Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[reggieM]

I don’t know what is sadder-the fact that you wish to sit in the seat of God and judge your fellow man or that you have such a negative, bitter view of your fellow man.

Both are very sad – as is the fact that he thinks this topic is something to laugh about.

I would imagine the same liberal Catholics would laugh about children in China who were trapped alive in the rubble of an earthquake – how humorous that is.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, but my point is that it makes such a convenient little syllogism doesn’t it. God begat the Church, God makes sure the church cannot err. The Church speaks. The church must be correct. Unfortunately the Church has erred. It did so many times, and often we claim that “well humans in the church err:” I trust that in time the HS does correct errors. Heck the Church taught that capyberras a rodent of SA, was a fish for goodness sake. Now this was done because apparently the people there relied upon this animal a source of food and they had precious others, so it was declared a Fish to not violate Friday prohibitions. It’s a minor thing to be sure, but it illustrates the point. We cannot simply abandon our own minds in favor of allowing the church to tell us what to think. That is our duty as spiritual beings.

Of course the Church hierarchy has said things that were errors.

But surely you understand the difference between a formal Ex Cathedra teaching on faith or morals, and other teachings which aren’t covered by infallibility? No infallible teaching has ever been wrong.

The rule about capyberras, surely, fell under the Church’s authority to bind and to loose and make rules about Friday abstinence, rather than a decree on the proper biological classification of the capyberra? But either way, infallibility doesn’t cover teachings of biology, only faith and morals. So there’s no need to worry about the souls of those who ate capyberra on Friday.

 

[reggieM]

Seriously, A priest theologian friend of mine said that the announcement that there was to be no more discussion about female priests said that the statement explicitedly admitted that the decision was not based on any thing fromt he bible but was strictly from tradition.

You might consider reading the document itself. You’ll then realize that your priest-theologian-friend was wrong about that. The document not only does not “explicity admit” that there was no Scriptural support for the teaching, but it actually “explicitly states” that the decision is based in part on Scripture.

Beyond that, the new testament itself is “strictly from tradition”.

 

[drpmjhess]

Actually to be fair I believe Petrus was simply jokingly taking the issue to the extreme. I don’t think he personally judges people much at all.

Quite right, SpiritMeadow. It was a Beta test of the limits of Catholic humour; I wrote what I wrote with tongue in cheek!

There is a serious side to it however, since if using artificial contraception is a mortal sin, and if 85% of American Catholics (and perhaps even more Europeans) use it unrepentently, then either hell will be heavily populated with unrepentant contraceptive sinners, or there is wiggle room to repent of using if after menopause, or it’s not that sinful after all, or the God of the Bible doesn’t really distinguish between AC and NFP to begin with. Or the whole thing is a mystery!

Petrus

 

[Neil_Anthony]

either hell will be heavily populated with unrepentant contraceptive sinners, or there is wiggle room to repent

Remember that stuff about the narrow road and the wide road? Which path did Jesus say more people take? And where does it lead?

 

[drpmjhess]

Remember that stuff about the narrow road and the wide road? Which path did Jesus say more people take? And where does it lead?

Yep – hell will be a-hoppin!

 

[Icarus]

This contraceptive thing is just a ruse to allow for sex-addicts to get nasty ….anytime. ( M or F…whenever the urge arises).

My Wife has never used any (we have3 kids) all planned – she (like most women) knows her body (ovulation period)

Its all a sham to justify anytime sex ; in this oversexed culture.

VIAGRA anyone!?

 

[patg]

It is accepted

No, it is taught

that Christ behaved without restraint and specifically selected only men to the priesthood, therefore the Church has no authority to change who may be ordained. It is a matter of faith.

Nonsense - the gender of the minister has *nothing *to do with one’s faith in God. I agree that you definitely have to have faith in the pope to accept the statement you made BUT that is the only “faith” involved here. You are again wandering between things that concern faith in and love of God with procedural and organizational things.

Morality has never been based on biology…

Yes it was. As an example, when the ancients believed that the male seed contained the entire human child and that the woman was only an incubator, there were a lot of moral issues related to what happened to the male seed.

If the best that can be said about the Church is that what she teaches is sometimes correct then she is best abandoned altogether as she clearly does not fulfill her role of authentically interpreting God’s law.

I agree - that’s why it is so important that the church sticks to the business of leading one to God. Thanks to dissenters through the ages, we keep moving closer to that ideal. And I’ve never understood comments like this which seem to say we can only believe in things which are perfect in every aspect - that if any flaw is discovered and rethought, we have to throw everything away. Just makes no sense at all and that is not the way any humans have ever dealt with anything. Our understanding is imperfect and our teaching will be imperfect as we progress,.

You cannot dismiss what she teaches in one area without rejecting the basis on which she teaches everything.

