By what authority can you do this

[xixxvmcm85]

Doesn’t this hypothetical situation depend greatly on the specific teaching from which the hypothetical Catholic dissents, namely its infallible nature or lack thereof?

It’s my understanding that non-infallible teachings can change/developed and have changed/developed which obviously would subject non-contemporary Catholics to different standards. Allow me to introduce another hypothetical into this hypothetical

Suppose that time travel becomes possible and a 21st century Catholic transports himself to 11th century Europe. At this time the church non-infallibly teaches that Jews are collectively guilty of deicide and that the lending of any sum of money at any level of interest is mortally sinful. To which standard is this 21st century Catholic held? Should he dissent from this 11th century teaching and proclaim that Jews are not guilty of deicide, or should he everywhere and at every time do and believe exactly what the Church teaches at that given moment? If he follows his conscience (and the teachings of the 21st century Church) he will dissent from the 11th century Church teaching because it’s the right thing to do irrespective of space or time. If he’s a good little “conservative Catholic” (as some have been so dubbed), he will do whatever the current Pope and/or episcopacy say. Isn’t the latter a, howbeit subtle, form of moral relativism? How is it that an 11th century Catholic who lends money at interest is guilty of a mortal sin but a 21st century Catholic who owns a bank not?

I think (and may very well be wrong) that there are indeed instances where dissenting from Church teaching is at least morally permissible and at most a moral imperative. I cannot think of any teachings/practices today that violate my conscience, but I honestly don’t know what I’d do if any were to arise.

As far as infallible teachings (whether defined by ecumenical council, papal ex cathedral documentation, explicit teaching in scripture, or collective, continual consensus of the episcopate throughout the ages), I don’t believe there is any wiggle room. One cannot by definition be a Catholic if he:

• denies the trinity
• denies that Jesus is God.
• denies the communion of saints.
• denies the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.
• denies the grace imparted by the sacraments, etc.

 

[AmateurPianist]

So when one person says I don’t accept x Church teaching, and another says that Church teaching is binding on the faithful and backs it up, saying that person has no authority instead of engaging his argument is pretty cheesy.

Hi:
I agree that at some point this becomes a matter of calling balls and strikes.

If a person claims to be Catholic and say denies the Trinity, one can objectively say that this person denies Catholic dogma. Then one can objectively say that a Catholic should not deny Catholic dogma.

Now I just went back to the subject thread. At no point did the accused indicate that he / she denied Catholic dogma. This was all the personal, subjective opinion of the accuser. It seems to me that this is a classic case of private judgment which (excuse me for being a pseudo-Catholic for 2 minutes) sounds very Protestant on the part of the accuser.

But I am more interested in the suggestion that he / she “is not really Catholic”. What authority do lay Catholics have in judging someone “not really Catholic” and suggesting they no longer call themselves Catholic. I suspect the answer is none.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Hi:
I agree that at some point this becomes a matter of calling balls and strikes.

If a person claims to be Catholic and say denies the Trinity, one can objectively say that this person denies Catholic dogma. Then one can objectively say that a Catholic should not deny Catholic dogma.

Now I just went back to the subject thread. At no point did the accused indicate that he / she denied Catholic dogma. This was all the personal, subjective opinion of the accuser. It seems to me that this is a classic case of private judgment which (excuse me for being a pseudo-Catholic for 2 minutes) sounds very Protestant on the part of the accuser.

But I am more interested in the suggestion that he / she “is not really Catholic”. What authority do lay Catholics have in judging someone “not really Catholic” and suggesting they no longer call themselves Catholic. I suspect the answer is none.

Before we erroneously play the No True Scotsman card (as for some reason I sense its coming!) let me point out that with respect to at least Dogma, all Catholics are bound by it. When the Church defines Dogma, we Catholics are hence defined by our belief in said Dogma. Someone who claims to be a Catholic who denies Catholic Dogma is by definition not a Catholic, just as a vegetarian who eats steak is by definition not a vegetarian. They may have vegetarian tendencies, they might sympathize with the vegetarian position concerning ethics and/or health, but they have relinquished the title ‘vegetarian’ the moment they consumed that delicious piece of cow.

 

[jmcrae]

In another thread I observed one Catholic post to another:

My question is by what authority can a lay Catholic tell another lay Catholic that they “aren’t really Catholic”?

If it’s the same conversation that I saw, the person who was being told they weren’t Catholic was a person who was presenting Atheist ideas, under a banner that said he was a Catholic. The person was not telling a fellow Catholic that he was not Catholic; rather, he was “outing” an Atheist who had been masquerading himself as a Catholic.

