Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[fides' Jack]

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2;
 
I think strong words need to be used, here. If one "obstinately" denies any doctrine or dogma of the Catholic faith, according to canon law, they are committing heresy. If you are a heretic, you incur late sentential excommunication and you can no longer call yourself "Catholic" or consider yourself a member of the Church.

 

Yes - that's true.  To be excommunicated, it takes more than simply ignorance.  If someone has been corrected, and still persists in incorrect beliefs, that's when it truly becomes heresy.  However, we are bound by good conscience to always strive to know what we believe.

 

I think that's why you can't just go and say: "Frank, you're a heretic!"  But you can say, "Frank, what you're saying is heretical."

[Perigrina]

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2;
 
I think strong words need to be used, here. If one "obstinately" denies any doctrine or dogma of the Catholic faith, according to canon law, they are committing heresy. If you are a heretic, you incur late sentential excommunication and you can no longer call yourself "Catholic" or consider yourself a member of the Church.

 

Canon Law is not written for lay people and assumes a lot of background knowledge.  There are a bunch of requirements for the excommunication to be applied.  Here is an article that gives an explanation of how to understand this:  https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

(It may be best to read this at the link.  My formatting is glitchy.)

 

However, to incur this latae sententia excommunication one must satisfy the general conditions for canonical culpability set out in the Code. For example, a person who has not been diligent (prudently weighing the issues involved) in their action is not punished.

 

c. 1321 
1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or culpability. 
2. A person who has deliberately violated a law or a precept is bound by the penalty stated in the law or that precept; unless a law or a precept provides otherwise, a person who has violated that law or that precept through a lack of necessary diligence is not punished. 
3. Unless it is otherwise evident, imputability is presumed whenever an external violation has occurred. 

A person who lacks the proper use of reason is likewise not punishable. c. 1322  Persons who habitually lack the use of reason are considered incapable of an offense even if the y have violated a law or a precept while appearing to be sane.  The following canon completes the list of conditions that can prevent the application of an excommunication and other ecclesiastical sanctions.    c. 1323 The following are not subject to penalties when they have violated a law or precept:

 

(1) a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age; 
(2) a person who without any fault was unaware of violating a law or precept; however, inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance; 
(3) a person who acted out of physical force or in virtue of a mere accident which could neither be foreseen nor prevented when foreseen; 
(4) a person who acted out of grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or out of necessity or out of serious inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or verges on harm to souls; 
(5) a person who for the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another acted against an unjust aggressor with due moderation; 
(6) a person who lacked the use of reason with due regard for the prescriptions of cann. 1324, part 1, n. 2 and 1325; 
(7) a person who without any fault felt that the circumstances in nn. 4 or 5 were verified. 

[Fidei Defensor]

Yes - that's true.  To be excommunicated, it takes more than simply ignorance.  If someone has been corrected, and still persists in incorrect beliefs, that's when it truly becomes heresy.  However, we are bound by good conscience to always strive to know what we believe.

 

I think that's why you can't just go and say: "Frank, you're a heretic!"  But you can say, "Frank, what you're saying is heretical."

The main issue has been "judging" others and the sensitivities that come with it. But you can get away with simply stating that you have to hold the beliefs that the Church teaches or else you are moving into the area of heresy and therefore removing yourself from the Church, because it is the Church herself who makes those rules.

 

Believe me, I understand that we can't know someone's heart. But if they publicly proclaim to not believe in the Assumption of Mary, which is a defined dogma, and refuse to assent even after being told otherwise, canon law is pretty specific in saying they've fallen into heresy. I've demonstrated that the Church has the authority to teach, that we are bound to assent, and that not assenting and holding views contrary to the faith are heresy. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

[Benedictus]

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.

 

I agree largely with the first point you made. A sense of 'being apart' can be useful in some situations (as a last resort), and can also be advantagous to the group. Comparisons can be made with orgaisations that have disruptive behaviour policies to safeguard processes and to reduce breakdown of order/discipline. But these shouldn't, as the text outlnes, be retributive in nature. I would add that they, by such nature, also shouldn't be to simply prove a point or exert undue control over people. As the church doesn't tend to issue these types of excommunications that often it supports the notion that it reserves such action for special cases, not as a parish norm, and through which lay people can defend their rights under canon law..

