"Non-Dissenting" Catholic - a clear and concise term

[3DOCTORS]

What do you think? I’ve been pondering for a long time and trying out different ideas but running into the problem of unwanted connotations or confusion. Therefore, I propose this new term to denote Catholics who do their best to follow and promote Church teaching and discourage dissent from same. I propose it as a substitute for:

Liberal vs. conservative, which have political connotations. Likewise, progressive is a term which has some use, but has no opposite that doesn’t sound strange. So if you’re opposed to the progressives who want the Church to change her teaching, are you against all kinds of progress?

Orthodox vs. heterodox, which is not bad but for the confusion of Orthodox with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Also, “heterodox” is accurate but not everybody’s familiar with it.

Faithful Catholic makes others feel defensive and goes against the idea that “a bruised reed He shall not break and a smoldering wick He will not quench . . .” It might run off some people who are still learning how to be fully faithful to the Church.

What do you all think? It’s a shame we have to use adjectives and qualifiers, but in an imperfect world at least it’d be nice if we could find the most accurate one possible.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Respecting your sincerity, but politely disagreeing.

It’s a double-negative, rife with its own ambiguity, such as “I don’t disagree with you.”

I prefer heterodox vs. orthodox, because with a small “o” there is no confusion. (Common noun vs. proper noun) There are particular reference points for orthodox Catholicism, and those reference points are not personal opinion or current popular urban legend (Catholic or otherwise ), but approved, unchanged doctrine.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I don’t think it would matter. Most “dissenting” catholics that I’ve known aren’t actively “dissenting”, they just don’t know what is actually taught. And if you try to correct them, they get very defensive about what is “actually” church teaching. In college I met a very “devout” family that went to mass every week, prayed the rosary, had saint statues everywhere, but were shocked to find out that cloistered orders still existed and were absolutely sure that the church had no official teaching on gay marriage.

 

[EphelDuath]

Nothing wrong with the term “cafeteria Catholic”. It’s especially useful because dissenters will often counter that orthodox Catholics are also “picking and choosing what they believe”, which can easily be refuted.

 

[St_Francis]

St Thomas Aquinas differentiates between Catholics in error and heretics (remember, he was writing a long time ago). A erring Catholic wants to be a good Catholic but doesn’t know some things. He may even need some time to adjust his thinking. But overall, he is sincere in wanting to follow Christ.

To me, Aquinas’s description of a heretic is closer to the person I would describe as dissenting or cafeteria. This is the person who has decided that he can reject a part of Catholic teaching. Aquinas points out that this makes every aspect of the Faith a mere opinion in the mind of that person. He chooses to believe what he likes, just as much as he chooses to reject what he dislikes. This person does not have faith because he does not believe that God, Who can not deceive, teaches and protects the Church from teaching error.

So I have three sets of Catholics: dissenting, erring, and orthodox. I prefer to use the term Catholic for orthodox Catholics unless it is necessary to differentiate, because when you start giving in to their ideas, you lose. If we have to use a special term for non-dissenting Catholics all the time, as we do for cafeteria Catholics, then the term Catholic has lost its meaning, which is not a good thing!

 

[globaljim]

The problem with the term is that it leaves open the possibility that a person is simply not
that engaged. It is too negative. What we are looking for is Catholics who are searching
for the full Truth that is found only in Christ the Living Truth. What I see as the greatest
danger today is Ideology on both extremes. Ideology is the fundamentalist idea that
because they ;have some basic truths they have the whole truth ;and anyone who differs
from them must be wrong…
Jesus founded his Church on the Rock so we would always have a touchstone to know
we are on the right path. If we ever think we are finished getting to know the Infinite -
then we really are finished. It may be that our need to have a term is just our natural desire
to think we need no longer be struggling and listening to Christ Who came into this world
to bear witness to the Truth. God cannot so easily be quantified.

 

[Mark121359]

I don’t think it would matter. *** Most “dissenting” catholics that I’ve known aren’t actively “dissenting”, they just don’t know what is actually taught.*** And if you try to correct them, they get very defensive about what is “actually” church teaching. In college I met a very “devout” family that went to mass every week, prayed the rosary, had saint statues everywhere, but were shocked to find out that cloistered orders still existed and were absolutely sure that the church had no official teaching on gay marriage.

