Ensuring that you are not given a Catholic Funeral?

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not aware of any rule that says that a person who makes a promise is the only one who can renew it? And if the confirmands aren't renewing their promises, I don't know who you think is. Anyway, according to the RCC the renewal of baptismal vows has been a part of their rite for some time, and I'm not aware of anything I'll coming from it so far.

I would take it to mean exactly what it says; incorporated into the church, because that's what they said. If you're wondering what the word incorporates means, I would suggest the below definition is apt:
to unite in or as one body.

It's not a rule. It's logic. If you don't do something in the first place, you can't re-do it. If you don't make a promise, you can't renew it. The confirmands confirm that they agree with the promises made by others before they were able to.

Baptism promises are renewed at confirmation, but the confirmands don't renew them. They confirm them, causing them to be renewed. A very important difference.

Mark Hamill

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not the one engaging in childish name calling then demanding an adult discussion....... If you stuck to the points instead of throwing epithets perhaps your behaviour wouldn't be derailing the discussion?

You were, and still are, the one trying to derail this thread.

Absolam wrote: »

But it wasn't? Remember, this was your question:

Which I did respond to by the way, and then you said:

Which, as you can see, is a different question.

Nope, same question, asked in more than one way. Not that you answered either form of teh question

Absolam wrote: »

But you can't actually quote me saying it because............?

I linked to the relevant posts.

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

It's not a rule. It's logic. If you don't do something in the first place, you can't re-do it.

Maybe, but I certainly can renew things I haven't made; algorithms, machines, furniture... It isn't logical that I can renew these things I haven't made, but can't renew a promise I haven't made.

katydid wrote: »

If you don't make a promise, you can't renew it. The confirmands confirm that they agree with the promises made by others before they were able to.

That's not what the RCC rite says. It says "The children to be confirmed, are invited to stand and renew their Baptismal Promises". That's pretty clear cut...at no point in the rite are they invited to, or do they actually say they will, confirm they will agree with promises made by others.

katydid wrote: »

Baptism promises are renewed at confirmation, but the confirmands don't renew them. They confirm them, causing them to be renewed. A very important difference.

Again, the RCC says different to what you do, which is a very important difference when you're discussing an RCC event...

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

Maybe, but I certainly can renew things I haven't made; algorithms, machines, furniture... It isn't logical that I can renew these things I haven't made, but can't renew a promise I haven't made.

That's not what the RCC rite says. It says "The children to be confirmed, are invited to stand and renew their Baptismal Promises". That's pretty clear cut...at no point in the rite are they invited to, or do they actually say they will, confirm they will agree with promises made by others.
Again, the RCC says different to what you do, which is a very important difference when you're discussing an RCC event...

How can you renew an algorithm or a piece of furniture? If you do something to it, it changes. The renewal of promises isn't changing them, it's confirming them.

Whether or not they "renew" (i.e. confirm) the vows their godparents made is not the issue here. Whether they do or not, and they do, it doesn't effect the sacrament, which is the invoking of the Holy Spirit, and the individuals confirming that they hold Christian beliefs and are taking responsibility for their own spiritual life as members of the church community.

The only thing the RCC says differently to me is that they wrongly use the word "renew".

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

How can you renew an algorithm or a piece of furniture? If you do something to it, it changes. The renewal of promises isn't changing them, it's confirming them.

i can restore them, reinvigorate them, make them useful for an additional time. Renewing something doesn't prohibit changing them. The RCC doesn't require confirmands to change their promises though; it only asks them to renew them.

katydid wrote: »

Whether vows their godparents made is not the issue here. Whether they do or not, and they do, it doesn't effect the sacrament, which is the invoking of the Holy Spirit, and the individuals confirming that they hold Christian beliefs and are taking responsibility for their own spiritual life as members of the church community.

Isn't it? I thought it was you who spent the last few pages trying to persuade us that they were confirming their vows and hence becoming members of the church. To your new assertion; nowhere in the sacrament does it say it is individuals confirming anything. I think you're dragging youself down another rabbit hole here.....

katydid wrote: »

The only thing the RCC says differently to me is that they wrongly use the word "renew".

They don't actually say that they wrongly use the word renew.... You just disagree with their usage of it. Their usage seems entirely in conformity with its dictionary definition.

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

i can restore them, reinvigorate them, make them useful for an additional time. Renewing something doesn't prohibit changing them. The RCC doesn't require confirmands to change their promises though; it only asks them to renew them.

Isn't it? I thought it was you who spent the last few pages trying to persuade us that they were confirming their vows and hence becoming members of the church. To your new assertion; nowhere in the sacrament does it say it is individuals confirming anything. I think you're dragging youself down another rabbit hole here.....
They don't actually say that they wrongly use the word renew.... You just disagree with their usage of it. Their usage seems entirely in conformity with its dictionary definition.

If you restore or reinvigorate them, they are no longer the original product. They just look the same. I find it incredible that you don't understand the difference between a promise and a piece of furniture.

The confirmands are confirming their membership of the church by acknowledging that they are now ready to take responsibility as "adults" for their own role in the church. Whether they confirm the promises other people made, or simply confirm that they are ready to take responsibility for themselves.

Of course they don't say that they are using the word "renew" wrongly. But then they don't say they use the word "catholic" wrongly either. There's a lot they don't admit that they do wrong.

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

If you restore or reinvigorate them, they are no longer the original product. They just look the same. I find it incredible that you don't understand the difference between a promise and a piece of furniture.

