Why there is no such thing as an 'ex-catholic'

[Michie]

J.D. Flynn explains in First Things:

Catholicism is not a congregationalist religion. Membership is not a self defining proposition. Grace- the grace of baptism-makes one Catholic. The Church teaches that "by baptism, one is incorporated into the Church if Christ and is constituted as a person in it."

Continued below.
http://aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-ex-catholic/

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Branded for life!

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Once baptized, always baptized, but not necessarily always a Catholic. Here are a couple of examples explaining this:

If I'm baptized as a Catholic, does that mean I'm Catholic forever, even if I marry outside the Church?

Full Question
Once people are baptized Catholic, are they Catholic forever? What if they marry outside of the Church or join another religion? If they aren't Catholic anymore, how can they become Catholic again?

Answer
Once someone is validly baptized, Catholic or otherwise, he is baptized forever (CIC 845). One can never lose baptism or become "unbaptized," although one might lose the benefits of baptism by personal sin. But as to whether someone baptized Catholic is thereafter always Catholic, that's a slightly different question.

In most cases, the answer will be that someone baptized Catholic remains Catholic (see CIC 111, 205). But, by implication of canon 205--which requires, to be considered in full communion with the Church, a basic profession of the faith, some level of sacramental participation, and some degree of submission to ecclesiastical governance--one can imagine circumstances under which someone who was baptized Catholic might reject any or all of these elements to the point at which he could not be considered fully Catholic anymore, nothwithstanding the fact that he remained baptized. More

"The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. 'There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition' (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. 'No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic' (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)." — Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church) June 29, 1896

​

 

[topcare]

Yes there is such a thing I am one

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

As it turns out I'm a cradle Catholic then
But I swam the Tiber didn't I

 

[dzheremi]

Sorry, but I have to massively disagree with this one. The author is mistaking his particular church's ecclesiastical principles for reality outside of his church, in the world at large, and the two are very much not the same. Of course the RCC is free to teach anything it wants to its communicants, but it's worth noting that this whole "Once a member, always a member" idea (via the related idea of an 'indelible mark' of baptism) is not found in other apostolic churches, such as the Oriental Orthodox or (to the best of my knowledge from asking them about it and listening to their priests talk about it) the Eastern Orthodox.

This also explains why the RCC has things like episcopi vagantes which are also not present in these other churches: people who have left the church but still somehow -- 'validly but illicitly' -- exercise their ministry by virtue of having been ordained at one point within the RCC. Because there is this idea that ordination or baptism or whatever change the character of the person receiving them in some indelible way, marking them as a Catholic/priest forever, therefore they cannot be undone or rubbed out even if the person in question completely repudiates the RCC and leaves it for something else.

By contrast, if I were to leave the Orthodox Church to go to Catholicism or to some third place, I would in no way be taking my baptism 'with me'. It was given to me as the means of formal entrance into the Church, not as some thing that I possess of myself which I may take outside of the Church should I will to do so.

 

[Michie]

Yeah I don't get that line of thinking either. So all baptized are Catholic? I dunno... Feeling increasingly disgruntled.

As it turns out I'm a cradle Catholic then
But I swam the Tiber didn't I

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I once felt I was ex Catholic, but Catholicism for me was more than just a religious identity, it was part of who I am.

But I do have the right to disagree and to harbor doubts on certain points, and ultimately rely on God even if the Church says differently. I hold everything I am taught up to the word of God.

 

[Rhamiel]

I find it kind of condescending

like if someone says "I am no longer Catholic"
some Catholics just give a wink and a nudge "oh I bet you'll me back" and "once a Catholic always a Catholic"

just lack of respect

no one ever has to be baptized if they have a legitimate baptism
and if a member of the Church leaves the Church, if they were confirmed members, it is relatively easy for them to come back

but I just think this sounds kind of rude
just my two cents...

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Yes there is such a thing I am one

You, me, and the loch ness monster apparently don't exist.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Doesn't this somewhat conflict with historical Catholic teaching? The Church teaches that baptism enjoins a man to the Church if he is baptised by a Catholic cleric or person with the intention of doing what the Church does, that is to make the soul a member of the body of Christ, the Catholic Church. Now, say a Protestant baptises an child, is that child "a Catholic" if the intention is not to unite the soul to the Catholic Church but to amorphous 'spiritual church of all true believers' to which many Prots believe all true believers adhere? What about a Prot adult? Are they now 'Catholic' too? This would seem contrary to the Fathers of the Church? Elabourate and explain, kindly.

 

[Maria214]

J.D. Flynn explains in First Things:

Catholicism is not a congregationalist religion. Membership is not a self defining proposition. Grace- the grace of baptism-makes one Catholic. The Church teaches that "by baptism, one is incorporated into the Church if Christ and is constituted as a person in it."

Continued below.
http://aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-ex-catholic/

There is a such thing as an ex-Catholic. Martin Luther is one of numerous examples of an ex-Catholic. A person loses membership in the Church by Heresy, Apostasy, or Schism.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Agreed.

