Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Perigrina]

Dissenters have grounds to claim that they are ontologically and juridically Catholic.  I can tell them that their dissent is wrong and try to explain why Catholic teaching is right and why they should accept it, but I cannot tell them that they are not Catholic.  Their duty is to accept Church teaching.  Mine, I think, is to apply this passage from the Catechism:

 

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

 

 

The most favourable way that I can interpret the actions of dissenters is to say that, in a way, they are right about being Catholic.  

 

Edited June 29, 2014 by Perigrina

[mortify ii]

 

Dissenters have grounds to claim that they are ontologically and juridically Catholic.  I can tell them that their dissent is wrong and try to explain why Catholic teaching is right and why they should accept it, but I cannot tell them that they are not Catholic.  Their duty is to accept Church teaching.  Mine, I think, is to apply this passage from the Catechism:

 

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

The most favourable way that I can interpret the actions of dissenters is to say that, in a way, they are right about being Catholic.  

 

Cool, Ill pass that info on to the Sedevacantists

[Perigrina]

Cool, Ill pass that info on to the Sedevacantists

 

Sedevacantists are Catholic in the same ways that dissenters are, as far as I can tell.

[Lilllabettt]

Dissenters have grounds to claim that they are ontologically and juridically Catholic.  I can tell them that their dissent is wrong and try to explain why Catholic teaching is right and why they should accept it, but I cannot tell them that they are not Catholic.  Their duty is to accept Church teaching.  Mine, I think, is to apply this passage from the Catechism:

 

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

 

 

The most favourable way that I can interpret the actions of dissenters is to say that, in a way, they are right about being Catholic.  

 

 

well favorable interpretation in this context does not mean accepting the other person's idea as correct -- in whole or in part or "in a way." By favorable interpretation they mean giving the person the benefit of the doubt as far as motive and intention are concerned. 

 

A favorable view of the actions of dissenters is to say, for example, that they don't mean to be dishonest when they claim to others that they are Catholic. They don't intend to deceive. 

 

A favorable view does not mean accepting that they are right to claim to others that they are Catholic.

 

See the difference?

 

Whatever their motives, by doing so they make themselves a laughingstock. 

The absurdity of a dissenter from a religion's teaching making a technical appeal to that teaching is ridiculous. It's beneath their dignity, whatever their religion might actually be, if they happen to actually have one.

 

.

[Maggyie]

RIIIIIIGHT because of all the Church teachings among which they choose to believe, these folks just happen to choose to believe that one esoteric bit of canon law that says it is impossible to ever leave the Church.

Ahh makes perfect sense. The teachings about sex and reproduction - that's the picky stuff thats just pulled out of a hat and "made up." The one where they say you can never release yourself from Church membership - that's the one that's to be taken as divine truth.

lol. how convenient for it to work out that way.

if your idea actually represents the position of dissenters who want to call themselves Catholic, then the irony is indeed ridiculous.

But you see, that's the most tasty irony of all. Because if you don't agree with the church's laws on this matter then you are ALSO technically a dissenter! Ding ding ding! Mmmmm. Burnt is yummeh.

[4588686]

But you see, that's the most tasty irony of all. Because if you don't agree with the church's laws on this matter then you are ALSO technically a dissenter! Ding ding ding! Mmmmm. Burnt is yummeh.

 

 

Hve u and lilllabettt ever met irl???

[Lilllabettt]

But you see, that's the most tasty irony of all. Because if you don't agree with the church's laws on this matter then you are ALSO technically a dissenter! Ding ding ding! Mmmmm. Burnt is yummeh.

 

 

Point of fact I do agree.  I freely admit that as a technical matter anyone who is baptized catholic is an automatic lifer. On another technical level, all baptized Christians are Catholic. wrap your head around that one. 

 

But I am not making a technical argument, am I? My argument has nothing to do with theological suppositions about how many angels dance on the head of a pin.  

 

One has to be a believer to believe what the church teaches about the permanence of baptism.

My argument can be embraced as basic decent behavior by all reasonable people of any religion and none. The argument is that it is dishonest and ridiculous for a person who does not believe in the tenets of a religion to claim to be a believer in that religion.  

 

I honestly don't see how anyone can disagree with the above, unless they are afflicted with sentimentality. 

 

Sarah Palin is technically catholic. That's how she was baptized.  But if she went around claiming she was catholic, despite the fact that she does not believe in the religion, she would be ridiculous. Likewise with Tom Cruise and his Scientology. 

Edited June 29, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Maggyie]

Hve u and lilllabettt ever met irl???

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QAfG0Z53VAI Edited June 29, 2014 by Maggie

[fides' Jack]

I'm glad for this thread because I've learned quite a bit.  I was not aware of changes to canon law concerning excommunication.  Very interesting.

