How Many Different Categories Of Catholics Are There?

[SSTeacher]

In a one–paragraph summary of a section of Kenneth Sample’s What Think Ye Of Rome? (Part 1), Evangelical author, Ron Rhodes, suggests that there are six different categories of Catholics.

CATEGORIES OF ROMAN CATHOLICS​

Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s claims to be the one true church, it is a fact that not all Roman Catholics believe the same. Ken Samples, after an extensive study, concluded that there are six primary categories of Roman Catholics today: the uultratraditionalist Catholics, traditionalist Catholics, liberal Catholics, charismatic/evangelical Catholics, cultural Catholics, and popular folk Catholics.

Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes (Harvest House Publishers, 2000) Page 14.

Further along in his original piece, Kenneth Samples notes a seventh category – that of the American Catholic. He writes:

American Catholicism
Just as Americans in general exhibit a different ethos from the rest of the world, American Catholics have a mindset distinct from other Catholics. Generally speaking, American Catholics tend to be both more independent and more selective in their practice of Catholicism. This attitude certainly contributes to the fact that many American Catholics follow their conscience over church authority, especially when it comes to some of the issues regarding sex and personal lifestyle. In fact, in 1990 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops was so concerned about the inroads the pro–choice element was making into the American church that it hired a public relations firm to “jazz up its public appeal on the abortion issue.” (This was the same public relations firm, by the way, that handled former President Ronald Reagan!)

What is your reaction to the assertions made by these two men?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[Lutheranteach]

I would say that over 90% of the Catholics I know are of the liberal/cultural/American mix with most of them saying there are certain things —*mostly social and sexual, that the church would do well to simply stay out of.

 

[Rence]

Well some Catholics would say there is only two types of catholics, practicing and non-practicing, and that there is no such thing as variant categories of catholics. But the reality of it is, they’re right, there are different categories of Catholics.

I don’t know any uultratraditional or traditionalist Catholics at all, and never did, until I came to this forum. Which isn’t saying much because online forums tend to attract people from both ends of the spectrum with the “middle” ground hearing flack from both sides of the spectrum.

IRL (and mind you, I originate from a big city, a melting pot, but predominantly Catholic, Jewish and Muslim — then I moved to a small town rural area 500 miles away, in the bible belt, and I literally know 3 other catholics besides myself - so I’m not talking about just one random area) I find predominantly liberal Catholics. No one IRL that I know of fits into the ultratraditional or traditional “category”. But there were varying degrees of liberal. For example, the more traditional liberals liked the latin mass, prayed all the time, were active in the church community, but are in no way absolutists like the ultraconservatives here on this forum. In fact, absolutism and this “sin of relativity” is as foreign to me as the muslim religion. When I was in the big city, there were some popular folk catholics who clashed with what I call the more traditional liberals. In the Bible belt the three catholics I know are not practicing at all in any way.

We did have an opus dei house nearby, but honestly I don’t know what category they would fit into because some of the inappropriateness of their members frankly gave Opus Dei a bad name and I never got involved with them after the initial “damage” was done to give me my poor opinion of them. Over time, thankfully, I realized they were the exception than the rule. But I’m assuming Opus Dei folks are traditional and even ultra traditional? But that’s a whole other thread

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

IMHO, there is only one. all others are at odds with Catholicism

 

[SSTeacher]

Hiyas

IMHO, there is only one. all others are at odds with Catholicism

Hiyas back,

So which one of the apparent seven choices are you actually endorsing, then?

Inquisitively,
Mick

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

1. Catholics who are lactose intolerant.
2. Catholics who are not.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I’m lactose intolerant. I won’t stand for it in my house — and I don’t even care if I make the lactose feel bad about itself.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas back,

So which one of the apparent seven choices are you actually endorsing, then?

Inquisitively,
Mick

Hiyas

I’m with the Catholic Magistracy of Rome.
My problem is who is defining and how …Ultra…Traditional…liberal…etc. Soooo I can’t endorse

 

[Spencerian]

I’d classify Catholics in two respects:

• Those who adhere to and acknowledge the teachings of the One Church to the best of their human ability
• Those who pay “lip service” by claiming their faith but defiantly challenging or ignoring teachings taught to them

In my opinion, a Catholic who, for example, has a serious problem with reading pornography but fights the urge and goes to confession regularly to admit his transgressions should he fail, is making a concerted effort for grace. The same would be true for a woman who has stopped taking birth control pills, has confessed, and now practices NFP–although she may still have a problem with the matter of adultery and realizes it.

