Catholics that dont like Catholic teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter Damascus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Polaris said:
No, I dont think I had a change of view. That was my first question or comment in this thread. šŸ˜› I think you have me confused me with the OP. Thanks though. I was just curious to know if I was now kicked out of the church. I already never recieve the Holy Eucharist because I do not think it would be right for me because of my doubts. Gosh the longer I live the longer Im sure I have a zero percent chance of making it to God.
Click to expand...
Polaris:

Please, Talk to your confessor about this. Iā€™m sure heā€™s going to agree with me that denying yourself the comfort and grace of the Lordā€™s Body and Blood has been unnecessary and harmful to you.

Almost of the saints had doubts. The question is what they did with them. St. Paul said that you should not absent yourself from the assembly of the brotherhood, and that includes, provided you arenā€™t guilty of unconfessed Mortal Sin, the reception of the Sacrament of His Body and Blood.

If youā€™ll take a minute to look at what Jesus went through so that you could receive his body and blood, youā€™d see what a crime it is that youā€™re denying yourself the Grace and Power of these Holy Mysteries.

I also canā€™t help but think that if you accessed the Grace in the Sacraments and allowed Godā€™s healing to work in and through you, that many of your doubts would resolve themselves.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Polaris said:
No, I dont think I had a change of view. That was my first question or comment in this thread. šŸ˜› I think you have me confused me with the OP. Thanks though. I was just curious to know if I was now kicked out of the church. I already never recieve the Holy Eucharist because I do not think it would be right for me because of my doubts. Gosh the longer I live the longer Im sure I have a zero percent chance of making it to God.
Click to expand...
Polaris:

Please, Talk to your confessor about this. Iā€™m sure heā€™s going to agre with me that denying yourself the comfort and grace of the Lordā€™s Body and Blood has been unnecessary and harmful to you.

Almost of the saints had doubts. The question is what they did with them. St. Paul said that you should not absent yourself from the assembly of the brotherhood, and that includes, provided you arenā€™t guilty of unconfessed Mortal Sin, the reception of the Sacrament of His Body and Blood.

If youā€™ll take a minute to look at what Jesus went through so that you could receive his body and blood, youā€™d see what a crime it is that youā€™re denying yourself the Grace and Power of thes Holy Mysteries.

I also canā€™t help but think that if you accessed the Grace in the Sacraments and allowed Godā€™s healing to work in and through you, that many of your doubts would resolve themselves.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Polaris said:
What exactly is meant by Obstinate doubt? There are a lot of things I doubt in the Catholic church and I try to educate myself but sometimes even after that a huge doubt remains. Does this mean Im a heretic and excommunicated?
Click to expand...
Polaris:

This may not be the proper place for you to figure this out, because it seems that youā€™ve misunderstood something that someone quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is a Teaching Resource and not the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church.

Obstinate Doubt is a doubt which one chooses to hold instead of (Please pardon me if I donā€™t say this correctly) praying for the grace to accept the Doctrine even if we canā€™t understand it. As long as you are willing to say/pray, ā€œLord, I believe, help my lack of faith,ā€ and to remain open to the Gift of Faith, You canā€™t possibly be in Obstinate Doubt.

I hope this clarifies the situation and helps to releave any difficulties.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Damascus said:
If someone decides they dont like something for instance, like accepting the IC dogma, and choses to not believe it and stays in the CHurch since they agree with everything else, have they excommunicated themselves?

If they state it publically or disagree with it publically can they still call themselves Catholic?

I dont think you can. Am I right?
Click to expand...
I think if they profess their disagreements publicly, theyā€™ve drawn enough attention to themselves by the Church. They can still call themselves Catholic but I donā€™t think the Church would let them stay, being as vocal as they are about disagreeing with Church teachings.
Just my :twocents: !
 
exoflare said:
Let me put it to you this way. They have about as much right to call themselves ā€œCatholicā€ as I have to call myself a giraffe.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but this post made me laugh my head off.