I disagree with this. For me it’s been the opposite of your experience. While I don’t doubt that some Catholics are poorly catechized and are truly “ignorant” of Church teachings with regards to so-called gay marriage, abortion, women priests, contraception, etc. etc. I believe that far more Catholics know ***precisely ***what the Church teaches, but make a conscious choice to disobey or disregard her teachings.

***Peace, Mark ***

 

[travissbeloved]

I disagree with this. For me it’s been the opposite of your experience. While I don’t doubt that some Catholics are poorly catechized and are truly “ignorant” of Church teachings with regards to so-called gay marriage, abortion, women priests, contraception, etc. etc. I believe that far more Catholics know ***precisely ***what the Church teaches, but make a conscious choice to disobey or disregard her teachings.

***Peace, Mark ***

I agree, recently in our area at least, priests have been speaking about controversial topics in their homilies much more often lately and if a Catholic is in mass to hear it they know precisely what they should and should not agree with and practice. Many just choose not to because it doesn’t fit their lifestyle. Now there are those who do not hear these homilies because they are not in mass…in that case they are probably not claiming to be all that “catholic” in the first place.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Or, you know, we could focus on being holy without acting like orthodoxy determines salvation.

 

[travissbeloved]

orthodoxy and holiness kind of go hand in hand

 

[3DOCTORS]

Angles I hadn’t thought of from everyone, which provides more to think about. It’s just so sad to think that “Catholic” doesn’t mean the same to everyone - that not everyone wants to accept the basics that the Church teaches. If they did, there’d be no need for an adjective/modifier about following the Church’s teaching vs. not doing so. The only modifiers that would exist would be for rite, or culture, or other things that are worth mentioning yet not modifying the essential truths of the Faith.

@ MarcusAndreas - I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive

 

[EphelDuath]

Or, you know, we could focus on being holy without acting like orthodoxy determines salvation.

Orthodoxy is a condition of faith, which is the cause of salvation. Jesus was insistent upon teaching the resurrection of the dead despite the heterodoxy of the Sadducees, and just the same, Catholics should insist upon teaching the sacredness of life despite criticism from “Catholics” that think abortion is not sinful.

 

[travissbeloved]

Angles I hadn’t thought of from everyone, which provides more to think about. It’s just so sad to think that “Catholic” doesn’t mean the same to everyone - that not everyone wants to accept the basics that the Church teaches. If they did, there’d be no need for an adjective/modifier about following the Church’s teaching vs. not doing so. The only modifiers that would exist would be for rite, or culture, or other things that are worth mentioning yet not modifying the essential truths of the Faith.

@ MarcusAndreas - I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive

It is very sad, sometimes my husband will say something like O our new neighbors are “catholics”. And he uses the quotation hand signs as he sarcastically says catholics. It’s very sad but it is true and I truly want to know if someone is in line with the Church or not so that I know how to conduct myself around them. I can openly talk with some of my friends about my vehement hatred for ABC while of course I wouldn’t do that if I knew someone was using it, I would try to be a bit more charitable.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

orthodoxy and holiness kind of go hand in hand

No, they do not. You can hold to every correct teaching and still be a wicked person. What you’re saying is an insult to Protestant and Orthodox martyrs.

Orthodoxy is a condition of faith, which is the cause of salvation.

Really? I thought faith was a supernatural gift that could not be earned through any means, including the intellectual acceptance of correct doctrine.

Jesus was insistent upon teaching the resurrection of the dead despite the heterodoxy of the Sadducees, and just the same, Catholics should insist upon teaching the sacredness of life despite criticism from “Catholics” that think abortion is not sinful.

Yes, we are morally bound to be orthodox when we have full knowledge, but this conservative Catholic **** of making orthodoxy the only thing that can save you is exactly that, ****. And these three remain, faith, hope, and orthodoxy, but the greatest of these is orthodoxy! Orthodoxy covereth a multitude of sins! Yeah, I don’t think that’s in scripture.

