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

[JamesCaruso]

I do not love God and my neighbor with my whole being. I just don’t.

I understand where you are coming from. By reflection on how we have lived, we realize that we do not love God and neighbor as we should. That’s why we have confession. But remember that a necessary part of confession is a firm resolve to sin no more. So when we pray to God and tell Him that we love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength, we are not lying, we mean it, and we firmly resolve to show it.

Sure, we know from past experience, that we will probably fail to live up to those words, but still, we hope to and we intend to. We also know from experience, that we will discover new areas in our selves that do not measure up, areas that we never realized before. That too is added to the mix. But we continue on, hopeful, progressing along the way, but even if not, still confessing and returning to our resolve to amend our lives and sin no more. That’s what Jesus used to say, “Go and sin no more.”

So, part of what being Catholic means to me is that I have to not only assent to the teachings of the Church, but I have to firmly resolve to follow those teachings, even if that means picking myself up and trying over and over again. “Perseverance wins the crown!”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Following up on James’ last post and clem’s posts (which deal with imperfection), the subject of the thread is not, of course, perfection of result. That is not the determiner, first of all, in whether one is a faithful Catholic, because otherwise there would be zero faithful Catholics, including the saints.

The subject is sincere acceptance of all of the moral teaching of the Church, whether or not one succeeds in meeting those at all times. It’s acceptance that the Magisterium is in a position, not lay Catholics, to determine what is and is not absolute truth, and what is and is not essential to belief. That is what is being discussed here. Some posters want to tell other Catholics that it’s dandy for Catholics to “disagree” with the Magisterium on teaching (contraception, abortion, female ordination, same-sex “marriage,” and more)

Nor is the issue some backwards argument that human imperfection (including the imperfections of the men in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) invalidates the teaching itself.

Hope that clarifies.

 

[NovusAugustus]

If I understand the core question of this thread, it’s:

“Is it okay if I don’t understand or agree with a given position of the Church?”

The broad answer is that it really varies. In the Church my understanding is that there is a kind of “belief ranking” which goes like this, taken from a thread on here from 2006:

I’m doing this from memory, so someone who has the book PLEASE correct my mistakes!

Re Scott Currie’s Born Fundamentalist, Born-again Catholic:

1. Deposit of Faith: Holy Scripture AND Sacred Tradition, recognized and deliniated by the Magisterium. INFALLIBLE. Cannot be added to or subtracted from.
2. Dogma: INFALLIBLE teaching of Faith or Morals, derived from the Deposit of Faith. Propagated by ex cathedra pronouncment of reigning Pontiff or by a ecumenical council of the Church’s bishops in turn ratified by reigning Pontiff. Cannot contradict Deposit of Faith or prior Dogma.
3. Doctrine: NOT infallible teaching of the Church of Faith and Morals. Binding on all Catholics while propagated. Can be altered, modified, abandoned, even condemned. Doctrine RARELY becomes Dogma.
4. Discipline: NOT infallible rules of behavior, binding on all Catholics while propagated, designed with the intent to keep believers “on the straight and narrow”. Includes Lenten rules of fasting & priestly celibacy. Can be relaxed, altered, or abolished.
5. Devotions: Private practice of prayers, meditions, and disciplines, in accordance to Church approval. Includes 99% of Marian devotions, belief in approved apparitions or visions (Private Revelation), First Saturdays, Stations of the Cross, etc…

I’ve only ever read this on CAF, so if anyone more theologically qualified comes along feel free to correct me/the old poster that wrote this.

As you can see from the list, it is okay to disagree with some things, like priestly celibacy, fasting, practice of praying the rosary, and so on. Merely disagreeing doesn’t mean you can break the practice–i.e. marry as a priest, tell someone they can’t pray the rosary, and so on. But it does mean you can have a reasoned debate about its wisdom.