I think they are the same product, simply renewed, in accordance with the dictionary definition of renewed. I understand the difference perfectly, just not why you think it's impossible to renew one of them, but it is possible to confirm it in the same circumstances.

katydid wrote: »

The confirmands are confirming their membership of the church by acknowledging that they are now ready to take responsibility as "adults" for their own role in the church. Whether they confirm the promises other people made, or simply confirm that they are ready to take responsibility for themselves.

Can you point out where in the sacrament they confirm their membership of the church? Can you even point out where in the sacrament they acknowledge they are ready to take responsibility as adults for their role in the church? Because according to the catechism the confirmands make no professions whilst receiving the sacrament, so it's hard to imagine they confirm anything at all, unless they nod vigorously in response to some mystically unspoken question?

katydid wrote: »

Of course they don't say that they are using the word "renew" wrongly. But then they don't say they use the word "catholic" wrongly either. There's a lot they don't admit that they do wrong.

Or... Is it possible that since their use of the word renew accords with its dictionary definition, that you are using the word renew wrongly?

alistair spuds

Just out of interest considering what is being discussed, does anyone here know how a friend of mine, who is now an atheist, can officially leave the Church of Ireland / Anglican Church and get an official certification of same ?

thanking you

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

I think they are the same product, simply renewed, in accordance with the dictionary definition of renewed. I understand the difference perfectly, just not why you think it's impossible to renew one of them, but it is possible to confirm it in the same circumstances.

Can you point out where in the sacrament they confirm their membership of the church? Can you even point out where in the sacrament they acknowledge they are ready to take responsibility as adults for their role in the church? Because according to the catechism the confirmands make no professions whilst receiving the sacrament, so it's hard to imagine they confirm anything at all, unless they nod vigorously in response to some mystically unspoken question?

Or... Is it possible that since their use of the word renew accords with its dictionary definition, that you are using the word renew wrongly?

If you take an old piece of furniture that has become worn, and sand it down, put new paint on it, it is no longer the original piece of furniture. If you take an algorithm and adapt it, it is no longer the same algorithm. If you take a promise someone made on your behalf, and say you agree with it, it is the same promise. If you re-affirm a promise you made freely, for example, wedding vows, it is the same promise.

Are you seriously saying that the CONFIRMands don't CONFIRM anything? The whole point of CONFIRMATION is their taking responsibility for their own spiritual welfare, in other words, CONFIRMING that they are willing and participating members of the church community. That is why they go to a church and go through the ceremony in the presence of the rest of the community, instead of making the commitment quietly in their own homes.

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

If you take an old piece of furniture that has become worn, and sand it down, put new paint on it, it is no longer the original piece of furniture. If you take an algorithm and adapt it, it is no longer the same algorithm. If you take a promise someone made on your behalf, and say you agree with it, it is the same promise. If you re-affirm a promise you made freely, for example, wedding vows, it is the same promise.

Do you think you might be creating your definitions here just to suit your own purpose? If I renew a chair, it's still the same chair. The RCC obviously thinks confirmands can and do renew their baptismal vows. The dictionary agrees with both. You seem to be the only one at odds here.

katydid wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that the CONFIRMands don't CONFIRM anything?

I seriously am, whilst noting that you haven't pointed out either part of the sacrament I asked for. I' m surprised that as someone who knows very well what the sacrament of confirmation entails, you don't know that the term confirmand denotes someone who will be confirmed, not someone who will confirm.

katydid wrote: »

The whole point of CONFIRMATION is their taking responsibility for their own spiritual welfare, in other words, CONFIRMING that they are willing and participating members of the church community.

Can you find that in the Catechism? It doesn't seem to be listed in the five effects of Confirmation?

katydid wrote: »

That is why they go to a church and go through the ceremony in the presence of the rest of the community, instead of making the commitment quietly in their own homes.

Is it? You don't think it might be because a Bishop confirms them? As part of a Confirmation Rite, which is generally conducted in a church?

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

Do you think you might be creating your definitions here just to suit your own purpose? If I renew a chair, it's still the same chair. The RCC obviously thinks confirmands can and do renew their baptismal vows. The dictionary agrees with both. You seem to be the only one at odds here.

I seriously am, whilst noting that you haven't pointed out either part of the sacrament I asked for. I' m surprised that as someone who knows very well what the sacrament of confirmation entails, you don't know that the term confirmand denotes someone who will be confirmed, not someone who will confirm.
Can you find that in the Catechism? It doesn't seem to be listed in the five effects of Confirmation?
Is it? You don't think it might be because a Bishop confirms them? As part of a Confirmation Rite, which is generally conducted in a church?

The chair you renew has the same basic structure, but different paint/polish, upholstery etc. A promise you renew is the same promise. When you renew your wedding vows you don't add or take away from the promises you made originally. And when you confirm that you agree with what was promised on your behalf you don't add or take away from that promise. I can't believe you don't understand this difference. And you still haven't explained how you can "renew" an algorithm....

And it really doesn't matter what the RCC thinks. They are WRONG if they say that someone renews something they weren't responsible for in the first place. That is simply illogical.

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

The chair you renew has the same basic structure, but different paint/polish, upholstery etc.

And it is renewed, in accordance with the dictionary definition of renewed.

katydid wrote: »

A promise you renew is the same promise. When you renew your wedding vows you don't add or take away from the promises you made originally.

and those vows are also renewed, in accordance with th dictionary definition.

katydid wrote: »

And when you confirm that you agree with what was promised on your behalf you don't add or take away from that promise.

