What the heck is "orthodox Catholics" anyway?

[Journeyman]

dhgray:

That’s a pretty RUDE response Journeyman. Might I introduce you to a class on Christianity. I choose go be come a Catholic. I made up my mind to follow and embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church.

dhgray, as others have pointed out, my response was on the sarcastic side. And I wrote it in that manner because in my parish, there are quite a few heterodox catholics (thank you pittsburghjeff for the proper terminology) and the tone in which my response was written seems to be the tone many of them use. My personal feelings were written in the last paragraph.

Now I will point out that there are some heterodox catholics who know no better. They have never been educated in the teachings of the Church. Oh, they may know that ABC is wrong, but they don’t know why. Of course, it is up to each one of us to make decisions with an informed conscience.

Here are some questions for you regarding heterodox and orthodox Catholics? What do you think—
Do heterodox Catholics tend to use Vatican II to give the laity more power than was intended? Such as the overuse of extraordinary ministers?

Or how about any type of Latin in the Mass? Do heterodox Catholics frown on Latin in the Mass?

And do they think that orthodox Catholics want to cling to the past and the heterodox thinks the past way of doing things is a bad way?

 

[rfk]

Journeyman:

Here are some questions for you regarding heterodox and orthodox Catholics? What do you think—
Do heterodox Catholics tend to use Vatican II to give the laity more power than was intended? Such as the overuse of extraordinary ministers?

Or how about any type of Latin in the Mass? Do heterodox Catholics frown on Latin in the Mass?

Actually, speaking as someone who considers myself as orthodox as I know how to be, I personally think the examples you gave are minor issues to the point of being irrelevant. Or, at least irrelevant compared to some of the big issues. In terms of heterodoxy, some of the examples I’ve seen are far more grave. Such as:* Supporting woman’s ordination

• Support for abortion on demand.
• Support for abortion “for serious cases only” (tongue-in-cheek). For example, I know people who say they don’t support “abortion on demand” as routine birth control, but somehow find it acceptable in cases of rape or incest.
• Support for gay marriage
• Support for sexually active gay lifestyle
• I’ve seen women giving the homily (seriously! I swear to it!)
• Support for couples living together outside of marriage.
• Support for divorced people marrying outside the Church, yet still receiving Communion.
• Pre-marital sex, no actually any sex outside of marriage
• Masturbation & pornography as “normal”, acceptable, and certainly not a sin.
• Stating the Eucharistic Adoration is “old-fashioned superstition”.
• Letting priest marry. (And I am not talking about previously married, converted Anglicans or Eastern rite Catholic priests.)
• Letting priests or other religious be sexually active, and choose AC or DC, doesn’t matter.
• Supporting 7-grain, honey-nut pita for the Eucharist.
• …etc. etc. etc.

And the one issue that is probably one of the biggest points of heterodoxy – artificial birth control. I’ve read where 90% or more of American Catholics reject Church teaching on ABC.

I’ve heard people support all these positions over the years. People who still consider themself to be Catholic. For quite a few of the issues listed, I have heard at least one or more religious express that they disagreed with Church teaching in favor of the dissenting opinion.

So, compared to some of the “biggies”, I am not quite as concerned with taking a headcount at our next distribution of Holy Communion.

 

[dhgray]

dhgray, as others have pointed out, my response was on the sarcastic side.

YES that was quickly pointed out…sorry if I jumped too quickly.

Here are some questions for you regarding heterodox and orthodox Catholics? What do you think—
Do heterodox Catholics tend to use Vatican II to give the laity more power than was intended? Such as the overuse of extraordinary ministers?

Or how about any type of Latin in the Mass? Do heterodox Catholics frown on Latin in the Mass?

And do they think that orthodox Catholics want to cling to the past and the heterodox thinks the past way of doing things is a bad way?

I can’t answer as I am still learning, I’m a convert, that’s why I was asking.

God Bless you,
Davis

 

[Tanais]

loyola rambler:

The terms “orthodox” and “liberal” are completely subjective titles that some people use to distinguish themselves from their fellow Catholics in the pews. It’s a sad statement that anyone feels the need to critique someone else’s level of belief, but that’s what we’re really talking about here.

I am really curious in hearing your definition of subjective, because the one I know means dependant on the human mind. If we can agree that the definition of orthodox Catholic is one who accepts all the teachings of the Church, how can that be a "subjective title. Either they accept it or they do not, it isn’t a matter of subjective opinion like “I like brownies”. It is like labelling someone a marxist. If they fit the definition of a marxist, that of being a follower of marx, then they can be objectively called a marxist. If someone accepts all the teachings of the Church, then they can objectively called orthodox.
Now the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, but still not necessarily subjective. They are relative to the time they are being used in but still not like a statement “I like cheese”. I still fail to see how the terms “liberal”, “orthodox”, and “conservative” are subjective.
Once again, what is your definition of subjective?

 

[khkhk]

dhgray:

I’m a convert. I joined the Roman Catholic Church. We follow the teachings of theVatican. Is my Church not orthodox?

Orthodox Catholics, that just means that they follow everything the church teaches.

 

[loyola_rambler]

Tanais:

I am really curious in hearing your definition of subjective, because the one I know means dependant on the human mind. If we can agree that the definition of orthodox Catholic is one who accepts all the teachings of the Church, how can that be a "subjective title. Either they accept it or they do not, it isn’t a matter of subjective opinion like “I like brownies”. It is like labelling someone a marxist. If they fit the definition of a marxist, that of being a follower of marx, then they can be objectively called a marxist. If someone accepts all the teachings of the Church, then they can objectively called orthodox.
Now the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, but still not necessarily subjective. They are relative to the time they are being used in but still not like a statement “I like cheese”. I still fail to see how the terms “liberal”, “orthodox”, and “conservative” are subjective.
Once again, what is your definition of subjective?

Sorry, but many of us who accept all of the teachings of the Church are not considered “orthodox” by the elitists who use the title as a badge of honor and perjourn their fellow Catholics. There is a group often referred to as “uber-Catholics” who are so rabid about what is right and wrong that even when things don’t violate the teachings of the Church, the uber (orthodox) finds fault and cries things like “liturgical abuse”.

Things like whether the orans position is appropriate during the Pater Noster eat at the orthodox. Even though the Church teaching says it’s fine, the orthodox cries abuse. Read some of the posts around here from the “orthodox” who brag that they not only don’t eat for an hour before Communion, but they fast from midnight on so that they’re more worthy to receive Christ. The obvious implication is that those of us who merely follow the teaching to fast for an hour are just putting in our time and not really as prepared as the uber-orthodox who goes overboard and has to be more grandiose about these things.

There are many, many more things that eat at many of those tossing around the term “orthodox” as a badge of elitism. Shouldn’t women still cover their heads? Isn’t the Tridentine mass the only legitimate form of worship? Aren’t Bishop So and So and Such and Such overstepping their authority by allowing girls to serve as altar servers? Shouldn’t nuns be forced to wear veils?

Don’t forget that none of these are abuses and all are within the bounds of the teaching of the Church. Some people have the need to bellyache about them and belittle people sitting next to them in the pews for not living up to these rigid, haughty standards that even the Church doesn’t recognize.