Disobedience in RCIA

[joshua_b]

Dranu, the RCIA instructor needs to be replaced and I apologize to no one for saying that. It sounds like you did not get caught up in her nonsense though. Good for you.

I disagree with this and I think that maybe some ppl here are reading more into this statement than was intended. Being submissive and obedient does NOT mean we have no right to question and even to some sent disagree.

St. Jerome made it very clear how he felt about certain books being included in the official canon of Scripture, yet he submitted to the authority of the Magisterium over the objections he personally held. I think THAT is what the RCIA instructor was ultimately trying to say, and I think that is a perfectly acceptable mindset to have.

It is important to remember that “doubt” and “question” are not equated to “disbelief”. I’m a little disappointed, quite frankly, that too many people seem so quick to jump on the judgemental bandwagon. Don’t get me wrong, I would consider myself to be extremely conservative in my Catholocism, and rigorously defensive of Magisterial authority, but it is important to remember that there is a little “wiggle room” in regards to personal opinion in (not all) Catholic theology.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…As far as your R.C.I.A. instructor…she will be beating her head into a rock for the rest of her life unless she finishes her own R.C.I.A. process…

:clapping: :clapping: absolutely and that is not a process you nor I need to be in. Our presents may well delay her growth!

 

[fix]

Am I the one mistaken in thinking I need to hold all the teachings of the Church even if its not pronounced ex-cathedra? And if not what could I use to defend the position in the class? Thanks in advance.

Here is some little help I hope:

it is clear that, on questions of faith and morals, the only subject qualified to fulfil the office of teaching with binding authority for the faithful is the Supreme Pontiff and the College of Bishops in communion with him.8 The Bishops are the “authentic teachers” of the faith, "endowed with the authority of Christ,"9 because by divine institution they are the successors of the Apostles “in teaching and in pastoral governance”: together with the Roman Pontiff they exercise supreme and full power over all the Church, although this power cannot be exercised without the consent of the Roman Pontiff.10

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

And this:

Summary of Categories of Belief

 

[jack_hawkins]

I disagree with this and I think that maybe some ppl here are reading more into this statement than was intended. Being submissive and obedient does NOT mean we have no right to question and even to some sent disagree.

St. Jerome made it very clear how he felt about certain books being included in the official canon of Scripture, yet he submitted to the authority of the Magisterium over the objections he personally held. I think THAT is what the RCIA instructor was ultimately trying to say, and I think that is a perfectly acceptable mindset to have.

It is important to remember that “doubt” and “question” are not equated to “disbelief”. I’m a little disappointed, quite frankly, that too many people seem so quick to jump on the judgemental bandwagon. Don’t get me wrong, I would consider myself to be extremely conservative in my Catholocism, and rigorously defensive of Magisterial authority, but it is important to remember that there is a little “wiggle room” in regards to personal opinion in (not all) Catholic theology.

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. It is quite reassuring to tell people that some honest doubt is not a bar to entering the church, otherwise they might end up turning away when they needn’t and be lost for ever.
I sincerely hope Catholicism isn’t meant to be a strait jacket.

 

[fix]

I disagree with this and I think that maybe some ppl here are reading more into this statement than was intended. Being submissive and obedient does NOT mean we have no right to question and even to some sent disagree.

The OP states:

In my RCIA class they were talking about professing the faith by saying you believe all that the church believes and teaches. However, our lead instructor said its okay to believe what you want as long as the pope didn’t declare it infalliable. She claimed we can believe that women should be priests as long as we (if we were priests) don’t ordain them,

Romes says:

The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed…

Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”.14 Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church…

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,32 since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.33 As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

 

[Verita]

However, our lead instructor said its okay to believe what you want as long as the pope didn’t declare it infalliable.

Of course, it’s important to realize that the Pope isn’t the only one with infallible teaching authority in the Church. As fix quoted, the Bishops gathered in council and the Magisterium can also declare things infallibly. In addition to that, much of the time there’s no need to declare certain things infallibly. Most of the time it only happens when established teachings
are questioned. The Trinity has been defined, but only because it was questioned. If those heresies that caused the necessity to define it hadn’t risen, then it might never have been infallibly defined. Yet we would still be required to believe it.

