What does it mean to be a "Real Catholic" besides actual Church teaching?

[ToeInTheWater]

There are important distinctions to make here.

In much of Protestantism, but not all, there is not a distinction made between dogma, doctrine, devotion, and practice. There is only scripture which is treated as an all inclusive operating manual for everything. In other words, many topics are given the same level of importance. This is why denominations split over matters both large and small - e.g. the nature of baptism versus the type of music to use or clothes to wear at church.

I agree this is the case, although there is also this idea that Christians only have to agree on fundamentals and the exact denomination doesn’t matter that much. Many Protestants choose a “home church” for reasons of convenience and don’t care about the precise theological issues.

It’s also interesting that atheists often criticize Christians in general for picking and choosing what Biblical principles to follow. Such as “How can you oppose SSM when you’re fine with people wearing mixed threads for their clothing”, or “How can you say you follow the Bible when the Bible states you should stone your kids to death if they rebel”, etc.

When Catholics refer to Mary, a pope, or any specific saint as an example to live our lives by, they are not referring to a dogma or doctrine of the church - meaning they are not requirements. These resemble optional devotional practices that strengthen our spiritual lives. It is not the same thing as required dogma and doctrine.

Maybe not, but many seem to say “Saint X said this” with the underlying assumption that since a Saint said it, it MUST be (1) true, and (2) eternally true no matter what changes society has gone through since the time of the Saint.

For example, in the latest Family Life modesty topic one poster quotes Saint Padre Pio:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14478616&postcount=92

"Padre Pio wouldn’t tolerate low-necked dresses or short, tight skirts, and he forbade his spiritual daughters to wear transparent stockings. Each year his severity increased. He stubbornly dismissed them from his confessional, even before they set foot inside, if he judged them to be improperly dressed. On some mornings he drove away one after another, until he ended up hearing very few confessions. His brothers observed these drastic purges with a certain uneasiness and decided to fasten a sign on the church door; "

“By Padre Pio’s explicit wish, women must enter the confessional wearing skirts AT LEAST 8 INCHES BELOW THE KNEE. IT IS FORBIDDEN TO BORROW LONGER DRESSES IN CHURCH AND TO WEAR THEM TO CONFESSION”

And for men:
The Church is the house of God.
It is forbidden for men to enter with bare arms or in shorts. It is forbidden for women to enter in trousers, without a veil on their head, in short clothing, low necklines, sleeveless or immodest dresses."

( 8 inches below the knee would be ankle length for many☺. Women had started borrowing dresses for confession. Padre Pio always knew. )

That’s all the post is. No discussion, no explanation, and no disclaimer that veiling in church is no longer a Church discipline for women.

CAF is helpful for comparing notes, but to the other poster’s point, it should not be used in a vacuum without an “official” source such as the catechism. You may consider utilizing CA Live or their apologists’ material. As another unofficial source, I would recommend the Called to Communion radio program with Dr David Anders which can be found on EWTN radio. His daily programs are also saved on YouTube.

I have actually used all these sources and the problem is – not even all CAF apologists agree with each other, neither do all of the EWTN speakers.

I can recall one radio broadcast when a caller stated she was against the Church doctrine on ABC, because she needs to be on it for medical reasons. The apologist did not ask for any clarification as to what “medical reasons” meant, AFAIK using it as medication to treat a disease is OK, but using to avoid conception for a “medical reason” is not. Maybe they assumed the latter was the case based on how this woman spoke.

I think I will actually make a new topic about authoritative sources of Catholic teaching, I think that is what is really the issue here.

 

[Ormond]

Being a real Catholic means arguing with other Catholics over what being a real Catholic means. Or, if you prefer, pretending to be above all that.

 

[JPUSC]

Being a real Catholic means arguing with other Catholics over what being a real Catholic means. Or, if you prefer, pretending to be above all that.

:clapping:

 

[Wesrock]

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, “You cannot serve God and mammon.” Many martyrs died for not adoring “the Beast” refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Good things all the things cited are for the glory of God and his wonders and not idolatry.

 

[JPUSC]

Good things all the things cited are for the glory of God and his wonders and not idolatry.

The three marks of a Catholic are devotion to the Pope, the Eucharist, and Mary.

donboscowest.org/saints/donbosco

 

[Ormond]

One version of being a real Catholic, emphasis on one, is to be a Catholic in a way that is beyond choice.

