Thread: "Christian" is not the antonym for "Catholic" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023337
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
In my work as a chaplain to poor and working class men in recovery from drug and alcohol abuse, I frequently hear things along the following lines:
quote:
  1. Are you Christian or are you Catholic?
  2. I was raised Catholic, but now I'm Christian.
  3. I used to be Catholic, but now I'm saved.
What makes this so weird is that we are located in a small, old, down-at-the-heels industrial city that was formerly immigrant Catholic right down to its little cotton socks. St. Joe's is down the street, St. Mary's the block beyond that, Sacred Heart (da botha dem) on the other side of town; you get the idea. Then there's the influx of Cape Verdeans and Brazilians and Latinos of all stripes, but it's still predominantly white. The men have rosaries and saints bracelets. They've been to CCD classes and know their deadly sins and cardinal and theological virtues. They read the bible and "hit their knees" when they pray.

It's true that the outreach group from the local, bible-believing Gospel Hall, who come one night a week, preach quite frankly that Catholics are going to hell, but that one outpost of fundamentalism can't account for all of it.

So my questions are these:
 
Posted by Phos Hilaron (# 6914) on :
 
Congratulations, The Silent Acolyte! You've just prodded me out of an extended period of lurking. I think it's a pond difference. Over here in South Korea, there is also this split between "Catholic" and "Christian". It confused me at first as well. In US English, I think "Christian" is just a synonym for protestant.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
It's true that the outreach group from the local, bible-believing Gospel Hall, who come one night a week, preach quite frankly that Catholics are going to hell, but that one outpost of fundamentalism can't account for all of it.
And Catholics are not bible-believing? Never come across many of them.
 
Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :
 
Terminology changes and the same word can carry different meanings, like liberal and Liberal.

In my lifetime and my small circle of experience "Christian" has expanded, not in meaning but as a term of broad applicability. When I was a child people I met were Catholic, Church of England (now known as Anglican in this part of the world), Methodist, Presbyterian, etc., etc. If they were Protestant but one of the smaller groups not generally recognisable to the masses, then they were "Christian."

It sounds strange to me to hear of someone saying they were Catholic and are now Christian.

There has been a similar shift in "baptism" and "Christening." These days if someone phones the church to ask about a Christening, it is a sure sign they have not been to church for a while, maybe a generation, as church members usually ask about a baptism service. In my childhood baptism was the sacrament at the heart of a Christening.
 
Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :
 
I have also heard some fundamentalist slander of Catholics as not "really" Christian but then these people tend to say the same of anyone, Catholic or otherwise, whose views are not identical to their own. In their case "not Christian" means "not like us."
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Phos Hilaron:
Congratulations, The Silent Acolyte! You've just prodded me out of an extended period of lurking. I think it's a pond difference. Over here in South Korea, there is also this split between "Catholic" and "Christian". It confused me at first as well. In US English, I think "Christian" is just a synonym for protestant.
In Indonesia it is similar.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
The Open Brethren Assembly in Greater London that I grew up in regarded christians as those who were 'born again'. Attending, or being a member of, a church was not enough to make you a Christian in any denomination, and especially for Roman Catholicism, and it was expected that a RC who had a conversion experience would move to an (evangelical) protestant denomination.

It was the arrival at the assembly of a convent educated girl that made me,as a young teenager, review the opinions that the Roman Catholic Church was the Anti-Christ and that just because Rome may be built on seven hills this dis not make the RC church the whore of Babylon of Romans 17.

I would expect your approach to meeting these opinions varies with the person and situation and what you want to achieve, which is presumably to meet some need of that person.

The things you hear may be a way of the person expressing that they have had a spiritual growth, so maybe you could go with that.

I would expect that there would be times when you should side-step the issue or else you could shut down communication.

But there would also be times when you could challenge a prejudice and help someone broaden their vision, sometimes obliquely and sometimes with a direct denouncement.

In similar situations I have to regularly check my own motives to ensure I am not focused on satisfying my own needs such as to have (what I think is) the right view expressed.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
My experience here in Oz is that it's actually most likely Catholics who explicitly label themselves as "Catholic" rather than "Christian". Whereas Protestants will call themselves "Christian".

I wouldn't say that around here there's any kind of tendency for Protestants to therefore reason that Catholics aren't Christians, but I can certainly understand how that conclusion could be reached.
 
Posted by manfromcaerdeon (# 16672) on :
 
In the early 1960s, there were two large notice boards at Cork airport, giving information about church services in the city. They were respectively headed, Catholic services and Christian services. No division was explicitly intended...Catholic meant exactly that, and Christian was simply all the others.

Perhaps the authorities felt it was more inclusive than using the term Protestant, which had political connotations in Northern Ireland.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not sure it is a Pond difference. I've come across this distinction in the UK too, particularly among more hardline evangelical types.

I've even came across it on questionnaires where there are religious options and 'Catholic' and 'Christian' are given as separate tick-boxes. I've put this down to ignorance on the part of the compilers.

In essence, though, the term 'Christian' has become short-hand among many evangelicals for 'born-again Christian' or 'true Christian' or, as has been said, 'people who believe the same as us.'

Consequently, in such circles, it's not unusual to hear comments like, 'I wonder if the Archbishop of Canterbury is a Christian?' or 'The Queen is definitely a Christian ...'

The term 'Christian' in that sense, then, is used in a similar way to the word 'faithful' in RC or Orthodox contexts. I've sometimes heard the phrase, 'The Catholic faithful' or the 'Orthodox faithful' to refer to those who actively practice their faith and have more than a nominal or occasional observance.

That's how it comes across to me ...
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
From a Scottish perspective ...

Evangelical Christianity has always been very suspicious of any who might simply be going along to church for form's sake. In the past, this suspicion has been directed very much at mainstream Protestant Christians, often of the same denomination. This of course was at a time when the vast majority of people went to church on a Sunday, and where church attendance was equated with respectability and social conformity.

For Evangelicals, this was not enough to make you a Christian - and on the whole, I think this is to their credit. They retaught the mainstream Protestants that faith is self-involving, and that it ought to make a difference to your whole life, and not just to your Sunday routine. Whether or not one has had a 'born again' experience, an Evangelical would nevertheless look for an experiential 'heart faith' in Jesus in anyone claiming to be a Christian.

Now that society has gone all secular, this is less of an issue with mainstream Protestant churches. It is fairly safe to assume these days in the UK that a church-goer has a self-involving faith of some description.

However, from an outsider's perspective, Catholicism seems to have maintained a stronger hold on people's allegiance. The suspicion is that many Catholics still go along to church for form's sake, just as Protestants used to, and that their faith is neither personal (in Jesus) nor self-involving. Indeed, this may have been the actual experience of the person who said to you, that "I used to be Catholic, but now I'm saved." Also, the fact that the town you serve is culturally Catholic may have contributed to this perspective.

On the other hand, there has been a notable move within 'mainstream' evangelicalism of the past 20 years to share Bible Studies, etc, with Catholics who clearly (by their criteria) do have a living and personal faith. Evangelical Christians can often cross denominational boundaries very easily, and they can be quite relaxed about different faith practices and doctrines as long as they perceive a 'heart faith' in Jesus.

Maybe you could challenge the "Christian vs Catholic" perspective by speaking some of their language! [Snigger] Talk loudly and long about Jesus, and speak from the heart about your prayer life and experience of faith!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I regularly hear a few born again Christians state that Catholics are 'heretics' and are not True Christians. This strikes me as totally loopy, and, for one thing, ignorant about Christian history.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Offering another aspect of this conundrum, here's an exchange I had with someone (in the UK) a few years ago:

Them: Are you Catholic or Protestant?
Me, attempting to affirm a common faith despite not being in communion with the Holy See: Protestant, but I prefer to describe myself as Christian.

[ 06. July 2012, 08:24: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Definitely not a pond difference. I've had many a conversation with people about "Christian Catholics" or "There were loads of Christians there, and some were even Catholics ...".

I've had a handful were you could substitute "Anglican" for "Catholic" too.

As others have said, it tends to be a view more commonly found in evangelical circles, although not exclusively. I've always assumed that, at least in the UK, it's in part linked to the old Catholic/Protestant split and all that goes with it. And in part linked to the fact that a great number of people consider themselves to be Catholic without necessarily believing in God. As one friend put it many years ago "You're born a Catholic, and you don't stop being a Catholic just because you're an atheist now". Which was a bit silly and extreme, but does speak to an apparent cultural thing (and links in with non-conformists attributing the same sentiments to Anglicans).

All part of life's rich, divisive tribalism ...
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
I like your first answer SA. I have heard anti Catholic prejudice from those outside the RCC and trust me, the prejudice goes both ways as I also hear from many Catholics that the RCC is the true church and those who don't follow it's beliefs are heretics. AFAIC those who faith in the redemption brought by Christ and who follow him are Christians - whether Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox or Charismatic/Pentecostal. It's partly the deep divisions and prejudice amongst us that prevents or at least delays many from becoming Christian.

[ 06. July 2012, 08:28: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
OTOH, I think it depends on who's in the majority. The old "I'm normal because I hold the majority view and everyone else is weird" paradigm.

In much the same way that others have heard Protestants talking about "Christians" and "Catholics" I have heard French Catholics making the distinction between "Christians" and "Protestants".
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
In the evangelicalism in which I grew up, it was more or less axiomatic that Roman Catholics were not Christians, because they were depending on a mixture of sacraments and good works for their salvation, insread of trusting entirely in God's grace as manifested in Christ's life, death and resurrection.

The vast majority of global Christendom (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodox, and I dare say a fair proportion of liberal Protestants) would not consider that we evangelicals are "really" Christian.
 
Posted by Calindreams (# 9147) on :
 
The term that was bandied about in my old CofE church by some evangelicals was 'nominal Christians' who weren't actually Christians at all.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
I've always heard it as a view ascribed to other people, rather than the speaker. Thus, a girl I was at university who was very involved with Christian Union activities and now works for a evangelical Anglican parish told me shortly after meeting me that 'some people think Catholics aren't really Christians, but I don't agree'.

The only other people I've heard try to draw a distinction are those who know so little about religion as to be confused completely. Mind you, explaining what Anglo-Catholicism is to members of the secular majority has always been a nearly impossible task in my experience.
 
Posted by Huntress (# 2595) on :
 
This is also a familiar scenario from my university days, when the CU handed out questionnaires to prospective members with separate boxes for 'Christian' and 'Catholic'. As the CU at the time would have been more accurately named ECU (Evangelical Christian Union) it made sense given what was known about their outlook.

When I graduated and began working as a lay chaplain, the Catholic Chaplaincy was approached by aggrieved Catholic students after student houses and halls had been leafletted with these questionnaires and who were getting questions / statements from 'friends' along the lines of 'so Catholics aren't really Christians then', something which I myself had experienced - including being totally blanked by the previously very welcoming leaders of Hall Fellowship (run by the CU) after they found out I was a Catholic.

I grew up in the Catholic faith and understood, as did my friends and relatives of various flavours of Protestant faith that there were several denominations, all of which came under the umbrella of 'Christian'.

The issue at university appeared to be with people who had been brought up to believe that their brand of Christianity was the only definition of "Christian" and the people who were drawn into that mindset having no previous experience of practising the Christian faith or who had had a total past-shunning conversion after a negative or indifferent experience.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The vast majority of global Christendom (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodox, and I dare say a fair proportion of liberal Protestants) would not consider that we evangelicals are "really" Christian.
I do not think that this is, or ever was, true. Christianity developed the concepts of heresy and schism right from the start (though the vocabulary may have developed later). And Evangelicals are heretics and schismatics to the vast majority of global Christendom, not non-Christians. One of the disadvantages of disallowing these words from polite discourse is that this important distinction disappears.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
I suppose the natural reaction for the RC students would be to ask the evangelical members of their age grade whether they intended to leave their 'ecclesial communities' to join the Church....

On a lighter note, I've often been tempted to respond to the ludicrous question 'have you accepted Jesus as your personal saviour' with 'certainly, m'dear, but tell me, have you accepted Mary as your personal Mediatrix?'
 
Posted by Huntress (# 2595) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
On a lighter note, I've often been tempted to respond to the ludicrous question 'have you accepted Jesus as your personal saviour' with 'certainly, m'dear, but tell me, have you accepted Mary as your personal Mediatrix?'
[Killing me] I was never actually asked this, but oh, what a good reply. I couldn't have used it however, as it would have reinforced certain stereotypes.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
My first day at a Church of Christ run college, I was asked by a dozen people:
"Are you a Christian?"
Me: "Yes."
Them: "Oh! I heard you were a Presbyterian."

I have an issue with any Christian denomination that says the others aren't true Christians, including the Catholics, like the ones who taught my husband, who say all the rest of us are going to Hell.

