A question of combined beliefs

[CMatt25]

The non-practicing Catholic does not maintain the status of a Roman Catholic so long as he rejects his Roman Catholic faith and practices for the UU faith.

What the non-practicing Catholic UU member maintains is his baptism in the body of Christ as a Christian. In other words this member ceases to be Roman Catholic if he rejects his Roman Catholic faith for the UU faith and becomes a non-catholic in practice.

This non-catholic UU member remains under the umbrella of the Catholic Church in the body of Christ, just as all non-catholic members do who have a valid Christian baptism.

Clearly someone has to be wrong about whether or not the non practicing Catholic ceases to be a Catholic and merely remains a Christian. Because I get different answers depending on who is answering.

A bishop told me yes they are still Catholic as they were made members of the Catholic Church at Baptism, albeit perhaps non practicing now.

The Catholic Church considers Herself Christ’s one and only true Church

And CA apologist Michelle Arnold put it this way, “A person who is baptized a Catholic (and thus born again) is made a member of Christ’s body, the Church. Baptism imparts a supernatural character upon his soul that can never be lost even if the person apostasizes from the faith”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=18277&postcount=2

And then in addition we have here on an Apologetics thread Catholics saying:

“he always remains part of the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church”

“They remain a Catholic in fact and in law.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=597641

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8350841&postcount=2

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8351272&postcount=3

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

CMatt25;9055396]Clearly someone has to be wrong about whether or not the non practicing Catholic ceases to be a Catholic and merely remains a Christian. Because I get different answers depending on who is answering.

A bishop told me yes they are still Catholic as they were made members of the Catholic Church at Baptism, albeit perhaps non practicing now.

The Catholic Church considers Herself Christ’s one and only true Church

And CA apologist Michelle Arnold put it this way, “A person who is baptized a Catholic (and thus born again) is made a member of Christ’s body, the Church. Baptism imparts a supernatural character upon his soul that can never be lost even if the person apostasizes from the faith”

Ok, here is your answer and what appears to you that may be a contradiction is never a contradiction here is why?

Definition; Catholic Church = body of Christ

The Catholic Church is universal, she consist of believers both living and deceased in the body of Christ from every age in history on earth and in heaven “Living”, this is what a Catholic baptism joins one too in the body of Christ.

The UU non-practicing catholic, no longer belongs to the Roman Catholic Church “Local” community, because he has changed “communions” and belief’s", but his baptism keeps him under the umbrella of the whole world wide Catholic Church in the body of Christ, but remains in schism or self excommunication. His new identity reveals his disposition from which position he takes being separated from the Roman Catholic Church. A UU would be his new identity not a Roman Catholic. But he is a baptised Roman Catholic, in the “Body of Christ”, but not practicing.

The Sacrament of Marriage in the Catholic Church is reference as the “Domestic Church”.

The Catholic Church in the West began using Roman in order to reveal her distinction during the protestant reformation, which took with them traditions that were Catholic.

 

[CMatt25]

Ok, here is your answer and what appears to you that may be a contradiction is never a contradiction here is why?

Definition; Catholic Church = body of Christ

The Catholic Church is universal, she consist of believers both living and deceased in the body of Christ from every age in history on earth and in heaven “Living”, this is what a Catholic baptism joins one too in the body of Christ.

The UU non-practicing catholic, no longer belongs to the Roman Catholic Church “Local” community, because he has changed “communions” and belief’s", but his baptism keeps him under the umbrella of the whole world wide Catholic Church in the body of Christ, but remains in schism or self excommunication. His new identity reveals his disposition from which position he takes being separated from the Roman Catholic Church. A UU would be his new identity not a Roman Catholic. But he is a baptised Roman Catholic, in the “Body of Christ”, but not practicing.

The Sacrament of Marriage in the Catholic Church is reference as the “Domestic Church”.

The Catholic Church in the West began using Roman in order to reveal her distinction during the protestant reformation, which took with them traditions that were Catholic.

Well sure perhaps someone can be separated in the sense of not being in full communion with all the teachings of the Roman rite Catholic Church. But sorry I still think I’ll take a Roman bishop’s answer and that of others who say Catholic Church theology is that non practicing Catholics by virtue of their Roman rite Baptism are still considered members, belong to, and are identified as such by the Catholic Church. In any case peace be with you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Another disctinction that qualifes here in terminology deals with Catholic Rites.

