Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[CatholicsAreKewl]

No that should NOT be the first step. You need to gauge where that person is and who they are and if they would benefit from such a tactic. I think people on here are more likely to go with that route not because they have genuine care for the persons soul, but because they enjoy touting their knowledge and feeling superior.

I

Religious identity can also be more than simply what one believes. This might be more obvious in less progressive societies. Take the examples of the Jews in Russia after ww2 who literally had their religious affiliations marked on their passports. Lebanon is a more perfect example because the religion you're born with likely determines where you live, what political groups you follow, and what political positions you can enter. We might even say that Americans who are born and raised catholic retain a sort of culture and way of looking at the world that is different than someone who didn't undergo the same experience. Regardless of your specific beliefs in these situations, your religion is still a part of who you are. Edited June 24, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Lilllabettt]

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. 

 

Really? So now YOU are the determiner of what Roman Catholicism "really" is? Not the magisterium of the religion. You.

Does that not sound asinine to you?

 

Why is the label so important? Why do you want to put yourself and have other people put you in the category of "Roman Catholic" if your views are not congruent with how that Church defines its religion?

 

Because now that is not just a matter of personal courage or integrity - now it becomes about respect. Because now you are saying the religion does not have the capacity and the right to define itself. Now you are saying that YOU will define it.

 

 I studied Islam a lot before RCIA and there is a lot I find beautiful in it. But I never became a Muslim and I do not claim to be a Muslim. There are a few Islamic scholars who suggest that in the "highest" way, Christians may be considered Muslims, and Muslims, Christians. That appeals to me. But I do not go and paste a label of "Muslim" on my forehead. I don't claim that religion. Because I don't think pork is unclean, and I do not think that failing to do salat is a sin.  Many many Muslims eat pork and do not do salat. My roommate decided at one point to adopt a lesbian lifestyle. She had no intention of leaving Islam. She was forthright in saying that what she was doing was "against God" (her words.) 

 

It would be disrespectful of me to stand before an ancient religious tradition and tell them that their patrimony is wrong, and "my" way of doing the religion is the correct one. To tell her that the homosexual lifestyle is not against her religion, and I am a Muslim. How obnoxious.

 

You know the different branches of Christianity are just different arguments about the nature of authority and epistemology. How we know what is true. Roman catholics and eastern orthodox catholics rest those things on apostolic succession. Seems to me you don't accept that bedrock belief. But there are other theories. Maybe one of them actually reflects what you believe, or are willing to struggle to accept. For many protestants it is scripture that determines what is true - my guess is that wouldn't appeal to you. Me neither.  Anglican religion requires people to believe a basic set of things that have "consensus" (the Creed basically) and all other matters are negotiable, --- there's a wide range of beliefs accepted about authority from almost catholic to low church sola scriptura. For the Quakers it is the "inner light." Maybe you are actually a Quaker. 

 

Or maybe none of these labels are accurate. Maybe there is no label for you. Maybe you are "just" a Christian. With appreciation for parts of Roman Catholicism. 

[PhuturePriest]

I have a lot of issues with the Church and I don't talk about them here because that's not what the phorum is for.

Nevertheless I used to have this all-or-nothing attitude and I've dropped it. I think we are all better in the Church than out of it. A bad Catholic is better than an ex -Catholic or ex-Christian. Perhaps it's more intellectually consistent to leave but it's better for the soul if one doesn't.

The church is a hospital for sinners and one is more likely to get better in the hospital than out on the street.

 

It's fine if you have issues with the Church you're trying to work out. The issue is with the people who disagree with essential Church teaching, but then deny that they're denying essential Church teaching. Arguing with those people is like arguing with a little kid who has chocolate all over his face but denies that he ate the cookies.

[4588686]

Really? So now YOU are the determiner of what Roman Catholicism "really" is? Not the magisterium of the religion. You.

Does that not sound asinine to you?

 

Why is the label so important? Why do you want to put yourself and have other people put you in the category of "Roman Catholic" if your views are not congruent with how that Church defines its religion?

 

Because now that is not just a matter of personal courage or integrity - now it becomes about respect. Because now you are saying the religion does not have the capacity and the right to define itself. Now you are saying that YOU will define it.