Whatever happened to "Whosoever believes on him shall not perish?" I think anyone who believes that Jesus is Lord will probably go to heaven even if they think Joseph Smith really discovered those tablets or that if they send the TV pastor $100 they will get back $1000 or that if you use the hair color on the box you will look like the model on the cover, (my personal hang-up.) Surely nobody is going to Hell for being mistaken over the details? Or are we?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
In Brazil, you'll often hear "Are you Catholic, or are you evangelical?" As if those would be the only options when you're a Christian. To many Brazilians, 'protestant' is a synonym of 'evangelical'.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In Brazil, you'll often hear "Are you Catholic, or are you evangelical?" As if those would be the only options when you're a Christian. To many Brazilians, 'protestant' is a synonym of 'evangelical'.
In Mexico, the terms are "Catholic" and "Christian," but the situation AIUI is pretty much the same as you describe it for Brazil. BTW, both Catholics and Evangelicals there use this terminology, and no insult appears to be implied by it.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
I was told that Catholics were not Christian back when I was in an evangelical church. Both sides believe in and accept Jesus so that kind of thinking makes no sense to me.

As for the "And Catholics are not bible-believing" thing. Could this come from evangelicals being really keen on the importance of everyone reading their bible from cover to cover as opposed to a lot of Catholics (stereotypically?) not seeing this as so important?

Or maybe because its not a proper bible when you add the apocropher?
 
Posted by WhyNotSmile (# 14126) on :
 
As an evangelical, I've come across those who think "Catholic" cannot equal "Christian" (as opposed to "Catholic" does not necessarily equal "Christian", in the same way that "Methodist", "Presbyterian" "C of E", "Pentecostal" does not necessarily equal "Christian"). But I've come across (probably equally many) Catholics who, if asked "are you Christian?" will reply "I'm Catholic" or "No, I'm Catholic", which seems odd to me.

I've never come across a survey which pitted "Christian" against "Catholic" though - I've only ever seen "Catholic" vs "Protestant" (common here in Belfast) or "Catholic" in a list of denominations.

I'm increasingly less bothered about it though...
 
Posted by Huntress (# 2595) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
As for the "And Catholics are not bible-believing" thing. Could this come from evangelicals being really keen on the importance of everyone reading their bible from cover to cover as opposed to a lot of Catholics (stereotypically?) not seeing this as so important?

Or maybe because its not a proper bible when you add the apocropher?
The Catholic position is that it's not a proper Bible if the Deutero-Canonical books (AKA the Apocrypha) have been removed. [Biased]

I think the simple version of the 'Bible-believing' argument is that the Bible is extremely important to Catholics (that's actually rather an understatement) but it is not 'the sole authority in all matters of belief and behaviour' (quoting the CU doctrinal statement of a few years ago) because the Catholic Church holds that Tradition is important too.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
A journalist, researching for an article on the complex political situation in Northern Ireland, was in a pub in a war-torn area of Belfast. One of his potential informants leaned over his pint of Guinness and suspiciously cross-examined the journalist: "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?" the Irishman asked.

"Neither," replied the journalist; "I'm an atheist."

The Irishman, not content with this answer, put a further question: "Ah, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?"

[Devil]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
There's also the story of ++Fisher's converstaion with a group of RC seminarians he met somewhere overseas on his travels. Roughly translated from the Latin (their common language) it went something like
'Excuse me, Monsignor (or whatever), but who are you?'
'I am the Archbishop of Canterbury.'
'Ah.... ' (title clearly means nothing to them)'...are you a Catholic?'
'Yes, but not what you mean by a Catholic'
'Oh. Are you then a Protestant?'
'Yes, but not what you mean by a Protestant.'
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I thought we got over this catholic verses Christian thing a long time ago.

Given that the RCC is by far the largest brand of Christianity, the setting of one over the other is a category error.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
Nearly 20 years ago I was listening to French radio (as I was doing French evening classes at the time). Featured were the results of a survey. Of those surveyed (in France):

80% said that they were Catholic
50% said that they believed in God
30% said that they believed in Jesus

So, of those surveyed, at least 50% described themselves as Catholic but it would be hard to describe them as Christian.

So, the term 'Catholic' in some places is more a social or cultural term than an expression of religious belief.
 
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :
 
When I was a Chaplain I heard the question all the time. I am sure it is a way of asking, " Are you Protestant or are you Catholic?"
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
Looking at this from the other way round, for many Catholics there is either the Catholic Church or a vague, ominously amorphous mass called "Protestantism". Most Catholics seem not to have a very clear idea what the differences between the various Protestant groups are, and many assume that all Protestants are free-church evangelicals.

A friend of mine started dating a Catholic woman while he was in (Anglican) seminary. When the relationship began to get serious, he started to invite her to services at the chapel; when she finally showed up for an Evensong, she was shocked and surprised to find that we used the Lord's Prayer, made the sign of the cross, and in general conducted our services much like Catholics do. (They're now married and both attending the same Anglican parish, where he's preparing for his priestly ordination)

My point, I guess, is that it's not just evangelicals who construct these dichotomies.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Happy to be orthodox Christian, Protestant AND Catholic, just not distinctively Roman.

I have encountered EXACTLY what The Silent Acolyte has. People who describe themselves as having been Catholic and are now Christian.

As for Roman Catholics being heretic, they were among the earliest. Along with the Orthodoxen and Syriac. Muslims and Protestants are just later heretics. The very first were Jews who didn't convert.
 
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QB] Looking at this from the other way round, for many Catholics there is either the Catholic Church or a vague, ominously amorphous mass called "Protestantism".
This is a very fair point. There's mainline liberal protestantism like TEC and the ELCA, confessional protestantism like the LCMS, evangelical protestantism like the SBC, the various tiny fundamentalist sects, and then mega-churches that I'm not even sure are Christian like the one Joel Osteen preaches at.

They're all quite different.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
(They're now married and both attending the same Anglican parish, where he's preparing for his priestly ordination)
What a very sad end to the story. I remember now why the Catholic Church discourages mixed marriages and requires a dispensation by proper ecclesiastical authority, which may only be granted if there is good reason to believe that it will not be prejudicial the the practice of the Catholic faith of the Catholic party.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Ah HAH IngoB ! Splendid. So by Roman Catholic criteria I'm a heretic, schismatic Christian, but not apostate ?

I feel positively included !
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I have never run into the either/or notion of Christian or Catholic. I an readily believe that many Roman Catholics would use the term "Catholic" rather than "Christian", and likewise for Orthodox. I think many Protestants would self-identify as "Christian". Still, asking such a question in those terms seems quite odd and (to some extent) offensive.

Are you a theist or an atheist? Are you a gnostic or an agnostic?
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I feel positively included !
Which is, of course, the most important thing.
[Snore]
 
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ah HAH IngoB ! Splendid. So by Roman Catholic criteria I'm a heretic, schismatic Christian, but not apostate ?

I feel positively included !
Since you don't recognize the full authority of the Catholic Church, why do you care what it says about you?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Phos Hilaron:
Congratulations, The Silent Acolyte! You've just prodded me out of an extended period of lurking. I think it's a pond difference. Over here in South Korea, there is also this split between "Catholic" and "Christian". It confused me at first as well. In US English, I think "Christian" is just a synonym for protestant.
That distinction made its way into offical nomenclature as well. My first few years here, I had to fill out an immigration form, on which I was required to check a Religion box. "Catholic" and "Christian" were listed as separate options.

I haven't had to answer that question for a while now, so I think they must have dropped it, at least in South Jeolla Province.

[ 06. July 2012, 18:22: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
When I was growing up in an overwhelmingly Catholic part of Ireland in the 80s and 90s church-goers came in three flavours: Catholics, Protestants and 'Christians'. The first two were basically tribal designations, with 'Protestant' synonomous with membership of the Church of Ireland. 'Christians' were adherents of the various independent (generally charismatic) evangelical churches which were then popping up all over Ireland and attracting people from both backgrounds. 'Christians' tended to be seen a tribally neutral, distinct from traditional Protestants (who were sometimes stereotyped as a bunch of liberal agnostics [Razz] ) and a little bit OTT.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
In my hometown, those who will answer, "I am a Christian" are those who attend the church that is literally called First Christian Church. This lines up with what those who attend First Lutheran, First Presbyterian, or First United Methodist would say.

Explaining to them that all the others are likewise Christian is futile, IME.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In Brazil, you'll often hear "Are you Catholic, or are you evangelical?" As if those would be the only options when you're a Christian. To many Brazilians, 'protestant' is a synonym of 'evangelical'.
Undoubtedly this is the German influence at work. The same thing happens with the current pope. When he refers to "evangelicals," he usually means the common German version of that word, as in the EKD (basically Lutherans and other organized Protestants in Germany). Of course, the American media often interprets it to mean the common American version of the word.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
In my hometown, those who will answer, "I am a Christian" are those who attend the church that is literally called First Christian Church.

Explaining to them that all the others are likewise Christian is futile, IME.

That's pretty common with Restorationists of the Stone-Campbell lineage. I tend to treat their "We are the only/real Christians" line as a kind of verbal tic, best ignored out of politeness.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Given that the RCC is by far the largest brand of Christianity, the setting of one over the other is a category error.
Non sequitur
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I've heard this distinction used in the Midwest, and from more than one Roman Catholic to boot. They were, however, all of the non-practicing sort.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What a very sad end to the story. I remember now why the Catholic Church discourages mixed marriages and requires a dispensation by proper ecclesiastical authority, which may only be granted if there is good reason to believe that it will not be prejudicial the the practice of the Catholic faith of the Catholic party.
Working at the library of a Roman Catholic seminary, I've seen the old books on intermarriage, and I have to say I much prefer today's attitudes. I flipped through several of these tracts- I was working in the section, and not one of them could see the Roman Catholic party as responsible in the matter. Without fail, the issue was framed as wicked heretics luring good Catholic boys and girls away from the One True Faith with their wiles and lies.

[ 06. July 2012, 20:59: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Working at the library of a Roman Catholic seminary, I've seen the old books on intermarriage, and I have to say I much prefer today's attitudes. I flipped through several of these tracts- I was working in the section, and not one of them could see the Roman Catholic party as responsible in the matter. Without fail, the issue was framed as wicked heretics luring good Catholic boys and girls away from the One True Faith with their wiles and lies.
Seems about right to me - as the Catholic party in a mixed marriage myself...oh, and BTW, today's attitudes are precisely the same. Still need dispensations from the impediment of mixed religion.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
(They're now married and both attending the same Anglican parish, where he's preparing for his priestly ordination)
What a very sad end to the story. I remember now why the Catholic Church discourages mixed marriages and requires a dispensation by proper ecclesiastical authority, which may only be granted if there is good reason to believe that it will not be prejudicial the the practice of the Catholic faith of the Catholic party.
I'm sorry, but how is that a sad ending? Two people fell in love, discovered that their seemingly different faiths are actually more similar than they thought and would not be an impediment to a relationship, and are now married. How is that not a happy ending? They are attending an Anglican church, it doesn't mean the woman is no longer Catholic.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm sorry, but how is that a sad ending? Two people fell in love, discovered that their seemingly different faiths are actually more similar than they thought and would not be an impediment to a relationship, and are now married. How is that not a happy ending? They are attending an Anglican church, it doesn't mean the woman is no longer Catholic.
Well, think of a situation where an Anglican and a Hindu married, and the Anglican started practicing Hinduism. The situation here for Roman Catholics is less serious, since in the original case she is at least still practicing Christianity, but at any rate she's "become confused" or what have you.

Though for myself, I would see the situation as less sad and more irresponsible, since I would blame the Anglican party.

[ 06. July 2012, 21:29: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :
 
quote:
Well, think of a situation where an Anglican and a Hindu married, and the Anglican started practicing Hinduism.
Bad example. I've known Episcopalians who do this without marrying a Hindu, professing to be both Christian AND Hindu, at the same time.

No, I don't know how the heck that works, either.

[ 06. July 2012, 21:32: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Bad example. I've known Episcopalians who do this without marrying a Hindu, professing to be both Christian AND Hindu, at the same time.

No, I don't know how the heck that works, either.
I've known Roman Catholics who do that too. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Bad example. I've known Episcopalians who do this without marrying a Hindu, professing to be both Christian AND Hindu, at the same time.

No, I don't know how the heck that works, either.
I've known Roman Catholics who do that too. [Roll Eyes]
The difference is that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church still takes the first commandment seriously. I can't say the same about the leadership in the certain parts of Anglicanism. A Catholic who worships Vishnu is pretty clearly going against the clear teaching of the Church, and Episcopalian who does it? Who the heck knows anymore? Jack Spong wasn't even a freaking theist and he got elected as a Bishop.

