Is he a catholic?

[Rascalking]

Isn’t it a bit insulting to us Catholics to call someone who doesn’t believe what we believe Catholic? If we insist on still calling him and form of Catholic, (lapsed, cafeteria, etc) it would demean the word!

Nothing against him at all-he can call himself what he wants. But we shouldn’t call him catholic.

 

[SnakeMauler]

My cousin doesn’t attend Mass, Confession or believe in the Church’s teachings yet believes he is a Catholic because he says he was baptized Catholic. I said if he didn’t practice the Faith, he is not a Catholic. Who is right?

He’s your average fall away Catholic. You should encourage him to go to mass and all that stuff.

 

[lutherlic]

No. Anyone who is validly baptised is baptised into the Body of Christ. However, the Body of Christ corresponds fully with the Catholic Church, and not exactly with the Baptist or Lutheran or Presbyterian Churches.

So the Catholic Church is the one-and-only Body of Christ which every baptised person is (albeit without knowing it) baptised into.

I see what you are saying, but would clarify that non-Catholic baptisms none-the-less do not make the person Catholic per se. In those cases there is (apparently) no intention to raise the child as Catholic or reason to believe they will necessarily know anything the Church teaches.

 

[lutherlic]

Isn’t it a bit insulting to us Catholics to call someone who doesn’t believe what we believe Catholic? If we insist on still calling him and form of Catholic, (lapsed, cafeteria, etc) it would demean the word!

I agree with the sentiment and think this is a real problem.

To call yourself Catholic without qualification, you should fully accept the teachings of the Church and all that means. Claiming to be Catholic without qualification when you are not brings scandal to the Church. Non-Catholics will say “yes, he/she is Catholic but doesn’t believe xxx so not all Catholics do.” Or they may say there is disagreement among Catholics.

Of course, we do not have the option to define the Catholic faith any way we please. There is no disagreement among faithful Catholics.

I can think of 4 categories of people who should not call themselves Catholic without qualification: (1) lapsed Catholics who have fallen away for whatever reason, (2) practicing Catholics who privately hold one or more “exceptions” to Church teachings, (3) misguided Catholics on a personal crusade to pressure the Church to abandon settled truth (e.g. accept abortion, homosexuality, women priests, etc.) and (4) Catholics who misrepresent the faith to further personal agendas (particularly politicians).

This last category brings great harm to the Church. Their actions are often gravely immoral and despicable of themselves, but to claim they are faithful Catholics (when they clearly know they are not) is evil and very upsetting.

 

[donanobis]

If he calls himself Catholic then there must be at least some connection with the Church. I see that as a positive thing and a sign of hope that he may return to the practice of his faith.

It sounds like you’re unhappy that he might be considered a Catholic, but I think it’s good that there’s something there. Sort of like the prodigal son. You’re the older brother who has been there all along, but he’s the one who would get the party if he returned. It’s something to pray for.

Unhappy you/others consider him a Catholic? Perhaps. Logic tells me if he is baptized, then he is a Christian. As a member of the Catholic Church he is subject to its laws. How can a person be a member of an organization subject to its laws, disregard those laws and still be considered a member? He is a member of the Body of Christ and I will pray for him as such but I believe that he is no longer a member of the Catholic Church organization, as such, as he *chooses *not to be.

Is the Catholic Church not an organization? An organization does not give an indelible mark at Baptism- (it may be dispenser of that mark) but God places that mark by which the one baptized *becomes a Christian, child of God and heir of heaven.

LESSON FOURTEENTH: ON BAPTISM
152. Q. What is Baptism?

A. Baptism is a Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and heirs of heaven.

Standardized vs Flexilble - take the poll

 

[Rascalking]

Ok, I openly admit than I’m lost. I know you can’t “undo” a baptism. Once baptized, your baptized.

I thought about this during the day-

If you renounce the Church/Christianity-Why do we want you to be called a Christian/Catholic? Yes, we want you to rejoin to catholic church, but if your not going to do, than why in the world do we, as Christians/Catholics, insist on saying, “Once Catholic, always Catholic” or “Once Christian, always Christian”?

 

[JRKH]

I agree with the sentiment and think this is a real problem.

To call yourself Catholic without qualification, you should fully accept the teachings of the Church and all that means. Claiming to be Catholic without qualification when you are not brings scandal to the Church. Non-Catholics will say “yes, he/she is Catholic but doesn’t believe xxx so not all Catholics do.” Or they may say there is disagreement among Catholics.

Of course, we do not have the option to define the Catholic faith any way we please. There is no disagreement among faithful Catholics.

I can think of 4 categories of people who should not call themselves Catholic without qualification: (1) lapsed Catholics who have fallen away for whatever reason, (2) practicing Catholics who privately hold one or more “exceptions” to Church teachings, (3) misguided Catholics on a personal crusade to pressure the Church to abandon settled truth (e.g. accept abortion, homosexuality, women priests, etc.) and (4) Catholics who misrepresent the faith to further personal agendas (particularly politicians).

This last category brings great harm to the Church. Their actions are often gravely immoral and despicable of themselves, but to claim they are faithful Catholics (when they clearly know they are not) is evil and very upsetting.

