How Many Different Categories Of Catholics Are There?

[TedDC]

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.

If you’re implying that anyone who rejects the Catholic faith does so because he wants an excuse for sinful activity, you’re presuming entirely too much. I rejected the faith simply because I lost my belief in many of its teachings. My leaving had nothing to do with any desire to excuse immoral actions.

 

[dzheremi]

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

Cordially,
Mick

Sorry, Mick, I know this isn’t addressed to me, but as a person partially descendant from one of those millions of “enslaved” peasants, I find this idea incredibly insulting and the idea that you think it constitutes “measured and thoughtful” analysis rather baffling. I also have books on my shelf that characterize the faith of the peasants in pre-revolutionary Russia as highly syncretic, even going so far as to suggest that the peasants, due to their simplemindedness, viewed the tsar as practically a demi-god. If this belief and related behavior was present among some of them or even many of them, would it then mean that this would be a fair brush with which to tar the majority of Orthodox Christians, or (God forbid) Orthodoxy itself for not being held to account for the errant beliefs of some of its faithful?

Have I seen some Latin (American) Catholics go way further in their Marian devotions than I would be comfortable going? Certainly. That’s why I don’t go there myself. But I’m not going to take the most extreme examples I can think of to be normative, because they aren’t. What I have seen, for the most part, is long confession lines, a great deal of sanctity in approach to the sacraments, a very earnest, simple connection to the faith in the everyday life of the community…nothing at all to be ashamed of or worried about! The type of Christian who would see something like Dia de los Muertos as intrinsically pagan due to its pre-Christian roots would probably also have trouble with “Easter” (coming from “Ishtar”, don’tcha know?), the “pagan” date of Christmas, or maybe even that gosh darned “pagan” Trinity. The sorts of “altars” that I’ve seen in local celebrations are not more or less worrisome than some of the not explicitly religious roadside memorials set up by non-Latinos to remember their own dead. The evangelical just sees the candles and other things at the latin memorials and thinks that it’s an explicitly religious festival by heathen Catholic syncretists, as though there is supposed to be something amazing or fishy that such an overwhelmingly Catholic population would set up their own remembrances in that way, with prayers for the souls of the departed (they don’t do this at non-Catholic wakes or what have you?), which of course include some amount of Marian content because, y’know…they’re Catholic and all.

It is not a measured and thoughtful analysis at all, my friend. Any legitimate criticism of individual practices can be taken on its own merit or lack thereof, not tied up in some big bundle by a hostile outsider under the guise of being impartial (as though Protestants haven’t been trying to “crack” Latin America for years, with varying degrees of success; I should know - that’s where I first attended a Catholic Mass, on a “mission trip” as a young Presbyterian). As I’ve said, some people do take things to a level I am personally uncomfortable with, but (for instance) when I passed a neighbor’s yard today and noticed a pair of statuettes of Mary and Joseph, my first reaction was not to call an exorcist to uproot the demonic presence that surely must’ve placed them there…call me crazy if you must…

 

[dzheremi]

More on the topic of this thread, there probably are many different categories of Catholics. I mostly disagree with these sorts of characterizations on principle, particularly when they seem to cross over with cultural evaluations of other people outside of one’s own community (see above), but I certainly also do not buy into this idea that just because we are all under one Pope, we are a cohesive bloc (either in terms of theology or practice or outlook or however you want to put it). No way.

And yet…I think that he is mostly right about the “American Catholic”, at least in so far as the mindset is concerned. Now, I love America (as an idea, and as a place where I keep all my stuff), but I must be honest and say that growing up in a Protestant church and becoming Catholic at or around the age of 23, I did not notice a significant change in social attitude among white Latin Catholics from what I had seen among the overwhelmingly white Presbyterians. Racist, huh? Let me give you an example of what I mean…

