Any Catholics around who reject a teaching or two? Post here!

[Gorgias]

Was Luther a “Catholic” when he started the “Lutheran Church”?

I’ll answer your question with a question: was Luther a heretic; that is, at that point, could a non-Catholic be a heretic?

Why would we persist in calling a public rejector of the Faith a “Catholic”?

Gee… maybe because it’s the truth? The scandal is located precisely in the fact that they are Catholic! Would Sebellius or Pelosi be any less scandalous if they were excommunicated? Of course not! Would they quit calling themselves ‘Catholic’? Of course not! Would the Church then say, “these people are no longer Catholic”? Of course not! She would be in a position to say that these people should no longer present themselves for communion, but not that they aren’t Catholic!

The only thing that the Church distances from itself, in that case, is their teachings and assertions…!

I think we need to be clear about something: words mean things. When you start obscuring what a “Catholic” means

Exactly! And to say that someone can become not-Catholic obscures the fact of what baptism accomplishes!

it ceases to be a moniker of one’s actual beliefs.

That’s just it – the identifier “Catholic” doesn’t ID what I believe, but rather who I am, with respect to Christ and His Body, the Church. (In an ideal world, it would therefore also identify what I believe, but since we’re human and imperfect, that’s not the case).

Heresy should horrify us, and spark in us a desire to pray for souls and eagerly evangelize those who have doubts about the faith.

Without a doubt.

 

[Politica]

Believe me I have tried, but as I narrowed down the reading into the basis all the teachings I disagree with I still found no moral reasoning for it. Seemed as if it has translucent back up.

I was once where you are now, and I’m am no where near understanding everything. I accept the teaching and try and research more about the position. I start from the positive.

Some are never to be fully understood because our human minds cannot fully understand them. The Trinity is a Mystery and I accept it, knowing that my small research and those theologians who use metaphor cannot find the human words to describe what we will only fully understand when in the presence of God. I accept this. That God is more powerful than my human knowledge could ever conceive.

I’m trying to live and accept those moral teachings of which I have have been a sinner. They didn’t seem so bad at the time. But the Church teaches me they are. So, I begin with acceptance and read as much as I can to understand the “why” of the Church’s position so that I can change because it was not working for me when I was picking and choosing and I must be in comport with the Church’s teachings.

My “Come to Jesus” moment came when I realized that the Church is not a democracy and I don’t get a vote.

 

[Zundrah]

I think your question makes perfect sense and is a good question.
You are right–there are many people who call themselves Catholic, but do not believe/follow all the teachings.

So what should a Catholic do, if they find themselves in that situation?
Does one become a so-called “cafeteria” Catholic?
Or, does one leave the Church and follow a religion that they believe in 100 percent?

A Bishop in Ireland recently gave a sermon that was widely publicized (I posted it a month or so ago) sternly saying that if one didn’t believe everything in total, they shouldn’t bother coming to church.

But many others say…to stay, and work it out and give it time. That you will at one point believe in everything if you work hard enough and have faith.

I guess it’s true, that one can change one’s beliefs. But what if you can’t? It sounds like you did try. And can one “force” oneself to believe something if they really don’t? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I can understand your not wanting to be a hypocrite and say you are Catholic if you do not believe everything. And I can understand your curiosity as to how/why others in this same situation took a different route than you. If I were you, I’d want to know what they were thinking/feeling.

I’ve seen a handful of Catholics who have posted here, saying they believe in birth control and don’t oppose gay marriage, etc.
But I think, as per what one other poster said, that for the most part most of the Catholics on this site are those who don’t have doubts about any of the teachings.

Or if they do, I think they believe it is a flaw in their own understanding, not in the belief itself? So they wouldn’t see it as “rejecting” the teaching, as you ask about, but just that they are not strong enough or willing enough yet to “get” it properly.

This is exactly what I mean. You put it just as how I was thinking about it but I failed to word it correctly maybe.

Thing is, I honestly don’t see any way of myself getting around the things I reject and I have honestly read enough into it. It’s a dead end for me which is why I didn’t bother to post my own problems here but wanted to understand other people.

