Non Catholics? What bugs you the most about Catholics?

[Reuben_J]

I am curious to know from you how or why we are in the ‘same boat’. I know what being Catholic is but not very well what you are. Some people say we should not call you Protestant, some said we can. So, I am in a quandry as to use the correct term.

So how are we in the same boat? Thus those questions that I asked may help me to understand.

 

[Wannano]

**

I am curious to know from you how or why we are in the ‘same boat’. I know what being Catholic is but not very well what you are. Some people say we should not call you Protestant, some said we can. So, I am in a quandry as to use the correct term.

So how are we in the same boat? Thus those questions that I asked may help me to understand.

Not meaning to be rude or evasive but I think my post explains what I meant adequately. There is no point in just repeating myself.

The forum administration advised me that we need to pm each other if we want to pursue this conversation but I don’t know how to do that.

 

[Reuben_J]

No, you have not answered my questions, but of course that is your prerogative. The questions are rather straight forward, I am quite puzzled as why you were evasive. I am not trying to attack you or to find fault with you.

In Catholicism, discipline and doctrine are not the same. They may not agree or not believe, but they cannot practice their disbelief. I am asking therefore, is it the same in what you were saying? I just wanted to know. I can use those information for my personal knowledge about what you people believe and practice.

 

[Wannano]

No, you have not answered my questions, but of course that is your prerogative. The questions are rather straight forward, I am quite puzzled as why you were evasive. I am not trying to attack you or to find fault with you.

In Catholicism, discipline and doctrine are not the same. They may not agree or not believe, but they cannot practice their disbelief. I am asking therefore, is it the same in what you were saying? I just wanted to know. I can use those information for my personal knowledge about what you people believe and practice.

I am sorry you think I am evading you. Do you not believe me when I tell you I had put together answers to you but was not allowed to send it to you?

If Catholics cannot practice their disbelief how do you process post #6?

 

[Reuben_J]

Oh, I see. Maybe it is due to bad internet connection. So what was the answer?

So now you are asking me question. … There is disagreement currently among some Catholic clergy and Pope Francis regarding divorced remarried persons being allowed to receive Communion, which is from the Pope’s encyclical on the subject. As it is now, the dissenting clergy are asking for clarification from the Pope.

Just for your information about doctrine and discipline, and even devotion.

Doctrine does not change, while discipline can. However, even if individual Catholics do not agree with them personally, they still have to abide by them.

As for devotion, it is not obligatory upon Catholics.

In short, they cannot practice as they like as far as belief of the Church is concerned.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Well, some people say they are Catholic, and I suppose in one sense they are, but they haven’t been to mass in 15 years and don’t have a plan to start back going any time soon, and they may not really know a single thing hardly about the Faith other than what they dreamed up.

Best not to get your facts from these people. They just confuse a person which would irritate me if I was a non Catholic trying to figure something out.

 

[Wannano]

The problem is that ‘the hierarchy’ themselves are currently ‘split’ in some directions. The Church doesn’t just ‘currently’ teach when it comes to matters of dogma and doctrine. The Church has been charged with not ‘making up doctrine’ but in transmitting, whole, entire, and unchanged, the dogma/doctrine of God (who does not change).

You’ll find that most Catholics know that disciplinary changes exist, such as a shorter pre-communion fast, an indult in the US regarding eating meat on Fridays outside of Lent, etc.

The ‘new current thought’ of some of the hierarchy however involving dogma and doctrine is in direct contradiction with the ‘continuous current thought’ of others. To give an example, consider two archbishops, of equal standing, one in Buenos Aires and one in Philadelphia. Both have spoken regarding a doctrinal matter (reception of communion among divorced/remarried without a decree of nullity). In Buenos Aires, the archbishop says “Yes they may receive”. In Philadelphia, the archbishop says "No they may not receive’.

Well, they can’t both be right. . .SO of the laity who support Buenos Aires and the laity who support Philadelphia, one group is going to be accused of 'being out of tune with the current thought of the hierarchy.

That is not the fault of the laity, who are trusting to their bishops and hierarchy. It’s not the fault of the archbishop who is upholding correct teaching.

It comes down to the archbishop who is (no matter how good his intentions are) supporting incorrect teaching. It is causing scandal to the faithful and a great degree of misery, and clear non ambiguous teaching and decisions are NOT being given.

That again is not the fault of the laity, nor the fault of those who strive to maintain correct teaching.

