Protestant vs. Cafeteria Catholic?

[7_Sorrows]

My understanding is that virtually everyone south of that border is Catholic.

So when Trump closes the border, it’s either to stop Catholics getting in or Texans getting out.

Either way you’ll miss the party. - youtube.com/watch?v=VMp55KH_3wo (play excessively loud, preferably with two sub woofers, it’s the Spanish way)

Nice video and song!!!

However, it is no longer the case that virtually everyone south of the border is Catholic.

 

[inocente]

One Mexican party I’d be glad to miss.

Only thing being I was referring to the Catholics in the whole of Latin America, roughly twice the population of the USA. And the party was in Cuba. Apart from that, your geography is 90th percentile for a Texan.

Nice video and song!!!

However, it is no longer the case that virtually everyone south of the border is Catholic.

You’re right, I see it’s around 70%. Who knew.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Another thing that’s true is the fact that the religious views of any particular Catholic may not represent the teaching of the Church. This fact in particular is one you seem to have substantial difficulty internalizing.

Welcome to the club. I’ve been trying to convey this to him in so many ways for years now, to no avail. I think where I have failed, you too will fail. We are up against the old “private interpretation” syndrome.

 

[inocente]

That’s certainly true.

What’s also true is that you couldn’t obtain an indubitably “representative cross section” without a sizable and purely random selection from all of the worlds 1.2 billion Catholics.

Another thing that’s true is the fact that the religious views of any particular Catholic may not represent the teaching of the Church. This fact in particular is one you seem to have substantial difficulty internalizing. Thus, a “representative cross section” may represent the values held by the average Catholic, but it does not provide, in any way, whether or not those views are orthodox, or genuinely “Catholic”.

The truth of the Church doesn’t flow “bottom up” like it does in most evangelical denominations. It’s “top down”, as it always has been with God and His prophets & priests then Christ and His disciples. Being wrong is absolutely a possibility.

I think there would probably be enough active posters on CAF to provide a statistically significant sample if all the world’s Catholics spoke English and liked being on internet forums.

Anyone can find out what the Church teaches by going to vatican.va. I’ve attended several Masses. Seen JPII in person at St Peters. Got the tee-shirt.

*Hold it right there.

The Catholic Church is an authoritative Church. The magisterial authority exists outside* of any particular believer.

Catholic “A” thinks gay marriage is “ok” from a religious perspective. Catholic “B” thinks it is not.

The Church independently identifies only one of them as being correct in their views. Catholic “B” is obedient to the truth, Catholic “A” is not.

Yes I understand that, but that’s not Catholicism as I know it.

In a local town, all the moms take their kids to the hairdressers before First Communion. The hairdressers are a gay married couple. The moms like that they are married. That’s Catholicism as I know it. Sounding your car horn in town is illegal except when you see a friend on the sidewalk. People will happily sit in a jam while you stop to talk to a friend on the sidewalk. Next time maybe they’ll want to stop. This is not your Protestant work-ethic type of Catholicism. There are other truths than rulebooks, no?

 

[inocente]

Welcome to the club. I’ve been trying to convey this to him in so many ways for years now, to no avail. I think where I have failed, you too will fail. We are up against the old “private interpretation” syndrome.

Talking of private interpretations, if memory serves a few days back I argued Cardinal Ratzinger’s interpretation against your private interpretation. I’ve been trying to convey this to you for years now, etc.

 

[o_mlly]

Whose soul is in a better position, or which is more desirable to be…

Both are imperfect Catholics. As Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (Lutheran in1987) wrote in his book, The Catholic Moment: “We are all Roman Catholics, know it or not, like it or not. Admittedly, there is a qualifier ‘imperfect,’ but then who is a perfect member of the Church?”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Talking of private interpretations, if memory serves a few days back I argued Cardinal Ratzinger’s interpretation against your private interpretation. I’ve been trying to convey this to you for years now, etc.

Doctrinally, so far as I know, Cardinal Ratzinger and I are always on the same page.
The Catholic page, where private interpretation of doctrine is not allowed, even if everything else is up for grabs.

 

[Peter_J]

Which doesn’t exactly sound like a lively welcoming church.

This isn’t a church, lively welcoming or otherwise, but an Internet forum.