I’ve never been much of a morning person, so back when I was attending Mass regularly in my home parish, before I moved to Oregon for college, I would often attend Spanish-language Mass for no other reason than that I can and it starts two hours later than the English Mass. Terrible, I know. But I noticed after a while that the homilies delivered at the Spanish Mass differed considerably from those delivered at the English. At first I didn’t find this particularly bothersome. I figured it was natural because they were given by different priests (the Spanish-language priest was from El Salvador and was bilingual, but the English-language priest…wasn’t), with different manners of speaking, different audiences, etc. But as I began to think more about it, it really started to bother me. In the Spanish homilies, they would talk not only about the lessons from the readings, but also about the health of the community, about how we are all one, and the Anglos give more (at collection) because they can, but we could still do better to show that we are not so insular, to reach out across all the communities with whatever we can, etc. I didn’t hear any similar messages of unity (or even attempts at understanding) from the other side…not that they weren’t there in some way, but it did began to confuse me that we essentially had two communities worshiping at the same church that didn’t see each other as equals because they didn’t all get that message. It seems to me that for some being (corporal) union under the same Pope is not the minimum basis for claiming to be one church - it’s the only basis. This was reinforced for me when I tried to bring some of my concerns up to my priest in Oregon, as I began to look seriously at the Eastern traditions in world Christianity. He referred me to the RCIA director at the local Newman center, who made some token references to the local Ukrainian Catholic Church (which I ended up going to and being very moved by), but it was more in the way of “yeah, it’s nice that they have their own thing”, like they were a group of parochial bumpkins, not at all the equal of the Latins. (To her credit, she openly admitted that she had no clue of how any church outside of the Latin worships or operates, so perhaps mum’s the word in those sorts of situations.)

So maybe there are two types of Catholics: “Latin” and “other”.

[Yes, this post is sure to go over like a lead balloon. Apologies in advance to anyone who thinks I hate the Latin rite. I don’t. It’s what I am, technically/canonically-speaking, and I know there are a great many people in it who cherish the non-Latin churches as more than just showpieces of asserted “universality”.]

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6387896:

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

Cordially,
Mick

Sorry, Mick, I know this isn’t addressed to me, but as a person partially descendant from one of those millions of “enslaved” peasants, I find this idea incredibly insulting and the idea that you think it constitutes “measured and thoughtful” analysis rather baffling. I also have books on my shelf that characterize the faith of the peasants in pre-revolutionary Russia as highly syncretic, even going so far as to suggest that the peasants, due to their simplemindedness, viewed the tsar as practically a demi-god. If this belief and related behavior was present among some of them or even many of them, would it then mean that this would be a fair brush with which to tar the majority of Orthodox Christians, or (God forbid) Orthodoxy itself for not being held to account for the errant beliefs of some of its faithful?

Have I seen some Latin (American) Catholics go way further in their Marian devotions than I would be comfortable going? Certainly. That’s why I don’t go there myself. But I’m not going to take the most extreme examples I can think of to be normative, because they aren’t. What I have seen, for the most part, is long confession lines, a great deal of sanctity in approach to the sacraments, a very earnest, simple connection to the faith in the everyday life of the community…nothing at all to be ashamed of or worried about! The type of Christian who would see something like Dia de los Muertos as intrinsically pagan due to its pre-Christian roots would probably also have trouble with “Easter” (coming from “Ishtar”, don’tcha know?), the “pagan” date of Christmas, or maybe even that gosh darned “pagan” Trinity. The sorts of “altars” that I’ve seen in local celebrations are not more or less worrisome than some of the not explicitly religious roadside memorials set up by non-Latinos to remember their own dead. The evangelical just sees the candles and other things at the latin memorials and thinks that it’s an explicitly religious festival by heathen Catholic syncretists, as though there is supposed to be something amazing or fishy that such an overwhelmingly Catholic population would set up their own remembrances in that way, with prayers for the souls of the departed (they don’t do this at non-Catholic wakes or what have you?), which of course include some amount of Marian content because, y’know…they’re Catholic and all.

It is not a measured and thoughtful analysis at all, my friend. Any legitimate criticism of individual practices can be taken on its own merit or lack thereof, not tied up in some big bundle by a hostile outsider under the guise of being impartial (as though Protestants haven’t been trying to “crack” Latin America for years, with varying degrees of success; I should know - that’s where I first attended a Catholic Mass, on a “mission trip” as a young Presbyterian). As I’ve said, some people do take things to a level I am personally uncomfortable with, but (for instance) when I passed a neighbor’s yard today and noticed a pair of statuettes of Mary and Joseph, my first reaction was not to call an exorcist to uproot the demonic presence that surely must’ve placed them there…call me crazy if you must…

Hi dzheremi,

I thought your analysis of his analysis was measured and very thoughtful. :bounce:

Fraternally,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

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.