In terms of the second part -  well I thought of: 'welcome the stranger as if they are Christ'. But of course picking bible quotes doesn't always get very far. In terms of the church refusing to know those who refuse to acknowledge it - I don't agree with that. The church always prays for everyone, including those who persecute and think differently. Does the world acknowledge the church,? Does the world acknowledge and care about Christ or Christians in general? The Catholic church still prays for the world on both counts. The church, as a temporal body, is capable of wrong. Those within it are also still attached to sin, and can do harm. I don't equate rejection of the church for those points, and some people have valid points, as an equal rejection of God. There are differences. Similarly the church sets standards and truths, but then she also creates pastoral documents because it sees the ministering difficulties that exist with those realities. Yes, people can seek to undermine aspects of a situation through the mercy of a pastoral application. But I think the church does try to get the balance right within the confines it operates.

[Fidei Defensor]

Canon Law is not written for lay people and assumes a lot of background knowledge.  There are a bunch of requirements for the excommunication to be applied.  Here is an article that gives an explanation of how to understand this:  https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

(It may be best to read this at the link.  My formatting is glitchy.)

 

However, to incur this latae sententia excommunication one must satisfy the general conditions for canonical culpability set out in the Code. For example, a person who has not been diligent (prudently weighing the issues involved) in their action is not punished.

 

c. 1321 
1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or culpability. 
2. A person who has deliberately violated a law or a precept is bound by the penalty stated in the law or that precept; unless a law or a precept provides otherwise, a person who has violated that law or that precept through a lack of necessary diligence is not punished. 
3. Unless it is otherwise evident, imputability is presumed whenever an external violation has occurred. 

A person who lacks the proper use of reason is likewise not punishable. c. 1322  Persons who habitually lack the use of reason are considered incapable of an offense even if the y have violated a law or a precept while appearing to be sane.  The following canon completes the list of conditions that can prevent the application of an excommunication and other ecclesiastical sanctions.    c. 1323 The following are not subject to penalties when they have violated a law or precept:

 

(1) a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age; 
(2) a person who without any fault was unaware of violating a law or precept; however, inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance; 
(3) a person who acted out of physical force or in virtue of a mere accident which could neither be foreseen nor prevented when foreseen; 
(4) a person who acted out of grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or out of necessity or out of serious inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or verges on harm to souls; 
(5) a person who for the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another acted against an unjust aggressor with due moderation; 
(6) a person who lacked the use of reason with due regard for the prescriptions of cann. 1324, part 1, n. 2 and 1325; 
(7) a person who without any fault felt that the circumstances in nn. 4 or 5 were verified. 

I appreciate the complexity of the law, and I in no way claim to know more than the average joe-shmo about canon law. 

[Not The Philosopher]

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2;
 
I think strong words need to be used, here. If one "obstinately" denies any doctrine or dogma of the Catholic faith, according to canon law, they are committing heresy. If you are a heretic, you incur late sentential excommunication and you can no longer call yourself "Catholic" or consider yourself a member of the Church.

 

One of these days I will try to learn more about Canon Law.

 

Anyhow, thinking about what I wrote a little bit earlier, I'm not sure if it makes sense to speak of there being a 'minimalist' sense of being a Catholic. Or at least it may be less confusing to say that people lacking in proper faith and governance are ontologically Christian but not Catholic.

[Fidei Defensor]

Let me pre-emptively apologize to anyone who may take offense at my insinuation that they are a heretic — i am not attempting to make a judgment upon them. Rather, I am constructing a logical argument using canon law and carrying the argument to its logical conclusion.  I love each and every one of you, no matter what!

[fides' Jack]

Canon Law is not written for lay people and assumes a lot of background knowledge.  There are a bunch of requirements for the excommunication to be applied.  Here is an article that gives an explanation of how to understand this:  https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

(It may be best to read this at the link.  My formatting is glitchy.)

 

However, to incur this latae sententia excommunication one must satisfy the general conditions for canonical culpability set out in the Code. For example, a person who has not been diligent (prudently weighing the issues involved) in their action is not punished.

 

c. 1321 
1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or culpability. 
2. A person who has deliberately violated a law or a precept is bound by the penalty stated in the law or that precept; unless a law or a precept provides otherwise, a person who has violated that law or that precept through a lack of necessary diligence is not punished. 
3. Unless it is otherwise evident, imputability is presumed whenever an external violation has occurred. 

