Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Perigrina]

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?

[chrysostom]

Because YOUR MOM is Catholic

[CrossCuT]

U mad bro?

[chrysostom]

Sorry for derailing

[chrysostom]

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.

[Perigrina]

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.

[chrysostom]

Well me too lol.

[John Ryan]

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. 

[Perigrina]

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.

[John Ryan]

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

[Perigrina]

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?

[fides' Jack]

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".

[Nihil Obstat]

[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.

[Credo in Deum]

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

[John Ryan]

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

[Perigrina]

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.

 

You are not 95% Catholic.  When you reject a foundational belief, you do not have any of the beliefs that are built upon it, not in any coherent way.  Virtually every belief in Catholicism rests on its understanding of revelation and authority.  This is the first topic in the Catechism for this reason. 

 

If you said that you wanted to be my friend but that you rejected my description of myself in my phorum profile, how could we have a relationship? I would not be the person that you want "communion" with but rather some version of me that you had made up.  You are rejecting the Church's self-understanding, so whatever you are in communion with must come from your imagination.

[Nihil Obstat]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm


Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haeres, IV, xxvi, n. 2) says: "Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession", etc. In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Romans 10:15). An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character. Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from then to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world. This notion of Apostolicity is evolved from the words of Christ Himself, the practice of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians of the Church.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[Selah]

I should really change the cat litter.

[Perigrina]

I should really change the cat litter.

 

 

How can you call it cat litter if it rejects cat litter teaching? 

[John Ryan]

You are not 95% Catholic.  When you reject a foundational belief, you do not have any of the beliefs that are built upon it, not in any coherent way.  Virtually every belief in Catholicism rests on its understanding of revelation and authority.  This is the first topic in the Catechism for this reason. 

 

If you said that you wanted to be my friend but that you rejected my description of myself in my phorum profile, how could we have a relationship? I would not be the person that you want "communion" with but rather some version of me that you had made up.  You are rejecting the Church's self-understanding, so whatever you are in communion with must come from your imagination.

 

I do not doubt the notion of apostolic succession in the Church. What I doubt is that it is infallible and absolute. I believe that the Church has passed down the Apostolic Tradition, but not that each and every statement is absolute. The Church has done a fine job of guarding the tradition and this duty has been crucial to the Christian faith.

 

I do not need an idol for my faith in God, Christ and the Church.

Edited June 23, 2014 by John Ryan