Covert divisions within the RCC

[Roamin_Xian]

As an Episcopalian, I’ve suffered anguish over the recent events in the United States and Canada. No doubt, much hullabaloo has been made by Roman Catholics about the fading star of the Anglican Communion.

I’ll admit- my Church’s divisions are right out in the open, for everyone to see and gawk at. But in the wake of the recent presidential elections, I think Catholics should be cautious about cheering for Anglicanism’s pains. 54% of Roman Catholics, I recall, voted for Barack Obama. (Most pro-abortio candidate of recent memory, if I am correct)

Other matters? Many Roman Catholics…

• Support married clergy and female priests
• Support Homosexual rights and marriages
• Promote democratic voting for bishops
• Don’t believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or the Real presence, among other doctrines

There are major divisions within that and other Christian Communions. It justs eems that conflucts are more open in the Anglican and Protestant worlds. I wonder when the RCC will schism over philosophical differences? I believe there is a term called “Amchurch”

 

[Prague]

I for one am not cheering about the problems of your faith, and so far, none of my Catholic friends are either.
Our divisisions are not covert, they are right out there in the open like yours.
I wish you well and Peace in your faith.

 

[mark_a]

As an Episcopalian, I’ve suffered anguish over the recent events in the United States and Canada. No doubt, much hullabaloo has been made by Roman Catholics about the fading star of the Anglican Communion.

I’ll admit- my Church’s divisions are right out in the open, for everyone to see and gawk at. But in the wake of the recent presidential elections, I think Catholics should be cautious about cheering for Anglicanism’s pains. 54% of Roman Catholics, I recall, voted for Barack Obama. (Most pro-abortio candidate of recent memory, if I am correct)

Other matters? Many Roman Catholics…

• Support married clergy and female priests
• Support Homosexual rights and marriages
• Promote democratic voting for bishops
• Don’t believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or the Real presence, among other doctrines"

What the Catholic Church teaches, and what Catholics do are sometimes two different things. The Church is a teaching office.

There are major divisions within that and other Christian Communions. It justs eems that conflucts are more open in the Anglican and Protestant worlds. I wonder when the RCC will schism over philosophical differences? I believe there is a term called "Amchurch

The Catholic Church can’t “split”. Folks believe what she teaches or voluntarily place themselves outside the Church.

 

[ralphinal]

As an Episcopalian, I’ve suffered anguish over the recent events in the United States and Canada. No doubt, much hullabaloo has been made by Roman Catholics about the fading star of the Anglican Communion.

I’ll admit- my Church’s divisions are right out in the open, for everyone to see and gawk at. But in the wake of the recent presidential elections, I think Catholics should be cautious about cheering for Anglicanism’s pains. 54% of Roman Catholics, I recall, voted for Barack Obama. (Most pro-abortio candidate of recent memory, if I am correct)

Other matters? Many Roman Catholics…

• Support married clergy and female priests
• Support Homosexual rights and marriages
• Promote democratic voting for bishops
• Don’t believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or the Real presence, among other doctrines

There are major divisions within that and other Christian Communions. It justs eems that conflucts are more open in the Anglican and Protestant worlds. I wonder when the RCC will schism over philosophical differences? I believe there is a term called “Amchurch”

The numbers change greatly when you ask Catholics who attend mass weekly. For example, Catholics who attend mass weekly voted for McCain 58%, those who do not attend weekly voted Obama 68%.

THe same holds true for the other issues, especially Transubstantiation.

Basically, if you do not attend Church, why the hell do you call yourself Catholic?

 

[Roamin_Xian]

The numbers change greatly when you ask Catholics who attend mass weekly. For example, Catholics who attend mass weekly voted for McCain 58%, those who do not attend weekly voted Obama 68%.

THe same holds true for the other issues, especially Transubstantiation.

Basically, if you do not attend Church, why the hell do you call yourself Catholic?

That’s a good question, one which Andrew Greeley discussed in some of his work. As he put it, “There is precious little” that the RC hierarchy can do to change people’s views- frankly, most Catholics LIKE being Catholic: liberals, conservatives, etc

 

[wisdomseeker]

As an Episcopalian, I’ve suffered anguish over the recent events in the United States and Canada. No doubt, much hullabaloo has been made by Roman Catholics about the fading star of the Anglican Communion.

