Stop Labeling Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Youngling11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Youngling11

Guest
So in my opinion any time a person places another word before “Catholic” to label themselves it bothers the heck out of me. So many people claim to be a Traditional Catholic, Progressive Catholic, Conservative/Liberal Catholic, Western Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Feminist Catholic… while I acknowledge that diversity of culture/thought/perspective in the Church is mostly a good thing, when are we as a Church going to stop dividing ourselves and for once just all be “Catholic.”

I see so many dividing arguments over things like Latin vs Vernacular Mass, strict prayer vs charismatic prayer, wearing a cross vs wearing a crucifix, and a bunch of other things that are not demanded one way or the other by Church teaching. When are we going to stop these silly arguments and just recognize that we’re ALL CATHOLIC?

We have all been baptized, confirmed, all have received the Eucharist, the sacraments… we are all ONE body, though many parts! Jesus prayed that His Church would be one just as Him and the Father are one! Why do we keep dividing ourselves?

Of course when someone’s traditions begin to stray from dogmatic Church teachings we should correct them and call them out. But that doesn’t mean we have to call people heretics for charismatic prayer or for preferring Latin mass. We are the Body of Christ, we must help one another to grow closer to God, and yelling at eachother saying “you’re less of a Catholic than I am because you do this instead of this” is not an effective way to help Christ’s Church and keep it as one.

Idk maybe I’m crazy but to my understanding we have an Authoritative Church that teaches dogmatically on things an permits diversity among other things, and if this Church (Christ’s Church) allows these diversities so should you.

Maybe I’m wrong, I’m open for discussion
 
Last edited:
I feel like putting a specifying label on Catholics is like an oxymoron like saying “We’re universal but not”
 
If a person is an Eastern Catholic, they are a member of one of the Eastern Catholic Churches and their customs, liturgy, practices (such as fasting) and approach to certain aspects of their faith may very much differ from Western Catholics. I don’t think it’s bad to be cognizant of the differences, and in addition, we often discuss subjects specific to Western or Eastern Catholicism on this forum, so it’s pointless to try to cover up the fact that there are differences. The differences in practice, to me, don’t take anything away from the unity of us as a group of Catholics; rather they add richness. It’s like how a whole group of people can be US Citizens but they each have their own cultural tradition from their own background and we get to see and appreciate them all.

I’ll concede that the Traditional Catholic vs so-called “Progressive Catholic” or “Modernist Catholic” is more problematic, as a lot of us have a foot in both camps and also these terms are often used to sow division or make out that one group of Catholics are better, more faithful, more reverent than the other. However, if used in a neutral context, I don’t have a problem with somebody describing themself as Traditional Catholic as that tells me something about their Mass and prayer preferences and perhaps their view of the Church and the world as well. What I don’t like is when words like “Progressive Catholic” are used to put people down or claim they’re somehow not “real Catholics”, not reverent etc because they like handholding during the Our Father, or charismatic practice, or modern church architecture, or Pope Francis, or inclusivity. It is when words are used for division rather than discussion that I agree with your point.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
It is when words are used for division rather than discussion that I agree with your point.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the key distinction! There are many times when these words are necessary for description. Using them is simply accepting reality and using the proper words to describe things. When used derogatorily, then the OP has a point.

I always try to use the terms descriptively only. Without them, it’s hard to speak in an effective way.

For example, if someone starts a thread and says 'I’m a traditional Catholic and I’m visiting city X and looking for a Mass I would like." If you take out the word ‘traditional’, the thread-starter is going to receive 95% of posts being totally off-point and unhelpful.
 
Last edited:
Youngling11 said:
when are we as a Church going to stop dividing ourselves and for once just all be “Catholic.”
Click to expand...
Probably not until Jesus comes again.
Each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
—1 Corinthians 1:12
Click to expand...
We’ve been setting ourselves up in separate “camps” since the very beginning.
 
I see your point, but Eastern and Western(Latin) Catholics are a thing.
 
