Renouncing the Catholic faith formally

[lakeside]

Bob, most Catholics that become non-Catholic be it agnostic, atheism or a member of a Protestant, Mormon, JW etc. never knew their Catholic Faith in the first place. That was the problem I had, as a young Catholic going to Mass I never really was listening when the Bible was being read, [ at every Mass ] I was more interested in the young ladies back then. Jesus was always there but I just wasn't ready for Him, much as many young Catholics.[ when they become a little older they become susceptible to these evangelical guitar- playing entertainers, most of these non- Catholic churches like to entertain themselves rather than glorify and give thanks to our Lord/God. Some people prefer perpetual trend to eternal Truth.]

 

[annsni]

Bob, most Catholics that become non-Catholic be it agnostic, atheism or a member of a Protestant, Mormon, JW etc. never knew their Catholic Faith in the first place. That was the problem I had, as a young Catholic going to Mass I never really was listening when the Bible was being read, [ at every Mass ] I was more interested in the young ladies back then. Jesus was always there but I just wasn't ready for Him, much as many young Catholics.[ when they become a little older they become susceptible to these evangelical guitar- playing entertainers, most of these non- Catholic churches like to entertain themselves rather than glorify and give thanks to our Lord/God. Some people prefer perpetual trend to eternal Truth.]

Irish Catholic family here from day 1. One of our best family friends was a priest (who, by the way, saved my baby brother's life). 6 years in Catholic school. Best friend who is a cantor and her husband is a deacon. I pretty much knew what a Catholic faith was.

 

[DHK]

Bob, most Catholics that become non-Catholic be it agnostic, atheism or a member of a Protestant, Mormon, JW etc. never knew their Catholic Faith in the first place. That was the problem I had, as a young Catholic going to Mass I never really was listening when the Bible was being read, [ at every Mass ] I was more interested in the young ladies back then. Jesus was always there but I just wasn't ready for Him, much as many young Catholics.[ when they become a little older they become susceptible to these evangelical guitar- playing entertainers, most of these non- Catholic churches like to entertain themselves rather than glorify and give thanks to our Lord/God. Some people prefer perpetual trend to eternal Truth.]

I have literature written by former priests, nuns, etc. They converted, that is they were truly born again and became Christians. You are now saying that they "never knew their Catholic Faith in the first place."?
I don't think you know your "Catholic Faith in the first place," and if you did and diligently compared it with the Bible you would run as fast as you could and as far as you could from it.

 

[Rebel]

RC "Trinity", is but 'singularity', which denies the following "and":

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. - 1 John 2:22​

Notice, what Rome teaches:
http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2009/05/who-is-teaching-catholic-trinity-error.html

Official Roman Catholic sources:

"We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love. Thus in the Three Divine Persons, coaeternae sibi et coaequales,[8] the life and beatitude of God perfectly one superabound and are consummated in the supreme excellence and glory proper to uncreated being, and always "there should be venerated unity in the Trinity and Trinity in the unity."[9]" [Online Roman Catholic Library; Credo of the People of God; Promulgated by Pope Paul VI on June 30, 1968] - http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06cr.htm

"...that the Paraclete "is not to be considered as unconnected with the Father and the Son, for He is with Them one in substance and divinity"...

... Proceeding both from the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost, nevertheless, proceeds from Them as from a single principle. ... Hence it follows, indeed, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the two other Persons, not in so far as They are distinct, but inasmuch as Their Divine perfection is numerically one. Besides, such is the explicit teaching of ecclesiastical tradition, which is concisely put by St. Augustine (On the Holy Trinity V.14): "As the Father and the Son are only one God and, relatively to the creature, only one Creator and one Lord, so, relatively to the Holy Ghost, They are only one principle." This doctrine was defined in the following words by the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons [Denzinger, "Enchiridion" (1908), n. 460]: "We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single spiration." The teaching was again laid down by the Council of Florence (ibid., n. 691), and by Eugene IV in his Bull "Cantate Domino" (ibid., n. 703 sq.). ...

..."the Holy Ghost comes from the Father and from the Son not made, not created, not generated, but proceeding" ... " [Online Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, Holy Spirit; sections throughout] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

"The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent, unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essence, three in persons; Father unborn, Son born of the Father, Holy Spirit proceeding from Father and Son; that the Father is not Son or Holy Spirit, that Son is not Father or Holy Spirit; that Holy Spirit is not Father or Son; but Father alone is Father, Son alone is Son, Holy Spirit alone is Holy Spirit. The Father alone begot the Son of His own substance; the Son alone was begotten of the Father alone; the Holy Spirit alone proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son.

