Formally Defected from the Roman Catholic Church?

[Crocus]

If all valid baptisms leave the same indelible mark, I’d think that this would make it impossible for someone to stop being a Christian, but not impossible to stop being a Catholic.

A Catholic is one who is subject to the laws of the Church, canon law. There is nothing to stop a person from being a non practicing Catholic.

 

[Thorolfr]

So someone could be a non-practicing Catholic Buddhist?

 

[Crocus]

I suppose so, if that’s how they choose to live their life. Well, I wouldn’t use the former as an adjective, more like as two descriptors, if they wish. Non practicing Catholic, and a Buddhist.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I don’t answer “leading questions,” and I’ve already made my position clear on this topic and moved on. No point in further argumentation since you clearly are not open to other viewpoints and I’m not going to agree with yours. Bye now.

Let’s sum up the questions that I ask in plain terms:

1. Do articles on this subject tend to mislead readers?
2. Should articles not mislead readers?
3. In this case would it be easy to phrase things so as not to mislead readers?

It’s disappointing to hear that questions that help us strive for clarity and honesty somehow “misleading”. We should always seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth even in areas where it would negatively affect positions we are for.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Umm… isn’t that part and parcel of any survey? In fact, isn’t that the whole point of a survey – to get a person’s self-reported answers?

What survey? The numbers given by these articles (including ones written by the Church) don’t involve surveys but an assessment of the number of living people who have been baptized Catholic. The whole point is that they are announcing a number of baptized Catholics and making it seem like it’s the number of people who said yes that they were Catholic.

I think I already answered them.

“This issue ain’t about the numbers.”

So this question about one number made to look like another number somehow isn;'t about numbers.

Yep. Incidentally, that is how the Church self-reports – numbers of baptisms and funerals, numbers of folks attending Mass. (Note that this vastly under-reports, since (in general these days) only ~25% of Catholics practice their faith on a regular basis.

The number of people who identify themselves as Catholic will always be less than the number of people who have been baptized Catholic. This is true of any people when you compare people who are currently something versus people who currently or formerly were something. The number of people who currently drink milk will be less than the number of people who currently or formerly drank milk. So what the Church reports is vastly over-reported specifically in terms of self-identified Catholics.

Not sure how you’re equating “a person’s understanding of who they are” with “giving people the wrong impression”.

At best, I think you’re trying to say that the Catholic Church is being shady in over-stating its numbers. But, the Church isn’t attempting to drive its ‘tally numbers’, as I’ve said: it’s trying to gain consistency in how it deals with people who are attempting to marry within the Catholic Church.

Whether intentional or not, people who are unfamiliar with the Catholic Church’s unique accounting system will see something that says there are X Catholics and will take that as meaning if you were to somehow ask those X Catholics if they were Catholic each one would say “Yes!”. No one reading it would assume that it means if some of those X people were asked they would say, “Well I was baptized Catholic, but now I consider myself something else.” I think what I asked was pretty straightforward. Again I have no problem with the Church sticking to its guns as to how they come up with those numbers so long as they are clear and upfront about it so that people don’t think each of those X people considers themselves Catholic. The obvious answer is it is wrong to give people the wrong impression.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

How, pray tell, would the Church know the number of people “who have left the Church”? It’s not like there’s a process for doing so, nor is it reasonable to expect that such a process – even if there were such a process to be had! – would entice folks to line up to go through the process! Some would, mind you – in particular, the folks who are really, deeply angry with the Church would, as some way to “stick it to the Church” (or at least stick out their tongues at the Church as they leave) – but, by and large, many (most?) would just leave, without bothering with any formal process.

Again, you misread the question. I’m saying – very simply – that when the Church says there are X baptized Catholics that it could be more clear rephrasing it.

For example, instead it could say:
“There are X living people who have been baptized as Catholic, including those who currently practice other faiths.”

Imagine if the Democratic Party announced there were “X registered Democrats” but it included people who were once registered Democrats but have changed their political affiliation. If that unusual method was what they used, then to be honest they would have to state there were “X people who either are or once were registered Democrats” It shows that just a few additional words can make things clear and accurate, something that should be a top priority for anyone disseminating information.

