"OFT" is this a universal term now?

When we were preparing for the Life Night (Life Teen) last weekend, I asked what “OFT” was.

Someone said “it means other faith tradition.” Then they proceeded to say that our Diocese has made a rule or something where we are not supposed to say “non-Catholic” anymore, we are supposed to say “other faith tradition.”

Is this all over America, or just here and there…

Of course, me being the zealous Roman Catholic that I am, when I was preparing the Life Night overview for the one this weekend that myself and another lady are leading, I put in my overview to send out to the other leaders…

Historic – II Kings 18:20-40 (Elijah and God vs. people of Other Faith Traditions)

we have to be politically correct :slight_smile:

Another question, is how is the average person in the parish supposed to know that there has been a mandatory change in terminology if there is no announcement to get the word out?

Also, I changed that part to “People of Another Faith Tradition” which is more accurate.

No, it is not a good thing to do. I believe it will lead to an attitude of “One faith tradition is just as good as another”! or “The Catholic Faith is just ONE of many Faith Traditions” It is true that there is the Catholic Church and then there are non-Catholic Communities (of which there is a scale from close to Catholic to maybe not even close to Christian) and then there is of course the Non-Christians.

I think Pope Benedict used the term Other Ecclisial Communities to describe them.

I might simplify that to Other Faith Communities so I don’t stumble on Ecclisial. :wink:

Yeah, I was sort of kidding about having to be “politically correct.” I halfway expect to get in trouble for using the phrase “Another Faith Tradition” in reference to the Baal worshipers. Some people will probably think I’m being disrespectful to the Diocese’s wish to use the OFT phrase.

To which I can reply “I’m sure we all consider Baal worship a noble religion.”

I don’t mind making fun of silly notions such as “Arianism is a noble doctrine” or “Human sacrifice is a noble religious practice.”

Like I said, I’ll probably get in trouble, tisk tisk.

From what I’ve read, that phrase “ecclesial communities” seems to enjoy consistent usage. Maybe my diocese likes to be on the cutting edge of Christian unity.

Pope Benedict uses “ecclesial communities” instead of the improper term “Protestant Churches” primarily beacuse they have long forgot what they are protesting, and are not properly “churches”. The only proper Churches are those with apostolic succession and valid Holy Orders. He has never (that I’m aware of) used “Other Faith Traditions”. That would almost be like saying “other acceptable versions of Christianity”. there is only the Catholic version and then the defective versions, according to Pope Benedict. Maybe we could use ODFT?

For a while Separated Brethren enjoyed popularity. lThen someone started the story that Satan had appeapplied for a job at the Vatican. The staff went to Pope John XXIII for his advice. He noted, "Well, he is one of our separated brethren. that seem to do it in. :smiley:

Is this supposed to mean non-catholic or non-christian?

“OFT” seems border-line and possibly heretical to me. There is no way a Parish or Diocese can make you say “OFT.” An orange is an orange, and if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck…

Then it’s a non-Catholic, so call them what they are: non-Catholics (I don’t think you’ll be excommunicated for using this). Political Correctness is a disease of the worst kind. I would do everything I could to buck that trend and fight it.

Non-Catholic is a broad term. At times we need terms which delineate differences in those who are not Catholic. VII noted these differences in one of the documents where they viewed them as concentric circles around us, some closer some further away. Specifically there are those who are not Catholic but have valid sacraments and mass, those who lack some sacraments but have Baptism. those unbaptized who worship one God and here we further differentiate between Judaism and Islam, and those who seek the divine but do yet know there is but one God.

Our relations and interaction with each is moderated by our degree of closeness.

Vatican II never forced anyone to walk around saying others are “OFT’s.” Yes, Vatican II viewed those outside the Church with varying degrees of “closeness,” but in no way does that mean the Church has to or should jump on the political correct “bandwagon,” and refer to them in a way that is border-line heretical at best, with the clear possibility of its meaning being misconstrued, and is downright heresy and modernism at its worst. You can refer to the Orthodox as Orthodox, protestants as protestants, and Jews as Jews. Or you can lump all of them in as non-Catholics. Or we can call the Orthodox and protestants heretics and schismatics, and the Jews and Muslims infidels. That might seem harsh to you, but the truth of the matter is Vatican II never rescinded such terms, and those outside the Church are what they are. True the Vatican has made it a habit of refering to such groups in a less negative manner, but Vatican II never required that the faithful do so as well. It is perfectly acceptable to call them what they really are if one so desires, and no one can be excommunicated for it. I will reiterate the point that Political Correctness is a terrible disease, and that once it is gone by the wayside, maybe we can retain some common sense and finally speak our minds. Only then will we be able to clearly preach the fullness of the Faith in its entirety to those outside the Mystical Body of Christ.
[/quote]

I haven’t heard the term mandated in our diocese. It seems likely it’s a personal preference of your bishop. Of course, you might want to ask to see this “ruling” that requests OFT language be adopted. Perhaps it didn’t even come from your bishop. It certainly hasn’t come from the universal Church or even the USCCB.

The recent commentary on the Church by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is telling. Pay particular attention to Question #5:

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

If I were to go with anything, I’d use the language the CDF is using.

Correct. “Non-Catholic”, just like “ecclesial communities” is not meant pejoratively. It is merely a statement of fact.

If the hearer interprets it pejoratively, then that is their mistake.

Your diocese may be on the cutting edge of PC-jargon, but unless members of the OFTs are not joining the Catholic Church, your diocese certainly is not on the cutting edge of Christian unity.

If you go back historically, the faith tradition of the OFTs is Catholic.

we have to be politically correct :slight_smile:

Why? Who says? This is a false assumption.

It’s more important to be respectful AND accurate than to be PC. Being PC is is intrinsically dishonest and will never lead to Christian unity.

We can be polite without being PC.

Thanks, another euphemism for my collection.
I assume OFT refers to both non-Christians and no-Catholic Christians so it’s a terribly imprecise term.
It’s certainly accurate to refer to Judaism or Eastern Orthodoxy as a tradition but Southern Baptists? the local megachurch? I don’t think so.

How about just plain “other Christians” and “non-Christians”?

How long does a community have to be in existance in order to have a tradition? Is the new non-demominational group that started last week another faith tradition - a whole week’s worth of tradition? :confused:

And what about the fundamentalist Christians who adamantly oppose tradition. They might be offended that we apply the word “tradition” to them at all! :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.