Just as when a confirmands renews their baptismal promises they don't add or take away from the promises, and yet they are renewed.

katydid wrote: »

I can't believe you don't understand this difference. And you still haven't explained how you can "renew" an algorithm....

I can't believe you don't understand that the word renew has more than the limited meaning you ascribe to it. Since you ask (not that it is relevant) I can renew an algorithm by altering, removing, and adding code so that the algorithm continues to perform its function, either better or for longer.

katydid wrote: »

And it really doesn't matter what the RCC thinks. They are WRONG if they say that someone renews something they weren't responsible for in the first place. That is simply illogical.

It really does matter what they think; it's their rite. If anything, it doesn't matter what you think, because what you think is at odds with what happens, and with the dictionary definition of what happens. To use your terminology, you are WRONG if you think confirmands don't renew their promises; the bishop invites them to do it, and they manifestly comply.

recedite

There seems to be a theological difference between RCC and CoI on what confirmation means. In CoI, the person coming of age confirms their membership of the church, which was originally only a provisional membership arranged by their parents at baptism.
In RCC it is the church that confirms that they have passed the probationary period and are promoted to be adult members, which is a "more perfect" form of membership. The young adult is only the passive receiver here, so they merely "renew" the baptismal vows, but that would not be strictly necessary for this process. The fact that they have showed up at all confirms that they consider themselves to still be members, and are happy to be promoted.

alistair spuds

Does anyone here know how one can offically leave the church of ireland/anglican church and get it officially recorded on their records, with written certification/confirmation of same ?

Regards,

Alistair

recedite

alistair spuds wrote: »

Does anyone here know how one can offically leave the church of ireland/anglican church and get it officially recorded on their records, with written certification/confirmation of same ?

Regards,

Alistair

You should direct your question to the CoI.
I very much doubt there would be an official process, for much the same reasons as were discussed here regarding the RCC.
"Membership" is even more of a loose concept for CoI because they see themselves as catholics (with a small c) and not the only one true church. Also they have always had people from various other denominations attending their church services, methodists, quakers etc.. in locations where those people were not numerous enough to have their own gatherings. Which effectively results in lots of people having some kind of non-specific or dual church membership.

Peregrinus

alistair spuds wrote: »

Does anyone here know how one can offically leave the church of ireland/anglican church and get it officially recorded on their records, with written certification/confirmation of same?

I don't believe there is, no.

The Anglican position is here actually pretty similar to the Catholic position. Historically, the test of membership of the Anglican church was whether you (a) were baptised, and (b) would take the Eucharist at the hands of an Anglican minister. In the days when it matters for legal purposes whether somebody was an Anglican or not, the legal test was satisfied if you attended Anglican services and took the Anglican sacrament.

Obviously this is no longer a legal issue, but the underlying theology hasn't changed greatly. If you are baptised (say) a Catholic and wish to become an Anglican, just turn up and join in worship and in the Eucharist. All baptised Christians are welcome to enter the Anglican communion in this way. If you haven't already been confirmed then you can choose to be confirmed in the Anglican church, but this isn't necessary. (And, if you have already been confirmed in the Catholic church, then it isn't even possible.)

If you want to stop being an Anglican, just reverse the process; disengage from the church. There aren't any bureaucratic procedures that you have to go through, and you don't need their approval, acceptance, validation, etc to terminate your participation. The flip side of that is that you don't get a piece of paper to say that you've left - unless you write it out yourself.

Depending on the practices in the particular branch of the Anglican church that you have joined, you may have registered in a particular parish as a member of the general vestry of that parish. This isn't essential for membership of the church (and, if you are under 18, it isn't even possible) but it's common. Formally, it gives you the right to vote in the election of the select vestry of the parish; in practice it also means you are on the mailing list, will be approached for financial contributions, etc. If you have joined the general vestry and you decide to leave the church, you can ask to be deregistered, and you might get a letter confirming that this has happened. That's not a confirmatino that you are no longer a member of the church, but if you feel the need for something in writing its better than nothing.

katydid

alistair spuds wrote: »

Does anyone here know how one can offically leave the church of ireland/anglican church and get it officially recorded on their records, with written certification/confirmation of same ?

Regards,

Alistair

Just a follow up on your question; I was at a CofI service today where the bishop addressed this issue. The sermon was about baptism, and in the course of the sermon he was talking about our understanding of baptism, and said that he often gets letters from people on the subject. Letters about being "re-baptised" and letters about "de-baptised".

The letter about being "de-baptised" was from someone who felt that they were baptised without their consent as a baby and they wanted to rescind this. The bishop said that he wrote back to the person explaining that since baptism was a public event that happened, it couldn't be undone, but he was happy to put a note on the record (not sure what he mean, I presume on the baptismal record in the original church) that this individual had registered his wish to rescind the baptism.

Not ideal but better than nothing, perhaps. IF you want to go that far, but of course it may be that you are happy to have been baptised, just that you don't want to be part of a particular denomination.

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

The bishop said that he wrote back to the person explaining that since baptism was a public event that happened, it couldn't be undone, but he was happy to put a note on the record (not sure what he mean, I presume on the baptismal record in the original church) that this individual had registered his wish to rescind the baptism. Not ideal but better than nothing, perhaps. IF you want to go that far, but of course it may be that you are happy to have been baptised, just that you don't want to be part of a particular denomination.

