Ex-Catholics being counted as Catholics

[Thorolfr]

In the Western world there is a general drop in practicing religion except for a rise in Islamism due to immigration and higher birth rate.

Catholic numbers are protected in some ways because of the grace of Baptism. While Protestants and atheists dismiss it as purely cultural or some ritual to maintain the numbers, Catholics believe in the supernatural grace of God being poured out in Baptism. We cannot say for sure how it works exactly but the promise of God on the continuity of His Church is plenty. In a practical way, Baptism also affects the mind of Catholics profoundly, for good or bad.

Yes, it is interesting what will happen in the next half century to Catholic population. Right now we can only speculate. There is big rise in Catholicism in Asia and Africa. Seems the wind of the Holy Spirit is blowing to that part of the world. If Europe had brought Christianity to them in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, perhaps in the future, the reverse may happen. God works in mysterious way.

Saying that Catholic numbers are protected because of the grace of Baptism makes no sense. Even according to the Catholic Church, all Trinitarian baptisms are recognized as valid. That’s why when someone converts to Catholicism but was baptized in a Lutheran church or an Anglican church or a Baptist church, etc., they do not need to be re-baptized. So all Trinitarian baptisms, including those in Protestant or other non-Catholic churches are equally valid. But those baptisms in non-Catholic churches do not make someone Catholic, so I don’t understand how a Catholic baptism by itself makes someone Catholic.

 

[Reuben_J]

Saying that Catholic numbers are protected because of the grace of Baptism makes no sense. Even according to the Catholic Church, all Trinitarian baptisms are recognized as valid. That’s why when someone converts to Catholicism but was baptized in a Lutheran church or an Anglican church or a Baptist church, etc., they do not need to be re-baptized. So all Trinitarian baptisms, including those in Protestant or other non-Catholic churches are equally valid. But those baptisms in non-Catholic churches do not make someone Catholic, so I don’t understand how a Catholic baptism by itself makes someone Catholic.

Hi Mr. Thorolfr. I said in some ways. So it is not altogether useless or do not make sense. It applies to Protestants who are baptized too; the only slight difference is perhaps in how Protestants consider Baptism to be. I did not mention Lutherans, who are perhaps closest to Catholics in their belief of the Sacraments. But you have to admit that there are Christians who do not believe in Sacraments at all. Read my post again. It did not make definite statement as to its complete certainty, but thanks anyway for taking notice.

I said, “We cannot say for sure how it works exactly … “I was replying to a post musing on what happen in the next 30-50 years. Who can tell? I answered more on faith and on God’s word. Lots of things can happen in 50 years. I think the present decline in religious practice could be a phase in time and I think Catholicism would withstand this phenomenon and reverse the trend. It is a personal take actually and it does not have to make sense. So I ended in that post, … God works in a mysterious way.

… so I don’t understand how a Catholic baptism by itself makes someone Catholic.

Huh? ???

 

[Peter_J]

That’s why when someone converts to Catholicism but was baptized in a Lutheran church or an Anglican church or a Baptist church, etc., they do not need to be re-baptized. So all Trinitarian baptisms, including those in Protestant or other non-Catholic churches are equally valid.

See my earlier comment: someone who converts to Catholicisn is not somehow less Catholic than someone who is cradle Catholic. (I was responding to a number of different posts – there’s seems to be widespread confusion on that point.)

 

[Nixbits]

Peter J:

Don’t believe things just because they are posted on catholic.com. There are atheist ex-Catholics and there are Catholic ex-atheists.

I don’t believe this based solely on what others have said on this forum, but also from my interpretation of current Canon Law. My point was that there are people who self-identify as atheist (in that they do not have a belief in the existence of a God) but, according to the Catholic Church’s own teaching, these people are still Catholics because they were baptised. Hence, by the Church’s own reasoning, there are atheist Catholics. This seems to me to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t believe this based solely on what others have said on this forum, but also from my interpretation of current Canon Law. My point was that there are people who self-identify as atheist (in that they do not have a belief in the existence of a God) but, according to the Catholic Church’s own teaching, these people are still Catholics because they were baptised. Hence, by the Church’s own reasoning, there are atheist Catholics. This seems to me to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

I suggest do not let what the Church does to bother you too much. You are free to call yourself an atheist, and your record of Baptism is still in the Church undeleted. Either ways,
whatever you call yourself and what the Church call you, has no effect to your life, unless you are so bitter after the divorce that it kills you to know the Church still consider you a Catholic.

I think I can understand how that feel, but for Pete’s sake, why not just move on.

 

[SyroMalankara]

And if someone is baptized Anglican or baptized Lutheran, etc. and then converts to Catholicism, what does that mean? Who is their mother in that case and what tribe do they belong to?

If Lutheran or Anglican and baptized, then normally the Church adopts them and they belong to the Latin tribe. If Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian or one of the reformed versions of those, their tribe is the corresponding Eastern Church. Of course a baptized adult Lutheran or Anglican may feel affinity of the East and choose to join the Eastern tribe specifically. A previously unbaptized adult would join the tribe that adopted them thru baptism, Eastern or Latin.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Good question. Half my church of 800 are x Catholic.

