Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[elts1956]

Clement:

For nearly twenty years, in my conversations on the topic I have differentiated between “American” Catholics and Roman Catholics. There are people in America who claim to be Catholic but think doctrine should be determined by majority vote and (as one priest said) “the Pope can run his church and I’ll run mine.” These I called American Catholics, and I looked forward to the schism which would cause them to leave the True Roman Catholic Church and go form their own American Catholic Church.

In more recent years, I have found that my differentiation between American and Roman Catholics was causing confusion, so I have taken to simply referring to the two groups as Roman Catholics and pseudo-catholics.

I call “those people” Cafeteria Catholics.

 

[elts1956]

Clement:

For nearly twenty years, in my conversations on the topic I have differentiated between “American” Catholics and Roman Catholics. There are people in America who claim to be Catholic but think doctrine should be determined by majority vote and (as one priest said) “the Pope can run his church and I’ll run mine.” These I called American Catholics, and I looked forward to the schism which would cause them to leave the True Roman Catholic Church and go form their own American Catholic Church.

In more recent years, I have found that my differentiation between American and Roman Catholics was causing confusion, so I have taken to simply referring to the two groups as Roman Catholics and pseudo-catholics.

It isn’t a matter of “adding” it is a matter of defining. Take for example the Immaculate Conception, defined as dogma in 1854 (I think). Does that mean that in 1853 the Church did not have the fullness of truth? Of course not, The Church always believed that Mary was the Immaculate Conception, but it had not defined it as dogma. It was the strong belief of the faithful that finally pressed the Magisterium to define the dogma.

OK that is what I was thinking. I had posted “somewhere in the ether” (too many threads) that there would be no new dogma or doctrines given by the Church. I can’t remember when this was stated. But I was questioned about the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption as being made dogma in 1950. After reading “somewhere in church doctrine” that the concept of Mother Mary’s Assumption has always been taught and believed since the beginning of the Church by the Apostles, I then understood it had not been written “in concrete” til 1950. So it wasn’t a new belief.

 

[elts1956]

Do you have statistical proof for that? Have studies been done? Polls taken?

As a pro-lifer, I am anti-abortion, anti-euthenasia, anti-capitol punishment, anti-torture of POW, anti-war, and anti-nucular weapons. I am so average that I am almost invisible, so I cannot think that I am alone in extent of my pro-life position. Let me simplify my stance, if it gives life I am for it, if it takes life away I am against it, that is what pro-life means.

 

[elts1956]

Do you have statistical proof for that? Have studies been done? Polls taken?

As a pro-lifer, I am anti-abortion, anti-euthenasia, anti-capitol punishment, anti-torture of POW, anti-war, and anti-nucular weapons. I am so average that I am almost invisible, so I cannot think that I am alone in extent of my pro-life position. Let me simplify my stance, if it gives life I am for it, if it takes life away I am against it, that is what pro-life means.

Well said. Are you sure you aren’t Catholic?

I just suspect she hasn’t admitted it to herself yet. Sure sounds Catholic to me.

 

[elts1956]

npatrol:

I don’t see anywhere in my other posts where I talk about “American culture” and “Catholic culture”. Is there anywhere you can find this?

What I had said is that there is no “American Church”, just the “Catholic Church”. Spiritmeadow was somehow giving this odd assumption that the Catholic parishes in America somehow ran through a different body and doctrine than Romes simply because of the fact that many American Catholics don’t agree and follow Church teaching. I thought it was quite a presumptuous statement to think that just because a good amount of American laymen don’t follow certain teachings because they are unwilling to give up certain sins and now want them justified is not an excuse to change doctrine. Thus I said:

Where you referring to this?

Hello Clement, Regarding the idea of the American Catholic, or the American Catholic Church here in the U.S. I think this is a concept the public media is either trying to foist on people, or this is what they truly think.

As I said to another poster, my naivety took a strong hit on Nov. 5, 2008 and maybe I see conspiracy where there is none, but perhaps the push behind this is more sinister than is seen. I know bo would be so happy to be able to say his pro abort politicians belong the the “American Catholic Church”. You know, those strongly Catholic folk like Biden, Pelosi, Sibelius and others like Kerry and Kennedy.

In 2011 the Amercian Catholic Church Council which is comprised of dissidents from all over is going to be holding a conference to discuss “issues” of the Church which need to be addressed such as women priests, married priests etc. I don’t know the list of what they think needs to be remedied that is on their agenda.

But I kind of supect npatrol:npatrol: they aren’t exactly pro Vatican. It would be interesting to see how many U.S. clergy attend.