So not actually rescinding, or registering the rescindment of, baptism. Simply registering the fact that a person wished for it, on the original church record.
If individual RCC parish priests were to do the same, would that satisfy your desire for a formal de-registration method? Not that I'm saying they would (or should), just wondering would it ameliorate your affront at the RCCs lack of human decency.

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

So not actually rescinding, or registering the rescindment of, baptism. Simply registering the fact that a person wished for it, on the original church record.
If individual RCC parish priests were to do the same, would that satisfy your desire for a formal de-registration method? Not that I'm saying they would (or should), just wondering would it ameliorate your affront at the RCCs lack of human decency.

There is no mechanism to deal with this, either in the Roman Catholic or Anglican church. Personally, I would prefer if there were, but given that there isn't, I just thought the bishop's way of handling it was interesting.

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

[...]the RCCs lack of human decency.

katydid wrote: »

The bishop [...] was happy to put a note on the record [...] that this individual had registered his wish to rescind the baptism.

Before getting anybody to annotate anything, I'd finding out who owns the local graveyard - there have been reports of church-controlled graveyards refusing to bury the corpses of members of other religions and people without a religion. An annotation in a register that an individual no longer wished to be considered "catholic" could be subsequently construed as either as a wish that the individual did not wish to be buried in a church-controlled graveyard, or worse, as a reason for the church to refuse a burial.

In any case, the annotation is mostly pointless. While the church is correct to point out that it's a matter of historical fact that a baptism took place, and therefore cannot be undone, the church is playing its usual language games, since that's not what most people are objecting to. Instead, people are objecting to the fact that the church considers people who've been baptized still to be catholics, whether they agree with it or not. The church isn't going to change its position on that, hence (a) the annotation being a pointless and (b) my silly suggestion from ages ago that people instead induct the church or church members into some other pseudo-religious outfit which confers a similar irreversible "ontological change" as the church claims happens during baptism.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

Before getting anybody to annotate anything, I'd finding out who owns the local graveyard - there have been reports of church-controlled graveyards refusing to bury the corpses of members of other religions and people without a religion. An annotation in a register that an individual no longer wished to be considered "catholic" could be subsequently construed as either as a wish that the individual did not wish to be buried in a church-controlled graveyard, or worse, as a reason for the church to refuse a burial.

In any case, the annotation is mostly pointless. While the church is correct to point out that it's a matter of historical fact that a baptism took place, and therefore cannot be undone, the church is playing its usual language games, since that's not what most people are objecting to. Instead, people are objecting to the fact that the church considers people who've been baptized still to be catholics, whether they agree with it or not. The church isn't going to change its position on that, hence (a) the annotation being a pointless and (b) my silly suggestion from ages ago that people instead induct the church or church members into some other pseudo-religious outfit which confers a similar irreversible "ontological change" as the church claims happens during baptism.

Of course it's pointless, because no official change has been made. (Which should mean that there should be no problem with burials). You can't unbaptise a person, because a baptism happened.

The various churches should have a mechanism for someone to formally leave - but given that there's not one, this was an attempt at giving the person concerned something. It's not and should not be instead of an official leaving mechanism.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

While the church is correct to point out that it's a matter of historical fact that a baptism took place, and therefore cannot be undone, the church is playing its usual language games, since that's not what most people are objecting to. Instead, people are objecting to the fact that the church considers people who've been baptized still to be catholics, whether they agree with it or not.

You see, I don't think it's the churches playing language games. The churches hold a particular philosophical position; they're not saying you become a member of their club by being baptised, they're saying you become a member of Christ. It's not a language game; the churches fundamental concept of what occurs is different from an unbelievers concept, and as far as I can see is completely irreconcilable. From the churches point of view you can no more become a non member of Christ than you can become a non member of the human race. They're not trying to stop people from not being members of the church; all that takes is not participating in the church, and they can't make people not members of Christ, any more than they can make them not human.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

[...] the church is correct to point out that it's a matter of historical fact that a baptism took place, and therefore cannot be undone [... ] But that's not what most people are objecting to [...]

katydid wrote: »

You can't unbaptise a person, because a baptism happened.

Well, I think we agree completely on this then!

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

You see, I don't think it's the churches playing language games. The churches hold a particular philosophical position; they're not saying you become a member of their club by being baptised, they're saying you become a member of Christ. It's not a language game; the churches fundamental concept of what occurs is different from an unbelievers concept, and as far as I can see is completely irreconcilable. From the churches point of view you can no more become a non member of Christ than you can become a non member of the human race. They're not trying to stop people from not being members of the church; all that takes is not participating in the church, and they can't make people not members of Christ, any more than they can make them not human.

Surely being a "member of Christ" is something that one should enter into consciously and with forethought? One is made a member of the church by proxy at baptism, and the "confirmation" is an unrealistic one in most cases, as it's made before the person is properly able to make such a commitment. Roman Catholics are faced with this commitment while they are still children, and it's not much better for Protestants, who are generally in their early to mid-teens.

magicbastarder

it's an old argument, but i really, truly could not give a **** whether the catholic church consider me a member or not.
there's nothing i have done since my confirmation over a quarter of a century which has generated any paperwork they can point to. i could be dead for all they know.

to me, the notion that i should ask the church to not consider me a member any more is like asking damian o'rourke, who i kicked in the testicles when we were both 7, for forgiveness.

more seriously, though - i think insisting that your baptismal record be adjusted is granting far too much import to a ceremony most of the people here believe is meaningless, and which was carried out on our behalf when we hadn't even formed a sense of self.
if it truly is meaningless, there's no need to amend it.

