Which Is Better?

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[Sternhauser]

"catholic but not believing that the pope is infallible and acting accordingly"

Is there such a thing?

~Sternhauser

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes. i know plenty of catholics who do not believe the pope is infallible yet go to church and say they are catholic. i could have used the loaded term, 'liberal catholic', but that connotes hippie love and fluff like that. the catholics i think of do not associate necessarily in that way.

why is it so unheard of to you, or to others i suppose.... and should it be so unheard of... for catholics to be catholic and believe the pope isn't infallible.

i might even venture that most catholics don't elieve it. for example, only a third belive in the eucharist as taught, and only one in ten believe in contraception teachings.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i hesitated about the 'acting accordingly' stuff. i was afraid if i didn't include it, people might think the catholic might do what the pope says, but not believe in infallibility. i'm trying to point out that they might dissent on teaching and act accordingly. jus like there's folks who don't follow all orthodox teach, given the variation.

i would also add.. in addition to whether a catholic might think not infallible, or whether they should... it's still possible, and i'd argue profitable, to compare such a person to an orthodox person, for the sake of discussion.

Edited December 19, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Sternhauser]

Why is it unheard of? One hears about it all the time, just like one hears about a "pro-abortion Catholic," or a "pro-contraception Catholic," or a "Catholic who doesn't believe the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ." It's a contradiction of what it means to be an adult Catholic, namely, to believe, hold as true, and strive to adhere to all the teachings of the Catholic Church. Dairygirl, why are you here?

~Sternhauser

[Ed Normile]

Ahhh. just in time for Christmas ! another lesser of two evils thread, or as I like to call them " Lessor of two evils".

ed

[Micah]

Stern is correct. There really is no such thing as a Catholic who disputes the teachings of the Magisterium, whether one or two or three ad infinitum. I have had the awkward displeasure of telling people over a dinner table that they are not Catholic, not in an unkindly fashion, but in an honest fashion. A Catholic is one who practices.

Similarly, it is impossible to act accordingly, as a Catholic, and attend an Orthodox Church, unless there are extenuating circumstances which you've discussed with your priest. It is very rarely that such a thing happens. Even in Istanbul, you can find a Catholic Church.

Considering both these things, be assured that people can and will be saved in ecclesiastical organizations outside Holy Mother Church, but very rarely is there a grey area concerning one's responsibility as a Catholic. After 2000 years, we've pretty much got the requisites for being a faithful Christian down-pat--in theory at least--and they require being faithful to Holy Mother Church.

Hope that helps, God Bless.

[WarriorForJesus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1292770397' post='2193455']
ty
[/quote]


[color="#800080"]Yes, dairygirl, you have done it yet again, trying to equate or compare two concepts that are not equal or comparable. You are under the erroneous asumption that just because someone claims to be Catholic, that makes one a Catholic. Just as if I claim to be a man, but am lacking the 'y' chromosone. See 'Life of Brian' and pay attention to the man who changes his name to 'Judith" because he wants to be a woman.

You see, people delude themselves about who they are, what they are, and what they believe time and time again. It is part of the human condition to think of oneself in a far less harsh way than that which you think of others.

It is best to believe in NO heresy or fallacy of faith at all.

Janice
[/color]

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[s] catholic but not believing that the pope is infallible and acting accordingly[/s]
catholic but not believing that the pope CAN SPEAK INFALLIBLY and acting accordingly

there fixed it for you

[dairygirl4u2c]

so as i expected, a lot of bashing of 'cathlics' or people who call themselves as such, but no comparisons of the two.
so which is better? why not a pro and con discussion? 'catholic' so that they can be closer to unity.... it's perhaps actually worse for unity. it's closer to truth given they are 'catholic' v. it doesn't matter if they are closer or not. or maybe it doesn't matter the label, whichever is closer in terms of alignment with catholic teachings
or, why avoiding this conversation given it's not like it's an unrealistic or not possible scenario?
a person comes and asks you which you'd see as the lesser wrong... what do you tell them?

Edited December 20, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1292778054' post='2193466']
i might even venture that most catholics don't elieve it. for example, only a third belive in the eucharist as taught, and only one in ten believe in contraception teachings.
[/quote]
Many CINOs in the flock nowadays.

[quote name='Micah' timestamp='1292794056' post='2193500']A Catholic is one who practices.
[/quote]
A Catholic is a Catholic forever, no matter his current professions or beliefs. He may be heterodox or heretic, but he is still Catholic, and nothing he nor anyone else can do can change that.

From Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority."
(Christian in this sense used synonymously with Catholic.)
Found at [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathe n/05678a.htm"]Catholic Encyclopedia - "Excommunication".[/url]

[thessalonian]

I will answer your question. All things being equal the orthodox being born in to Orthodoxy and the Catholic being born in to Catholicism, I think the answer can be found in Luke chapter 12. To who much is given much is required. To the one who did not know he will receive a light beating. There are a lot of ifs and circumstances in your question but as a general rule I would be more concerned about a Catholic who rejects the infalibility than an orthodox, born orthodox who may not have had the opportunity to understand.

Edited December 21, 2010 by thessalonian

[Micah]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1292863965' post='2193633']
Many CINOs in the flock nowadays.


A Catholic is a Catholic forever, no matter his current professions or beliefs. He may be heterodox or heretic, but he is still Catholic, and nothing he nor anyone else can do can change that.

From Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority."
(Christian in this sense used synonymously with Catholic.)
Found at [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathe%20n/05678a.htm"]Catholic Encyclopedia - "Excommunication".[/url]
[/quote]

Yes, but unfortunately no.

NewAdvent is very specific in using the word Christian. A Christian is someone who has been baptized and is thus part of the mystical body of Christ. In the broad sense that the mystical body of Christ resides in and is made up of the Catholic Church, the person who doesn't practice his faith is associated with Catholics. [i]But no more than a protestant is, or any other baptized, non-Catholic.[/i]

In the specific and truest sense of Catholic. No. One must practice the Catholic faith to be Catholic. One must believe in the teachings of the Catholic faith to be Catholic.

Arius had the permanent marks of the Sacraments on his soul, but he was not part of the universal (Catholic) Church.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1292778232' post='2193467']
i hesitated about the 'acting accordingly' stuff. i was afraid if i didn't include it, people might think the catholic might do what the pope says, but not believe in infallibility. i'm trying to point out that they might dissent on teaching and act accordingly. jus like there's folks who don't follow all orthodox teach, given the variation.

i would also add.. in addition to whether a catholic might think not infallible, or whether they should... it's still possible, and i'd argue profitable, to compare such a person to an orthodox person, for the sake of discussion.
[/quote]

In what circumstance would this be a better choice?

[dairygirl4u2c]

from a catholic perspective, it seems like thessalonian made a pretty compelling argument with the considerations he gave. eg, a catholic who knows the ins and outs but doesn't practice as a 'true' catholic, is hard to say is better than an orthodox who knows no better.

but,,, it'd seem from a catholic perspective, that one could say in the right situation that the catholic who dissents is better off. eg the orthodox guy, and the catholic. both dissent on infallibility. both know the ins and outs of both the catholic and orthodox church. the catholic is more catholic than the orthodox guy though in their beliefs and practices. given the catholic is closer to full truth, wouldnt he be better off than the orthodox guy? a person might say it hurts true unity given he won't assent fully... but the other side is that one is closer to full truth in belief and practice. it seems at worst it's debatable, but i'd argue whoever is closer to full truth is the one who's better off.
or, given that situation again, only this time the orthodox is closer to catholics 'truths'. in that case, it'd seem that just because one calls oneself catholic, a catholic would say the orthodox person is better off, even though there's arguemnts that he's farther from unity yet there's arguments he's closer to unity by not claiming to be catholic when he's arguably not. but given he's closer to 'the truth' in beliefs and practices, the orthodox one is better off.

i suppose i could see someone saying that saying one is catholic and not assenting fully, nullifyies even being closer in terms of beliefs and truths practiced etc. but it doesn't seem like it's 'clearly' one way or the other, that catholic should agree and disagree to these things. givene it's a judgment call.

yes no, why why not?

-----

as a theoreticaly thelogical point. one might say if both know the ins and outs, truky know them, from a catholic perspective, then they're all condemned and splitting hairs about their beliefs and practices doesn't amount to much in hte end. but, as a theoogical point, i dont think most people truly 'know what they're doing is wrong, and reject it' in terms of 'no salvation outside....' and many other teachings. so many might not be culpable.
it's a curious thing though. those who would actually fit that criteria are the overly scrupulous ones, and who live in wretched states. so that wretched stereotype of catholic who won't submit... they're the ones who get the hellfire while the more casual rejecters get off? so ironic and sad for wretched ones... they mean well more than the more casual ones, yet they get knocked off by God. it's the only way i see in practice of truly 'truly knowing yet rejecting' yet it's a sad picture. i guess that's similar to judas, and how he was arguabloy 'picked off' as the son of perdition as jesus said.

Edited December 24, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c