[ 06. July 2012, 21:39: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Can't you take your bigotry about Episcopalians elsewhere, Unreformed?
 
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Can't you take your bigotry about Episcopalians elsewhere, Unreformed?
I'll stop but only because I don't want to threadjack this topic. But nothing I said about TEC was remotely slanderous or untrue.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Bad example. I've known Episcopalians who do this without marrying a Hindu, professing to be both Christian AND Hindu, at the same time.

No, I don't know how the heck that works, either.
I've known Roman Catholics who do that too. [Roll Eyes]
That's 'cos you hang out with Jesuits, Zach.

Enough of this: I was only being deliberately provocative.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Sorry I got all defensive, Trisagion. I blame the internet.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm sorry, but how is that a sad ending? Two people fell in love, discovered that their seemingly different faiths are actually more similar than they thought and would not be an impediment to a relationship, and are now married. How is that not a happy ending? They are attending an Anglican church, it doesn't mean the woman is no longer Catholic.
Well, think of a situation where an Anglican and a Hindu married, and the Anglican started practicing Hinduism. The situation here for Roman Catholics is less serious, since in the original case she is at least still practicing Christianity, but at any rate she's "become confused" or what have you.

Though for myself, I would see the situation as less sad and more irresponsible, since I would blame the Anglican party.
The two are not comparable. All that has happened is that a Christian now worships at a church which is slightly different in style to the one she used to belong to. Anglicans and Catholics are both Christians first and foremost, they are the same religion. Only the externals have changed, and it doesn't affect salvation.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
From a Roman Catholic perspective it is different. For Trisagion, the Roman Catholic Church is the Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ. While Anglicans might be Christians because of their baptisms and have basically the same beliefs as the Roman Catholic Church, they are in schism from the Church and lack the charisms necessary to celebrate the sacraments. This woman has cut herself off from the grace of those sacraments and of the Church.

[ 06. July 2012, 22:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
From a Roman Catholic perspective it is different. For Trisagion, the Roman Catholic Church is the Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ. While Anglicans might be Christians because of their baptisms and have basically the same beliefs as the Roman Catholic Church, they are in schism from the Church and lack the charisms necessary to celebrate the sacraments. This woman has cut herself off from the grace of those sacraments and of the Church.
But all that we know is that she attends an Anglican church. For all we know she is still purely Roman Catholic in belief but attends the Anglican church to support her husband. If she is not partaking of Anglican Eucharist, then isn't she still a Catholic? Many people attend Anglican churches without being Anglican.

And I cannot get over the cruelty involved in believing that it would be better for her not to have experienced the joy of marriage because her husband isn't the 'right' sort of Christian. It's the same logic behind honour killings.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
But all that we know is that she attends an Anglican church....
I suppose it's possible she still a Roman Catholic, but it seems more likely she's gone Anglican. Which, I must say, is to her merit. But I would say so. I'm an Anglican.

quote:
And I cannot get over the cruelty involved in believing that it would be better for her not to have experienced the joy of marriage because her husband isn't the 'right' sort of Christian.
Don't lookit me. I agree with the principle. I just have a wider understanding of the Catholic Church than Trisagion.
quote:
It's the same logic behind honour killings.
Is it?

[ 06. July 2012, 22:37: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But all that we know is that she attends an Anglican church. For all we know she is still purely Roman Catholic in belief but attends the Anglican church to support her husband. If she is not partaking of Anglican Eucharist, then isn't she still a Catholic? Many people attend Anglican churches without being Anglican.
As I said above to Zach "Enough of this: I was only being deliberately provocative."

quote:
And I cannot get over the cruelty involved in believing that it would be better for her not to have experienced the joy of marriage because her husband isn't the 'right' sort of Christian.
Spare us the hearts and flowers: that wasn't what was being said, at all. What is sad is that, if she has stopped practising her Catholic Faith then she may have put her mortal soul in danger. That is why the Catholic Church seeks to be sure that a mixed marriage doesn't risk that before permitting it. It's about being really serious about the eternal fate of souls.

quote:
It's the same logic behind honour killings.
What an ignorant, inflammatory and contemptuous little remark. The logic behind honour killings is about familial and tribal authority, about property rights and social class.

[ 06. July 2012, 22:40: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I just have a wider understanding of the Catholic Church than Trisagion.
You say "wider": I say "looser".

You say potato: I say potarto.....let's call the whole thing off. [Biased]
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In Brazil, you'll often hear "Are you Catholic, or are you evangelical?" As if those would be the only options when you're a Christian. To many Brazilians, 'protestant' is a synonym of 'evangelical'.
In Mexico, the terms are "Catholic" and "Christian," but the situation AIUI is pretty much the same as you describe it for Brazil. BTW, both Catholics and Evangelicals there use this terminology, and no insult appears to be implied by it.

--Tom Clune
I should mention that hasn't been my experience so much. In Mexico I've heard people talk about protestantes and evangelicos and atalayas (Jehova's Witnesses, "atalaya" means "watchtower"). I've also heard, "la gente de otra religión" or "the people of another religion".

I've heard some people make that sort of distinction between "Catholic" and "Christian" like that and it's annoying but I don't know any Mexican Catholics who don't actually consider themselves Christian. It's more a habit on the part of many of the Evangelicals in talking about themselves and I do think something is implied by it. It's also a lot of laziness on the part of the media who report on them, particularly some of the entertainment reporters when talking about some high-profile converts, and then laziness and ignorance of regular people repeating it about themselves. I think few countries are so dominated by a single media conglomerate as Mexico is by Televisa.

I have a relative who calls the Evangelicals los aleluyas, I guess because he's heard them say "hallelujah" this and "hallelujah" that a lot.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
But all that we know is that she attends an Anglican church....
I suppose it's possible she still a Roman Catholic, but it seems more likely she's gone Anglican. Which, I must say, is to her merit. But I would say so. I'm an Anglican.

quote:
And I cannot get over the cruelty involved in believing that it would be better for her not to have experienced the joy of marriage because her husband isn't the 'right' sort of Christian.
Don't lookit me. I agree with the principle. I just have a wider understanding of the Catholic Church than Trisagion.
quote:
It's the same logic behind honour killings.
Is it?
The person 'deserves' to die in both cases. The Catholic church just leaves it up to God instead of carrying it out themselves.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But all that we know is that she attends an Anglican church. For all we know she is still purely Roman Catholic in belief but attends the Anglican church to support her husband. If she is not partaking of Anglican Eucharist, then isn't she still a Catholic? Many people attend Anglican churches without being Anglican.
As I said above to Zach "Enough of this: I was only being deliberately provocative."

quote:
And I cannot get over the cruelty involved in believing that it would be better for her not to have experienced the joy of marriage because her husband isn't the 'right' sort of Christian.
Spare us the hearts and flowers: that wasn't what was being said, at all. What is sad is that, if she has stopped practising her Catholic Faith then she may have put her mortal soul in danger. That is why the Catholic Church seeks to be sure that a mixed marriage doesn't risk that before permitting it. It's about being really serious about the eternal fate of souls.

quote:
It's the same logic behind honour killings.
What an ignorant, inflammatory and contemptuous little remark. The logic behind honour killings is about familial and tribal authority, about property rights and social class.
But we do not know if her mortal soul is in danger (even from a Catholic perspective - attending an Anglican church doesn't make one Anglican). Saying that someone's marriage is 'sad' without that context is a cruel remark to make.

And I'm well aware of the reasons behind honour killings, being from a city where they happen. The Catholic attitude seems to be totally in keeping with tribalism and everything else that flows from that, not to mention treating believers like property.
 
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :
 
quote:
The person 'deserves' to die in both cases. The Catholic church just leaves it up to God instead of carrying it out themselves.
Even taking this assertion at face value (which I don't), that's a big, BIG freaking difference right there.
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
As far as the the thread is concerned there are a whole bunch of things going on, including poor catechesis, but much of it is for historical reasons. Many Protestant groups did and still don't think Catholics are Christians. After the Reformation Catholics have been a minority persecuted and discriminated against in much of the Anglo-Saxon world and in the U.S.A. the Catholic experience has been tied in to ethnic, racial, and immigration issues. As I pointed out elsewhere on the boards, the Klu Klux Klan was (still is?) against Blacks, Jews, and Catholics. Finally, I think many Catholics have had an inferiority complex in this country. I believe there is such a thing as internalized racism so I have no problem believing there's such a thing as internalized anti-Catholicism as well.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The person 'deserves' to die in both cases. The Catholic church just leaves it up to God instead of carrying it out themselves.
Who says the person deserves to die in the case of a mixed marriage? Not the Catholic Church. Where on earth do you get that idea from?

quote:
But we don't know.....
As I said in the post you quoted, "...if she has...then she may...".

quote:
The Catholic attitude...
Is tha attitude that cares more about the eternal well being of an individual soul than the temporary and temporal idea of romantic love. It's got nothing to do with tribalism or property and everything to do with the Catholic Church's conviction in the uniqueness and unicity of salvation in Jesus Christ and the divinely willed part of the Catholic Church in that plan of salvation. As Zach82 has told you, Catholics don't believe Catholicism and Anglicanism as two equally valid ways of being a Christian. We do believe that the Catholic Church is the a church founded and divinely endowed by Christ, which (despite it's imperfections on this earth and the sinful nature of her members) is the way Christ Himself would have us walk. For all its strengths and witness and without going over the reasons, historical and continuing for that separation, the Anglican Communion is separated from the Catholic Church and that is not a good thing.

I have been married to a non-Catholic for twenty one years and we have three teenage children. Believe me, the single most significant obstacle to living faithfully as a Catholic and the biggest challenge in bringing those children up as good, faithful Catholics has been and is the fact that there is this objective difference at the heart of the family. I prepare perhaps fifteen couples for marriage every year and these days the vast majority are mixed marriages (and an increasing number between Catholics and unbaptised). If the Catholic partner is anything other than a cultural or nominal Catholic, I believe it is terribly important to make them face the cold, hard reality of the road ahead. Refusing to spell this out would be a dereliction of duty to them: to do so because of some soppy, romantic notion about falling in love would only compound my culpability.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
] And Evangelicals are heretics and schismatics to the vast majority of global Christendom, not non-Christians. One of the disadvantages of disallowing these words from polite discourse is that this important distinction disappears.
Which pretty much puts you in the same class as those who don't consider Catholics Christians. When are we going to get over this nonsense? We may disagree on the some doctrinal issues, but if the basics of believing in the the atonement brought by Christ, the Son of God are in place then one is a Christian. The insults from both sides towards the other does nothing for the credibility of Christianity to the unbelieving world.

I was a part of a large international, interdenominational missions organization. There were Catholics, Orthodox, Charismatics, Evangelicals and mainline Protestants and we all got along with unity in Christ even though we pretty much lived and worked together 24/7. That fact alone got people interested Christianity.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Jack Spong wasn't even a freaking theist and he got elected as a Bishop.
Spong went off the rails AFTER he became a bishop.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Evangelicals are heretics and schismatics to the vast majority of global Christendom, not non-Christians. One of the disadvantages of disallowing these words from polite discourse is that this important distinction disappears.
You are quite right to deplore the oversensitivity to the use of that very useful term "heretic" - even its most careful employment is invariably followed by a Pavlovian outburst about "burning people at the stake".

Howver, you are shakier grounds when you attempt to differentiate between the terms heretic and non-Christian, because in many, probably most, cases the former implies the latter.

Fewer and fewer evangelicals are prepared to come out and label RCs as heretics these days, and there are at least two reasons for this.

The first is the realisation that evangelicals and RCs are equally the prime targets of militant, bigotted secularism, hence the emergence of the "co-belligerence" (Schaeffer) or "ecumenism of the trenches" mentality.

The second is ignorance, ie a contemporary unawareness of the nature and importance of the theological differences which divide the two camps.

Having said that, I should point out that there was a real attempt ten or twenty years ago to initiate serious RC/evangelical theological dialogue.

In Evangelicals And Catholics Together, edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus (both now dead), Neuhaus wrote in words which I have quoted on the Ship before:

"When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done....I will not plead the merits of Mary or the saints....in seeking entry into that heavenly kingdom, I will plead Christ and Christ alone. Just as I am without one plea/But that thy blood was shed for me/And that Thou biddst me come to Thee/O lamb of God I come, I come".

If every RC were as soteriologically scriptural as that, probably no evangelicals would question their orthodoxy, but Neuhaus, a priest and a Jesuit and an ex-Lutheran, was if not sui generis, certainly untypical,and it is purely obtuse and naive to imagine that there aren't countless other RCs out there who are relying on a some sort of mixture personal decency along with sacerdotal, sacramental jiggery-pokery to win acceptance with God.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Evangelicals are heretics and schismatics to the vast majority of global Christendom, not non-Christians. One of the disadvantages of disallowing these words from polite discourse is that this important distinction disappears.
You are quite right to deplore the oversensitivity to the use of that very useful term "heretic" - even its most careful employment is invariably followed by a Pavlovian outburst about "burning people at the stake".