 

[3DOCTORS]

It is very sad, sometimes my husband will say something like O our new neighbors are “catholics”. And he uses the quotation hand signs as he sarcastically says catholics. It’s very sad but it is true and I truly want to know if someone is in line with the Church or not so that I know how to conduct myself around them. I can openly talk with some of my friends about my vehement hatred for ABC while of course I wouldn’t do that if I knew someone was using it, I would try to be a bit more charitable.

We must always speak the truth in love. We don’t want to pander to peer pressure but it is good to know where the other person is at so that we can evangelize.

The corollary to that is that sometimes it’s good if they know where we are coming from as well. That’s why I’m trying to find a non-confusing word - and hopefully one that doesn’t raise too many hackles. Another word I’ve sometimes used is “old-fashioned,” but that’s flawed as well, makes it sound like “behind the times.”

Or I’ll say I’m “faithful to the Magisterium” but that’s a mouthful and intimidating to some - it’s the old dilemma, one can’t share the Faith if the person one wishes to share it with is running away!

Maybe there just isn’t much choice yet - I floated my idea but I know it’s probably not ideal. Maybe someone will coin a word that works.

 

[travissbeloved]

No, they do not. You can hold to every correct teaching and still be a wicked person. What you’re saying is an insult to Protestant and Orthodox martyrs.

Really? I thought faith was a supernatural gift that could not be earned through any means, including the intellectual acceptance of correct doctrine.

Yes, we are morally bound to be orthodox when we have full knowledge, but this conservative Catholic **** of making orthodoxy the only thing that can save you is exactly that, ****. And these three remain, faith, hope, and orthodoxy, but the greatest of these is orthodoxy! Orthodoxy covereth a multitude of sins! Yeah, I don’t think that’s in scripture.

I don’t think anyone here is saying orthodoxy is the ONLY thing needed for salvation but it is a fruit of holiness. Those who are holy tend to stay in line with the teachings of the Church and those who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church tend to be quite holy. Yes you correct in saying there are exceptions to that but it is rare. Someone who is going to confession on a regular basis is going to have much more grace not to sin and be awful.

 

[agnes_therese]

Would the universe collapse if we stopped trying to slap labels on everyone?

Just thinkin’ . . .

 

[OldYoungGuy]

How 'bout “modern Catholic” or “old school Catholic”…heheheh
:slapfight:

 

[St_Francis]

No, they do not. You can hold to every correct teaching and still be a wicked person.

i don’t know how tightly someone could be *holding to *every correct teaching and still be wicked! STM that someone might *know *every teaching, but some would have to be rejected in order to be so “wicked.”

Moreover, there is a difference between saying One must do X to attain Y, and saying, Y means you do X. A person may indee be familiar with many aspects of the Faith and still be wicked, but a holy person would *desire *to believe everything which Christ taught.

What you’re saying is an insult to Protestant and Orthodox martyrs.

Not at all. There is a difference between someone who rejects the truth and someone who is ignorant of the truth.

Really? I thought faith was a supernatural gift that could not be earned through any means, including the intellectual acceptance of correct doctrine.

St Thomas Aquinas says: On the contrary, Just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article…

…Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.

The person who *rejects *one or more teachings of the Church destroys his entire faith, turning it into nothing but opinions with which he agrees.

The person who simply doesn’t know certain things has not done anything to ruin his faith.

Yes, we are morally bound to be orthodox when we have full knowledge, but this conservative Catholic **** of making orthodoxy the only thing that can save you is exactly that, ****. And these three remain, faith, hope, and orthodoxy, but the greatest of these is orthodoxy! Orthodoxy covereth a multitude of sins! Yeah, I don’t think that’s in scripture.

Not at all. Orthodoxy is very important, and as Catholics we become responsible for our ignorance if it is due to our own fault.

Orthodoxy is related to faith, so one can’t really say that we have replaced love with orthodoxy.

 

[St_Francis]

Would the universe collapse if we stopped trying to slap labels on everyone?

Just thinkin’ . . .

Labels are generally invented or worked out because we have a need to express the concept. If we had no way of differentiating between an orthodox Catholic and an abortion-supporting Catholic, then we’d have a problem. We have solved the problem by working out labels.