'uncatholic' Catholics?

[Mimi]

technically, you cannot reject any of the catholic teachings and be catholic. morally, you cannot judge others.
for our protestant friends, the big difference in faith is the eucharist, followed by confession, et al. any protestant or anyone else who is truely interested in the catholic faith should read the early church fathers.:twocents:

Technically, if you go to RC Church and reject any of the teachings, you are a dissenting Catholic. If you believe abortion is okay in some cases, for example.

What if a fellow parishioner is vocal about his belonging to the dissenting group Call to Action? You see him going up to receive Holy Communion every week; yes, you can pray he will see the Truth and pray for God’s Mercy, but this public affirmation of faith in the RCC is really a lie, then, isn’t it? Does this person not automatically excommunicate himself?

If a person is baptized into the faith, then falls away, s/he is a non-practicing Catholic, or fallen away Catholic. S/he may reclaim that faith, and be reconciled with the RCC. Through the Grace obtained at baptism, s/he may receive God’s Mercy through the sacrament of confession and renew and return to faithful practice.

All of us slip up now and then, but it is dishonest to say one is Catholic and then not practice ANY of the teachings; regular weekend attendance at Mass AND on Holy Days is NOT optional. This person would be more correct to say, “I was baptized a Catholic, but I don’t practice it anymore.”
Lord Have Mercy on us all.

Blessed Lent,
Mimi

 

[blessedtoo]

hmmm, I thought I just had a strange group of friends lol… there must be a reason for this identification. I wonder if anybody has any theories?? lol

I do! I left the Church at 17 and did not return until 43. During that time, I was the most anti-Catholic catholic you could find! Right up there with Bill Maher and George Carlin! I told people that I was an Italian Catholic in “recovery” from Catholicism. And it was much more than just a cultural thing, as I was raised in a devoutly Catholic family, with 12 years of Catholic Schooling, most of it pre-Vat2. I believe that it was God in my heart and soul, living and breathing there, in spite of my vile self. I really believe that He was planted in me so completely by my mom and dad, the sisters and the priests, that the louder I screamed about His non-existence, the bigger He grew in my heart. For me, it was a St. Paul experience in that the revelation of God’s presence was made known all at once. But the education of my faith has been a very, very long process. Even with all the education I had, I knew absolutely nothing about my faith. I knew the rules - but not the reasons.

Maybe your “athiest” friends insistence on identifying himself as Catholic is God’s still quiet voice in his soul. Pray for him. I know my parents prayers were a huge part of why God brought me home.

 

[Janet_S]

I do! I left the Church at 17 and did not return until 43. During that time, I was the most anti-Catholic catholic you could find! Right up there with Bill Maher and George Carlin! I told people that I was an Italian Catholic in “recovery” from Catholicism. And it was much more than just a cultural thing, as I was raised in a devoutly Catholic family, with 12 years of Catholic Schooling, most of it pre-Vat2. I believe that it was God in my heart and soul, living and breathing there, in spite of my vile self. I really believe that He was planted in me so completely by my mom and dad, the sisters and the priests, that the louder I screamed about His non-existence, the bigger He grew in my heart. For me, it was a St. Paul experience in that the revelation of God’s presence was made known all at once. But the education of my faith has been a very, very long process. Even with all the education I had, I knew absolutely nothing about my faith. I knew the rules - but not the reasons.

Maybe your “athiest” friends insistence on identifying himself as Catholic is God’s still quiet voice in his soul. Pray for him. I know my parents prayers were a huge part of why God brought me home.

Blessedtoo, your experience is almost exactly like mine.

In one of his Father Brown stories, GK Chesterton talks about the influence the Catholic Church has on those who had once been a part of her; ‘the unseen hook and invisible line. . . the twitch upon the thread.’

