Where do I fit?

[sophgirl]

I do not find it necessary to change my terminology in this particular discussion.

You're entitled to use that terminology if you want. I'm just not going to agree with you there.

I suggested using terms that we can agree on ---- but it was just that - a suggestion. I respect your right not to do so.

But if you think you are going to convince me you are very very very mistaken.

In the vernacular, Catholic means exactly one thing: that Church which is headed by the Pope. If you ask the majority of people what they think of when you say the word "Catholic," that's the definition they're going to come up with.

That's because most people are not aware that there exist Catholics who aren't Roman Catholic.

But for those of us who have been driven away from the RCC by scandal yet who hold to their faith --- spreading awareness of other strands of Catholicism is important.

You can disagree with my use of the term at your pleasure, but I don't see the need to state it repeatedly since it's already established.

You may not understand why I feel the need to clarify my understanding of the terms "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" every time I respond to a statement that I see as having a mis-use of one of the terms.

Likewise --- I don't understand why you insist on using terminology that is contentuous rather than trying to find a terminology we can agree on. Though I trust (and respect) the fact that you have your reason. Once again ---- I trust (and resepct) the fact that you have your reason.

Likewise ----- I can completely assure you that I have my reasons ---- and they are very strong reasons I promise ------ why I insist on clarifying on each of my responses my disagreement with the terminology. I'd tell you what my reasons are --- but I am trying really hard to stand my ground without igniting a flame war. You, I must say, are not making this easy at all.

In short --- you may not see my point in stating my disagreement with your usage of your terms every time I respond to the terms --- but I do see my reasons ---- and I promise you they're very strong and heart-felt to the core.

So how bout I just trust that you have your reasons for sticking to your guns ----- and you trust that I have my reasons?

If your main issue is a lack of faith in the Church hierarchy, then that is very different than theological disagreement. The two are very much separate, but still related. ... The failings of men should not have an effect on the theology of Christianity.

Unless mucking with the theology is on the list of said failings.

The Church has always understood clerical offices and the people in those offices to be two different things. This is for good reason: humans sin and fail God all the time. Despite that, God chose to use humans to continue and tend to his Church. With the aid of God, anything is possible.

I understand that too. It's not a matter of "Oh, he's done something sinful - therefore he's unworthy of said office". I know very well and full well that if that were the case, all offices in the Church would be vacant.

It's rather a matter of "This person is harming and inflicting lifelong scars on people -- and traumatizing them. And there's no way to hold him accountable without walking away and demonstrating that we can be just as vibrantly Catholic without him."

I think I have given all the advice I can give. If you want a label right now, then I suggest you look into Old Catholicism or possibly Anglo-Catholicism.

I have already stated what label I embrace.

The fact that you're not okay with me embracing that label without being part of your denomination is not the same as me not having found one that fits.

The theology you espouse sounds very "via media." It may not be 100%, but it sounds close.

No --- you are way off the mark. This is because of the trauma of having subjectred myself to "therapies" that I wouldn't have subjected myself to without Rome's "teachings". I also personally know others who's lives were very negatively affected by Rome's failure to keep it's house in order.

But honestly ----- that "via media" jab doesn't really surprise me. It's very common for those who want to deflect criticism from Rome to throw around name-calling terms such as "Cafeteria Catholic" and other things like that. Though I haven't heard "via media" before, it's similar enough to other things I have heard that I'm not really surprised.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I have already stated what label I embrace.

Then why did you post a thread asking for advice on what label to take? Or, why is this thread still going if you've decided on a label?

The fact that you're not okay with me embracing that label without being part of your denomination is not the same as me not having found one that fits.

I don't care one way or another what label you take. You asked for advice, and advice was given to you several times over.

No --- you are way off the mark. This is because of the trauma of having subjectred myself to "therapies" that I wouldn't have subjected myself to without Rome's "teachings". I also personally know others who's lives were very negatively affected by Rome's failure to keep it's house in order.

But honestly ----- that "via media" jab doesn't really surprise me. It's very common for those who want to deflect criticism from Rome to throw around name-calling terms such as "Cafeteria Catholic" and other things like that. Though I haven't heard "via media" before, it's similar enough to other things I have heard that I'm not really surprised.

You are jumping to wild conclusions based on an incorrect cursory reading of my post. Do you know what via media means? It is a term used to describe a particular theology that states Anglicanism is a middle way (via media) between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and that all three are "branches" of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Since you are adamant about your "Catholic but not Roman Catholic" theology, by definition, you have a theology similar to the via media idea. It is not via media, but it's the same general principle. Hence, why I and several other people recommended to you Old Catholicism or Anglo-Catholicism.

What you are doing right now is an exact repeat of what you did at the beginning of this thread: jumping on people for no discernible reason when they either tell something you don't want to hear, or give what you think is incorrect advice based on parameters that you set up.

I am done here. My advice to you remains the same: Old Catholicism or Anglo-Catholicism. Whether you think that advice is correct or not is up to you.

 

[sophgirl]

Then why did you post a thread asking for advice on what label to take? Or, why is this thread still going if you've decided on a label?

At the time that I started this thread - I was still trying to figure out where I fit. All I knew was that it was different than what most people think of as "Catholic" and different from what most people think of as "Protestant".

I ended up embracing the label "Catholic" because (as we both know) there are many Catholics who believe on all relevant issues the same as I do -- just none that I can find that have been compelled to put said beliefs into practice. On the other hand, there are no Protestants for whom I can say that.

You are jumping to wild conclusions based on an incorrect cursory reading of my post.

In that case, I apologize.

Do you know what via media means? It is a term used to describe a particular theology that states Anglicanism is a middle way (via media) between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and that all three are "branches" of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I see what you're saying.

That, of course, brings up the question of why I haven't been exposed to that term before --- but still, thanks for exposing me to that term now.

 

[sophgirl]

That, of course, brings up the question of why I haven't been exposed to that term ("via media") before --- but still, thanks for exposing me to that term now.

Just so happens that today I ran into the term again in my research.

Now, though that exact term I wasn't exposed to before --- I have been exposed to those discussing that concept. And the "via media" in Anglican thought isn't a via media between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthocoxy. Rather, it's a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism ---- and that is what turned me off from the Episcopal Church. It's what disinterested me from Episcopalianism.

 

[Big Drew]

To the OP...does it really matter that you agree 100% on every doctrinal issue a church teaches?

I don't think it does...I differ on a few things with my denomination...for example, they see Communion as purely symbolic, but I believe that Christ is present...not so much transubstantiation, but closer to the belief of the Lutherans and Anglicans...

Also, by reading their statement of faith, you could get the impression that they believe in pre-trib rapture...though it doesn't say that specifically...and I'm more closely aligned with Historic Premilennialism...

These, to me, are minor issues though...they have no bearing on salvation and I attend this church because the pastor's teaching is sound and I agree with the majority of the doctrine.

I think for some, myself included, the only way we're going to find the perfect church, where we agree with 100% of what is taught, is to start our own...30,000 others have done it........