But the church does it constantly! It is quite interesting that the Church dismisses what God has explicitly commanded in many areas and expects us to obey without dissent in areas in which God has never spoken.

 

[drpmjhess]

Yes it was. As an example, when the ancients believed that the male seed contained the entire human child and that the woman was only an incubator, there were a lot of moral issues related to what happened to the male seed.

Masturbation was bad because there was only so much seed, and wasting it was a sin.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Yep – hell will be a-hoppin!

Woohoo! :dancing:

 

[VARC]

I agree with the OP. I used to be a catholic. I am pro-life, anti-womens ordination, anti gay marriage, etc. But I lost faith in the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the pope. So unfortunately I cannot go back the the RCC. It would would be a fraud IMO. It amazes me the that some people remain in the RCC when they have very significant differences of opinion with their church.

 

[Cathy]

Have you seen the recent editorial in National Catholic Register on the California Supreme Court decision striking at the definition of marriage? It’ll give you good reason to defend marriage, for society and for the sake of children.
ncregister.com/site/article/14982/

Catholic moral teachings have never changed, despite failure to obey them, even by some popes. The Holy Spirit has prevented the heretical popes from defining doctrine. The Holy Spirit knows what’s best for people, even when people don’t recognize it. We can trust the teachings of Holy Mother Church, the bride of the Holy Spirit.

I think it was GKChesterton who said something like Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; rather it has been found difficult and not tried. That’s true for most of us, but there are saints who have tried it and found it most satisfying. We ought to try following in their steps.

 

[drpmjhess]

It amazes me the that some people remain in the RCC when they have very significant differences of opinion with their church.

Jesus remained a Jew despite his significant differences of opinion with first century Judaism.

 

[drpmjhess]

Have you seen the recent editorial in National Catholic Register on the California Supreme Court decision striking at the definition of marriage? It’ll give you good reason to defend marriage, for society and for the sake of children.
ncregister.com/site/article/14982/

The article did not mention outlawing divorce as the most important step toward defending marriage for the sake of children. We know a number of Catholic couples with young children who have become divorced recently, for seemingly trivial reasons. Divorce is a far bigger threat to marriage than is more people wanting to be married.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Both are very sad – as is the fact that he thinks this topic is something to laugh about.

I would imagine the same liberal Catholics would laugh about children in China who were trapped alive in the rubble of an earthquake – how humorous that is.

Please provide evidence that “the same liberal Catholics would laugh about children in China”.

If you’re going to continually attack your brethren in the Church you’re going to have to provide some evidence for your negative assumptions.

 

[Ender]

And I’ve never understood comments like this which seem to say we can only believe in things which are perfect in every aspect - that if any flaw is discovered and rethought, we have to throw everything away.

You need to understand the distinction between what the Church teaches via the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium on faith and morals and what is expressed outside of that context. No one ever claimed that everything said by every pope or bishop is true, nor does the Church herself make such a claim.

What the Church does claim is that she can authentically interpret God’s moral laws and that this task is exclusively entrusted to her. If that claim is false then so is the Church.

But the church does it constantly! It is quite interesting that the Church dismisses what God has explicitly commanded in many areas and expects us to obey without dissent in areas in which God has never spoken.

Be specific - name some.

Ender

 

[patg]

You need to understand the distinction between what the Church teaches via the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium on faith and morals and what is expressed outside of that context. No one ever claimed that everything said by every pope or bishop is true, nor does the Church herself make such a claim.

I understand and I’m not referring to that.

What the Church does claim is that she can authentically interpret God’s moral laws and that this task is exclusively entrusted to her. If that claim is false then so is the Church.

Saying that some of that interpretation may have to be altered based on new knowledge in no way implies your “all or nothing” assumption. The church has altered its interpretation of God’s moral laws - for example, most of Leviticus was quiet conveniently discarded.

Be specific - name some.

I already did yesterday but here is a repeat:

It is interesting that the church is totally quiet about ignoring direct commands from God to sell everything we have and give the money to the poor, to not eat rare meat or shellfish, to not wear clothing of blended fabrics, to not plant different crops in the same garden, etc.

 

[patg]

Masturbation was bad because there was only so much seed, and wasting it was a sin.

I’ve never heard that one before. What do you base that assumption on?

God was mad at Onan because he refused to have sex with Tamar, Er’s former wife, so that the offspring could be declared Er’s heir - not because he wasted anything.

 

[Icarus]

Jesus remained a Jew despite his significant differences of opinion with first century Judaism.

That’s Funny!!!

 

[drpmjhess]

Cursed be he who wears polyester, for behold, it is an abomination in my sight.

And does this apply only to female Iraqis, or to Iranian women as well?

Deuteronomy 21:11: And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12: Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13: And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.