In contrast, Catholics who ignore or outright violate central doctrine but claim to be Catholic will receive their respective reward.

In short, God wants us to fight our sinful natures actively and with humility, not make excuses for them under the blanket of being a member of any faith–or rejecting it.

 

[kimmielittle]

I’d classify Catholics in two respects:

• Those who adhere to and acknowledge the teachings of the One Church to the best of their human ability
• Those who pay “lip service” by claiming their faith but defiantly challenging or ignoring teachings taught to them

In my opinion, a Catholic who, for example, has a serious problem with reading pornography but fights the urge and goes to confession regularly to admit his transgressions should he fail, is making a concerted effort for grace. The same would be true for a woman who has stopped taking birth control pills, has confessed, and now practices NFP–although she may still have a problem with the matter of adultery and realizes it.

In contrast, Catholics who ignore or outright violate central doctrine but claim to be Catholic will receive their respective reward.

In short, God wants us to fight our sinful natures actively and with humility, not make excuses for them under the blanket of being a member of any faith–or rejecting it.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[Joe_5859]

There is only one category: Baptized Catholics.

All the rest are just sub-categories.

In all seriousness, though, whenever someone attempts to pigeonhole people into artificially constructed categories, there is going to be room for much (much) debate. Sure, there are some elements that ring true, but you’re never going to fit everyone into one (or six or seven) little box(es). For example, I know Catholics who would describe themselves as both traditional and charismatic.

I suppose that it is interesting to note that he “found” more than two categories. Many of us seem to want to take a dualistic approach to everything. This can often lead us to assume that any two people that disagree with us are automatically in agreement with each other. That’s not always the case.

I’m somewhat curious as to what he means by “popular folk Catholics”. I’ve heard all the other names used before, but I’ve never heard that one.

 

[Bill_Pick]

In a one–paragraph summary of a section of Kenneth Sample’s What Think Ye Of Rome? (Part 1), Evangelical author, Ron Rhodes, suggests that there are six different categories of Catholics.

Further along in his original piece, Kenneth Samples notes a seventh category – that of the American Catholic. He writes:

What is your reaction to the assertions made by these two men?

Curiously,
Mick

We always have a 1st Baptist but never a 2Baptist, WHY, How many groups of Baptist churches do we have today.

 

[wmscott]

In a one–paragraph summary of a section of Kenneth Sample’s What Think Ye Of Rome? (Part 1), Evangelical author, Ron Rhodes, suggests that there are six different categories of Catholics.

Further along in his original piece, Kenneth Samples notes a seventh category – that of the American Catholic. He writes:

What is your reaction to the assertions made by these two men?

Curiously,
Mick

I really do not know what category I would fall in. However, I am a practical Catholic who follows the precepts of the catholic Church. I believe and support all that Catholicism teaches. To do that one has to be somewhat “Perfect”, I am a sinner and I am imperfect, but I do not engage in practices and life styles that put me at odds or in the potential position to be at odds with the Catholic faith.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6387417:

Hiyas back,

So which one of the apparent seven choices are you actually endorsing, then?

Inquisitively,
Mick

Hiyas

I’m with the Catholic Magistracy of Rome.
My problem is who is defining and how …Ultra…Traditional…liberal…etc. Soooo I can’t endorse

The assertions from Mr. Samples and Doctor Rhodes seem to be based on the fact that it is the Catholics themselves that are doing the defining. These two Evangelicals are observers looking in from the outside and then analyzing and summarizing what they see. So, assuming that these categories are a reality, it’s quite reasonable for Non–Catholics to ask of any Catholic they might encounter:

“Excuse me, but what category of Catholic are you?”

Follow my drift?

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

In all seriousness, though, whenever someone attempts to pigeonhole people into artificially constructed categories, there is going to be room for much (much) debate. Sure, there are some elements that ring true, but you’re never going to fit everyone into one (or six or seven) little box(es). For example, I know Catholics who would describe themselves as both traditional and charismatic.

Kenneth Samples acknowledges as much. After listing the six categories, he writes:

We have discussed six different species of the one genus: Roman Catholicism. Certainly there are other viewpoints expressed in today’s Catholicism, but these appear to be the major types of Catholics.