I appreciate your circumspection. The purpose I had in mind when I put up my Original Post was to prompt reflection by Catholics as to the way outsiders might possibly perceive the Catholic Church. I can’t speak for all Non–Catholics, of course, but I did gain some insight during my time in Evangelical circles and I would suggest that although the more fair–minded amongst them might be prepared to concede that the Catholic Church is Catholic (seems logical ) and Apostolic (given the historical record it’s a bit of a challenge to argue otherwise with a straight face) and can point to canonized saints as evidence that it is Holy, the idea that the Catholic Church really is “One,” is much more likely to be questioned.

You would agree, perhaps, that an objective inquirer looking into the truth claims of Catholicism is likely to receive mixed messages and therefore conclude that the claim of the Catholic Church to be “One” is at least a little misplaced?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Palaeologos]

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.

I can see how this might seem to be true. But it’s not true of all Protestants. It’s true of most mainline Protestantism, as many churches have drifted away from the confessional statements made by their denominations in the past. But there are still Lutherans who hold to the Book of Concord, Presbyterians who hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Baptists, Congregationalists and others who hold to their denominational confessions. And I should point out that, although Mormon theology is kooky by orthodox Christian standards, they’re not allowed to believe whatever they please : they, too, are bound to a specific set of doctrines.

There is such a thing as magisterial Protestantism. Their standards are just as strict as those of any traditionalist Catholic; they’re just different standards.

 

[Palaeologos]

If you’re implying that anyone who rejects the Catholic faith does so because he wants an excuse for sinful activity, you’re presuming entirely too much. I rejected the faith simply because I lost my belief in many of its teachings. My leaving had nothing to do with any desire to excuse immoral actions.

A Catholic theologian might say that the loss of belief itself (or insufficient desire to believe) is in itself sinful.

The concepts of “sin” and “crime” are not identical.

 

[TedDC]

A Catholic theologian might say that the loss of belief itself (or insufficient desire to believe) is in itself sinful.

That would not surprise me in the least.

 

[grannymh]

Hiyas

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

This is a very good answer. It consists of those who accept the doctrines of the Catholic Church and follow its practices.

 

[SSTeacher]

kimmielittle;6387388:

Hiyas

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

This is a very good answer. It consists of those who accept the doctrines of the Catholic Church and follow its practices.

So to which of the six/seven categories of Catholics do you think this very good answer applies?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[kimmielittle]

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

Hiyas

Excuse me, but I told you. I am Catholic.

This is your Doctor Rhodes

Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics

If you are interested in sharing the gospel with your Catholic friends or understanding their beliefs more clearly, REASONING FROM THE SCRIPTURES WITH CATHOLICS is a complete, easy-to-use reference book that will assist you greatly.
Drawing on the official CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and other primary Catholic resources, this book examines Roman Catholic doctrines that run counter to God’s Word.
Each chapter presents a thorough overview of a key Catholic tenet, provides a biblical response, and includes questions to help your friends evaluate their church’s teachings in light of God’s Word.

http://www.ronrhodes.org/reasoning_from_the_scriptures_wi2.htm
here
As can be seen this is anti-Catholic’s attempting to classify Catholics into their "Categories’.

The clue here is this: **These ‘categories’ are subjective speculation on Catholicism - by Evangelicals - outside of Catholicism **

I’m a kid, help me understand…why should I allow, or play along with baiting, by Non Catholics?

In Christian Charity - I’m not the one who seems to have a straying religious side i.e,. " Former Evangelical but now an Orthodox catechumen in the OCA"

I hope this helps

 

[kimmielittle]

This is a very good answer. It consists of those who accept the doctrines of the Catholic Church and follow its practices.

Thank you

 

[peary]

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

’

Totally irrelevent. You are either a Catholic Christian or you are not. Those who can’t handle Church teaching usually end up leaving the Church to join ‘other’ “Christian categories” (read ‘protestant’ groups).

 

[Loboto-Me]

Wow! Is that like the different type of popular folk protestants? Those snake handlers, floor whitherers, screamers, Demi-Gods and Jesus Deniers and so on?

I came in after reading the description of popular folk catholics and just had to shake my head and laugh!

 

[SSTeacher]

I hope this helps

Many thanks.

Cheerfully,
Mick

 

[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

Totally irrelevant. You are either a Catholic Christian or you are not. Those who can’t handle Church teaching usually end up leaving the Church to join ‘other’ “Christian categories” (read ‘protestant’ groups).

But the focus here is on the Catholics who have not left the Catholic Church. The assertion is that such Catholics can legitimately be divided into six or perhaps seven different categories.

