2 disagreements so im not a real Catholic?

[pnewton]

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?

Pope Leo X comes to mind. He is the one that authorized the selling of indulgences. Pope Stephen (?) exhumed his predecessor to put him on trial and annulled all of his priestly ordinations. In the bull on slavery (which is really on waging war) that you brought up, we see where the popes often wielded political power and made political decisions, waged war and gave secular orders. In this, there is no charism of infallibility. Today, our popes are ususally nothing but spiritual leaders. If they do engage in politics, then we may disagree with them, just as we may if disagree if they engage in sports commentary.

However, if moral teaching is used as the basis for political statements, we should heed that teaching.

 

[benidict]

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

Yes. Im a right of center Libertarian, Who is strongly Roman Catholic. I only disagree with 2 views in this big thick book. So does that disqualify me? I think I will fall on the mercy of Christ, than the judgement of the Ultra right.

 

[benidict]

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!

First and formost. Rome holds the truth. I would not leave Rome. Or the Catholic Church. I will keep my mouth shut. I love the Holy Church. I love Rome. There is a huge difference from me, and those that would start their own denominations. Im not a rebel, and I would not start another group. If Rome is false, then Chrsitianity is false, and I would convert to Judaism in a heartbeat. There is no in between. Peace Oh, and we are not floundering. We are winning. I know. I live around the globe. Catholicism is the truth. and the world knows this.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

First and formost. Rome holds the truth. I would not leave Rome. Or the Catholic Church. I will keep my mouth shut. I love the Holy Church. I love Rome. There is a huge difference from me, and those that would start their own denominations. Im not a rebel, and I would not start another group. If Rome is false, then Chrsitianity is false, and I would convert to Judaism in a heartbeat. There is no in between. Peace Oh, and we are not floundering. We are winning. I know. I live around the globe. Catholicism is the truth. and the world knows this.

if Rome is false…im converting to Satanism

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Yes. Im a right of center Libertarian, Who is strongly Roman Catholic. I only disagree with 2 views in this big thick book. So does that disqualify me? I think I will fall on the mercy of Christ, than the judgement of the Ultra right.

the Church is a hospital for sinners…so yes your beyond qualified

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

the Church is a hospital for sinners…so yes your beyond qualified

 

[TedDC]

That all comes back to the Bible, and I don’t believe that the Bible is necessarily an inerrant record of God’s interaction with mankind or that it was inspired by God.

The Bible is a book that was written and revised by many men over many years. I have no idea whether God has left us any documentary evidence of His relationship with man. There is certainly no proof that the Bible is such.

 

[estesbob]

Yes. Im a right of center Libertarian, Who is strongly Roman Catholic. I only disagree with 2 views in this big thick book. So does that disqualify me? I think I will fall on the mercy of Christ, than the judgement of the Ultra right.

Which in itself is a judgment. I can totally understand people having problems with some of the teachings of the church, as I’ve expressed I have some problems myself. But that does not mean that it is okay to criticize those who don’t.

 

[Liraco]

Yes, to both questions.

I’m curious if in your research you asked for the reasons of certain teachings. Even Jesus proved that the most blatant statements won’t always be understood, whether it’s our mind, heartened heart, or something else that’s getting in our way of understanding.

How many times did he say “this IS my body, this IS my blood” and many left because they couldn’t grasp the truth?

May the Holy Spirit guide you to the Truth, Ted.

 

[Liraco]

Exsurge Domine

Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520

See point #33 of the bull:
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

So it says heretics shouldn’t be burned, now where’s the bull that says they should?

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

The Church has always taught about the dignity of the human person.

In cases like the death penalty, it’s against someone found guilty who’s death is the only way to prevent further harm caused by the person. As has been pointed out, nowadays it doesn’t really seem necessary to apply the death penalty unless there were some criminal that were doing the same harm even imprisoned. (This of course in no way contradicts the prohibition against killing ANY innocent human being).

 

[Liraco]

very good points. you raise. I would also add, this is yet another inconsistency on the part of Rome. It seems we have double standard all over the place. More to follow, I have some very good examples. Peace

Not a “double standard” seeing as how it’s a discipline of the Latin rite, not a doctrine. The Eastern rite allows for married men to become priests but in BOTH cases, NONE can marry after they’ve received holy orders. That’s quite consistent to me.

That’s why exceptions can be made and the number of married priests is few. The priesthood is a calling from God, not a right. The reason for the discipline is both practical and theological (I’m sure the reasons are already well known but I can clarify if you wish).

