What defines a Catholic?

[Carlan]

Hmm. Do believe we have all prayed, at different times in the process," Lord I believe, help my unbelief"!
Peace, Carlan

 

[jochoa]

Such excellent questions and thoughts! I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion and am learning much from your perspectives.

I would like to revisit the initial questions and my redefined thoughts on them:

What defines a Catholic?

One who strives to completely understand God’s Word & practice God’s Will based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Whether it is called incredulity or heresy, how can such people rightly be called Catholics?

The only being capable of determining heresy in one’s state of being, without being in any state of heresy him/herself, is God. Therefore, only God or God speaking through priests during confession, can “rightly” label one as Catholic or Heretic.

If they are known not to believe in the True Presence, are they rightly to be refused Communion by their priest?

They are rightly refused communion by God, and God will inflict the just punishment through the 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

I have a couple of questions I need answered to help answer this one;

1. Who are you considering will be doing the treating (God, the priest, the parishioners, the individual, non-Catholics, or the consequence of the very nature of sin)?
2. How are full-fledged members of the Catholic Church treated differently than members that are not fully fledged?

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

Rightly Admonishment is dependent on several factors:

1. Who is admonishing? Is the one delivering the admonish free from heresy in all of God’s Word & principles of the Catholic Church?
2. What is the circumstance of admonishing? Is the accused offender seeking assistance in understanding God’s Word and the principles of the Church? Is it during confession?
3. What is the quality of the admonish? Is it firm and strict, or is it gently filled with consideration and compassion?

I once again thank you greatly for asking such a thought-provoking question! I hope I have helped made His Word and the Church’s Principles more understandable because my understanding has greatly increased from our discussion!

Jonathan Ochoa

 

[jmcrae]

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

I am sure you are well aware that a politician is not allowed to express his own personal opinions in Caucus.

He is only allowed to speak what the residents of his riding have voted on and agreed to - even if he, personally, happens to disagree with it.

This applies to everything from whether dogs should be leashed when being taken out near where children may be, or the issue of abortion, or any other issue.

It would overthrow Democracy, if politicians were allowed to vote against their own constituents.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It would overthrow Democracy, if politicians were allowed to vote against their own constituents.

They were elected to vote their conscience, not to take a census of his constituents before voting.

What you seem to be saying is that morality should be decided by the mob, and politicians should be slaves to the mob. Is it the mob that really wants same-sex marriage, for example?

 

[jmcrae]

It would overthrow Democracy, if politicians were allowed to vote against their own constituents.

They were elected to vote their conscience, not to take a census of his constituents before voting.

What you seem to be saying is that morality should be decided by the mob, and politicians should be slaves to the mob. Is it the mob that really wants same-sex marriage, for example?

I have no idea whether they do or not, but yes, Democracy is, in fact, the polite name for mob rule. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jmcrae

I have no idea whether they do or not, but yes, Democracy is, in fact, the polite name for mob rule. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

That’s what bugged Plato about democracy, that it would give rise to mobocracy, and sooner or later to anarchy … with the result that a dictator would be required to restore order.

It happened in France when Napoleon cured the disarray of the French Revolution (supposedly conducted in the name of democracy) and in Germany when Hitler was called upon to cure the disarray of the Weimar Republic (supposedly the high point of democracy in Germany).

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae

I have no idea whether they do or not, but yes, Democracy is, in fact, the polite name for mob rule. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

That’s what bugged Plato about democracy, that it would give rise to mobocracy, and sooner or later to anarchy … with the result that a dictator would be required to restore order.

It happened in France when Napoleon cured the disarray of the French Revolution (in the name of democracy) and in Germany when Hitler was called upon to cure the disarray of the Weimar Republic (supposedly the high point of democracy in Germany).

I think that we are actually supposed to assume that the voters understand the issues and that they know what is good for themselves. The whole point of overthrowing the monarchy in the first place was the whole notion of “betters” who “know what is right for us” - democracy is when you vote in the guy who will speak your voice to power - not his own - because he is not your “better” and he doesn’t know better than you about what is good for you.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jmcrae

I think that we are actually supposed to assume that the voters understand the issues and that they know what is good for themselves. The whole point of overthrowing the monarchy in the first place was the whole notion of “betters” who “know what is right for us” - democracy is when you vote in the guy who will speak your voice to power - not his own - because he is not your “better” and he doesn’t know better than you about what is good for you.

As a Catholic are you saying that you think a Catholic who goes into politics should abandon his Catholicism, do the wrong thing, and vote for immoral laws?

 

[John21652]

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?

Charlamagne II, St. Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians collectively. So I take it that collecively we should be able to raise a hue and cry about “a wicked man”, that, of course, being a euphamism for ‘bad’ Catholics within the context of this discussion. In my opinion the lay Catholics should be able to inform the Church heirarchy about concerns and the heirarchy should act. Obviously, I don’t want a willy nilly witch hunt to take place, but at the moment there are pretend catholics in high office who use the label but then virtually preach heresy. Heresy in public needs to be stopped, or at least the Church should make its teachings clear in the face of obvious public anathema, which, if left unchecked, will undermine the reputation of the Church and then, through association, everything the Church teaches and stands for…

At a more npersonal level, as parents we are responsible for the catecheses of our children. More so now than in years gone by when there were more nuns and priests around. So, by inference, shouldn’t we also take more responsibility for the degree of catholicism of our fellow Catholics? Shouldn’t we reinforce the Catholic values of one another? Within reason, I think we should. When I say “within reason” I mean I wouldn’t want to see squads of ‘Catholic police’ going around knocking on doors to make sure Catholic children are saying their prayers each night!! However, I do think it appropriate to let a friend or neighbour know that you think his/her behaviour is innapropriate and against Catholic beliefs.

