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

[Elizabeth502]

Correct, on the Way of Life and the unfolding union with God. It’s about discipleship, not legalities and technicalities. That’s what Jesus’ message both demonstrated and articulated: completeness, fullness, total commitment to divine law. He was not a reductionist, and rejected reductionist approaches to fidelity.

And we will NOT be judged on whether we “adhered to the bare minimum.”

To whom much has been given, much will be required. (Lk 12:48)

 

[TRH1292]

Rejecting articles of the Catholic faith is not a joke. Refusal to believe all that the Church teaches as divinely revealed is to put our salvation in danger.

 

[JamesCaruso]

As you get to the end of your days, Our Lord will ask to see the cross you brought with you. Carrying the whole cross may be difficult, but it sure beats having to go back and pick up pieces that we should have been carrying all along. God help those who arrive empty handed.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Bump

 

[JamesCaruso]

Bump?

No accusation to any particular person or about any particular issue. I hope when I near the end the Lord does not send me back to pick up pieces that I have chosen not to carry. The Church teaches that it has the authority to teach the infallible word of God. If I fail to take all that it teaches to heart, I assure you that it will be an obstacle to immediate entry into heaven. Our Lord told us that we cannot get out of it until we pay the last penny. I hope that I can pay for all my shortcomings here on earth, because they say that Purgatory is a far more painful way to do it. Don’t you agree?

 

[Aramis]

Bump

A bump from a moderator? Wow.

It’s worth reiteration: being a heretic doesn’t make one not Catholic. It just makes one a heretic, ineligible for communion, and in a state of mortal sin. One can leave the church formally (defection from the church), but until one formally renounces the faith, one who has been baptized and received into the Church remains within it (and all baptized Christians are united to the church by valid baptism).

(And even one who has formally renounced the faith can be received again into it.)

 

[clem456]

What does it mean to agree?

Our readings for tomorrow contain these lines:

There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test him and said,
“Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Jesus said to him, “What is written in the law?
How do you read it?”
He said in reply,
“You shall love the Lord, your God,
with all your heart,
with all your being,
with all your strength,
and with all your mind,
and your neighbor as yourself.”
He replied to him, “You have answered correctly;
do this and you will live.”

I do not love God and my neighbor with my whole being. I just don’t. For instance, I agree with Church teaching that abortion is wrong. But the life I have lived does not back up that agreement. Am I in agreement with Church teaching?

That is a hard question for me. For me, agreement means I have given my assent, my “amen”, to the teaching… and then I live it. If I don’t live it, but claim agreement, then I am a hypocrite. Am I still Catholic? I hope in Jesus Christ to complete my deficiencies and help me live in communion with the Church.

My assent to the teaching is just the beginning of being a Catholic.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Bump?

As a Catholic, I am taught by the Church that it has the authority from Christ to teach the faith with infallibility. Therefore, I take everything the Church teaches very seriously. I consider the Church’s teaching and the application of that teaching to all the circumstances of my life to be the cross that God has given me to carry. If I fail to take parts of the Church’s teaching seriously, when I reach an advanced age I will find myself in the unenviable position of having to go back and pick up the pieces of the cross I failed to carry. Well, I don’t have to, but Jesus did teach that we will not be freed until we have paid the last penny. Coupled with the saints’ advice that it is far, far easier to make up for our shortcomings here on earth than to take them with us into the flames of Purgatory, it only makes sense to take on our shoulders the entire cross given to us, and not leave any pieces behind. One cannot enter heaven until the complete task set before us is completed. And God help me, if I decide to presume on God’s mercy and not to carry any part of the cross on my life’s journey! Many of us leave a good portion behind us in our youth, and if we’re smart, we will try to make up for it in our last days. God help us if we arrive at our last day on earth repentant, but empty-handed. Fellow Catholics, especially those of us who have been lazy in our faith, keep those plenary indulgences close at hand! I don’t think it will be a joke once we cross over. The time is short. But it’s never too late to become a saint. St. Dismas pray for us! Peace.

 

[Elizabeth502]

For me, agreement means I have given my assent, my “amen”, to the teaching… and then I live it. If I don’t live it, but claim agreement, then I am a hypocrite.

But if you claim disagreement AND don’t live it (because of your private “authority” to “disagree”), then you sin grievously regardless. We don’t get a pass for being consistently (“non-hypocritically”) disobedient. Rather, the hypocrisy there is claiming that an infant sacrament entitles you to oppose what that sacrament signifies (to behave other than in a Catholic manner).

My assent to the teaching is just the beginning of being a Catholic.

Absolutely, but that assent is essential. To put it another way, if you do not promote heresy and heterodoxy, yet doubt in your heart, but nevertheless when Push Comes to Shove you act according to Church moral teaching, you are not a hypocrite. Rather, you are human. Your doubts could be (and could have been) intellectually based or they could be temptation-based, yet apparently (in that hypothetical) when the Rubber Met the Road, you had enough faith and humility to choose according to what you were taught – as opposed to acting as your own private Magisterium while at the same time tacitly acknowledging a Magisterium by virtue of your Catholic standing.

