I bet there are a lot of self-identified Catholics who have the incorrect understanding of transubstantiation right now. This is because transubstantiation is a relatively subtle belief compared to the resurrection of Jesus. You can’t just say they weren’t Catholic at all. What were they then? If we pulled up a sample of self identified Catholics, how many would be able to articulate transubstantiation correctly?
3 Likes
Confused Catholics.
1 Like
I like what @swamidass elegantly said, they are
But in reality, if they do not hold de fide beliefs, they are not Catholics.
Of course, one could argue that there is a difference between someone who voluntarily rejects de fide beliefs and someone who are just ignorant that they hold beliefs in contrary to de fide beliefs. I would still claim that neither of them are Catholics, but the Catholic Church would claim that one is closer to salvation than the other.
1 Like
There certainly is a difference. Going back to @John_Dalton’s survey of Latino Catholics, on page 18 it implies that 44% of non-Latino (and 40% of Latino) Catholics believe that “Jesus is not really present” in communion. They literally hold a Protestant view of communion. (And not even Lutheran, but Reformed!) So only slightly more than half of Catholics are confused!
Coming in from the Protestant side, I bet there are plenty of people who have earnest intentions of being followers of Jesus but would not be able to clearly articulate the difference between Sabellianism, Macedonianism, Partialism, Arianism, and Orthodoxy. Just a few months ago I met a new believer who clearly had been spiritually transformed since becoming a Christian, but thought that Jesus was created upon His incarnation - a version of Arianism! After I explained to him the orthodox view, he accept it immediately, but can one really say that he wasn’t a Christian until that moment?
I think as people who spend most of their time around scientists, academics, and other highly educated people, we tend to forget there’s a whole world out there of religious people who aren’t theology nerds like us. This is why, for me, only willful, knowledgeable denial of orthodoxy makes you a heretic or non-Christian.
3 Likes
I am a bit wary of that survey. It looks very simplistic and the wording “Jesus is not really present” might be confusing, especially to people who are not first-language English speakers.
I have no issue calling a Catholic who do not accept de fide beliefs Christians. They are just not Catholics.
I’ve come into the discussion late; has anyone already pointed out that this statement could be taken in two ways? 
Actually, I’m finding Patrick’s frank description of his early Catholic life very illuminating. Given what he was taught (and what the clergy of his day irresponsibly failed to teach him), I can almost sympathize with his reactions, even though I don’t agree with his assessment of the low spiritual potential of Catholicism.
Some of Patrick’s experiences can probably be explained by the era in which he lived; for a large number of Catholics prior to Vatican II, the faith was more about conformity to ancient habit than about real understanding; I think that since Vatican II the Roman Church has realized that its flock is a good deal more intelligent and educated than was previously assumed to be the case, and that doing things just because they have been done way that for generations, without really understanding why you are doing them, is no longer appealing to most Catholics, and not a good recipe for the continuation of vibrant Catholic existence.
(Of course, this problem is not uniquely Catholic; other churches, such as the Anglican, have found that habit can no longer sustain church life – that there must be teaching from clergy who don’t seem bored by their weekly routines, but are actually excited about Christian thought and Christian life, and can convey that excitement to their flocks, and animate them. The churches that have been growing over the past few decades are those with high-energy, committed clerical leadership, who make demands upon their flocks – demands for things other than cash donations and Sunday church attendance. The churches that have relied on transgenerational habit to sustain themselves are all shrinking and dying.)
I think it would be good for Catholic clergy to read Patrick’s experience of Catholicism. They need to see how they have been perceived in the past, in order to understand the mass exodus out of the churches. That would help them chart a more constructive future.
The child abuse scandal is a real window in the depravity in the Catholic Church. People who are investigationg and are applauded by it are not smartasses, they know how absolute power over children, many of them with disabilities has resulted in thousands of lives ruined. What are YOU doing to about it ? Sitting there silently?
I’m certainly not ‘sitting there silently’ and I highly respect people who fight against it, I was talking about people who mention it in a smartass kind of way every time the Catholic church or priesthood is brought into conversation.
Meaning people who want to be funny. This is certainly not, and shouldn’t be, something to joke about. Whether those people are using it as a way to make light of it or to condemn Catholic church. Although I do agree that everyone who participated or covered up the sex assault scandal should suffer consequences for their actions.
1 Like
I am not Roman Catholic; on the contrary, I am an Arminian Baptist as Billy Graham was.
I am an Arminian Baptist and an not a Roman Catholic.
I am telling people that it is “Time to Quit the Catholic Church”. Just quit. Stop giving money. Just stop going. What do you think?
1 Like
Whether it is right or wrong, the right move or not, it seems like a very rational response to what we have seen.
Sure, if the cash flow goes down, and there a fewer butts in the pews, maybe, just maybe, reform will happen.
I believe what @Djordje was talking about, and I do agree, is that there are people who see the sex scandal as a new rhetorical talking point when arguing against the Catholic Church. This could be seen as disrespectful towards the victims.
Indeed, I know a person who is GLAD that the sex abuse scandal happened, because now he has a new talking point with which to debate Catholics with.
In this post: Several States Investigating the Catholic Church - #8 by PdotdQ I mentioned three ways for Catholics to respond. Unless we have a different understanding of what “Church” means, Catholics cannot leave the Church - it is the only one that we believe possess the fullness of truth and all the valid sacraments.
Again, I have talked about my view about this here: Several States Investigating the Catholic Church - #5 by PdotdQ. I don’t know what you mean by “rational”. As before, unless we have a different idea of what “Church” is, it is not logically coherent to leave the Church due to these scandals. My faith is not anchored to the charisma of the leaders of the Church.
2 Likes
We are talking past each other. I never claim that you are a Roman Catholic.
I am afraid I have never done any such thing.
What thing?
Fundamentalist, Evangelical or anti-theist?
I would call him anti-theist, he would call himself utilitarian. Both descriptions apply as somehow his utility function has a penalty towards religion.
1 Like