 

[Peter_J]

Wikipedia has articles on 118 contemporary Catholic philosophers and theologians. I’ve seen only two or three get mentioned on CAF, the biggest fan clubs swooning over Kreeft and Fesser (who only gets mentioned as an apologist for Aquinas).

That’s news to me. My experience has mostly been that posters (well, Protestant posters) think I should know who Jimmy Akin is.

 

[Peter_J]

Some posters lump all Protestants together as if they have one view, and lump all Catholics together as if they have one view.

Wait, we don’t?

 

[steve93]

Many Conservative Protestants have, in addition to philosophical and historical grievances, a very poor view of Catholic based on individual catholics who, after saying that they are “catholic” in almost the same way that I would say I have ancestors from Germany and Wales, proceed to make perverted jokes, promote leftist political agendas, live in sin, brag how drunk they got last new years, and tell you what loser their cousin so and so is.

 

[Peter_J]

But if you’re arguing that their views don’t represent Catholicism, that implies you think being Catholic has not changed them, therefore that God hasn’t shaken their lives.

No, I’m saying any of those things, or anything at all that’s grand. I’m just one Catholic, and I’m assuming that you’re just one Protestant; and while I’m glad that you’re interested in what I have to say, there’s also such a thing as being too interested.

(If I might throw another comparison in here, there was an interesting moment at a political rally one time, when a politician who was on the stage told everybody to turn and look at someone in attendance who was African-American, and people were like “Um, is he really all that interesting?” But I digress.)

 

[inocente]

I’m just not as “sold” as you are on the idea that just because someone thinks something, it must have some merit or be true.

Sorry missed this post yesterday.

With some people, I tend to disagree on principle with everything they say .

But when it comes to sincere beliefs, there’s a little thing called Dignitatis Humanae. As you’re a lapsed Baptist, you will also know it as soul liberty - that when it comes to religious beliefs, each person must be free and is responsible to God alone for what in conscience he believes. Which I guess puts us back on topic.

 

[Vonsalza]

With some people, I tend to disagree on principle with everything they say .

Directly to the detriment of the legitimacy and credibility of your rhetoric.

But when it comes to sincere beliefs, there’s a little thing called Dignitatis Humanae. As you’re a lapsed Baptist, you will also know it as soul liberty - that when it comes to religious beliefs, each person must be free and is responsible to God alone for what in conscience he believes. Which I guess puts us back on topic.

Lets go back to Christ saving the harlot from stoning;

He told her to “go and sin no more”. So per her “soul liberty” (it was labelled “Christian Liberty” at my seminary), if she decided to go back to whoring because her conscience didn’t object to it, Christ would presumably be “ok” with it per your argument?

Absolute balderdash.

 

[inocente]

This isn’t a church, lively welcoming or otherwise, but an Internet forum.

If by church you mean a building then I can only commend your excellent observational skills . But for Baptists the church is the people, and CCC 752 also says “The Church is the People that God gathers in the whole world”. I’d say you’re part of that Body, not just on Sundays, not just in Mass, but full time.

No, I’m saying any of those things, or anything at all that’s grand. I’m just one Catholic, and I’m assuming that you’re just one Protestant; and while I’m glad that you’re interested in what I have to say, there’s also such a thing as being too interested.

(If I might throw another comparison in here, there was an interesting moment at a political rally one time, when a politician who was on the stage told everybody to turn and look at someone in attendance who was African-American, and people were like “Um, is he really all that interesting?” But I digress.)

He’s probably interesting once you get to know him. When we get past labels like Protestant and Catholic, we’re persons, and I’ve never known any two persons with exactly the same beliefs, and would suspect brain-washing indoctrination if I ever did.

So maybe we’re having a rationalist/empiricist dispute here. In which case you’re claiming that ideas (doctrines) have an independent a priori existence, so it doesn’t matter what individuals think. While I’m claiming that ideas only exist between people’s ears, and therefore what you and others believe takes priority.

 

[inocente]

Directly to the detriment of the legitimacy and credibility of your rhetoric.

Lets go back to Christ saving the harlot from stoning;

He told her to “go and sin no more”. So per her “soul liberty” (it was labelled “Christian Liberty” at my seminary), if she decided to go back to whoring because her conscience didn’t object to it, Christ would presumably be “ok” with it per your argument?

