Many Catholics 'do not believe' church teachings

It's a piece of journalism. Catholicism is sexy because it is clearly defined in many ways - it's designed to make things clear -

Some Christians don't practice Christian virtues, but not all.

Some Muslims don't practice Muslim virtues, but not all.

Some Atheists act religiously, but not all.

Some Stoics act stoically, but not all.

Some Buddhists practice Buddhist virtue, but not all.


People are people - If they say they are Catholic Christians, Atheist, Muslim, Christian etc. etc. than be careful about judging them without looking in the mirror first, and removing the plank.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I accept that it's possible, I absolutely do not accept that it is possible as a result of entering a synagogue. You seem to throw the label of heresy around very easily. I wouldn't mind seeing your answer to Sonics2k question either about who "the oldest enemy of the church is" either.

I didnt say he was a heretic as such- I just stated what the Apostolic Canons which he knows state.

If you want to know who the oldest enemy of the Church is than read the New Testament.

lmaopml wrote: »

Who needs friends........when you have enemies like these? Really, Catholics believing that the Pope who wrote 'Jesus of Nazareth' is the anti-Christ? You are slandering a good man Hamlet, why are you a doomsday merchant when you seem rather smart instead of a 'joy' merchant? - not to mention the amount of people who aren't Catholic on the thread, who have an opinion on Catholics -

Well, I guess it's better to be looked over than over looked.

"Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness."

James 4:9.

“Woe unto you that laugh now! For ye shall mourn and weep.”

Luke 6:25

And yet blessed are those who mourn...

Slander involves telling lies; geogrie as far as I can tell has told lies; have I? The Canons of the Holy Apostles and the Pope's vist to that place are facts, public facts, not things that I have come across secretly or are hidden from view. Can you show me where I have committed slander?

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

"Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness."

James 4:9.

“Woe unto you that laugh now! For ye shall mourn and weep.”

Luke 6:25

And yet blessed are those who mourn...

Slander involves telling lies; geogrie as far as I can tell has told lies; have I? The Canons of the Holy Apostles and the Pope's vist to that place are facts, public facts, not things that I have come across secretly or are hidden from view. Can you show me where I have committed slander?

You thought they weren't acting with generosity of heart and peace, and love towards their neighbour, even their enemy, but 'praying' to another God.


That's not true. You misinterpreted a peaceful gesture, a goodwill gesture, for an evil one.

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Did I say that though? Are you not reading in motivations that are not there, or at least may not be there? Could that not be the type of judging that the Bible condemns?

Speculating on people's motivations is dangerous; let us consider us the fact that this action is condemned by Holy Tradition, and very possibly by the Apostles themselves, that it causes scandal, that it may well lead jews to believe that they dont need Christ; objectively how could the act be anything but evil? Subjectively the motivations may have been pure, but how can we know? The canon doesnt stipulate about motivations however.

If you are Catholic, by faith you know. The Church is not only the Canon, but only a vehicle towards Christ, nothing more or less. It's not God. It only contains the people of God and points the way.

lmaopml wrote: »

If you are Catholic, by faith you know.

Are you saying by faith you know the personal motivations of the Pope? Can you produce anything to substantiate that?

MrPudding wrote: »

Guys, seriously, there has to be some point when one simply cannot call themselves a catholic. Seriously, this is beyond ridiculous.

I agree with you Mr.P but the CC are at fault for this. How many times do couples request their wedding take place in the church when neither of them believe in the tenants of the church and yet the wedding goes ahead?
Or that same couple who,when having a child baptised, knowingly lie when they promise to bring their child up in the Catholic faith when they've no intention of setting foot inside the church until the child's communion day?

I don't understand it- it doesn't make sense to me but the 'powers that be' don't seem to have a problem with it.

joseph brand wrote: »

We're not as ignorant, kept in the dark. We've 'seen behind the curtain' and it's ugly.

I never listened in mass as a child, but I'd bet that the priests were able to cherry pick the parts of the bible which they deemed more palatable to the public. The 'nice' bits. The internet has in many ways, shown us the parts that were left out, the nasty bits and all the rest of the inconsistencies and the hard-to-believe stories. (eg Noah's Ark)

Well said.

Originally Posted by MrPudding
To a point I don't actually disagree with you, but as I said above, surely there has to come a point where it is simply not possible to call someone a catholic?

This ones easy, that point is when they stop calling themselves catholic.
Their is no point whare you get to tell them they are not catholic, bad catholic maybe but not non catholic.

PDN wrote: »

You would have to ask a freemason about that. I doubt if they boot everyone oout who fails to conform 100% to the rules.

I have. There are several rules, the breaking of which will mean you are booting from the organisation.

PDN wrote: »

I think you are left with Catholicism as it has often been throughout the centuries. A la carte Catholicism is nothing new. And if the rules don't boot you out then you can break the rules and stay in. Which is fine if people want to do so and still self-identify as Catholic.

I think this is the main issue. If the leaders of the club have requirements, and you don't follow those requirements, then how can you self-identify and why would you?

My understanding is that due to the nature of baptism you have the whole marked soul thing, which is where the reluctance of the church to "let go" comes from, but I think this can be separated from what the person is functionally. The church may have (or it at least believes it has) ownership of a persons soul, but that does not make the person functionally a catholic, nor should it be used as a counter for adherents when it comes to secular matters.

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, where did I say that?

It was a general comment about people trying to leave the catholic church. People often, as I believe you have done in the past, comment that you simply have to stop going to mass and stop considering yourself to be a catholic. This is a gross simplification of the problem and the reason why people want to "leave" the church. That said, I agree with you that many people are mistaken about what excommunication means.

