What do you wish to be called?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul_Rimmer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paul_Rimmer

Guest
I’m a Catholic, but I’m a Catholic who is outside the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Some Catholics are within the authority of the Bishop of Rome. What should I call this group to distinguish it from the rest of what I believe the Catholic Church to be, besides “Catholic” or “Christian”?
 
Paul_Rimmer said:
I’m a Catholic, but I’m a Catholic who is outside the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Some Catholics are within the authority of the Bishop of Rome. What should I call this group to distinguish it from the rest of what I believe the Catholic Church to be, besides “Catholic” or “Christian”?
Click to expand...
Since it you who have chosen to redefine the term, I believe it is you needs come up with a term different than Catholic to call yourself. Catholic is the correct name for those in union with the Pope.
 
Paul_Rimmer said:
I’m a Catholic, but I’m a Catholic who is outside the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Some Catholics are within the authority of the Bishop of Rome. What should I call this group to distinguish it from the rest of what I believe the Catholic Church to be, besides “Catholic” or “Christian”?
Click to expand...
As the other poster noted, Catholic is the term used for those who are in union with the bishop of rome (not called the “supreme authority of…”). There are catholics of the Latin Rite, commonly referred to as Roman Catholics in the USA and UK, but we comprise only one of many rites of the Catholic church.

Frankly put: we’re catholics. Though most of us here are latin rite Catholics, certainly not all of us are. It’s not a title you’re going to usurp from Christ’s church here on this forum, so I’d suggest just coming up with another name for your personal movement
 
Paul_Rimmer said:
I’m a Catholic, but I’m a Catholic who is outside the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Some Catholics are within the authority of the Bishop of Rome. What should I call this group to distinguish it from the rest of what I believe the Catholic Church to be, besides “Catholic” or “Christian”?
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to be a smart-aleck, it’s an honest question…
How can you be Catholic without being under the authority of the Pope?
 
Just give the name of your group.
Reformed Catholic
Polish National Catholic
Free Catholic
Old Catholic etc
There is no copyright on a church name in practice, if there was there would only be one kind of Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist or anyone else.
 
duffyk4 said:
I like to be called Kevin, but I have a bunch of nicknames.
Click to expand...
Just don’t call us “late for supper”…and definitely not for the Eucharist. The best supper of them all until Our Lord returns! 👍
 
Paul_Rimmer said:
I’m a Catholic, but I’m a Catholic who is outside the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Some Catholics are within the authority of the Bishop of Rome. What should I call this group to distinguish it from the rest of what I believe the Catholic Church to be, besides “Catholic” or “Christian”?
Click to expand...
So, if a stranger walks up to you and asks “Where’s the nearest Catholic Church?”, you’d feel perfectly ok pointing him SOLELY to your church, without any qualification? Wow.

That being said, in common parlance, we’re Catholics, full stop. You’re Anglican, full stop. If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of the catholicity of each communion, that’s fine, but the common monikers aren’t going to change just because you’re uncomfortable with them. If you prefer, just do what our forebearers did, and call us Papists, or Romanists or what have you.
 
I think that, out of respect, I’ll refrain from using the phrase “Roman Church”. I’ll just call both groups “Catholic”, and live with the confusion and degeneracy, until someone else decides to come up with a sufficient label for delineation between Catholics under the supreme authority of Rome and Catholics not under the supreme authority of Rome.

In the real world, I’m simply Catholic. So is my church, if anyone, stranger or friend, were to ask.

For this forums, to avoid terrible confusion, I’ll refer to Catholics under the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome as Catholics UAR (Under Authority of Rome) and Catholics who are not under the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome as Catholics NUAR.

Thank you.

Oh, and Kevin, I’ll just call you “Kevin”.
 
Church_Militant said:
The early church would not agree with you, and clearly stated so.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t know about that. I think St. Ignatius of Antioch and I would disagree about certain things. But, then again, St. Ignatius makes certain disciplinary statements that the Catholic Church UAR disagrees with, even in your quotes. Church Fathers are not always in agreement with what the Catholic Church UAR teaches, or how that should be understood.

Even in the essentials, the Nicene Creed, there is good evidence that not all Early Church Fathers were in agreement.

