Can I still be Catholic if I don’t necessarily believe in everything the church teaches?

[CilladeRoma]

I’m not sure what you are asking?
If one believes the Creed, they believe in all the Church teaches.
“I believe in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.”
That means that I believe that the Church, and all that she teaches to be true and worthy of belief. I can have an imperfect understanding of something, but so long as I don’t outright reject it, I am still Catholic. For example, I don’t necessarily agree with the Church’s stance on artificial birth control, but I do follow the rules the Church has laid out. If I chose to take the pill, I would refrain from Communion, but I would still be Catholic, just not one in “good standing”

 

[setarcos]

I would hope you have a good reason to disagree with the church on some matter. Now if your reason is sound but the church has a differing opinion and declares that one should agree to hold her belief as well then its possible that the church is in error, if your belief is a true belief, or the church is making you a kind of hypocrite by making you do one thing while you believe another, or your in error and shouldn’t hold that belief. If you think the church cannot err then abandon your belief if it contradicts the church. If you think the church is in error then its possible the church is in error concerning other things and you should be cautious in believing what the church teaches by knowing that you might be ignorant in understanding or the church may be in error in its teaching. What do you think?

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, it kinda does for me, course this may be because I am as yet ignorant of the process of purgatory.
How do you read 1 Corinthians 15…?

Not necessarily as ‘purgatory’, per se.

According to Catholic doctrine…“Purgatory …is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.”

When I look for doctrine, I look to the Catechism, not the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Catechism says:

CCC:

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect

So, Purgatory is a place or condition (are the two equivalent?) that takes place in time with a certain duration in time (temporal) after the death of the person who is in God’s grace.

No. it’s a process – a ‘purification’ – and the Church doesn’t say that it takes ‘time’ or is in a ‘place’ (although, being humans who live within a physical and temporal framework, it can be easier for us to conceptualize it in that way).

DURATION AND NATURE “punishment of purgatory is temporary and will cease, at least with the Last Judgment” then it would seem that those persons alive in the last days are actually in purgatory contrary to what was stated before, that is that purgatory is a “place or condition” after death.

Again, please look to the CCC for a more thorough answer. In any case, I think you’re misreading this text you’ve quoted. Purgatory ceases with the Last Judgment – in other words, at the end of the world, all purgation (for those who had already died) will cease. It does not mean that those living in the days immediately before the Last Judgment are in fact living Purgatory on earth.

 

[Gorgias]

Now if we grant that some are punished in this life only, then we must ask if we are dealing with the same purgatorial condition.

Good question.

We’re not.

What they’re referencing is the notion that some of our actions here on earth may serve the same purpose as purgation – that is, that they make reparation for the “temporal punishment due to sin.” However, that does not mean that these actions are identical to Purgatory, but just that they have equivalent effects.

according to scripture which says the dead know nothing and death is like a sound sleep

Catholics don’t believe in “soul sleep”.

How is it that the Church can set an indulgence but have no frame of reference by which to set that indulgences value?

It’s ‘partial’ or ‘plenary’. What more detail are you looking for?

 

[setarcos]

When I look for doctrine, I look to the Catechism, not the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia.

Greetings Gorgias, thanks for your reply. If you would indulge me further so that we may reason this through so that I may further understand I would be most obliged.
Your not telling me, I presume, that the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is in error? It must be that your saying that the most recent Catechism is presents a more understandable definition. Fair enough, however upon further examining the two statements, the one from the document on this sight and the CCC, I fail to see any significant differences. Purgatory is a condition of purification which takes place after the death of the individual.
CCC: “but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.”

