How is unity defined in the RCC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inquirer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Inquirer

Guest
Hi folks,

I’m new and was wondering how unity is defined in the RCC. There is much talk that SS has spawned the creation of numerous protestants churches but isn’t the RCC also rather fragmented?

I was told that there are at least these 4 factions -

(1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholic involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal)
(2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism)
(3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals)
(4) Spiritist Catholicism (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults)

What do you know about their existence and what resources is there on this? How would you define a Catholic?
 
By “Unity” we mean people praticing (to the best of their ability) the Catholic Faith, in both belief and conduct.

The Catholic Church does not endorse or condone any of the abuses you mention. To the extent that Catholics practice these non-Catholic habits, they are not in complete unity with the Catholic Church.

Of course, the same could be said for Catholic murderers, etc. Nobody is in complete and full unity with the Church (because we all are sinners), so perfect unity is impossible (individually speaking). Some folks are less united than others.

I should clarify that Catholic Charasmatics are not necessairily acting contrary to unity. The Church has not expressly forbidden charasmatic worship services, and it is possible to conduct such worship in harmony with Catholic teaching (although I think it is something that can easily lead to abuse and thus disunity). There are, of course, different and valid spiritual expressions and practices (we see this in Religious Orders: Benedictines have a different spiritual perspectives and expressions than Dominicans than Jesuits than Fransiscians than Carmelites), so it could be said that charasmatic spirituality is simply a different form of spiritual expression which, as I have said, has not been forbidden. There is room for some degree of individuality without impacting unity.
 
40.png
DavidFilmer:
By “Unity” we mean people praticing (to the best of their ability) the Catholic Faith, in both belief and conduct.

The Catholic Church does not endorse or condone any of the abuses you mention. To the extent that Catholics practice these non-Catholic habits, they are not in complete unity with the Catholic Church.

Of course, the same could be said for Catholic murderers, etc. Nobody is in complete and full unity with the Church (because we all are sinners), so perfect unity is impossible (individually speaking). Some folks are less united than others.
Click to expand...
You might want to qualify your statement a bit, as it sounds as if you have lumped all four of his questions into one blanket remark that they are non-Catholic.

Catholic Pentacostals, or Catholic Charismatics are certainly approved by Rome. They are simply individuals who have a particular devotion to the Holy Spirit, and among whom there are manifestations of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Unless there is a subset of Catholic Evnagelicals I am not aware of, it would seem to me that they are only following the direction of JP2, who has urged (as did Vatican 2) the faithful to spread the Good News.

Your comments are appropriate to the other two sub sets, however.
 
40.png
otm:
You might want to qualify your statement a bit…
Click to expand...
Yes, I was editing my statement as you were typing yours.

I’m not actually sure what a Catholic Evangelical is (and I’m from the Southeast, big Evangelical country). I’ve never heard the term. I assumed it was a Catholic who also accepted common Evangelical teachings (like Sola Scriptura, maybe).
 
40.png
DavidFilmer:
Yes, I was editing my statement as you were typing yours.

I’m not actually sure what a Catholic Evangelical is (and I’m from the Southeast, big Evangelical country). I’ve never heard the term. I assumed it was a Catholic who also accepted common Evangelical teachings (like Sola Scriptura, maybe).
Click to expand...
You mean, I scored a “gotcha!”?

I have not heard of the term either, but I would presume it was simply Catholics who are willing to actually say something about their faith to someone other than another Catholic.

I will admit they are a strange and rare breed, though.
 
OK thanks.

Can I add a follow on?

Would this be an example of disunity?

An example: there are some Roman Catholics who believe it is wrong for the sacristy to be located any place but directly behind the altar. There are others who believe that using altar girls is wrong. Still others believe lay-ministers are not to administer the Eucharist. Still others believe that the mass should be sung, not spoken—and in some cases the singing should be in other languages than English (the Byzantine church comes to mind). Still others believe that the Eucharist should be placed on the tongue and not in the hand. Still others believe that it’s wrong for the music during mass to be led by guitars and drums. We could go on and on and on with this. One need only peruse through Peter Stravinskas’ Q&A section in the latest edition of Our Sunday Visitor’s ‘The Catholic Answer’ to see the extent of the confusion that abounds in Roman Catholic belief about these things. Presumably, all of these Roman Catholics believe what they believe based on the “true” teachings of Rome. Thus, they severed from their previous Roman denomination which would not accept their current beliefs. And on and on it goes." See how well two can play at this game?
 
