Am I still Catholic if I don't always agree with the church?

[Elizabeth502]

There’s nothing there about (for example) a physical Hell, the exclusively male priesthood, birth control, or many other things that are said to be “non-negotiable”

The exclusively male ministerial priesthood is definitively binding on practicing Catholics. For a thread which refers to many documents, see here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=780934

It’s a 40-page thread, with citations, I believe, starting around page three.

Grave ones would be about core faith and morals?

There’s no formal category called “Grave Disagreements,” but they could be called critical disagrements on core faith and morals, yes. We are allowed to have differences of opinions on matters not related to settled doctrine/dogma, such as matters of Church discipline on which no permanent ruling has been made (e.g., priestly celibacy), and on matters of liturgical practice. Not on matters such as female ordination, conttraception, or The Four Last Things (topics which you mentioned). Those are all settled. Note that he Church does not dogmatically describe Hell as “a physical place” but as a state of existence. We are required, yes, to believe in eternal reward (union with God) and eternal consequences for deciding to reject God’s law and life. These are articles of Faith.

I come to CAF to try to solve a problem

The harm arises when Catholics resort to the discussion forum of CAF for direction on the facts.The forum allows and “welcomes” discussion, but most of what is offered on the forum is opinion, much of that a result of guesswork, personal preference, private logic, and consulting with equally poorly catechized Catholics. Very few who are asking questions which they don’t really want answered consult with the home page of Catholic Answers, and even fewer ask their priests directly, in the same full context in which they ask the question here. That actually came up on Catholic radio last week: the frequency of Catholics not wanting to inform their consciences and thus avoiding asking their priests, yet oddly invoking the “privilege” of (an uninformed) conscience. That same refusal to inform one’s conscience directly has also been a frequent topic on this discussion forum.

While your priest is probably not on the forum, you don’t need the non-ordained on

CAF to try to solve a problem

as he will doubtless have the answer for you on whether or not advocating female ordination is acceptable in the Roman Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s a mistake to identify all those who question the Church’s teachings as “arrogant” and wanting to “assign authority to themselves.” Questioning is part of faith development – true faith, that is, not blind faith. God works through the brain – He doesn’t expect one to shut it off.

Naturally you mischaracterized my post. I didn’t refer to

all those who question the Church’s teachings

as being equivalent to “assigning authority to themselves.” Rather, my post said this

Sincerity of heart and effort modifies the failings of all of us. There is a radical difference between those who attempt to submit with full mind, will, and action, vs. those who are so arrogant as to assign authority to themselves. The first category is legitimately Catholic, the second is not.

IOW, those who question but nevertheless do so with humility are from an entirely different category from those who are governed by merely a defiant attitude, assigning authority to themselves. Your “questioning” and my “questioning” have no effect on whether Church doctrine has the character of absolute Truth. We can question to kingdom come, and the truths will remain the truths. As long as we both understand that (about our own “questions”), the investigation is harmless. Had you bothered to follow my CAF statements on this, you would have already known that, as do others.

I still can’t pretend to understand why anyone cares so deeply about whether their fellow Catholics are “adherent enough.”

I don’t “care” about the state of your soul, in the sense of being curious about it. You’re the one that tends to bring up the issue on this forum, in a tone as if to challenge. I do care, and every Catholic should care, about any other Catholic claiming that “Catholic baptism” permits them to define and redefine Catholic dogma, “because after all they’re Catholic.” I differentiated those concepts in my earlier post on the previous page.

Catholicism privileges us to understand our faith, not to restructure our faith or discard those Articles of Faith which are integral to Catholic belief. I’m not saying that you do the latter; I’m saying that millions of modern Catholics do so, a fact that such Catholics only too happily proclaim themselves. And millions of Catholics claim a Catholic birthright to reshape a 2,000 year-old tradition to their personal liking. When they present a lie as Truth, yes, ma’am, I care; I should care; and I’m sorry if that is the element that you

still can’t pretend to understand

Neither you nor I needs to reinvent a wheel which the Church invented long before you or I were born. The Magisterium, not “questioning” Catholics, decides what is and is not a Catholic belief. Those remain the beliefs independent of our “questioning” of them and independent of our Baptisms – yours and mine.

 

[iamrefreshed]

First, don’t worry – I hardly think the majority of non-Catholics are confused about the Church’s position on any subject that gets media attention. Second, if “docile” is a positive adjective here, count me out. I may be one of the flock but I’m definitely not a pet.

Being obedient to Catholic teaching does not make one a pet. It makes one a beloved child of the Father.

 

[mwic]

I believe a large percentage of the 25% who go to Sunday Mass, are also unbelieving of one or more essential Catholic doctrines.

Are these listed somewhere?

Catholicism privileges us to understand our faith, not to restructure our faith or discard those** Articles of Faith which are integral to Catholic belief**.

Are these listed somewhere?

I swear I’m not just being contentious (or “recalcitrant”). As I continued to look, I found something very close to what I was looking for in the “DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI” (ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM), which makes many useful and subtle distinctions among things that are:

“divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable”
“necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed”
“presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium”

Obviously very complicated issues, requiring additional research. Alas, I won’t get my Ultimate List, because this document says:

1. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.

