Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[drpmjhess]

She merely strips them of their license to teach theology and otherwise has them fired or removed from positions of authority - and in other cases, excommunicates them (if they’re not self-excommunicated).

Ah - the old “self-excommunication” ploy! So 85% of the American Catholic church is self-excommunicated. That should ease the priest shortage.

 

[LRThunder]

It’s not a contradiction at all.

How is it not a contradiction?

The Church isn’t a democracy.

 

[drpmjhess]

How is it not a contradiction?The Church isn’t a democracy.

You have a choice: you will either have to reinstate widespread excommunication to get rid of the 85% of American Catholics who dissent from the Vatican on the matter of the morality of so-called “articificial” contraception, or get used to living with this dissent, which will never go away.

I know many of these people, because my parish is full of them. They are faithful participants at Sunday Mass and in the sacramental life of the parish. With great loyalty they enroll their children in the parish school. With great devotion they support the church financially, temporally, musically, and materially. They just happen to dissent from the Vatican on the matter of artificial contraception, which they regard as a dangerous anachronism in a world of nearly seven billion people and declining resources. By and large, they are supported by their parish priests.

That’s loyal, faithful, honest, dissent. Get used to it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I believe you are accidently muddling interpretation of scripture with authenticity of scripture.

The Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit determines what Scripture was and was not (reference my cite of the CCC earlier.) Therefore regardless of the time it was originally written it was divinely inspired.

Divinely inspired does not equal literal interpretation. Both Genesis stories are divinely inspired both have purposes to bring the faithful closer to God. As those who love God we must stuggle to better understand the wisdom therein. See where I am driving? The profound impact of how one approaches scripture. In obedience with the assumption that it is divinely inspired means that Holy Providence has put these books for our use at this time in salvation history and there is something worthwhile here for us.

If understanding the human authors and who they were and the context of the times helps you to runderstand the wisdom within divinely inspired scripture, more power to you, but by Jesus’ promise to be a Good Shepherd and His promise to Peter, when the Church declared the Bible Holy Scripture I must under that Authority approach it with that metaphysical faith understanding.

Wisdom is eternal but men apply it to their times. As the link in my last post shows, I reject none of it and believe that it gives me a more authentic understanding of the world by studying it in the sense of faith and with what humility I can muster. This attitude is for me not reconcilable with determining for myself what is or is not inspired.

So we have lattitude in interpretation as a natural part of our growth to understand God and (hopefully) have the Church as a helpful teacher, but the authority of Scripture as divinely inspired seems to me to be a necessary dependency to be able to interpret it with eyes of faith in spirit and that is where the benefit of scripture is, for God is Spirit.

Hope this helps.

I understand what you mean, but I think you are still missing the point. If there are 335 known manuscripts of Mark, and they are not all exactly the same, but differ in several respects, then are they all divinely inspired? Of course not. The original may well hve been, but we don’t have that. We instead have copies. At a certain point in time the Church choice one version or another, but that was essentially back in the 300 CE, and we have many many more manuscripts that have been found since then. If you want to claim that when the Church essentially chose the canon, the copies that it used were the definitive “inspired” ones, then so be it, but many would argue that that doesn’t hold up very well when earlier copies are found albeit at a later date in time. Most experts work off a theory, not always correct, but a working theory none the less that older copies are closer to the original than later ones.

So when some biblical experts conclude that based upon examination of all the available manuscripts, and the point in time when a suspected phrase was written, that some segment or particular verse was a later addition, not part of the original document, they are in effect saying that this part is not divinely inspired, but was man-made. There are instances when Matthew and Luke both changed certain remarks of Mark because to them, given their view of Jesus, his words created theological problems. The entire synoptic problem leads to the conclusion that each writer worked existing material to his own personal needs as an evangelist. Now i suppose you can argue that they are all divinely inspired in their respective interpretations, but just as likely they are more editorial comment by the evangelist to make his point.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This argument displays a misunderstanding of the Church herself and her role in salvation. I wonder: does anyone think that accepting the teachings of Copernicus and Newton constitutes blind worship and cultism? Believing that we can decide for ourselves the morality of homosexual behavior is akin to believing we can decide for ourselves whether apples should fall down or fall up.
It is statements like this that make people ask why you consider yourself Catholic as it constitutes a rejection of a tenet that is central to the Church’s view of herself.