… and a bit more.

With Roman Catholicism, however, it is a much different story. Roman Catholics are allowed to believe in macro evolution, that the Scriptures contain errors, that the gospel accounts are examples of theological redaction rather than historical accounts, etc.; things which we as Evangelicals can outright condemn based on our common belief in the Scriptures as our final infallible authority, but which Roman Catholics cannot condemn because, like it or not, those within the Roman church who embrace these things have themselves been embraced by Rome. And so, at the end of the day, the Roman Catholic can’t be certain about anything he believes as a Roman Catholic because each of those cherished beliefs have been challenged at one level or another by one group or another, each of whom claims to be in communion with Rome. How about that for a dilemma!"
 
40.png
Inquirer:
OK thanks.

Can I add a follow on?

Would this be an example of disunity?

An example: there are some Roman Catholics who believe it is wrong for the sacristy to be located any place but directly behind the altar. There are others who believe that using altar girls is wrong. Still others believe lay-ministers are not to administer the Eucharist. Still others believe that the mass should be sung, not spoken—and in some cases the singing should be in other languages than English (the Byzantine church comes to mind). Still others believe that the Eucharist should be placed on the tongue and not in the hand. Still others believe that it’s wrong for the music during mass to be led by guitars and drums. We could go on and on and on with this. One need only peruse through Peter Stravinskas’ Q&A section in the latest edition of Our Sunday Visitor’s ‘The Catholic Answer’ to see the extent of the confusion that abounds in Roman Catholic belief about these things. Presumably, all of these Roman Catholics believe what they believe based on the “true” teachings of Rome. Thus, they severed from their previous Roman denomination which would not accept their current beliefs. And on and on it goes." See how well two can play at this game?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between substance and accident (as used as philosophical terms).

The substance, for example, since you use much around the Mass, is that Christ is made truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity through the Consecration. Arguing with that means you are arguing with the essence of what being Cathoilic is all about.

Arguing about how Communion is distributed, or who carries the candles (boy or girl), or where the sacristy is, or the tabernacle, is arguing not about essence, but about accidentals, issues that are disciplinary, are in large part about custom, which is a way of doing things. People may get very heated about it, but it doesn’t go to the heart of what it means to be Catholic (in spite of what a few of them might say).For 8 or 9 centuries, we didn’t even have tabernacles.
Some people (some Catholics included) can not distinguish between what is truly substance, and what is merely a cultural or accidental. Others put too much emphasis on the accidentals. But that does not mean that there is not unity within the issues of substance.
 
40.png
Inquirer:
… and a bit more.

With Roman Catholicism, however, it is a much different story. Roman Catholics are allowed to believe in macro evolution, that the Scriptures contain errors, that the gospel accounts are examples of theological redaction rather than historical accounts, etc.; things which we as Evangelicals can outright condemn based on our common belief in the Scriptures as our final infallible authority, but which Roman Catholics cannot condemn because, like it or not, those within the Roman church who embrace these things have themselves been embraced by Rome. And so, at the end of the day, the Roman Catholic can’t be certain about anything he believes as a Roman Catholic because each of those cherished beliefs have been challenged at one level or another by one group or another, each of whom claims to be in communion with Rome. How about that for a dilemma!"
Click to expand...
Actually, a Catholic can be quite certain of what he or she believes. You should at least take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Although it is not always written in the most easy to understand language, it is consistent with 2000 years of history of Catholic thought. The next time you are at, say, a Barnes & Noble, go over to the religious section and take a quick look through it. Look also at the footnotes. They might surprise you.

And you might be surprised how much we hold to Scripture. There is great misunderstanding in our use of the term Tradition, but Tradition as the Catholic Church understands it is not some separate line of thought; it is the understanding the Church received through the Apostles, and those they handed the Faith on to, all of which centers around that challenge Christ gave to His Apostles: “Who do you say I am?”. Further, until there was finally a consensus as to what books were actually part of the Bible and which weren’t, there was no Bible; there were various writings, many of which were accepted by all the churches, some of which were not fully accepted for sever hundred years, and there was the Faith handed down. That Faith handed down is what we call Tradition.
 
