Am I Catholic? Or am I not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jrp72
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Um, but there was no such thing as ‘yearly Mass", right? Sure not everybody received communion at every Mass but, um, there were a LOT of Masses, every Sunday PLUS many many feast days.
If you lived near a Church.

For those who did not, making a yearly pilgrimage to the nearest Church was a thing.
 
I’m getting weary of making points that are constantly missed.

“Do this, as often as you do it” - did that come from Rome?

Just sayin’
 
Well, EXCUUUUUUUUSE ME!!!

I was talking man-to-man. Some here (who I note are not actually the OP) apparently have taken offense at a reply which does not directly concern them and was not directed at them. Perhaps a tutorial, a bit of a refresher is in order.
  1. Men interact differently. More directly, more to the point.
  2. Some also may not know this: You do not have to read or reply to every thread. No, really! I’m still learning this myself.
  3. If you do reply, please try to remain civil.
  4. If you harbor some degree of animosity toward another CAF member, best not to let that flavor (or poison) your replies.
  5. Oh, and guilt? Last I checked, that was part of being human, part of being Catholic. Regarding the issue raised in the OP, for those who have forgotten, let us call to mind the spiritual work of mercy known as admonishing the sinner.
  6. Not to forget: what does the OP, to whom these remarks were originally directed, have to say? Does that even matter?
 
You get to decide what you are. Don’t let others do that for you. It never ends well.
 
NOT when it comes to Catholicism (and yes, I know you’re not Catholic).
In case you may have missed this, those who are baptized Catholic receive an indelible mark in their souls.

That means, for a baptized Catholic, he or she cannot decide “no, I’m not Catholic”.

That person, even if baptized at birth with “no say” in the matter, is Catholic.

That person gets to decide whether or not to practice the Catholic faith, but he or she does not get to decide whether or not to be Catholic.

Being a Catholic is more than ‘doing the Catholic walk and talk’.

Just as, for example, if I am born to a certain woman and a certain man, with certain genes, I don’t get to decide whether or not to have ‘those genes’ or to choose ones I may like better. I can decide to ‘make the most’ of what I’m born with, or I can decide to whine about certain traits I cannot change even with the marvels of plastic surgery, but I can’t change my genes.

Yes, I am aware that science is looking into ‘designer babies’ and to picking genes, etc. That still means that what said ‘designer baby’ is given, by scientists/doctors, etc., is what said designer baby gets.

Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul, whether a person ‘wants it’ or not.

Qwerty girl, you can decide ‘what you are’ to only a certain point. You don’t get to decide you’re the Queen of England. If you are a person from say white Northern European stock, you don’t get to decide you’re Japanese. Some things are ‘beyond’ our ‘decision’. Catholic baptism is one of them.

Letting somebody non-Catholic ‘decide’ to tell a Catholic something wrong (no matter how ‘right’ the non-Catholic thinks he or she is) is 'letting somebody ELSE ‘decide for the Catholic’. . .precisely the scenario you yourself note ‘does not end well.’
 
Last edited:
@stpurl - Sadly, society today tells us we CAN decide what and who we are at any given time. Man, woman, in-between, race, culture- all interchangeable if we would believe what our so-called enlightened society tells us.

What would happen if the Pope were to show up on the evening news, announcing that he now self-identifies as an Asian woman? How does society- much less the Church- deal with that? Do the Faithful accept it and drive on? “Hey, cool, female Pope” or erupt in defiance of what society tells us is the New Normal?
 
Letting somebody non-Catholic ‘decide’ to tell a Catholic something wrong (no matter how ‘right’ the non-Catholic thinks he or she is) is 'letting somebody ELSE ‘decide for the Catholic’. . .precisely the scenario you yourself note ‘does not end well.’
I was baptized as a Catholic, but I am no longer Catholic. Others may say I am Catholic. Souls aren’t the same as genes or social status, or markers for ethnicity. If they exist, they are, well, souls. The argument you made falls flat.

I stand by my advice. Each person gets to decide what they are, when it comes to religion. Others can say what they believe someone else is. It doesn’t take away from each individual person being able to decide for themselves.

I understand you and a lot of other people don’t agree with me. It really is OK.

In case you missed it, the message I was sending is that if OP was baptized a Catholic, and considers himself Catholic, then he is Catholic regardless of what anyone else here says. I think it is sad that someone would turn to a forum to figure out what their faith is. I was trying to encourage. Allowing others to define who you are, with regards to religion, faith, and morals, is a dangerous thing to do.
 
Last edited:
if OP was baptized a Catholic, and considers himself Catholic, then he is Catholic regardless of what anyone else here says.
The part K struck out is unnecessary. Everyone who has been baptized receives and indelible mark on their soul. If one is baptized in the Catholic Church, one is indelibly Catholic. It has nothing to do with one one thinks about oneself.
 
you can still call yourself a Catholic if you don’t go to Mass but you will be in a state of Mortal Sin unless you have a very good reason for not being able to make Mass.
We cannot say if someone is in a state of mortal sin.