 

[Liraco]

What I am most curious about is how, if they are not in the Bible, at least implicitly, the Church came to teach these doctrines. lol, Brother, this is killin me!

It comes down to authority quite simply. Jesus was speaking vainly if He meant nothing by His granting of authority to Peter and the Apostles.

Read Matthew 16: 18-19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”

Speaking of which, there are pretty important things not found in the books of the bible (TRINITY, the Bible’s table of contents, etc.) yet they are taught because of that authority the Church was granted and because Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us to all Truth.

At the very least have certainty in the fact that nothing of what the Catholic Church teaches contradicts anything of the Bible (unless it’s improperly understood).

Pope Leo X comes to mind. He is the one that authorized the selling of indulgences.

The fact that there were abuses surrounding indulgences and that indulgences were granted for a charitable work (construction or reconstruction of a temple) are not the same thing.

Indulgences are for already confessed sins and it wasn’t the Pope who “sold” indulgences but individuals who committed the abuses. Misunderstandings of what an indulgence even is makes non-Catholics (and even some Catholics) think it’s the same as selling salvation.

My only problem with those who disagree with Church teaching is that it inevitably leads to a slippery slope. When you try to justify one sin, after such “justification”, you then move on to the next sin, and the sin after that, and then the sin after that. And with every single progression, the gravity of the sin increases. The end result can only be the complete destruction of morality and ethics.

… I put my trust that what the Church teaches is true, lest we fall into the abyss of immorality.

Well said.

 

[Elizabeth502]

A couple of points:

Some of the published rules on CAF state that:

(1) No poster can state who is and is not authentically Catholic.
(2) No poster can state (because we do not know) what another poster thinks and feels.
(3) Posters are free to disagree about matters of Church doctrine and dogma. I interpret that to mean (perhaps my interpretation is incorrect) that posters are free to emotionally vent, and intellectually debate, doctrines and dogmas which they find troublesome.

However, I do not interpret that to mean that posters who identify as Catholic are free to represent Church teachings to be other than what those are. Thus, they are not free to knowingly state heterodoxy, nor to represent as acceptable and mainstream and legitimately Catholic, their own private heterodox opinions.

For example, an emotional inclination toward a popular secular subject, such as same-sex “marriage” or “unions” does not permit one to state that “Catholics are free to support same-sex marriage.” Even if a majority of Catholic lay people surveyed do support it. Same for disagreements about other subjects, such as contraception. The fact that ~80%of married Catholic couples use artificial contraception, according to some surveys, does not “therefore” permit practicing Catholics to state that “it’s OK to be Catholic and use contraception.” Officially, it is not OK. The fact that it occurs IRL has nothing to do with Church teaching. And it is a cause for scandal to state on the most widely accessed Catholic discussion forum that non-compliance is “okay.”

You are a “real Catholic” if you are baptized, understand the beliefs, and try to follow them, despite frequent internal disagreement with or dislike of some of them. If you oppose the teachings by active non-compliance and partake of the sacraments anyway, you might want to visit your Confessor, because it’s possible or even likely that you are not genuinely practicing Catholicism, or at least should check in with a reliablly taught, active priest in that regard. If you merely struggle with two or several teachings, join the very large club of practicing, real Catholics. Even many people in religious orders struggle with certain teachings. It is not a disqualifier.

However, those baptized Catholics most attached to intellectual or practical heterodoxy should be responsible enough not to confuse others – many of whom are in the RCIA process with one week left to go.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Speaking of which, there are pretty important things not found in the books of the bible (TRINITY, the Bible’s table of contents, etc.) yet they are taught because of that authority the Church was granted and because Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us to all Truth.

The Trinity was not taught in the Old Testament. As a clearly delineated doctrine it is not even taught in the New Testament; yet there is a reference in the Gospel of Matthew from which we may infer that Christ had empowered the Church to teach the Trinity right from the start.

Matthew 28:19

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

In addition, one cannot read the Gospel of John without concluding that Jesus claimed shared divinity with his Father and that John was determined to make this doctrine abundantly clear to the world.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Elizabeth

You are a “real Catholic” if you are baptized, understand the beliefs, and try to follow them, despite frequent internal disagreement with or dislike of some of them.