As you move up the chain, it becomes different. I’m not certain, but something like Purgatory probably falls under doctrine or dogma. While as a free agent you can try to research scriptural and theologically arguments against Purgatory, at the end of the day you must accept the Church teaching, at least until a Pope or Council comes along and decides otherwise–hint: I wouldn’t hold my breath. It’s highly unlikely.

I hope that helps, and I hope I’m not in error because this is complicated stuff. I ask the intercession of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine of Hippo, and Saint Ambrose so that God may pour out his blessings and through his Holy Spirit grant you to spirit of wisdom and understanding to bring you closer to the light of the faith.

 

[JamesCaruso]

If I understand the core question of this thread, it’s:

“Is it okay if I don’t understand or agree with a given position of the Church?”

The broad answer is that it really varies. In the Church my understanding is that there is a kind of “belief ranking” which goes like this, taken from a thread on here from 2006:

I’ve only ever read this on CAF, so if anyone more theologically qualified comes along feel free to correct me/the old poster that wrote this.

As you can see from the list, it is okay to disagree with some things, like priestly celibacy, fasting, practice of praying the rosary, and so on. Merely disagreeing doesn’t mean you can break the practice–i.e. marry as a priest, tell someone they can’t pray the rosary, and so on. But it does mean you can have a reasoned debate about its wisdom.

As you move up the chain, it becomes different. I’m not certain, but something like Purgatory probably falls under doctrine or dogma. While as a free agent you can try to research scriptural and theologically arguments against Purgatory, at the end of the day you must accept the Church teaching, at least until a Pope or Council comes along and decides otherwise–hint: I wouldn’t hold my breath. It’s highly unlikely.

I hope that helps, and I hope I’m not in error because this is complicated stuff. I ask the intercession of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine of Hippo, and Saint Ambrose so that God may pour out his blessings and through his Holy Spirit grant you to spirit of wisdom and understanding to bring you closer to the light of the faith.

This is an interesting list. I had always placed doctrine in the “infallible” class. What I was probably misnaming was deposit of faith. I’ll try to use the term doctrine with more care in the future, unless others believe the term here was misused. I hope someone weighs in.

 

[NovusAugustus]

This is an interesting list. I had always placed doctrine in the “infallible” class. What I was probably misnaming was deposit of faith. I’ll try to use the term doctrine with more care in the future, unless others believe the term here was misused. I hope someone weighs in.

The finest distinction is between dogma and doctrine. I hope these help:

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-difference-between-doctrine-and-dogma
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=122245

 

[Aramis]

If I understand the core question of this thread, it’s:

“Is it okay if I don’t understand or agree with a given position of the Church?”

The broad answer is that it really varies. In the Church my understanding is that there is a kind of “belief ranking” which goes like this, taken from a thread on here from 2006:

I’ve only ever read this on CAF, so if anyone more theologically qualified comes along feel free to correct me/the old poster that wrote this.

As you can see from the list, it is okay to disagree with some things, like priestly celibacy, fasting, practice of praying the rosary, and so on. Merely disagreeing doesn’t mean you can break the practice–i.e. marry as a priest, tell someone they can’t pray the rosary, and so on. But it does mean you can have a reasoned debate about its wisdom.

As you move up the chain, it becomes different. I’m not certain, but something like Purgatory probably falls under doctrine or dogma. While as a free agent you can try to research scriptural and theologically arguments against Purgatory, at the end of the day you must accept the Church teaching, at least until a Pope or Council comes along and decides otherwise–hint: I wouldn’t hold my breath. It’s highly unlikely.

I hope that helps, and I hope I’m not in error because this is complicated stuff. I ask the intercession of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine of Hippo, and Saint Ambrose so that God may pour out his blessings and through his Holy Spirit grant you to spirit of wisdom and understanding to bring you closer to the light of the faith.

You’re missing a couple other fallible categories, but yes, that’s pretty much right.

Theology: the various bodies of teachings by members of the magisterium and approved laypersons, which explain the deposit of faith, dogmas, doctrines, and disciplines, and often are the source of many devotions. Highly fallible, and constantly in evolution; often speculation.