This is why the Church has changed the language from mortal sin to grave sin, to underscore that we are not the ones who can judge the state of a person’s soul.
 
A person does not have to consider himself Catholic to be Catholic. You disagree with that?
 
Yep. I am not Catholic. I believe each person defines themself, when it comes to religion.

That is what I believe.
 
Ack! meant to reply to your post… I’m sorry, @Jrp72

You seem to be unable to receive the sacraments because you are in an irregular marriage (remarried without an annulment).

And you are unable to attend Mass.

You are Catholic by virtue of your baptism in the Church.

Depending on why you cannot attend Mass, you may be committing a serious sin by not going, even if you are unable to receive the Eucharist. If you can make it to Mass, you can pray a Spiritual Communion.

The best thing to do is to try to make it to Mass. Most parishes now have Mass on Saturdays in the late afternoon/early evening to help those who are unable to make it to Mass on Sundays.

Whatever your circumstances, you can make an appointment to speak to a priest to sort out your situation. You can get a dispensation from the obligation to attend Mass, or if the distance is too far or you are sick, the obligation is lifted automatically, and it is recommended that you do some other pious act.
 
Last edited:
Catholics are only urged to receive the Eucharist once a year at least, preferably in the Easter season.
Umm… that’s a precept of the Church, not a mere ‘urging’. 😉
The obligation to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not from some human organization based in far away Rome.
Actually it is.
Actually, it isn’t. You might want to re-read and Decalogue again and ponder on it. 😉
I was baptized as a Catholic, but I am no longer Catholic.
The Church – who confers the status ‘Catholic’ – disagrees with you. You might not self-identify as a Catholic, and that might be important to you, but that does not mean that you no longer are seen by the Church as a Catholic. (That might not mean anything to do, but there’s an objective reality here.)
I understand you and a lot of other people don’t agree with me. It really is OK.
👍
In case you missed it, the message I was sending is that if OP was baptized a Catholic, and considers himself Catholic, then he is Catholic regardless of what anyone else here says.

… Allowing others to define who you are, with regards to religion, faith, and morals, is a dangerous thing to do.
That’s an interesting perspective, and it’s one that our culture agrees with and celebrates: “you are what you say you are.” By the way, I’m an eggplant, if anyone cares to know. I would assert that the more “dangerous” thing to assent to is an arbitrary self-definition. The emperor and his new suit, and all… 😉
Clearly, we will have to agree to disagree.
Clearly. I’ll expect you to call me “Mr Eggplant” from now on, please. 😉 👍
 
This person usually had a low gluten host, but under doctors order had to exclude all gluten. As there was a risk of profanation of the Precious Blood, the priest made the decision to only have the Blessed Sacrament. It was at a later point, when those particular circumstances regarding the profanation of the Precious Blood had been resolved, was it once again offered.

Doctrinal Formation and Communion Under Both Kinds " “Redemptionis Sacramentum” makes clear that the slightest danger of the sacred species being profaned is to be avoided" and “Every care should be taken to avoid the ministering of the chalice where circumstances suggest ambiguity of reception or a setting where the safety of the contents of the chalice might not be assured.” (Bold emphasis is mine).
 
By the way, I’m an eggplant, if anyone cares to know. I would assert that the more “dangerous” thing to assent to is an arbitrary self-definition. The emperor and his new suit, and all
No. That isn’t at all what I said. I clearly made my statement with regards to religion. Not eggplant. Not any other physical trait one may have.
 
No. That isn’t at all what I said. I clearly made my statement with regards to religion . Not eggplant.
I know. I’m kinda teasing. Still, it kind of gets us to the issue at hand: why is self-definition of one sort reasonable, and of another sort not ludicrous? 🤔
 
Unable to attend Mass on a regular basis because of my current wife’s negative feelings about the Church. Turns into a huge fight.
 
No, the argument doesn’t fall flat; it is an analogy, not meant to be a quid pro quo.

I see then that you are Catholic. You are not a practicing Catholic, you have decided you do not want to act as a Catholic, identify as a Catholic, accept that you are a Catholic. . .but you remain a Catholic.

Your ability to make a decision can only go as far as what is allowed (whether that allowance refers to tangible or ‘natural’ things like the effect of gravity, or intangible and ‘supernatural’ things like souls).

The good news is that when you die, you will see the truth. As a reasonable person, I hope you will choose to say, “Oh gee, yup, all those arguments I made were just wrong, though well-intentioned, I accept that I was wrong and choose to accept my Catholic identity and the salvation you offer me, Lord”.

And don’t feel singled out. God willing, I likewise will say, “Oh gee, I made plenty of mistakes in my life and I didn’t live up to my Catholic identity, often when I was busy thinking I was hot spit, so I accept any time I was wrong and accept my Catholic identity was not always practiced even well and I accept the salvation you offer me, Lord”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top