There are some areas where Roman Catholics can dispute policy, as opposed to settled doctrine, but these areas are clearly laid out by Rome and Rome is always open to dialogue about policy as opposed to doctrine. You may, for example, disagree with the Vatican about whether priests should be allowed to marry and still receive the sacraments and be in good standing with the Church. Actually, you would not be in total disagreement since the Vatican has already allowed some priests to be married if they were married clergy in another denomination and converted to the Latin Rite. But if one defends homosexuality and homosexual marriage, this give scandal to one’s standing as a Catholic. Or if one spreads the word that abortion should be legal because we live in a pluralistic and libertarian society, and anything goes, that again gives scandal to the teachings of the Church (by the way, I know atheists who vigorously oppose abortion, so it isn’t just a Catholic versus a sectarian question).

I think there are Catholics who struggle with all these issues, either because they have been caught up in them personally, or because a loved one has. But Catholics at this forum really cannot be free to defend heresies and false teachings. This forum certainly was not established for such a purpose.

 

[pnewton]

The fact that there were abuses surrounding indulgences and that indulgences were granted for a charitable work (construction or reconstruction of a temple) are not the same thing.

It was an unwise action. It was the selling of Grace. Is it not true that a plenary indulgence was granted for those who gave money to Pope Leo’s depleted treasury for the construction?
newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the “Indulgences for the Dead” became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above.

Whether you agree or not, the fact remains that this action by Pope Leo never presented as a doctrine of the Church. Thus, it was no contradiction of doctrine when Trent outlawed this practice. That is all I was addressing. Yes, there have been some bad popes, a few. There have been even more that were unwise. Yet at no time to we have them giving false *doctrine *to the Church.

 

[Annie39]

First and formost. Rome holds the truth. I would not leave Rome. Or the Catholic Church. I will keep my mouth shut. I love the Holy Church. I love Rome. There is a huge difference from me, and those that would start their own denominations. Im not a rebel, and I would not start another group. If Rome is false, then Chrsitianity is false, and I would convert to Judaism in a heartbeat. There is no in between. Peace Oh, and we are not floundering. We are winning. I know. I live around the globe. Catholicism is the truth. and the world knows this.

I read the first few notes on this topic but did not find what those two things are that you disagree with. Sooo I went to the last page, still didn’t find it. Then I went to the second to the last page and noticed something you wrote “If Rome is false…” I think that I will call your bluff. I do not think that you are any kind of Catholic I’m a bettin’ that you are from the Reformed camp of some sort. Those are the folks who call the Church “Rome”. Also if you leave vodka out of a bloody mary, or if you leave tomato juice out of a bloody mary, you ain’t got no bloody mary. Well I just realized that I had to change this last line, I had written something about McDonald’s and hamburgers and realized that it is a no-no here.

Annie

 

[TedDC]

I read the first few notes on this topic but did not find what those two things are that you disagree with. Sooo I went to the last page, still didn’t find it. Then I went to the second to the last page and noticed something you wrote “If Rome is false…” I think that I will call your bluff. I do not think that you are any kind of Catholic I’m a bettin’ that you are from the Reformed camp of some sort. Those are the folks who call the Church “Rome”. Also if you leave vodka out of a bloody mary, or if you leave tomato juice out of a bloody mary, you ain’t got no bloody mary. Well I just realized that I had to change this last line, I had written something about McDonald’s and hamburgers and realized that it is a no-no here.

Annie

Your implication that benedict is being dishonest about his faith is both uncharitable and unfounded. Catholics do indeed refer to the institutional Roman Catholic Church as “Rome”. In fact, Catholic apologist Scott Hahn wrote a book titled “Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism”.

 

[pnewton]

I think there was some wisdom in benedic not giving the two items he struggles with. If he had, then that would have been the focus instead of the idea of disagreement.

Now, there are some things that must be believed with Catholic Faith, so we have to bear in mind that not all disagreement is allowable. For example, a denial of the real presence or the primacy of the Holy See would deny basic Catholic beliefs. Denial of the Holy Trinity or the Deity of Christ would deny Christianity.

 

[Annie39]

I think there was some wisdom in benedic not giving the two items he struggles with. If he had, then that would have been the focus instead of the idea of disagreement.

Now, there are some things that must be believed with Catholic Faith, so we have to bear in mind that not all disagreement is allowable. For example, a denial of the real presence or the primacy of the Holy See would deny basic Catholic beliefs. Denial of the Holy Trinity or the Deity of Christ would deny Christianity.

As I see it, the two items that he struggles with is the meat of this. For example, a young man of my acquaintance decided that he didn’t believe in God because he disagreed with one thing… that thing was homosexuality. The young man was, in his words, “gay”. The usual disagreements with the Church are contraception and divorce. Since we don’t know what the two things the person is dealing with it seems that the subject has been exhausted.

Annie