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

Surely being a "member of Christ" is something that one should enter into consciously and with forethought?

If someone said "Surely being a member of the human race is something that one should enter into consciously and with forethought?" how would you address the question? I suspect you'd suggest they get a basic grounding in the relevant science. Equally, the answer to your question is to get a basic grounding in the relevant theology.

katydid wrote: »

One is made a member of the church by proxy at baptism, and the "confirmation" is an unrealistic one in most cases, as it's made before the person is properly able to make such a commitment.

That's obviously been your (much amended) opinion throughout the thread, but equally obviously, it's not one shared by the churches. Realistically, you can't expect them to kowtow to your opinion of their sacraments.

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

If someone said "Surely being a member of the human race is something that one should enter into consciously and with forethought?" how would you address the question? I suspect you'd suggest they get a basic grounding in the relevant science. Equally, the answer to your question is to get a basic grounding in the relevant theology.

That's obviously been your (much amended) opinion throughout the thread, but equally obviously, it's not one shared by the churches. Realistically, you can't expect them to kowtow to your opinion of their sacraments.

One is a member of the human race by birth. One is a member of the church that Jesus founded by belief. Belief can't be imposed, or imbibed with mother's milk.

Simple theology.

My opinion hasn't been amended in the slightest. It remains the same; belief and commitment is a free choice. The "membership" conferred by proxy baptism and immature confirmation is indeed a membership, but without belief has no validity.

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

One is a member of the human race by birth. One is a member of the church that Jesus founded by belief. Belief can't be imposed, or imbibed with mother's milk. Simple theology.

One is a member of the human race by genetics, one is a member of Christ by baptism. Neither is a state amenable to change, the former based on science, the latter based on theology.
The notion that belief can't be imposed, or imbibed with mothers milk isn't part of any theology (simple or otherwise) that I'm familiar with?

katydid wrote: »

My opinion hasn't been amended in the slightest. It remains the same; belief and commitment is a free choice. The "membership" conferred by proxy baptism and immature confirmation is indeed a membership, but without belief has no validity.

Your opinion on what the sacraments constitute has changed significantly in the course of this thread. Most obviously which sacrament makes a person a member of a church and how it does so:

katydid wrote: »

They have lists of members, based on formal entry procedures such as baptism/confirmation records, and they are operating under false assumptions on their numbers. They refuse to instigate a system which would show a true picture of their membership.

katydid wrote: »

Baptism lists can't be membership lists, as they are a list of decisions made on behalf of an infant. But the register of confirmations (whoever keeps those; I presume the diocese) is the list of those who have confirmed their membership as adults

katydid wrote: »

I disagree that confirmation simply records a person's acceptance of their own responsibility for their faith. If that were so, there would be no need for a formal ceremony of confirmation, where that person's personal decision is noted by the diocese. While it may not be a formal "membership", it is a formal statement of belief and belonging.

katydid wrote: »

Well, baptism is membership of the church with a small "c".

katydid wrote: »

Absolam wrote: »

That would require a declaration of membership,

In other words, confirmation.

katydid wrote: »

those who make a "decision" to be confirmed, their confirmations are registered as members of the RCC.

katydid wrote: »

Belief in the tenets of the church imply acceptance of membership of the church.

katydid wrote: »

But the fact is that the list of those confirmed, and IS a membership list, if not called one,as it shows the list of those who, having become members of the church community at baptism by proxy, confirm this as "adults".

katydid wrote: »

It's not my BELIEF that those confirmed are officially members of the church into which they are confirmed. It's a FACT.

katydid wrote: »

baptism confers membership of the church.

And that's before we even get to what Confirmation means....

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

One is a member of the human race by birth. One is a member of the church that Jesus founded by belief. Belief can't be imposed, or imbibed with mother's milk.

Simple theology.

It's simple theology, but it's not a theology that every Christian shares, or is bound to.

A well-established and long-held view is that membership of the church is by grace, and in particular by the grace that we encounter in the sacrament of baptism.

Another well-established and long-held view is that membership of the church is found in a relationship of communion, a relationship expressed and effected in the eucharist.

Yet another well-established view would look to faith as the key to church membership.

I think an ecclesiology which looks at just at belief, but ignores grace, faith and communion (or indeed which looks just at any one of these while ignoring the others) has the merit of simplicity, but the demerit of not reflecting the reality of the Christian position(s) on this question. As a simple theology, it lends itself to a binary analysis in which one is either a church member or one is not, whereas the reality is that there can be gradations. You can be more or less a Catholic, or more or less a Protestant, in the same way that you can be more or less a feminist, or more or less a stoic. But in no case does identity as a Catholic or a Protestant or a feminist or a stoic depend on bureaucratic process like registration, and I think demands to have an "official" process for leaving mistake the nature of church membership in the first place.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's simple theology, but it's not a theology that every Christian shares, or is bound to.

A well-established and long-held view is that membership of the church is by grace, and in particular by the grace that we encounter in the sacrament of baptism.

Another well-established and long-held view is that membership of the church is found in a relationship of communion, a relationship expressed and effected in the eucharist.

Yet another well-established view would look to faith as the key to church membership.