I can’t find the quote from the Chesterton story, but I did find this reference in Joseph Pearce’s book, Literary Converts on page 236. This is from a memo by Evelyn Waugh:

"The RCC has the unique power of keeping remote control over human souls which have once been part of her. GK Chesterton has compared this to the fisherman’s line, which allows the fish the illusion of free play in the water and yet has him by the hook; in his own time the fisherman by a ‘twitch upon the thread’ draws the fish to land.’ "

The same thing that happened to you and me has probably happened to many other people–the unseen hook and invisible line drew us back.

 

[guanophore]

ok… I wasn’t quite sure what to call this thread but in the past two days I’ve spoken to two friends… both raised Catholic…and both completely clueless about their faith.

To be honest their views are more in line with the protestant church… and what struck me was: why on earth are they Catholic if they do not follow Catholic teaching or even understand basic principles? Does the church not educate them?

I think not sufficiently. Speaking as one who left for almost 30 years because I felt “I am not being fed”. I was hungry for scripture, andthere was not Catholic Bible study. It is also a failure of individual Catholics, and especially parents. Many Catholics I know come to the Church to get married, then don’t return again until they bring their kids for Baptism, then don’t raise them in the faith…

I had to explain to one friend why he would possibly need to go to confession before taking communion because he’d not been to mass for three years and had done lots of bad things (never put it like that lol) and despite me being protestant… I was confused as to how he never knew the reasons for this.

He does not believe in confessin and believes it does not matter if he sleeps around or worships at different churches and takes communion there… and yet he still identifies himself as a Catholic.

It is truly tragic.

Friend two is from Spain… she also does not believe in confession, believing that she can confess to anyone or just in prayer… she does not believe that she has to attend mass every week (and neither does a Catholic partner of another aquaintance)…all three believe that the basic principle matters but hated all the ‘pedantic’ rules and laws.

anyway, before I get confused again… bascally: what makes someone Catholic? upbringing/beliefs? [/QOUTE]

It would be someone who believes all the teachings of the Church. In the case of those Baptized CAtholic, that don’t practice, they are considered fallen away from their faith, and in a state of separation from the Grace of God.
Abira;1975253:

As much as I would never like to tell someone they should change denomination I do feel as though both of them are so much more in line with other churches. I was just shocked that myself (who is seriously not up even on my own faith most of the time lol) could explain historical reasons and the reasons for the sacraments and other ideas to people who I thought, with being brought up Catholic, would be able to teach me things!

May God bless you for your integrity and study!

 

[maryj]

Raises his right hand and points at himself

(…thought I wasn’t as bad as some of the people described here)

I raise both left and right hands and point to myself. Although I was worse than some of the people described here.

 

[Abira]

May God bless you for your integrity and study!

lol, well I don’t study for my own integrity, but I have found that by studying Catholicism I have learnt more about the protestant faith I’ve been brought up with then I have through my whole upbringing.

S

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Would you be willing to be a guest on The Journey Home?
If you would, why don’t you send an email to Marcus Grodi. I would love to see you give your testimony.

Sorry, I’m not from the US plus I don’t think my story is that interesting. But thanks for the interesting suggestion!

---

As for the actual topic of the thread, nowadays it also bothers me that there are so many people call themselves Catholic yet are more protestant than Catholics. What’s also sad about it is that when many of these people realize the absence of God in their lives they, in their ignorance, end up turning back at the Church. They are often the “born again” Christians that call us Mary-worshipers.

 

[guanophore]

May God bless you for your integrity and study!

lol, well I don’t study for my own integrity, but I have found that by studying Catholicism I have learnt more about the protestant faith I’ve been brought up with then I have through my whole upbringing.

S

This is very interesting. I was born Catholic, and in studying Protestant Theology, learned more Catholicism than I did growing up!

 

[Abira]

This is very interesting. I was born Catholic, and in studying Protestant Theology, learned more Catholicism than I did growing up!

I think it’s important to have your ideas challenged by something new. Maybe it would do us all good to each study ‘the opposite’ faith. You don’t challenge the ideas of your upbringing in the same way because you accept them before you fully understand them in some cases.