Rubrics - the written instructions on how something is to be done; some are bound by pain of sin, others not. Not infallible, not requiring assent of will, merely assent of action. (In other words, you can complain or disagree, but still have to obey.)

Canon Law: a special category all its own. Binding, but not infallible. Must be obeyed under pain of sin, but can be openly disagreed with, provided that it’s still obeyed. Some Disciplines are encoded in Canon law, but not all that is in canon law is actually disciplines.

Also Doctrine is require to be given assent of will - you’re not allowed to publicly contradict it, and are required to obey it under pain of sin, but aren’t required to believe it.

Generally, the Deposit of Faith is conflated with Dogma; the distinction betwixt them is almost purely academic, as a Dogma axiomatically adds to the deposit of the Faith, and the distinction is a matter of sourcing.

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent article on Dogma… newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

It’s slightly dated, but shows the union of various kinds of dogma, including the full deposit of the faith.

 

[NovusAugustus]

You’re missing a couple other fallible categories, but yes, that’s pretty much right.

Theology: the various bodies of teachings by members of the magisterium and approved laypersons, which explain the deposit of faith, dogmas, doctrines, and disciplines, and often are the source of many devotions. Highly fallible, and constantly in evolution; often speculation.

Rubrics - the written instructions on how something is to be done; some are bound by pain of sin, others not. Not infallible, not requiring assent of will, merely assent of action. (In other words, you can complain or disagree, but still have to obey.)

Canon Law: a special category all its own. Binding, but not infallible. Must be obeyed under pain of sin, but can be openly disagreed with, provided that it’s still obeyed. Some Disciplines are encoded in Canon law, but not all that is in canon law is actually disciplines.

Also Doctrine is require to be given assent of will - you’re not allowed to publicly contradict it, and are required to obey it under pain of sin, but aren’t required to believe it.

Generally, the Deposit of Faith is conflated with Dogma; the distinction betwixt them is almost purely academic, as a Dogma axiomatically adds to the deposit of the Faith, and the distinction is a matter of sourcing.

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent article on Dogma… newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

It’s slightly dated, but shows the union of various kinds of dogma, including the full deposit of the faith.

Thanks, that definitely helps me a lot. I didn’t realize “Theology” was a separate category of teaching–I thought it was more of a general term for anything related to the study of Christian religion. Is it permissible for a theologian in the Church (lay or clergy) to assert theological positions contrary to Church teaching? For example, would it be a sin if Fr. Bob Jones wrote a book or thesis that attempted to assert that Mary was not Immaculately Conceived, or is he spared from sin if he simply states that the book is his theological opinion?

 

[Aramis]

Thanks, that definitely helps me a lot. I didn’t realize “Theology” was a separate category of teaching–I thought it was more of a general term for anything related to the study of Christian religion. Is it permissible for a theologian in the Church (lay or clergy) to assert theological positions contrary to Church teaching? For example, would it be a sin if Fr. Bob Jones wrote a book or thesis that attempted to assert that Mary was not Immaculately Conceived, or is he spared from sin if he simply states that the book is his theological opinion?

If one’s theologumenon is counter to the deposit of the faith, sharing or teaching it is heresy. Bishops have been anathematized simply for not stopping their priests from speculation that violated the Ecumenical Council canons…

So, no, claiming it’s “just theology” isn’t, to my knowledge, even a mitigation of culpability for the sin of heresy.

A theologumenon that is counter to the doctrines of one’s own church (and there is slight divergence amongst the churches in union - and that’s part of the source for the vague dogmatic definitions of the 19th and 20th century dogmas) is also a problem if it’s being taught in the context of that church.

The various lesser teachings, not so much an issue. But in today’s socially lax society, many theologians speculate openly well beyond what appears prudent.

------======------
Theologumenon - a specific chunk of theological theory.

 

[mwic]

The broad answer is that it really varies. In the Church my understanding is that there is a kind of “belief ranking” which goes like this… .

