"Once Catholic, always Catholic?"

[dharmasister]

I have been pondering this question for a few weeks now. I have read threads regarding the Protestant teaching of “Once saved, always saved” and I believe that is not true, we are not gauranteed salvation if we do not act accordingly. But what about our “Catholicness.” I made the comment in a post on disrespect in the mass, that just because you are baptized a Catholic, doesn’t mean you are one. We have all seen the quote in siggys which read “If you were accused of being a Catholic, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” Someone corrected me and stated that during our baptism, we are given an indelible mark and no matter what we dowe are always Catholic. I have wrestled with this ever since. Is it true? Isn’t it possible to “excommunicate” yourself from the church because of your wrong beliefs?

I had an unfortunate experience on a Catholic dating website. A gentleman that I dated a couple of times had such negative feelings toward the Church. He raged on about “Evil Rattzinger” and called him “Ratzi the Nazi” and says that he refuses to accept him as his Pope. “The College of Cardinals were wrong” and “He should resign” were just a few of the angry comments he made regarding Pope Benedict XVI. He doesn’t accept several other Church teachings. He follows the Tao. Not a problem in and of itself - I have read the Tao and the Bhagavad Gita (my exhusband was Hindu). But I accept the Churches teachings even when I struggled with them.

At what point did Martin Luther stop being a Catholic? Was it when he first started believing heresies or when he started teaching them. Or not until the Church officially excommunicated him? Or as I was told, does Martin Luther bear an indellible mark of the Catholic church?

I understand her point that we do not want to discourage our fellow brethren. But if someone is against the Church???

 

[Melchior_1]

Baptism leaves an indelible, irremovable mark on one’s soul. Nothing can take that away.

You can be prevented from receiving Sacraments. Priests can have their faculties removed. But make no mistake; once you’re Baptized you’re baptized. Confirmation is also permanent and cannot be revoked. If you leave the Church, you’re still Catholic. All you (in theory) need to do is hit the Confessional.

Luther was still Catholic. Those crazy folks who want birth control loosened or same-sex “marriage”? They’re still Catholic. Disobedient, lapsed, or rebellious…but still Catholic.

Essentially; you’re either practicing or you’re not. But you’re still Catholic*.

*I said this in my high school once a few years ago and got yelled at by a teacher.

 

[adrift]

Baptism leaves an indelible, irremovable mark on one’s soul. Nothing can take that away.

You can be prevented from receiving Sacraments. Priests can have their faculties removed. But make no mistake; once you’re Baptized you’re baptized. Confirmation is also permanent and cannot be revoked. If you leave the Church, you’re still Catholic. All you (in theory) need to do is hit the Confessional.

Luther was still Catholic. Those crazy folks who want birth control loosened or same-sex “marriage”? They’re still Catholic. Disobedient, lapsed, or rebellious…but still Catholic.

Essentially; you’re either practicing or you’re not. But you’re still Catholic*.

*I said this in my high school once a few years ago and got yelled at by a teacher.

Well said: The only thing I would add is if you were baptized in another faith you are still baptized into the Catholic faith. There is only one baptism.

 

[Stylites]

Once baptised, always baptised. For those who commit apostacy or who dissent from the Church’s teachings on faith and morals, they are still Catholics, just not good Catholics.

 

[Melchior_1]

Well said: The only thing I would add is if you were baptized in another faith you are still baptized into the Catholic faith. There is only one baptism.

Ah, yes yes. “Form, Matter, Intent” and all of that. My wife is actually one such a person, when she went through RCIA she only received Confirmation because her Baptism was considered valid. Another women in the program had to get Baptized due to hers not meeting one of the three above criteria.

 

[only1truth]

If I am not mistake excommunication doesn’t mean they are kicked out of the Church, like a person is kicked out of a health club for angering the manager. But by a persons own actions they have removed themselves from the community of faithfull. They will always be part of the Church by the vows they have made with God. When and if a person returns to the path that Christ left us, they can be accepted back into community of the faithful.

 

[Melchior_1]

If I am not mistake excommunication doesn’t mean they are kicked out of the Church, like a person is kicked out of a health club for angering the manager. But by a persons own actions they have removed themselves from the community of faithfull. They will always be part of the Church by the vows they have made with God. When and if a person returns to the path that Christ left us, they can be accepted back into community of the faithful.

“Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics and remain bound by obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.). However, their communion with the Church is considered gravely impaired. In spite of that, they are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life”

 

[runningdude]

If I am not mistake excommunication doesn’t mean they are kicked out of the Church, like a person is kicked out of a health club for angering the manager. But by a persons own actions they have removed themselves from the community of faithfull. They will always be part of the Church by the vows they have made with God. When and if a person returns to the path that Christ left us, they can be accepted back into community of the faithful.

 

[laszlo]

The baptism, the confirmation and the ordination leaves permanent mark on the soul. However this is true for the Eastern Orthodox sacraments too.

Simply being Catholic is just the faith w/o works: worthless.

 

[GloriousOrder]

Friend, “once saved, always saved” is not similar or even allegorical to “once Catholic, always Catholic”, strictly speaking. When some Reformers give their famous motto, they mean that Divine Grace has irresistibly infused thoughts of salvation into their soul. They believe that the power of God is such that He chooses to override free will in a particular soul’s life, so that soul may be “permanently” saved. It is a deterministic and fatalistic view of God, our Father.

We may contrast the Reformist view with the similar-sounding Catholic view by way of a better analogy. Catholics believe that, at baptism, we are ‘branded’ with a hot spiritual iron by God on the ineffable being that is our ‘self’. Speaking for myself, the blessed waters of baptism felt really hot on my head as it trickled down, and when “and in the name of the Holy Spirit” was said, my whole body received a burning shock down the middle. It was mostly psychological in nature, but there was also a sudden vacancy of demons too… The radical Reformist view, on the other hand, is that we choose baptism only by virtue of the fact that God has forced the idea into our minds. Now, since He is infinite and eternally consistent, He keeps the idea in our minds until we die; thus, once we are “saved”, we are always saved. Notice how they take a real truth about God (consistency and immutability) and use it to justify a falsity about God (tyranny).

It may sound uncharitable, but I liken the two modes of expression to unwilling torture vs. willing trial. The radicals and heretics are basically saying that God puts us on a rack, locks our wrists and ankles in, and baptises us over and over again until we’re dead. The Catholic say that we willingly walk the bed of coals our of love for God, and the burn-marks remain forever. For Catholics, God anoints and washes your branded feet while you are in His presence. You may walk away from God after this baptism, but it will hurt you because your feet are “burned” and you need His aid; however, you can still go on your own, if you choose. For the Reformers, there’s no escaping the irresistible Divine Grace; if He wants you saved, you better want it!

 

[Iotaunum]

I have to disagree with a lot of what has been said on this thread. I don’t think the “once catholic - always catholic (even if non practicing)” view holds out. When someone rejects the Catholic Faith by heresy or schism etc they voluntarily give up their Catholic faith. I don’t like the idea of calling someone a Catholic simply because they were born to Catholic parents and Baptized. While it is true that even children validly baptized by heretics are still Catholics, it is equally true that they can reject the Catholic faith once they reach the age of reason. A Catholic may not have to practice to be considered a Catholic. As long as they hold what they know of the Catholic faith, and do not reject any dogmatic truth, they are still Catholics even if they do not practice - just not very good ones. Now those who reject one or more dogmas of the faith willingly and who dissent from the faith can not be Catholics, even if they practice a form of worship. Martin Luther ceased being a Catholic when he founded his own religion and rejected dogmas and almost the entire body of Catholic doctrine. This was done willingly on his part, and by becoming a protestant he gave up his Catholic Faith. I dont know how anyone can maintain that Luther was still a Catholic even after his revolt.

 

[Melchior_1]

I have to disagree with a lot of what has been said on this thread. I don’t think the “once catholic - always catholic (even if non practicing)” view holds out. When someone rejects the Catholic Faith by heresy or schism etc they voluntarily give up their Catholic faith. I don’t like the idea of calling someone a Catholic simply because they were born to Catholic parents and Baptized. While it is true that even children validly baptized by heretics are still Catholics, it is equally true that they can reject the Catholic faith once they reach the age of reason. A Catholic may not have to practice to be considered a Catholic. As long as they hold what they know of the Catholic faith, and do not reject any dogmatic truth, they are still Catholics even if they do not practice - just not very good ones. Now those who reject one or more dogmas of the faith willingly and who dissent from the faith can not be Catholics, even if they practice a form of worship. Martin Luther ceased being a Catholic when he founded his own religion and rejected dogmas and almost the entire body of Catholic doctrine. This was done willingly on his part, and by becoming a protestant he gave up his Catholic Faith. I dont know how anyone can maintain that Luther was still a Catholic even after his revolt.

