Definition of a Catholic

[untruestory]

When is it accurate to say a person is Catholic? Is there something in the Catechism that addresses identity as a Catholic?

I found a great talk by Peter Kreeft where he discusses if a person can be both liberal and Catholic. (great talk imo) He says that it isn’t in how much we DO but in what we accept and believe and that to be truly Catholic we accept it all. However many people disagree with that definition. Recently saw a great clip of Penn telling Piers Morgan he’s not Catholic for the same reasons and it makes sense.

My friend calls himself a Catholic but hasn’t been to mass in years and says he’s not sure if Jesus even existed. Is he Catholic? My aunt and uncle say their Catholic and they attend mass every Sunday but they don’t believe in the authority of either the Church or the Bible and my aunt has even assisted in abortions at Planned Parenthood. Are they Catholic? What about these “rouge clergy” you hear about?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

CCC 2089 . . . "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

11 CIC, can. 751: emphasis added.

 

[latingirl]

“Catholic in name only” -it’s a disease that has been plaguing our Church for who knows how long.

 

[Corki]

Any person who has either been baptized as a Catholic or baptized in a non-Catholic Christian denomination and later received into full communion with the Catholic Church is a Catholic.

Some Catholics are not faithful either in action or beliefs but they are still Catholic.

 

[MaryT777]

Any person who has either been baptized as a Catholic or baptized in a non-Catholic Christian denomination and later received into full communion with the Catholic Church is a Catholic.

Some Catholics are not faithful either in action or beliefs but they are still Catholic.

My mother who never attends Mass always says
"Once a Catholic always a Catholic " .

 

[owensjo]

Any person who has either been baptized as a Catholic or baptized in a non-Catholic Christian denomination and later received into full communion with the Catholic Church is a Catholic.

Some Catholics are not faithful either in action or beliefs but they are still Catholic.

I’m not sure I agree with that last sentence. It’s my understanding that Catholicism is an all or nothing proposition. You must believe everything the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals, otherwise you have lost your Catholicity.

 

[St_Francis]

Baptized Catholic or received… still Catholic unless one formally renounces the Faith.

But there are lapsed Catholics, dissenting Catholics, Catholics in Name Only (CINOs), Christmas/Easter Catholics, cafeteria Catholics…

This is what adjectives are for

 

[Corki]

Baptized Catholic or received… still Catholic unless one formally renounces the Faith.

But there are lapsed Catholics, dissenting Catholics, Catholics in Name Only (CINOs), Christmas/Easter Catholics, cafeteria Catholics…

This is what adjectives are for

Even if a Catholic “formally” renounces the faith, he/she is still Catholic. That would be an apostate Catholic.

 

[St_Francis]

Even if a Catholic “formally” renounces the faith, he/she is still Catholic. That would be an apostate Catholic.

Oh, you are correct. I have been in too many threads where people complained about being called not Catholic… and these are the folks who *don’t mind *being called not Catholic!

 

[JamesCaruso]

I’m not sure I agree with that last sentence. It’s my understanding that Catholicism is an all or nothing proposition. You must believe everything the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals, otherwise you have lost your Catholicity.

The difference between a Catholic in good standing and a nominal Catholic is like night and day, yet both are Catholics. I guess you might call the one, the faithful, or the Catholic faithful, and the other, nominal Catholics, or Catholics in name only. But there is a lot of territory in between, Hence, we have descriptive phrases like “cafeteria” Catholics, that is, Catholics who pick and choose what they will believe and/or practice, and “liberal” Catholics, that is, Catholics who take contrary positions to Church teaching in particular areas. But we have to be careful with labels because I am sure there are Catholics who consider themselves liberal, yet who believe all the doctrines and dogmas of the Church and obey all its rules. The word liberal is a poor choice, in my opinion, but I use it here because it is a widely used word in its most negative sense, which is probably unfair to many good liberals. IMO, St; Francis was a radical, a liberal in some sense of the word, but he was as orthodox as the Pope in matters of the faith and morals. Although that last statement may be weakened a bit considering we now have a Pope named Francis.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Even if a Catholic “formally” renounces the faith, he/she is still Catholic. That would be an apostate Catholic.

Right. That is why once you are Catholic, you can never become a non-Catholic. Once Catholic, always Catholic.