The UU member in question here belongs to the Roman “Latin Rite” of the Catholic Church via his baptism. He has dropped his Roman Catholic Rite by joining the UU. He baptism keeps him in the Catholic Church, but not practicing the Roman Catholic Rite.

Therefore he does not belong to the communion of the Roman Catholic Church Rite.
And the Catholic Church recognizes the UU since its founder as non-catholic who protest the Catholic Faith. So the UU member belonging to the UU communion no longer belongs to the Roman Catholic “Rite” Church.

Unless his disposition can be cleared and confirmed by his local bishop (which this forum has not disclosed the UU members disposition clearly). Then the bishop will apply the official title of his current status, schism, heretic, fallen away, lost, disgruntled, apostate, in need of serious catechetics, protestant, seperated brethren etc…

Until then, unofficially the UU members status is a non-practicing baptised Catholic from the Latin “Roman” Rite who is out of communion with the Roman Catholic Church, thereby cannot be labeled as a Roman Catholic from his lack of communion and has joined another communion in the UU.

What remains to be confusing is that the UU member is still a baptised Catholic.

Peace be with you

 

[SteveGC]

Well sure perhaps someone can be separated in the sense of not being in full communion with all the teachings of the Roman rite Catholic Church. But sorry I still think I’ll take a Roman bishop’s answer and that of others who say Catholic Church theology is that non practicing Catholics by virtue of their Roman rite Baptism are still considered members, belong to, and are identified as such by the Catholic Church. In any case peace be with you.

This viewpoint seems to have the effect of elevating a label to a position of more spiritual importance than belief and practice.

I’m sure that was not your intent, nor your belief. But I’m confused as to why you seem to dismiss the latter in order to advocate for the former. Is it because you sense an exclusivity in the responses here? This person is obviously still a dear child of God, but the point being made is that his departure from the flock could indeed be quite spiritually perilous. The fact that he still belongs to the flock is quite secondary to the fact that he has separated himself from it’s safety.

 

[CMatt25]

This viewpoint seems to have the effect of elevating a label to a position of more spiritual importance than belief and practice.

I’m sure that was not your intent, nor your belief. But I’m confused as to why you seem to dismiss the latter in order to advocate for the former. Is it because you sense an exclusivity in the responses here? This person is obviously still a dear child of God, but the point being made is that his departure from the flock could indeed be quite spiritually perilous. The fact that he still belongs to the flock is quite secondary to the fact that he has separated himself from it’s safety.

Thank you because no that is not my intent. I’m not dismissing that the Church says this person’s spirit is in peril. I know the Catholic Church states he could not be saved.

 

[SteveGC]

I know the Catholic Church states he could not be saved.

The Church states that?

 

[CMatt25]

The Church states that?

Yes if CCC represents what the Church states, and if Seeker’s UU RC friend, prior to having a change in some of his beliefs, believed and thus knew in an earlier time that the Catholic Church was necessary for his salvation. Before of course he had a change in beliefs.

“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.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/846.htm

 

[SteveGC]

Yes if CCC represents what the Church states, and** if Seeker’s UU RC friend, prior to having a change in some of his beliefs, believed and thus knew in an earlier time that the Catholic Church was necessary for his salvation**. Before of course he had a change in beliefs.

“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.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/846.htm

Well, you added in some conditions there (bolded) that were not part of the original OP, and are speculation on your part. But in theory, yes, if those conditions were met, and such a person remained obstinately apart from that which he knew to be salvifically true unto natural death, he would receive his desire to be apart from God eternally.

Again, however, we do not know the actual conditions in this scenario. And the Church refrains from saying anyone is condemned simply because it does not know the heart of anyone, including whether or not they remain unrepentant unto death.

 

[CMatt25]

But in theory, yes, if those conditions were met, and such a person remained obstinately apart from that which he knew to be salvifically true unto natural death, he would receive his desire to be apart from God eternally.

Again, however, we do not know the actual conditions in this scenario. And the Church refrains from saying anyone is condemned simply because it does not know the heart of anyone, including whether or not they remain unrepentant unto death.