Although I don’t claim to be a real Catholic, or even a Catholic, and accept whatever someone else might label me as, and don’t wish to fight over a word that doesn’t appear in the Bible even once, I will offer my experience of feeling “Catholic beyond choice”.

First, I was born and baptized Catholic, which I obviously had nothing to do with. The same basically for confirmation to a more limited degree. But this is not really what I’m referring to.

I’m talking about centuries of Catholic DNA flowing through my body.

Even though I haven’t been to Mass in 50 years (my choice), and if the Vatican was still burning people at the stake I’d probably be on the waiting list as a heretic (my choice), and even though I look a lot like a crazy hippy Jesus on LSD at Woodstock (my choice), there are profound Catholic kind of things about my life that I have no choice about.

I have no choice about being here on this forum. Seriously, no choice, I’m not kidding. I have no choice about being incurably interested in the kinds of topics which fuel Catholic dialog. I have no choice about pointing the finger of blame and shame in a judgmental manner from a position of fantasy superiority. I have no choice about being a relatively decent person despite my love of rhetorical combat. I had no choice about having the excellent taste in women which brought me the gift of my amazing wife and kept me married to her for 37 years, great gifts heavily influenced by my Catholic DNA. I have no choice about having a gift for writing wonderful sermons about love, while having a quite limited ability to actually do what my articulate words suggest, which I call, “adventures in hypocrisy”.

I haven’t set foot inside a Catholic Church since at least 1967, and yet the culture of this forum is so incredibly familiar and natural to me. And I have no choice about that.

Being Catholic is so often seen as a choice one makes, and often that is true. But for me, I lost that choice hundreds of years before I was born.

 

[mattp0625]

One version of being a real Catholic, emphasis on one, is to be a Catholic in a way that is beyond choice.

Although I don’t claim to be a real Catholic, or even a Catholic, and accept whatever someone else might label me as, and don’t wish to fight over a word that doesn’t appear in the Bible even once, I will offer my experience of feeling “Catholic beyond choice”.

First, I was born and baptized Catholic, which I obviously had nothing to do with. The same basically for confirmation to a more limited degree. But this is not really what I’m referring to.

I’m talking about centuries of Catholic DNA flowing through my body.

Even though I haven’t been to Mass in 50 years (my choice), and if the Vatican was still burning people at the stake I’d probably be on the waiting list as a heretic (my choice), and even though I look a lot like a crazy hippy Jesus on LSD at Woodstock (my choice), there are profound Catholic kind of things about my life that I have no choice about.

I have no choice about being here on this forum. Seriously, no choice, I’m not kidding. I have no choice about being incurably interested in the kinds of topics which fuel Catholic dialog. I have no choice about pointing the finger of blame and shame in a judgmental manner from a position of fantasy superiority. I have no choice about being a relatively decent person despite my love of rhetorical combat. I had no choice about having the excellent taste in women which brought me the gift of my amazing wife and kept me married to her for 37 years, great gifts heavily influenced by my Catholic DNA. I have no choice about having a gift for writing wonderful sermons about love, while having a quite limited ability to actually do what my articulate words suggest, which I call, “adventures in hypocrisy”.

I haven’t set foot inside a Catholic Church since at least 1967, and yet the culture of this forum is so incredibly familiar and natural to me. And I have no choice about that.

Being Catholic is so often seen as a choice one makes, and often that is true. But for me, I lost that choice hundreds of years before I was born.

I applaud your familiarities that drew you to this website.

A word if I may - the “burning at the stake by the Vatican” notion is a little more complex than that. Yes there were tribunals to root our heresies, but punishments generally were not of the burning of the stake variety and were less harsh than that of secular authorities.

This is not the reality we would hope for, but it does clarify misconceptions.

Additionally, when the monarchies became involved for their own agendas, things got out of control. For example, the Spanish monarchy threatened that if the pope did not assent in writing to their inquisition, their military would not protect the Vatican from Turkish forces. They also imposed harsher punishments. European history is never simple.

 

[JPUSC]

I applaud your familiarities that drew you to this website.

