Baptized Catholic, always Catholic

[christcnection1]

It was my understanding that if a child or individual is baptized Catholic, they are always Catholic. If that’s the case, what is unique about Catholic baptisms that you always remain Catholic?

I ask this because if you’re baptized in another Christian tradition, in normal circumstances, your baptism is valid in the Catholic faith. (…we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins…) Therefore, isn’t baptism, baptism? If baptism is baptism producing the same results (the washing aways of all sin), why aren’t non-Catholics considered Catholic because of their valid baptism? If not, what is unique about Catholic baptisms that make an individual Catholic all their life, even if they fall away from the faith?

This is not an issue I’ve ever confronted before. Thanks!

 

[cameron_lansing]

christcnection1:

It was my understanding that if a child or individual is baptized Catholic, they are always Catholic. If that’s the case, what is unique about Catholic baptisms that you always remain Catholic?
I ask this because if you’re baptized in another Christian tradition, in normal circumstances, your baptism is valid in the Catholic faith. (…we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins…) Therefore, isn’t baptism, baptism? If baptism is baptism producing the same results (the washing aways of all sin), why aren’t non-Catholics considered Catholic because of their valid baptism? If not, what is unique about Catholic baptisms that make an individual Catholic all their life, even if they fall away from the faith?

This is not an issue I’ve ever confronted before. Thanks!

I’ll start from one point of view, but hope others will elaborate and explain better, as there are many posters who are well qualified to do so. This is just a beginning.

The classical phrase is semel Catholicus, semper Catholicus, once Catholic, always Catholic.

Baptism clearly incorporates us into Christ but there are ecclesial dimensions as well. When somone is baptized, that person is also incorporated into the Church, “which subsists” in the Catholic Church. This is an intrinsic intention connected to Catholic baptism. Neither incorporation (into Christ and into the Church) can even be erased because the sacrament imposes a spiritual character, a change in being (a fancier term being “ontological” change). (It’s why even after laicization, a priest remains a priest, the “indelible mark” and what all.)

When anyone is baptized by another Church (the Orthodox) or another ecclesial community (Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. for example), that person is similarly understood to be enrolled or ascribed into that Church or ecclesial community. We understand that baptism thus has a permanent spiritual effect making a connection not only to Christ but also the Church.

Although someone can reject Christ or the Church by apostasy, schism or heresy, the spiritual mark remains.

Canon law reflects our theology about this as expressed most recently in Vatican II. I have cited four of the more relevant canons below if you wish to review and reflect on them. You should also find them referenced in the Catechism as well.

Canon 204: "§1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each one. §2. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

Canon 205:“Those baptized are fully in communion with the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.”

Canon 849: “Baptism, the gate to the sacraments, necessary for salvation in fact or at least in intention, by which men and women are freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated in the Church, is validly conferred only by washing with true water together with the required form of words.”

Canon 96: “By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.”

 

[SMHW]

I don’t pretend to be an expert on Canon law but in this case I think the second part of Canon 205, so thoughtfully provided by Deacon Lansing, ought to be especially considered as should the second part of Canon 96.

"Those baptized are fully in communion with the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance."

“By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.”

Christians baptized into other Churches or ecclessial communities would not be joined to the visible structure of the Catholic Church and they are not in cclesiastical communion.

That would limit both their rights and duties but not diminish the character of baptism itself.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

christcnection1:

It was my understanding that if a child or individual is baptized Catholic, they are always Catholic. If that’s the case, what is unique about Catholic baptisms that you always remain Catholic?

I ask this because if you’re baptized in another Christian tradition, in normal circumstances, your baptism is valid in the Catholic faith. (…we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins…) Therefore, isn’t baptism, baptism? If baptism is baptism producing the same results (the washing aways of all sin), why aren’t non-Catholics considered Catholic because of their valid baptism? If not, what is unique about Catholic baptisms that make an individual Catholic all their life, even if they fall away from the faith?

This is not an issue I’ve ever confronted before. Thanks!