 

[guanophore]

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

jmcrae is a very well informed catechist.

jmcrae:

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.

Not true on both counts. Non-Catholics are encouraged to attend the Mass. How else will they learn what it is, and how it works? Catechism classes only take a body so far.

Or should I say, a soul?

Many, actually most Protestants believe in the Real Presence, including Anglicans and Lutherans, which far outnumber the Evangelical “bible christians” that deny it. And the ones that donm’et believe in the Real Presence practice what they call The Lord’s Supper, because it is an “ordinance” (ordered by Christ).

Belief in the Real Presence, as jmcrae has stated, is not the issue. It is not being in communion (separated by different doctrines and refusal to submit to the Apostolic Authority).

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

Yes but as you have pointed out, that sacred moment is not the time to have a dispute.

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?

Yes. I have seen ministers walk away from serving so as to avoid serving someone who they know to be unprepared.

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 have been. THis is part of the regular instruction of the Magesterium.

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

Absolutely! Write to your representatives, and tell them! This is part of our civic duty.

 

[jmcrae]

As a Catholic are you saying that you think a Catholic who goes into politics should abandon his Catholicism, do the wrong thing, and vote for immoral laws?

Ideally, I think he should get himself elected by voters who are against abortion and support the moral precepts, so that such a conflict does not arise.

I also find it surprising that voters who want abortion vote for Catholics - since the Bishops want them to vote against abortion, regardless of what their constituents want. (The Bishops aren’t very democratic, but then again, they aren’t supposed to be.)

 

[John21652]

I think that we are actually supposed to assume that the voters understand the issues and that they know what is good for themselves. The whole point of overthrowing the monarchy in the first place was the whole notion of “betters” who “know what is right for us” - democracy is when you vote in the guy who will speak your voice to power - not his own - because he is not your “better” and he doesn’t know better than you about what is good for you.

This raises the question of how much should politicians lead. Do we simply want a ‘yes man’ in power, who will go with what the mob asks for on a particular day, or do we want a man who will say “wait a minute…” when he thinks the mob (his constituents) are barking up the wrong tree? The notion of overthrowing the monarchy wasn’t simply about ridding oneself of someone who thought they were “better”, but it involved ridding governance of the total concentration of power. If you have an elected representative who always goes with the mob’s desires, then you have simply swung the pendulum of power to the other extreme. Somehwere in the mix there needs to be someone of principle who will say “enough”.

 

[mfodor]

I am a catholic who loves the church. I am against abortion. However, I struggle with the issue of rape and abortion. I can’t see encouraging let’s say, my daughter to have the child from a rape.

 

[guanophore]

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

If that politician is a representative, then his duty is to represent the constituency that elected him. If the majority of them are pro abortion, that is how he must vote. It is a terrible position for a Catholic to occupy!

 

[kozlosap]

According to the Church, a Catholic is one who was baptized as an infant into the faith or brought into the Church through RCIA as an adult. They have no designation of “cafeteria Catholic” A Catholic can be away from the Church for 50 years but still be called a Catholic since the mark from baptism stays forever. The Church is just waiting for those fallen away to come home. I was under the impression that the Church is a hospital for sinners, am I not correct?

 

[PRmerger]

I am a catholic who loves the church. I am against abortion. However, I struggle with the issue of rape and abortion. I can’t see encouraging let’s say, my daughter to have the child from a rape.

The ProAbortion people will have a field day with anyone who proposes they are prolife,except in the case of rape. For they will rightly say, “Well, you must not really believe it’s a human person that exists from the moment of conception then.”

They rightly point out that it’s impossible to be on both sides of the fence here. Either it’s a human person that exists from the moment of conception, and killing this person is morally evil. Or it’s not a human person, and then in the case of rape abortion would be morally permissible.

 

[jmcrae]

I am a catholic who loves the church. I am against abortion. However, I struggle with the issue of rape and abortion. I can’t see encouraging let’s say, my daughter to have the child from a rape.

The child is not guilty of his father’s crime. Not even his father (who is guilty of it) will receive the death penalty for it; why should the child?

 

[cargau]

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?

The question in your post was, “What defines a Catholic”? I believe that the answer is transformation. We are all called to become more and more like Christ every day of our lives.

That statement infers that we are not there. That we are imperfect beings and in fact will never peerfectly be like Christ. Since our Church (The body of Christ) are all sinners, how can we demand judgment of other sinners without bringing the same on ourselves.

Living life is God’s classroom. Some learn faster than others, but God never misses an opportunity to show us something about Himself every day. Beliefs can be changed and modified over time. God’s time. Every cross we are to carry should be followed with the question, “OK, Lord, what are you trying to show me now”? Again, the learning process preceeds transformation.

I don’t believe a priest should ever refuse Communion to any practicing Catholic who is not engaged in public sin or scandal or the recipient of formal excommunication. The Catholic Church is not a hotel for saints but a hospital for sinners…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

guanophor

jmcrae is a very well informed catechist.

And how would you know this for a fact? Have you certified him as one?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

cargau
**
I don’t believe a priest should ever refuse Communion to any practicing Catholic who is not engaged in public sin or scandal or the recipient of formal excommunication. The Catholic Church is not a hotel for saints but a hospital for sinners… **

How would you be a practicing Catholic if you don’t believe in the True Presence?