 

 I studied Islam a lot before RCIA and there is a lot I find beautiful in it. But I never became a Muslim and I do not claim to be a Muslim. There are a few Islamic scholars who suggest that in the "highest" way, Christians may be considered Muslims, and Muslims, Christians. That appeals to me. But I do not go and paste a label of "Muslim" on my forehead. I don't claim that religion. Because I don't think pork is unclean, and I do not think that failing to do salat is a sin.  Many many Muslims eat pork and do not do salat. My roommate decided at one point to adopt a lesbian lifestyle. She had no intention of leaving Islam. She was forthright in saying that what she was doing was "against God" (her words.) 

 

It would be disrespectful of me to stand before an ancient religious tradition and tell them that their patrimony is wrong, and "my" way of doing the religion is the correct one. To tell her that the homosexual lifestyle is not against her religion, and I am a Muslim. How obnoxious.

 

You know the different branches of Christianity are just different arguments about the nature of authority and epistemology. How we know what is true. Roman catholics and eastern orthodox catholics rest those things on apostolic succession. Seems to me you don't accept that bedrock belief. But there are other theories. Maybe one of them actually reflects what you believe, or are willing to struggle to accept. For many protestants it is scripture that determines what is true - my guess is that wouldn't appeal to you. Me neither.  Anglican religion requires people to believe a basic set of things that have "consensus" (the Creed basically) and all other matters are negotiable, --- there's a wide range of beliefs accepted about authority from almost catholic to low church sola scriptura. For the Quakers it is the "inner light." Maybe you are actually a Quaker. 

 

Or maybe none of these labels are accurate. Maybe there is no label for you. Maybe you are "just" a Christian. With appreciation for parts of Roman Catholicism. 

 

The Church demands that the faithful indoctrinate their children from birth and make Catholicism a central part of their identity from the moment they can comprehend the world.  That identity doesn't just disappear when somebody loses faith.  If you don't like Catholicism forming a major part of lapsed Catholics identity then you should leave the kids alone and only recruit adults.  

[KnightofChrist]

Difficulty with accepting truth is not the same as rejection of truth. There is a world of difference between "I want to believe Lord, please help with my doubts" and "I do not believe, I reject that, I believe another truth, I will not serve."

[Fidei Defensor]

O Lord Jesus Christ, Who said to Your Apostles: "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you," regard not my sins but the faith of Your Church, and deign to give her peace and unity according to Your Will: Who live and reign, God, world without end. Amen.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I studied Islam a lot before RCIA and there is a lot I find beautiful in it. But I never became a Muslim and I do not claim to be a Muslim. There are a few Islamic scholars who suggest that in the "highest" way, Christians may be considered Muslims, and Muslims, Christians. That appeals to me. But I do not go and paste a label of "Muslim" on my forehead. I don't claim that religion. Because I don't think pork is unclean, and I do not think that failing to do salat is a sin. Many many Muslims eat pork and do not do salat. My roommate decided at one point to adopt a lesbian lifestyle. She had no intention of leaving Islam. She was forthright in saying that what she was doing was "against God" (her words.)

It would be disrespectful of me to stand before an ancient religious tradition and tell them that their patrimony is wrong, and "my" way of doing the religion is the correct one. To tell her that the homosexual lifestyle is not against her religion, and I am a Muslim. How obnoxious.

I'm a bit confused by this example for various reasons.

1. Islam is too large to compare to Catholicism. You could easily be a Sufi who doesn't really think the daily prayers or hajj are neccesary and might be okay with drinking. Hell, even the Druze and members of the nations of gods and earths call themselves "Muslims".

2. There's not a central figurehead in Sunni Islam. That means the religious leaders and scholars of modern times can disagree about almost everything. Even Muslims who claim to follow traditional jurisprudence don't (at least not the nice ones). Theres so much in there that's not actually workable in modern times.

I remember a professor of mine visited Iran after converting to Islam. When he was confronted about his unique religious beliefs by clerics, he responded by saying that he was his own mujtahid. No further questions were asked. The idea that the ordinary Muslim can come up with their own interpretations of the Islamic scriptures isn't limited to shiite Islam. Sunnis are also opening up to this idea.


