OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 12:35:41 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: My "Official" Status with the Roman Catholic Church?  (Read 7530 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« on: January 21, 2009, 03:09:48 AM »

This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 03:10:15 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2009, 04:31:23 AM »

This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.

Having been baptized by someone else, you are according to them a schismatic, and because of the rebaptism, a heretic.  That you were not confirmed plays no part, you would be the same classification if you had.

More to the point, what does the Orthodox priest say about you becoming fully Catholic, ie. Orthodox?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 04:55:04 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jonny
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


Presently in the Roman Catholic Communion


« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2009, 04:44:35 AM »

This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.

Your still Catholic but probably excommunicate but some rule or another (if you've taken communion in any other Church for example). To take Communion in the Catholic Church again all you would need to do is go to Confession with a Catholic Priest. Confirmation doesn't matter as the Catholic Church has little to no theology when it comes to this Sacrament and it has been stripped of all its original meaning by being moved from before first Communion to after. I know 60 year olds who've slipped through the net, never got confirmed, and now can't see the point.
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2009, 07:15:43 AM »

Well, technically most get confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church at around 6-7, but a lot of Bishops' Conferences have changed it to much later (sometimes even double the 'Age of Reason').  Confirmation wouldn't have made you "fully" Roman Catholic, it is just a sign of maturity and a renewal/perfecting of your bond to the Roman Catholic Church.  Confirmed or not, you have been excommunicated though.   laugh
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 07:15:55 AM by Nebelpfade » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2009, 12:39:05 PM »

Well, technically most get confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church at around 6-7, but a lot of Bishops' Conferences have changed it to much later (sometimes even double the 'Age of Reason').  Confirmation wouldn't have made you "fully" Roman Catholic, it is just a sign of maturity and a renewal/perfecting of your bond to the Roman Catholic Church.  Confirmed or not, you have been excommunicated though.   laugh

This is interesting. Although I've never been a member of the Catholic Church, all of my friends growing up were. (As a young child I wanted to be Catholic so I could go with all my friends to CCD on Wednesday afternoons because I had no one to play with!  Grin )

Anyway, I digress. All of my friends were confirmed at the end of 8th grade at around age 13-14. I wonder if this was just a local custom in New Jersey or just the U.S.?

What was often the practice is that parents would take their kids to church and CCD until they were confirmed, and then never go to church again. Which begs the question: what was the point?
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2009, 12:43:53 PM »

Your still Catholic but probably excommunicate but some rule or another (if you've taken communion in any other Church for example). To take Communion in the Catholic Church again all you would need to do is go to Confession with a Catholic Priest. Confirmation doesn't matter as the Catholic Church has little to no theology when it comes to this Sacrament and it has been stripped of all its original meaning by being moved from before first Communion to after. I know 60 year olds who've slipped through the net, never got confirmed, and now can't see the point.

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!). I was Confirmed before Communing.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2009, 12:59:47 PM »

This is interesting. Although I've never been a member of the Catholic Church, all of my friends growing up were. (As a young child I wanted to be Catholic so I could go with all my friends to CCD on Wednesday afternoons because I had no one to play with!  Grin )

Anyway, I digress. All of my friends were confirmed at the end of 8th grade at around age 13-14. I wonder if this was just a local custom in New Jersey or just the U.S.?

What was often the practice is that parents would take their kids to church and CCD until they were confirmed, and then never go to church again. Which begs the question: what was the point?

Custom. Unfortunately, for many Catholics their Faith is simply Cultural Identity and nothing more. My daughter is in CCD but I have been taking her to Great Vespers at the local Orthodox Parish since the summer. We're still working out our conversion to Orthodoxy. It is challenging and difficult because my daughter is like you when you were a little girl except she is already going to CCD on Wednesdays and her father is messing everything up by all this talk about Orthodoxy.  Undecided
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2009, 07:56:39 PM »

Custom. Unfortunately, for many Catholics their Faith is simply Cultural Identity and nothing more. My daughter is in CCD but I have been taking her to Great Vespers at the local Orthodox Parish since the summer. We're still working out our conversion to Orthodoxy. It is challenging and difficult because my daughter is like you when you were a little girl except she is already going to CCD on Wednesdays and her father is messing everything up by all this talk about Orthodoxy.  Undecided

And sadly the same criticism can be laid on many Orthodox. In fact the problem may be compounded in Eastern Orthodoxy by the fact that many Churches are nationally/ethnically categorized.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2009, 08:18:18 PM »

Quote
And sadly the same criticism can be laid on many Orthodox. In fact the problem may be compounded in Eastern Orthodoxy by the fact that many Churches are nationally/ethnically categorized.

