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

[jmcrae]

Protestants are Catholic, but they don’t know it?

Protestants are Christians who are separated from the Catholic Church and have lost most of its treasures, but they still retain the Sacrament of Baptism and at least the New Testament, as well as portions of the Old Testament.

Catholicism is the fullness of Christianity. Each of the different branches of Protestantism began as groups of Catholics who separated from the Church for various different reasons, and each retained something from the Catholic Church, though not everything. Protestantism isn’t actually a different religion; it is still Christianity, but they are various forms of Christianity that are defective, each in its own way.

 

[Jozefo]

Doesn’t triple damages imply that something permanent has taken place? Of course it can be disregarded, but that does not mean that it disappears just because someone chooses to not see it.

I hope someone starts a new thread on this. It has to do with redemption. We were redeemed by Christ’s blood, and the receipt was stamped on our soul. Certificate of Title.

Now we’re in debt, but as long as we trust the Savior, and continue in his grace, we’re safe. But if we go back, we dishonor his sacrifice (payment), and risk being punished.

It’s like a gracious benefactor stepped in and payed our mortgage to the bank, but if we dishonor that, and burn down the house, we’re in default.

 

[jmcrae]

Happily, it doesn’t have to be hurtful, unless you give it permission to eat away at you - then it can hurt; and it is absolutely absurd how much hurt I can feel over the tiniest details if I’m not vigilant over what I let my emotions feed on. We were validly baptized and received the same Holy Spirit and His gifts that cradle Catholics did, and the same Confirmation. We are just as completely Catholic as people who were born Catholic; it just took a little longer.

I don’t know if this will be of comfort or not, but I was recently reminded that my “Church of Baptism” is the Church where I did my RCIA. and not the Protestant church where I was baptized. (I had to put down my Church of Baptism on a form recently, and when I went to write the name of my Protestant church, they said, “No, no - the parish where you became a Catholic is your Church of Baptism.”

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I don’t know if this will be of comfort or not, but I was recently reminded that my “Church of Baptism” is the Church where I did my RCIA. and not the Protestant church where I was baptized. (I had to put down my Church of Baptism on a form recently, and when I went to write the name of my Protestant church, they said, “No, no - the parish where you became a Catholic is your Church of Baptism.”

That is comforting.

 

[jmcrae]

Just to make it clear, I’m Catholic. But I find OCAC distasteful, as I do OSAS, but for different reasons. OSAS cannot be supported well from Sacred Scripture, so we can leave that alone.

OCAC is, in my opinion, less than charitable for a number of reasons.

First, if someone rejects being Catholic, how can anyone in good conscience continue calling him Catholic? It would be arrogant, presumptuous, and disrespectful.

And yet, he continues to be bound to Canon Law in ways that non-Catholics cannot be - and, if he chooses to return to the Church, he isn’t required to convert - all he has to do is go to Confession, and get the marriage contracted during his time away regularized in the Church, if he got married during that time.

 

[SecretaryMonday]

I don’t know if this will be of comfort or not, but I was recently reminded that my “Church of Baptism” is the Church where I did my RCIA. and not the Protestant church where I was baptized. (I had to put down my Church of Baptism on a form recently, and when I went to write the name of my Protestant church, they said, “No, no - the parish where you became a Catholic is your Church of Baptism.”

That seems odd. My Confirmation certificate just lists the name of the Protestant church provided on my proof of baptism.

The Catholic Church might have been where you first pronounced baptismal vows, though! When I asked the RCIA director about how I could renew vows that I had never made, she said that if I had ever participated in an Easter Vigil Mass, I had made baptismal vows at that time even though I hadn’t done it for the baptism itself.

 

[Jozefo]

And yet, he continues to be bound to Canon Law in ways that non-Catholics cannot be - and, if he chooses to return to the Church, he isn’t required to convert - all he has to do is go to Confession, and get the marriage contracted during his time away regularized in the Church, if he got married during that time.

But see, every man, woman, and child is bound to follow the Law. No one escapes, not even Christ.