I think an ecclesiology which looks at just at belief, but ignores grace, faith and communion (or indeed which looks just at any one of these while ignoring the others) has the merit of simplicity, but the demerit of not reflecting the reality of the Christian position(s) on this question. As a simple theology, it lends itself to a binary analysis in which one is either a church member or one is not, whereas the reality is that there can be gradations. You can be more or less a Catholic, or more or less a Protestant, in the same way that you can be more or less a feminist, or more or less a stoic. But in no case does identity as a Catholic or a Protestant or a feminist or a stoic depend on bureaucratic process like registration, and I think demands to have an "official" process for leaving mistake the nature of church membership in the first place.

Membership is entered into by a formal ceremony. A person becomes a member of the church of Christ on baptism. That's pretty binary.

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

Membership is entered into by a formal ceremony. A person becomes a member of the church of Christ on baptism. That's pretty binary.

Is there a particular church of Christ that you think holds this position?
Demonstrably, it's not part of the RCC catechism, and you've argued that in the Anglican communion one acquires membership by confirmation. That appears to be a pretty big chunk of the churches of Christ that apparently don't hold this position already...

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

Is there a particular church of Christ that you think holds this position?
Demonstrably, it's not part of the RCC catechism, and you've argued that in the Anglican communion one acquires membership by confirmation. That appears to be a pretty big chunk of the churches of Christ that apparently don't hold this position already...

I didn't say one acquires membership by confirmation. One acquires membership by baptism, by proxy, confirmation confirms this membership.

To paraphrase your phrase "member of Christ", you are "we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

I didn't say one acquires membership by confirmation. One acquires membership by baptism, by proxy, confirmation confirms this membership.

My apologies. You said:

katydid wrote: »

Absolam wrote: »

That would require a declaration of membership,

In other words, confirmation.

and

katydid wrote: »

those who make a "decision" to be confirmed, their confirmations are registered as members

So you can understand where I wasn't sure which of your criteria of membership you were working on. Anyway, given you've settled on baptism, can you point out where the Anglican communion specifically says baptism confers membership of the church?

katydid wrote: »

To paraphrase your phrase "member of Christ", you are "we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

Well, not my phrase, a phrase from the RCC catechism. And you're not actually paraphrasing one phrase, are you, you're amalgamating two phrases.
The first is
"we become members of Christ"
the second is
"are incorporated into the Church"
Do you think that maybe the catechism uses two distinct phrases in the same sentence to convey two distinct concepts? I think it does; I think that if they had intended to say "we become members of the Church" they would have used that phrase instead of two different ones. So you're not actually paraphrasing; you're deliberately altering the statement.

Peregrinus

Baptism alone doesn't confer membership of any of the major Christian denominations. If it did, then the Catholics would be counting all the Anglicans and Presbyterians as members of the Catholic Church, the Anglicans would be counting the Catholics and the Presbyterians as members of the Anglican church, the Presbyterians would be counting the Anglicans and the Catholics as members of the Prebyterian church. And of course none of them do that.

Baptism is necessary for membership of the major Christian denominations, but it's never sufficient. There needs to be some further connection with the denomination concerned. Exactly what that connection needs to be, and exactly what they call it, can vary in the understanding and practice of different denominations, but they all see membership as requiring some connection or relationship beyond baptism.

Katydid suggests - if I don't misunderstand her -that in the Anglican tradition denominational membership is confirmed by confirmation. I don't think that's entirely correct. In the first place, it's possible to be an Anglican without having been confirmed at all. More tellingly, in the second place, it's possible to enter the Anglican church having previously been confirmed in another church. The Anglicans don't re-confirm already confirmed Christians any more than they re-baptise already baptised Christians. Confirmation is a sacrament that an engaged, practising Anglican is expected to celebrate (or to have celebrated) and in many circumstances it may serve as a marker of engagement with the denomination, but it isn't itself constitutive of membership.

I think the real difficulty we have in discussin this is that the word "church" has more than one meaning. In fact it has at least three meanings - the "local church", which might also be called a parish or a diocese, the "denominational church" and the "universal church". A statement like "the Catholic church claims 3.86 million members in the Republic of Ireland" is plainly using "church" in the sense of denominational church; the 3.86 million people concerned are being distinguished from Anglicans and Presbyterians. But theological or ecclesiological statements that everyone baptised belongs in some sense to the church employ "church" in the sense of "universal church". Much of the angst about the Catholic church "counting" non-members as members is based on a confusion between these two senses.

In the context of a thread on how to avoid a Catholic funeral, it's a massive red herring. You don't need to be a Christian of any stripe, much less a Roman Catholic, to have a Catholic funeral. If your family ask for a Catholic funeral for you, unless you are a notorious unrepentant sinner, you'll get one. Therefore there are two strategies for avoiding this. First, become an infamous nazi war criminal or similar. Or, secondly, arrange with your family not to seek a Catholic funeral for you. For a variety of reasons the second route is much to be preferred.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Baptism alone doesn't confer membership of any of the major Christian denominations. If it did, then the Catholics would be counting all the Anglicans and Presbyterians as members of the Catholic Church, the Anglicans would be counting the Catholics and the Presbyterians as members of the Anglican church, the Presbyterians would be counting the Anglicans and the Catholics as members of the Prebyterian church. And of course none of them do that.

Baptism is necessary for membership of the major Christian denominations, but it's never sufficient. There needs to be some further connection with the denomination concerned. Exactly what that connection needs to be, and exactly what they call it, can vary in the understanding and practice of different denominations, but they all see membership as requiring some connection or relationship beyond baptism.