No. it’s a process – a ‘purification’ – and the Church doesn’t say that it takes ‘time’ or is in a ‘place’

The Church’s position is clear. Purgatory is a place separate from Hell, and heaven and this life. For a soul in hell is not in purgatory nor is it in heaven nor is it in this life and since these are all classifications of places other than where we are now so too is purgatory a place other than where we are now. Unless you believe that a soul can be in the “purification process” of purgatory and be in heaven or hell or alive at the same time? Of course I’m not saying the Church’s position is that purgatory is a place with spacial dimensions. The church is also clear that purgatory is a place of “temporal” punishment. If it were not then the soul could be punished for eternity or for an instant without meaning. The whole point of temporal punishment is that duration takes place which the soul is aware of and is commiserate with the souls sins “as God sees fit”. Of course the Church has no posits no strict policy of how much time for which crime…hence the as “God sees fit” convenience and it is entirely possible that time passes differently when one is dead than alive. Vague, but then again, if some never die before purification takes place we might rightfully assume that the times in purgatory for the living correspond to those of the dead which seems just to me. Of course this is always up to God “as he sees fit”.

 

[setarcos]

at the end of the world, all purgation (for those who had already died) will cease. It does not mean that those living in the days immediately before the Last Judgment are in fact living Purgatory on earth.

In point of fact it would have to since St. Paul had said that some living in the last days will never die before the final judgment which will usher in the end of sin and death we can rightfully conclude that the last generation living before this end will either be in purgatory while alive or never have to be in purgatory for their sins. Unless you believe that those living at the final judgment will have to die and then go through purgatory before they can move on to their heavenly rewards…of course this denies the finality of the final judgment. What am I missing? I find no conclusive remarks resolving these things in the CCC. Perhaps you can point me to the pertinent sections?

 

[setarcos]

What they’re referencing is the notion that some of our actions here on earth may serve the same purpose as purgation

This at least makes sense to me. Although we must have some sort of temporal equivalency between the two in order for it to be just…in my opinion.

Catholics don’t believe in “soul sleep”.

How is it then that death is constantly compared to the condition of being asleep? One verse even declaring more detail by stating how asleep the dead actually are, knowing nothing etc.

It’s ‘partial’ or ‘plenary’. What more detail are you looking for?

My point is its meaningless. Indulgences are meant to alleviate some amount of temporal punishment. That is clear from the CCC. Its also clear that some sort of results have been set by the Church for performing indulgences. See the Raccolta for instance which granted certain lengths of penitent time for certain indulgences. etc. Of course I’m aware that the times don’t necessarily correspond to time off in purgatory but the point is…by what frame of reference is any time set for an indulgence? By what reference is any cost set by the Church for indulgences? For instance as an example the following article states…
{R. N. Swanson gives this example of late medieval prices in Religion and Devotion in Europe, c. 1215-c.1515 (1995), where £=pounds, s.=shillings, and p.=pence
For the Jubilee of 1500 the collector [of money for the sale of indulgences], Jasper Ponce, set a sliding scale of charges varying with landed income or the value of moveable goods. For the landed, the costs ranged from £3. 6s. 8d. for incomes over £2000 [this is an enormous income, that of a high baron] down to 1s. 4d. for the £20-40 category; for the others from £2 for those with goods over £1,000 down to 1s. for those in the £20-200 group. People falling below £20 paid what they felt able to contribute out of devotion. (p. 220)…}

Its all so very vague and may as well be arbitrary ; possibly is on the Church’s side of things.

 

[Gorgias]

Your not telling me, I presume, that the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is in error?

I’m telling you that it is not a source of doctrine from the magisterium. If you want to discuss doctrine, it’s best to stick to magisterial sources.

setarcos:

The Church’s position is clear. Purgatory is a place separate from Hell, and heaven and this life.

Again, read the catechism. Does it say that purgatory is a ‘place’?

setarcos:

since these are all classifications of places other than where we are now so too is purgatory a place other than where we are now

Souls are not physical entities. Therefore, they do not have the property of ‘location’. Purgatory is not a ‘place’.

setarcos:

Unless you believe that a soul can be in the “purification process” of purgatory and be in heaven or hell or alive at the same time?

A soul cannot be both judged for heaven and in hell, so no. And, pray tell, what does “in heaven” mean for a soul that is non-physical? If you mean “can a soul both be in the process of purgation and experiencing the Beatific Vision?”, then the answer is ‘no’.

setarcos:

The church is also clear that purgatory is a place of “temporal” punishment.

