Is a Catholic who converts excommunicated?

[PatriciusRex]

There are three means of separating yourself from the Church: Schism, Heresy, and Apostasy. They differ in the nature of the separation.

Schism is simply removing yourself from obedience to the authority of the Church. So Sedevacantists etc who otherwise maintain and practice the Catholic Faith, while rejecting the authority of the Pope and Vatican II are schismatics.

Heresy is teaching and believing false doctrines but still remaining basically Christian. So, leaving the Church to join a Church which denied parts of the Catholic faith while still revering Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the World would be an example of heresy.

Apostasy is only the appropriate word when the person abandons Christianity entirely, for example by joining a pagan religion.

But all three of these represent separation from the Catholic Church and thus would constitute an excommunication.

 

[Rawb]

Had an interesting conversation about this sort of thing once with a devoutly Roman Catholic friend. Let’s see what y’all say.

I was Roman Catholic. I was not one of those who did not know my faith. I taught CCD, I still have Roman Catholic friends call me to explain their faith to them, and had a bunch of people tell me to become a priest because I understood and practiced my faith so well. “Invincible ignorance” does not apply to me (and even if you think it does, I find it incredibly offensive, so let’s just take that option off the table right now. It’s not really applicable to the question I’m going to ask anyway).

So I was Roman Catholic. I left Roman Catholicism for Holy Orthodoxy. I formally rejected my Roman Catholicism in the part of the ritual where converts are asked to “revoke their former delusions.” So there’s no doubt I knowingly rejected Roman Catholicism. This is a mortal sin. One cannot, in Roman Catholicism, receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin. I am welcome, however, as an Orthodox Christian, to receive Communion in the Roman Catholic Church provided I am in a state that I could receive Holy Communion in my own parish.

So, as a schismatic former Roman Catholic I am in a state of mortal sin and cannot receive Communion. As a practicing Orthodox Christian I am free to receive Communion in your church.

…which is it? Note this is purely an academic discussion, I’m not seeking RC Communion. It’s just an interesting problem.

 

[rcwitness]

Had an interesting conversation about this sort of thing once with a devoutly Roman Catholic friend. Let’s see what y’all say.

I was Roman Catholic. I was not one of those who did not know my faith. I taught CCD, I still have Roman Catholic friends call me to explain their faith to them, and had a bunch of people tell me to become a priest because I understood and practiced my faith so well. “Invincible ignorance” does not apply to me (and even if you think it does, I find it incredibly offensive, so let’s just take that option off the table right now. It’s not really applicable to the question I’m going to ask anyway).

So I was Roman Catholic. I left Roman Catholicism for Holy Orthodoxy. I formally rejected my Roman Catholicism in the part of the ritual where converts are asked to “revoke their former delusions.” So there’s no doubt I knowingly rejected Roman Catholicism. This is a mortal sin. One cannot, in Roman Catholicism, receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin. I am welcome, however, as an Orthodox Christian, to receive Communion in the Roman Catholic Church provided I am in a state that I could receive Holy Communion in my own parish.

So, as a schismatic former Roman Catholic I am in a state of mortal sin and cannot receive Communion. As a practicing Orthodox Christian I am free to receive Communion in your church.

…which is it? Note this is purely an academic discussion, I’m not seeking RC Communion. It’s just an interesting problem.

Who do you believe it is a problem for?
Do you reject everything the Catholic Church teaches? What do you believe to be your “former delusions?”

Btw…I dont enter this discussion to be your judge, but fellow Christian.
Peace
Michael

 

[rcwitness]

There are three means of separating yourself from the Church: Schism, Heresy, and Apostasy. They differ in the nature of the separation.

Schism is simply removing yourself from obedience to the authority of the Church. So Sedevacantists etc who otherwise maintain and practice the Catholic Faith, while rejecting the authority of the Pope and Vatican II are schismatics.

Heresy is teaching and believing false doctrines but still remaining basically Christian. So, leaving the Church to join a Church which denied parts of the Catholic faith while still revering Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the World would be an example of heresy.

Apostasy is only the appropriate word when the person abandons Christianity entirely, for example by joining a pagan religion.

But all three of these represent separation from the Catholic Church and thus would constitute an excommunication.

 

[KnitNut]

So, as a schismatic former Roman Catholic I am in a state of mortal sin and cannot receive Communion. As a practicing Orthodox Christian I am free to receive Communion in your church.

…which is it? Note this is purely an academic discussion, I’m not seeking RC Communion. It’s just an interesting problem.

But I think this is a trick question! My understanding is that the RCC believe your RCC baptism is “forever”…even if you were subsequently baptized in another faith (even Orthodoxy). So they still count you as a Roman Catholic. So it would seem that, if the priest knew your background, (and if RC priests routinely deny the Holy Gifts…which is a big “if”, from the posts I read here!) he ought deny you on the basis of your unconfessed sin, which was leaving your RCC for any other faith.

