Catholic use of self-descriptive adjectives

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sy_Noe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnnyc176 said:
The Church doesn’t command obedience. Jesus does.

'If you love me you will obey my commandments.

Actually since Jesus and the Catholic Church are One and the Same I suppose you could say that the Catholic Church commands obedience. But only because Jesus does.

Why would you want to dissent from a teaching of Jesus anyway?
Click to expand...
I just wanted to point out to thecolorsblend that while it may be true in most religions that only a small percentage of members are 100% on board with everything that religion officially espouses, I think (though I may be wrong and am open to correction!) the Church is fairly unique among major religions in how it considers disagreeing with any one of a very large body of doctrine to be enough to disqualify you as a good member.

So that the other 90% of Baptists are not ‘bad’ Baptists in the same way as the dissenting 90% of Catholics are bad Catholics.

I’m not trying to comment beyond that.
 
carefullytread said:
I just wanted to point out to thecolorsblend that while it may be true in most religions that only a small percentage of members are 100% on board with everything that religion officially espouses, I think (though I may be wrong and am open to correction!) the Church is fairly unique among major religions in how it considers disagreeing with any one of a very large body of doctrine to be enough to disqualify you as a good member.

So that the other 90% of Baptists are not ‘bad’ Baptists in the same way as the dissenting 90% of Catholics are bad Catholics.

I’m not trying to comment beyond that.
Click to expand...
The reason it is unique is because the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Christ founded. Everything else that you spew is noise. Again… Jesus said if you love me you will obey my commandments. No dissertation needed. Lol…polls, percentages…there is only Truth.
 
Thank you everyone for your comments. I just needed clarification. The Catholic Church’s answer so to speak.

Someone did ask why not a heretic? I just personally find “heretic” harsh because I think no good comes of that. It can turn people off and drive them further away. I think other labels can as well though.

But there have been questions about why any label? Because on this forum and perhaps even elsewhere, not using a label in such a case can bring about objection.

And it’s all very confusing because I even found 2 CAF apologists don’t agree.

Alwayswill seemed to agree with this first one.

“The Code of Canon Law currently does not recognize that someone can leave the Catholic Church. You might become a non-practicing member, but the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12648280&postcount=2

But then there is this.

Can you be both pro choice and Catholic?

“No, No. The answer is NO!”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8674827&postcount=2
 
Iron_Donkey said:
First, questions of whether or not the U.S. Constitution grants legal rights to abortion or similar are not questions that the Catholic Faith even tries to answer. So a Catholic who thinks that such a right exists in the law is not, by thinking such, either agreeing or disagreeing with Catholic teaching. The question as to whether or not such a legal right should exist is different, but merely the question on whether it does exist in current law is not a religious question.

But if they actively dissent on things that are actually Church teaching, then they are a Catholic who is wrong and not following Church teaching. All those other phrases you just mentioned are various ways of saying that. (Except perhaps Catholic in name only, as they actually are Catholic, but most people understand that phrase to mean that their Catholicism doesn’t extend to their actions in at least several important respects.)
Click to expand...
I don’t see how the Catholic Church knows to fight for a Constitutional decision or right to be overturned because it shouldn’t exist if it doesn’t even know whether one exists or not.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Thank you everyone for your comments. I just needed clarification. The Catholic Church’s answer so to speak.

Someone did ask why not a heretic? I just personally find “heretic” harsh because I think no good comes of that. It can turn people off and drive them further away. I think other labels can as well though.

But there have been questions about why any label? Because on this forum and perhaps even elsewhere, not using a label in such a case can bring about objection.

And it’s all very confusing because I even found 2 CAF apologists don’t agree.

Alwayswill seemed to agree with this first one.

“The Code of Canon Law currently does not recognize that someone can leave the Catholic Church. You might become a non-practicing member, but the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12648280&postcount=2

But then there is this.

Can you be both pro choice and Catholic?

