Self identity and Catholicism

[anilorak13ska]

I’m looking for views and opinions as to the following question:

Is a person still Catholic if…

1. They self identify as Catholic
2. They attend mass weekly and reverently
   But
3. They do not believe certain basic Christian dogma such as the divinity of Jesus/the trinity
   Yet
4. They continue to seek a personal relationship/experience of God
5. They try to follow most of the moral teachings of the church (not because of papal infallibility but because of a personal conviction)
   And
6. They do not wish to formally convert to another denomination/religion

I ask for objective labels one might assign to someone like this. My research seems to indicate that lapsed Catholic, cafeteria Catholic, and even sometimes cultural Catholic implies non attendance at mass and/or lack of any spiritual belief.

Would this be a"non Catholic"who merely attends mass and used to be Catholic? And if so, what adjective would correctly go before"Catholic" other than “former”? (Though I think that would be inaccurate…)

Are there non practicing Catholics who still attend mass regularly? Is there a way to distinguish between them and those who neither believe nor attend?

Thank you for any constructive feedback!

 

[BettyBoop416]

I’m looking for views and opinions as to the following question:

Is a person still Catholic if…

1. They self identify as Catholic
2. They attend mass weekly and reverently
   But
3. They do not believe certain basic Christian dogma such as the divinity of Jesus/the trinity
   Yet
4. They continue to seek a personal relationship/experience of God
5. They try to follow most of the moral teachings of the church (not because of papal infallibility but because of a personal conviction)
   And
6. They do not wish to formally convert to another denomination/religion

I ask for objective labels one might assign to someone like this. My research seems to indicate that lapsed Catholic, cafeteria Catholic, and even sometimes cultural Catholic implies non attendance at mass and/or lack of any spiritual belief.

Would this be a"non Catholic"who merely attends mass and used to be Catholic? And if so, what adjective would correctly go before"Catholic" other than “former”? (Though I think that would be inaccurate…)

Are there non practicing Catholics who still attend mass regularly? Is there a way to distinguish between them and those who neither believe nor attend?

Thank you for any constructive feedback!

According to Church teaching, one is Catholic by virtue of one’s baptism. By that standard, your “objective label” would simply be “Catholic.” Of course, there are folks who will hold the opinion that you are not Catholic enough for their tastes, so they will attach qualifiers such as “cafeteria,” “cultural,” “lapsed,” “non-practicing,” etc, to your Catholicity. But in the end, if you have been baptized, you can legitimately call yourself Catholic - regardless of your position on individual Church teachings.

 

[Windmill]

I would tread very carefully here when talking about heresy, schism, and apostasy. These words are thrown around a lot without regard for their exact meaning or consequences.

First, if a person pertinaciously denies a dogma of the faith (meaning, they reject a *de fide *doctrine of the Faith even after they realize that it is a belief that requires divine and Catholic faith on the part of the individual), then they are a formal heretic and are excommunicated. This bars them from receiving the sacraments until they repent and are reconciled with the Church. They are still Catholic, but they are denied participation in the sacraments.

If there are mitigating factors (invincible ignorance, psychological pathologies, or any factor affecting their culpability), then they may be a material heretic (meaning they are in error but don’t fully realize how serious this is or why it is wrong). Fellow Catholics have a duty to help this person come to the truth.

One should never presume on another person’s innocence or guilt in these regards. We should approach the person with charity and patience helping them to first realize the authority of Christ, His Church, and the truths undergirding the dogma that this person is having difficulty with.

In opposition to the previous poster, I would caution against saying that your “Catholicity” is a fluid thing. Our identity as Catholic is centered on our beliefs that unify us as a Church. To say that you are still Catholic when you depart from core beliefs that the Church is close to giving a tip of the hat to dissenters. It is merely playing word games when you call yourself Catholic in these situations, and you are playing games with your salvation as well. God doesn’t care what title you can ascribe to yourself when you go before him for Judgement. **In a canonical sense, you are still Catholic, but you are excommunicated. ** So what have you accomplished here?

 

[Mintaka]

First of all, a person in that situation should of course keep attending Mass. Mass is the best treatment for what ails us; and anyway, everybody should be worshipping God the way God wants to be worshipped.

If someone doesn’t believe dogmas, but is trying to believe what the Church and Jesus teaches, that’s a very different position than if someone isn’t trying and enjoys not believing.

Also, there’s a big difference between “I’m disagreeing with the Church right now, so I’m voluntarily not receiving Communion when I go to Mass,” and “I got excommunicated because I did something really bad that also violated canon law.”

 

[Iron_Donkey]

According to Church teaching, one is Catholic by virtue of one’s baptism. By that standard, your “objective label” would simply be “Catholic.” Of course, there are folks who will hold the opinion that you are not Catholic enough for their tastes, so they will attach qualifiers such as “cafeteria,” “cultural,” “lapsed,” “non-practicing,” etc, to your Catholicity. But in the end, if you have been baptized, you can legitimately call yourself Catholic - regardless of your position on individual Church teachings.

That one is a Catholic by virtue of one’s baptism (or otherwise being accepted into the Church) is absolutely true, and that rejecting some part of Church teaching does not change that is also absolutely true - however, that doesn’t actually mean that rejecting Church teaching has no effect on a person’s status, only that it doesn’t make them non-Catholics. The phrase “Cafeteria Catholic,” for instance, can be used as an insult or because one Catholic wants to feel superior to another, however it does have it’s basis in a real phenomenon - that of calling oneself Catholic but acting as if one can pick and choose which parts of Catholicism are true. (Some view “Cafeteria Catholic” and the like as insults, however, so if you want a technicalish term, perhaps “dissenting Catholics” - it gets the point across, and while some might not like that either, it’s merely descriptive and so hard to rationally object to if one is a Catholic who dissents from Catholicism.)

Though such a person is still Catholic, acting in such a way is emphatically not Catholic, and can be enough such a person should not receive the Eucharist. (See for example: lifesitenews.com/news/san-francisco-archbishop-those-dissenting-from-church-teachings-shouldnt-re).

I say all of this just because it is important to avoid both extremes. Dissent does not cause a Catholic to become non-Catholic, but neither is being in dissent a perfectly ok thing that only self righteous people who enjoy looking down on others care about, or some person saying some other person isn’t “Catholic enough for me.” Again, there are people who do that, but recognizing that some Catholics dissent and that that is bad is not enough to put one in that category.

 

[anilorak13ska]

Thank you for your thoughts on this. I’m all ears if there are any additional insights.

 

[InNomineDomini]

Thank you for your thoughts on this. I’m all ears if there are any additional insights.

It’s an interesting psychology that seeks to redefine, entirely on their own authority, what is or is not legitimate Catholic dogma, who is or is not legitimately Catholic, and, indeed, what this very word Catholic communicates and what it doesn’t. Whilst such a person may claim that they have no interest in leaving the Church for some other sect or religion, in truth, they have already done so, and they have accessioned for themselves the role of judge in these matters, and in a way which outweighs any authority the Church may or may not have.

It would be more sensible simply to say, I don’t know what I am, but I cannot be Catholic, because I believe that Catholics are wrong on several points, i.e., thus and such. This would rightfully treat Catholicism as being, at least, a set of positions within philosophical and theological discourse, and it would accurately dissociate your own positions from those of the Catholic. Such a thing would neither abuse nor redefine language, which will lead to fewer occasions of confusion and wasted thought.