How is it handled if a “former” Catholic tries to marry a Catholic? Does Rome treat them as “bad Catholics” and require the same promises, etc, that they require of the active Catholic, basically their return to Catholicism? Or are they treated as non-Catholics, simply made aware of the duties of the Catholic partner, then married and sent on their way?

 

[cmodrmac]

"In my conversations with Christians who left the Catholic parish, for a denomination, their understanding of the teachings which turned them away is very twisted. "

we can not have a conversation without some nastiness thrown in-I am sorry you only met “twisted understandings”

I thought that if you are excommunicated that this is the most severe penalty in the RC Church (or any Church for that matter) and that only the Bishop could UN excommunicate -

And how can a single individual be a schismatic-I thought schism involved large movements that deviate from whatever faith one is schismatic from such as the Old catholics or the Anglicans -so if a Catholic goes to the Methodist Church (does not get baptised again) he is from the RC view a schismatic excommunicated ex Catholic

 

[rcwitness]

"In my conversations with Christians who left the Catholic parish, for a denomination, their understanding of the teachings which turned them away is very twisted. "

we can not have a conversation without some nastiness thrown in-I am sorry you only met “twisted understandings”

I thought that if you are excommunicated that this is the most severe penalty in the RC Church (or any Church for that matter) and that only the Bishop could UN excommunicate -

And how can a single individual be a schismatic-I thought schism involved large movements that deviate from whatever faith one is schismatic from such as the Old catholics or the Anglicans -so if a Catholic goes to the Methodist Church (does not get baptised again) he is from the RC view a schismatic excommunicated ex Catholic

Dont be sorry, be as eager to defend the Church’s teaching as you are the bible. I know great Christians in the evangelical churches. I worked with them even after my Catholic baptism/confirmation/communion. I enjoy the ministry and faith of many who are raised in their faith. They are not protesting the Catholic faith. They even possess the Catholic faith! But to those who were called to the full Catholic faith and did not look for Jesus within there, they are intent on twisting the meaning of the teachings. Like those Peter warned who seek to twist Paul’s teachings.

I dont think the Church calls any Catholic EX…

Just Catholics who may be in ex-communication or who may have commited the sin of apostacy by their own free will.

 

[Peter_J]

Had an interesting conversation about this sort of thing once with a devoutly Roman Catholic friend. Let’s see what y’all say.

I was Roman Catholic. I was not one of those who did not know my faith. I taught CCD, I still have Roman Catholic friends call me to explain their faith to them, and had a bunch of people tell me to become a priest because I understood and practiced my faith so well. “Invincible ignorance” does not apply to me (and even if you think it does, I find it incredibly offensive, so let’s just take that option off the table right now. It’s not really applicable to the question I’m going to ask anyway).

So I was Roman Catholic. I left Roman Catholicism for Holy Orthodoxy. I formally rejected my Roman Catholicism in the part of the ritual where converts are asked to “revoke their former delusions.” So there’s no doubt I knowingly rejected Roman Catholicism. This is a mortal sin. One cannot, in Roman Catholicism, receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin. I am welcome, however, as an Orthodox Christian, to receive Communion in the Roman Catholic Church provided I am in a state that I could receive Holy Communion in my own parish.

**So, as a schismatic former Roman Catholic I am in a state of mortal sin and cannot receive Communion. As a practicing Orthodox Christian I am free to receive Communion in your church.
**
…which is it? Note this is purely an academic discussion, I’m not seeking RC Communion. It’s just an interesting problem.

Those are two extreme positions. And FWIW I’ve known people on both extremes – that is, I’ve known Catholics who take an extremely negative view of Orthodox ex-Catholics, and I’ve also know Orthodox ex-Catholics who made it clear that they had no intention of refraining from receiving communion in any Catholic masses that they might attend. (You obviously know, but someone reading this might not, that the Orthodox do not permit intercommunion with Rome.)

IMO both of those extreme positions should be excluded in any serious discussion.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Peter is right, in that any extremes should be avoided.

Sadly, many people convert to insert faith here as a reactive thing, rather than a carefully discerned thing.

My story resembles Rawb, in that Invincible Ignorance doesn’t apply either. I didn’t leave the Latin Church out of any bitterness or reaction against anything in particular. I was a 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus, and very involved in many ministries.

I don’t post that to toot my own horn so to speak, but to demonstrate that I was quite happy in my Roman Catholicism at the time.

