For People Who Want To Leave The Church

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're assuming that, in the Catholic understanding of commuion, "being in communion" requires - not favours, or calls for, but positively requires - regular chuich attendance such that, if you're not attending regularly, you're not in communion.

This is not the case.

So when you said communion you didn't mean communion as the church usually means it (the body and blood of christ)? Rather poor turn of phrase to use, I would think.

Regardless of that, you again seem to be privy to some information that the RCC is not, from the catechism (CCC 2042):

THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH

2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:

2042 The first precept ("You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor") requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.

Sunday mass attendance is obligatory for christians.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So when you said communion you didn't mean communion as the church usually means it (the body and blood of christ)? Rather poor turn of phrase to use, I would think.

The word has more than one sense, Mark. “communion” is commonly used to describe the relationship between individual catholics and the church, and the relationship between different parts of the Catholic church.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Regardless of that, you again seem to be privy to some information that the RCC is not, from the catechism (CCC 2042):

I look in vain for anything in your quotes which says that people who infringe the requirements you highlight cease to be in communion, or cease to be Catholic. In your googling of the Catechism, could you not find anything that said that? And, if you couldn’t, does that not suggest something to you?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sunday mass attendance is obligatory for christians.

Nitpick: for Catholics. But otherwise, yup, that’s the law.

But so what? It’s also the law that you shouldn’t exceed the speed limit, but you don’t lose your citizenship if you do.

In the Catholic view absence from Sunday mass, in itself, is not enough to completely sever the relationship of communion which makes for membership of the Catholic church.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: for Catholics. But otherwise, yup, that’s the law.

But so what? It’s also the law that you shouldn’t exceed the speed limit, but you don’t lose your citizenship if you do.

The catechism is the law for catholics to be catholics. Speed limits are the law for people who want to drive. Break the speed limit enough and you no longer are allowed drive, so break the catechism enough and you should no longer be a catholic.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the Catholic view absence from Sunday mass, in itself, is not enough to completely sever the relationship of communion which makes for membership of the Catholic church.

How can you be "in communion" with the church if you never go to the church?
If you don't go to the church, then you don't have a relationship with it, then you aren't "in communion" with it, and so then you cant be counted as a catholic.

And if you never went to church then were did the relationship of communion which makes for membership of the church, come from in the first place, if not baptism?

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The catechism is the law for catholics to be catholics. Speed limits are the law for people who want to drive. Break the speed limit enough and you no longer are allowed drive, so break the catechism enough and you should no longer be a catholic.

So show me where it says that in the code of canon law.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How can you be "in communion" with the church if you never go to the church?
If you don't go to the church, then you don't have a relationship with it, then you aren't "in communion" with it, and so then you cant be counted as a catholic.

And if you never went to church then were did the relationship of communion which makes for membership of the church, come from in the first place, if not baptism?

Mark, we’re going around in circles here. I’ve already given you pretty irrefutable evidence that baptism is not, in itself, enough to make you a Catholic - Ian Paisley. More than simply baptism is needed - not much more, but something more. That “something” is a relationship of communion.

A relationship of communion does not, in the Catholic view, consist simply in going to mass every week. You might think that it ought to and you might wish that it did, but - no offence - your opinions and wishes do not determine what constitutes membership of the Catholic church. Why should they?

The church’s estimate of the number of its members - in Ireland, at any rate - tallies reasonably well with the number of people who regard themselves as Catholics, or who are so regarded by people who know them well. You might wish that they would both adopt an entirely different concept of Catholicity, one that would appeal more to you, and then decide on the basis of that concept that many of them are not Catholics after all. But, really, why should they give a damn what you think Catholicity is, or should be? The critics of a particular movement are the last people who can pontificate with any authority on who may, or may not, identify with the movement.

There’s a recurrent feature in this discussion, in which people hold views about Catholic church membership which are based on misconceptions - that the Catholic church holds that permament church membership is an indelible consequence of baptism, for example, or that the Catholic church holds that you can’t leave the church unless they agree. But when those misconceptions are shown to be just that, they don’t reconsider the beliefs which depended on them; they just cast around for other misconceptions which can be pressed into service to sustain the belief that they cannot let go of. And they paint themselves into corners where they have to maintain arrant nonsense like the notion that imposing bureaucratic procedures that people have to go through to leave would increase the freedom to leave, while dropping any requirement to go through procedures puts a barrier in the way of leaving. It’s not a good look, really, for people who aspire to be rational and to base their beliefs on evidence.

I said back in post #67 that I was spending way too much time in this read, but here I am nearly thirty posts later. The discussion is circling round again; I’m not sure that my continued participation will be much use. I’m grateful to the people who engaged with me; particularly yourself and Dades. I think I understand your position a bit better than I did before, but I’m afraid I remain unconvinced by it.

Dades

I'll take the veiled ad hominem parceled in that post on the chin and simply suggest that just because you're convinced of the clarity of your argument, doesn't make it true. Neither does repeatedly criticising other posters for failing to agree with you in an exasperated manner.

