Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should Catholics realy identify themselves as Catholics?

Options
  • 04-04-2010 3:07pm
    #1
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭


    I have recently read/heard some old and new papal announcements/speaches and cannot help but think that the majority of "Catholics" would not agree with some of the things that Popes have said.

    For instance, I highly doubt that all Catholics think that condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS, yet that is what Benidict 16 said recently enough. And aren't Catholics supposed to believe in Papal infalibility?

    But even ignoring Papal infalibility one of the most Catholic of Catholic issues is transubstantianion(I don't know how to spell it, but I mean the eucharist becoming literal body of christ), I know for a fact that not all Catholics believe in that, because I've asked some.

    So I suppose my question to Catholics who don't believe in those things, is why call yourself Catholic when you could just call yourself Christian? Is it something to do with the Republican vs Loyalist issue? Or is it something as simple as upbringing?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    cypharius wrote: »

    For instance, I highly doubt that all Catholics think that condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS, yet that is what Benidict 16 said recently enough. And aren't Catholics supposed to believe in Papal infalibility?

    I don't believe he said this. I also think you should read up about what Papal infallibility actually means.


  • Options
    #3
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I don't believe he said this.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5923927.ece
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids
    http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/the-pope-says-condoms-cause-hiv-aids-catholic-charity-worker-agrees-by-ranting-uncontrollably-on-live-tv/
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7947460.stm
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I also think you should read up about what Papal infallibility actually means.
    It means he can never make an error.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility


    Nice try, perhaps you would like to insult me for quoting Wikipedia?


  • Options
    #4
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    cypharius wrote: »
    I have recently read/heard some old and new papal announcements/speaches and cannot help but think that the majority of "Catholics" would not agree with some of the things that Popes have said.

    For instance, I highly doubt that all Catholics think that condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS, yet that is what Benidict 16 said recently enough. And aren't Catholics supposed to believe in Papal infalibility?

    But even ignoring Papal infalibility one of the most Catholic of Catholic issues is transubstantianion(I don't know how to spell it, but I mean the eucharist becoming literal body of christ), I know for a fact that not all Catholics believe in that, because I've asked some.

    So I suppose my question to Catholics who don't believe in those things, is why call yourself Catholic when you could just call yourself Christian? Is it something to do with the Republican vs Loyalist issue? Or is it something as simple as upbringing?
    catholics are christian anyone who believes in god is... my next door neighbour thinks catholics are not christians... how about just telling people you have no religion i mean its none of peoples business.. like people in my class tried that on me and the reply they got was nothing.. then they went bright red!!!


  • Options
    #5
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    owenc wrote: »
    catholics are christian anyone who believes in god is... my next door neighbour thinks catholics are not christians... how about just telling people you have no religion i mean its none of peoples business.. like people in my class tried that on me and the reply they got was nothing.. then they went bright red!!!
    Catholics are Christian, but Christians are not allways Catholic. And yeah, by all means say, "None of your buisness", religion being a personal issue is one of the reasons people give for a seperation between Church and State.

    But what I meant wasn't about talking about religion, it was more to do with people actualy considering themselves Catholic, and identifying as such in the Census/which mass they attend, etc.


  • Options
    #6
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    cypharius wrote: »
    Catholics are Christian, but Christians are not allways Catholic. And yeah, by all means say, "None of your buisness", religion being a personal issue is one of the reasons people give for a seperation between Church and State.

    But what I meant wasn't about talking about religion, it was more to do with people actualy considering themselves Catholic, and identifying as such in the Census/which mass they attend, etc.

    oh right.. i would just put christian down.. i mean does it matter what denomination you put down... i think its just to gang up on the other denominations to see which one has the highest amount of followers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    PapaRatzinger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭PapaRatzinger


    cypharius wrote: »
    I have recently read/heard some old and new papal announcements/speaches and cannot help but think that the majority of "Catholics" would not agree with some of the things that Popes have said.

    For instance, I highly doubt that all Catholics think that condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS, yet that is what Benidict 16 said recently enough. And aren't Catholics supposed to believe in Papal infalibility?

    But even ignoring Papal infalibility one of the most Catholic of Catholic issues is transubstantianion(I don't know how to spell it, but I mean the eucharist becoming literal body of christ), I know for a fact that not all Catholics believe in that, because I've asked some.

    So I suppose my question to Catholics who don't believe in those things, is why call yourself Catholic when you could just call yourself Christian? Is it something to do with the Republican vs Loyalist issue? Or is it something as simple as upbringing?

    Do you even understand what Papal Infalibility means? I suggest you do some basic research on wikipedia before formulating rants.


  • Options
    #8
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    cypharius wrote: »
    It means he can never make an error.

    Not quite. It means he can't make an error when he invokes papal infallibility. In effect, he doesn't have it switched on all the time.


  • Options
    #9
    PapaRatzinger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭PapaRatzinger


    cypharius wrote: »
    Nice try, perhaps you would like to insult me for quoting Wikipedia?