 

[Answersplease]

This thread is NOT about Obama. For the record Obama is not pro-abortion. Nobody is. Pro choice is the term, and you use the former as a means to incite anger, I think.

You somehow claim that because Obama appoints pro-choice people he is anti-Catholic. I guess you forgot that the bible belt evangelical fundamentalists have been anti choice/abortion for at least as long as you have.

As I said, back on topic please.

Yes, of course no one is pro-abortion or pro-murder of the child in the womb, good Christians like you just want to have the legal choice to carry the murder out if it gets in the way of living your selfish life as you see fit, never mind what God wants.

The Lord knew you from before he formed you in the womb, Jacob grasped the ankle of his brother Essau while he was yet unborn.

50 million (and rising at a rate of about 5,000 per day) dead carcasses if piled up in one place should’nt make any good Catholic a one issue voter, no don’t be silly.

Abortion mill houses specifically target minority communities to build their genocide factories, but it sure could’nt a racial thing.

Margaret Sanger founded her abortion organization in order to rid humanity of the lesser races and the poor, but she was really providing health care.

As for a schism, let the wheat and tares grow together, the Lord will decide when the wheat shall be gathered.

 

[Answersplease]

I do understand you point. As I’ve said elsewhere, there are many many categories and these shift as the issues shift. So it’s hard to define in some sense a left and right.

I guess my point would be that where you see faithful versus dissenters, I would be more inclined to see faithful in belief versus faithful in belief. By that I mean, that those you disagree with doctrinally don’t see themselves in any sense as compromising fidelity for convenience or to ego if that makes sense. Some probably do, no doubt, but that can be said about the conservative side. Some simply aren’t personally touched with a whole lot of issues and “assent” without bothering to think about the issues.

At core, both sides are reading, studying and praying. Both feel in their hearts that their version of reality is correct. They believe they have the facts to back up their position. Given time, and lots of writing I can show you a senario about same-sex relationships that are not in opposition to the scripture as we understand it today. You may not agree with the analysis, but those who do struggle and ponder just as deeply in coming to their conclusion as you do to yours.

The problem is when we simply don’t allow that there is another reasonable side, and give permission to hear and really listen. Most people are willing to let people be once they feel they have had a fair hearing. I guess my issues are always that each side tends to vilify the other as “evil” rather than as honest, decent, caring Christians, doing their very best to follow the Lord.

This is why you are not a Catholic.

If you ever understood Catholicism, you would know that the Bible is not the sole authority in the Catholic Church and using the Bible to justify homosexuality without consulting historical Tradition is unacceptable to Catholics faithful to the Magisterium.

Saint Paul counselled his brethren to keep the traditions he taught them while he was with them as well as to keep the traditions in the letters he wrote them. For Catholics spoken words as well as written letters make up their Faith Tradition.

Christians doing their very best to follow the Lord, is not enough even by Bible alone standards.

Acts 8:30
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
Acts 8:31
And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The sheep have a shepherd guide, the Catholics call him their Pope.

You say you used to be Catholic and you refer to the Catholic Church as the RCC. I assume RCC means Roman Catholic Church.
The Roman designation was started by some protestants as a derogatory way of refering to the Catholic Church. If you are not using the Roman designation as an insult, then let me educate you on who the Roman Catholics are.
The Latin Rite Catholics are commonly referred to as the Roman Rite Catholics, but the Latin Rite is not the only Rite in the over all Catholic Church.

I wonder if you really fully knew the Catholic Church before you left it, if you are telling the truth that you were once Catholic.

 

[Eleve]

I just suspect she hasn’t admitted it to herself yet. Sure sounds Catholic to me.

That quote from Peter was to me and not to Marsha, and I am a) not a she and b) not Catholic. It’s not something to admit; it’s just a simple fact that I have not received the Sacrament of Confirmation.

 

[Jon_Hus]

To continue running this thread farther away from the OP, I have to step in here and comment on what SpiritMeadow is trying to say. As much as it pains me to say it I have to agree with the Catholic position on abortion and homosexual relationships. This is one area where Catholics and Evangelicals agree. If the RCC is in danger of splitting over doctrine, imagine the shape the ECA is in their quest to make it the most liberal church in America as they prove their “progressivness” by ordaining gays?

To set out and prove that the Bible allows same sex marrages and abortion is a fools mission.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I may be jumping in, but you are essentially proposing a de facto ban on (faithful)catholic OBGYNs in public hospitals, right? You’re OK with that? In your mind, the woman’s right to a convenient abortion is more sacred than the doctor’s right to obey his conscience and still practice his profession? What happened to that sacred primacy of conscience?