But if you wanted to attribute my positions to a Church Father, I’d come closest to Origin. The later Church authorities who condemned his position on the Fallen Angels, Heaven and Hell were, I think, mistaken, but both Origin and the Church Authorities were Catholic. Both would have confessed the Nicene Creed.
Notice especially what the early church called itself and also note that St. Ignatius is quite serious about those who don’t follow correct doctrine.
Click to expand...
St. Ignatius is rather harsh, and maybe with good reason (though I agree strongly with what he says about the Real Presence). The two of us may not have been in perfect communion, if he were alive today. However, if he were alive today, he might well be Greek Orthodox, and so none of the three of us would be in perfect communion with each other. I chalk that up to fallen human nature and demonic influence. The spirit of division is not the Holy Spirit.
 
This is just silly. Do you believe in Jesus? Do you trust him 100%? Yes or no? This is black and white and very simple. If you trust Jesus then you would believe Him when he built His church that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against. The church that would be lead by the Holy Spirit Who would come down upon the church never to leave until the end of time. The church that we have, the Roman Catholic Church was directly founded by Christ Himself and not just founded but, is being continuously led by the Holy Spirit. Now, if you trust Christ why would you disagree with the church He made that is currently and actively being led by our God?

You seem to have a misunderstanding of infallibility. The Pope is only the mouthpiece of the Lord. Not everything he says is infallible but, the the things that have been said up to this point to shape our faith and the things that continue to be said today and will be said tomorrow that shape our faith are infallible because they are not from the minds of men, they are from the omnipotence of the Almighty God. You say that you believe in the Real Presence. Well, if that is so, you better believe that the Real Presence is there, in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, for a reason. You will find the Real Presence NO WHERE ELSE. I love you, brother, so does Jesus and so does everyone else on this website. No one likes to see a soul fall away from the truth which is why we are all trying to help you understand the flaws with your ideas.

There is no gray area. The truth in it’s fullness is within the Holy Roman Catholic Church and if you choose to leave, you are doing yourself and any others who may choose to follow you, a grave disservice. Don’t you see? Why don’t you understand? I want to help!
 
Anyone whose ministers are not in full communion with the pope are not Catholics. Paul, you are an Anglican not a Catholic. If you style yourself as Catholic you are, frankly speaking, being dishonest. There are no “Catholics not under the ‘supreme authority’ of the bishop of Rome”. No way, no how, not now, not ever. If you wish to be a Catholic contact the priest of your local Catholic parish to take instruction in the faith.
 
Paul_Rimmer said:
I’m a Catholic, but I’m a Catholic who is outside the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Some Catholics are within the authority of the Bishop of Rome. What should I call this group to distinguish it from the rest of what I believe the Catholic Church to be, besides “Catholic” or “Christian”?
Click to expand...
Whats wrong with Anglican? That would seem to be the logical choice.

Blessings!
 
Philthy said:
Whats wrong with Anglican? That would seem to be the logical choice.

Blessings!
Click to expand...
Nothing’s wrong with “Anglican” per se. I think it’s a fine label that I sometimes use. I prefer “Catholic” because “Anglican” in my mind is more like “Latin-rite”. It’s an accurate but not most general description. I am part of the Universal Church, called properly “Catholic.”

As St. Cyril of Jerusalem says (Catechesis No 17:14) “And if you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the Mother of us all.”

I prefer the name “Catholic”. It’s the simplest, and the most accurate.
 
As one poster stated, if someone asked you where is the nearest Catholic Church, where would you direct them to?

I recall as an Anglo Catholic, who always wanted to be a true Catholic, at times when I was young and asked what are you, I would say Catholic and knew in my heart that is wasn’t true.

Yes many Anglo Catholics believe in many of the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church, but truthfully are not Catholic. Maybe with a small “c”. From my experience as an Anglo Catholic they want to be considered Catholic but are not willing to enter formally into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I think that the main reason is authority. Look at where you all are now. There are fewer and fewer Anglo Catholic parishes. You don’t mention if your part of a Continuing Anglican church or part of TEC. Many Continuing Anglicans are coming into the Church through the Apostolic Constitution offered by Pope Benedict.