 

[joshua_b]

The OP states:

Romes says:

I am fully aware of what Rome says on the matter, and I agree with what Rome says on the matter 100%. My original point was not to circumvent the teachings of the Church.

I think its a matter of what constitutes “belief”. Catholic (and Jewish) theology do not really equate “belief” with “feelings”. Faith is demonstrated through our actions, and through our submission to the teachings of the Church IN SPITE OF our feelings to the contrary. “If you BELIEVE in me, you will KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS” (emphasis mine, of course). I sincerely believe that was the ultimate point of the RCIA instructor in question here…obedience DESPITE personal objection. This is not “pop theology” and is deeply rooted in Scripture and Jewish culture.

The Hebrew Scriptures refer to loving God with your whole heart. A Rabbi once explained to me that in ancient Jewish culture, the heart was considered the anatomical seat of intellect. That little piece of information shed alot of light on Scripture for me. Faith, like love, is a choice. It has little to do with feeling.

I interpreted the RCIA instructor to be saying (as a hypothetical example) if the Church teaches that women can not be ordained priests, it is okay to “feel” that teaching is wrong, it is not okay to speak out against the teaching, or do anything to proclaim you oppose that teaching. I point once again to St Jerome. He made it very clear how he FELT about certain books being included in the official canon (and he felt in no uncertain terms they did not belong), but DESPITE his personal objections, he conceded the point to the wisdom of Magisterium of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[fix]

I am fully aware of what Rome says on the matter, and I agree with what Rome says on the matter 100%. My original point was not to circumvent the teachings of the Church.

I think its a matter of what constitutes “belief”. Catholic (and Jewish) theology do not really equate “belief” with “feelings”. Faith is demonstrated through our actions, and through our submission to the teachings of the Church IN SPITE OF our feelings to the contrary. “If you BELIEVE in me, you will KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS” (emphasis mine, of course). I sincerely believe that was the ultimate point of the RCIA instructor in question here…obedience DESPITE personal objection. This is not “pop theology” and is deeply rooted in Scripture and Jewish culture.

The Hebrew Scriptures refer to loving God with your whole heart. A Rabbi once explained to me that in ancient Jewish culture, the heart was considered the anatomical seat of intellect. That little piece of information shed alot of light on Scripture for me. Faith, like love, is a choice. It has little to do with feeling.

I interpreted the RCIA instructor to be saying (as a hypothetical example) if the Church teaches that women can not be ordained priests, it is okay to “feel” that teaching is wrong, it is not okay to speak out against the teaching, or do anything to proclaim you oppose that teaching. I point once again to St Jerome. He made it very clear how he FELT about certain books being included in the official canon (and he felt in no uncertain terms they did not belong), but DESPITE his personal objections, he conceded the point to the wisdom of Magisterium of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, but you seem to be reading much into what the OP stated. I do not see anything that claims one should “feel” anything.

She said:

However, our lead instructor said its okay to believe what you want as long as the pope didn’t declare it infalliable.

It seems she mistakenly believes teachings that bind our conscience are matters of free opinion. That just is not so.

I accept one cannot control what feelings pop into their head, but assent is a matter of the intellect and will. One can certainly assent to the things I linked to even if one has some minor doubt or is confused.

Cultivating doubt is dangerous:

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

 

[rwoehmke]

The church has recognized women as doctors (teachers) of the church, and that the New Testament recognizes women as deacons, though this is not the discipline of the church. Personally, I was just puzzling this morning about why, when St. Paul recognized a woman as deacon in one of his epistles, women are not admitted to the diaconate training program. However, this is not a teaching of the Church as a matter of faith and morals. It is in the category of discipline,and therefore, subject to review, and perhaps, change.

If the role of women deacons in the early church was understood, there would be no puzzlement. They apparently received a laying on of hands, but it was not ordination. The role they played was very similar to the roles played by un-cloistered nuns in today’s church.( Check it out on the internet if you doubt.) Non-ordination of women to the priesthood is much more than a discipline and will not change.

I am an RCIA instructor in my parish, have been a Catholic all my life and still know only a small part of the knowledge and beliefs of our Faith. Even professional theologians specialize because they cannot know it all. What is called for is not a total knowledgeable belief in everything, but an acknowlegment, an act of the will, that says I will accept and believe everything the Catholic Church teaches, holds and believes. Yes, this is done in faith because there will be things you will never hear or learn about and much that you will never fully comprehend or understand.

