Once saved, always saved VS. Once Catholic, always Catholic

[Jozefo]

Sorry, ran out of space:

I do want to point out the following:

Some people are reading this to mean OCAC; however, they do so by taking the section out of context of the remaining document. It doesn’t mean that a person remains Catholic despite the fact that they have the desire to leave the Catholic faith and have met the other requirements as outlined in the document. What it means is that the Baptism itself remains and can not be undone if it has been performed licitly. The Catholic Church recognizes licit Baptisms from the majority of Protestant faiths and yet would not insult a validly Baptised Protestant by calling them Catholic - no, we call them separated brothers and sisters in Christ. (To me, a sad state, and yet also a small comfort in that, though separated, they are still part of the overall Body of Christ and as such there is hope that a person can still be saved thru the Grace and the love of God. This is in fact part of what we pray for as Catholic-Christians. )

Yes, it’s more accurate to say: Once baptized, always baptized. As someone pointed out earlier, you can’t go back in time and erase the past.

 

[Alizarin]

Canon law allows for the formal defection from the faith - the following from the vatican website.

Actually, one can no longer do that, as of 2009 Link

 

[manualman]

Why doesn’t an assent to the Christian faith (faith in Jesus as savior) have the same indelible mark as Catholic baptism?

In some cases, it actually might! For those genuinely unaware that Christ instituted baptism as a sacrament and thus having no recourse to it, catholics have long recognized the possibility that God will have mercy on such a repentant and faithful person via a “baptism of desire.”

(This often raises the question “what’s the point of baptism then?” My answer to that is that just because it is theoretically possible to swim to shore after a shipwreck doesn’t mean one should refuse the offer of assistance from a rescue ship! Christ gave us baptism to assist us, not to chain up the Father.)

Nevertheless, neither form of baptism guarantees your entrance into heaven. God is not manipulated by the conniving of men. The difference between the sheep and the goats is what such people DO about the Grace they’ve been offered.

 

[St_Francis]

That statement, “big surprise” is no different than your first statement of “they are going to hell” because you are saying that you know what God will do in this particular “if-else” situation. God is not a computer. I know that your statement is false because I have spent much time with the Blessed Sacrament praying for guidance for how to deal with people who use these sorts of pronouncements. I have almost left the church and gone back to my old Methodist faith over these silly canon law debates but I am not going to let you chase me out of the church yet. I take it a day at a time. I am upset at you and not the body of the Church.

There is the objective teaching and there is the subjective reality-in-particular-situations, where guilt might be mitigated by some individual aspect of the case.

So, when one speaks generally, one is speaking objectively–no mitigating factors. When I say, people who commit adultery are bound for Hell, I am not talking about a case in which a man who marries again after his wife disappears and is declared dead because she hasn’t ever been heard of but she is actually still alive. One is in this case talking about adulterers in general.

God will judge each of us subjectively and with perfect justice and perfect mercy, and it is the Church’s task, and ours, to help others attain Heaven. One way we do this is by teaching people how to avoid Hell, and we can’t really do that without explaining which acts can cause a person to end up there.

At the same time, the Church reminds us that Christ said that we should not judge the state of a particular person’s soul; it would indeed be wrong to say Mr X committed this mortal sin and so is going to Hell.

 

[Alizarin]

God will judge each of us subjectively and with perfect justice and perfect mercy

Hasn’t perfect justice met perfect mercy already, on the cross? That’s at the heart of the OSAS notion, that is, the idea that the work is done, completed by Jesus on Calvary. We just need to accept that fact, which is where the “saved by faith” part comes in.

 

[z_0101]

Respectfully,
(2) Canon law allows for the formal defection from the faith - the following from the vatican website.

Actually, one can no longer do that, as of 2009 Link

Alizarin, can you find me any supporting documentation from the Holy Mother Church to support the “article?”

What the article clearly states is that it is very difficult to defect: “because formal rules for leaving the church are so hard to navigate.” It also sounds like the The Archdiocese of Dublin is playing a very dangerous game with people… but I give them the benefit of doubt, in that their statements were more than likely taken out of context.

The 2009 document refered to "APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO” - OMNIUM IN MENTEM appears to deal with only those entries wherein formal defection applies to marrage and to those of consecrated orders (Can. …1008,1009,1086,1117,1124) I really like to post it here in its entirity; however, it is way to long. Instead I encourage you to go to the link on the Vatitcan website and read it yourself.

There are several sections within the Code of Canon Law that still explicitly refer to the formal defection from the Church ( One such is: Can. 316 §1. A person who has publicly rejected the Catholic faith, has defected from ecclesiastical communion, or has been punished by an imposed or declared excommunication cannot be received validly into public associations.)

I am finding it very difficult to locate anything on the Vatican website that bars a formal defection from the Church. Nor, can I find anything from any website that has any actual link to any document issued via the Vatican that formally abolishes or suspends the process of formal defection from the Catholic Faith.