I am saying that public institutions may have contract clauses that prohibit those under contract from choosing which procedures they will perform. Generally speaking I am not in favor of people refusing service in public institutions because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The doctor has a perfect right to obey his conscience, he can work elsewhere. This kind of thing applies all over the country in various situations. Public employees are not free to refuse service based on relgious beliefs. I believe one court clerk in Iowa quit her job before issuing a marriage license to same sex couples. That is her right. It is not her right as a public employee to refuse to do her job.

Primacy of conscience is not obviated whatsoever.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You lawyerly devil you. His wasn’t THE original oath. He used the original WORDING. I’ll ask how far back they looked for you.

Oh please don’t trouble yourself unless you are interested as well. It’s a very tangential point, having little to do with any issue. The Oath is what it is. If some folks find it worthless, then so be it. It isn’t changing anything.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is why you are not a Catholic.

If you ever understood Catholicism, you would know that the Bible is not the sole authority in the Catholic Church and using the Bible to justify homosexuality without consulting historical Tradition is unacceptable to Catholics faithful to the Magisterium.

Saint Paul counselled his brethren to keep the traditions he taught them while he was with them as well as to keep the traditions in the letters he wrote them. For Catholics spoken words as well as written letters make up their Faith Tradition.

Christians doing their very best to follow the Lord, is not enough even by Bible alone standards.

Acts 8:30
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
Acts 8:31
And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The sheep have a shepherd guide, the Catholics call him their Pope.

You say you used to be Catholic and you refer to the Catholic Church as the RCC. I assume RCC means Roman Catholic Church.
The Roman designation was started by some protestants as a derogatory way of refering to the Catholic Church. If you are not using the Roman designation as an insult, then let me educate you on who the Roman Catholics are.
The Latin Rite Catholics are commonly referred to as the Roman Rite Catholics, but the Latin Rite is not the only Rite in the over all Catholic Church.

I wonder if you really fully knew the Catholic Church before you left it, if you are telling the truth that you were once Catholic.

I will leave you to your judgments. I can hardly wait to see your posts after a year. Blessings to you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You know, I started congratulating myself at the beginning of this thread because things were going so well. Thoughtful, articulate helpful responses. I started it not knowing the answer to the question. All I knew was that my church, like it seems most others is fraught with a lot of internal conflict over doctrine and practice.

We have learned I believe in TEC, that we have not always handled these issues well. When I began to read from multiple sources that there was some division that was becoming public or seemed to be in the RCC, I thought it would be helpful to see what those of you here might offer in terms of advice and insight as to what to do, and what you expected might happen.

That seems where we were going until a few people who have rather personal issues with me, decided to turn this into a us v. them debate, or more particularly, us versus Spiritmeadow. The suspicion that I have some ulterior motive that is anti-Catholic is sad, and very untrue. I thought we might share some problems and search for some answers.

Instead we are now plagued with a few who are “ignoring” me and saluting others for the same thing, and championing as how they did so long ago, though of course, they don’t often miss an opportunity to “stick” it to me when the can. This doesn’t bother me personally, since I take it as given.

But I am sad that opportunities continue to be missed here, to avoid and move beyond the “that sounded against my church” rhetoric necessitating a cutting response to “defend” my church. Half the time I don’t see that that was even remotely intended. Arguments continue for arguments sake. The issue of the Hippocratic Oath, and the semantics over the terms used by abortion sides is but an example.

Again, I thank those of you who were kind enough to respond as adults, to the rest, and I include myself, since I can stoop to that level myself, it’s time we grew up and stopped representing our respective faiths so poorly.

 

[Dale_M]

That seems where we were going until a few people who have rather personal issues with me, decided to turn this into a us v. them debate, or more particularly, us versus Spiritmeadow. The suspicion that I have some ulterior motive that is anti-Catholic is sad, and very untrue.

Yes, it is very sad. But perhaps it isn’t unexpected since this is the internet. Over in the Politics 2009 forum we have a group of people who are convinced that President Obama is deliberately trying to destroy the Catholic Church. The internet and conspiracy theories seem to go hand in hand.

Instead we are now plagued with a few who are “ignoring” me and saluting others for the same thing, and championing as how they did so long ago, though of course, they don’t often miss an opportunity to “stick” it to me when the can. This doesn’t bother me personally, since I take it as given.

But it bothers me. Such conduct is both un-Christian and childish. I think we set a poor example for others when we congratulate ourselves on our loss of patience and when we cheer public displays of ill-temper.

 

[Peter_J]

As much as it pains me to say it I have to agree with the Catholic position on abortion and homosexual relationships.

Wait a sec … you agree with us? Oh my aching back!