The Church, however, disagrees with you.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

“It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection”

If you want we can start throwing down some Catechism if you want.

A Catholic remains a Catholic. They may not be in communion, in schism, be heretics, or believe in crazy things, but they are still Catholic.

 

[GloriousOrder]

Iotaunum and all,

We must make a distinction between ontological Catholicism in the essence, and sapiential Catholicism in the intellect, both of which mark us differently. In terms of sapience (wisdom), Luther ceased to become a Catholic when he revolted; in terms of ontology, however, he was a Catholic from his baptism and remains a Catholic forever, until the end of time - even beyond. Wherever he and other heretics are now, they are Catholics if they were baptised into the one, true, holy Church of God.

 

[Iotaunum]

The Church, however, disagrees with you.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

“It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection”

If you want we can start throwing down some Catechism if you want.

A Catholic remains a Catholic. They may not be in communion, in schism, be heretics, or believe in crazy things, but they are still Catholic.

I can see you are upset and I don’t wan’t to have a debate with you, I was just giving my position. My opinion is based on the teachings found in the traditional theology manuals and the encyclials of the Popes. For example, Pope Pius XII said in Mystici Corporis Christi - *“For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man ipso facto from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy." *

What I understand of this, is that one can Sin gravely and still be part of the Body of Christ and Catholic (just not a very good Catholic). Sin does not sever us from the body of the Church, but as Pope Pius said “schism or heresy or apostasy” does.

In the same encyclial Pope Pius XII also said: - *“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.” *- Again, I understand this to mean that a rejection of the true faith means that one is no longer considered a Catholic and part of the body of Christ which is the Church. Many theologians and doctors of the Church also wrote that manifest heretics are not in any way a members of the Church - that is, neither spiritually nor corporally according to St Robert Bellarmine.

 

[Melchior_1]

I can see you are upset and I don’t wan’t to have a debate with you, I was just giving my position.

I’m not upset at all my friend

Really, I have no horse in this race. The Church has spoken on this issue fairly conclusively, which makes it easy. GloriousOrder gives a nice little rundown a couple posts above this one, which would explain the differences in some of the Saint’s words/writings on this issue.

 

[Iotaunum]

Iotaunum and all,

We must make a distinction between ontological Catholicism in the essence, and sapiential Catholicism in the intellect, both of which mark us differently. In terms of sapience (wisdom), Luther ceased to become a Catholic when he revolted; in terms of ontology, however, he was a Catholic from his baptism and remains a Catholic forever, until the end of time - even beyond. Wherever he and other heretics are now, they are Catholics if they were baptised into the one, true, holy Church of God.

I understand what you are saying, and to an extent I agree. However, I think it would be more appropriate to call such people “ex-Catholics” or “fallen away Catholics” rather than admit that they are still Catholic, but not very good ones. The indelible mark on the soul through baptism does not necessarily equate to being Catholic. I think baptism cannot be undone, whearas the faith most certainly can be rejected. This is the difference.

 

[dharmasister]

Thank you everyone for all the great answers. I have been perplexed by this for a while. I have always thought it was the way Iotaunum put it:

Now those who reject one or more dogmas of the faith willingly and who dissent from the faith can not be Catholics, even if they practice a form of worship. Martin Luther ceased being a Catholic when he founded his own religion and rejected dogmas and almost the entire body of Catholic doctrine. This was done willingly on his part, and by becoming a protestant he gave up his Catholic Faith.

But I can see some of the other points as well. I just kind of feel people like this gentleman I went out with as being dangerous. I am really into my faith and I love to study it and I always want to know more. I met this guy on this Catholic dating website, so it was reasonable for me to expect him to be Catholic. I immediately saw him for what he is, however, some other woman might go out with him and not be as grounded in her faith, What this guy is saying could lead someone in the wrong direction. The Church doesn’t issue licenses which show that we are “in compliance” and that can be revoked when you aren’t.

Anyway, just some random thoughts.

 

[adrift]

I understand what you are saying, and to an extent I agree. However, I think it would be more appropriate to call such people “ex-Catholics” or “fallen away Catholics” rather than admit that they are still Catholic, but not very good ones. The indelible mark on the soul through baptism does not necessarily equate to being Catholic. I think baptism cannot be undone, whearas the faith most certainly can be rejected. This is the difference.