I know that for me, I realised that I’ve just accepted a lot of things without thinking, and lately, as I’ve started to look for different points of view I’ve found that there are some things that I don’t agree with… and some things that I still do

S

 

[Future_Prodigy]

There is a difference between a bad member and a non-member.
In a very real sense we are all “bad members” of the Church. However some of us obey most of the formal rules, whilst others don’t.

A non-member, on the other hand, could be a great enemy of the Church, he could be completely indifferent, or he could be on the verge of membership except maybe for a few reservations about specifics that are an obstacle for him. People in the last class might be better allies than those who don’t struggle with questions over, say, contraception, and think that if they ignore the issue it will go away. However they are still non-members, and have a different status to bad members.

That doesn’t even make sense. I am a baptized and practicing high Anglican and have a much closer Eucharist theology to the RC than even most RC themselves hold (in the context of fallen away Catholics that is, don’t misunderstand me). The church since V2 has even said that all Christians baptized whether they like it or not are in some way shape or form part fo the catholic church. Now i think it is ludicrous to try and reason your way out of this kind of situation, whereby you can look me in the face and tell me a non practicing, fallen away catholic is just a bad member (and everyone has those days) whereas me , a non-member, is the enemy of the church. NONSENSE!! That’s just totally un Christian and totally un-ecumenical.

If the church will accept the baptism of my church and because I differ on a couple topics of dogma, and a fallen away person differs on the same topics if not more they are no different than me, by the merits of their baptism (which seems to be the case everyone here is saying, because they were baptized therefore they are in whereas others are not. That simply is not what the catechism teaches!)

 

[Abira]

I’ve been reading the above post and I remembered something, though I don’t know how true it is:

Catholic communion is for those who are in communion with all Catholic teachings. This is why non-Catholics cannot take communion.

Protestant communion can act as something to bring people together, in the hope that one day they will all share in the same beliefs. This is why any confirmed person may take communion and anyone can be blessed there.

Just with reference to the thread; can a Catholic who is not in communion with Catholic teaching, take communion? I know that a protestant can always have communion even if they do not agree with various, or veen main, teachings.

S

 

[Future_Prodigy]

exactly! This hardlined Cahtolicism is stupid. If you accept the one baptism, done under proper liturgical regulations, then to say a fallen away catholic is more in line with the church then a practicing faithful hihg anglican is nonesense. (as i stated in my last post lol)

Just with reference to the thread; can a Catholic who is not in communion with Catholic teaching, take communion?

They are not suppsoed to… do they? Yes! I am still worked up over that last comment lol sorry, someone will give you a better answer to why this is.

 

[guanophore]

I’ve been reading the above post and I remembered something, though I don’t know how true it is:

Catholic communion is for those who are in communion with all Catholic teachings. This is why non-Catholics cannot take communion.

Just with reference to the thread; can a Catholic who is not in communion with Catholic teaching, take communion? I know that a protestant can always have communion even if they do not agree with various, or veen main, teachings. S

A catholic who is in sin (rebelling against the teachings of the church) should not take communion. If they do, they can become guilty of the body and blood of Christ and bring upon themselves eternal damnation.

 

[Abira]

A catholic who is in sin (rebelling against the teachings of the church) should not take communion. If they do, they can become guilty of the body and blood of Christ and bring upon themselves eternal damnation.

eternal damnation? I thought the only sin that God cannot forgive is when someone turns their back on the spirit…excluding all possibilities of opening themselves up to the spirit and to a new life.

I know that a Catholic should not take communion when in sin because they believe in the real presence…and so would not want to tarnish it…but I didn’t know that last part.

Take care, S

 

[guanophore]

exactly! This hardlined Cahtolicism is stupid. If you accept the one baptism, done under proper liturgical regulations, then to say a fallen away catholic is more in line with the church then a practicing faithful hihg anglican is nonesense. (as i stated in my last post lol)

You did not include a quote, so I am not sure what your are referring to as “hardlined Catholocism is stupid”. I have a question, though. Don’t you think this statement is a “hard”?