We often get participants on this Forum, who write “Catholic” in their personal profile, but who aren’t even ex-Catholics - they are something else entirely, and have been for their whole lives. I suppose they think people will take them more seriously with their non-Catholic ideas if they label themselves as “Catholic”, but in reality, it just makes them look ridiculous.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I just had this kind of argument with my cousin. he is a Catholic but lately with all the not so good priests, he has lost faith in some of the Teachings of the Church.
So, i told him, i did not get into the details, but i let him know that we as Catholics must believe all that the Church teaches for they are the Teachings of our Lord and not of some priest.
just because one brother falls it doesnt mean we can stop believing what the Church teaches alltogether. this is the work of the devil to make Catholics loose their faith. during the arguments he gave the understanding that he could believe in some things but not all. so i told him that he could not be the one to decide which teachings are correct and which are not. i told him he has no authority to decide what is true and what is not. we must trust in Jesus and His Church in all things. i even told him he could not consider himself Catholic, go to the Eucharist while denying the Truths of the Church.

in the end i think he understood and agreed with me.

 

[AmateurPianist]

If it’s the same conversation that I saw, the person who was being told they weren’t Catholic was a person who was presenting Atheist ideas, under a banner that said he was a Catholic. The person was not telling a fellow Catholic that he was not Catholic; rather, he was “outing” an Atheist who had been masquerading himself as a Catholic.

We often get participants on this Forum, who write “Catholic” in their personal profile, but who aren’t even ex-Catholics - they are something else entirely, and have been for their whole lives. I suppose they think people will take them more seriously with their non-Catholic ideas if they label themselves as “Catholic”, but in reality, it just makes them look ridiculous.

This was not the same thread.

I got the impression that the accused was more ecumentical in his / her perspective than the accuser. I could be wrong. However there was nothing concerning atheism in that thread.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Before we erroneously play the No True Scotsman card (as for some reason I sense its coming!) let me point out that with respect to at least Dogma, all Catholics are bound by it. When the Church defines Dogma, we Catholics are hence defined by our belief in said Dogma. Someone who claims to be a Catholic who denies Catholic Dogma is by definition not a Catholic, just as a vegetarian who eats steak is by definition not a vegetarian. They may have vegetarian tendencies, they might sympathize with the vegetarian position concerning ethics and/or health, but they have relinquished the title ‘vegetarian’ the moment they consumed that delicious piece of cow.

So let me understand.

So by your criteria all of the Catholics who use artificial contraception (or who think it is all right with God) are not Catholics. And all Catholics who do not go to mass every week. And all Catholics who are pro-choice.

Now I was told also on this thread that once Catholic always Catholic. You can not lose your Catholicity (made up word). So now I am more confused.

Is your opinion…your opinion…or the teaching of your church.

 

[jmcrae]

So let me understand.

So by your criteria all of the Catholics who use artificial contraception (or who think it is all right with God) are not Catholics. And all Catholics who do not go to mass every week. And all Catholics who are pro-choice.

It would be wrong to say that these are “not Catholic” but they are certainly not good Catholics - they are very bad Catholics. And although we are not allowed to “judge” it would be astonishing if those people were to end up in Heaven, unless at some point before they die, they repent of their sins and their false beliefs.

Now I was told also on this thread that once Catholic always Catholic.

This is true. But not everyone who is Catholic is going to go to Heaven. Bad Catholics go to Hell.

 

[Bill_Pick]

This thread is set up to make Cathloics start to judge other Cathloics. Why did you not start a thread about Non-cathloics Vs non-cathloic
This is as bad as the last thread you started about Nottosmart, yes I do know its not your name now but it right back where you started and is hitting home

 

[xixxvmcm85]

So let me understand.

So by your criteria all of the Catholics who use artificial contraception (or who think it is all right with God) are not Catholics. And all Catholics who do not go to mass every week. And all Catholics who are pro-choice.

Now I was told also on this thread that once Catholic always Catholic. You can not lose your Catholicity (made up word). So now I am more confused.

Is your opinion…your opinion…or the teaching of your church.

To the extent that those are defined, infallible dogmas of the Church, yes. I’m not sure if the church’s teachings about artificial contraception are dogmas. I highly doubt it, nonetheless prudence and humility would dictate that Catholics accept them and live them.

Did you miss my first post? I explicitly stated that it’s my opinion that there are indeed instances where Catholics ought to dissent from contemporary Church teaching. The only part in which I adopted a rather rigid definition is in the fact that Catholics are defined by our dogma. What is and isn’t dogma? Well, some teachings are quite obviously dogma and are not contested by any respectable theologian (i.e. all the dogmas I listed such as the trinity, the papacy, apostolic succession, etc) while others are hotly contested.

Do you think a vegetarian can eat steak and still be called a vegetarian?

