C
Catholic2003
Guest
This is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Anyone who believes this is therefore not a faithful Catholic.
That’s your Catch-22 in a nutshell.
- Status
That’s your Catch-22 in a nutshell.
S
Strider
Guest
Not necessarily. I refer you to Paragraphs 817 and 2089. Cafeteria Catholicism can be incredulity, which leads to apoostacy and excommuniction.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Yes, necessarily. Even excommunicated Catholics are Catholics in more than name only.
C
Crow
Guest
Doesn’t the sacrament of confirmation include the equivalent of such a vow at the very least?
Definately, without remorse nor second thought I would take such a vow.
Definately, without remorse nor second thought I would take such a vow.
S
shannin
Guest
Me too
S
Strider
Guest
Okay, I’ll cede the point because it is insignificant. By that I mean, if you insist in describing one as a “Catholic who is not in communion with the Church,” or a “non-practicing Catholic,” or a “Catholic who is stubbornly living in mortal sin,” or a “Catholic who rejects all Catholic teaching,” or any other permutation of these phrases, the point is still the description of one who rejects some or all of the definitive Dogma or Doctrine of the Catholic Church as defined by the Magestgerium. It just requires more words.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
No, it is a very important point. Let me try again:
A Catholic is anyone who has been baptized as a Catholic, or who has been received into the Catholic Church after a Christian baptism. Catholics can be divided into two groups: sinful Catholics, and perfect Catholics. The problem is that everyone (outside of the BVM) is in the first group (c.f. Romans 3:23).
Your attempt to subdivide the first group (sinful Catholics) into smaller subgroups, so that you can look down on other sinful Catholics in order to feel better about yourself, is completely against everything the Church teaches. This is precisely the point of John 8:7, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” The Pharisees considered themselves to be superior to the woman caught in adultery, but Jesus reminded them that they are all sinners.
Now, forgive me if I am reading too much into your post #79, but “CINO is just that, and is, IMHO a technicality. Where’s a pen?” shows a marked contempt for those that you designate as "CINO"s, as though you were somehow better than them. Just as the Pharisees thought they were superior to the woman caught in adultery.
It is not an insignificant point.
S
sententia
Guest
A catholic is one who has been baptised into the Faith.
Even if one was excommunicated, or in the direst state of sin, they are still catholic.
Even if one was excommunicated, or in the direst state of sin, they are still catholic.
H
hilde_the_dog
Guest
i just signed up to be a CCD aide and in my application I said I would faithfully teach and defend all that is the Magesterium. And then I signed my name. I think I did swear to do so…let the fun begin next week
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
It’s got nothing to do with looking down on anyone. Even Pope Benedict XVI has made statements along the lines of this idea, by which I mean he has stated that the Church will probably get smaller because he wants to eliminate all of the cafeteria Catholics.
The anology presented is correct up to a certain point. Everyone baptized or received is Catholic (technically everyone baptized in any church is Catholic whether they know it, or they like it, or not, but we can ignore that for the sake of this discussion.) Further, every Catholic is either sinning or not sinning. Only the BVM didn’t sin so every other Catholic is sinning.
However, that doesn’t mean that all the sinning Catholics are alike. There are really four groups of them:
The anology presented is correct up to a certain point. Everyone baptized or received is Catholic (technically everyone baptized in any church is Catholic whether they know it, or they like it, or not, but we can ignore that for the sake of this discussion.) Further, every Catholic is either sinning or not sinning. Only the BVM didn’t sin so every other Catholic is sinning.
However, that doesn’t mean that all the sinning Catholics are alike. There are really four groups of them:
*]Those commiting only minor, venial sins and trying very very hard to avoid even those
*]Those commiting mortal sins but trying very very hard not to and going to confession all the time for them (I feel very badly for these people pray for them!)
*]Those commiting mortal sins (or even minor venial sins) because they don’t care what’s sinful. They know what is sinful and they believe it is sinful but they just don’t care.