You are right that Orthodoxy has become an ethnic club for many people (especially in America), but churches still ought to be nationally categorized. This is how Rome was, since it is commonly referred to as Latin or Western. Before the Schism you had Greek, Latin, Syrian, Coptic, etc churches. Even certain parts of Western Europe were independent from Rome for quite a while. That is why there were distinctions in Western Europe between Latin Church, Mozarabic Church, Gallican Church, and maybe more (I'm not sure). The Latin Church ended up subjugating all these independent churches, kind of like what Russia is doing right now with certain other autocephalous churches in Eastern Europe.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 08:19:58 PM by antiderivative » Logged

signature
Ary_girl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: ELCA Lutheran?
Posts: 8


« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2009, 05:14:10 PM »

To the OP, from what I have heard you are still considered Catholic, and specifically latin rite.  Like others have said it really doesn't matter if you have been confirmed or not since children who have not been confirmed are still considered Catholic.  It is more of a coming of age thing.  My cousins were confirmed when they were 15, so the age covers a large spectrum. 
If you don't want to be considered Catholic, you would have to formally go to the Catholic Church and sign some papers. Kind of like a resignation.  At least that is what I have heard from a couple of Catholic sources.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2009, 05:44:13 PM »

To the OP, from what I have heard you are still considered Catholic, and specifically latin rite. 
Are you sure? I would have thought he would be considered a schismatic.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2009, 06:57:41 PM »

If you don't want to be considered Catholic, you would have to formally go to the Catholic Church and sign some papers. Kind of like a resignation.  At least that is what I have heard from a couple of Catholic sources.

I would be interested to know if this is true.  Does the Roman Catholic Church really have me on an official registry of sorts that would require my official withdrawal?  That would be strange, considering the fact that I have not been a part of the Roman Catholic Church for some thirteen years.

Would I have to contact the diocese that I was baptized in as an infant?
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2009, 05:06:35 PM »

If you don't want to be considered Catholic, you would have to formally go to the Catholic Church and sign some papers. Kind of like a resignation.  At least that is what I have heard from a couple of Catholic sources.

I would be interested to know if this is true.  Does the Roman Catholic Church really have me on an official registry of sorts that would require my official withdrawal?  That would be strange, considering the fact that I have not been a part of the Roman Catholic Church for some thirteen years.

Would I have to contact the diocese that I was baptized in as an infant?

Grace and Peace Alveus Lacuna,

You're Baptismal records will be found in the Parish in which you were Baptized. Perhaps in modern times this record is uploaded to a larger registry and I do believe that it takes a formal request to the diocesan office to have your records removed/deleted.

But be clear that this has little to do with your 'status' per se in the Catholic Church. If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

So perhaps you can take solace, if you desire, in knowing that after one year of inactivity the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that a spiritual break between you and the life of the Church has taken place.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2009, 05:19:04 PM »


Custom. Unfortunately, for many Catholics their Faith is simply Cultural Identity and nothing more. My daughter is in CCD but I have been taking her to Great Vespers at the local Orthodox Parish since the summer. We're still working out our conversion to Orthodoxy. It is challenging and difficult because my daughter is like you when you were a little girl except she is already going to CCD on Wednesdays and her father is messing everything up by all this talk about Orthodoxy.  Undecided

This is the sad reality.  I remember when my wife and I were doing our pre-Cana classes, the leader of the group, who was a deacon at that particular parish, asked the group why we were marrying in the Catholic church.

Almost everyone said, "It's tradition" or "It's our custom".

I got real funny looks when I finally said, "It's a God ordained sacrament and being with someone else for the rest of your life is hard enough w/o the grace participating in the sacrament will give."

From then on I was pegged the "class zealot". 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2009, 05:30:13 PM »

I got real funny looks when I finally said, "It's a God ordained sacrament and being with someone else for the rest of your life is hard enough w/o the grace participating in the sacrament will give."

From then on I was pegged the "class zealot".

