Unity with so much dissention?

[KathleenElsie]

IMOHO many people use the name “catholic” the same as we use English, Russian, Asian etc. This is an identity for them.

Just my opinion.

Kathleen Elsie Gibbs
Pray the Rosary and Divine Mercy daily

 

[jpusateri]

All,

I have been following the conversation since I started this thread last week and I have gotten a few things out of it…

1. 
   *]Alan, you sound like you have really come a long way and I pray you will continue to show your example to inspire the rest of us!
   *]Reen, praise God for the opportunity that this forum gives us to hear from you and allows you to share with us!
   *]There is a distinction that I am beginning to see but didn’t make before: It’s not where you are NOW, but what direction you are going. (How far on the journey…) That is, those that disagree with dogmatic teachings but WANT to be in communion with the Church versus those who disagree and want to convince others to do so.
   
   So the former are not arguing that we should agree with them and may in fact be open to discussion.
   
   I had a conversation with my priest Saturday (thank God for those accessible, authentic men!) and he told me that he is a “hard-liner” (for beliefs and doctrine), yet, pastorally, his job is to go out and embrace those who aren’t there yet. His example will always be with me.
   
   Thanks to all who have helped me see this.

 

[reen12]

Hi, KathleenElsie,

Yes, I agree that people use “catholic” as an
identity marker.

What I think makes Catholicism unique, in
the same way that Orthodox Judaism is
unique, is that it is a culture, as well as the Faith,
and permeates all spheres of life.

If someone were to ask me suddenly, “who
are you?” I would reflexively respond: “an Irish-Catholic.”

I mean, I’ve never heard the term: fallen away
Methodist, fallen away Lutheran. Or, lapsed
evangelical !

Best,
reen12

 

[reen12]

Dear jpusateri,

Thanks for your kind words and your own insights,

best,
reen

 

[rwoehmke]

##Love is more important than dogma - so it is possible to be unorthodox and yet to be in communion with Christ: the Life of Christ is not confined to the visible Church. . ##

John speaks in Revelation Chapter 2 in the letter to the Ephesian Church that he is pleased with their fight to hold on to what the true apostles have taught, but he also warns them that they in their struggle for orthodoxy have lost the love they once had for one another. It would seem that it is not either or, but once again a case of both, orthodoxy and love are both important. I agree very strongly with those of you that have discerned that the true source of oneness in the Church is union with Jesus in the eucharist and not a total agreement on what is orthodox. It becomes fairly evident in talking with others and in following these forums that orthodoxy or non-othodoxy to coin a word often exists only in the eye of the beholder.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

dwc:

Thanks reen and Dennis, for your replies. Can I ask one further question – with regard to the natural laws being the reason why the CC term is reserved for the sexual teachings – is that tied into infallible dogma in any way?

PMFJIH, but my experience is that “CC” is used as a general purpose pejorative term any time one person wishes to indicate the other person believes the wrong thing about any issue.

It could be papal infallibility, women priest, or any number of things. I think it is one level of sophistication up from “you fool” because it at least indicts a person according to a particular axis which brings into the subconscious mind the word “heretic” and, in the CC’s mind, “Inquisition.”
Jesus (from Matt 5:22):

whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

This is another concern I have about people who use the term CC against other Catholics. It is roughly a special-case synonym for “fool” and by using it, they indict themselves.

Alan

 

[fix]

DeFide:

If a Catholic comes to believe the Church is in error in some essential, officially defined doctrine, it is a mortal sin against conscience, a sin of hypocrisy, for him to remain in the Church and call himself a Catholic, but only a venial sin against knowledge for him to leave the Church in honest but partly culpable error.

If he doesn’t see how something is a sin, but recognizes the Church’s authority, then he has a difficulty, not a doubt, and he must take pains to inform his conscience, yet avoid the sin while he is investigating.

I am confused by some of what you wrote. How can one who has voluntarily chosen to poorly form their conscience be in mortal sin to stay in the Church if they dissent, they may be in sin, but not for remaining, but for rejecting? How can it be only a venial sin to leave when they know the truth, yet reject it?

They know what the church teaches, yet they obstinately choose to reject it. Please give me some insight to help me understand this. Thanks.