Fissures in Catholic Identity

zoomtard

A question for the Roman Catholics in our midst. I evacuated Rome for Geneva a good few years ago now but am studying with Catholic seminarians in Maynooth. One of the things I have noticed is that much of the more energetic expressions of Roman Catholicism in Ireland are intent on describing themselves as in some senses "real" Catholic.

Has anyone else observed this phenomenon? Am I right in thinking that it happens?

If so, 2 questions follow:

1) Why do Irish Catholic movements feel a need to define themselves against an implicitly "less real" Catholicism?

2) Do you see this as a healthy or a destructive trend?

Jester Minute

zoomtard wrote: »

A question for the Roman Catholics in our midst. I evacuated Rome for Geneva a good few years ago now but am studying with Catholic seminarians in Maynooth. One of the things I have noticed is that much of the more energetic expressions of Roman Catholicism in Ireland are intent on describing themselves as in some senses "real" Catholic.

Has anyone else observed this phenomenon? Am I right in thinking that it happens?

If so, 2 questions follow:

1) Why do Irish Catholic movements feel a need to define themselves against an implicitly "less real" Catholicism?

2) Do you see this as a healthy or a destructive trend?

It depends.

If they see themselves as 'real Catholics' because they are 'Irish Catholics', then that is BS. Pure and simple.

However, if they see themselves as 'real Catholics' becuase they are faithful to the Holy Father, Sacred tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church, then they would be quite correct. For far too long in Ireland, there has been this daft notion that the only 'real Catholic' was an 'Irish Catholics'. Like I say, that's BS.

A 'real Catholic' is one who is faithful to all that the Church teaches and does not follow a dissenting agenda.

Sorry, your questions:

They may feel the need to distance themselves from the damaging influence of the dissenters (those who rejected Humana vitae and promote gay sex and women priests in the Catholic Church) who are teaching and working in Maynooth and its true that like-minded people associate with one another. A real Catholic holds fast to all that the Church teaches, not picking and choosing. A strong Catholic identity and support network among good seminarians can support them against the abuses and heresy which is still rampant at Maynooth. I think it is a very good thing. With the invention of the internet and rapid communications, it is no longer possible to keep the wool over people's eyes, and the Maynooth authorities are realising this at long last.

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

It depends.

If they see themselves as 'real Catholics' because they are 'Irish Catholics', then that is BS. Pure and simple.

However, if they see themselves as 'real Catholics' becuase they are faithful to the Holy Father, Sacred tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church, then they would be quite correct. For far too long in Ireland, there has been this daft notion that the only 'real Catholic' was an 'Irish Catholics'. Like I say, that's BS.

A 'real Catholic' is one who is faithful to all that the Church teaches and does not follow a dissenting agenda.

Sorry, your questions:

They may feel the need to distance themselves from the damaging influence of the dissenters (those who rejected Humana vitae and promote gay sex and women priests in the Catholic Church) who are teaching and working in Maynooth and its true that like-minded people associate with one another. A real Catholic holds fast to all that the Church teaches, not picking and choosing. A strong Catholic identity and support network among good seminarians can support them against the abuses and heresy which is still rampant at Maynooth. I think it is a very good thing. With the invention of the internet and rapid communications, it is no longer possible to keep the wool over people's eyes, and the Maynooth authorities are realising this at long last.

I appreciate the consistency/sincerity of the 'real' Catholic, but as an on-looker I wonder if their position is not undermined by the history of the RCC. As the papacy is held to be the final arbiter of the truth, if the papacy comes to the view held by today's Catholic dissenters, won't that then be the orthodox position - and today's orthodox become tomorrow's dissenters?
_________________________________________________________________
Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Jester Minute

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appreciate the consistency/sincerity of the 'real' Catholic, but as an on-looker I wonder if their position is not undermined by the history of the RCC. As the papacy is held to be the final arbiter of the truth, if the papacy comes to the view held by today's Catholic dissenters, won't that then be the orthodox position - and today's orthodox become tomorrow's dissenters?
_________________________________________________________________
Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

The Roman Pontiff is bound by the Sacred Tradition. He can't say white is black today when it was white yesterday.

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

The Roman Pontiff is bound by the Sacred Tradition. He can't say white is black today when it was white yesterday.

