It’s a miracle that the Church ever got off the ground. It’s founder died a lonely and cruel death without building a single building. His first followers had similar outcomes. How did the Church continue, with it’s seemingly foolish rejection of human success?
Would you mind if I suggest that overdoing it with research can easily become counterproductive?
Consider the source. I have seen a couple of these posters come onto threads and start attacking either the Church or faith in general - and thankfully, their trolling is seen for what it is and reported to the mods.
Unfortunately they can subvert a thread almost before anyone realizes it, and all the focus is lost. 
Indeed, everything about the Church and its founder is miraculous. You might call it the proof of Christianity by all the happenstances that have contributed to its unlikely formation and continued existence. :newidea:
I don’t mean to sound snarky or intrusive, but it seems unnecessarily uncharitable to describe a fellow poster as “trolling.” Though his or her ideas might not be popular here, the poster you’re referring to seems to be genuine rather than someone who’s needling others just for the sake of doing so.Consider the source. I have seen a couple of these posters come onto threads and start attacking either the Church or faith in general - and thankfully, their trolling is seen for what it is and reported to the mods.
Sorry, I meant to say that the mods decide that and the person is sanctioned. And I just realized this is a forum I shouldn’t be posting in so
:choocho:Got it. And…Sorry, I meant to say that the mods decide that and the person is sanctioned. And I just realized this is a forum I shouldn’t be posting in so
I’m out!
I actually *look *for your posts in Catholic Living threads! It’s a judgment call. Those, not me, who have been on here a long time have a keener insight into this than I do. After a while you can probably spot them a mile off. I am not saying the post you are referring to is such a case. I am just saying I give longtime members more leeway.
Yes, a guess on your part. And a wrong guess. Before V2, it wasn’t a concern about “identifying Catholics” because Catholics themselves identified whether they were or were not in communion with Catholic teaching. They excused themselves from official practice if they were not. There was no Entitlement mentality to re-define doctrine for oneself, by virtue of some “membership card,” not to mention selecting which doctrine was or was not comfortable to adhere to, because the Magisterium, not the individual, was recognized as the Central Authority.
And some of us (me) crashed toes into that stumbling block enough that we actually began to find out the Catholic doctrine for it.
Before the 60’s we had practicing Catholics and non-practicing Catholics. From the 60’s on we began to have a split in practicing Catholics between those who observed all the teachings and rules of the Church and those who observed those teachings and rules they thought were correct. So, as you said, many proclaimed to be practicing Catholics who in former days would have been counted as non-practicing Catholics. For the first time perhaps in the history of the Church, large numbers began to place their personal beliefs (some called it conscience) above Church teachings, and claimed communion with Christ in so doing. IOW, they and Christ were correct, the Church was incorrect. Well, there goes 2,000 years of teaching out the window! But not to worry. The Vatican did not surrender as some felt it would have to. Instead, it kept a copy of all its teachings in spite of countless warnings that they were outdated and could not survive the modern world. Today, large segments of the Catholic community may be on the verge of breaking away, or if the Spirit has its way, reverting back to Catholic doctrine. Those are the only two possibilities there have ever been. So-called practicing Catholics who reject some of Catholic teaching are already de facto outside the Church. It is now, and always was, an all or nothing proposition. You can’t have marriage and fool around a little on the side all the while claiming fidelity. If you don’t believe me, ask your spouse. The Church is not an open marriage. Fooling around is a grave matter, despite so many Catholics taking it lightly.
The Old Testament was written before Jesus Christ, obviously.
Um, okay…is there a reason your comments sound irritated? As for Catholics of days gone by, my great-grandfather never went to confession. He “didn’t believe in it.” And yes, he still accepted communion (he even attended daily Mass several times a week so he certainly wasn’t shy about receiving the Blessed Sacrament when he hadn’t gone to confession). I think to the outside world, yes – there were adherent Catholics and non-adherent Catholics. But the point is that this is/was the view from the outside, and it often didn’t match with what was happening behind closed doors.
Um, not irritated. Correcting you on history. Your great-grandfather was an exception. Not even close to typical of the behavior of that generation. What I described was the pattern, the same pattern confirmed by others on CAF on other threads, including probably before you became a member.
Do share with us how “American Catholics” are different from French or German or Polish Catholics in their level of adherence – and sensitivity, apparently, to whether they should or shouldn’t be adherent to the Magisterium. Because that perspective…
Glad to hear it.
But the point is you couldn’t possibly know this. No one could. It’s not as though my great-grandfather went around proclaiming his disbelief and failure to fully adhere. Why would I assume there weren’t many more like him? It’s interesting to note, as well, that his priest never refused him communion, though he clearly never saw my great-grandfather in the confessional.
The example I gave earlier in the thread referenced a Polish Catholic’s view of American Catholics’ obsession with being “so serious” (her words) about the faith. Her comment took place during a discussion about what you would call adherent Catholics and what my colleagues at the time called “real” Catholics. She was genuinely confused about why American Catholics invest so much time in chastising other Catholics for being less than compliant. I don’t offer this example as proof of anything, of course. But the rest of my colleagues who weren’t from North America (perhaps 8 or so, all Catholic) definitely and vocally agreed with her. I found that interesting but you certainly don’t have to.
Sounds like your ggf was a victim of poor teaching. He probably considered it was the priest’s opinion and not an necessary requirement of being a practicing Catholic in good standing. Today’s Catholics, I believe, have much greater awareness of Church teaching and rules, so that when they disregard any of them they do so in defiance of the Church. Your ggf did not seem defiant against the Church the way you described him. If I’m wrong and he was defying the Church, then he was just as bad as the modern version. Choosing what you will believe and what you will not believe shows an independent spirit that has no place in the Catholic Church.
I think he was of the defiant variety.
Lots of stories about that one.