Are you still considered Catholic if you leave?

  • Thread starter Thread starter laylow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed. It’s not good recordkeeping and it casts major doubts on any number the Church gives as to how many Catholics there are in the world. It’s not honest and it just lumps in people who are either no longer living or no long practicing (much to the latter’s chagrin). Every time the Church quotes a number of Catholics it should be upfront about its calculations and the multiple flaws it has. By just quoting a number without explanation it makes it seem like thee are far more self-identified living Catholics then thee actually are.
 
First, we have to have the same definition of vocabulary.
  • Christianism is a religion.
  • Catholicism, lutheranism or Baptism are confessions that belong to the Christian religion.
    So, when
Mike_from_NJ said:
People who were baptized validly in another church, moved to the Catholic Church, then moved back to their original church
Click to expand...
they keep the same religion, they just change their confession.

There is only one christian Baptism, and as you said, the Catholic Church recognized baptism from many others confessions as valid.
So when a protestant convert to Catholicism he doesn’t need to be baptized again if he already is. bUT He need to do an act of faith.

When someone become Catholic as a first confession, his baptism is done at the same time of his profession of catholic faith (or the declaration of his parents). The baptism, while it is not technically a catholic baptism is written in the catholic records and is the birth of a new Catholic member.

And when you become a Catholic, whereas it is by baptism or conversion, you die as a Catholic. Even if you convert after to another denomination/religion.
 
So we can say that it’s not the act of baptism that confers the indelible mark on one’s soul, since one can have a Christian baptism and not be Catholic. So then we’d normally think that if a confession or conversion can add this mark to one’s soul, then it is any outward desire to be Catholic that adds that mark to one’s soul – except that the mark is said to be added during an infant baptism as well, when no such desire is possible. In short, a soul is marked when one desires to be Catholic or one’s parent/guardian desires us to be Catholic.

I am always skeptical of any organization that alone claims its necessity.

As far as why one might not wish to be called a Catholic when one has either moved away from the faith or were too young to make that choice when that label was placed on them, I want to show this article about the Catholic Church warning people about Mormon baptism for the dead:

Vatican Warns of Mormon 'Baptism of the Dead' - U.S. News - News - Catholic Online

Vatican issues an order to Bishops to not allow Parish records to be given to genealogical societies of the Mormon Church. WASHINGTON (CNS) - In an effort to block posthumous rebaptisms by the ...
www.catholic.org www.catholic.org

It starts off where the Church has taken steps to prevent certain information about its congregants from reaching that of the LDS. Now it should be pointed out that the article isn’t saying that a baptism for the dead of a Catholic will harm their souls or affect their Catholic baptism, but they are very strongly against having those practices be performed by people who did not wish to consider themselves LDS. One quote about what the letter to the bishops was to accomplish: “The congregation requests that the conference notifies each diocesan bishop in order to ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in his territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Another quote from the article, “Jewish leaders have called the practice arrogant and said it is disrespectful to the dead…” Clearly people do not like being claimed to have a faith they do not possess.

One final note, it’s interesting that when a Catholic media outlet talks about the issue with the percentage of Catholics attending mass they will use poll numbers that consider the number of self-identified Catholics. When it comes to tallying the number of Catholics, instead of using poll numbers to get a close-to-accurate number of self-identified Catholics they’ll use the Chruch’s statistical yearbook. Rarely in those cases will they make mention of the tallying process (counting those as Catholic those who are not Catholic by any normal standard). In short, the number of self-identified Catholics is needed only to soften the blow of the small percentage attending mass, but the more inflated number is fine when boasting of the number in the faith.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
So we can say that it’s not the act of baptism that confers the indelible mark on one’s soul, since one can have a Christian baptism and not be Catholic.
Click to expand...
No, a baptism is an indelible mark on one’s soul, that it be given in a protestant Church or a Catholic one, or ane Orthodox one. We cannot be debaptized.

The so called “baptism of the dead”, made by LSD Church is not a Christian baptism. Baptism to be valid has to be made on a living person with water with the intention to baptism.
They can baptized us, we do not believe it has any effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
Anicette said:
No, a baptism is an indelible mark on one’s soul, that it be given in a protestant Church or a Catholic one, or ane Orthodox one. We cannot be debaptized.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone who wishes not to be counted in the Chruch’s rolls is looking for a debaptism. Either the person doesn’t believe the initial baptism carries any wait or they will get a baptism in the faith of their choice. It’s not about not a baptism over them, but a basic call for honesty and courtesy to say that those who left the Church or never chose to be in it because they were children are not Catholics at least as far as one normally considers membership. If it wants to say that yes these people are Catholics in their eyes, fine; but it should be extremely clear that a significant percentage of those in their rolls do not wish to be considered Catholic. By not stating this outright each and every time they quote membership numbers they are breaking the commandment on bearing false witness. As the article said it is arrogant, and IMHO it’s patronizing.
They can baptized us, we do not believe it has any effectiveness.
Click to expand...
Just as most non-Catholics do not believe in the effectiveness of Catholic baptism. That doesn’t mean there are significant issues with claiming someone is something they are not. The Church had a problem with the LDS claiming Catholics as their own, and should understand it when they are the ones claiming the status of people who would should from the mountaintops that they are not Catholic.
 
Of course, the feelings over it can have something in common, as an exterior perspectrive.

But baptizing someone as a baby is not something similar to LSD baptism of death.
The first is an act that had took place, by the wished of the parents. It is something that really happened. Not something as exterior as as baptism of one soul, because of a name on a records.
 
There are several similarities between an infant baptism and a baptism for the dead.