*]Those who, regardless of what sort of sin they may commit, don’t accept the magesterium and pick and choose what they want to believe. Cafeteria Catholics.
Now, the first three sorts are really, truly Catholic. Obviously the 3rd sort need to have their faith strengthened, but they’re all Catholic.
The Cafeteria Catholics, on the other hand, are begining to border on being Catholic in name only. They are usually still Catholic because they accept the basic truths of Catholicism and the authority of the Church, but they reject various points they have disagreement with. For most of these people, I’d say they actually belong in the 3rd group because they are sinning by either doing what the Church says is wrong or just ignoring the Church’s authority at that point, and they don’t care that they’re sinning (or have a hard heart or blinded eyes and refuse to accept it as sin).
However, some of the people in that fourth group are really and truly Catholic in name only. Those are the ones that reject a lot of the magesterium’s teachings. They like abortion. They like contraception. They think women’s ordination is a pretty cool idea. They think gay homosexual marriage is a fair enough idea. They don’t mind interfaith communion. They think marriage isn’t necessary and you can just sleep with your girlfriend or whomever. They call themselves Catholic, but they aren’t really Catholic. It’s these sort that B16 wants to get rid of (or bring to true conversion of course). I know a lot of people that go around saying they’re Irish and being very proud of it. They don’t live in Ireland, or do follow any of the Irish traditions of their families, but they love to be Irish. In their case they really are because being of a certain ethnicity is based on birthright. A lot of Catholics do the same thing. They’re born Catholic so they always identify themselves as Catholic. People do this in all religions. I know atheists who say say “oh Christian” when asked or “Jewish.” It’s like this identifier of who we are that we get as children and always hold on to even when we really aren’t whatever we’re saying we are. Baptism brings a person into the Church, but the person’s belief keeps them there. Being Christian, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or whatever, means to believe what a Christian or Buddhist or Hindu believes.
When a Catholic ignores or disagrees with most of what the Church teaches, they are no longer really Catholic and are Catholic in name only at best.
Above ALL I just said, remember this:
True circumcision is of the heart. A person circumcised physically was one who had the physical sign of being faithful to God, but true circumcision is of the heart: having a heart faithful to God. Similarly, a person baptized (aside from the regenerative aspect of it) is one whom had the physical sign of becoming a Catholic done to them. Truly, however, being a Catholic is being a Catholic of the HEART: having a heart faithful to God and to His Church. THAT is what makes a person a Catholic, not baptism (though it is required), not some certificate, nor what church a person goes to, nor what a person was born as.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
No. Technically, those baptized in non-Catholic denominations are non-Catholic Christians. (Note that the Catholic Church does not recognize the concept of a “non-baptized Christian” that some Protestant denominations do.)
The Pharasees also had a grouping that separated “those committing only minor sins and trying very very hard to avoid even those” from “loose women committing grave sexual sin”. Look where it got them.
Then you have to ask yourself how you feel to be a Catholic in name only. Because by rejecting the Church’s teaching on this matter, you have placed yourself in the fourth group.
Catch-22!
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
That’s simply not true. For one thing, the statement about non-Catholic Christians is erroneous. You know how there is this “conflict” between the Church saying that there is no salvation outside the Church and then saying “non-Catholics” can be saved? One of the reasons there is no conflict is because any of these “non-Catholic Christians” who have been baptized are through baptism techincally a part of the Catholic Church.
Further, it’s a logical fallacy to say that just because one person does X and results in Y that anybody that does X will result in Y. Remember, the Pharisees also held that Tradition was a valid and important piece of the deposit of the faith. Does that mean that anyone else that does that has a problem? I sure hope not! I could say, “The Protestants believe the Bible is inspired and look where that got them.” It just doesn’t work. In fact what you said almost borders on the “we can’t ever judge anyone” kind of thought. If someone is really rejecting a bunch of Church teachings of COURSE we can judge them. In fact we’d be lax in our faith not to.
