Are you still considered Catholic if you leave?

[Nicky777]

Christians are true followers of Christ. Subject to the authority of the Magiserium of the Church. So, no protestants are not by definition Christians. Although their baptims is valid. Orthodox are Christians and privileged to the Sacraments. Not my dagma that of Holy Mother Church. The Bride of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. God love you.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

You’re not even being internally consistent. You said Protestants aren’t Christians because they aren’t joined to the Church but the Orthodox are, even though they are also separated from the Church.

What you’re saying is simply not Catholic teaching. It’s just not. You’re misunderstanding on a very basic level. A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ and professes the Nicene Creed. That’s it.

Obviously, I think Christians should be Catholic, as that’s the best way to be united to Christ. But that doesn’t mean that, say, an Anglican is not a christian. That’s ridiculous.

 

[Gab123]

Those that believe in Christ are Christians. Period

This is an interesting question. Does it even matter what the people believe about Christ? In other words, can a person be a true Christian even if they deny the essentials of the Christian faith? Can a person call themselves a true Christian even if they deny that Jesus is God Incarnate? What about a person who calls himself a Christian but denies the Holy Trinity? Does it matter what one believes about Christ? Does it matter if one rejects the Church founded by Jesus Christ who teaches in His name? What exactly is a Christian? One who believes in Christ but rejects the teachings of Christ? The Church refers to many outside the Catholic Church as separated brethren; Separated from what? The Church? Can someone who separates himself from the Church be a true Christian?

What if a person claims that the Catholic Church and its teachings are the “whore of Babylon”, and call Catholic doctrine demonic doctrine? Can a person believe and claim that Jesus is Satan’s brother and call themselves true Christians? The Mormons call themselves “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and teach the doctrine that Jesus Christ and Satan are offspring of God the Father and spirit brothers; Mormons believe they are Christians yet they teach and believe things contrary to the Catholic Faith. Are they true Christians, or are they people that belong to a false religion?

Is a person a Christian if they deny the incarnation and every tenet of the Catholic Faith, yet believes that Christ was a good philosopher? What about self-proclaimed Christians who teach others that the Catholic Church should be rejected, and usher thousands of people out of the Catholic Church, as what is happening in Latin America via 7day Adventist, Pentecostals, Jehova Witnesses, and Mormon proselytism?

These are things that different Protestant/Evangelical denominations claim, teach and do.
It’s one thing to believe the true doctrine, yet be a sinner; it’s another thing to deny doctrine and attack the Church and lead others away from the Church—are they true Christians too? Can one be a Christian yet believe in relativism?

Can people who teach and spread false teaching and slander the Church be true Christians? If so, what did the Bible mean when it warned against false teachers and sects of perdition?
Can an atheist be a Christian if they love their neighbor but denies the existence of God?

Jesus said that the way one will know if one is His disciple is the way one loves one another. Thus a Catholic could believe the faith yet not be a disciple of Christ if he does not love neighbor. Can one love neighbor, yet not love God, and be a Christian?

 

[Vico]

You’re not even being internally consistent. You said Protestants aren’t Christians because they aren’t joined to the Church but the Orthodox are, even though they are also separated from the Church.

What you’re saying is simply not Catholic teaching. It’s just not. You’re misunderstanding on a very basic level. A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ and professes the Nicene Creed. That’s it.

Obviously, I think Christians should be Catholic, as that’s the best way to be united to Christ. But that doesn’t mean that, say, an Anglican is not a christian. That’s ridiculous.

Well of the living, the Catechumens, bound to the Church, and all those that are validly baptized (even infants) are Christians. (Baptism of water, baptism of desire.)

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

Good point, should have added baptism…although a moot point here since most Protestants have valid baptisms.

 

[Nicky777]

To be a Christian you need the four marks of the true church one Holy Catholic Apostolic I say no more God love you

 

[Nicky777]

If one is to be saved that is God’s decision at the end forgot shows Mercy to whomever he pleases and if they do get saved it won’t be because of their religion it will be in spite of if they aren’t Catholic now they will be in heaven for there is only one Church in heaven One Faith one God God love you

 

[Nicky777]

When you speak of Orthodox which Orthodox are you talking about

 

[lilypadrees]

Actually, the definition you’re going by is your own. Protestants believe in the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit Catholics do. They profess the same Jesus as their Lord and Savior as we Catholics do.