A word if I may - the “burning at the stake by the Vatican” notion is a little more complex than that. Yes there were tribunals to root our heresies, but punishments generally were not of the burning of the stake variety and were less harsh than that of secular authorities.

This is not the reality we would hope for, but it does clarify misconceptions.

Additionally, when the monarchies became involved for their own agendas, things got out of control. For example, the Spanish monarchy threatened that if the pope did not assent in writing to their inquisition, their military would not protect the Vatican from Turkish forces. They also imposed harsher punishments. European history is never simple.

St. Joan of Arc.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Acceptance of the Trinity, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, reverance for the Virgin Mother, regular attendance at Mass…these would be ones that would be on my list. The list given in the original post seems like criteria of an extremely judgemental Catholic (and I have seen the attitude from some).

 

[Wesrock]

St. Joan of Arc.

Burning was a manner of execution used at the time. mattp didn’t say nobody was burned, just that European history is not simple. And if we’re talking Saint Joan of Arc, that is obviously also mixed up in English-French politics and war.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I have no choice about being here on this forum. Seriously, no choice, I’m not kidding. I have no choice about being incurably interested in the kinds of topics which fuel Catholic dialog. I have no choice about pointing the finger of blame and shame in a judgmental manner from a position of fantasy superiority. I have no choice about being a relatively decent person despite my love of rhetorical combat. I had no choice about having the excellent taste in women which brought me the gift of my amazing wife and kept me married to her for 37 years, great gifts heavily influenced by my Catholic DNA. I have no choice about having a gift for writing wonderful sermons about love, while having a quite limited ability to actually do what my articulate words suggest, which I call, “adventures in hypocrisy”.

I haven’t set foot inside a Catholic Church since at least 1967, and yet the culture of this forum is so incredibly familiar and natural to me. And I have no choice about that.

Being Catholic is so often seen as a choice one makes, and often that is true. But for me, I lost that choice hundreds of years before I was born.

There is something about growing up in a Catholic family that molds your beliefs about morality and who you are, whether you practice the Faith or not. I have seen this in certain relatives of mine.

 

[mattp0625]

St. Joan of Arc.

So Joan or Arc was taken prisoner during the conflict known as the Hundred Years’ War, where the secular authorities were involved as well.

She was also captured by secular authorities. Pierre Cauchon, the bishop that oversaw her trial, was know to overreach into secular politics, and the church later nullified his positions. He was even excommunicated after his death.

Either way, the point is that the mistake of one bishop, or even several bishops, does not define the entire faith.

I could point to the national protestant church in Germany in the 1930’s that only allowed Aryans to participate and disallowed the Old Testament due to antisemitism, and then use that to define Protestantism, but that would be rather silly.

I could also point to Luther’s suggestion for the violent suppression of the Peasant’s Revolt, which did take place.

The point is, it’s useless to compare notes. Europe was ravaged by war and the lines between monarchies and clergy were often blurred. Few sides had their hands clean.

 

[goout]

So there are lot’s of failings and shortcomings among Catholics. That is no secret.
Disunity is part of our fallen nature. We are imperfect and understand things in different ways.
You seem to be bemoaning what you read here on CAF.
Well, this is an apologetics website. This is part of the nature of apologetics: to provide definitive answers to questions.
You also note the many “below the belt issues”. Those are not brought up by Catholics because we like to talk about them. They are an expression of an ugly culture. So yes, those issues are addressed as they come up. I suspect they are brought frequently because they are difficult and worth pursuing.

What you seem to asking about is authenticity (“Real”), and consensus (“Catholic”).
There is only one who is authentically and durably Christian: Jesus Christ. All others are followers and on the journey to know him. So if you are looking for a real Catholic, contemplate the face of Christ.

There is also only one who is our consensus: Jesus Christ. Consensus could be another word for unity. Or consensus can lead us to unity. Christ is the unity of all things. “In Him we live and move and have our being”.
Since he is our living unity, he has a Body, also known as the Church. The Church is Catholic, or universal. There is only one and it draws us toward unity despite our resistance.

To learn what it means to be a real Catholic, love Jesus Christ through his Mystical Body, the Church. Don’t look for the substance of your faith in the behavior and talk of individuals. You will be forever disappointed. Others might guide you, or they might draw you astray. Christ.
Put your faith in Him and his Church and let Him sort out the rest.