These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, where no opposition of relationship interferes.

“Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning.” Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle. ..."
The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV
by Pope Eugene IV - http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html​

In essence, what the Roman theology teaches, is that the Son and Holy Spirit do not have Eternal Life in and of themselves, but it is rather derived, borrowed and gotten from the Father, and therefore not truly "three persons" which are all self-existent but as they say rather a "numerical one", "one principle", etc, but Scripture declares in opposition to this, in that not only does the Father have eternal life within himself, but so do the Son and Holy Spirit have Eternal Life within themselves, self-existent, unborrowed, underived.

The RCC confesses the Nicene Creed, which all orthodox Christian bodies hold to.

 

[Croyant]

In my opinion...notice 'my'...if you're having doubts, hold off for a while. No need to rush as you really need to be led by the Spirit. He will never lead you wrong.

But I do agree that to have membership in a Catholic and Baptist church concurrently would be tough on both parties. But take your time if you're having some doubts...

Well it seems the Spirit is trying to get me to gain a greater understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

As for refraining from this community... well the problem is that since I have tried to find genuine answers to questions of doctrine for many years and abstained from partaking in any Christian body all this time due to this indecision, much time went by, and I don't know when (or if) I will rid myself of this doubt.

Also, since I'm in my early thirties and isolated, and more of an introverted and studious person, there are very few social outlets at this age that are still welcoming to someone like me. In a church I can meet like-minded people and I don't need to be a "party animal" in order to be accepted in a clique. So letting this go would be a problem in this sense.

I know that there is a pentecostal church close to where I live and I met the pastor who told me that Catholics visiting the church would receive all the same services as baptised members, but I don't feel very at ease with some pentecostals. It seems to me that they get too swayed by their emotions. I get the impression that it can go out of control and be abused. I prefer a bit more rigor.

 

[Croyant]

Bob, most Catholics that become non-Catholic be it agnostic, atheism or a member of a Protestant, Mormon, JW etc. never knew their Catholic Faith in the first place. That was the problem I had, as a young Catholic going to Mass I never really was listening when the Bible was being read, [ at every Mass ] I was more interested in the young ladies back then. Jesus was always there but I just wasn't ready for Him, much as many young Catholics.[ when they become a little older they become susceptible to these evangelical guitar- playing entertainers, most of these non- Catholic churches like to entertain themselves rather than glorify and give thanks to our Lord/God. Some people prefer perpetual trend to eternal Truth.]

I'm not sure why it would be unique to these denominations. It all depends on the type of Christian denomination you grew in. If someone is born and raised a baptist he will "go through the motions" like most of the other people in the congregation even if only professing believers are baptized, because of the social pressure and trends of the environment. These factors don't all go away.

Where I live, since there are so few evangelicals, nearly all evangelicals are professing Christians who left Catholicism, per opposed to people who adopted their family's religion without much second thought.

 

[Croyant]

I attend a mid-week Bible study where a number of people are ex-catholics. I have a neighbor that is also ex-catholic attending a Baptist church.

I find that the less the ex-Catholics know about their former faith and the less involved that they and their family were as Catholics - the less animosity they tend to have about the whole thing. They are happy with their new church and are not upset with their former Catholic background - they just consider that they are now making a good informed choice.

But those who attended Catholic Schools or have parents/friends that are still strong Catholics - those people tend to be a little bit more animated in their opposition to Catholic doctrine and/or practice.

Seems to me that the OP is written by someone in first group.

in Christ,

Bob

It's a mix of the two. My family and friends were never strong catholics but I went to a Catholic school.


:sleeping_2:

I do not know if it is common practice, or even if it is proper practice for a pastor to require. Repentance is a part of salvation, but you would not be a member of two churches (local Christian congregations) as the RCC is not a Christian church. I do think it a good idea, and perhaps it would help your witness.

I have friends who are Catholic. Some reject a substantial part of Catholic doctrine. But they will not leave the RCC because they are Catholic by tradition. I know it must be a difficult break.

Yes it is difficult. I do not like the idea of being considered a lost apostate by the Catholic church. It stings. I don't like antagonizing people or closing doors. I'm also not persuaded at all that, in spite of its faults, it is not the original church meant by Christ, although there is a wider invisible body of believers.

 

[Rebel]

It's a mix of the two. My family and friends were never strong catholics but I went to a Catholic school.


:sleeping_2:

Yes it is difficult. I do not like the idea of being considered a lost apostate by the Catholic church. It stings. I don't like antagonizing people or closing doors. I'm also not persuaded at all that, in spite of its faults, it is not the original church meant by Christ, although there is a wider invisible body of believers.

