What defines a Catholic?

[Charlemagne_II]

I have many exchanges with people who, for strange reasons to me, call themselves Catholic. I even see them in Church on a regular basis. Yet some of these people seem to disagree with fundamental Catholic doctrine such as the Eucharist or the teachings on homosexuality and abortion as explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads as follows:

**2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same … **

Whether it is called incredulity or heresy, how can such people rightly be called Catholics? If they are known not to believe in the True Presence, are they rightly to be refused Communion by their priest? If they defend the right to an abortion or the right to same-sex marriage, are they to be treated as full-fledged members of the Catholic Church, or are they to be rightly admonished by fellow Catholics whose beliefs are consistent with the teachings of the Church?

Your thoughts?

 

[JDaniel]

I have many exchanges with people who, for strange reasons to me, call themselves Catholic. I even see them in Church on a regular basis. Yet some of these people seem to disagree with fundamental Catholic doctrine such as the Eucharist or the teachings on homosexuality and abortion as explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads as follows:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same …

Whether it is called incredulity or heresy, how can such people rightly be called Catholics? If they are known not to believe in the True Presence, are they rightly to be refused Communion by their priest? If they defend the right to an abortion or the right to same-sex marriage, are they to be treated as full-fledged members of the Catholic Church, or are they to be rightly admonished by fellow Catholics whose beliefs are consistent with the teachings of the Church?

Your thoughts?

Charlemagne:

I’m not too sure that the Church is exclusionary to the point of refusing sacramental access to those who operate ex cathedra. I think that access to the eucharist is a gate to God’s Graces, without which the sinner would be eternally lost. None of us can ever know when that miraculous change will overtake the sinner and change him/her; not to mention the sometimes poor education many Catholics have received in the past (shades of invincible ignorance).

To be straight forward, they are not entitled to participate. Yet the Church rolls over to permit them to. God’s Graces are far more efficacious than anything we can do. The difference between the Church and other denominations is precisely that they will do whatever is necessary to effect earthly change, up to and including killing him/her. (I wonder where they think the dead end up?)

We turn the other cheek and we pray for them. As the Reverand says to his son, “There’s nothing you could ever do to make me love you less.”

God bless,
jd

 

[jochoa]

Excellent questions!

I have a couple questions.

are they to be rightly admonished by fellow Catholics whose beliefs are consistent with the teachings of the Church?

I think it is important to very deeply consider a couple of terms/phrases in the question.

1. What constitutes “rightly admonished?”
2. Do the fellow Catholics, whom will be admonishing, perfectly practice all the teachings of the Church?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jochoa

1. What constitutes "rightly admonished?"

Perhaps not clearly phrased. Have they the right to admonish?

**2. Do the fellow Catholics, whom will be admonishing, perfectly practice all the teachings of the Church? **

It is not a question of practicing teachings; it is a question of accepting them. Isn’t there a huge difference? We are all sinners … does that mean we cannot admonish each other?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

My understanding is that the Church refuses Communion to Protestants because they do not believe in the True Presence. Do Catholics who do not believe in the True Presence sin when they accept it, and do priests sin when they administer it to Catholics they know do not believe in it?

 

[jmcrae]

jochoa

1. What constitutes "rightly admonished?"

Perhaps not clearly phrased. Have they the right to admonish?

You have the right to admonish those who are under your authority with regard to the matter at hand.

If you are a parent, you may admonish your children.

If you are a priest, you may admonish your parishioners.

If you are a Youth Group leader or Religion instructor, you have the responsibility to teach correct doctrine to the participants in the class or Youth group, and to remind them of correct decorum.

It is not your place to admonish people who do not come under your authority, and especially not your priest, or either of your parents.

In conversation with friends, you can bring things up as topics of conversation for the purpose of sharing information, but without admonishing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mcrae

**You have the right to admonish those who are under your authority with regard to the matter at hand.

If you are a parent, you may admonish your children.

If you are a priest, you may admonish your parishioners.

If you are a Youth Group leader or Religion instructor, you have the responsibility to teach correct doctrine to the participants in the class or Youth group, and to remind them of correct decorum.

It is not your place to admonish people who do not come under your authority, and especially not your priest, or either of your parents.

In conversation with friends, you can bring things up as topics of conversation for the purpose of sharing information, but without admonishing. **

Your post seems very authoritative. On what authority did you write that post? It certainly was not St. Paul.

Here is mine.

St. Paul, Colossians 3:16

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.”

And by the way, are you admonishing me?

 

[jmcrae]

My understanding is that the Church refuses Communion to Protestants because they do not believe in the True Presence.

Minor quibble: Protestants are refused Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the Church; it has nothing to do with what they believe.

Do Catholics who do not believe in the True Presence sin when they accept it, and do priests sin when they administer it to Catholics they know do not believe in it?

