2 disagreements so im not a real Catholic?

[Mary_of_Bethany]

Benidict,

Thank you very much for starting this thread, and also for your other posts throughout the forums. I think that not only can you call yourself Catholic, but also that you are a very good Catholic. I am learning a great deal from you.

Why should only two disagreements matter? It seems obvious that you are working on understanding. What is more important is that you seem to be living your faith.

 

[benedictus2]

This logic drives people to near insanity. It creates unnecessary suffering in the vulnerable people. Trying to keep justifying something that just isn’t there or doesn’t feel right. It’s dangerous to substitute someone else’s opinions for your own, especially when there is no grounds for them making such generalized, superior claims. If you don’t agree with something, fine. Don’t try to force it. You’re probably disagreeing for a good reason. God gave you this intuition for a reason.

Your logic will drive anyone (who actually has a basic grasp of logic) to insanity.

The major flaw in your reasoning is that, you approach doctrinal questions from the point of anarchy, which is essentially how Protestantism operates. If one doesn’t understand something then it must be false and up goes another protesting church.

Every doctrine must be put through someone’s personal lens and if it doesn’t match someone’s personal criteria then out it goes. This sets up the individual as Pope and Magisterium, which makes protestant denial of Papal and Magisterial authority ring hollow. Or perhaps not. Perhaps it is a case of denying the Pope the authority because the Protestant declares himself Pope - and we have a few million of them running around in the world.

It comes down to this: I know better what Christ’s true doctrine is as compared to the Church He established. This approach fails in the light of the fact that a protestant accepts the inerrancy of the Bible by which – logically (although this has not been exercised by some posters) – one must accept the infallibility of the Church that came up with the Bible in the first place. But of course, the utter poverty in their use of logic prevents them from seeing that one glaring fact.

So it ends up like this: Person A must be more intelligent, more spiritually enlightened, more holy than thousands of Church Fathers, Church Doctors, saints and theologians put together.

Even just basing this on the current situation alone, (Person A as against Pope Benedict), Protestant-Person-A thus claims to know more, is more spiritually enlightened and better guided by the Holy Spirit, than the current Pope.

But reason tells me that in the case of those posting in this forum …… that is very, highly, extremely, utterly unlikely.

JohnPhilomena’s response is actually a perfect response. Pray to understand why one is in error.

Why?

First: It approaches the problem from the point of humility – (I don’t know all things and those saintly people who have gone before me most likely know more than I do)

Second: It bows to Christ . By acknowledging that I am most likely in error, I affirm Christ’s promise that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. Therefore I affirm that Christ is God and will not lie and is capable of keeping this promise.

Third: It orients myself to God by coming to him in prayer and in humility. This can’t do anything other than bring grace. A humble and contrite hurt, God never spurns.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7746547
​

 

[benedictus2]

I thought that this thread was in the section “Moral theology”? Wouldn’t these be qualified as moral teachings? And haven’t these moral teachings changed?

We need to make a distinction between teachings made ex-cathedra and those that are not. The one you mentioned was not an ex-Cathedra teaching.

 

[sidbrown]

We need to make a distinction between teachings made ex-cathedra and those that are not. The one you mentioned was not an ex-Cathedra teaching.

There are different levels of teaching authority. Even though a papal bull may not be ex cathedra, it still possesses authority.I think that this is called the ordinary level of magisterium of the Catholic Church and it is authoritative and the assent rquired is submission of the intellect and will to the teaching. For example, was Humanae vitae infallible and pronounced ex cathedra. I did not see an official statement from the Vatican that it was so. Some theologians say yes, but there are those theologians in the Vatican cvolleges who say no. But even if it were not pronounced ex cathedra, it still is official Catholic teaching that it is a mortal sin to use artificial birth control and this has been confirmed (at least) at the ordinary level of magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[benedictus2]

There are different levels of teaching authority. Even though a papal bull may not be ex cathedra, it still possesses authority.I think that this is called the ordinary level of magisterium of the Catholic Church and it is authoritative and the assent rquired is submission of the intellect and will to the teaching. For example, was Humanae vitae infallible and pronounced ex cathedra. I did not see an official statement from the Vatican that it was so. Some theologians say yes, but there are those theologians in the Vatican cvolleges who say no. But even if it were not pronounced ex cathedra, it still is official Catholic teaching that it is a mortal sin to use artificial birth control and this has been confirmed (at least) at the ordinary level of magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Yes, that is true. We are bound by Magisterial teaching whether it be ordinary or ex-cathedra.

However, (I am not 100% sure of this ) the church may change its teaching that is of the ordinary magisterium as the Church comes to a better understanding of things ( I think limbo is one case in point). Nonetheless, the faithful are bound by the ordinary magisterium regardless, and may not assume that because it has not been dogmatically pronounced such a teaching is up to a person to follow or not.

 

[benidict]

Hi B1,

If you believe Rome holds ALL truth, then don’t you think that that’s it - she holds ALL truth so though we may not understand it all, she still holds all truth.

I will write here a similar struggle and how it came to be resolved.

I was in a thread on predestination and I told another poster by the name of Sandusky that he must have an evil god in his head if that is what he believes. He then came back with a line from Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that stated that Catholics believed in predestination. I googled it and found out it was true. I was completely devastated.

But then I read more about it and after twirling this in my head I came to understand what is being proposed and I was actually able to come back with an explanation of our version of predestination.

But then, a few months later, another poster asked me to summarize the difference between the Thomist and Molinist viewpoints. I was faced again with a crisis because the more I read the more I came to the conclusion that this is just not compatible with the loving God of the Bible.

At this point, I had a choice. Do I believe what the Church says or, like all the other cafeteria catholics that I have told off, pick and choose what to believe?