I generallly agree with the above with a certain reservation on who should not call themselves catholic without reservation. My reservation pertains to item 2 on your list.
If a person is a practicing catholic and has “private… exceptions”, or reservations about Church teachings, or certain aspects of Church teachings, then - in general I don’t think they need to “qualify” their use fo the term Catholic - So long as their exceptions and reservations remain private.
The Church recognizes the right of the individual to act on their “well formed” conscience in matters of religion. We cannot know, as a rule, all of the factors that ight go into a particular persons specific, and personal views on certain Church teachings. Fro the most part that can and should remain between themselves, their confessor/director, and God.
The problem comes in when people fail to defend Church teaching in public and substitute their own view. At which point they fall more into catagory three IMHO.

Just my 2c

Peace
James

 

[lutherlic]

I generallly agree with the above with a certain reservation on who should not call themselves catholic without reservation. My reservation pertains to item 2 on your list.
If a person is a practicing catholic and has “private… exceptions”, or reservations about Church teachings, or certain aspects of Church teachings, then - in general I don’t think they need to “qualify” their use fo the term Catholic - So long as their exceptions and reservations remain private.
The Church recognizes the right of the individual to act on their “well formed” conscience in matters of religion. We cannot know, as a rule, all of the factors that ight go into a particular persons specific, and personal views on certain Church teachings. Fro the most part that can and should remain between themselves, their confessor/director, and God.
The problem comes in when people fail to defend Church teaching in public and substitute their own view. At which point they fall more into catagory three IMHO.

Thank you James. I agree, these are very good points.

 

[ContegoFides]

So, in that case, if he is legitimately baptized (using the prescribed formula for Baptism) into the Baptist faith, he has an indelible mark on his soul for that faith and “is and will always be” Baptist? or a Lutheran? or a Presbyterian? or etc.

Puzzleannie is right.

I think the confusion here is that you are not baptized into a sect of Christianity, because they really don’t exist. There is only one True Church, one baptism. The various protestant sects are simply not in full communion with the Church.

However, if he was legitimately baptized by a baptist, then he received the indelible mark. In fact, anyone validly baptized - even by a protestant into a protestant sect - would receive the mark. That being said, the mark makes them a Catholic because they have been inducted into the one Church of Christ.

In a sense, being baptized by a baptist in a baptist church with no intent of being in union with Rome makes you a Catholic - even if you don’t know it or believe it - so long as the baptism itself is valid. Many such baptisms are valid because they use the trinitarian formula, use poured water (or immersion), and intend what the Church intends.

So, yeah, this guy is a Catholic.

However, as an apostate he’s in serious jeapordy for his soul. Pray for his reversion and change of heart that he may come back to the faith, go to confession, and come back into union with the Church.

 

[kage_ar]

Honey, if Nancy Pelosi can call herself Catholic and not be struck by lightening, anyone can.

 

[Rascalking]

Honey, if Nancy Pelosi can call herself Catholic and not be struck by lightening, anyone can.

The woman who you mention is a paragon Catholic virtue and living! How dare you say that?!!

 

[puzzleannie]

If all remains the same in his life and if he dies, can he have the Catholic funeral with the Mass that he so desires ? If yes, is there something in canon law that back this up?

that would be up to his pastor, if he has reason to believe the person would have reconciled with the church given the opportunity and expressed before death the wish for a Catholic funeral, yes. If he was emphatic about refusing to reconcile and refusing a Catholic funeral, probably no.

 

[donanobis]

that would be up to his pastor, if he has reason to believe the person would have reconciled with the church given the opportunity and expressed before death the wish for a Catholic funeral, yes. If he was emphatic about refusing to reconcile and refusing a Catholic funeral, probably no.

I thought the meditation on today’s Gospel, John 8:21-30, is quite appropriate for this topic.

** “You will die in your sins”**

“If…,there is a true religion, that is to say, one founded by God, it is plain that they who willfully reject it without being able to give a reason for their rejection shall be held accountable for their contempt. “Are we also blind?” the Pharisees asked Jesus, who reproved them for their unbelief. And Jesus said to them: “If you were blind, you would not have sin; but now you say, “We see,” your sin remains.” So that if anyone shuts his eyes when he might see, his sin remains. …” Fr. Lacordaire

 

[rick43235]

In a sense, being baptized by a baptist in a baptist church with no intent of being in union with Rome makes you a Catholic - even if you don’t know it or believe it - so long as the baptism itself is valid. Many such baptisms are valid because they use the trinitarian formula, use poured water (or immersion), and intend what the Church intends.

So then, does my baptism in the Lutheran Church make me a member of the Catholic sect?

 

[donanobis]

So then, does my baptism in the Lutheran Church make me a member of the Catholic sect?

There is only one Baptism and an organization does not put the indelible mark of Baptism as a child of God on your soul, God does. So providing the proper form of Baptism is used, all are baptized into the one church.What would make you a Catholic is another matter.

 

[donanobis]

I am reading “Salvation is from the Jews” by Roy Schoemann. p. 327 he speaks of grace and I thought of my cousin when I read it, although he is not Jewish.

“It is true that some Jewish conversion to Christianity”… is coerced rather than a true conviction. “Genuine conversions, on the other hand, are always the result of the working of grace, of God operating in the human soul. Sometimes grace inspires an intellectual exploration with a willingness to follow the truth wherever it goes, ending with a conviction of the truth of the Catholic faith. In other cases, the grace operates more suddenly, unexpectedly, and miraculously.”

It made me think of how much more genuine my cousins’ conversion would (will?) be with God leading him than if he feels he needs to convert to please someone else. I have to keep reminding myself that it is God’s grace that leads to circumcision of the heart. Any suggestions how I can let go and let God?