The Great Hippo wrote:]Didn't omgryebread just provide a post demonstrating that this isn't what the word actually meant, historically?
Not exactly, you're welcome to go read it or the link I provided to the History of the Term Catholic.
I would like to hear what Catholics think about the word being harmful to their identity. I think they'll know better than you, on account of--y'know. Being Catholics.
Your welcome to listen to them, go ahead. I have been, as I stated. Many of them feel very threatened. We can see the same thing in America, we have seen significant backlash in regards to "happy holidays" and "secular christmas" among a variety of other perceived threats to by 'Secular Christians' and secular society as a whole.
I'm not making things up, I'm stating what has been observed as well as logically inferring using the knowledge I've gained through studying human behavior how people react when you challenge aspects of their identity.
EDIT: And yes, you could take 'member' to be shorthand for 'an individual that shares the beliefs of the church'. Or you could take 'member' to be shorthand for 'member'.
Except that as I mentioned Member isn't a specific term. We need to understand who is the authority to declare someone a member, the process if initiation and a few other things. Which TGB gets into...
I am asking if you can understand how it is reasonable to think 'member of the church' means 'member of the church' and not 'an individual that shares the beliefs of the church'. Particularly when if they meant 'an individual that shares the beliefs of the church', they could have just written 'an individual that shares the beliefs of the church'. Instead of 'a member of the church'.
And I'm asking if you understand how 'member of the church' doesn't mean anything concrete.
Zcorp wrote:As the more sophisticated source does not use the word member we can safely assume that the less sophisticated source uses the word member as short hand for "an individual that shares the beliefs of the church."
Why is that safe to assume?
Because the more sophisticated source defines them as "an individual that shares the beliefs of the church."
how the fuck is it "safe to assume" that being a member of the Catholic Church means believing what the Catholic Church believes?
It is safe to assume that is what is meant within the dictionary as that is what is stated in more sophisticated sources.
Yup and not just one for adults, often you don't have a choice. We can refer to mike-I's story for that.
Conversely, suppose I go through that process, join the church, and continue to believe almost everything I did before, but — God forbid! — I take up the belief that Mary's body is in a grave somewhere, with only her soul up in heaven. According to the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, this means that I have "fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith." If I do this, am I still a member of the Catholic Church? Keep in mind that, in this case, the Catholic Church itself will still regard me as a member of it. Just a member that's living in heresy and needs to fix that before he can take part in certain religious rituals.
In this case it doesn't even really depend on who you ask. Both a linguist and clergy would still believe you are a Catholic.