Not everyone who leaves does so because “they don’t understand.” There comes a point where the threat of Latin Excommunication no longer matters. Some people convert the other way…many people find Roman Catholic Apologetics convincing. I think that one has to take each person case by case…and entrust them to the mercy of God.

 

[Peter_J]

I was Roman Catholic. I was not one of those who did not know my faith. I taught CCD, I still have Roman Catholic friends call me to explain their faith to them, and had a bunch of people tell me to become a priest because I understood and practiced my faith so well. **“Invincible ignorance” does not apply to me (and even if you think it does, I find it incredibly offensive, so let’s just take that option off the table right now. **It’s not really applicable to the question I’m going to ask anyway).

Not that I want to get into a big discussion about that … but let me suggest that: some Catholics sometimes get a little carried away with the idea, but fundamentally the Invincible Ignorance idea makes sense.

Do you guys make a similar distinction, concerning people who leave Orthodoxy, about whether it is done in Invincible Ignorance or not? I would guess that you do.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Not to be smart…but would they really care?Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

We don’t.

 

[Rawb]

Who do you believe it is a problem for?

For Roman Catholicism, since your church is the one allowing me to receive. It seems to say that one cannot be in a state of mortal sin and receive Communion…except I am in, by your definition, a state of mortal sin and yet welcome to receive.

Do you reject everything the Catholic Church teaches? What do you believe to be your “former delusions?”

I do not reject those things which agree with Orthodoxy, but there are certainly differences or we’d be One. Papal Infallibility (and yes, I know what that means), Universal Jurisdiction, the Mortal/Venial sin distinction, the Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, the Treasury of Merit, Substitutionary Atonement, that there are only 7 Sacraments, the list could go on and on. These are dogmas in Roman Catholicism, you have to believe in them. They are de fide doctrines.

I will not partake in a discussion about whether or not I “secretly” believe these things, or whether my church “really believes in them, but uses different words.” We do not believe either to be the case, so that discussion is pointless.

Those are two extreme positions. And FWIW I’ve known people on both extremes…

IMO both of those extreme positions should be excluded in any serious discussion.

But aren’t they accurate? Whether or not one can receive Communion in Roman Catholicism is black and white - are you in a state of mortal sin or not? If so, no. By your church’s definition I am in a state of mortal sin. Yet I am welcome to receive Communion as long as my own Orthodox priest would receive me at the Cup, which right now, he would. Thus I am in a state of mortal sin yet welcome to receive. It’s a paradox.

Not that I want to get into a big discussion about that … but let me suggest that: some Catholics sometimes get a little carried away with the idea, but fundamentally the Invincible Ignorance idea makes sense.

Do you guys make a similar distinction, concerning people who leave Orthodoxy, about whether it is done in Invincible Ignorance or not? I would guess that you do.

No I agree it makes sense. Whether we have a similar thing I have no idea (we don’t tend to put much emphasis on knowledge or understanding) but we might. I’ve never met an ex-Orthodox, so the issue has never come up.

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.

 

[Peter_J]

But aren’t they accurate? Whether or not one can receive Communion in Roman Catholicism is black and white - are you in a state of mortal sin or not? If so, no. By your church’s definition I am in a state of mortal sin. Yet I am welcome to receive Communion as long as my own Orthodox priest would receive me at the Cup, which right now, he would. Thus I am in a state of mortal sin yet welcome to receive. It’s a paradox.

Actually, even the extremists (well, assuming they’re worth their salt) would have to admit that can’t say whether or not you’re in a state of mortal sin, since we cannot see your soul.

In fact, we can say that you did **not **commit mortal sin, provided that you believed what you did was right. (Not just you, but even someone who left Rome for Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc etc.)

No I agree it makes sense. Whether we have a similar thing I have no idea (we don’t tend to put much emphasis on knowledge or understanding) but we might. I’ve never met an ex-Orthodox, so the issue has never come up.

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.

As a long-time participant on this and some other Christian forums, let me say Tell me about it.

I might suggest this response, from a youtube video I watched last week: “Is there any way I can excommunicate myself from this conversation?”

 

[SteveVH]

But aren’t they accurate? Whether or not one can receive Communion in Roman Catholicism is black and white - are you in a state of mortal sin or not? If so, no. By your church’s definition I am in a state of mortal sin. Yet I am welcome to receive Communion as long as my own Orthodox priest would receive me at the Cup, which right now, he would. Thus I am in a state of mortal sin yet welcome to receive. It’s a paradox.

It’s paradox of your own making. Whether you believe in mortal sin or not has nothing to do with the reality of its existence. If you are receiving while in mortal sin then you commit another mortal sin whether it is in the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church. The EO certainly believe in serious sin which is another way of saying the same thing.