Baptism makes you a Christian, not a Catholic. However it does make you a Member of the Mystical body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. However to say that someone IS Catholic would mean that they live out their Christianity in the Catholic way. Otherwise they are a Methodist-Christian or Baptist-Christian or Lutheran-Christian.

So no it is not correct to say that once Baptized Catholic you are always Catholic.

 

[cameron_lansing]

So no it is not correct to say that once Baptized Catholic you are always Catholic.

Brother Rich, while I appreciate this position from the point of view you express, it would be the consensus of the canon law community that Catholicity is not lost, and the position would fly in the face of a long tradition of thinking on the matter.

“. . . [T]he axiom, ‘Once a Catholic, always a Catholic,’ reflects the fidelity of God toward an individual — the offer of grace always remains for the individual to accept or reject. From a canonical perspective, the law seeks to preserve clarity in determining who is bound to ecclesiastical laws.” (Robert Kaslyn SJ, JCD, “The Christian Faithful (cc. 204-239)” in New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America. [New York, NY; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000]; p 250; canon 205.)

As James Provost JCD wrote in the 1985 CLSA Commentary on canon 205 (pp 128-129): “Ultimately, the bond with the Church is rooted in something that can never be lost — baptism. . . only the individual can withdraw from full communion. The Church does not expel persons from its midst. Essentially, the heretic, apostate, or schismatic withdraws from those bonds by a personal act. The Church recognizes this in declaring the bonds severed, but they are never totally cut.” He then asks, “Is its then possible for a Catholic to leave the Church? Traditionally, the answer has been no. Baptism irrevocably bonds a person into Christ and the Church, even if that bonding lacks the inner personal commitment of the baptized individual. The radical, constitutional change has been made and is irreversible.”

The legal or juridic effect of Catholic baptism is to make one a member of the Catholic Church and not just a Christian. In this way it is different than the baptism of other Churches or ecclesial communities. In addition to the canons mentioned, the general introduction on the Rite of Christian Initiation (n. 4) notes that “baptism is the sacrament by which its recipients are incorporated into the Church.” By this is to be understood Catholic Church. When the Church administers the sacrament, the intention is not just to incorporate someone into the mystical body of Christ but into the Church as a juridically structured society.

When someone defects from the Catholic Church by a formal act, canon law, at least, continues to bind them to the duties and obligations of being a Catholic but makes three exemptions in the application of marriage law (cc. 1086, §1; 1117; 1124). Otherwise, they remain bound as before (canon 11). From this I draw the conclusion that the legislator does not envision the loss of Catholicity but only the possible impairment of full communion.

In this sense, even those who are impaired communion because they have broken one of the bonds of full communion with the Catholic Church on this earth in canon 205 (“Those baptized are fully in communion with the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.”)

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

cameron_lansing:

Brother Rich, while I appreciate this position from the point of view you express, it would be the consensus of the canon law community that Catholicity is not lost, and the position would fly in the face of a long tradition of thinking on the matter.

“. . . [T]he axiom, ‘Once a Catholic, always a Catholic,’ reflects the fidelity of God toward an individual — the offer of grace always remains for the individual to accept or reject. From a canonical perspective, the law seeks to preserve clarity in determining who is bound to ecclesiastical laws.” (Robert Kaslyn SJ, JCD, “The Christian Faithful (cc. 204-239)” in New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America. [New York, NY; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000]; p 250; canon 205.)

As James Provost JCD wrote in the 1985 CLSA Commentary on canon 205 (pp 128-129): “Ultimately, the bond with the Church is rooted in something that can never be lost — baptism. . . only the individual can withdraw from full communion. The Church does not expel persons from its midst. Essentially, the heretic, apostate, or schismatic withdraws from those bonds by a personal act. The Church recognizes this in declaring the bonds severed, but they are never totally cut.” He then asks, “Is its then possible for a Catholic to leave the Church? Traditionally, the answer has been no. Baptism irrevocably bonds a person into Christ and the Church, even if that bonding lacks the inner personal commitment of the baptized individual. The radical, constitutional change has been made and is irreversible.”