However, you are shakier grounds when you attempt to differentiate between the terms heretic and non-Christian, because in many, probably most, cases the former implies the latter.

Fewer and fewer evangelicals are prepared to come out and label RCs as heretics these days, and there are at least two reasons for this.

The first is the realisation that evangelicals and RCs are equally the prime targets of militant, bigotted secularism, hence the emergence of the "co-belligerence" (Schaeffer) or "ecumenism of the trenches" mentality, and in fact I have stood shoulder to shoulder with RCs at pro-life demonstrations.

The second is ignorance, ie a contemporary unawareness of the nature and importance of the theological differences which divide the two camps.

Having said that, I should point out that there was a real attempt ten or twenty years ago to initiate serious RC/evangelical theological dialogue.

In Evangelicals And Catholics Together, edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus (both now dead), Neuhaus wrote in words which I have quoted on the Ship before:

"When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done....I will not plead the merits of Mary or the saints....in seeking entry into that heavenly kingdom, I will plead Christ and Christ alone. Just as I am without one plea/But that thy blood was shed for me/And that Thou biddst me come to Thee/O lamb of God I come, I come".

If every RC were as soteriologically scriptural as that, probably no evangelicals would question their orthodoxy, but Neuhaus, a priest and a Jesuit and an ex-Lutheran, was if not sui generis, certainly untypical,and it is purely obtuse and naive to imagine that there aren't countless other RCs out there who are relying on a some sort of mixture personal decency along with sacerdotal, sacramental jiggery-pokery to win acceptance with God.

 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
Bugger. Sorry.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
As I pointed out elsewhere on the boards, the Klu Klux Klan was (still is?) against Blacks, Jews, and Catholics.
The Klan is it was revived in the 1920s(with few if any membership links to the original 1860s terrorist group) was explicitly focussed on immigration issues, mostly against Catholics. Interestingly, they were most prominent in the northern and western states, and even made slight inroads into western Canada, where they capitalized on the controversy around Catholic schools.

I think the southern Klan revived in the 1950s, in response to desegregation, so the focus would presumably have been more against blacks. As for today, I don't know if the movement amounts to anything more than scattered groups of random white guys, who hate the requisite minorities and like to wear white sheets and burn crosses. I'd imagine their target is mostly blacks, since that's the popular image of who the Klan hates, and anyone claiming to be "klan" at this point in history is basically just aping the popular image.

The KKK in Saskatchewan
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
I do recall a black guy being named head of the Klan in my home province of Alberta, around 1979. Whether this group was a remnmant of the earlier western Canadian anti-Catholic Klan, or just a buncha guys who were calling themselves the Klan, I don't know.

The media doesn't really help much in these cases, since articles about these guys always refer to "the Klan", as if it were one centralized group going back to the 1860s. Though I suppose this does fit the agenda of the klansmen themselves, who obviously want to be seen as part of an historically continuous mass movement. (Sorta like the way any group of Sunni Muslims who want to blow things up and issue religious-themed communiques can call themselves Al Qaeda, and count on the media to report their self-designation without much skepticism.)
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Unreformed, I recognise the full authority, whatever that is, of the Catholic Church, just not that of one particular heretical bishopric.

Trisagion, [Razz]
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
In my experience, the "they're not really Christians" attitude is quite regional. When I lived in Alaska the typical protestant that I knew either didn't believe that Catholics were Christian or would say something along the lines of "well, some maybe are, but it must be so hard in that environment."

Even with all the Orthodox influence there, they were really seen as 'just like those Catholics.'

I found the attitude in New England to be quite different, however, and even remember an Evangelical campus ministry with a Catholic student in leadership! That was where I first heard a balanced explanation of Catholicism, especially with regards to Mary the the saints, Church hierarchy, and capital 'T' Tradition... from a Protestant.

Going into overseas ministry put me in touch with a lot of hard-line Evangelicals that don't consider Catholics or Orthodox to have 'access to the Gospel'. I got into it one time with a guy serving in Poland who claimed there were essentially zero percent Christians in the country. Surprized, I asked what the demographic was?

98% Catholic, with a mixture of other religions making up the remaining 2%.

I about fell off my bar stool. When he told me that he knew a priest wasn't a Christian because he lit up a cigarette after Mass, then I decided there wasn't any use talking with him any more. [Mad]

I have, however, noticed a much more open and accepting attitude amongst the Turks themselves here. One friend of mine is a major player in the Turkish Evangelical Church (a small association that resembles essentially all the Turkish Protestant churches). He regularly works, fellowships, studies, and prays with Catholic and Orthodox clergy and makes a point of referring to all Christians as 'Kardesler' (siblings).

I had another guy in my home last week who's a nation-wide known figure in the Protestant church. When he saw my icon corner he exclaimed, "How wonderful! You have a small church right in your own home!" [Smile]

I guess in a country that 99% Muslim, you can't be too picky about who you call 'brother'. [Smile]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Trisagion, my friend, talking of inflammatory remarks: how can a woman who marries outside one culture, one tradition, one heresy in to another have risked her soul ?
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Trisagion, my friend, talking of inflammatory remarks: how can a woman who marries outside one culture, one tradition, one heresy in to another have risked her soul ?
It's not the marrying but the ceasing to practice her Catholic faith through carelessness which might do that.

"one heresy, in to another". Phooey.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I remember hearing an interview years ago; an English radio journalist questioning two Belfast kids about what it meant to be Roman Catholic and Protestant.

One of the kids asked him, 'which church do you go to?'
The reporter uhmmed and aahed. And then he was asked, 'Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?'
And the other kid, quick as a flash said, 'He's not anything. He's English!'

In my part of Ulster the main categories of Christian I remember were: Protestant, Catholic, Good-Living, interchangeable with Born Again. With regard to being good-living or born again, Baptists were fairly suspect, Methodists less so, Brethren - off the scale.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
It's all right Trisagion, we KNOW you think that your particular tradition based heresy is THE purest, truest, onliest realliest expression of the bride of Christ.

That is part of its heresy. That's OK.

But you did notice that you fought fire with fire, as you so usually do ? You're not blind to that ?

There is NOTHING in pre-traditional Christianity that would indicate that the woman who married, like you, outside her cult, or her partner, like yours, is in danger of anything.

Of course in your particular post-pre-traditional stream there is.

Hokay.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
"pretraditional Christianity": no such thing.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
quote:
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
This, of course comes from the Apostolic Creed, the very creed that is used in TEC, Lutheran Churches, Presbyterian Churches, Methodist Churches, the UCC, and a number of other "protestant" churches.

Myself, I am a member of the evangelical catholic church, otherwise known as Lutheran. I have also been an alcohol and drug counselor. Whenever I did an evaluation I made the distinction between the Roman Catholic denomination and other catholic groups.

About the only major difference between the catholic groups now is "What do we do about the Pope?" But even Roman Catholics are grappling with that question now.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
It's not the marrying but the ceasing to practice her Catholic faith through carelessness which might do that.
This might be a silly question, but do you have any evidence that this is the case? Any case histories of lapsed Catholics being damned to eternal torment for not attending Mass regularly? Any serious scriptural justification for people going to Hell for attending a Protestant church? Seriously, Trisagion, do you have anything to back this up apart from convoluted circular logic at the third remove?
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
AIUI, this whole idea springs from Roman ecclesiology. Anything which threatens the connection created by baptism with the RC church and therefore the true body of Christ, threatens the individual even sub specie aeternitatis (under the lens of eternity).

I don't share that ecclesiology - it would be hard to find a sacramentally-based point of view further from my own - but it has a certain consistency, even if I find it excessively zealous, even pitiless.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
Forgive the double post, but it has occurred to me that I haven't really specified what I was commenting on in the previous post. I thought I was talking about "mixed" marriages, but I suppose I might also have been commenting on the wider question. I feel, for what it's worth, that the consequences of that ecclesiological understanding are equally far-reaching for a RC view of other Christians, advances in ecumenism notwithstanding. It is hard to see how something essentially detached from the body could ever have its life sustained. As such, Catholic cannot logically be a subset of Christian, at least not if the latter is understood widely. The two terms become co-terminous, except insofar as the second group might include the Eastern Orthodox churches.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ah HAH IngoB ! Splendid. So by Roman Catholic criteria I'm a heretic, schismatic Christian, but not apostate ?

I feel positively included !
Utter penis envy
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
I came across an organisation called "Setting Captives Free" last year, and did one of their free internet courses. They invited me to join as a "mentor" - but they make this stipulation:
quote:
Note: Finally, we respect your right to believe as you choose, but those in the following religions are not allowed to apply for Mentorship: Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Christian Scientists, 7th day Adventists, or Unitarians. Also, female pastors will be considered on an individual basis.
Then there's a link to the question "why no catholics", which culminates in
quote:
The official Roman Catholic teaching is that I am accursed for what I believe, because I understand and preach the gospel fundamentally differently than they do. I would say the same thing in the other direction.
(I did however lose about 15 kg on their weight-loss programme, so they can't be all bad)
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

I think the southern Klan revived in the 1950s, in response to desegregation, so the focus would presumably have been more against blacks. As for today, I don't know if the movement amounts to anything more than scattered groups of random white guys, who hate the requisite minorities and like to wear white sheets and burn crosses. I'd imagine their target is mostly blacks, since that's the popular image of who the Klan hates, and anyone claiming to be "klan" at this point in history is basically just aping the popular image.

The KKK in Saskatchewan
While they still have animosity towards blacks, their prime focus today is Latinos and with the anti-illegal immigrant mood in the country and sadly they've gained membership and support.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
There certainly is Trisagion and you know EXACTLY what I mean. Unless you need a capital tee.

The Tradition of Rome. Or Constaninople to a lesser extent. Mandatory Traditions which are not biblically or Spiritually mandated.

Starting with the heresy of Traditional Petrine Supremacy for which there is no Biblical precedent beyond one of Jesus' typical oracular sayings. There is no biblical or historical evidence whatsoever for Peter ever leaving the Levant and the case against is easily made.

That you HAVE to believe it and declare me heretic for not is ... heretic.

Now that we're all relaxed about the term.

My tradition is OLDER than yours. So yes, we protest that, we protest that we are in fact, in that regard, as in many others, closer to the faith once delivered.

We are considerably more traditional than yow.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry Kaplan, but you're talking bollocks. I've been accused of being an 'evangelical schismatic' a few times, but no RC or Orthodox I've ever come across has treated me anything than as a Christian and a brother in Christ - ok, so I wouldn't be allowed to take communion but I understand that ...

So your comments are a bit wide of the mark and reflect your own prejudices rather than what you consider to be other people's ...

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There certainly is Trisagion and you know EXACTLY what I mean. Unless you need a capital tee.

The Tradition of Rome. Or Constaninople to a lesser extent. Mandatory Traditions which are not biblically or Spiritually mandated.

Starting with the heresy of Traditional Petrine Supremacy for which there is no Biblical precedent beyond one of Jesus' typical oracular sayings. There is no biblical or historical evidence whatsoever for Peter ever leaving the Levant and the case against is easily made.

That you HAVE to believe it and declare me heretic for not is ... heretic.

Now that we're all relaxed about the term.

My tradition is OLDER than yours. So yes, we protest that, we protest that we are in fact, in that regard, as in many others, closer to the faith once delivered.

We are considerably more traditional than yow.
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Cedd (# 8436) on :
 
Not a Pond difference, unfortunately.

I once went into a well known chain of Christian bookshops in London and heard someone ask for a particular book. The lady behind the counter said they did not have it and could not get it. When asked why not, she replied "because the author is Catholic."

On closer inspection of the said bookshop I found lots of books about Catholicism, in the 'cult' section and not too far from the 'occult' section.

That chain obviously felt that Catholic was an antonym of Christian and I never went back to it.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Sorry Kaplan, but you're talking bollocks. I've been accused of being an 'evangelical schismatic' a few times, but no RC or Orthodox I've ever come across has treated me anything than as a Christian and a brother in Christ - ok, so I wouldn't be allowed to take communion but I understand that ...

Bit of a tangential observation...

Having spent a lot of time in religious bookstores, I have to say that, while protestants seem to have a thriving sub-genre of books demonstrating that the RCC is the Whore Of Babylon, the survival of mystery cults, or otherwise apostate, you don't really seem to get the same thing going in the other direction.