“If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and He will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.” (1 John 5:16-17)

 

[rcwitness]

For Roman Catholicism, since your church is the one allowing me to receive. It seems to say that one cannot be in a state of mortal sin and receive Communion…except I am in, by your definition, a state of mortal sin and yet welcome to receive.

I see. I agree this is interesting…but far from a problem. What I would be interested to know, is how you “know” that you can receive a Catholic communion under your circumstances…(as in promoted by the Church, as opposed to allowed to receive under your own conscience)? Did you present your personal situation and choices in your faith walk to a Catholic priest/bishop as one who desired communion…while secretly not desiring communion…and they told you that you may receive?

I do not reject those things which agree with Orthodoxy, but there are certainly differences or we’d be One. Papal Infallibility (and yes, I know what that means), Universal Jurisdiction, the Mortal/Venial sin distinction, the Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, the Treasury of Merit, Substitutionary Atonement, that there are only 7 Sacraments, the list could go on and on. These are dogmas in Roman Catholicism, you have to believe in them. They are de fide doctrines.

Yes, some of these teachings can be very dificult to accept. I also know, in order to fully understand them (which I dont accuse you of not having, or having a correct understanding of them) one must spend much time searching and discerning. Most christians dont even have the time to devote to the research and study which would be sufficient in an understanding to the point of defending them properly before their life is over! Faith in an Apostolic Church with an element of infallibility is inevitable to me (and perhaps all genuine Catholics). Therefore, when you say, these all the things you have mentioned have to be believed by Catholics, I agree in part. For we are bound by our faith to believe there is an element of truth in them which is from our Lord Jesus…but when a man of faith is troubled by believing, the Immaculate Conception for instance, he will not be sent to hell for it! But maybe if a man of supposed faith believes in his heart that the Immaculate Conception is a lie and then teaches others that the Catholic Church is teaching false doctrines, well then he is putting his salvation at risk. For he is not claiming to not know, but to know through faith that the Lord’s mother was considered born seperated from the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

I will not partake in a discussion about whether or not I “secretly” believe these things, or whether my church “really believes in them, but uses different words.” We do not believe either to be the case, so that discussion is pointless.

…and I will not partake in a discussion of faith devoid of the love of christian fellowship and Our Lord. Genuine faith believes all things!

Peace,
Michael

 

[Rawb]

I see. I agree this is interesting…but far from a problem. What I would be interested to know, is how you “know” that you can receive a Catholic communion under your circumstances…(as in promoted by the Church, as opposed to allowed to receive under your own conscience)? Did you present your personal situation and choices in your faith walk to a Catholic priest/bishop as one who desired communion…while secretly not desiring communion…and they told you that you may receive?

I’m gauging my ability to receive based off of the words I read in the front of any Roman missalette (sp?) that I’ve found in every pew of any Roman Catholic parish I’ve visited lol. It says members of my Church are “welcomed” to receive provided we were in a state that we could receive in our own parishes. There was no mention of needing to check with the Roman Catholic clergy.

At any rate I’m going to take Peter J’s line and ‘excommunicate myself from the conversation’ lol. It’s just an academic problem, and it’s hard to maintain interest in those.

Peter, btw, I get what you’re saying about not being able to see the state of one’s soul. I’m not sure if I could sign up for it, because it would seem to suggest that no schismatic or heretic could ever be accused of mortal sin except by their own leave - and possibly not even then. That’d be another conversation, but I do see your point.

 

[rcwitness]

I’m gauging my ability to receive based off of the words I read in the front of any Roman missalette (sp?) that I’ve found in every pew of any Roman Catholic parish I’ve visited lol. It says members of my Church are “welcomed” to receive provided we were in a state that we could receive in our own parishes. There was no mention of needing to check with the Roman Catholic clergy.

But you seem to be puzzled at the scenario. So asking a clergy would be logical, but only if you were sincere. You are not sincere. You want to assume the Church is acknowledging your rejection of the Catholic faith you previously accepted and then still calling you to receive Communion with her in the same state! I do not consider this good understanding of our faith by ANY means!

 

[Peter_J]

You are not sincere.

Hmmm…

I guess you can be glad that the insincere poster has “excommunicated” himself from the conversation.

 

[SteveVH]

You are not sincere.

"Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

These rules for posting are not open for debate."

 

[rcwitness]

"Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

These rules for posting are not open for debate."

This is the understanding Im getting…

Rawb is NOT sincerely seeking to receive Communion with the Catholic Church by his own admission, then he is claiming the Church invites him to Commune with her in this state, while also formally rejecting many of her dogmas!

Am I really being uncharitable? Please tell me, I will sincerely retract my wrong assumption.

Rawb, are you sincerely seeking if the Catholic Church is inviting you, in your current state, to commune with her? Do you truly believe she is, without any conversion of heart?
Michael