Is a Catholic who converts excommunicated?

[batman1973]

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”322 Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”324 (818, 1271, 1399)

further reading from the CCC:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

The devil just loves when we argue about silly things like this…it prevents us from uniting together in our faith in Lord Jesus Christ to further His Kingdom.

Lord Jesus, have mercy on us all for arguing when we should have been promoting Your Kingdom. Amen

This is true. But, the Roman Catholic church doesn"t own the name Catholic Church. Roman Catholic, yes. I am a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And, I wouldn’t trade that for anything.

 

[cmodrmac]

It seems the term “conversion” is used loosely. If one goes from RC to ECUSA there are certainly some differences in practice and understanding of the sacraments. But it is not a “New faith” not a conversion-the core elements of ECUSA -both main Lutheran groups and the RC as well as the Methodists are similar-I would term it a reaffiliation-I would also say the Presbyterians and Disciples of Christ are in the same group

To change the core beliefs of Christainity such as going to the LDS or JW seems to be a **conversion **with a change in core beliefs

 

[rcwitness]

It seems the term “conversion” is used loosely. If one goes from RC to ECUSA there are certainly some differences in practice and understanding of the sacraments. But it is not a “New faith” not a conversion-the core elements of ECUSA -both main Lutheran groups and the RC as well as the Methodists are similar-I would term it a reaffiliation-I would also say the Presbyterians and Disciples of Christ are in the same group

To change the core beliefs of Christainity such as going to the LDS or JW seems to be a **conversion **with a change in core beliefs

That’s true, and should be considered in discussion like this.

On the other hand, i tend to use the term conversion even within our own faith. Like when we constantly are converting our hearts to be more like God’s. When we are learning how to live better and to practice our faith better, there is a conversion…or especially after turning from our faults.

 

[Peter_J]

It seems the term “conversion” is used loosely. If one goes from RC to ECUSA there are certainly some differences in practice and understanding of the sacraments. But it is not a “New faith” not a conversion-the core elements of ECUSA -both main Lutheran groups and the RC as well as the Methodists are similar-I would term it a reaffiliation-I would also say the Presbyterians and Disciples of Christ are in the same group

Just speaking for myself, I would consider “reaffiliation” an acceptable substitute for “conversion” (which I would also consider correct).

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

What I find insulting is when people are continually telling me “It’s ok, you might just be Invincibly ignorant.” To which I respond “No, I’m not. I knew the Roman Catholic faith. I knowingly rejected it.” and they just sort of sigh and say “But did you really understand it? I don’t think you could’ve and left.” “No, I did.” “I really don’t think you did…” The patronizing is galling and rude. Better just to cut it off at the source. It’s the same sort of disclaimer (which is incredibly necessary when conversing with many of the participants on this forum) that I put in my response to rcwitness. Were it just you and I talking, I know I could’ve left it off.

I’m not trying to insult you, but invincible ignorance works in several ways, not just in cases where people do not understand the faith or know what it contains.

Person A knows exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, understands it fully, and believes that it is all true. This person is not invincibly ignorant at all.

Person B knows exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, understands it fully. This person is not invincibly ignorant about these things. However, for some reason, he/she does not believe these things to be true. Then this person is indeed invincibly ignorant of one aspect of the faith - that it is true.

A few reasons for being invincibly ignorant:
being brought up with different beliefs makes it hard to become Catholic

being scandalised to the point of doubting and then disbelieving something

being convinced by someone with a more powerful argument than any you know

Ignorance in this context doesn’t mean stupidity or lack of study or lack of intellectual comprehension. It means lacking the correct internal recognition of something as true. Invincibility doesn’t mean the state is unchangeable, it’s just unchangeable by the person and those trying to effect a change at a particular time. God could supply the means later.

I’ve changed my understanding/opinions of various things over the years as I’ve learned more and thought more. I have no way of telling whether my opinions before or now were/are correct.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

One who leaves the Church excommunicates himself, even as the Scriptures bear witness of hereticks so doing.

That said, for such an one to repent, all he need do is return to the Church and confess his sin. He need not (of course) be baptised again.