Correct. My problem though with what the Church states is even if Seeker’s UU RC friend at one time did know and believe this, he apparently had a change in belief or he would have “remained”. So why judge he could not be saved if his conscience has led him to a different belief regarding salvation? God knows why in his heart he would have had a change. So I’ll leave it up to Him alone to understand and know the heart in His infinite mercy and love and to Him alone to judge accordingly who could not be saved. I’m just not going to go there and say who can not be saved, given “could not” is a tense of “can not”.

 

[Ehkoh]

know that he swore an oath to god, no matter where he goes judgements are not ours to make… god is guiding him and i trust that no matter where he goes he will attract love and light into his life in even more fuller ways by expanding his knowledge throughought the land, for there is no one way that is better than the other when in the servicement of god, god reigneth over all the land and each religion serving god is a religion that is the same with the religion that you practice, to expand your knowledge is only to better serve god by expanding your love to others…

I love you

• God

 

[SteveGC]

Correct. My problem though with what the Church states is even if Seeker’s UU RC friend at one time did know and believe this, he apparently had a change in belief or he would have “remained”. So why judge he could not be saved if his conscience has led him to a different belief regarding salvation? God knows why in his heart he would have had a change. So I’ll leave it up to Him alone to understand and know the heart in His infinite mercy and love and to Him alone to judge accordingly who could not be saved. I’m just not going to go there and say who can not be saved, given “could not” is a tense of “can not”.

The Church speaks of no specific person when it states this truth about salvation and obstinate rejection of a known truth. All She says is that IF a person (some hypothetical person) is aware of this truth and rejects it unto death, salvation cannot be attained. So there is no judgment per se, simply a decree that if you are aware of a truth and reject that truth, you separate yourself from it. Your premise of this UU/RC person is not necessarily accurate. A person doesn’t have to have a “change in belief” to leave the Church. They simply may have never known what to believe from the outset. He would only remain if he knew. If he truly knows, his conscience will not lead him to leave - only a malformed conscience would allow departure from truth. In fact, I would argue quite reasonably that no one leaves the Church who becomes aware of the essence of the Church. No one who truly believes would ever leave the truth. IOW, if they leave, they never actually believed. Their “change in belief” would simply be a transfer from a state of ignorance into another state of ignorance.

 

[SteveGC]

…there is no one way that is better than the other when in the servicement of god, god reigneth over all the land and each religion serving god is a religion that is the same with the religion that you practice, to expand your knowledge is only to better serve god by expanding your love to others…

I love you

• God

This would only be true if God never revealed Himself to man, and never spoke very specifically about the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

But, He did.

 

[CMatt25]

All She says is that IF a person (some hypothetical person) is aware of this truth and rejects it unto death, salvation cannot be attained. So there is no judgment per se, simply a decree that if you are aware of a truth and reject that truth, you separate yourself from it. Your premise of this UU/RC person is not necessarily accurate. A person doesn’t have to have a “change in belief” to leave the Church. They simply may have never known what to believe from the outset. He would only remain if he knew. If he truly knows, his conscience will not lead him to leave - only a malformed conscience would allow departure from truth. In fact, I would argue quite reasonably that no one leaves the Church who becomes aware of the essence of the Church. No one who truly believes would ever leave the truth. IOW, if they leave, they never actually believed. Their “change in belief” would simply be a transfer from a state of ignorance into another state of ignorance.

Various scenarios are possible to be sure. Including knowing what the Catholic Church teaches about Herself but not or no longer believing it. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

This would only be true if God never revealed Himself to man, and never spoke very specifically about the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

But, He did.

But the way you believe He did though is based on your faith in the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Herself, of Scripture, of history, of ECFs, and so forth.

 

[SteveGC]

Various scenarios are possible to be sure. Including knowing what the Catholic Church teaches about Herself but not or no longer believing it. Peace.

Academically knowing what the Catholic Church teaches about Herself can be quite far removed from believing it. So again, that would not be a “change in belief”. That would simply be a move from disbelief into belief. The knowledge the Church speaks of is not simply intellectual knowledge, it is heart knowledge. To reject heart knowledge of the Church is to reject Christ.

 

[SteveGC]

But the way you believe He did though is based on your faith in the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Herself, of Scripture, of history, of ECFs, and so forth.