Nope. Sorry. You’ve got that wrong, too. The phrase you’re misinterpreting is the “temporal punishment due to sin”. That places it in contradistinction with hell, which trucks in the “eternal punishment due to sin.” So, it’s not that, by virtue of “temporal punishment”, there must be a timeframe involved.

setarcos:

If it were not then the soul could be punished for eternity or for an instant without meaning.

Not eternity. But… for an instant, maybe? Perhaps. We just don’t know. But, we do know that you don’t experience time as a disembodied soul like you do as a soul and body. So, you’re not watching a clock tick seconds away, waiting to “get out of Purgatory”.

setarcos:

In point of fact it would have to since St. Paul had said that some living in the last days will never die before the final judgment which will usher in the end of sin and death we can rightfully conclude that the last generation living before this end will either be in purgatory while alive or never have to be in purgatory for their sins.

I’m good with the latter… which, by the way, would mean that your assertion is unreasonable. What if the ‘purgation’ that the living suffer really is in an “instant”?

How is it then that death is constantly compared to the condition of being asleep? One verse even declaring more detail by stating how asleep the dead actually are, knowing nothing etc.

That was the understanding of the ancients, who believed that all souls go to Hades. God has revealed more to us since then.

setarcos:

See the Raccolta for instance which granted certain lengths of penitent time for certain indulgences. etc.

It’s been replaced by the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, which doesn’t have lengths of time.

 

[setarcos]

I’m telling you that it is not a source of doctrine from the magisterium. If you want to discuss doctrine, it’s best to stick to magisterial sources.

Perhaps you should tell that to the apologists running this site since this is the document they included under information on Purgatory. The 1917 Catholic encyclopedia, given the imprimatur should be in line with the magisterium’s teachings and as such free from error. That is my understanding.

Again, read the catechism. Does it say that purgatory is a ‘place’?

That’s a tricky one indeed. Its self evident that a soul in order to exist must reside someplace. If a soul was everywhere that soul would be omnipresent. It is my understanding that souls don’t reside everywhere, even after death. So there is a component of confinement. During ones life span on earth it has been concluded the abode the soul has is within the body in some sort of union. So where is the soul after separation from the body? Where does it go if not to the places of Heaven or Hell? Limbo? That too is a place which is not what we would consider here. Is the Soul nowhere then after it separates from the physical body? That would mean the soul no longer exists for to exist is to be somewhere in existence. It is my understanding that the teaching of the Church is that the souls of the departed either go to Heaven, to Hell, or are in a state of purification which is purgatory. Now if these three choices are the only ones then if the soul has not been purified enough yet for heaven or has not been condemned to hell it of necessity must be somewhere where the processes of purgation can take place. Because this somewhere is for this process can we rightly say that this somewhere is purgatory? A place of purgation? Keep in mind that you don’t have to have (confusingly) spacial dimensions of location and distance. It merely has to be a place sustained by God in which souls would be conscious of their purgation.

 

[setarcos]

Souls are not physical entities. Therefore, they do not have the property of ‘location’. Purgatory is not a ‘place’.

I think your getting caught up too much in the word place and what it entails. See my above explanation. How do you define place as compared to being no place? Can one be no place and still exist or act? Why cant a spiritual being have the property of location? The frame of reference would change but the concept would remain the same. If it didn’t then to say God is the only being with omnipotence would be meaningless since omnipotence is a comment upon location. If spiritual beings had no reference to location they would be at once everywhere and nowhere leading to contradiction which not even God can do.

pray tell, what does “in heaven” mean for a soul that is non-physical? If you mean “can a soul both be in the process of purgation and experiencing the Beatific Vision?”, then the answer is ‘no’.

I am not a non-physical being nor is my soul as yet, if that theory is true, so I cannot say what heaven would mean to one. But one thing is sure, scripture describes Heaven as a place that is not currently where I am at.