I suppose that it is interesting to note that he “found” more than two categories. Many of us seem to want to take a dualistic approach to everything. This can often lead us to assume that any two people that disagree with us are automatically in agreement with each other. That’s not always the case.

And perhaps it’s also interesting to note that anybody who visits Catholic Answers Forums will find separate forums for Eastern Catholicism and Traditional Catholicism?

I’m somewhat curious as to what he means by “popular folk Catholics”. I’ve heard all the other names used before, but I’ve never heard that one.

You obviously didn’t follow the link. Kenneth Samples again:

Popular Folk Catholics. Popular folk Catholics are found especially in Central and South America. These Catholics are very eclectic in their religious thinking and practice. They often combine elements of an animistic or nature–culture religion (the primitive religious beliefs that associate the forces of nature and culture with myriads of spirits) with a traditional medieval Catholicism. The result is a syncretistic nightmare. People in countries such as Brazil, Colombia, and Argentina frequently engage in a religion composed of polytheism, occultic spiritism, and a superstitious form of Catholicism. This spiritual smorgasbord enslaves millions of Latin America’s peasantry.

Certainly, official Catholic teaching does not sanction this kind of syncretistic religiosity. In certain respects, however, the Catholic church remains culpable. First, the Catholic church has been negligent by failing to train these people to reject all forms of paganism and to embrace solely the Triune God of Christianity.

Second, the unhealthy and unbiblical aspects of the Catholic understanding of the communion of saints (i.e., the belief in the unity and cooperation among believers in both this world and the next) has contributed to the problem. Even some Catholics in the United States virtually worship saints and the church has failed to take aggressive measures to correct this serious problem of idolatry. It is actually much worse when it comes to devotion to the Virgin Mary, where on a practical level millions of Catholics commit idolatry on a daily basis by worshipping the virgin. This is certainly contrary to official church teaching (i.e., teaching set forth by the Vatican as standard Catholic doctrine), but the Catholic church has been derelict in correcting this serious problem. If the Catholic church wants to convince evangelical Protestants that they merely honor Mary, but do not worship her, then they must step in and stop this gross idolatry.

Third, the Second Vatican Council’s openness to forms of religious pluralism has greatly exacerbated the problem. Ideas such as the “anonymous Christian” (the belief in the possibility of salvation without explicit Christian faith – even through non–Christian religions) as set forth by the influential German theologian, Karl Rahner, has acute and distressing repercussions.

He makes some measured and thoughtful points, don’t you agree?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

We always have a 1st Baptist but never a 2Baptist, WHY,

Here’s a youtube recording of a wedding last year at the 2nd Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. Nice couple.

How many groups of Baptist churches do we have today.

Yes, the Baptists have indeed been fruitful and multiplied. Why don’t you take that as a subject for a new thread?

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[Joe_5859]

You obviously didn’t follow the link. Kenneth Samples again:

You are correct. Thank you for excerpting the relevant passage. I suppose I hadn’t heard of it because I’m North American. I’ve heard of that phenomenon before, but I’d never heard a descriptive name for it.

He makes some measured and thoughtful points, don’t you agree?

Yes and no. For his points on the “unhealthy and unbiblical aspects of the Catholic understanding of the communion of saints”, I have heard that all before many, many times. Forgive this Catholic for disagreeing.

For his observation regarding Rahner, I would say that he makes a good point for not looking to Rahner as the official spokesman for Catholic teaching, a point of which I was already keenly aware.

It is interesting to hear an outside perspective on the “groups” of Catholics, though. I’ll have to read that full article when I have the time.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

In a one–paragraph summary of a section of Kenneth Sample’s What Think Ye Of Rome? (Part 1), Evangelical author, Ron Rhodes, suggests that there are six different categories of Catholics.

Further along in his original piece, Kenneth Samples notes a seventh category – that of the American Catholic. He writes:

What is your reaction to the assertions made by these two men?

Curiously,
Mick

I’m not sure what the point is. Are they trying to say that there are Catholics who accept or reject the teaching of the Church to different degrees. If so, then there has been an underestimation of the number of categories to a vast degree. I would even say that individuals who identify themselves as Catholic fall everywhere along a broad spectrum that spans from passionate dissenter to ultra orthodox.