I don’t think anyone for a very long time did accept Copernicus or Newton blindly. They tried every possible experiment they could think of to test the truth of the scientific allegation. Only when all experiments proved over time the efficacy of such allegations did people begin to accept it as a given and move on to build upon the work. I am not advocating that everyone decide for themselves, I am advocating that everyone is responsible for a full investigation of such claims if they do not sit well as given. Sorry though it continues to drive you guys nuts, but I assure you I have no intention of going elsewhere.

People are certainly justified in wondering how you can reject a claim that is so central to Catholicism and still believe you are Catholic - or that you would see any justification in remaining one. Clearly you do, but it is difficult to understand why.
This seems more than a bit disingenuous. The Church has unambiguously defined homosexual actions as immoral. You disagree. That you choose your own interpretation over that of the Church means, for this issue at least, you have clearly set your understanding above the Church’s.
This is true to a degree …

I have no problem with people who want to devote themselves to whether I should be a Catholic. It seems a sad waste of time when there are so many important things to do. I had hoped we had moved beyond the time in the Church when one’s orthodoxy was central. That whole episode turned out rather badly and reflects poorly on the Church to this day. I said that I do not find the scriptural evidence against homosexuality convincing. In any case, i am not acting in any manner contrary to church teaching, only expressing an opinion. I may be entirely wrong, but I continue to examine the question.Those who don’t wish to, of course need not do so.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

As for me the Social Justice / War on Terror sections tend to be too much for me to stomach as a rule. Maybe staying out of those discussions might be beneficial.

Here is another solution. I think before a poster that alludes represents to being Catholic can post he/she should take a “Catholic” test. This Catholic test would be as designed as a sign of credibility as to just “how Catholic” someone is (a numerical score, a color code whatever). Everyone that says they are Catholic has to have it with their score prominately displayed by their name, for everyone to see. And your actual test will be available for all to see your answers at anytime. If at some time in the future, if you wish to retake the test, then you can at some time in the future. Personally, I think it could be a way Catholics could help pay for the website.

Better yet, just bring back the inquistion

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There might be a better way to say that or explain it because it doesn’t sound quite right, even though I think what you’re saying is correct.

The “Protestant model” (or relativist-modernist view) is to claim to oneself (subjectivism) that “I believe this” for whatever reason.

Then it’s a matter of trying to find a church that meets what we believe.

The better (Catholic?) way is to investigate the claims of various religions and then decide (with the help of God) which one is true and then adhere to that.

I think you’re right that Spiritmeadow is using the Protestant/relativist method.

She believes herself to be the ultimate authority on God’s revelation and she will not submit to the Church. This is what happens to dissenters – they only submit to their own judgement, not to an external authority.

For most dissenters that I know, there is never a situation for them where they will submit to a teaching simply because the authority of the Church has commanded it.

Every teaching is submitted to the tribunal of their own private judgement – which becomes the highest authority.

In the Catholic model, once the Church is understood as the true arbiter of God’s teaching – the believer will submit to the judgements of the Church (on divine matters) even if the teaching is not fully understood or “liked”.

So the difficulties of “obedience to authority” are often avoided by dissenters.

Christ told the lepers to “Go shew yourselves unto the priests” and they obeyed – simply because they believed He had the authority to command and heal.

On the way, they were healed – because they obeyed.

That’s what dissenters reject, essentially – the virtue of obedience to commands issued from the authority of the Church.

Thanks for getting into my mind and heart and explaining to everyone what I believe. Are you given the gift of prescience or something? I shall refrain from attempting to judge your mind and motives. I resent your statements as mostly untrue and resent your rudeness in attempting to malign me in this way.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Scripture was copied meticulously by devout dedicate religious people. Only the smallest of differences are found between the manuscripts. The differences have little or no bearing on the meaning of the New Testament.