As I recall there were some in my former parish that were prideful about being Anglo Catholic but not being under the Papacy. They more or less could do there own thing when it came to the liturgy or policies within the parish.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of your church, but a person must be honest on what they are. Until Martin Luther there was only one church that called itself Catholic. Even the Orthodox don’t refer to themselves as Catholic, although they are part of the Apostolic Church. That is not true of the Anglican Communion.

If is so important to be called Catholic why not enter into the Church?

I am sure that a couple of posters here will not agree with my opinions, and that is fine as I really do not care what a person calls themselves as long as they are not misrepresenting themselves as I believe I did many years ago.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
 
Paul_Rimmer said:
Nothing’s wrong with “Anglican” per se. I think it’s a fine label that I sometimes use. I prefer “Catholic” because “Anglican” in my mind is more like “Latin-rite”. It’s an accurate but not most general description. I am part of the Universal Church, called properly “Catholic.”

As St. Cyril of Jerusalem says (Catechesis No 17:14) “And if you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the Mother of us all.”

I prefer the name “Catholic”. It’s the simplest, and the most accurate.
Click to expand...
I think you are kidding yourself to say that Catholic is the most accurate name for you.
You are far closer to the truth in saying that you simply prefer the name Catholic.
Are you more Catholic than the founders of the Anglican Church? You are an Anglican, which is comprised of folks who think of themselves as a unique division of the Catholic Church, but not as the Catholic Church per se. Anglicans are folks who had a disagreement with the Catholic Church and chose to re-identify themselves. It’s who you are - why hide from it?
My two cents…

Blessings!
 
Paul_Rimmer said:
I think that, out of respect, I’ll refrain from using the phrase “Roman Church”. I’ll just call both groups “Catholic”, and live with the confusion and degeneracy, until someone else decides to come up with a sufficient label for delineation between Catholics under the supreme authority of Rome and Catholics not under the supreme authority of Rome.

In the real world, I’m simply Catholic. So is my church, if anyone, stranger or friend, were to ask.

For this forums, to avoid terrible confusion, I’ll refer to Catholics under the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome as Catholics UAR (Under Authority of Rome) and Catholics who are not under the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome as Catholics NUAR.

Thank you…
Click to expand...
And out of respect, I’ll treat you as I would someone who thinks that he’s Caesar Augustus. I’ll call you an Anglican so as to not reinforce your delusion.
 
As much as I would like to be once again, Catholic, I’m not quite there yet. It’s very true that while I attend the Latin Mass on occasion (which I’m slowly increasing the frequency of attendance), I feel “outside the Church”. Because of my “state”, I do not take communion as to not cause a greater blaspheme.

I do think that I’m getting closer to overcoming this one challenge, but at the rate I’m progressing, I still have considerable distance to cover.

Also, on an intellectual level, I’m not as literate on Catholicism as I should be. In terms of hard books, I’ve only actually read the Holy Bible, History of the Church and am currently reading the Catechism.

At best, I would say that I am a Christian with past religious ties to Latin-Rite Catholicism. The things that would probably exclude myself would be positions on contraception, how I see the story of Onan and Er, masturbation, etc.

I consider certain methods of contraception to be no better than abortion, though I might be close to Paul_Rimmer’s current stance in declaring it “morally neutral”, with the exception that I acknowledge through human nature, birth control has dulled the mindset of Western Civ to the point where they forget the first and foremost purpose of sex is for procreation, not recreation. I have no problem with a married couple having recreational sex, though I worry that they’ll forget what it’s actually for to the point where it truly does convert the marital act into a corruption of lust.

I see Onan and Er more as a criminal act against Tamar and negligence of their familial duty of providing an heir for their brother rather than spilling seed on the ground. Spilling seed is an act of defiance of that order given to them, not a blanket statement to all of humanity.

I see masturbation more as a gateway to potentially further worse sin such as fornication or pornography. The only thing that annoys me is that logically one leads to the other if nothing more than man’s rebellious nature in pushing the envelope to first bend, then break the rules.

And yet I do Fish Friday Every Friday, regardless of Lent because I admire the old culture better then the one that exists today. Good grief, how much more messed up can my priorities possibly get?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top