What did the crowd not know?

[OneSheep]

It would be none of your business.

And I do think you would hurt someone by implying something you as a human couldn’t ever know, yes.

Hi Simpleas,

So, let’s take another step, shall we? If I say or imply that another person is not in communion with the Church, which is hurtful, because I see their beliefs as “not fundamental” do I know what I am doing?

Let’s say the other person believes in the creed, receives Eucharist and attends mass, but cafeteria-style does not believe in papal infallibility, for example. This is a pretty common cafeteria-style belief.

 

[guanophore]

Let’s say the other person believes in the creed, receives Eucharist and attends mass, but cafeteria-style does not believe in papal infallibility, for example. This is a pretty common cafeteria-style belief.

Are you saying you don’t believe in papal infallibilitty either?! This is getting to be a long list…

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas,

So, let’s take another step, shall we? If I say or imply that another person is not in communion with the Church, which is hurtful, because I see their beliefs as “not fundamental” do I know what I am doing?

Let’s say the other person believes in the creed, receives Eucharist and attends mass, but cafeteria-style does not believe in papal infallibility, for example. This is a pretty common cafeteria-style belief.

I don’t know onesheep, you are asking if you know what you do, and you are the only person to answer that.

I think when people are overly insistent on judging others they don’t really know what they do because they may not have taken time to think about the others situation in life. Compassion is the word.

I don’t know a lot about papal infallibility, but I’m thinking one does not have to believe in it to be a member of the church.

 

[LethalMouse]

Hi Simpleas,

So, let’s take another step, shall we? If I say or imply that another person is not in communion with the Church, which is hurtful, because I see their beliefs as “not fundamental” do I know what I am doing?

Let’s say the other person believes in the creed, receives Eucharist and attends mass, but cafeteria-style does not believe in papal infallibility, for example. This is a pretty common cafeteria-style belief.

I would argue that most people only don’t accept papal infallibility because they actually think it means something it doesn’t.

It was something I used to not believe was a sane idea…until I actually learned what it meant. I guarantee 90% of people against it think that it means ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the Pope does is “perfect” and “right”… that is why they don’t believe it, because the thing they are not believing is not true anyway lol.

 

[LethalMouse]

I would note that OneSheep here seems to be posing a mix of hypothetical questions and mentally working through ideas and learning…you know the whole point of this site. Quite of few of the essential “you’re a heretic” type responses are kind of misguided IMO.

Unless he is trolling…but considering he is posing questions and ideas in relation to the process of the conversation all relevant information on hand suggests he is acting from a place of either pure curiosity, confusion, and/or philosophical ponderings… All 3 of which are legitimate reasons and the general purpose of this site. So take some chill pills angry people.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know a lot about papal infallibility, but I’m thinking one does not have to believe in it to be a member of the church.

What is curious to me is why anyone would want to join a Church or call themselves “Catholic” who does not believe what the Church teaches? What benefit is there to appearing Catholic on the outside, while one is Protestant (or otherwise) on the inside?

It seems to me that rejection of the Church teaching is rejection of Christ Himself.“He who hears you, hears me”.

We Catholics must believe in all of the teachings of the Church regarding faith and morals?

If not is it not like coming to Jesus and saying “I will follow you, but let me first…skip over this or that of your teachings.”
[
Catholicism is not a buffet or a cafeteria. One cannot be 99% Catholic, just as one cannot be 99% pregnant.

It is a binary proposition; one is either Catholic, or not. That means one must believe all that the Church proposes in matters of faith and morals.](Can a Catholic receive Holy Communion if they don't believe all that the Church proposes? (Part 1))

Catholic Church Doctrines are not Optional!contrib_john_trigilio.jpg
by Fr. John Trigilio, PhD, ThD.

OneSheep has suggested that I am a “Catholic Fundamentalist”[ because I reject cafeteria approach. If so, then I am in good company.](Catholic Church Doctrines are not Optional!contrib_john_trigilio.jpg by Fr. John Trigilio, PhD, ThD.)