I do not agree. There are a lot of changes that were made. Some very minor, some mere typographical mistakes of transcription, but some were serious. Scribes are human like anyone else and sometimes they were in doubt as to what was meant and substituted their own understanding. Sometimes they thought the writer had mistated something and specifically changed it to “correct” it. As I said, there are transcripts with warnings in the margins, demanding a fair, literal transcription. The problem with faulty manuscripts was very well known, especially in the earliest of days. That is why in great part the original Vulgate was redone based on better more accurate copies.

 

[drpmjhess]

Better yet, just bring back the inquistion

I never expected the Spanish Inquisition! A round of auto-da-fes for everyone, on the Vatican.

 

[repo_man]

The Church clearly teaches that socialism is evil. Yet you clearly advocate it. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

socialism is such a vaguely defined term though so it’s a blanket statement. as far as i know, the church has spoken out equally on capitalism and socialism both. the apostles were socialists (more specifically communists) so it can’t be that bad.

The Church condemns liberation theology. Yet you continue to push it. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

the church condemns liberation theology for certain aspects, it is not wrong as a whole. the main problem with it is the acceptance of marxism and subsequently dialectical materialism if i’ve researched it correctly. and the approval of violence as a means of righting injustices.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t think anyone for a very long time did accept Copernicus or Newton blindly. They tried every possible experiment they could think of to test the truth of the scientific allegation. Only when all experiments proved over time the efficacy of such allegations did people begin to accept it as a given and move on to build upon the work. I am not advocating that everyone decide for themselves, I am advocating that everyone is responsible for a full investigation of such claims if they do not sit well as given. Sorry though it continues to drive you guys nuts, but I assure you I have no intention of going elsewhere.

Loads of people ‘tested the truth of the (albeit non-scientific) allegation’ that Jesus was God, was Messiah and so on. Their thorough investigation led them to reject these premises. Doesn’t make the premises untrue - not a bit of it, just means the investigation is flawed. That’s the problem with non-scientific allegations, it’s easier to muck up the investigation and take truth for lies and vice versa.

Now how about you explain why your own ‘scientific investigation’ is worth more than 2,000 years of intensive investigation that the Church has been doing on an hourly and daily basis since it was founded?

You do know, for example, that contraceptive herbal medicines existed in Jesus’ day and the Church spoke out about them early on? So ABC certainly isn’t a new issue. There really isn’t anything new under the sun, so you can trust the church on big issues like this.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I understand this. In fact, it’s one of the things that put me off becoming Catholic in 1999. The misrepresentation of Catholic teaching, the illogical thinking, the loose citation of Church documents to make them say what you want them to say–I saw it all and I understand why people are frustrated with them.

But a feeling of frustration is not a rational justification. If the Catholic Church is true, then it’s got to be bigger than anyone’s opinions. Clearly liberal Catholics recognize this by the fact of remaining Catholic even though they disagree. I honor them for that. I’m concerned that many “conservative” Catholics are deeply influenced by conservative Protestantism and American individualism generally, and are importing a lot of the weaknesses of sectarian Protestantism into Catholicism (just as liberals are importing other Protestant ideas into Catholicism).

Why do I care? Because I think the Catholic Church may be what it claims to be, and is at the very least central to any hope of reuniting a significant portion of Christendom.

Edwin

I am forced to agree. I too am saddened by by the degree to which orthodox Catholicism in this country has become aligned with reactionary right Protestantism and with the “survival of the fittest” mentality of the last century with all its “rugged individualism”. This was all started ironically by elitist leftest universities sociologists who took on the Darwin biology and tried to apply it to social groups. It was glommed onto to by big business to justify laize faire practices and to justify their mistreatment of the workers in their industries. CAF is peppered with converts, and when they tell you the tradition they are from, it is almost universally from fundamentalist protestant sects. This suggests that they have simply add to sola scriptura the magisterium. It remains a Do as you are told type response.

The fact is that dissent is as old as the Church, as only who has read the history of the church well knows.Some that were dissenters at one time, later commanded the truth. It will always be so, and I think it is a good thing. No church can endure for in excess of 2000 without having something powerful going for it. I trust Mother Church will prevail and discern the right path to follow. Certainly Vatican II proved that, as the dissenters won in large part. Now there are attempts to at partially undo some of that, or at the least redefine what Vatican II meant. There is a lot of redefining going on. Although the Church apologized for the Galileo affair there are some here who don’t accept that apology and continue to claim that the Church was never in error. Such blindness is in my opinion unhealthy.