What I find instead, is an overly broad interpretation, and application, of the modificatons stated in “OMNIUM IN MENTEM” wherein the removal of “formal defection” from the code dealing with marriage and if a marrage to such a person is licit (as was the case in Can.1117) and clears up some issues with holy orders and the roles of the offices. These modifications to very specfic sections of the Code have been, I think erroniously, applied by a very small number of individuals to the entire Code of Cannon Law by people with a personal (IMHO -(political)) agenda.

Therefor, what I would say to people that want to formally defect, contact your Chancery Office, if they cite the “OMNIUM IN MENTEM” simply ask formal appeal to the Vatican. As far as I understand it, they can not refuse such a request. However, understand, the code of Canon Law places some really very serious (from a Church/Faith position) sanctions on anyone that would formally renounce the Catholic Church.

Website that helps people leave the Catholic Church to cease operations (click here to follow link)ONE OF THE founders of a website that provided information and assistance to people who wished to officially leave the Catholic Church has said that the site will close, because formal rules for leaving the church are so hard to navigate.

Countmeout.ie was established in 2009, offering visitors a Declaration of Defection form that could be mailed to a local parish priest. An annotation would then be added to a person’s baptismal certificate, thereby formally severing a persons ties with Catholicism.

Over 12,000 of the forms were downloaded from the site, but an official change to canon law in 2009 has made it impossible to formally defect from the church. The Archdiocese of Dublin said that it will maintain a register of those who have expressed an interest in defecting.

However, without the baptismal certificate annotation, the group says that the register is irrelevant.

Paul Dunbar, one of three people who had founded the CountMeOut website, said that trying to find ways around the 2009 decision by Pope Benedict XVI to abolish formal defection was like “repeatedly hitting our head against a brick wall”.

“We can’t get a meaningful answer from anyone in the Catholic Church, so we’ve decided to cease operations.”

Dunbar says that even since defection was abolished, many people have visited the website, mailed the owners and “reflected on their own relationship with the Catholic Church.”

“The campaign proved very successful in the early stages and generated a lot of debate.

As a group, we felt it was important for people to reflect on their relationship with the church and decide whether they could remain as a member.
“The website will remain live for a number of months as we feel the information available on the site may prove useful to some.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This whole once Catholic, always Catholic hurts my feelings. When it is explained people say that it is because you are baptized Catholic. Well, I wasn’t. I had a valid baptism and the Church recognizes it, but it wasn’t done at a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest. When it is explained that you are once Catholic, always Catholic because of your baptism, it makes me feel like I’m not fully Catholic. Kinda hurts. Can this be explained differently for us converts?

Perhaps this can help you:

Dominus Iesus

Excerpt:

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

 

[z_0101]

Perhaps this can help you:

Dominus Iesus

Excerpt:

 

[jmcrae]

Hasn’t perfect justice met perfect mercy already, on the cross?

That was to wipe out Adam’s sin, and make the Sacraments possible. It was the end of the Old Covenant, but only the beginning of the New Covenant.

That’s at the heart of the OSAS notion, that is, the idea that the work is done, completed by Jesus on Calvary. We just need to accept that fact, which is where the “saved by faith” part comes in.

If it were that simple, the Bible would only be two pages long.

 

[jjgigem]

There is the objective teaching and there is the subjective reality-in-particular-situations, where guilt might be mitigated by some individual aspect of the case.

So, when one speaks generally, one is speaking objectively–no mitigating factors. When I say, people who commit adultery are bound for Hell, I am not talking about a case in which a man who marries again after his wife disappears and is declared dead because she hasn’t ever been heard of but she is actually still alive. One is in this case talking about adulterers in general.

God will judge each of us subjectively and with perfect justice and perfect mercy, and it is the Church’s task, and ours, to help others attain Heaven. One way we do this is by teaching people how to avoid Hell, and we can’t really do that without explaining which acts can cause a person to end up there.

At the same time, the Church reminds us that Christ said that we should not judge the state of a particular person’s soul; it would indeed be wrong to say Mr X committed this mortal sin and so is going to Hell.

Thank you St. Francis for explaining it. God bless you and your family.

 

[Alizarin]

That was to wipe out Adam’s sin, and make the Sacraments possible. It was the end of the Old Covenant, but only the beginning of the New Covenant.

Given the title of thread, we’re getting a little off topic, but since we’re here… I thought Christ died for everyone’s sins, not just Adam’s. The way you phrased it, it makes it sound like Christ came only to die for the clearing of the stain of original sin.

 

[jmcrae]

Given the title of thread, we’re getting a little off topic, but since we’re here… I thought Christ died for everyone’s sins, not just Adam’s. The way you phrased it, it makes it sound like Christ came only to die for the clearing of the stain of original sin.