A fallen away Catholic is still Catholic. You don’t cease to be Catholic just because you reject the faith. Baptism cannot be undone it is the indelible mark that makes you part of the Body of Christ which is the Church. They are seperated from the Church but still Catholic. Even those who are baptized into other faiths are part of the Catholic Church. There is only one baptism. They can be fallen away non practicing but still Catholic. Luther never became a non Catholic. He died an excommunicated Catholic but still a Catholic.

 

[Iotaunum]

A fallen away Catholic is still Catholic. You don’t cease to be Catholic just because you reject the faith. Baptism cannot be undone it is the indelible mark that makes you part of the Body of Christ which is the Church. They are seperated from the Church but still Catholic. Even those who are baptized into other faiths are part of the Catholic Church. There is only one baptism. They can be fallen away non practicing but still Catholic. Luther never became a non Catholic. He died an excommunicated Catholic but still a Catholic.

I’m afraid I still do not agree with your position. One can remain baptized and at the same time be non-catholic. I would say that Luther went from being a Catholic to a heretic, just as a non-catholic today would convert and be baptized and then they would become a Catholic. The question asked at the start was:* “Once Catholic, always Catholic?”* To that my answer must be; Yes, except when one seperates himself from the Catholic Church. Lets face it, no one is Catholic who is not a member of the Catholic Church. One Anglican I have debated recently said to me; “I am Catholic - I am part of the one universal Church”, which is clearly not the case since Christ founded only one Catholic Church and that is under the juridiction of the Supreme Pontiff. When quoting from Mediator Dei before, I was trying to show you how I understood the Church’s position on the matter. Pope Pius XII said in that encylical *“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.” * He also stated as I quoted before, that schism, heresy or apostasy severs a man ipso facto from the Body of the Church. Now when one is severed from the Body of the Catholic Church he is no longer Catholic. I don’t believe it is possible to be a Catholic while not being inside the Catholic Church. A minor excommunication or grave sins do not stop one being a Catholic - that is not the issue.

My reasoning here is:

Since -
*Schism, heresy or apostasy severs a man ipso facto from the Body of the Church *

AND

It is impossible for one to be a Catholic while rejecting the Catholic Faith and not being part of the body of the Catholic Church

Therefore, one who seperates themselves from the body of the Church by heresy or apostasy etc. is no longer Catholic and consequently no longer a member of the Body of the Church.

Pope Pius XII said: “only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves…etc” Can anyone claim that there are any Catholics who are not members of the Church? How is this possible? If I wake up tomorrow knowing that the Church teaches transubstantiation and I reject what the Church has stated infallibly, then I am no longer a Catholic no matter how many other teachings I do want to keep. This is not to say that if one does not know the Church’s position and teaching on the matter and rejects a doctrine that he is no longer a Catholic, for this heresy is material only and if the person were to know the position of the Church and that it is a dogma he would accept it.

That’s why I say that one remains a Catholic who is baptized and does not reject anything the Church teaches infallibly. Good or bad, he is still Catholic. It is not necessary to know all the doctrines and dogmas of the faith, nor is it culpable to reject what we are unaware the Church teaches. But when we know the Church teaches something infallibly and we reject it willingly, then our heresy becomes formal and we no longer hold the Catholic Faith. We are no longer Catholic.

This may not make much sense, but I believe it is in keeping with the older theology manuals.

Regards

 

[dharmasister]

That’s why I say that one remains a Catholic who is baptized and does not reject anything the Church teaches infallibly. Good or bad, he is still Catholic. It is not necessary to know all the doctrines and dogmas of the faith, nor is it culpable to reject what we are unaware the Church teaches. But when we know the Church teaches something infallibly and we reject it willingly, then our heresy becomes formal and we no longer hold the Catholic Faith. We are no longer Catholic.

This may not make much sense, but I believe it is in keeping with the older theology manuals.

Regards

Thank you again Iotaunum. That is what I was thinking/feeling. I’m not talking about whether or not someone is Catholic, but just not a good one. You can be a bad Catholic and still be Catholic, but the example I gave was of this guy I went out with who wasn’t just “Fallen Away”, in fact he still goes to Mass on Sunday. But his absolute HATRED of our Pope and the fact that he ***does ***know and understand the Churches teaching, but refuses to accept it and denies the validity of BXVI’s papacy and believes that he should resign, this all places him in a much more grave category.

Pope Pius XII said in that encylical “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.” He also stated as I quoted before, that schism, heresy or apostasy severs a man ipso facto from the Body of the Church.

So Pope Pius XII has said that one can sever themselves from the Body of the Church.

Thank you everyone.