I wouldn’t worry about what someone else thinks, says or believes there is nothing ever written, thought, read, or taught that wasn’t of human origin, that is a proven fact. One can believe the human they wish, or not. Because a Church made up of humans name a person something doesn’t make it so. It sounds like trying to make a person feel guilty for using their own mind.
I believe this issue is quite important, given the interaction of religion and government in the US. If you can just say you’re X, and that’s necessary and sufficient, then any claim to resist the law because of X has no merit, in my opinion, because we’ve lost the ability to associate tenets of X with individuals claiming to be X.
You don’t get to not pay taxes just cuz. You get to not pay taxes because you’re an established religion. And even then, you’ve got to stick to your religious stuff, or else.
If we give an exemption to a health care coverage law (we shouldn’t, but if we do), then that too is because of X. But if you can just claim to be X even if you disagree on all or most of these points, and we consider that acceptable of everyone claiming to be X, then we cannot be sure what it means socially to be X, and in my opinion any appeal to X as justification for your position goes away.
Fair enough. My parents in law are Ukranian “folk” Catholics - the Ukrainian Rite is a bit of an oddball to begin with (for example, they apparently have married priests), but Ukrainian folk Catholics are, to put it mildly, very … folk. As in, they seem to have created religious rituals and the like that have nothing to do with the hierarchy in Rome. To an outsider like myself (I’m Jewish) it would indeed appear to be a somewhat different religion.
That being said, my main point was that those without belief in any particular religious dogma may still consider themselves “Catholic” because, as it were, Catholicism defines them historically and culturally. I grant there are other dimensions to the question as well.
I dated a Ukranian man years ago and they do except the Pope as head of the church.They are allowed dtheir own rituals,but consider the Pope a sucessor of Peter.
I think Malthus is saying: the rituals are not western Catholic, which is true. They have a lot in common with Orthodoxy in practice, but the beliefs and loyalty are Roman. Similarly, there are the Chaldeans (Iraq), Maronites (Lebanon), Romanian, etc. that are lead by independent Patriarchs who are below the Pope. They may be able to do things like have priests marry, cross and kneel differently, have a different liturgical language than the local language or Latin.
Also, only ~14% of Ukrainians are Catholic. 40% are Kiev Patriarchate Orthodox, and 29% Moscow Patriarchate. I think my cousin’s wife is Ukrainian Catholic, and they are pretty interesting.
Thelurkinghorror has it right - Ukranian Catholics are indeed “Catholic” in the sense that they accept the Pope, but in outwards appearance they do some things that don’t always accord with what most people think of as mainstream Catholicsm - for example, having married priests.
I walked out of the Catholic Church in 1964 at the age of 16. There was a whole series of reasons including molestation by a priest and my failure to subscribe to most of their doctrines. But what clinched it was that there is no place in the Catholic Church for a gay person, and there probably never will be.
In the past 50 years, I have refused to stand as godfather for my nephew and neice because this would have required me to enter a Catholic church and participate in their rites, thus implying approval of them.
I made an exception by sitting at the back of a Catholic Church when my father died out of respect for him only, but did not participate in the requiem mass or take communion. I have supported campaigns to abolish puiblicly-supported Catholic schools in Ontario and strongly supported Quebec’s decision to abolish all religious school boards.
Yet, I actually had a priest tell me recently that I am a “baptised Catholic” and that I can never change that fact. I told him to fuck off.
Just out of curiosity, are BOTH the doctrine of the Immaculate Conspetion **AND **the virgin birth of Jesus required belief doctrines in the Catholic Church?
Yes. The immaculate conception was not originally without controversy (famously, Aquinas denied it), but the matter is considered to be settled; a faithful Catholic is not permitted to affirm its contrary.
You seem to be saying that both the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth must be believed. But what about believing that Mary continued to be a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus? Is that part of the Virgin Birth doctrine? Do you have to believe that poor Joseph had blue balls all his life? No wonder they made the poor guy a saint! 
I realise this thread is 50-odd posts in and I admit not to reading it all. But I wanted to mention that I - like most of my childhood friends - were brought up Catholic but have zero religious interaction in our mid 30s. We certainly don’t consider ourselves Catholic.
Strictly speaking that’s another matter; Mary’s immaculate conception and the virgin birth could both be true but her perpetual virginity false. But, yes, she is maintained to have remained a virgin.
I always considered it strange when I heard a Catholic say that they had trouble believing in the Immaculate conception. Magical thinking aside, if you claim to be a Catholic, that believes in God as the creator of the universe; since when are there limits to what God can do? Pregnant virgin…no problem.
Well, they have a problem with the belief that Mary didn’t inherit original sin (immaculate conception), not that Jesus was born of a virgin.
What I find more odd is that a friend of mine doing theology at Oxford refuses to read anything about a serious belief in angels, despite the fact that they’re referred to in the Gospels.
The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with any pregnant virgin. It is a common mistake.
Catholics believe that all human beings are born with an original sin due to the sin of Adam and Eve.
The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means that when MARY was conceived by HER parents, she was granted a special dispensation that caused her to be born without original sin. But nobody alleges that Mary was conceived without the normal coitus on the part of her parents. The doctrine just says that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin on her. SHE was immaculate upon conception. It had nothing to do with sexless procreation. Her mother Anne was not a virgin.
The Virgin Birth doctrine says that Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary without sex through the Holy Spirit after she consented to be made pregnant this way to the angel who saluted her with “Hail Mary, full of Grace. . . . .etc.”
Now, here is a quandry: God’s angel ASKED Mary if she wanted to be made pregnant this way. She answered “Be it done unto me according to thy will.” So she had the right to refuse.
But she was born without original sin to make her worthy to bear Jesus, right? So how did God know she would say yes? If God already knew, are we predestined, lacking in free will? Or if she had said “No, I don’t want to bear Jesus” would God have dumped a couple of tons of original sin stain on her head?
This is fascinating…I actually called home and asked who knew that the Immaculate Conception was not the pregnancy of Mary with Jesus, and that the Virgin Birth Doctrine was a whole other thing? NO ONE KNEW THAT, and I was told to thank Valteron and gamerunknown for clearing it up for us.
Also, if God asked Mary if she wanted to go through with the pregnancy, and she had the right to refuse, could it be that God is pro-choice?
My understanding — what I was told during RCIA classes (I didn’t convert) — is that Mary was born without original sin not only to be worthy of Jesus, but to ensure that her choice was not influenced by its presence. A kind of divine deck-stacking, I guess. Regardless I don’t necessarily see a theological contradiction from the possibility of her refusal; if she refused then, well, so be it. No reason to dump sin on her (or whatever).
An actual Catholic may know better than I.
Exactly.
But somehow, this sort of “special dispensation” was not possible for, oh I dunno, everyone else, thus eliminating the “need” for Jesus’s sacrifice.
There’s no such thing as “a Catholic” in the complete abstract. We can’t look at a person and determine whether that person “is a Catholic” in the same way we can look at water and determine if it is liquid, solid, or gaseous.
So, you need to specify a purpose for which you want to know if someone is a Catholic. The only purpose for which someone is or is not a Catholic that makes sense to me is membership in the Catholic church.
So, I would suggest googling for when the Catholic church considers someone not to be a Catholic.