Thank you for your honesty and concise evaluation of what is happening. I respect Catholics who are sincere and honest.

My observation is that both Archbishops are allowed to practice even though one of them is wrong. The one is following the long established doctrine and discipline and saying “no.” The other is following the new and ambiguous teaching of the Pope and saying “yes.” Do I have that straight and is it just that simple?

 

[Wannano]

Oh, I see. Maybe it is due to bad internet connection. So what was the answer?

So now you are asking me question. … There is disagreement currently among some Catholic clergy and Pope Francis regarding divorced remarried persons being allowed to receive Communion, which is from the Pope’s encyclical on the subject. As it is now, the dissenting clergy are asking for clarification from the Pope.

Just for your information about doctrine and discipline, and even devotion.

Doctrine does not change, while discipline can. However, even if individual Catholics do not agree with them personally, they still have to abide by them.

As for devotion, it is not obligatory upon Catholics.

In short, they cannot practice as they like as far as belief of the Church is concerned.

I explained to you that when I hit the reply button a message appeared saying you and I had over extended our conversation and we’re to include others in the conversation. I was not allowed to respond to you. I have never had that happen before and I am sorry you do not have the trust in me to believe that I tried to answer you.

My point was that considering the Apostles Creed comprises the basic doctrine of most Protestant churches the differences you observe are disciplines or applications of the doctrines. Catholics observe that Protestants have different practices and then some question whether Protestants have any truth at all, even going so far as to suggest we are not led by the Holy Spirit at all.

Considering that and the reality of what is happening in the Catholic Church even as we speak I suggest we are finding ourselves in the same boat. If you can’t understand that then I have to assume no one else can either. It just seems to me that both Catholic and Protestant churches are experiencing problems with following the Holy Spirit and no matter how you sugar coat it both are practicing it. That in my opinion puts us in the same boat and I know that makes you uncomfortable. We all need help.

 

[dann]

Wow. Not education of the next generation youth really is a problem.

Well said… This is why I meet so many former catholics.

 

[dann]

Yes you did express the education of former catholics is a understandable way

 

[Tis_Bearself]

My observation is that both Archbishops are allowed to practice even though one of them is wrong. The one is following the long established doctrine and discipline and saying “no.” The other is following the new and ambiguous teaching of the Pope and saying “yes.” Do I have that straight and is it just that simple?

I don’t see it as that simple.
An Archbishop makes decisions based on the needs of, and for the good of, his diocese. If he were doing something truly “wrong” then one expects the Vatican to correct him. If the Vatican does not correct him, then I would presume it’s because they think he is within his discretion in making a certain decision based on his interpretation of the situations affecting his particular flock.

The needs of a flock in Country A might be very different from the needs of a flock in Country B, at least in the short term. Over time, perhaps it will become more clear that one way is “wrong” and then one would expect the Holy See to act, but perhaps it is not clear just yet.

 

[stpurl]

For right now, yes. There have always been times (the 5th century Arian heresy being a particular example) where individual bishops have taught error. Even now, the Pope himself is not teaching error, as the document in question does not have magisterial status and is not an infallible teaching. Indeed, for an infallible teaching the Pope must either speak ex cathedra (he has not on this subject) OR the Pope AND the entire community of bishops must teach in complete uniformity (obviously, this is not the case).

Jesus never said that individual bishops would not go off the tracks, or indeed that the Pope could not speak personal error, even grievous error. But we live in an age of nearly instant communication, so that communications which even a few decades ago would have taken days and weeks to reach people, and longer than that to be introduced and evaluated, are now done ‘in the blink of an eye’, and so there is great confusion. Again, even just a few decades ago, the people affected in Buenos Aires for example would have been the only ones to ‘know’ of this original letter, and the bishops would not have been in constant communication with each other. In a way, it’s good to have this all come out with a lot more ‘viewing’ by people, as hopefully this problem–and it is a problem–will be resolved.

There was a case back 700 years or so ago when a Pope (John XXII) started a personal teaching on the Beatific Vision that did NOT align with Church dogma. He was called out on it and he submitted. So again, this is not something ‘without precedent’. Pope John XXII did not extend his personal teaching and make it magisterial; he could not. The Holy Spirit will protect the Church now as the Spirit did then, but it might not be in exactly the same way, and it might not be done as ‘fast as we would like’. However, it will be done if there comes a point where the Church is in danger of being about to teach error as truth. The gates of hell will not prevail, but they might be put up and stand for a while. We need to keep praying.