Katydid suggests - if I don't misunderstand her -that in the Anglican tradition denominational membership is confirmed by confirmation. I don't think that's entirely correct. In the first place, it's possible to be an Anglican without having been confirmed at all. More tellingly, in the second place, it's possible to enter the Anglican church having previously been confirmed in another church. The Anglicans don't re-confirm already confirmed Christians any more than they re-baptise already baptised Christians. Confirmation is a sacrament that an engaged, practising Anglican is expected to celebrate (or to have celebrated) and in many circumstances it may serve as a marker of engagement with the denomination, but it isn't itself constitutive of membership.

I think the real difficulty we have in discussin this is that the word "church" has more than one meaning. In fact it has at least three meanings - the "local church", which might also be called a parish or a diocese, the "denominational church" and the "universal church". A statement like "the Catholic church claims 3.86 million members in the Republic of Ireland" is plainly using "church" in the sense of denominational church; the 3.86 million people concerned are being distinguished from Anglicans and Presbyterians. But theological or ecclesiological statements that everyone baptised belongs in some sense to the church employ "church" in the sense of "universal church". Much of the angst about the Catholic church "counting" non-members as members is based on a confusion between these two senses.

.

You said one is a "member of Christ". One becomes that at baptism, and one is de facto a member of a Christian denomination by attendance and participation and, subsequently, by confirmation.

You're right that the word "church" is the issue here. Any Christian is a member of the church Christ founded; and each Christian is a member of a particular denominational church under the umbrella of the Christian church.

That doesn't really solve the problem for people who have, without their consent, been entered into the records of a particual church

Deenie123

The Humanist Society do excellent funerals, for anyone who's wondering. Their facilitators (think that's what they're called?) have some great ideas and make the whole thing an event to celebrate the person's life and allow people to share in their memory of them and in grieving the loss of them. Can't recommend them more.

I'm fairly certain that my mother wouldn't allow me to be given a catholic funeral. My dad... I think would worry about my soul and would probably go down the catholic route. My brother thinks he has a right to parade around inflicting his holy catholic views on anyone he can. Fairly certain he'd try to insist on a catholic funeral and burial. My mum wants to be cremated when the time comes, but he flipped out about not having a grave to visit and has basically vetoed it.

I honestly don't mind too much what happens to my body when the time comes. I think I'd prefer cremation, but if they want to bury me so be it. Unless I die suspiciously, in that case bury me in case I need to be exhumed to catch my killer :P

What I do mind, though, is the lies that would be told about me. Ever notice that no matter who the person is, the ceremony is about the same. "In confirmation she welcomed the gifts of christ into her life and she lived by those.... She now rejoins the holy father... she has accepted christ into her life" and so on and so forth. I don't care what you do with my body, but for crying out loud I don't want a pack of lies told about me and I don't want what I believe in, the morals I live by, the decisions I've made and my own beliefs to be side-swept because my brother or father would rather inflict their beliefs and views on a ceremony that's meant to be marking my departure from the world...

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

That doesn't really solve the problem for people who have, without their consent, been entered into the records of a particual church

I thought their problem was that they wanted an official record of leaving that particular church?
People are entered into all sorts of records all the time without their consent; I don't think there's any obligation on the record keepers to obtain consent, only to be compliant with data protection requirements.
For instance, if the churches actually kept membership lists they would be obliged to update those lists when people stopped being members.

Bootros Bootros

This entire premise of this thread is people dying young? There's a lot of rhetoric about "my parents" forcing a catholic ceremony.

They'll pribably be dead. Nobody is going to care in 2050-2080 if 70,80 and 90 year olds have humanist ceremonys. Your kids aren't going to care ( if they turn up.)

Bootros Bootros

katydid wrote: »

There is no mechanism to deal with this, either in the Roman Catholic or Anglican church. Personally, I would prefer if there were, but given that there isn't, I just thought the bishop's way of handling it was interesting.

The bishops way of handling it was perfect. Leaving a church doesn't mean you weren't baptised. That's a historical fact.

katydid

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

The bishops way of handling it was perfect. Leaving a church doesn't mean you weren't baptised. That's a historical fact.

Maybe, though, if there were a formal mechanism for leaving, people like that would not be looking for "de-baptizing". I suppose it's the only way he could think of registering his wish to no longer be Christian or a member of the CofI.

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

I thought their problem was that they wanted an official record of leaving that particular church?
People are entered into all sorts of records all the time without their consent; I don't think there's any obligation on the record keepers to obtain consent, only to be compliant with data protection requirements.
For instance, if the churches actually kept membership lists they would be obliged to update those lists when people stopped being members.

The problem is not so much that they have been entered into the membership without their consent but that there is no mechanism for opting out.

The churches have membership lists; baptismal and confirmation records. They just don't call them membership lists, so they don't come under the legislation.

lazygal

Deenie123 wrote: »

What I do mind, though, is the lies that would be told about me. Ever notice that no matter who the person is, the ceremony is about the same. "In confirmation she welcomed the gifts of christ into her life and she lived by those.... She now rejoins the holy father... she has accepted christ into her life" and so on and so forth. I don't care what you do with my body, but for crying out loud I don't want a pack of lies told about me and I don't want what I believe in, the morals I live by, the decisions I've made and my own beliefs to be side-swept because my brother or father would rather inflict their beliefs and views on a ceremony that's meant to be marking my departure from the world...