I sometimes think that RCIA leaders shy away from anything they feel a candidate or catachumen might balk at and so they soft-pedal it or actually may not believe in it themselves.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I think its a matter of what constitutes “belief”. Catholic (and Jewish) theology do not really equate “belief” with “feelings”. Faith is demonstrated through our actions, and through our submission to the teachings of the Church IN SPITE OF our feelings to the contrary. “If you BELIEVE in me, you will KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS” (emphasis mine, of course). I sincerely believe that was the ultimate point of the RCIA instructor in question here…obedience DESPITE personal objection. This is not “pop theology” and is deeply rooted in Scripture and Jewish culture.

Exactly. No one is going to criticise a lay person for saying that she disagrees, but will observe the official teaching. For trained theologians things are a bit more subtle.

I interpreted the RCIA instructor to be saying (as a hypothetical example) if the Church teaches that women can not be ordained priests, it is okay to “feel” that teaching is wrong, it is not okay to speak out against the teaching, or do anything to proclaim you oppose that teaching.

The women priests issue is unusual in that the Pope has banned discussion of the issue. This is because of the very extreme political climate in the current Western world, and because the matter is closed.
It is very rare for this to happen. On most issues, like contraception, annullments, Latin Masses, even sedevacantism, open discussion is allowed, but not defiance of Rome’s teachings.

 

[Dranu]

Thanks for the replies, they realy are helping me understand infallibility, especialy those links, and I feel alot safer about beliefs in what the Church believes.

Fix, I realy like how the link to ‘Summary of Categories of Belief in Professio fidei’ describes it and clears up all my questions pretty well, and was wondering if it has an assurance that it is valid (Nihil Obstat I think its called), or at least can be backed up by some Nihil Obstat stuff, or something of the like, as I would like to bring it to class for the others, if the question of not believing in certain doctrines is raised again.

It seems you can question (not doubt), with questioning being to better understand the doctrine, but not to be disobedient and purposively doubt in it (knowing the doctrine but choosing to doubt).

much of the time there’s no need to declare certain things infallibly. Most of the time it only happens when established teachings
are questioned. The Trinity has been defined, but only because it was questioned. If those heresies that caused the necessity to define it hadn’t risen, then it might never have been infallibly defined. Yet we would still be required to believe it.

Let me make sure I’m correct in this.

1.) So I should rightfully and am bound by Church law to adhear and believe that ‘women cannot be ordained’ even though I might not be able to fully understand it in the light of a infallibly defined reason?

2.) On a side question, am I wrong in thinking that it is the "women cannot be ordained’ which is the only infalliable part? Like is there a infallible defined reason, or just reasons which haven’t been defined as infalliable?

Thanks again!

 

[joshua_b]

Sorry, but you seem to be reading much into what the OP stated. I do not see anything that claims one should “feel” anything.

I will conced this is a possibility, but you should concede that maybe my assesment is dead on and it is the “other side” of this exchange that is reading into this. A third possibility is that the OP misunderstood the point of what was being presented to them. (it may come as a shock to some reading this thread that on occasion, individuals do misinterpret a presentation of a tenet of the faith). I still think the original message of this RCIA instructor was that we not let our feelings on certain doctrines (think Mariology and converting Protestants here) prevent us from entering into full communion with the Catholic Church.

I wanted to bring this to the discussion because I would hate to think that someone was dissuaded from converting (or entering) because they did not agree intellectually with the Church’s teaching on, say, artificial contraception. The most important thing when someone disagrees intellectually with Church teaching is to simply accept it as Truth on the merit of the authority of the Church and live in accord with the teaching of the Church. So, back to the example of artificial contraception, if one doesn’t personally agree that contraception is evil, should they not join the Church ? If that person is a member of the Church, are they in a state of sin ? My contention, as long as they accept the teaching as Truth, and live in accordance to it, is “no, they are not”.

I agree with you about assent, but do not negate the role of Grace. Our faith is a gift from God, and it is important to remember that we are limited in what we can do on our own. I feel it important to say this because objectively speaking doubt is a sin, but only God is able to judge accurately whether or not we are culpable of anything, and to what extent our culpability exists. Time, and the revelation of the Holy Spirit, can and most often DO bring people to a FULL acceptance and understanding of Church teaching, but (and I cite personal experience here) it is often only AFTER a willful subjugation to the Church’s authority.

