Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[pathia]

I was raised Catholic and don’t know anything else and don’t feel at home anywhere else, despite being made very unwelcome at several congregations I have no where else to go, I guess it’s out of habit?

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Post 28 is what happens when liberalism get’s a hold of religion. They dismiss God, for humanism, yet continue to claim to follow His word.

This is what happens when political ideologies enter the Church.

Post 28 **IS STILL **making false accusations, by the way.

Actually Catholicism and humanism are not mutually exclusive as you are inferring. There is actually quite a bit of overlap in many things. This is just general Golden Rule material about treating others with the same respect you would want to be treated.

 

[estesbob]

Actually Catholicism and humanism are not mutually exclusive as you are inferring. There is actually quite a bit of overlap in many things. This is just general Golden Rule material about treating others with the same respect you would want to be treated.

Problem is way to many confuse “respect” with “acceptance”.

 

[leftistdestroye]

Problem is way to many confuse “respect” with “acceptance”.

If that is directed at me, I would gladly respond. …
Is it? lol

 

[leftistdestroye]

Actually Catholicism and humanism are not mutually exclusive as you are inferring. There is actually quite a bit of overlap in many things. This is just general Golden Rule material about treating others with the same respect you would want to be treated.

Why is gay acceptance(and other things), after all these years, only now, being noticeable? And the last line, I have stated my case to you before. No need to go through it again.

 

[estesbob]

If that is directed at me, I would gladly respond. …
Is it? lol

It was directed at NewUlm-didnt you see his quote right above my response?

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Why is gay acceptance(and other things), after all these years, only now, being noticeable? And the last line, I have stated my case to you before. No need to go through it again.

That would be a topic for a new thread.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Problem is way to many confuse “respect” with “acceptance”.

Actually, respect and acceptance do overlap in many ways. To accept someone as who they are you have to respect them. Respect is a foundation and part of acceptance.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, respect and acceptance do overlap in many ways. To accept someone as who they are you have to respect them. Respect is a foundation and part of acceptance.

Acceptance of sin destroys respect.

 

[leftistdestroye]

It was directed at NewUlm-didnt you see his quote right above my response?

I see the quote, I was just wondering if you have seen some of my posts, and may have …ahh nevermind LOL

 

[leftistdestroye]

That would be a topic for a new thread.

Ok not here to argue that point, but do you get where I was going with it? Or no?

 

[leftistdestroye]

NewUlm1976_2000;3673006]

Actually, respect and acceptance do overlap in many ways. To accept someone as who they are you have to respect them. Respect is a foundation and part of acceptance.

Having said that, why were you debating me on the part in bold in prior threads? My entire point is that: If we go out of our way to respect, then we will accept. And if we accept, we will eventually accept the sin. Our society since the 60’s have proved that time and time and time again. You seem to understand that, yet you want to push it forward. I don’t understand. You are a Catholic, right? Can I ask your political leanings? You can PM if you’'e prefer. Or not at all. Thanks

 

[markomalley]

First, thanks to all for the great responses…on both sides of the argument.

There are a few points I’d like to address, though.

the first two are pretty easy.

the social documents of the last century-plus have been no kinder to capitalism than to socialism, and really up until V2 had been very negative on political liberalism (which we tend to call “democracy”) as a form of government (even there, the Council Fathers mitigated the claims that Murray wanted to make).

While the social documents of the last century-plus have not been kind to liberalism, there is a distinctive difference between so-called classical liberalism and democracy.

Democracy refers to a system of government where individuals have a say in how they are ruled…they can vote on it (with that assumption comes the possibility that they are in the minority, in which case their views become more-or-less irrelevant, depending upon how the majority creates their ruling coalition). Liberalism, on the other hand, is a economic and political system where the individual is the highest authority…and, whether or not the majority agrees, the individual’s rights are sacrosanct and cannot be co-opted by the majority.

The Church has, in fact, been very critical of liberalism. They have warned of the dangers of democracy. But the issues expressed are not the same issues and, properly, should not be considered in the same breath, as you did…(with due respect)

Given that all those options are strenously questioned by the Church, one is certainly going to find oneself in a discussion over proper social organization.

Could you please provide some sources for that assertion. The principle of subsidiarity defines the organization of society fairly well…at least to my limited experience in understanding the writings on that principle.

