman Church's routine practice on these matters fails to account for the complexities of human life in a broken world.

In addition, my wife/partner is the one that really liked this church and she made it clear it is where she wanted to call home, so in the end I just followed her in. I was more cautious until I realized I should really just trust my intuition and experience. She has anxiety disorders and Lutheranism is easygoing and the people at church are pleasant. The pastor is probably the most authentic Christian I have ever met, for a while I was so cynical I just didn't want to believe he was real.

Dear DF76,

you said "I can't get married or we'd both be homeless and that is not something I am willing to do merely to satisfy a technicality of law."

I see your point. I have never heard of something like this, so I just got off the phone with my pastor who told me there are some strange laws governing people in your situation. Let me give this matter some thought.

zeland

 

[FireDragon76]

Lets take one item you mentioned and examine it in detail from a scriptural point of view. Do you believe that divorced & remarried people, or those who are unmarried and living together, should be able to receive communion in the Catholic Church?

Yes, though it should be a matter that is ultimately up to the discretion of the priest.

The Church says that a person who is in the state of mortal sin - adultery or fornication for example - cannot receive Holy Communion. To do so is a sacrilege.

If that's true, then the sacrament is not really grace for anybody. I believe faith grants repentance just for what faith is, sufficient that in general the desire to receive the sacrament indicates the presence of faith and sufficient repentance.

Like my pastor says, the most humbling thing is to hold the body of Christ in his grubby hands. This is not sacrilege, it is an awesome mystery. But you would only understand this if you understood the Lutheran Theology of the Cross, the mystical exchange where Christ takes on all that is lowly and impure in us so that we can have all that is holy and good in him.

This is not the Church's rule, it is Christ's.

That's a misunderstanding of St. Paul. The Corinthians getting drunk, overeating and not discerning that the same body that one receives in Communion is the same body neglected in the poor is a different matter from somebody who is remarried, gay, or any number of other things that supposedly the body and blood of Christ cannot make pure.

“guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” – guilty of the murder of Christ.

Lutherans believe we are all guilty of that. But God, for Christ's sake, forgives us anyways.

All this "legalism" you talk about comes directly from Christ, either directly, as in the above example,

No, it comes from misguided religious impulses accrued over hundreds of years that came to exclude the very people that Christ died for. From mistranslations in the Latin Vulgate that put words into Christ's mouth he simply did not say, such as "Do Penance!" (poenitentiam agite), to mention just one example. Christianity became filtered through Roman legalism.

You will note that this is an absolute authority; there were no conditions, exceptions, or exclusions in our Lords commission to Peter.

It seems to me that is too ambiguous to only be interpreted in that manner, as endorsing what later developed into papal supremacy, and then papal infallibility. Even if I believed it, what good would it do me? Your "good news" would leave me a hopeless rebel.

You are correct that some people are scrupulous, I think that Martin Luther had such a problem, this is why he wanted a religion of no accountability.

No accountability to the Pope, at the time, perhaps, who built St. Peters on the backs of the false hopes of German peasants. I'd be a nervous wreck if I lived with that kind of shenanigans also. It would render the Christian religion a joke. Luther, on the contrary, was a great defender of the faith that got in trouble because of challenging the purse strings of the Vatican. The division in Christendom is a tragic thing indeed, but it was necessary.

 

[redleghunter]

Dear Red,

How am I presenting the church as a cult? Could you explain please.

Thanks

zeland

It's quite simple. I hear the same circular reasoning from Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons. At least they smile and say "God Bless" before leaving my property.

Your premise centers on "The One True Church® cannot be wrong, so what we say is right." You then applied eisegesis with your OTC and assumed several out of context verses to attempt to make your claim.

I had a nice conversation with an Eastern Orthodox lady on another site last month. She was very loving and shared why she loved her Church and tradition. That conversation I will remember for the rest of my life.

This OP has convinced me I would not want to fellowship with Roman Catholics. Your message is devoid of the love of Christ.

"Its 'us' or no salvation." That is the hallmark of cultic behavior.

And I will note, most Catholics I know are not like the OP presented. Yet none have come to this thread to rebuke you. Which says a lot.

 

[FireDragon76]

Dear DF76,
...I see your point. I have never heard of something like this, so I just got off the phone with my pastor who told me there are some strange laws governing people in your situation. Let me give this matter some thought.

Thank you for your consideration.

