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

[jmcrae]

By what authority will he be judged a Catholic?

By Christ’s authority, exercised through the Successor of Peter.

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.

He’s only a “deadbeat” because he’s a Catholic. Otherwise he would be a pagan or a Protestant.

 

[Jozefo]

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.

Well, if someone rejected their parents, it would be up to the parents to bring atheir claim. If a person tells the world he has no parents, and his parents let it stand, then he has no parents.

But that’s probably another topic.

 

[Blacksword]

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.

Righto!

 

[jmcrae]

Well, if someone rejected their parents, it would be up to the parents to bring atheir claim. If a person tells the world he has no parents, and his parents let it stand, then he has no parents.

Of course he does. He can’t just invent his own version of reality.

 

[jjgigem]

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.

This is where the intellectuals lose me because a person should not be able pronoune condemnation on another person based on their own interpretation of a law. It is the same as the Pharisees who interpreted their law given by Moses that said that Jesus must be crucified for violating the law? Are we not setting ourselves up for the 2nd return of Jesus to say that we have become too entangled in the (canon) law and have lost the message of love and charity for all of our neighbors. I would never ever want to be the person that says that so and so will go to hell because it could condemn myself to hell.

 

[jmcrae]

This is where the intellectuals lose me because a person should not be able pronoune condemnation on another person based on their own interpretation of a law. It is the same as the Pharisees who interpreted their law given by Moses that said that Jesus must be crucified for violating the law? Are we not setting ourselves up for the 2nd return of Jesus to say that we have become too entangled in the (canon) law and have lost the message of love and charity for all of our neighbors. I would never ever want to be the person that says that so and so will go to hell because it could condemn myself to hell.

It is the Church’s interpretation of the law - that’s what counts. Plus, the “he” is a generic “he.” I am not thinking of any particular individual, so I am not judging anyone in an inappropriate way.

Catholics are bound to Catholic law - even if they are lapsed. Peter’s Successor has said so, which means that Christ has ratified it in Heaven, according to the promise given to Peter, “What thou bind on earth is bound in Heaven.”

 

[Jozefo]

By Christ’s authority, exercised through the Successor of Peter.

Christ will judge the living and the dead.

He’s only a “deadbeat” because he’s a Catholic. Otherwise he would be a pagan or a Protestant.

We’re all deadbeats, everyone of us. That’s why God provided a remedy, Christ, and the Church re-presents him every 4 minutes in the world.

 

[Jozefo]

Of course he does. He can’t just invent his own version of reality.

Haha! We’re talking about metaphysical realities, not biological ones.

 

[Blacksword]

Well, if someone rejected their parents, it would be up to the parents to bring atheir claim. If a person tells the world he has no parents, and his parents let it stand, then he has no parents.

But that’s probably another topic.

That doesn’t make sense at all, sorry. The family relationship as an objective reality remains, and everyone has parents. A person saying they don’t doesn’t make that so, they wouldn’t have spontaneously generated from thin air.

 

[jmcrae]

Haha! We’re talking about metaphysical realities, not biological ones.

Yikes.

 

[Blacksword]

Haha! We’re talking about metaphysical realities, not biological ones.

There is a metaphysical aspect to the parental relationship too that remains no matter what one says about the state of the current relations between the family. The person who has been baptized into the Church cannot go back in time and unmake that event, it is done and complete. They CAN chose to reject the gifts they’ve received though.

 

[jjgigem]

It is the Church’s interpretation of the law - that’s what counts. Plus, the “he” is a generic “he.” I am not thinking of any particular individual, so I am not judging anyone in an inappropriate way.

Catholics are bound to Catholic law - even if they are lapsed. Peter’s Successor has said so, which means that Christ has ratified it in Heaven, according to the promise given to Peter, “What thou bind on earth is bound in Heaven.”

But you used the words, “they will go to Hell”, which is a general pronouncement by you. Words have a way of causing significant harm to people like me when they are written in a manner that paraphrases a canon law. In all honesty, this is the thing that I dislike the most because it causes me to doubt regardless of whether I am in communion with the teachings. It is not the teachings that bother me but it is the people who make these statements. It comes across as if something is being added in by the person talking about canon law. I am not attacking you.

 

[Jozefo]

I should quit posting here. I think I might be doing more harm than good. Sorry.

Sincerely

 

[jmcrae]

But you used the words, “they will go to Hell”, which is a general pronouncement by you.

It is an “if/then” statement. If you jump off a cliff, then, you will fall to your death.

Point being, don’t jump off a cliff.

If someone leaves the Church and expects to be judged as a non-Catholic, then, they will be in for a big surprise.

Point being, once in, don’t leave the Church.

I’m not trying to send people to Hell; I"m trying to keep them out, by warning them of what causes people to go to Hell.

 

[Alizarin]

Think of it like a family: you can reject your parents, never see them or have a relationship, but they remain your parents nonetheless.

That’s exactly the same logic behind OSAS Once God has adopted you, he isn’t going to turn his back on you.

So it looks like Catholics don’t have a problem with the logic. The problem lies in the fact that while you see the sacraments, particularly Confirmation, as the instrument of adoption, Protestants would say faith serves as that instrument.

Ok. Question answered, I think. Thanks everyone.

