Posted on 12/20/2009 2:27:52 PM PST by NYer
That priest was dead wrong in saying, In the eyes of the Church, you are no longer a Catholic. For the sake of his soul, I hope that he repents of what he said to you and your son.
Once you are baptized a Catholic, you are a Catholic for life. Even if you were excommunicated ferendae sententiae (by a formal sentence) by a competent authority, you would still be a Catholic. Why? Because all you would have to do is to go to confession and then pick up right where you left off. (Obviously, in a case of excommunication, that condition would have to be lifted by the competent authority, but still...)
Keep in mind, though, that the priest is within his prudential judgment on whether he will, or will not witness a marriage. It might be perfectly proper for him to say that a person who has been away from the sacraments for years needs to start receiving the sacraments regularly again before consenting to use the parish church and to be willing to witness the marriage. But that is a whole lot different than saying, "In the eyes of the Church, you are no longer a Catholic" because somebody has been away from the sacraments for a couple of years.
Sorry to interject here, but it pisses me off to no end when I hear about some priest who goes off half cocked and becomes his own "magesterium."
I think you should spend as much time as possible on it.
That's absolutely right.
But that is not to say that I wouldn't say that there are any number of protestant denominations. They split and rejoin so much that it is entirely impossible to keep track of who believes what.
Look at recent events: you have yet another split developing within the ELCA over homosexuality and ordination; likewise, it appears that worldwide Anglicanism is getting ready to have a complete realignment over the same issue. And that is just within the last six months.
And we, of course, all know the joke about the baptists that ends 'die heretic scum.'
And, of course, that is not even to begin to discuss all the individual "independents" that are not part of any denomination and may, or may not, have any common beliefs.
The point was, do you classify each "independent" non-denominational church as its own denomination? Do you classify all branches of Luthernism together as one (I know a few LCMS people who would vigorously object to being grouped with the ELCA)? How about Presbyterianism (would you like to be grouped with the PCUSA)?
Fact of the matter is that one could as easily assert that there are 500,000,000 denominations as easily as 30,000. Why? Because in Protestantism, each man is his own magesterium (i.e., teaching authority) and the only thing that unifies them all is that they are proudly non-Catholic. Jesus Christ doesn't even join them all, since they don't all agree on who He is to begin with (some deny the Trinity by calling Jesus a created being, while others deny the Trinity through "oneness." )
Frankly, that's why I disavow using the 30,000 number. Because one could just as easily say 7,000...30,000...500,000,000. It really doesn't matter.
bump
LOL you are right, they will drag me kicking and screaming to be subject to Rome.
This belief explains 1)how they keep up their member numbers and 2) Why only 30% attend church regularly. The rest of us are at church somewhere else
When I left the church, my father, who was a real rogue, asked why I left the church, it was a part of our family tradition.It had nothing to do with eternity, just we have always been catholic..
I am glad you found a comfortable spiritual home..
“Because I was baptized as a Catholic and raised as a Catholic, even though I now reject central doctrines and teachings and choose membership in another denomination am I still officially a Catholic?”
It depends on what you mean by “officially.”
It's quite likely that if you're no longer registered in a parish that you're no longer counted as a Catholic. Thus, when the Church says that there are sixty-umpteen-million-and-so-many-hundreds-of-thousands of Catholics in the United States, it's quite likely that you're not part of that number. Our parish purges its rolls every couple of years, and once you're out, you're out. If the pastor doesn't see you around at Mass on a regular basis, or if the accountant doesn't note that you're giving anymore to the parish, you're likely to be purged from the rolls. If you don't re-register in another Catholic parish, then you're no longer officially counted as a Catholic.
However, juridically and ontologically, you're still a Catholic. For all eternity. That means that you're still subject to Catholic canon law, and it means that the mark on your soul that makes you Catholic will persist for all eternity.
In this life, unless someone comes back to the Church, it probably doesn't mean much. It's not likely that a fallen-away Catholic will care much about Catholic canon law or the rulings thereof, so what's the difference?
In the next life, if the Church turns out to have been right all along, and the fallen-away Catholic, well, not so much so, then the consequences may not be so insubstantial.
sitetest
Sola Deo Gloria!
Could you point me in the direction of the scripture that says baptism leaves a denominational mark on your soul or any mark??
I wasn't trying to debate theology with you. You expressed confusion about a theological point of the Church of Jesus Christ, and I thought I'd try to make it more clear, that you would understand precisely what it is the Church means by what She says.
If you disagree with the Church, I'm uninterested in trying to persuade you from your beliefs.
sitetest
Merry Christmas..
I was not looking to “argue” theology I just like things sourced if I am to believe they have validity.
I just know the RC church accepts all Christian baptisms as valid, so if there was a denominational mark tied to it they would be marked Methodist or presbyterian etc..
So I was looking to a source for that thought
Have a blessed holiday
It does make it a lot easier if one desires to return to the Catholic church.
“I was not looking to ‘argue’ theology I just like things sourced if I am to believe they have validity.”
Why would I try to demonstrate the “validity” of the teachings of the Church to you, in that you've already rejected those teachings? If you don't understand what the teachings mean, I'm willing to help clear up some of the confusion, but you've made clear many, many times that you reject them, so I'm uninterested in trying to demonstrate that you're wrong.
“I just know the RC church accepts all Christian baptisms as valid, so if there was a denominational mark tied to it they would be marked Methodist or presbyterian etc..”
I see here that the misunderstanding is deeper than I initially thought. Your post appears to rest on some premises that don't have much to do with what the Church believes and teaches about baptism.
Merry Christmas to you, too.
sitetest
Probably, because the Roman church does not have much to do with what the Bible teaches about Baptism
“Probably, because the Roman church does not have much to do with what the Bible teaches about Baptism”
Your posts show no evidence of understanding what it is the Church teaches in the first place.
It's tough to judge what one doesn't understand.
Merry Christmas!
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.