Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[CrossCuT]

oh snap. No, I'm trying to communicate that I do not consider people who engage in the behavior I am describing as beyond the pale, nor do I consider it a stable personality trait. In other words, make it easier for people to admit to themselves that they are doing it and consider changing it. "You told a lie" is much better than "you are a liar" if you want someone to admit that 1.they lied 2. lying is wrong

 

The behavior of what? Critical thinking? Looking at a myriad of possibilities, considering options, and looking for what makes sense and what doesnt? lol

Surely you dont apply the same thing to every walk of life. Would you rather have people be mindless drones never questioning anything?

 

Whatever trait causes you to run around spewing nonsense in the name of Catholicism is not is what I consider an stable personality trait either.

 

But you have your opinions and I have mine.

[Selah]

[Perigrina]

Wow where does grace fit in to this check list of beliefs? Thought and practice are interlinked. If it's true that Catholicism is 'only beliefs' then there's no need for church, no need for mass, no need for sunday obligation, no need for sacraments, no need for grace. Last I checked you can't believe and miss mass on a Sunday to have some extra sleep. Plus there are laws, Canon laws.

We don't affirm all doctrines and beliefs the church says we should each sunday, in actual fact we say a creed. Perish the thought if someone doesn't tick off on the whole list of beliefs. Sounds like lists of beliefs are more important than 1. God, 2. Grace, 3. Faith and Hope, 4.  People, 5. Salvation & Good News, 6. Reality of the world we live in.

If anyone here really wants to see how orthodox the people are around them (including their family, friends and parish) on a Sunday -  hold a feedback group. Ask them to tell you what they think about God, Jesus, (and who they are to them) the church and this list of beliefs you think they should follow.. By that tick off how many people you expect to be in heaven with you. Answers on a post card!

 

From a comparative religions perspective, Lillabet is quite right in her use of terminology.  Catholicism is a belief-based religion, as opposed to Judaism, for example, which is a law-based religion.  Some religions do not even have a concept of heresy comparable to ours.  I suppose you are not familiar enough with the field to know how these terms are used.

[Lilllabettt]

The behavior of what? Critical thinking? Looking at a myriad of possibilities, considering options, and looking for what makes sense and what doesnt? lol

Surely you dont apply the same thing to every walk of life. Would you rather have people be mindless drones never questioning anything?

 

Whatever trait causes you to run around spewing nonsense in the name of Catholicism is not is what I consider an stable personality trait either.

 

But you have your opinions and I have mine.

 

 

btw. I mean  "stable" as in "permanent, unchangeable" not  as in "well- balanced, sane" 

 

the behavior I am referring to is the one of not believing  what a religion insists is true and then continuing presenting yourself as an adherent to that religion. you know, the topic of the thread.

 

I do not respect the behavior of mindless drones, I respect the behavior of people who are honest and forthright about what they believe and not lazy about something as important as the truth. 

[Perigrina]

The behavior of what? Critical thinking? Looking at a myriad of possibilities, considering options, and looking for what makes sense and what doesnt? lol

Surely you dont apply the same thing to every walk of life. Would you rather have people be mindless drones never questioning anything?

 

Whatever trait causes you to run around spewing nonsense in the name of Catholicism is not is what I consider an stable personality trait either.

 

But you have your opinions and I have mine.

 

 

How is "if you don't believe what a religion insists is true then it is dishonest and/or lazy for you to go around presenting yourself as an adherent to that religion" nonsense?  It sure makes sense to me.

[stevil]

And I'm the King of England, no better yet Emperor of the Galaxy. In a age where boys can be 'girls' and girls can be 'boys', circles can be squares, unbelievers are believers, dark is light, and light is dark, why not? I can be whatever I want to be, because I can redefine what ever it is that I want to be into something it is not and still believe that it still is what it was before I made it into something it is not. If fact, Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?  

I do see.
But do you?

We are talking about putting faith into people to find their own path. People can make mistakes along the way, but mistakes can also be lessons for what is the correct path.

If you put faith into a person then you will let them decide their own path, if that is to be a non Catholic, a perfect Catholic (if one exists) or a non perfect Catholic then that is their path.
Faith in people isn't in the form of pointing out their mistakes but is in the form of supporting them on their path even if it is the "wrong" one.

[CrossCuT]

I do not respect the behavior of mindless drones, I respect the behavior of people who are honest and forthright about what they believe and not lazy about something as important as the truth. 

 

So when someone admits to not adhering to 100% of church teaching they are not being honest?