So John XX111 and Benedict are in full agreement?

_________________________________________________________________
Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Jester Minute

wolfsbane wrote: »

So John XX111 and Benedict are in full agreement?

Show me key doctrinal issues on which they disagree.

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

Show me key doctrinal issues on which they disagree.

I'm asking, not asserting. I got the impression that many conservative Catholics thought John did indeed err on some 'key doctrinal issues'. Is he in good standing with conservative Catholics?

Has the papacy never held error?

_________________________________________________________________
Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Jester Minute

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm asking, not asserting. I got the impression that many conservative Catholics thought John did indeed err on some 'key doctrinal issues'. Is he in good standing with conservative Catholics?

Has the papacy never held error?

_________________________________________________________________
Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Dissenters misrepresent Pope John XXIII. He's not the man they think, or want to think he was.

His opening address to the Second Vatican Council would put to death any idea that he was a dissenter.

I often say that if the internet had been invented sooner, the ''Spirit of Vatican II'' dissenter crowd wouldn't have had so much success.

Popes can err on some matters and private opinions but never when they teach definitively on faith and morals. The article below on Wikipedia explains the Magisterium.

To understand Papal Infallibility:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

This useful too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

zoomtard

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am an ordinand of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

Plowman, I found your answer very helpful. I think "real" Catholicism is probably an implicit way of asserting their superiority without descending into language games like "traditional" and "modern" that tend to lose them support. I also suspect that it is a negative trend to define yourself against an other, especially an other fellow set of Christians. But what the Spirit is stirring up in young Catholics in Ireland may well yet turn out to be the best thing in centuries so let's keep praying for it!

Jester Minute wrote: »

They may feel the need to distance themselves from the damaging influence of the dissenters (those who rejected Humana vitae and promote gay sex and women priests in the Catholic Church) who are teaching and working in Maynooth...

I would like you to substantiate these slanderous claim (by pm) or withdraw it from this public forum. You can't go round launching anonymous attacks on people on a thread open to everyone where Christians are displaying the way in which we live - it is utterly incongruous!

lmaopml

Good topic Zoomtard, and well put.

Personally, I don't make assumptions about what kind of a Catholic my brother is, modern or traditional means very little to me in the context of being a 'Catholic'. If somebody says to me they are Catholic, well that's enough for me, whether they like the latin mass or are into the nitty gritty is immaterial in the overall context of their Catholic'ness

In fairness to Jester though, and I have no idea what goes on in Maynooth etc. so I will initially seperate myself from those comments..

However, I can see why 'some' Catholics may feel deflated or glum in relation to how the faith is/was being taught and the proof of the pudding is in it's faithful - some of whom don't really seem to understand the big things, mass and how Jesus/Eucharist is so central, alive and vital, and may be more inclined to be 'cultural' Catholics. I can kind of see where Jester is coming from in that sense because it's very obvious at times...Nevertheless, we can't make too many assumptions about this either, or assume too much about our fellow Catholics.

However, I am upbeat and optimistic in my outlook. I think there is a very real shift at the moment with young people coming back and owning their faith in a way like never before, in a very educated way - it's a sad thing though, that many of them have to 'do it themselves' because there is something lacking in the way the faith is/was being taught, or else it just isn't working anymore the way it did in the past - the communication of that faith. That starts in the home of course. Perhaps most of our parents were inclined to be solid Catholic and didn't really question anything or need to in order to have tremendous faith, but that dynamic has changed with this generation....and it's not all bad. I myself was agnostic at one stage.



I think it's going full circle though. It makes for interesting times....and it's necessary.

This is perhaps the phenomena that you have observed taking place, the debate as to how best resolve the communication between the priesthood and the people...Some priests have it nailed - some, like in any faith, or discussion etc. - not so much.

My tuppence

Jester Minute

zoomtard wrote: »

I am an ordinand of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

Plowman, I found your answer very helpful. I think "real" Catholicism is probably an implicit way of asserting their superiority without descending into language games like "traditional" and "modern" that tend to lose them support. I also suspect that it is a negative trend to define yourself against an other, especially an other fellow set of Christians. But what the Spirit is stirring up in young Catholics in Ireland may well yet turn out to be the best thing in centuries so let's keep praying for it!