One side sees dissent as danger, the other side sees blind adherence more so. I’m not sure there is a way to reconcile. I am not particularly offended since, again, what one finds here is a small minority. As even they admit, its the rabid amount of what they term dissent that they witness in their own parishes.

I am mildly interested in this phenomenon. It smacks of the perverbial wanting to be more Catholic than the Pope. I am fearful it is more akin to fundamentalism creeping into the Church, something that She has very much warned against.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think you are confusing local customs and disciplines with doctrine and dogma. There is no promise that people will not err in matters of customs and disciplines, science or dietary classifications, for that matter. It only applies to faith and morals

Glad to here that you believe the Church is only inerrent as to faith and morals. Some here would dispute that.

I am glad that you are horrified with the notion that one shoudl abandon one’s mind. Indeed such a practice would be contrary to God’s desire for humanity, since He clearly created us with rationality. Morality is dicatated by God, not men, and when the conscience of man is properly formed, then one will understand the need to accept the dictates of God. If you think your “independent assessment” is more valuable than God’s commandments then you have a much bigger problem than the authority of the Church.

Reducing my argument to “independent assessment” is hardly fair or correct, but it does dismiss is simplistically. There would be no need to use our independent judgment if in the end we cannot be properly formed but with one conclusion. I am not advocating not accepting God. That is the cute trick that is played again and again, just as I said. I am saying that I do not simply allow the Church to define truth for me. It is also my responsiblity to examine the evidence and decide. TO suggest that I am not heavily guided by the Church’;s wisdom is wrong. It is not God, but the Church I question as possibly not being correct in its’ assessment of God’s will. I will not conflate the two. To do so makes the Church nothing but a cult to be followed unquestioningly.

What did you think He meant,when He said “I will build my Church”? Or do you think, like the Jews, that Christians just made that up to support their newly coined religion?

We have been over this a good deal in this thread. I’ve answered this before. You should read back through the thread to get my response, which is based on well known exegetical work.

You are correct, your formulation is a bit unclear. It does not hang together. If you believe that the Church is a “natural result” then you must believe the Apostles missed the mark, because they all thought Jesus meant to set up a church.

Please reference me to the rest of the apostles who claimed that they understood that Jesus meant to set up a church. And cite please wherein they made these claims.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I believe you’re saying that one should honor others’ “family or cultural traditions” and not dismiss the validity or meaning of such things. That seems fine to some extent.

But we shouldn’t say that Catholic missionary efforts (a 2000 year old tradition) are misguided because the missionaries sought to convert people from pagan or native belief systems.

If we have something good and true to offer, we shouldn’t hesitate (with charity).

The “Catholic way” is to honor the person’s prior tradition – there is abundant evidence of that. The Church has used other religious traditions and symbols and even rituals to incorporate into the Christian message (without changing doctrine) – to show that the Catholic faith is universal and can appeal to all cultures.

A person should also not be too quick to abandon family customs. True.

But all that said, I can’t see it as a “Protestant method” to seek the truth in religion and then adhere to it. That makes it sound like Catholics prefer to be ignorant.

Spiritmeadow is a convert from agnosticism – so she did use the “Protestant model” as you call it. But I find this too confusing.

I think you’re reacting against a kind of “rootlessness” that is found in Protestantism – where the believers are always searching and switching congregations. There’s not much love for tradition.

I would agree with all of that critique. But I don’t think the response is to blindly accept one’s family religion – even when the evidence shows that there is something deeper with more truth. I’m sure you would not dismiss the difficult struggles that many Catholic converts have gone through to finally embrace the Church – you may even face such things yourself, and that is to be admired, in my opinion.

You are correct that I was an agnostic many years ago. I did not choose Catholicism based on the protestant model. Please refrain from trying to explain me. It is both rude and you are mostly wrong. Who gave you this right to define me? You have absolutely no idea why I became Catholic so please stop telling untruths.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Loads of people ‘tested the truth of the (albeit non-scientific) allegation’ that Jesus was God, was Messiah and so on. Their thorough investigation led them to reject these premises. Doesn’t make the premises untrue - not a bit of it, just means the investigation is flawed. That’s the problem with non-scientific allegations, it’s easier to muck up the investigation and take truth for lies and vice versa.