Labels are necessary for identifying error. If a liberal identifies as Catholic than a distinction has to be made.
 
Youngling11 said:
Maybe I’m wrong, I’m open for discussion
Click to expand...
You are not wrong @Youngling11 .

You are quite right .

Political labels should be left with the politicians .

The labels are not only unhelpful , but lazy and erroneous and divisive .

It’s very easy for a lazy person simply to stick a label on a fellow Catholic when “conversing” with him/her . That’s sorted him . Now he’s pigeonholed . No more dialogue needed. He is now in his place , beyond the pale .Anathema !.

How lazy !

It’s too much trouble to get into the mind and heart of the one trying to express an opinion . After all that would be a way to dialogue with him , and that takes effort , and in any case we know his sort , let’s just label him . Argument won !
 
Yes and I considered removing that point… but then I thought, should Eastern and western be a thing? Is that what Jesus intended? It eventually caused schism in the Church which is definitely not ideal
 
DisorientingSneeze said:
40.png
yankeesouth:
If a liberal identifies as Catholic
Click to expand...
Interesting that you would phrase it that way and not “if a Catholic identifies as liberal”
Click to expand...
I think it’s a key difference. Because it is possible for an orthodox Catholic to be politically liberal, but still be pro-life, against euthanasia, be against the evils of socialism, etc. That would be a “Catholic who identifies as liberal.”

But many of the far left, rank-in-file pro-abortion liberals who identify as Catholic do not even attend mass.

These people are liberal first and Catholic second, and they view being Catholic as an cultural thing (similar to the ways Jews do).

I will also say, there are some Catholics on the right who are the same way. My brother is one of them, HOWEVER, my brother is more libertarian than conservative.

In my view, (when looking at Generation X and younger) the truly conservative Catholics typically go to Mass regularly, while the liberal Catholics, libertarian Catholics, & neo-con Catholics do not typically attend Mass on a regular basis.

The Baby Boomers are a little different and harder to pigeon hole.

NOTE: I say all this NOT to divide, but as to find ways to understand.
 
Last edited:
No it didn’t. What caused schism were the pig-headed people involved.
 
Youngling11 said:
Yes and I considered removing that point… but then I thought, should Eastern and western be a thing? Is that what Jesus intended? It eventually caused schism in the Church which is definitely not ideal
Click to expand...
No, it was really more secular politics than anything else. The first schism (Far East) leaving because they didn’t want to associated with the Roman Empire.

Later, the same was with Egypt and then eventually the same with the Greeks.

Theological reasons were more excuses to leave. But the reason they were able to leave is because the lay people had political, ethnic & cultural disagreements with each other.
 
I hate labels. More and more, we tend to be living in an us vs. them world. Labels divide us. It is very counterproductive!
 
I personally, don’t mind being called a Roman Catholic or a Latin Rite Catholic. That’s what I am.

But if someone uses a derogatory term to describe Catholics, I do get riled.
 
I’m not a fan of the labels either. But given the divisions that already exist – not those created by labels but those created by different interpretations of Church teachings – they’re often expedient. Political labels have no use value when referring to Catholics (and often they’re US-centric and don’t make sense outside of those geographic parameters). But someone who attends the EF exclusively, receives communion on the tongue, abides by older fasting traditions, etc. referring to himself as a traditional Catholic? It’s convenient shorthand and I understand that. Sometimes labels can be divisive – sometimes we make them divisive when they needn’t be.
 
YourNameHere said:
I hate labels. More and more, we tend to be living in an us vs. them world. Labels divide us. It is very counterproductive!
Click to expand...
Well then, I guess you are not a fan of multiculturalism. Because multiculturalism teaches that we should respect and RETAIN our differences instead of assimilation.

In a multicultural society you put emphasis on a label before your unifying characteristic. But with nationalism, you emphasis your unifying characteristic before all others.

So based on your logic, you should be a nationalist, so that people will focus on what unifies us instead of on what divides us.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top