Are Catholics taught to be more loyal to the church than to God and Jesus Christ?

[marywarfield]

Are Catholics taught to be more loyal to the church than to God and Jesus Christ?

I notice how fervently defensive catholics can be whenever a slight disagreement crops up about some catholic doctrine, expression of doubt about church teaching (usually the usual roster of what Protestants level at Catholics e.g. Mariolatry), so it makes me question whether catholics have the wrong focus, sometimes, it even comes down to loyalty to a particular church building or religious order, not even about denominational loyalty does disapproval come. Shouldn’t they be reasoning from the source of morality as taught by scripture and Jesus Christ, rather than from the position of loyalty to clergy and church. We know from the weakness of human behaviour that social loyalty can sometimes trump loyalty to Morality which has no human character to refer to, and an Abstract idea of God. This is what I feel sometimes drawn from my interaction with catholics, that they defend the church and clergy, and not from a position of indepedent morality but defensiveness out of loyalty to the church, sometimes clergy are wrong and they are also weak to sin. So why defend that?

Since the Church contains within it the full Presence
of Christ and Truth, to be loyal to the Church is to be
loyal to God and Christ.
Disloyalty to the Church is to exchange the full
truth of God for a lessor.

So no. It’s one and the same.

 

[epan]

Are Catholics taught to be more loyal to the church than to God and Jesus Christ?

I notice how fervently defensive catholics can be whenever a slight disagreement crops up about some catholic doctrine, expression of doubt about church teaching (usually the usual roster of what Protestants level at Catholics e.g. Mariolatry), so it makes me question whether catholics have the wrong focus, sometimes, it even comes down to loyalty to a particular church building or religious order, not even about denominational loyalty does disapproval come. Shouldn’t they be reasoning from the source of morality as taught by scripture and Jesus Christ, rather than from the position of loyalty to clergy and church. We know from the weakness of human behaviour that social loyalty can sometimes trump loyalty to Morality which has no human character to refer to, and an Abstract idea of God. This is what I feel sometimes drawn from my interaction with catholics, that they defend the church and clergy, and not from a position of indepedent morality but defensiveness out of loyalty to the church, sometimes clergy are wrong and they are also weak to sin. So why defend that?

In a word, yes.

Catholics are not considered to be Christians by many who consider themselves to be Christian.

There was a thread on this topic with respect to the media, recently.

The point of catholic opinion is sometimes that only Catholics are true Christians.

The point of the Protestant reformation was that some sincere Christians do not consider the Catholic Church to be a representation of Christian doctrine.

So, take your pick.

The truth is that it is a matter of informed opinion and individual temperament. Catholic apologists sometimes struggle with this simple fact.

 

[Michael_Allen]

‘Are Catholics taught to be more loyal to the church than to God and Jesus Christ?’

We are taught to obey our consciences first. I love the beautiful language of the Catechism here…

CCC 1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”

 

[KingAlfred]

Are Catholics taught to be more loyal to the church than to God and Jesus Christ? I notice how fervently defensive catholics can be whenever a slight disagreement crops up about some catholic doctrine, expression of doubt about church teaching (usually the usual roster of what Protestants level at Catholics e.g. Mariolatry), so it makes me question whether catholics have the wrong focus, sometimes, it even comes down to loyalty to a particular church building or religious order, not even about denominational loyalty does disapproval come. Shouldn’t they be reasoning from the source of morality as taught by scripture and Jesus Christ, rather than from the position of loyalty to clergy and church. We know from the weakness of human behaviour that social loyalty can sometimes trump loyalty to Morality which has no human character to refer to, and an Abstract idea of God. This is what I feel sometimes drawn from my interaction with catholics, that they defend the church and clergy, and not from a position of indepedent morality but defensiveness out of loyalty to the church, sometimes clergy are wrong and they are also weak to sin. So why defend that?

To understand Catholicism, you have to know a good bit about the history of Christianity and Western Civilization. Protestantism didn’t come about, in a major way, until 1517, and it only succeeded then because it merged with forces of the Modern Age (i.e., technology, especially printing, nationalism, European global expansion, capitalism, commerce, etc., etc.) and was able to catapult itself onto a world-stage. Meanwhile, Catholicism was the first, large, organized Christian church that stood the test of time. It has a much longer history than Protestantism, and has done so much more for Christianity, in general, than Protestantism ever could, even today.

For example, the Catholic Church existed for centuries before the New Testament was compiled in its present form. And guess who compiled it? The Catholic Church. So, when you ask, 'Shouldn’t Catholics focus on scripture?", the answer is, “We are, but in the context in which the Bible was originally meant to be read.” Protestants cherish individual reading of the Bible, yet they all come up with radically different interpretations of it. For every reader of the Bible in the Protestant world, there’s a potential for a new sect to be established. Protestantism is so deeply divided and fragmented into so many different denominations, it’s really a totally privatized version of Christianity more than anything else, and has little to no impact on society, in this post-modern age.