The legal or juridic effect of Catholic baptism is to make one a member of the Catholic Church and not just a Christian. In this way it is different than the baptism of other Churches or ecclesial communities. In addition to the canons mentioned, the general introduction on the Rite of Christian Initiation (n. 4) notes that “baptism is the sacrament by which its recipients are incorporated into the Church.” By this is to be understood Catholic Church. When the Church administers the sacrament, the intention is not just to incorporate someone into the mystical body of Christ but into the Church as a juridically structured society.

When someone defects from the Catholic Church by a formal act, canon law, at least, continues to bind them to the duties and obligations of being a Catholic but makes three exemptions in the application of marriage law (cc. 1086, §1; 1117; 1124). Otherwise, they remain bound as before (canon 11). From this I draw the conclusion that the legislator does not envision the loss of Catholicity but only the possible impairment of full communion.

In this sense, even those who are impaired communion because they have broken one of the bonds of full communion with the Catholic Church on this earth in canon 205 (“Those baptized are fully in communion with the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.”)

As it was on the other thread of this same topic. It is the choice of words and exactly what we mean by them. For me it is a matter of external vs internal Catholic and the degree to which one wishes to be Catholic. Why did they not call it the Rite of Catholic Initiation? Was a question discussed in a study course. I get my view that in Baptism one becomes Christian vs one becomes Catholic from this study course on the RCIA several years back.

 

[mosher]

Reading along I think that a necessary distinction is being missed. While what has been said is true - that being baptized incorporates or grafts one on to the body of Christ there is a subtile transition that happens if one is not baptized in the Catholic Church. If one is baptized in another de juri Church or ecclesial communion or protestant denomination (with a valid baptism) then at the moment of baptism that person can be properly said to be Catholic in a real sense. However, an immediate transition happens and bonds of unity are broken. As we cited in canon 205 there is the necessary function of the profession of faith. As a Church or other ecclesial commnity of some sort does not necessarily hold to the same profession as a Catholic does then that bond of unity is broken. Further the integrity of doctrine would then next be broken etc. So, in essence (from a theological and no canonical sense) any person validly baptized is Catholic at least for a split second and then unity is broken by the profession and doctrinal acceptance.

Also, a point that was not made is that while it is true that one cannot be unbaptized per the ontological effect of the indellable mark made by baptism it is also true that one can make a formal renunciation of their faith and thus cease to share in any bond of unity save for that ontic difference. This, in fact, is the most grave form of apostacy. While this cannot reverse the effects of baptism it has the affect of disposing the person so strongly against the faith and against their baptisimal call that it serves as a barriar between the soul and the nature of the grace imparted through baptism.

 

[tjmiller]

Christ personally and directly instituted the Seven Sacraments and entrusted them to the Apostolic Authority of the Catholic Church (which He also personally and directly established). Therefore, inasmuch as every valid Sacrament is as it were the “property” of this One True Church, and inasmuch as the Apostolic Authority of said Church has full jurisdiction over all validly baptized Christians (Catholic or not), then:
**All validly baptized Christians “belong to” the Catholic Church ** - whether or not they acknowledge the fact…

 

[Sean_O_L]

Mosher wrote:

If one is baptized in another de juri Church or ecclesial communion or protestant denomination (with a valid baptism) then at the moment of baptism that person can be properly said to be Catholic in a real sense. However, an immediate transition happens and bonds of unity are broken.

Many thanks to Deacon John!

I maintain that, in the cases of “Infant Baptism” - where the infant is validly Baptized in the non-Catholic church - the infant IS a Catholic from that instant - UNTIL he/she starts to practice (as a matter of consciousness and will) the services and faith of the non-Catholic church. It is from that point that he/she might be properly be known as, for example, an Anglican Christian or a Methodist Christian.

Furthermore, during the period from the instant of being Baptized until the point of “departure” into the non-Catholic church, that infant is in full-communion with the Catholic Church.

Am I wrong, Deacon John?

 

[cameron_lansing]

Br. Rich SFO:

As it was on the other thread of this same topic. It is the choice of words and exactly what we mean by them. For me it is a matter of external vs internal Catholic and the degree to which one wishes to be Catholic.