Catholic bookstores will have titles like "Why the Catholic Church should be your true spiritual home", but nothing like "Martin Luther: Antichrist 666" or "Calvinism: Pathway To Hellfire". To the extent that supposedly heretical ideas are dealt with, it's usually just a matter of pointing out politely, if tersely, in what way their adherents are in error, and showing that how the RCC is correct.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
In my work as a chaplain to poor and working class men in recovery from drug and alcohol abuse, I frequently hear things along the following lines:
quote:
  1. Are you Christian or are you Catholic?
  2. I was raised Catholic, but now I'm Christian.
  3. I used to be Catholic, but now I'm saved.
What makes this so weird is that we are located in a small, old, down-at-the-heels industrial city that was formerly immigrant Catholic right down to its little cotton socks.

It's true that the outreach group from the local, bible-believing Gospel Hall, who come one night a week, preach quite frankly that Catholics are going to hell, but that one outpost of fundamentalism can't account for all of it.

So my questions are these:
1) Good answer to question #1.
2) Likely the Gospel Hall is promoting the "Catholics aren't <real> Christians" idea. It was certainly a common enough attitude when I was "in" conservative evangelicalism myself, and was the trigger for me to finally hightail it out of there, because I was hanging out with some wonderful Catholic Christians at the time.

I don't think it's either useful or productive to get in a "Is! Is Not!" slapfight with the other group. Whatever you can do in context to drop in/build up positive references to the idea that Catholics are Christians too should be fine. Some of the men may not have considered it's not a zero sum game; one of the things you can do as a mentor and friend to them is to gently steer them away from that notion.

Blessings on you and your work!
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd:
Not a Pond difference, unfortunately.

I once went into a well known chain of Christian bookshops in London and heard someone ask for a particular book. The lady behind the counter said they did not have it and could not get it. When asked why not, she replied "because the author is Catholic."

On closer inspection of the said bookshop I found lots of books about Catholicism, in the 'cult' section and not too far from the 'occult' section.

That chain obviously felt that Catholic was an antonym of Christian and I never went back to it.
It used to be not uncommon to find Jack Chick(pond tranlation: Ian Paisley) comics for sale in Christian bookstores in Canada. Presumably, a store selling those would not want to also be stocking books by Catholic writers.

Though I do remember a CATHOLIC-OWNED bookstore in my neighbourhood mall, which sold Chick. I don't think the owners had read the comics.

Another, protestant-owned store, also near my home, sold Chick material. When I inquired as to why they were stocking anti-Catholic propaganda, the clerk said "We want to get both sides of the story."

I guess you do need to hear all angles of the "Is the Pope planning to murder all protestants?" debate.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:

Evangelical Christianity has always been very suspicious of any who might simply be going along to church for form's sake. In the past, this suspicion has been directed very much at mainstream Protestant Christians, often of the same denomination. This of course was at a time when the vast majority of people went to church on a Sunday, and where church attendance was equated with respectability and social conformity.

For Evangelicals, this was not enough to make you a Christian - and on the whole, I think this is to their credit. They retaught the mainstream Protestants that faith is self-involving, and that it ought to make a difference to your whole life, and not just to your Sunday routine. Whether or not one has had a 'born again' experience, an Evangelical would nevertheless look for an experiential 'heart faith' in Jesus in anyone claiming to be a Christian.

Now that society has gone all secular, this is less of an issue with mainstream Protestant churches. It is fairly safe to assume these days in the UK that a church-goer has a self-involving faith of some description.
That's a fair description. I think most evangelicals would agree, or have agreed, with the first part, and that the increasing unpopularity of Christianity is changing those attitudes.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In the evangelicalism in which I grew up, it was more or less axiomatic that Roman Catholics were not Christians, because they were depending on a mixture of sacraments and good works for their salvation, insread of trusting entirely in God's grace as manifested in Christ's life, death and resurrection.
Some, yes. I think it was or is more common to agree that Roman Catholics can be Christians but that just being a member of the Roman Catholic Church does not make someone a Christian. And that the "mixture of sacraments and good works" was dangerous because it allowed people to think they were Christians when they weren't.

quote:
Originally posted by Calindreams:
The term that was bandied about in my old CofE church by some evangelicals was 'nominal Christians' who weren't actually Christians at all.
"Nominal Christian" sounds a very appropriate term for someone who would call themselves a Christian in response to a census question, but is not an active member of any Christian church, and does not hold any distinctive Christian beliefs.

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Mind you, explaining what Anglo-Catholicism is to members of the secular majority has always been a nearly impossible task in my experience.
Impossible to explain it to most Anglicans I would imagine!

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So by Roman Catholic criteria I'm a heretic, schismatic Christian, but not apostate?
That would seem to be the case if you read their RC Catechism and take it as a fair summary of their rules.

Of course by our standards they are the schismatics - its a relative term [Big Grin]


quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:

When he saw my icon corner he exclaimed, "How wonderful! You have a small church right in your own home!"
[Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
...Jack Chick(pond tranlation: Ian Paisley)...
Not at all! Chick is a much better cartoonist than Paisley, and a much worse anti-Catholic bigot.

Anyway, we get Chick tracts over here as well.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Stetson:
...Jack Chick(pond tranlation: Ian Paisley)...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all! Chick is a much better cartoonist than Paisley, and a much worse anti-Catholic bigot. Anyway, we get Chick tracts over here as well.
Aw man, don't tell me the King Of The Orangemen is being outdone by a comic-peddling huckster from LA!

This globalization is really hitting traditional cultures hard.

[ 08. July 2012, 19:01: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Happy to amuse Charlie Lima, I should, of course, have said 'traditionaller'.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sorry Kaplan, but you're talking bollocks. I've been accused of being an 'evangelical schismatic' a few times, but no RC or Orthodox I've ever come across has treated me anything than as a Christian and a brother in Christ - ok, so I wouldn't be allowed to take communion but I understand that ...

So your comments are a bit wide of the mark and reflect your own prejudices rather than what you consider to be other people's ...

[Roll Eyes]
Steady on, Tiger!

Whether or not RCs regard me as a Christian, they always treat me with courtesy - as I do them.

Australia has a history of sectarian rivalry in politics, business, education and other areas, which faded out after the Sixties.

Fortunately it never involved ghettoisation, and we grew up with RC neighbours on both sides.

We kids went to different schools, but as families we got on perfectly well.

I have co=operated with RCs in pro-life activities, and I write articles and book reviews for a predominantly RC magazine.

Australia currently has an RC Opposition leader who is expected to win the next election.

I have never heard a word of criticism of him from evangelicals, but the "progressive" left has maintained a campaign of bigotted, hysterical vilification of him, which has stopped just short of claiming that he plans to revive the Inquisition and introduce compulsory virginity tests.

My "prejudices" as you call them have nothing to do with RCs personally, and consist simply of a belief that Roman Catholicism is theologically wrong in some important areas, primarily as a result of its unscriptural prioritisation of ecclesiology over soteriology.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Having spent a lot of time in religious bookstores, I have to say that, while protestants seem to have a thriving sub-genre of books demonstrating that the RCC is the Whore Of Babylon, the survival of mystery cults, or otherwise apostate, you don't really seem to get the same thing going in the other direction.

Catholic bookstores will have titles like "Why the Catholic Church should be your true spiritual home", but nothing like "Martin Luther: Antichrist 666" or "Calvinism: Pathway To Hellfire". To the extent that supposedly heretical ideas are dealt with, it's usually just a matter of pointing out politely, if tersely, in what way their adherents are in error, and showing that how the RCC is correct.
There is a genre of popular RC anti-Protestant literature subsequent to, and considerably less sophisticated than, Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

In First Things magazine, founded by the late Richard John Neuhaus to whom I referred earlier, there used to be ads for books with titles such as Home To Rome: Twenty Ex-Protestants Tell Their Story.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Going back about a century, I was rather surprised when my grandmother talked about the part of Dartford where my school was.

It was an area called the Brent, which refers to burning, but probably has nothing to do with the fact that it was the place chosen to execute, by burning, a group of Kentish Protestants who denied transubstantiation during the reign of Mary. During Victorian times, a memorial was built there. Industry washed away some of the inscriptions, renewed by someone a few years ago, including the rather ill chosen quote from Revelation in which martyrs round the throne call on God, asking when He is going to punish those who killed them. Also in Victorian times, there would be processions of torches to the site on Firework Night, but these have been long abandoned. Interestingly, the site was also opposite the first Catholic church in the area after Emancipation.

That is by way of explaining how my grandmother had been taught that the Brent was "where the Christians were burned". Clearly those who taught her were of the antonym school. Very little is now made of the history, though I've taught someone with the same name as one of the martyrs.

[ 09. July 2012, 18:08: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Also in Victorian times, there would be processions of torches to the site on Firework Night, but these have been long abandoned.
Abandoned in Kent, but not in Sussex!

Bonfire processions were sort of revived in the 19th century and been going strong ever since, though in a gradually diminishing area. One of those continuous small-scale local folk traditions which were organised, codified, and reproduced on a larger scale in England between about the 1740s and 1900s - everything from bonfire to bellringing to football to cricket to morris dancing.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I was carefully not mentioning Sussex. My mother was warned by hers that it wouldn't be suitable for her to be around after school in Lewes that night. My father's grandfather was in one of the Societies. Both parents knew the words of the Bonfire "prayers".

Not appropriate here, I think.
 
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
I have also heard Catholic's and Jehovah's Witnesses mentioned in the same sentence - the assumption being that both deviate from the Christian faith.

I sometimes try and use the word 'Apostolic(al)' to describe my faith, taking a broader swathe through Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Reformed Catholic, Oriental, etc. It is remarkably hard to explain to some people, but the term Evangelical is used in pretty much the same way.

Of course many people grow up in religious traditions without coming to the fullness of faith. Hence 'I was a Catholic / Anglican / Baptist, but then I was saved'.

I myself had been an Evangelical for almost 10 years before I fully received Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and it has taken me another 10 years or so to see the essentially sacrificial nature of the rite.

Although it could be that these moments of conversion are not so absolute and are rather way-marks on the journey towards salvation. But then as an Apostolical I would say that.
 
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :
 
I don't think I have ever really recovered from being asked at school more than 40 years ago whether - given that I was a server at the local anglo-catholic church - I was a Christian.

[ 10. July 2012, 16:58: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Kaplan Corday, nice, especially the last para of your penultimate post above: it's as if His body is bigger than He.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Kaplan Corday - For all your qualification of them, your prejudices are still prejudices, I'm afraid.

I was neither defending nor attacking RC or other Catholic traditions (in the 'Apostolical' sense as Edward sees them), simply stating that your contention that the majority of people in RC, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches wouldn't regard evangelicals such as yourself as being bona -fide Christians is completely incorrect.

They may regard evangelicals as 'hereticks' and 'schismatics' but they will generally regard us as being Christians.

It isn't the more Catholic traditions that are 'de-Christianising' entire swathes of people within Christendom, but the evangelicals.

I have an Orthodox friend from an evangelical background (not on these Boards) who says that his view of who is and isn't a Christian is now far broader than it used to be when he was an evangelical - although in terms of ecclesiology his view of who is IN or OUT of the Church is much narrower.

He, of course, believes that it is possible to be a Christian and not necessarily part of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church(TM) which he would obviously restrict to his own particular communion.

Therein lies the condumdrum, as you well know.

All that said, I've known RCs and Orthodox (some on these Boards) who would readily acknowledge that their people are often 'sacralised but not evangelised' and that nominalism and cultural Christianity is a big problem within the historic Churches.

So, I can certainly see where you're coming from, even if I think you reach some pretty shakey conclusions based on your own particular logic - ie. RCs, Orthodox and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox don't regard us as being part of the Church (they don't regard one another as part of the Church either ...) therefore they don't believe that we are really 'saved'.

Sure, you'll come across some hot-heads, particularly from Eastern Europe in my experience, who don't believe that anyone other than the Orthodox can possibly be saved - but I'm not sure it's a widespread view - at least not in the Orthodox 'diaspora'.

But then, how many evangelicals have we come across who don't believe that it's possible for RCs to be saved without giving up their ecclesial affiliation and joining a Protestant body?

I've met plenty. Particularly among the Brethren, it has to be said.

I would certainly agree that the RCs have prioritised ecclesiology over soteriology, but I would also contend that many Protestants have run to the equal and opposite tendency of almost ignoring ecclesiology altogether. All this 'me and Jesus' stuff.

Me and Jesus, stuff everyone else. The Pope of one, the Pope of me ...
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would certainly agree that the RCs have prioritised ecclesiology over soteriology, but I would also contend that many Protestants have run to the equal and opposite tendency of almost ignoring ecclesiology altogether. All this 'me and Jesus' stuff.