 

[Zundrah]

Oh my. It seems that any discussion in this matter offends so many, but to the original poster; I get it. I believe in the trinity, in the sacraments, in the teachings of Jesus, and am proud of the wonderful work fellow Catholics have done to help those who dwell on the earth and pray for tbose who are no longer with us on earth. However, and I am bracing myself for the lashing I may encounter; I believe the humans entrusted to carry on the legacy of the church have gotten it wrong before. Greed and corruption have visited ojr cburch in the past and I hope we; as the church have learned from the sins committed against the teachings of Jesus. What about the selling of absolutions to MAKE PROMISE of getting into heaven by the pope at the time Martin Luther wrote his grievences? What about when Jesus himself basically said in his teachings, yes obsereve the Sabbath but if you lamb falls into a ditch you can surely go rescue the creature.

And lashed you shall be but not by me.

People can be enlightened by asking questions of what they don’t understand or feel spiritually questioned by.

This is Catholic answers after all.

Automattic attack mode is to often deployed on this site. Relax everyone. let the forum exist without JUDGEMENT and pray everyone can come to understand and correct their spiritual dilemas.

So true, it is common place.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

What about the selling of absolutions to MAKE PROMISE of getting into heaven by the pope at the time Martin Luther wrote his grievences?

Your statements simply show you are not very well educated in history. As for Indulgences to remit the punishment due to sin, these have always been a part of Catholic teaching, and you can get the the handbook HERE Realize that **there was, is and always will be **wolves among the sheep and weeds among the wheat; these are scoundrels, hypocrites, liars, adulterers, perverts, thieves, etc. etc. which are in both the clergy and the laity of the visible Church on earth–starting with 1 among the 12 Apostles. The issue with Martin Luther and Indulgences was the abuse by certain German clergy selling Indulgences, not the Indulgences themselves.

There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.–Archbishop Fulton J Sheen

 

[jmjconder]

**

To deal with a problem, you must first acknowledge it.

If you are concerned about the faith problems other Catholics are having then you can help them of course. When an issue arises, there can be brought solutions.

**

You are correct in your statements. However I have found many CAF comments that are not in union with the teachings of our faith. This is especially true in the matters of morals.

If anyone is seeking answers…PM an apologist or find recognizable Catholic person. If in doubt as to this person may be…find a person that supports the Divine foundation of the Church…Magisterium. There is where the promise of truth exists.

 

[bird79]

Your statements simply show you are not very well educated in history. As for Indulgences to remit the punishment due to sin, these have always been a part of Catholic teaching, and you can get the the handbook HERE Realize that **there was, is and always will be **wolves among the sheep and weeds among the wheat; these are scoundrels, hypocrites, liars, adulterers, perverts, thieves, etc. etc. which are in both the clergy and the laity of the visible Church on earth–starting with 1 among the 12 Apostles. The issue with Martin Luther and Indulgences was the abuse by certain German clergy selling Indulgences, not the Indulgences themselves.

There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.–Archbishop Fulton J Sheen

The abuse of selling indulgences is what I was referring to. thank you for better stating my point.

 

[Zundrah]

**

You are correct in your statements. However I have found many CAF comments that are not in union with the teachings of our faith. This is especially true in the matters of morals.

If anyone is seeking answers…PM an apologist or find recognizable Catholic person. If in doubt as to this person may be…find a person that supports the Divine foundation of the Church…Magisterium. There is where the promise of truth exists.

**

Well, yes, I can’t argue with that.

 

[Havard]

I think your question makes perfect sense and is a good question.
You are right–there are many people who call themselves Catholic, but do not believe/follow all the teachings.

So what should a Catholic do, if they find themselves in that situation?
Does one become a so-called “cafeteria” Catholic?
Or, does one leave the Church and follow a religion that they believe in 100 percent?

A Bishop in Ireland recently gave a sermon that was widely publicized (I posted it a month or so ago) sternly saying that if one didn’t believe everything in total, they shouldn’t bother coming to church.

But many others say…to stay, and work it out and give it time. That you will at one point believe in everything if you work hard enough and have faith.

I guess it’s true, that one can change one’s beliefs. But what if you can’t? It sounds like you did try. And can one “force” oneself to believe something if they really don’t? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I can understand your not wanting to be a hypocrite and say you are Catholic if you do not believe everything. And I can understand your curiosity as to how/why others in this same situation took a different route than you. If I were you, I’d want to know what they were thinking/feeling.

I’ve seen a handful of Catholics who have posted here, saying they believe in birth control and don’t oppose gay marriage, etc.
But I think, as per what one other poster said, that for the most part most of the Catholics on this site are those who don’t have doubts about any of the teachings.

Or if they do, I think they believe it is a flaw in their own understanding, not in the belief itself? So they wouldn’t see it as “rejecting” the teaching, as you ask about, but just that they are not strong enough or willing enough yet to “get” it properly.