Ours is a religion of personal responsibility; the priest is required to assume that those coming forward for Holy Communion are properly disposed to do so. He can speak to people he has doubts about outside of the Mass, to guide them for the future, but the communion line-up is not the proper place for that kind of a conversation.

 

[jmcrae]

mcrae

**You have the right to admonish those who are under your authority with regard to the matter at hand.

If you are a parent, you may admonish your children.

If you are a priest, you may admonish your parishioners.

If you are a Youth Group leader or Religion instructor, you have the responsibility to teach correct doctrine to the participants in the class or Youth group, and to remind them of correct decorum.

It is not your place to admonish people who do not come under your authority, and especially not your priest, or either of your parents.

In conversation with friends, you can bring things up as topics of conversation for the purpose of sharing information, but without admonishing. **

Your post seems very authoritative. On what authority did you write that post? It certainly was not St. Paul.

Here is mine.

St. Paul, Colossians 3:16

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.”

Even St. Paul did not just admonish anyone in the street, but only those over whom he had authority, or with whom he had the kind of relationship that would be open to correction, when necessary.

You can also instruct people who are asking for advice; I forgot that one.

 

[jmcrae]

And by the way, are you admonishing me?

Not at all - I am simply providing information in response to the question of whom, if anyone, can we admonish.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mcrea

You can also instruct people who are asking for advice; I forgot that one.

You also forget to mention your authority for the rules you set down above.
**
Ours is a religion of personal responsibility; the priest is required to assume that those coming forward for Holy Communion are properly disposed to do so. He can speak to people he has doubts about outside of the Mass, to guide them for the future, but the communion line-up is not the proper place for that kind of a conversation. **

The Communion line-up, as you so deftly put it, is not a place for conversation at all.

**Minor quibble: Protestants are refused Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the Church; it has nothing to do with what they believe. **

On that basis alone they would not be able to attend Catholic services. One of the many reasons they are not in communion with us is that they don’t believe in Holy Communion.
If a known Protestant lined up in Church to receive Communion, the priest would be in a right way able to deny him Communion. What I am asking is what separates that Protestant from the Catholic who also does not believe in the True Presence? Should he/she not also be refused Communion by a priest who has already had the conversation with him/her and found this Catholic to be totally unbelieving in the doctrine of the Eucharist?

Should a Catholic politician who believes abortion is is to be supported by his/her vote in Congress, in open defiance of the teaching of the Church, be condemned for same by his/her bishop? Should the same Catholic not be admonished by Catholic voters for falsely representing his/her views as the views of the Catholic Church?

 

[jmcrae]

mcrea

You can also instruct people who are asking for advice; I forgot that one.

You also forget to mention your authority for the rules you set down above.

I learned these rules a long time ago; the teacher’s name was Father Anthony, and he was teaching from the Baltimore Catechism.

**
Ours is a religion of personal responsibility; the priest is required to assume that those coming forward for Holy Communion are properly disposed to do so. He can speak to people he has doubts about outside of the Mass, to guide them for the future, but the communion line-up is not the proper place for that kind of a conversation. **

The Communion line-up, as you so deftly put it, is not a place for conversation at all.

I’m glad we agree.

**Minor quibble: Protestants are refused Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the Church; it has nothing to do with what they believe. **

On that basis alone they would not be able to attend Catholic services. One of the many reasons they are not in communion with us is that they don’t believe in Holy Communion.

Many of them do (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists); they are still not invited to receive Holy Communion, because they are not in communion.

If a known Protestant lined up in Church to receive Communion, the priest would be in a right way able to deny him Communion.

In the line-up itself? First, how would the priest know that the person was a Protestant, or that he had not made a Profession of Faith, unless he were that person’s RCIA instructor?

What I am asking is what separates that Protestant from the Catholic who also does not believe in the True Presence? Should he/she not also be refused Communion by a priest who has already had the conversation with him/her and found this Catholic to be totally unbelieving in the doctrine of the Eucharist?

And again, how would the priest know what the person’s beliefs are?

Should a Catholic politician who believes abortion is is to be supported by his/her vote in Congress, in open defiance of the teaching of the Church, be condemned for same by his/her bishop?

They already are.

Should the same Catholic not be admonished by Catholic voters for falsely representing his/her views as the views of the Catholic Church?

That raises the question of who the politician represents.

Does he represent the Catholic Church, or does he represent the residents of his riding?

And if the residents of his riding are majority in favour of abortion, how should he vote? According to the will of those he represents, or according to the Church? (Of course, he should not have been elected, if his views on abortion differ from those of the people in his riding. But that’s a different problem.)

 

[PRmerger]

Minor quibble: Protestants are refused Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the Church; it has nothing to do with what they believe.

Indeed.

Similarly, even if a couple believe that they love each other, until they are in “full communion” with each other (i.e. have professed their wedding vows), they cannot enjoy “full communion” with each other (i.e. the One Flesh Union).