At what point would these xCaths be counted out, their first visit to your group, or when they start paying dues, when they start attending Bible study? My protestant Anglican cousins decided to go nondenominational, however, baptised all their kids in the Anglican denominaton since their current group doesn’t do children. Where do they stand?

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t believe this based solely on what others have said on this forum, but also from my interpretation of current Canon Law. My point was that there are people who self-identify as atheist (in that they do not have a belief in the existence of a God) but, according to the Catholic Church’s own teaching, these people are still Catholics because they were baptised. Hence, by the Church’s own reasoning, there are atheist Catholics. This seems to me to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Those are atheist ex-Catholics … though I have a hunch that you’re determined to think what you think no matter what.

 

[TCEL]

Do Orthodox Jews have a method whereby one can formally declare one’s “un-Jewishness”? I know people can be cut off, but are they considered non-Jewish? Or are atheist Jews considered just not to be living up to their Jewishness in relationship to God? Obviously, analogies aren’t exact comparisons, and Catholocism’s position has its unique points. But people either accept that Baptism is what the Church says it is, or they don’t. If they don’t, then they’re in an odd position of trying to tell people they’ve dissociated with, what that group believes. I think it’s odd too, and there are more nuances of course -but I know the Sacraments aren’t mere rituals.

 

[Miriam1947]

Question is then, do they provide any active adherent numbers which would be far more reflective of how many Catholics there actually are than the baptismal numbers?

In my parish we have a yearly physical count of people in the pews. That way even if you are not registered you are still counted.

It will be done two weeks in a row, usually in October. They will ask 18 and under to raise their hands and count them. And then count the other adults.

They use clickers, it seems to be pretty accurate. It is like a poll, a window in time.

 

[Peter_J]

Quote:
But that’s not even the biggest issue with “formal defection”. The biggest issue, I think, is that many people tended to view ex-Catholics who had not formally defected as some kind of phonies. (Not really sure if that point requires explanation or not.)

Well … the specific word “phonies” was my choice, but have you never heard it said (or seen it written) that an ex-Catholic who has not formally defected isn’t really an ex-Catholic?

(You many not have to look very far. )

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. This is just another example that I came upon, but you should look at the second-to-last page of cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat03.pdf .

You’ll see that The Romanian Greek Catholic Church had total membership reported as 1,390,610 in the 2000 Pontifical Yearbook, and 781,704 in 2002.

Is the Vatican trying to deceit people into thinking that 45% of that Church died in a two year period?? Or was this a genuine attempt to fix a number that was badly reported?

 

[benhur]

At what point would these xCaths be counted out, their first visit to your group, or when they start paying dues, when they start attending Bible study? My protestant Anglican cousins decided to go nondenominational, however, baptised all their kids in the Anglican denominaton since their current group doesn’t do children. Where do they stand?

Yeah, I do not know. It was just a general observation. Along with that I would say they attended my church for a while-months/ years, and generally would remain or go to another local P church.

Blessings

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I might have mis-spoken a bit: I said “it’s a little weird for me to be on a thread that’s partially about said priest, especially since I’ve never met him and know almost nothing about him”, but it would certainly also be weird for me if there were a thread on this forum about my own parish priest.

I didn’t submit my question to the Ask An Apologist section asking for an opinion but a point of fact. It’s not even something with a gray area (like the standard question about whether it’s proper for a Catholic to attend various wedding ceremonies). No, my question was pretty cut and dry.

The best analogy is the difference between asking a baseball umpire how many strikes to call someone out and whether a certain pitch is a ball or strike. Different umpires may differ on the latter but they will be unanimous on the former. I have no reason to doubt Father Grondin was incorrect about how the Chruch tallies its members for the Statistical Yearbook, but will listen if someone can show otherwise.

But I also have to say that this ^^ comment makes me very curious about the parish(es) that you used to go to. In my experience, if people disagree with something the priest says, they generally don’t tell him but just start going to a different parish. (If even that: I don’t think it’s at all unusual for someone to quietly listen to things they disagree with week after week and not change parish.) But I digress.

Again, this isn’t about opinion but basic fact. If I ask different mullahs as to how Muslims are to interact with non-Muslims in certain situations I might get different answers. If I ask them what the Five Pillars of Islam are (a cut and dry fact) they will all give the same answer.

Well … the specific word “phonies” was my choice, but have you never heard it said (or seen it written) that an ex-Catholic who has not formally defected isn’t really an ex-Catholic?

(You many not have to look very far. )

I have never, ever heard that. Can you provide a link to such a declaration that those who don’t formally defect are looked down on, called names, etc?

P.S. This is just another example that I came upon, but you should look at the second-to-last page of cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat03.pdf .

You’ll see that The Romanian Greek Catholic Church had total membership reported as 1,390,610 in the 2000 Pontifical Yearbook, and 781,704 in 2002.

Is the Vatican trying to deceit people into thinking that 45% of that Church died in a two year period?? Or was this a genuine attempt to fix a number that was badly reported?