Luke 9:26
26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

Since Catholics believe that they espouse the presence and teaching of Christ, it is required not to be ashamed of them. Therefore, even if you think it is “stupid” the Real Presence of Christ and HIs Teaching still remain.

Just with reference to the thread; can a Catholic who is not in communion with Catholic teaching, take communion?

They are not suppsoed to… do they? Yes! I am still worked up over that last comment lol sorry, someone will give you a better answer to why this is.

Yes, people who are not in a state of grace take communion by the hundreds every week. I think it is a great source of sickness in the Church. What was the comment you were so worked up about?

 

[Future_Prodigy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm McLean
There is a difference between a bad member and a non-member.
In a very real sense we are all “bad members” of the Church. However some of us obey most of the formal rules, whilst others don’t.

A non-member, on the other hand, could be a great enemy of the Church, he could be completely indifferent, or he could be on the verge of membership except maybe for a few reservations about specifics that are an obstacle for him. People in the last class might be better allies than those who don’t struggle with questions over, say, contraception, and think that if they ignore the issue it will go away. However they are still non-members, and have a different status to bad members.

My response!

That doesn’t even make sense. I am a baptized and practicing high Anglican and have a much closer Eucharist theology to the RC than even most RC themselves hold (in the context of fallen away Catholics that is, don’t misunderstand me). The church since V2 has even said that all Christians baptized whether they like it or not are in some way shape or form part fo the catholic church. Now i think it is ludicrous to try and reason your way out of this kind of situation, whereby you can look me in the face and tell me a non practicing, fallen away catholic is just a bad member (and everyone has those days) whereas me , a non-member, is the enemy of the church. NONSENSE!! That’s just totally un Christian and totally un-ecumenical.

If the church will accept the baptism of my church and because I differ on a couple topics of dogma, and a fallen away person differs on the same topics if not more they are no different than me, by the merits of their baptism (which seems to be the case everyone here is saying, because they were baptized therefore they are in whereas others are not. That simply is not what the catechism teaches!)

 

[lak611]

eternal damnation? I thought the only sin that God cannot forgive is when someone turns their back on the spirit…excluding all possibilities of opening themselves up to the spirit and to a new life.

I know that a Catholic should not take communion when in sin because they believe in the real presence…and so would not want to tarnish it…but I didn’t know that last part.

Take care, S

Receiving Communion when in a state of mortal sin is another mortal sin. If the person repents of both mortal sins in Confession, he can be absolved and will not be facing hell. He will only go to hell if he dies in the state of mortal sin without repenting and confessing.

 

[guanophore]

It is especially sad to me that these Catholics bash the Church, water down the liturgy, and don’t live moral lives- yet their Masses and confessions are valid- yet there are Anglicans (high Church Anglicans- not your average Episcopalian) who call their service Mass, who revere their priests, who love the Eucharist (even though theirs is invalid- by a technicality that the laity and even most of the clergy have nothing to do with), who love the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints, who have communion rails, incense, bells, sacred music that is not heretical or cheap-sounding, genuflections, kneeling, and all the things we typically associate with reverence and orthodoxy- yet they are not Catholic and Anglicans do not have valid orders…the Catholics I referred to do have valid orders though- it is very unfortunate. It certainly isn’t very “ecumenical” to throw out everything they and many other Christians find inspiring.

lol this catholic supremacy bs is almost to much to swallow. I am a raised high church anglican discenring the move to RC but comments liek this make me sick to my stomach. A backslided christian who denies the teachigns of the churhc is not part of the church i dont care what others say. Its nonsense to imply that they are but then others who have very similar beliefs and practice the faith are not. Totally nonsense!

I am not sure what you mean by “Catholic Supremacy”. Are you saying that, since the Anglican priests are not considered validly ordained, and therefore the sacraments are not valid, that the Catholics are being somehow snooty? Which comment makes you sick to your stomach? As far as I know, the validity of the orders and sacraments are not related to the holiness of the priest. I agree with you that pious people who are sincere in faith not being accepted as “valid” is tragic, but especially more so in comparison to lapsed Catholics in so called good standing.