I would like you to substantiate these slanderous claim (by pm) or withdraw it from this public forum. You can't go round launching anonymous attacks on people on a thread open to everyone where Christians are displaying the way in which we live - it is utterly incongruous!

This topic has already been discussed on boards.ie:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055924911

Also:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/I've+lost+my+job+for+telling+the+truth+but+I've+no+regrets;+For...-a0232188992

http://irishcatholics.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=catholics&action=display&thread=544&page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enda_McDonagh

http://www.thepost.ie/archives/2001/0121/decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-empire-171610038.html

http://infelixego.blogspot.com/2008/05/visit-to-maynooth.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/seminarians-drank-had-girlfriends-priest-says-307622.html

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/problems-in-the-seminary-at-maynooth-ireland/

http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2010/05/kerfuffle-at-maynooth.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dooley+'sacked+for+seminary+exposes'-a0232189024

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledwith

And it's not just one Dr. Mark Dooley making these claims. The problems in the Irish Catholic Church have an awful lot to do with Maynooth and what has gone on there for a long time. There were lecturers in Maynooth who dissented from Catholic faith and morals, there is also evidence from a good priest now based in Donegal who also happens to write in the ALIVE! newspaper about gay marriage advocacy. But the teachings on contraception have been dissented from, for example by (Fr) Enda McDonagh. If that has changed and is no longer the case, it's news to me. There's a lot that has gone on that we won't ever hear about. I've no doubt that it was the dissent from official Church teachings on sexuality and sexual immorality at Maynooth which has played a major role in our current difficulties. The articles I link to speak a lot more strongly about it than anything I could say myself. I've only personal anecdotes.

A DRINK-FUELLED, sexually charged atmosphere among seminarians in Maynooth saw some go on drinking binges while others had girlfriends and carried condoms, a priest who trained there claimed yesterday.
Other trainee priests had "inappropriate" relationships with other men in the college, Fr Joseph Briody said in a frank article in The Irish Catholic newspaper.

And one retreat director for the young priests even advocated gay marriages, he said.

Heavy drinking also played a part with a team skills weekend degenerating into a nightly drinking session, he said.

"Often the St Joseph Young Priest Society money was spent in the pubs on drunken binges," he said.

He criticised the the methods used to train priests in Irish seminaries. The young teaching priest spent 12 years living in seminaries while studying.

Fr Briody from Glenties, Co Donegal and now teaching in Ballyshannon, said many "unedifying" stories are emerging of life in a seminary.

-- http://www.independent.ie/national-news/seminarians-drank-had-girlfriends-priest-says-307622.html

zoomtard

As a current student in Maynooth, who as a Reformed ordinand tends to get into lots of conversations about sacramental theology, I have never yet encountered a lecturer who is anything but orthodox in their espousal of Roman Catholic doctrine and I want to vouch publicly on this thread (and any others that might start on this forum) that the priests I have met are almost to a man exceptional examples of disciples whom I have the utmost personal respect for.

Commies under the bed syndrome seems to be running rife in this thread and it is dismaying. The Catholic church will not be renewed as long as it looks at easy (and wrong) answers such as "14 lecturers aren't ultra-montane enough", which is what seems to be communicated here.

Jester Minute

zoomtard wrote: »

As a current student in Maynooth, who as a Reformed ordinand tends to get into lots of conversations about sacramental theology, I have never yet encountered a lecturer who is anything but orthodox in their espousal of Roman Catholic doctrine and I want to vouch publicly on this thread (and any others that might start on this forum) that the priests I have met are almost to a man exceptional examples of disciples whom I have the utmost personal respect for.

Commies under the bed syndrome seems to be running rife in this thread and it is dismaying. The Catholic church will not be renewed as long as it looks at easy (and wrong) answers such as "14 lecturers aren't ultra-montane enough", which is what seems to be communicated here.

I'm not sure where you're getting your "14 lecturers aren't ultra-montane enough" statement from. I've not said that nor have I espoused such an idea. I've provided solid evidence about immorality and heterodoxy in my above post which you haven't made any comment on except to put statements in my mouth about ultramontanism. I also recognise that there are some good priests and lecturers at Maynooth, bot past and present, but this doesn't lessen the fact that there are also major problems. All I would ask for is that those who would teach Catholic faith and morals would hold fast and completely to the Catholic faith as contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If any priest or lecturer in Maynooth cannot do that then they have no business forming the priests of tomorrow. That is the Catholic position.