I thank everyone for participating and wish you all a very joyous Advent.

Go out with God!

Convert someone today, even if its you.šŸ˜‰
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

**A little footnote: **​

1. The sin of heresy is not committed - & so, no personal guilt is contracted - where there is no obstinacy; which means that the person must know he is wrong, and persevere in his self-admitted wrongness. Obstinacy is so essential to the sin of heresy, that without it no sin of heresy is committed (as Cardinal Cajetan pointed out as long ago as 1517; see Philip Hughes, S.J., The Reformation in England, vol. 1)

**- IOW: heresy is a sin because to commit it one is saying that, though one is well aware that God says so-and-so, one is going to say the contrary of that. It strikes at the very root of the submission of intellect to God which rational creatures ought to show Him; **
that is why it is so serious - because it destroys the relation we have as redeemed creatures to their Creator & Redeemer.

2. A materially heretical assertion - e.g., ā€œJesus is no more than a mere manā€ - is not formally heretical without the same conditions as for any other mortal sin; IOW, merely to say something that is opposed to a revealed truth, is not of itself to commit heresy. People can say things that are opposed to revealed truths while believing what they say is a revealed truth - for example, they can say ā€œSalvation is by works aloneā€ - but that does not make them as persons heretics; it means no more than that their utterance is heretical. So no amount or degree of doctrinal wrongness can qualify as heresy, unless certain conditions are fulfilled.

3. To say that ā€œheresy is unorthodoxā€ is true; it does not follow that all unorthodox statements are heretical; a further reason to be slow to accuse anyone of heresy.

4. ā€œNot likingā€ a teaching is not heresy - it is so far from heresy, that it is entirely compatible with whole-hearted obedience; as with the doctrine that forbids the use of **artificial birth control. Someone who complies with that teaching may be acting obediently at great personal cost, even while not much liking what that particular doctrine requires of her. **
5. One cannot be a heretic if oneā€™s quarrel is with something that is not divinely revealed. Where there is a quarrel is with something that requires obedience, but not the obedience due to something that is an object of Divine or Ecclesiastical faith, there may be scandal or rashness or disobedience - but not heresy
Click to expand...
You must define ā€œknowing they are wrongā€. Because the clause about conscience in the catechism is the point on which the contrary hang their hats. For instance, those who promote married priests and women priests- if they are aware that the Pope affirmed automatic excommunication for members of Call to Action yesterday for promoting married and women priests, then they have become very aware they are wrong. If they continue acting Catholics in good standing while supporting Call To Action, this is obstinancy and heresy. I would think at this point one just cannot point to oneā€™s conscience and slide out from under.
To say after that they simply ā€œdo not know they are wrongā€ and therefore have incurred no personal sin is silly. Obviously if they are believing in something that incurs excommunication, someone is wrong. Odds are it is the excommunicated.
 
If someone spends enough time on these forums, they cant help but know about the rules if they did not already and I think if they want to do their own thing they should refrain from finding out what they are doing wrong so they can still claim they did not have a clue and hopefully get off the hook.

But when they hang around, find out they are way off base and persist in their ways, I think they are in for some real trouble.

One can only stretch ignorace so far.
 
tequilamac said:
You must define ā€œknowing they are wrongā€. Because the clause about conscience in the catechism is the point on which the contrary hang their hats. For instance, those who promote married priests and women priests- if they are aware that the Pope affirmed automatic excommunication for members of Call to Action yesterday for promoting married and women priests, then they have become very aware they are wrong. If they continue acting Catholics in good standing while supporting Call To Action, this is obstinancy and heresy. I would think at this point one just cannot point to oneā€™s conscience and slide out from under.
To say after that they simply ā€œdo not know they are wrongā€ and therefore have incurred no personal sin is silly. Obviously if they are believing in something that incurs excommunication, someone is wrong. Odds are it is the excommunicated.
Click to expand...
Tequilamac:

I agree with you that the people who think they can support organizations such as Call to Action and still be Catholics have to just plain silly. I think we used to call it ā€œSophistryā€ and say that we had ā€œExcedrin Headachesā€ after listening to their ā€œreasoningā€.