Compare its doctrines to scripture, and I believe you will see that it is not the "one true church". It makes up new doctrines and has done that for centuries, papal infallibility being one such recent innovation. If you want ancient "catholicism" which hasn't changed in about 1900 years, try the EOC.
Better yet, if you want scriptural Christianity, study how the first century church was organized and what they believed. You can go directly to scripture for that. You won't find any hierarchy there, infant baptism, Mariolatry, etc.

 

[Rebel]

Well it seems the Spirit is trying to get me to gain a greater understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

As for refraining from this community... well the problem is that since I have tried to find genuine answers to questions of doctrine for many years and abstained from partaking in any Christian body all this time due to this indecision, much time went by, and I don't know when (or if) I will rid myself of this doubt.

Also, since I'm in my early thirties and isolated, and more of an introverted and studious person, there are very few social outlets at this age that are still welcoming to someone like me. In a church I can meet like-minded people and I don't need to be a "party animal" in order to be accepted in a clique. So letting this go would be a problem in this sense.

I know that there is a pentecostal church close to where I live and I met the pastor who told me that Catholics visiting the church would receive all the same services as baptised members, but I don't feel very at ease with some pentecostals. It seems to me that they get too swayed by their emotions. I get the impression that it can go out of control and be abused. I prefer a bit more rigor.

Some of what you said reminds me of myself, at a much younger age. Try to find a church whose doctrine you can be as close to believing as possible, and just as importantly, a church which practices the love of Jesus Christ toward its members and others. That will go a long way to making up for a few possibly "wrong" views.

 

[Croyant]

Compare its doctrines to scripture, and I believe you will see that it is not the "one true church". It makes up new doctrines and has done that for centuries, papal infallibility being one such recent innovation. If you want ancient "catholicism" which hasn't changed in about 1900 years, try the EOC.
Better yet, if you want scriptural Christianity, study how the first century church was organized and what they believed. You can go directly to scripture for that. You won't find any hierarchy there, infant baptism, Mariolatry, etc.

See this is a point where I am skeptical of Baptist claims. I'm not sure that a church must do 100% of everything according to how 1st century apostles and missionaries did it, at a time when there were no Christian institutions and small groups of people were spreading it. To me some of it is a false dichotomy.

 

[JonC]

See this is a point where I am skeptical of Baptist claims. I'm not sure that a church must do 100% of everything according to how 1st century apostles and missionaries did it, at a time when there were no Christian institutions and small groups of people were spreading it. To me some of it is a false dichotomy.

The Church began with over 3000 added in one day and in one city. It quickly grew from there. It was not small groups of people spreading it. This was the purpose of the Apostles and apostolic authority, and is the reason apostolic succession is heretical to the Christian faith. We do not have to conduct church like the early church conducted church (indeed, we don't). But the principles taught - the doctrine - is prescriptive.

I would note also that it is not just Baptists who believe that the Church was instituted by God under the authority of the Holy Scriptures and that Catholic dogma and tradition is heresy. Many priests took this stance, and they paid a price. I'm not just talking about Luther and the Reformation, but centuries prior.

Catholics like to present their church as the "original," but this can't be substantiated outside of Catholic dogma. The Catholic Church did not exist until instituted as a state religion. It looked back and claimed a history for itself that it was not entitled to claim. It created a mythology that many accept as fact.

I wish you all the best in your search. Don't focus on Baptist doctrine. Search Scripture and focus on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Rebel]

See this is a point where I am skeptical of Baptist claims. I'm not sure that a church must do 100% of everything according to how 1st century apostles and missionaries did it, at a time when there were no Christian institutions and small groups of people were spreading it. To me some of it is a false dichotomy.

Don't look at Baptists or any other denomination when searching for truth and apostolic teaching. Look at the foundation document of the faith and the church -- the Bible, particularly the New Testament. It's the only written record of the teachings and experiences of the apostles and Jesus. Sure, read the early church Fathers, but don't use them to establish doctrine, only to confirm it.

The truth is that the RCC is the greatest innovator in Christian history, adding to scripture and departing from it. And the continue to do it to the present day. Look how recent papal infallibility is, for example.

Examine why the Eastern Orthodox separated from the RCC. That will tell you a lot. And there was much more involved than just the "filioque" controversy.

Once you have studied the NT thoroughly, then compare what you have found with the denominations, and see which you think is closest to that. I guarantee that it is not the RCC. The RCC has made more innovations than any other body claiming to be Christian, except the Mormons.