“No, No. The answer is NO!”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8674827&postcount=2
Click to expand...
You sure jump through a lot of hoops to avoid the teachings of Jesus.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Maybe I just find a lot of hoops to jump through.
Click to expand...
Well in ain’t Jesus and His Church, the Catholic Church putting them there.

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
 
Sy_Noe said:
I don’t see how the Catholic Church knows to fight for a Constitutional decision or right to be overturned because it shouldn’t exist if it doesn’t even know whether one exists or not.
Click to expand...
Catholics obviously have opinions, even Catholic scholars and Catholic lawyers. But it is not a matter of Catholic teaching. There is no doctrinal statement that says “the Constitution of the United States does/does not allow a legal right to abortion in the year 2016.” There is one that says that abortion is murder. And since murder is murder, it ought to be illegal.

But whether or not it is illegal in a particular place and at a particular time is just not a doctrinal question. It is possible for the US to make it legal. It is possible for the US to make it illegal. One of these is bad, the other is good, and the Church will speak to that, but what the mere facts of what the law is and whether or not it is being interpreted correctly etc not something that the Church teaches about.

Again, many Catholics, myself included, have strong opinions on the matter (it is my own opinion that this habit of saying that the Constitution grants rights because the judges on the supreme court think it ought to rather than because it actually does is both unsound and harmful, both morally and to the framework of our country, and that many of these rights don’t exist). But again, not a doctrinal question.
 
How about we get out of God’s way and let him work instead of putting people down, insulting them with names an labels?

How about we call them “Future Saints.”

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
How about we get out of God’s way and let him work instead of putting people down, insulting them with names an labels?

How about we call them “Future Saints.”

-Tim-
Click to expand...
To that point we should also not “label” ourselves as Catholic, Lutheran, Hindu, Buddhists, etc.correct?

Religious identify with their order and their habit identifies the community. Why is it important? Because it identifies the spiritual path they follow. There are differences inside and outside of Catholicism.

The labels are not put downs, but simply a way to identify the spiritual path one is on. I no more want to follow Lutheran spirituality then I do Charismatic Catholicism or spirituality of those who reject teachings of the Church. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect them even if I think they are flat out wrong.
 
carefullytread said:
Michael, why do you think this is true? If only 7-10% of Catholics are good Catholics, were the Church were to shrink to her ‘correct’ size, she would be tiny. She would lose her income, close her great sacred spaces, shrink her charitable outreach. All those Catholic hospitals would lose their funding. Yes, a lot of lapsed Catholics don’t donate, but what percentage of the rich donors are fully obedient Catholics who would stay after this purge?

And, more importantly, the Church would lose her voice in society and stop having a real influence in the culture. Yes, the Church doesn’t win ever argument, but she’s still a voice people listen to. It was a big deal when the Pope visited the United States last year. It’s not a big deal if the Russian patriarch were to do so. Being a large religion brings influence.

A Church that shrank by 93% would be a Church correspondingly small and if you think she is a force for good in the world, why would it be good for her to become a tiny sect?
Click to expand...
I’m not Michael Voris

There is a link to the Voris video and to the text
 
Usige said:
To that point we should also not “label” ourselves as Catholic, Lutheran, Hindu, Buddhists, etc.correct?

Religious identify with their order and their habit identifies the community. Why is it important? Because it identifies the spiritual path they follow. There are differences inside and outside of Catholicism.

The labels are not put downs, but simply a way to identify the spiritual path one is on. I no more want to follow Lutheran spirituality then I do Charismatic Catholicism or spirituality of those who reject teachings of the Church. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect them even if I think they are flat out wrong.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about pejorative labels.

Cafeteria, unorthodox, in name only, etc.

These are put downs as surely as the sun rose this morning.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
I’m talking about pejorative labels.

Cafeteria, unorthodox, in name only, etc.

These are put downs as surely as the sun rose this morning.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
So then back to the original question. What should a Catholic who willfully rejects Church teachings call themselves?

