At 07:09 AM Friday 9/29/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
JDG wrote:
>
> Not at all. The Assumption is interesting because it is a "two-
> fer." If you disagree with this dogma, then by definition, you also
> have to disagree with the dogma of papal infallability.
>
Would you claim that any person that believes in some dogmas
of the Roman Catholic Church but disbelieves in other dogmas
[say, a person that claims to be a good catholic but regularly
gets impregnated by different men and goes to an abortion
clinic to get rid of the tumor that starts to grow in the belly]
is, in reality, not a catholic?
In keeping with current political usage maybe such a person should be
called a CINO. Which I think would be the POV of many members of
other Christian churches about someone whose name is still on the
membership rolls but whose behavior includes things which are
inconsistent with some part(s) of either official or folk doctrine
which those members consider essential to being a Christian (or a
Baptist, or a Methodist, or a ...). (The example behavior you
mention would probably qualify in most mainstream Christian
denominations. As well as many non-Christian religions: I limited
my remarks to Christianity because (1) I'm more familiar with
Christian beliefs and practices than non-Christian ones and (2)
Catholics are generally* considered to be Christian.)
_____
*Some people would say that "Catholic" is entirely equivalent to
"Christian," while I have run across some Evangelical/BAC types who
cast doubt on whether Catholics are really Christians with remarks
such as "Maryology won't save anybody" . . .
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