As a little test, one could look at the liturgical formation of seminarians at Maynooth and see how it compares with the output from the Magisterium, particularly concerning the 'Reform of the Reform'. It's clear that the Holy Father is trying to correct the excesses and distortions of the post-concilliar era. How much co-operation is he getting from those who operate the seminary?

I would say that it is difficult for those on the outside to understand the Catholic Church's internal affairs. If you watch the programme in the other thread I began today, you will begin to understand why this is so and begin to see why we are in such a mess today.

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

Dissenters misrepresent Pope John XXIII. He's not the man they think, or want to think he was.

His opening address to the Second Vatican Council would put to death any idea that he was a dissenter.

I often say that if the internet had been invented sooner, the ''Spirit of Vatican II'' dissenter crowd wouldn't have had so much success.

Popes can err on some matters and private opinions but never when they teach definitively on faith and morals. The article below on Wikipedia explains the Magisterium.

To understand Papal Infallibility:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

This useful too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

Thank you for the sources - I'll read up on them.
_________________________________________________________________
Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Jester Minute

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you for the sources - I'll read up on them.
_________________________________________________________________
Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

You should read the opening address of Vatican II if you are interested in John XXIII:

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Jester Minute

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fr Briody is a good priest who is based in north Donegal. He writes in the ALIVE! newspaper and I believe the account he gave in the link I posted above is an accurate and fair account and one that matches what I have been told personally by a seminarian recently. Mark Dooley has written many articles. I've also spoken to seminarians and those who have investigated Maynooth with a view to going there. I also have considered it myself but if I had a vocation I would not go there. I also know that there are several men who have left Maynooth to join French orders. I also know myself, having been to Maynooth, some of what is happening, particularly in liturgical terms.

As for being cynical or cultural or negative or whatever, I'm simply a Catholic who is obedient to the Magisterium and who realises what the Pope is trying to achieve, but seeing that from many key quarters he is not getting the support and co-operation that should be forthcoming.

Also, if you read what Benedict XVI has been saying recently, you will see that my position is the Catholic position. I would refer you particularly to the address and audiences the Pope gave during the year for priests and during the opening and closing addresses/homilies. I can link to them if you will, or else I might post some extracts.

georgieporgy

zoomtard wrote: »

A question for the Roman Catholics in our midst. I evacuated Rome for Geneva a good few years ago now but am studying with Catholic seminarians in Maynooth. One of the things I have noticed is that much of the more energetic expressions of Roman Catholicism in Ireland are intent on describing themselves as in some senses "real" Catholic.

Has anyone else observed this phenomenon? Am I right in thinking that it happens?

If so, 2 questions follow:

1) Why do Irish Catholic movements feel a need to define themselves against an implicitly "less real" Catholicism?

2) Do you see this as a healthy or a destructive trend?

Answer 1) These are not just Irish catholic movements. It's a worldwide phenomenon in the RC church. Basically it means the folks who believe and practise what the church teaches are real and those who do not are fake.

Answer 2) Yes,it's a real healthy trend.:)


You seem to have done the honourable thing and left the church and joined an institution with which you felt more at home. This makes you "real" also in the new religion you have chosen.

Dewdropdeb

lmaopml wrote: »

However, I am upbeat and optimistic in my outlook. I think there is a very real shift at the moment with young people coming back and owning their faith in a way like never before, in a very educated way - it's a sad thing though, that many of them have to 'do it themselves' because there is something lacking in the way the faith is/was being taught, or else it just isn't working anymore the way it did in the past - the communication of that faith. That starts in the home of course. Perhaps most of our parents were inclined to be solid Catholic and didn't really question anything or need to in order to have tremendous faith, but that dynamic has changed with this generation....and it's not all bad. I myself was agnostic at one stage.

Could NOT agree more. Very well put. Religious Education needs to be completely rethought. No use promoting concepts without teaching the logic and fundamentals behind them which I found (12 years late I might add) actually make a lot of sense. Youth today thrive on education and the Christian movement in general are not stepping up to this and presenting Christian doctrine in a logical almost scientific manner that would lend it much more credibility.

