I'm not a Catholic because

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you are referring, amongst other EFC, to Eusebius, who, confessing about his Church history, admitted that he magnified what made the Church look good, and diminished what did not.

Firstly Eusebius is NOT a ECF.

Secondly, can you please cite a source for where he admitted this? Primary source, please.

 

[CMatt25]

Gosh Matt, I am not following you here, sorry.
If one of God’s children is Baptized by the Trinitarian formula outside of the Apostolic Church’s complete doctrine and one which has not preserved unity under the Vicar of Christ on earth, the successor of Peter, he is still a Christian but he is not in communion with the Apostolic Truth… such as the Orthodox and Protestant Churches.

A person baptized in the Apostolic Church and has rec’d confirmation, but in disobedience does not agree with all the Truth revealed will always remain a Catholic but one operating off the track( a cafeteria Catholic so to speak). I expect God will deal with such a one accordingly.
Peace, Carlan

Actually Carlan, based on this post of yours, it seems we agree on who is a Catholic according to the answer given by the Church.

 

[CMatt25]

I think you keep getting stuck on this fictional paradigm of “You people tell * he can’t be Catholic but the Church says he is!”

No one here is saying that isn’t Catholic. All we are saying is that if wants the privilege of being a Catholic, then he needs to espouse the teachings of Catholicism.

Thus if Catholic (who, no one here is saying isn’t Catholic) wants the title, then live the title. If he’s living/believing like a Protestant, then, in honesty, he ought to embrace the title of Protestant.

Seems like common sense to me.

*A: someone baptized into the Catholic Church.

PR, not sure if I’ve read every post but as far as I know no one *on this thread *is saying “A” isn’t Catholic. Key words “on this thread”. I still don’t fully understand though why someone would need to meet a litmus test for other Catholics to call “A” a Catholic if the Church calls “A” a Catholic. But I suppose if “A” ought to embrace Protestant, then “A” can consider it.

 

[CMatt25]

They are Catholics who follow their faith on a ‘part time’ basis. When they dissent from Catholic teachings, they are DISSENTING Catholics. If they dissent from enough teachings, then they may be baptized Catholics but they have rejected their faith to become non-practicing Catholics or Catholics who reject the faith and are thus ‘protesting’ Catholics. And we know from history that "protesting Catholics’ are the forerunners of today’s Protestants.

Martin Luther WAS Catholic. To the end of his days he would have been a baptized Catholic BUT he rejected Catholic dogma and self-embraced his own LUTHERAN teaching. It would be semantics to claim him as a 'Catholic" DURING THE TIME HE DISSENTED even though he was baptized as one, for he freely rejected his faith. We might have Catholicism indelibly on our souls, but we CAN (and sadly many do) reject that faith and mark ourselves as something else.

All I (personally) would ask of a Catholic who dissents on a teaching is that he --or she --not try to pretend the dissent is ‘allowable’ or that he or she is such a good Catholic in other areas that it ‘cancels out’ dissent. That isn’t true. Until fairly modern times, people had enough intellectual integrity to be upfront, or even proud, about dissent while acknowledging that what they believed was NOT what their faith taught. They wanted the faith to accept it, but they knew and acknowledged that they were not in line with their faith belief.

NOW, however, it seems that some would want anybody with the Catholic ‘print’ (baptism certificate only required) to be ‘allowed’ to dissent from Catholic teaching and have the DISSENT accepted as an ‘alternate Catholic belief’, and have the person’s essential Catholic identity not impacted one WHIT by his or her dissent. They aren’t ALLOWED to be called non practicing or dissenting Catholics, oh heavens no, how hateful. All that matters is that they are CATHOLIC, so they can teach or proclaim their dissent and be held up as "Catholics’ even if they don’t believe a shred of Catholic teaching. That’s pretty sad.

Tantum, so it sounds someone like Luther was indelibly a Catholic and yet Protestant at the same time.

Why do you say they aren’t allowed today to be called non practicing or dissenting Catholics?

 

[PRmerger]

PR, not sure if I’ve read every post but as far as I know no one *on this thread *is saying “A” isn’t Catholic. Key words “on this thread”. I still don’t fully understand though why someone would need to meet a litmus test for other Catholics to call “A” a Catholic if the Church calls “A” a Catholic. But I suppose if “A” ought to embrace Protestant, then “A” can consider it.

Why would Catholicism be any different from any other system of identifying people?

As Tantum so trenchantly illustrated: if one wants to be a vegetarian, it’s common sense for us to say, “You cannot eat meat on Fridays and be a vegetarian.”

Why are you making a separate standard for Catholicism than every other reality in life?

Why do Catholics get to say they’re Catholic but disagree with what Catholicism proclaims?

On what other venue is this a reality?

 

[CMatt25]

Why would Catholicism be any different from any other system of identifying people?

As Tantum so trenchantly illustrated: if one wants to be a vegetarian, it’s common sense for us to say, “You cannot eat meat on Fridays and be a vegetarian.”

Why are you making a separate standard for Catholicism than every other reality in life?

