Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[NotreDame]

In the past when Satan led souls away from the true faith, they would go form their own, false, church. Today it seems Satan has learned a more effective way of devouring souls. Simply crown as many false pontiffs as possible and let them destroy the Church from the inside out.

 

This ^^^ unfortunately seems on the mark.  Very evident even at phatmass lately. 
 

[arfink]

So, I had a thought, for what it's worth:

 

If someone calls themselves Catholic and his beliefs differ from the Church's, I believe we have a word for this, which also aptly describes everyone who calls themselves Catholic: sinner. IMO, as lay people it's probably more helpful to pray for people who behave in this fashion than to constantly point out how they can't possibly be part of the Body of Christ, and on an internet forum, no less.

[KnightofChrist]

Actually he's been doing this since the Church was founded.  Remember Christ saying to Peter "Get behind me Satan" or Judas?

 

Getting back to the basics, I suppose.

[Perigrina]

So, I had a thought, for what it's worth:

 

If someone calls themselves Catholic and his beliefs differ from the Church's, I believe we have a word for this, which also aptly describes everyone who calls themselves Catholic: sinner. IMO, as lay people it's probably more helpful to pray for people who behave in this fashion than to constantly point out how they can't possibly be part of the Body of Christ, and on an internet forum, no less.

 

Those are not the only two options.  I can see an argument in favour of warning people that they are possibly cutting themselves off from the Church by taking certain positions.

 

Prayer is, of course, a good idea, but even that can be done in a bad way.  I have seen posts (not here) with an ostentatious "I'll pray for you" as a put down.  I know you are not suggesting this, but it bugs me so much I wanted to mention it.

[Dr_Asik]

It is founded in scripture but you are looking for a historic narrative not possible for obvious reasons. The only historic books in the NT are the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and neither would contain the assumption of Mary as likely the Mother of God was still alive during their composition.

She most certainly wasn't, as the gospels were composed between 60 and 100 A.D.; Luke-Acts is no earlier than 80.

 

If Mary is the New Eve born of an immaculate conception, it implies she would have been spared corruption and her body would have been assumed into heaven as opposed to returning to the earth as a consequence of original sin. 

That makes sense, but it's theological speculation, itself based on prior theological deductions (ideas like the "New Eve" and "Immaculate Conception").

 

The scriptural references you mention about the Ark of the Covenant are highly metaphorical, if granted that they refer to Mary; and it's anything but obvious that they do. Concerning Revelation 11:19, there's no textual connection between the description of the woman and the mention of the Ark of the Covenant before; furthermore it's not clear that the description of the woman refers to Mary at all. 

 

One strain of Catholic tradition assigns the identity of the woman to the Virgin Mary after her assumption into heaven, where she is revealed in all her glory as the "Queen of Heaven", "Mother of God", and "Mother of the Church". This view has been affirmed by Pope Pius X,[5] Pope Pius XII,[6] Pope Paul VI,[7] and Pope John Paul II.[8] According to this view, the woman's "male child," is a reference to Jesus (Revelation 12:5), since he is destined to "rule all nations with a rod of iron" (Revelation 12:5). The dragon trying to devour the woman's child at the moment of his birth (Revelation 12:4) is a reference to Herod the Great's attempt to kill the infant Jesus (Matthew 2:16). Through his death and resurrection, Jesus "was snatched up to God and to his throne" (Revelation 12:5).