Fr. Thomas Williams, LC, wrote a great book dealing with this issue.

amazon.com/Knowing-Right-Wrong-Christian-Conscience/dp/B00375LN2E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329587857&sr=8-1

For any Catholic who thinks they’ve exhausted every resource and still has problems with one (or many) Magisterial teachings… if you haven’t read this book, IMHO order it ASAP.

 

[Zundrah]

Fr. Thomas Williams, LC, wrote a great book dealing with this issue.

amazon.com/Knowing-Right-Wrong-Christian-Conscience/dp/B00375LN2E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329587857&sr=8-1

with one (or many) Magisterial teachings… if you haven’t read this book, IMHO order it ASAP.

This book was made for me

For any Catholic who thinks they’ve exhausted every resource and still has problems

This is the point!

 

[Havard]

This book was made for me

This is the point!

I would have offered to mail you mine… but I lost it.

Although I somehow didn’t lose the jacket…

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Its clear in that here you are talking about Roman Catholic

and not

Catholic

Though many of you write Catholic, even the opening post, thinking you mean Roman Catholic. In that I am Catholic but definately not Roman Catholic.

The name of the Church founded by Christ in A.D. 33 is Catholic. It was named by the disciples of the Apostles, who probably learned it from their teachers.

Where the bishop is, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107 This is the first written form of the name.

The label “Roman” was attached to the Catholic Church by Anglicans in the 16th century to support their three-branch theory. There are 22 Rites or Churches that comprize the Catholic Church. One of these is the Roman or Latin Rite. “Roman Catholic” refers to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, the largest Church of the 22 Rites, and its members. There are others: the Byzantine Catholic Church, Ukranian Catholic Church, Greek Catholic Church, etc., each with its own history, canon laws, language, and unique liturgy, who are under the umbrella of the Pope and are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Several ecclesial communities have appropriated and use the name “Catholic,” but they do not share the faith and morals of the original, apostolic Catholic Church under the jurisdiction of St. Peter and his successors. One section of the three groups called Anglican are one such case.

 

[Anna_Claire]

What I want to know is why people who reject certain teachings from the Church still want to remain Catholic. Like usually, if that were the case with a protestant, they might change denomination.

Isn’t it believed that the Church can’t possibly teach something that is in fact wrong? So we should be able to believe every single thing it states with good trust and faith without having to worry that they may have got it wrong. Perhaps that’s not the case, maybe I have a misunderstanding.

Thanks for clarifying.
The answer to your question is people remain Catholic because they believe! I believe in Catholicism even though at times I find the road difficult. The fact is that even though we may be people of faith, Catholics are thinkers. We cannot live by blind faith in the Church. It’s not possible and those who say they don’t question anything are not being truthful. Our lives are about questions and answers and seeking the truth with humility and courage. I am Catholic because I love the Church…I have to believe there is something to it,even when I am confused and the road is rough.

 

[Zundrah]

I would have offered to mail you mine… but I lost it.

Although I somehow didn’t lose the jacket…

LOL That’s very cute. That’s like how I have lost rosaries but managed to find one bead from it.

 

[Zundrah]

Thanks for clarifying.
The answer to your question is people remain Catholic because they believe! I believe in Catholicism even though at times I find the road difficult. The fact is that even though we may be people of faith, Catholics are thinkers. We cannot live by blind faith in the Church. It’s not possible and those who say they don’t question anything are not being truthful. Our lives are about questions and answers and seeking the truth with humility and courage. I am Catholic because I love the Church…I have to believe there is something to it,even when I am confused and the road is rough.

So it’s by faith that you hang on. It’s interesting.

 

[Leegal]

+JMJ+

I think what Leegal was trying to say is that sometimes you have to practice those teachings before you could understand them, for one can only develop moral conscience by using it.

If I understand what you said about your acceptance about Marian teachings, you came to understand and accept the Church’s teachings on the Blessed Virgin and the Communion of Saints after you started praying the Rosary.

You can also start doing that here. Try to live as if the moral teachings of the Catholic Church are true.

I begin with the assumption that the Church is right and my thinking may be wrong. If it’s “wrong” then I try not to do it because the Church forbids it and see what happens, but I also try and look for the official teachings. So far it has improved my life and understanding, though I don’t “get” everything – and don’t expect that I ever will.

Some things we will never understand because our human mind is not capable of understanding, but we will when we are finally in the presence of God. The Trinity is such a Mystery that not even a theologian can come up with a human metaphor that will satisfy everyone.