Hmm, now that I've finished, I realize you know all of this already. It's a bit silly for me to post only to clarify this information to others on the board (I'm not an authority on any of this), but I just had my coffee not too long ago and I've already written so much. Edited June 24, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[mortify ii]

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

Interesting how you assert that with an air of infallible dogmatism. Let's just say those dates are debatable, I'm personally convinced those texts were written much earlier, but with out getting into a debate on dating let me point out that even if you were right, the scope of those texts would not expect us to believe Mary would be mentioned. For the Gospels this reason is obvious, they end post resurrection when Mary was still alive. As for Acts, it focuses on Paul's ministry and ends with his arrest and trial at Rome, which would have been circa 60 AD. If Mary was a typical Jewish girl betrothed in her teens, it's still conceivable that she was alive after Acts conclusion.

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.

Scripture is multi-layered. The same passage in Revelation can refer to an event in Israel, an event in our Lord's life, event in the early Church, and in the future. Isaiah can prophecy a virgin birth in his own life time but that also finds a greater fullfilment in the future. You have typology as well... It's a very complicated topic. To me the references are obvious, despite being interpreted in a mystical way. You have to keep in mind that once Gods incarnation was an esoteric doctrine only a few wise people in Israel new. Once the transubstantiation was an esoteric teaching only the initiated were taught. At times the church sees it fitting to define a mystical or esoteric teaching and thereby make it common and public.

[John Ryan]

If you were to use NFP instead, you could gain the graces that come with obedience.

 

Disobeying because obedience is difficult or inconvenient is a completely different from being unable to assent.

 

I am not disobeying because it is difficult or inconvenient, but because I do not believe in the Vatican's NFP ideology. 

[Lilllabettt]

The Church demands that the faithful indoctrinate their children from birth and make Catholicism a central part of their identity from the moment they can comprehend the world.  That identity doesn't just disappear when somebody loses faith.  If you don't like Catholicism forming a major part of lapsed Catholics identity then you should leave the kids alone and only recruit adults.  

 

 

I expect full grown adults to be responsible for how they identify themselves. I expect, and respect forthrightness. I'm not saying it isn't hard. Much easier to dismiss dissonance between the religion you were born into and what you actually believe as meaningless or unimportant or just ignore it altogether. But I don't have a lot of appreciation for that behavior. People who do that need to, for lack of a better phrase, grow up.  Thats what being a grown up is, making decisions about who you are. 

 

"Leaving the church" is not the worst thing in the world for everyone. Actually it can be the best thing in the world if it wakes people up to a rupture that already exists. Step 1 of the 12 steps is recognizing reality. Faith is a journey and playing pretend and paying lipservice is an unproductive way to move further along the journey. If a person is committed to being honest with themselves and God, He will bring them to the truth, probably with a deeper appreciation and respect for religion than they would have otherwise.  Of course, a lot of people who leave the church don't do it because they want to be honest on their journey towards truth. they leave because they get pissed off or they want something easier. finding out the truth is secondary if an after thought at all. So for them maybe its better they hang around and be luke-warm, proximity being their greatest opportunity of ever getting "hot." 

[John Ryan]

Really? So now YOU are the determiner of what Roman Catholicism "really" is? Not the magisterium of the religion. You.

Does that not sound asinine to you?

 

Why is the label so important? Why do you want to put yourself and have other people put you in the category of "Roman Catholic" if your views are not congruent with how that Church defines its religion?

 

Because now that is not just a matter of personal courage or integrity - now it becomes about respect. Because now you are saying the religion does not have the capacity and the right to define itself. Now you are saying that YOU will define it.

 

 I studied Islam a lot before RCIA and there is a lot I find beautiful in it. But I never became a Muslim and I do not claim to be a Muslim. There are a few Islamic scholars who suggest that in the "highest" way, Christians may be considered Muslims, and Muslims, Christians. That appeals to me. But I do not go and paste a label of "Muslim" on my forehead. I don't claim that religion. Because I don't think pork is unclean, and I do not think that failing to do salat is a sin.  Many many Muslims eat pork and do not do salat. My roommate decided at one point to adopt a lesbian lifestyle. She had no intention of leaving Islam. She was forthright in saying that what she was doing was "against God" (her words.) 