Back to the original post - I hate this "real Catholic" business. To me it borders on dangerous thinking. I worry that people who take the view that they are in some way superior to Catholics who may not have the same views as them, are not only judging people, but also courting pride in a very dangerous manner.

I would NEVER presume to know what's in someone's heart. Just because outwardly something seems amiss, only God can know someone's heart and soul and I am quite content to leave that in His hands. My effort would be much better spent furthering my own relationship with Him than worrying about perceived errors on others parts.

Jester Minute

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

Could NOT agree more. Very well put. Religious Education needs to be completely rethought. No use promoting concepts without teaching the logic and fundamentals behind them which I found (12 years late I might add) actually make a lot of sense. Youth today thrive on education and the Christian movement in general are not stepping up to this and presenting Christian doctrine in a logical almost scientific manner that would lend it much more credibility.

[...]

I would NEVER presume to know what's in someone's heart. Just because outwardly something seems amiss, only God can know someone's heart and soul and I am quite content to leave that in His hands. My effort would be much better spent furthering my own relationship with Him than worrying about perceived errors on others parts.

Remember that, as Catholics, we are called to exercise the Spiritual Works of Mercy. Your brother might be in desperate need. Are you going to leave him in God's hands when God Himself has asked you to help your brother? You can wish your brother well, but what use is that if you won't extend a hand to help him?

The spiritual works of mercy are:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

The view espoused in the post above appears to tend towards a rather selfish, private 'Me and Jesus' approach to the faith, which is not the Catholic way. Now that you have the Light, you are called to share and to bring that Light to others who are in need. And they are in need, because as you rightly point out, they've never been taught - they do not know the good news. They languish in the darkness of despair and sin.

ISAW

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm asking, not asserting. I got the impression that many conservative Catholics thought John did indeed err on some 'key doctrinal issues'. Is he in good standing with conservative Catholics?

What is a "conservative" Catholic? What is the church conserving in your view?

Has the papacy never held error?

Ill take you up on the "final arbiter" thing too.
Papal Infallibility is a fairly new idea comes from the nineteenth century. It has only been invoked ONCE by any pope.

Popes can and were wrong. They have even been brought before councils of the church. but the Church is assumed to be guided by Christ and as such the leader of the church is also. The RCC believes the universality of Christianity subsists in the Roman church. But other denominations accept the primacy or role of the Bishop of Rome to one degree or another.

Jester Minute

ISAW wrote: »

What is a "conservative" Catholic? What is the church conserving in your view?



Ill take you up on the "final arbiter" thing too.
Papal Infallibility is a fairly new idea comes from the nineteenth century. It has only been invoked ONCE by any pope.

Popes can and were wrong. They have even been brought before councils of the church. but the Church is assumed to be guided by Christ and as such the leader of the church is also. The RCC believes the universality of Christianity subsists in the Roman church. But other denominations accept the primacy or role of the Bishop of Rome to one degree or another.

Only once?

The doctrine of infallibility relies on the notion that the Church allows the office of the Pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the Church.[2] The clearest example (though not the only one[3]) of the use of this power ex cathedra since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, took place in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302[4][5], Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441[6][7], and Pope Pius IX in the Papal constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 1854[8][9] have all spoken "ex cathedra."[10]

-- Wikipedia

The idea of the Pope having the final say on a doctrinal issue is not a new idea.

Just to clarify your other point:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

-- LG, paragragh 8

wolfsbane

ISAW said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm asking, not asserting. I got the impression that many conservative Catholics thought John did indeed err on some 'key doctrinal issues'. Is he in good standing with conservative Catholics?
What is a "conservative" Catholic?

One who holds to the historic teaching of the RCC, as distinct from those who try to modify them or interpret them in a sense other than they have been held.

What is the church conserving in your view?

Its understanding of the faith, especially its understanding of the (RCC) church's role in the Christian life.

Quote:
Has the papacy never held error?
Ill take you up on the "final arbiter" thing too.
Papal Infallibility is a fairly new idea comes from the nineteenth century.