It is disingenuous to imply that someone that rejects key teachings follows the same faith as someone who sets aside doubts and their own wants to follow the Church established by Christ. Should we apologize to Lutherans, Hussites, Arians, and any number of others who chose to reject the Church for using pejoratives like heretic and protestant or should we simply admit that there are those amongst us who have left the faith if not the physical building?

If the intent is to embrace them so they return to the faith that is one thing, but many of these are not people who want to return. Instead they want their truth to define God instead of accepting the truth of God as lain out by his Holy Church. If my oldest daughter hadn’t told me point blank that my selfishness was leading me to Hell I likely would have never came to the Church. If being told you are wrong offends, then maybe you need the cold shower of truth to realize you have seperated yourself from the faith.

Pretending that someone who support the murder of children or spitting on the sacrament of marriage is a “future saint” is allowing them to be comfortable while putting their soul in danger of eternal damnation. It is not pejorative to fear the loss of millions of souls by pretending they are simply following a slightly different path to the faith.
 
Usige said:
So then back to the original question. What should a Catholic who willfully rejects Church teachings call themselves?

It is disingenuous to imply that someone that rejects key teachings follows the same faith as someone who sets aside doubts and their own wants to follow the Church established by Christ. Should we apologize to Lutherans, Hussites, Arians, and any number of others who chose to reject the Church for using pejoratives like heretic and protestant or should we simply admit that there are those amongst us who have left the faith if not the physical building?

If the intent is to embrace them so they return to the faith that is one thing, but many of these are not people who want to return. Instead they want their truth to define God instead of accepting the truth of God as lain out by his Holy Church. If my oldest daughter hadn’t told me point blank that my selfishness was leading me to Hell I likely would have never came to the Church. If being told you are wrong offends, then maybe you need the cold shower of truth to realize you have seperated yourself from the faith.

Pretending that someone who support the murder of children or spitting on the sacrament of marriage is a “future saint” is allowing them to be comfortable while putting their soul in danger of eternal damnation. It is not pejorative to fear the loss of millions of souls by pretending they are simply following a slightly different path to the faith.
Click to expand...
Calling people “cafeteria” or “in name only” does neither them nor you any good.
 
TimothyH said:
Calling people “cafeteria” or “in name only” does neither them nor you any good.
Click to expand...
Neither does calling them faithful or orthodox Catholics. In reality they should simply call themselves protestant since they are protesting Church teaching.

Again look at the question. It is about what someone who dissents should label themselves. Is it beneficial for someone who openly and knowingly rejects Church teaching to:


  1. *]think of themselves as faithful despite rejecting Church teachings?
    *] present themselves as providing a faithful witness and thereby lead others down the path of perdition?

    This isn’t about making someone feel bad or myself feel good. It’s about someone presenting false teachings as if they are some how correct. Arius wasn’t declared a heretic to make other feel better, but to warn others that his teachings were not in accord with the Church.

    I have ran into hundreds of Catholics who simply believe that since a priest told them that contraception was okay, that they are faithful to Church teaching. When they are asked if they have heard otherwise most will admit that they have, but this priest understands the world and is merciful. Is that priest doing any good proclaiming something in direct opposition to the clear teaching of the Church? Is he leading people down false paths? Should there not be a way to let the faithful know that he is teaching heterodoxy?

    Are souls lost, or at best put in danger, when someone presents ideas 180 degrees from the Church? That is exactly what happens when a “faithful” or “practicing” Catholic tells people that the Church doesn’t teach the need for confession of absolution.
 
TimothyH said:
I’m talking about pejorative labels.

Cafeteria, unorthodox, in name only, etc.

**These are put downs as surely as the sun rose this morning. **

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Unless their all not. I was a self described Cafeteria Catholic for many years but never considered it a pejorative term at the time. Quite the opposite actually, and at the very least I considered it an accurate description.
 
Call each other or yourselves whatever you want.

I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matthew 12:36-37)

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top