16, Pope John Paul II said, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." John Paul II also stated that the Catechism “is given as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine.”

Ecclesial communion/unity occurs when the members all embrace the One Faith. To the extent that people reject parts of the One Faith, that unity is broken. Baptized Catholics are bound by Canon Law, though most have never read it. Those who refuse to be bound by the Teachings of the Church are disobedient Catholics, not Catholics in good standing.

 

[guanophore]

I would note that OneSheep here seems to be posing a mix of hypothetical questions and mentally working through ideas and learning…you know the whole point of this site. Quite of few of the essential “you’re a heretic” type responses are kind of misguided IMO.

Unless he is trolling…but considering he is posing questions and ideas in relation to the process of the conversation all relevant information on hand suggests he is acting from a place of either pure curiosity, confusion, and/or philosophical ponderings… All 3 of which are legitimate reasons and the general purpose of this site. So take some chill pills angry people.

No, OS is not trolling, but neither is he posing these questions to mentally work through anything. These questions are about me, and my observations that his ideas are not Catholic. He is essentially asking if what I have done in observing this is “Catholic”.

Vatican I states that it is necessary for salvation that men and women not only believe all that is revealed in scripture but also everything which is defined and proposed by the Church as having been divinely revealed. To reject anything taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit justification and eternal life:

"Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, On Faith, Chapter III. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York:Harper, 1877), Volume II, pp. 244-245)."

I have asserted that people should not present themselves for communion unless they believe ALL that the CC believes and teaches.

 

[LethalMouse]

I have asserted that people should not present themselves for communion unless they believe ALL that the CC believes and teaches.

I would suggest, (perhaps I am wrong) but I have read in the past that even an agnostic can be a communion catholic. In that they may not have true true faith, but so long as they “accept” the teachings until proven false they would be sort of not truly accepting, but also not quite not accepting. And theologically the theory being their practice of faith would lead them to the truth and true acceptance.

I would also assume that if one is truly rejecting outright a Church teaching then they would by default reject the teaching that they are barred from communion as they would see themselves as not in sinfulness and in the right.

So that arguing that they shouldn’t take communion would be a mute point until they actually either accept Church teaching or choose another path.

For example many who don’t accept papal infallibility as I mentioned above don’t understand it and often really are just confused and unsure. Their taking communion in error is also based on ignorance if their disagreement is based on ignorance. Therefore many if not most would be venial sinners rather than mortal.

Now a true sinner who just doesn’t give a hoot… well they wouldn’t give a hoot about communion being taken wrongfully.

 

[OneSheep]

Are you saying you don’t believe in papal infallibilitty either?! This is getting to be a long list…

Good Morning guanophore!

Actually, you only inferred that, bro.

But I have a question for you in that regard. You obviously have a very strict notion of communion. Do you consider Russian Orthodox followers and Ethiopian Coptics as out of communion?

I have another off-topic question for you. After all, this is the spirituality forum, where we get to discuss such issues (vs the philosophy forum, where they aren’t as open to the personal stuff).

Let’s say I have inadvertently hurt someone’s feelings. I know that my own motives were pure, but I did not know that I was causing pain. I have apologized, but the other person has not accepted my apology, and as far as I know has not forgiven me. In the mean time, the person sets himself up as being more Catholic than I am, and continues to claim that my own views are contrary to Catholicism.

In fact, it seems that his sole purpose for interacting with me is to show others that I am not worth listening to, and to tell people that the beliefs I hold are not Catholic. I could ask him again if he forgives me, but I know that he will see it as hurtful to ask, and I don’t want to hurt him again. Indeed, if he is reading this post, he may be hurt again, but I don’t know what else to do. I could contact the moderators and ask for advice, but I am afraid they will give the person an infraction or something like that.

I trust that your answer comes from your own experience in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. I mean, would you want others to withdraw from answer you when you ask for forgiveness?

Suggestions?

Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

I would suggest, (perhaps I am wrong) but I have read in the past that even an agnostic can be a communion catholic. In that they may not have true true faith, but so long as they “accept” the teachings until proven false they would be sort of not truly accepting, but also not quite not accepting. And theologically the theory being their practice of faith would lead them to the truth and true acceptance.

Yes. I know of persons who are not visible Catholics that have been permitted to participate in Eucharist because their faith is Catholic (they believe in the Real Presence)

I would also assume that if one is truly rejecting outright a Church teaching then they would by default reject the teaching that they are barred from communion as they would see themselves as not in sinfulness and in the right.

Yes, I think that applies in this case, and in most cases where those who reject parts of the faith believe they see themselves as still “Catholic”.

As OS is fond of saying, they are excused from the sin of sacrilege because they are “ignorant and blind”.

So that arguing that they shouldn’t take communion would be a mute point until they actually either accept Church teaching or choose another path.

I agree. I was speaking only of persons who are baptized Catholics, and persons who claim to adhere to the Church teachings, or as OS framed it, “want to follow” I think it was or something similar.

For example many who don’t accept papal infallibility as I mentioned above don’t understand it and often really are just confused and unsure. Their taking communion in error is also based on ignorance if their disagreement is based on ignorance. Therefore many if not most would be venial sinners rather than mortal.

Yes. But all Catholics have an obligation to study and learn their faith, and inform themselves about why the Church teaches what she does.

Now a true sinner who just doesn’t give a hoot… well they wouldn’t give a hoot about communion being taken wrongfully.

True that!

And I honestly believe that most “cafeteria catholics” (I call them unknowing Protestants) don’t even bother coming to Mass.

The problem arises here on CAF when a person publicly affiliates themselves as “Catholic” yet rejects the teachings of the Church. It can cause a stumbling block for people coming for Catholic Answers who might unwittingly believe that the person’s posts represent Catholic thought when they do not.

 

[guanophore]

Good Morning guanophore!

Actually, you only inferred that, bro.

Whew!

But I have a question for you in that regard. You obviously have a very strict notion of communion. Do you consider Russian Orthodox followers and Ethiopian Coptics as out of communion?

The “strict notion”, OS, is not mine, but belongs to the CC. I have chosen to accept all that the Church believes and teaches because I place my faith in Christ, and trust His promise to lead the Church into “all Truth”.

It is the Church that teaches the sacraments of these communions are valid.

I have another off-topic question for you. After all, this is the spirituality forum, where we get to discuss such issues (vs the philosophy forum, where they aren’t as open to the personal stuff).

Have you been over there? There are quite a bit of personal philosophical issues, framed just the way you frame them here. Your topic thread is a philosophical question more than a personal one. Your personal opinion is already formed on this point, is it not?

 

[OneSheep]

I would note that OneSheep here seems to be posing a mix of hypothetical questions and mentally working through ideas and learning…you know the whole point of this site. Quite of few of the essential “you’re a heretic” type responses are kind of misguided IMO.

Unless he is trolling…but considering he is posing questions and ideas in relation to the process of the conversation all relevant information on hand suggests he is acting from a place of either pure curiosity, confusion, and/or philosophical ponderings… All 3 of which are legitimate reasons and the general purpose of this site. So take some chill pills angry people.

Thanks, I am indeed not “trolling”. I have no purpose in putting people down or taking pot-shots.

What I am doing is trying to involve people in considering the universality of the words that Jesus spoke. In my own experience, I have found this to be the case. Whenever anyone does anything hurtful to anyone, including themselves, they do not know what they are doing. As was earlier presented in this thread, St. Thomas Aquinas said something along the same lines. Have you considered this?

Jesus gave us the means to forgiveness, the means of course begins with the will to forgive, but also a mature forgiveness involves understanding other people. Seeing “for they know not what they do” demonstrates a mature understanding of people and is the path to a deeper forgiveness. Is this your experience?

Thanks

 

[OneSheep]

The “strict notion”, OS, is not mine, but belongs to the CC. I have chosen to accept all that the Church believes and teaches because I place my faith in Christ, and trust His promise to lead the Church into “all Truth”.