And given that the church is strongly corporatist in its own self-understanding (e.g., the Body of Christ) it is not surprising either that the political and social vision of Catholics should follow suit.

Well, it’s clear that the social teaching of the Church hasn’t been passed on well.

second, liberation theology has never been condemned.

No, that’s not exactly right. Please look at the CDF documents here .

…

Finally, the idea that if you don’t like everything that happens within a church you should leave strikes me as itself an extremely Protestant attitude. The Church is not the Elks Club. It is not a voluntary society. One does not walk away from the Church that easily, or flippantly. It is an attitude that suggests to me that the so-called conservatives no more understand the concept of catholicity than do the “liberals” who think it all ought to be put to popular vote.

Well, I can understand what you are saying, but, frankly, the attitude of valuing your own opinion over that of the Church seems to me to be EXTREMELY protestant. My point is that if you are confronted with what is clearly a heretical attitude, you face one of three choices:

1. Attempt to understand the teachings of the Church and conform yourself to those teachings.
2. If you are unwilling to do the first, then leave.
3. Attempt to undermine the Church in order to convince her to change her teachings.

Actions 1 & 2 are legitimate positions. Obviously (1) is the best choice, but if one takes choice (2), at least that one is being true to himself. But I find that many are taking choice (3). That denies the authority of the Church and is, to me, egocentric in the extreme. The Church teaches the Truth (capital “T”). The Church is inspired, in doctrine, by the Holy Spirit. Christ has promised that the Church will not fail. It seems to me that efforts to undermine the Church, given the above, are ill-advised, at best. Again, a highly protestant idea. One endorsed by such champions of reason as Marcion and Nestorius.

in the peace of Christ.

-Well, I can only speak for me but for me the “core values” of Catholicism are:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I have no quarrel with any of that. It is what I believe. EVERYTHING else is irrelevant.

Nothing in there about:

• Homosexuality
• Birth Control
• Female ordination
• Social justice

Nothing except, We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You realize that the original says “credo” – i.e., “I believe,” not “we believe”

Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.

If you believe in unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam, then you should trust unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.

If you don’t trust in unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam, then stating each Sunday that you believe is nothing but a lie.

Semper ecclesia reformata,
and if not me, who?

Perhaps you could provide me a reference for that quote.

Because I would think that the Holy Spirit would be the one in charge of reforming the Church, not political pressure.

The real question is why does it bother you? Why do you feel this need for everyone to fall into line and shut up?

I don’t. I really don’t care if anybody shuts up or if they shout it from the rooftops.

But if you can’t accept that which the Church requires you to accept with “divine and Catholic faith,” then why imperil your soul by calling yourself a Catholic?

As far as I know there have only been two issues that have been pronounced infallibly, The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. Have a look at this list of Dogmas:

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

On everything else, discussion is open.

There is that Catechesis question again.

Well, if you look at Humanae Vitae, you will see the magic words, “We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ…” in other words, and infallible teaching.

Again, my question is why do you feel that anyone who disagrees with you should shut up and go away? Who you think people should leave God’s church, no matter how imperfect their understanding of it?

Actually, I don’t. Again.

Please see above comments. I am speaking to those who are convinced they are right and the teachings of the Church are simply wrong…and won’t be bothered to conform their minds to what the Church states.

Unfortunately, I simply don’t have the time to respond to the remainder of the posts, though I do read them. Thanks for the great responses.

 

[Ender]

i thought the initial question was a decent one, even as, or especially because, it was born out of the recognition that they didn’t understand the other side.

I don’t think the problem has to do with each side not understanding the other as it is a general failure to understand what the Church is. There is apparently a belief out there that the Church makes the rules and can change them whenever she wants, so all that is needed is to hang on long enough for a “progressive” pope to come along and throw out all the bad old rules imposed by the misogynistic, homophobic, fuddies running the Vatican.

It is incredible to me that people still believe that there will ever be women priests. No one who believes that has any understanding of the Church. JPII’s statement on the subject, that the “Church has no authority” to ordain women, might as well have been spoken in Klingon.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

LOL She thought that YOU wrote that!!(the Pope quote) LOL Now you know what she really thinks! LOLOL

To be technically accurate, estesbob did not quote a Pope. Estesbob quoted a Cardinal, in an officially unreleased communication with the Bishops of the USCCB.