We all are born inheriting Adam’s sin/debt, with absolutely no way to make the debt good. But when anyone accepts the offer made by Christ - that he offers full redemption, and pays our sin/debt in full, if only we accept the gift - then we are bought with a price. We agree to follow the Law.

And like the gracious and merciful owner he is, following the Law to every jot and tittle, he adheres to the maxim: he who makes a claim must provide a remedy. When we sin, we owe the debt all over again, but God provides our yoke with an easy burden, lightly applied: the Sacraments. We avail ourselves to the remedy provided and balance the books.

We owe a blood debt, but our prayers are received instead. It’s a beautiful system.

 

[jmcrae]

That seems odd. My Confirmation certificate just lists the name of the Protestant church provided on my proof of baptism.

Mine, too.

The Catholic Church might have been where you first pronounced baptismal vows, though! When I asked the RCIA director about how I could renew vows that I had never made, she said that if I had ever participated in an Easter Vigil Mass, I had made vows at that time even though I hadn’t done it for the baptism itself.

I don’t actually know what the reasoning is behind it, but it seems that the Church desires to make us at home in Her, and provides us with a Church of Baptism, even if we weren’t actually baptized there.

I’m still not sure what to think of that - it seems kind of deceitful, like we are erasing our Protestant experiences and pretending they never happened - but at the same time, it gives a sense of total belonging, as well - as if the Church is saying, it doesn’t matter where you came from or when; as far as we’re concerned, you’re family and you were born here.

 

[jmcrae]

But see, every man, woman, and child is bound to follow the Law. No one escapes, not even Christ.

I am talking about canon law. Laws that non-Catholics cannot be expected to bind themselves to. (For example, the law that Catholics must be married in a Catholic Church.)

Someone born and raised as a Baptist, who has never been Catholic, would not be required to marry in a Catholic Church.

But someone who had been given the Sacraments of Initiation in a Catholic Church, who then left and joined the Baptist Church, would be required to marry in a Catholic Church.

Both of them would consider themselves “Baptists” if asked, but the Law requires different things of each, due to one of them being Catholic, and the other not.

 

[jjgigem]

I am talking about canon law. Laws that non-Catholics cannot be expected to bind themselves to. (For example, the law that Catholics must be married in a Catholic Church.)

Someone born and raised as a Baptist, who has never been Catholic, would not be required to marry in a Catholic Church.

But someone who had been given the Sacraments of Initiation in a Catholic Church, who then left and joined the Baptist Church, would be required to marry in a Catholic Church.

Both of them would consider themselves “Baptists” if asked, but the Law requires different things of each, due to one of them being Catholic, and the other not.

Canon law has always been something that baffles me because I am a convert. I commonly see people who claim to know canon law that are debating each other on canon law but I have no idea whether the people debating canon law are qualified or if what they are saying is true. It seems that canon law should have a context (i.e. reason) that it was originally written the way it was written. I understand a message when it is in scripture but not canon law unless someone who is qualified can relate it to scripture in a simple way that I can understand. It is very hard for me to understand and usually causes me a crisis in faith so I tend to avoid it. I used to see a lot of people debating Canon law. I no longer subscribe to these groups on Facebook because they can get nasty.

 

[SecretaryMonday]

I’m still not sure what to think of that - it seems kind of deceitful, like we are erasing our Protestant experiences and pretending they never happened - but at the same time, it gives a sense of total belonging, as well - as if the Church is saying, it doesn’t matter where you came from or when; as far as we’re concerned, you’re family and you were born here.

A good family has a way of making you feel wanted.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

A good family has a way of making you feel wanted.

True story!

 

[Jozefo]

I am talking about canon law. Laws that non-Catholics cannot be expected to bind themselves to. (For example, the law that Catholics must be married in a Catholic Church.)

Someone born and raised as a Baptist, who has never been Catholic, would not be required to marry in a Catholic Church.

But someone who had been given the Sacraments of Initiation in a Catholic Church, who then left and joined the Baptist Church, would be required to marry in a Catholic Church.

Both of them would consider themselves “Baptists” if asked, but the Law requires different things of each, due to one of them being Catholic, and the other not.