I think the main problem here is that those relying on the concept of ā€œConscienceā€ in the CCC seem to purposefully forget that the conscience must first be properly formed, and that a properly formed conscience will not cause one to hold doctrines which are contrary to those held by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church once those doctrines have been reasonably explained.

Have a good Advent.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Traditional_Ang said:
Tequilamac:

I agree with you that the people who think they can support organizations such as Call to Action and still be Catholics have to just plain silly. I think we used to call it ā€œSophistryā€ and say that we had ā€œExcedrin Headachesā€ after listening to their ā€œreasoningā€.

I think the main problem here is that those relying on the concept of ā€œConscienceā€ in the CCC seem to purposefully forget that the conscience must first be properly formed, and that a properly formed conscience will not cause one to hold doctrines which are contrary to those held by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church once those doctrines have been reasonably explained.

Have a good Advent.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
Click to expand...
Yes. Perfectly said. Although if you attempt to tell someone suffering from a ā€œdignified conflict of conscienceā€ that their conscience can be correct only if formed by the catechism, one gets thrown out of the argument as a ā€¦heretic! Believe me I have experience witht that. But yes, you have hit the nail right on the head. For some reason in the conscience arguments that very rarely happens.šŸ˜ƒ Personally I believe it is a defect in the written word of the catechism which created a loophole. While it defined the importance of conscience clearly, it did not define clearly the origin of that conscience. Hopefully the new catechism will reflect a change in that little ā€œloopholeā€.
 
Hi,

What if you publicly disagree with any of the dogmas/doctrine. What if you disagree with birth control, homosexual marriage, celibacy of priests publicly. Would this be a cause to be considered not a catholic anymore?

Or would it be bigger doctrines like the Mary or purgatory etc. You guys get my point.šŸ˜ƒ

If a person disagrees with certain faith and morals but keeps it private then that is different cause no one knows except God of course.:eek:

Im just wondering because I dont personally know a single catholic(not even by devout in-laws) who believe in everything the CC stands for.:nope:
 
Well, Iā€™ll help you out here, AllForHim because you can now say you know a Catholic who agrees 100% with all church teachings. . .and all the Church stands for.

Me.šŸ™‚
 
ALLFORHIM said:
Im just wondering because I dont personally know a single catholic(not even by devout in-laws) who believe in everything the CC stands for.:nope:
Click to expand...
I know you mean that you donā€™t know anyone outside of these forums - like, ā€œreal lifeā€ :), but like Tantum ergo, Iā€™m one of those Catholics who believes in and accepts everything taught by the Catholic Church šŸ‘
 
ALLFORHIM said:
Hi,

What if you publicly disagree with any of the dogmas/doctrine. What if you disagree with birth control, homosexual marriage, celibacy of priests publicly. Would this be a cause to be considered not a catholic anymore?

Or would it be bigger doctrines like the Mary or purgatory etc. You guys get my point.šŸ˜ƒ

If a person disagrees with certain faith and morals but keeps it private then that is different cause no one knows except God of course.:eek:

Im just wondering because I dont personally know a single catholic(not even by devout in-laws) who believe in everything the CC stands for.:nope:
Click to expand...
I guess I am one of those people that believes in everything the CC stands for.šŸ˜ƒ

I am Not a Cafeteria Catholic!:eek:

So count me in.
 
Hi,

LOL You guys seem to be rare.šŸ˜¦ Yes I do mean people outside these forums.
 
But you havent answered my questions.šŸ˜¦ What are to become of my catholic friends and family.šŸ˜¦
 
ALLFORHIM said:
But you havent answered my questions.šŸ˜¦ What are to become of my catholic friends and family.šŸ˜¦
Click to expand...
Do you mean, what is to become of them with respect to their eternal salvation, or with respect to their standing in the Catholic Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top