Even before Luther died, Protestantism began breaking up into splinter-groups and -movements, to the extent he perished frustrated and disgusted with his own common-folk-followers. I tried the ‘solo’ approach to God, through the Bible alone, and it didn’t work. I need the Church. The Bible is an invaluable library of early Judeo-Christian religious writings, but it’s too open to radical, individual interpretation to serve as the sole basis of any viable religious community. SOMEBODY has to interpret it for the group, or the group disintegrates into anarchy. No offense…

 

[LegoGE1947]

To understand Catholicism, you have to know a good bit about the history of Christianity and Western Civilization. Protestantism didn’t come about, in a major way, until 1517, and it only succeeded then because it merged with forces of the Modern Age (i.e., technology, especially printing, nationalism, European global expansion, capitalism, commerce, etc., etc.) and was able to catapult itself onto a world-stage. Meanwhile, Catholicism was the first, large, organized Christian church that stood the test of time. It has a much longer history than Protestantism, and has done so much more for Christianity, in general, than Protestantism ever could, even today.

For example, the Catholic Church existed for centuries before the New Testament was compiled in its present form. And guess who compiled it? The Catholic Church. So, when you ask, 'Shouldn’t Catholics focus on scripture?", the answer is, “We are, but in the context in which the Bible was originally meant to be read.” Protestants cherish individual reading of the Bible, yet they all come up with radically different interpretations of it. For every reader of the Bible in the Protestant world, there’s a potential for a new sect to be established. Protestantism is so deeply divided and fragmented into so many different denominations, it’s really a totally privatized version of Christianity more than anything else, and has little to no impact on society, in this post-modern age.

Even before Luther died, Protestantism began breaking up into splinter-groups and -movements, to the extent he perished frustrated and disgusted with his own common-folk-followers. I tried the ‘solo’ approach to God, through the Bible alone, and it didn’t work. I need the Church. The Bible is an invaluable library of early Judeo-Christian religious writings, but it’s too open to radical, individual interpretation to serve as the sole basis of any viable religious community. SOMEBODY has to interpret it for the group, or the group disintegrates into anarchy. No offense…

In the Acts of the Apostles, those early followers of Jesus were accused of being those who " turn the world upside down" (Acts 17:6) it seems today more like the world turns followers of Jesus “upside down” I’ve also been through the ‘solo’ approach and it didn’t work for me either!

 

[ccmcmg]

I think it’s a self evident truth that they are taught to be more loyal to the church, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Children are taught to stay close to home, until they are mature.

I’ve never been taught to be ‘loyal’ to my Church. Implying that we must stay close to our Church until we ‘mature’ is offensive to me. If that is not what you are implying, my mistake.

I am loyal to God. Within God, there is the Faith, given to us by God. That Faith begins and ends with the Catholic Church. Well, it began with the Jewish Faith and was transformed into the Catholic Faith as Christians when Jesus saved us.

There will always be those who defend the institutional Church regardless of the sins committed. Their ego-identity is attached to the institutional religion and any negatives against it, is an affront against their ego. They will respond offensively.
This is not what Christ’s ask of us.
Catholics must be obedient Church doctrine yes, but more important, they must be Christ centered.
When a Bishop adds a $500,000 addition to his million dollar summer home while closing parishes, the people have a right to protest and ask the Pope for his removal.
Thank God we have a Pope like Francis, who is setting an example of what it means for a priest to be a humble servant of God.

Jim

I will defend my Church, *despite *the sins the men and women IN the Church have committed, for we are all but mere humans. I won’t defend the sins, but I will defend my Church, and with that, my faith.

Thank God we have a Pope like Francis, like Benedict, like Pope John Paul II, like the many, many Popes before them. Pope Francis is not the first, nor will he be the last, to lead our Church, nor are his doctrine or teachings different from those who were before him. I love Pope Francis deeply, and because of who I am, feel closer to him in many ways, but he is the Pope, and albeit might have a different visible ‘flavor’ than other popes, the Church has not changed, nor have our teachings.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Dominican, Melchior Cano, theologian to the Council of Trent, provides us with a sense of balance :

“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery.  Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”

We need to always be Christ Centered and obedient to Him.

Zealously defending every word or action a Bishop or Pope makes when they are in error, does more harm than good.

Jim

 

[edwest2]

No, we are not. Jesus said:

biblehub.com/luke/10-16.htm

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jozefo]

I will defend my Church, *despite *the sins the men and women IN the Church have committed, for we are all but mere humans. I won’t defend the sins, but I will defend my Church, and with that, my faith.

I meant no disrespect, but doesn’t your reply prove your loyalty to the church? And it’s a natural thing to do.

As a sidebar, and not aimed directly at you, isn’t it possible that idea of defending the church goes against the admonition to turn the other cheek? It takes two to fight, and defending is fighting. What would Jesus do?

 

[ccmcmg]

I meant no disrespect, but doesn’t your reply prove your loyalty to the church? And it’s a natural thing to do.

As a sidebar, and not aimed directly at you, isn’t it possible that idea of defending the church goes against the admonition to turn the other cheek? It takes two to fight, and defending is fighting. What would Jesus do?

My loyalty is first to the Faith, which cannot be separated from the Church, but comes first.

Standing up for, defending, explaining, is not arguing or fighting.