This is what would annoy me the most. I have been at a funeral of a younger man who would have said himself he was atheist and to hear the priest going on you'd think this guy had been lighting candles and was about to join the priesthood with all the 'gifts of faith' he had. It was a very jarring experience and while I completely understand that in Ireland funerals tend to happen quite quickly after a death and people go for the default church ceremony, it didn't sit right with me.
Before I got married, I reconciled this view with the fact that as my parents are complete a la carte catholics and would go down that route, I wouldn't spend any time arguing my case. Now that my husband would be making the choice, I'm glad there'll be no nonsense about the whole church thing.
And as for the poster who said why bother thinking about this in terms of people dying young, death is a part of life no matter what age you are and it is only sensible to have some sort of plan for what's going to happen after you die. Such as wishing to donate organs, funeral preferences, will etc. No one thinks they'll die young but I'm sure most of us have known people who weren't 70+ when they died.

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

The problem is not so much that they have been entered into the membership without their consent but that there is no mechanism for opting out.

Surely the problem is not so much that there is no mechanism for opting out, but that they don't feel simply opting out is sufficiently satisfactory, and they want a mechanism to make it feel more significant?

katydid wrote: »

The churches have membership lists; baptismal and confirmation records. They just don't call them membership lists, so they don't come under the legislation.

Maybe they don't come under the legislation (in fairness, all personal data comes under the legislation, but I suppose you meant to say they are not amenable to correction under the legislation) because they're not membership lists? You haven't been able to produce anything convincing to say they are, and to be fair the legislation doesn't say they have to be called membership lists to be covered by it. Only that the personal data held must be accurate. So if they were membership lists of people who weren't members, they could be amended under data protection law... regardless of what they were called.

Brian Shanahan

Deenie123 wrote: »

The Humanist Society do excellent funerals, for anyone who's wondering. Their facilitators (think that's what they're called?) have some great ideas and make the whole thing an event to celebrate the person's life and allow people to share in their memory of them and in grieving the loss of them. Can't recommend them more.

I'm fairly certain that my mother wouldn't allow me to be given a catholic funeral. My dad... I think would worry about my soul and would probably go down the catholic route. My brother thinks he has a right to parade around inflicting his holy catholic views on anyone he can. Fairly certain he'd try to insist on a catholic funeral and burial. My mum wants to be cremated when the time comes, but he flipped out about not having a grave to visit and has basically vetoed it.

I honestly don't mind too much what happens to my body when the time comes. I think I'd prefer cremation, but if they want to bury me so be it. Unless I die suspiciously, in that case bury me in case I need to be exhumed to catch my killer :P

What I do mind, though, is the lies that would be told about me. Ever notice that no matter who the person is, the ceremony is about the same. "In confirmation she welcomed the gifts of christ into her life and she lived by those.... She now rejoins the holy father... she has accepted christ into her life" and so on and so forth. I don't care what you do with my body, but for crying out loud I don't want a pack of lies told about me and I don't want what I believe in, the morals I live by, the decisions I've made and my own beliefs to be side-swept because my brother or father would rather inflict their beliefs and views on a ceremony that's meant to be marking my departure from the world...

Will your body to science for after you're gone. You'll be doing a good deed for the species (allowing trainee doctors to practise on it), plus you get the added bonus of pissing off your brother no end, while he can't do anything about it unless he wants to reavel his bollixicity.

lazygal

I remember reading a while ago that there's a surplus of bodies being donated to science. I wonder what happens if they don't need your body.

Pherekydes

lazygal wrote: »

I remember reading a while ago that there's a surplus of bodies being donated to science. I wonder what happens if they don't need your body.

They sell it on to Pedigree chum. :eek:

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Will your body to science for after you're gone. You'll be doing a good deed for the species (allowing trainee doctors to practise on it), plus you get the added bonus of pissing off your brother no end, while he can't do anything about it unless he wants to reavel his bollixicity.

Defers the problem but doesn't avoid it. When they're finished with your body your next-of-kin get it back, or get asked how the want it disposed of, and the funeral question comes up again.

(And in fact may not even defer the problem. Remember that, legally, your next-of-kin have both the right and the responsibility to dispose of your remains. You can leave a direction that they are to give you a secular funeral, but they can ignore it. Similarly, if you leave a direction that your body is to be donated to science, they can ignore that too. The College of Surgeons may be disappointed, but they are not going to sue.)

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

I remember reading a while ago that there's a surplus of bodies being donated to science. I wonder what happens if they don't need your body.

Same as would happen if you hadn't donated it to science. Your next-of-kin have to decide how to dispose of it immediately, rather than when the medical students are finished exploring it.

NIMAN

Has the OP ever got back and answered the question as to why they would care what happens once they are gone?

Bootros Bootros

lazygal wrote: »

This is what would annoy me the most. I have been at a funeral of a younger man who would have said himself he was atheist and to hear the priest going on you'd think this guy had been lighting candles and was about to join the priesthood with all the 'gifts of faith' he had. It was a very jarring experience and while I completely understand that in Ireland funerals tend to happen quite quickly after a death and people go for the default church ceremony, it didn't sit right with me.
Before I got married, I reconciled this view with the fact that as my parents are complete a la carte catholics and would go down that route, I wouldn't spend any time arguing my case. Now that my husband would be making the choice, I'm glad there'll be no nonsense about the whole church thing.
And as for the poster who said why bother thinking about this in terms of people dying young, death is a part of life no matter what age you are and it is only sensible to have some sort of plan for what's going to happen after you die. Such as wishing to donate organs, funeral preferences, will etc. No one thinks they'll die young but I'm sure most of us have known people who weren't 70+ when they died.

Ok then. Man up and tell your parents. Or your siblings. Or start making arrangements yourself