2 disagreements so im not a real Catholic?

[Tantum_ergo]

Hasn’t the church changed its teachings on certain things over the centuries?

I don’t have a reference but I thought I read this on the forums.

No. It has understood or deepened or further clarified teachings (the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, etc.) but it has never changed its teachings on matters of faith and morals.

Now if you’re talking about non-essentials like whether clergy is married or single (these are disciplines, not doctrine or dogma), these can change if the Holy Spirit guides us to make that change.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And here is an example of a deepening understanding on a matter of faith and morals.

Now, the Church has always taught that killing oneself (suicide) is gravely morally wrong. Earlier in history, before we were aware that people might have psychological issues that made them less culpable or that they might ‘repent’ before death, since it was thought (by the doctors of the time) that a person committing suicide had met all criteria of a mortal sin, they were ‘judged’ as guilty of mortal sin (could not be buried in consecrated ground for example.)

But with medical advances it became apparent that while the teaching itself has not changed (suicide is gravely morally wrong, then and now), the person who attempts this is not necessarily fully able to meet the conditions of mortal sin. Therefore we leave the ultimate fate of a suicide in the hands of God, knowing that it is possible that even though the suicide is gravely morally wrong the person himself/herself did not commit, or if so, did repent before death, that mortal sin.

The actual teaching is exactly the same. It is only that on further knowledge of human psychology among other things that we realize that there is still ‘hope’ even if a person commits an objective mortal sin.

 

[TedDC]

Regarding no 4. that was i thought last year too, but the priest made me see things a bit clearer and different. Everything in the cathecism comes directly from the Lord himself.

It really doesn`t matter if it revised or written from a 100 to 1000 year after the events, the words are still His and we must follow them as thè law.

How do you know that?

 

[TrueLight]

And here is an example of a deepening understanding on a matter of faith and morals.

Now, the Church has always taught that killing oneself (suicide) is gravely morally wrong. Earlier in history, before we were aware that people might have psychological issues that made them less culpable or that they might ‘repent’ before death, since it was thought (by the doctors of the time) that a person committing suicide had met all criteria of a mortal sin, they were ‘judged’ as guilty of mortal sin (could not be buried in consecrated ground for example.)

But with medical advances it became apparent that while the teaching itself has not changed (suicide is gravely morally wrong, then and now), the person who attempts this is not necessarily fully able to meet the conditions of mortal sin. Therefore we leave the ultimate fate of a suicide in the hands of God, knowing that it is possible that even though the suicide is gravely morally wrong the person himself/herself did not commit, or if so, did repent before death, that mortal sin.

The actual teaching is exactly the same. It is only that on further knowledge of human psychology among other things that we realize that there is still ‘hope’ even if a person commits an objective mortal sin.

That is a good example.

Now here is my question. Would the Church ever say, “We were wrong about suicide” or any other matter? Or would it say, “Yes, it is wrong, but…”

So if that can happen, who is to say that as the human race learns more about medicine and psychology, the Church will not make such…umm… adjustments or, shall we say, clarifications?

In that case some who had certain issues were in essence correct, even if that is not officially stated.

 

[Padraig1972]

How do you know that?

It all descend back to the apostles. They were the ones to bring on the teachings, preach the gospel and bring the word further on to new believers.

Even, when St Peter denied Lord Jesus christ three times, He still had faith in him and made him the first leader of our church after His abscence.

Trusting our scripture and the church laws are the basic foundation in our lives as christians and catholics. That much i understand.

 

[FightingFat]

This is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Thick book huh? I agree with everything in this book. With the exeption of 2 issues. Should I change my religious affiliation and leave the Church? One of the issues is moral, the other is socialogical. Your thoughts. Peace

The CCC is doctrine, not theology. It’s the deepest level of teaching and the language is very dense.

We’re all on a spiritual journey and our understanding develops as we go along.

 

[FightingFat]

Hasn’t the church changed its teachings on certain things over the centuries?

I don’t have a reference but I thought I read this on the forums.

No, the Church doesn’t change it’s dogmatically defined teaching, but matters of discipline are open to discussion, like Limbo for example, or married clergy.