Oh well.

Now, I wouldn’t touch the female-ordination issue with a ten foot pole, so how about Infants in Limbo as a case study? Per
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#Views_of_some_traditionalist_Catholics

There appear to be at least a dozen pronouncements-of-truth about infants in Limbo, some from popes, Councils, etc. There are also widely-divergent views among what I would call “Practicing Catholics” about whether any of these are “essential Catholic doctrines” and “integral to Catholic belief”

These disagreements are kinda fascinating to me, but I’d rather not bog the thread down with them… so to return to the personal:

One of the things that attracted me to Catholicism (I converted as an adult) was its appreciation for intellectual curiosity. Any church that is big enough to contain Hildegard von Bingen, Teilhard de Chardin, and Dave Brubeck was – in my view – a big step up from my background.

There was certainly nothing in my RCIA course requiring belief in infant damnation, and this was long before the 2007 JPII/Benedict publication that made the current view “official”

In my opinion, one could be forgiven for thinking that infant damnation was a required belief around the time of the Council of Florence, and that the opposite is a required belief now. I’m not saying such a reversal occurred – only that it could look this way to a layperson who possesses no extraordinary education in the above matters.

“although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it”
(catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy)

These are the distinctions I’m interested in… when Ratzinger, in 1984, rejected infant damnation, was he crossing the line from disagreeing to advocating? If a layperson in 1630 is privately unconvinced that the earth is stationary, but doesn’t publish this view, is she a practicing Catholic?

What if she doesn’t express this view until asked?. What if she does not defend this view, but also does not attack it?

A million possibilities come to mind, and I would love recommendations on any additional material to look over about these issues.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Are these listed somewhere?

Are these listed somewhere?

I would start with the Creed. Then there are several encyclicals and councils that contain other prominent doctrines of the Church-- immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, transubstantiation, papal infallibility, etc.

But if you don’t like that free wheeling approach, just cozy up with the Catholic Catechism. It has references to sources where you can get more information about any doctrine it talks about, and it does cover the entire gamut. Another good book to cozy up to is the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Alternatively, you can join the RCIA program at your local Catholic Church. Let a trained instructor lead you through it.

 

[Aramis]

Apparently, the answer to the Question in this Thread’s Title is:

No

Am I right about this? I got confused by side-issues about terms like:
disagreement vs doubt
a Catholic vs a “good” Catholic vs a “practicing Catholic” vs a “Catholic in good standing”

If Monkey1976 is right, then the simple answer “No” is all one needs, I think.

He’s not.

One MUST believe the dogmas, few enough of those.
One must obey, but need not believe, the doctrines (and those vary amongst the churches in union with Rome).
One may not publicly contradict the lesser teachings of one’s church (in union).

And to be called catholic, one must merely be formally a member. To be a Catholic in good standing, one must belive the dogmas, obey the doctrines, and not publicly teach counter to one’s Church Sui Iuris.

Even the excommunicated are still Catholics… just not Catholics in good standing!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Are these listed somewhere?

Every item of faith or morals taught by the CDF (such as the Catechism) are matters which must be believed and are without error. Second, when Popes issue statements on faith or morals, those statements are also without error and binding. This is just basic, essential Catholicism. JRedication has posted about this as have others of us.

Galileo has nothing to do with faith and morals. Just another straw man on your part. There’s also a forum rule forbidding arguing irrelevant historical controversies.

Yes, the Church has many technical Catholics harboring heretical views
Third time now: their membership does not bestow orthodoxy on their views, let alone grant them licence to create alternative doctrine.

 

[JamesCaruso]

He’s not.

One MUST believe the dogmas, few enough of those.
One must obey, but need not believe, the doctrines (and those vary amongst the churches in union with Rome).
One may not publicly contradict the lesser teachings of one’s church (in union).

And to be called catholic, one must merely be formally a member. To be a Catholic in good standing, one must belive the dogmas, obey the doctrines, and not publicly teach counter to one’s Church Sui Iuris.

Even the excommunicated are still Catholics… just not Catholics in good standing!

Aramis, what are these “few” dogmas that we must believe? Is it a technical sense that you are using the term dogma, like the few ex cathedra pronouncements? I believe that a Catholic must believe all of the following:

Belief in God
Belief in the triune nature of God
Belief that God created the earth
Belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
Belief that Jesus is true God and true man
Belief that Jesus died for our sins
Belief that Jesus rose from the dead
Belief that Jesus ascended into heaven
Belief in the conception of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit
Belief in the virginity of Mary
Belief in the immaculate conception
Belief in the infallibility of the Pope and in the Bishops gathered together with the Pope
Belief in the real presence
Belief in the transubstantiation
Belief in the communion of saints
Belief in the priestly power to absolve us of our sins
Belief that only ordained priests can consecrate hosts (bread)
Belief that baptism removes original sin from our souls
Belief that the fullness of truth resides in the Catholic Church
Belief that the Church has the authority from Christ to teach the faith
Belief that the Church has the authority from Christ to interpret the Holy Scriptures
Belief that the Church has the power to make laws that must be followed by the faithful under penalty of sin (for example, attendance at Mass, yearly confession, fasting, abstinence, etc.)
Belief in Church pronouncements and interpretations of Scriptures that declare certain behaviors to be gravely sinful, for example, abortion, contraception, divorce, killing in other than self defense or the defense of others, euthanasia, etc.
Belief in the indissolubility of marriage
This list is off the top of my head. There must be more required beliefs.
Whether you call these dogmas or doctrines, are there any here that Catholics in good standing are not required to believe?