 

However, most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church, while in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes, have generally held to the older interpretation, with certain modifications, on the strength of contextual details, while in recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Ancient witnesses to the Marian interpretation include St. Epiphanius,[9] Tychonius[10] (who heavily influenced St. Augustine), the unknown author of the History of Joseph the Carpenter,[11] Quodvultdeus (a disciple of St. Augustine), Cassiodorus (Complexiones in Apocalypsi, written c. 570 AD), and the Greek Fathers Andreas and Oikoumenios[12] (sixth century). For an assessment of the logical and theological reasons for identifying the Woman of Revelation 12 with Mary Mother of God, see Brunero Gherardini, Raised to Heaven because Co-Redemptrix on Earth. Thoughts on the Foundation of the Catholic Dogma.[13]

 

The commentary of the New American Bible (the official Roman Catholic Bible for America) states that "The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12." [14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_of_the_Apocalypse

 

 

Edited June 24, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Anomaly]

I post this as an ex-Catholic.
I think people call themselves Catholic when they appear to disagree in how to apply fundamental principles. For example, how to apply charity when faced with loving the sinner but hating the sin.

The gay wedding cake issue is great. At what point is it better to be loving and support their desire to celebrate a loving partnership of two people versus the danger of equating that relationship as equal to a hetero family that can procreate in a loving family. There is plenty of room to argue both sides and the effects of your actions.
There is plenty of other laudable and desirable aspects of Catholicism that is not easily abandoned. Especially when one is attempting to sincerely follow their thoughtful conscience to be as good a person as you can be, eating with the tax collector and showing kindness and respect to the multi-married woman while aware of your own shortcomings.

You can easily find priests, bishops, and SD, that will acknowledge exceptions to the rule based on charity and human imperfection. That's why the Church and Jews allow divorce.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Anomaly

[Benedictus]

Perigrina - An individual can be orthodox, but this doesn't mean they are operating in an emotionally or psychologically healthy way. My point is that there are people who use their beliefs and situations as a means of meeting other needs, such as psychological ones. This isn't necessarily healthy for other people who are around them.  This is because they are primarily seeking adherence to doctrine as a means of personal validation. This can lead to destructive behaviour when another person, knowingly or not, challenges the way this person operates within that belief system. It is a big cause of conflict, stagnation and violence in a host of different situations. Of course this is coloured by aspects of personality, experience, maturity, education and so on. We're all broken to different levels.

For example, if a man can't seem to find a marriage partner he may feel depressed and inadequate. This can be destructive if he then channels these emotions into seeking to campaign and tell people about their sins of fornication, contraception and divorce.  He maybe accurate in his orthodox views, but it's not a healthy thing for him to be doing.  He isn't primarily seeking to love and support the other, simply to act out his emotional frustration and uses doctrine as a means of validating himself. Similar things happen in other situations also, especially around low self esteem, parents, abuse, sexuality and so on. It's not even necessarily dramatic, most people have little things they don't always sort out.

In general, someone operating from a place of peaceful assurance about where they are with their orthodox beliefs is better placed to work with those who aren't in the same place.  It's one of the prime reasons why it's virtually universal for priests to undergo psychological assesssment these days. It's also often the case with religious orders as well. It's not just about noting any possible mental illness or personality disorder. It's also about flagging up patterns or ideas that seems to indicate the person needs to do more emotional work before moving forward. Not everyone is at the right place when they say and attempt to do things.

In terms of insensitive and uncharitable acting -  yes that does occur. It is normal for people to make mistakes or have different tempers. It depends very much whether they can make improvements and face those issues. Not every person is suited to a partcular type of work or place etc etc.

Heterodoxy - well the church has that view based on the merits of manifested beliefs, not emotions. So it can proclaim that certain ideas are more valid than others. But this doesn't mean it reacts in a way that is destructive when it is challenged. It would seek to support, teach and be alongside other people, as is Christ. I actually think much of the work the church does is in this spirit of being, on the whole anyway. Not all individuals are in the same place though, which isn't a surprise considering our numbers and other secondary differences.

In terms of priests and SD's - I guess people are human, not cardboard cut outs. I think it's up to Jesus, but I see nothing in their faith and action that deserves any such notion. There are far more pressing problems than people not adhering to a couple of peripheral ideas.  Not agreeing with this is, IMHO, the least of the worlds problems.
 