 

[Owlpride]

This thread was just what I needed. I am a capitalist. The church doesn’t seem to accept that. I am also pro death penalty.

 

[FightingFat]

Apparently not. Which is why Vatican 2 is such a huge issue with the ultra conservatives. I understand their point. Up to a point.

V II ushered in some changes in the way things were done, but didn’t change any teaching.

 

[FightingFat]

This thread was just what I needed. I am a capitalist. The church doesn’t seem to accept that. I am also pro death penalty.

Have you read any social encyclicals?

 

[FightingFat]

The Church has never changed a teaching on faith and morals. The church has never changed a doctrine. The truth is they can’t.

 

[FightingFat]

benidict;7718118:

Apparently not. Which is why Vatican 2 is such a huge issue with the ultra conservatives. I understand their point. Tquote]

Vatican II is a huge issue with those who don’t understand it. The problems arose with all the abuses carried out by people claiming to be acting in the spirit of Vatican II. Whenever you hear someone invoke the spirit of Vatican II you can immediately know two things:

1. They have never read the documents from Vatican II
2. What they’re suggesting is contrary to the teachings of the church

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That is a good example.

Now here is my question. Would the Church ever say, “We were wrong about suicide” or any other matter? Or would it say, “Yes, it is wrong, but…”

So if that can happen, who is to say that as the human race learns more about medicine and psychology, the Church will not make such…umm… adjustments or, shall we say, clarifications?

In that case some who had certain issues were in essence correct, even if that is not officially stated.

No, because it isn’t really a ‘but’. The teaching is crystal clear --suicide is gravely morally wrong. So it’s not a yes, but.

There is no way you see that suicide ever becomes anything more than gravely morally wrong. Just because the person committing suicide might not be fully ‘aware’ or might have something that ‘compels’ him does not make the action become ‘not wrong.’ It makes the person himself perhaps NOT FULLY RESPONSIBLE for the wrong, but the ‘wrong’ remains.

Same with abortion. It is never anything other than morally wrong, but a woman is practically ‘forced’ into abortion through threats, emotional blackmail, and outright lies about ‘the procedure’ is not the same as a woman who knows this is a child, has everything ‘material’ and psychologically ‘comfortable’ in her life, but who 'doesn’t want to be pregnant now because I want to look good in my bathing suit this summer at the club" and aborts for that reason.

The first woman and the second woman are both committing a great wrong. . . but the first woman may have less culpability than the second. The abortion is not ‘less wrong’ for her though. Equally wrong sin, but not equally culpable people.

So a moral or faith teaching can never turn from “Yes this is good” to "well, it’s sometimes good, sometimes bad’. It can never turn from "This is wrong’ to "this is right.’

 

[TrueLight]

No Cynthia, the Church doesn’t change it’s dogmatically defined teaching, but matters of discipline are open to discussion, like Limbo for example, or married clergy.

Why in the world, did I sign my name?

 

[wild_thing]

This is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Thick book huh? I agree with everything in this book. With the exeption of 2 issues. Should I change my religious affiliation and leave the Church? One of the issues is moral, the other is socialogical. Your thoughts. Peace

Have you humbly prayed to God and asked Him to enlighten you on these issues?

I was having a hard time with the Church teaching regarding sex in a marriage, (i.e. no oral sex to ejaculation), because obviously my husband was giving me a lot of static about it and for a while, I thought maybe the Church was going TOO FAR by getting into the bedroom. So I complained about it to the Big Guy. Boy, was I humbled! In a good, peaceful, charitable way- but humbled.

He gently made me see His will for me. And how could I argue with the logic of love?

 

[benidict]

This thread was just what I needed. I am a capitalist. The church doesn’t seem to accept that. I am also pro death penalty.

Hey! Me Too!

 

[TrueLight]

No, because it isn’t really a ‘but’. The teaching is crystal clear --suicide is gravely morally wrong. So it’s not a yes, but.