40.png
Inquirer:
Hi folks,

I’m new and was wondering how unity is defined in the RCC. There is much talk that SS has spawned the creation of numerous protestants churches but isn’t the RCC also rather fragmented?

I was told that there are at least these 4 factions -

who told you this? always demand a source and attribution and make the person making such a charge give you solid evidence and sources for such statements.

(1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholic involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal)

The Catholic Charismatic Renewal deliberately avoids the label pentecostal to avoid comparison with fundamentalist protestant pentecostal sects that emphasize the more emotional dramatic manifestations of the some gifts of the spirit, like tongues, as opposed to the Life in the Spirit mentality of releasing the gifts that are meant to build up the Church. While some of those who were part of this movement in its early days have since left the Church, for the most part anyone involved in the CCR today is orthodox in prayer, practice and belief.

(2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism)

while I am sure there may be some isolated groups who practice such deviations as santeria, anyone who clings to any pagan worship or practice is not Catholic, by definition, and anyone who attempts a syncretism of pagan and superficially Catholic elements in a blend of supersition is by definition heretic, so this does not characterize Catholicism in any way shape or form.

(3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals)

don’t know what you mean by this, unless you are referring to notable converts from evangelical wings of various protestant sects, who bring their devotion and knowledge of the bible with them in their current service to the Church, Scott Hahn would be an example, but he has said many times he is NOT evangelical in a sectarian sense.

(4) Spiritist Catholicism (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults)

again, not sure what you mean by this, but anyone involved in spiritualism (the occult, trying to contact the dead by occult means) is by definition not Catholic and promoting heresy, so this does not describe anything Catholic, by any means. I am sure there are people who have been raised Catholic, who may still identify themselves as Catholic who are involved in pagan or new age movements, but they are certainly not Catholic objectively, either in worship or practice.

What do you know about their existence and what resources is there on this? How would you define a Catholic?
Click to expand...
I would define a Catholic (over the age of reason) as one who has been initiated into the Catholic faith and who holds, believes and attempts to practice all that the Catholic Church teaches. An infant (below the age of reason) baptized in the Catholic faith of its parents, is also Catholic, having had not opportunity to deviate from the faith.
 
40.png
Inquirer:
Would this be an example of disunity?.. some Roman Catholics who believe it is wrong for the sacristy to be located any place but directly behind the altar.
Click to expand...
Surely you mean the Tabernacle, not the sacristy (which is the dessing room and storage closet).
There are others who believe that using altar girls is wrong. Still others believe lay-ministers are not to administer the Eucharist. Still others believe that the mass should be sung, not spoken—and in some cases the singing should be in other languages than English (the Byzantine church comes to mind). Still others believe that the Eucharist should be placed on the tongue and not in the hand. Still others believe that it’s wrong for the music during mass to be led by guitars and drums.
Click to expand...
There have been many changes in style of church construction, forms of worship, etc (these things can and do change from time to time, unlike doctrine, which never changes).

Anytime you change something, you have some folks who like the changes and some who prefer the old ways. But these are matters of preferences, not questions of doctrines. I don’t know any Catholic who says the position of the Tabernacle affects the validity of the Mass.

You can’t please everybody all of the time. Not everyone may like the opening hymn or Father’s sermon. This is not disunity. Now, some folks might make a stink about things, and cause disunity by stirring up resentment against practices that are lawfully permitted by the Church. This is sinful on their part (specifically a sin against unity), and, of course, to the extent that someone sins, they are not in unity with the Church.

Your list, however, does include some common abuses. Unfortunately, some parishes choose to abuse some of the newer practices. For example, the use of Eucharistic Ministers is often abused. These are “extraordinary” ministers of the Sacrament - they are supposed to be used only when the circumstances prevent the “ordinary” ministers (ie, the priest) from effectively ministering to his flock. In many parishes, EMs are used when the priest could easily fulfill the responsibility himself, which is an abuse.

Also, reception on the tounge is the “normative” means of reception in the Church (this is the means the Church promotes). Reception in the hand is allowed by “indult” (mening the Church tolerates it, but specifically does NOT encourage it or promote it). But, in most parishes, reception in the hand seems to be the normative means, which is not as it should be.
 