Yeah, it turns out that if you know anything about the faith at all then you need to either be in the clergy or a monastic.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2009, 06:00:09 PM »

If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

No, it doesn't, although God may consider this to be the case.  Wink   But that's not for me to say.   I think you are referring to a widely accepted belief in the early Church that assumed that if someone had not been to communion for over 3 weeks (with no extenuating circumstances explaining this absence from the chalice) then they had left the Church.  I believe there were also canons similar to, though not identical to this belief in force at various times, though I do not have the references handy.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 06:06:20 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2009, 06:37:15 PM »

If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

No, it doesn't, although God may consider this to be the case.  Wink   But that's not for me to say.   I think you are referring to a widely accepted belief in the early Church that assumed that if someone had not been to communion for over 3 weeks (with no extenuating circumstances explaining this absence from the chalice) then they had left the Church.  I believe there were also canons similar to, though not identical to this belief in force at various times, though I do not have the references handy.

My Parish Priest just told me this last week...
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2009, 06:49:57 PM »

But be clear that this has little to do with your 'status' per se in the Catholic Church. If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

That is news to me, the 1 year excommunication latae sententiae.  Is this a USCCB decision or something local?  I don't think there is anything officially in the Code of Canon law that spells that out.  Then of course, entering into schism will have you excommunicated lata sententia under canon 1364 (1983).
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Jonny
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


Presently in the Roman Catholic Communion


« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2009, 08:22:44 PM »

If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

No, it doesn't, although God may consider this to be the case.  Wink   But that's not for me to say.   I think you are referring to a widely accepted belief in the early Church that assumed that if someone had not been to communion for over 3 weeks (with no extenuating circumstances explaining this absence from the chalice) then they had left the Church.  I believe there were also canons similar to, though not identical to this belief in force at various times, though I do not have the references handy.

It is certinally commonly believed that if you do not go to confession during Lent and recieve communion at least at the feast of the Resurrection then you are not in the Church's good graces. I've heard many Priest say that its an excommunicatable offence not to fulfill these criteria but I don't know of any offical teaching.
Logged
Ary_girl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: ELCA Lutheran?
Posts: 8


« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2009, 10:29:19 PM »

If you don't want to be considered Catholic, you would have to formally go to the Catholic Church and sign some papers. Kind of like a resignation.  At least that is what I have heard from a couple of Catholic sources.

I would be interested to know if this is true.  Does the Roman Catholic Church really have me on an official registry of sorts that would require my official withdrawal?  That would be strange, considering the fact that I have not been a part of the Roman Catholic Church for some thirteen years.

Would I have to contact the diocese that I was baptized in as an infant?

Yes, they would still have your papers filed away in the diocese you were baptised in.  I guess I made a mistake in saying that you would not be considered Catholic.  I guess you are Catholic for life because your baptism leaves "an indelible mark" on your soul.  They would continue to keep your baptismal records, however, if they saw fit, they could make a note of your "actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica"

You may find this website informative:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

If you really wish to go through the trouble of having this done, you should contact the parish you were baptised in and they could probably direct you further.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2009, 11:50:58 PM »


Custom. Unfortunately, for many Catholics their Faith is simply Cultural Identity and nothing more. My daughter is in CCD but I have been taking her to Great Vespers at the local Orthodox Parish since the summer. We're still working out our conversion to Orthodoxy. It is challenging and difficult because my daughter is like you when you were a little girl except she is already going to CCD on Wednesdays and her father is messing everything up by all this talk about Orthodoxy.  Undecided

This is the sad reality.  I remember when my wife and I were doing our pre-Cana classes, the leader of the group, who was a deacon at that particular parish, asked the group why we were marrying in the Catholic church.

Almost everyone said, "It's tradition" or "It's our custom".

I got real funny looks when I finally said, "It's a God ordained sacrament and being with someone else for the rest of your life is hard enough w/o the grace participating in the sacrament will give."

From then on I was pegged the "class zealot". 

LOL.  How dare you see things as they are.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2009, 04:20:31 AM »

If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

No, it doesn't, although God may consider this to be the case.  Wink   But that's not for me to say.   I think you are referring to a widely accepted belief in the early Church that assumed that if someone had not been to communion for over 3 weeks (with no extenuating circumstances explaining this absence from the chalice) then they had left the Church.  I believe there were also canons similar to, though not identical to this belief in force at various times, though I do not have the references handy.