Me and Jesus, stuff everyone else. The Pope of one, the Pope of me ...
This is real straw man territory, Gamaliel.

Yes, of course it's possible to find evangelicals, and particularly Penties, who are ultra-subjectivist ("God told me"), but you know quite well that they are a tiny minority, and are not supported by evangelical or Penty leaders.

Evangelicals do not have a "high" view of the church in the technical ecclesiological sense, because they do not recognise sacramentalist soteriology or clerical casteism, but that is not the same as saying that they are indifferent to the church.

On the contrary, evangelicals tend to be leaders in church membership in terms of attendance, participation and giving.

As for whether heretic equals non-Christian, or unsaved, there is a long historical tradition of equating the two.

I'm sure you're well aware that the idea of "burning the body to save the soul" is nonsense.

Heretics were burned not to save them, but as a deterrent punishment for an obduracy which evidenced their unsaved state.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Anglicans Online this week has a link to a very interesting review by Diarmid McCullough of a new book on heresy and the origins of the campaigns against it. Well worth reading.

[ 11. July 2012, 08:00: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But then, how many evangelicals have we come across who don't believe that it's possible for RCs to be saved without giving up their ecclesial affiliation and joining a Protestant body?
None. Plenty that would have been (or were) surprised to find that Catholics had accepted salvation from Jesus while remaining within their own church, but only because that would be unexpected, not because it is impossible.

Those protestants you know who think it impossible are, pretty much by definition, not "ignoring ecclesiology altogether" if they think that no one can be saved within a certain ecclesiastical body. They would appear to place enormously greater importance on correct ecclesiology than does, for example, the Pope.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And Evangelicals are heretics and schismatics to the vast majority of global Christendom, not non-Christians. One of the disadvantages of disallowing these words from polite discourse is that this important distinction disappears.
Which pretty much puts you in the same class as those who don't consider Catholics Christians. When are we going to get over this nonsense? We may disagree on the some doctrinal issues, but if the basics of believing in the the atonement brought by Christ, the Son of God are in place then one is a Christian. The insults from both sides towards the other does nothing for the credibility of Christianity to the unbelieving world.
"Heresy" and "schism" certainly can be used as insults, but so can any term that classifies. I will agree that such terms are particularly convenient for trading insults, but that's because they are particularly convenient, full stop. For example, your elaborate statement "We may disagree on the some doctrinal issues, but if the basics of believing in the the atonement brought by Christ, the Son of God are in place then one is a Christian." is not only much more succinctly summarized in you calling me "heretic", but that is inherently more accurate as well. For the word "heretic" does not require of me to accept your implicit definition of what makes a Christian. If you call me a "heretic", I simply get the accurate information that you consider me to be a Christian who believes in at least one false doctrine. And it is not as if one needs such useful terms to be insulting. For example, I'm displeased with your claim "Which pretty much puts you in the same class as those who don't consider Catholics Christians." because it is slanderous, not because it is verbose.

I consider you to be a Christian. Frankly not based on any particular evidence, but since you apparently identify as one I see no a priori reason to be suspicious about that. If you disagree with at least one doctrine that the RCC teaches to be definitely true, then you are a heretic. If you are not in communion with the RC hierarchy and in particular the pope, a question on which said hierarchy is the relevant authority, then you are a schismatic. Again, based merely on appearances, you likely are a heretic and schismatic. You may be a good person and fine Christian in all other regards, but by my lights you've made some at least some wrong choices concerning the faith and the Church. That's all.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Kaplan and Eliab ... no, it isn't straw man territory at all.

You've either lived very sheltered and charmed lives or have else managed to block out the sillier aspects of some evangelical traditions.

In many neo-pentecostal circles, for instance, the 'God told me' brigade are the ones running the show ...

I'd agree, though, that for the most part 'mainstream' penties are smarter than that. The local AoG pastor here certainly is, one of the 'best' I've met.

I am being polemical and exaggerating to make a point to some extent. But I'm not accepting the straw man charge. Why not? Because Kaplan was exaggerating a lot more than me when he postulated that people in the more Catholic and sacramental traditions don't believe that evangelical Protestants are 'true Christians.'

That certainly isn't the case at all.

I would be prepared to accept, though, that there are numpties in Greece, Syria, the Balkans etc who treat evangelicals on the same level as they would Mormons and JWs. I've come across that attitude. But then, when you look at the way evangelicals sometimes behave in those countries ...

I said SOME but by now means all.

I've heard first hand from evangelical converts to Orthodoxy that the Russian heirarchy can sometimes speak very warmly of Baptists and others and wish that their own people showed similar levels of devotion to Christ and developed a similar love of the scriptures.

The mileage varies. There'll also be Russian bishops, no doubt, who lump all Protestants in with marginal groups such as the Mormons and JWs.

As for evangelicals and penties not being indifferent to the Church ... yes, I'd agree with that, but would also say that to some extent many of them over-react to a vacuum in their ecclesiology by creating ecclesial structures that are just, if not more, restrictive than the sacramental/episcopal or more Catholic ones that they might rail against.

Many evangelicals I know are not involved with anything at all outside of church.

A Pentecostal friend of mine is involved with several charities and is continually impressed by the contribution that lay RCs make to these groups - both in terms of time and money. She notes, sadly, that there are very few evangelicals involved with these particular issues in her neck of the woods. Of course, the mileage again varies.

On the heretic equals non-Christian or unsaved thing ... well, yes, there is a long historical tradition there. But I don't see post-Vatican II Catholicism out to burn 'heretics' or condemn the rest of us to a Godless eternity. Heck, recent Papal pronouncements about Judaism and other faiths go a lot further down a 'universalist' road than many evangelicals I know would be comfortable with.

That doesn't exonerate the RC authorities from the fires of Smithfield and so on, any more than it exonerates the Elizabethan authorities for executing priests or crushing RC martyrs between heavy weights and similar delightful and enlightened practices ...

At least the Orthodox preferred exile (or 'mild' dismemberment [Eek!] ) to outright execution when dealing with 'heretics' and 'schismatics'.

It ain't anything that any of the older traditions come out of smelling of roses. The Magisterial Reformers drowning Anabaptists and so on ... the New England Puritans executing Quakers ...

As it happens, I've got a lot of time for the evangelical tradition - for the 'activist' instances that you've mentioned. They give a lot of time, effort and money.

That doesn't stop me 'calling' it on aspects where it can act daft. Nor does it mean that when I do so I'm saying that the sacramental or more Catholic traditions are whiter-than-white.

Heck, I don't even see them claiming that for themselves ...
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you call me a "heretic", I simply get the accurate information that you consider me to be a Christian who believes in at least one false doctrine.
I would never use the word 'heretic' merely to describe someone who believes in one doctrine I consider to be false. That would set the bar ludicrously low, ISTM, so that only those with an entirely correct understanding of God / faith / theology could escape the charge of being a heretic.

IngoB, I think your definition of 'heretic' derives from your membership of a church that considers itself 100% correct on all theological matters (are you saying anyone not in the Catholic church is, by definition, a heretic?). For those of us whose church does not claim this, I suspect the word means something rather different.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Is the Pope a Catholic, South Coast Kevin?

[Biased]

Of course the RCs and the Orthodox regard the rest of us as 'heretics' and 'schismatics' at worst, 'heterodox' at best ...

But that doesn't mean they think we suck.

It bothered me when I first came across it, but it bothers me less now. Because we can agree to disagree on certain aspects and find common ground on others.

If anything, in practical terms, when it comes to 'disfellowshipping' people or kicking or manipulating people out of the way if they don't conform, I'm sure that many of the 'new churches' and some of the older non-conformist churches can be a lot more strict and restrictive than the RCs and other sacramentalist churches can.

I once expressed mild surprise when an admittedly bit-of-a-handful church-hopper guy started attending talks and things at a local RC college. This was back in my more full-on Protestant days.

His reply was, "Why not? It's not the RCs who are disfellowshipping me, or 'handing me over to Satan' and so on ..."
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is the Pope a Catholic, South Coast Kevin?

[Biased]

Of course the RCs and the Orthodox regard the rest of us as 'heretics' and 'schismatics' at worst, 'heterodox' at best ...

But that doesn't mean they think we suck.
Heh, fair point! I was just noting that I'd use the word 'heretic' in a very different way to IngoB (if I used the word at all), and following from this perhaps that's why I find the word distasteful. Seeing as I don't believe there to be one particular church / movement / denomination that is 100% correct, I'm reluctant to use such a (in my view) judgemental word as 'heretic'.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, yes ... that's axiomatic ...

But I would hazard a guess, Kevin, that you do believe that there is a 'body of doctrine' that is orthodox (small o) and of universal acceptance -'that believed everywhere and by all.'

If you didn't then there would be no grounds for suggesting, say, that Mormons and JWs were 'marginal' and not fully kosher in terms of their Christology, lack of a Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead and in various other aspects besides.

In which case, you will (like the rest of us) have some notion of what is heretical and what isn't.

The only difference, that I can see, between your position and that of the RCs and Orthodox is that in the latter case they identify the received tradition with a particular ecclesial body - ie. themselves.

Why do you choose to worship at a Vineyard church, for instance, rather than at the Anglican church down the road? You must be identifying something within your own set-up that you feel is closer to your own particular understanding of what is scriptural/orthodox worthy of all acceptation etc ... otherwise you wouldn't bother with it at all.

It's just a question of how lightly or tightly you wish to tie the knot.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I would never use the word 'heretic' merely to describe someone who believes in one doctrine I consider to be false. That would set the bar ludicrously low, ISTM, so that only those with an entirely correct understanding of God / faith / theology could escape the charge of being a heretic.
Well, if someone's opinion was only "mildly false" concerning some doctrine, or if a false doctrine was considered to be of only "minor importance", then I guess one would not usually speak of heresy but of "confusion" or the like. In saying "heresy" we tend to assume a clearly distinct doctrine of sufficient significance. But then indeed even a single one is sufficient.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
IngoB, I think your definition of 'heretic' derives from your membership of a church that considers itself 100% correct on all theological matters (are you saying anyone not in the Catholic church is, by definition, a heretic?).
Well, the RCC doesn't consider herself to be 100% correct on all theological matters. There's a lot more RC theology than RC certainty to be had. But on doctrinal matters where theological variation is allowed to some degree, there still generally are limits. And one can then step outside of the limits. For example, various doctrines concerning predestination have been proposed within the RCC. They are at considerable odds with each other, but can all be licitly held by RCs for the time being. However, this is not true for the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, which is heretic by RC lights.

I think practically speaking all Christians outside of the RCC are indeed heretics in one way or the other, at least if this separation is "historical". It is theoretically possible to be a schismatic without being a heretic, and for example it is often considered polite to pretend that Eastern Orthodoxy is a pure schism with no heresy. But if it is not heresy that caused schism in the first place, then schism will breed heresy in short order.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And vice-versa, of course, IngGoB - the RCC view of the Orthodox seems like a mirror-image of the Orthodox view of the RCC. Each accuses the other of schism.

Mind you, the Orthodox can be less polite and certainly consider some RCC views to be heretical ...
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
When my grandmother asked me if I couldn't put my animosity to the Catholic Church aside and actually get myself confirmed I finally told her I was a Buddhist. She thought about it for a while and then said "but you could at least be a Catholic Buddhist".

I never did tell her I was an Anglican for a while...
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And vice-versa, of course, IngGoB - the RCC view of the Orthodox seems like a mirror-image of the Orthodox view of the RCC. Each accuses the other of schism.
More properly, they accuse each other of having caused the original schism. Perhaps they should better accuse each other of maintaining the schism. Though that is rare, probably because maintaining something might make it our own fault, and it is much safer to talk of the faults of people long dead. However, it is kind of pointless to accuse each other of schism as such. The schism just is an ecclesiastic fact.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mind you, the Orthodox can be less polite and certainly consider some RCC views to be heretical ...
Actually, even the schism tends to get downplayed a lot from the RC side these days as a series of unfortunate misunderstandings and cultural incompatibilities. It is rather clear who wants to get in bed with whom, and who doesn't...
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Was Paul a Petrine Supremacist ? Was Peter an Immaculate Conceptionist ? Was John a Transubstantiationlist ?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ah, but do the RCs simply want to get into bed with the Orthodox and cuddle up to them - or do they want to roger them ruthlessly and then light up a cigarette without even asking, 'How was it for you?'

There are good reasons why the rest of us are wary of Rome, even when she comes with an olive-branch in hand ...

[Razz]

But then, we've also got our own skeletons in the closet and things to live down.

Sometimes though, I think that the mild eccentricities of some of the Protestant sects pale into insignificance when compared with the iniquities of Rome. But then ... it's all relative.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Was the Apostle Paul a penal substitutionist? A saved-by-grace-through-faith-without-any-regard-to-works-ist ...