It is the Church that teaches the sacraments of these communions are valid.

Have you been over there? There are quite a bit of personal philosophical issues, framed just the way you frame them here. Your topic thread is a philosophical question more than a personal one. Your personal opinion is already formed on this point, is it not?

My own personal opinions are quite fluid, actually, they are formed based on my faith and experiences of the divine in this world. I asked a more spiritual question in the same post as the one you responded to here. Are you going to answer?

So, explain something else, then. Since the sacraments of the Coptics and Orthodox are “valid”, yet most of them do not see the papal infallibility as valid, are they out of communion? They do not adhere to the same version of truth that you do.

 

[simpleas]

I would note that OneSheep here seems to be posing a mix of hypothetical questions and mentally working through ideas and learning…you know the whole point of this site. Quite of few of the essential “you’re a heretic” type responses are kind of misguided IMO.

Unless he is trolling…but considering he is posing questions and ideas in relation to the process of the conversation all relevant information on hand suggests he is acting from a place of either pure curiosity, confusion, and/or philosophical ponderings… All 3 of which are legitimate reasons and the general purpose of this site. So take some chill pills angry people.

Who’s angry? I haven’t read anger in any posts

 

[simpleas]

What is curious to me is why anyone would want to join a Church or call themselves “Catholic” who does not believe what the Church teaches? What benefit is there to appearing Catholic on the outside, while one is Protestant (or otherwise) on the inside?

It seems to me that rejection of the Church teaching is rejection of Christ Himself.“He who hears you, hears me”.

We Catholics must believe in all of the teachings of the Church regarding faith and morals?

If not is it not like coming to Jesus and saying “I will follow you, but let me first…skip over this or that of your teachings.”
[
Catholicism is not a buffet or a cafeteria. One cannot be 99% Catholic, just as one cannot be 99% pregnant.

It is a binary proposition; one is either Catholic, or not. That means one must believe all that the Church proposes in matters of faith and morals.](Can a Catholic receive Holy Communion if they don't believe all that the Church proposes? (Part 1))

Catholic Church Doctrines are not Optional!contrib_john_trigilio.jpg
by Fr. John Trigilio, PhD, ThD.

OneSheep has suggested that I am a “Catholic Fundamentalist”[ because I reject cafeteria approach. If so, then I am in good company.](Catholic Church Doctrines are not Optional!contrib_john_trigilio.jpg by Fr. John Trigilio, PhD, ThD.)

16, Pope John Paul II said, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." John Paul II also stated that the Catechism “is given as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine.”

Ecclesial communion/unity occurs when the members all embrace the One Faith. To the extent that people reject parts of the One Faith, that unity is broken. Baptized Catholics are bound by Canon Law, though most have never read it. Those who refuse to be bound by the Teachings of the Church are disobedient Catholics, not Catholics in good standing.

Yes that would be quite strange if one were to join a church without understanding everything it teaches, and then when they do, stay in the church but not agree with it. Most everyone I know (family and friends) are cradle catholic’s, so have been ‘marked’ for life. Most all my own family generation do not participate in anything to do with church, a part from family events. So you could say they don’t believe in what the church teaches and so have left it behind.

But there are people who do participate, who try to keep within the faith, and who still have questions/struggles with what is taught. And I think that is ok, why make people feel that they do not belong to the family of the church just because they fail to understand and fully accept certain teachings?

 

[guanophore]

 My own personal opinions are quite fluid, actually, they are formed based on my faith and experiences of the divine in this world.

This seems to be an interesting basis. Catholic spiritual formation is based upon the revelation of God. It is within the framework of what He has revealed as True that we interpret and understand our faith and experiences of the divine. Without the boundaries supplied by His revelation it is easy to get out of bounds with our own interpretations and experiences.

So, explain something else, then. Since the sacraments of the Coptics and Orthodox are “valid”, yet most of them do not see the papal infallibility as valid, are they out of communion? They do not adhere to the same version of truth that you do.