Thanks folks. So squabbles are inconsequential if they are about discipline i.e accidentals, rather than … ? Substance?
 
40.png
Inquirer:
OK thanks.

Can I add a follow on?

Would this be an example of disunity?

An example: there are some Roman Catholics who believe it is wrong for the sacristy to be located any place but directly behind the altar. There are others who believe that using altar girls is wrong. Still others believe lay-ministers are not to administer the Eucharist. Still others believe that the mass should be sung, not spoken—and in some cases the singing should be in other languages than English (the Byzantine church comes to mind). Still others believe that the Eucharist should be placed on the tongue and not in the hand. Still others believe that it’s wrong for the music during mass to be led by guitars and drums. We could go on and on and on with this. One need only peruse through Peter Stravinskas’ Q&A section in the latest edition of Our Sunday Visitor’s ‘The Catholic Answer’ to see the extent of the confusion that abounds in Roman Catholic belief about these things. Presumably, all of these Roman Catholics believe what they believe based on the “true” teachings of Rome. Thus, they severed from their previous Roman denomination which would not accept their current beliefs. And on and on it goes." See how well two can play at this game?
Click to expand...
Inquirer,
It may be that some of your information is out of date. Father Stravinskas has not been with OSV for a few years now.
As a few other posters have explained, there is a very large difference between Dogma, Doctrine and discipline. And, yes, being fallen human beings, sometimes we Catholics disagree over “form” and “accidents.”
But your original post asked about Catholic unity.
As far as your four original “categories” of Catholics, only the charismatic renewal is expicitly approved, but it is also defined. I have never heard of any of the others, and I give them no credibility, as you supplied no Church documentation of their existence or clear definition of what you meant.
Our dogma and doctrine is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is unchangeable and must be accepted by all faithful Catholics. The Catechism also contains discipline and form that can change, and that is clearly stated.
There are Catholics who have been baptized in the Church, wish to be identified as Catholic but do not accept ALL of the doctrine and dogma. We call these people “cafeteria Catholics,” and they, by their actions, have separated themselves from the Church, whether they think they have or not.
But the true unity of the Catholic Church is the greatest givt our Lord left us: Himself. The Eucharist, the “Source and Summit of Christian faith,” is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, which he allowes mere mortal men to confect when acting for him in his person. Nothing else even comes close to Communion with our Lord.
Please, if you have questions, either just ask them without comments you have received from other sources or inform yourself from authentic Catholic sources without looking for disunity in Catholic Q & A publications.
You can find plenty of argument on these boards, but not to the point of fracturing the Church.
The Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Catholic Church. We have our Lord’s word on it.
 
Although several have correctly identified the Eucharist as the outstanding source of our unity as Catholics, no one has mentioned that Catholics recognize the authoritive role of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and stand in union with him and what he teaches.
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
Although several have correctly identified the Eucharist as the outstanding source of our unity as Catholics, no one has mentioned that Catholics recognize the authoritive role of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and stand in union with him and what he teaches.
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe this is the defining factor, isn’t it?
 
Please, if you have questions, either just ask them without comments you have received from other sources or inform yourself from authentic Catholic sources without looking for disunity in Catholic Q & A publications.
You can find plenty of argument on these boards, but not to the point of fracturing the Church.
The Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Catholic Church. We have our Lord’s word on it.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I was given this article and was wondering about it. I searched for the definition of unity but was not very successful. In my search to find the answers, I think I may even have bumped into the original article which I believe was by this chap called David Barret.

He took offence at the claim that there were some 30,000 denominations of protestantism. In response, he seems to have fabricated catholic denominations. Why do people do this? Sigh …
 
There is greater disunity between high and low church Episcopalians than there is between any two given Catholics.

The fact is that in the United States we not only have a greater diversity (ouch, sorry about that word) of physical or geographical regions, we also have an unbelievable number of cultures, traditions, socioeconomic classes, political affiliations, educational status, etc.

Unlike, say, Ireland, (though we have plenty of Catholics of Irish ancestry), the US history of Catholicism is perhaps 400 years old at most (thanks to the Spanish), and that only in a few places, as opposed to Ireland with an approximately 1500 year period of country or region wide practice by THE MAJORITY. Catholics have been minorities in more than half of the US throughout its history.