There is no way you see that suicide ever becomes anything more than gravely morally wrong. Just because the person committing suicide might not be fully ‘aware’ or might have something that ‘compels’ him does not make the action become ‘not wrong.’ It makes the person himself perhaps NOT FULLY RESPONSIBLE for the wrong, but the ‘wrong’ remains.

Same with abortion. It is never anything other than morally wrong, but a woman is practically ‘forced’ into abortion through threats, emotional blackmail, and outright lies about ‘the procedure’ is not the same as a woman who knows this is a child, has everything ‘material’ and psychologically ‘comfortable’ in her life, but who 'doesn’t want to be pregnant now because I want to look good in my bathing suit this summer at the club" and aborts for that reason.

The first woman and the second woman are both committing a great wrong. . . but the first woman may have less culpability than the second. The abortion is not ‘less wrong’ for her though. Equally wrong sin, but not equally culpable people.

So a moral or faith teaching can never turn from “Yes this is good” to "well, it’s sometimes good, sometimes bad’. It can never turn from "This is wrong’ to "this is right.’

I see. Thank you.

 

[benidict]

Have you humbly prayed to God and asked Him to enlighten you on these issues?

I was having a hard time with the Church teaching regarding sex in a marriage, (i.e. no oral sex to ejaculation), because obviously my husband was giving me a lot of static about it and for a while, I thought maybe the Church was going TOO FAR by getting into the bedroom. So I complained about it to the Big Guy. Boy, was I humbled! In a good, peaceful, charitable way- but humbled.

He gently made me see His will for me. And how could I argue with the logic of love?

I have. and I cannot see changing them. Both have to do with preserving life. I will not get into specifics, but I believe that the Church holds 2 beliefs that can lead to unneccesarry deaths. One issue deals with the preservation of ones own life, and one, deals with others causing another to despair, pushing over the edge to suicide. I hold that there are 2 positions the Church holds that have the unintended consequence of these two. Again though, it is not about specifics. My question, is, can we disagree with even 1 part of the Catechism. Or 2 in my case. I will not take issue with what you and your husband do. thats your buisness. And I will refrain commenting on how far the camels nose is under the tent so to speak. Peace. and thank you for your honest advice.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

Every Catholic I know has at some point encountered a teaching of the Church that disagrees with their opinions. I know it has happened to me- more than once! As you study the Church for the rest of your life, you are likely to encounter more things which confuse or bother you.

Learn about authority in the Church, so you can distinguish between things which are open to interpretation and things which are not. Then you can, in humility, submit that your own wisdom on the subject of the disagreements does not surpass that of the Church. Then, even if you cannot come to be convinced of the truth of the teaching, you can submit that you do not understand it fully. Ask a lot of questions, and do not be afraid to challenge the teachings. The Church can handle it! The truth will stand up to scrutiny. But, in your questioning and challenging, cling to humility. Do not say, “The Church is wrong and I am right.” Say instead, “I do not understand where the Church is coming from or how she arrived at this teaching.”

You may have people tell you that you are not a Catholic if you do not believe X,Y and Z, but they are wrong. You are a Catholic if you are baptized a Catholic. You can distance yourself from your mother, the Church, by setting your own opinions as higher than her teachings because that is the sin of pride. When you find disagreements and confusions, ask questions in humility and trust that you will find answers. The devil uses things like this to pull us apart, but the Lord uses them to keep us humble. None of us knows everything or always has true opinions. That is why we trust the Church. The difference between a protestant and a Catholic is not these opinions, it is our approach to them. Can you submit, in humility, that the wisdom of the Church supersedes your own?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I see. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

I also don’t think that difficulty understanding or accepting a teaching means that a person is ‘not a real Catholic.’ Once you’re baptized Catholic, you are a ‘real Catholic.’ If you have difficulties but you accept the Church’s teaching even if you personally can’t understand, you’re an obedient Catholic. If you have really overwhelming difficulty in acceptance, you’re a struggling Catholic. If you have not just difficulties but absolute and obstinent denial --I don’t care WHAT the Church says, I just will NOT accept this’, then you’re a DISOBEDIENT Catholic. That’s all.

Of course when I say ‘you’ I’m just being ‘generic’, it’s not you PERSONALLY!