Perhaps if "people who aspire to be rational and to base their beliefs on evidence" aren't convinced by your arguments, the issue is not as black and white as you see it.

oldrnwisr

Peregrinus, you're right we are going in circles. We seem to be headed in that direction, however, due to your inclination to evade questions. So I'm going to give it one last try.

OK, let's just establish some basics here.

From the perspective of an ordinary lay catholic, self-identification is a suitable justification for inclusion as a member of the catholic church.

The church estimates of membership figures agree to a large degree with said self-identification figures reported through national censi.

There are a large group within the self-identified category above which to describe them in the most benign way are bad catholics. They do not attend mass, confession, communion etc. and are not obedient to the teachings of the church on social issues such as abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. This should be pretty uncontroversial.


Now, the question becomes, why should the church be satisfied (other than making their numbers look better) to recognise as members of the church, people who either disregard or actively contradict the teachings of the church.

After all, Raymond Burke when speaking of the magisterium says:

"Obedience to the Magisterium, the guardian and teacher of the faith, is the fundamental disposition of the baptized and confirmed Catholic (CCC, nn. 142-143)."

So, my first question to you is, at what point does the divergence and opinion and behaviour from the teachings of the church and the requirements of the cathechism exclude someone from membership of the church.


Now, my next question is to do with excommunication.

You have previously argued here:

Peregrinus wrote: »

Church membership requires not just baptism - an event - but also communion - an ongoing relationship.

that membership of the church hinges on being in communion with the church.

However you have also argued here:

Peregrinus wrote: »

Won't help, I'm afraid. Getting yourself excommunicated does not mean that you cease to be a Catholic.

that excommunication doesn't exclude you from membership of the church.

However, since excommunication is defined as putting someone out of communion, there appears to be a contradiction in your views. So which is it?


Ultimately, if the catholic church is satisfied to let catholics decide whether or not they're catholics on their own judgement, it makes the cathechism of the church and the magisterium rather redundant.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

So show me where it says that in the code of canon law.

Its implied by the catechism's own existence. What is the catechism for, if not to tell catholics how to be catholics. Also, there is the bit I pointed out before:

THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH

2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:

If you can be a catholic, but ignore the laws, then in what way are they obligatory.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mark, we’re going around in circles here. I’ve already given you pretty irrefutable evidence that baptism is not, in itself, enough to make you a Catholic - Ian Paisley. More than simply baptism is needed - not much more, but something more. That “something” is a relationship of communion.

No, that "something" is that you must be baptised into the catholic church. I explained this already. Anyone can do the baptism, and if you were baptised into a different church but change your mind, the RCC will just say the original baptism counts for them, but the catholic church must be implied, either by the baptiser or the baptisee.

Peregrinus wrote: »

A relationship of communion does not, in the Catholic view, consist simply in going to mass every week. You might think that it ought to and you might wish that it did, but - no offence - your opinions and wishes do not determine what constitutes membership of the Catholic church. Why should they?

The church’s estimate of the number of its members - in Ireland, at any rate - tallies reasonably well with the number of people who regard themselves as Catholics, or who are so regarded by people who know them well. You might wish that they would both adopt an entirely different concept of Catholicity, one that would appeal more to you, and then decide on the basis of that concept that many of them are not Catholics after all. But, really, why should they give a damn what you think Catholicity is, or should be? The critics of a particular movement are the last people who can pontificate with any authority on who may, or may not, identify with the movement.

Again, it's not my view, it's the RCC's view. Church attendance is obligatory for "the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God". No church attendance, no communion with God. So, no offence, why should I take your assertion of what the RCC actually means when I have it in plain english from them?

Peregrinus wrote: »

There’s a recurrent feature in this discussion, in which people hold views about Catholic church membership which are based on misconceptions - that the Catholic church holds that permament church membership is an indelible consequence of baptism, for example, or that the Catholic church holds that you can’t leave the church unless they agree. But when those misconceptions are shown to be just that, they don’t reconsider the beliefs which depended on them; they just cast around for other misconceptions which can be pressed into service to sustain the belief that they cannot let go of. And they paint themselves into corners where they have to maintain arrant nonsense like the notion that imposing bureaucratic procedures that people have to go through to leave would increase the freedom to leave, while dropping any requirement to go through procedures puts a barrier in the way of leaving. It’s not a good look, really, for people who aspire to be rational and to base their beliefs on evidence.

I said back in post #67 that I was spending way too much time in this read, but here I am nearly thirty posts later. The discussion is circling round again; I’m not sure that my continued participation will be much use. I’m grateful to the people who engaged with me; particularly yourself and Dades. I think I understand your position a bit better than I did before, but I’m afraid I remain unconvinced by it.

This entire post is just a reassertion of your previous points with no references to back you up, so its a bit much for you to assert that I'm the one not basing my position on evidence. Its also no shock that your continued participation will not be much use as you fail to answer a single question I asked. So, again:
How can you be "in communion" with the church if you never go to the church?
And if you never went to church then were did the relationship of communion which makes for membership of the church, come from in the first place, if not baptism?

Dades

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21545819

Interesting BBC article on counting Catholics worldwide.

"The Catholic system doesn't try to track people in such detail but there is a problem with counting in and not having such a good system for counting out."