Yes indeed. Of course, the Church has no official interpretation of “history” per se, nor of the ECFs. Those things stand on their own. And of course, I also use faith and reason to a high degree in my beliefs.

The fact that I internalize and ascend to those beliefs is exactly why I responded the way I did. Doesn’t mean he has to agree. It is simply a statement which I believe reflects the truth (and the Truth).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you because no that is not my intent. I’m not dismissing that the Church says this person’s spirit is in peril. ** I know the Catholic Church states he could not **be saved.

I think you misunderstand the Catholic position on one “could not be saved”.

The Catholic Church applies one who has proven knowledge of the True teachings of the Catholic faith and then reject them. This “proven” knowledge pertains to those such as Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Catholic religious, Catholic scholars and Catholic biblical theologians. Who are fully aware of the consequences of losing their salvation if they reject the Catholic Church.

That is why protestants today are not labeled Heretics. Because it is no fault of their own, that they are born into these communities outside of Catholicism.

I don’t think your new UU member meets any of these criterias in possessing actual knowledge and understanding of the Catholic Faith, and then reject Catholic teachings of Truth, ater coming to the “full knowledge of the Catholic faith”. If he did, his bishop would of known about his leaving and officially declared his status.

You have introduced another subject matter in regards to the new UU members salvation apart from his identity.

Every baptized Catholic who leaves the Church for a non-catholic faith, still has to deal with his Baptismal vows and Credo professed before God. That is why it is necessary for the UU member to address his leaving with his local bishop, so that he understands the Church’s position in regards to his salvation.

Any one can receive “ashes” . But the new UU member cannot practice his Catholic faith within the UU community. He has to return (by confession) in good standing with the Catholic Church in order to practice his Roman Catholic faith.

He cannot serve the two as one combined belief, this would make him a double minded person, which is worst than changing his community of communion.

In any case, he has every grace by his baptism “which saves you now” to repent and return to his Catholic Rite.

 

[Sufjon]

Every baptized Catholic who leaves the Church for a non-catholic faith, still has to deal with his Baptismal vows and Credo professed before God.

You mean the vows most people took when they were drooling on a pacifier and eating Gerber Junior Plums for lunch? That is a beautiful piece of arm twisting an mental intimidation. Until you remember when you took them, and the fact that you didn’t even understand what was being said at the time. That is so ingenious, because later someone can say “you can leave this church, but you took a vow buster so you’ll have to pay the consequences!” So I get the idea - baptize early and often, but do it under the guise that the child’s soul will turn into a lightening bug or something if he or she dies before the age where they can understand. I still think the mindset that prevails for many churches is more suited for a legal firm or penal system than anything of a spiritual nature.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You mean the vows most people took when they were drooling on a pacifier and eating Gerber Junior Plums for lunch? That is a beautiful piece of arm twisting an mental intimidation. Until you remember when you took them, and the fact that you didn’t even understand what was being said at the time. That is so ingenious, because later someone can say “you can leave this church, but you took a vow buster so you’ll have to pay the consequences!” So I get the idea - baptize early and often, but do it under the guise that the child’s soul will turn into a lightening bug or something if he or she dies before the age where they can understand. I still think the mindset that prevails for many churches is more suited for a legal firm or penal system than anything of a spiritual nature.

Your friend
Sufjon

Another misunderstanding followed by a "false judgement ". What your comment lacks is facts. When an infant is baptised the profession and vows are taken by the parents for the faith of the baptised, and by God parents as witnesses. This is no small matter.

The child then is to be nutured in the ways of God, until the baptised Child reaches the age of reason 7 years, recieves catechesis, does a first confession, and is able to discern the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

The UU member is not a child, according to the OP, this member attended at least one Easter Sunday during his life, when he professes before God his renewed Covenant relationship and remembers and professes of his own freewill his renewed baptismal vows that he takes upon his own freewill before God.

The baptised child is never without faith professed in God.

These baptised are commanded by scripture “not to stay away from the assembly”.

What is expressed in faith from the baptismal liturgy is not arm twisting but a matter of eternal life which relates to a reality. To think otherwise misunderstands what baptism does. Baptism saves the child “now” as the child enters the kingdom of God. to be nurtured in the kingdom of God. Leaving ones baptismal birth “right” as a child of the living God for another is not a small matter in the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you