I offer all of this only as something to think about, in contrast to the wholesale mentality of lynching the RCIA instructor (gross exaggeration there…nobody get bent and twisted please) without regard to the context and intended message (which I readily admit I don’t know, and hope everyone else will admit also).

Is there anything I have said in this post that you (or anyone else) disagrees with, or are we on the same page ?

 

[jack_hawkins]

I wanted to bring this to the discussion because I would hate to think that someone was dissuaded from converting (or entering) because they did not agree intellectually with the Church’s teaching on, say, artificial contraception. The most important thing when someone disagrees intellectually with Church teaching is to simply accept it as Truth on the merit of the authority of the Church and live in accord with the teaching of the Church. So, back to the example of artificial contraception, if one doesn’t personally agree that contraception is evil, should they not join the Church ? If that person is a member of the Church, are they in a state of sin ? My contention, as long as they accept the teaching as Truth, and live in accordance to it, is “no, they are not”.

I;m glad you mention this, as I find this topic very difficult. I have not found any satisfactory answers from anyone that make sense to me. I don’t mean the whole thrust of the church’s doctrine, just specific situations.

 

[Dranu]

She said:

I’m actualy a guy to clarify Second time this happened here, maybe I should change my name hehe.

Anyhow, I don’t want to risk slandering the instructor so I will tread lightly, but I’m pretty sure she said you can believe what you want, at least with women ordination, as it was the only thing she realy pointed out besides a few other minor things (at this point I was focused mainly on what she said just about that to remember the other doctrines too well.) She even claimed (almost verbatum) about when the pope John Paul II said the discussion is closed, "that you can say ‘wait! thats not right!’ "

Edit: I’m not judging and saying she is doing this on purpose or out of ignorance, said it poorly, or even that I may have taken it wrong. Just what was said and my reaction.

 

[fix]

Thanks for the replies, they realy are helping me understand infallibility, especialy those links, and I feel alot safer about beliefs in what the Church believes.

Fix, I realy like how the link to ‘Summary of Categories of Belief in Professio fidei’ describes it and clears up all my questions pretty well, and was wondering if it has an assurance that it is valid (Nihil Obstat I think its called), or at least can be backed up by some Nihil Obstat stuff, or something of the like, as I would like to bring it to class for the others, if the question of not believing in certain doctrines is raised again.

It was taken from:

  L'Osservatore Romano 
Weekly Edition in English
15 July 1998,

It may be on the Vatican website.

It seems you can question (not doubt), with questioning being to better understand the doctrine, but not to be disobedient and purposively doubt in it (knowing the doctrine but choosing to doubt).

Yes, I think that is quite right.

Let me make sure I’m correct in this.

1.) So I should rightfully and am bound by Church law to adhear and believe that ‘women cannot be ordained’ even though I might not be able to fully understand it in the light of a infallibly defined reason?

Yes, we should accept it.

2.) On a side question, am I wrong in thinking that it is the "women cannot be ordained’ which is the only infalliable part? Like is there a infallible defined reason, or just reasons which haven’t been defined as infalliable?

Thanks again!

You may want to read this as well:

1. first, we must point out the tendency to measure everything on the basis of the distinction between the “infallible Magisterium” and the “fallible Magisterium”.
   In this way infallibility becomes the criterion for all authority problems, to the point of actually replacing the concept of authority with that of infallibility. Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the ), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching.
   MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC DISSENT

 

[fix]

I’m actualy a guy to clarify Second time this happened here, maybe I should change my name hehe.

Sorry, I meant the She as referring to your instructor.

Anyhow, I don’t want to risk slandering the instructor so I will tread lightly, but I’m pretty sure she said you can believe what you want, at least with women ordination, as it was the only thing she realy pointed out besides a few other minor things (at this point I was focused mainly on what she said just about that to remember the other doctrines too well.) She even claimed (almost verbatum) about when the pope John Paul II said the discussion is closed, "that you can say ‘wait! thats not right!’ "

Edit: I’m not judging and saying she is doing this on purpose or out of ignorance, said it poorly, or even that I may have taken it wrong. Just what was said and my reaction.