There are definitely areas of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants like whether or not Jesus was speaking literally or metaphorically when He said during the Last Supper that the bread was His Body and the wine was His Blood.

However, to claim that Protestants aren’t Christians because they don’t believe everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches is wrong on so many levels.

What is your definition of a Christian, @Nicky777? Being a Catholic? Being a member of the Catholic Church?

Here is the definition of a Christian.

Christian

adj.

. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’s teachings.

3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus, especially in showing concern for others.

4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

You’re not condemning them? Oh, yes, you are! You are condemning and judging Protestants as not being Christians.

Let me tell you, my maternal grandmother was a lifelong Methodist. And she was the most Christian woman I’ve ever known. Read Proverbs 31:10-31. It describes her to a “t.”

Do you know what she would say reading your words? She would say, “Pray for him.” She would never accuse you of not being a Christian because you’re Catholic. She wasn’t that kind of woman. But she might, if pressed, be moved to stress that your attitude wasn’t very Christian. And she would again reiterate that we must pray for you. Because that was the kind of woman she was.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Code of Canon Law nonetheless prescribes that the faithful who have left the Church “by a formal act” are not bound by the ecclesiastical laws regarding the canonical form of marriage (cf. can. 1117), dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult (cf. can. 1086) and the need for permission in the case of mixed marriages (cf. can. 1124 ).
…
Therefore I decree that in the same Code the following words are to be eliminated: “and has not left it by a formal act” (can. 1117); “and has not left it by means of a formal act” (can. 1086 § 1); “and has not left it by a formal act” (can. 1124 ).

I did not know that Pope Benedict XVI made this change to canon law. I for one find this very unfortunate. First of all, if you remove the provision “by means of a formal act”, what, then, constitutes “leaving the Church”? Beginning to attend another church? Receiving the initiatory rites of that church? Or what?

It is my understanding that leaving “by a formal act” entails completing a certain form and conveying it to the bishop. I think it should have been left that way. At least this way, you have a definite point at which one ceases to be a member of the Church.

It’s also worth noting that formally leaving the Church in this fashion is a step that few people take. It seems to be more common in countries (such as Germany) where one has to pay a tax if they are a member of a particular church, which then funds that church. If they apostasize, they no longer pay that tax.

This change has enormous consequences for one’s being able to get an annulment if they return to the Church and want to get one. Under the former law, any marriage outside the Church was simply invalid, due to lack of canonical form. Now it appears that such a marriage would be valid, even if no “formal act” was involved. Previously, if that person wanted to return to the Church, all they had to do was to prove lack of form. If they wanted the marriage to be valid in the Church, they could always convalidate. If they wanted to leave the marriage, then simply prove lack of form, which is generally a pretty easy thing to do. No problem either way.

I’d also like to be very, very clear that I do not in any way bless or condone anyone leaving the Church, formal act or no formal act. I do not believe that one who leaves the Church can make their salvation any more likely, or please God in this way.

[I am aware that the Balamand Agreement implicitly allows for Catholics and Orthodox to migrate to one another’s Churches, but if I were to leave for Orthodoxy — something I have no desire to do — I would be haunted by the Church’s thrice-declared proclamation that salvation is dependent on one’s being subject to the Roman Pontiff. This is a contradiction.]

 

[TomH1]

So, no protestants are not by definition Christians.

This is not true and it is not the official teaching of the Catholic Church. In a previous post you were asked to provide a source from an official Church document that this is what the Catholic Church teaches. Following that post you have continued to claim that Protestants are not Christians but have not backed-up your claim by citing any Church document. According to the rules of logic one who makes a claim is beholden to justify it. If you insist that Protestants are not Christians you must provide evidence to back-up your claim.

You need, also, to explain why the Catholic Church uses the following term, non-Catholic Christian ecclesial community (emphasis mine), when She refers to Protestants.

In 2010, His Holiness Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus, visited my country, UK, when he was the Pope. He participated in liturgical services with clergy from the Church of England. Why would the Pope hold a joint liturgical service with non-Christians?

 

[RomanChristian]

Strange ideas all of you hold, I thank God I’m Orthodox Christian. Oh you may like to know the Orthodox Churches real name is Orthodox Catholic Church.

 

[prayerrider]

It was a fair and logical question. I didn’t see it as aggressive.
One might also ask the atheists on these forums why they are here? Are they seeking God? Seems to me that’s the only valid reason they could have. I certainly don’t frequent atheist forums. Nothing there of benefit to my soul.