Definitions, distinctions, ramifications and qualifications?

I think this is the most useful post in this whole thread.

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.

This is more like the average post in here:

1. Demonstrably, factually wrong (“all that the Church teachs as divinely revealed”)
2. implied: even asking such questions puts your Catholic-ness in doubt
3. implied: asking constitutes rejection, refusal, possibly damnation.

 

[NovusAugustus]

If one’s theologumenon is counter to the deposit of the faith, sharing or teaching it is heresy. Bishops have been anathematized simply for not stopping their priests from speculation that violated the Ecumenical Council canons…

So, no, claiming it’s “just theology” isn’t, to my knowledge, even a mitigation of culpability for the sin of heresy.

A theologumenon that is counter to the doctrines of one’s own church (and there is slight divergence amongst the churches in union - and that’s part of the source for the vague dogmatic definitions of the 19th and 20th century dogmas) is also a problem if it’s being taught in the context of that church.

The various lesser teachings, not so much an issue. But in today’s socially lax society, many theologians speculate openly well beyond what appears prudent.

------======------
Theologumenon - a specific chunk of theological theory.

This has been very useful to me, and I hope it aids the O.P. Many thanks.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is more like the average post in here:

1. Demonstrably, factually wrong (“all that the Church teachs as divinely revealed”)

All that the Church teaches in faith and morals is divinely revealed. If you never learned that, your catechesis failed you. Revelation is the product of the thousands of years of the history of the People of God, beginning with the ancient Israelites and their reception of revealed truth, continuing on through the 2,000 years of Christian history. It is not the product of a vision of a mystic, nor is it a bunch of arbitrary concepts constructed by a bunch of men making random guesses. The only reason that faith and morals are called absolute truths is that they are divinely revealed: Scripture, Writings of the Fathers, Writings of the Saints, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium.

And if the faith and moral doctrines declared by the Church are not revealed truth, there is not much reason to be Catholic (vs. other faiths), except personal preference or family tradition or cultural convenience. And if it’s not revealed truth, then yeah, pick your doctrine and believe it nor. That’s called Protestantism; that’s what they do there; that’s not what we (all believing Catholics) do.

Truth is one, not divided. Orthodox Catholic theology, the explication of revealed truth, is integrated; it hangs together in a unified dynamic and loses its authenticity when deconstructed.

1. implied: even asking such questions puts your Catholic-ness in doubt
2. implied: asking constitutes rejection, refusal, possibly damnation.

I must have missed the part about asking questions constituting rejection, if it’s merely asking questions, such as asking for reasoning… “Asking questions” =/= “don’t agree.” One is an inquiry; the other is an opposition – and on what grounds does one challenge divinely revealed truth? No Catholic has no credentials or standing to do so versus God.

Tthrough the Magisterium Christ reveals what has not been revealed in scripture and sacred tradition. Without it, you’re missing a part of Revelation.

 

[Gidge]

I urge you to talk with a priest about your doubts.

I would add that you find a good traditionally-minded (read: orthodox) priest before bringing these concerns forward.

Since I don’t know what you’re in disagreement over, I can’t answer your question.

If you prefer the Glory&Praise hymnal over the Adoremus hymnal, for example, yes, you’re still with us

If, on the other hand you believe in Abortion, then no, you’ve cut yourself off.

Prayer sent.

 

[Aramis]

All that the Church teaches in faith and morals is divinely revealed. If you never learned that, your catechesis failed you.

No, not all is “divinely revealed” - however it is binding until changed.

The issue is complex, in that certain elements of the teachings of Faith and Morals are inerrant and infalibly defined, but others are defined less strongly.

Keep in mind, part of the teachings of Morality included (at various points in the past) that slavery was acceptable, that women should have no voice in public, that husbands should beat disobedient wives, and that loaning of money at interest was an excommunication offense.

You cannot sin if you obey the current teachings on faith and morals - even if they are later deemed by the church to be way wrong (as with slavery or heliocentrism).