Edited June 24, 2014 by Benedictus

[John Ryan]

No. I  said someone claims a religion, goes against that religion and admits their failure is closer to heaven than someone who does the same but pretends to themselves and the world that what they've done is not against their religion or that its not a failure at all. Catholic Muslim Jew Buddhist whatever. It applies. 

 

If you want to claim a religion as your own you either embrace, or commit to struggling to accept, all that religion insists is true. If the time comes you don't want to do that anymore then you have the guts to call your independence by its name. That's courage and integrity.  

 

The difference is that I believe I am trying to be true to Roman Catholicism in what I do. It is kind of a Spirit of Vatican II. 

 

Curia refers to governance.  This is what the Vatican website says: 

 

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/

 

It includes the Secretariat of State, and various councils, commissions, committees, etc.  It does include the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, so it is not completely removed from doctrinal matters.  Cardinals are often (usually, I think) members of the departments of the Curia.

 

Magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the Church, rather any particular organizations.  There are a few ways it can be exercised.  This is what the CCC says:

 

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."⁷⁶ Theordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.⁷⁷

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.⁷⁸

 

^{http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a3.htm}

 

Merci for this.

 

In the past when Satan led souls away from the true faith, they would go form their own, false, church. Today it seems Satan has learned a more effective way of devouring souls. Simply crown as many false pontiffs as possible and let them destroy the Church from the inside out.

 

I find it hilarious that I get in trouble for disagreeing with some of the points of the Magisterium, and I am considered out of Communion, but such Sedevacantism which is in blatant rebellion with the Holy Father is tolerated and applauded.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

 

I find it hilarious that I get in trouble for disagreeing with some of the points of the Magisterium, and I am considered out of Communion, but such Sedevacantism which is in blatant rebellion with the Holy Father is tolerated and applauded.

There is literally nobody active on the forum right now who identifies as sedevacantist. I am not sure where you get that idea from.

[KnightofChrist]

I find it hilarious that I get in trouble for disagreeing with some of the points of the Magisterium, and I am considered out of Communion, but such Sedevacantism which is in blatant rebellion with the Holy Father is tolerated and applauded.

 

Why cannot others take the Non serviam approach that you have taken and reject the teachings they do not like? Why should it work for you and not others?

[CrossCuT]

So, I had a thought, for what it's worth:

 

If someone calls themselves Catholic and his beliefs differ from the Church's, I believe we have a word for this, which also aptly describes everyone who calls themselves Catholic: sinner. IMO, as lay people it's probably more helpful to pray for people who behave in this fashion than to constantly point out how they can't possibly be part of the Body of Christ, and on an internet forum, no less.

 

Thank you Arfink for commenting! It has been my experience as well as a few others I will not name that feel certain attitudes on PM have almost driven them away from the church. I have lessened my participation in this thread because I really dont think the approach "Youre wrong and Im right" is a good way to deal with people who feel differently on certain issues regarding the church...especially when the goal is unclear as to whether or not your trying to push these people away or bring them back.

 

All I know is that I want to lessen my connection to these attitudes...not lessen my connection to the church. My experiences have colored my thinking on this as I have on numerous occasion been in the company of "good" Catholics while they rail on minorities or homosexuals in a way that repulses me. I want to sever my ties to that. I dont want people to think of Catholics and associate me with those people. 

 

I think this thread highlights well the attitudes I dislike in the laity right now.

 

 

But anyways, I appreciate your comment. I am more inclined to engage in a conversation with you about these topics than the others in the thread.

[John Ryan]

There is literally nobody active on the forum right now who identifies as sedevacantist. I am not sure where you get that idea from.

 

Except that they think everything since Vatican II has been heresy. 

 

Why cannot others take the Non serviam approach that you have taken and reject the teachings they do not like? Why should it work for you and not others?

 

I am not hating on the conservatives who disagree with the direction the Church has taken, with all its "you do not have to be Christian to have salvation" theology. All I am saying is, don't hate on me, then. 

