Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Perigrina]

Then dont make stupid threads such as this one.

 

 

In thread after thread, I see people who call themselves Catholic posting opinions that are not compatible with Catholic teaching.  I really cannot understand why people would do this.  Rather than derail other threads, I put the question here, hoping to get some insight.  I found Maggie's response helpful.

 

I have not told anyone to leave the Church.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Perigrina

[mortify ii]

In thread after thread, I see people who call themselves Catholic posting opinions that are not compatible with Catholic teaching.  I really cannot understand why people would do this.  Rather than derail other threads, I put the question here, hoping to get some insight.  I found Maggie's response helpful.

 

I have not told anyone to leave the Church.

 

People are lame and weak, its easier to just call yourself Catholic, most are lapsed non-believing lechers anyway. 

[CrossCuT]

On that kind note...

[Selah]

I am more annoyed at Dr_Asik. The Assumption, whether you are East or West, is Dogma. Whether she died or not differs...Maronites believe in the Dormition, as do Melkites and perhaps other Eastern Catholics, but you must believe that three days later, the Mother of God was assumed into heaven, her tomb empty. 

 

It's not pick and choose.

[Benedictus]

People are lame and weak, its easier to just call yourself Catholic, most are lapsed non-believing lechers anyway. 

 

The joy of th Gospel lived out :oops:

[Maggyie]

A hospital is a place for those who want to be healed. It's not a place for those who want to stay sick and not listen to their dr. Plus the abuse of medicines can lead to a worse sickness and even death. Do you really think a Catholic who holds heretical beliefs and who participates in the sacraments is in a better standing than one that leaves and does not commit a grave sacrilege by abusing the sacraments? If so, then I must say that's an interesting outlook, Maggie.

You don't have to receive the sacraments to be Catholic. Correction - you must receive baptism to be Catholic.

Yes there's the Easter communion requirement but failing to complete it doesn't make you non-Catholic. It makes you a worse one.

Meanwhile remaining Catholic means you are more likely to attend Mass, pray the rosary, visit the Blessed Sacrament, hang out with other Catholics who hopefully influence you. All good things that could turn it around. Much more so than joining the ranks of seculars or non-denoms.

[fides' Jack]

Well, this all kinda blew up quickly...  Good 'ol Phatmass!

 

 

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.

 

Dude, I wasn't trying to attack you.  Just trying to show why your stance doesn't make any sense - at least to me.  That's what the debate table is for.

 

However, there are some truths that the Church teaches, which, if you believe otherwise, knowing what the Church teaches, would make you not in Communion with the Church, as the Church has defined.  So, you're saying someone can be personally in Communion but officially and technically not?  

 

Again, not saying this is you - I'm not sure you've specified what exactly you don't agree with (though I haven't read all the posts here).

 

Language like that doesn't belong on this forum.

 

Well, at least 95% or something. :|

 

I wasn't sure if I should laugh at this or not.  I'm not one for sarcasm.

 

In thread after thread, I see people who call themselves Catholic posting opinions that are not compatible with Catholic teaching.  I really cannot understand why people would do this.  Rather than derail other threads, I put the question here, hoping to get some insight.  I found Maggie's response helpful.

 

I have not told anyone to leave the Church.

 

Nobody here has told anyone to leave the Church, least of all you.

 

But it is a real possibility that certain persons believe they are Catholic (in Communion with the Church), when if fact they are not.

[Perigrina]

You don't have to receive the sacraments to be Catholic. Correction - you must receive baptism to be Catholic.

Yes there's the Easter communion requirement but failing to complete it doesn't make you non-Catholic. It makes you a worse one.

Meanwhile remaining Catholic means you are more likely to attend Mass, pray the rosary, visit the Blessed Sacrament, hang out with other Catholics who hopefully influence you. All good things that could turn it around. Much more so than joining the ranks of seculars or non-denoms.

 

I think that sometimes people who reject Church teaching are lashing out in pain.  I think that it cases like this especially, it makes sense for them to remain Catholic.

[Credo in Deum]

Meanwhile remaining Catholic means you are more likely to attend Mass, pray the rosary, visit the Blessed Sacrament, hang out with other Catholics who hopefully influence you. All good things that could turn it around. Much more so than joining the ranks of seculars or non-denoms.

How do you come to this conclusion? Without the proper disposition what good will come of an obstinate heretic staying in the Church? Obviously the Church doesn't agree with your position since your position would render excommunication pointless if the Church did hold your belief.

[Perigrina]

How do you come to this conclusion? Without the proper disposition what good will come of an obstinate heretic staying in the Church? Obviously the Church doesn't agree with your position since your position would render excommunication pointless if the Church did hold your belief.