These guys were no more Protestants than they were Roman Catholics ...
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry to triple post ... I suspect the RCs would find the Orthodox a bit hairy and scratchy if they got into bed with them anyway ...

I must desist ... this is conjuring up plenty of unwholesome images in my mind ...
 
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
(They're now married and both attending the same Anglican parish, where he's preparing for his priestly ordination)
What a very sad end to the story. I remember now why the Catholic Church discourages mixed marriages and requires a dispensation by proper ecclesiastical authority, which may only be granted if there is good reason to believe that it will not be prejudicial the the practice of the Catholic faith of the Catholic party.
Hmmm...I have a Catholic sister-in-law who married an Episcopalian, in the Episcopal church. The marriage was con-validated a couple of years later. Now, nearly 30 years later, the Episcopalian has converted to Catholicism and is a practicing Catholic, while the Catholic sister-in-law has left the church, in anger over the sex abuse scandals. Go figure.

[ 11. July 2012, 16:28: Message edited by: sonata3 ]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would hazard a guess, Kevin, that you do believe that there is a 'body of doctrine' that is orthodox (small o) and of universal acceptance -'that believed everywhere and by all.'
I guess so, but for me it's a pretty small body of doctrine. And I think (not been in the situation so can't be sure) that I'd be happy to take part in something like a cross-church outreach activity with Mormons etc., as much as were possible given the doctrinal differences.*

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Why do you choose to worship at a Vineyard church, for instance, rather than at the Anglican church down the road...? It's just a question of how lightly or tightly you wish to tie the knot.
Indeed so. But I don't have the idea that my church tradition has it fully right or even has it fully right when making an official pronouncement (like the Catholic 'ex cathedra' thing). So when someone leaves my church and joins, for example, the Anglican church down the road, I don't consider them to be heretical / schismatic / heterodox or in error. ISTM the Catholic Church would do so.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...the RCC doesn't consider herself to be 100% correct on all theological matters. There's a lot more RC theology than RC certainty to be had. But on doctrinal matters where theological variation is allowed to some degree, there still generally are limits. And one can then step outside of the limits.
Thanks for this; I hadn't appreciated that on some issues several options were considered valid by the Catholic Church. But there's obviously still the idea that the Catholic Church can rule on what is correct doctrine. Then, anyone who disagrees is heretical according to the RC definition, right?

*For example, I can't see how a preaching-based activity could work but something that was aimed at raising people's awareness of spiritual issues in a broader sense might fly. Perhaps.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Thanks for this; I hadn't appreciated that on some issues several options were considered valid by the Catholic Church. But there's obviously still the idea that the Catholic Church can rule on what is correct doctrine. Then, anyone who disagrees is heretical according to the RC definition, right?
Yes, the RCC can "rule" on doctrine. However, that word is misleading. The idea is very much not that bishops and pope can just invent any rule they see fit. The idea is that there is a "deposit of faith", an original store of orthodox teaching and practice, that was given to the Church through the initial apostolic witness to Christ. The job of bishops and pope, the successors of the original apostles, is to expound and develop these truths ever further and interpret them appropriately for each place and time. But they may not "invent" anything, it must all convincingly relate back to the original "deposit of faith". Furthermore, there is a steady accumulation of prior exposition and interpretation that limits how far one can go even in terms of reading new things into old texts and traditions. Just how strong these limits are depends on the authority assumed for these prior efforts, but this can have essentially Divine force. For example, where the Church fathers agree unanimously, or where an ecumenical council has spoken in agreement with the pope, there future dissent is simply not possible. Not for a lay person, but also not for a bishop or pope. Obviously, there can be quite remarkable "wiggle room" in interpretation. Consequently, the real history of RC doctrine and ritual is a lot more "chaotic" than one might expect. But this remains constrained "wiggle room", it is not arbitrary movement.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Excellent non sequitur Gamaliel. I mean PERFECT. So it's 1517 for me is it ? Do try a tad of logos in the rhetoric.
 
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Was Paul a Petrine Supremacist ? Was Peter an Immaculate Conceptionist ? Was John a Transubstantiationlist ?
Possibly. The best people to ask would be their disciples - try the Apostolic Fathers.

But let's get dirty. Were they Trinitarian?
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
I have noticed that some groups who feel they have a monopoly over the word 'Christian' tend to give the word Three Full Syllables in a sort of prominent Adam's apple-gasp-gulp-spikey fingered-goggle eyed manner:

Chrest-Ee-Aan
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, I would suggest that the issues you are raising here, Martin, are more redolent of 1517 than they are of AD 117 ...
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Ah HAH Edward Green. Of course they weren't. It wouldn't have entered their heads. The need for the doctrine didn't exist. Why would it ? They seemed perfectly at home with unanswerable mysteries. With being implicit trinitarians. And the traditions of Rome are not connected to the first century church. The connection is LOST in Roman culture. The same goes for Constantinople and Greek culture. As for the far vaster Syriac-Nestorian culture vaguely centred on Antioch (you know, the church Peter was actually the first 'pope' of, where he was probably martyred) and other less Hellenized centres, well.

All of these cultures were Christianized and virtually immediately projected themselves back down the wrong end of the telescope, creating competing national, political, self-serving, money grubbing myths, gospels, heresies, dogmata, instant 'traditions' that have NOTHING to do with C1st apostolic ecclesiology let alone soteriology.

The apostolic church was pre-Catholic. Pre-Orthodox.

And Gamaliel, I'm not projecting my post-Armstrong, post-Protestant, post-Evangelical, post-modernism back on to the oecumenical church. I'm happy that God has worked with and despite any and every cultural tradition since and continues to do so. I'm NOT a Protestant any more, I have nothing to protest about. Apart from late traditional exclusion. As Kaplan Corday put it, ecclesiology at the expense of soteriology. I do not believe that Protestantism - 'rebellion' from Rome - is the faith once delivered. Just natural, inevitable evolution. Like U.S. independence from Britain. Grace bursts in on us all regardless.

As long as we ALL keep going forward, we'll get back.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for evangelicals and penties not being indifferent to the Church ... yes, I'd agree with that, but would also say that to some extent many of them over-react to a vacuum in their ecclesiology by creating ecclesial structures that are just, if not more, restrictive than the sacramental/episcopal or more Catholic ones that they might rail against.
Again you're generalising ("many"!) from occasional authoritarian oddballs, and as for a "vacuum in their ecclesiology", I don't know what on earth you're talking about.

What vacuum?

What scripturally necessary element does evangelical ecclesiology lack which other traditions possess?

quote:
At least the Orthodox preferred exile (or 'mild' dismemberment [Eek!] ) to outright execution when dealing with 'heretics' and 'schismatics'.
Well yes, Constantinople had a rich tradition of blinding, not to mention rhinokopia, but this is all irrelevant.

You appear to think that I was attempting some sort of Protestant Truth Society tract by mentioning RC autos de fe.

I am perfectly aware that nearly all Christian traditions have much to be ashamed of in this area, and I have referred to Protestant persecutions in the past.

The point I was making was that heretic/schismatic can and has been used synonymously with unbeliever/non-Christian/damned.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, I am well aware that you would denounce examples of Protestant persecution of dissenters/heretics/schismatics/whatever else just as much as Roman or Byzantine examples.

That wasn't really the issue.

'Vacuum' might be too strong a word, but I think it is amply demonstrable that evangelicalism per se suffers from a weak ecclesiology - inevitably so. It's part and parcel of what makes evangelicalism evangelicalism.

As to what is missing scripturally ... well, I'm not sure I'd be the one to read back the three-fold ministries of Bishop, priest and deacon into the NT (although I would say that these developed from earlier models) but I would suggest that evangelical Protestantism often lacks an appreciation of the broader tradition from which we all stem and the sense of Church Militant/Church Triumphant which one encounters in the more sacramental traditions.

I am not holding up one against the other - there appear to me to be equal and opposite dangers on both sides ... which is probably a very 'Anglican' position to take.

The scriptural thing is a tricky one of course. Do we see the descriptions/hints of how the NT churches conducted themselves as prescriptive, normative or as providing guidelines capable of further development?

That's a whole other issue and a whole other thread.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Late entry, perhaps, but for the sake of documentation, I too have found that "Catholics =/= Christians" is in my experience a normative evangelical viewpoint. But I live in Wales, which is something of a British Bible Belt, for what it's worth.

For example, the UCCF Christian Union of which I was a member had, as one of its many unchallenged assumption, that Catholics were not in fact Christians.

Likewise, there were many in the Baptist church in which I spent all those years who had the same issue. I remember writing a piece in the church magazine about Mother Teresa shortly after she died, only to see a letter in the same rag the following month from someone upset that I should write about a Catholic in a Christian magazine.

I know one couple from that church who were sent as missionaries to Italy and who I think are still there. The last report I read, a few years ago, talked about "Christian minorities" as distinct from the Catholics.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
In Brazilian cities, you'll actually find a lot of graffity saying Catolicismo é pecado ("Catholicism is a sin"), usually followed by a reference to some Bible verse.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
There was that mark of true genius, the double pun, in New Scientist about 11 years ago in an article about the head of the Philippines' RCC and prophylaxis and birth control: Cardinal Sin.

[ 12. July 2012, 17:24: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Antioch [...] where [Peter] was probably martyred
[Confused] That's a vanishingly rare opinion, Martin. Where do you get that from?
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I think it is amply demonstrable that evangelicalism per se suffers from a weak ecclesiology - inevitably so. It's part and parcel of what makes evangelicalism evangelicalism.
It is not demonstrable at all.

Evangelicalism holds to a low ecclesiology, which is a world away from saying that it has a weak ecclesiology.

quote:
As to what is missing scripturally ... well, I'm not sure I'd be the one to read back the three-fold ministries of Bishop, priest and deacon into the NT (although I would say that these developed from earlier models) but I would suggest that evangelical Protestantism often lacks an appreciation of the broader tradition from which we all stem and the sense of Church Militant/Church Triumphant which one encounters in the more sacramental traditions.
What "earlier models"?

Earlier than what - the New Testament?

You have probably read the comment of the church historian who wrote re monepiscopacy: "The church entered the tunnel of the second century and emerged with a bishop on the cowcatcher".

The concepts, if not the terminology, of the church militant and church triumphant, are actually absolutely central to evangelical ecclesiology.

quote:

The scriptural thing is a tricky one of course. Do we see the descriptions/hints of how the NT churches conducted themselves as prescriptive, normative or as providing guidelines capable of further development?

I agree with you that there is no neat, normative and prescriptive pattern for churches in the NT, but it is possible to extract a number of sines qua non, none of which evangelical ecclesiology lacks.

Evangelical ecclesiology recognises all of the four notes and three marks of the church.

[ 13. July 2012, 07:09: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
ok ... 'low' would be a better term than 'weak'. I accept that. In practice, though, it can sometimes be so 'low' that it drops out of the bottom entirely.

I wouldn't accuse you of that, though.

By the 'earlier models' I can see that I constructed my paragraph clumsily. What I meant was that the later orders/offices of bishop, priest and deacon derived from earlier models - ie. those that were operational when the NT was being written.

Metropolitan bishops simply evolved from elders/presbyters with a translocal ministry - ie. those in a market town or city having input into smaller groups of believers in the surrounding countryside. At least, that's how I've understood it to have developed.

I like the tunnel and cow-catcher analogy but I suspect it was a lot less sinister than that. These things simply evolved. Sure, there's a whole load of baggage attached to that, but then there is if we claim that everything somehow went 'wrong' during the 2nd century and even 'wronger' after Constantine's 'conversion' (or conversion) in the 4th century.

You'll excuse me when I plead that I am generally going on my own personal experience. I recognise that in theory the church militant/church triumphant thing underlies the best of evangelical theology and practice ... but increasingly, I submit, much of evangelicalism is losing that kind of focus and becoming desperately individualistic.

Indeed, and I'd be interested in your views on this one, I would go so far as to suggest that contemporary evangelicalism can only maintain any semblance of spiritual health by drawing on the heritage of the older traditions - be they the wider Reformed tradition (of which evangelicalism is a subset) or the more Catholic traditions.

Stings doesn't it? But from where I'm sat it certainly appears to be the case. Evangelicalism does have a proud heritage and its own inner resources - but to a large extent I would suggest that these are aspects which it holds on trust as part of a deposit of the broader and wider tradition.

Left to its own devices and cut off to some extent from that wider tradition it can run down some very odd side-alleys.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Wow. I hadn't thought to abandon my thread like that, but the fever at the neuralgic interface between Catholic and Protestant was certainly more than I bargained for.

I thought best to let the fever run its course and then to let the thread drop off the first page before returning to it.