Now how about you explain why your own ‘scientific investigation’ is worth more than 2,000 years of intensive investigation that the Church has been doing on an hourly and daily basis since it was founded?

You do know, for example, that contraceptive herbal medicines existed in Jesus’ day and the Church spoke out about them early on? So ABC certainly isn’t a new issue. There really isn’t anything new under the sun, so you can trust the church on big issues like this.

By the same analogy, it does not make them true either. This seems to be the standard argument of the month here. It’s really not persuasive since it cuts both ways.

Investigation as to what?

 

[Contarini]

I believe you’re saying that one should honor others’ “family or cultural traditions” and not dismiss the validity or meaning of such things.

No, that’s not really what I’m saying. I’m not making a statement about how we should treat other people’s beliefs. I’m making a statement about how most people treat their own, and I’m saying that this quite normal and fine. That is to say, we start out shaped by a particular tradition, and we abandon it only if it hopelessly breaks down on us AND if there is a viable alternative to jump to. (Occasionally someone abandons their tradition without having a viable alternative, and this usually makes them very miserable indeed.)

I’m further saying that people enter the Church (however we define the Church) because the Church calls them to conversion, not because they sit down and dispassionately weigh the evidence. I would argue that theologically this is always what happens, although subjectively people may believe that they are simply making an informed choice among alternatives. The significant and decisive thing is God’s action through the Church, not our spiritual search through the jungle of religious options.

But all that said, I can’t see it as a “Protestant method” to seek the truth in religion and then adhere to it. That makes it sound like Catholics prefer to be ignorant.

Not at all. I’m saying that contrary to the famous claim of B. B. Warfield, Augustine’s doctrine of grace can’t be separated from his doctrine of the Church. Pelagius was wrong. Our choice of God is subsequent to and flows from God’s choice of us. And that choice is expressed through the Church. It’s not that we set out to find the truth and figure out that the Church has it, but that God through the Church turns our will away from its habitual addiction to sin and error, and graciously instills into it a love of truth and goodness.

Or, to quote C. S. Lewis: “People talk about man’s search for God. You might as well talk about the mouse’s search for the cat.”

I’m sure you would not dismiss the difficult struggles that many Catholic converts have gone through to finally embrace the Church

Not at all. Though I suppose my admiration for them is tempered by the fact that before I read the first of them (which was *Rome Sweet Home–*well, not true, I’d read about Newman and Faber before that, and a little about Crashaw) I had already heard many stories of the heroic souls who broke free from the trammels of Roman tradition and became Protestants. . . . .

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I am fearful it is more akin to fundamentalism creeping into the Church, something that She has very much warned against.

Yes, but one can sling these accusations around all day. You say that the conservatives aren’t fully orthodox because they’re too fundamentalist, and they say that you aren’t fully orthodox because you are too liberal.

Isn’t it possible that each of you has a valid point about the other, and that you might all become better Catholics if you were willing to listen to what the other side has to say?

And with that hopelessly mushy remark, I am,

The resident Obnoxious Representative of the Via Media (or one of them),

Edwin

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Here is another solution. I think before a poster that alludes represents to being Catholic can post he/she should take a “Catholic” test. This Catholic test would be as designed as a sign of credibility as to just “how Catholic” someone is (a numerical score, a color code whatever). Everyone that says they are Catholic has to have it with their score prominately displayed by their name, for everyone to see. And your actual test will be available for all to see your answers at anytime. If at some time in the future, if you wish to retake the test, then you can at some time in the future. Personally, I think it could be a way Catholics could help pay for the website.

That’s a really good idea. On a catholic dating site I’ve used before, they have a list of 7 church teachings which you are asked to indicate that you accept or reject it. It helps understand who you’re talking to.