My Parish Priest just told me this last week...

You're "excommunicated" after three weeks, but it doesn't mean you're not welcome in the Church. You just have to go to confession before you go to communion again.

No biggie. :-)

And it should be said that if it's three weeks without a good reason. I mean if you're trapped in a jungle in the Amazon, you might get a pass. ;-)

All of this should be discussed between the communicant and their Spiritual Father.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Jonny
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


Presently in the Roman Catholic Communion


« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2009, 08:11:37 AM »



You're "excommunicated" after three weeks, but it doesn't mean you're not welcome in the Church. You just have to go to confession before you go to communion again.

No biggie. :-)

And it should be said that if it's three weeks without a good reason. I mean if you're trapped in a jungle in the Amazon, you might get a pass. ;-)

All of this should be discussed between the communicant and their Spiritual Father.

Then I guess I'm the worlds most commonly excommunicated Catholic! Not only do I deny Church dogma, which renders me anathema, but I also only receive communion after confession and that is never ever as regular as every three weeks.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2009, 10:31:16 AM »

Then I guess I'm the worlds most commonly excommunicated Catholic! Not only do I deny Church dogma, which renders me anathema, but I also only receive communion after confession and that is never ever as regular as every three weeks.

No, not really. If you recall I stated that in Roman Catholicism one has to abstain from communion for an entire Liturgical Year before they could consider themselves in a severed relationship with the Roman Church. It's within the OCA that one could consider themselves severed after 3 weeks.

Personally I don't take pride in disobedience even if it is something which my conscience dictates as may well be the case with you. For me it's been very important to enter into Holy Orthodoxy and not my dislike or denial of the Western Church but I have to admit it is difficult the temper my zeal when I dwell on all the thing I might find lacking in the some of the Roman Catholic Parishes that I have attended.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
VirSpeluncaeOrthodoxae
Da Orthodox Caveman! aka "Cavey"
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch...for now
Posts: 102



« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2009, 11:45:04 AM »

Custom. Unfortunately, for many Catholics their Faith is simply Cultural Identity and nothing more. My daughter is in CCD but I have been taking her to Great Vespers at the local Orthodox Parish since the summer. We're still working out our conversion to Orthodoxy. It is challenging and difficult because my daughter is like you when you were a little girl except she is already going to CCD on Wednesdays and her father is messing everything up by all this talk about Orthodoxy.  Undecided

And sadly the same criticism can be laid on many Orthodox. In fact the problem may be compounded in Eastern Orthodoxy by the fact that many Churches are nationally/ethnically categorized.

You can say that again!
Logged

Medieval, backwards, rigid, narrow-minded Traditionalist, Western Rite lover and proud of it! Make my day.
marlo
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2009, 04:51:14 PM »

You are currently Protestant, and maybe in a state of excommunication in the RCC.
Your baptism is still RCC and might be considered valid by some EO bishops, some might say its not, it really depends on the EO bishop. But your protestant baptism is not valid. When you become EO you will be called schismatic (as per RCC of course). Before you became protestant you are fully or truly catholic until your separation.


This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2009, 06:39:02 PM »



You're "excommunicated" after three weeks, but it doesn't mean you're not welcome in the Church. You just have to go to confession before you go to communion again.

No biggie. :-)

And it should be said that if it's three weeks without a good reason. I mean if you're trapped in a jungle in the Amazon, you might get a pass. ;-)

All of this should be discussed between the communicant and their Spiritual Father.

Then I guess I'm the worlds most commonly excommunicated Catholic! Not only do I deny Church dogma, which renders me anathema, but I also only receive communion after confession and that is never ever as regular as every three weeks.

I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. My statements about "excommunication" were in regards to the Orthodox Church. Also, it's not excommunication after three weeks without receiving Holy Communion; it's three weeks without being a Divine Liturgy for a good reason.

All of this, of course, should be discussed with one's Spiritual Father.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,016


WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2009, 06:49:39 PM »

Alveus, when you are received into Orthodoxy, your past status is rendered moot for you become a new man with a new heart in Christ.  No more need to sign anything, pledge anything, swear anything or account for anything.   Grin

Meanwhile, try not to distract yourself with anything not related to your present state as a Cathecumen.   Smiley
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2011, 12:16:08 PM »

But be clear that this has little to do with your 'status' per se in the Catholic Church. If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto.