I considered this question freshly since an earlier thread on this topic escaped my memory — though perhaps other posters on this current thread were also unaware of it. Now the comment above reminds me and clarifies the earlier post on this thread.

Clearly, I believe there are doctrinal, philosophical, ecclesiological as well as legal reasons to prefer the external viewpoint held by the majority of canonists and authors as better answering the question, “If that’s the case, what is unique about Catholic baptisms that you always remain Catholic?” Br. Rich approaches the question from the internal condition of the person (or subjective reality), and if I read him correctly, would not attribute any uniqueness to Catholic baptism which results in one remaining Catholic despite defections of various kinds.
Br. Rich SFO:

Why did they not call it the Rite of Catholic Initiation? Was a question discussed in a study course. I get my view that in Baptism one becomes Christian vs one becomes Catholic from this study course on the RCIA several years back.

The reference to the title from the study course is a case of argument from minor to major, one favored in rabbinic exegesis, and a legitimate question for reflection. Here is mine.

1. There titling of a liturgical text bears little weight in the face of other doctrinal-canonical cumulative evidence that Catholic baptism confers incorporation into the Catholic Church as well as into Christ. That is the major point which needs to be faced and could not be avoided even if ascribing to the internal or subjectivist view of the question. One would have to not simply ignore the “external” Catholic position but to show that doctrine, law, and canonical opinion are wrong in placing it forth, or that they do not place it forth. Then the field would stand cleared so that the argument from title would prevail. Lumen gentium n. 8 and Dominus Iesus (as I will note in a subsequent post about Sean’s question) manifest in my mind that the Church intends to intitiate people into “a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.” It does not intend intiation into a generalized Christian Church consisting of itself and“Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.” It intends ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.
2. We must consider context and typical usage. The term “Christian faithful” permeates Book II of the code, for example, but this is clearly understood to mean Catholic according to context. Throughout many Church documents, it is clear that the term “Church” customarily means “Catholic Church,” and it doesn’t need to be expressly said everytime. It is only clarified by way of exception when it is to be taken in another sense. And, of course, there is the Ordo baptismi parvulorum (baptism of infants) which mentions neither Catholic or Christian in its title. While sacraments can be administered to non Catholics (baptism and marriage, the sacraments in canon 843 (by way of exception)

 

[cameron_lansing]

Sean O L:

I maintain …Am I wrong, Deacon John?

Sean, like Mosher and TJMiller, you have brought an interesting dish to the table of discussion. I’d have to think about each of them a lot more.

Perhaps the basis of canon 205 which is found in Vatican II’s Lumen gentium (n 8) is again profitable.

What happens at non Catholic baptism might be pulled out of that: “This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.” Dominus Iesus (nn 16-17) comments on that thusly: “With the expression ‘subsistit in’, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.”

In light of this, I did conclude that the Catholic Church does not consider itself as a subset of Christianity. Consequently, a Catholic baptism could only result with one being baptized into the single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church.

A careful parsing of the language above will be needed to extract conclusions about non Catholic baptism.

Br. Rich too adds a dimension in an earlier post by asserting “Baptism makes you a Christian, not a Catholic. However it does make you a Member of the Mystical body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church.” I have to admit I’m unclear on what this distinction means (how baptism will not make one Catholic but will make one a member of the Mystical Body which is the Catholic Church), but it recalls the notion of the Mystical Body.

LG (8) continues, “But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.”

If therefore one becomes a member of the Mystical body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church as placed by Br. Rich, one also enters into the total complex reality which includes it as structured society (read legal structure and the canons as above). Would that be the intention of the non Catholic Church or ecclesial community? If so, what impact, if any, would that have on the effects of baptism?

 

[Sean_O_L]

Deanon John

Many thanks for these insights.

I consider the baptism matter in the light of the additional matters.