That would be my understanding of the matter - but I gather the RCC claims this doctrine was only made dogma at Vat.1, but had always been held by the church. I assume that applies to more recent dogmas too, like the Assumption of Mary. I gather they deny new revelation, so it must be something held down the ages by Rome. I'm not saying they are being honest about it, just that such is their position.

It has only been invoked ONCE by any pope.

Jester offers contrary evidence.

Popes can and were wrong. They have even been brought before councils of the church. but the Church is assumed to be guided by Christ and as such the leader of the church is also. The RCC believes the universality of Christianity subsists in the Roman church.

Has not the pope a veto on the councils? [Serious question - I assumed he had, and could speak ex cathedra at his own discretion].

But other denominations accept the primacy or role of the Bishop of Rome to one degree or another.

Some do. But Conservative Evangelicals like myself consider the RCC to be apostate, so the pope is seen as having no part in the Christian Church. As an individual he is like any other Catholic - if he has true faith in Christ, he is one of us - despite his role.
_________________________________________________________________
Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Ismhunter

I have noticed a similar thing in my intreactions with Catholics.

I have had some interaction with lefebrists (is that how you spell it?) as well and they above all seem to have this attitude in spades...

However. I'd advise caution on spotting attitudes of superiority as the response in nearly always in kind!!! If i talk to a catholic about those in that church who reckon that they are the real catholics in ireland the response is somewhere between patronisingly seeing them as deluded and/or confused and thinking of them as bigots. It seems that few can see the other side of debate with any charity...

Evangelicals of course are known throughout the world for their unity and love of those within the evangelical world who they disagree with :rolleyes:

If anything the things about this topic that i dislike is when the very thing we are talking about comes out in an attitude rather than actual words. If a person is able to say with humility that they think what they are doing is the correct interpretation of catholicism rather than just carrying around this unsaid air of superiority i think they are on the right track. IMHO the attitude comes from an insecurity and dare i say a lack of faith..

Onesimus

zoomtard wrote: »

A question for the Roman Catholics in our midst. I evacuated Rome for Geneva a good few years ago now but am studying with Catholic seminarians in Maynooth. One of the things I have noticed is that much of the more energetic expressions of Roman Catholicism in Ireland are intent on describing themselves as in some senses "real" Catholic.

Has anyone else observed this phenomenon? Am I right in thinking that it happens?

If so, 2 questions follow:

1) Why do Irish Catholic movements feel a need to define themselves against an implicitly "less real" Catholicism?

2) Do you see this as a healthy or a destructive trend?

It is because they want to have their cake and eat it. That is why they call themselves ''less real'' Catholics. They want to disagree and somehow bend that and profess that they are catholic.

In the church we have two groups who have separated themselves from the Church and yet Rome agrees with neither. We have the traditionalists who want to revert back to Vatican I and we have the modernists who want to create a new church. The Pope himself has stated that in previous statements of his.

The church though will always be more tradtional than the traditionalist and more modern than the modernist and in the end agrees with neither.

ISAW

wolfsbane wrote: »

ISAW said:

I gather the RCC claims this doctrine was only made dogma at Vat.1, but had always been held by the church. I assume that applies to more recent dogmas too, like the Assumption of Mary. I gather they deny new revelation, so it must be something held down the ages by Rome.

By The Church Anglicans and Orthodox Catholics too! they ALL have this doctrine prior to Vatican II. It is written into Roman dogma only after VII however.

Jester offers contrary evidence.

About Bishops and Magesterium which as I stated is held by oither Catholics. The Orthodox in particular have always accepted the Bishop of Rome as one of a few central bishops.

Has not the pope a veto on the councils? [Serious question - I assumed he had, and could speak ex cathedra at his own discretion].

that is a tricky one! Since Vatican I I think the council ( in the Roman cuurch) ceeded power to the Pope of the day. But there IS precedent of council telling the Pope what to do. the Councilo of Constance for example.

Some do. But Conservative Evangelicals like myself consider the RCC to be apostate, so the pope is seen as having no part in the Christian Church.

Apostasy is a violation of orthodoxy. from what orthodox position do you suggest the pope departed?

Most non roman Catholic Christians however do consider the Pope or Bishop of Rome as central in importance . The Orthodox for example.

