Definition of a "Catholic"

  • Thread starter Thread starter KevinK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rcwitness said:
On the other hand, no one can be Baptized again. It’s a permanent mark on their soul. So I do understand that they were always welcomed into the Church. But by way of Reconciliation.
Click to expand...
So, right. Once somone is baptized they are Catholic. I am a good example of this. I was baptized Catholic. Raised Catholic and then fell away from the Church for years, mostly because of the poor catechesis of the 1970’s. I called myself an ex-Catholic but that was not a truth. I was still Catholic and to return to the Church was just like the prodigal son returning home. I went to the Sacrament of Penance, confessed and was welcomed home into the Church. I did not have to get re-baptized or re-confirmed or rejoin the Church because all the time I was away I was still Catholic. I was just a fallen away Catholic and needed to get my soul back into a state of grace.
 
Last edited:
That, I can both understand and appreciate.

And I understand it’s not Jesus or the Church who cast you out, but you neglected.

But you were Confirmed and received Communion, right? And then fell away…

So the more difficult situation, is someone who never received the other Sacraments. If they were only Baptized as an infant (which I believe is efficacious on God’s part) but never actually believe and willfully participate.

They may be accepted by the Church, but they themselves are only Catholic outwardly and not in heart. So it’s silly to call them Catholic.

Baptized yes! No need to repeat that.
 
Anyway… it’s ok.

I’m not going to keep debating. I can respect Baptism offers permanence! Amen
 
rcwitness said:
They may be accepted by the Church, but they themselves are only Catholic outwardly and not in heart. So it’s silly to call them Catholic.
Click to expand...
I know it may sound silly but that’s the truth that it is. They are Catholic. They are baptized. They are cleansed from original sin and become part of the Church. If later as adults they choose to return to the Church, they would do as I did, confess, and then be eligible to receive the remaining sacraments. They would not get baptized again and if they started attending Mass before completing the remaining sacraments they would be a Catholic in the pew.
 
Last edited:
Who said anything about a heart? The Op was about what makes someone a Catholic. I pointed out that baptism initiates a child into the Catholic Church much the same way circumcision initiates a male Jewish child into their faith. Both are permanent and can’t be taken away.
 
Right. So being Catholic doesnt necessarily mean someone is or has ever followed Jesus. It means they were accepted into the Church and God forgave original sin.

It may have absolutely nothing to do with that person’s heart.

I understand this.
 
Last edited:
Romans 2

For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.

Just replace Jew with Catholic, and circumcision with Baptism.
 
Last edited:
So are you saying someone who is baptized Catholic is not a real Catholic?
 
that verse isn’t what we’re talking about and you’re taking the verse out of context. the prodigal son is a better example of what others are trying to convince you. the prodigal son’s sonship remained the same even though he wasn’t reconciled. when he did decide to be penitent and come back, he didn’t “regain” his sonship. He repaired a broken relationship. You cannot lose your catholicity. You can come back to the faith but you cannot lose your status as a catholic just as the prodigal son did not lose his sonship or his place in the family. It’s impossible to cease to be a son of someone, even though one may try to kill that relationship as much as they can.

bokbok
 
Last edited:
Again, that’s not what we’re talking about. You’re somehow convinced that catholics who don’t practice aren’t catholic. They are catholic–that’s why it’s sad that they don’t practice their faith. If they can lose their catholicity, it wouldn’t be anything to mourn.

bokbok
 
They are catholic outwardly only if they are not Catholic in heart.
 
Last edited:
No, they’re not. It’s not analogous at all. They’re not catholic outwardly. That verse is exaggerating to make a point about hypocrisy. What we’re talking about is losing the status of being a catholic. They can’t lose that status.

bokbok
 
The point I’m making is that a person is catholic once they’ve been accepted into the body of Christ. When a person falls away, it’s not like they can suddenly be outside the body of Christ. When we’re talking about the definition of something, these things matter. You going off topic is just hurting the discussion and confusing many.

bokbok
 
you’re setting the bar too high for whether or not a person is a catholic or not and you’re missing the point entirely. if a person is validly baptized and for whatever reason they don’t practice the faith anymore, they don’t lose their catholicity. you may call them an antichrist or a heretic or whatever but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re catholic. frankly I don’t see why you keep responding if you’re saying little of value to the discussion at hand. I’ve repeated myself over and over again. I think you thrive on arguing with strangers on this forum for every topic you’re on you repeat the same pattern of behavior.

bokbok
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top