FWIW, I did quote two popes. The distinction matters (to me at least), because of what we Catholics believe about the rightful successor to Peter.

 

[SoCalRC]

Acceptance of sin destroys respect.

Then why do you apply the concept of proportionate reasons to the infallibly grave moral disorder of abortion?

 

[SoCalRC]

It is incredible to me that people still believe that there will ever be women priests. No one who believes that has any understanding of the Church. JPII’s statement on the subject, that the “Church has no authority” to ordain women, might as well have been spoken in Klingon.

Is any other faction really any different? You have argued that the death penalty is beyond the Pope’s moral authority and that prudential teachings, even strenously emphasized are not binding on you.

Similiarly, look at the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics. Nine non negotiable moral principles in voting from Rome become 5, with only two complete overlaps. As if, somehow, Catholicism can be wholly detached from the teachings of Christ (when even the word Gospel is derived from the Greek for ‘Good News’).

Just as Protestantism sought to seperate the Faith from the primacy of the Church, extreme Evangelicalism appears to seek seperation of the Protestantism from the Lord’s earthly ministry. The argument is that what the Lord instructed us to do is not important, only the acceptance of His nature is required.

But Catholicism without Christ, like Catholicism without the Vicar of Christ, is illogical, no matter how immersed our culture becomes in Evangelicalism.

 

[Ender]

Is any other faction really any different? You have argued that the death penalty is beyond the Pope’s moral authority…

That you continue to believe this despite my repeated denials is not a problem I can resolve.

… and that prudential teachings, even strenously emphasized are not binding on you.

Well, you got this one right. You can demonstrate that my position is incorrect by citing any Church document that defines the assent that a prudential teaching must be accorded. Please though, only refer to comments about prudential teachings; I am well aware of the obligations to the other three forms and they are not at issue here.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

That you continue to believe this despite my repeated denials is not a problem I can resolve.

I can only go by what you say. You have even asserted that the Pope and the bishops are wrong in their application of Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture with regards to the death penalty, but your assertions about the Pope’s authority in evaluating local conditions seemed less damning to bring up.

Well, you got this one right. You can demonstrate that my position is incorrect by citing any Church document that defines the assent that a prudential teaching must be accorded.

I have, many times:

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - LUMEN GENTIUM

This is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Look at the multiple fronts here. When the bishops teach in unity with the Pope they are teaching with the “authority of Christ”. We are instructed to “accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent”.

It goes further, and notes that special reverence is due to the teachings of the Pope, “even when he is not speaking ex cathedra”. That is, even when he is not teaching infallibly. And, it notes that the more emphasis the teaching has, the more important it is to demonstrate the “religious submission of mind”.

With regards to the death penalty, we have a teaching that was introduced by Encyclical. Not just any Encyclical, but one which asserted some teachings to be infallible (via the Church, not papal authority). The teaching appears in the universal Catechism, and more forcefully in our local Catechism. The Pope spoke forcefully about the matter while visiting the United States, and the US bishops overwhelmingly support and promote the teaching.

I have heard some novel arguments against this - ranging from ‘the Pope was wrong’ to ‘this isn’t a question of faith and morals’. But all those arguments question the authority of Rome, because it was the Pope that asserted that the issue was a matter of faith and morals:

“If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.” - First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ

As I have noted many times, it is not the disagreement with Rome that bothers me most - though I would prefer that all Catholics search for unity with Rome. It is the justification of a position by attempting to undermine the authority of the Pope and the Bishops that troubles me most.

 

[johnlal]

Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

I don’t anymore, mostly because of comments like this one.

I called myself a Catholic because a Catholic priest baptized me.

I stopped calling myself a Catholic because people like you don’t think I pass the purity test. And maybe I don’t.

What was once one church has become thousands upon thousands of cults, sects and denominations of people who call themselves Christian. Each division was caused by disagreements between people who believed in Christ. It is human nature to cause divisions and rifts between people, I suppose. I cannot imagine that the divisions and disagreements will stop any time soon.

If the collection plate feels light next week, it’s probably because another dissenter has stopped calling himself a Catholic.