[PhuturePriest]

So when someone admits to not adhering to 100% of church teaching they are not being honest?

 

They are being dishonest in continuing to claim that they are faithful to that religion. If you don't believe in core teachings of a religion which state you must believe or else you are not truly a part of that religion, it is a lie to go on and claim you are truly a part of it.

[Perigrina]

I do see.
But do you?

We are talking about putting faith into people to find their own path. People can make mistakes along the way, but mistakes can also be lessons for what is the correct path.

If you put faith into a person then you will let them decide their own path, if that is to be a non Catholic, a perfect Catholic (if one exists) or a non perfect Catholic then that is their path.
Faith in people isn't in the form of pointing out their mistakes but is in the form of supporting them on their path even if it is the "wrong" one.

 

Catholicism is not a religion in which people find their own path or one supports people in being wrong.

[PhuturePriest]

Rather than arguing with a little kid it is more analogous to arguing with an independent self responsible adult. Trying to convince them that rather than making their own mind up on things, they should instead seek guidance from an authority and just believe everything they are told "without question".

I can see why many adults find this too difficult to swallow.

 

Where did I say anything about not questioning anything? I have questions about the faith all the time. The difference is, if I were to come across something I questioned and I didn't believe the Church's answer for it, I wouldn't go parading around as a faithful Catholic, because I wouldn't be. You can't be faithful to the Church if you think the Church is wrong on a doctrinal matter. The Church is built on infallibility. By claiming it's wrong on doctrine, you're claiming it's not infallible, and thus the entire foundation of the Church falls apart. When the foundation falls apart, the Church does. It's simple logic.

[Lilllabettt]

So when someone admits to not adhering to 100% of church teaching they are not being honest?

 

I could answer your question if you could define what you mean by "adhere."

 

If you claim to be Catholic and are not committed to the struggle to embrace as true what that religion insists is true then you are being dishonest. 

 

if you claim to be Catholic, do not embrace as true what that religion insists is true, but are committed to the struggle to embrace it as true, then your claim is honest.

 

It has nothing to do with "adhering" if by "adhere" you mean whether someone is good at "keeping the law." faithful Catholics and faithless Catholics both break Church teaching.

[John Ryan]

sounds Anglican to me. Control+F to see what he says about absolute authority compared to Catholicism.

http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/AngRC-diffEng.html

 

The type of absolute authority the article refers to is not the same kind as the one we are speaking about here. Though, the article does raise a very important issue about authority. Historically, ultramontanism has not always had dominion over the Church. There has been a conciliar period in the Church's history. 

[KnightofChrist]

I do see.
But do you?

We are talking about putting faith into people to find their own path. People can make mistakes along the way, but mistakes can also be lessons for what is the correct path.

If you put faith into a person then you will let them decide their own path, if that is to be a non Catholic, a perfect Catholic (if one exists) or a non perfect Catholic then that is their path.
Faith in people isn't in the form of pointing out their mistakes but is in the form of supporting them on their path even if it is the "wrong" one.

 

True, people should have the free will to choose their own path. But we should not be free to pretend we are something we are not. What we're talking about is relativism, subjectivity, and redefining what something is into something that it is not and still pretending it is the same. If a Catholic rejects a teaching of the Church that must be believed that person has put themselves outside the Church, they have created their own faith. Even if it may still be very similar to Catholicism, it is not Catholicism. Catholicism is how the Church defines herself, not how non-believers of her teachings define her.

[Perigrina]

True, people should have the free will to choose their own path. But we should not be free to pretend we are something we are not. What we're talking about is relativism, subjectivity, and redefining what something is into something that it is not and still pretending it is the same. If a Catholic rejects a teaching of the Church that must be believed that person has put themselves outside the Church, they have created their own faith. Even if it may still be very similar to Catholicism, it is not Catholicism. Catholicism is how the Church defines herself, not how non-believers of her teachings define her.

 

I think that in situations in which a person is not culpable for rejecting a teaching of the Church, they remain within the Church. But is is possible to cut oneself off from the Church by rejecting doctrines that we are obliged to accept. 

[Perigrina]

The type of absolute authority the article refers to is not the same kind as the one we are speaking about here. Though, the article does raise a very important issue about authority. Historically, ultramontanism has not always had dominion over the Church. There has been a conciliar period in the Church's history. 

 

I do not think that ultramontism is really a factor.  That is a belief that stresses the powers of the pope.  The idea of Church teaching authority is much broader than that.