Church Can't Ever Go Corrupt

[guanophore]

Can you please explain to me how the Catholic Church is united in its belief? What does this mean exactly? When people say this, I don't understand it because I look around in real life and I see all kinds of variance with regards to beliefs.

The unified doctrine of the faith is not determined by the myriad of individuals. It is a once for all deposit of faith entrusted to the Church. It is infallibly maintained in unity by the HS.

When people choose to depart from it, then their faith is no longer Catholic. They often have become Protestant without realizing it. Many American Latin Catholics are living i a state of mortal sin, having rejected the teachings of the Church.

For example, in real life almost every Catholic woman I know is on some kind of birth control.

This is a very good example of how people excommunicate themselves, and don’t realize they have done so.

I will admit that some do this in ignorance, and thus their error is a failure to study, understand, and obey the Apostolic Teaching. however, it is their responsibility to do so.

And one Church is all “traditional” in the Mass, but another can have women dancing in the aisles in bare feet, long dresses and flowers in her hair.

These are cultural matters, not matters of doctrine. Different cultures have different liturgical practices.

When there is abuse of the liturgy, this is a wound to unity. Some parishes willfully disregard the GIRM, and thus, are disobedient and out of order.

Then there are nuns and sisters who voice their opinion and supported Health Care Reform despite the whole US Bishops, who were against it.

ARe you trying to discern the unity of the Church by looking at those who depart from it?

Then there are a few Catholic Hospitals who just announced they would do abortions in the case of a woman’s life being in danger, which raised all kinds of drama on the conservative side of this forum.

Indeed, willful disobedience of the Apostolic Teaching involves grave consequences. Such persons excommunicate themselves, and some of them are so poorly catechized that they don’t realize what they have done!

I’ve never met anyone as scrupulous as those on this forum, so I can’t say they represent the every day Catholic. Churches are half full or less, except for Christmas, with no lines to confession anymore.

Yes, I have observed the tiny confession lines compared to the long communion lines. It is a travesty. Given that, and the number of people who receive communion in an unworthy state (disobedient to the Teachings) it is no wonder the Catholic Church in America is so sick.

You will find more zealous and well informed Catholics here than you probably can anywhere. If we were not when we came, we got that way!

The tradional folks on the forum state that there are no variances of Catholics, only Catholics and lapse Catholics, but in real life, that's not true, is it?

Yes, it is true. One is either in unity with the One Church, or they are not.

IMOHO, the Catholic Church isn’t unified at all. Sure it has it’s little communities here and there, and some are traditional and some are conservative in their beliefs and practices, but then you have whole communities that have a wide range of variance in that one community.

What is necessary is to discern that the Catholic Church is more extensive than the individual parished that are joined to her. Her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the HS. It is these divine elements that preserve the unity, and make her infallible.

The unity is not defined by the fallible persons attached to the Church. And unity is not defined by those who depart from it.

Yes, the dogma and the teachings have been consistent, but that doesn't mean Catholics across the board believe and follow them.

Then, they are lapsed. The consistency of the dogma and teachings is where the unity exists.

Unfortunately, I see this variance in real life too. Yes, many folks, especially traditional ones will say that the Church as a whole will never be corrupt and shouldn't be judged by the actions of individual "dissenters".

This is the truth.

One cannot judge the value of the Teaching of Christ by using Judas as an example.

But then there’s a whole lot of Catholics out there who feel let down by the corruption that individuals in the Church have fallen into, and feel those individuals represent the Church as a whole.

Yes, we all feel let down by sin and apostasy. It is a wound to unity. However, Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

 

[Araninski]

Btw, I know a lot of Catholics that don’t believe in all of what the Catholic Church teaches some don’t believe in purgatory, others don’t believe in what the RCC says about Mary, etc).

Also there are a lot of Catholics that say they are Catholic and live like non-christian people (premarital/casual sex, get drunk, don’t respect or defend their own religion.).

I once read that to be truly Catholic, is to believe in everything of what the RCC teaches-There are many people who call themselves Catholics and don’t believe everything the RCC teaches.