 

[bassmansteiny]

I hope this isn’t the reason you are leaving. While any abuse is horrific and the Priest and/or Bishops involved ought to go through the criminal process and if guilty do their time. That being said, with the number of priests and Bishops, this is actually a very very small percentage of them. Most Preist and Bishops are good and holy men. My Preist is the nicest, coolest guy so filled with the Spirt! I would never leave, my Preist and Bishop did not commit these crimes. Why would I leave the faith I love, and the first Christian Church, because of what those knuckleheads did. They did wrong, not us in this case, we are all sinners though and have are cross to bear but we are not a Church of child abusers. They can leave, not me. I will defend my Holy Priest. I hope you would do the same, unless he was one that committed the abuse.

I mean no disrespect in all this, I care about you and am praying for you and your tough decision that you have to make. It just makes me sad, and gets me all worked up (not at you personally), the few people who are giving up on our Church, because of a few that did a horrible act. The Church is greater than these few.

 

[Nicky777]

You need to read the Church fathers, St Thomas Aquinas, st. Agustines writings and st Francis of Assisi. This is my last post. Wake up! Pray for all protestants. Read and pray for the Holy souls in purgatory. God love you. There is no salvation outside of the Church.

 

[TomH1]

You do not do what has been asked of you and you are trying to shut down the conversation. I propose this is because you cannot substantiate your claim.

I think it uncharitable to present the Catholic Church as teaching something it does not. I am sure these fora are visited by Catholics with little knowledge of their Faith and by non-Catholics. It is not useful for them to be offered incorrect teachings.

The Catholic Church acknowledges and recognises that Protestants are Christians. To claim otherwise is to misrepresent the Faith and give false teaching to those who wish to learn.

 

[lilypadrees]

@Nicky777, there was a time when priests warned their parishioners against going to Protestant churches because they preach and teach Jesus differently than the Catholic Church does.

It was also taught that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Both were taught in the 60s during my childhood. Didn’t bother me. I had no idea what a Protestant was.

BUT one thing that was NEVER taught in any of the parishes I belonged to back then was that Protestants weren’t Christians.

Could it be that you came to the conclusion that Protestants aren’t Christians simply because you were warned by your priest not to attend their churches because of the way they teach about Jesus? So you could have, in your mind, taken the priest’s words to mean that if a person belongs to any Protestant denomination, he or she isn’t a Christian and that only members of the Catholic Church are Christians.

Or you could have misunderstood the writings of the Church Fathers.

 

[Anicette]

What if someone actively wanted to “leave?” Do they not have that choice?

No one can leave, because the baptism is an historical date of a surnatural event. The baptism is permament. We cannot “debaptized” someone.
What can be writen on the baptism recorded is “x repudiate his baptism”. The person have to send a letter to the diocese. But we cannot wipe of the mention of his baptism on the records.

 

[maryjk]

That is incorrect. If you check out this thread , back when there was an Ask an Apologist section on CAF, I got a response from Father Charles Grondin. He said the number for the Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae (the yearbook of the Church) is based on the number of baptized Catholics, not the number of self-identified Catholics. Most articles, especially in Catholic media, will quote statistics from the yearbook but will far less often note that the numbers are not self-identified. By not nothing that most people are going to naturally assume this is the number of self-identified, and therein lies the deception (intentional or not).

That seems to indicate that they are counting only “new” baptisms. There would be no way to know how many of those that were ever baptized are still living.

Deaths are not recorded as part of the baptism record. (Even if they should be.) I only know this because when my parents died, the church that held their funeral never asked where they had been baptized.

So even if they do this, it is, at best, a guess.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

No one can leave, because the baptism is an historical date of a surnatural event. The baptism is permament. We cannot “debaptized” someone.

One problem with that:

1. According to the church a valid baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul.
2. The Church says there are other Christian churches with valid baptisms.

Why then does the Church consider the following people Catholic?
A. People who were baptized in the Catholic Church then moved to another church that has a valid baptism.
B. People who were baptized validly in another church, moved to the Catholic Church, then moved back to their original church.

It can’t be the baptism, a so-called historical date of supernatural event, that keeps a person permanently in the religion they are baptized in. If that was true then the Church would believe in Once Baptist Always Baptist or Once Lutheran Always Lutheran.