I’ll admit- my Church’s divisions are right out in the open, for everyone to see and gawk at. But in the wake of the recent presidential elections, I think Catholics should be cautious about cheering for Anglicanism’s pains. 54% of Roman Catholics, I recall, voted for Barack Obama. (Most pro-abortio candidate of recent memory, if I am correct)

Other matters? Many Roman Catholics…

• Support married clergy and female priests
• Support Homosexual rights and marriages
• Promote democratic voting for bishops
• Don’t believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or the Real presence, among other doctrines

There are major divisions within that and other Christian Communions. It justs eems that conflucts are more open in the Anglican and Protestant worlds. I wonder when the RCC will schism over philosophical differences? I believe there is a term called “Amchurch”

and where are the divisions?

if Catholics disobey the Church’s it doesnt mean there is division in the Church. the Church still teaches the same thing, she has not changed. people do not make the decisions, the Church does.

Peace!

 

[ralphinal]

That’s a good question, one which Andrew Greeley discussed in some of his work. As he put it, “There is precious little” that the RC hierarchy can do to change people’s views- frankly, most Catholics LIKE being Catholic: liberals, conservatives, etc

If one actually liked being Catholic, then he would BE CATHOLIC. Many Catholics are Catholics by culture not Catholics by Faith. However, Catholicism is not genetic. It is something that we choose. If we choose it, and deny the teachings of the faith, we are idiots.

What the Church can and should do is to consistantly preach its teachings. Then, begin to encourage those who disagree to kindly find somewhere else to be heretics. That way, those who are trying to learn the correct things are not pulled astray.

 

[Steadfast]

The Protestant model: A believer disagrees with church doctrine and refuses to repent and agree with the church. He then does one of three things: he either stays and makes a nuisance of himself, leaves of his own accord or is asked to leave (is excommunicated) and either finds a new church to join or starts a new one.

The Catholic model: A believer disagrees with church doctrine and refuses to repent and agree with the church. He then does one of three things: he either stays and makes a nuisance of himself, leaves of his own accord or is asked to leave (is excommunicated) and either finds a new church to join or starts a new one.

In either case the new church that our hypothetical believer joins or starts claims either equal validity over the claims of the church he left or superiority over them (in some case a claim to exclusivity is also made.

The church he left continues to maintain its own validity and either may or may not recognize the church the malcontent left to join or form.

See? No difference.

 

[ralphinal]

The Protestant model: A believer disagrees with church doctrine and refuses to repent and agree with the church. He then does one of three things: he either stays and makes a nuisance of himself, leaves of his own accord or is asked to leave (is excommunicated) and either finds a new church to join or starts a new one.

The Catholic model: A believer disagrees with church doctrine and refuses to repent and agree with the church. He then does one of three things: he either stays and makes a nuisance of himself, leaves of his own accord or is asked to leave (is excommunicated) and either finds a new church to join or starts a new one.

In either case the new church that our hypothetical believer joins or starts claims either equal validity over the claims of the church he left or superiority over them (in some case a claim to exclusivity is also made.

The church he left continues to maintain its own validity and either may or may not recognize the church the malcontent left to join or form.

See? No difference.

Well, there is one that you left out. That Catholic person may continue to call himself Catholic, assuming that he does not join another church.

Otherwise, I agree.

 

[mark_a]

Your observations below are interesting but incomplete.

The Protestant model: A believer disagrees with church doctrine and refuses to repent and agree with the church. He then does one of three things: he either stays and makes a nuisance of himself, leaves of his own accord or is asked to leave (is excommunicated)

and either finds a new church to join or starts a new one

(add) because that’s how his church did it.

In either case the new church that our hypothetical believer joins or starts claims either equal validity over the claims of the church he left or superiority over them (in some case a claim to exclusivity is also made.

The church he left continues to maintain its own validity and either may or may not recognize the church the malcontent left to join or form.

Catholics excommunicate themselves by denying the teaching of the magisterium. The Church only affirms that excommunication has happened. Part of being a Catholic is knowing that you are not to deny or reject the teaching of the magisterium. We have real final authority that is unachievable in the “scripture interprets itself” world of Protestantism.

See? No difference.