Originally Posted by Teneas

I don’t want to derail the thread of course, just saying that individuals do not, in anyway, make up the entire Church. Pointing the finger at one bad kid, doesn’t make a family wrong in anyway.

Agreed.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, they are. The Church teaches that an indelible mark is made on the soul by Baptism, and teaches that once Baptised, one is always and forever Catholic. So by it’s own rules and standards, they include those who have chosen to leave the Church among their ‘members’. If they didn’t teach this, I’d agree with you. But beause of their teaching, I can’t. Even if one formally petitions to leave the Church, the Church still owns them as Catholic, though dissenting Catholics the same.

The church does not “own” those who forsake her. They are free to go. It is true that Baptism leaves a permanent mark, but what this means is that there last state is worse than the first. It would have been better for them never to have been saved, than to reject His grace and spurn the blood that bought them.

Those who reject the Teachings of the Church no longer retain their Catholicity.

 

[guanophore]

I will ignore what you said about indulgences.

Really? Why is that? Are we in agreement that there is nothing corrupt about an indulgence?

I meant parts I was referring to people.

Yes, there are plenty of corrupt people. Some of them were pretending to sell indulgences prior to the Reformation. Since it is impossible to sell an indulgence, this abuse created widespread problems.

Well, I attend a Catholic Church with my family every Sunday because I like to congregate with them, so why not learn about my Catholic brothers. I don't want to be an ignorant, I need to learn about different denominations, religions, etc (why people believes this and that.).

I commend you for this!

I've met a lot of Christians Catholics that are so ignorant about their own beliefs(Catholics who say that non-Catholic worship another Jesus, Catholics who really think relics and objects have powers, etc) , they made me think all Catholics were like that, so I joined this forum to avoid that ignorance.

God bless.

It is a sad fact that there are plenty of poorly catechized Catholics /

It is also true that some non-Catholics worship another Jesus…

I trust you will learn a great deal about the Catholic faith while you are here. Welcome!

 

[guanophore]

Btw, I know a lot of Catholics that don’t believe in all of what the Catholic Church teaches some don’t believe in purgatory, others don’t believe in what the RCC says about Mary, etc).

Also there are a lot of Catholics that say they are Catholic and live like non-christian people (premarital/casual sex, get drunk, don’t respect or defend their own religion.).

I once read that to be truly Catholic, is to believe in everything of what the RCC teaches-There are many people who call themselves Catholics and don’t believe everything the RCC teaches.

Most of them don’t know any better. Most of them don’t realize they have become Protestatnts.

The Catholic Church is not Roman, but it is incumbent upon those who call themselves Catholic to espouse the Teaching of the Apostles that has been preserved infallibly in the church.

 

[Wesley7]

The church does not “own” those who forsake her. They are free to go. It is true that Baptism leaves a permanent mark, but what this means is that there last state is worse than the first. It would have been better for them never to have been saved, than to reject His grace and spurn the blood that bought them.

Those who reject the Teachings of the Church no longer retain their Catholicity.

Thats why I take the time to study and learn about Catholicism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Reformers were not just disgusted at the selling of indulgences, but also about their existence in general. They rejected the Medievel innovation altogether that somehow there is a Treasury of Merit where Jesus placed the merit He earned for us on the Cross PLUS the merits of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, the idea that there was ‘more than enough’ merit to save humanity. The Reformation wasn’t just about corruption, it was about what they viewed to be abuses of theology, not just $$$. And the usual Catholic defense is that the bishops and pope didn’t know that indulgences were being sold, the ignorance defense. I’ve heard the same argument with the Spanish Inquisition, that it was totally the Spanish government with no knowledge or cooperation or participation by the Church.

 

[Rence]

The church does not “own” those who forsake her. They are free to go. It is true that Baptism leaves a permanent mark, but what this means is that there last state is worse than the first. It would have been better for them never to have been saved, than to reject His grace and spurn the blood that bought them.

Those who reject the Teachings of the Church no longer retain their Catholicity.