1. The Mystical Body of Christ includes the Members of the Church on Earth, the Suffering souls in Purgatory and the Saints in Heaven.
2. Whoever IS in Heaven (and Purgatory) IS a Member of the Mystical Body of Christ AND IS a Catholic. There are NO ecclesial divisions in Heaven.
3. Whoever IS a resident of Heaven (or Purgatory) IS there through
   a) the merits of Our Lord, Jesus Christ;
   b) the Mercy of God;
   c) being “Inside” the Catholic Church;

• whether he be a Baptized “card-carrying” Catholic, a “1 minute to mid-night” Catholic, a non-Catholic, a pagan, etc.
  d) there is no-one there through being “outside” the Church, a non-Catholic, or a pagan.

So, I am looking at that from both a “birth to death” spectrum.

 

[mosher]

Well, in death there is a simplicity of reality that is explained by a complexity of terminology. In death one is either a member of the Church and among the blessed or is not a member of the church and is among the damned - with respect to the difference between the Church Triumphant and Church Suffering. This is regardless of any nuance of means of salvation or the lack of salvation.

However, on earth the situation is much more murky. I will dig up my copy of Mystici Corporis momentarily but I think in the intrim it may be worth the effort to read the documentation concerning the negative response to the acceptance of the LDS baptism. Perhaps some clues of clarification may be found in that work. I would find and link to it if I had more time. However, I must be going and will try to add more later to the discussion.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Mosher wrote:

In death one is either a member of the Church and among the blessed or is not a member of the church and is among the damned

Either/OR? Isn’t there a third possibility - Limbo?

Note: I stated “Whoever IS in Heaven (and Purgatory) IS a Member of the Mystical Body of Christ AND IS a Catholic.”

However,"Whoever is NOT in Heaven (or Purgatory) IS either in Hell or the state commonly known as Limbo.

Just where that state (Limbo) is is undefined.

• with respect to the difference between the Church Triumphant and Church Suffering.

Huh?
“In death one is either a member of the Church and among the blessed or is not a member of the church and is among the damned - with respect to the difference between the Church Triumphant and Church Suffering.”

This does not compute - please explain?

And what does LDS baptism have to do with “whoever is in Heaven”? LDS baptism is not recognized by the Church as valid Baptism - do you reckon, therefore, that LDS individuals cannot attain Salvation?

 

[mosher]

Sean O L:

Either/OR? Isn’t there a third possibility - Limbo?

Note: I stated “Whoever IS in Heaven (and Purgatory) IS a Member of the Mystical Body of Christ AND IS a Catholic.”

However,"Whoever is NOT in Heaven (or Purgatory) IS either in Hell or the state commonly known as Limbo.

Just where that state (Limbo) is is undefined.

Limbo is hell but void of the punnishment of torment or poena sensus but it is still poena damni which is seperation from the Beatific Vision.
Sean O L:

This does not compute - please explain?

I am simply noting that if a person is in heaven (or on their way to heaven via purgatory) they are members of the Mystical Body but if one is in hell they they are not.
Sean O L:

And what does LDS baptism have to do with “whoever is in Heaven”? LDS baptism is not recognized by the Church as valid Baptism - do you reckon, therefore, that LDS individuals cannot attain Salvation?

I think the reasoning for not recognizing LDS Baptism could add to the conversation

 

[mosher]

cameron_lansing:

If therefore one becomes a member of the Mystical body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church as placed by Br. Rich, one also enters into the total complex reality which includes it as structured society (read legal structure and the canons as above). Would that be the intention of the non Catholic Church or ecclesial community? If so, what impact, if any, would that have on the effects of baptism?

This is a great article that speaks to this question. It is related to the Mormon issue that I mentioned earlier. The author does a great job of seperating what issues of error are acceptable and what errors are not acceptable.

ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

 

[Mayo-man]

Very interesting thread and right on target for my question. The point is EXACTLY what is so special about “Catholic Baptism”?
Your thread instructs pretty clearly that any so baptised are also bound in a special way to the Catholic Church [and no other] irreversably.