I don't think Lutherans are about no accountability. We find accountability in our community, out in the world, living as forgiven sinners and seeking to love our neighbors in our various callings in the civil realm of family and society. There is a sacramental quality to ordinary life in Lutheranism that is close to the spirituality of St. Therese of Lisieux's Little Way. Like her theology, Lutheranism is a theology of imperfection and trust in the mercy and grace of God.

 

[ml5363]

Just curious what a Catholic sees wrong with a fundamentalist?

 

[Soyeong]

Can ex-Catholics be saved - a detailed look at the situation?

In 1985, I attended the first annual “Church Teaches Forum” which took place in Louisville, Kentucky. The keynote speaker at this event was Francis Cardinal Arinze. He gave an address to a 1,800 plus audience. One item he talked on was the subject of whether Catholics, who no longer attend Mass on Sunday, or who have left the Church for a non-Catholic religion, can be saved, if they do not return to the Catholic Church. He said: “The Catholic Church is not a free club; it is a necessary means of salvation established by Jesus Christ. Those who have known her, and left her, will not be saved”.


At first, this may sound like a strong or harsh statement, so let’s look at the mechanics of the Cardinal’s words in a step-by-step manner. What is presented here is an objective look at the situation. The key point is the term “have known her”. Only God can make the final judgment as to how well the person was aware of what they were doing when they left the church. One can't help wondering however, if the situation of an ex-Catholic is not similar to someone who takes a life raft and jumps off a ship at sea. The chances of them finding their way back on board are slim, as Hebrews 6:4-6 describes.

Hello,

Just to be clear, when you are speaking about the Catholic Church, are you talking about the universal Church or the specific denomination? In other words, is an ex-Catholic referring to just unbelievers or does it include Catholics who became Protestants? If it is including Protestants, then you need to make the case that Hebrews 6:4-6 refers to Catholics who have become Protestants.

I will start with a little background info. From the first and third Commandment, (1st. I am the Lord, your God. You shall not have other gods besides me; 3rd. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day), we see that we are commanded to worship the One True God. This is a serious obligation. However, these two commandments do not tell us how we are to worship God.

The Commandment is to keep the 7th day holy, not Sunday.

At the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and commanded the Apostles to “do this in memory of Me” (Luke 22:19). So the Mass is the manner, which the Lord has prescribed, for us to worship Him. The Mass is also the channel by which the merits and graces that Christ won for us on the cross, are transmitted to us, throughout time, through Holy Communion.

The Last Supper was a Passover meal, so it was referring to when we keep Passover. Furthermore, it wasn't on Sunday and I do not see anything that suggested that Jesus was intending to start a Sunday tradition.

As is stated above, the obligation to worship the Lord is a serious one, so the Church obliges us to attend Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days under pain of serious (mortal) sin (this is the “how” mentioned above). Mortal means a sin causing the death of the soul, as opposed to a venial sin which does not totally deprive a person of God’s saving grace (see 1 John 5:16). The Mass is the highest form of worship and the most powerful prayer we can offer to God. So intentionally missing Mass on any of the above mentioned days is a serious sin.

Now some will say: “Where does the Church get the authority to make such a statement”? That authority comes directly from Christ! In Matthew 16:19, our Lord says to Peter: “I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”. Here, our Lord gives to Peter, as the head of His Church – the Office of Pope – the authority to make rules and regulations to govern the Church. You will note that this is an absolute authority; there were no conditions, exceptions or exclusions in our Lords commission to Peter.

So what happens when a person decides to leave the Catholic Church for a non-Catholic religion? Well the first Sunday, and each Sunday thereafter that they miss Mass, they commit a serious sin

According to Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 10:13 it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's Law. In other words, it is a sin to try to subtract God's command to keep the Sabbath on the 7th day and another sin to try to add that it is a sin to not have Mass on Sunday. One of the big problems that Jesus had with the Pharisees is that they abused their authority to set aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-9), so if you set aside God's command to keep the Sabbath on the 7th day in order to establish your own tradition of worshipping on Sunday, then you are doing precisely what Jesus criticized the Pharisees for doing. Having the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven does allow anyone countermand God or to sin by adding or subtracting from His commands, but rather it only refers to having the authority to make interpretations for how to correctly obey God's commands.