Why do Catholics get to say they’re Catholic but disagree with what Catholicism proclaims?

On what other venue is this a reality?

Because of the Church’s own answer as to who is a Catholic. We aren’t talking about vegetables.

 

[PRmerger]

Because of the Church’s own answer as to who is a Catholic. We aren’t talking about vegetables.

And again, you are acting as if Catholics here have this paradigm that person is not a Catholic.

Person * is* a Catholic–he has the indelible mark on his soul and is claimed by God for eternity as an adopted son.

However, now Person must live like a Catholic and espouse all that Catholicism demands.

 

[PRmerger]

Tantum, so it sounds someone like Luther was indelibly a Catholic and yet Protestant at the same time.

Why do you say they aren’t allowed today to be called non practicing or dissenting Catholics?

I think if someone baptized into the Catholic faith wants to identify himself as a dissenting Catholic or non-practicing Catholic, that would get a from me. It would prevent scandal and the spreading of bad doctrine.

(NB: I am not giving a to a person dissenting from the CC. Indeed, that makes me very, very sad. Rather, I am giving a to a person having the honesty to identify herself as that.)

 

[CMatt25]

I think if someone baptized into the Catholic faith wants to identify himself as a dissenting Catholic or non-practicing Catholic, that would get a from me.

From me as well PR. No issue with you there my friend!

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Pope Benedict has clearly indicated that true Christianity is not limited to the Roman Catholic expression.

“it is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church *.”
… Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/phome_en.htm

None of the pope’s words here are actually doctrine.

He is pointing out the fact that it is already possible… using the current/established doctrine of the Catholic Church to support his statement.*

 

[Michael19682]

Tantum Ergo

Martin Luther

All I (personally) would ask of a Catholic who dissents on a teaching is that he --or she --not try to pretend the dissent is ‘allowable’ or that he or she is such a good Catholic in other areas that it ‘cancels out’ dissent. That isn’t true. Until fairly modern times, people had enough intellectual integrity to be upfront, or even proud, about dissent while acknowledging that what they believed was NOT what their faith taught. They wanted the faith to accept it, but they knew and acknowledged that they were not in line with their faith belief.

NOW, however, it seems that some would want anybody with the Catholic ‘print’ (baptism certificate only required) to be ‘allowed’ to dissent from Catholic teaching and have the DISSENT accepted as an ‘alternate Catholic belief’, and have the person’s essential Catholic identity not impacted one WHIT by his or her dissent. They aren’t ALLOWED to be called non practicing or dissenting Catholics, oh heavens no, how hateful. All that matters is that they are CATHOLIC, so they can teach or proclaim their dissent and be held up as "Catholics’ even if they don’t believe a shred of Catholic teaching. That’s pretty sad.

Tantum,

Yours is a very perplexing series of statements. Your message as I read it is about a Catholic who might have one area of dissent being found in your judgment to be not allowed to call him- or herself Catholic regardless of how much he or she strives in other areas. I might be inclined to (personally) accept (i.e. make peace with) that if I didn’t find that the world is still ruled by the one being driven out of it. Satan is being driven out of the world as we speak, but the battle rages.

Since you have wisely confined your discussion to those who are baptized into the Lord through the sacrament of the Catholic Church, you must realize also that there is a measure of truth in the statement: All men were created equal, but some are more equal than others. Take the sacrament of marriage as an example. Many argue that the married have no more sanctity than the unmarried. Even if that be accepted as true, it cannot be denied that the married enjoy more sexual freedom than the unmarried. What for a married person is a bodily freedom perfectly legal and part of a life that can lead to heaven, serves at the same time as a stumbling block for the unmarried and is professed by the righteous as a path to hell. True, the Cross is a stumbling block for some - Paul wrote to the Corinthians about this very fact. Jesus said that those who want to be his disciples must take up their cross and follow him. The Church is the visible presence of Christ in the world, his very light. If the Church provides not the light for a man to follow - how can that man be to blame for those of his sins which are expressions of what you call ‘dissent’.

If the Church says “We say you must not fornicate” therefore you know the teaching and are guilty when you fornicate; how do we account for ourselves in these verses recorded by Luke:

“And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
10
For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
11
What father among you would hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish?
12
Or hand him a scorpion when he asks for an egg?
13
If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the holy Spirit* to those who ask him?”

The Church claims the holy Spirit leads one to the sacraments. The Church teaches men the nature of the divinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I just get the sense that your reply tantum ergo, ignores the purpose of charity in fullfilling for the Church the promises of the Lord. Marriage is an ongoing sacrament, but it does not abrogate the responsibility of the married person to continue in works of charity for the Church. On this forum, many are staunch defenders of the traditions of the Church as expressed in the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist. But how does defense of these regulations assist the holy Spirit in leading others to the Sacraments. The Eucharist is the Lord’s body given to us, so it is only right that the word speaks for itself. The Eucharist may be received after confession with a simple acknowledgement of the Lord’s presence in it. AMEN. But marriage existed before the birth of the Lord. Why is the matter so complicated? It is like a father who has handed a son a snake, only to rebuke him for accepting it.