You're "excommunicated" after three weeks, but it doesn't mean you're not welcome in the Church. You just have to go to confession before you go to communion again.

No biggie. :-)

And it should be said that if it's three weeks without a good reason. I mean if you're trapped in a jungle in the Amazon, you might get a pass. ;-)

All of this should be discussed between the communicant and their Spiritual Father.

Technically a Roman Catholic is "excommunicated" for not fulfilling what we call in English the "Easter Duty" of confession and communion at least once a year.  Interestingly, the "Easter Duty" can be fulfilled anywhere from the 1st Sunday of Lent to Pentecost Sunday according to the American bishops. 

A confession to any parish priest can lift this excommunication, as it is a relatively minor offense.  Heck, I attended an Anglo-Catholic parish for half a year, received communion there a few times (an excommunication), and was lifted from all penalties just through regular confession.  There are very few excommunications that must be unbound by a bishop or even Rome.  Even the private procurement or assistance in an abortion, which is an extremely grave matter, can be absolved within a regular confession in many dioceses.  Absolution of public endorser of abortion, or a medical professional with a public reputation as an abortionist or abortion nurse, might be reserved for a bishop.  Even then, the usual protocol is for the penitent to go to a parish priest and confess.  The parish priest does not immediately grant absolution, but petitions the bishop anonymously for the jurisdiction to absolve.  If the bishop answers in the affirmative, the priest can then absolve the penitent.   

Logged
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2011, 01:00:04 PM »

I've read through this and understand the considerations for one who was baptized Roman Catholic, but what about someone like me who converted and was only confirmed? How would I be considered if I left for Holy Orthodoxy? Is it the same deal?
Logged
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2011, 01:17:57 PM »

You are currently Protestant, and maybe in a state of excommunication in the RCC.
Your baptism is still RCC and might be considered valid by some EO bishops, some might say its not, it really depends on the EO bishop. But your protestant baptism is not valid. When you become EO you will be called schismatic (as per RCC of course). Before you became protestant you are fully or truly catholic until your separation.


This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.

I thought when I left the RCC for Orthodoxy, I was according to the Catholic Church an apostate and not a schismatic.
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,034


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2011, 04:24:02 PM »

You are currently Protestant, and maybe in a state of excommunication in the RCC.
Your baptism is still RCC and might be considered valid by some EO bishops, some might say its not, it really depends on the EO bishop. But your protestant baptism is not valid. When you become EO you will be called schismatic (as per RCC of course). Before you became protestant you are fully or truly catholic until your separation.


This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.

I thought when I left the RCC for Orthodoxy, I was according to the Catholic Church an apostate and not a schismatic.

I recall that when the generation of people who led the opposition to Latinizations left the Byzantine Greek Catholic Church were still around they were called 'schismatics' by their former brethren. I never heard us referred to as 'apostates.'
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2011, 10:46:32 AM »

I thought when I left the RCC for Orthodoxy, I was according to the Catholic Church an apostate and not a schismatic.

I think you're projecting. There are certainly some Orthodox who apply the term "apostates" to those who convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, but I've never heard Catholics apply the term to those who convert from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. Not even on catholic.com.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2011, 10:56:05 AM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2011, 11:54:26 AM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

On another note...
Why did the Roman Rite change the order of the sacraments, was there a particular reason?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2011, 01:24:20 PM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

On another note...
Why did the Roman Rite change the order of the sacraments, was there a particular reason?

There are two excellent historical-theological surveys done concerning the sacraments of initiation by Father Aidan Kavanagh back in the 1970's.  They are 1) The shape of baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation and 2) Confirmation: Origins and Reform. 

I know it is mean to just point to books, however they are available at amazon.com and they are both excellent and go well beyond any one or two sentence reply that I could offer to you here.  I know you tend to be a thoughtful person so I am hoping you get hold of these two texts and read them.

Mary
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2011, 01:45:29 PM »

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

AFAIK according to the  Vatican teachings all EO baptised as infants used to be Orthodox because we were "validly baptised". We "abandoned" the Vatican intentionally renouncing it's teachings.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2011, 02:50:47 PM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

On another note...
Why did the Roman Rite change the order of the sacraments, was there a particular reason?