A person who lacks the proper use of reason is likewise not punishable. c. 1322  Persons who habitually lack the use of reason are considered incapable of an offense even if the y have violated a law or a precept while appearing to be sane.  The following canon completes the list of conditions that can prevent the application of an excommunication and other ecclesiastical sanctions.    c. 1323 The following are not subject to penalties when they have violated a law or precept:

 

(1) a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age; 
(2) a person who without any fault was unaware of violating a law or precept; however, inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance; 
(3) a person who acted out of physical force or in virtue of a mere accident which could neither be foreseen nor prevented when foreseen; 
(4) a person who acted out of grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or out of necessity or out of serious inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or verges on harm to souls; 
(5) a person who for the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another acted against an unjust aggressor with due moderation; 
(6) a person who lacked the use of reason with due regard for the prescriptions of cann. 1324, part 1, n. 2 and 1325; 
(7) a person who without any fault felt that the circumstances in nn. 4 or 5 were verified. 

 

Well, yeah, if you really want to get technical... :)

 

The main issue has been "judging" others and the sensitivities that come with it. But you can get away with simply stating that you have to hold the beliefs that the Church teaches or else you are moving into the area of heresy and therefore removing yourself from the Church, because it is the Church herself who makes those rules.

 

Believe me, I understand that we can't know someone's heart. But if they publicly proclaim to not believe in the Assumption of Mary, which is a defined dogma, and refuse to assent even after being told otherwise, canon law is pretty specific in saying they've fallen into heresy. I've demonstrated that the Church has the authority to teach, that we are bound to assent, and that not assenting and holding views contrary to the faith are heresy. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

Tardis - why does your thingy say 'Cordial Non-Catholic'?  From whence come your tag?

 

You seem orthodox enough to me.  Are you not baptized yet?

[Perigrina]

I appreciate the complexity of the law, and I in no way claim to know more than the average joe-shmo about canon law. 

 

My point is that nobody should tell a person "You have been automatically excommunicated.  Canon Law says so."  It is too complicated for that..

[Credo in Deum]

The main issue has been "judging" others and the sensitivities that come with it. But you can get away with simply stating that you have to hold the beliefs that the Church teaches or else you are moving into the area of heresy and therefore removing yourself from the Church, because it is the Church herself who makes those rules.

Believe me, I understand that we can't know someone's heart. But if they publicly proclaim to not believe in the Assumption of Mary, which is a defined dogma, and refuse to assent even after being told otherwise, canon law is pretty specific in saying they've fallen into heresy. I've demonstrated that the Church has the authority to teach, that we are bound to assent, and that not assenting and holding views contrary to the faith are heresy. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Exactly! The fact that it's taken us 32 pages to get to this conclusion, is well, sad. Edited June 27, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Fidei Defensor]

Well, yeah, if you really want to get technical... :)

 

 

Tardis - why does your thingy say 'Cordial Non-Catholic'?  From whence come your tag?

 

You seem orthodox enough to me.  Are you not baptized yet?

It's left over from when I was an atheist for a while.

[Fidei Defensor]

My point is that nobody should tell a person "You have been automatically excommunicated.  Canon Law says so."  It is too complicated for that..

I am in agreement with you. Like I said above, I'm not attempting to make a judgment, but illustrating a point for my argument.

[fides' Jack]

Let me pre-emptively apologize to anyone who may take offense at my insinuation that they are a heretic — i am not attempting to make a judgment upon them. Rather, I am constructing a logical argument using canon law and carrying the argument to its logical conclusion.  I love each and every one of you, no matter what!

 

I haven't seen anyone in this thread make that accusation - especially you.  My clarification (on your other remark) was simply an extension of your post, if you will.  I hope you didn't think I was saying you were making an accusation.

Edited June 27, 2014 by fides' Jack

[Benedictus]

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

 

Then I would it can be lost, by our own choice until we turn back. But I think the sitaution has to be fairly drastic. It can be fall of traps if we look for signs in others based on our own criteria.  But actual grace continues.

[Fidei Defensor]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread make that accusation - especially you.  My clarification (on your other remark) was simply an extension of your post, if you will.  I hope you didn't think I was saying you were making an accusation.