 

[lakeside]

JonC, Jesus gave His Authority only to His Apostles and they to their replacements/ successors. As Bible explains.

Jesus never intended the Holy Bible to be the sole rule for salvation.

Jesus to make sure that His Teaching would not be a myriad of confused, conflicting interpretations established His Church first, the completed Bible [Both OT and NT ] came later, like three- four hundred years later.

I repeat;Jesus established His Universal/ Catholic Church on His Apostles.

You can recognize this Church today, Luke 10: 16

A direct connection to the Apostles is very important because Jesus gave His One True Church the authority to teach and rule in His name. { John 20:21 }{ Matt. 28: 18-20 }

Jesus wants unity not dis-unity as we find in all non-Catholic churches when it comes to doctrinal teaching.
{ John 17: 20-21 }

When His True Apostolic Church teaches [ official doctrines of Faith and Morals } it is still Christ teaching in the world - St. Paul calls the church " Christ" [ 1 Cor. 12:13 }
Jesus Himself identifies with His church and refers to it as " Me" { Acts 9: 4 }
Jesus said that listening to His church we are listening to Him - { Luke 10:16 }

Jesus gave to His church a special gift to safeguard against error all of it's members to receive the Holy Spirit, it's members are all men and women and clergy, with different jobs within His church [ 1 Cor.3:16 } { John 16: 13 }

That church which is only formed on His Apostolic Traditional Teaching along with the Holy Bible will never be destroyed { Matt.16: 18} { Dan.2: 44 }

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Don't look at Baptists or any other denomination when searching for truth and apostolic teaching. Look at the foundation document of the faith and the church -- the Bible, particularly the New Testament. It's the only written record of the teachings and experiences of the apostles and Jesus. Sure, read the early church Fathers, but don't use them to establish doctrine, only to confirm it.

The truth is that the RCC is the greatest innovator in Christian history, adding to scripture and departing from it. And the continue to do it to the present day. Look how recent papal infallibility is, for example.

Examine why the Eastern Orthodox separated from the RCC. That will tell you a lot. And there was much more involved than just the "filioque" controversy.

Once you have studied the NT thoroughly, then compare what you have found with the denominations, and see which you think is closest to that. I guarantee that it is not the RCC. The RCC has made more innovations than any other body claiming to be Christian, except the Mormons.

You know Rebel, you make some valid points that I wish I had the mindset to deliberate over 6 years ago now. From a spiritual perspective, no single church or church denomination will completely be your guide post....they will teach their doctrine yes but then you will get only one side of it. One needs to be resolute in the study of scripture ...of course with the help of the HS. The truth is (for me anyway) is that I find more spirituality outa the church than I find in it. There you find people in all stages of experiences in wrestling with what is real & what is super imposed. And we are all sinners (whether or not you feel its inherited from Adam or its self imposed)....we are all sinners in need of a Savior. From there we learn if we have been saved--despite ourselves & on what path we are supposed to follow to rebuild ourselves into solid & compassionate creatures.

So Croyant, what I would advise brother is don't jump...don't send letters resigning from anything....don't embrace any system of faith that's corporate in nature....rather embrace Christ, study Christ, believe in Christ, love & commit to Christ.....and the rest will flow.

 

[lakeside]

Originally Posted by Rebel View Post
Don't look at Baptists or any other denomination when searching for truth and apostolic teaching. Look at the foundation document of the faith and the church -- the Bible, particularly the New Testament. It's the only written record of the teachings and experiences of the apostles and Jesus. Sure, read the early church Fathers, but don't use them to establish doctrine, only to confirm it.

The truth is that the RCC is the greatest innovator in Christian history, adding to scripture and departing from it. And the continue to do it to the present day. Look how recent papal infallibility is, for example.

Examine why the Eastern Orthodox separated from the RCC. That will tell you a lot. And there was much more involved than just the "filioque" controversy.

Once you have studied the NT thoroughly, then compare what you have found with the denominations, and see which you think is closest to that. I guarantee that it is not the RCC. The RCC has made more innovations than any other body claiming to be Christian, except the Mormons.


Please explain the part about looking for the Truth by not looking at Apostolic Teaching. So I take it that you do not believe in the Full Teachings of Jesus to His Apostles and that Jesus would not make sure that His Apostolic Teachings would never be changed or left out, is that how you believe ? You believe in essence that Jesus is incompetent to safeguard His Teachings to His Apostles from corruption?
Why do you not believe in the Apostolic Traditional Teachings of Jesus ?