The Sacraments take us back in time and space to the Cross to wash our sins away there, too, so in that sense, yes, He washed all our sins away on the Cross. But we aren’t able to go back in time and space all by ourselves; we need the Sacraments (which come from Jesus for exactly this purpose) to be able to get us there.

The sins of the Old Testament Saints were washed away when He descended to the dead and preached to them there, and they received His teaching.

But there wasn’t any “automatic forgiveness” of future sins on the Cross. Otherwise, we would have a license to sin, and I don’t think that is why He died on the Cross. He died to make us Saints; not to give us license to sin.

 

[Alizarin]

The Sacraments take us back in time and space to the Cross to wash our sins away there, too, so in that sense, yes, He washed all our sins away on the Cross. But we aren’t able to go back in time and space all by ourselves; we need the Sacraments (which come from Jesus for exactly this purpose) to be able to get us there.

Why do we need to be taken back in time to the cross? For instance, if a fireman pulled me out of a burning house he did it once and my entire future benefits from it. I think it was Chesterton who said that the shadow of the cross falls across all of time (or something to that effect)

 

[jmcrae]

Why do we need to be taken back in time to the cross? For instance, if a fireman pulled me out of a burning house he did it once and my entire future benefits from it. I think it was Chesterton who said that the shadow of the cross falls across all of time (or something to that effect)

If you go back into the burning house, then the fireman has to save you again.

If you sin after Baptism, you have to get saved by Jesus on the Cross a second time. This takes place by means of the Sacraments.

 

[z_0101]

(…)**But there wasn’t any “automatic forgiveness” of future sins on the Cross. **Otherwise, we would have a license to sin, and I don’t think that is why He died on the Cross. He died to make us Saints; not to give us license to sin.

 

[z_0101]

If you go back into the burning house, then the fireman has to save you again.

If you sin after Baptism, you have to get saved by Jesus on the Cross a second time. This takes place by means of the Sacraments.

No, the firefighter does not have to save you again - in fact, if the scene commander determines that the structure is beyond the point of safe rescue and/or the firefighter determines that it is beyond reason to save you, the firefighter didn’t have to save you in the first place, let alone a second time.

The absolute ONLY thing we MUST do in the life is suffer the consequences of our decision and actions.
If you commit Mortal sin after Baptism, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is NOT being saved by Jesus on the Cross a SECOND time. He died once and for all for the forgiveness of sin.

After Baptism, should you sin again (as I have ), you are forgiven by the power invested by Christ thru the Holy Spirit via the authority of the Church invested therein when Christ gave the Keys if Heaven to Peter (Mth:6(19))“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”]
And again invested in the apostles after Christ’s death and resurection:

The Forgiveness of Sins (Catholic Answer Tract - Click here for the full article)God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, “‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. **If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21–23). **(This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)

 

[Alizarin]

If you commit Mortal sin after Baptism, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is NOT being saved by Jesus on the Cross a SECOND time. He died once and for all for the forgiveness of sin.

But you’re “in the burning building” yet again. And you get pulled out again, albeit this time by the sacrament, and so you can say either you’ve rescued yourself (b/c you chose to go to confession), or the priest has rescued you (because he administers the sacrament), or Jesus through the priest has rescued you (the most acccurate way to word it considering Catholic theology). All in all, you are being saved again. And again and again over a lifetime, or so it looks like to an outsider.

 

[TK421]

I don’t know if this helps, but Catholicism makes a clearly defined distinction between salvation and redemption. These two words are not just synonyms that are used interchangeably.

All of mankind has been redeemed through Christ. That includes both people that accept him at any point and people that reject him. A person that goes through life completely apathetic and/or hostile to Jesus’ sacrifice has still been redeemed. Salvation is when a person gives their fiat to accept the gift, and this is orchestrated through the sacraments. A person is always redeemed.

 

[Alizarin]

I don’t know if this helps, but Catholicism makes a clearly defined distinction between salvation and redemption. These two words are not just synonyms that are used interchangeably.

All of mankind has been redeemed through Christ. That includes both people that accept him at any point and people that reject him. A person that goes through life completely apathetic and/or hostile to Jesus’ sacrifice has still been redeemed. Salvation is when a person gives their fiat to accept the gift, and this is orchestrated through the sacraments. A person is always redeemed.

Good point that you make. But in that way of looking at it, it’s like saying Jesus died to give people the chance to be saved, rather than saying Jesus died for our salvation as the creed puts it. In which case He’s only doing part of His work, leaving it incomplete, it seems. That’s what trips me up.

 

[jmcrae]

Good point that you make. But in that way of looking at it, it’s like saying Jesus died to give people the chance to be saved, rather than saying Jesus died for our salvation as the creed puts it. In which case He’s only doing part of His work, leaving it incomplete, it seems. That’s what trips me up.

Jesus’ death on the Cross fulfilled the Old Covenant and inaugurated the New Covenant. We still have to enter into the New Covenant, by means of the Sacraments.