[John Ryan]

Thank you Arfink for commenting! It has been my experience as well as a few others I will not name that feel certain attitudes on PM have almost driven them away from the church. I have lessened my participation in this thread because I really dont think the approach "Youre wrong and Im right" is a good way to deal with people who feel differently on certain issues regarding the church...especially when the goal is unclear as to whether or not your trying to push these people away or bring them back.

 

All I know is that I want to lessen my connection to these attitudes...not lessen my connection to the church. My experiences have colored my thinking on this as I have on numerous occasion been in the company of "good" Catholics while they rail on minorities or homosexuals in a way that repulses me. I want to sever my ties to that. I dont want people to think of Catholics and associate me with those people. 

 

I think this thread highlights well the attitudes I dislike in the laity right now.

 

 

But anyways, I appreciate your comment. I am more inclined to engage in a conversation with you about these topics than the others in the thread.

 

This is a great Catholic attitude. Here is the thing for me. I do not care if somebody obeys the Magisterium. I am not preaching that people should disobey the Magisterium. I have good Catholic friends who are faithful to the Magisterium. All I say is that, I have these certain beliefs in variance with the Magisterium, and I cannot, in good conscience, adhere to certain beliefs. 

[Credo in Deum]

A Plea for Intolerance

 

Many a modern preacher is far less concerned with preaching Christ and Him crucified than he is with his popularity with his congregation.  A want of intellectual backbone makes him straddle the ox of truth and the ass of nonsense...Fulton J. Sheen

 

America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance.  It is not.  It is suffering from tolerance:  tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos.  Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded.  The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broad-minded.

 

A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broad-minded man is one who will accept anything for a reason—providing it is not a good reason.  It is true that there is a demand for precision, exactness, and definiteness, but it is only for precision in scientific measurement, not in logic. The breakdown that has produced this natural broad-mindedness is mental, not moral.  The evidence for this statement is threefold: the tendency to settle issues not by arguments but by words, the unqualified willingness to accept the authority of anyone on the subject of religion, and lastly the love of novelty.

 

The science of religion has a right to be heard scientifically through its qualified spokesmen, just as the science of physics or astronomy has a right to be heard through its qualified spokesmen.  Religion is a science despite the fact the some would make it only a sentiment.  Religion has its principles, natural and revealed, which are more exacting in their logic than mathematics.  But the false notion of tolerance has obscured this fact from the eyes of many who are as intolerant about the smallest details of life as they are tolerant about their relations to God.

 

Another evidence of the breakdown of reason that has produced this weird fungus of broad-mindedness is the passion of novelty, as opposed to the love of truth.  Truth is sacrificed for an epigram, the Divinity of Christ for a headline in the Monday morning newspaper.  Many a modern preacher is far less concerned with preaching Christ and Him crucified than he is with his popularity with his congregation.  A want of intellectual backbone makes him straddle the ox of truth and the ass of nonsense, paying compliments to Catholics because of “their great organization” and to sexologists because of “their honest challenge to the youth of this generation.”   Bending the knee to the mob rather than God would probably make them scruple at ever playing the role of John the Baptist before a modern Herod.  No accusing finger would be leveled at a divorce or one living in adultery; no voice would be thundered in the ears of the rich, saying with something of the intolerance of Divinity: “It is not lawful for thee to live with thy brother’s wife.” Rather would we hear: “Friends, times are changing!”  The acids of modernity are eating away the fossils of orthodoxy.

 

Belief in the existence of God, in the Divinity of Christ, in the moral law, is considered passing fashions.  The latest thing in this new tolerance is considered the true thing, as if truth were a fashion, like a hat, instead of an institution like a head.