 

[Blacksword]

That’s exactly the same logic behind OSAS Once God has adopted you, he isn’t going to turn his back on you.

So it looks like Catholics don’t have a problem with the logic. The problem lies in the fact that while you see the sacraments, particularly Confirmation, as the instrument of adoption, Protestants would say faith serves as that instrument.

Ok. Question answered, I think. Thanks everyone.

No, it isn’t the same at all. This is very simple: being in the “Catholic family” does NOT obviate free will and is no guarantor of one’s salvation! OSAS essentially both obviates free will AND guarantees one’s salvation since one essentially can’t choose to “leave” if one wishes later to do so. So the implications and effects couldn’t be more different!

If you mean they are the “same” simply because both ideas convey the concept of permanent membership in a group, well, yes true enough, but that’s like saying a tank is just like a Porsche since both things are land vehicles!

 

[jjgigem]

If someone leaves the Church and expects to be judged as a non-Catholic, then, they will be in for a big surprise.

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.

 

[jjgigem]

Jmcrae - I can see your point if you have a family that was married in the Catholic church and then one of the spouses decides that they want to leave the Catholic church because there would be aggravating factors (i.e. sin) that can cause harm to the spouse (and children) that want to remain in the Catholic church. In the situation of a single person like myself that has no emotional entanglements and is still searching for the truth, I don’t see it as an if-else situation.

 

[z_0101]

Respectfully,
Both statements are - well, wrong.

(1) Once saved always saved is a false doctrine - clearly refuted over a dozen times in the gospals. Any one skilled in the most basic of Apologetics can refute this statement without ever refering to anything other than scripture… and in the King James version of the bible.

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

(3) The only thing you can not undo is a valid baptism, or other sacraments that leave a mark upon the soul. (the chrisim is used in these, baptism, confirmation, holy orders).
Once Christain, Always Christian… you may however, not be a state of Grace or you may be in a state of Mortal Sin.

ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA (Click Here for Link)Prot. N. 10279/2006

Your Excellency:

For quite some time, a considerable number of Bishops, Judicial Vicars and others working in the field of canon law have been posing to this Pontifical Council questions and requests for clarification concerning the so-called actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica mentioned in canons 1086, § 1, 1117 and 1124 of the Code of Canon Law. The concept therein presented is new to canonical legislation and is distinct from the other – rather “virtual” (that is, deduced from behaviors) – forms of “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith (cfr. can. 171, § 1, 4°; 194, § 1, 2°; 316, § 1; 694, § 1, 1°; 1071, § 1, 4° and § 2). In the latter circumstances, those who have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church continue to be bound by merely ecclesiastical laws (cfr. can. 11).

The issue was carefully examined by the competent Dicasteries of the Holy See in order to identify, first of all, the theological and doctrinal components of an actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica and then in turn the requirements or juridical formalities that would be necessary so that such an action would constitute a true “formal act” of defection.

After having received the decision of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith concerning the theological and doctrinal elements, and after subsequently examining the entire matter in Plenary Session, this Pontifical Council communicates the following to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences:

1. For the abandonment of the Catholic Church to be validly configured as a true actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia so that the exceptions foreseen in the previously mentioned canons would apply, it is necessary that there concretely be:

a) the internal decision to leave the Catholic Church;
b) the realization and external manifestation of that decision; and
c) the reception of that decision by the competent ecclesiastical authority.

1. The substance of the act of the will must be the rupture of those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments, and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church. This means that the formal act of defection must have more than a juridical-administrative character (the removal of one’s name from a Church membership registry maintained by the government in order to produce certain civil consequences), but be configured as a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church: it supposes, therefore, an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.

1. The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the Church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the Code, given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of the faith.

On the other hand, heresy (whether formal or material), schism and apostasy do not in themselves constitute a formal act of defection if they are not externally concretized and manifested to the ecclesiastical authority in the required manner.

1. The defection must be a valid juridical act, placed by a person who is canonically capable and in conformity with the canonical norms that regulate such matters (cfr. cann.124-126). Such an act must be taken personally, consciously and freely.

1. It is required, moreover, that the act be manifested by the interested party in written form, before the competent authority of the Catholic Church: the Ordinary or proper pastor, who is uniquely qualified to make the judgment concerning the existence or non-existence of the act of the will as described above in n. 2.

Consequently, only the convergence of the two elements – the theological content of the interior act and its manifestation in the manner defined above – constitutes the actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, with the corresponding canonical penalties (cfr. can. 1364, § 1).

1. In such cases, the competent ecclesiastical authority mentioned above is to provide that this act be noted in the baptismal registry (cfr. can. 535, § 2) with explicit mention of the occurrence of a “defectio ab Ecclesia catholica actu formali”.

1. 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.

With the certainty that the Bishops of your Conference, conscious of the salvific dimension of ecclesiastical communion, will well understand the pastoral motivations underlying these norms, I welcome this opportunity to renew my sentiments of fraternal esteem.

Faithfully yours in the Lord,

Julián Card. Herranz
President

Bruno Bertagna
Secretary

This notification was approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, who directed that it be transmitted to all Presidents of Episcopal Conferences.

 

[z_0101]

Sorry, ran out of space:

I do want to point out the following:

ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA (Click Here for Link)**(…)**7. 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. (…)

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. )