 

[tskrobacz]

I was baptized Catholic when I was a baby and until now I’m a dedicated believer of Christ. However, while I abide with most of the practices of the church, like attending Sunday mass, there are a few of their teachings I’m having doubts with, like the concept of Purgatory. If I don’t agree with all Catholic traditions, does that mean I can’t be called one? I wish I could still be a member.

I would say you are a very typical Catholic. In the beginning most Catholics accept everything the Church teaches without questioning. As you awaken you begin to question…it is only if you keep going on this journey that you will come to discover that there is often a deeper meeting or different perspective that will enable you to refine or “convert” your thinking about the things you presently find unconscionable.

 

[clem456]

But if you claim disagreement AND don’t live it (because of your private “authority” to “disagree”), then you sin grievously regardless. We don’t get a pass for being consistently (“non-hypocritically”) disobedient. Rather, the hypocrisy there is claiming that an infant sacrament entitles you to oppose what that sacrament signifies (to behave other than in a Catholic manner).

Yes, assent to the Church’s teaching authority is essential to being a good Catholic. This can be a “very hard saying”, as I personally struggle to give my obedience in several areas. But as a start, I must recognize the Church’s authority to instruct my life in the way of Jesus Christ.

Absolutely, but that assent is essential. To put it another way, if you do not promote heresy and heterodoxy, yet doubt in your heart, but nevertheless when Push Comes to Shove you act according to Church moral teaching, you are not a hypocrite. Rather, you are human. Your doubts could be (and could have been) intellectually based or they could be temptation-based, yet apparently (in that hypothetical) when the Rubber Met the Road, you had enough faith and humility to choose according to what you were taught – as opposed to acting as your own private Magisterium while at the same time tacitly acknowledging a Magisterium by virtue of your Catholic standing.

Yes, I agree. The rest of the reading for tomorrow ties into this as Jesus expands on the essential nature of a life lived in accord with the essential teaching :
Basically our man says “I am the guy the teaching describes” and Jesus proceeds to flesh out the fullness of the teaching that is to be assented to.

But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus,
“And who is my neighbor?”
Jesus replied,
“A man fell victim to robbers
as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.
They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead.
A priest happened to be going down that road,
but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
Likewise a Levite came to the place,
and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him
was moved with compassion at the sight.
He approached the victim,
poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them.
Then he lifted him up on his own animal,
took him to an inn, and cared for him.
The next day he took out two silver coins
and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction,
‘Take care of him.
If you spend more than what I have given you,
I shall repay you on my way back.’
Which of these three, in your opinion,
was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?”
He answered, “The one who treated him with mercy.”
Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

I am trying to illustrate that being in agreement is not -merely- a cut and dried legalistic endeavor.

 

[clem456]

I would say you are a very typical Catholic. In the beginning most Catholics accept everything the Church teaches without questioning. As you awaken you begin to question…it is only if you keep going on this journey that you will come to discover that there is often a deeper meeting or different perspective that will enable you to refine or “convert” your thinking about the things you presently find unconscionable.

Yea I concur with that, and I think that the positive aspects of the teaching need to be included along with the prohibitions if we are to help in conversion. This is not to dismiss prohibitions, but rather to think about the most effective way to present the fullness of teaching, so that others are drawn to accept it.

We had this discussion this morning at our men’s scripture study with a guy who is on the fence with some things:.
Why does the Church not allow birth control when poor women around the world live in abusive and desperate conditions? Why should they bear children?
Answer…because it’s against God’s law to kill a child.
That didn’t sit well with one of our on-the-fence guys. So we asked him like this:

Do you consider your life to be a gift from God? yes
Do you consider my life to be a gift from God? yes
Do you suffer sometimes? yes
Would you kill yourself because you suffer? no
Would you kill me if I suffered? no
If your life is a gift from God, why is the life given to any human being not a gift? I dunno
If you are gifted, the unborn child may be gifted to cure cancer, invent a new strain of rice etc…Isn’t that worth protecting? Uh, yeah I guess so.

The light bulb goes on. The positive foundation of the prohibition helps convert those who cannot see.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am trying to illustrate that being in agreement is not -merely- a cut and dried legalistic endeavor.

No one has said that it is, including the Church. (Straw man on your part.)

 

[clem456]

No one has said that it is, including the Church. (Straw man on your part.)

Ok I confess I am thoroughly confused. Why are you assuming that I am disputing something? I am not constructing a straw man. I was not debating anything anybody said.

 

[Elizabeth502]

am not constructing a straw man.

You’re introducing an “argument” which is not in dispute. That’s what a Straw Man is.

Here is where you introduced what no one but you has asserted:

I am trying to illustrate that being in agreement is not -merely- a cut and dried legalistic endeavor.