Absolute balderdash.

Balder-wot? Are you posting from 1817?

Perhaps you missed where I said “when it comes to** religious beliefs**, each person must be free and is responsible to God alone for what in conscience he believes”.

Never mind, you’ll get the hang of this reading business eventually, don’t despair, practice makes perfect.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So maybe we’re having a rationalist/empiricist dispute here. In which case you’re claiming that ideas (doctrines) have an independent a priori existence, so it doesn’t matter what individuals think. While I’m claiming that ideas only exist between people’s ears, and therefore what you and others believe takes priority.

Doctrines do have an independent existence, as was demonstrated by the authority of those apostles attending the Council of Jerusalem. Their authoritative decisions regarding dietary matters and circumcision were settled as independent matters that no longer needed to be subject to personal interpretation or preference.

Now I appreciate that you read the CCC a lot and that shows you want to understand, even if your only reason for wanting to understand is to turn Catholics in this forum into heretics according to the CCC.

But you see, we are open and unafraid through the CCC to declare what we are obliged to believe in if we want to call ourselves authentically Catholic. Now, if I wanted to test your convictions of your own faith as a Baptist, what book would I go to that covers the kind of matters and gives the kind of guidance that the CCC gives to Catholics? For example, if I wanted to check whether your views are consistent with the views of the Baptist Church regarding homosexuality or same-sex marriage or abortion on demand or euthanasia, and all the other matters that Protestants have to think about since they are confronted by the same decision making that Catholics have to do, what authoritative source do you have to work from **that I can access **that is comparable to the CCC?

 

[Vonsalza]

Balder-wot? Are you posting from 1817?

Perhaps you missed where I said “when it comes to** religious beliefs**, each person must be free and is responsible to God alone for what in conscience he believes”.

Never mind, you’ll get the hang of this reading business eventually, don’t despair, practice makes perfect.

So dismissal of the point rather than a response?

As expected…

 

[inocente]

Doctrines do have an independent existence, as was demonstrated by the authority of those apostles attending the Council of Jerusalem. Their authoritative decisions regarding dietary matters and circumcision were settled as independent matters that no longer needed to be subject to personal interpretation or preference.

Now I appreciate that you read the CCC a lot and that shows you want to understand, even if your only reason for wanting to understand is to turn Catholics in this forum into heretics according to the CCC.

But you see, we are open and unafraid through the CCC to declare what we are obliged to believe in if we want to call ourselves authentically Catholic. Now, if I wanted to test your convictions of your own faith as a Baptist, what book would I go to that covers the kind of matters and gives the kind of guidance that the CCC gives to Catholics? For example, if I wanted to check whether your views are consistent with the views of the Baptist Church regarding homosexuality or same-sex marriage or abortion on demand or euthanasia, and all the other matters that Protestants have to think about since they are confronted by the same decision making that Catholics have to do, what authoritative source do you have to work from **that I can access **that is comparable to the CCC?

I think you misunderstand. A rationalist believes that knowledge can be gained independent of experience of the world. Either because the knowledge is innate, in our nature, or by deduction from intuition. For example, a rationalist might claim that the message of the cross could be worked out rationally from first principles, without any need for Jesus.

But Paul says, in 1 Cor 1, that this would be impossible, that human wisdom alone could never discover what was revealed by grace. Which implies that doctrine cannot have an existence independent of Christ crucified (to use Paul’s phrase). Well, not Christian anyway, obviously other religions believe different.

Re yon “authoritative source”. As the Apostle’s Creed says, I believe in the Holy Spirit. Born again and belong to Christ, not to bible-thumping nor even unto CCC-thumping Texans. Serously, isn’t it in RCIA that you don’t get to test the convictions of other Christians, Baptist or Catholic, that only the King judges? As the great philosopher Miley Cyrus writes “Remember only God can judge ya”. Can I hear an amen.

 

[inocente]

So dismissal of the point rather than a response?

As expected…

Then it flew over my head and you’ll have to spell out why you think adultery has anything to do with soul liberty (aka soul competency), the human right to freedom of religion, and me saying “when it comes to religious beliefs, each person must be free and is responsible to God alone for what in conscience he believes”.