 

[s_gunter]

A while back, the Catholic Church was accepting letters of resignation (if you will) from atheists wishing NOT to be on the member's list. What I don't know is if the Catholic Church actually accepted these and struck the names off any membership/baptismal records. Also, would that have actually "un-rung a bell?" How do you say that a baptism never occurred when it actually did?

 

[dzheremi]

Also, would that have actually "un-rung a bell?" How do you say that a baptism never occurred when it actually did?

Could the same question not be asked about the RCC's teaching on marriage and annulment, as a way of shedding light on your question? There, intent appears to be the key, such that if one has a malformed intent, the sacrament can be declared after the fact to never have occurred. I'm not sure on what grounds baptism couldn't be considered in the same way -- if not by the RCC itself (which I'm sure makes other distinctions), then certainly by the 'ex-baptized' themselves who would obviously say they had no conscious intent to be baptized into the Church as babies, but were baptized anyway by parents who intended that for them. Even adults could say that their choice was constrained in a certain way by selective presentation of information in RCIA prior to baptism, and so after learning more from non-RCC sources they no longer feel like their intent was all that well-formed, as it was reached on shaky premises.

(Not to play devil's advocate on the RCC board, but these are both things I've actually heard ex-Catholics say, so I know they're out there in people's minds. Well, the first one I've heard from cradles, and the second I've said about myself... )

 

[s_gunter]

Could the same question not be asked about the RCC's teaching on marriage and annulment, as a way of shedding light on your question? There, intent appears to be the key, such that if one has a malformed intent, the sacrament can be declared after the fact to never have occurred. I'm not sure on what grounds baptism couldn't be considered in the same way -- if not by the RCC itself (which I'm sure makes other distinctions), then certainly by the 'ex-baptized' themselves who would obviously say they had no conscious intent to be baptized into the Church as babies, but were baptized anyway by parents who intended that for them. Even adults could say that their choice was constrained in a certain way by selective presentation of information in RCIA prior to baptism, and so after learning more from non-RCC sources they no longer feel like their intent was all that well-formed, as it was reached on shaky premises.

(Not to play devil's advocate on the RCC board, but these are both things I've actually heard ex-Catholics say, so I know they're out there in people's minds. Well, the first one I've heard from cradles, and the second I've said about myself... )

Well, with a marriage, there's a sacramental marriage, and then there's a marriage that is basically a civil contract. If you are married by a justice of the peace, that's merely a legal contract, even though the couple file that contract because they love each other. Now a sacramental marriage involves God, in that "the couple cooperates with God’s action in their life and sees themselves as living “in Christ” and Christ living and acting in their relationship, attitudes and actions." (source: http://www.foryourmarriage.org/marriage-as-sacrament/)

I might be wrong on this one, but doesn't the Church not really recognize a secular marriage? Meaning, that if an initiate to the Church happened to be civilly married and divorced, that the annulment is just about automatically granted, meaning that a re-married initiate could receive the Eucharist? If I'm right, that's not un-ringing a bell, since there was no sacramental marriage in the first place, so I'm not sure it would apply here.

That said, I sure do like your thought process on that one. It does give something to think about.

 

[dzheremi]

I was referring to marriages conducted in the RCC according to its laws and teachings, not to secular marriages. Sorry for not being clear on that.

 

[s_gunter]

I was referring to marriages conducted in the RCC according to its laws and teachings, not to secular marriages. Sorry for not being clear on that.

Heh. Then you do raise a good point.

 

[Sweet Tooth]

A while back, the Catholic Church was accepting letters of resignation (if you will) from atheists wishing NOT to be on the member's list. What I don't know is if the Catholic Church actually accepted these and struck the names off any membership/baptismal records. Also, would that have actually "un-rung a bell?" How do you say that a baptism never occurred when it actually did?

Wasn't this particularly due to former Catholics not wanting their tax money to be forwarded to Churches? I know German Catholics did that for that very reason.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I might be wrong on this one, but doesn't the Church not really recognize a secular marriage? Meaning, that if an initiate to the Church happened to be civilly married and divorced, that the annulment is just about automatically granted, meaning that a re-married initiate could receive the Eucharist? If I'm right, that's not un-ringing a bell, since there was no sacramental marriage in the first place, so I'm not sure it would apply here.

It depends.

In the beginning, God created marriage between one man and one woman. The Church calls this natural marriage. Later, Jesus Christ elevated natural marriage to the supernatural, to a sacrament. So the Church still recognizes a non-sacramental marriage when it is a valid natural marriage between one man and one woman since that's how God created marriage in the beginning. However, if it's a Catholic who marries outside of the Church then the marriage would not be valid unless the Catholic got a dispensation from his or her local bishop. In that case, a priest would be present to witness the marriage but would not be the actual one conducting the marriage. But a so-called "same-sex marriage", for example, would not even be a natural marriage.