I do not think you are guilty of anything bad. You are reporting, anonymously, your subjective experience and seeking (name removed by moderator)ut to grow stronger in your faith. I think that is commendable.

 

[fix]

I will conced this is a possibility, but you should concede that maybe my assesment is dead on and it is the “other side” of this exchange that is reading into this.

Anything is possible, true. My point is we comment on the information reported. I accept the OP is being genuine.

A third possibility is that the OP misunderstood the point of what was being presented to them. (it may come as a shock to some reading this thread that on occasion, individuals do misinterpret a presentation of a tenet of the faith).

Possible, sure. Why can we not go on the assumption what is related is true. Are we in a court of law? The Op does not sound like someone looking for trouble. He seems to be very genuine with a tender conscience. We should be pleased.

I still think the original message of this RCIA instructor was that we not let our feelings on certain doctrines (think Mariology and converting Protestants here) prevent us from entering into full communion with the Catholic Church.

Now, why should I accept that version when you were not there but he was? Does it not make more sense to go by what the he says?

I wanted to bring this to the discussion because I would hate to think that someone was dissuaded from converting (or entering) because they did not agree intellectually with the Church’s teaching on, say, artificial contraception. The most important thing when someone disagrees intellectually with Church teaching is to simply accept it as Truth on the merit of the authority of the Church and live in accord with the teaching of the Church.

OK, but he does not sound like he is edgy at all. He seeks information.

So, back to the example of artificial contraception, if one doesn’t personally agree that contraception is evil, should they not join the Church ? If that person is a member of the Church, are they in a state of sin ? My contention, as long as they accept the teaching as Truth, and live in accordance to it, is “no, they are not”.

I think defining terms really matter here. What do you mean not personally agree? Our conscience is only divided if we want it to be divided. Accepting the authority of the Church is something we choose to do.

I agree with you about assent, but do not negate the role of Grace. Our faith is a gift from God, and it is important to remember that we are limited in what we can do on our own. I feel it important to say this because objectively speaking doubt is a sin, but only God is able to judge accurately whether or not we are culpable of anything, and to what extent our culpability exists. Time, and the revelation of the Holy Spirit, can and most often DO bring people to a FULL acceptance and understanding of Church teaching, but (and I cite personal experience here) it is often only AFTER a willful subjugation to the Church’s authority.

Yes, I agree

I offer all of this only as something to think about, in contrast to the wholesale mentality of lynching the RCIA instructor (gross exaggeration there…nobody get bent and twisted please) without regard to the context and intended message (which I readily admit I don’t know, and hope everyone else will admit also).

Sure, I agree no lynching. I think no one has done that. I have simply related what the church teaches. I have not said a word about the teacher that should be seen as bad.

Is there anything I have said in this post that you (or anyone else) disagrees with, or are we on the same page ?

I agree with you.

 

[Dranu]

It is very rare for this to happen. On most issues, like contraception, annullments, Latin Masses, even sedevacantism, open discussion is allowed, but not defiance of Rome’s teachings.

Would’nt it be defiance to go around saying the Church should change something like contraception? By open discussion, do you mean just discussing the whys?

 

[pnewton]

Would’nt it be defiance to go around saying the Church should change something like contraception? By open discussion, do you mean just discussing the whys?

It sounds arrogant to me to speak where the Holy Spirit has guided and contadict that teaching. However, expression of doubts can be an important step in developing one’s conscience and understanding Church teaching.

I mainly butted in, though, to say congratulations and welcome.

 

[joshua_b]

Fix,

my posts were not aimed at you, nor at the OP, but more at some of the responders who seemed to automatically deduce from the limited information that was presented that the OP was in a “bad” RCIA program, or had a “bad” RCIA instructor. I just wanted to counterbalance some of the “negative vibe” I was getting from this thread.

“I think defining terms really matter here. What do you mean not personally agree? Our conscience is only divided if we want it to be divided. Accepting the authority of the Church is something we choose to do.”

I agree with this totally, and you have just restated my ultimate point (albeit more concisely). When I’m talking about “personal agreement” I’m talking about “feelings”, and the fact that what is most important is not how we feel about a doctrine but rather whether or not we choose to submit to the authority of the Church.

I commend you on presenting the teaching of the Church in an objective and clear manner.