 

The final argument for modern broad-mindedness is that truth is novelty and hence “truth” changes with the passing fancies of the moment.  Like the chameleon that changes his colors to suit the vesture on which he is placed, so truth is supposed to change to fit the foibles and obliquities of the age.  The nature of certain things is fixed, and none more so than the nature of truth.  Truth may be contradicted a thousand times, but that only proves that it is strong enough to survive a thousand assaults.  But for any one to say, “Some say this, some say that, therefore, there is no truth,” is about as logical as it would have been for Columbus who heard some say, “The earth is round”, and others say “The earth is flat” to conclude: “Therefore, there is no earth.” Like a carpenter who might throw away his rule and use each beam as a measuring rod, so, too, those who have thrown away the standard of objective truth have nothing left with which to measure but the mental fashion of the moment.

 

The giggling giddiness of novelty, the sentimental restlessness of a mind unhinged, and the unnatural fear of a good dose of hard thinking, all conjoin to produce a group of sophomoric latitudinarians who think there is no difference between God as Cause and God as a “mental projection”; who equate Christ and Buddha, and then enlarge their broad-mindedness into a sweeping synthesis that says not only that one Christian sect is as good as another, but even that one world-religion is just as good as another.  The great god “Progress” is then enthroned on the altars of fashion, and as the hectic worshippers are asked, “Progress toward what?” the tolerant comes back with “More progress.”  All the while sane men are wondering how there can be progress without direction and how there can be direction without a fixed point.  And because they speak of a “fixed point”, they are said to be behind the times, when really they arebeyond the times  mentally and spiritually. 

 

In the face of this false broadmindedness, what the world needs is intolerance.  The world seems to have lost entirely the faculty of distinguishing between good and bad, the right and the wrong.  There are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make “intolerance” mean hate, narrow-mindedness, and bigotry.  These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broadmindedness, and American good nature.

 

What is tolerance?  Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment.  But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this:  Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth.  Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.  Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error. 

 

America is suffering not so much from intolerance, which is bigotry, as it is from tolerance, which is indifference to truth and error, and a philosophical nonchalance that has been interpreted as broad-mindedness.  Greater tolerance, of course, is desirable, for there can never be too much charity shown to persons who differ with us.  Our Blessed Lord Himself asked that we “love those who calumniate us, for they are always persons,” but He never told us to love the calumny. 

 

In keeping with the Spirit of Christ, the Church encourages prayers for all those who are outside the pale of the Church and asks that the greatest charity be shown towards them.  Charity, then, must be shown to persons and particularly those outside the fold, who by charity must be led back, that there may be one fold and one Shepherd.  Shall God, Who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on all religions, be denied the name of “Wisdom” and be called an“Intolerant” God?

 

The Church is identified with Christ in both time and principle; She began thinking on His first principles and the harder She thought, the more dogmas She developed.  She never forgot those dogmas; She remembered them and Her memory is Tradition.  The dogmas of the Church are like bricks, solid things with which a man can build, not like straw, which is “religious experience” fit only for burning.  The Church has been and will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, and untruth affect not personal matters on which She may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding.  The truth is divine; the heretic is human.  Due reparation made, the Church will admit the heretic back into the treasury of Her souls, but never the heresy into the treasure of Her Wisdom. Right is right even if nobody is right; and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. 

 

The attitude of the Church in relation to the modern world on this important question may be brought home by the story of the two women in the courtroom of Solomon.  Both of them claimed a child.  The lawful mother insisted on having the whole child or nothing, for a child is like truth—it cannot be divided without ruin.  The unlawful mother, on the contrary, agreed to compromise.  She was willing to divide the babe, and the babe would have died of broad-mindedness.

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN

VENERABLE SERVANT OF GOD

PRAY FOR US

PRAY FOR OUR CHURCH

Edited by Connie Bagnoli for The Remnant from Old Errors and New Labels (1931)

 

 

 

 

TL;DR, you say?  Well your loss. 

Edited June 24, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[KnightofChrist]

I am not hating on the conservatives who disagree with the direction the Church has taken, with all its "you do not have to be Christian to have salvation" theology. All I am saying is, don't hate on me, then. 

 

So they can rebel as you have rebelled, so long as 'they' don't 'hate on you'?