 

[guanophore]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm McLean
There is a difference between a bad member and a non-member. In a very real sense we are all “bad members” of the Church. However some of us obey most of the formal rules, whilst others don’t.

A non-member, on the other hand, could be a great enemy of the Church, he could be completely indifferent, or he could be on the verge of membership except maybe for a few reservations about specifics that are an obstacle for him. People in the last class might be better allies than those who don’t struggle with questions over, say, contraception, and think that if they ignore the issue it will go away. However they are still non-members, and have a different status to bad members.

My response!

That doesn’t even make sense. I am a baptized and practicing high Anglican and have a much closer Eucharist theology to the RC than even most RC themselves hold (in the context of fallen away Catholics that is, don’t misunderstand me). The church since V2 has even said that all Christians baptized whether they like it or not are in some way shape or form part fo the catholic church. Now i think it is ludicrous to try and reason your way out of this kind of situation, whereby you can look me in the face and tell me a non practicing, fallen away catholic is just a bad member (and everyone has those days) whereas me , a non-member, is the enemy of the church. NONSENSE!! That’s just totally un Christian and totally un-ecumenical.

If the church will accept the baptism of my church and because I differ on a couple topics of dogma, and a fallen away person differs on the same topics if not more they are no different than me, by the merits of their baptism (which seems to be the case everyone here is saying, because they were baptized therefore they are in whereas others are not. That simply is not what the catechism teaches!)

I just took this differently, Future Prodigy. I was thinking about those rabidly anticatholic denominations I have frequented which are much more damaging that “lapsed” catholics. Baptism is a beginning, and Catholics accept baptism from non-Catholics (if it is done properly) because we are taught “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. However a batpized Protestant, in order to be received fully into the Catholic Church, needs to stop “protesting” and come into communion with the Church and the bishop of Rome. Such persons then can participate in Eucharist and be confirmed. The issue of valid orders and sacraments is much beyond these basic steps of initiation sacraments.

You say “because they are baptized, they are in”, but each person will be judged according to their deeds. It is very possible for a Protestant who is living in accordance with all that they have been taught will face much less condemnation at the judgement than a Catholic who has fallen away. For:
Heb 6:6-8
6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. 7 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. " Surely you would not wish to trade places with those are bearing thorns and thistles, is worthless, and whose end is near to being burned!!!

 

[Janet_S]

I’ve been reading the above post and I remembered something, though I don’t know how true it is:

Catholic communion is for those who are in communion with all Catholic teachings. This is why non-Catholics cannot take communion.

Protestant communion can act as something to bring people together, in the hope that one day they will all share in the same beliefs. This is why any confirmed person may take communion and anyone can be blessed there.

Just with reference to the thread; can a Catholic who is not in communion with Catholic teaching, take communion? I know that a protestant can always have communion even if they do not agree with various, or veen main, teachings.

S

Regarding inter-communion among the different Protestant denominations, I heard that this is a relatively new practice. At one time Protestants admitted only members of their own church/denomination to their communion. Lutherans didn’t receive communion at Baptist churches; Methodists didn’t receive communion at Pentecostal churches, etc. I heard Marcus Grodi say this on the EWTN show, “The Journey Home.” Thus, at one time, communion was a sign of unity for Protestant denominations as well.

Also, Greek Orthodox do not allow communion to Catholics or Protestants (at least they don’t at the Orthodox Church in my town.)

From the Code of Canon Law, there is no specific prohibition against receiving Communion for for Catholics who disagree with Church teaching per se unless they a) have been excommunicated (or in the process) or b) are aware of grave (mortal) sin. Here is the relevant section:
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM

Following is the guideline given by the CC for the reception of Communion (for our fellow Christians/non-Catholics). You can find this guideline in Catholic missals. I copied the relevant sections from the Code of Canon Law as well.

"We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one.” (John 17:21)
Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (these are the “exceptional circumstances” listed in canon law: 844§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.)

Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.)"