No, I didn't think that. I just want to make sure it's clear, though, in case anyone else might think that from what i've said.

[Anomaly]

Exactly! The fact that it's taken us 32 pages to get to this conclusion, is well, sad.

I don't think so. It's a comlicated issue and indicative of a lack of understanding of Catholicism. It takes time to grow wiser, we are not born that way. It's a process to develop and put into effect what you sincerely believe.
If one has chosen to be Catholic, you are responsible to know and understand what is required which is why I'm an apostate and don't call myself Catholic, though it would be easier to fake it.

[Benedictus]

Could you please support your claim about Church teaching with some documentation.  I am interested is seeing how it is phrased exactly.  

 

I actually was born Jewish and became Catholic as an adult.  I am not considered a Jew in terms of identity.  For example, I would not be allowed to immigrate to Israel.  An atheist, born of a Jewish mother, however, would be allowed. At any rate, the Catholic and Jewish understandings of membership are very different and this is not a good analogy to use.  

 

It is still not clear to me what distinction you are making between Catholic and member of the Church. Do you think it is possible for a person to be Catholic while not being a member of the Church?

 

I noticed some documents have gone up, which seem to support some of my points. In terms of Jewish identity -  yes it is complicated these days, in part, due to the disagreements between various jewish denominations. Israel, as a country, has its own laws regarding things which aren't necessarily a mirror of a religious view. The exclusion of persons, for certain reasons as you noted, is a political reason. It's not necessarily a religious one. I don't see the problem with the analogy, in terms of the point I'm making. Once a child is born of a Jewish mother it's a Jew. Once a child is baptised, it's a Catholic. The sins and actions of the child later in life is a different discussion, maybe a more important one, but it doesn't necessarily wipe away their religious essence. In the same way a woman who is an Orthodox Jew could become a Muslim later in life. But, at least in theory, she is still a Jew. Of course, there are political and cultural issues that complicate this,  but the point is relevant.

At Baptism a child is sealed into the body of Christ -  this is shared among all Christians. This body idoesn't rely on assent to Catholic doctrine but a person baptised in the Catholic church also shares in this essence. The fact they are sealed within the Catholic church secures them an identity as a Catholic. As they grow in this context they are subject to the church and its direction.  They may fall into error, schism or be excommunicated. They may even be in mortal sin. But they retain their essence for their life. They don't need to be rebaptised, as an example, even if they physically leave the church for forty years. They simply need, in most cases, to go to confession. But during that forty years you could say they 'were not being a member of the church'. Similarly all the people in the line for confession are Catholics but, at least for a time, aren't in a full communion and or membership with her.
 

[Nihil Obstat]

Similarly all the people in the line for confession are Catholics but, at least for a time, aren't in a full communion and or membership with her.
 

Only if everyone in line for confession has mortal sin on their soul. :P

[Selah]

Let me pre-emptively apologize to anyone who may take offense at my insinuation that they are a heretic — i am not attempting to make a judgment upon them. Rather, I am constructing a logical argument using canon law and carrying the argument to its logical conclusion.  I love each and every one of you, no matter what!

 

^_^ This is how you do it :) 

[Perigrina]

I noticed some documents have gone up, which seem to support some of my points. In terms of Jewish identity -  yes it is complicated these days, in part, due to the disagreements between various jewish denominations. Israel, as a country, has its own laws regarding things which aren't necessarily a mirror of a religious view. The exclusion of persons, for certain reasons as you noted, is a political reason. It's not necessarily a religious one. I don't see the problem with the analogy, in terms of the point I'm making. Once a child is born of a Jewish mother it's a Jew. Once a child is baptised, it's a Catholic. The sins and actions of the child later in life is a different discussion, maybe a more important one, but it doesn't necessarily wipe away their religious essence. In the same way a woman who is an Orthodox Jew could become a Muslim later in life. But, at least in theory, she is still a Jew. Of course, there are political and cultural issues that complicate this,  but the point is relevant.

 

Israeli laws tend to reflect Orthodox Judaism.  There is a lot of disagreement among various kinds of Judaism, but most in my experience do not consider me a Jew.

 

The concept of the indelible mark of baptism is not really that close to Jewish concepts of identity.  This situation of my life means that I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about.