 

However, Ed Peters was not entirely correct.  There's an idea circulating (even here) that the Church cannot and does not judge peoples' eternal souls.  This is incorrect.  The Church has the authority to do even that, and exercises that authority.  Now, I don't know of a single case that the Church has declared someone to be in Hell, but there are thousands of cases where the Church has declared someone to be in Heaven.  Canonization is judging persons' eternal souls.  It's judging them positively, yes, but it's still a judgement, and an authority that Christ Himself gave to the Church.

 

Also, how does the old "anathema" declaration fit into all of this?  Is that the same as excommunication?  Maybe an Eastern Catholic can give some insights there.

[Benedictus]

On another technical level, all baptized Christians are Catholic. wrap your head around that one. 

Do you have a reference for this?

 

Sarah Palin is technically catholic. That's how she was baptized.  But if she went around claiming she was catholic, despite the fact that she does not believe in the religion, she would be ridiculous. Likewise with Tom Cruise and his Scientology. 

 

The church would see her as Catholic. She is a part of the body of Christ, but her membership with the Catholic church is damaged. The fact she doesn't identify as Catholic would probably be the reason many would think it weird if she started to do so. If she started going to Catholic Mass again then it would be a mute point.

[Lilllabettt]

Do you have a reference for this?

 

 

The church would see her as Catholic. She is a part of the body of Christ, but her membership with the Catholic church is damaged. The fact she doesn't identify as Catholic would probably be the reason many would think it weird if she started to do so. If she started going to Catholic Mass again then it would be a mute point.

 

 

1. one Lord, one faith, one baptism, separated brethren are just imperfectly united to the church, come on you know this stuff

 

2. I see. So your barometer for ridiculousness is whether the person shows up at Mass or not. I see. For me it has to do with whether they actually believe in their hearts. I don't put as much emphasis on externals. You and John Ryan, both like these externals. Very important yes, but not the crux of the matter in my opinion.

[Benedictus]

1. one Lord, one faith, one baptism, separated brethren are just imperfectly united to the church, come on you know this stuff

 

2. I see. So your barometer for ridiculousness is whether the person shows up at Mass or not. I see. For me it has to do with whether they actually believe in their hearts. I don't put as much emphasis on externals. You and John Ryan, both like these externals. Very important yes, but not the crux of the matter in my opinion.

 

1. That doesn't justify the claim you made, for which I asked you for a reference.

2. My point was if she attended mass and said she was Catholic nobody would think it weird. As it stands she does neither. I never said externals were the crux of the issue either.
Unless you can quote anything specific, within context, and without your own judgement topping it off then I can't see what you're talking about.  I don't think it's clever, or very charitable, to misrepresent what I'm saying, or believe. Last I checked you don't know me, so why post as if you do?  Bit weird and presumptuous.

[Perigrina]

well favorable interpretation in this context does not mean accepting the other person's idea as correct -- in whole or in part or "in a way." By favorable interpretation they mean giving the person the benefit of the doubt as far as motive and intention are concerned. 

 

A favorable view of the actions of dissenters is to say, for example, that they don't mean to be dishonest when they claim to others that they are Catholic. They don't intend to deceive. 

 

A favorable view does not mean accepting that they are right to claim to others that they are Catholic.

 

See the difference?

 

Whatever their motives, by doing so they make themselves a laughingstock. 

The absurdity of a dissenter from a religion's teaching making a technical appeal to that teaching is ridiculous. It's beneath their dignity, whatever their religion might actually be, if they happen to actually have one.

 

.

 

OK, the dissenter should not be making a technical appeal.  But I am not a dissenter.  I accept and believe what the Church teaches and within that teaching there are grounds to say that, in some ways, a dissenter is still Catholic.  As an orthodox Catholic, I cannot categorically state that dissenters are not Catholic because there is a sense in which they are.

 

It does not change that dissent is very wrong, endangering people's salvation, their relationship with God and their communion with the Church.  It doesn't mean that I can't talk about those things.  It means that I don't get to complain about dissenters calling themselves Catholic.

[Lilllabettt]

OK, the dissenter should not be making a technical appeal.  But I am not a dissenter.  I accept and believe what the Church teaches and within that teaching there are grounds to say that, in some ways, a dissenter is still Catholic.  As an orthodox Catholic, I cannot categorically state that dissenters are not Catholic because there is a sense in which they are.

 

It does not change that dissent is very wrong, endangering people's salvation, their relationship with God and their communion with the Church.  It doesn't mean that I can't talk about those things.  It means that I don't get to complain about dissenters calling themselves Catholic.

 

 

Well I don't think "complaining" about it accomplishes anything.

 

I think pointing out how ridiculous it is can help people wake up to the importance of resolving their situation one way or another. 

[Perigrina]

Well I don't think "complaining" about it accomplishes anything.

 

I think pointing out how ridiculous it is can help people wake up to the importance of resolving their situation one way or another. 

 

I respect that you wish to approach the problem that way, but I am going to use other arguments for convincing people of the importance of accepting Church teaching.