Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Nihil Obstat]

Given that Benedictus seems to believe that a Catholic cannot be cut off from the Church, I am interested to know if he believes the same to be true of Grace. Can a Catholic be deprived of Grace through his actions?
I see it as at least relevantly analogous, though obviously not identical.

[PhuturePriest]

Given that Benedictus seems to believe that a Catholic cannot be cut off from the Church, I am interested to know if he believes the same to be true of Grace. Can a Catholic be deprived of Grace through his actions?
I see it as at least relevantly analogous, though obviously not identical.

 

Then what the heck is excommunication?

[Perigrina]

I have been looking for some documentation that supports the claim that Benedictus made about baptism making people Catholic.  I checked the Catechism which says this:

 

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."⁷² Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."⁷³

 ^{http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1267}

 

It does not mention the word Catholic.  It talks about membership in the Church, just like the passages which say that baptized people can cut themselves off from membership in the Church.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Perigrina

[Benedictus]

Benedictus, given your view of membership in the Church, what is your opinion on the effect of mortal sin on a person's relationship with God and the Church?

 

I think all sin creates some sort of tainting mark. Sins, in general, can impact on the person themselves, but also impact on other people/environment/structures in predictable and unpredictable ways.  All sin has a long term corrosive impact. It may not be directly linked to the culpability of any one indiviual per se, but it can be very damaging on structures, outlooks and cultures. I would say, for example, that venial sins can amount, and be more damaging over time, than a single mortal sin of an individual. But that's a different debate I guess.

All sin is a collective and individual problem. Some people, because of how venial and mortal sins are handled by the church, tend to see one as worse than the other in their outcomes. I think it's more true that mortal sins are worse because of the individual will to follow through on a culpbable action, not necessarily because of what results. So God looks primarily to our intentions, not our resulting behaviours. Although, of course, both are important.

Venial sins, and to some extent mortal sins, are addressed in the mass during the collective confession, petitions, prayers and the pater noster. The public declaration covers repentence for collective venial traits and sins (ones that chain all humanity, and are seen as 'lesser'), so these don't have to be metioned in personal confession. These sins, because of their nature, are also not seen as causing a direct breakdown in relationship with God, and therefore the church. They don't impede communion, the sins are forgiven (we are healed), but scars remain and the need for punishment remains.

Mortal sin, on the otherhand, is an action through which a person willingly, and with full informed knowledge, commits a serious sin against Gods law, will and or love. There are debates over when and how this manifests, if ever in a pure sense. Anyway, mortal sin creates a presummed tension/break in the full relationhip with God, and therefore impedes communion at mass due to all sins having a public/communal reality. A person who rejects (who has the full knowledge and choice) Gods forgiveness/love then he allows them to do so. Like venial sins they will have scars and are due punishment. But they'd have the added burden of isolating themselves from God (Hell) until such time as they reconcile.

Now in terms of church, the person under any sin, mortal or otherwise, can still attend mass, pray, seek advice or talk about the issues. It's a good thing if they keep coming, there is hope there. They are still a Catholic. It's everyone's vocation to bring love and a chance for healing. In other words, to seek restitution and reconcilation, not retribution which will drive people away. God doesn't drive away, he draws people to himself. So should we.

This was longer than I thought, but it's down now :)

 

[Nihil Obstat]

The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to imply that, while the soul's being ontologically Christian as a result of baptism is an irrevocable change, this does not preclude being truly separated from the Church. This separation from the Church should be seen, I think, as a sort of violence in the sense that the Christian soul must be united to the Church, and therefore separation from it is existentially wrong but - ideally - temporary.

 

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

 

 

That last part there reminds me a lot of Christ's words, "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity."

For those who refuse to acknowledge the Church, the Church refuses to know them.

[Anastasia13]

This thread has grown so fast, but honestly, it's one of the few worth following this far.

[Benedictus]

Given that Benedictus seems to believe that a Catholic cannot be cut off from the Church, I am interested to know if he believes the same to be true of Grace. Can a Catholic be deprived of Grace through his actions?
I see it as at least relevantly analogous, though obviously not identical.