 

[Cider]

I am sorry, but I think I must have misunderstood you. The books of the bible were written before the Church existed, so how could the Church have written the bible?

The Church began at Pentecost, the New Testament was written by members of the Church and the bible was canonized by members of the Church.

 

[aemcpa]

What teachings are people so desperate to deny that they demand a list of everything they must believe? Bottom line, if you believe the Church is who she claims she is, then you should believe all of her teachings. If you don’t believe the Church is who she claims she is, then you shouldn’t believe a word she says, including the fact that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Protestantism is illogical, and so is dissent.

 

[Cider]

What teachings are people so desperate to deny that they demand a list of everything they must believe? Bottom line, if you believe the Church is who she claims she is, then you should believe all of her teachings. If you don’t believe the Church is who she claims she is, then you shouldn’t believe a word she says, including the fact that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Protestantism is illogical, and so is dissent.

Why do you assume people are desperate to deny anything? There is nothing wrong with wanting to know what you need to believe to be Catholic. The OPs question appears to be sincere and he already stated that he believes in the real presence. Did you even read the thread?

 

[mwic]

if you believe the Church is who she claims she is, then you should believe all of her teachings.

This suggests that everything the church teaches is declared to have been divinely revealed, and I don’t think that’s the case.

 

[landon13]

This suggests that everything the church teaches is declared to have been divinely revealed, and I don’t think that’s the case.

Everything taught by the power of the Magisterium of the Church which is things like the Catechism, and any approved “dogmas” of the Church and the Holy Bible are all divinely revealed. But there isn’t divine inspiration in the daily homilies of the Pope and lower down priest, &c., These people preach by the power of the Holy Spirit using Sacred doctrine but then you get into the whole argument about the Church and infallibility.

 

[Megan7]

The distinction between mortal sins and venial sins is one that is already evident in Scripture: 1 Jn 5:16-17.

With regards to how we are saved, Catholics do not subscribe to the “saved by faith alone” doctrine as no where in Scripture does it say we are saved by faith alone. Our faith is demonstrated through our actions.

I like how the Catechism defines sacraments in paragraph 1116:

Sacraments are “powers that comes forth” from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are “the masterworks of God” in the new and everlasting covenant.

Yes, Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is complete, but even St. Paul indicates that it is not the whole story when he says he “makes up for what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ” (Colossians 1:24).

The sacraments are inseparable from the Paschal Mystery – from the Cross and Resurrection. Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice is like the battery that powers the sacramental machine. And the battery never needs to be replaced or recharged.

But simply because Christ’s sacrifice was completely efficacious doesn’t mean that all Christians everywhere can skate through life contributing nothing of consequence. God wants us to work with Him. He wants our cooperation with the Cross because we need to cooperate.

And, yes, we sin. It is possible for us to turn our backs on God. If it were not, then we would not have free will. Or we would only have free will up until we say “I believe” for the first time, after which we would be on auto-pilot. Hence the great importance of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Jesus gave the Church the tools to tap into the saving power of the Cross and wipe away those sins and bring us back to the state of grace. How awesome is that!?

Thanks

 

[Origen52]

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the Nicean creed the only thing we must believe to be saved? Just asking.

 

[Aramis]

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the Nicean creed the only thing we must believe to be saved? Just asking.

No.

It’s the starting line, not the goal line.

It’s the requisite minimum to be Christian, according to the Council of Nicea.

Oh, and the creed you say on sundays? NOT the Nicene. It’s the Nicene-Constatinopolitan creed, an amended and expanded creed. Rejection of which was anathematized as well.

 

[Origen52]

No.

It’s the starting line, not the goal line.

It’s the requisite minimum to be Christian, according to the Council of Nicea.

Oh, and the creed you say on sundays? NOT the Nicene. It’s the Nicene-Constatinopolitan creed, an amended and expanded creed. Rejection of which was anathematized as well.

Okay, so what is the goal line?

 

[adawgj]

Being Catholic isn’t a membership. It’s a way of life, what would you do to follow Jesus and his Church?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Okay, so what is the goal line?

The Holy Bible, Holy Tradition and all the teachings of the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals.

Don’t worry, by the time you get to the goal line, you’ll already be in heaven.

 

[Aramis]

The Goal Line is the enfolding of union with God.

The most visible, and easiest, method is Faith and Works informed by Faithf, amongst those obedience to Christ, and to his bride, the Church.

The church does hold that works informed by desire to be united to God is a much harder, but still possible way to attain the goal.