4 ms·

If you're no longer Catholic why would you care one way or the other?

saghm 3y ago
I don't think I care in any particularly strong sense, but it was part of my experience growing up, so it's hard not to have any opinion about it at all. I'm fortunate that the friends and family I have who still are members are accepting of my choice not to be a member anymore; it's not like I don't associate with anyone at all who is Catholic. At least in my immediate family, discussing religion isn't something that will cause arguments, so sometimes the topic comes up when I talk with my parents. I'm sure there are plenty of things I'd find silly in other ideologies as well; I just don't have the same level of exposure.
dctoedt 3y ago
> If you're no longer Catholic why would you care one way or the other? Another former Catholic here. We should all care because a controversy such as this: - diverts attention from Jesus' "Prime Directive" — which was straight from the Hebrew Bible, of course (Leviticus 19:18) — that we seek the best for others, even our enemies, as we do for ourselves; and - falsely implies that not following pharisaic rules makes one less worthy and thus excluded from the Prime Directive. This harms civil society in general, not just Catholics.
- tptacek 3y ago
  I'm still Catholic and these would be my reasons too. :)
- michaelsbradley 3y ago
  I’m still Catholic too, and your argument doesn’t hold water. From the first century A.D. to the present, the Church has cared about holding true to the Apostolic tradition, which includes teachings re: how to treat others as well how to worship God.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > From the first century A.D. to the present the Church has cared about holding true to the Apostolic tradition Oh. So then I guess either Matthew or Acts got it wrong about whose name should be invoked in baptizing: If Jesus really said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then the apostles apparently ignored his instructions — compare Matt. 28.19 with Acts 2.38, 8.16, 10.48, 19.5. [0] On a tangentially-related subject: Peter, preaching at Pentecost, seems to have flagrantly misrepresented his scriptural source. [1] While we're at it: The Apostles all indisputably thought that Jesus would be returning Real Soon Now — and that just didn't happen. [2] [0] https://www.questioningchristian.org/2004/10/troubling_incon.html#TrinityGreatCommission https://www.questioningchristian.org/2004/10/troubling_incon... [1] https://www.questioningchristian.org/2004/10/troubling_incon.html#PeterMiscites https://www.questioningchristian.org/2004/10/troubling_incon... [2] https://www.questioningchristian.org/2005/10/is_jesus_coming.html https://www.questioningchristian.org/2005/10/is_jesus_coming...
    - michaelsbradley 3y ago
      Well, I'm sure such a general reply won't satisfy you, but in the Catholic West and East the idea is that the teaching of the Church is the context in which one needs understand Sacred Scripture, not the other way around. More concretely, the context for understanding Matthew, Acts, et al. is the teachings of the Councils, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, as well the lives, writing, and preaching of the Saints. This still very much allows for disagreement on matters not formally settled, and is no barrier to a person untrained in ecclesiastical history and dogmatic theology from being edified by reading and/or hearing the Bible. You may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. — 1 Tim 3:15 (RSV) The church is the pillar and bulwark, and we are on the surest footing when interpreting Sacred Scripture standing atop the pillar; everything else is a complete non-starter, though can be fodder for debates and whatnot.
      - dctoedt 3y ago
        > Well, I'm sure such a general reply won't satisfy you .... On that much, we agree. > the context for understanding Matthew, Acts, et al. is the teachings of the Councils, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church .... You might consider another possibility: That the apostolic succession belongs to all the baptized, not just to what I once referred to as "the Twelve's decisions to anoint themselves as a self-perpetuating elite" in the early church. [0] [0] https://www.questioningchristian.org/2007/02/the_apostolic_s_1.html https://www.questioningchristian.org/2007/02/the_apostolic_s...

I don't think I care in any particularly strong sense, but it was part of my experience growing up, so it's hard not to have any opinion about it at all. I'm fortunate that the friends and family I have who still are members are accepting of my choice not to be a member anymore; it's not like I don't associate with anyone at all who is Catholic. At least in my immediate family, discussing religion isn't something that will cause arguments, so sometimes the topic comes up when I talk with my parents. I'm sure there are plenty of things I'd find silly in other ideologies as well; I just don't have the same level of exposure.

dctoedt 3y ago

> If you're no longer Catholic why would you care one way or the other? Another former Catholic here. We should all care because a controversy such as this: - diverts attention from Jesus' "Prime Directive" — which was straight from the Hebrew Bible, of course (Leviticus 19:18) — that we seek the best for others, even our enemies, as we do for ourselves; and - falsely implies that not following pharisaic rules makes one less worthy and thus excluded from the Prime Directive. This harms civil society in general, not just Catholics.

tptacek 3y ago
I'm still Catholic and these would be my reasons too. :)
michaelsbradley 3y ago
I’m still Catholic too, and your argument doesn’t hold water. From the first century A.D. to the present, the Church has cared about holding true to the Apostolic tradition, which includes teachings re: how to treat others as well how to worship God.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > From the first century A.D. to the present the Church has cared about holding true to the Apostolic tradition Oh. So then I guess either Matthew or Acts got it wrong about whose name should be invoked in baptizing: If Jesus really said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then the apostles apparently ignored his instructions — compare Matt. 28.19 with Acts 2.38, 8.16, 10.48, 19.5. [0] On a tangentially-related subject: Peter, preaching at Pentecost, seems to have flagrantly misrepresented his scriptural source. [1] While we're at it: The Apostles all indisputably thought that Jesus would be returning Real Soon Now — and that just didn't happen. [2] [0] https://www.questioningchristian.org/2004/10/troubling_incon.html#TrinityGreatCommission https://www.questioningchristian.org/2004/10/troubling_incon... [1] https://www.questioningchristian.org/2004/10/troubling_incon.html#PeterMiscites https://www.questioningchristian.org/2004/10/troubling_incon... [2] https://www.questioningchristian.org/2005/10/is_jesus_coming.html https://www.questioningchristian.org/2005/10/is_jesus_coming...
  - michaelsbradley 3y ago
    Well, I'm sure such a general reply won't satisfy you, but in the Catholic West and East the idea is that the teaching of the Church is the context in which one needs understand Sacred Scripture, not the other way around. More concretely, the context for understanding Matthew, Acts, et al. is the teachings of the Councils, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, as well the lives, writing, and preaching of the Saints. This still very much allows for disagreement on matters not formally settled, and is no barrier to a person untrained in ecclesiastical history and dogmatic theology from being edified by reading and/or hearing the Bible. You may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. — 1 Tim 3:15 (RSV) The church is the pillar and bulwark, and we are on the surest footing when interpreting Sacred Scripture standing atop the pillar; everything else is a complete non-starter, though can be fodder for debates and whatnot.
    - dctoedt 3y ago
      > Well, I'm sure such a general reply won't satisfy you .... On that much, we agree. > the context for understanding Matthew, Acts, et al. is the teachings of the Councils, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church .... You might consider another possibility: That the apostolic succession belongs to all the baptized, not just to what I once referred to as "the Twelve's decisions to anoint themselves as a self-perpetuating elite" in the early church. [0] [0] https://www.questioningchristian.org/2007/02/the_apostolic_s_1.html https://www.questioningchristian.org/2007/02/the_apostolic_s...