Dawkins calls for 'Catholic' honesty

[Animavore]

I suppose if the Church defines a "Roman Catholic" as someone who, among other things, accepts and believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, then they're defining themselves out of about 2/3 of their membership. Bad for business.

Does anyone other than Dawkins use that definition though?

Not sure, really. If the Church will excommunicate you for using contraceptives (not sure if they do), surely they would do so for not believing something as fundamental as transubstantiation?

If the church excommunicated you for using contraception most of Ireland would be out on their ear.
They're like any other religion. A business who don't want to put themselves out of it.

Dara O'Briain explains here.

[FBM]

OK, I see it now.

[Svartalf]

I suppose if the Church defines a "Roman Catholic" as someone who, among other things, accepts and believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, then they're defining themselves out of about 2/3 of their membership. Bad for business.

Does anyone other than Dawkins use that definition though?

Not sure, really. If the Church will excommunicate you for using contraceptives (not sure if they do), surely they would do so for not believing something as fundamental as transubstantiation?

I doubt most priests believe in transubstantiation, let alone believe that their congregation do.

Once you've tested the dog piss they use for sacramental wine (usually white too, the stains are easier to wash/hide if any slops on the precious altar cloths and vestments), you stop believing in transubstantiation in a hurry... no way the blood of a guy who performed the miracle of the wedding at Cana can be that bad.

[klr]

I suppose if the Church defines a "Roman Catholic" as someone who, among other things, accepts and believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, then they're defining themselves out of about 2/3 of their membership. Bad for business.

Does anyone other than Dawkins use that definition though?

Not sure, really. If the Church will excommunicate you for using contraceptives (not sure if they do), surely they would do so for not believing something as fundamental as transubstantiation?

I doubt most priests believe in transubstantiation, let alone believe that their congregation do.

In terms of the Vatican's definition the majority of Catholics turns out to be not catholic Reminds me of a Yes Minister episode concerning the appointment of a new CoE Bishop (I think), where the clergy is described as being either disestablishmentarian or atheistic.

That's exactly what I was thinking of myself! I saw that episode again only a couple of weeks ago.

James Hacker: Humphrey, what's a Modernist in the Church of England?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Ah, well, the word "Modernist" is code for non-believer.
James Hacker: You mean an atheist?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, Prime Minister. An atheist clergyman couldn't continue to draw his stipend. So, when they stop believing in God, they call themselves "Modernists".
James Hacker: How could the Church of England suggest an atheist as Bishop of Bury St Edmunds?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, very easily. The Church of England is primarily a social organization, not a religious one.
James Hacker: Is it?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Oh yes. It's part of the rich social fabric of this country. So bishops need to be the sorts of chaps who speak properly and know which knife and fork to use. The sort of people one can look up to.

[FBM]

I suppose if the Church defines a "Roman Catholic" as someone who, among other things, accepts and believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, then they're defining themselves out of about 2/3 of their membership. Bad for business.

Does anyone other than Dawkins use that definition though?

Not sure, really. If the Church will excommunicate you for using contraceptives (not sure if they do), surely they would do so for not believing something as fundamental as transubstantiation?

I doubt most priests believe in transubstantiation, let alone believe that their congregation do.

Can they state this openly without fear of excommunication?

[M]

Odd that he didn't pick up on the fact that a far greater percentage of those surveyed weren't even Roman.

[Mysturji]

Odd that he didn't pick up on the fact that a far greater percentage of those surveyed weren't even Roman.

[JimC]

I suppose if the Church defines a "Roman Catholic" as someone who, among other things, accepts and believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, then they're defining themselves out of about 2/3 of their membership. Bad for business.

Does anyone other than Dawkins use that definition though?

Well, it is definitely an official part of the canon that all catholics must believe. The fact that the hierarchy will make a pragmatic decision not to rock the boat too much with the members who can't swallow this woo completely doesn't change the delicious scent of hypocrisy...

[klr]

I suppose if the Church defines a "Roman Catholic" as someone who, among other things, accepts and believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, then they're defining themselves out of about 2/3 of their membership. Bad for business.

Does anyone other than Dawkins use that definition though?

Well, it is definitely an official part of the canon that all catholics must believe. The fact that the hierarchy will make a pragmatic decision not to rock the boat too much with the members who can't swallow this woo completely doesn't change the delicious scent of hypocrisy...

I love the smell of hypocritical incense during the morning mass I never go to ...

[Robert_S]

I think the issue needs to be pressed. Look what happened here in the US regarding evolution vs creationism! Not too long ago nobody took literal creationism seriously, but they kept the story around as a kind of pet. I could not have imagined that it would even be taken seriously these days.