Of course, the dissenters love to whine about how horrible some people are for completely disregarding them “just because they think for themselves”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I do not agree. There are a lot of changes that were made. Some very minor, some mere typographical mistakes of transcription, but some were serious. Scribes are human like anyone else and sometimes they were in doubt as to what was meant and substituted their own understanding. Sometimes they thought the writer had mistated something and specifically changed it to “correct” it. As I said, there are transcripts with warnings in the margins, demanding a fair, literal transcription. The problem with faulty manuscripts was very well known, especially in the earliest of days. That is why in great part the original Vulgate was redone based on better more accurate copies.

I agree there were some mistakes copying manuscripts. I disagree that any of them were important.

I also believe that none of the differences we know about make any difference. Also I believe that since they are God’s word, God also preserves them intact for future generations.

Which one do we believe when they differ? We interpret them all in light of Church Teaching, which is infallible.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I understand what you mean, but I think you are still missing the point. If there are 335 known manuscripts of Mark, and they are not all exactly the same, but differ in several respects, then are they all divinely inspired? Of course not. The original may well hve been, but we don’t have that. We instead have copies. At a certain point in time the Church choice one version or another, but that was essentially back in the 300 CE, and we have many many more manuscripts that have been found since then. If you want to claim that when the Church essentially chose the canon, the copies that it used were the definitive “inspired” ones, then so be it, but many would argue that that doesn’t hold up very well when earlier copies are found albeit at a later date in time. Most experts work off a theory, not always correct, but a working theory none the less that older copies are closer to the original than later ones.

So when some biblical experts conclude that based upon examination of all the available manuscripts, and the point in time when a suspected phrase was written, that some segment or particular verse was a later addition, not part of the original document, they are in effect saying that this part is not divinely inspired, but was man-made. There are instances when Matthew and Luke both changed certain remarks of Mark because to them, given their view of Jesus, his words created theological problems. The entire synoptic problem leads to the conclusion that each writer worked existing material to his own personal needs as an evangelist. Now i suppose you can argue that they are all divinely inspired in their respective interpretations, but just as likely they are more editorial comment by the evangelist to make his point.

I agree the Gospels have different origins; I still don’t understand even if an earlier writer contradicts a writer of Canon, the Canon is declared inspired, so yes I propose to argue just that.

It seems you are putting scholarship ahead of Christ’s declaration to Peter. If Jesus left us without an authoratative source and as is plainly evident from history that the Holy Spirit does not settle theological disputes, we have NO basis other than concupiscent scholarship. If that’s the case I cannot refute homosexual activists who “scholar up” reasons why homosexual behaviour is lawful. Under what rubric is their interpretation to be less valid than mine? We are lost to our fallen natures without a shepherd, if scholarship has given the lie to Jesus’ promise.

If you overturn one authoritative pebble you overturn the whole mountain. This is the nature of Just Authority: That it is founded in Truth.

But I don’t think there is an issue. For example, a writer St. John perhaps was there on the scene. He wrote a gospel. Does that mean everything he wrote is divinely inspired? No, that would be silly. The prayerful Church under the guidance of the Spirit chose what was Holy Scripture. The basis for this choice is not scholarship or even historical accuracy, but the Spirit Himself.

This does not invalidate scholarship, but does put scholarship in proper context when contemplating Scripture, divinely inspired. Seriously, if the Church declared Dr. Seuss’ Cat in the Hat as a divinely inspired book, I would submit and try to find out why. For 2000 years and countless intellectual heresies, the Church has taught a constant Gospel with all manner of concupiscent pressures and perhaps diabolical pressures. Yet for that whole time against arianism, protestantism, the islamic heresy, the Church has upheld the Gospel and the cross.

Wow, just wow. I just cannot not believe in the Church. For two millenia She has consistently held up the gospel. It is too hard a thing this Good News. I must carry a cross and deny myself to be true to myself? The more I empty myself, the more I receive? God is Bread that I must eat, literally? God died–and for me personally and now wants to adopt me? Yet this startling message has been faithfully upheld. History bears out the truth of Christ’s promise to Peter. And the gospel and the saints are too consistent, too continually correct in their spirituality in surprising ways.

Without the promise of Christ, I do not see how such a counter intuitive message could have maintained such deep coherency as evidenced by the doctors of the Church. When churches fall from the Church, how quickly do they bend and wilt under the pressures of the age? These are signs of authority and lack thereof.

Thanks for dialoguing with me.