 

[Tommy999]

When I left one Christian faith tradition (Assembly of God) for Methodist Christianity around 5 years ago, the Methodist church I joined wanted to know the name of my AOG local congregation so that they could contact them to transfer my “letter of church membership” or something like that from my old congregation to the new one, even though they were different denominations. I didn’t have to do anything - they took care of it for me.

It sounds like there is a process in place for this sort of thing between most Christian faith traditions except Catholicism, if I understand correctly. So if a lifelong Catholic were to join (let’s say) a Presbyterian congregation, presumably the Presbyterian local congregation office would call the Catholic parish that the person used to attend. Just curious how the local Catholic parish would respond. For example, would they ignore the request altogether, explain they don’t transfer church memberships, or would the Protestant church rep not even bother in the first place because they know Catholic Church doesn’t transfer memberships.

 

[GKMotley]

We’re speaking here of the RCC’s take on baptisms (and Anglicans, in general {a dangerous phrase} and likely some others). In such a case, assuming all factors are valid (sacramental factors in the case of RCs and some selected Anglicans (one must speak carefully) a valid baptism makes the recipient one who has been validly baptized. This being the case, such a person cannot subsequently become not validly baptized. The soul is changed by the process. The status quo ante is gone.

The grace and other things conveyed in the sacrament are best addressed in this discussion by a RC voice.

Being baptized doesn’t mean a Christian can’t stop being a Christian (apostate). Just that such a one is not, therefore, un-baptized. Baptism is no guarantee against apostasy, or sin in general. Neither are Confirmation or Orders. Also indelible

 

[Episcopalian]

Here’s a scenario:

Say a person was baptized/confirmed Anglican, practices Catholicism but never was received into the Catholic Church? What are they considered?

But a person who was baptized/confirmed Catholic, practices Anglicanism, but was never received into the Anglican Church is considered a lapsed Catholic?

 

[LilyM]

The number of people who identify themselves as Catholic will always be less than the number of people who have been baptized Catholic. This is true of any people when you compare people who are currently something versus people who currently or formerly were something. The number of people who currently drink milk will be less than the number of people who currently or formerly drank milk. So what the Church reports is vastly over-reported specifically in terms of self-identified Catholics.

Not sure how you’re equating “a person’s understanding of who they are” with “giving people the wrong impression”.

At best, I think you’re trying to say that the Catholic Church is being shady in over-stating its numbers. But, the Church isn’t attempting to drive its ‘tally numbers’, as I’ve said: it’s trying to gain consistency in how it deals with people who are attempting to marry within the Catholic Church.

Whether intentional or not, people who are unfamiliar with the Catholic Church’s unique accounting system will see something that says there are X Catholics and will take that as meaning if you were to somehow ask those X Catholics if they were Catholic each one would say “Yes!”. No one reading it would assume that it means if some of those X people were asked they would say, “Well I was baptized Catholic, but now I consider myself something else.” I think what I asked was pretty straightforward. Again I have no problem with the Church sticking to its guns as to how they come up with those numbers so long as they are clear and upfront about it so that people don’t think each of those X people considers themselves Catholic. The obvious answer is it is wrong to give people the wrong impression.

So why does saying “there are x million Catholics” equate to “there are x million self-identifying/practicing Catholics”?? It is common knowledge that even atheists will often describe themselves as “raised Catholic” or “baptised Catholic” or whatever, so the word “Catholic” is not equivalent to “practicing or currently self-identifying”

If you told me “there are x million Americans” meaning simply citizens of the US, and I wrongly assume that you are including only those citizens actually living in the United States, which I know is only a subset, the bad is really on me for not bothering to actually find out how you come up with those statistics, not you.

I may be “unfamiliar with your unique accounting system”, which I’m sure is hardly unique at least among Christian denominations. But as far as I am concerned if I am going to use or rely on your figures it is my job to become familiar (or familiar enough) with your system!

If I want strictly to know only about self-identifying Catholics then of course I go to a source that I know will give only those precise stats - eg local or national censuses. That way I know I am getting the exact information I want.
[/QUOTE]

 

[GKMotley]

From the RCC standpoint, first para is validly baptized, if all sacramental factors are valid, not confirmed.

Para 2, Yep. (Corrections may be offered).