You’ve got that wrong, too. The phrase you’re misinterpreting is the “temporal punishment due to sin”. That places it in contradistinction with hell, which trucks in the “eternal punishment due to sin.” So, it’s not that, by virtue of “ temporal punishment”, there must be a timeframe involved.

Too? Your running again when you should slow down. The contradistinction with hell is in reference to time. Hell is for ever. Purgatory is a temporary condition of purification. It is called temporal punishment because it is punishment which takes place within time for the sins committed within a framework of time. This gives it meaning. To sin in time but be punished without reference to time renders the punishment meaningless in its commensuration for the sin. For punishment to be meaningful a duration must be apprehended. It is not just for the shoplifter to hang next to the murderer nor is justice for the selfish to be punished in equal measure with the thief. The whole edifice of Catholic confession and the priests forgiveness of sins is that some sins require more penance than others is it not? If this is so is it not just that purgatory takes place in time and with duration as apprehended by the soul being purified?

 

[setarcos]

But, we do know that you don’t experience time as a disembodied soul like you do as a soul and body. So, you’re not watching a clock tick seconds away, waiting to “get out of Purgatory”.

For God perhaps, the keeper of all time, but how DO we know how or if time is perceived by a disembodied soul? If that soul is conscious that is. I think scripture says otherwise but skip that for now.

What if the ‘purgation’ that the living suffer really is in an “instant”?

Imagine that, in an instant your punishment has been purified. What would be the point. To the person no span of duration would equate to no apprehension of punishment would equate to no punishment. It would all be meaningless. I would simply be unpurified one moment and purified the next with no effort on my part expended because to expend effort takes duration even if only in acknowledgement. If you had to stand in the corner as punishment for something, but only for an instant, would you have had to stand in the corner meaningfully at all?

That was the understanding of the ancients, who believed that all souls go to Hades. God has revealed more to us since then.

That was the belief of the apostles whom I assume were accurately teaching what God revealed to them. How is it that God has revealed more to us since then if all revelation ended with Christ? Do you simply mean our understanding of what has been revealed has increased?

It’s been replaced by the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum , which doesn’t have lengths of time.

Granted the Church recognizes no specific time spans. I still contend though that time has to be involved.

 

[Sophie111]

That means that I believe that the Church, and all that she teaches to be true

I likely do not believe in this fashion then.
I dont believe in the limbo of infants, that those who dont receive the sacrament of baptism are damned, that the Fatima dance of the sun was more than natural, that Jesus did not pass through Mary’s birth canal, that the earth must be orbited by the sun, that a human soul only enters the foetus after 40 days, that Mary never died or suffered any pain at childbirth nor that the angels move the planets in circular orbits.
The Church once taught all these things as normative or allows the position.

How does one talk about “all she teaches is true” when opposing minority views are often allowed before a single position eventually becomes settled and the opposing view condemned from that point on?

Which I think demonstrates that teachings and doctrines/dogmas are not the same thing. Not all once normative or mainstream teachings become doctrine. Some fall away over time and some are still a work in progress allowing a range of positions, and some while disciplinary may not be mortal sins if we quietly hold or do otherwise in the privacy of our own lives.

 

[JulianN]

That’s not how this works.

It’s not how what works? Are you suggesting that someone who is a baptized Catholic is not Catholic without some other litmus test?

They may be sinful Catholics, fallen-away Catholics, even heretical Catholics. But they’re Catholic.

 

[Gorgias]

Does it say that purgatory is a ‘place’?

Not at all. Either the catechism says that purgatory is a place, or it does not. I’ll help you out: it does not.

setarcos:

Its self evident that a soul in order to exist must reside someplace.

Only physical bodies have the attribute of ‘location’. Therefore, souls do not have to “reside”, nor must they be “someplace.”

setarcos:

That would mean the soul no longer exists for to exist is to be somewhere in existence.

For physical bodies, sure. For purely spiritual? That’s not the definition.