Now, some will say that: “Well I left the Catholic Church, so their rules no longer apply to me – right?” “WRONG”! All baptized Catholics must die within the Church. As Cardinal Arinze said above, the Catholic Church is NOT a free club where we come and go as we please. When a person is baptized a Catholic, a special spiritual indelible mark is placed on their soul, which in fact makes their soul the property of the Catholic Church so to speak. This is why the devils in hell can tell a Catholic soul from a non-Catholic one. It is the same idea as when a Catholic man is ordained to the Priesthood. The Sacrament of Holy orders puts an indelible mark on his soul which differentiates him from a Catholic layman. In hell, the devils know which Catholics were priests or bishops.

Is there any sort of Scriptural basis for this tradition?

 

[tz620q]

But if someone converts TO the Catholic Church, you would say that he isn't following his own judgment but is being led by God etc. etc., right?

Who am I to say such a thing? I don't speak for God. This thread is about ex-Catholics and whether they have fallen from grace. I was presenting the Catholic position, which starts with a church established by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit for nearly 2000 years. Why should we sugar coat the fate of someone who turns their back on that to go follow their own intellect. I would say that following your own judgment in this is foolishness like what St. Paul spoke against.

That's because Protestantism does not have a cult mentality. It is part of Protestant theology to believe that Faith is what saves, not a church membership card, and Faith in Christ as one's Lord and Savior is not the possession of any one denomination.

Truly, for a belief system to have any credibility at all it must stand firm against assaults by time, changing world views, and popular sentiment. How can one say that they have faith in Christ, who does not change, while switching from church to church with any number of different beliefs. It makes a mockery of the Gospel to say it can be so easily changed. The bedrock of Protestant Faith has been faith in one's own intellect, their ability to read and comprehend the mysteries of the Bible and apply them to complex situations. Even Luther foresaw the chaos that was to come and pulled himself back from this sort of rebellion based on earthly knowledge and poor judgement.

I guess I should have said that you recognize that Protestants believe in the so-called invisible church, not that you understand it. The very Biblical principle of the invisible church is more or less what Catholics understand when talking about the Communion of Saints.

Albion, I could take this sentence and prove the futility of any positional statement made as an absolute belief by Protestants. It just does not exist. That is why an ex-Catholic stands condemned. They have abandoned a well-defined and cohesive believe system for an earthly plurality that may pander to their own vagaries of thought; but is wanting in so many ways. You can claim that is a cult and I will say if it is it is the cult started by Christ and built around his beliefs and personal discipleship.

 

[Albion]

Who am I to say such a thing? I don't speak for God.

Well, you DID say such a thing in the post I replied to.

Albion, I could take this sentence and prove the futility of any positional statement made as an absolute belief by Protestants. It just does not exist.

No, the unity of all true believers is easily understood, is Biblical, and is not a lot different from what Catholics (and others) mean when they affirm the "Communion of Saints."

You can claim that is a cult

I didn't say that.

and I will say if it is it is the cult started by Christ and built around his beliefs and personal discipleship.

If you wish.

 

[tz620q]

Well, you DID say such a thing in the post I replied to.

Actually, I said that for a Catholic to abandon the Body of Christ, the visible Church of Christ on earth is like Adam's choice that led to his being expelled from the Garden. Both choices are built upon a person's belief in their own intellect over what God has established. God would have been supremely happy if Adam had never fallen; but Adam's choice led to his condemnation.

No, the unity of all true believers is easily understood, is Biblical, and is not a lot different from what Catholics (and others) mean when they affirm the "Communion of Saints."

How can there be Communion without agreement? It is a false Communion built on a pipe dream that God overlooks rebellion. I know this does not sound ecumenical and is not my usual tone of posting; but either you believe that Christ established a common set of beliefs and left the apostles to keep these from error and that this did in fact happen or you acknowledge that all of Christianity is purely man-made interpretation and can live under a vague umbrella of an intellectual acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord. That is the difference between a visible church that traces a visible history of people and beliefs back to the apostles and the invisible church that creates a false unity around a communion that does not exist.

 

[Albion]

How can there be Communion without agreement?

Very easily. But of course this presumes agreement on the beliefs that really matter. You wouldn't think that everything dealing with Christianity has to be agreed upon before you're in communion with other members of your own parish, I assume; and Catholics certainly disagree on many things. They're all dismissed by defenders of the church as not being critical, so that's what we're talking about.

In addition, those who are true believers are known only to God; you persist in talking about them as if they were faces you could pick out of the crowd or by asking for their membership cards.