There are two excellent historical-theological surveys done concerning the sacraments of initiation by Father Aidan Kavanagh back in the 1970's.  They are 1) The shape of baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation and 2) Confirmation: Origins and Reform. 

I know it is mean to just point to books, however they are available at amazon.com and they are both excellent and go well beyond any one or two sentence reply that I could offer to you here.  I know you tend to be a thoughtful person so I am hoping you get hold of these two texts and read them.

Mary

Thank you. I don't know if I will have the time to order and read those books, but I do know that it can sometimes (oftentimes) be hard to summarize things into a couple of quick sentences. Thanks for the direction.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2011, 03:13:50 PM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

On another note...
Why did the Roman Rite change the order of the sacraments, was there a particular reason?

There are two excellent historical-theological surveys done concerning the sacraments of initiation by Father Aidan Kavanagh back in the 1970's.  They are 1) The shape of baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation and 2) Confirmation: Origins and Reform. 

I know it is mean to just point to books, however they are available at amazon.com and they are both excellent and go well beyond any one or two sentence reply that I could offer to you here.  I know you tend to be a thoughtful person so I am hoping you get hold of these two texts and read them.

Mary

Thank you. I don't know if I will have the time to order and read those books, but I do know that it can sometimes (oftentimes) be hard to summarize things into a couple of quick sentences. Thanks for the direction.

When I have the time to write something serious in more than five sentences I will do so here and call your attention to it if you don't catch it right off.  I do not want to put out something that I have to revise...It would be mangled before I could get back to fix what I'd done.  Your patience is appreciated.  If you do decide to look at Father Aidan's work, go with the one on Confirmation.  It is briefer and will answer your question and then some.
Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2011, 03:22:49 PM »

I do not want to put out something that I have to revise...It would be mangled before I could get back to fix what I'd done.

If I was to hold myself to your standard, I would never get anything done....  maybe surely I hold myself to a lower standard.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #40 on: March 25, 2011, 05:38:19 PM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

On another note...
Why did the Roman Rite change the order of the sacraments, was there a particular reason?

There are two excellent historical-theological surveys done concerning the sacraments of initiation by Father Aidan Kavanagh back in the 1970's.  They are 1) The shape of baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation and 2) Confirmation: Origins and Reform. 

I know it is mean to just point to books, however they are available at amazon.com and they are both excellent and go well beyond any one or two sentence reply that I could offer to you here.  I know you tend to be a thoughtful person so I am hoping you get hold of these two texts and read them.

Mary

Thank you. I don't know if I will have the time to order and read those books, but I do know that it can sometimes (oftentimes) be hard to summarize things into a couple of quick sentences. Thanks for the direction.

You might also consider starting a thread on that topic.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #41 on: March 25, 2011, 05:43:34 PM »

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

AFAIK according to the  Vatican teachings all EO baptised as infants used to be Orthodox because we were "validly baptised". We "abandoned" the Vatican intentionally renouncing it's teachings.

I have one question for both of you: can you provide a reference?

If not, then I'm inclined to think that these are just hearsay.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #42 on: March 25, 2011, 06:20:36 PM »

I thought when I left the RCC for Orthodoxy, I was according to the Catholic Church an apostate and not a schismatic.

An apostate is one who denies Chrsit, a Schismatic is one who leaves the Church from teh view of the Catholic Church.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 25, 2011, 06:47:46 PM »

I thought when I left the RCC for Orthodoxy, I was according to the Catholic Church an apostate and not a schismatic.

An apostate is one who denies Chrsit, a Schismatic is one who leaves the Church from teh view of the Catholic Church.

Dear Father Deacon,

I believe you are correct in this.  I do think, in addition,  that there is a secondary understanding of apostasy as a rejection of the faith of your baptism, so there would have been a time in the breakdown of relationships between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, where some Catholics would have insisted that a Roman rite person leaving the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy would have been apostate according to that secondary meaning.  But I don't think that position can be defended, at least since the Second Vatican Council, and most likely even a bit earlier.

M.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #44 on: March 25, 2011, 06:59:01 PM »

Why would you care how the Roman Catholic Church views you if you believe it is wrong and Eastern Orthodoxy is correct? That would be like me wondering what the LDS church thinks the state of my soul is....don't care.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.169 seconds with 72 queries.