It depends what you mean by grace, it's used in different ways in scripture and elsewhere. God has imparted his grace to humanity, through Jesus and also through the sacraments. He also does this in other ways, not necessarily just to Catholics either. Although God may hold back some aspects of grace or favour I think the church, the sacrament of reconcilation and other means continue to show Gods grace. So it depends if you accept those as graces or not.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

It depends what you mean by grace, it's used in different ways in scripture and elsewhere. God has imparted his grace to humanity, through Jesus and also through the sacraments. He also does this in other ways, not necessarily just to Catholics either. Although God may hold back some aspects of grace or favour I think the church, the sacrament of reconcilation and other means continue to show Gods grace. So it depends if you accept those as graces or not.

I suppose I am referring first of all to sanctifying grace, and second to actual grace distributed through the Catholic Church. 

[Perigrina]

The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to imply that, while the soul's being ontologically Christian as a result of baptism is an irrevocable change, this does not preclude being truly separated from the Church. This separation from the Church should be seen, I think, as a sort of violence in the sense that the Christian soul must be united to the Church, and therefore separation from it is existentially wrong but - ideally - temporary.

 

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

 

 

That last part there reminds me a lot of Christ's words, "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity."

For those who refuse to acknowledge the Church, the Church refuses to know them.

 

This passage supports the distinction that Benedictus has been making between Catholic and member of the Church.  I think that is what these lines mean:

 

The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. 

[Anastasia13]

Read this whole thread.....Good read.....I'm actually one of the most sinful Catholics out there.....So much so I'll be lucky to make it to purgatory......With that said I agree with every single thing the Church teaches.......Hopefully this combined with Faith,Mass,Confession,Eucharist,and Prayer will get me into purgatory......Though I deserve hell becuase of my actions I don't want to spend eternity there.....

St. Paul called himself the chief of sinners. You may be in good company.

 

Pope Francis says: "Sin is not a stain that I must wash out. What I need to do is ask forgiveness and reconcile myself, not go to the drycleaners.... I have to go encounter Jesus who gave his life for me." The same is true of all of us sinners.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Light and Truth

[Credo in Deum]

"I am the vine; you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth." --John 15:6

[Nihil Obstat]

This passage supports the distinction that Benedictus has been making between Catholic and member of the Church.  I think that is what these lines mean:

 

The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. 

I think it is fair to say that such a person is a Christian ontologically, but, in the sense that he is totally cut off from communion with the Church, considered not to be a member of Her. Hopefully temporarily.

Inasmuch as a person is not in communion with the Church, i.e. not a member of the Church, I think it is fair to say that they are not Catholic. Understood in that sense the Church certainly can, by excommunication, efface someone's membership in the Church, though not their ontological status as a Christian.

I thought the distinction Benedictus was trying to make is that to be Catholic, a member of the Church, is itself not revocable.

[Perigrina]

I think it is fair to say that such a person is a Christian ontologically, but, in the sense that he is totally cut off from communion with the Church, considered not to be a member of Her. Hopefully temporarily.

Inasmuch as a person is not in communion with the Church, i.e. not a member of the Church, I think it is fair to say that they are not Catholic. Understood in that sense the Church certainly can, by excommunication, efface someone's membership in the Church, though not their ontological status as a Christian.

I thought the distinction Benedictus was trying to make is that to be Catholic, a member of the Church, is itself not revocable.

 

It is still not clear to me what Benedictus is saying about this, but I think that we can say that anyone who has been baptized into the Church is ontologically a Catholic, even when he disagrees with Church teaching.

[Nihil Obstat]

It is still not clear to me what Benedictus is saying about this, but I think that we can say that anyone who has been baptized into the Church is ontologically a Catholic, even when he disagrees with Church teaching.

Do you think there is any meaningful difference between saying one is ontologically Catholic, and saying that one is ontologically Christian? I notice I have been saying Christian (so as to allow exclusion of membership by the Church Herself), and you have been saying Catholic. I am guessing it is because you, as do I, recognize that Christ's Church is the same as the Catholic Church, therefore all Christians are definitively called to the Catholic Church.

[fides' Jack]

I'm glad this has turned into more of a 2-way debate.  I think asking questions about how people see different distinctions has helped in that regard.

 

I'd very much like to understand this Christian/Catholic difference, myself, in this sense.

 

In the past I've used "Christian" in more ways than "Catholic", but I recognize that in some sense they mean the same thing.  To be a true Christian is to be a true Catholic.  Is that the sense they are using in this case?