Even in Ireland one had the “celtic” Christians and the more “latin” Christians during various times. . .yet, given time, they produced the magnificence of Irish Catholicism that reached its zenith perhaps in the 19th and 20th centuries (and yes, I know that there were also “problems” with various people–IRA, for example–but that was not based on a problem with Catholic faith).

And again, in Ireland even in the 19th centuries the majority of the people were, by economic standards, fairly poor. There was not a huge differentiation of socioeconomic strata. There was not a huge differentiation of education either (and the average person was in some ways BETTER educated than a person of today, too).

The homogenization of the high Catholic cultures of Ireland, of Spain, of France, of parts of Germany, of Poland, Portugal, England before the Reformation, etc. etc. coupled with a far simpler life-style (subsistence farming as opposed to industrialization) etc. meant that there was nowhere near the sheer numbers of “differences” in any given culture. A German guild member, a Flemish merchant, a French member of the minor nobility, a Spanish cleric–not to mention the German, French, English, Polish, or Spanish peasants!–were much more similar than they were different.

Compare that to today where the young black male from Atlanta, the older white female from Boston, the soccer mom with 3 children from Ohio, the truck driver from Kansas, the gay 30 something from San Francisco, etc. have almost nothing in common with each OTHER–and not only that, probably have little in common with other young black men from Atlanta, older white women from Boston, etc. because some of the men are poor, some richer, some barely literate, some college professors, some from Jamaica, some from Somali, some from a 200 year history of former slavery, some cradle Catholics, some converts–

When you think about it, it is actually quite amazing that there is so LITTLE actual disunity when it comes to the faith, and even that there is not really all THAT much disunity in different local customs etc., especially when one thinks of the incredible uproar in the whole WORLD in the last 30 years. . .and when one sees that in the last few years, lots of those differences are actually fading away. . .

Praise God.
 
Catholics might have some different opinions, as there are always varying opinions within any church. Yet the determining factor really is who is in union with the Bishop of Rome.

James White has also tried to imagine a Catholic Church that is fragmented in it’s own denominations, ignoring the union in belief of the Authority of the Pope. This is usually to try and make it seem that Catholicism is fragmented into different denominations like Protestantism.

While there are some dissenters and people who are trying to make their own beliefs part of the Catholic Church, you can see the unity in how any Catholic can go to any Catholic Church and have the same communion.

I cannot be part of a Baptist Church and the next week go to a Pentacostal Church, then go to Calvary Chapel the next week, then go to Four Square Gospel the next and find the same beliefs.

I can drive 7 minutes to the next town go to the Catholic Church there on week, drive 2 hours the next week and go to another Catholic Church and come to my parish the next week and find the same beliefs. I frequently travel and we pretty much do that all the time.
I have been to Mass in Mexico City, 2 hours north of Mexico City, Mexicali, Palm Springs, National Catholic Family Conference(Anaheim), San Diego, etc and it is the same union of belief. This all in the last 9 months.

God Bless
Scylla
 
Full communion with the Church as described juridically in canon 205:** “Those baptized are fully in communion with the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.”**

Lumen gentium 14, the source of the canon, reads:

"14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

"They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

“Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.” [footnotes omitted]

Dcn John Cameron
Lansing, MI
 
40.png
Inquirer:
Hi folks,

I’m new and was wondering how unity is defined in the RCC. There is much talk that SS has spawned the creation of numerous protestants churches but isn’t the RCC also rather fragmented?

I was told that there are at least these 4 factions -

(1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholic involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal)
(2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism)
(3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals)
(4) Spiritist Catholicism (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults)

What do you know about their existence and what resources is there on this? How would you define a Catholic?
Click to expand...
In Catholicism there is the faith, and we are supposed to unite ourselves with the faith. There is no fractionation in Catholicism because the faith is one. This faith is taught and handed on by the bishops in communion with Rome. You can see what the faith is by looking at the official documents of the Church like the Catechism and councils and papal encyclicals. It is our job to learn the faith and to unite ourselves with it.

Spiritism and paganism are not allowed in Catholicism. They are blatantly contradictory with Catholic teaching. I don’t know much about them, but I know they have been condemned by the Church.

There are Catholics who accept their own form of spirituality that is in contradiction with the Church. These people don’t change what the Church teaches, they simply remove themselves from the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top