 

[JRKH]

I meant no disrespect, but doesn’t your reply prove your loyalty to the church? And it’s a natural thing to do.

As a sidebar, and not aimed directly at you, isn’t it possible that idea of defending the church goes against the admonition to turn the other cheek? It takes two to fight, and defending is fighting. What would Jesus do?

defending is not necessarily fighting…

As for what would Jesus do… one need only read the Gospels to see how many times Jesus tried to correct the errors of others. Was he fighting?

Turn the other cheek is a very good admonition - when the attack is direct and the person making the attack is obviously in no frame of mind to engage in meaningful discussion then turning the other cheek is appropriate. I the person IS open to discussion then admonition, correction debate etc. are definitely in order. Charitably of course.

Peace
James

 

[Jozefo]

My loyalty is first to the Faith, which cannot be separated from the Church, but comes first.

Standing up for, defending, explaining, is not arguing or fighting.

I wasn’t questioning your loyalty, only pointing out that it exists. But as to defending not being fighting, I think you might want to rethink that.

 

[Jozefo]

defending is not necessarily fighting…

As for what would Jesus do… one need only read the Gospels to see how many times Jesus tried to correct the errors of others. Was he fighting?

Turn the other cheek is a very good admonition - when the attack is direct and the person making the attack is obviously in no frame of mind to engage in meaningful discussion then turning the other cheek is appropriate. I the person IS open to discussion then admonition, correction debate etc. are definitely in order. Charitably of course.

Peace
James

In the end, Christ stood mute, and was crucified for it. He did not defend. For defending most certainly is fighting; or resisting if you think fighting is too strong a word.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In the end, Christ stood mute, and was crucified for it. He did not defend. For defending most certainly is fighting; or resisting if you think fighting is too strong a word.

He only stood mute before King Herod.

When the temple guard hit him, Jesus asked the guard, “if I have spoken the truth, why did you strike me?”

Jim

 

[Jozefo]

He only stood mute before King Herod.

When the temple guard hit him, Jesus asked the guard, “if I have spoken the truth, why did you strike me?”

Jim

"13*Then saith Pilate vnto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witnesse against thee?

14*And he answered him to neuer a word: insomuch that the Gouernour marueiled greatly."

He offered no defense. Are you saying he did?

 

[ccmcmg]

I wasn’t questioning your loyalty, only pointing out that it exists. But as to defending not being fighting, I think you might want to rethink that.

I am loyal to my God, my Faith and my Church; they are one and cannot be removed from the other.

Giving a ‘reason for my faith’ is not fighting. Answering questions is not fighting, even if the questions are in attack form, or you’re being pushed by someone. However, in many cases, if someone is attacking you verbally, attacking your God, your Faith, your Church, it’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation about it with them. In which case you listen even closer, love even more, and pray even harder for them.

However, I will stand and actively fight for my God, my Faith, my Church in situations if someone is trying to force me to abandon it. I won’t deny my God.

There are situations where turning the other cheek is appropriate. There are situations where it is not. Very few phrases in the Bible are meant to be applied in every situation, as some would therefore contradict each other. However, loving God always applies, as does loving thy neighbor. With those two laws and scriptures in hand and in heart, situations will be more easily and deftly handled.

 

[Bookcat]

Are Catholics taught to be more loyal to the church than to God and Jesus Christ?

No.

And one ought not separate the Head from the body.

"A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: “About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/795.htm (more there too)

 

[Jozefo]

I am loyal to my God, my Faith and my Church; they are one and cannot be removed from the other.

Giving a ‘reason for my faith’ is not fighting. Answering questions is not fighting, even if the questions are in attack form, or you’re being pushed by someone. However, in many cases, if someone is attacking you verbally, attacking your God, your Faith, your Church, it’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation about it with them. In which case you listen even closer, love even more, and pray even harder for them.

However, I will stand and actively fight for my God, my Faith, my Church in situations if someone is trying to force me to abandon it. I won’t deny my God.

There are situations where turning the other cheek is appropriate. There are situations where it is not. Very few phrases in the Bible are meant to be applied in every situation, as some would therefore contradict each other. However, loving God always applies, as does loving thy neighbor. With those two laws and scriptures in hand and in heart, situations will be more easily and deftly handled.

Ok

 

[JimR-OCDS]

"13*Then saith Pilate vnto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witnesse against thee?

14*And he answered him to neuer a word: insomuch that the Gouernour marueiled greatly."

He offered no defense. Are you saying he did?

He did prior to Pilate sending him to Herod.

Jim

 

[JRKH]

In the end, Christ stood mute, and was crucified for it.

Actually in the end - He rose, appeared to many - spoke with them and ascended into heaven…

Just sayin…

However - you are only confirming what I had said in my post. There is a time for words and a time for silence.

He did not defend. For defending most certainly is fighting; or resisting if you think fighting is too strong a word.

So - What was he doing when He called the Pharisees a brood of vipers?
What was He doing when he responded to the accusation that He cast out demons with the help of Beelzebub?
Many other examples could be offered…

Now I will agree that the above examples and many more like them could be classified as resisting - they could also be called correction, discussion, debate…but I would not classify them as fighting.

Peace
James