Many mainline Protestants I know church hop or shop “to find a Church that suits them”, and as far as I can tell, their ministers don’t have quite the negative reaction unless they are hopping to a Catholic Church.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Your observations below are interesting but incomplete.
(add) because that’s how his church did it.

Catholics excommunicate themselves by denying the teaching of the magisterium. The Church only affirms that excommunication has happened. Part of being a Catholic is knowing that you are not to deny or reject the teaching of the magisterium. We have real final authority that is unachievable in the “scripture interprets itself” world of Protestantism.

Many mainline Protestants I know church hop or shop “to find a Church that suits them”, and as far as I can tell, their ministers don’t have quite the negative reaction unless they are hopping to a Catholic Church.

 

[Ahimsa]

There are major divisions within that and other Christian Communions…I wonder when the RCC will schism over philosophical differences? I believe there is a term called “Amchurch”

The Church has schismed already, many times.

Oriental Churches (e.g., Copts) split from Catholic-Orthodox Church: 400s

Catholicism splits from Orthodoxy: 1000s-1400s

Protestantism splits from Catholicism: 1500s

Old Catholic Church splits from Catholicism: 1800s

However, there won’t be a major split in the Catholic over issues like married clergy, women priests, democratic governing, etc., because other churches already offer these practices, and a disaffected Catholic can more easily join one of those churches rather than try to cause schism.

 

[Steadfast]

(add) because that’s how his church did it.

That’s how its been done since the church began.

Catholics excommunicate themselves by denying the teaching of the magisterium. The Church only affirms that excommunication has happened. Part of being a Catholic is knowing that you are not to deny or reject the teaching of the magisterium. We have real final authority that is unachievable in the “scripture interprets itself” world of Protestantism.

And yet many of them remain, considering themselves Catholic and receive communion regularly.

This is not a point whether the heretic excommunicates himself or is officially de-sanctioned by the church; the upshot is the same.

Many mainline Protestants I know church hop or shop “to find a Church that suits them”, and as far as I can tell, their ministers don’t have quite the negative reaction unless they are hopping to a Catholic Church.

Actually, “mainline Protestants” are not likely to have much of a problem with someone becoming Catholic. It’s the fundamentalists and the Reformed that tend to go nuts over that sort of thing.

At any rate, Catholics too hop and shop to “find churches that suit them”.

+++

You haven’t really proven that there is any essential difference between the Catholic and the Protestant Churches when it comes to dealing with heterodoxy.

The RCC is rather loud (sometimes) in claiming to be the only true church, and that puts a different color on the process, but it remains that some Protestants have their own variations on this theme (they may be reluctant to declare exclusivity but many never shy away from expressing belief in their superiority). Anyway, putting a different color on it doesn’t change the fact that the mechanics are exactly the same.

 

[yellowbicycle]

I’m not cheering Roamin.
As a matter of fact, I said a great many prayers for the Anglicans, that they could again stand as a united church.
My prayers are still with you and the rest of the Anglican church.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

As an Episcopalian, I’ve suffered anguish over the recent events in the United States and Canada. No doubt, much hullabaloo has been made by Roman Catholics about the fading star of the Anglican Communion.

I’ll admit- my Church’s divisions are right out in the open, for everyone to see and gawk at. But in the wake of the recent presidential elections, I think Catholics should be cautious about cheering for Anglicanism’s pains. 54% of Roman Catholics, I recall, voted for Barack Obama. (Most pro-abortio candidate of recent memory, if I am correct)

Other matters? Many Roman Catholics…

• Support married clergy and female priests
• Support Homosexual rights and marriages
• Promote democratic voting for bishops
• Don’t believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or the Real presence, among other doctrines

There are major divisions within that and other Christian Communions. It justs eems that conflucts are more open in the Anglican and Protestant worlds. I wonder when the RCC will schism over philosophical differences? I believe there is a term called “Amchurch”

Your points apply to Catholics who are not following their faith.

The difference is that Anglican leaders are making controversial decisions for the entire Church that are contrary to tradition and the bible.

Catholic dogma is consistent.

 

[mark_a]

That’s how its been done since the church began.

Which church?

At any rate, Catholics too hop and shop to “find churches that suit them”.

