Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Perigrina]

Then you must show kindness and compassion

 

In Syriac.

 

ܫܝܢܐ 

[Nihil Obstat]

Then you must show kindness and compassion

 

In Syriac.

Yeah ok, that is all well and good, but I talked to a Maronite priest, so what about for Maronites?

[Selah]

Syriac Black, Sirius' Squib Catholic cousin.

 

Which means....Harry was not Anglican.

 

Or maybe he was.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Selah

[Fidei Defensor]

Warning: Document dump!

 

Vatican I: Pastor aeternus
Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,[55] cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion."[56]

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: "The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."[57]

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence: "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."[58]

3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."[60]

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
 

[Perigrina]

I'm out of props Tardis but that's great.

[stevil]

You are a person describing how you as a person relate to other people. But when you asked if Catholicism has faith in people, it did not make sense.  Catholicism is an abstract noun, a religion, a belief system, not a person.  It does not trust, have faith, or expectations.  These are things that people do. How could a belief system trust or have an urge to control?

Maybe I'm using imprecise terminology.
When I say Catholocism, I mean the body that is the authority, the definer of the rules, the shaper of the culture and traditions.
You might say that it is the god via the pope and his arch bishops etc.
I would say that it is the pope and his arch bishops given the constraints of what has been promised to the flock e.g. under the conditions that the church claims itself to be infallible.

I consider the Catholic church to be an organisation much like the companies I have worked for. Organisations have varying degrees of faith in their members. A company I once worked with, agonised (the board of directors agonised) over a decision regarding a relaxing of the dress code. Should they have faith in their staff and allow them to choose how to dress (how to represent the company) or should they maintain control and insist members dress a certain way?

It is much like being a parent to a child. What level of faith and trust do we have in our children and what level of control do we give up and allow our child to choose their own destiny?

In my view, faith is not something that can be demanded, not something that someone can be punished for not having. If you are getting people to comply then that is coercion and control rather than faith. Faith is letting go, it is even supporting when the person goes down a divergent path. When an organisation has faith in their members they don't look to control, but instead they trust their members.

[dairygirl4u2c]

a realistic scenario of why someone who call themself catholic but not follow the rules etc. they might view the bishop of rome as the head of the church, but that wrongly claims infallibility etc. this person would be akin to an orthodox. perhaps the person should just call themself orthodox, who happens to attendcatholic church? maybe. it's not like the RCC forbids them from going.

[chrysostom]

they might view the bishop of rome as the head of the church, but that wrongly claims infallibility etc.

 

Have you heard of the Old Catholic Church?  After Vatican I they went into schism over precisely this question of infallibility.

[Perigrina]

Maybe I'm using imprecise terminology.
When I say Catholocism, I mean the body that is the authority, the definer of the rules, the shaper of the culture and traditions.
You might say that it is the god via the pope and his arch bishops etc.
I would say that it is the pope and his arch bishops given the constraints of what has been promised to the flock e.g. under the conditions that the church claims itself to be infallible.

I consider the Catholic church to be an organisation much like the companies I have worked for. Organisations have varying degrees of faith in their members. A company I once worked with, agonised (the board of directors agonised) over a decision regarding a relaxing of the dress code. Should they have faith in their staff and allow them to choose how to dress (how to represent the company) or should they maintain control and insist members dress a certain way?

It is much like being a parent to a child. What level of faith and trust do we have in our children and what level of control do we give up and allow our child to choose their own destiny?

In my view, faith is not something that can be demanded, not something that someone can be punished for not having. If you are getting people to comply then that is coercion and control rather than faith. Faith is letting go, it is even supporting when the person goes down a divergent path. When an organisation has faith in their members they don't look to control, but instead they trust their members.

 

It's not the terminology.  I just don't think of organizations experiencing faith and trust the way that individuals do.   

 

Anyhow this does not have anything to do with the Church punishing or controlling anybody.  It is about people being honest in how they describe themselves.

[KnightofChrist]

A Catholic that rejects Church teaching but still calls himself Catholic, is a like an atheist that worships God and still calls himself an atheist, or vegetarian/vegan who eats meat and still claims to be a vegetarian/vegan, or a man that claims to be a gentleman but dishonors/abuses women and still claims to be a gentleman. 

[stevil]

Anyhow this does not have anything to do with the Church punishing or controlling anybody.  It is about people being honest in how they describe themselves.

It is about your (and other people's reaction) to a person whom calls themselves a Catholic while rejecting some of the church's teachings.

If the church still accepts them as a Catholic (doesn't exclude this person from the group) then the church is exhibiting a level of faith.

Does the church have faith in its members or does it control them so much that it excludes them if they are not 100% in line on this issue?

[Perigrina]

It is about your (and other people's reaction) to a person whom calls themselves a Catholic while rejecting some of the church's teachings.

If the church still accepts them as a Catholic (doesn't exclude this person from the group) then the church is exhibiting a level of faith.

Does the church have faith in its members or does it control them so much that it excludes them if they are not 100% in line on this issue?

 

These just aren't meaningful statements.  Framing this in terms of the Church having faith or controlling makes no sense.

 

Church teaching includes definitions and explanations of what is involved in being a Catholic.  Presumably people who do not do these things are not Catholic.  There isn't someone who makes a decision about it, unless it is some sort of exceptional case involving a theologian or something.

[Nihil Obstat]

It is about your (and other people's reaction) to a person whom calls themselves a Catholic while rejecting some of the church's teachings.

If the church still accepts them as a Catholic (doesn't exclude this person from the group) then the church is exhibiting a level of faith.

Does the church have faith in its members or does it control them so much that it excludes them if they are not 100% in line on this issue?

Going back to your company analogy, what if someone claimed to be employed by a company, yet was not on their payroll or anywhere in their records? Or what if he did contracting work while claiming to be a full employee, while the company maintained that he was merely a contractor? What if he got demoted but continued to claim his previous job title and authority? Who gets the final say in these cases?

[mortify ii]

Don't blame me, I voted Crowley for king of hell in 2012. And yea, I may practice thelema and hold Gnostic views about Christ, but I'm Roman Catholic, and if anyone has a problem with that then screw you!

Thanks

[stevil]

Church teaching includes definitions and explanations of what is involved in being a Catholic.

Is this correct OR could it be worded as follows

Church teaching includes definitions and explanations of how a Catholic should act, should believe.

[stevil]

Going back to your company analogy, what if someone claimed to be employed by a company, yet was not on their payroll or anywhere in their records? Or what if he did contracting work while claiming to be a full employee, while the company maintained that he was merely a contractor? What if he got demoted but continued to claim his previous job title and authority? Who gets the final say in these cases?

Yes, so it comes down to whom it is that is the authority on such matters and what criteria they have laid out.

It seems to me that some people in this thread are making exclusion claims without tieing these back to the authority and the "official" set of must haves in regards to whether a person IS a Catholic or NOT.

[Fidei Defensor]

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF
POPE PIUS XII

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION
 

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

Edited June 25, 2014 by tardis ad astra

[Perigrina]

Is this correct OR could it be worded as follows

Church teaching includes definitions and explanations of how a Catholic should act, should believe.

 

Some teaching is framed in terms of what a Catholic is and other is in terms of what a Catholic is obliged to do.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, so it comes down to whom it is that is the authority on such matters and what criteria they have laid out.

It seems to me that some people in this thread are making exclusion claims without tieing these back to the authority and the "official" set of must haves in regards to whether a person IS a Catholic or NOT.

The Church explicitly claims that authority, and has always done so. And it has been pretty well defined how that authority is used.

[Socrates]

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. . . .

 

That would make perfect sense if Christ's One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church were nothing more than a purely human organization.  (Just as one can rationally identify with a political party without agreeing with every single plank on the party platform.)

 

The problem is that the Church seriously and clearly asserts that its Magisterium was given the charism of infallibility by Christ on its teachings on faith and morals.

 

 

Let's make this simple.  (And, as I haven't read the entire 22 pages, my apologies if this was covered by others.)

There are four basic options regarding the Church and its claim of infallibility in teaching on Faith and morals.

 

A.  The Church is correct that it  teaches infallibly on matters of faith and morals.  In that case, we'd best submit to these teachings for the sake of our own salvation, whether we personally understand all of them or not.

 

B.  The Church falsely claims God-given infallibility in its teachings on faith and morals.  In that case, the Church is a fraud, and its claim to infallibility in these teachings is a lie, not to mention supremely arrogant and blasphemous.  Or at best (if Church leaders are sincere but wrong about this belief), this belief in its infallibility is delusional.

No good, rational person should wish to follow or identify with a fraudulent or delusional Church.  Why call oneself "Catholic"?

 

C.  God does in fact guide the Church's teachings on faith and morals, but He is not infallible, and gets things wrong at least some of the time, and needs to learn from the latest in secular human opinion.  Then God is dumber than us, and not much of a God.

 

D.  God does infallibly guide the Church's Magisterium and preserves it from error in its teachings on faith and morals, but only some of the time.  Thus it's really any one's guess which teachings on faith and morals are infallible, and which are bogus.  

If that's the case, it defeats the entire purpose of the charism of infallibility, as it's impossible to know which teachings are real and which are false.

Then we wind up with Protestantism, with its thousands of different conflicting teachings.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Socrates