 

[PJM]

=Aramis;10981257]You’re missing a couple other fallible categories, but yes, that’s pretty much right.

Theology: the various bodies of teachings by members of the magisterium and approved laypersons, which explain the deposit of faith, dogmas, doctrines, and disciplines, and often are the source of many devotions. Highly fallible, and constantly in evolution; often speculation.

Rubrics - the written instructions on how something is to be done; some are bound by pain of sin, others not. Not infallible, not requiring assent of will, merely assent of action. (In other words, you can complain or disagree, but still have to obey.)

Canon Law: a special category all its own. Binding, but not infallible. Must be obeyed under pain of sin, but can be openly disagreed with, provided that it’s still obeyed. Some Disciplines are encoded in Canon law, but not all that is in canon law is actually disciplines.

Also Doctrine is require to be given assent of will - you’re not allowed to publicly contradict it, and are required to obey it under pain of sin, but aren’t required to believe it.

Generally, the Deposit of Faith is conflated with Dogma; the distinction betwixt them is almost purely academic, as a Dogma axiomatically adds to the deposit of the Faith, and the distinction is a matter of sourcing.

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent article on Dogma… newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

It’s slightly dated, but shows the union of various kinds of dogma, including the full deposit of the faith.

One ought to in seeking TRUTH understand that “truth” is and must be SINGULAR.

Thus:

There is BUT One True God

This One True God can and does have ONLY One True set of Faith beliefs

And both historically and biblically has [for reasons Only He can fully understand] has One and only One chosen people. In the OT the Hewbrew nation and in the NT His Catholic Church.

One NEEDS to understand that by and in choosing “Only One” God; Faith and Church is God’s INFALLIBLE gift to prevent men from going astray.

It is the denail of this FACT that has led so many SOOOO wrong in their choices:shrug:

God Bless,
Patrick/PJM

 

[bben15]

While you are forever Catholic through your baptism, you may or may not be a good Catholic.

A good Catholic accepts the teachings of the Church without question, because he/she knows that the teachings of the Church are the teachings of Christ.

Our Lord told us that he would be with the Church until the end of time. Would Jesus back out of his promise?

If you are looking for biblical evidence, purgatory is supported by the Book of Revelation and 2 Maccabees. The Immaculate Conception is supported by Luke 1:28.

God bless.

 

[mwic]

All that the Church teaches in faith and morals is divinely revealed. If you never learned that, your catechesis failed you.

You should take this up with TRH1292, who made the statement in question without the qualification added by you.

The only reason that faith and morals are called absolute truths is that they are divinely revealed

I dont’t think this is quite right; the discipline of “natural theology” investigates absolute truths accessible to “unaided reason”

I must have missed the part about asking questions constituting rejection, if it’s merely asking questions, such as asking for reasoning… “Asking questions” =/= “don’t agree.”

You have missed a large part of this thread, then. For every "It’s okay to have questions. That doesn’t make you a non-Catholic… " (Joe 5859) there’s a post like TRH1292’s or a phrase like “… an independent spirit that has no place in the Catholic Church” (James Caruso) or this gem:
"aemcpa:

What teachings are people so desperate to deny that they demand a list of everything they must believe? … Protestantism is illogical, and so is dissent.

After your post, of course, the trend continues:

A good Catholic accepts the teachings of the Church without question…:

Now, you yourself are generally in the “helpful column” as it were:

“Doubts (which you mention) are fairly universal among sincere Catholics, and are to be differentiated from ‘not agreeing with,’ which implies deliberate opposition”

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

To which I say “thank you kindly!” and repeat some of my earlier questions (tweaked so that they do not refer to heliocentrism, as that is not a matter of faith):

When Ratzinger, in 1984, rejected infant damnation, was he crossing the line from disagreeing to advocating? If a layperson around the time of the Council of Florence is privately unconviced that babies go to hell, 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?

I look forward to hearing your opinion