My “come to Jesus” moment on this came when I realized that I may be wrong and the Church is not based on self-interpretation. I actually had to admit to myself that my thinking was wrong and so was my approach. Once I gave in to the structure, I began to see small improvements as I rejected these sinful and immoral behaviors that I had thought “oh, it’s not so bad.”

And I still struggle with one Church teaching – and that’s homosexual practices – because I know many homosexuals. I’m not gay so I could just go along with the Church teaching on homosexual practices, but I had to understand it. So, if unmarried and the Church prohibits sex outside of marriage, my reasoning is that if anyone is unmarried then they cannot engage outside of the sacrament (and the Church will not change their position just because I have some gay friends), then I must accept that homosexuals are called to chastity because all unmarrieds are to remain chaste. Once I could accept that, changing my own sinful behavior, it made sense to me why the Church has the position that it does on sex outside of the sacrament of marriage. It truly has to be a unitive act and if God is not “there” then it’s just sinful selfish sex.

 

[Listener]

When I was in grade school, the Church taught that Capital Punishment was just fine. Now, years later, it teaches that Capital Punishment is not so fine. Which am I supposed to agree with?

When I was in grade school the Church taught that it was a mortal sin to get a tattoo (you were mutilating your body). Now I see on this forum that it is not a sin to get a tattoo. Which is correct?

When I was in grade school, smoking was fine. Now it seems to be a sin against the 5th Commandment because you would not be taking proper care of your physical and bodily well being.

Ages ago, the Church forbade Usury, which was charging interest on a loan. Now you don’t hear about that any more.

When I was in grade school, it was a mortal sin to cremate someone. Now it’s fine.

So if someone has a problem with some of the above teachings, which teaching should they choose to believe in?

If someone disagrees with a Church teaching, I think that is normal, and I don’t lose sleep over it.

 

[Windmill]

That’s just it – the identifier “Catholic” doesn’t ID what I believe, but rather who I am, with respect to Christ and His Body, the Church. (In an ideal world, it would therefore also identify what I believe, but since we’re human and imperfect, that’s not the case).

And that is the key problem: the identifier “Catholic” is precisely about what a person believes. Catholicism is not a state of being, it is a system of beliefs. What we say and what we believe are integral to what Catholicism is. Otherwise it is just a name that means whatever we want it to mean. That is why the church defines certain beliefs as de fide: they must be believed.

To invoke invincible ignorance in explaining the disparity between what the Church teaches and what you believe is not what we are talking about here. Material heresy, in and of itself, does not separate one from the Church. You must know that you are embracing heresy. If I had mistaken notions about the nature of the Trinity, that doesn’t make me a heretic. If I am corrected by someone explaining the doctrines of the Church and I change my beliefs to conform with the Church’s revealed truths, that is totally different because I consent to the Magisterium and unknowingly believed something that I thought was in line with Church teaching. Luther knew what he was rejecting, and thus, he willingly separated himself from the Church.

In the end, we can all agree that whether or not you claim the title “Catholic”, you can still go to Hell. Someone who argues for the retention of the title “Catholic” to heretics may be giving lost sheep a false sense of security, that they are still “in the fold”. These people are in grave peril of losing their souls because they knowingly rejected a revealed truth. I see no benefit in calling people Catholics that have already spurned the Magisterium.

 

[Zundrah]

When I was in grade school, the Church taught that Capital Punishment was just fine. Now, years later, it teaches that Capital Punishment is not so fine. Which am I supposed to agree with?

When I was in grade school the Church taught that it was a mortal sin to get a tattoo (you were mutilating your body). Now I see on this forum that it is not a sin to get a tattoo. Which is correct?

When I was in grade school, smoking was fine. Now it seems to be a sin against the 5th Commandment because you would not be taking proper care of your physical and bodily well being.

Ages ago, the Church forbade Usury, which was charging interest on a loan. Now you don’t hear about that any more.

When I was in grade school, it was a mortal sin to cremate someone. Now it’s fine.

So if someone has a problem with some of the above teachings, which teaching should they choose to believe in?

If someone disagrees with a Church teaching, I think that is normal, and I don’t lose sleep over it.

What processes have to take place in order for them to change a teaching?

 

[DeniseNY]

I admit that I still struggle with the Church’s teachings on artifical birth control. I am reading about it more to educate myself and I’m really trying to reconcile my thoughts with that which the Church teaches.

For a long time I was Catholic ‘in name only’, but I am trying to fully find my way back.