But seriously …

This is one area where Catholics and Evangelicals agree. If the RCC is in danger of splitting over doctrine, imagine the shape the ECA is in their quest to make it the most liberal church in America as they prove their “progressivness” by ordaining gays?

To set out and prove that the Bible allows same sex marrages and abortion is a fools mission.

You raise a good point: the fight between liberals and conservatives in the Catholic Church, is really pretty similar to the fight between liberals and conservatives in a lot of Protestant denominations.

 

[historyb]

So if David Duke (for example) had favoured an end to abortion, he would have been preferable to an anti-Nazi candidate who did not ?​

Sorry, but while some people may not mind voting for neo-Nazis & white supremacists, nothing would induce me to do so, whether they were opposed to abortion or not. Abortion is not desirable, but there can be too high a price to pay for ending it. And that hypothetical possibility represents one price that is too high. Would Catholics vote fior a pro-life Communist ? I doubt it very much indeed.

It may not be the fashion to say this, but there are other evils than abortion - & to allow them to flourish as the incidental (?) price of voting for certain sorts of candidate, in the belief that such candidates would end abortion or help do so, looks highly inadvisable, if not irresponsible. To enable one evil as the price of ending another that is perceived to be greater is immoral; so it’s not even sound as Catholic moral doctrine.

There is no higher evil than abortion. If a candidate supports life than I can look at his/her other issues but I don’t give a flying fig who they are if they support baby murder than they will never get my vote, irregardless if every other issue they support is good.

 

[Peter_J]

There is no higher evil than abortion.

Thank you sharing, historyb. That definitely influences my reading of you.

 

[elts1956]

I am saying that public institutions may have contract clauses that prohibit those under contract from choosing which procedures they will perform. Generally speaking I am not in favor of people refusing service in public institutions because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The doctor has a perfect right to obey his conscience, he can work elsewhere. This kind of thing applies all over the country in various situations. Public employees are not free to refuse service based on relgious beliefs. I believe one court clerk in Iowa quit her job before issuing a marriage license to same sex couples. That is her right. It is not her right as a public employee to refuse to do her job.

Primacy of conscience is not obviated whatsoever.

If protection of primacy of conscience is obliterated by the powers that be, I suspect many medical personel in obgyn just may walk out, “according to their conscience”. Unfortunately this could also mean patients will get overall less quality care. When the care gets so bad people begin complaining, they will look for those who are no longer there because, “they had a conscience”.

 

[elts1956]

I am saying that public institutions may have contract clauses that prohibit those under contract from choosing which procedures they will perform. Generally speaking I am not in favor of people refusing service in public institutions because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The doctor has a perfect right to obey his conscience, he can work elsewhere. This kind of thing applies all over the country in various situations. Public employees are not free to refuse service based on relgious beliefs. I believe one court clerk in Iowa quit her job before issuing a marriage license to same sex couples. That is her right. It is not her right as a public employee to refuse to do her job.

Primacy of conscience is not obviated whatsoever.

So if David Duke (for example) had favoured an end to abortion, he would have been preferable to an anti-Nazi candidate who did not ?​

Sorry, but while some people may not mind voting for neo-Nazis & white supremacists, nothing would induce me to do so, whether they were opposed to abortion or not. Abortion is not desirable, but there can be too high a price to pay for ending it. And that hypothetical possibility represents one price that is too high. Would Catholics vote fior a pro-life Communist ? I doubt it very much indeed.

It may not be the fashion to say this, but there are other evils than abortion - & to allow them to flourish as the incidental (?) price of voting for certain sorts of candidate, in the belief that such candidates would end abortion or help do so, looks highly inadvisable, if not irresponsible. To enable one evil as the price of ending another that is perceived to be greater is immoral; so it’s not even sound as Catholic moral doctrine.

One can imagine all sorts of evils, such as pro life communists (which really comes high on the fantasy level) that MAY or MAY not happen in the future. One can equivocate about all sorts of dilemmas that MAY or MAY not happen. One may give all sorts of relativistic arguments as to why abortion is no worse as, or worse than… but the truth of the matter is the evil of Abortion is here and now, right in our faces. Let’s fight one evil at a time please.

 

[bobzills]

One can imagine all sorts of evils, such as pro life communists (which really comes high on the fantasy level) that MAY or MAY not happen in the future. One can equivocate about all sorts of dilemmas that MAY or MAY not happen. One may give all sorts of relativistic arguments as to why abortion is no worse as, or worse than… but the truth of the matter is the evil of Abortion is here and now, right in our faces. Let’s fight one evil at a time please.

Abortion was outlawed in some of the Communist Eastern European countries before 1989.