Canon Law is legislative law, and subordinate to the Law, and requires the consent of the accused to have any force. A person can refuse to consent to Canon Law, and be safe. But then he goes back under the Law, and is liable for damages.

 

[jmcrae]

Canon Law is legislative law, and subordinate to the Law, and requires the consent of the accused to have any force. A person can refuse to consent to Canon Law, and be safe. But then he goes back under the Law, and is liable for damages.

It is the law of the Church, and thus, bound under the Keys of Peter.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that the law requires the consent of the accused to have any force.

If a scofflaw breaks the law, they drag him kicking and screaming to the pokey. He doesn’t have an option to say, “Hey, that law doesn’t apply to me.” They yell and scream all the time, of course, but it has no effect on the outcome.

If a Catholic breaks canon law, he will still go to Hell, even if he claims that the law does not apply to him because he hasn’t been to Mass in years, and considers himself a Baptist. What is bound on earth is bound in Heaven.

 

[Jozefo]

It is the law of the Church, and thus, bound under the Keys of Peter.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that the law requires the consent of the accused to have any force.

If a scofflaw breaks the law, they drag him kicking and screaming to the pokey. He doesn’t have an option to say, “Hey, that law doesn’t apply to me.” They yell and scream all the time, of course, but it has no effect on the outcome.

If a Catholic breaks canon law, he will still go to Hell, even if he claims that the law does not apply to him because he hasn’t been to Mass in years, and considers himself a Baptist. What is bound on earth is bound in Heaven.

There is an heirarchy to law, Divine Right being the highest. In God’s economy, after Christ redeemed the world, he went to Peter and said (among other things), “Feed my sheep.” He made Peter the keeper of his flock, and entrusted him with its care.

Peter, in college with the other apostles began to legislate in Christ’s place, according to Law. It wasn’t Canon Law that empowered the Church, it was the Law that empowered her.

The Church was empowered to bind and loose, according to Christ’s will. The Church is his bride, taking care of his business while he is away.

If a person enters the fold, but then leaves again, the Church might have a claim, but it will need to be settled later. But in the meanwhile, the sinner comes out from her protection, and goes out into the world again, returning to his vomit.

 

[jmcrae]

If a person enters the fold, but then leaves again, the Church might have a claim, but it will need to be settled later. But in the meanwhile, the sinner comes out from her protection, and goes out into the world again, returning to his vomit.

Right - and my point is that he will be judged as a Catholic on the Day of Judgement. Not as a Baptist, or whatever else.

 

[Jozefo]

Right - and my point is that he will be judged as a Catholic on the Day of Judgement. Not as a Baptist, or whatever else.

By what authority will he be judged a Catholic? Canon Law is in second place. The sinner left the Church’s protection, and is now liable for his sin/debt, but without a remedy.

Which brings me back to the original question: that sinner won’t be judged as a Catholic. He’ll be judged as a deadbeat, owing a blood debt. He’s toast. After that other claims can be brought.

 

[Blacksword]

What if a confirmed Catholic rejects being Catholic? What then?

Then they freely have chosen to walk out of the Church, they remain Catholic even if nonpracticing, in apostasy or unbelief, whatever. Think of it like a family: you can reject your parents, never see them or have a relationship, but they remain your parents nonetheless.

 

[Blacksword]

Ok, let’s stick with that then. Someone’s been validly baptized in whichever church, then eventually confirmed in the Catholic Church. Now they’re Catholic. Years later they say they have left the Catholic faith. At this point, many Catholics have said to or about those “ex-Catholics” that once Catholic, always Catholic. These people are just in imperfect communion. Fine.

But how is that different than once saved always saved? The same internal logic is being used, isn’t it?

Because they may not be “saved”. There well may be many Catholics in Hell now. It’s not as though the Church says being Catholic is your one way ticket to Heaven. OSAS says exactly this, but about making a one-time incantation of some sort (the “sinner’s prayer”).

 

[TK421]

Are most Catholics of the opinion that Protestants believe that? I feel like I hear that a lot here. Because I haven’t met a single person in my entire life that believes that. Just saying. I mean I’m sure they’re out there but I never knew any.