Both feature:
  • 1 or more willing participants
  • 1 unwilling/unknowing participant
  • Faith
The baptism for the dead doesn’t feature the participants being in the same room, but we certainly can’t limit God that way. A baptism for the dead also doesn’t have the familial connection between the willing and unwilling participants, but that isn’t necessary for an infant/child baptism. Just look at the Edgardo Mortara situation. The nurse and the boy were not family.

You can’t say that the baptism for the dead has no power. You can only assert that it doesn’t. In the same way that Protestants can only assert that praying for the souls in Purgatory has any effect. In fact, it’s very similar in that such prayers are different than all other prayers just as baptism for the dead is different than other baptisms. Just because it’s different doesn’t mean there is any certainty it isn’t effective like the one your familiar with.
 
It is a matter of faith, and there is no point of discussing if me or you are wrong.

we cannot agree, so it is a road to nowhere.
 
Last edited:
I agree that as far as to the efficacy of the Catholic baptism, the Mormon baptism, or any other baptism. That’s my point. Each set or subset of faith has things it believes that the others do not. In that article I linked to the Catholic Church was not pleased that the LDS was encroaching on the identities of its congregants. I and others are asking for the same consideration to be applied to those who are not (or no longer) Catholic congregants. Don’t try to claim someone as part of your group if they would not choose to do so.

That all being said, would you agree to the following statement? Every single time the Church or a member of the Catholic media quotes how many Catholics there are it should be crystal clear at how it derives its numbers so as not to make others think there are more self-identified Catholics than there really are.
 
Last edited:
For the numbers of catholics, the count is established by the numbers of baptized people. We know that all are no longer practicing, or will not practized their religion in the future. But the count is objective and verifiable.

Some church baptism records put the mention of people who repudiate their baptism and asks the Church for it.
 
That’s not what I asked.

Let’s say a group puts out a press release because they are for or against something. They announce they have a large number of members. I may not necessarily be swayed to change my opinion, but I can at least feel that there are a significant number of people who feel a particular way. I later come to find out that they only have a percentage of the members as they claim. They tally membership not by counting the number of people who would say they are with that group. But because they don’t tell people how their unusual tallying takes place it makes it seem like they have many more members than they actually do. This is clearly deception by omission.

The same thing is true if I want to invest in a company, and in their SEC statement they say they have X customers. I feel, based in part on that number, that they are company worth investing in. I later find out that they do something like count as a customer anyone who has ever bought anything from them ever. Or they could people who in a poll said they would be interested in purchasing a product of theirs in the future. Or they count someone who bought three products as three customers. Whatever method they use if they don’t tell the person they are giving the X number to they are not telling the whole truth – and thus it’s a lie.

The fact is many average Catholics don’t know that the Church considers someone Catholic forever if they’ve been baptized as such. It’s why this topic pops up every so often on CAF. When the Church or Catholic media says there are 1.3 billion Catholics most people will take that at face value and not realize that it’s an inflated number. Leaving out that the number is not the number of self-identified Catholics is bearing false witness. So I’ll ask again. Would you agree? Every single time the Church or a member of the Catholic media quotes how many Catholics there are it should be crystal clear at how it derives its numbers so as not to make others think there are more self-identified Catholics than there really are.
 
Last edited:
If someone poked the OP and said, “Peace Be To You” in their sleep, I’d bet they would automatically respond, “And With Your Spirit”.
 
The Mormons baptize a live person, usually a family member, in place of the deceased. And that’s supposed to make everything right. Big fat NOPE!!!
 
If you were baptized. I believe you are a Catholic.
Now to be a practicing Catholic, you need to have celebrated first communion and to have been confirmed.
I believe I am right on this, but I will defer to other CAF brothers and sisters to confirm or to right what I have written in this post.
 
Nah, “And Also With You” will always be the proper response. If I’m honest to this day nothing takes me out of a Catholic mass more than the newer response in those times I’ve been at a Catholic mass for a wedding, funeral, etc…

Luckily for me Episcopal Rite II still utilizes the older response.
 
Last edited:
Eh, I think the newer translation adds a lot more meaning. “And Also With You” sounds kinda like a normal secular greeting. “And With Your Spirit” recognizes the Holy Spirit that descended upon the Priest upon his ordination, and together, the Priest and Laity pray that the Spirit is with the Priest during the Mass at Consecration.
 
To each their own I guess…

All I know is that on those rare occasions I am at a Catholic mass I still use all the old responses. Hard to undo 18 years of Catholic indoctrination (and many years of Episcopal Church mass attendance which uses many of the same old style Catholic responses) 😉 I can still say the older Ordinary Form mass verbatim if pushed to do so.
 
Last edited:
Since it’s hard to get a straight answer, I want to throw out a few yes-or-no questions and ask believers if they agree or disagree.
  1. Is there a difference in number between baptized Catholics and self-identified Catholics?
  2. Is it fair to say that a lot of people (including some Catholics) don’t even know of the idea of Once Catholic Always Catholic?
  3. Is it correct to say that most religions or organizations don’t have a similar Once/Always policy?
  4. If you are told that a group has X members, would you assume if that group is being honest then they are counting self-identified members of that group?
Assuming you answered yes to the above questions:
  1. If someone states that there are X Catholics (without detailing how it came up with that number) and the person reading it is not familiar with OCAC, would they get the impression that there are X self-identified Catholics and not even consider that instead it means there are X baptized Catholics?
Assuming you answered yes to 5:
  1. Knowing that people would get the wrong impression as to how many self-identified Catholics there are, should anyone who states there are X Catholics make it abundantly clear that it’s counting baptisms otherwise they’d be guilty of deception?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top