As per “Once Catholic Always Catholic”, I think it’s a catchy phrase, but I don’t agree. I think it comes from the teaching that the two initiation sacraments (baptism and confirmation) leave an indelible mark on the soul. This is true, and I believe it, but that doesn’t necessarily make a person a perpetual Catholic. I can apostatize from the Church tomorrow and I would cease being Catholic despite the indelible baptismal/confirmational mark on my soul.

 

[AmateurPianist]

This thread is set up to make Cathloics start to judge other Cathloics. Why did you not start a thread about Non-cathloics Vs non-cathloic
This is as bad as the last thread you started about Nottosmart, yes I do know its not your name now but it right back where you started and is hitting home

Bill:
Chill out.

Oh…and you should learn how to spell. The word is spelled Catholic. The “l” follows the “o”.

 

[AmateurPianist]

To the extent that those are defined, infallible dogmas of the Church, yes. I’m not sure if the church’s teachings about artificial contraception are dogmas. I highly doubt it, nonetheless prudence and humility would dictate that Catholics accept them and live them.

A couple of questions now come to mind.

Is there an agreed upon listing of Catholic dogmas. It would seem to me that if I were Catholic, I really would want to know what is dogma that I must believe and what is of a lesser classification that it may be possible to dissent.

And what do you mean by believe dogma anyway? It seems to me that believe / deny is more a continuum than a binary state. For example you might be skeptical but not flat out deny. Or you may tentatively accept but have a lot of reservations. These states are somewhere in the middle between believe and deny.

And there is also the issue of submitting to authority. For example you might not believe a certain point of dogma, but realize that is what the church teaches. So therefore you will not be contentious and not raise the issue except possibly in confession. Or you might disbelieve and everybody in your parish knows it.

I know this has sort of strayed from the original topic, but these are questions I have sort of wanted to ask.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bill:
Chill out.

What are you talking about Chill out,can you please explain,I,m not upset You are a little off with your Cathloic VS, Cathloic, I just do not know what you are doing…

 

[twopekinguys]

Who is the arbitrer of whether somebody follows the Church’s teachings or not?

Not me, that’s for sure. I have enough trouble keeping my own life together without monitoring everyone elses.

 

[tweetymom]

Not me, that’s for sure. I have enough trouble keeping my own life together without monitoring everyone elses.

Amen to that I have enough on my plate keeping me on the right path.

 

[wanner47]

A couple of questions now come to mind.

Is there an agreed upon listing of Catholic dogmas. It would seem to me that if I were Catholic, I really would want to know what is dogma that I must believe and what is of a lesser classification that it may be possible to dissent.

And what do you mean by believe dogma anyway? It seems to me that believe / deny is more a continuum than a binary state. For example you might be skeptical but not flat out deny. Or you may tentatively accept but have a lot of reservations. These states are somewhere in the middle between believe and deny.

And there is also the issue of submitting to authority. For example you might not believe a certain point of dogma, but realize that is what the church teaches. So therefore you will not be contentious and not raise the issue except possibly in confession. Or you might disbelieve and everybody in your parish knows it.

I know this has sort of strayed from the original topic, but these are questions I have sort of wanted to ask.

Everything in the Catechism is required belief for Catholics.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Anyone who is baptized Catholic is forever a Catholic unless they formally defect from the Church. There are lapsed Catholics, non-practicing Catholics, semi-practicing Catholics, and practicing Catholics. A practicing Catholic is someone who believes and follows *all *the teachings of the Church as delineated in the Catechism.

 

[JonNC]

This thread is set up to make Cathloics start to judge other Cathloics. Why did you not start a thread about Non-cathloics Vs non-cathloic
This is as bad as the last thread you started about Nottosmart, yes I do know its not your name now but it right back where you started and is hitting home

I can answer that, Bill. This happens amongst and between Lutherans all the time, as well. It is particularly true across synod lines.

Jon

 

[heathernoel]

That is a very good question.

What about the majority of Catholics who use and approve of artificial contraception? Are they “not Catholic”? So where is the line which you have to cross to be “not Catholic”?

The majority of Catholics use contraception?!!! That’s news to me!!!

 

[thirdn6]

Who is the arbitrer of whether somebody follows the Church’s teachings or not?

A ‘blind’ catholic leading a ‘blind’ catholic will fall into the ditch. There works will be exposed. A good catholic will find them and bleach them and wash them. If they don’t shine then maybe they’re not really catholics. There are many of them… womenpreysts, comes to mind. They publicly deny and ridicule the admonishing of the Church.

So then they are now excommunicated catholics.

 

[2nd_Adam]

What are you talking about Chill out,can you please explain,I,m not upset You are a little off with your Cathloic VS, Cathloic, I just do not know what you are doing…

I think the OP was about the Catholic witch hunt of our dear sister Tweetymom who is Catholic. I was really saddened to watch what was happening to her on this Forum Site. Maybe we can all learn from that experience through this thread.