 

[Wannano]

RoseScented:

why it was called a mark

Just thinking about how cattle are branded with a specific, indelible, identifiable mark before being set free to wander the grasslands. Later when the individual owners want to claim them at roundup, they will recognize their own from all the others.

Baptism leaves the mark by which Christ will recognize His own adopted children.

This past Sunday during the homily, Father A. looked around saying “The more we come together, the more we learn about each other … you might be surprised how much I know about each one of you.” (Then he pointed right at me, I was sitting near the front.) “What I know about you, is that you are adopted. Yes? What do you say to that?”

I startled and questioned myself, why would he say that. My eyes went to the baptismal font and the poster above it, on which we were asked to record the date of our Baptism. Immediately I understood, and emphatically I answered “Yes!”

“Ah, you get it.” He laughed. “At the last mass we almost had a fight. The last person I asked said no, no, no …”

Yes, I am adopted by Christ, and Baptism left its mark on me, so that Jesus will recognize me as His own.

When you say Jesus will see the indelible mark and recognize you as His own…are you referring to the moment of death?

 

[Shasta-Rose]

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

/quote]
Does that go for those of us who became Catholic later in life, having been baptized somewhere else?

 

[Dan_Defender]

No that’s different than being baptized Catholic. But yes, if you become Catholic then leave, you don’t stop being Catholic.

 

[gazelam]

The idea is that once you’re baptized, an indelible character is left upon your soul, and so you are always united to the Church, even if you cease to practice the faith. So it wouldn’t really be good for law to fail to line up with reality.

So, doesn’t the Catholic Church recognize as valid any baptism performed in the proper Trinitarian manner? I assume that the Catholic Church would say that those individuals properly baptized outside of the Catholic Church would also have the indelible character on their soul. Wouldn’t then the Catholic Church want those names also?

 

[Shasta-Rose]

I think if you’re a Christian, baptized is baptized. The Catholic Church accepted my baptism as being as good as theirs, therefore I didn’t have to go through it again. (In fact, you’re not supposed to get baptized again.)

I have a piece of paper that says I was [you would say] baptized Presbyterian. I was two months old, and that was the last time I was in a Presbyterian church. I grew up as a Lutheran, and now I’m a Catholic. Pretty sure that the Catholic church recognizes all baptisms by legitimate Christian churches as equally valid. Otherwise, they would make us newbies go through it again, right? Having joined the Catholic church, I think I am as Catholic as the next person. My priest says I am.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I think if you’re a Christian, baptized is baptized. The Catholic Church accepted my baptism as being as good as theirs, therefore I didn’t have to go through it again. (In fact, you’re not supposed to get baptized again.)

I agree with this. Anyway I wouldn’'t worry about whether you were Catholic or not back then, the important thing is you are Catholic now. No time like the present.

 

[LilyM]

When I left one Christian faith tradition (Assembly of God) for Methodist Christianity around 5 years ago, the Methodist church I joined wanted to know the name of my AOG local congregation so that they could contact them to transfer my “letter of church membership” or something like that from my old congregation to the new one, even though they were different denominations. I didn’t have to do anything - they took care of it for me.

It sounds like there is a process in place for this sort of thing between most Christian faith traditions except Catholicism, if I understand correctly. So if a lifelong Catholic were to join (let’s say) a Presbyterian congregation, presumably the Presbyterian local congregation office would call the Catholic parish that the person used to attend. Just curious how the local Catholic parish would respond. For example, would they ignore the request altogether, explain they don’t transfer church memberships, or would the Protestant church rep not even bother in the first place because they know Catholic Church doesn’t transfer memberships.

I suppose it depends, and Protestants might better know what their own pastors might do.

The Catholic priest could certainly confirm that the person has been registered as a member of his parish, how long they have been registered, what sacraments they have received, and confirm that the parishioner will be taken off their parish register. Up to the Protestant pastor whether that is sufficient.

 

[GKMotley]

Trinitarian formula (valid form), water (valid matter), valid minister (normally priest/ bishop/deacon, but any person having valid intent in the sacramental action (to do what the Church does in the action), valid recipient (if adult, with valid intent, if not, valid intent on part of the sponsors.

 

[Crocus]

When you say Jesus will see the indelible mark and recognize you as His own…are you referring to the moment of death?

Jesus knows everything already so nothing new to Him. I trust in His mercy.