Is there an article along with those charts? I can’t answer your questions about what I think the Church might be stating otherwise.

 

[Reuben_J]

In my parish we have a yearly physical count of people in the pews. That way even if you are not registered you are still counted.

It will be done two weeks in a row, usually in October. They will ask 18 and under to raise their hands and count them. And then count the other adults.

They use clickers, it seems to be pretty accurate. It is like a poll, a window in time.

That is a diligent thing to do. I think yours must be quite a small manageable parish.

So Baptismal record and actual body count of a particular parish are two separate statistics altogether. For those who are interested to know.

 

[Peter_J]

I didn’t submit my question to the Ask An Apologist section asking for an opinion but a point of fact. It’s not even something with a gray area (like the standard question about whether it’s proper for a Catholic to attend various wedding ceremonies). No, my question was pretty cut and dry.

Alright, I think we’ve moved way, way past my point, which was that I’m not here to talk about a priest I don’t even know. Whether you’re happy with him or not is between you and him – please don’t expect to me comment on it again.

The best analogy is the difference between asking a baseball umpire how many strikes to call someone out and whether a certain pitch is a ball or strike. Different umpires may differ on the latter but they will be unanimous on the former. I have no reason to doubt Father Grondin was incorrect about how the Chruch tallies its members for the Statistical Yearbook, but will listen if someone can show otherwise.

Again, this isn’t about opinion but basic fact. If I ask different mullahs as to how Muslims are to interact with non-Muslims in certain situations I might get different answers. If I ask them what the Five Pillars of Islam are (a cut and dry fact) they will all give the same answer.

I respect that you are interested in facts only. Heck, I’d say that’s music to my ears right now.

Originally Posted by Peter J
Well … the specific word “phonies” was my choice, but have you never heard it said (or seen it written) that an ex-Catholic who has not formally defected isn’t really an ex-Catholic?

Wow. Either this ^^ is sarcasm that I’m just not getting, or else you haven’t been reading the thread.

Can you provide a link to such a declaration that those who don’t formally defect are looked down on, called names, etc?

Uh, no. Can you, since you brought it up?

Is there an article along with those charts? I can’t answer your questions about what I think the Church might be stating otherwise.

You can answer what you like, I know of no “article along with those charts”. But I think what I pointed out is pretty simple: 1.4 mil was reported in 2000, then (about) 45% less just 2 years later.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Alright, I think we’ve moved way, way past my point, which was that I’m not here to talk about a priest I don’t even know.

What I’m saying is your point is moot. It’s not about an individual priest it’s about the practice of the Church. The priest I quoted said tallying by baptisms is the practice of the Church. Whether or not you know this priest, is he wrong? No. That’s why you bringing it up initially was moot.

I respect that you are interested in facts only. However, the idea that it is impossible for a Catholic to become an ex-Catholic (or, as some like to put, that "you can check out anytime but you can never leave), which has come up several times on this thread, is not a fact but a falsehood. We can’t say “It’s okay for people to leave the Catholic Church” but we don’t deny that they *can *do so.

Is it possible for those quoting the numbers in the Statistical Yearbook (like in the articles I referenced) to not lie?

Wow. Either this ^^ is sarcasm that I’m just not getting, or else you haven’t been reading the thread.

Uh, no. Can you, since you brought it up?

When did I say that people looking at other people who renounced Catholicism but didn’t formally defected were anything resembling phonies?

You can answer what you like, I know of no “article along with those charts”. But I think what I pointed out is pretty simple: 1.4 mil was reported in 2000, then (about) 45% less just 2 years later.

In the Wikipedia article you linked to earlier about religion in Greece it not only gave numbers but also the derivation of said numbers. At this point I’ve noted at least a dozen times in this thread that I’m ok with articles giving the number of baptised so long as there was a clear written explanation of those numbers. That’s context. What is the context for the numbers in the charts you gave? Are they bearing false witness like the authors of the articles I linked to at the beginning.

 

[Peter_J]

Addendum: Speaking of facts, the main point that I’ve made here is that it is not impossible for a Catholic to become an ex-Catholic – it is not, as some like to put it, a matter of “you can check out anytime but you can never leave”.

We can’t say “It’s *okay *for people to leave the Catholic Church” but we don’t deny that they *are capable *of doing so.

 

[Peebo]

Makes it all seem pretty scary…once Catholic always Catholic…when I was a Pentecostal we were told that anyone who was confirmed into the Catholic faith would forever be “sealed” with the sign of the anti Christ and your soul would be lost…then I became Catholic and realized nothing could be farther from the truth

 

[Nixbits]

Reuben J:

whatever you call yourself and what the Church call you, has no effect to your life, unless you are so bitter after the divorce that it kills you to know the Church still consider you a Catholic.

Thanks for the good advice, Reuben. I’m not bitter at all. But I agree with Mike from NJ. I find it inappropriate and misleading if the RCC uses the baptism figures as the basis of the number of ‘Catholics’ without further detail. It would be better if there was a way to identify the number of people that actually hold Catholic beliefs. Of course, the RCC is not alone in not providing such figures for their religion.