There is only one Truth, OS. There is not one version for me, and another for others. That is relativism, a concept soundly rejected by the CC.

I accept what the CC teaches about this:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Persons who are baptized Catholic, and renew their baptismal vows annually and are in Communion with the faith into which they are baptized are bound by Catholic Canon Law

 

[LethalMouse]

Kinda dodged that question awesomely

 

[guanophore]

Yes that would be quite strange if one were to join a church without understanding everything it teaches, and then when they do, stay in the church but not agree with it.

I don’t think anyone that “joins” understands “everything”. Especially those who are baptized into the faith as infants! We are all expected to grow in our faith, including those that are received as adults.

Catholics who are confirmed and converts who are validly baptized being received into the Church make an affirmation of faith:

The text for the profession of faith at Confirmation is often a memorized response by the candidate, no leeway on wording is given in the rite:

*** “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”***

This can be done in faith, since the newly received may have only a fundamental knowledge of the faith. It is as much a statement of trust, that the candidate trusts that Jesus will reveal all that is not yet understood.

Most everyone I know (family and friends) are cradle catholic’s, so have been ‘marked’ for life. Most all my own family generation do not participate in anything to do with church, a part from family events. So you could say they don’t believe in what the church teaches and so have left it behind.

Yes, I have a lot of these too.

But there are people who do participate, who try to keep within the faith, and who still have questions/struggles with what is taught. And I think that is ok, why make people feel that they do not belong to the family of the church just because they fail to understand and fully accept certain teachings?

Yes, struggle is what we are all called to enter. I agree with you that “making people feel they do not belong” is not helpful to the struggle, but neither is it helpful to pretend that failure to understand and fully accept is not a call to study, spiritual formation, an struggle. If we think we are perfectly formed in faith, how will that help us to grow?

Kinda dodged that question awesomely

I think OS enjoys trying to paint me into a corner.

 

[LethalMouse]

I don’t think anyone that “joins” understands “everything”. Especially those who are baptized into the faith as infants! We are all expected to grow in our faith, including those that are received as adults.

Catholics who are confirmed and converts who are validly baptized being received into the Church make an affirmation of faith:

The text for the profession of faith at Confirmation is often a memorized response by the candidate, no leeway on wording is given in the rite:

*** “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”***

This can be done in faith, since the newly received may have only a fundamental knowledge of the faith. It is as much a statement of trust, that the candidate trusts that Jesus will reveal all that is not yet understood.

Yes, I have a lot of these too.

Yes, struggle is what we are all called to enter. I agree with you that “making people feel they do not belong” is not helpful to the struggle, but neither is it helpful to pretend that failure to understand and fully accept is not a call to study, spiritual formation, an struggle. If we think we are perfectly formed in faith, how will that help us to grow?



I think OS enjoys trying to paint me into a corner.

If there is only one truth and you know it… you should not have a corner to be painted into…

Sure you can argue the technicalities of what he asked so you won’t really be in a full corner… but he technically proved at least a version of his point.

That is not to say his whole points of these many posts are truth, but that definitely your representation of truth was not 100% accurate in the context.

Now sonce I have not nor have any interest in rooting out the entire back and forth of you 2 or the exact overarching points… I do not take a side on the overarching issue.

But within this issue you got beat, sorry…

 

[guanophore]

If there is only one truth and you know it… you should not have a corner to be painted into…

Sure you can argue the technicalities of what he asked so you won’t really be in a full corner… but he technically proved at least a version of his point.

That is not to say his whole points of these many posts are truth, but that definitely your representation of truth was not 100% accurate in the context.

Now sonce I have not nor have any interest in rooting out the entire back and forth of you 2 or the exact overarching points… I do not take a side on the overarching issue.

But within this issue you got beat, sorry…

I think I am lost. I thought you were referring to the question in post 189 but perhaps you are not?

Which was the “issue” where I got “beat”?

You make it sound like some kind of contest where there is winning and losing!