 

[St_Francis]

Looking here, I learned what the difference is (and borrowed a bit for my sig line): St Thomas Aquinas teaches that a person who disbelieves in one article of the Faith has lost his faith–he does not believe those things which he continues to believe out of faith but out of opinion. Thus, the person remains a Catholic in the same sense that a Catholic guilty of mortal sin remains a Catholic–he may be Catholic but he is a Catholic who is lacking something whihc he ought to have as a Catholic.

This is an important point. A person either is or is not “offically” or objectively or visibly a Catholic by certain external standards, and thos estandards are either baptism into or reception into the Catholic Church. The mark remains on their soul for all eternity.

Bit the fact that they are Catholic does not mean they are *good *Catholics. One can be a bad Catholic.

Maybe this comes about because of the Once Saved Always Saved thing. When one of those people does something very against those people’s ideas, they say the person was never *really *saved…

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not sure I agree with that last sentence. It’s my understanding that Catholicism is an all or nothing proposition. You must believe everything the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals, otherwise you have lost your Catholicity.

Your Catholic identity is imprinted upon you for all of eternity. Once you have entered the Church, your choices are either to be a good Catholic or a bad Catholic.

There are a great many bad Catholics in the world.

 

[fred_conty]

Once catholic always catholic, but that dosen’t mean any guarantee comes with being called a catholic but only being and living as an authentic catholic should.

Just a thought.

 

[JamesCaruso]

When you ask for a definition of a Catholic, doesn’t it depend on who you are and what your purpose is? So far, we have only touched on the Church’s definition. I would say in God’s eyes, the Church’s definition is the correct one.

But others may have different definitions. For example, a fallen away Catholic might define himself as a Pentecostal or an atheist. It would not matter to him that the Church still considers him Catholic. I hear people say, I was born a Catholic, but I no longer am. They may be wrong, but that’s their definition. A survey of Catholics may define Catholic as those who call themselves Catholic, or those who attend a Catholic Church at least once a year.

You get this same confusion in Judaism. Being a Jew, other than by conversion, depends on whether your mother was a Jew. If the father is a Jew, it doesn’t matter.

I don’t know about the Protestant denominations. I wonder in a person baptized into the Methodist church is considered a Methodist by the Methodist church even if he later disavows that church?

 

[DavidFilmer]

don’t know about the Protestant denominations. I wonder in a person baptized into the Methodist church is considered a Methodist by the Methodist church even if he later disavows that church?

Protestant denominations typically consider you a member of the denomination (ie, a Methodist) if you are a member of one of that denomination’s churches (ie, St. Luke Methodist Church). If you leave that church for one of a different denomination, you are no longer considered a Methodist.

Anybody can join a Catholic parish, but that does not make them a Catholic. Like the Jews, Catholics see a distinction between being a Catholic and being a member of a Catholic parish.

In most protestant denominations there is not a formal process to become a member. You just say you want to join, and probably fill out a membership form, and that’s it (Baptism is typically required for the unbaptized.)

Anybody can “join” a Catholic parish in a similar manner. But to *become *Catholic (as an adult), you go through a formation process (typically RCIA). If you leave the Church, and even if you renounce your Faith, you can be received back into good standing with nothing more than Confession. Nobody has to go through RCIA twice.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Protestant denominations typically consider you a member of the denomination (ie, a Methodist) if you are a member of one of that denomination’s churches (ie, St. Luke Methodist Church). If you leave that church for one of a different denomination, you are no longer considered a Methodist.

Anybody can join a Catholic parish, but that does not make them a Catholic. Like the Jews, Catholics see a distinction between being a Catholic and being a member of a Catholic parish.

In most protestant denominations there is not a formal process to become a member. You just say you want to join, and probably fill out a membership form, and that’s it (Baptism is typically required for the unbaptized.)

Anybody can “join” a Catholic parish in a similar manner. But to *become *Catholic (as an adult), you go through a formation process (typically RCIA). If you leave the Church, and even if you renounce your Faith, you can be received back into good standing with nothing more than Confession. Nobody has to go through RCIA twice.

RCIA is the current condition. It was not always so. And if I receive baptism into the Catholic Church without RCIA, say, when gravely ill, I become a full fledged member of the Catholic Church.