I’m sorry, but that’s false. Those who have already been Baptised Catholic are considered Catholic by the Catholic Church regardless of how the individual regards him/herself. Once a Catholic has been Baptised, he or she is considered Catholic forever by the Church, even if they leave. The Church teaches that an indelible mark is made on the soul by Baptism, and teaches that once Baptised, one is always and forever Catholic. So by it’s own rules and standards, even if one formally petitions to leave the Church, the Church still teaches that it owns them as Catholic, though dissenting Catholics the same. If you don’t believe me, ask a apologist on this site, or a priest.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And yet I was told years ago when I got married outside the Church that my wife (also Catholic, like me) and I were excommunicated when we married outside the Church. I was told that by multiple priests. I’ve read it often as well. Women who, God forbid, commit an abortion, are also said to be excommunicated. So the Church can leave an “indelible mark” as we are told but excommunication by actions on our parts basically is the same thing as removing that mark, no?

I’m sorry, but that’s false. Those who have already been Baptised Catholic are considered Catholic by the Catholic Church regardless of how the individual regards him/herself. Once a Catholic has been Baptised, he or she is considered Catholic forever by the Church, even if they leave. The Church teaches that an indelible mark is made on the soul by Baptism, and teaches that once Baptised, one is always and forever Catholic. So by it’s own rules and standards, even if one formally petitions to leave the Church, the Church still teaches that it owns them as Catholic, though dissenting Catholics the same. If you don’t believe me, ask a apologist on this site, or a priest.

 

[guanophore]

The Reformers were not just disgusted at the selling of indulgences, but also about their existence in general.

I believe this is true. And it is not the only Apostolic Teaching with which they were disgusted.

Granted, there were abuses by the clergy, and corruption in the hierarchy. However, the Reformation was as much an excuse for political rebellion as it was spiritual.

 They rejected the Medievel innovation altogether that somehow there is a Treasury of Merit where Jesus placed the merit He earned for us on the Cross PLUS the merits of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, the idea that there was 'more than enough' merit to save humanity.

Is there some reason you believe that the merits of Christ are NOT enough to save humanity?

What makes you think this is “midievel”?

   The Reformation wasn't just about corruption, it was about what they viewed to be abuses of theology, not just $$$.

True. Politics, power, many desires of the flesh were involved.

And the usual Catholic defense is that the bishops and pope didn't know that indulgences were being sold, the ignorance defense.  I've heard the same argument with the Spanish Inquisition, that it was totally the Spanish government with no knowledge or cooperation or participation by the Church.

You are confusing the actions of sinful men with the Holy Bride of Christ, who cannot sin, because she is kept pure by Him. Unless you can discern that the Church is more than the fallible people in this life attached to her, you will not be able to overcome your resentment.

 

[guanophore]

I’m sorry, but that’s false. Those who have already been Baptised Catholic are considered Catholic by the Catholic Church regardless of how the individual regards him/herself. Once a Catholic has been Baptised, he or she is considered Catholic forever by the Church, even if they leave. The Church teaches that an indelible mark is made on the soul by Baptism, and teaches that once Baptised, one is always and forever Catholic. So by it’s own rules and standards, even if one formally petitions to leave the Church, the Church still teaches that it owns them as Catholic, though dissenting Catholics the same. If you don’t believe me, ask a apologist on this site, or a priest.

The issue is the status of their Cathlolicity. Having been baptized Catholic does not mean they retain their Catholicity. If they reject the faith, they have fallen away. Eternally, their state is much worse as an apostate than it is as a person who has never been baptized.

 

[guanophore]

And yet I was told years ago when I got married outside the Church that my wife (also Catholic, like me) and I were excommunicated when we married outside the Church. I was told that by multiple priests. I’ve read it often as well. Women who, God forbid, commit an abortion, are also said to be excommunicated. So the Church can leave an “indelible mark” as we are told but excommunication by actions on our parts basically is the same thing as removing that mark, no?

No, it is not the same. Those who spurn the Teachings of the Church are in a much worse state than those who were never baptized. When one partakes of the Truth, then rebels against it, there remains no sacrifice for their sins.

