Can one be an individual and a Catholic? Or does one have to be a conformist?

[Abu]

CrossofChrist #38
It’s not pointless as there can be differing opinions among theologians.

The reason that it is pointless is in the context of this thread that “Or does one have to be a conformist?”

Thus real Catholics know and understand that they are required to assent to all dogma and doctrine as individuals and thus conform to (obey) the teaching of the Church. No “differing opinions” among theologians are licit re the acceptance of dogma and doctrine as the CDF has made crystal clear.

 

[Cimachol]

I don’t know about you, but as a revert I had to actually sign an official document acknowledging that The Church is the authority concerning faith and morals. The document made stated that the Church has the sole of the deposit of the one True faith which is free from errors. It did not say the closest to the truth. And I had to give my official consent. Didn’t any other converts have to agree and sign that with witnesses? If you did sign that she document, how can you say what you’ve said in your previous post and have a clear conscience? Did you enter the Church under a false pretense?

Huh … I’m a revert and I just had to go to Confession. I gladly would sign such a document were I asked to do so but was never asked.

 

[Nihilist]

It’s not pointless as there can be differing opinions among theologians. The classic example that comes to mind is the Congruist/Molinist and Banezian debate between Jesuits and Dominicans in the 1600s.

Obviously differing about doctrine isn’t acceptable though.

I also agree that nihilism and Catholicism are at odds with each other. According to the Church the world clearly has a purpose and value.

The traditional, Medeival monastic view is that everything in this world is ultimately a vanity and illusion- a view expressed clearly in *De Imitatione Christi *. This view, when expressed to modern peope, comes accross as nihilism- and hence I am happy to describe myself as a nihilist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is the Church all imposing?

Christ is all imposing, and the Church is the voice of God in the world.

Thomas Aquinas had the right attitude, as opposed to the rebellious Protestant attitude.

“Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee. If anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous … I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”

 

[CrossofChrist]

The traditional, Medeival monastic view is that everything in this world is ultimately a vanity and illusion- a view expressed clearly in *De Imitatione Christi *. This view, when expressed to modern peope, comes accross as nihilism- and hence I am happy to describe myself as a nihilist.

Everything insofar as it distracts us from our end goal is vanity. The monks never meant it in a nihilistic way, as if nothing at all matters. What was meant is that only God matters, and everything in comparison is nothing, and that everything else that isn’t vanity isn’t so only because of God.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I don’t know about you, but as a revert I had to actually sign an official document acknowledging that The Church is the authority concerning faith and morals. The document made stated that the Church has the sole of the deposit of the one True faith which is free from errors. It did not say the closest to the truth. And I had to give my official consent. Didn’t any other converts have to agree and sign that with witnesses? If you did sign that she document, how can you say what you’ve said in your previous post and have a clear conscience? Did you enter the Church under a false pretense?

I didn’t have to sign anything. I made a public profession at the Easter Vigil, but no documents were signed by me.