 

[EricFilmer]

RCIA is the current condition. It was not always so. And if I receive baptism into the Catholic Church without RCIA, say, when gravely ill, I become a full fledged member of the Catholic Church.

Perhaps this aspect of the discussion could use a little more clarification. It would be more correct to say that RCIA was “predominantly not so” rather than “always not so” (at least when one considers the fundamental aspects of RCIA). Although R.C.I.A. was instituted after Vatican II, it is modeled after the ancient rites by which people (who have already achieved the age of consent) were initiated into the Catholic Faith. This kind of process is historically considered the “ordinary means” by which this occurs. As you noted, there are exceptions, such as initiating someone who is in danger of death, but these are known as “extraordinary means” (i.e., in the literal sense of the term, meaning “outside the norm”). Nevertheless, as you correctly pointed out, regardless of the means (ordinary or extraordinary) the result is the same: a person becomes a full fledged member of the Catholic Church and will always be considered Catholic.

For various reasons, beginning in the 4th Century the ancient Church’s version of R.C.I.A. gradually became briefer and less public. Eventually the conversion process usually involved simply meeting with a priest for private instructions. Vatican II restored the basic aspects of the ancient Church’s procedure.

For a more detailed overview of all this, please see this article by Fr. William Saunders: Rite of Election: RCIA.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Perhaps this aspect of the discussion could use a little more clarification. It would be more correct to say that RCIA was “predominantly not so” rather than “always not so” (at least when one considers the fundamental aspects of RCIA). Although R.C.I.A. was instituted after Vatican II, it is modeled after the ancient rites by which people (who have already achieved the age of consent) were initiated into the Catholic Faith. This kind of process is historically considered the “ordinary means” by which this occurs. As you noted, there are exceptions, such as initiating someone who is in danger of death, but these are known as “extraordinary means” (i.e., in the literal sense of the term, meaning “outside the norm”). Nevertheless, as you correctly pointed out, regardless of the means (ordinary or extraordinary) the result is the same: a person becomes a full fledged member of the Catholic Church and will always be considered Catholic.

For various reasons, beginning in the 4th Century the ancient Church’s version of R.C.I.A. gradually became briefer and less public. Eventually the conversion process usually involved simply meeting with a priest for private instructions. Vatican II restored the basic aspects of the ancient Church’s procedure.

For a more detailed overview of all this, please see this article by Fr. William Saunders: Rite of Election: RCIA.

Of course, the fundamental aspects of RCIA were there: someone had to instruct new converts in the faith.

But even during my short lifespan, there was scant evidence for the average Catholic as to how new converts were “indoctrinated” into the Church. I assume it was through meetings with the priest, alone or in small groups. I don’t recall any lay involvement in my earlier pre-Vatican II days. And as for the visibility of candidates for Baptism and Confirmation, I don’t remember a single instance of celebrating new converts publicly, only cradle Catholics receiving the sacraments. Of course, no doubt doing so publicly is a resumption of what once surely must have been, and it is a good thing. The entire program is a good thing. Gone are the days when the priest was personally attentive to every need in the parish. That is not beyond possibility of returning, but it will take a veritable tsunami of new priests for that to happen. But wouldn’t it be great! Not that lay involvement is not great as well; if it weren’t for the scarcity of priests, we might not have seen the resurgence of lay ministry in the Church. Every cloud has a silver lining? Whatever-- God has a way of drawing good results from bad circumstances.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know about the Protestant denominations. I wonder in a person baptized into the Methodist church is considered a Methodist by the Methodist church even if he later disavows that church?

My personal experience of Protestantism is that you “practice (whatever)ism” but you are a “member” of a local congregation of (whatever)ists. Going to Sunday services at a different congregation of the same denomination would be considered almost exactly the same as attending Sunday services at a different denomination - it would not be considered “your” church.

If you stop giving money and stop volunteering, the office staff assume you are no longer interested in belonging to that congregation, and they take you off the membership list. The particular congregation I belonged to had a two-year time limit - if nobody in the office heard from you in two years, you were removed from the membership list.

You would be free to continue to call yourself a “(whatever)ist” but you would be considered non-practicing, and when you stop calling yourself that, then you would be considered to be not of that religion any more.