 

[RastaForJesus]

Technically Catholic, but that’s beside the point ;D How Orthodoxy is usually viewed as an unimportant relic of the past- that’s kinda bothersome.

 

[dann]

Nice historical overview …

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

My observation is that both Archbishops are allowed to practice even though one of them is wrong. The one is following the long established doctrine and discipline and saying “no.” The other is following the new and ambiguous teaching of the Pope and saying “yes.” Do I have that straight and is it just that simple?

I don’t see it as that simple.
An Archbishop makes decisions based on the needs of, and for the good of, his diocese. If he were doing something truly “wrong” then one expects the Vatican to correct him. If the Vatican does not correct him, then I would presume it’s because they think he is within his discretion in making a certain decision based on his interpretation of the situations affecting his particular flock.

The needs of a flock in Country A might be very different from the needs of a flock in Country B, at least in the short term. Over time, perhaps it will become more clear that one way is “wrong” and then one would expect the Holy See to act, but perhaps it is not clear just yet.

So if people in the current position from Philadelphia who are told “no” travel to Argentina and commune there are they doing the right thing?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

So if people in the current position from Philadelphia who are told “no” travel to Argentina and commune there are they doing the right thing?

I can’t judge what other people do, and it’s not my place to do that, so there’s no way I can say what the “right” thing for some other person might be.

However, I’m sure that if people were being attracted in large number to move from one diocese to another because rules were more relaxed, or less relaxed, in the other place, then the Church would take this into account.

In reality, you’re not going to see any movement of magnitude for religious reasons when it’s between two countries that differ as much as US and Argentina. And given that most people don’t care about their religion enough to go to the trouble of moving, you’re probably not going to see much movement between countries at all.

It’s more likely that people who don’t like what’s going on will just quit going to church. At this point, so many people have already quit going to church over one thing or another, right down to not liking the music at Mass or being bored or whatever, that people quitting over Amoris Laetitia probably won’t be noticed in the great swarm of people quitting for 1,000 other reasons.

Or if people prefer the conservative approach, they may seek out an SSPX, FSSP or other traditional alternative Catholicism if one is available. This might be noticed as it does seem like a lot of serious Catholics prefer some, if not most or all, traditional practices.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

So if people in the current position from Philadelphia who are told “no” travel to Argentina and commune there are they doing the right thing?

I can’t judge what other people do, and it’s not my place to do that, so there’s no way I can say what the “right” thing for some other person might be.

However, I’m sure that if people were being attracted in large number to move from one diocese to another because rules were more relaxed, or less relaxed, in the other place, then the Church would take this into account.

In reality, you’re not going to see any movement of magnitude for religious reasons when it’s between two countries that differ as much as US and Argentina. And given that most people don’t care about their religion enough to go to the trouble of moving, you’re probably not going to see much movement between countries at all.

It’s more likely that people who don’t like what’s going on will just quit going to church. At this point, so many people have already quit going to church over one thing or another, right down to not liking the music at Mass or being bored or whatever, that people quitting over Amoris Laetitia probably won’t be noticed in the great swarm of people quitting for 1,000 other reasons.

Or if people prefer the conservative approach, they may seek out an SSPX, FSSP or other traditional alternative Catholicism if one is available. This might be noticed as it does seem like a lot of serious Catholics prefer some, if not most or all, traditional practices.

Thank you. That explains a lot.

 

[TC3033]

I can’t paint a brush over all Catholics, if all Catholics were this way…I probably wouldn’t be married to one.

The one thing that I’ve run into, going to church with my wife, is how exclusionary some (most?) Catholics can be of non-Catholics around the parish. Kind of seems like they look down their nose at non-Catholics. That’s not something I grew up with or am used to.

My .02.

 

[JamalChristophr]

@TC3033

That’s a noteworthy observation. I’ll be curious to hear what other Catholics have to say about it. Maybe it’s just the principle of like-mindedness, I don’t know. Maybe many are thinking, “You’re spouse is a Catholic, so why aren’t you?” That may be completely wrong. I’m not really social enough among my Catholic brothers and sisters to draw a conclusion about it. I’m single for one thing, so I see things a bit differently from the majority who are married, seems to me.

It is unfortunate, in any case, but I think the answer would be “many” and not “most”. I hope not, anyways.

 

[dann]

Wow well said! Catholics do look down their nose at non catholics. It deceptive to believe other wise