As an individual he is like any other Catholic - if he has true faith in Christ, he is one of us - despite his role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiology#Roman_Catholic_ecclesiology
Here, the interpersonal aspect of the Church is given primacy and that the structured Church is the result of a real community of believers. Similarly, Yves Congar argued that the ultimate reality of the Church is a fellowship of persons. This ecclesiology opens itself to ecumenism and was the prevailing model used by the Second Vatican Council (itself considered by Roman Catholics an ecumenical council). The Council, using this model, recognized in its document Lumen Gentium that the Body of Christ, though most fully expressed in the Catholic Church (not just "Roman" Catholic, but "catholic" in respect to the Universal Church) is not exclusively tied to any given societal organization, such as any one particular church like the diocese of Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_cathedra#Ex_cathedra
Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott points out[citation needed] several Scriptures which he believes show that the Apostle Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5).

wolfsbane

ISAW said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I gather the RCC claims this doctrine was only made dogma at Vat.1, but had always been held by the church. I assume that applies to more recent dogmas too, like the Assumption of Mary. I gather they deny new revelation, so it must be something held down the ages by Rome.
By The Church Anglicans and Orthodox Catholics too! they ALL have this doctrine prior to Vatican II. It is written into Roman dogma only after VII however.

Are the doctrines of Papal Infallibility and the Assumption of Mary documented in RCC history, or are they a secret tradition known only to insiders?

Quote:
Jester offers contrary evidence.
About Bishops and Magesterium which as I stated is held by oither Catholics. The Orthodox in particular have always accepted the Bishop of Rome as one of a few central bishops.

But not THE bishop, especailly not the one possessing the gift of infallibility.

Quote:
Has not the pope a veto on the councils? [Serious question - I assumed he had, and could speak ex cathedra at his own discretion].
that is a tricky one! Since Vatican I I think the council ( in the Roman cuurch) ceeded power to the Pope of the day. But there IS precedent of council telling the Pope what to do. the Councilo of Constance for example.

Had Vat1 the authority then to cede to the pope? If the pope's claim is true, they did not. THAT seems to me to have been the controversy at the time, and since. See:
CATHOLIC ANSWERS
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=6301139

Quote:
Some do. But Conservative Evangelicals like myself consider the RCC to be apostate, so the pope is seen as having no part in the Christian Church.
Apostasy is a violation of orthodoxy. from what orthodox position do you suggest the pope departed?

So many. But prime examples:
Justification by Faith plus works; Christ sacrificed anew in the mass; a Priesthood separate from the rest of the believers; the Adoration of Mary.

Most non roman Catholic Christians however do consider the Pope or Bishop of Rome as central in importance . The Orthodox for example.

Says something about their theology.

Quote:
As an individual he is like any other Catholic - if he has true faith in Christ, he is one of us - despite his role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesi...c_ecclesiology
Here, the interpersonal aspect of the Church is given primacy and that the structured Church is the result of a real community of believers. Similarly, Yves Congar argued that the ultimate reality of the Church is a fellowship of persons. This ecclesiology opens itself to ecumenism and was the prevailing model used by the Second Vatican Council (itself considered by Roman Catholics an ecumenical council). The Council, using this model, recognized in its document Lumen Gentium that the Body of Christ, though most fully expressed in the Catholic Church (not just "Roman" Catholic, but "catholic" in respect to the Universal Church) is not exclusively tied to any given societal organization, such as any one particular church like the diocese of Rome.

An improvement on the tradition Catholic concept!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_cathedra#Ex_cathedra
Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott points out[citation needed] several Scriptures which he believes show that the Apostle Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5).

Peter was the main leader of the apostles at the start of the Church. But not the pope, not the one who had final say. ALL the apostles shared that authority. Then when Paul was appointed by God, Peter focussed on the Hebrews while Paul focussed on the Gentiles. Not exclusively, by mainly.

Peter did not have authority over Paul, nor any of the apostles. He was among the chief apostles, not over them.

And the apostolic authority passed down in the Word, not in apostolic gifts to anyone else. Elders were ordained who would teach the Word. They had no authority outside the Word. Nor had they the gift of writing new Scripture - only the apostles had that.

So today we have faithful men teaching the Word, bringing the apostolic doctrine in every place. The Holy Spirit gives witness to its truth, and binds our consciences to it. Where men teach error, mistakenly or deliberately, we are not bound to accept it.

_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.