Categorically,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Wow! Is that like the different type of popular folk protestants? Those snake handlers, floor whitherers, screamers, Demi-Gods and Jesus Deniers and so on?

I came in after reading the description of popular folk catholics and just had to shake my head and laugh!

I suppose it’s not unnatural to feel a need to laugh at the beliefs of others if one perceives an insult or a threat to one’s own belief system but as far as I can tell both Mr. Samples and Doctor Rhodes have successfully avoided falling into that trap. Their focus in this case is not on the failings of the application of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura within Non–Catholic Western Christendom but on what they see as dangerous factions within the Catholic Church as evidenced by the behavior of sundry Catholics engaged in living out their Catholicism.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[grannymh]

So to which of the six/seven categories of Catholics do you think this very good answer applies?

Curiously,
Mick

The good answer applies to individuals and not to categories.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hiyas

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

kimmielittle;6387388:

Hiyas

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

This is a very good answer. It consists of those who accept the doctrines of the Catholic Church and follow its practices.

grannymh;6389825:

kimmielittle;6387388:

Hiyas

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

This is a very good answer. It consists of those who accept the doctrines of the Catholic Church and follow its practices.So to which of the six/seven categories of Catholics do you think this very good answer applies?

Curiously,
Mick

SSTeacher;6389978:

So to which of the six/seven categories of Catholics do you think this very good answer applies?

Curiously,
Mick

The good answer applies to individuals and not to categories.

Perusal of previous posts on this thread shows that the answer you affirm to be good is categorized by the poster who adduced it as but a humble opinion so although it could be in line with Catholicism it might equally well be at odds with Catholicism. In either case, if the humble opinion applies to individuals then it must of necessity also apply to the categories into which those individuals have chosen to group themselves. It’s perhaps relevant to note in passing that some of those individuals will undoubtedly be Catholic clergymen – priests, bishops, and perhaps even cardinals. Since none of these men is infallible each and every one of them might fall into error just as easily as any Catholic layperson that posts opinions on threads inside Catholic Answers Forums. However, in the case of the individual clerics, there is one thing that can be stated with certainty about each one i.e. that he is an individual who leads, guides, teaches, counsels, and influences other individuals by virtue of his calling to be the shepherd of his flock.

I suppose it might help those who are genuinely interested in comparing and contrasting beliefs and practices if I were to draw attention to the fact that there exists here a substantial difficulty for Non–Catholics because the contradictory stances inside the Catholic Church that are easily evident to outsiders very much detract from the claim that the Catholic Church is “One.” Indeed, Catholic apologists, whether they are novices or veterans, all at some point seem to place much emphasis upon the unity that they assert is one of the four main characteristics of Catholicism while simultaneously contrasting it with the lack of unity that they perceive inside Non–Catholic Western Christendom. That’s fair enough, considering the way the polemical game is usually played, but the obstacle here for objective observers and genuine inquirers into Christianity arises when they discover that no thinking Christian inside Non–Catholic Western Christendom ever pretends that there is unity therein. Most deplore the situation as a scandal. Yet the standard Catholic response to its own internecine strife seems to be to dismiss any notion that there is even the slightest division or smallest disagreement inside Catholicism and instead seek to promote that idea that unity prevails throughout the Catholic Church.

I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to ask people who identify themselves as Catholics to give thoughtful and balanced consideration as to why that is and furthermore to be respectful of the beliefs of others as they subsequently attempt to validate their respective stances and demonstrate that the positions they take as individuals or groups are commensurate with Catholicism.

I feel fairly certain that the Holy Father would hope and expect those who consider him to be their spiritual leader to do as much.

Don’t you?

Amicably,
Mick

 

[wisdomseeker]

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

How is a Catholic to answer such accusations?
let me see as a Catholic i dont see things as protestants. protestants see the Truth is simply what they believe to be true. Catholics are commanded to believe because is the Truth. complete different views.

protestants think that because a Catholic believe that abortion(as example) is ok, than this influences the Church’s teachings. no, it does not. the teachings remains the same and a Catholic who advocate for such are in transgression of the Church’s teachings. and so with many other different issues. it doesnt matter what they are advocating for, if it doesnt confer with the teachings of the Church, they are in transgression. it does not making them 30 000 differents catergories. it only makes them 30 000 diferent transgressores.

how can Catholics argue with protestants who have a diferent view of what the Church is? we cant. they simply refuse to accept our view of the Church and Catholics cannot accept their view of the Church which is contrary to the Bible.