Furthermore, as I said, Pope Benedict has already begun making statements along the lines of what I said, so I am certainly not opposed to the Church’s teaching.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, then.
You need to distinguish between judging people and judging actions. What you are doing is judging people; in fact you are assigning derogatory names (e.g., “Catholic in name only”) to groups of people which you, and not the magisterium of the Church, have defined.
You should read the following “Ask an Apologist” replies:
What do you call a Catholic who does not follow Church teaching?
Can Catholics judge others?
You have not quoted the specific statements, but I can only assume that Pope Benedict XVI was talking about judging the action of rejecting Church teaching as sinful, and not about assigning derogatory labels to the particular class of sinners guilty of this.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
As a matter of fact to the best of my knowledge Pope Benedict was talking about getting to the point where either everyone who does not believe everything the Church teaches either leaves or isn’t allowed to receive the Sacraments (while obviously wishing and praying for them to come to full communion.)
Also you have to remember that there is nothing wrong with calling something or somebody what it is. Remember, Jesus called the Pharisees things such as “brood of vipers!” You might say He could do this because He is God and has the right, but that would be the nestorian heresy. Jesus was FULLY man. He did NOTHING that we are not allowed to do. To do so and use some sort of divine privlege would mean He was not fully human. Was He sinning? Of course not. He was calling a spade a spade. If a person is Catholic in name only, we call them that, we calling them something derogatory, we are calling them what they are.
When we call such people Catholics, we are being derogatory to the people who are truly Catholic in heart and who submit to the full teachings of the Church and of God. One of the reasons that the Catholic Church is so against gay marriage is this very same reason. Why can’t we just leave the homosexuals alone and let them do their thing? We oughta let God judge them and leave them be, right? Wrong. The Church is worried that by calling two homosexuals married we are doing a disservice to those who are truly married by dilluting the word to the point where it doesn’t have the same meaning any more.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Why don’t you cite the specific quote, so that we can both see.
Or for that matter, why don’t you cite any magisterial teaching that would justify calling someone a “Catholic in name only”?
If you do it uncharitably, there is plenty wrong with it.
You didn’t seem to respond to the “Ask an Apologist” references, so let my quote the especially pertinent parts:
Michelle Arnold said:
Notice that Michelle Arnold did not say, “The sacraments, especially baptism, are what make us Catholic in name only, and how well we understand or practice our faith is what makes us really Catholic.”
You have completely turned around what the Church teaches. Thus, by your own standards, you are a Catholic in name only.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
What is more uncharitable, to call someone Catholic in name only or to call someone snakes and vipers?
Also, I might ask for a magesterial teaching saying not to call people Catholic in name only. I would also say that since we are looking for Magesterial statements that Michelle Arnod shouldn’t hold any weight. That being said, she is certainly well educated and a reasonable source. Of course not understanding the faith is not what makes a person Catholic. I’m not arguing that. Adhering to it isn’t what makes us Catholic either, because we all sin, obviously. However, accepting it and not rejecting it is a huge deal! Notice that she doesn’t say these things aren’t what make us Catholic.
Jeff Cavins, for instance, was born and baptized a Catholic. He then proceded to reject most of the Church’s teachings. He still went to the Catholic parish, but he didn’t believe what the Church taught. Was he still a Catholic? Of course not.
Remember what the Bible tells us: we have to truly in our hearts have faith. It tells us that anyone who doesn’t have circumcision of the heart and believe truly in their hearts, otherwise we’re not true believers, or we’re not really “of Jesus.” Coming from a time when the word “Christian” didn’t really exist yet (Acts uses the word but it was written after most of the epistles and explains to us when the word was first used), this was tantamount to saying that without true belief in the heart a person really wasn’t a Christian. Why should we have any other standard?