 

It would be disrespectful of me to stand before an ancient religious tradition and tell them that their patrimony is wrong, and "my" way of doing the religion is the correct one. To tell her that the homosexual lifestyle is not against her religion, and I am a Muslim. How obnoxious.

 

You know the different branches of Christianity are just different arguments about the nature of authority and epistemology. How we know what is true. Roman catholics and eastern orthodox catholics rest those things on apostolic succession. Seems to me you don't accept that bedrock belief. But there are other theories. Maybe one of them actually reflects what you believe, or are willing to struggle to accept. For many protestants it is scripture that determines what is true - my guess is that wouldn't appeal to you. Me neither.  Anglican religion requires people to believe a basic set of things that have "consensus" (the Creed basically) and all other matters are negotiable, --- there's a wide range of beliefs accepted about authority from almost catholic to low church sola scriptura. For the Quakers it is the "inner light." Maybe you are actually a Quaker. 

 

Or maybe none of these labels are accurate. Maybe there is no label for you. Maybe you are "just" a Christian. With appreciation for parts of Roman Catholicism. 

 

Do you really believe the ******** that comes out of your mouth, or do you just like hearing your speak? First of all, I have never claimed that I get to decide what Roman Catholicism is. What I have always maintained is that there is a diversity within the history of the Roman Catholic tradition, not that I have the answers. Of course you know this is what I have said, but you seek to discredit me and slander me with your nonsense anyway. Secondly, I am Roman Catholic because I am a practicing Roman Catholic. I go to Mass, confession, pray to the Saints, etc., etc. Do not give me that ********.

Edited June 24, 2014 by John Ryan

[Selah]

Um...uh...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAIGb1lfpBw

[Lilllabettt]

I'm a bit confused by this example for various reasons.

1. Islam is too large to compare to Catholicism. You could easily be a Sufi who doesn't really think the daily prayers or hajj are neccesary and might be okay with drinking. Hell, even the Druze and members of the nations of gods and earths call themselves "Muslims".

2. There's not a central figurehead in Sunni Islam. That means the religious leaders and scholars of modern times can disagree about almost everything. Even Muslims who claim to follow traditional jurisprudence don't (at least not the nice ones). Theres so much in there that's not actually workable in modern times.

I remember a professor of mine visited Iran after converting to Islam. When he was confronted about his unique religious beliefs by clerics, he responded by saying that he was his own mujtahid. No further questions were asked. The idea that the ordinary Muslim can come up with their own interpretations of the Islamic scriptures isn't limited to shiite Islam. Sunnis are also opening up to this idea.


Hmm, now that I've finished, I realize you know all of this already. It's a bit silly for me to post only to clarify this information to others on the board (I'm not an authority on any of this), but I just had my coffee not too long ago and I've already written so much.

 

This is kind of besides the point. But lets say I believe what Shiites do about Karbala, the Imam, etc. But then I go and tell people I'm Sunni. This would be like me believing as Quakers do but telling people and insisting to myself that my religion is Catholic. See what I'm saying?

[CrossCuT]

I expect full grown adults to be responsible for how they identify themselves. I expect, and respect forthrightness. I'm not saying it isn't hard. Much easier to dismiss dissonance between the religion you were born into and what you actually believe as meaningless or unimportant or just ignore it altogether. But I don't have a lot of appreciation for that behavior. People who do that need to, for lack of a better phrase, grow up.  Thats what being a grown up is, making decisions about who you are. 

 

I think you make a good point here. They should be responsible their how they identify themselves, which I suspect, is exactly what they are doing when they grow up and make up their minds about who they are.

 

Since you are so keen on them being responsible for themselves, how about you put a cork in it and let them do it.

[Perigrina]

I am not disobeying because it is difficult or inconvenient, but because I do not believe in the Vatican's NFP ideology. 

 

People have the option obeying a precept out of respect for the Church even if they do not agree with the teaching behind it.  If you cannot intellectually assent to something, you cannot make yourself.  But obedience is a matter of will.  One can choose to obey even while disagreeing with the reasoning behind the command.  (This does not apply if one believes it would be a sin to obey.)

 

Assent and obedience can operate independently of each other.  It does not automatically follow that you must disobey just because you cannot assent.