If you are talking about from one Catholic Church to another, you are correct. But the non-negotiables are the same from one Catholic Church to another. Not so with denom-hopping protestants looking for a church to suit them.

As an example, if I move to a small town with a couple of Baptist, Methodistist, Presbeterian, and Orthodox churches, and only one Catholic Church, I know before I even move there that I am going to the Catholic Church. No matter how bad the music, how much of a jerk the pastor, how sloppy the rcia program, etc.

You haven’t really proven that there is any essential difference between the Catholic and the Protestant Churches when it comes to dealing with heterodoxy.

True, I’ve gotten off the subject. Maybe we should go back to the good old days when opposing Christians burnt each other as heretics.

The RCC is rather loud (sometimes) in claiming to be the only true church, and that puts a different color on the process,

This is a difficult teaching even for Catholics to accept. The orthodox make this claaim too, by the way. But in the end, there can be only one Church that Jesus left here as his body.

but it remains that some Protestants have their own variations on this theme (they may be reluctant to declare exclusivity but many never shy away from expressing belief in their superiority).

But they have no cedibility if the don’t claim exclusivity and an infallible teaching office. As I’ve said, these are difficult teachings. The Catholic Church would be filled if not for these teachings and her teachings concerning moral theology.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

As an Episcopalian, I’ve suffered anguish over the recent events in the United States and Canada. No doubt, much hullabaloo has been made by Roman Catholics about the fading star of the Anglican Communion.

I’ll admit- my Church’s divisions are right out in the open, for everyone to see and gawk at. But in the wake of the recent presidential elections, I think Catholics should be cautious about cheering for Anglicanism’s pains.

Agreed - to gloat over the troubles of others is revolting - & certainly not loving. OTOH, it is entirely compatible with hatred. ​

54% of Roman Catholics, I recall, voted for Barack Obama. (Most pro-abortio candidate of recent memory, if I am correct)

What of it ? What is that evidence of - if of anything ?​

Other matters? Many Roman Catholics…

• Support married clergy

This is a matter of discipline - not of faith. The fact that obedience is required both to the Church’s discipline, & in accepting its doctrine, should not confuse people into thinking that discipline & doctrine are themselves the same. That the same virtue of obedience is required, does not make the objects for which obedience is required identical.​

Some matters of discipline are unchangeable - some are changeable. Though very long-standing, this matter of discipline is in principle changeable.

and female priests

The prohibition on ordaining women to the priesthood is a matter of doctrine, as well as discipline. So it is not the same sort of issue as priestly marriage - one can favour one while rejecting the other​

• Support Homosexual rights and marriages

Again, the two are not the same thing - they are in principle entirely separate. Homosexuals do have rights, & it is entirely wrong to treat them as subhuman filth, as they often have been. One of the most repellent features of parts of US Christianity is the demonising of homosexuals - its very dangerous; for, so long as we demonise others, so long are we unlikely to notice the hell of corruption & rottenness in our own hearts (as Dorothy Sayers pointed out).​

What many homosexuals think of as rights, is another matter entirely - the two must never be confused. Rejection of one, must not be not rejection of both.

• Promote democratic voting for bishops

Bishops used to be chosen by the faithful - the US RC experience of the trusteeism controversy should not be allowed to obscure this.​

• Don’t believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or the Real presence, among other doctrines

So ? The evidence for what is called disbelief in this dogma may be less reliable than it seems: many self-styled “orthodox” are, to judge from their words, heretical in regards to this dogma in other ways. Words are a poor way of communicating what a person truly believes, & the questions we answer govern the answers we give (as pollsters know) - so the alleged disbelief in this dogma may be less or more prevalent than the stats indicate.​

In this life, perfect “orthodoxy” is probably unattainable - even if it were attained, that is not the same as saying that God can be comprehensively known: He can’t. Our ignorance will always far exceed our knowledge. So it is just as well we are not saved by either, but by faith.

If you want perfect uniformity in the Church - which is not the same as unity - the only way to obtain it is by coercion. But the jackboot is not part of the Christian’s armour; to make it so, is to degrade the character of faith, & to make faith in Christ a mere ideology

There are major divisions within that and other Christian Communions. It justs eems that conflucts are more open in the Anglican and Protestant worlds. I wonder when the RCC will schism over philosophical differences? I believe there is a term called “Amchurch”