It is amazing to me that I am 60 years in the pews and only now the more troubling aspects of this teaching interupts my enjoyment of all things Catholic. Of course, I have mistakenly thought I was raising Catholic children,

Sorry, I’m not so scholarly as to add much insight on topic, just a troubled father of baptised Catholic children who have “defected” by Lutheran marriage from their Catholic heritage [which I can testify, without fear of contradicton, was the full expression of Catholic life…committed Catholic parents, all sacraments, weekly mass, years of massive involvement in parish life and exclusively “catholic educations” at a very dear price for four children [two now Catholic, two Lutheran]. Obviously, it did not work for at least two of these “defectors”. To late have I head the words “home school”. And now…

“Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” provides a whole new dimension to “sins of the father” in choosing infant baptism in the Catholic Church, since that Church now retains my Lutheran children [against their will] as “Catholic” with all the obligations of Canon Law and the Catechism.

Considerable violence is done here to the “free will” of the infant who may or may not accept the Catholic Church upon majority [as I believe is their right]. Sill, bound is bound [for sure, in the eyes of the Church]. And so, I ask: By what right does the Catholic Church retain them and bind them so? If this is part of the “deposit of faith” then I, and not my children, have the more serious problem for it was my choice, not theirs . Nor do I consider it my right to have so bound them.

I have no intention of high-jacking the thread and apologize if this is wrongly added here. It’s just a view from the pews. Some insight would be appreciated since this is not like baseball where a 50% average is considered excellent.

Jim B

 

[Sean_O_L]

Mosher wrote:

Limbo is hell but void of the punnishment of torment or poena sensus but it is still poena damni which is seperation from the Beatific Vision.

That sounds pretty dogmatic these days - and HAS been a theological opinion for yonks: but, Mosher, if it IS NOT Dogma.

On the other hand - another name for Limbo has been Paradise. This was the place or state to which Jesus went (“when he descended into Hell”) and where He promised the Good Thief would be “this day.”

Other theologians called this place the Limbus Partrum.

This state or place appears to have been and may presently and futurely be somewhat “detached” from the Hell of the Damned; I describe it as “a state or place this side of Hell.” It appears to me to have been somewhat less than "hell but void of the punnishment of torment or poena sensus but it is still poena damni " - but certainly IS a place or state which is void of the Beatific Vision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean O L
This does not compute - please explain?

I am simply noting that if a person is in heaven (or on their way to heaven via purgatory) they are members of the Mystical Body but if one is in hell they they are not.

I agree (and I have said so previously!) and add - that neither would be the souls in Limbo be Members of the Mystical Body.

 

[gelsbern]

Br. Rich SFO:

Baptism makes you a Christian, not a Catholic. However it does make you a Member of the Mystical body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. However to say that someone IS Catholic would mean that they live out their Christianity in the Catholic way. Otherwise they are a Methodist-Christian or Baptist-Christian or Lutheran-Christian.

So no it is not correct to say that once Baptized Catholic you are always Catholic.

I would disagree with the first line. Baptism makes you catholic AND christian. However you lose communion with the catholic church if you continue in whatever denomination you are in. (Lutheran/Methodist etc…).

Near as I can tell, from looking through all the RCIA materials, if a person was baptised using the trinitarian formula, and they convert to catholicism, they are not re-baptised. They do however go through the other sacraments that brings them into communion with the church.

Even the creed says “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins…”

 

[mosher]

Sean O L:

Mosher wrote:

That sounds pretty dogmatic these days - and HAS been a theological opinion for yonks: but, Mosher, if it IS NOT Dogma.

On the other hand - another name for Limbo has been Paradise. This was the place or state to which Jesus went (“when he descended into Hell”) and where He promised the Good Thief would be “this day.”

Other theologians called this place the Limbus Partrum.

This state or place appears to have been and may presently and futurely be somewhat “detached” from the Hell of the Damned; I describe it as “a state or place this side of Hell.” It appears to me to have been somewhat less than "hell but void of the punnishment of torment or poena sensus but it is still poena damni " - but certainly IS a place or state which is void of the Beatific Vision.

Correct, the dogma that the concept of Limo is gleaned from is the Dogma that states “Those who die without baptism are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.” I don’t think that the side step that is made in the current Catechism or the discussion by current theologians answer this question with any level of clarity.