PDN wrote: »

Well you've obviously failed to grasp it. The point was that excommunication does not stop you from being a Catholic. Maybe if you had grasped it you wouldn't be going on about a lot of other stuff.

Again, I was referring to a more general leaving the church point, and not specifically to excommunication. On reflection I probably could have been a little clearer on that. What I was trying to get at is the whole leaving the church thing is not simple. Excommunication is simple and I certainly grasp it. The idea of leaving the church is not so simple, well it kind of is, you can't do it, but that sort of makes it not simple...

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The CC is NOT at fault! If anyone is to blame it's dissenting priests and nuns who have strayed from the Magisterium of the Church.

Rubbish. A big part of the problem is a lack of clarity from the church about how things work and the whole inability to "leave."

tommy2bad wrote: »

This ones easy, that point is when they stop calling themselves catholic.
Their is no point whare you get to tell them they are not catholic, bad catholic maybe but not non catholic.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Perhaps so, but who gets to decide what that point is? It would be completely subjective. For me, if someone is baptised into the Catholic church and considers themselves to be a Catholic, then that's what they are. But others will disagree. As regards the census, you can describe yourself as anything you want, and unless you want to get religious bodies involved in what is a civil matter, there is absolutely no way around that.

The issue that many have, myself included, is when the church uses these numbers to lobby the government. Where the numbers give a benefit, in secular terms, to the organisation then those numbers need to be looked at more carefully. As I mentioned earlier, I really don't care what the church thinks about stuff which I consider to be in the realm of makey uppy stuff, but I am concerned where there is, or potentially is an impact in the real world.

For the makey uppy stuff it really doesn't matter. Who owns a soul and how many souls they own doesn't or at least shouldn't have any effect on the power of an organisation to lobby the government or justify its position in society. On the other hand, how many actual adherents that organisation has, how many people you can say are functionally part of that organisation, might have some relevance. Some of the people that call themselves catholic would barely fulfil the requirements to be called christian, and are certainly far from functional catholics. I don't think it is reasonable or justifiable for these people to be included in the figures.

MrP

tommy2bad wrote: »

I agree their needs to be an official way to 'uncatholicize' but apart from converting to another denomination or faith their isn't.
In fairness the RCC itself is not as inclined to use the gross census figures as it was in the past. As much to do with dwindling resources as sense applying, nowadays their more likely to take account of mass attendance and actual requests for church services like ethos schooling ans such.
Having decided to abandon the RCC I think it would help me more if their was a way to become officially ex. rather than just lapsed. The term implies laziness on my part and doesn't do justice to my position and I suspect a lot of others.

It isn't even just the census figures. There was a bit of a debate on this previously and one poster, ISAW I believe, said the figures came from "census Sunday" though he was unable to provide any detail about these special days. Another poster contacted various diocese directly and was told on, IIRC, at least one occasion that they simply used the baptismal record adjusted for deaths. Not acceptable.

MrP

philologos wrote: »

By the by, I don't agree that any church should boot anyone out for any reason. Churches should work with people to bring them to a deeper knowledge of Christ. If Christians believe Jesus died to rescue us from sin, and from eternal condemnation in hell then it would be cruel to stop trying to bring someone to a deeper knowledge of Christ.

For obvious reasons, I can't really agree with you here... But I kind of do. I appreciate the spiritual side of what you are saying, and whilst I think it is all rubbish, I genuinely can see your point. But then my issue, as I pointed out above is not with the spiritual side.

Irrespective of what the church should, but apparently does not do, with respect to peoples beliefs when a person cannot conceivably be said to be functionally catholic then that person should not be "claimed" for secular purposes.

philologos wrote: »

If people are struggling, others in the congregation should help those people to understand Christ more. If a church operates as a truly loving community, we'll see that in the church particularly if we understand the Gospel.

But they might not be struggling! They might be perfectly happy. We all know people that don't believe in the tenants of the catholic church and some that don't even believe in god yet still say they are catholic. They plainly are not functionally catholic. If the church want to claim some kind of supernatural claim over them, then so be it, but they should not be able to claim them as an adherent for secular purposes. As I have said before, I really don't care what the church believes about what my christening has done to a part of me that I consider to be made up, but I do care if they count me as one of their number when they are talking to the government or the EU or the United Nations.

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps it is the case that deep down, we often don't give others the care and attention that they deserve in bringing them to godliness through the Gospel.

Irrelevant. The fact is they are not functionally catholic, so should not be counted as catholic for secular reasons. The church is more than welcome to try to "rescue" them, though I really think that ship has sailed, and going by the recent polls unless the vatican mounts some kind of invasion and sends in a few thousand crack commando priests, I think it might well be beyond the ability of the church in Ireland to fix this problem.

philologos wrote: »

Booting someone out of a church would be heartless. Christianity isn't a club, it isn't like the freemasons. It's about living truth, and bringing people to love God. I.E - It's much more serious.

Obviously I don't agree, but that said, it still doesn't matter. Boot them out or don't boot them out. I suppose all I want is a bit of honesty about what the numbers mean. 84% of the population identify themselves as catholic, but how many of them are functionally catholic? How many of them follow the rules or requirements? How many of them are real catholics? Many of us, religious and non-religious alike, want a more secular Ireland. We don't want a particular church having too much power or control. Allowing the church to say that 84% of the population is catholic when that is quite clearly not the case isn't helping anyone, aside form the catholic church.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I haven't heard of such a thing as Census Sunday (and ISAW is no longer with us to shed light on that). Even if the dioceses were adjusting the baptismal register for deaths though, the only people they would be fooling are themselves as the results would be completely meaningless. As regards education and so on, the only figures that count are the CSO figures from the census.

But that is the point, they are just fooling themselves. They are using these figures when they lobby the government, or the EU or the United Nations.

MrP