 

[Rebel]

You know Rebel, you make some valid points that I wish I had the mindset to deliberate over 6 years ago now. From a spiritual perspective, no single church or church denomination will completely be your guide post....they will teach their doctrine yes but then you will get only one side of it. One needs to be resolute in the study of scripture ...of course with the help of the HS. The truth is (for me anyway) is that I find more spirituality outa the church than I find in it. There you find people in all stages of experiences in wrestling with what is real & what is super imposed. And we are all sinners (whether or not you feel its inherited from Adam or its self imposed)....we are all sinners in need of a Savior. From there we learn if we have been saved--despite ourselves & on what path we are supposed to follow to rebuild ourselves into solid & compassionate creatures.

So Croyant, what I would advise brother is don't jump...don't send letters resigning from anything....don't embrace any system of faith that's corporate in nature....rather embrace Christ, study Christ, believe in Christ, love & commit to Christ.....and the rest will flow.

Regarding what I put in bold: I have often found that to be the case. And my wife would agree with you 100%.

 

[Rebel]

Originally Posted by Rebel View Post
Don't look at Baptists or any other denomination when searching for truth and apostolic teaching. Look at the foundation document of the faith and the church -- the Bible, particularly the New Testament. It's the only written record of the teachings and experiences of the apostles and Jesus. Sure, read the early church Fathers, but don't use them to establish doctrine, only to confirm it.

The truth is that the RCC is the greatest innovator in Christian history, adding to scripture and departing from it. And the continue to do it to the present day. Look how recent papal infallibility is, for example.

Examine why the Eastern Orthodox separated from the RCC. That will tell you a lot. And there was much more involved than just the "filioque" controversy.

Once you have studied the NT thoroughly, then compare what you have found with the denominations, and see which you think is closest to that. I guarantee that it is not the RCC. The RCC has made more innovations than any other body claiming to be Christian, except the Mormons.


Please explain the part about looking for the Truth by not looking at Apostolic Teaching. So I take it that you do not believe in the Full Teachings of Jesus to His Apostles and that Jesus would not make sure that His Apostolic Teachings would never be changed or left out, is that how you believe ? You believe in essence that Jesus is incompetent to safeguard His Teachings to His Apostles from corruption?
Why do you not believe in the Apostolic Traditional Teachings of Jesus ?

I believe in the teachings of the apostles and Jesus. Did you not read my post, or can you see things only through the lens of RC dogma? Not meaning to be mean, but where do you find apostolic teaching if not in the only record written by them, the NT? The Fathers are not the apostles; the Fathers have no authority other than confirming what the apostles and Jesus teach in the NT. If they contradict the NT, they are not to be believed. If anyone, any hierarchy, any institution, contradicts the teachings of Jesus and the apostles as recorded in the NT, they should not be believed or followed. That's what the NT says directly. That's what the RCC has done. The RCC is thus not the apostolic church, not the church of the NT. It's doctrines, organization, and practices do not line up with the NT. It has consistently and continually added to scripture, contradicted scripture, and introduced innovations which are diametrically opposed to apostolic teaching as recorded in scripture. Even the EOC would agree with that.

 

[lakeside]

Rebel, please point out all the Sacred Books written by the Apostles.

 

[DHK]

Rebel, please point out all the Sacred Books written by the Apostles.

Those that are inspired by God? You can find them in the index of any Bible.
They are 66 in number: 39 in the OT, and 27 in the NT.

 

[Rebel]

Rebel, please point out all the Sacred Books written by the Apostles.

Please point out any NT book not written by an apostle and not written before the close of the first century. The New Testament is the only certain record we have of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. It, therefore, is and must be ultimately authoritative, not the opinion of any human being who came after. If any man or institution teaches any doctrine or introduces any practice in opposition to that presented in the NT, it must be considered false. Thus, reason, experience, tradition may all be instructive but not the ultimate authority, and they may be considered "an" authority, a secondary authority, as long as they do not contradict or diametrically oppose scripture. If something or someone teaches anything in opposition to the apostolic teaching, it must be considered false. And the only place apostolic teaching is recorded is in the New Testament. It is the divinely inspired, written record of what the apostles saw and heard from Jesus Christ Himself. No one else can claim that, so no one else can establish doctrine -- not a Father, not a "bishop", not a pope, not even an angel. They can only point to the doctrine already established and recorded in the NT. The Bible warns about preaching and teaching any other doctrine. This is what the RCC has done and continues to do. The claim of papal infallibility is blasphemous, as no one is infallible but God. The last time I checked, the pope had not achieved that status, although the papacy has tried to achieve it by proclaiming its infallibility.