I
InnocentIII
Guest
In our parish our holy priest has insisted that we say “I believe” for that very reason. I have never understood the use of the collective “we” in the present translation. It is bluntly an incorrect translation of the word “Credo”. Whatever the motives of the translators (and at times I have suspected thay have not been good ones) the overall effect of the change from “I” to “we” has been to reduce the purpose of the creed in the first place as a statement of orthodoxy. I can in all good conscience say “We believe” as a Church without believing myself but if I say “I believe” then I must believe it or purjure myself. This is one mistranslation which I believe must be gotten rid of.I think a lot of people recite the creed at church without really thinking about what they’re saying. Certainly there are Catholics who, for example, use birth control or support abortion rights who say that creed every Sunday right along with everyone else.
In Christ,
Nancy
PS Sorry for the side-step. I voted yes to the hypothetical but agree with Gottle that it is already an obligation.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Because the Church teaches us to.
Dissenting from Church teachings is indeed sinful. But what you are still trying to do is to single out one category of sin that you deem worthy of special contempt. Just like the Pharasees took a holier-than-thou attitude toward the woman caught in adultery. And just as wrong.
Check out the Catechism:
Notice that the CCC does not define your 4 categories of sinnner, and state that the Church “clasps sinners from the first three categories to her bosom”.
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
It’s not a simple question because everyone would take it very seriously.I would have never thought that such a simple question could cause such a diversity of responses…I must be naive…
I’ve been distracted by people talking about “signing” a paper, whereas the question is about taking a “vow.” Notice, a “vow” is not Biblical as a condition of Christianity, is it? Must not be.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
For one thing, the Church teaches nothing that is a different standard from what Christ did. Christ’s standard is what the Church teaches. Christ’s standard was to use names like snake and viper to talk about certain people, and these were the people who were religious iby their name but not by their heart. When I call someone Catholic in name only, I am talking about the same sort of idea that Jesus was but I am using much more charitable terms than Jeus did. I am NOT saying I am more charitable than Jesus as that would be impossible. I am saying that I am choosing to be a lot nicer than Jesus would allow or even encourage me to be.
Secondly I mean no offense but you are taking things completely out of context. The Church clapses all sinners to her bosom but She clearly distinguishes between different categories of sinners. The two obvious ones are mortal sinners and venial sinners. She goes so far as to say that mortal sinners aren’t allowed to receive communion unless they are absolved. She goes so far as to say that some people are so sinful that She has to make an official declaration that they are sinful and declare for all the world to see that they are denied communion, or excommunicated. It’s Protestant theology to make no distiniction between different sins and different sinners. This doesn’t mean its done in a malicious way. It’s done simply because sins are different. Sinners are different.
Finally, I’m not even trying to distinguish between different levels of sin. I made that list of four categories for sole purpose of showing that sin and how sinful a person behaves has nothing to do with if they are Catholic or not. I’m agreeing with you completely on that. I’m not saying it’s the sinners that aren’t Catholic, whether they are trying to avoid it or they are doing it willfully. They’re all Catholic. We’re in perfect agreement on that. I’m saying it’s the people that willingly and openly reject the majority of the Church’s teachings that aren’t Catholic.
When you go to Mass next time, look on the back cover of the Missal. You’ll see a little section explaining that non-Catholics shouldn’t take communion, because taking communion, aside from receiving Christ, means and symbolizes that you are in full agreement with the teachings of the Church. The Church doesn’t so much define a Catholic as someone who has been baptized, or confirmed, or received into the Church, but as someone who is in union with the Pope and who believes all of the Church’s teachings.
You could be the most holy, sinless person alive, but if you don’t believe in what the Church teaches, you’re simply not Catholic in your heart. A person is Catholic not by name, and not by behavior, and not by what church they go to, although these do matter, but by what is in their heart. That is all that really matters. When we show up before God, He’s not going to look at what we did by itself, or what we said by itself, or if we called ourselves a Christian or even if we called Him Lord, He is gonna look at all this and then double check it with what was in our heart the whole time. The heart is what matters. Scripture can’t be more clear on this, and I’d venture to say none of the Magesterial documents can either.
- Status