What determines obligation to the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter epan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

epan

Guest
I encountered this fragment in another thread and so not want to change the course of the thread:
Trishie said:
However this last condition does not apply to your girlfriend, as she is a baptized though lapsed Catholic and therefore she also is obliged to promise that the children be raised Catholic…
Click to expand...
An infant’s baptism is not volitional. Doesn’t free will, and personal choice of an individual determine if that person is Catholic, or is everyone who has been baptized as an infant considered to be under the auspices of the Catholic Church, even if they personally disavow the Church?
 
"According to canon 1117, these requirements must still be observed if at least one party to the marriage is a Catholic who has not defected from the Church by a formal act. If the Catholic party to the marriage has left the Catholic Church by a formal act, he is no longer bound to observe canonical form…

If, on the other hand, a Catholic has merely ceased to practice his faith, and has not actually left the Church by a formal act, he is still bound to observe canonical form"

catholicexchange.com/do-lapsed-catholics-marry-validly-outside-the-church/
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

This would apply in any case, if in this one.
However, as you see, a lapsed or unbelieving Catholic may 'defect from the Church by a formal act."
The reality is that many lapsed Catholics do return to living out of their faith. The Church continues to leave this option open freely, unless a person does formally reject the Catholic faith
 
Trishie said:
"According to canon 1117, these requirements must still be observed if at least one party to the marriage is a Catholic who has not defected from the Church by a formal act. If the Catholic party to the marriage has left the Catholic Church by a formal act, he is no longer bound to observe canonical form…

If, on the other hand, a Catholic has merely ceased to practice his faith, and has not actually left the Church by a formal act, he is still bound to observe canonical form"

catholicexchange.com/do-lapsed-catholics-marry-validly-outside-the-church/

This would apply in any case, if in this one.
However, as you see, a lapsed or unbelieving Catholic may 'defect from the Church by a formal act."
The reality is that many lapsed Catholics do return to living out of their faith. The Church continues to leave this option open freely, unless a person does formally reject the Catholic faith
Click to expand...
Would it be correct, then, to say that a heretic does not self excommunicate? Excommunication requires the act of a priest, to excommunicate a person?
 
epan said:
is everyone who has been baptized as an infant considered to be under the auspices of the Catholic Church, even if they personally disavow the Church?
Click to expand...
Correct.

Parents have the authority over their children to make that choice on their behalf. Indeed, it is their duty to baptize their children.
 
Trishie said:
However, as you see, a lapsed or unbelieving Catholic may 'defect from the Church by a formal act."
Click to expand...
Please note: The pope made a change to canon law in 2009. Defection by a “formal act” is no longer recognized as it pertains to canonical status.

ALL Catholics must observe the Catholic form of marriage.
 
1ke said:
Please note: The pope made a change to canon law in 2009. Defection by a “formal act” is no longer recognized as it pertains to canonical status.

ALL Catholics must observe the Catholic form of marriage.
Click to expand...
Also, “formal act” did not mean what many think it meant. Defection by formal act did not mean the person was no longer a Catholic. The formal act was a written declaration given to the Church stating the person no longer considered themselves Catholic. The Church simply acknowledged receipt of the document but still considered the person to be Catholic.
 
thistle said:
Also, “formal act” did not mean what many think it meant. Defection by formal act did not mean the person was no longer a Catholic. The formal act was a written declaration given to the Church stating the person no longer considered themselves Catholic. The Church simply acknowledged receipt of the document but still considered the person to be Catholic.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a waste of both time and a perfectly good sheet of paper.
 
Baptism is an indelible mark. Even if a person is excommunicated, formally apostatized and rejects Christ while they cannot remove their baptism. Thus they always have an obligation to the Church as much as they have an obligation to God for having created them.
 
BettyBoop416 said:
Sounds like a waste of both time and a perfectly good sheet of paper.
Click to expand...
It certainly is on the part of the person who thinks he is no longer Catholic and doesn’t realise his declaration is meaningless.
There are only two types of Catholic. Those in a state of grace and those in a state of mortal sin. There is no such thing as a former Catholic.
 
Actually, it’s a waste of time all the way around. The Church considers the attempt at defection meaningless, and the defector considers the Church’s assertion that he cannot defect meaningless. Everyone’s right back where they started.
 
1ke said:
Please note: The pope made a change to canon law in 2009. Defection by a “formal act” is no longer recognized as it pertains to canonical status.

ALL Catholics must observe the Catholic form of marriage.
Click to expand...
or get a dispensation from form…
 
I have always had great difficulty accepting the “You can never not be Catholic” teaching. I mean, an infant cannot give consent to something as important as choosing a religion. If they decide not to be Catholic when they grow up, they’re stuck. They can’t not be. It’s quite unfair.
 
Brofessor said:
I have always had great difficulty accepting the “You can never not be Catholic” teaching. I mean, an infant cannot give consent to something as important as choosing a religion. If they decide not to be Catholic when they grow up, they’re stuck. They can’t not be. It’s quite unfair.
Click to expand...
If the infant is baptised Catholic they are Catholic forever. There is nothing unfair about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top