No one said anything about “merely.” Nor does the Church say that “merely” adhering to teachings is sufficient to enter Heaven. And the Church makes that point because Jesus did, just as Jesus made the point that fulfilling the complete divine law, and doing it with interior love toward God, is what defines a true follower of His. (Interior love + obedience in action.)

So: Posters didn’t say it was “cut and dried.”
Jesus didn’t say it was “cut and dried.”
The Catholic Church doesn’t say it’s “cut and dried.”

The “merely” makes an interesting bonfire, but nothing else.

You were completely correct earlier, OTOH, when you called this “a hard saying.” That’s what Jesus called it, and that’s what many of His listeners walked away from.

 

[clem456]

You’re introducing an “argument” which is not in dispute. That’s what a Straw Man is.

Here is where you introduced what no one but you has asserted:

No one said anything about “merely.” Nor does the Church say that “merely” adhering to teachings is sufficient to enter Heaven. And the Church makes that point because Jesus did, just as Jesus made the point that fulfilling the complete divine law, and doing it with interior love toward God, is what defines a true follower of His. (Interior love + obedience in action.)

So: Posters didn’t say it was “cut and dried.”
Jesus didn’t say it was “cut and dried.”
The Catholic Church doesn’t say it’s “cut and dried.”

The “merely” makes an interesting bonfire, but nothing else.

You were completely correct earlier, OTOH, when you called this “a hard saying.” That’s what Jesus called it, and that’s what many of His listeners walked away from.

Don 't have the time to dance. I would just ask the courtesy of taking my posts at face value and not reading some dispute into them that is not there. I was commenting initially on what it means to be in agreement. If you read that post I did not dispute with anyone, it was more of a personal reflection than anything else. I did comment on the reading for tomorrow which illustrates a man for whom teaching is cut and dried. Later I agreed with your post…so… Then I posted about the positive foundation of teaching. But other than that…
This is getting silly so no more for me thanks.

 

[meltzerboy]

You’re introducing an “argument” which is not in dispute. That’s what a Straw Man is.

Here is where you introduced what no one but you has asserted:

No one said anything about “merely.” Nor does the Church say that “merely” adhering to teachings is sufficient to enter Heaven. And the Church makes that point because Jesus did, just as Jesus made the point that fulfilling the complete divine law, and doing it with interior love toward God, is what defines a true follower of His. (Interior love + obedience in action.)

So: Posters didn’t say it was “cut and dried.”
Jesus didn’t say it was “cut and dried.”
The Catholic Church doesn’t say it’s “cut and dried.”

The “merely” makes an interesting bonfire, but nothing else.

You were completely correct earlier, OTOH, when you called this “a hard saying.” That’s what Jesus called it, and that’s what many of His listeners walked away from.

And BTW the same is true in Judaism, leaving the salvation issue aside: that is, fulfilling the Law as in going through the motions but with no internal conviction is (nearly) just the same as not fulfilling the Law at all.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would just ask the courtesy of taking my posts at face value and not reading some dispute into them that is not there.

I not only did you that courtesy, I complimented you. Your choice, clem. Do you what you wish. You did bring up “arguments” that have nothing to do with the aspect of basic agreement and assent, which is the only thing I criticized you for. Many other CAF’ers do this also.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And BTW the same is true in Judaism, leaving the salvation issue aside: that is, fulfilling the Law as in going through the motions but with no internal conviction is (nearly) just the same as not fulfilling the Law at all.

Yes, and this was prevalent in Jesus’ day as well, which is what he criticized some segments of Judaism for doing, and in a very similar way to what you just said.

 

[tskrobacz]

Yea I concur with that, and I think that the positive aspects of the teaching need to be included along with the prohibitions if we are to help in conversion. This is not to dismiss prohibitions, but rather to think about the most effective way to present the fullness of teaching, so that others are drawn to accept it.

We had this discussion this morning at our men’s scripture study with a guy who is on the fence with some things:.
Why does the Church not allow birth control when poor women around the world live in abusive and desperate conditions? Why should they bear children?
Answer…because it’s against God’s law to kill a child.
That didn’t sit well with one of our on-the-fence guys. So we asked him like this:

Do you consider your life to be a gift from God? yes
Do you consider my life to be a gift from God? yes
Do you suffer sometimes? yes
Would you kill yourself because you suffer? no
Would you kill me if I suffered? no
If your life is a gift from God, why is the life given to any human being not a gift? I dunno
If you are gifted, the unborn child may be gifted to cure cancer, invent a new strain of rice etc…Isn’t that worth protecting? Uh, yeah I guess so.

The light bulb goes on. The positive foundation of the prohibition helps convert those who cannot see.

Yes, eventually we come to see that when nothing is forbidden, nothing is required of us AND it is also true that when nothing is forbidden, EVERYTHING is required of us…we step into the mystery of love and paradox.