 

[Rence]

And yet I was told years ago when I got married outside the Church that my wife (also Catholic, like me) and I were excommunicated when we married outside the Church. I was told that by multiple priests. I’ve read it often as well. Women who, God forbid, commit an abortion, are also said to be excommunicated. So the Church can leave an “indelible mark” as we are told but excommunication by actions on our parts basically is the same thing as removing that mark, no?

No, I’m sorry, it’s not. Excommunication in no way implies someone is not Catholic.

I’m really sorry that somehow you were confused about this information, but you need to read up on it. I feel horribly that you and your wife were made to think you two weren’t Catholic anymore. That’s seriously messed up. Whoever told you that you were excommunicated has seriously dropped the ball.

Excommunication means you are not allowed to partake in Communion until you receive absolution and are reconciled with the Church. However, that in NO WAY implies that you are free from obeying the rules of the Church. Excommunicated individuals are still responsible for carrying out their Catholic duties: like attending Mass, etc.

I have no clue how to convince of this fact as well as the “indelible mark” that Baptism leaves besides to point you to the Catechism. You need to talk to a priest, or specifically ask these questions to an apoligist here on CAF or one of the subforums, or please find a good priest have a long talk. I actually recommend that first and foremost, but you sound too angry to talk to - not that I blame you. You have been abandoned, and denied the correct information that you need to move forward.

 

[Rence]

The issue is the status of their Cathlolicity. Having been baptized Catholic does not mean they retain their Catholicity. If they reject the faith, they have fallen away. Eternally, their state is much worse as an apostate than it is as a person who has never been baptized.

But the Church still considers them Catholic. They are still Catholic. They may be “fallen away” Catholics or “nonpracticing” but they are still Catholic.

The reason why their state is “much worse” is because they are still Catholic in the eyes of the Church, and Catholics who have rejected the faith.

 

[guanophore]

But the Church still considers them Catholic. They are still Catholic. They may be “fallen away” Catholics or “nonpracticing” but they are still Catholic.

The reason why their state is “much worse” is because they are still Catholic in the eyes of the Church, and Catholics who have rejected the faith.

In which case, how does identifying themselves as “Catholic” help their situation?

Is it somehow beneficial to be an apostacized Catholic?

 

[Rence]

In which case, how does identifying themselves as “Catholic” help their situation?

Is it somehow beneficial to be an apostacized Catholic?

You might want to consider that someone who has left the Church for another religion might not care, for they have found faith in another religion. That still doesn’t change the fact that the Church still considers them Catholic, and in addition, apostacized Catholics.

In the eyes of the Church, they are damned because they have “rejected” the truth. But to those who left, they have found it, and it doesn’t matter what the Catholic Church says.

My post was to explain the perspective on the side of the Catholic Church. For those who have left, it doesn’t matter what the Church says, otherwise, they wouldn’t have moved on to another faith.

 

[guanophore]

You might want to consider that someone who has left the Church for another religion might not care, for they have found faith in another religion. That still doesn’t change the fact that the Church still considers them Catholic, and in addition, apostacized Catholics.

In the eyes of the Church, they are damned because they have “rejected” the truth. But to those who left, they have found it, and it doesn’t matter what the Catholic Church says.

My post was to explain the perspective on the side of the Catholic Church. For those who have left, it doesn’t matter what the Church says, otherwise, they wouldn’t have moved on to another faith.

When I left, it was not a matter of not caring what the Church said, it was just that I could not reconcile it with what I observed, and read in the Scriptures.

When the time came to formally join another denomination, I could not do it, because I really had never resolved the discrepancy.

 

[Rence]

When I left, it was not a matter of not caring what the Church said, it was just that I could not reconcile it with what I observed, and read in the Scriptures.

When the time came to formally join another denomination, I could not do it, because I really had never resolved the discrepancy.

It’s disheartening to not be able to reconcile what the Church says with what you observe and read. I can relate. But then I’m sure many people have the same problem at one time or another on their journey of growth in the Church.