If the assertion is that in reality there is more than one “Catholic” Church, then the argument misses the boat. By definition there can be only one Catholic (i.e. universal) Church. Yes, it is filled with individual members who agree and disagree on a vast number of doctrinal and moral teachings. That disagreement among individuals does not mean the Church fails to be one. It means only that individual people are weak, sinfull, proud, stubborn and even lazy. The Church is quite tolerant of her dissidents, and is slow to punish even those who are the most outspoken on such fundamental issues as the right to life from conception to natural death. But that does not mean there are separate mini-churches within the Catholic faith. There are, sadly, differing degrees to which individual catholics conform their personal actions and beliefs to those of the one Catholic faith. And that is a sad but true fact of humanity. But the doctrinal and moral authority of the Catholic Church speaks with one clear voice - Magesterial authority that comes from Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. I really do believe this, even though I have failed - on too many occasions - to live up to that moral teaching and have struggled with some of the doctrinal issues. And I count myself as a practical Catholic.

I would say the situation is much worse for those professing christians living apart from the Catholic Church, where there is no authority stating the truth with the certainty that comes from the Apostolic Tradition and Magesterial Authority. In such cases there is no need for dissent or “ultra-orthodoxy” because one’s authority is his or her own attempted interpretation of scripture - with no one to resolve disputes over doctrine and morals. This is why the Episcopal Church has openly gay bishops, and the Mormons believe they will be individual gods. No barque, no rudder, no oars… just people blown about on the winds of different doctrines. Better to be riding in St. Peter’s boat, even if you have to put up with boorish neighbors… like me.

Peace,
Robert

 

[adstrinity]

I rather like how the premise is about the ROMAN Catholic Church.

Had the first author said the Cathoilc Church (which has 23 Rites), I may have favourably agreed.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6387146:

In a one–paragraph summary of a section of Kenneth Sample’s What Think Ye Of Rome?

(Part 1), Evangelical author, Ron Rhodes, suggests that there are six different categories of Catholics.

Further along in his original piece, Kenneth Samples notes a seventh category – that of the American Catholic. He writes:

What is your reaction to the assertions made by these two men?

Curiously,
Mick
:thumbsup:I’m not sure what the point is. Are they trying to say that there are Catholics who accept or reject the teaching of the Church to different degrees. If so, then there has been an underestimation of the number of categories to a vast degree. I would even say that individuals who identify themselves as Catholic fall everywhere along a broad spectrum that spans from passionate dissenter to ultra orthodox.

If the assertion is that in reality there is more than one “Catholic” Church, then the argument misses the boat. By definition there can be only one Catholic (i.e. universal) Church. Yes, it is filled with individual members who agree and disagree on a vast number of doctrinal and moral teachings. That disagreement among individuals does not mean the Church fails to be one. It means only that individual people are weak, sinful, proud, stubborn and even lazy. The Church is quite tolerant of her dissidents, and is slow to punish even those who are the most outspoken on such fundamental issues as the right to life from conception to natural death. But that does not mean there are separate mini–churches within the Catholic faith. There are, sadly, differing degrees to which individual Catholics conform their personal actions and beliefs to those of the one Catholic faith. And that is a sad but true fact of humanity. But the doctrinal and moral authority of the Catholic Church speaks with one clear voice – Magisterial authority that comes from Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. I really do believe this, even though I have failed – on too many occasions – to live up to that moral teaching and have struggled with some of the doctrinal issues. And I count myself as a practical Catholic.

I would say the situation is much worse for those professing Christians living apart from the Catholic Church, where there is no authority stating the truth with the certainty that comes from the Apostolic Tradition and Magisterial Authority. In such cases there is no need for dissent or “ultra-orthodoxy” because one’s authority is his or her own attempted interpretation of scripture – with no one to resolve disputes over doctrine and morals. This is why the Episcopal Church has openly gay bishops, and the Mormons believe they will be individual gods. No barque, no rudder, no oars… just people blown about on the winds of different doctrines. Better to be riding in St. Peter’s boat, even if you have to put up with boorish neighbors… like me.

Peace,
Robert

Interesting commentary. Thanks for responding. I think perhaps one of the reasons that the assertions were adduced was to introduce Reform and Arminian would–be Evangelists to the different kinds of “resistance” that they would possibly encounter from different Catholics.

Cordially,
Mick