At that moment I said to myself, who am I to think that my piddly little brain knows God and His workings better than the all the saints and doctors of the Church; that I know better than the Church that Christ has promised to guide into truth? So I said I will believe even if I don’t understand.

But the wonderful thing is, the moment I gave this assent, understanding came such that there is no longer this enormous wrestling in the shadows because enough light was given.

Now, whenever I come across something that I can put a question mark on, with great conviction, I know that the Church has the answer.

Once we start saying that I do not believe this or do not believe that, then we put into question the Church’s truth and the Church’s right to claim our allegiance.

If Rome has all truth, then Rome has all truth.

Just a thought - perhaps this may be something that God is asking you to surrender this lent.


Peace and Joy of Our Lord,

Cory

Hi dear Sister. I am glad you joined the discussion. I have always seen you as a font of wisdom and inspiration. Thank you for all you do. I will be reading all you write with all seriousness. Thank you once more for coming on. Peace

 

[pnewton]

I thought that I already gave the references to the papal bulls. Would you say that moral teachings in papal bulls are not binding on Catholics?

What you quoted and showed was not teaching at all. It was intstructions, which makes it disciplinary. Such thing may be prudent or imprudent or even outright wrong. A pope could in theory order a hit on some one. This would not be a moral teaching on murder.

 

[sidbrown]

What you quoted and showed was not teaching at all. It was intstructions, which makes it disciplinary. Such thing may be prudent or imprudent or even outright wrong. A pope could in theory order a hit on some one. This would not be a moral teaching on murder.

I don’t know if it is splitting hairs to make a serious distinction between teaching and instruction.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know if it is splitting hairs to make a serious distinction between teaching and instruction.

Perhaps instruction is not the best word, but use the above example, a hit versus teaching that murder is moral, and I will give some more.

The ABA may adopt legal ethics while the president of the ABA asks someone to do something shady.

An English professor may teach the proper use of grammar in class, yet depart from form in his book for a specific effect.

God gives the Law to Moses for the people of Israel, but departs from that in the specific case allowing David to each the shewbread, working miracles on the Sabbath and justifying his disciples’ action of plucking wheat on the Sabbath.

In these cases, sometimes hypocrisy is involved, at other times a special situation justified the action. In other words, the doctrine was not all-encompassing. It needed further development. Take for example slavery. It is wrong, but only because of the context of our society and its inhumanity. Can it ever be justified? I submit that it is still justified under a different name. Incarceration. If we believe someone poses a danger to society, we subject him to the ultimate control and restriciton of freedom. He is in a situation where he must do as he is told, maybe for the rest of his life in severe cases.

 

[davidv]

I don’t know if it is splitting hairs to make a serious distinction between teaching and instruction.

Its not hair splitting to distinguish between moral teaching, that is the truth from the beginning, and an instruction that is given for a specific time and place.

 

[sidbrown]

Its not hair splitting to distinguish between moral teaching, that is the truth from the beginning, and an instruction that is given for a specific time and place.

But I don;t think that a Pope would give an instruction that was immoral, would he?

 

[pnewton]

But I don;t think that a Pope would give an instruction that was immoral, would he?

Most definitely they could, although far more often they just do things that are imprudent or ill-advised. But there is nothing that prevents a Pope from committing even a heinous sin. Some of the past pontiffs were not very nice at all. It is only because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the Church could survive 2000 years with all the human failings She has endured.

 

[sidbrown]

Most definitely they could, although far more often they just do things that are imprudent or ill-advised. But there is nothing that prevents a Pope from committing even a heinous sin. Some of the past pontiffs were not very nice at all. It is only because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the Church could survive 2000 years with all the human failings She has endured.

I would be interested to know of the immoral papal instructions that you are talking about here. Do you have in mind any immoral instruction given by a Pope in the history of the Catholic Church?

 

[benedictus2]

Sure why not. If you don’t agree with the Catholicism then why be a Catholic. Nothing is wrong with a little healthy skepticism and questioning authority.

John 6: 42, 60, 66

"Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

 

[benedictus2]

Why would I question love and tolerance? I think more Christians need to be more Christ like.

What has got love and tolerance got to do with what we are discussing?

How can one become more Christlike by disobeying the Church He established on earth. That shows a lack of humility so hardly Christlike.

 

[benedictus2]

Jesus is God. The Church is men, just fallible men. BIG difference.

Jesus is God. True.

The Church is men, just fallible men. True.

Big Difference. True.

Where is the error in this?

Jesus is God.

God is Truth.

God built the Church.

God said He will send the Holy Spirit to guide this Church into Truth.

Since Jesus is God, then He must have kept this promise.

So there the Church He established is being guided by God’s Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.

Therefore, fallible by human nature though she may be, the Church is infallible because we have it on God’s Word.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi dear Sister. I am glad you joined the discussion. I have always seen you as a font of wisdom and inspiration. Thank you for all you do. I will be reading all you write with all seriousness. Thank you once more for coming on. Peace

I agree: good advice. I have nothing more to add, but just wanted to welcome you back, my friend, if only temporarily.

 

[davidv]

But I don;t think that a Pope would give an instruction that was immoral, would he?

Why do you think this?

 

[Wesley7]

So someone told you you weren’t a real Catholic? . .

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I agree very strongly with something said by an earlier poster.

Humility is at the core of submitting to Church doctrine. If we set our judgment before the judgment of the Church, we are acting as rebels. In modern times it was Luther who started that game and it hasn’t stopped ever since. There are thousands of denominations because there are thousands of proud people who will not submit to a single truth that will unite them all.

This is why Christianity is floundering: not from challenges without, but from within.

Catholic Christianity is in no better shape, except that it has the ideal structure for restoring unity that cannot be found anywhere else in Christendom … if only Catholics would be humble!