I think your getting caught up too much in the word place and what it entails. See my above explanation. How do you define place as compared to being no place? Can one be no place and still exist or act?

If one is a physical body, then yeah – one must be located somewhere. However, ask yourself this question: while a person is alive, where is his soul? You have the same problem with your argument at that point.

setarcos:

But one thing is sure, scripture describes Heaven as a place

In the eschaton, when we have our glorified bodies? Sure.

setarcos:

It is called temporal punishment because it is punishment which takes place within time for the sins committed within a framework of time.

No. It’s called “temporal” to distinguish it from “eternal”.

setarcos:

For punishment to be meaningful a duration must be apprehended.

That works perfectly well … within the constraints of our physical universe. Outside of it, however, it doesn’t work so well.

setarcos:

The whole edifice of Catholic confession and the priests forgiveness of sins is that some sins require more penance than others is it not?

No, it is not. The “whole edifice of Catholic confession” is that Jesus forgives sins. (In addition, of course, is the notion that our sins wound us; even when the sin is forgiven, the wound still exists, and ‘penance’ is the term given to our acts of reparation, which help us recover from the damage done.)

setarcos:

Imagine that, in an instant your punishment has been purified. What would be the point.

That you were impure and now you are purified. Pretty significant point.

setarcos:

That was the belief of the apostles whom I assume were accurately teaching what God revealed to them.

No, the apostles neither believed nor taught that all souls go to Hades.

They taught what Jesus taught them: eternal life, in heaven, with God.

How is it that God has revealed more to us since then if all revelation ended with Christ?

Actually, the Church teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Do you simply mean our understanding of what has been revealed has increased?

That too. The understanding of the Church increases with time, under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Blessedwithfive]

The Apostle’s or Nicene Creed. That is what is professed at Baptism by the parents for their child or by a person who is of age and choosing Baptism for themselves.

THIS…you need to believe the creed. All of it. The rest is details…

 

[Shasta-Rose]

It’s a misnomer to say, “baptized Catholic.” You are baptized, period. It should be recognized in any Christian church. My parents were never Presbyterian, but I was baptized in a Presby church, because it was nearby, and my mother asked the pastor, Would you please baptize my baby? Soon after that, they moved and became Lutheran. I was not re-baptized then, because I was already baptized. I recently became Catholic, and I was not re-baptized, since I had my old certificate (from a church that the Catholic church recognizes) stating that I had been baptized. Baptized is baptized.

 

[Sophie111]

You just explained well why we make the distinction “baptised Catholic”.
It also indicates which earthly Rite/institution you belong to.

Precisely because you were not originally “baptised Catholic” that is why you still had to be formally enrolled/received as a Catholic even though baptism did not have to be repeated.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

No, I had to be “enrolled/received as a Catholic” because I had not been confirmed in the Catholic church. Baptism. Confirmation. Two different things.

 

[Elf01]

No, I had to be “enrolled/received as a Catholic” because I had not been confirmed in the Catholic church. Baptism. Confirmation. Two different things.

The other difference is Canon Law. Had you been married before being received into the Church your marriage would be seen as valid. Had you been baptized in the Catholic Church and married outside it your marriage would not be seen as valid.

 

[Sophie111]

It does not really matter if one has been validly baptised and confirmed outside of the Catholic Church. More is required on earth.

I believe one would be mistaken if one thought one could respectfully just walk into a Catholic parish and start receiving Communion and acting like any other Catholic parishioner unpresented and unannounced…

One still has to be received into full Communion with the Catholic Church and formally vetted/received as such. This usually involves making a public profession of the Catholic Creed and prior Confession with a Catholic Priest.

The following commentary on the US Bishops guidelines on this matter may help:
How to Become Catholic & Should I Become Catholic | Catholic Answers | Catholic Answers.

Membership of the Church militant is more than just anonymous/mechanical sacramental tickboxes. It also involves personal relationships with actual Catholics and their official representatives. It is so with any serious earthly organisation/club/community and the historical Catholic Church is surely no different in that regard.