Which is why, even though our Protestant brother may profess a belief in the Real Presence, until he “makes it legal” so to speak, he cannot partake.

Sadly, he may have a greater faith in the RP than many (even most) of the Catholics lining up to receive, but as they have “made it legal”, they can receive despite their lack of belief.

Just like a married couple may rightfully engage in the marital act even if their love (if one could quantify it)* is less than* that of a non-married couple.

 

[Spirithound]

1. Do the fellow Catholics, whom will be admonishing, perfectly practice all the teachings of the Church?

Irrelevant. We can all accept admonishments every now and then.

When I admonish my brother, it is not to gain some sort of power or moral superiority over him. Rather, it is to help him get to Heaven.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jmcrea

**And if the residents of his riding are majority in favour of abortion, how should he vote? According to the will of those he represents, or according to the Church? (Of course, he should not have been elected, if his views on abortion differ from those of the people in his riding. But that’s a different problem.) **

So you think a Catholic politician is obliged to sell his soul to the devil for a few votes? And that he should not be admonished by fellow Catholics for doing so?

I’d say that’s the main problem of our culture today. People selling off their principles for money, power, and votes

 

[jochoa]

Thanks to those of you who shared your thoughts on my questions.

Here are my thoughts:

1. Be highly cautious when judging a person’s belief in the state of incredulity and/or heresy.
   a. James 4:11-12 ESV
   Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
   b. Incredulity and Heresy have definitions that require incredible insight into the mind of the accused. Have you been revealed all the necessary insight through public action?
2. If you are 100% certain you have recognized incredulity or heresy, then proceed with extreme caution, gentleness, compassion, consideration, and patience when admonishing.

Thanks again for the excellent question. You have helped me find better understanding in my belief and practice of Catholicism!

 

[John21652]

Thanks to those of you who shared your thoughts on my questions.

Here are my thoughts:

1. Be highly cautious when judging a person’s belief in the state of incredulity and/or heresy.
   a. James 4:11-12 ESV
   Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
   b. Incredulity and Heresy have definitions that require incredible insight into the mind of the accused. Have you been revealed all the necessary insight through public action?
2. If you are 100% certain you have recognized incredulity or heresy, then proceed with extreme caution, gentleness, compassion, consideration, and patience when admonishing.

Thanks again for the excellent question. You have helped me find better understanding in my belief and practice of Catholicism!

Here are my thoughts.

Charlemagne II, let me rephrase your question.

What defines the Catholic Church?

Is it the Pope, the Bishops and Priests, or/and the Catechism? Is it the laity, or a combination of the laity and the Church’s heirachy and teachings?

If Catholics everywhere began to pick and choose what parts of Catholicism they beleive in and practice and the Pope and published dogma remain unchanged, what would define the Catholic Church? Its teachings, or the practices of its members?

If I can use as an analogy a football team. What defines a football team, the Coach and the club’s rules, or the way the players play? If the players just do their own thing and defy the coach, how would you define the club and how would you define the players?

I would submit that unless everyone is on the same page in the football club and in the Church, then you define the organisation and its individuals as dysfunctional.

If Catholics practice a ‘personal’ form of Catholicism, then the Church as well as the individual is dysfunctional. A Catholic practicing Catholicism as taught by the Church, which means accepting the teachings, doctrines and dogmas of the Church in their entirety, is in union with the Church and is therefore functioning as a proper Catholic. The converse also applies.

Simply appending the title “Catholic” to one’s name is not sufficient to make one a Catholic, properly defined. In a similar vein, a footballer who defies his coach and plays an individual brand of football is not a proper functioning member of the team and either needs to be told so and given the opportunity to mend his ways, or have his membership revoked.

It was St. Paul , who, in his First letter To the Corinthians at 5:9-13 said we must judge those who are within the Church. Those without the Church God will judge. He admonished the Corinthians to shun the sinner and to* “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”*.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

john
**
t was St. Paul , who, in his First letter To the Corinthians at 5:9-13 said we must judge those who are within the Church. Those without the Church God will judge. He admonished the Corinthians to shun the sinner and to “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”**

John, the question now becomes; is heresy wicked? Do we then have the right to admonish the heretic, and should he/she fail to accept the true teachings, remove him from our midst? Or at least cease to view him/her as a Catholic?

And is the right to admonish reserved only to the authorities in the Church, or to all Catholics?

 

[hazcompat]

Use the word admonish like a warning sign like “BRIDGE OUT”.

Apostles’ Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
And in Jesus Christ
His only Son, Our Lord
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit
Born of the Virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
Was crucified, died and was buried.
On the third day, he rose again
He ascended into Heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of God, the Father Almighty.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the Communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

peace

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hazcompat
**
Use the word admonish like a warning sign like “BRIDGE OUT”.**

Indeed, especially for fellow travelers.