    You're a classic case of the problem of giving everyone an opinion that is facilitated by the internet.


  • Options
    #10
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    PapaRatzinger wrote: »
    Do you even understand what Papal Infalibility means? I suggest you do some basic research on wikipedia before formulating rants.

    I'd hardly call pointing out something that the pope said, and stating that alot of Catholics would disagree a "Rant". And again, Papal infalibilty means that the pope cannot mae an error, it's in the first paragraph of the article.


  • Options
    #11
    PapaRatzinger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭PapaRatzinger


    cypharius wrote: »
    I'd hardly call pointing out something that the pope said, and stating that alot of Catholics would disagree a "Rant". And again, Papal infalibilty means that the pope cannot mae an error, it's in the first paragraph of the article.

    Quoting newspaper articles as gospel can lead you up a dark alleyway...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    cypharius wrote: »
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5923927.ece
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids
    http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/the-pope-says-condoms-cause-hiv-aids-catholic-charity-worker-agrees-by-ranting-uncontrollably-on-live-tv/
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7947460.stm

    It means he can never make an error.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

    Nice try, perhaps you would like to insult me for quoting Wikipedia?

    What? Where did I insult you? Perhaps you are confusing my post with that of somebody else.

    I don't feel the need to defend the Pope's decision on condoms because I think he is talking dangerous nonsense. However, as is often the case, there is a disconnect between what was said and what is reported as being said. According to one of your links, the Pope said condoms could make the problem [AIDS] worse. In comparison, you claimed that he said that "condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS". A subtle but importance difference.

    As for Papal infallibility, it only applies to declarations made "ex cathedra" - of which there are very few. I'm sure the Wiki link has it all.


  • Options
    #13
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Whilst I think what he said about condoms has been misrepresented I've been thinking about this idea of fake catholics myself.

    Virtually all "catholics" are fine with contraception, in-vitro fertilisation, priests having families, women becoming priests etc yet still identify as Catholics. Its odd I guess its that religion you're born into is nearly a national identity of sorts


  • Options
    #14
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Whilst I think what he said about condoms has been misrepresented I've been thinking about this idea of fake catholics myself.

    Virtually all "catholics" are fine with contraception, in-vitro fertilisation, priests having families, women becoming priests etc yet still identify as Catholics. Its odd I guess its that religion you're born into is nearly a national identity of sorts

    yea they really need to change these rules dont you think theyve been a little old fashioned...??? i mean the rules are 2000 years old apparently.. so i think its time for change..


  • Options
    #15
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,676 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    If we have a non-orginalist interpretation of the bible, constantly evolving to match societial changes - how is the problem reconciled that there are differing cultures and mores in the world?


  • Options
    #16
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    What? Where did I insult you? Perhaps you are confusing my post with that of somebody else.

    You didn't insult the poster - which probably took a lot of restraint considering how ill-informed their post was.


  • Options
    #17
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    PDN wrote: »
    You didn't insult the poster - which probably took a lot of restraint considering how ill-informed their post was.

    Would somebody mind correcting me? I've checked the ****ing catachism just to make sure. I can't find a deffinition of papal infalability other then "The pope cannot make an error".


  • Options
    #18
    Doyler92
    Registered Users Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭Doyler92


    Yes. If they are Catholic and have done wrong, of course they could identify themselves but that's just my opinion.


  • Options
    #19
    peccavi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭peccavi


    Lukewarm Catholics don't know their faith, mainly because they haven't been taught. This is one other tragedy of Irish Catholicism, but one which I hope to see rectified in coming years. Then we will have a Church on fire, in the good way!

    This webpage explains the phenomenon and offers some advice.

    http://concernedcatholics.org/lukewarm.htm

    For Papal Infalibility, you must understand that this is only concerning matters of faith and morals, and only in special circumstances.
    Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

    Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

    The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

    See here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp


  • Options
    #20
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    cypharius wrote: »
    Would somebody mind correcting me? I've checked the ****ing catachism just to make sure. I can't find a deffinition of papal infalability other then "The pope cannot make an error".

    To quote the catechism:
    The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

    The bold-faced bit is what you need to read. It means that (according to the RCC) the Pope is only considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. The last time this happened was in 1950. And the time before was 1854.

    Also, Benedict did not say that condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS. What he said was that widespread distribution of condoms would make the problem worse - which is a sociological argument. I disagree with him, by the way, but it was nowhere close to what you claimed he'd said.


  • Options
    #21
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    PDN wrote: »
    To quote the catechism:
    The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

    The bold-faced bit is what you need to read. It means that (according to the RCC) the Pope is only considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. The last time this happened was in 1950. And the time before was 1854.

    Also, Benedict did not say that condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS. What he said was that widespread distribution of condoms would make the problem worse - which is a sociological argument. I disagree with him, by the way, but it was nowhere close to what you claimed he'd said.

    Ok, I understand now.

    But my point about Catholics not believeing in literal transubstantiation still stands.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement