Perigrina Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Why do people who do not accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church call themselves Catholic? I just cannot understand this. There are no social or legal advantages to being Catholic. What does being Catholic even mean if one rejects Church teaching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrysostom Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Because YOUR MOM is Catholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 U mad bro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrysostom Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Sorry for derailing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrysostom Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 But really, religious identity and cultural identity are close enough together that it's no surprise. There may not be many social/legal advantages that you can see, but on the other hand there may be no apparent reasons for people to disavow their Catholic identity, especially when they are completely muddled on what that Catholic identity actually entails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 I guess that one reason this is so foreign to me is that I am a convert. My religion is what I believe, not from my parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrysostom Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Well me too lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Not everybody views the world in black or white, all or nothing terms. I call myself a Marxist even though I do not agree with everything Karl Marx has ever written. Likewise, I call myself a Roman Catholic because it represents the greatest expression of my theological beliefs. I can believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, without believing that they get it right one-hundred percent of the time. The Church taught that slavery-from-war was acceptable. Currently, it rejects such an anti-humanist ideology. The Church used to teach the Augustinian theology that sexuality was inherently sinful. The contemporary Church preaches that human sexuality is inherently beautiful. I disagree with the Church over some matters of sexuality, and on distributist economics. None of that prevents me from being in Communion with the One True Church of Christ. I think we all need to discard idolatrous obsessions with the quest for absolute certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 Not everybody views the world in black or white, all or nothing terms. I call myself a Marxist even though I do not agree with everything Karl Marx has ever written. Likewise, I call myself a Roman Catholic because it represents the greatest expression of my theological beliefs. I can believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, without believing that they get it right one-hundred percent of the time. The Church taught that slavery-from-war was acceptable. Currently, it rejects such an anti-humanist ideology. The Church used to teach the Augustinian theology that sexuality was inherently sinful. The contemporary Church preaches that human sexuality is inherently beautiful. I disagree with the Church over some matters of sexuality, and on distributist economics. None of that prevents me from being in Communion with the One True Church of Christ. I think we all need to discard idolatrous obsessions with the quest for absolute certainty. It has nothing to do with certainty. It has to do with accepting the Church on the terms in which she presents herself. Some teachings are infallible and/or central. Others are not. But the Church herself determines which are which. You are not simply disagreeing over some matters of sexuality. You are disagreeing over the nature of Church authority and the nature of revelation. You are rejecting the fundamental epistemological foundations of Catholicism. This is serious enough to affect a person's communion with the One True Church of Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) It has nothing to do with certainty. It has to do with accepting the Church on the terms in which she presents herself. Some teachings are infallible and/or central. Others are not. But the Church herself determines which are which. You are not simply disagreeing over some matters of sexuality. You are disagreeing over the nature of Church authority and the nature of revelation. You are rejecting the fundamental epistemological foundations of Catholicism. This is serious enough to affect a person's communion with the One True Church of Christ. The fundamental epistemological foundation of Catholicism is that the Apostolic Tradition is central to a proper understanding of Christianity. I am not convinced of an unbroken sense of Magisterium throughout Church history. The medieval conciliar movement, for example, complicates the sense in which the magisterium is said to operate. I reject the notion that to be truly Roman Catholic, that is, within the 2,000 year old tradition, one has to accept every thing the contemporary Magisterium has decided we have to. Edited June 23, 2014 by John Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 The fundamental epistemological foundation of Catholicism is that the Apostolic Tradition is central to a proper understanding of Christianity. I am not convinced of an unbroken sense of Magisterium throughout Church history. The medieval conciliar movement, for example, complicates the sense in which the magisterium is said to operate. I reject the notion that to be truly Roman Catholic, that is, within the 2,000 year old tradition, one has to accept every thing the contemporary Magisterium has decided we have to. The idea of teaching authority is so closely tied to that of Apostolic Tradition that I am not quite sure what Apostolic Tradition even means without it. At any rate, you are not just rejecting a few minor teachings. You are rejecting the entire notion of authoritative teaching and this idea is central to the Church's self-understanding. If you do not accept the Church as she understands herself, how can you be in communion with her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 What's the point if you can't agree 100%? If there was one single thing that the Church changed (in regards to faith or morals), then the entire Church would be devoid of merit. There would be no point to being Catholic. There would be no point to having a "Catholic Church". The Church herself can and has declared as much. The Church has also declared that anyone who rejects even one of these teachings is a heretic, and is not in Communion with the Church. To then do so and still claim to be in Communion makes no sense at all. It's like the idea of Jesus being God. Jesus said He is God. Either He was lying, or He was wrong, or He really is God. If He was lying or if He was wrong, then there's no reason to believe anything He said. If He really is God, then everything He said is worthy of belief, and He is worthy of worship. The case of being Catholic is similar. The Church has declared that she cannot change her position on faith or morals. This is one of the reasons to believe in the Church; that there is no belief in anything unchangeable that changes. And it hasn't (contrary to what you've said - which has only shown a misunderstanding of history). Either the Church is wrong, in which case there's no reason to be Catholic, or the Church is right, in which case it only makes sense to follow 100%. No matter how you look at it, it's silly to agree with the Church only 70%. Either surrender your own biased feelings and opinions and go the whole 100% or reject the name "Catholic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 [21] Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. [24] Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, [25] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. [26] And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, [27] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. [28] And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine. [29] For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Likewise, I call myself a Roman Catholic because it represents the greatest expression of my theological beliefs. I can believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, without believing that they get it right one-hundred percent of the time. . I missed that verse where Christ said; "I am the Way, 75% of the Truth, and the Life." Edited June 23, 2014 by Credo in Deum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) The Church has declared that she cannot change her position on faith or morals. This is one of the reasons to believe in the Church; that there is no belief in anything unchangeable that changes. And it hasn't (contrary to what you've said - which has only shown a misunderstanding of history). Either the Church is wrong, in which case there's no reason to be Catholic, or the Church is right, in which case it only makes sense to follow 100%. No matter how you look at it, it's silly to agree with the Church only 70%. Either surrender your own biased feelings and opinions and go the whole 100% or reject the name "Catholic". Nope, I think I will take my 95% and keep the name "Roman Catholic," regardless of what you say. Whenever somebody asks me what I am, I will proudly declare that I am a Roman Catholic in communion with Rome. If you don't like that, you can go screw yourself. Edited June 23, 2014 by John Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now