I hope the hosts will forgive this thread necromancy, but I've been asked to try again to get useful answers to this pastoral problem.

My opening post is here.

The questions I sought answers for were these:
  1. Am I right to take an oblique tack and merely reply to #1, "Oh, I'm Christian and catholic" and then move the conversation on?
  2. Is this a pond difference? Is there this calculated, sustained, and slanderous attack made on Catholics only in the US?
  3. Is there a regional aspect to this even in the US? A concerted anti-Catholic "evangelizing" effort in Catholic redoubts?
  4. My approach to ministry here has been to sidestep the issue and preach a solid catholic faith. (For example, when I employ books outside the 66-book Protestant canon, I make no special notice of it.) Ought I sally forth occasionally and denounce the idea that Catholics are not Christian?
  5. How else might I consider treating this egregious belief?
  6. Is it really that egregious?
The answers seem to be:
  1. Probably, but see below.
  2. No and no.
  3. Apparently not and yes.
  4. I'm thinking, yes, definitely, but only occasionally.
  5. Very gingerly.
  6. No, in the sense of outside the pale. Yes, in the sense of offensive and tendentious.
As to question #1, it's not enough simply to sidestep things.

I found myself this evening in the position of needing to convey, The Christian belief is such and so, by which I meant the common belief of Trinitarian Christians.

Maybe I should just accept the burden of adding the cumbersome adjective Trinitarian to the adjective Christian every time I need the adjective Christian, rather than trying to thread the needle between the anti-Catholics and the Catholics.

Maybe I should confront false notion that all y'all Catholics are going to hell unless you accept Jesus in the way that we right-bible-believing Christians say you should.


Thank you to Amazing Grace and others who attempted to handle these questions pastorally.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
I was the one that asked TSA how this was progressing.

I agree that most of this thread has been tangential to your topic.

As the questions are asked in a pastoral care context I would think the answers for Qs 1 & 4-6 should suit that context.

The pastoral care framework with which I am familiar has a function called "nurturing spiritual growth" and a chaplain would expect to find some (not all) situations where this may be appropriate. But even if it is appropriate, is the confrontation of false notions the best approach? In a pastoral situation getting someone to agree with 'correct doctrine' or whatever is likely to be meeting our own needs rather than theirs.

I would also bear in mind that people who have recently 'converted' will want to have something to distinguishes them from their previous beliefs. I would expect that their need to dwell on a Catholic/Christian divide will often diminish or evaporate in time.

So I think these are situations where you should use your wisdom to provide a person-focused rather than truth focused response.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

It's true that the outreach group from the local, bible-believing Gospel Hall, who come one night a week, preach quite frankly that Catholics are going to hell, but that one outpost of fundamentalism can't account for all of it.
It doesn't. According to NPR recently, there is a rather coherent campaign on the part of Evangelicals not only to engage in what I would call sheep-stealing, but to do it with political motives.

A spokesman explained that Evangelicals are so-called because they evangelize. There's nothing wrong with doing that per se. But they are concerned about the weakness of the Republican party among Latinos and want to strengthen it by turning Latino Catholics into right-wing Protestants. The fact that, for the most part, this means persuading a particularly vulnerable segment of the population (vulnerable because they are suddenly in an unfamiliar culture and language) to change from one form of Christian faith to another cuts no ice. They call it growth. And "Mexicans are natural conservatives." They just need to realize where their true interest lies, ha ha.

Sure, I have to grant consenting adults the right to go where they wish. Perhaps many Catholic pastors in Latin America are too complacent and have neglected to teach their people sufficiently to resist such blandishments. Their ministry in the U.S. might be inadequate as well. Still, it smells.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

I think that kind of attitude is relatively rare in the UK, but it does exist.

The best approach I can think of is just to stay calm and counter the suggestion as politely as you can manage. In most cases I hope it would be more thoughtless than malicious. Most will probably continue to believe that Catholics are not 'saved', but some might listen.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
So, this issue (and thread) just won't go away.

Last night, two clients sat me down and asked,
quote:
What's up with the guys on Monday night? They said:
  1. Catholics and all mainstream Protestants are going to hell.
  2. The only way to go to heaven is to say and believe certain words (essentially the bit in Romans about confessing and believing).
  3. Then, you are saved no matter how much you sin afterward.
  4. Even Jeffrey Dahmer [the killer and eater of male young adults] got saved and is now in heaven.
To which the clients said they responded:
quote:
  1. There has got to be more to it than just saying a bunch of words in front of some people at a set time and place.
  2. But, if that's all there is to it, then [sarcastically] sign me up.
  3. It's hard for me to believe that even skinners [those accused and convicted of sex crimes] get to heaven.
  4. What do you think?
  5. What's up with the guys on Monday night?
These happened to be Catholic men, but any I say is overheard, repeated, and discussed, sometimes at length, after I'm gone. (Beyond the television and a few clinical groups, there isn't much else with which to entertain oneself in this facility, so I don't get a big head about it.)

Besides the majority of Catholics, there are also clients raised Protestant, those who have been attracted to fundamentalist churches, a few men raised in, broadly, the Black Church, a man raised in a mixed Jewish-Christian home, and non-Christian Native Americans.

I'm all for meeting folk where they are in their spiritual journey, but at some point isn't it my duty to confront and refute dangerous theology?
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Evangelicals are so-called because they evangelize.
No they're not.

Evangelicals are so-called because they believe in what they hold to be the evangel.

Yes, evangelicals do evangelise, but confusion of the terms evangelical and evangelist is usually found in the theologically illiterate secular media.

If evangelicals are evangelising Latinos it is because they believe that they need to hear the gospel to be saved.

It's just possible there's a miniscule minority who are doing it for the secondary or or even primary motive of strengthening the Republican party.

What seems far more probable is that this smear is a conspiracy theory dreamed up by paranoid anti-evangelical bigots, but if NPR says it is true, then obviously it must be.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
.

I'm all for meeting folk where they are in their spiritual journey, but at some point isn't it my duty to confront and refute dangerous theology?
No, it's not.

My wife is a psychotherapist, and when she started in her present job many years ago she was warned that she was under no circumstances to bring her Christian faith into her work.

Eventually, as a result of her consistent professionalism, she has been recognized as a sort of de facto chaplain, and trusted to deal with patients who request an opportunity to discuss specifically “spiritual” aspects of their situations.

She would not dream of correcting a client’s theology, let alone proselytizing, but she will, with integrity, draw on the resources of a client’s faith tradition.

Thus, for example, when dealing (as she often does) with troubled Catholics, she can suggest that they think about the grace and forgiveness which is a theme of their Catholicism, and not just its punitive, judgmental aspects.

If anyone in your situation was prepared to overstep professional boundaries and engage in explicit sectarian propaganda, I have little doubt that there would be every bit as much (or considerably more) theological error and confusion amongst Catholics as amongst evangelicals.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
.

I'm all for meeting folk where they are in their spiritual journey, but at some point isn't it my duty to confront and refute dangerous theology?
No, it's not.
I agree with KC as I think that you then move outside the pastoral care realm of a chaplain.

I also ask:
To whom do think it is your duty? and
What is the danger and to whom do you think it is dangerous?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
To whom do think it is your duty? and
What is the danger and to whom do you think it is dangerous?
Thank you for these questions. I believe I can directly address them both by answering just the first: It my duty to those Catholics who are being told that their Catholicism is sending them to Hell.

Normally, I redirect questions about differences between my beliefs and those of the bible-believing Gospel Hall by asking what the client thinks. When pressed, I will allow that there are differences between what the Gospel Hall folk choose to emphasize and what I emphasize.

But, the other night, two men, who had already heard these two parries, were not messing around. They sat me down wanting an answer. (See here.)

I thought they deserved one.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
Well that is fine to respond like that in those circumstances (which do not sound like pastoral care).

(Incidentally, I find myself questioning which Christians aren't bible-believing in similar circumstances.)
 
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
So, this issue (and thread) just won't go away.

Last night, two clients sat me down and asked,
quote:
What's up with the guys on Monday night? They said:
  1. Catholics and all mainstream Protestants are going to hell.
  2. The only way to go to heaven is to say and believe certain words (essentially the bit in Romans about confessing and believing).
  3. Then, you are saved no matter how much you sin afterward.
  4. Even Jeffrey Dahmer [the killer and eater of male young adults] got saved and is now in heaven.
To which the clients said they responded:
quote:
  1. There has got to be more to it than just saying a bunch of words in front of some people at a set time and place.
  2. But, if that's all there is to it, then [sarcastically] sign me up.
  3. It's hard for me to believe that even skinners [those accused and convicted of sex crimes] get to heaven.
  4. What do you think?
  5. What's up with the guys on Monday night?
These happened to be Catholic men, but any I say is overheard, repeated, and discussed, sometimes at length, after I'm gone. (Beyond the television and a few clinical groups, there isn't much else with which to entertain oneself in this facility, so I don't get a big head about it.)

Besides the majority of Catholics, there are also clients raised Protestant, those who have been attracted to fundamentalist churches, a few men raised in, broadly, the Black Church, a man raised in a mixed Jewish-Christian home, and non-Christian Native Americans.

I'm all for meeting folk where they are in their spiritual journey, but at some point isn't it my duty to confront and refute dangerous theology?
Crikey, I can't believe the "Monday night guys" are saying these things! Wow. How common is this???

I think, since you, TSA, are a chaplain, you do indeed have a duty to say that you yourself--in common with many other Christians--do not agree with that attitude.

Surely that is indeed pastoral care--especially if, as you say in a later post, the Catholic men want to know what you think about the ultimate fate of their souls.

KC's wife--whose work, one could even say ministry, sounds wonderful-- as a psychotherapist was specifically asked not to bring her Christian faith into her work. A chaplain is in a very different position, surely.

The "Monday night guys" are preaching one sort of very narrow Christianity. And taking it upon themselves to make judgements about who is going to hell, which Jesus specifically enjoined us not to do.

Surely as a chaplain, it absolutely is TSA's duty to show another way of being Christian, especially when she is being so directly asked! The "Monday night guys" are not pulling any punches, they are not holding back! So when a Catholic asks you point-blank, "Do you think I'm going to hell, as the Monday night guys say I am?" surely it is absolutely TSA's Christian duty to say, very clearly, no, I do not think that at all.

Cara
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

She would not dream of correcting a client’s theology ..........
Forgive me, but how is this not an example of correcting someone's theology:

quote:

Thus, for example, when dealing (as she often does) with troubled Catholics, she can suggest that they think about the grace and forgiveness which is a theme of their Catholicism, and not just its punitive, judgmental aspects.


 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Ohhhh yes it is TT.

Y no hay nada que perdonar.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ohhhh yes it is TT.

Y no hay nada que perdonar.
While I can make my way in Castilian, Martin might want to have some care for shipmates who do not.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I can see what Kaplan is trying to say, Triple Tiara and would cut him sufficient slack to suggest that his wife is simply directing her clients to notions of grace and forgiveness that are inherent within their own Catholic tradition rather than pointing them away from it.

I'm not sure he expressed himself very well at this point, though.

It's an interesting dilemma. I know someone who is involved with counselling people with mental health issues and she tells me that although she has had people who were RC or Anglican, the majority of those she deals with who have some kind of faith are largely Jehovah's Witnesses or else some form of Pentecostal.

When dealing with the Pentecostals, she directs them back into their own tradition in an attempt to encourage them to pick out of it those elements that don't apparently feed their paranoia. She does not 'blame' their Pentecostalism for their mental health problems but doesn't feel that it helps either. Her hope is that they will take a broader perspective in time and remain within the over-arching Christian tradition whilst abandoning those dualistic or overly fundamentalist elements that contribute to their mental health problems.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not for a moment suggesting that all fundamentalists have mental health problems, but I am suggesting that people who are mentally unstable and find themselves in some kind of fundie set-up (such as the JWs or some forms of Pentecostalism) are bound to pick up unhelpful elements from it.

Conversely, and this isn't an implied criticism of Catholicism, people with mental health issues who find themselves in a Catholic or more sacramental setting may well be drawn to elements within the tradition that their co-religionists are able to process more easily.

So, in an RC setting they may suffer from what people call 'Catholic guilt' or get hung up on particular practices or emphases that 'normal' RCs can deal with conceptually or in practice without it causing them undue mental stress or turmoil.

I think that's what Kaplan meant. But he can answer for himself, of course.

It is a moot point about interfering with people's theology, though. Is the lady I know interfering with her Pentecostal patients' theology if she tries to direct them back to more nuanced aspects of the broader Christian tradition?

Where do we draw the line?
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Forgive me, but how is this not an example of correcting someone's theology:

She is not disputing the correctness of any tenet of their scheme, but reminding them of other emphases within it.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
No problemo AtA
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0