 

Not everyone who rejects Church teachings is an obstinate heretic.  Sometimes people take heretical positions but are not formal heretics. It is very difficult to know if somebody is a formal heretic.  It is best to confine one's comments to the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of statements.

[fides' Jack]

Some of these are really good points.

 

The position of the Church is ALSO that those who have doubts about certain things take those things up with their spiritual authorities (priests/bishop/etc...).  For anyone here who is struggling with specific teachings of the Church, I encourage you to do so.  You may find that having a face-to-face discussion with someone who has training might be more helpful to you than embittered words on a public internet forum.

[Benedictus]

Some people express their defensiveness by a long psychoanalysis of the people they disagree with.  I don't think "I'm psychologically healthy and you're damaged" is any better than "I'm right and you're wrong."  If anything, the latter is a more honest approach.

 

Are you drawing it back to yourself again? :think: Anyway the points I outlined are real problems and do occur. I see it through my professional work all the time. It wasn't a flippant remark on my part. There are often problems, and ongoing cycles of conflict, within people who have the approach you outline. Internal conflict and repression manifests in external ways -  a specific pattern of being exposes this inner reality. It's one reason among many as to why a person who has a clear cut attitude and views themselves as doctrine sound, faithful and so on will struggle a little more to gain entry into many religious orders or theological colleges etc. I'm not in favour of blanket psychometric analysis but I think people should have counselling, as well as regular SD, before going into seminary or a convent. But I'm going off point.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Benedictus

[CountrySteve21]

I think this is were the holy virtues of humility and obedience come in. We need to have enough humility to know that we can be wrong and enough obedience to accept what our Mother the Church teaches. the Magisterium has graces we laymen do not. This is why Christ calls us to be like children; we need to learn to just obey and have faith in the Church, don't reilying on our own petty whims to determine right and wrong. 

 

The Holy Rule has somthing that can be applied here 

Chapter 5: On obedience

The first degree of humility is obedience without delay. This becometh those who, on account of the holy subjection which they have promised, or of the fear of hell, or the glory of life everlasting, hold nothing dearer than Christ. As soon as anything hath been commanded by the Superior they permit no delay in the execution, as if the matter had been commanded by God Himself. Of these the Lord saith: "At the hearing of the ear he hath obeyed Me" (Ps 17[18]:45). And again He saith to the teachers: "He that heareth you heareth Me" (Lk 10:16).

Such as these, therefore, instantly quitting their own work and giving up their own will, with hands disengaged, and leaving unfinished what they were doing, follow up, with the ready step of obedience, the work of command with deeds; and thus, as if in the same moment, both matters -- the master's command and the disciple's finished work -- are, in the swiftness of the fear of God, speedily finished together, whereunto the desire of advancing to eternal life urgeth them. They, therefore, seize upon the narrow way whereof the Lord saith: "Narrow is the way which leadeth to life" (Mt 7:14), so that, not living according to their own desires and pleasures but walking according to the judgment and will of another, they live in monasteries, and desire an Abbot to be over them. Such as these truly live up to the maxim of the Lord in which He saith: "I came not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me" (Jn 6:38).

 

Could we not apply this to our life by translating monastery= Church Abbot= Magisterium 

 

If I may quote a commentary on the Rule by Canon G. A Simon "As children of the Church we are submitted to her hierarchy through our Baptism; through our Confirmation we are soldiers, that us ti say, obedient."

 

 

Pax

[Perigrina]

Are you drawing it back to yourself again? :think: Anyway the points I outlined are real problems and do occur. I see it through my professional work all the time. It wasn't a flippant remark on my part. There are often problems, and ongoing cycles of conflict, within people who have the approach you outline. Internal conflict and repression manifests in external ways -  a speicifc pattern of being exposes this inner reality. It's one reason among many as to why a person who has a clear cut attitude and views themselves as doctrine sound, faithful and so on will struggle a little more to gain entry into many religious orders or theological colleges etc. I'm not in favour of blanket psychometric analysis but I think people should have counselling, as well as regular SD, before going into seminary or a convent. But I'm going off point.

 

Orthodoxy is not a psychological problem.  It is what all Catholics should strive for.  

 

What you see in your professional work is irrelevant to the discussions here since it would be extremely unprofessional to analyze people based on their phorum posts.  Your constant implications about the psychological problems of people who take orthodox positions make you one of the most judgmental posters here.

[Credo in Deum]

A little more Bene and a little less dictus should do the trick.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Credo in Deum